On Nov 15, 4:49 pm, jim > wrote:
> Please forgive my ignorance, but why aren't synthetics any good for
> long term aging? And could y ou explain what you class as long
> term?
>
> I thought they'd be great for that. Are they not inert with a slight
> permeability (less than cork but better than glass)?
>
> I am disappointed to hear that as I bought hi q synthetic corks to use
> for maturation of my high alcohol rice wines and others. I just
> couldnt afford the very best cork in the quantity I needed and figured
> these would be a better choice.
>
> Many thanks, Jim
>
> On Nov 16, 12:18 am, pp > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 15, 2:27 pm, Joe Sallustio > wrote:
>
> > > The problem you are seeing is one of the reasons I use synthetics
> > > now. :0)
>
> > Yeah, but as you mentioned, Joe, those are not meant for long-term
> > aging and screwcaps are not available to home winemakers, so corks are
> > really the only option for wines aged 10 years. Or crown caps but
> > there the issue is they don't fit on regular wine bottles.
>
> > Pp- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, long-term definition depends to some extent on the winemaker.
The dicussion here was done in the context of the OP, where we were
talking about 10 year old wine, certainly long-term. Anything after 5
years would qualify as long-term in my books.

As for synthetics, there are studies that show they don't fare well
past 3 years or so. I might not have the latest info, but the reason
for this was that wine under synthetics loses SO2 faster than under
any closures, So if the wine's bottled with normal SO2 levels, it
doesn't last well past the 3 year mark or so. I don't use synthetics
so don't know more than that, I'm sure somebody else can supply more
detailed info/references.

Pp