The Auswine Forum

By invitation and tasting including top-level Penfolds current release wines to be compared with aged releases:-

1999 Reserve Riesling: good Eden valley fruit has emerged from hibernation and drinking well with lime and some sweeter characteristics. Not for the long haul but very pleasant

2004 Riesling: obviously young and a little nondescript lacking the depth and structure of better vintages (01-03) but in that sense a good match for the 99

2003 bin 03A chardonnay: in your face with some funk and huge flavours - it could not contrast more than it did with the next wines (love it or hate it hard to be objective at all) but drink over next 5-7 years at most (perhaps 3-5?)

2000 Yattarna: restrained in glass initially and never really opened but more approachable and broader fruit and structure - albeit Penfolds rates it very highly and relatively obvious oak if integrated

2002 Yattarna : took over an hour and a half to open in glass and then superb structure - by far the best Yattarna made to date as far as I'm concerned (but it does need time), and oak treatment is imperceptible (contrast with 2000 vintage). no funk or broad flavours but taking time to open with Granny flavours and lovely viscosity unusual in Oz chardonnay

Note fruit differentiation from Adelaide Hills and Tumbarumba! but purely as a result of vintage...

1998 St Henri took 2 hours to open in glass (initially very restrained nose) but by end of tasting had started to open and show power but not full length showing yet rather chocolate. At this stage it is still too young - come back in 5+ years but showing that it will be a very very good St henri (but not great compared with 71, 86 or even 90) in the more opulent side of St Henris (which is fairly restrained anyway)

2001 St henri: typical of Pennies release reds: the volatile acidity VA was so intense that it was all but impossible to assess the underlying fruit. After 2 hours in the glass the VA was still so intense that it was a struggle but clearly huge tanins which will hold but there was something sweetish and bracken like that I have rarely seen in St Henri that I'm not sure about. Clearly will be long-lived but I doubt that flavour spectrum will make it a classic St Henri (but then the 83 Grange is not a "classic Grange " either)

1998 RWT: after long decanting surprisingly approachable as I remembered this as a bit more monstrous. Very good wine which on this showing CAN be drunk from now for at least a dozen years showing a purity of fruit and clarity that you don't associate with penfolds - possibly also the result of using French instead of American oak which following integration produces a much lighter touch and is less intrusive. TO that extent it stands outside the general Penfolds style.

2002 RWT: similarly decanted and very sapproachable already - considerably lighter and more cherry on the palate this wine would not have struck me as coming from Penfolds at all notwithstanding the earlier RWTs. Far better than 2000 but with this style I am not so sure that it will be hugely long lived (perhaps a drinking window from now until around 2015-20) but that is not the style of the wine. Very attractive now if left in the glass and stylish - but I think the 1998 is the better wine.

1990 Grange: opened for at least 5 hours decanted about 3 hours and still taking another hour and a half to open in the glass this wine is so far off showing its best - but glorious it will be! If you must commit vinfanticide the wine really does need more time but it is starting to suggest what it will be like and you COULD approach it with lots of decanting now...but realistically it will start to strut over the next decade - and probably improve over the next 15-20 years - holding for something like a decade after that (at least). Power power power but with great balance which needs to find complexity with time.

1996 Grange: same treatement prior to drinking and incredibly tight still. The 6 year gap is significant and I expect this to have a somewhat similar prifile in terms of development but the difference in taste is that despite the youth there was considerable coffee/moccha on the palate. Expect this to be another great Grange in time - but still far too young.

2000 Grange: all shiraz (allegedly the 4th or 5th time) and the first time exclusively Barossa shiraz according to Penfolds white winemaker. Clearly adifficult vintage and relatively approachable for current release Grange. A big wine bynormal standards - but a small Grange which does not have the length or strength associated with good Granges. Again the obvious VA was present but blew off far quicker than the 2001 St henri. Relatively tiny production so it will be a collector's piece for matched sets as opposed to a drinker's delight (although it really is only a 20 year wine).


Overall an immensely enjoyable evening with the gossip at the end proving entertaining:

OK to put out en primeur (2004) Block 42 CS and bin 60A (cabernetshiraz) in screwcap although no one knows how the tanins and ageing will resolve over longterm but NOT for Grange (although a trial is taking place) as that is not sold en primeur!! Yet the wine to utilise the famed bin 60A (a 1962 wine) nomenclature that is still at 40+ fabulous, IS offered in both formats...

Hmmm....... without engaging in the consistency debate (clearly decent screwcap will give more consistency than cork), the still unknown chemistry of redwine ageing is such a gaping maw that I would have thought procuring QUALITY cork for a worldrenowned wine might have been a priority.....particularly since it is still Grange that attracts international recognition (and where the screwcap has been less enthusiastically embraced than Oz) notwithstanding that it is the Special Bin range which is arguably the star product...

fred

Would you say the 02 RWT is better than the 01 St Henri or does the latter suprise that much?

Great notes Fred - thanks - sounds like a good time was had.

fred wrote:Overall an immensely enjoyable evening with the gossip at the end proving entertaining:

OK to put out en primeur (2004) Block 42 CS and bin 60A (cabernetshiraz) in screwcap although no one knows how the tanins and ageing will resolve over longterm but NOT for Grange (although a trial is taking place) as that is not sold en primeur!! Yet the wine to utilise the famed bin 60A (a 1962 wine) nomenclature that is still at 40+ fabulous, IS offered in both formats...

Hmmm....... without engaging in the consistency debate (clearly decent screwcap will give more consistency than cork), the still unknown chemistry of redwine ageing is such a gaping maw that I would have thought procuring QUALITY cork for a worldrenowned wine might have been a priority.....particularly since it is still Grange that attracts international recognition (and where the screwcap has been less enthusiastically embraced than Oz) notwithstanding that it is the Special Bin range which is arguably the star product...

fred

The Penfolds decision on screwcaps raises some questions, and I asked the following on the other forum last week, without much of a response:

One interesting side issue with the en Primeur releases is the 50/50 split of screwcap/cork bottlings. Have the portion of the wines destined for screwcap been treated differently for the bottling (as covered in the Stelzer/Grosset/Brajkovich text), and will Penfolds provide separate tasting notes and estimated drinking windows for the cork/screwcap versions as a result?

It seems a bit strange to do half and half, and it reminds me of the Robin Williams quote to do with partial nuclear disarmament:

"It's like partial circumcision - go all the way or f#@*ing forget it!"

Cheers
Ian

ian

you raise some interesting issues. not just for penfolds but for all dual wine releases . At the 5 year plus mark, we will probably be talking about two different, if not very different wines.

it will possibly be like comparing apples and oranges from thereon.

In reply,

Completely different styles: to my tastes the 01 StH is currently unpalatable - but will be a different proposition in 5-10 years. The RWT is drinkable now - will improve but will never be the savoury style of a typical StH.

To drink now: clearly the RWT is preferable.

To drink in 10 years time depends on how you like your style of wine. StH & RWT are different from each other - but also removed from the remainder of the Penfolds stable in style.
Guest 1,

I like the StH style - and I prefer to drink wine with food - preferably not very srongflavoured spicy food. THose matters of personal taste should be considered.

Even in 10 years time the RWT would be a wine more suitable to drinking by itself than the StH (ie if not accompanied by a meal).

If you put price into the equation (more than double StH for the RWT) you could get a simple answer - but of course as we all know the law of diminishing returns sets in pretty quickly in upper echelon wine (which is why everyone is in search of the cheap DRC/1st Growth/Grange substitute).

Certainly if they were the same price I would buy some RWT now.

From another perspective the RWT is almost like using Barossa fruit to make a cool-climate shiraz (sans pepper), while the StH is avery traditional Oz style wine. Neither is a "fruitbomb".

To my taste the 1998 RWT has far more depth and the 2002 is quite a departure. If the slight sweetness in the fruit of the StH proves dominant over time I would consider that a detriment - but think that many would like it very much.

So horses for courses

fred

Fred,

In somes way I agree with you on the 01 St H but in some others I am not as confident it will be as good as you think in the long term; but like you I have my concerns abouyt this one. In the interests of comparison, here is my TN.

Penfold 2001 St Henri once again shows its class and refinement with an inky, black nose that was earthy and meaty. The dense, strong fruit portrays a black palate; spice, pepper, liquorice, black plums, bordering on being pruney; finishing to liquorice with drying, grippy tannins. Muscular-weight with a firm consistency, solid structure and well-developed complexity I have some concerns about the long-term future of this wine. Had I not had a bottle of the 1995 St Henri so recently, and seen so many examples of 1998 and 2001 wines that went into the prune spectrum, that have prematurely gone hard and leathery, I would not be so concerned. The wine is currently dominated by grippy tannins that should ensure this wine lasts for a long time; assuming the fruit lives as long. Rated as Highly Recommended with *** for value (based on the price of $55) this is one vintage I will not be rushing out to buy.

Ian,

Oliver was very pro-scewcap for its consistency: from a winemaker's vantage point what you get is what he put into the bottle.

That is great to a limited degree for the consumer: the product is consistent, but now the question of what a relatively educated consumer would consider a peak drinking tasting window comes into focus: to reach that point or style how long will it take?

I could not agree with all those who post that it will be different for the 2 forms of closure.....but the real pain is that NO ONE KNOWS (with any authority) just how different.

Many are willing/happy to hypothesise from their respective bias:-

eg "screw caps show the wine as it should be at that age"
"screwcaps are like a perfect cork " (well no because the change is different and slower)
"natural oxygenisation is the right way to go" (??)

As someone who really likes great older wines with that developed character, the idea of improving my odds (by taking out cork taint and associated cork risks of "imperfect seal") is attractive - but with longterm wines aimed at developing secondary characteristics over decades no one KNOWS whether it will happen in the same way - and if it does just how long it will take.


So even if it happens, it may take twice as long to get there: so that hypothetical 2004 bin 60A or Kamlimna or Grange instead of taking 20 years to stand on the threshhold of its drinking window could take 40 years to get to that point: beaut for an investor but not for me as the drinker!!!

This introduces a different form of risk - so Iend up as NOT HAPPY either way....I would be happier to take that risk (assuming development only rate of change occurring) if I was mid-twenties instead of mid-forties with such wines.


On the other hand the decision to continue to offer Grange only in cork could be regarded as pure accounting: the special bins will be sold en primeur so no risk if the tide turns agains screwcaps (in favour of something else or belated improved corks) but if they bottled Grange under screwcap they would have to worry about selling it on release more than 3 years later....that would be THEIR risk and who can blame them for attempting to avoid the risk with their most saleable product?

One way or the other as a huge fan of screwcaps on whites (the aromatics will be pristine quite aside from the flavour profiles -usual caveats applied), I will still be using a corkscrew in 20 years time - the only issue is whether it will only be for old wines from my cellar or not.

Ian,

Oliver was very pro-scewcap for its consistency: from a winemaker's vantage point what you get is what he put into the bottle.

That is great to a limited degree for the consumer: the product is consistent, but now the question of what a relatively educated consumer would consider a peak drinking tasting window comes into focus: to reach that point or style how long will it take?

I could not agree with all those who post that it will be different for the 2 forms of closure.....but the real pain is that NO ONE KNOWS (with any authority) just how different.

Many are willing/happy to hypothesise from their respective bias:-

eg "screw caps show the wine as it should be at that age"
"screwcaps are like a perfect cork " (well no because the change is different and slower)
"natural oxygenisation is the right way to go" (??)

As someone who really likes great older wines with that developed character, the idea of improving my odds (by taking out cork taint and associated cork risks of "imperfect seal") is attractive - but with longterm wines aimed at developing secondary characteristics over decades no one KNOWS whether it will happen in the same way - and if it does just how long it will take.


So even if it happens, it may take twice as long to get there: so that hypothetical 2004 bin 60A or Kamlimna or Grange instead of taking 20 years to stand on the threshhold of its drinking window could take 40 years to get to that point: beaut for an investor but not for me as the drinker!!!

This introduces a different form of risk - so Iend up as NOT HAPPY either way....I would be happier to take that risk (assuming development only rate of change occurring) if I was mid-twenties instead of mid-forties with such wines.


On the other hand the decision to continue to offer Grange only in cork could be regarded as pure accounting: the special bins will be sold en primeur so no risk if the tide turns agains screwcaps (in favour of something else or belated improved corks) but if they bottled Grange under screwcap they would have to worry about selling it on release more than 3 years later....that would be THEIR risk and who can blame them for attempting to avoid the risk with their most saleable product?

One way or the other as a huge fan of screwcaps on whites (the aromatics will be pristine quite aside from the flavour profiles -usual caveats applied), I will still be using a corkscrew in 20 years time - the only issue is whether it will only be for old wines from my cellar or not.

TORB wrote:Fred,

In somes way I agree with you on the 01 St H but in some others I am not as confident it will be as good as you think in the long term; but like you I have my concerns abouyt this one. In the interests of comparison, here is my TN.

Penfold 2001 St Henri once again shows its class and refinement with an inky, black nose that was earthy and meaty. The dense, strong fruit portrays a black palate; spice, pepper, liquorice, black plums, bordering on being pruney; finishing to liquorice with drying, grippy tannins. Muscular-weight with a firm consistency, solid structure and well-developed complexity I have some concerns about the long-term future of this wine. Had I not had a bottle of the 1995 St Henri so recently, and seen so many examples of 1998 and 2001 wines that went into the prune spectrum, that have prematurely gone hard and leathery, I would not be so concerned. The wine is currently dominated by grippy tannins that should ensure this wine lasts for a long time; assuming the fruit lives as long. Rated as Highly Recommended with *** for value (based on the price of $55) this is one vintage I will not be rushing out to buy.

Ric,

No doubt it will live and improve for a decade plus but I don't rate it as anywhere near the heights of StH.

The VA on this was heavy as I have ever encountered on a Penfolds red - so that was dominant in my thinking: get beyond that to see what lies underneath.

If by "pruney" you intimated the hint of sweetness akin to what you ocasionally see in betterclass grenache, I would echo that - and it is something I cannot recall seeing on a young StH which was my main concern beyond VA.

I hope it will be quite different from the 1995 StH - and don't worry too much about the 98 StH - but I'm approaching it from the perspective of its own lineage (StH).

At this stage IT IS NOT A PLEASANT drink!
Whatever your views on where it sits in the pantheon, it is clear that it will be a lot better in 7-10 years time than now, and to that extent improve.

(By contrast the degree of likely improvement in the 02 RWT is less clear- certainly it will improve but from a far higher current drinking base).

Looks like we are reaching somewhat similar conclusions (albeit I do not envisage it going directly to leather) with the expected difference in approach and style of commentary.

the reason people say that screwcap is like perfect cork is that both perfect cork and perfect screwcap allow pretty much exactly the same amount of oxygen in. If we want to get specific, perfect cork actually lets in very marginally less oxygen than perfect screwcap. In this light, why would screwcap age slower than perfect cork - I don't quite get your reasoning? I would have thought that perfect cork woud age the wine slower than screwcap if anything.

If we want to get specific, perfect cork actually lets in very marginally less oxygen than perfect screwcap.

As a matter of interest, where does the supporting reasech for this come from? I have seen the bit about perfect corks being about the same as screwcaps but did not notice the above statement.

I'm no chemist but the empirical results I have seen both in terms of testing and tasting suggest "slower ageing" under screwcap, than of even the good cork samples - and with larger numbers consistent differences.

I am happy to be proven wrong, but every post/scientific piece I have seen aside from consistency - suggests a slower rate of maturation under scewcap than for cork (great for many whites to see them pristine longer, and perhaps to delay the aged characteristics and petro/kero in rieslings but in reds to delay for much longer the development of secondary characteristics is not to every taster's preference - with the added issue of whether certain complexities will be introduced).

Ask someone else for the science: I am the endproduct taster!

edited 3.05pm 1st sentence

generally, because screwcap is generally a better seal, of course it's likely to be slower ageing. but screwcap is unlikely to be slower ageing than perfect cork, because PERFECT cork lets in less oxygen than perfect screwcap. Evidence: AWRB (via Tyson Stelzer): "oxygen permeation through the closure was measured approximately three years post-bottling. The measurements reveal that reference 2 corks permit between 0.0001 and 0.1227mL of oxygen to enter the bottle per day, while screw caps permit 0.0002 to 0.0008mL. " If you look at the low end of those scales, which represent the best of both seal types, you see that perfect cork lets in LESS air, though it is extremely marginally so. No one, as far as I know, has ever complained about the ageing rate or ability of a perfect cork, so for screwcap there should neither be no such concern.

Funny - the side-issue and comment evoked more interest than the wine?

One of Australia's most eminent chemists (not pharmacists) and a redwine lover has told me on numerous occasions words to the effect:-

"If anyone could enumerate all the chemical equations in the ageing of red wine it would be such an advance in chemical knowledge it would be worth the equivalent of TWO Nobel prizes".

That is about as much as I know about it - but I am told it involves a LOT more than presence and absence of oxygen....I'll let the scientists argue it out but would be much more interested in comments on wines than their containers: I really don't give a rats at the end of the day so long as the liquid in my glass is up to scratch, and am sick of arguments which still seem to revolve around the same basic contradictory hypotheses.

if someone has breakthrough knowledge or additional empirical data - share it but otherwise my short attention span can't cope.

Anonymous wrote:The measurements reveal that reference 2 corks permit between 0.0001 and 0.1227mL of oxygen to enter the bottle per day, while screw caps permit 0.0002 to 0.0008mL. "

OK, fair enough but I wonder how many corks were at the .0001 level (it could have been a freakish one single cork) and likewise wonder what the mean and average numbers were.

I am with Fred, almost everything I have seen indicates that Screwcaps slow down the ageing process. I am not saying this is a good or a bad thing, just pointing out another well argued point. Even people involved in trials like Stephen Henschke have stated (in writing) that in his experience this is the case. That is why taking one set of numbers in isolation does not represent a complete picture.

And no; I am not saying I am pro cork and anti screw cap either.

fred was the first to raise this topic. He said: ""screwcaps are like a perfect cork " (well no because the change is different and slower)". The words in brackets are fred's words.

no doubt most corks are not perfect, i've agreed on that all along. But screwcaps ARE like perfect corks, there is no getting around that. It's just that there aren't many perfect corks (we don't think).

Anonymous wrote: (we don't think).

Its not that we de dont think, the problem is that there is so much that we just don't know about how wine ages, under cork or under alternative seals. and there in lies the issue.

fred wrote:2002 Yattarna : took over an hour and a half to open in glass and then superb structure - by far the best Yattarna made to date as far as I'm concerned (but it does need time), and oak treatment is imperceptible (contrast with 2000 vintage). no funk or broad flavours but taking time to open with Granny flavours and lovely viscosity unusual in Oz chardonnay
fred

Hey Fred, What's a "Granny flavour"?

The mind boggles!

bacchaebabe wrote:

fred wrote:2002 Yattarna : took over an hour and a half to open in glass and then superb structure - by far the best Yattarna made to date as far as I'm concerned (but it does need time), and oak treatment is imperceptible (contrast with 2000 vintage). no funk or broad flavours but taking time to open with Granny flavours and lovely viscosity unusual in Oz chardonnay
fred

Hey Fred, What's a "Granny flavour"?

The mind boggles!

Jeez Kris,
even someone of my years would know he meant Granny Smith apples. (I think.) If not, I am bamboozled too.
MM.

Hmmm, and I'd just made up my mind to keep him away from my grandmother!

bacchaebabe wrote:

fred wrote:2002 Yattarna : took over an hour and a half to open in glass and then superb structure - by far the best Yattarna made to date as far as I'm concerned (but it does need time), and oak treatment is imperceptible (contrast with 2000 vintage). no funk or broad flavours but taking time to open with Granny flavours and lovely viscosity unusual in Oz chardonnay
fred

Hey Fred, What's a "Granny flavour"?

The mind boggles!

Hey Kris - even Mike guessed apples; still I'm sure YOUR granny would taste nice but as you are aware my traditional cannibalism is reserved for small children: It's not that I don't like kids, it's just that I couldn't eat a whole one...

nul

Hi everyone,

Interesting discussion.

I've been thinking more about the whole question of screw caps and wine ageing rates recently, and have been tossing around some thoughts with a few key winemakers who've had a bit of experience with screw caps for some time.

This led me to make the following comment as part of one of the closure debates in which I participated during the London International Wine & Spirit Fair last week. So far, no one has challenged the suggestion (this is not to say that it is correct, just that it might be):

"The question of the ageing rate of wines in screw cap has been a hot topic recently. Today, I put to you a new theory, based on personal experience with tastings of thousands of screw-capped wines – some even older than I am – and on discussions with countless winemakers and industry professionals. It is my belief that the rate at which mature characters develop in screw-capped wines is in fact absolutely no different to that under traditional closures. This is evidenced by the fact that wines under screw cap age at a similar rate to those with the very best corks. For a wine under an average cork, however, oxidation effects give the impression of accelerated ageing, which has led to the notion that wines mature slower under screw caps. I put it to you that perhaps the absence of oxidised characters in screw-capped wines gives the mistaken impression of slower ageing?"

Something to think about.

Cheers,
Tyson Stelzer.

Hi Tyson,

Lets for the moment assume you are right (and I don't know if you are or not) and that begs a couple of questions/coments.

You say "This is evidenced by the fact that wines under screw cap age at a similar rate to those with the very best corks."

Firstly, what is the basis of this claim.

Secondly, and more importantly, in your opinion/guestimate, what is the percentage of wine sealed with the very best corks that do not suffer from premature oxidation? (For simplicity here assume 10 year old, well cellared - age worthy Oz red wine.)

Third, from everything I have read here and experienced myself, young reds sealed in ROTE seem fresher than those under cork, and that can be from wine that has only been in bottle for a very short period of time.

Finally, how come a young red sealed in a ROTE takes far longer to open in the glass than one sealed under cork?

I don't know the answers to these questions and have an open mind on the subject. I am interested in logical debate, not emotional position taking; (and that is not a shot at you Tyson, more at the narrow minded romatics who poo poo ROTE on principle.)

TORB wrote:Hi Tyson,

You say "This is evidenced by the fact that wines under screw cap age at a similar rate to those with the very best corks."

Firstly, what is the basis of this claim.

Anecdotal tasting evidence from a variety of sources. You may have seen this yourself. Occasionally - very occasionally - when comparing the same wine under both cork and screw, the cork tastes just as fresh and lively as the screw. I've occasionally seen the same in comparing other closures with cork (e.g. Zork).

TORB wrote:Secondly, and more importantly, in your opinion/guestimate, what is the percentage of wine sealed with the very best corks that do not suffer from premature oxidation? (For simplicity here assume 10 year old, well cellared - age worthy Oz red wine.)

Tough question to put a number on, mainly because it's not an absolute. It could be argued that any oxidation in bottle is undesirable. But in general we'd probably say that anything worse than expected (i.e. worse than average, i.e. 50%) is premature. I've seen a figure of 5% put on the proportion of corks which exhibit oxygen ingress on the order of that of screw caps. This is consistent with my experience.

TORB wrote:Third, from everything I have read here and experienced myself, young reds sealed in ROTE seem fresher than those under cork, and that can be from wine that has only been in bottle for a very short period of time.

Yes, I agree. I believe this is a result of a couple of effects. 1. The fruit-scalping characteristics of cork. These are variable between corks but can have anything from a negligible to a profound influence on fruit freshness. 2. Different levels of oxygen at bottling (between different closures). According to Michael Brajkovich (Kumeu River, NZ), the piston effect of cork insertion tends to add oxygen. Vacuum or inert gas cover during filling/capping is never 100% effective. The effect on fruit freshness of oxygen at bottling is apparent in comparing Zorked wines with corked and screw-capped. I believe the small amount of oxygen contained within the hollow Zork plug is sufficient to flatten the fruit slightly. I've seen this consistently when comparing samples. This points to the fact that even quantities of air on the order of one cubic centimetre may contain enough oxygen to produce a discernible difference in wine character. This is my own conjecture. I am yet to investigate it further.

TORB wrote:Finally, how come a young red sealed in a ROTE takes far longer to open in the glass than one sealed under cork?

Less dissolved oxygen in the screw-capped wine due to decreased ingress through the closure means that there is more potential for the wine to open up when it is exposed to oxygen during decanting, which naturally means that it takes longer to open up.

Thanks for the questions.

Cheers,
Tyson.

I've seen a figure of 5% put on the proportion of corks which exhibit oxygen ingress on the order of that of screw caps. This is consistent with my experience.

Tyson,

This figure (and we all know itÂ’s a guesstimate but thatÂ’s fine for the purposes of the debate) means that (if you are lucky) one bottle in 20 with a cork will seal as tightly as a Stelvin. Given that number is so incredibly low, then surely, whilst itÂ’s technically accurate to say, "compared to the best corks"; the reality is that "best corks" are so few and far between the comparison is almost meaningless.

Given that number, saying “This is evidenced by the fact that wines under screw cap age at a similar rate to those with the very best corks" really means of very little because the reality of the situation is that in 19 out of 20 bottles sealed under cork, the ROTE equivalent sealed wine will age more slowly.

So, whilst what is saying is technically true, for the reality for the vast majority of bottles, ie. 95% it is very different story. Importantly, why is there a need to talk about the 5% when the 95% is far more important? Is it to try and placate the humbuggers?

Next topic.

In answer to my last question “Finally, how come a young red sealed in a ROTE takes far longer to open in the glass than one sealed under cork?” In answer you state,

"Less dissolved oxygen in the screw-capped wine due to decreased ingress through the closure means that there is more potential for the wine to open up when it is exposed to oxygen during decanting, which naturally means that it takes longer to open up.”

Given that this is the case, (a recently bottled cork wine has more dissolved oxygen than a ROTE equivalent) could this not also be one reason why wine sealed under cork may age at a faster rate than wine sealed under ROTE? Or, to put it another way; why a ROTE sealed wine will take longer to mature than its cork sealed equivalent? Could this not be, as an important contributing factor, as the supposed air transfer factor under cork sealed wine?

TORB wrote:Tyson,

This figure (and we all know itÂ’s a guesstimate but thatÂ’s fine for the purposes of the debate) means that (if you are lucky) one bottle in 20 with a cork will seal as tightly as a Stelvin. Given that number is so incredibly low, then surely, whilst itÂ’s technically accurate to say, "compared to the best corks"; the reality is that "best corks" are so few and far between the comparison is almost meaningless.

Yes, but if every bottle could be as good as the top 5% under cork, the comparison is quite profound.

TORB wrote:Next topic.

Given that this is the case, (a recently bottled cork wine has more dissolved oxygen than a ROTE equivalent) could this not also be one reason why wine sealed under cork may age at a faster rate than wine sealed under ROTE? Or, to put it another way; why a ROTE sealed wine will take longer to mature than its cork sealed equivalent? Could this not be, as an important contributing factor, as the supposed air transfer factor under cork sealed wine?

Good question. I'm thinking on my feet here, but this is my initial gut reaction:

We have traditionally assumed that wines which open up more quickly in a decanter will mature more quickly in the cellar. This is a factor of the wine itself.

In making the cork/screw cap comparison, the screw cap wine takes longer to open up in the decanter as a consequence of its oxygen state.

Does this necessarily imply that it will take longer to mature in the cellar? Perhaps. But not necessarily.

Interesting idea, though. Any other thoughts on this out there?

Cheers,
Tyson.

This figure (and we all know itÂ’s a guesstimate but thatÂ’s fine for the purposes of the debate) means that (if you are lucky) one bottle in 20 with a cork will seal as tightly as a Stelvin. Given that number is so incredibly low, then surely, whilst itÂ’s technically accurate to say, "compared to the best corks"; the reality is that "best corks" are so few and far between the comparison is almost meaningless.

Hey TORB, if 5% is meaningless, you can give me 1 in 20 of your wine collection and you won't miss it!

Matthew

MatthewW wrote:
Hey TORB, if 5% is meaningless, you can give me 1 in 20 of your wine collection and you won't miss it!

Matthew

Hey Matthew, good try! I will do it provided you drink the 5% in one day. And if you drop dead or don't complete the tast, you pay double the value.