Fizzle be interesting

Courtesy of the BBC I learned today that one innovative French vinyard, Duval-Leroy, will be introducing metal closures on one of their Champagnes to 'test market reaction.' They plan to debut their prototype bottle at this year's London International Wine Fair in May.

Those that know me are well aware that I view the Stelvin Closure as one of the best things to happen to wine since the invention of the grape. Anyone who whinges about the authenticity of a bottle of wine without that little 'pop' from the cork can be silenced simply by pointing out that eliminates the chance for cork taint due to TCA (2,4,6-trichloroanisole) in the bottle. This means you will never have to worry if the wine has gone off prematurely, so long as it has been stored correctly. As the closure has only been in widespread use since the 1990s (it was rejected by punters in New Zealand and Australia in the 1980s only to be re-introduced), it is very difficult to do much more than theorise that the complete seal on the bottle (thus preventing any oxygen from tainting the wine) will aid in the ageing process. Oxygen does play a part in the aging of the wine, this is true, but Stelvin Closure should allow for longer aging. This could be either a good or a bad thing, depending on how soon you want to drink it, I suppose.

Nevertheless, what the BBC have failed to explain is how this metal closure will work on a bottle of Champagne, or whether the risk of taint will be removed. The chief reason the TCA taints the wine is because the cork is ill-fitting and too much oxygen gets to the wine. In a bottle of Champagne, this is borderline impossible. Whereas in a normal bottle of wine, the cork is simply squeezed into place and has no force acting on it other than the bottle's neck, a Champagne cork is under a great amount of pressure. Champagne was nicknamed 'the Devil's wine' back in the late 1600s because it often caused the bottle to explode from the pressure. Over the years the glass was thickened to contain the vivatious liquid, and a modern day champagne bottle exerts around 90 pounds per square inch (psi), or 620kPa, which is roughly equivalent to three times the pressure in your car tyres. That is a hell of a lot of pressure on the bottom of the cork, and explains both the effectiveness of the rather glamorous Sabrage method of opening a bottle, and why it makes a hell of a mess when they shake up the bottle on the podium.

I have, therefore, two reservations. One, how they will create a detatchable metal closure that won't be dangerous, and two, why the BBC claims that Champagne suffers a risk of cork taint. That may well be the case, but bearing in mind that an 'ill-fitting' cork wouldn't stay on the bottle for long, right? Well I'm not so sure. A cork that failed to seal the bottle by a hairsbredth might allow the slow escape of gas (and pressure), and therefore let oxygen in to help kill the now, rather flat, sugary contents. All in all, a bit of a disaster.

With all that in mind, I'm deeply curious. I freely admit that there's something very glamorous about the pop of a champagne cork, and a really old wine uncorked is much more emotive than a really old wine unscrewed. Emotive only lasts til you sniff the cork and realise the potentially fabulous vintage you just opened has been tainted owing to a foul cork, something that a screwcap entirely avoids. Plus, you never have to worry about a corkscrew. I've been treated to some fantastic wines in screw caps, and it's not just cheap-seats suppliers who use them now. New World wines are now leading the way in Stelvin Closures, and I defy you to drink a bottle of Pegasus Chardonnay and claim it would have been better with a cork.

Still, I remain very interested. Let's see if this idea goes off with a bang.

Nanny stating my booze

Via the Scotland on Sunday (the Hootsmon's sabbath-day edition), it transpires that the SNPs are planning on engaging in a little bit more nanny-statism, clearly taking the lead from their ZaNu Lab counterparts in England. As if the Smoking Ban wasn't enough, apparently we have a drinking problem - and they think that the problem is that booze is too cheap.

'MINISTERS are to press ahead with a crackdown on sales of cheap alcohol in a move that could be fast-tracked through Parliament in as little as six months, Scotland on Sunday can reveal.'

Hold up a second, why? We already pay a daft amount of tax on a bottle of wine (as I have blogged before) - now you want to make it even *more* expensive?

'The measures are set to spark a furious legal battle with the retail trade and alcohol industry, which claims the laws will hit customers' pockets, damage the industry, and do little to stop problem drinking.

If minimum pricing is introduced and promotional offers are banned, many of the offers at supermarkets and off-licences would be outlawed immediately.

A minimum price of 50p per unit of alcohol, as advocated by health campaigners, would result in rocketing prices. A two-litre bottle of cider, currently priced at around £3, would cost £7.50. Wine would also increase in price, with a £3 bottle of wine possibly rising to a minimum of £5. Multi-packs of beer – which are regularly discounted – would also rise in price.

The moves are being pushed through despite concerns within the SNP that the Government should not seek to increase the financial burden on consumers and retailers during an economic downturn.'

Oh holy mother of Dorothy. Where to begin? Now, I can’t remember the last time I spent less than £5 on a bottle of wine anyway, but if a two litre bottle of cider is suddenly going to cost £7.50, how much is a bottle of vodka going to jump up to? Well if Smirnoff is your poison, at 37.5% that equates to just shy of 30 units, therefore about £15, so at worst that’s going to cost you two or three quid more.

Scotland on Sunday neglect to mention who these health campaigners are, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn they were Alcohol Concern, which DK has identified as a fake charity - funded primarily by the Government (and therefore, indirectly, you and me). If it is indeed Alcohol Concern (or one if their ilk), we’re talking about a ‘charitable’ lobbying group funded by the Government to lobby the Government. Everyone see the problem there? Yes? Good.

‘...Scotland on Sunday understands that ministers may seek to place some of the measures – such as the ban on "Buy One Get One Free" deals – in the existing 2005 Licensing Act, which is due to come into force in September.

The Act enshrines "protecting and improving public health" as a key objective of all licensing decisions, so the Government may argue that it gives the power to ban cheap drink offers. The same logic could also be applied to plans to impose minimum pricing.

Such a tactic would enable SNP ministers to push the reforms through more quickly, but it would also prompt accusations that they were deliberately dodging debate. One retail source said last night: "If they use the Licensing Act, it would be simply about rail-roading these plans in a bid to avoid proper parliamentary scrutiny. It suggests that Kenny MacAskill knows how unpopular it is to push up prices in this economic environment."’

Actually I’d say that’s exactly what it means. Worse yet, it’s enacting a Nanny-state agenda avoiding the parliamentary process along the way. Hardly democratic. Besides, pushing up the price of alcohol is not going to help solve the problem. It’s going to hurt people financially, but again, root causes people! Why do Scots have a drinking ‘problem’? Is it because booze is cheaper here than anywhere else in the country? I think you’ll find the answer is no, it isn’t. It’s no less expensive here than anywhere else. Is making it more expensive going to fix what is clearly a cultural issue? Again, clearly not.

In the meantime, as our Southern cousins do the booze cruise to Calais, we'll just have to start a cruise to the Tescos in Berwick-Upon-Tweed.

I won't, of course, since I long ago worked out that given the daft amount of duty on a bottle of wine, if I spent less than about £6 on the bottle, after costs I would be getting the cheapest quality of wine the producer could crank out, but that's another matter entirely...