Aging Wine "under the sea"

M

Matt Latuchie

Matt Latuchie
I came across a highly rated albarino (2009 Raul Perez Sketch) in the latest Advocate that had the following text from MrBigJ:

"It was fermented and aged (without malolactic) in two 700-liter barrels for 12 months followed by 60 days of aging in the bottle at 30 meters under the sea."

How common is it to age wine underwater like this? I've never read a review that cited this type of aging process before...anyone know what effect this has on the wine?
 
originally posted by Matt Latuchie:
Aging Wine "under the sea"I came across a highly rated albarino (2009 Raul Perez Sketch) in the latest Advocate that had the following text from MrBigJ:

"It was fermented and aged (without malolactic) in two 700-liter barrels for 12 months followed by 60 days of aging in the bottle at 30 meters under the sea."

How common is it to age wine underwater like this? I've never read a review that cited this type of aging process before...anyone know what effect this has on the wine?
Click to expand...

I assume these bottles are not sealed under cork. I would think the roughly three additional atmospheres of pressure being applied to the bottles that far under the water would be bad news for the seal.

That said, weren't some ~200 year old bottles of champagne recently discovered in a shipwreck in good condition? Aging underwater certainly increased the price of those. Either that, or the fact that they are the oldest known bottles of champagne still in existence.
 
I tasted some Chilean wine recently that was aged like that, so strike two. It wasn't bad, for Chilean, though one can hardly attribute that to the practice.

Speaking of potential voodoos, I'm getting anecdotal evidence that natural winemakers who use sulfur are turning increasingly to volcanic sulfur as a way to boost their natural credentials. Is there ANY possibility that volcanic sulfur adds provides any advantage other than cosmetic?
 
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:

Speaking of potential voodoos, I'm getting anecdotal evidence that natural winemakers who use sulfur are turning increasingly to volcanic sulfur as a way to boost their natural credentials. Is there ANY possibility that volcanic sulfur adds provides any advantage other than cosmetic?
Click to expand...

They could also use Vulcanic sulfur to put a spock in their sales.
 
I once bought some label damaged Coulee de Serrant from a store in New Jersey that had been caught in a flood. In this case, aging underwater actually caused the bottle price to decline.
 
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
I tasted some Chilean wine recently that was aged like that, so strike two. It wasn't bad, for Chilean, though one can hardly attribute that to the practice.

Speaking of potential voodoos, I'm getting anecdotal evidence that natural winemakers who use sulfur are turning increasingly to volcanic sulfur as a way to boost their natural credentials. Is there ANY possibility that volcanic sulfur adds provides any advantage other than cosmetic?
Click to expand...

What are they doing with that volcanic sulfur, Oswaldo? Traditionally, winemakers would place a stick of sulfur at the end of a wire, put it through the bung hole of a barrel, light it and seal the bung. That way it would both consume oxygen through burning and produce sulfur dioxide (a form of sulfite) to further preserve the wine. Elemental sulfur on its own has no significant preservative properties.

Mark Lipton
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
I imagine the advantage -- possibly imaginary itself -- of keeping wine underwater is light and temperature control.
Click to expand...
Oh, not imaginary. Nothing better, I'm sure. Particularly for keeping Champagne for hundreds of years.

But does it really matter over a few months? Dubious in the extreme.
 
Winemakers with organic vineyards are allowed to use sulfur, blown over the vineyards, to fight moisture. Maybe this is where vulcanic sulfur comes in?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top