There are clearly some interesting things present in natural cork that may have positive interactions with the wine over time, but this is poorly understood. And then there is also the fact that corks release oxygen into the wine in a very nonlinear fashion, as I understand it unlike any permeable technical closure, whether DIAM or something else. But again, this is not that well understood either.
Amidst all the understandable criticism of natural cork in this thread, it is also worth observing that there are producers who use natural cork who also have superb premox track records: Coche-Dury and d’Auvenay/Leroy (who have pretty much zero oxidation issues), and Raveneau and PYCM (who have very few indeed).
The interesting question that remains for me in all of this is how the wines age under Diam (or screw cap, for that matter). Being free of TCA or Premox is huge, but the experience we’re all seeking is the 15 year old white burg that has aged into the astounding thing that didn’t exist at 2-3 years of age. Bill addresses this somewhat in his following FEvre domain chablis tasting, but realistically not all of us have experienced a 15 year old white under diam. Some of the aging character if a white burg is simply just age, but some is slow controlled small amounts of oxidation.
It is going to be interesting to see how these wines age. Personally I’m not entirely sure if I want my high end whites under Diam 30’s. Maybe they will age into what I want better under 5’s or 10’s.
Still doesn’t make sense how natural corks could be the cause of the Burgundy pre-mox problem, given that this problem isn’t the same everywhere else in the wine-making world. It’s not like something deleterious happens to the corks simply by virtue of being located in Burgundy. If it was the corks, it seems the same problem would be experienced every where else in the world these corks are used. And, if it is happening everywhere to the same extent, that’s news to me.
Thanks for posting the article, Bill — it’s an excellent read. One question: in the box re: oxygen ingress rates of the various Diam corks, it appears that you have Diam30 listed twice, with different ingress rates. Or did I not read that graphic correctly?
Have you not followed the many discussions of this? It seems that the reason Burgundy was particularly plagued has to do with changes in winemaking – including riper fruit with lower acid levels, reduced use of sulfur, more gentle pressing that reduced phenoloics – that together made the wine more vulnerable to oxidation. The variability of corks explains the inconsistency bottle to bottle in the same lot.
I opened a 2010 Calabretto Nerello Mascalese IGT Sicilia this evening with a Nomacork. (It looked like a natural cork. My Rabbit was not happy.)
There was a trace of something oxidative on the nose when I popped the cork, but no more than I’d expect from a 10-year-old nerello mascalese, and that blew off to leave a very firm, tannic wine.
Does it happen everywhere? For it to be the corks, it would have to happen everywhere those corks are used, no?
ETA: I acknowledge John’s post #25. I’ve followed this topic “somewhat.” I gave-up on buying White Burgundy right as I was starting into it, precisely because of pre-mox, so I’ve never had any skin in the game, so to speak. While the DIAM corks may be solving the “Burgundy pre-mox problem” (yay!), it seems the blame therefore is misplaced to the extent it is blamed on corks. And, just to get ahead of an anticipated response: Yes, I acknowledge a certain degree of pre-mox everywhere due to natural cork failure, but that problem differs from the more pervasive “Burgundy pre-mox problem” at issue here, and the two should not be conflated.
Premox is not restricted to Chardonnay or Burgundy. We had problems with premox in Australia throughout the 90’s with Riesling and Semillon. Almost on mass the industry changed from cork to screwcap around 2002-2004. No premox problems now.
FWIW, while I’m a supporter of screwcaps in general, I have found examples where development has NOT been as (positive as) under cork. Leeuwin Art Series Chardonnay is a good example, with vintages from the 90s and early 00s under cork having developed (to my taste) in a direction that makes them very hard to identify as “new world”. A recent 2003 (screwcap) OTOH was screamingly new world, and stylistically a long way from earlier vintages at 15+ years (in a way I do not prefer). Now, it’s possible the 2003 simply needs more time, or there was a distinct change in winemaking anyway, but I think it’s more likely the change in closure is having a marked impact on the stylistic expression of the wine after aging. I hope I’m wrong !
I know. But is the Premox problem the same everywhere as it is in Burgundy? It seems the answer would have to be “yes” for corks to be the cause of the Burgundy premox problem, no? That just strikes me as basic Science, but maybe I’m missing something — I’m not a professional scientist by any stretch of the imagination.
When I say “everywhere,” I intend for that to mean “everywhere that uses the same corks as are/have been/were used in Burgundy.”
Put another way (which may be clearer): If the corks are/were the problem in Burgundy, then why aren’t they causing the same problem everywhere they are used?
No, this doesn’t follow. It ISN"T the corks alone, as discussed many many times now. It is the corks (controlling O2 ingress) interacting with other factors. Again, again, closures can “fix” it by limiting O2, whatever happened in the winery. But with natural corks, then you bring into play all of the other effects in the winemarking (sulfur, battonage, malolactic fermentation).
No, corks alone aren’t the problem. They appear to be a necessary but not sufficient condition. They allow varying amounts of oxygen in.
I named three factors above that are suspected of making wines more vulnerable to oxygen coming into the bottle through corks (lower acid, gentler pressing, less sulfur). Warmer vintages and a choice to use less sulfur could easily explain the problems in other regions. In Burgundy, the changes in presses and other things seem to have compounded matters.
Hi Brian. I have never believed that cork is the base cause; the extra, and inconsistent, oxygen ingress that is inescapable with cork simply emphasises the inherently lower stability (to oxidation) of taday’s wines versus 30 years ago - remember, 1996 is already 25 years ago and white burgundy still sells like hotcakes. On this latter point I assume this reflects the relative youth with which most wine is drunk… You may note that I wrote that it would be sad if research to get to the bottom of this higher sensitivity to oxidation were abandoned if diams (as they seem to do) paper over the cracks at the retail level.
I think if you re-read that, you will note that one is diam origine 30 (with the higher transport rate) and the other diam (not origine) 30 with a lower transport rate.
Hi William. It is often said. However, they are producers with vanishingly little relevance to the general market - certainly your first two domaines - and wrt to the first on your list, anecdotally, others tell me different, even though I’ve never had a bad one.
This nails it 100%. Given DIAM is the thing how does things age under it. I guess we will know in a few years. A point worth noting IMHO is that this could lead to a change in our perception of how a wine could age. Now we all know how they should (well if you were lucky to taste enough samples). We are hoping ageing under DIAM will be of similar nature. Let’s see but we could in for a suprise.
Re DIAM 30/10/5, I am advocating to use it in reverse order: 30 for what you need to keep fresh for longer, i.e. mid-to-low end and 10/5 for the top end (usually more structured wines that would benefit for some evolution). This assumes that 30 is much less permeable than normal cork with 5 being similar to cork. I don’t have those data on hand (will try to look at them online after I finish typing).
From personal experience on some Barbaresco producer, DIAM keeps the wines fresher for longer. 10/30 vs similar bottle under cork have a much slower ageing rate. I am not sure I want this. Again difficult topic with v few data points.
My point was rather to reinforce your remark about DIAM “papering over the cracks”!
As for premox chez Coche-Dury, I’m guessing we may have both heard the same anecdotes from the same UK-based wine lover, focussing on the 2007 and 2005 vintages. But like you, I never had a bad bottle from either of those vintages (and I must have drunk five or six of each in the last 18 months), or met anyone else who did. I also have a Norwegian friend who had a premoxed bottle of 2011. If the question is whether Coche has more oxidation post 1996 than before, I would personally still feel confident in answering a resounding “no”.
The 2011 Guffens-Heynen wines were bottled under DIAM 30 and they are aging magnificently, and taking on the sort of patina we look for in maturing white Burgundy. I had the 2011 Pouilly-Fuissé Tri des Hauts des Vignes from my cellar last month and it was just stunning, dominating a 2013 Ramonet Bienvenues.
Not a Grand Cru, but I had the 2007 Fevre Montmains recently and that was showing beautifully. This was a Diam 5 cork. Aging very gracefully, basically everything you would want in a Premier Cru Chablis with 13 years of bottle age.
!