Yet another California cellar with TCA

[Julia'sChild]

Trichloranisole: It's not only the Corks.

Article from Wine Spectator online today.

Wine Spectator

[Carolyn Tillie]

Pretty devastating -- although why Spectator would take it upon themselves to conduct the tests and show the winery is a bit bizarre...

Symptoms of TCA taint were first detected in blind tastings in the magazine's Napa office. Many Chateau Montelena wines, from the 1997 vintage to a 2003 barrel sample, showed either wet cement and chalky, chlorinelike flavors or other off-characteristics associated with TCA. So Wine Spectator had ETS Laboratories test seven Montelena Cabernet samples; five of them had levels of TCA ranging from 1.1 ppt to 1.7 ppt, and two had less than 1 ppt.

[Julia'sChild]

Pretty devastating -- although why Spectator would take it upon themselves to conduct the tests and show the winery is a bit bizarre...

Symptoms of TCA taint were first detected in blind tastings in the magazine's Napa office. Many Chateau Montelena wines, from the 1997 vintage to a 2003 barrel sample, showed either wet cement and chalky, chlorinelike flavors or other off-characteristics associated with TCA. So Wine Spectator had ETS Laboratories test seven Montelena Cabernet samples; five of them had levels of TCA ranging from 1.1 ppt to 1.7 ppt, and two had less than 1 ppt.

Not sure why you find it bizzare. Looks like they had been tasting "corky" wines from there since 1997, so they sent them to the lab to have them tested. Would you believe the winery's test results? Or an independent lab?

It seems it is a better story to hear what the winery is doing about the problem, then to just print the results of the testing. This is the same approach WS used in the Gallo and BV TCA problems.

Seems it is pretty good consumer information and also fair to the producer to say, Hey we found this. Have you known about it? What are you doing about it?

[Carolyn Tillie]

Not sure why you find it bizzare. Looks like they had been tasting "corky" wines from there since 1997, so they sent them to the lab to have them tested. Would you believe the winery's test results? Or an independent lab?

It seems it is a better story to hear what the winery is doing about the problem, then to just print the results of the testing. This is the same approach WS used in the Gallo and BV TCA problems.

Seems it is pretty good consumer information and also fair to the producer to say, Hey we found this. Have you known about it? What are you doing about it?

I somewhat doubt that Montelena didn't know they had a problem. ETS is hardly an independent lab -- every winery in the valley uses them (including us) as most wineries don't have the chemical set-ups to run their own tests. They are expensive, complicated processes.

Besides, it seemed like WS was doing what Montelena had already done:

But after a Wine Spectator report in 2002 detailed how Beaulieu Vineyard's red-wine cellar had been tainted by TCA, Barrett said, Chateau Montelena hired a leading wine laboratory to test its cellar, equipment and wines. ETS Laboratories, based in St. Helena, Calif., determined the presence of TCA. "Then we realized it wasn't the cork thing," Barrett said.

That is why I'm surprised.

[Julia'sChild]

I somewhat doubt that Montelena didn't know they had a problem. ETS is hardly an independent lab -- every winery in the valley uses them (including us) as most wineries don't have the chemical set-ups to run their own tests. They are expensive, complicated processes.

Besides, it seemed like WS was doing what Montelena had already done:

But after a Wine Spectator report in 2002 detailed how Beaulieu Vineyard's red-wine cellar had been tainted by TCA, Barrett said, Chateau Montelena hired a leading wine laboratory to test its cellar, equipment and wines. ETS Laboratories, based in St. Helena, Calif., determined the presence of TCA. "Then we realized it wasn't the cork thing," Barrett said.

That is why I'm surprised.

Well ETS is independent of Wine Spectator and Montelena and all of the other wineries in the valley. ETS also enters into confidentiality agreements with their clients.

And YES Montelena did know. As did BV and Gallo. That's the whole point. They knew that they had produced flawed wines and continued to sell them. Do you think that is OK? I don't.

If they had any integrity they would pour the crap right down the drain instead of hoping consumers are too stupid to taste the TCA or try to Feed people this bullshit:

Barrett admitted that it is likely that TCA was part of the winery's "house style" and that it was present in most of the wines at a low level. TCA "may have been one of the components of our wines dating back to the 1970s," he said, "especially when the wines weren't fruity."

So I guess it's not surprising that Montelena knew they had a problem that was tainting their wine and they were continuing to sell $125 bottles of it. But it's very, very surprising that Wine Spectator would point that out to their readers.

[Really Nice!]

But it's very, very surprising that Wine Spectator would point that out to their readers.

I don't think it's surprising at all, given WS track record with reporting TCA. Someone over there thrives on publishing this type of stuff as hardly an issue goes by where there isn't some report of it in some wine somewhere in the world. Heck, the last August issue rated a Gallo '02 Sonoma Chardonnay as a 55. They said six of eight bottles had some form of TCA.

They seem comfortable with publishing this to the world and basically saying, "You've got a problem, fix it!"

[Julia'sChild]

But it's very, very surprising that Wine Spectator would point that out to their readers.

I don't think it's surprising at all, given WS track record with reporting TCA. Someone over there thrives on publishing this type of stuff as hardly an issue goes by where there isn't some report of it in some wine somewhere in the world. Heck, the last August issue rated a Gallo '02 Sonoma Chardonnay as a 55. They said six of eight bottles had some form of TCA.

They seem comfortable with publishing this to the world and basically saying, "You've got a problem, fix it!"

Really Nice! - I wasn't surprised, that was in responce to the lovely Carolyn Tillie's surprise.

Actually there is a big TCA problem here in California, not so much in the rest of the world far as I can tell.

Just curious - Would you rather not know what producers are selling $125 bottles of wine that they know are tainted?

As for the Gallo score, I guess that pokes a hole in all of the conspiracy-theorists talk of high scores for advertisers, as Gallo is still prominent in the WS ads.

[Really Nice!]

Actually there is a big TCA problem here in California, not so much in the rest of the world far as I can tell.

Just curious - Would you rather not know what producers are selling $125 bottles of wine that they know are tainted? 

I definitately want to know this information because at $125, it will influence my purchasing decision.

Last year I sold some wine through Winebid.com. They would not accept any Beaulieu Vineyard wine (vintage dates 1997 to 2002) due to TCA.

This might be worthy of a new thread, but...

I understand the basics of TCA, but is it transmittable or spreadable? For example, since I moved from my house into a condo, I now have to store my wine at a wine storage facility. It's 55F and 70 percent humidity in this facility. If someone next to my locker is storing their wines in bleached wine boxes, is it possible for TCA to develop over a period of time? And if so, is my wine in danger of developing TCA?

Why is it such a big problem in California?

[Brad Ballinger]

This might be worthy of a new thread, but...

I understand the basics of TCA, but is it transmittable or spreadable? For example, since I moved from my house into a condo, I now have to store my wine at a wine storage facility. It's 55F and 70 percent humidity in this facility. If someone next to my locker is storing their wines in bleached wine boxes, is it possible for TCA to develop over a period of time? And if so, is my wine in danger of developing TCA?

Maybe a chemist will jump in. But I don't believe TCA is spreadable into bottles that are already corked and capsuled. Certainly I wouldn't think so in a home cellar or even commercial storage cellar such as the one you are using. A winery operation is another matter altogether.

[KatieLoeb]

I agree with Brad. I think TCA is kind of like the common cold virus amongst humans. It's airborne (somebody sneezed) and/or spread by contact (touching that dirty handrail or doorknob that the guy who sneezed and didn't wash his hands touched last). The already closed bottles should be fine, even if some TCA particles/molecules land on the outsides of the bottles. I think the danger at a winery facility would be having TCA taint the inside of the stainless steel tanks, get into the crushing machinery, the open bottles on the bottling line, etc.

That really sucks that Chateau Montelena would sell their wine at such astronomical prices and then try to insult the wine buying public's intelligence by saying it's "part of the flavor profile". That's world class horseshit and I'm surprised now that the admission is in print in the public domain that no one has tried to sue them yet for knowingly passing off a defective product.

Bummer. They used to be one of my favorite wineries. They still have some of the most beautiful grounds and architecture, but I don't think I'll be recommending them anymore

[Julia'sChild]

I agree with Brad.  I think TCA is kind of like the common cold virus amongst humans.  It's airborne (somebody sneezed) and/or spread by contact (touching that dirty handrail or doorknob that the guy who sneezed and didn't wash his hands touched last).

I wouldn't characterize TCA as being "contagious". If you have one tainted bottle, your whole cellar will be not be contaminated. There would have to be a very specific set of unlikely circumstances to happen before TCA would be passed from one bottle to another. And luckily, most finished wines have capsules or wax on them to make that even less likely.

At a very basic level--TCA occurs when a particular type of mold interacts with chlorine and other chemical compounds called "phenolics" (which can be naturally occurring, including flavinoids, found in stems and seeds of grapes, etc). Corks are a large factor in TCA, as bark for cork used to be bleached with chlorine products regularly. Miniscule amounts of (naturally occurring) mold in corks + cholorine + exposure to wine = corky bottles.

When a cellar or wine producing facility has a TCA problem, it's likely because they've been using chlorine products for years to clean; you can imagine how some recycled barrels can results in dozens of cases ofTCA-infected wines. Put those barrels on wooden pallets that you also clean

with chlorine, and after a while, etc. and TCA can spread systemically that way.

I've opened cardboard case boxes that smell like TCA, but the wine inside was fine.

What's likely happening in these large-scale winerires is that low levels of TCA meet inferior corks, and then you have not-so-low levels of TCA.

Hope that answers your question, esp. since I'm not a scientist. I'm not so sure now that the problemis specific to California (in fact, the WS story has a link to another story that is European-based). But perhaps the California style of wines, which generally tend to be fruit forward, make TCA seem more obvious, whereas Old World styles of earthier wines mask it better.

[CtznCane]

I am a bit confused by this issue. I understand it, yet not being a chemist and having read the Wine Spectator article there seem to be some things that don't jive.

To begin with the implication is that there are trace levels of TCA in wine. IT sounds like traces of it are 'normal'. Also that it is not harmful, and at low levels is undetectable to all but a few. If this is so, there must be some acceptable (perhaps not ideal but acceptable)level for TCA.

In the Case of Chateau Montelena there is a comment that the goal of the winery is to have the TCA level be under 1.4 ppt (parts per trillion). Of the 7 bottles WS tested 2 were below 1.0ppt and the others fell within the 1.1 to 1.7 ppt range which seems to be right about where Montelena wants them to be. If this is an acceptable level (I don't know, I'm just going from what I"ve read) where's the gripe from the WS side? Sounds like a witch-hunt.

An issue I do think is important though would be how Montelena or others responded to complaints about corky wines. If they replace them or refund, then it is somewhat a no harm - no foul situation other than the inconvenience. Personally, I'm not spending a buck-fifty for one of their wines so it has no affect on me. Still, it sounds to me like a bad rap of sorts.

[Really Nice!]

I am a bit confused by this issue.  I understand it, yet not being a chemist and having read the Wine Spectator article there seem to be some things that don't jive.

To begin with the implication is that there are trace levels of TCA in wine. IT sounds like traces of it are 'normal'. Also that it is not harmful, and at low levels is undetectable to all but a few.  If this is so, there must be some acceptable (perhaps not ideal but acceptable)level for TCA.

In the Case of Chateau Montelena there is a comment that the goal of the winery is to have the TCA level be under 1.4 ppt (parts per trillion).  Of the 7 bottles WS tested 2 were below 1.0ppt and the others  fell within the 1.1 to 1.7 ppt range which seems to be right about where Montelena wants them to be.  If this is an acceptable level (I don't know, I'm just going from what I"ve read) where's the gripe from the WS side?  Sounds like a witch-hunt.

An issue I do think is important though would be how Montelena or others responded to complaints about corky wines.  If they replace them or refund, then it is somewhat a no harm - no foul  situation other than the inconvenience.  Personally, I'm not spending  a buck-fifty  for one of their wines so it has no affect on me.  Still, it sounds to me like a bad rap of sorts.

According to my latest copy of the Certified Specialist of Wine Study Guide, TCA is has an extremely low recognition threshold of 1 - 4 parts per trillion. It is estimated that 3 to 5 percent of all wine bottled today is affected by cork taint.

So I would say no, this isn't normal.

Most people can't detect TCA when it is under 2 parts per trillion. Unfortunately, I'm very susceptible to it and can't drink a tainted wine even though everyone else enjoying the bottle says that there's nothing wrong with it.

Eh, you call it witch hunt, they call it aggressive journalism, let's call the whole thing...

I think how a winery reacts to these McCarthyesque witch hunts is the most important thing in these announcements. BV and WS had a good, public row going for quite sometime about the 'unacceptable levels' of TCA in BV wines. Lot's of mud slinging in that one. I'm curious to see how Gallo responds to that 55 rating in the next issue, especially with WS giving the '02 Sonoma Chardonnay vintage a 98 rating.