Comments on: Quality guaranteed?

By: Dr. Vino

Dr. Vino — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:11:00 +0000

Thanks for your comment. SO2 is an antioxidant. When he uncorks the wine,
Leth exposes it to oxygen. So the theory is that he is counteracting that effect.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 09:07:00 +0000

I am rather new to buying good wines to lay away.

What is SO2?

By: Edward

Edward — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 04:48:00 +0000

Just put the wines under screwcap! No need to check for cork taint, or run the risk that the new cork used is tainted. Each bottle you release will be the ’same’ given the same storage conditions etc.

By: steve

steve — Sun, 29 Oct 2006 06:19:00 +0000

Jamie Goode had an interesting article on recorking in The World of Fine Wine. Almost all collectors are firmly against the practice, since it’s not going to help a spoiled wine and may harm a good one. This is of course for wines that have been stored in castle cellars in Scotland or the like.
Lynch-Bages also had a recorking program but discontinued it since most people were simply looking for a quality guarantee on old bottles. Which is impossible when you don’t control the cellaring of them.
Which is why the Leth’s use of recorking sounds both highly unusual and a great idea.

By: Salil

Salil — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:15:00 +0000

Re. jack’s question on why other wineries aren’t doing this - Penfolds holds regular ‘Grange Clinics’ for old bottles of their Grange/Grange Hermitage, where the bottle levels are sometimes replenished by slight additions from the current vintage, and where the wine’s checked for quality assurance.

Of course, the difference here is that it’s done at the choice of the owner, rather than the winemaker. When it’s the winemaker doing it on his own, I don’t have a problem with it - but a label denoting the addition on the back would be a good way to go about it.

By: Dr. Vino

Dr. Vino — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:49:00 +0000

Great points.

I wonder what the fudge factor is for vintages in Austria? In the US it must be 95% accurate but many European countries have 100% truth claims.

Jack, Franz told me he tops off the with current vintage. I asked, “the current vintage not the same vintage?” and he said “the current vintage.” I was surprised.

And yes, ex-cellars with a good fill is obviously a great way to go. But there certainly are clunkers even with those. Part of the charm I suppose (in economics it’s called risk)…

By: Jack

Jack — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:18:00 +0000

It is adulteration.

First, you've exposed the wine older wine to air. Yep, that really counts no matter how quickly you do it.

Second, it is absurd to top it off with a current vintage...it's not like the winery doesn't have more of the older vintage to top off with. I so do not approve!

If doing this is a good idea, why aren't other wineries doing this?

Me, I love bottles with great fill levels ex-Chateau.

By: Better Living Through Miles

Better Living Through Miles — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:29:00 +0000

I have no problem with an innovative method of bringing a quality product to the consumer, especially with the “guarantee” that comes with it.

What I *do* have a problem with is the labeling of these wines as vintage wines. They’re blends, so maybe an NV designation is more approrpriate. Or call it a “1986/2005″ or such. Calling it a 1986 is problematic, but only because a year denotes something very specific.

I’d gladly drink a wine of high quality, regardless of the blending process, but I’d like to know what I’m buying.