DIAM is no longer the only game in town for supercritical CO2 treated agglomerated corks. Trefinos claims the same treatment process. I used DIAM 10s very happily for 5 vintages and switched to Trefinos C3 (supposedly on par with DIAM 10 on OTR) last year. So far, so good with both. I gave Trefinos a try, initially, because they were less expensive and more flexible on printing shorter runs. Trefinos claims a higher cork to binder ratio, and I can confirm that they are texturally closer to natural corks. They are much easier to re-insert in an opened bottle, for instance. It’s too early to say much about either brand, but I did bottle a case each of several lots with both closures, and I’ll check them over time.
Are there independent permeability tests on these that could be compared with DIAM?
Every bottle I have tasted with Diam has been nothing but fresh tasting. My sampling has not included any old bottles but I am liking the results.
I would love to see wineries list that they are using DIAM on the bottle label or capsule. If you are not familiar with a producers regimen it might then inspire confidence on the part of the consumer to make a purchase.
Thank you for the article Bill. Evaluating a full switch to DIAM also and its looking eminent. Not to thread drift to far, but a consideration for us is not just the DIAM side…I think you also have to look at the quality of cork now available. I simply do not think the cork is anything near the quality of what it used to be (speaking across the board). Thus the argument of cork as the tried and true just doesnt mean the same to me as it used to. My experience (albeit somewhat limited) is that you have to spend more $$ and move higher up the cork quality scale each year just to maintain the same level of quality. Is this a true cork problem or a $$ making effort…I dont know. Does it impact Coche…probably not, but it does impact some.
i am always surprised how bad some of the corks are, even the ones used by ‘cult’ producers. i just looked at one from a 2009 roulot charmes and it is quite poor quality, something i would expect for a bourgogne blanc. kudos to all the producers like the entes who are constantly sourcing some of the finest corks i have seen. i have also been less than impressed by the corks of dujac. i would be quite pleased if more producers in reds and whites switched to diam, unless they can maintain a cork source of the highest standard.
There is pretty much where I stand on the issue, especially for whites. The best corks I see in contemporary Burgundy are Coche-Dury and d’Auvenay (F Sagrera), DRC (not sure of the supplier), and Ente, Bruno Lorenzon and Fabien Duperray (all Lafitte [no relation] if I’m not mistaken). Just aesthetically, Coche’s corks, with their unblemished so-called mirror face in contact with the wine, at the most pleasing—but it is easy for them to get the mirror face down since they have been bottling by hand. (Incidentally, Sagrera is now supplying corks of Coche quality to Pierre Overnoy / Houillon in the Jura). Of these producers, DRC is the only one that has had serious premox issues… perhaps not a coincidence.
PYCM wines have excellent long corks as well. I have met Pierre-Yves’ cork supplier and he is very adamant about getting the very best quality cork.
Also F Sagrera!
So here’s an honest question about DIAMs and remaining ‘fresher’, and this has been somewhat answered but not entirely - those who are saying that these wines are remaining ‘fresher’, are you finding them still showing expected’ development’ over time?
Screw caps have been panned by many because some feel they do exactly this - keep things fresh but lack secondary and tertiary development (of course, this is not true but is also dependent upon the liner used).
Also, where also in the world are expectations in general that chardonnay-based wines will age beautifully for decades? An honest question . . .
Cheers.
Larry - you might want to have a chat with David Ramey. He’s been using DIAM for a number of years.
We have used mostly DIAM since 2014. I have worked a bit the past 2-3 vintages with a producer of natural cork that has as part if it’s lineup a cork that they test at an individual level and claim to have TCA levels at that of DIAM. This does not address potential PM issues but the corks are extremely high quality and very expensive. More than 2x the cost of D30s. I don’t think that pulling out a 2014 is going to tell one much about the aging process vis a vis the cork but I certainly have not had problematic issues with DIAM. They’re consistent as hell which is really nice when you’re bottling, there’s no cork dust in the bag which is really nice, there are zero corked wines which is really awesome and they seem to be a company that is responsive to their customers’ input (I had one issue once that is somewhat technical in nature so I won’t get into it but suffice it to say they took care of business quickly). I’m still working with the expensive natural cork because in my heart of hearts that is what I would prefer to work with but it has hard to argue against 5.5 vintages (2019 whites are bottled) of performance.
Jim,
Just one opinion - has there ever been research to show that the more expensive the cork is, the lower the percentage of TCA occurrence happens? Really curious about this.
And David, good call. He certainly has lots of experience and I will reach out to him as well.
Cheers
No. Bought plenty of expensive cork that was just regular cork that looked nice. The one I am referencing here is expensive at least in part to the time and tech that goes into the process of identifying TCA and removing the offending pieces. While it has been a small sample size I believe (off the top of my head) I have used between 8-22,000/vintage since the 2016 vintage. In tracking the specific wines bottled with it not seeing any evidence of a higher rate of cork than DIAM. That they’re natural cork is a price I’m willing to pay for a portion of our run. Not really viable across the board as it would increase cork cost by close to 6 figures/vintage.
I compared multiple vintages, with Clotilde Davenne, of Chablis and Chablis 1er cru - screw-cap versus cork. She bottles both from the same tank with the same sulfur regime. It’s not yet a free to all report, but effectively, if you discount the multiple corked bottles(!!), then it was a narrow 4-3 win to screwcaps over cork - plus a number of ‘draws’ where I had no preference - though I’m not saying that the wines were the same!
Take the first result with corked bottles and it was a much bigger win for screwcap. What I hadn’t expected was the consistent textural difference - all the wines, screwed or not screwed (sorry…), developed in good way, but the cork-sealed wines, in practically every case had a little extra textural fat and silk. I’ve no explanation, but it was very consistent. Texturally, even if not overall, I usually preferred the cork-sealed bottles, but clearly not the 3 corked ones!
Bill,
Thank you. Curious - did you compare the two different bottlings blind or did you know which was which?
Cheers.
Jim, we have our corks screened for TCA also and the incidence of TCA has been near zero. Small sample size, but that has been my experience. They are pricey as hell.
I believe Lafitte also supplies DRC.
Heard back from a friend that DRC have quite a few different suppliers - Lafitte likely among them.
Why are there so few data points. There are a number of wineries that have been using DIAM for at least 10 years on wines and some that have been using DIAM even longer?