WTN: 1999 Giuseppe Mascarello Barolo Monprivato

1999 Giuseppe Mascarello Barolo Monprivato 13.5%
Bottle 12,648 of 26,342 (thought you'd want to know that). Opened three hours before drinking, but not decanted. The unusually long cork was partially stained, causing some worry, but there was no oxidative smell from bottle neck.

In the glass, three hours later, subdued nose of spice, cherry and eucalyptus, later joined by a touch of lard. In the mouth, vibrant acidity, sufficient sweetness (but just barely), grippy tannins and classy mouth feel. Over the subsequent hour, I don't get the depth of flavor and aromatic complexity that I was expecting. Just as I decide that the next of the remaining bottles should not be opened before at least a year, oxidative notes start to appear.

First, I thought the fruit was not as wonderful as it should have been (given the producer and vintage) because it was too young. Then, I began to suspect that it was because the rate of oxygen ingress was higher than it should have been (the partially stained cork being the smoking gun).

My bloody pulpit today: wines that go down the sink because of faulty corks generate considerable discussion but those that simply aren't up to snuff because of milder deficiencies stay below the radar screen.

Oswaldo, thanks for the note. I love an anti-cork rant as much as the next person. But I'd scarcely call a partially soaked cork a "smoking gun", as a whole lot of corks are partially stained without any apparent damage to wine. I only worry about cork stains if they reach the top, indicating that there was a breach. Sometimes you open a 20 year old wine with only the bottom stained, other times you open a 3 year old bottle saturated halfway up. Fill levels, cork density, storage position, minute temp variations can all cause differences. I think that now would be a really bad time to open a '99 Monprivato, I'd put away for 10 years. I wouldn't worry about some oxidative notes after 5 hours open, air is not a proxy for aging, if it were we'd all just decant and never cellar.

I love an anti-cork rant as much as the next person. But I'd scarcely call a partially soaked cork a "smoking gun", as a whole lot of corks are partially stained without any apparent damage to wine.

Perhaps I exaggerated and should have written the partially stained cork being a possible clue.

I only worry about cork stains if they reach the top, indicating that there was a breach. Sometimes you open a 20 year old wine with only the bottom stained, other times you open a 3 year old bottle saturated halfway up.

If the stain has reached the top there is more reason to worry, but I wouldn't say that it is the only reason for worry. Given that oxygen exchange takes place even without any staining, my position is that there should be no staining at all, since any staining is a sign that there is more exchange going on than the amount allowed by an unstained cork. Just the other day I opened a 97 Cos and the cork was absolutely flawless. Even though it's not such a hardy vintage, the wine was superb. Of course, many wines are not hurt by the higher exchange rate permitted by a stained cork because they have the stuffing to withstand it (or, who knows, may even benefit in some cases from accelerated oxygenation), but that doesn't alter my initial worry whenever I see a stained cork. It means that more ingress has taken place than should have, and your totally valid point that that may not have harmed the wine does not make me more tolerant when we have an alternative that eliminates it altogether.

I think that now would be a really bad time to open a '99 Monprivato, I'd put away for 10 years.

If my other three bottles have unstained corks, I agree with you 100%. If they don't, they won't last that long. I can't know unless I open them, which only adds to the irritation.

I wouldn't worry about some oxidative notes after 5 hours open, air is not a proxy for aging, if it were we'd all just decant and never cellar.

I wasn't suggesting that air is a proxy for aging, though my words could be read that way. I meant to suggest that oxidative notes after a few hours in a wine that should have considerable stuffing could be a sign that it had been debilitated by slightly excessive oxygen ingress over the last 10 years. As you said, there are many other possible reasons, so there's no way to know for sure.

Given that oxygen exchange takes place even without any staining, my position is that there should be no staining at all, since any staining is a sign that there is more exchange going on than the amount allowed by an unstained cork. Just the other day I opened a 97 Cos and the cork was absolutely flawless. ////whenever I see a stained cork. It means that more ingress has taken place than should have, and your totally valid point that that may not have harmed the wine does not make me more tolerant when we have an alternative that eliminates it altogether.

Oswaldo
I just don't think that evidence backs up the idea that partially stained corks are worse that unstained ones. If a cork that has been in a bottle for 10 years is basically unstained, the best bet is that it was silicone treated (or stored upright). Yet silicone treated corks are considered by some a possible culprit in the Burgundy Prem0x mess- silicone is very good as a water seal, yet might actually lead to a more rigid cork that is more likely to allow air seepage.

My personal experience is that most corks in correctly stored bottles 5-20 years old will be stained somewhere between 10-40% of the length of the cork. I don't consider that at all worrisome. A fully saturated cork is different, though certainly I have had many wonderful wines from purple corks.

Thanks, Dale, I appreciate your take on stained corks. Now that my semi-moratorium is making me delve more frequently into wines bought in the late 90s, I'll be encountering more and more staining, so it's good to know that your experience shows no correlation with premature aging.