Re: Can red wines live under screwcaps? Tyson Stelzer.
Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:49 pm
"Point 18 might primarily apply to winemakers/producers, sure, but good cost control doesn't just keep costs in control (although that's a good thing, because lower production costs might generate lower sales prices to a smart company). Good cost control also signals a company pays attention to quality control as well."
I certainly agree in principle, Hoke, but I wonder if anyone has really determined whether switching from cork to screw top results in lower costs to the winemaker. I've seen bits and pieces of the analysis, but nothing comprehensive.
For me, the fundamental problem with corks from a cost point of view is the 8 to 10% of tainted wine and the additional wines in which fruit is destroyed by TCA. That cost is borne primarily by consumers, in their pocket and in lost pleasure.
"The other point is not terribly baffling either...if you consider that such properties as Chateau Lafite Rothschild and Chateau Latour Pauillac arrange world tours every so many years offering to pull the old corks out of owner's bottles, topping with wine from the chateau cellars, and recorking with new corks. Because even the great Chateaux will tell you that corks have a finite life cycle and do deteriorate at certain ages."
I'll defer to no body in the my ability to be baffled, Hoke and Ian, but in this case I considered that recorking busines and rejected it -- after reconsideration, it still seems make weight -- or perhaps a valiant effort to get to 20 arguments.
I seriously doubt that any of the big wines selling these days well north of $300 to $400 a bottle will move from cork to screw top for this reason. For one, any savings are going to be at least 20 to 25 years in the future. For a second, the recorking programs are delightful marketing gimmicks -- I've attended two of the "ceremonies" and both were well publicized and made lots of friends for the wineries in question. If anything, I think this is a pretty good argument for using cork and continuing a compelling marketing strategy.
I spent a bit of time trying to think of what else that point meant -- and failed -- hence
CONTINUED BAFFLEMENT.
Regards, Bob
I certainly agree in principle, Hoke, but I wonder if anyone has really determined whether switching from cork to screw top results in lower costs to the winemaker. I've seen bits and pieces of the analysis, but nothing comprehensive.
For me, the fundamental problem with corks from a cost point of view is the 8 to 10% of tainted wine and the additional wines in which fruit is destroyed by TCA. That cost is borne primarily by consumers, in their pocket and in lost pleasure.
"The other point is not terribly baffling either...if you consider that such properties as Chateau Lafite Rothschild and Chateau Latour Pauillac arrange world tours every so many years offering to pull the old corks out of owner's bottles, topping with wine from the chateau cellars, and recorking with new corks. Because even the great Chateaux will tell you that corks have a finite life cycle and do deteriorate at certain ages."
I'll defer to no body in the my ability to be baffled, Hoke and Ian, but in this case I considered that recorking busines and rejected it -- after reconsideration, it still seems make weight -- or perhaps a valiant effort to get to 20 arguments.
I seriously doubt that any of the big wines selling these days well north of $300 to $400 a bottle will move from cork to screw top for this reason. For one, any savings are going to be at least 20 to 25 years in the future. For a second, the recorking programs are delightful marketing gimmicks -- I've attended two of the "ceremonies" and both were well publicized and made lots of friends for the wineries in question. If anything, I think this is a pretty good argument for using cork and continuing a compelling marketing strategy.
I spent a bit of time trying to think of what else that point meant -- and failed -- hence
CONTINUED BAFFLEMENT.
Regards, Bob