Heard the ads on radio in which the wine (the sexy voice) claims it’s ready to be enjoyed now it’s been matured for long enough on a cork and is now ready to drink? Read some of the constant public harping in the media about how cork taint is (i) all in the mind, (ii) only in Australia, or (iii) out of control? Ever wondered what it’s all about? It’s a difficult argument to enter dispassionately. The moment I mention the times I’ve pulled the last bottle of a special wine out from my cellar to find it’s simply undrinkable due entirely to a cork-related taint I am immediately declared to have shown my hand against the cork industry. On the other hand, if I mention the number of times I’ve opened what should have been sound, honest, bottles of inexpensive wine only to discover that as a consequence of some imbecilic cost-related decision it was sealed with an agglomerate cork and was consequently spoiled, I will have apparently taken a public stance that the Australian wine industry is concerned more with cost-cutting than quality. Both views have their elements of truth, but they only shine a small shaft of light on the broad spectrum of the cork debate. Unfortunately, so does much of the waffle printed and broadcast to this point. It’s a matter of profound regret that the issue of whether or not wine should continue to be sealed with cork has degenerated to of a war of words and publicity. The cork industry begrudgingly recognises the existence of cork taint, although it does its level best to diminish its importance and incidence. At present around 4.5% of Australian wines sealed with corks exhibit some degree of cork taint, a view supported by large companies and surveys of wines submitted to wine shows. Internationally the cork industry has attempted to dismiss this as an Australian phenomenon, but without success. Yet Australian wine has achieved what it has over the last decade because of its attention to technical excellence, the very same attention it now religiously shows towards the purchase and application of its corks. Little wonder the cork industry regards Australia as the hardest nut to crack. I honestly believe that there is less incidence of cork taint today than five years ago, although this statement is purely anecdotal. By investing heavily in exhaustive and fastidious testing it is possible for wine companies to reduce their level of cork taint to around 2%, but the expense required to do this is far beyond the resources of small wineries. Part of the reduction in cork taint lies in the disuse of agglomerate corks, which in my experience cause virtually 100% taint if you are prepared to wait for long enough. Most larger and medium-sized Australian winemakers today undertake levels of testing prior cork prior to purchase, yet several are accustomed to regularly returning shipments of cork back to Europe. Richard Gibson, who as Southcorp’s Group Technical Manager buys more cork than anyone else in Australia, says that there are no great suppliers, only great batches. ‘We’ve visited the factories, and our staff are in Portugal and Spain every year. We’ve done everything to establish a relationship of trust with the suppliers. But there’s still no guarantee that the next batch will be ok. In the last couple of weeks we’ve seen four reject batches from a supplier with whom we’ve had no difficulties over the last six months. Of the 41 batches we tested last month, we rejected five, although that’s a little on the high side’, he said. ‘How much you reject today depends on how much you’re prepared to spend and what level of risk you’re prepared to carry.’ The Stelvin screw-top seal is an excellent seal for red and white table wines and although it is completely impervious to air (unless there is an imperfection or damage to the bottle), it does permit the maturation of wine in the bottle. I have tasted too many excellent mature bottles sealed in this fashion to believe otherwise. Like the Stelvin, cork should be an inert seal. The cork lobby would do well not to repeat its jaundiced argument that part of the magic of maturing wine is to experience the subtle differences from one bottle to another. Any such difference that can be attributed to an effect from the cork is little short of an abomination. Just ask any winemaker or grape grower if you don’t accept my view on this. Why somebody should invest so heavily in expense, time and emotion to achieve in the bottle a result that can be affected by a pellet of oak bark is more than beyond me. The cork industry should focus its efforts on making its seal as inert as possible. Most people want the cork industry to succeed. Most people in the wine industry are aware of its traditions and value their existence. Most buyers probably want a cork in the end of their bottle of wine. But everybody is entitled to a reliable seal. In many cases it’s costing the larger companies more to buy their new synthetic corks than the corks they have replaced them with. It’s early days for synthetic closures and there’s little doubt that they will improve. A range of published data suggests that if they are not inert, at least they behave in a predictable and regular fashion. No winemaker in his or her right mind should seal their premium wines destined for cellaring with synthetic closures, for it’s a role for which they are presently entirely unproven. But they would appear to be more than satisfactory for wines made for consumption within a year of release. It doesn’t take much to understand the cork industry’s concern, for this would comprise over 80% of all Australian wine. No wonder the cork industry is investing so heavily in publicity in our corner of the world.
