OK, new thread:

What is the difference between "Reserve," and a regular bottling? In the US,
it means nothing. That said, some wineries do a "Reserve" bottling that
denotes a special selection from the vineyard, the aging room, or some other
area that they believe sets that particular wine apart from their regular
release. Unfortunately, many vintners/marketers use the term to designate
anything that they want, i.e. Kendall-Jackson's "Vintner's Reserve," is their
regular release. They do a "Grand Reserve," which they claim designates
something special.

Now, in other countries, like Spain, and Italy, for instance, "Reserva," "
Riserva" do mean something - usually that the wines have been aged longer in
wood than the "regular" version of a similar wine. Usually, "better" wines are
chosen to become Reserva or Riserva.

Don't totally discount "Reserve," and similar designations in the US, as some
winemakers DO use these, or similar terms, to designate their better bottling.

Hunt

--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

Hunt wrote:
> OK, new thread:
>
> What is the difference between "Reserve," and a regular bottling? In the US,
> it means nothing. That said, some wineries do a "Reserve" bottling that
> denotes a special selection from the vineyard, the aging room, or some other
> area that they believe sets that particular wine apart from their regular
> release. Unfortunately, many vintners/marketers use the term to designate
> anything that they want, i.e. Kendall-Jackson's "Vintner's Reserve," is their
> regular release. They do a "Grand Reserve," which they claim designates
> something special.

You are correct. In the USA the term doesn't mean anything specific.
Generally it is the wineries better wines that get the reserve label.
Columbia Crest recently changed its labeling of their reserve wines to
Grand Estate. Possibly because they came out with finer wines with
which to use the reserve label with.

"miles" > wrote in message
news:7BT6g.11330$XV5.5077@fed1read10...
> Hunt wrote:
>> OK, new thread:
>>
>> What is the difference between "Reserve," and a regular bottling? In the
>> US, it means nothing. That said, some wineries do a "Reserve" bottling
>> that denotes a special selection from the vineyard, the aging room, or
>> some other area that they believe sets that particular wine apart from
>> their regular release. Unfortunately, many vintners/marketers use the
>> term to designate anything that they want, i.e. Kendall-Jackson's
>> "Vintner's Reserve," is their regular release. They do a "Grand Reserve,"
>> which they claim designates something special.
>
> You are correct. In the USA the term doesn't mean anything specific.
> Generally it is the wineries better wines that get the reserve label.
> Columbia Crest recently changed its labeling of their reserve wines to
> Grand Estate. Possibly because they came out with finer wines with which
> to use the reserve label with.

Now, am I correct in remembering that in some places, "estate" means that
all the wines come from their *own* grapes, and not ones that they have
bought from somewhere else? Can't remember which country I read that
about...

BTW, how common is that...companies buying grapes from somewhere else?

JR wrote:

> Now, am I correct in remembering that in some places, "estate" means that
> all the wines come from their *own* grapes, and not ones that they have
> bought from somewhere else? Can't remember which country I read that
> about...

That is true. Estate I believe means the grapes were grown onsite, at
the winery property. The winery may own vineyards elsewhere but they
are not estate.

> BTW, how common is that...companies buying grapes from somewhere else?

Very common. Many wineries in the USA buy grapes from elsewhere. There
are numerous vineyards that do not produce wine. They are growers only.
Often a winery will grow some varietals of their own and buy others
from elsewhere.

miles wrote:

>> BTW, how common is that...companies buying grapes from somewhere else?
>
>
> Very common. Many wineries in the USA buy grapes from elsewhere. There
> are numerous vineyards that do not produce wine. They are growers only.
> Often a winery will grow some varietals of their own and buy others
> from elsewhere.

In other countries, the situation varies widely. In most of Europe, the
traditional model is the farmer/winemaker, but in France one also has
the tradition of the negociant (someone who buys wine or grapes and
bottles it under their own label). In New Zealand, it was quite
commonplace for wineries to use both their own grapes and purchased
grapes. I believe that the same holds true in Oz.

Mark Lipton

On 6 May 2006 01:43:08 GMT
(Hunt) wrote:

[]
> Now, in other countries, like Spain, and Italy, for instance, "Reserva," "
> Riserva" do mean something - usually that the wines have been aged longer in
> wood than the "regular" version of a similar wine. Usually, "better" wines are
> chosen to become Reserva or Riserva.
>

I don't think it has any legal meaning in France -- varies between a
marketing term and an actual designation of a better cuvée that
might be more age-worthy, as you stated.

[]

The one that gets me is "old vines" or "ancient vines" or "antique
vines" or why not "distressed vines." No meaning what so ever.

There was a time when in the Rhone you could expect such a
designation to mean over 80 year old, more or less. But it
seems to have been hijacked by marketing types. How old
are Cline's "ancient vines" anyway? 30 years? Does anyone
know?

On the subject of grown vs bought grapes: I don't believe there
is any legal meaning to "Estate," although I could be wrong.
Certainly Jeff's interpretation is logical enough; by why not
have it mean "that's what we drink around the estate,"
analogous to reserve?

As Mark pointed out there is an important difference between
negociant (buys the grapes) and eleveur (grows the grapes) in
France. Although there are some very fine negociants one
finds on average that the eleveur/viticulteur, because of the
additional control in the process, produces higher quality.
(I know there are exceptions both ways, but that certainly
is accepted wisdom).

I remember going to a rather silly vineyard on Cape Cod,
with most impressive rows of vines growing out front.
When pressed, they admitted that all the fruit came
from California! That's a "why bother" if I ever heard of
one...

-E

--
Emery Davis
You can reply to ecom
by removing the well known companies

"Emery Davis" > wrote in message
...
> On 6 May 2006 01:43:08 GMT
> (Hunt) wrote:
>
> []
>> Now, in other countries, like Spain, and Italy, for instance, "Reserva,"
>> "
>> Riserva" do mean something - usually that the wines have been aged longer
>> in
>> wood than the "regular" version of a similar wine. Usually, "better"
>> wines are
>> chosen to become Reserva or Riserva.
>>
>
> I don't think it has any legal meaning in France -- varies between a
> marketing term and an actual designation of a better cuvée that
> might be more age-worthy, as you stated.
>
>
> On the subject of grown vs bought grapes: I don't believe there
> is any legal meaning to "Estate," although I could be wrong.
> Certainly Jeff's interpretation is logical enough; by why not
> have it mean "that's what we drink around the estate,"
> analogous to reserve?

I do recall reading, however, that *somewhere* (maybe SA, but not sure),
that legally it meant something.

At most of the California Wineries that have a reserve I believe you would
find the "Free Run Juice" is all they use in reserves. I don't think it is
a legal mandate.

IE: BV-Rutherford at $20 bottle or the BV Georges d latour at $100.00
bottle. Pressings vs free run.

Same holds true at Mondavi, Sequioa Grove and others to my knowledge.

Again, not consistent or legally required. Thus a marketing statement for
others in California but not for all. Some there indeed is a difference.




"Mark Lipton" > wrote in message
m...
> miles wrote:
>
>>> BTW, how common is that...companies buying grapes from somewhere else?
>>
>>
>> Very common. Many wineries in the USA buy grapes from elsewhere. There
>> are numerous vineyards that do not produce wine. They are growers only.
>> Often a winery will grow some varietals of their own and buy others
>> from elsewhere.
>
> In other countries, the situation varies widely. In most of Europe, the
> traditional model is the farmer/winemaker, but in France one also has
> the tradition of the negociant (someone who buys wine or grapes and
> bottles it under their own label). In New Zealand, it was quite
> commonplace for wineries to use both their own grapes and purchased
> grapes. I believe that the same holds true in Oz.
>
> Mark Lipton

Emery Davis wrote:

> There was a time when in the Rhone you could expect such a
> designation to mean over 80 year old, more or less. But it
> seems to have been hijacked by marketing types. How old
> are Cline's "ancient vines" anyway? 30 years? Does anyone
> know?

Fred Cline started his operation with vineyards (Zin and
Mataro/Mourvedre) in the Contra Costa Delta that were pre-Prohibiton.
Whether those vines are used in his "Ancient Vines" bottlings, I cannot
say (given recent production numbers, I doubt it somewhat).

>
> On the subject of grown vs bought grapes: I don't believe there
> is any legal meaning to "Estate," although I could be wrong.
> Certainly Jeff's interpretation is logical enough; by why not
> have it mean "that's what we drink around the estate,"
> analogous to reserve?

No, I believe that there *is* a legal requirement for a high percentage
of the grapes to come from land that you own (IIRC).

Mark Lipton

On Sat, 06 May 2006 11:32:00 -0400
Mark Lipton > wrote:

> Emery Davis wrote:
>
> > There was a time when in the Rhone you could expect such a
> > designation to mean over 80 year old, more or less. But it
> > seems to have been hijacked by marketing types. How old
> > are Cline's "ancient vines" anyway? 30 years? Does anyone
> > know?
>
> Fred Cline started his operation with vineyards (Zin and
> Mataro/Mourvedre) in the Contra Costa Delta that were pre-Prohibiton.
> Whether those vines are used in his "Ancient Vines" bottlings, I cannot
> say (given recent production numbers, I doubt it somewhat).
>

Hey Mark,

Indeed. I don't doubt Mr. Cline has access to a venerable vine or two,
but how many cases of this do they make? (NB I've found that some
of the Cline zins are excellent, some years ago their basic was a
slam dunk QPR wine). Also I question from flavour whether the
average age is all that high...

> >
> > On the subject of grown vs bought grapes: I don't believe there
> > is any legal meaning to "Estate," although I could be wrong.
> > Certainly Jeff's interpretation is logical enough; by why not
> > have it mean "that's what we drink around the estate,"
> > analogous to reserve?
>
> No, I believe that there *is* a legal requirement for a high percentage
> of the grapes to come from land that you own (IIRC).
>

Is there some sort of batf site that we can use to find out this stuff,
equivalent to the french inao?

-E
--
Emery Davis
You can reply to ecom
by removing the well known companies

Emery Davis > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 06 May 2006 11:32:00 -0400
> Mark Lipton > wrote:
>
>> Emery Davis wrote:
>>
>> > There was a time when in the Rhone you could expect such a
>> > designation to mean over 80 year old, more or less. But it
>> > seems to have been hijacked by marketing types. How old
>> > are Cline's "ancient vines" anyway? 30 years? Does anyone
>> > know?
>>
>> Fred Cline started his operation with vineyards (Zin and
>> Mataro/Mourvedre) in the Contra Costa Delta that were pre-Prohibiton.
>> Whether those vines are used in his "Ancient Vines" bottlings, I
>> cannot say (given recent production numbers, I doubt it somewhat).
>>
>
> Hey Mark,
>
> Indeed. I don't doubt Mr. Cline has access to a venerable vine or
> two, but how many cases of this do they make? (NB I've found that
> some of the Cline zins are excellent, some years ago their basic was a
> slam dunk QPR wine). Also I question from flavour whether the
> average age is all that high...
>
>> >
>> > On the subject of grown vs bought grapes: I don't believe there
>> > is any legal meaning to "Estate," although I could be wrong.
>> > Certainly Jeff's interpretation is logical enough; by why not
>> > have it mean "that's what we drink around the estate,"
>> > analogous to reserve?
>>
>> No, I believe that there *is* a legal requirement for a high
>> percentage of the grapes to come from land that you own (IIRC).
>>
>
> Is there some sort of batf site that we can use to find out this
> stuff, equivalent to the french inao?
>
> -E

Basnoo!

"ESTATE BOTTLED
“Estate Bottled” means that 100 percent of the wine came from grapes
grown on land owned or controlled by the winery, which must be
located in a viticultural area. The winery must crush and ferment the
grapes, finish, age, process and bottle the wine on their premises."

http://www.atf.gov/pub/alctob_pub/p51901.pdf

No mention about "Reserve", though.

I did find this:
http://www.thewinenews.com/aprmay98/reserve.html

"...Because it was never regulated, however, the Reserve designation was
vulnerable to abuse. By the early 1980s, the term was beginning to be
sullied; by mid-decade it was taking a real beating..."

d.

enoavidh wrote:

> "ESTATE BOTTLED
> “Estate Bottled” means that 100 percent of the wine came from grapes
> grown on land owned or controlled by the winery, which must be
> located in a viticultural area. The winery must crush and ferment the
> grapes, finish, age, process and bottle the wine on their premises."

Can a winery own vineyards separate from the land the wine production
facilities sits on and call wines produced from these vineyards estate?
My understanding is no.

On Sat, 06 May 2006 12:47:51 -0700
miles > wrote:

> enoavidh wrote:
>
> > "ESTATE BOTTLED
> > €œEstate Bottled€� means that 100 percent of the wine came from grapes
> > grown on land owned or controlled by the winery, which must be
> > located in a viticultural area. The winery must crush and ferment the
> > grapes, finish, age, process and bottle the wine on their premises."
>
> Can a winery own vineyards separate from the land the wine production
> facilities sits on and call wines produced from these vineyards estate?
> My understanding is no.

Thanks for the link, D. That's pretty much what I was looking for.

According to this, the land that produces the grapes may be separate.
Further, Dick Neidich will go to court to battle over the meaning of
"controlled." I.e. if a winery has a sub-contractor under exclusive
agreement and specifies yields, etc, do they "control" it? I bet they do,
even though they're still buying grapes...

-E

--
Emery Davis
You can reply to ecom
by removing the well known companies

You assumption would be correct for Estate Bottlings. They are not
necessarily at the winery or even owned. Many a winery on their label
states Estate bottling but not all are on land that is on or owned by the
winery. Controlled could mean contracted land. Often times small family
wineries that own land might even place the land in a LLC-(limited liability
corporation) and lease to the winery for usage. Therefore NOT the same
legal entity. There are tax and liability reason for estate planing that
this is sometimes done.

Secondly Estate wine is not the same as reserve bottlings. Again as in
previous post its more like the "Free Run Juice" vs pressings at many, but
not all wineries.

Fairly sure its like the TCA issue------you can imagine its the and due to
the cork even if its not.



"Emery Davis" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 06 May 2006 12:47:51 -0700
> miles > wrote:
>
>> enoavidh wrote:
>>
>> > "ESTATE BOTTLED
>> > "Estate Bottled" means that 100 percent of the wine came from grapes
>> > grown on land owned or controlled by the winery, which must be
>> > located in a viticultural area. The winery must crush and ferment the
>> > grapes, finish, age, process and bottle the wine on their premises."
>>
>> Can a winery own vineyards separate from the land the wine production
>> facilities sits on and call wines produced from these vineyards estate?
>> My understanding is no.
>
> Thanks for the link, D. That's pretty much what I was looking for.
>
> According to this, the land that produces the grapes may be separate.
> Further, Dick Neidich will go to court to battle over the meaning of
> "controlled." I.e. if a winery has a sub-contractor under exclusive
> agreement and specifies yields, etc, do they "control" it? I bet they do,
> even though they're still buying grapes...
>
> -E
>
> --
> Emery Davis
> You can reply to ecom
> by removing the well known companies
>

"Fairly sure its like the TCA issue------you can imagine its the and
due to
the cork even if its not. "

You know, I generally like your postings, but your insistence that TCA
is not due to cork is so out in left field that I think you're going
in the file with UC, Andros, etc.Sure, there are other causes of TCA
(witness BV), but that's like saying because Ryan White got AIDS from a
transfusion that AIDS isn't related to sex or needle use.

Different people have vastly different sensitivities, and just because
you don't encounter TCA in a recognizable form doesn't make it not a
problem.

As others have stated, Reserve has no legal meaning in US. AFAIK, K-J
has nothing below the Vintners Reserve. Obviously Riserva in Tuscany
(Chianti and Brunello) and Reserva in Rioja have legal meaning. Are
there legal requirements for Riserva in Piedmont?

Dale, I am not surprised.

I agree that there are different sensitivities to TCA but the contamination
is not just from Cork. It is also not going away just because of screwcaps.

I have recently bought whites with screwcaps that were nice. Reds age
differently.

The Reserve/Estate bottling issue is not the same in USA.

But Reserve I am stating is mostly "free run juice" vs crushed which usually
exhibits much less complexity.

To that point some people might not notice the difference with BV-Napa or
rutherford vs BV Georges which is the free run juice. Usually at 5x the
price.

Thus like TCA to some that do or don't notice---Free run juice is vastly
different and therefore many wineries in California refer to that at the
Reserve.

Hope that clarifies.




"DaleW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> "Fairly sure its like the TCA issue------you can imagine its the and
> due to
> the cork even if its not. "
>
> You know, I generally like your postings, but your insistence that TCA
> is not due to cork is so out in left field that I think you're going
> in the file with UC, Andros, etc.Sure, there are other causes of TCA
> (witness BV), but that's like saying because Ryan White got AIDS from a
> transfusion that AIDS isn't related to sex or needle use.
>
> Different people have vastly different sensitivities, and just because
> you don't encounter TCA in a recognizable form doesn't make it not a
> problem.
>

You analogy to Aid is interesting.

Assuming that Aids is a Virus and not bacterial, I will assume you get aids
from catching a virus. In a dentist chair if the dentist does not clean his
equipment.

You are arguing my point to the extent that I don't disagree that you can
get Aids from Sex and from needles. You can also get it from saliva, from
dental equipment if not properly cleaned.

TCA exists in Cork, it also finds its way into barrel rooms and last time I
was at Pine Ridge in Napa they were doing some sulpher treatment to the
caves. They said they had identified a ritual of cleaning to avoid TCA that
gets into wine from caves and barrels. I did not press why...they were
working hard to rid problem.

If you concede you can get aids from tranfusions, dentists etc...and not
just sex, I can concede that you can have TCA from Corks as well as other
delivery systems.

That said the % of wine contaminated from cork TCA issues vs TCA winery
issues has not yet been disclosed. My guess is less than 25% is cork. 75%
other issues.


"DaleW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> "Fairly sure its like the TCA issue------you can imagine its the and
> due to
> the cork even if its not. "
>
> You know, I generally like your postings, but your insistence that TCA
> is not due to cork is so out in left field that I think you're going
> in the file with UC, Andros, etc.Sure, there are other causes of TCA
> (witness BV), but that's like saying because Ryan White got AIDS from a
> transfusion that AIDS isn't related to sex or needle use.
>
> Different people have vastly different sensitivities, and just because
> you don't encounter TCA in a recognizable form doesn't make it not a
> problem.
>

Richard Neidich wrote:
> You analogy to Aid is interesting.
>
> Assuming that Aids is a Virus and not bacterial, I will assume you get aids
> from catching a virus. In a dentist chair if the dentist does not clean his
> equipment.

Dick, you are indeed (far) out in left field. AIDS is caused by HIV, a
virus. It cannot live outside of blood for more than a minute. You
could only get AIDS from dental equipment that had blood or semen on it,
and I quite frankly would avoid that dentist for reasons unconnected to
AIDS.

Mark Lipton

"Richard Neidich" wrote ......
>
> I agree that there are different sensitivities to TCA but the
> contamination is not just from cork.
>

Dick, you are 100% correct - not all TCA contamination is attributable to
cork.

Just 99.9%.

The remaining 0.01% is what you are defending.

I will defend your right to defend your opinion - even if it is totally
indefensible.

--

st.helier

Likewise, in both Australia and New Zealand, the word *Reserve* has no legal
or legislative status. It is purely a marketing ploy.

However, when used, it seem to indicate *the cut above* the standard
bottling.

The best example (in respect to the international market) may be Jacobs
Creek.

They do a *standard* shiraz; a "Reserve" shiraz and a "Limited Release"
shiraz (in ascending order of quality and price).

--

st.helier

"Mark Lipton" wrote .........
>
> In New Zealand, it was quite commonplace for wineries
> to use both their own grapes and purchased grapes.
>
> I believe that the same holds true in Oz.

Most words like "Estate Bottled" and "Proprietors Reserve" have the broadest
possible interpretation in both NZ and Australia - they certainly have no
"legal" meaning.

Many NZ wineries have vineyards spread across many grapegrowing regions.

The largest, Montana Wines (now part of Pernot-Ricard) certainly
grows/sources grape across a wide geographic area.

Some differentiate by using different labels fro different geographic area
(Matua Valley uses Shingle Peak for it's Marlborough Wines - while Delegates
uses Oyster Bay as it's Marlborough brand)

Villa Maria makes wine from vineyards from Auckland in the north to
Marlborough in the South Island - sometime blending wines from quite
diverse regions - always clearly labeled !!!!!

"Estate Bottle" means exactly that: bottled on "the" estate - who knows
where the grapes were grown and where the wine was made.

--

st.helier

Re Riserva in Piemonte---before DOCG there were occasionally Riserva
bottlings usually 1 more year aging, you also saw Riserva Especial or
something similar. Riserva bottlings are possible on Piemonte, I believe
but not used.
"DaleW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> As others have stated, Reserve has no legal meaning in US. AFAIK, K-J
> has nothing below the Vintners Reserve. Obviously Riserva in Tuscany
> (Chianti and Brunello) and Reserva in Rioja have legal meaning. Are
> there legal requirements for Riserva in Piedmont?
>

Yup. Left field here. Guess the reason my dentist takes the precautions is
to avoid getting aids from patients that might have had.

sorry for good up.

I, not being *** or use used needles really don't know much or anything
about that subject so...I should not have responded.




"Mark Lipton" > wrote in message
...
> Richard Neidich wrote:
>> You analogy to Aid is interesting.
>>
>> Assuming that Aids is a Virus and not bacterial, I will assume you get
>> aids
>> from catching a virus. In a dentist chair if the dentist does not clean
>> his
>> equipment.
>
> Dick, you are indeed (far) out in left field. AIDS is caused by HIV, a
> virus. It cannot live outside of blood for more than a minute. You
> could only get AIDS from dental equipment that had blood or semen on it,
> and I quite frankly would avoid that dentist for reasons unconnected to
> AIDS.
>
> Mark Lipton

Disagree that 99.9% of TCA contamination is the result of cork. While I
cannot prove it is only 25% you cannot prove it is 99.9%.

That said I fully appreciate your offer to defend my opinion on this
subject. You are entitled to your also.

I guess to some degree personal experience is what I base mine on. The
majority of the wine I had that I detected TCA in was directly attributed to
a manufacturing issue according to winemakers when they were contacted. BV,
Montelena etc.

I am sure if I drank mostly the cheap stuff you had down in NZ I would have
blamed the cork too :-)


"st.helier" > wrote in message
...
> "Richard Neidich" wrote ......
>>
>> I agree that there are different sensitivities to TCA but the
>> contamination is not just from cork.
>>
>
> Dick, you are 100% correct - not all TCA contamination is attributable to
> cork.
>
> Just 99.9%.
>
> The remaining 0.01% is what you are defending.
>
> I will defend your right to defend your opinion - even if it is totally
> indefensible.
>
> --
>
> st.helier
>

Richard Neidich wrote:
> Yup. Left field here. Guess the reason my dentist takes the precautions is
> to avoid getting aids from patients that might have had.

Sure. Any dental procedure that produces blood poses a risk for the
dentist, although the risk is low. Most of the cases of AIDS contacted
at work by health practitioners occurs from accidentally sticking
themselves with a dirty needle. I've always found those cases to be
mind-boggling: 20 years of labwork using syringes to add all sorts of
nasty chemicals and never once did I stick myself. I guess that there
must some damn clumsy med techs and such out there... I also find it
a bit comical to see the panic that occurs when a basketball player
starts bleeding: latex gloves come on, play stops, antiseptic wipes are
applied. You'd have to smear the blood on an open wound to stand any
chance of contracting AIDS from it, and even then the chances are very
low for most healthy people.

Mark Lipton
Crusader for Common Sense

Reserve in the U.S means the wine producer can charge more money.

DaleW wrote

> As others have stated, Reserve has no legal meaning in US. AFAIK,
K-J
> has nothing below the Vintners Reserve. Obviously Riserva in Tuscany
> (Chianti and Brunello) and Reserva in Rioja have legal meaning. Are
> there legal requirements for Riserva in Piedmont?

Riserva, for any italian DOC / DOCG wine that includes the "Riserva"
version, is a "tag" that winemakers can use only under strict
requirements, and these requirements are stated in that wine's
"disciplinare di produzione" (production disciplinary), which is the
document ruling rules about what a particular wine is (allowed growing
zone for vines, max yield per hectare, minimun ageing, color, minimum
% of total/developed alcohol...).
As Brunello and Chianti have theyr own disciplinare, ruling about the
Riserva requirements, so do Barolo, Barbaresco, and if we leave
Piedmont we'll find also Amarone, Rosso Conero... almost all of the
ageworthy italian reds have a Riserva option whio requires more barrel
time.
In the cases of Barolo and Barbaresco, for example, quoting the book
about italian wine-panorama for the second level course of AIS
(Associazione Italiana Sommeliers), the requirements for a Barolo are
38 months of cellaring before marketing, while Riserva must rest for
62 months. For barabaresco, the minimum ageing is 26 months, but it
needs 50 months to attain the Riserva status.
For Brunello di Montalcino, normal minimum ageing is 50 months with at
least 2 years in oak containers of any dimensions, while to obtain the
Riserva status a Brunello must undertake 62 months in the cellars. For
Chianti Classico, those figures are 11 months and 24 months (at least
3 in bottle).

As I said before, almost any italian ageworty red has its Riserva
version, always well stated in the disciplinare.
Feel free to ask about any intalian wines you're interested in, the
book is here nearby the PC
--
Vilco
Think pink, drink rose'

Funny thing...when I grew up in a small Florida hick town we had a Sears &
Roebuck in a strip center. The only glove they had for a left handed person
was a first base mit. Therefore I played mostly first base being a lefty.

Occasionally Left field too.

So you guys suggesting I am in left field was not far off base for me. (not
politically left...but not to far right either)

I don't really know much about Aids other then the obvious Hollywood
productions. I know my friend / dentist has had to take lots of precautions
due to aids. I always thought they were mostly for the patient but probably
for them. They are legal requirements as he tells me. Some of which have
caused prices to go way up for dental care..

Even my Chiropractor which does acupuncture has to use disposable needles
now---by law.


I know that blood and needles are the big offenders. I guess toilet seats
and saliva are not.








"Mark Lipton" > wrote in message
...
> Richard Neidich wrote:
>> Yup. Left field here. Guess the reason my dentist takes the precautions
>> is
>> to avoid getting aids from patients that might have had.
>
> Sure. Any dental procedure that produces blood poses a risk for the
> dentist, although the risk is low. Most of the cases of AIDS contacted
> at work by health practitioners occurs from accidentally sticking
> themselves with a dirty needle. I've always found those cases to be
> mind-boggling: 20 years of labwork using syringes to add all sorts of
> nasty chemicals and never once did I stick myself. I guess that there
> must some damn clumsy med techs and such out there... I also find it
> a bit comical to see the panic that occurs when a basketball player
> starts bleeding: latex gloves come on, play stops, antiseptic wipes are
> applied. You'd have to smear the blood on an open wound to stand any
> chance of contracting AIDS from it, and even then the chances are very
> low for most healthy people.
>
> Mark Lipton
> Crusader for Common Sense

"Richard Neidich" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Disagree that 99.9% of TCA contamination is the result of cork. While I
> cannot prove it is only 25% you cannot prove it is 99.9%.
>
> That said I fully appreciate your offer to defend my opinion on this
> subject. You are entitled to your also.

Chlorine compounds used in cleaning in and around the winery can also
produce TCA. I believe corks have been the boogy man for all too many wine
maladies and probably unjustifiably so. Just my two cents worth. BTW - I
have been making wine for over 40 years and have worked - post
etirement - at a commercial winery.


>
> I guess to some degree personal experience is what I base mine on. The
> majority of the wine I had that I detected TCA in was directly attributed
> to a manufacturing issue according to winemakers when they were contacted.
> BV, Montelena etc.
>
> I am sure if I drank mostly the cheap stuff you had down in NZ I would
> have blamed the cork too :-)
>
>
> "st.helier" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Richard Neidich" wrote ......
>>>
>>> I agree that there are different sensitivities to TCA but the
>>> contamination is not just from cork.
>>>
>>
>> Dick, you are 100% correct - not all TCA contamination is attributable
>> to cork.
>>
>> Just 99.9%.
>>
>> The remaining 0.01% is what you are defending.
>>
>> I will defend your right to defend your opinion - even if it is totally
>> indefensible.
>>
>> --
>>
>> st.helier
>>
>
>

In article > ,
says...
>
>You assumption would be correct for Estate Bottlings. They are not
>necessarily at the winery or even owned. Many a winery on their label
>states Estate bottling but not all are on land that is on or owned by the
>winery. Controlled could mean contracted land. Often times small family
>wineries that own land might even place the land in a LLC-(limited liability
>corporation) and lease to the winery for usage. Therefore NOT the same
>legal entity. There are tax and liability reason for estate planing that
>this is sometimes done.
>
>Secondly Estate wine is not the same as reserve bottlings. Again as in
>previous post its more like the "Free Run Juice" vs pressings at many, but
>not all wineries.
>
>Fairly sure its like the TCA issue------you can imagine its the and due to
>the cork even if its not.
[SNIP]

Dick,

I cannot argue the problems with TCA in the barrel-room, caves, etc. However,
I have encountered it per bottle in all but one instance. Whether in a
restaurant, or at home, I've always had the offending bottle replaced with
another (in my case, usually from the same case) of the same wine, same
vintage, with no additional ill effects. This would indicate to me (totally
random sample here), that the TCA contamination came from the closure or the
bottle, not from someplace else in the process. Only expection was at a dinner
party for ~200, where I encountered about six different (I can only assume "
different," as I informed the catering director of each one, and assume that
she pulled those from the various stations) corked bottles of Ch. St. Michelle
Merlot. I do not know how many cases of this wine the host had provided, but
at least 3 stations poured corked Merlot. I even had the catering director top
up my glass with a corked bottle, while telling me, "you'll like this one, as
it's PERFECT... ". I tried to keep all of our conversations "sub rosa," as I
did not want to imply that our host was serving "bad" wine, or that the
caterer was doing so either. This may have been a case of many bad bottles, or
maybe indicated a problem in the winemaking process, however, there were many
good bottles, same wine, same vintage. A real puzzle to me.

Now, that said, I'm highly sensitive to TCA, but also really like the whole "
cork" aspect - I'm not a Stelvin convert, yet, but do not shy away from them.
My experience just indicates that the closures, or a single bottle variation,
is more of a cause, than something amiss in the cellars.

Hunt

--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

I don't run from Stelvin either. In fact for whites I think it is a great
idea. The whites I buy I drink typically within a year of release.

Red, I am not running from. Both Plumpjacks 1997 one cork the other stelvin
were both good. But they were different. Had I not tried them side by side
I would likely not have noticed much difference. But side by side I did
notice the stelvin was less evolved.

Unfortunatly there are those in this group that don't want to recognize that
there can be differences. The TCA issue I still don't is mostly related to
cork. I think given time you might find more TCA under Stelvin. Thus you
will know the real issue. What are people going to do then...blame the
bottle itself? :-(


"Hunt" > wrote in message
...
> In article > ,
> says...
>>
>>You assumption would be correct for Estate Bottlings. They are not
>>necessarily at the winery or even owned. Many a winery on their label
>>states Estate bottling but not all are on land that is on or owned by the
>>winery. Controlled could mean contracted land. Often times small family
>>wineries that own land might even place the land in a LLC-(limited
>>liability
>>corporation) and lease to the winery for usage. Therefore NOT the same
>>legal entity. There are tax and liability reason for estate planing that
>>this is sometimes done.
>>
>>Secondly Estate wine is not the same as reserve bottlings. Again as in
>>previous post its more like the "Free Run Juice" vs pressings at many, but
>>not all wineries.
>>
>>Fairly sure its like the TCA issue------you can imagine its the and due to
>>the cork even if its not.
> [SNIP]
>
> Dick,
>
> I cannot argue the problems with TCA in the barrel-room, caves, etc.
> However,
> I have encountered it per bottle in all but one instance. Whether in a
> restaurant, or at home, I've always had the offending bottle replaced with
> another (in my case, usually from the same case) of the same wine, same
> vintage, with no additional ill effects. This would indicate to me
> (totally
> random sample here), that the TCA contamination came from the closure or
> the
> bottle, not from someplace else in the process. Only expection was at a
> dinner
> party for ~200, where I encountered about six different (I can only assume
> "
> different," as I informed the catering director of each one, and assume
> that
> she pulled those from the various stations) corked bottles of Ch. St.
> Michelle
> Merlot. I do not know how many cases of this wine the host had provided,
> but
> at least 3 stations poured corked Merlot. I even had the catering director
> top
> up my glass with a corked bottle, while telling me, "you'll like this one,
> as
> it's PERFECT... ". I tried to keep all of our conversations "sub rosa," as
> I
> did not want to imply that our host was serving "bad" wine, or that the
> caterer was doing so either. This may have been a case of many bad
> bottles, or
> maybe indicated a problem in the winemaking process, however, there were
> many
> good bottles, same wine, same vintage. A real puzzle to me.
>
> Now, that said, I'm highly sensitive to TCA, but also really like the
> whole "
> cork" aspect - I'm not a Stelvin convert, yet, but do not shy away from
> them.
> My experience just indicates that the closures, or a single bottle
> variation,
> is more of a cause, than something amiss in the cellars.
>
> Hunt
>
> --
> NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

"Hunt" > wrote in message
...
> In article > ,
> says...
>>
>>You assumption would be correct for Estate Bottlings. They are not
>>necessarily at the winery or even owned. Many a winery on their label
>>states Estate bottling but not all are on land that is on or owned by the
>>winery. Controlled could mean contracted land. Often times small family
>>wineries that own land might even place the land in a LLC-(limited
>>liability
>>corporation) and lease to the winery for usage. Therefore NOT the same
>>legal entity. There are tax and liability reason for estate planing that
>>this is sometimes done.
>>
>>Secondly Estate wine is not the same as reserve bottlings. Again as in
>>previous post its more like the "Free Run Juice" vs pressings at many, but
>>not all wineries.
>>
>>Fairly sure its like the TCA issue------you can imagine its the and due to
>>the cork even if its not.
> [SNIP]
>
> Dick,
>
> I cannot argue the problems with TCA in the barrel-room, caves, etc.
> However,
> I have encountered it per bottle in all but one instance. Whether in a
> restaurant, or at home, I've always had the offending bottle replaced with
> another (in my case, usually from the same case) of the same wine, same
> vintage, with no additional ill effects. This would indicate to me
> (totally
> random sample here), that the TCA contamination came from the closure or
> the
> bottle, not from someplace else in the process. Only expection was at a
> dinner
> party for ~200, where I encountered about six different (I can only assume
> "
> different," as I informed the catering director of each one, and assume
> that
> she pulled those from the various stations) corked bottles of Ch. St.
> Michelle
> Merlot. I do not know how many cases of this wine the host had provided,
> but
> at least 3 stations poured corked Merlot. I even had the catering director
> top
> up my glass with a corked bottle, while telling me, "you'll like this one,
> as
> it's PERFECT... ". I tried to keep all of our conversations "sub rosa," as
> I
> did not want to imply that our host was serving "bad" wine, or that the
> caterer was doing so either. This may have been a case of many bad
> bottles, or
> maybe indicated a problem in the winemaking process, however, there were
> many
> good bottles, same wine, same vintage. A real puzzle to me.
>
> Now, that said, I'm highly sensitive to TCA, but also really like the
> whole "
> cork" aspect - I'm not a Stelvin convert, yet, but do not shy away from
> them.
> My experience just indicates that the closures, or a single bottle
> variation,
> is more of a cause, than something amiss in the cellars.
>
> Hunt
>
> --
> NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

You would be amazed at the bottling process in a commercial winery. They do
not wash or sterilize the bottles prior to filling. I do not know if this
is true for all wineriers but it was true for the small ones with which I
have experience. They may sterile filter the wine that goes into the bottle
but I have seem some visually cruddy botttles that I would not fill. These
were straight from the manufacturer in Mexico. The VERY obvious ones were
culled out but who knows how many were filled that were dirty or
contaminated but not vissually so.

In article >,
says...
>
>
>"Hunt" > wrote in message
...
>> In article > ,
>> says...
[SNIP]
>You would be amazed at the bottling process in a commercial winery. They do
>not wash or sterilize the bottles prior to filling. I do not know if this
>is true for all wineriers but it was true for the small ones with which I
>have experience. They may sterile filter the wine that goes into the bottle
>but I have seem some visually cruddy botttles that I would not fill. These
>were straight from the manufacturer in Mexico. The VERY obvious ones were
>culled out but who knows how many were filled that were dirty or
>contaminated but not vissually so.

And that is certainly one possible explanation for the bottle-to-bottle TCA
taint that I have experienced. With no "control," and only my random samplings
for observation, I do not have a counter for that possibility.

My observation, however, seems to point away from a greater contamination of
the facilities in my observed cases. Because chlorine is used in so many of
the cleaning processes, and seems to be a common thread in TCA contamination,
it could well be responsible for an interaction within the individual bottles.

Thanks for the observations,
Hunt

--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

"Richard Neidich" ....................
>
> Unfortunatly there are those in this group that don't want to recognize
> that there can be differences.

Actually, Dick, even the most ardent supporters of non-cork closures support
your contention - yes, depending on the wine, there definately *are*
differences in both the short and long term..

I have tasted, side by side, same producer same vintage, many NZ Sauvignon
Blancs, Rieslings, Chardonnays, Pinot Noirs and Merlot/Cabernet blends.

I have also been fortunate enough to visit a few Australian wineries and
tasted several wines (shiraz and cabernet sauvignon) bottled over 10 years
(Stelvin and cork).

From my experience, unoaked wines made from Riesling; Gewurztraminer;
Sauvignon Blanc etc *are* negatively affected by cork - a very slight
bitter/oakyness is imparted into the wine, compared to the same wine bottled
under an alternate closure.

White wines which have been either fermented or aged in oak are less
distinguishable from each other (cork vs screwcap) - but like you, I tend
to consume my white wines on the young side - I have never had the
opportunity to comparatively try a 10 year white wine.

What you write about red wines aging "differently" is generally accepted -
yes, even by we Stelvin enthusiasts.

But, I have had experience of very, very good red wines bottled under
Stelvin (yes, I'll admit, consumed quite young) and found them absolutely
delightful - fruit, oak, acid, everything in balance - just as the winemaker
intended.

(And I am talking about one of NZs premium reds, Esk Valley "Terraces" which
sells for $150+.)

The unanimous opinion of those who tried this wine (French, English and
NZers) - tasted against a reputable Cahors was that the NZ wine was better.



> The TCA issue I still don't (think?) is mostly related to cork.

Dick, is environmental TCA or TCA attributable to barrels fact? - Of
course it is !

But you continually quote a couple of the few cases proved - and only in the
USA.

I can categorically state that there has never been one case in NZ where TCA
was present anywhere other than from cork - not one - despite *hundreds* of
wineries experiencing TCA contamination of their wines.

Perhaps you should take a look at this (a US publication)

http://www.wineinstitute.org/communi...tca_facts.html

So, how do you account for TCA contamination in wines which had no contact
with wood?



> I think given time you might find more TCA under Stelvin.


Dick, I know that you are a relatively young man - and that may be a good
thing - I believe that you will have a long wait - and when it comes, (as it
surely will!)there will only need to be one case, and you will stand on the
hill tops crowing "See, I was right all along"

Yes, well, the dementure will mean that tomorrow you will have forgotten
everything, except the sore head when you tripped over your long white
beard. ;-))

--

st.helier

How about the cleanliness of the bottles. Can that cause TCA. If the
bottles are sterilized improperly. Use of Chlorine?

How about the way the wine room is cleaned?

How caves are cleaned?

I know in the case of pine ridge, napa they were cleaning with a sulfer
agent...not chlorine in the caves. They said they changed their methods to
reduce chances of TCA.

wow....

I would imagine there can be many a reason that TCA can have nothing to do
with cork. Which does not mean some TCA is anything but cork.

1) Bottle cleaning-chlorine in water, not sterilized.
2) General cleaning of equipment
3) filling equipement cleaning. First few bottles take the tca with.
etc.

Having run beverage plants finding contamination can be hard. Example years
ago 20 or so that is...one of my companies owned Rolling Rock Beer--(Elders
of Aus--Fosters) was our partner. We tried to market a product that was a
natural sparkling apple juice under the name of Appletise. Big in South
Africa and parts of Europe. We had problems with a mold that was growing in
select bottles in our plant. But not all off the bottles. 1 out of 3000. We
had a sterilization process for all bottles to be cleaned before packaging.
The mold issue caused us to bring back several hundred thousand cases for
inspection. We could not find a pattern. Took us a while to find that in
the building we had a leak in a pipe that was slow and dripped due to
condensation in the winter. We needed more insulation on a pipe. The drops
were so slow that it did not seem to wet the floor or equipment.. But hit a
few bottles each week. Took our engineers months to find. What can I say.
The mold was not visible for weeks after packaging. We lost our shirts on
Appletise as we could not get the quality right and the spanish green apples
we used were expensive. The locals in USA were not use to this kind of
product. Quality issues that never reached the consumer remained a problem.
We did not have same problem with the beer production. The room to bottles
were stored in is where the problem was detected.

Not all problems are what they appear at first.




"st.helier" > wrote in message
...
> "Richard Neidich" ....................
>>
>> Unfortunatly there are those in this group that don't want to recognize
>> that there can be differences.
>
> Actually, Dick, even the most ardent supporters of non-cork closures
> support your contention - yes, depending on the wine, there definately
> *are* differences in both the short and long term..
>
> I have tasted, side by side, same producer same vintage, many NZ Sauvignon
> Blancs, Rieslings, Chardonnays, Pinot Noirs and Merlot/Cabernet blends.
>
> I have also been fortunate enough to visit a few Australian wineries and
> tasted several wines (shiraz and cabernet sauvignon) bottled over 10 years
> (Stelvin and cork).
>
> From my experience, unoaked wines made from Riesling; Gewurztraminer;
> Sauvignon Blanc etc *are* negatively affected by cork - a very slight
> bitter/oakyness is imparted into the wine, compared to the same wine
> bottled under an alternate closure.
>
> White wines which have been either fermented or aged in oak are less
> distinguishable from each other (cork vs screwcap) - but like you, I
> tend to consume my white wines on the young side - I have never had the
> opportunity to comparatively try a 10 year white wine.
>
> What you write about red wines aging "differently" is generally accepted -
> yes, even by we Stelvin enthusiasts.
>
> But, I have had experience of very, very good red wines bottled under
> Stelvin (yes, I'll admit, consumed quite young) and found them absolutely
> delightful - fruit, oak, acid, everything in balance - just as the
> winemaker intended.
>
> (And I am talking about one of NZs premium reds, Esk Valley "Terraces"
> which sells for $150+.)
>
> The unanimous opinion of those who tried this wine (French, English and
> NZers) - tasted against a reputable Cahors was that the NZ wine was
> better.
>
>
>
>> The TCA issue I still don't (think?) is mostly related to cork.
>
> Dick, is environmental TCA or TCA attributable to barrels fact? - Of
> course it is !
>
> But you continually quote a couple of the few cases proved - and only in
> the USA.
>
> I can categorically state that there has never been one case in NZ where
> TCA was present anywhere other than from cork - not one - despite
> *hundreds* of wineries experiencing TCA contamination of their wines.
>
> Perhaps you should take a look at this (a US publication)
>
> http://www.wineinstitute.org/communi...tca_facts.html
>
> So, how do you account for TCA contamination in wines which had no contact
> with wood?
>
>
>
>> I think given time you might find more TCA under Stelvin.
>
>
> Dick, I know that you are a relatively young man - and that may be a good
> thing - I believe that you will have a long wait - and when it comes, (as
> it surely will!)there will only need to be one case, and you will stand on
> the hill tops crowing "See, I was right all along"
>
> Yes, well, the dementure will mean that tomorrow you will have forgotten
> everything, except the sore head when you tripped over your long white
> beard. ;-))
>
> --
>
> st.helier
>
>
>
>

"Richard Neidich" wrote ......
>
> How about the cleanliness of the bottles. Can that cause TCA?
> If the bottles are sterilized improperly. Use of Chlorine?> How about the
> way the wine room is cleaned?> How caves are cleaned?
>

Dick, first and foremost, I am *not* a chemist - but I did scrape through at
high school.

And some/all of your suggested sources of TCA *may* be quite feasible -
possible even probable; although in the absence of wood or fungus I doubt
it!

My first hand experience is two fold - as marketing manager for a small
winery here in NZ - and as a consumer of wines over a period of some 40
years.

The wine making operation I worked for was small - so when it came to
harvest, I was on the secutures or on the tractor.

In the winery, I was the winemakers "gopher" - I shovelled my share of seeds
'n skins; I cleaned my share of tanks and barrels; hell, I even plunged my
share of caps when the winemaker was taking time out Sunday morning church.

So, do I know much about the chemical structure of 2,4,6
richloroanisole? - Nope; 2/5 of 5/8 of bugger all (excuse the kiwi-ism).

But here is what I do know.

Complex chemical mechanisms underlie the production of TCA.

One of most importance is the conversion of chlorophenols to chloroanisole
by common microscopic fungi such as Aspergillus sp. and Pennicilium sp., in
the presence of moisture. Chlorophenols have been used as pesticides and as
wood preservatives and as such are common environmental pollutants. The
uptake of the minutest amounts of chlorophenol by cork tree bark during any
stage of its growth, or subsequent manufacture into cork will provide the
potential for cork taint production.

Cork bleaching with hyperchlorite (less frequently used now, peroxide
bleaching is now favoured), also provide a ready source of chlorophenols for
use by these micro-organisms. TCA can also be formed in packing materials
and wooden shipping container floors. It can then pass either through the
air or by direct contact to previously unaffected corks.

While the exact incidence of cork taint in wine is hotly debated, estimates
range from one to ten per cent (some say more!).

Australian Wine Research Institute records of the incidence of cork taint
seen by winemakers in thousands of bottles of wines opened as part of their
Advanced Wine Assessment Course suggest that the figure is around five per
cent.

My personal experience (and I am not super-sensitive to TCA) is somewhat
less than that - around 4%.

The question of whether a wine is corked is also complicated by the fact
that the same taints can arise not from the cork but from wine storage in
TCA-affected oak barrels or environmental sources; cellars, caves etc.

Notwithstanding, it is my contention that if TCA contamination came from a
source other than cork, the problem would not be spasmodic - huge number
of bottles would be affected - whole bottling runs - not just isolated
bottles.

The wine from a single badly contaminated barrel when blended with hundreds
of others, will significantly affect the entire blend, such is the potency
of these compounds.

My personal experience in NZ and Australia is that 4 bottles in every 100
are "corked" - so that rules out wholesale contamination of a whole
inery - and would mean that TCA contamination of wines bottled under
Stelvin - something which, despite my drinking *hundreds* of bottles
(thousands including my friends and associates) bottled under screwcap or
other alternate closures, I have never encountered one TCA infected wine.

So will it happen - TCA contamination of wine bottled under an alternate
closure - yes; absolutely.

But when it does, it will not be the isolated bottle - it will be a whole
batch - dozens or hundreds of dozens of bottles - a huge "Dunkirk".

But don't hold your breath waiting !!! :-)))

--

st.helier

I have tried and had ordered the Temata wines to try from NZ.

Turns out I could not get locally, could not get from my favorite place in
Chapel Hill.

I contacted the importer they indicated the USA gets such a small amount.

I contacted a place in Los Angeles. Placed order, they responded back that
there really was non in inventory. Web site was not accurate.

I really wanted to try this. The imported also said that there is a Aus
Shiraz that I could get called Turkey Flat. Are you familiar?


"st.helier" > wrote in message
...
> "Richard Neidich" wrote ......
>>
>> How about the cleanliness of the bottles. Can that cause TCA?
>> If the bottles are sterilized improperly. Use of Chlorine?> How about
>> the way the wine room is cleaned?> How caves are cleaned?
>>
>
> Dick, first and foremost, I am *not* a chemist - but I did scrape through
> at high school.
>
> And some/all of your suggested sources of TCA *may* be quite feasible -
> possible even probable; although in the absence of wood or fungus I doubt
> it!
>
> My first hand experience is two fold - as marketing manager for a small
> winery here in NZ - and as a consumer of wines over a period of some 40
> years.
>
> The wine making operation I worked for was small - so when it came to
> harvest, I was on the secutures or on the tractor.
>
> In the winery, I was the winemakers "gopher" - I shovelled my share of
> seeds 'n skins; I cleaned my share of tanks and barrels; hell, I even
> plunged my share of caps when the winemaker was taking time out Sunday
> morning church.
>
> So, do I know much about the chemical structure of 2,4,6
> ichloroanisole? - Nope; 2/5 of 5/8 of bugger all (excuse the kiwi-ism).
>
> But here is what I do know.
>
> Complex chemical mechanisms underlie the production of TCA.
>
> One of most importance is the conversion of chlorophenols to chloroanisole
> by common microscopic fungi such as Aspergillus sp. and Pennicilium sp.,
> in the presence of moisture. Chlorophenols have been used as pesticides
> and as wood preservatives and as such are common environmental pollutants.
> The uptake of the minutest amounts of chlorophenol by cork tree bark
> during any stage of its growth, or subsequent manufacture into cork will
> provide the potential for cork taint production.
>
> Cork bleaching with hyperchlorite (less frequently used now, peroxide
> bleaching is now favoured), also provide a ready source of chlorophenols
> for use by these micro-organisms. TCA can also be formed in packing
> materials and wooden shipping container floors. It can then pass either
> through the air or by direct contact to previously unaffected corks.
>
> While the exact incidence of cork taint in wine is hotly debated,
> estimates range from one to ten per cent (some say more!).
>
> Australian Wine Research Institute records of the incidence of cork taint
> seen by winemakers in thousands of bottles of wines opened as part of
> their Advanced Wine Assessment Course suggest that the figure is around
> five per cent.
>
> My personal experience (and I am not super-sensitive to TCA) is somewhat
> less than that - around 4%.
>
> The question of whether a wine is corked is also complicated by the fact
> that the same taints can arise not from the cork but from wine storage in
> TCA-affected oak barrels or environmental sources; cellars, caves etc.
>
> Notwithstanding, it is my contention that if TCA contamination came from a
> source other than cork, the problem would not be spasmodic - huge number
> of bottles would be affected - whole bottling runs - not just isolated
> bottles.
>
> The wine from a single badly contaminated barrel when blended with
> hundreds of others, will significantly affect the entire blend, such is
> the potency of these compounds.
>
> My personal experience in NZ and Australia is that 4 bottles in every 100
> are "corked" - so that rules out wholesale contamination of a whole
> inery - and would mean that TCA contamination of wines bottled under
> Stelvin - something which, despite my drinking *hundreds* of bottles
> (thousands including my friends and associates) bottled under screwcap or
> other alternate closures, I have never encountered one TCA infected wine.
>
> So will it happen - TCA contamination of wine bottled under an alternate
> closure - yes; absolutely.
>
> But when it does, it will not be the isolated bottle - it will be a
> whole batch - dozens or hundreds of dozens of bottles - a huge
> "Dunkirk".
>
> But don't hold your breath waiting !!! :-)))
>
> --
>
> st.helier
>

"st.helier" > wrote in message
...
> "Richard Neidich" wrote ......
>>
>> How about the cleanliness of the bottles. Can that cause TCA?
>> If the bottles are sterilized improperly. Use of Chlorine?> How about
>> the way the wine room is cleaned?> How caves are cleaned?
>>
>
> Dick, first and foremost, I am *not* a chemist - but I did scrape through
> at high school.
>
> And some/all of your suggested sources of TCA *may* be quite feasible -
> possible even probable; although in the absence of wood or fungus I doubt
> it!
>
> My first hand experience is two fold - as marketing manager for a small
> winery here in NZ - and as a consumer of wines over a period of some 40
> years.
>
> The wine making operation I worked for was small - so when it came to
> harvest, I was on the secutures or on the tractor.
>
> In the winery, I was the winemakers "gopher" - I shovelled my share of
> seeds 'n skins; I cleaned my share of tanks and barrels; hell, I even
> plunged my share of caps when the winemaker was taking time out Sunday
> morning church.
>
> So, do I know much about the chemical structure of 2,4,6
> ichloroanisole? - Nope; 2/5 of 5/8 of bugger all (excuse the kiwi-ism).
>
> But here is what I do know.
>
> Complex chemical mechanisms underlie the production of TCA.
>
> One of most importance is the conversion of chlorophenols to chloroanisole
> by common microscopic fungi such as Aspergillus sp. and Pennicilium sp.,
> in the presence of moisture. Chlorophenols have been used as pesticides
> and as wood preservatives and as such are common environmental pollutants.
> The uptake of the minutest amounts of chlorophenol by cork tree bark
> during any stage of its growth, or subsequent manufacture into cork will
> provide the potential for cork taint production.
>
> Cork bleaching with hyperchlorite (less frequently used now, peroxide
> bleaching is now favoured), also provide a ready source of chlorophenols
> for use by these micro-organisms. TCA can also be formed in packing
> materials and wooden shipping container floors. It can then pass either
> through the air or by direct contact to previously unaffected corks.
>
> While the exact incidence of cork taint in wine is hotly debated,
> estimates range from one to ten per cent (some say more!).
>
> Australian Wine Research Institute records of the incidence of cork taint
> seen by winemakers in thousands of bottles of wines opened as part of
> their Advanced Wine Assessment Course suggest that the figure is around
> five per cent.
>
> My personal experience (and I am not super-sensitive to TCA) is somewhat
> less than that - around 4%.
>
> The question of whether a wine is corked is also complicated by the fact
> that the same taints can arise not from the cork but from wine storage in
> TCA-affected oak barrels or environmental sources; cellars, caves etc.
>
> Notwithstanding, it is my contention that if TCA contamination came from a
> source other than cork, the problem would not be spasmodic - huge number
> of bottles would be affected - whole bottling runs - not just isolated
> bottles.
>
> The wine from a single badly contaminated barrel when blended with
> hundreds of others, will significantly affect the entire blend, such is
> the potency of these compounds.
>
> My personal experience in NZ and Australia is that 4 bottles in every 100
> are "corked" - so that rules out wholesale contamination of a whole
> inery - and would mean that TCA contamination of wines bottled under
> Stelvin - something which, despite my drinking *hundreds* of bottles
> (thousands including my friends and associates) bottled under screwcap or
> other alternate closures, I have never encountered one TCA infected wine.
>
> So will it happen - TCA contamination of wine bottled under an alternate
> closure - yes; absolutely.
>
> But when it does, it will not be the isolated bottle - it will be a
> whole batch - dozens or hundreds of dozens of bottles - a huge
> "Dunkirk".
>
> But don't hold your breath waiting !!! :-)))
>
> --
>
> st.helier

Just curious, st. helier. I also worked at what is commonly termed here in
the US as a "Cellar Rat" - most of the work but non of the glory and
"mystic" of the godly winemaker.

As stated in one of my previous posts, the small winery in which I worked
and my familiarity of other such winery operations indicated they did / do
"NOTHING" to the bottles prior to bottling. The bottles were manufactured
in Mexico (which is not known for strict sanitary controls) and immediately
filled with wine.

Is this (bottling without sanitizing bottles) a common practice in NZ or do
you have more hygenic procedures. Bottling "as is", could, in my opinion,
contribute to sporadic TCA or other defects called TCA. Also, I think that
TCA might be a catch all term for any and all defects. I believe it would
actually take a chemical analysis to determine if TCA were indeed the cause
of the defect. You sound as if you have much more experience in this area
than I and I would appreciate your comments.

"Dionysus" asked ............
>
> As stated in one of my previous posts, the small winery in which I worked
> and my familiarity of other such winery operations indicated they did / do
> "NOTHING" to the bottles prior to bottling. The bottles were manufactured
> in Mexico (which is not known for strict sanitary controls) and
> immediately filled with wine.
>
> Is this (bottling without sanitizing bottles) a common practice in NZ or
> do you have more hygenic procedures. Bottling "as is", could, in my
> opinion, contribute to sporadic TCA or other defects called TCA. Also, I
> think that TCA might be a catch all term for any and all defects. I
> believe it would actually take a chemical analysis to determine if TCA
> were indeed the cause of the defect. You sound as if you have much more
> experience in this area than I and I would appreciate your comments.

Oh my gawd - I am gobsmacked !!!

Every bottling plant / line which I have been associated with has a washing
plant which washes and rinses bottles in *hot* water immediately prior to
bottling - even brand spanking new bottles, straight from the production
line will be washed and semi-sterilised.

Again, I reiterate, I am no expert on the proliferation of TCA but it is my
understanding that there needs to be both fungus etc plus moisture for 2,4,6
trichloroanisole to *spawn*

And I certainly cannot speak for the rest of the world.

** Help Professor Lipton !!!!!!**

--

st.helier