Wine closures: the facts

27th February, 2017 by Patrick Schmitt

Whether it be cork, plastic or aluminium, winemakers are spoilt for choice when it comes to stoppers. Patrick Schmitt MW considers the performance of each closure type.

Picture credit: Sparflex

It may seem extraordinary, but one of the hardest decisions for any winemaker doesn’t concern practices in the vineyard or cellar. Although the implications of picking dates, fermentation temperatures, extraction regimes, barrel selections and so on are all crucial for wine style, it is the choice of stopper that gives producers one of the greatest headaches.

That’s because so many factors are involved in the selection, while the options continue to expand, and the science behind closure innovations is always evolving.

Furthermore, stoppers do affect the way a wine can taste, as well as a producer’s costs and carbon footprint.

With this is mind, we have decided to look at the key differences between closure types from three materials – cork, plastic and aluminium – according to their performance, environmental impact, and price. The idea is not to say which is best or worst, but to look at the facts, after many years reporting on these closures. This, it is hoped, will help you decide which type of stopper is the most suitable for your wine.

Before considering the options, it should be stated that if this analysis seems to feature more on the cork industry, that is not because of the bias of the author, but simply because the cork producers, who were heavily criticised by the wine industry in the nineties and early noughties for a poor-quality product, have, in the past eight to 10 years, been extremely active in technical innovations to defend their position. This means that there’s much to say about cork. It has also ensured that cork closures are now slowly regaining market share of the total stopper business, above all from plastics.

Share14K

Pin5

Share96

9 Responses to “Wine closures: the facts”

Bruce Devlin says:

February 28, 2017 at 4:22 pm

No one ever considers the fact that cork type closures usually come with a capsule, and its impacts on the environment. Weather Tin, Poly, or plastic. It is part of the closure choice, and I’m pretty sure it would skew the environmental results in a different manner. It is rare you find a cork/synthetic bottle without some sort of capsule. An advantage of the screwcap is that it performs both jobs in one unit.

Reply
- Bob Shenk says:
  
  May 16, 2017 at 5:04 pm
  
  are you the famous pro golfer, Bruce Devlin?
  
  Reply
marc kauffman says:

February 28, 2017 at 7:39 pm

Bottom line is there is no one closure that is perfect for all wines. Research has shown that most wines retail for under $20 per bottle and will be consumed within a week of purchase. No need to use a closure that is expensive or not easily recycled. Consumers do not buy a bottle of wine based on the closure! They buy a wine because it tastes good, is in their budget and is easy to open. Newer consumers are not adept at using a cork screw so why make opening a bottle of wine so complicated? Do you think Coke or Pepsi would enjoy the sales volume they have today if it required a special tool to open each bottle? When will the wine producers learn to simplify the package and get rid of the “mysticism” that surrounds wine.

Reply
Michael Quirk says:

March 3, 2017 at 12:46 am

In reference to people not buying wine due to the closure sounds like a the cork industry trying to redeem itself, or simply call it for what it is “Bull”. Ignorance is the biggest issue but as people around the world become more wine savvy and aware of what they do choose (mostly retail) for the easiest and best option available. As for the environmental aspect besides the capsule you also has to consider all the wine that has had to be tipped down the sink due to oxidation, TCA and poor storage all closures may be exposure but the majority of the time it’s the cork closure as the major culprit.
The inconsistency of the each wine due to the cork quality and being a natural product that it effects every bottle of wine differently so a case of wine has a huge variation of flavours both good and bad. Ordering wine by the glass in a bar or restaurant shows clearly how different each bottle is and very annoying for the bar and the customer.
As a natural product they degrade and crumble and annoyingly you only remember that when trying to remove the cork. So out come all the tools to try and get rid of all the cork floating in the bottle and the mess all over the bench.
Even being TCA free and guaranteeing the cork doesn’t mean getting the damn cork out of the bottle any easier. Really we just what great wine not effected by the closure and the Screwcap is the best option at present.

Reply
Martin Thompson says:

March 3, 2017 at 12:54 pm

Just to present a counterpoint, as I live in Portugal and love wandering the montado – cork oak forests – when I get the time. Aside from the significant environmental benefits, (very fair point regarding the need for a capsule though!) there are multiple downstream social benefits associated to the extraction and processing of cork.

As a ’79 vintage, I still appreciate pulling a cork and honestly the risk of a tainted bottle doesn’t bother me much but it reminds me that wine still does have some mystical allure, hence the fantastic prices fetched per litre versus a soft drink.

To be sure there is a market for fast consumption wines that is well served by screw cap closures, they are not to my taste but it has nothing to do with the practicality or technical supremacy of the stopper or even the wine itself. I guess I just really like to hear that pop!

Reply
Angeliki Tsioli says:

March 9, 2017 at 11:59 am

Very interesting reading and facts on a controversial subject.
Just wanted to mention a false number in page 5 of the article, where the detection level of TCA is mentioned to be 0,5 ng/l. Of course this is correct in the previous page, so by 5 ng/l or just 5 ppt.
I enjoyed reading this,
Angeliki Tsioli

Reply
Angeliki Tsioli says:

March 9, 2017 at 12:36 pm

In relation to my previous comment, I admit to have confused the two different kinds of thresholds:

1. The threshold of detection by humans is about 5 ng/l, while
2. the threshold of detection by a machine or technique, like that of ND (developed by Amorim) lies far lower than that at 0,5 ng/l.

Reply
Tim Keller says:

March 9, 2017 at 10:02 pm

What is also missing from this discussion is the topic of VARIANCE in OTR. I developed the first oxygen controlling screwcap closure (the VinPerfect Smartcap ) focusing not just on the oxygen rate – but on how consistent it is. Cork proponents are correct in the fact that some oxygen is needed for higher quality – but the problem is just how wide the range is in terms of OTR performance with cork – it spans several orders of magnitude.

The other thing to understand is that different suppliers offer oxygen control – but in widely different ranges. My screwcaps go from 0.11 ppm of oxygen per year for the light to 0.27 ppm for the medium+. And you can tell the difference in the aromatics of those wines with that little bit of difference within 6 months.

By contrast, the tightest oxygen controlling synthetic cork is about 1ppm per year. Wine is pretty resilient and can take that, if not be improved by that in the very short term. – and yes, most are consumed young – but the problem is that the consumer does not see wine as perishable – instead they expect to to hold up if not improve with age. So if you use a closure such as a synthetic cork that is guaranteed to oxidize the wine in 1-2 years, then the responsible thing for producers to do is to add an expiration date to the label.

Also – one needs to be careful when producers talk about oxygen. Many producers including Diam and the vinolok are very vague when they talk about their oxygen rates. Quality closure producers should not be afraid to publish OTR data in mg or ccO2 units including variance data – yet few do. So I would not take them at their word when they say vague things like “will last 30 years”

Reply
Neil Monnens says:

May 17, 2017 at 5:59 pm

In 2009, 2012 and 2015 I surveyed my WineRelease.com audience about their closure preference for red vs white wines. Most studies I have seen ask their audience their wine closure preference without discerning between red and white wines. Results are consistent among the years and in 2015 77% preferred natural cork for red wine and 52% preferred screw cap for white wines. Full study is available in the “other” section of WineRelease.com (questions 17 and 18).

Reply