> Questions:
>
> Is a specific type of cap more efficient than a good cork?
>
> Why isn't one type of cork/cap used as a standard for bottles that contain
> non-carbonated beverages? (Are the different styles of caps and corks used
> for purposes other than cutting costs or marketing?)

The chances of you getting an answer versus an opinion are pretty
slim... There is a lot of info out there on one closure versus
another and the actual intent of the closure has a lot to do with it.
Most wines are made to be consumed within less than a year of bottling
and for that purpose almost any closure that excludes oxygen is
fine.

If you are looking for a closure that will keep a wine for over 5
years only the higher quality natural corks have proven that
capability but even that is not without risk. Even the finest cork
will fail over time and typically those corks are replaced every 20
years. (These are premium corks.)

The risk of cork taint is real but methods exist to minimize that
risk. A need for a closure of that quality applies to truly fine
wines which most people don't have access to anyways.

I don't make fine wines, I make good wines. That gives me a lot of
options. I have wines that are close to 10 years old under natural
corks and they are very good. I have also tasted wines that tasted
closer to wet cardboard under corks for less than 2 years that looked
and felt similar to the 10 year old wines. Nothing is more
infuriating that a corked bottle you worked hard on. I use mostly
synthetic now and don't have any that are older than 4 years at this
point.

Plastic screw caps are not considered a true oxygen barrier to my
knowledge, the machine applied aluminum caps are considered superior.
Most synthetic 'corks' are not expected to protect a wine past 3 years
to my understanding.

And all of this is not an answer, just my opinion...

Joe