Cork

An article from the UK’s Telegraph about France’s Cork Federation and their recent campaign to boost cork appreciation got me thinking. For one, about how little I still know about corks, and for two, about how much I do know. For again and again I have been hearing about the two camps, to cork or not to cork, because of the fear of what’s being labeled cork taint. Supposedly cork taint can affect up to 15% of all wine bottles, no laughing matter. But how much is really cork taint from corks, and how much is it from other sources that rarely get referenced?

Because what I have hardly EVER seen or heard mention is that corks are not the only culprits of this so-called cork taint. There are other winemaking sources that can lead to this wet-dog delight: Try chemically treated wood products when they come into contact with chlorine-based cleaning agents. Try naturally occurring fungi coming into contact with same chemically treated wood products. How many wine places have you been in where the storage of boxes and pallets and barrels and beams are all within wine reach? ExACTLY. And yet it’s the cork that continues to get blamed.

The other thing is that not all corks are created equally, and some will be better than others due to quality issues. Period.

Bottom line is, not all cork makers are the same, and there are other sources for what has been unfairly and categorically dubbed cork taint. So how ridiculous are statements from the big influencers when someone like old James Laube says, “Over the years, I’ve had too many wines and wine events ruined by bad corks.” What, does he own stock in the twist-off biz? And he’s not the only one to make blanket statements like that. I know, I know, everyone has their own agenda when they write, that’s clear. I just wish there’d be less dumming-down out there and more truthful and FAIR reporting. I’m sure some reading this will think, “Put a cork in it, LaMonica.” And to you I respond, “Why thank you, I will.”