Ian Fitzsimmons
Ian Fitzsimmons
My head hurts.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Who assumes the risk of corked bottles?
- Thread starter VLM
- Start date
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
My head hurts.
I like cilantro. Tastes like licorice to me.
originally posted by nigel groundwater:
TCA in wine is not very volatile at cellar/room temperature so very low levels of TCA infection, temperature increases, aeration and of course time in the glass will encourage the molecules into the sensing zone in sufficient quantity to be smelled when individual thresholds are reached.
No, I am afraid that this is incorrect, Nigel. TCA in the headspace of glass reaches its equilibrium state quickly. Because of its phenomenally low partial pressure, there's never much present. So why does TCA become more apparent with time? Because it's so non-volatile, other smells initally present and that may possibly mask the smell of TCA are depleted through evaporation, thereby effectively enriching the amount of TCA. In the extreme, if one were to leave the bottle of wine uncorked for a month, most of its contents will have evaporated, leaving only the solids (which includes the TCA).
Mark Lipton
Chemopedant
nigel groundwater
nigel groundwater
originally posted by MLipton:
originally posted by nigel groundwater:
TCA in wine is not very volatile at cellar/room temperature so very low levels of TCA infection, temperature increases, aeration and of course time in the glass will encourage the molecules into the sensing zone in sufficient quantity to be smelled when individual thresholds are reached.
No, I am afraid that this is incorrect, Nigel. TCA in the headspace of glass reaches its equilibrium state quickly. Because of its phenomenally low partial pressure, there's never much present. So why does TCA become more apparent with time? Because it's so non-volatile, other smells initally present and that may possibly mask the smell of TCA are depleted through evaporation, thereby effectively enriching the amount of TCA. In the extreme, if one were to leave the bottle of wine uncorked for a month, most of its contents will have evaporated, leaving only the solids (which includes the TCA).
Mark Lipton
Chemopedant
Mark If it's incorrect it needs to be corrected.
However TCA is non-volatile as stated but doesn't that affect the rate at which it reaches its equilibrium state and wouldn't temperature have some effect on that equilibrium and the rate it is achieved. Since people sense TCA at very different thresholds are you saying that time in the glass [during which temperature is increasing unless the wine begins at the same temperature it ends at] is not a significant factor. You say 'quickly' so could you indicate roughly what that might be?
And what other normal smells [I could understand brett or SLO] might mask TCA. Are you saying that because of the "phenomenally low partial pressure" the amount of TCA in the glass headspace is independent of the concentration in the glass or are you are saying that the time taken to reach equilibrium is independent of concentration and temperature? I assume it is not the former but wonder about the latter.
And wouldn't these volatile smells continue since, while evaporating, would they not be replaced? Why would these other smells be depleted so quickly without replacement thereby effectively enriching the amount of TCA in what remains - quickly?
Could this be characterised as you saying "the same amount of TCA, quickly present remains but other volatile elements have been depleted and not replaced in the headspace making TCA molecules a more dominant and therefore detectable presence"?
The effects of oxidation are known to mask TCA but they should be minimal in a newly opened wine. I would be interested to learn what other aspects of wine chemistry might have that masking effect and yet disappear quickly from the headspace thereby revealing the TCA to those with lower thresholds than its concentration.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by Florida Jim:
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Claude, with all due respect, while it is not as rude as an epiteth, to say that something has diminished one's respect for someone is so hurtful that I don't think it should be said.
Epitaphs are very hurtful but I respect anyone who can right them aloud, even if there roodness is undiminshed.
Bset, Jim
I miss John Lennon.
Nigel,
It's my empirical experience that TCA equilibrates a bit (seconds-minutes) more slowly into the headspace than other more volatile things.
I find TCA more obvious above an unswirled glass--I think masking odorants evaporate more efficiently on swirling and confuse the assessment.
It's my empirical experience that TCA equilibrates a bit (seconds-minutes) more slowly into the headspace than other more volatile things.
I find TCA more obvious above an unswirled glass--I think masking odorants evaporate more efficiently on swirling and confuse the assessment.
originally posted by Kay Bixler:
originally posted by Chris Coad:
Your petulant insistence on couching things in shades of gray has considerably diminished my respect for Brad Kane.
Chris, your diminished respect for Brad Kane has elevated my respect for cilantro.
Funny, but my respect for cilantro AND Brad Kane have been diminished. Almost as if they were one and the same.
My respect for Oswaldo is at an all time low.
Strangely, I also found myself think less than respectful thoughts about Daniel Thomasses.
For what it's worth, TCA is a 1/0 thing for me. I've never understood people that could drink a "slightly corked" wine.
I don't get physically ill, I'm too revolted to go near.
Maybe all of the issues between Levi and I had to do with being too much alike.
It's a theory.
Maybe the theory currently applies to Jonathan and Claude, bless their hearts.
I don't get physically ill, I'm too revolted to go near.
Maybe all of the issues between Levi and I had to do with being too much alike.
It's a theory.
Maybe the theory currently applies to Jonathan and Claude, bless their hearts.
nigel groundwater
nigel groundwater
It depends how the 'slightly corked wine' is perceived. If it is 'slightly corked' for a 5 parts/trillion threshold it wouldn't be noticed by a 20 ppt threshold or the many wine drinkers with substantially higher thresholds. One man's poison can still be another's meat.originally posted by VLM:
TCA
For what it's worth, TCA is a 1/0 thing for me. I've never understood people that could drink a "slightly corked" wine.
I don't get physically ill, I'm too revolted to go near.
Now if the pollution gets much higher the more general impact on the wine becomes more noticeable even without the direct perception of the smell but for the true specific [to TCA] anosmia the wine can be o.k. even at high levels. There are many other chemicals to which individual have specific anosmias [smell] and ageusias [taste] and part of this is why things like cilantro or coriander to us Brits can be a horror or a delight.
Mind you I have never heard anyone say they enjoyed TCA although somebody once posted that they felt that a low level TCA infection had moderated a fruit bomb to the point that they had almost enjoyed it. I think he was joking.
nigel groundwater
nigel groundwater
Joe I guess we all have our anecdotal stories about TCA and the times there have been arguments over whether a wine is corked or not. As I have said I believe that is primarily a function of different individual thresholds although experience plays a part; sometimes to excess IMO. Which is why reported individual experience of corked wines varies in forums from 1-2% right up to 20-25% on a continous basis.originally posted by SFJoe:
Nigel,
It's my empirical experience that TCA equilibrates a bit (seconds-minutes) more slowly into the headspace than other more volatile things.
I find TCA more obvious above an unswirled glass--I think masking odorants evaporate more efficiently on swirling and confuse the assessment.
One of the key aspects over such debates has been time; often considerable time.... during which TCA becomes more evident to more people without recourse to the famous second bottle. That suggests to me it is increasing in concentration over time and temperature may be part of that. I have difficulty in seeing that it is not an increase in TCA over time [if indeed the equilibrium is reached "quickly"] but rather the removal of masking odours.
There are several ways that might occur but I really wonder at what would mask a fixed level of TCA, one of the most powerful of odours, assuming all the TCA that is going to be available is available quickly.
I know that oxidised wine can make TCA detection by people difficult and I have heard of SLO and low level brett being confused by some as TCA, so might also mask a low level TCA infection, but those are not regular components. What regular constituents of normal wine have aromas capable of masking such a powerful smell and why would they then disappear/evaporate to reveal TCA in a relevant timeframe?
o
However TCA is non-volatile as stated but doesn't that affect the rate at which it reaches its equilibrium state and wouldn't temperature have some effect on that equilibrium and the rate it is achieved. Since people sense TCA at very different thresholds are you saying that time in the glass [during which temperature is increasing unless the wine begins at the same temperature it ends at] is not a significant factor. You say 'quickly' so could you indicate roughly what that might be?
Temperate increase definitely increases the partial pressure of TCA (and everything else for that matter), but an increase of 10C (from 15C to 25C) will have minimal impact on the TCA partial pressure as it represents a mere 3% increase to the temperature.
And what other normal smells [I could understand brett or SLO] might mask TCA. Are you saying that because of the "phenomenally low partial pressure" the amount of TCA in the glass headspace is independent of the concentration in the glass or are you are saying that the time taken to reach equilibrium is independent of concentration and temperature? I assume it is not the former but wonder about the latter.
Yes, kinetics and thermodynamics are separable issues. The time it takes to reach equilibrium is a function of several variables (temperature, the change in entropy, etc.) but not a function of concentration per se. Regarding the other smells, I suspect that the low molecular weight esters associated with fruit can mask, to some extent, the smell of TCA. Certainly, as those smells dissipate it becomes easier to pick cork taint out of the mix. This is pure conjecture, though.
And wouldn't these volatile smells continue since, while evaporating, would they not be replaced? Why would these other smells be depleted so quickly without replacement thereby effectively enriching the amount of TCA in what remains - quickly?
The time scale I'm talking about is hours here. That is enough time for many trace components of wine to (more or less) completely evaporate out of solution. We all know that a fragile old wine may only last minutes before it's dead. Less fragile specimens merely take longer IMO. Oxidation of those components can also lead to their depletion independent of evaporation.
Could this be characterised as you saying "the same amount of TCA, quickly present remains but other volatile elements have been depleted and not replaced in the headspace making TCA molecules a more dominant and therefore detectable presence"?
Perzackly, Nigel. Spot on.
The effects of oxidation are known to mask TCA but they should be minimal in a newly opened wine. I would be interested to learn what other aspects of wine chemistry might have that masking effect and yet disappear quickly from the headspace thereby revealing the TCA to those with lower thresholds than its concentration.
My friend Steve Slatcher ran into this problem during a debate about cooking with corked wine on the UK drinks forum. The question was why corked wine gets perceptibly less corky as it cooks, since TCA is one of the least volatile components of wine. I posited that the TCA might oxidize at those high temperatures, but I have no data to bring to bear in that regard.
HTH
Mark Lipton
Hey, he and I agree, although there's a normative judgment in his column.
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
My respect for myself is at an all time high.
Claude Kolm
Claude Kolm
Thanks for the link, Joe. All the while that I was reading it, I kept on thinking of the Ken Auletta article/later book on Lehman, and then lo and behold, there it was mentioned near the bottom.
Ruben Ramos
Ruben Ramos
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
With due respect, I'm going home to diminish a bottle of Granite de Clisson.
Ian, the 2005?
kirk wallace
kirk wallace
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
In the federal courts and every state in the union except Maryland, which is considered a great anomaly, juries are limited to questions of fact. Questions of law are always decided by judges. They instruct the juries what they can consider and what they cannot and how much weight they are to accord to the factual evidence and how the law applies. Oh, and by the way, judges have the power to overrule a jury's verdict. Jonathan, I'm sorry, but you've really diminished my respect for you by this thread and your ridiculous arguments.originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
For good reasons, lawyers don't find people guilty, juries do.
Kirk to the contrary notwithstanding, Martha Stewart was originally brought under suspicion and was questioned because she was alleged to have sold shares in a drug company when her friend, who was the president of the company told her, prior to the reporting in the news, that the drug had been rejected by someone or another. This is insider trading. It is what they could not prove and instead charged her with obstructing justice in the sense of obstructing the case they were unable to prove, by lying under oath. If I had been a member of that jury, I would have had to vote to find her guilty, but I wouldn't have liked it.
Sorry, Jonathan: you have the facts a bit muddled. Sam Waksal, the CEO on ImClone, tipped his daughter and other family members to sell ahead of the public announcement of the FDA's failure to approve one of ImClone's pending drugs. That is insider trading as to him -- note that his daughter was not charged with a crime. MS's broker was aware of the Waksal sales and was found to have tipped MS about them. MS denied that the broker had told her. She was found (as you note, by a jury) to have lied about that. That is obstrucion of justice; it is not insider trading. She was originally charged with, but not convicted of securities fraud --and indeed the judge threw out that charge before it even went to the jury -- but that securites fraud charge related to her company; not Imclone. If you'd like, see this story.
USA Today, that paragon of journalism, has a nice time line here.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by kirk wallace:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
In the federal courts and every state in the union except Maryland, which is considered a great anomaly, juries are limited to questions of fact. Questions of law are always decided by judges. They instruct the juries what they can consider and what they cannot and how much weight they are to accord to the factual evidence and how the law applies. Oh, and by the way, judges have the power to overrule a jury's verdict. Jonathan, I'm sorry, but you've really diminished my respect for you by this thread and your ridiculous arguments.originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
For good reasons, lawyers don't find people guilty, juries do.
Kirk to the contrary notwithstanding, Martha Stewart was originally brought under suspicion and was questioned because she was alleged to have sold shares in a drug company when her friend, who was the president of the company told her, prior to the reporting in the news, that the drug had been rejected by someone or another. This is insider trading. It is what they could not prove and instead charged her with obstructing justice in the sense of obstructing the case they were unable to prove, by lying under oath. If I had been a member of that jury, I would have had to vote to find her guilty, but I wouldn't have liked it.
Sorry, Jonathan: you have the facts a bit muddled. Sam Waksal, the CEO on ImClone, tipped his daughter and other family members to sell ahead of the public announcement of the FDA's failure to approve one of ImClone's pending drugs. That is insider trading as to him -- note that his daughter was not charged with a crime. MS's broker was aware of the Waksal sales and was found to have tipped MS about them. MS denied that the broker had told her. She was found (as you note, by a jury) to have lied about that. That is obstrucion of justice; it is not insider trading. She was originally charged with, but not convicted of securities fraud --and indeed the judge threw out that charge before it even went to the jury -- but that securites fraud charge related to her company; not Imclone. If you'd like, see this story.
USA Today, that paragon of journalism, has a nice time line here.
Let's go over history of charge and counter-charge.
1)I said I could tell the difference between charging someone with insider trading and charging them with lying about it, which was the obstruction of justice charge. In other words, I said at the outset, and it was indeed part of my point, that she was charged with lying under oath--because they could not get her on insider trading.
2)You denied that it ever had anything to do with insider trading.
3) I contradicted you, giving an elided account of the insider trade in question. By the way, the charge went through her broker because they could never prove it came from Waksai, but she did know him and it was widely suspected. I'll, however, accept your correction as it still makes my point in 1). They couldn't get her on the real charge so they got her on lying in their investigation of the real charge.
4) You write as if you are correcting what I say, but you confirm my original statement's content: they couldn't get her on the real charge so they got her on lying about it. I'm happy we agree. You are free with Claude to think the conviction on the obstruction charge was just as well as accurate (two different claims), if you wish.
Ian Fitzsimmons
Ian Fitzsimmons
originally posted by Ruben Ramos:
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
With due respect, I'm going home to diminish a bottle of Granite de Clisson.
Ian, the 2005?
The 07. We re-bottled half of it, left the other half open in the fridge for about five hours, then decanted it for an hour. I felt it was still just coming into its own at that point, but, even so, it was eerily good with crabcake, yam shoestrings, and cucumber salad. It's fascinating wine.
I have the 05 only in magnums: I won't be messing with those before I've worked through my magnums of 05 Briords, and that will take a while.
Chris Weber
Chris Weber
originally posted by Steven Spielmann:
Some comments:
- There are some states, such as Michigan, where you can't return alcohol as a matter of law. I don't know if this affects their corked bottle return policies but I suspect it does - if they do it I think they have to do it under the table as it were.
I've lived in Michigan my whole life, been buying wine here seriously since 1985 and know many people ITB and never heard of this. Lots of bottles get returned in Michigan and I've never heard of anything under the table about it.
Of course BYO in restaurants is definitely illegal here and it happens too.
I can't remember ever returning a bottle to a retailer myself, since I rarely buy anything I'm not going to throw in the cellar for at least a few years.
I've also never had a problem in French restaurants. The 3 times I've had a corked bottle, not anything close to a problem. One time I didn't even have to speak to the staff. I had looked funny at my glass and passed it to my wife for her opinion, and the proprietor, having seen this, came up to the table and grabbed the offending bottle and swapped it with a new one without saying a word. Of course we assumed they'd had problems with it before.