Some Finger Lakes Wineries Favor Synthetic Corks for Their Best Wines; Should They?
By Evan Dawson, Managing Editor, and Tom Mansell, Science Editor
Serious wine consumers are not, generally speaking, fans of synthetic cork. Most recoil at the sight of a plastic cork being pulled from a bottle they had otherwise been excited to open. Is this bias unfair? Maybe. Companies are working to improve the quality of synthetic corks. We'll get to that in a bit. But there's no denying that synthetic corks make a clear statement to the serious consumer, whether intended or not.
"Cheap," said one of the many tasters on the evening of the recent Finger Lakes Riesling Hour. The inaugural riesling launch event led to coordinated tastings around the state and beyond. In Rochester, we had a packed room and it wasn't long before someone noticed that several 2010 Finger Lakes rieslings were closed with synthetic corks. In particular, the synthetic closures on Dr. Konstantin Frank and Rooster Hill stood out at our tasting. We're told that a few other Finger Lakes rieslings opened that night were also closed with synthetic.
"I hate them," says Leo Frokic, a downstate wine aficionado. "They let oxygen in. Would never buy anything worth aging that was sealed with synthetic corks."
"If I see plastic, I worry," says Loren Sonkin, owner of Sonkin Cellars, which makes California syrah blends. "I won't buy wine to age if I know it is in plastic. I am disappointed in the winery and left wondering why."
Synthetic closures are mostly made from petroleum-derived polymeric materials. Essentially, they are plastic. And the types of plastic that synthetics are made of are not good oxygen barriers. While wine aging is a complex chemical phenomenon, it’s generally agreed that oxygen plays an important role in the evolution of a wine in the bottle. Studies consistently show that synthetic closures have a higher oxygen transfer rate (OTR) than cork or screwcap closures. In general, cork, being a natural product, shows the most variation in OTR, while screwcaps are consistently the lowest and synthetics are consistently higher than cork.
So let's attempt to answer Sonkin’s question: Why are some of the top Finger Lakes wineries using synthetic corks to close their rieslings? We posed that question to Fred Frank, owner of Dr. Konstantin Frank Vinifera Wine Cellars on Keuka Lake.
Cost
Frank explained that the price of each individual Dr. Frank bottling determines their use of closure. Their most expensive wines are closed with high-grade natural corks. "In our mid-priced wines, we use synthetic corks from Syncor," Frank explained. "These corks are imported from Germany and the manufacturer claims they perform the best in testing run by a university. In our lower-priced wines, we use synthetic corks from Nomacorc."
Frank's decision to base the closure on the wine's price leads to a potential problem. Dr. Frank's 2008 Meritage, for example, sells for twice the price of the 2010 Semi-Dry Riesling. But history suggests that the riesling will outlast the Meritage in your cellar.
Synthetic corks offer a significant potential savings, but there are levels of quality with each kind of cork. Natural corks run from about $0.20 apiece up to roughly a dollar. Most wineries tell us that they use natural corks that cost either $0.26 apiece or just about twice that. Synthetic corks can come in around a dime apiece, but the price can rise to the natural cork level for the new, higher-end versions. A winery that produces 10,000 cases of wine annually could save $36,000 by switching from higher-end natural cork to lower-end synthetic cork. Would the wine suffer? Over the long term, almost certainly yes. But again, winery owners know that most consumers don't have a long term.
Closure contamination
Last year, Rooster Hill owner Amy Hoffman explained why she chooses synthetic cork instead of natural cork for Rooster Hill's rieslings.
"(Winemaker) Barry Tortolone and I have discussed this at length," Hoffman said. "The biggest reason is to ensure corked wines are not poured in restaurants that typically don't have good trained staff that may recognize tainted wine. The last thing I want is for some family to drink a bottle of wine that is not right and then judge our wines by that experience."
Winery owners have stressed how frustrating it is for them to discover that even a small percentage of their wines are corked, ruined by TCA that shows up in the wine in the form of various off aromas. They also worry that some wines might contain sub-detection threshold levels of TCA, which can mask fruit aromas without being perceived as tainted, so it's difficult for the customer to discern whether the problem is with the cork or with the wine itself. But isn't the problem getting better? Haven't corks improved, making cork taint less likely?
Estimates on TCA contamination vary, depending on whom you ask. The cork industry claims that cork taint incidence numbers continue to decrease, and estimate that less than one percent of bottles are “corked”. Critics, meanwhile, claim numbers of anywhere from five to ten percent. In more objective measures, data collected from the International Wine Challenge, where judges are trained to sniff out faults, shows that cork taint shows up in just under two percent of bottles (2006-2008 data).
“Premium factor”
Another point often raised in the Finger Lakes is the fact that the vast majority of consumers are not, in fact, laying bottles down to drink months or years down the line. Most wines are purchased for quick, almost immediate consumption. Why should a winery pay more for natural corks when a synthetic cork will do the job for at least a short while?
From our perspective, here's a strong reason to use the best possible closure: You won't effect change if you're signaling to the consumer that the wine should be drunk quickly, just as it always has. Finger Lakes wineries are producing some truly fine rieslings, and year after year, we find new evidence that the wines will age with grace and beauty. Some have even showed the capacity to improve over a decade or more. But consumers are not likely to begin laying bottles down if the message they receive is that it's not worth their while to do so. Change comes slowly, and with persistent consumer education. It's not always the cheapest short-term option that leads to long-term success.
This consumer perception of quality based on bottle closure is gleefully referred to by the cork industry as “premium factor.” To many consumers, there is just something special about popping a natural cork out of a bottle. One study of this phenomenon seems to confirm its existence, with consumers showing a strong positive association (e.g., they would pay more) for wines sealed with natural cork. Screwcaps show a strong negative correlation (perhaps a holdover from the Carlo Rossi jug wine days) and synthetics also show a mild negative correlation. Savvier consumers know, though, that screwcaps are not just for plonk, as many high-quality New World wines on screwcap demonstrate. But you don’t see entire countries (à la New Zealand) switching almost all of their production to synthetic closures.
In the minds of consumers, natural cork is simply the best possible closure for aging a wine. While the jury is still out on the scientific basis for such a belief, the court of public opinion has long been adjourned.
At a recent writers conference, Evan had the chance to see the new lineup from Nomacorc, a synthetic cork producer popular with New York wineries. The lower-end synthetics still look as fake as ever, and their oxygen transfer rates would be trouble for a consumer looking to lay bottles down. Their higher-end products look much more like natural corks than ever before. It's a clean, strong look. How do they perform? For the Nomacorc Select Series, their top-of-the-line product, the OTR is comparable to mid-range natural cork, providing, according to Nomacorc, a shelf life of between six and eight years.
At the conference, Evan tasted a series of wines that were several years old, closed under different grades of Nomacorc. On each occasion, he was able to correctly identify which wine was closed under better quality synthetic cork, and which was closed under lower-quality synthetic cork. But it wasn't easy.
There are numerous factors that producers need to consider when choosing bottle closures for their wines. Longevity, consumer perception, cost, risk of taint from the closure, and many more. There are also alternatives for wineries who wish to eliminate cork taint. Screwcaps are an option of course, but bottling under screwcap (1) requires a new bottling line (a capital cost many wineries simply can’t justify), and (2) comes with its own share of problems, which are beyond the scope of this piece. Some technical (agglomerated) corks (e.g., DIAM) undergo a special treatment process to remove TCA, but this process also adds to the cost. Then there are a host of other alternative man-made closures like the Zork, the VinoSeal, the Guala Seal, and many others, whose market acceptance and performance as closures are yet to be determined.
It's easy for us to prod Finger Lakes producers about natural corks when we're not paying the bills. And if we were producing Cayuga White or Niagara or many other varieties, we'd not spend extra cash on natural cork. That said, this is a region looking for more worldwide respect. This is a region that produces many wines that merit such respect. Most of the top producers close their rieslings with natural cork, but not all. It'd be a shame to see writers and consumers open a bottle and give up on the wine — or the winery, or even the entire region — before they pour a glass.
As a very large consumer of NY wines I’d have to agree with much of what you’re saying here Evan, especially towards the end when you say closing a bottle of Cayuga with natural cork is almost wasteful. It is for such a class of everyday drinking wine, an no one faults the producer for doing that.
I’d take it a step further and suggest that it’s almost irreverent to dress up your best stuff in the poorest clothes and them beat the drum for world class wine making, whether that is truly deserved or not.
I’m NOT suggesting that anyone should spend tons of money on frivolously heavy glass, ridiculously long corks, and gold-flecked labels - unless that is their model. But it really only takes a tiny bit of tweaking to move up the scale of packaging quality. The sixty-five cent hock bottle from Waterloo is as passe as a “car phone” or acid-washed jeans and looks just as silly.
If the producers genuinely are bottling up the real deal, it makes tremendous sense to spend an extra fifteen cents and get a good bottle, another five cents and get a real cork, and another few pennies and put a decent capsule on it, maybe one with your name on it.
And you are absolutely correct when you say a decision is made by the consumer when they hold and use the product. If it feels cheap the whole “experience” is diminished as such, and no one can afford to start the relationship with a new consumer “coming from behind” - like a restaurant with great food but dirty bathrooms, or an unkempt staff, it kind of ruins it.
It’s my opinion that the stronger the packaging the greater the consumer experience throughout.
Really interesting article. Evan and Tom did a nice job of assessing some the key factors at play for winemakers in closure decision-making.
One thing left out, though, which undoubtedly makes it even more complex, is the idea of winemaker intention. Packaging decisions aren’t just about delivering a brand personality to your consumers. In the case of closures, I’d go so far as to say that they’re part of the winemaking process.
Take screwcaps, for example, which are widely associated with reductive characteristics in wine. Winemakers often have to adapt their winemaking style to use them effectively. Traditional cork, by its very nature, is a dramatically variable product, even within the same grade or category of quality. And there is a constant risk of product failure due to breakage, crumbling or taint.
Then you factor in other winemaking variables – the wine variety’s sensitivity to oxygen, winemaking techniques employed, and the intended aging potential. That’s why Nomacorc offers its synthetic corks with a range of oxygen transmission rates (OTRs). In the case of our highest-performance line of corks, the Select Series, we price the corks equally – so winemakers can make decisions based on what’s best for their wine, not just price.
You’re absolutely right: it is a shame to see writers and consumers give up on a wine before they pour a glass. But as you say, “change comes slowly, and with persistent consumer education.” It takes time, a lot of independent research, and tasting samples. It takes reporters like yourselves willing to recognize that it’s a complex proposition and decision-making process. Much like the Finger Lakes region, we’re also seeking – and believe we merit - respect. And we think the proof should be in the glass.
Last time we were at Heart & Hands we bought two bottles of Pinot (of course…). One had a cork closure, the other had a glass Vinoseal. I’m curious to see how they each age. Any thoughts on these?
Paul Z -
Thank you for purchasing our Pinot. We have offered the option of the Vino Seal (glass stoppers) for a number of years on our Barrel Reserve Pinot Noir. Our thinking behind this option was a reflection of our own frustration with the occasional chance of TCA tainted bottles. Thus, we allow the customers (at no additional cost) the option to choose the closure they prefer.
Side-by-side (blind) comparisons with our wines and also other wineries wines usually offer a little more vibrant fruit on the Vino Seal vs. the cork option on both red and whites. The cork (despite the wax seal) does breathe over time. Whereas, the Vino Seal protects the wine similarly to a screw cap closure.
With the library of both these closures in our cellar, we’re hoping to unveil these two options down the road for the benefit of furthering consumer education.
Cheers,
Tom
As a Long time Finger lakes Wine consumer and now a Finger Lakes winery owner(Hector Wine Company) I am sympathetic with the desire to save a little money on bottle closures. My experience with synthetic closures is nothing but disapointing. When out tasting it is not always made clear what type of closure is in the bottle being purchased. I have lost multiple bottles that I have chosen to age a little longer to oxidation due to the noma cork or similiar synthetic closures. While there may be a place for these substitutes in wines that are made for quick drinking I have to believe that at least 2% or more of these wines are lost to people who mistakenly decide to age the wrong wine or wines that sit on a store shelf for a little too long. This to me is just as disapointing or maybe enven worse than losing wine to cork taint. At Hector Wine Company we spent a great deal of time trying to decide what to use for closure and I have to admit we never considered synthetic closures. We looked at nature cork, agglomerated cork and screw caps. We have chosen to use Daim agglomerated corks after discussing there use with other wineries here and in Alsace. We have been very happy with there performance and feel they are worth the money. We are also planning to start limited use of screw caps with some of our 2011 aromatic white wines.
It is a shame that Dr. Frank is now using synthetic closures on their Rieslings. I have sent them polite notes arguing for cork or screwcaps for these ageable wines but have received no response.
As a matter of fact, I have now sworn off wines from Standing Stone, since the last two bottles of wine purchased from them have had signs of premature aging; 2008 Vidal Ice and 2007 Gewurztraminers, FWIW. Both delightful when tasted at the winery, but golden sherry like notes when drunk in 2011 (properly stored). Also, no response to my pleas. I wouldn’t mind screwcaps, or the fancy glass closure that Heart & Hands has tried (unless that turns out to be a dud - but at least they view it as a trial).
This is indeed a fascinating piece. We use a range of Nomacorc products at Hudson-Chatham and we believe we are bringing a good experience to our consumers.
We in the winemaking industry all have to admit that natural cork is something that is slowly becoming obsolete. Many wines from Australia and New Zealand, as well as from Germany, are slowly turning from cork to screw caps. Why? Because we all know cork is not a dependable closure. To use a cork because it makes a “nice experience” is almost irresponsible, when considering guaranteeing a quality product. I have never understood how the wine industry or consumers have accepted a 5-10% failure rate acceptable via the use of natural cork. If your Nook or Kindle or iPod had a 5-10% failure rate, would that be considered acceptable? Why should the winemaker or the consumer suffer in this way?
Screw tops require equipment smaller wineries cannot always afford. We believe that synthetic corks offer a third alternative.
The true information on synthetic corks is not fully decided, as this article states.
I can truly say that we see little resistance in our tasting room for these kinds of closures. Although we are young, some of our wines are now five years old, and our wines are surviving nicely using these Nomacorc products.
We are always looking for good and solid alternatives. But insinuating that synthetic corks is less than acceptable, or inferior, is like saying you prefer books to an iPad because it doesn’t require batteries. The industry os looking for other alternatives, and synthetic corks offer this opportunity.
Cyclist -
Some extra detail on the vinoseal / vinolok… it is definitely past the stage where it is experimental…
The vinoseal / vinolok has been used by premium west coast producers (Calera, Whitehall Lane, Sineann) and a large array of Alsatian producers for a number of years. They are putting premium wines beneath this closure with confidence as are we. We do not consider the use of the vinolok to be a trial - a fun experiment perhaps, but not a trial.
The experiment for us is about comparing, side-by-side, the same wine with a different closure. We expect that there will be subtle differences and nuances and are looking forward to exploring them in the glass in years to come!
Cheers,
Susan Higgins
People need to understand that Nomacorc is perfectly acceptable for a wine that will be consumed within 2 years of bottling. In the last couple of years this technology has taken a huge leap and some synethics can act like a natural cork, allow for some aging in those wines that require it. Granted, they will not last a decade or two, but like Evan stated, 6-8 years is possible now. Of course, the price of these corks are more comparable with a grade 1 cork. The lower end Nomacorcs can be purchased wholesale for about 12 cents each, which will help our wineries bottom line. I think New York wineries have enough stacked against them and if they can use these corks with success in some of their wines, I say have at it.
Tom and Evan: Great job writing a balanced piece here that outlines most (if not all) of the major issues.
I think it’s important to remember that the inspiration for this story is some potentially age-worthy wines that are not likely to reach their full, mature potential because they are sealed under plastic rather than cork, glass or screwcap.
If a wine is meant to be consumed (or if your customer base IS going to consume them) within a year or two, then it may make sense to use synthetic closures and save the money. If your brand is okay with being associated with plastic corks. I’m not making a judgement here — many are, but many aren’t.
Carlo, you say that corks are obsolete. I’d argue that they are anything but. Because of alternative closures, cork quality seems to be on the rise. But let’s say that you’re right and cork is no longer the “best” (a dubious construct but let’s go with it) option.
Why is that so? If it’s purely about the risk of cork taint — and let’s use the 2% taint number for this discussion — okay. I’ll accept that argument. As a winemaker, it must be frustrating to see the fruit of your hard work destroyed by TCA. And, as Amy says in the piece, I understand not wanting customers to make judgements on your wine or winery based on a tainted bottle.
But here’s what I don’t get: Cork fails 2% of the time (again, let’s just use that number). But, we know — the manufacturers will even tell you — that their synthetic corks will also fail after X number of years at a much higher rate than 2%.
To me, this is trading in a “maybe 2%” for a “definitely more than 2%.” What’s worse for a winery like Rooster Hill in the market place — a 2% chance that a corked wine will lead to a poor customer experience or a higher probability that an oxidized wine will lead to the same poor experience.
Carlo, I’ve told you for years that I think your baco noir line should be under natural cork, purely for my own selfish reasons. To me, they have the structure and the stuffing to age many years. You’ve even told me stories about tasting 10+ year old bacos and how elegantly they age and evolve. The only way I can experience that with your wines is to have them re-corked (which I might do btw).
It seems that this is really a discussion about capital. If you’re against corks because of their faults, synthetic closures are no better and are — in at least some cases — worse. I think that’s why you see those drink-early German rieslings under screwcap rather than synthetics.
BUT, they are cheaper. Cheaper than natural cork and far cheaper than buying an entirely new bottling line and moving to screwcaps.
And it’s easy to understand money being the issue. We’re not talking a few hundred dollars here. We’re talking thousands and thousands. But, if it’s about the money, let’s not make it about cork taint.
Susan,
When I said that Vinolok type closures were on trial, I meant in the sense that you would find the aging curve acceptable when compared to (good) cork. I first encountered these closures on some German and Austrian wines (don’t drink much west coast). From the design, I would say that the seal must be pretty close to perfect - like a screwcap. And the NZ/Aussie experience has shown that some slight winemaking alterations (eg. go easy on sulfur) are sometimes warranted to deal with the more perfect seal provided by screwcaps.
I know some producers will come here and tell us how wonderful synthetic corks are. If you stick with these closures, I might continue to buy your $7 hybrid blends for immediate consumption, but will hesitate to purchase anything more ambitious. This is from a customer based on personal experience.
This is an interesting discussion, particularly the aspect that a consumer may hold on to a wine for five years not knowing that under the capsule sits a synthetic cork designed for keeping a wine fresh for only a couple of years.
What would help maybe is a cellaring recommendation on the back label. Some producers give this info for their wines on their website, but unfortunately only few print it on the bottle. The recommendation would thus take into consideration not only the grape variety’s potential aging capability but also the wine’s closure.
I’ve been fortunate in my career to have not only tasted old wines by the thousands, but also been paid to deal with corks from literally hundreds and thousands of wines from 1845 to the present.
It is fascinating to note the resilience and reliability of natural cork. I stuck a screw into a 66 Lafite once and the cork turned to dust in front of my eyse, but it had up till that moment held the wine in perfect condition. Without getting too into detail, it is clear that cork fails a certain percentage of the time. But it seems like it fails immediately or not at all.
Let me be clear about that: Taint doesn’t occur over time, it occurs (almost) instantly when a tainted cork goes in the bottle and infects the wines - 2% of the time.
What corks CAN do that no other closure can do, is gracefully protect and deliver a 1928 Chateau Montrose to your table in perfect condition. Or a 67 Yquem. And a 76 Dr. Frank Riesling. A cork recently pulled from a 68 Martini Cab looked like it was 3 years old.
There hasn’t been much talk about screw caps. I appreciate the ‘optics’ on my waiter unscrewing my $100 bottle of wine, but if we could get past that, are screw caps a viable option?? I am a novice but after reading Jim’s last post, I wonder what the consensus is on how a screw cap would preserve a wine over 20 years vs. cork?
Also, my amateur issue with synthetic corks is that they ruin my Rabbit corkscrews.