Sir, – A recent letter (August 17th) queries the decision in the 1960s to replace the cork in a bottle of stout with a cap.
In days gone by the bottling of stout and champagne was similar in that both underwent a second fermentation in the bottle to produce carbon dioxide – hence the “fizz”. This also resulted in the formation of sediment from the remaining yeasts.
Both champagne and stout bottles were sealed using natural cork and stored; this maturing process lasted for a minimum of 15 months for champagne, and about two weeks, in a process known as “conditioning”, for stout.
The champagne was then opened, the sediment poured off and recorked, a process known as disgorgement, and ready, after a further period of storage in the cellar, for shipment to customers, while the stout was opened and carefully poured into a glass to leave the sediment in the bottle.
For stout, however, with the change from bottling in pub cellars to modern bottling plants, the secondary fermentation in bottle was replaced by conditioning in sealed tanks, prior to bottling with crown cork seals.
The champagne producers are not allowed by law to use tank conditioning. The second fermentation can only happen in the bottle.
However, champagne producers also introduced crown cork seals for this process. The sole purpose of these is to keep the wine from falling out of the bottle and it plays no part in the maturing process.
After disgorgement, the traditional mushroom-shapedchampagne cork and wire cage are applied and finally labels and foil packaging are added.
Champagne needs the traditional pop of a cork. It is, after all, the unique drink of celebration.
The debate among stout connoisseurs should be concentrating on the method of conditioning rather than the inert qualities of the cork or cap.
KEITH MacCARTHY
MORROGH,
Glenageary, Co Dublin.