kirk wallace
kirk wallace
yes yes; i understood that also would be an important part of the comparison.
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.
Ganevat 2010s
- Thread starter SFJoe
- Start date
yes yes; i understood that also would be an important part of the comparison.
U
Unknown
Guest
originally posted by .sasha:
not to mention 16 subjected to different entrapment methodologies
( I made the mistake with the 2007 vintage of assuming that the AP## were unique to closure, e.g. #7 for cork and #16 for SC for GD Kab, only to be corrected by a friend in a country to be named later, who pointed out that #16 under cork was the house wine )
fwiw, on friday i did a side by side with a grower who is thinking of going back to putting everything but his basic hooch under cork. the sample was not perfect -- the wine under cork came from a magnum -- but there were some stinky reductive notes in the screwcap bottle that were completely absent from the wine under cork.
fb.
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
FWIW, during a visit, Michel Augé said forcibly that a wine cannot become reduced in bottle; if it is reduced, it's because it was bottled in a reduced state. If that's true, a porous cork would "clear" that up, but only while on its way towards, eventually, premature oxidation. The screwcap itself may have nothing to do with the stinky reductive notes, and a "perfect" cork (i.e., if perfect means no exchange, at odds with Chauvet's view) would preserve those notes in much the same way.
U
Unknown
Guest
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
FWIW, during a visit, Michel Augé said forcibly that a wine cannot become reduced in bottle; if it is reduced, it's because it was bottled in a reduced state. If that's true, a porous cork would "clear" that up, but only while on its way towards, eventually, premature oxidation. The screwcap itself may have nothing to do with the stinky reductive notes, and a "perfect" cork (i.e., if perfect means no exchange, at odds with Chauvet's view) would preserve those notes in much the same way.
in this case, there seems to be a gap between the theory and the empirical data. across several wines and vintages. i can't say for sure that the difference was purely down to reduction, but (also, fwiw), the difference in stinkiness -- the wines are dry rieslings -- is sufficient enough and reliable enough to prompt the grower into a rethink.
fb.
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
FWIW, during a visit, Michel Augé said forcibly that a wine cannot become reduced in bottle; if it is reduced, it's because it was bottled in a reduced state. If that's true, a porous cork would "clear" that up, but only while on its way towards, eventually, premature oxidation. The screwcap itself may have nothing to do with the stinky reductive notes, and a "perfect" cork (i.e., if perfect means no exchange, at odds with Chauvet's view) would preserve those notes in much the same way.
I understand M. Augé's point, but I think that there's a more complex scenario at work. Centuries of experience have taught us that older bottles that have been well sealed usually emerge with certain "reductive" smells in evidence, most particularly sulfides and thiols. Since the major sulfur source is metabisulfite ("sulfites") this constitutes reduction in the sense that chemists use the term. But reduction can't happen in the absence of oxidation: oxidation and reduction are coupled in what are called redox pairs. So what is being oxidized? In red wines, look no farther than polyphenolics (which form sediment) as well as ethanol and even metabisulfite (yes, it can be both oxidized and reduced). In white wines, it's mostly the latter. To the extent that a cork permits the ingress of oxygen, oxygen will get reduced in preference to the metabisulfite, so a screwcap that provides a better seal could lead to more "reductive" smells.
Mark Lipton
U
Unknown
Guest
originally posted by richard slicker:
originally posted by .sasha:
not to mention 16 subjected to different entrapment methodologies
( I made the mistake with the 2007 vintage of assuming that the AP## were unique to closure, e.g. #7 for cork and #16 for SC for GD Kab, only to be corrected by a friend in a country to be named later, who pointed out that #16 under cork was the house wine )
fwiw, on friday i did a side by side with a grower who is thinking of going back to putting everything but his basic hooch under cork. the sample was not perfect -- the wine under cork came from a magnum -- but there were some stinky reductive notes in the screwcap bottle that were completely absent from the wine under cork.
fb.
I find it curious that I had very few objections to the mosel wine merchants range under SC (some 2009s but mostly 2010s with mind warping acidities - is that a clue?), nor to the swill that GG is pushing on street corners under same closure, and yet would regularly go ape over the better known(*) traditional labels when the switch occurred. So it could be palate regression, as much as anything.
(*) to me
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
originally posted by MLipton:
To the extent that a cork permits the ingress of oxygen, oxygen will get reduced in preference to the metabisulfite, so a screwcap that provides a better seal could lead to more "reductive" smells.
I understand, I just think it's unfair to say that a screwcap leads to this situation; it is merely doing the job for which it was designed, to keep oxygen entirely out. If fb's grower decides that he prefers to deal with the stink through minimal exchange, he could just use a screwcap designed to permit just that. It's not the screwcap who is responsible, it's the perfect seal. A flawless cork would probably do the same "damage."
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
originally posted by MLipton:
To the extent that a cork permits the ingress of oxygen, oxygen will get reduced in preference to the metabisulfite, so a screwcap that provides a better seal could lead to more "reductive" smells.
I understand, I just think it's unfair to say that a screwcap leads to this situation; it is merely doing the job for which it was designed, to keep oxygen entirely out. If fb's grower decides that he prefers to deal with the stink through minimal exchange, he could just use a screwcap designed to permit just that. It's not the screwcap who is responsible, it's the perfect seal. A flawless cork would probably do the same "damage."
Keep in mind that not all screwcaps are created equal (some are more equal than others). Stelvin, in response to the findings of AWRI trials and to the reports of reduced wines under screwcap, came out with several different screwcaps of differing oxygen transmissivity.
Mark Lipton
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
It has nothing to do with religion, Joe, nor is it a defense of screwcaps. It's only about blaming the right party for reduction.
I not only keep it in mind but mention that in my response (now italicized).
originally posted by MLipton:
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
originally posted by MLipton:
To the extent that a cork permits the ingress of oxygen, oxygen will get reduced in preference to the metabisulfite, so a screwcap that provides a better seal could lead to more "reductive" smells.
I understand, I just think it's unfair to say that a screwcap leads to this situation; it is merely doing the job for which it was designed, to keep oxygen entirely out. If fb's grower decides that he prefers to deal with the stink through minimal exchange, he could just use a screwcap designed to permit just that. It's not the screwcap who is responsible, it's the perfect seal. A flawless cork would probably do the same "damage."
Keep in mind that not all screwcaps are created equal (some are more equal than others). Stelvin, in response to the findings of AWRI trials and to the reports of reduced wines under screwcap, came out with several different screwcaps of differing oxygen transmissivity.
Mark Lipton
I not only keep it in mind but mention that in my response (now italicized).
U
Unknown
Guest
originally posted by .sasha:
I find it curious that I had very few objections to the mosel wine merchants range under SC (some 2009s but mostly 2010s with mind warping acidities - is that a clue?), nor to the swill that GG is pushing on street corners under same closure, and yet would regularly go ape over the better known(*) traditional labels when the switch occurred. So it could be palate regression, as much as anything.
(*) to me
it all depends on the wines, i think. and one's intentions for them. if i don't intend keeping something for a long time, and its taste isn't negatively impacted, i prefer a screw cap (shit can come in a box, for all i care). otoh, i feel happier with bark for keepers, simply because my experience of what the hell i'm expecting from said keeping is all tied up with teh bark. i suspect that once you have a history of keeping stuff, it's likely that this is part of the going ape.
but then again, it is also the case that some swill seems less susceptible to differences in closure than other swill. which likely comes down to a host of things. the dude i was talking to tends to tolerate some very long and precarious fermentations, which may be part of the story.
still, at the end of the day, i'm just happy that at least some growers are willing to keep an open mind, and to do what works best for their own hooch, whatever that might be.
fb.
U
Unknown
Guest
originally posted by richard slicker:
i suspect that once you have a history of keeping stuff
yes, and further to the point, stuff that I had tasted on release
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
originally posted by SFJoe:
Oh, Oswaldo, I am not going to be sucked in, except to mention that your question contains implicit assumptions about zero intercept, and perhaps linearity, neither of which I believe to hold.
At least from where I stand, you are definitely misunderstanding me.