Comments on: “Closure” afterthoughts

By: John M. Kelly

John M. Kelly — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 00:07:27 +0000

I think consumers judge whether or not a wine is “cheap” more by the price tag (duh, John) than by the type of closure. IMHO, resistance to alternatives comes more from within the industry than from the consumer side.

And this resistance is not entirely without foundation. I have been posting about bark corks vs. alternatives for years, since I was involved in some early studies of wine aging under synthetic stoppers (proprietary and industry-funded).

Shorter my position: Most synthetic stoppers are not suitable for long conservation of wine. Screw caps are the best choice for long conservation as they out-perform bark corks with respect to rates of oxygen ingress (as cited above). IMO wines will age under screw cap, but they will not age in the same manner as they do under bark. Some folks attribute this to differences in rates of oxygen ingress – but they forget that wine extracts “good stuff” from bark corks, including phenolic materials that affect aroma and structure on the palate, and provide a degree of protection from oxidation. This beneficial extraction is lacking in screw-cap aging.

I choose to continue to use real bark cork (not built-up cork stoppers – another subject) to close my wines, in spite of the still non-zero rate of taint. Even though it hurts sometimes: after months and months of good bottles I have opened three “corked” bottles of my own wine in the last week. Bad luck.

By: Arthur

Arthur — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:14:46 +0000

Thanks for dropping by R.L.
If by assumptions you are referring to my statement about how consumers perceive wine (at times by proxy of the packaging), then I have to say that I have heard numerous wine makers express reservations about using synthetic closures, citing the public’s perception of wines closed this way as “cheap”. Insofar as where there’s smoke, there is fire, I don’t think that it’s unfounded to expect some portion of consumers to have this perception. The presence of websites like this: http://tinyurl.com/bmgxsn are testimony to a real confusion (or ignorance) about alternative closures on the part of the consumer.

Additionally, closures are part of packaging and thus affect consumer packaging as much as label art does. This is particularly true with screw caps which are the most visible closure available. The flip-side of my argument could be exemplified by wines whose neck tops are dipped in wax. Certainly, those conjure up different notions of the stuff in the bottle than a screw cap does.

I welcome are collaboration on alternative closure education.

By: R. L. Anderson, Jr.

R. L. Anderson, Jr. — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 23:01:39 +0000

Yes, your last Friday post was cryptic perhaps generating a higher readership traffic-reaction? Today, your post although more specific is filled with assumptions about closures. Significant FACT-based consumer research has been conducted by EACH of the major synthetic, screw-cap, and tree-bark cork closure manufactures; many times in conjunction with the large global commercial wineries. I urge you to contact these industry leading entities and assemble and summarize their findings. I think what you will find is that there is no meaningful consumer bias against “alternative closures” (vs. “traditional closure”). Most people continue to select their wine based on colour, varietal type, price, and external packaging. The closure ONLY really seems to matter if it is difficult to extract, re-insert, leakes when the bottle lies down, or the wine is somehow flawed (NOT necessarily a closure caused flaw). I applaud your call for consumer education on the subject and encourage you to take action on the matter. Good luck!

By: wine sooth » Blog Archive » No Closure

wine sooth » Blog Archive » No Closure — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:59:37 +0000

[...] post with follow discussion of this tasting is found here. addthis_pub = ‘redwinebuzz’; addthis_logo = ‘http://www.redwinebuzz.com/rwblogosml.PNG'; [...]