Corked/Spoilt Ports - Name and Shame

KillerB · Post by **KillerB** » 15:38 Tue 06 Jan 2009

Just to keep a track of these things and especially the worst offenders. Please write in duffers from any tastings. Obviously corked Ports a requirement but I do also get fed up with bottle stink that seems to be more prevalent in Port. I know that it blows off but it should be noted. Don't have any to hand at the moment but I know you all have them.

uncle tom · Post by **uncle tom** » 16:05 Tue 06 Jan 2009

There is a spoilage condition that I've noted very occasionally in port (most recently in a Niepoort '97, which, as Derek witnessed, erupted on me while I was in my DJ - fortunately after the event..) but also in CDP's

The condition renders the wine spritzy and foul on the palate. Gas is produced, but I don't think it is normal fermentation.

There is probably a technical term for the condition, which I imagine is some sort of bacterial contamination.

It might be worth identifying those wines that have a history of this - and also trying to find its causes..

Tom

RonnieRoots · Post by **RonnieRoots** » 17:37 Tue 06 Jan 2009

Not cork, but VA: Niepoort's ports from 1985, 1994 and 1997 have all had bad showings in the recent and less recent past.

Ports that often seem corked (from own experience):
- Vargellas 1987
- Dow's 1977
- Gould Campbell 1977

Post by **DRT** » 17:45 Tue 06 Jan 2009

Cockburn 1983 - a corky nightmare!

ac-fast · Post by **ac-fast** » 17:54 Tue 06 Jan 2009

Taylors 1977 -

had to open 3 bottels before it was able to drink

Seems that 1977 have a problem

uncle tom · Post by **uncle tom** » 00:59 Wed 07 Jan 2009

Poor corks are an issue with T77, - I will be re-corking most of my bottles in the spring..

Tom

Post by **jdaw1** » 02:22 Wed 07 Jan 2009

This bottle of Fonseca 1985, though it is my first bad one from many excellent bottles.

Great topic.

Axel P · Post by **Axel P** » 08:48 Wed 07 Jan 2009

I had that experience with a Grahams 97 once. Since I heard that this seems to be appearing only in the younger VPs, might that have something to do with bottle-age as well? Not that I think that this is somekind of normal....

Axel

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 13:32 Wed 07 Jan 2009

Alex,

For clarification, are you asking for us to name and shame spoiled ports which we taste in 2009 or everything which we have ever tasted which was spoiled?

Also, I think this is a great post. As the person who came up with the idea and also an administrator, could I persuade you to make this post a sticky and also to edit the first post to turn it into a summary of what people put in their replies? I have in my mind something along the lines of:

Just to keep a track of these things and especially the worst offenders. Please write in duffers from any tastings. Obviously corked Ports a requirement but I do also get fed up with bottle stink that seems to be more prevalent in Port. I know that it blows off but it should be noted. Don't have any to hand at the moment but I know you all have them.

Corked Ports (TCA)
Dow 1977
Gould Campbell 1977
Taylor 1977
Cockburn 1983
Fonseca 1985
Vargellas 1987

Spritzy Ports
Graham 1997
Niepoort 1997

Poor Corks
Taylor 1977
Niepoort 1997

Volatile Acidity (VA)
Niepoort 1985
Niepoort 1994
Niepoort 1997

I think this is a fantastic thread and one which I think would be unique as I have never seen "port problems" ever collected together in one place before.

Alex

KillerB · Post by **KillerB** » 16:14 Wed 07 Jan 2009

Alex,

I'm happy with all Port problems that we've encountered. It should help us keep a track of producers and vintages that are the worst offenders. I will put my other hat on later and make a summary and sticky. The idea occurred to me when I opened up a truly rank Sancerre Rose the other night, the stuff is not cheap but it costs a lot less than a decent VP. I had no choice but to pour it down the sink as I can't remember where I got it. Hence, the posts in both Other Wines and in Port Conversations.

Cheers,

Alex

Post by **DRT** » 17:00 Wed 07 Jan 2009

We have 1100+ TNs on the site which will contain real experiences of bad bottles across a wide range of producers/vintages. Do we have a volunteer to trawl through the TNs? Could we do it electronically by querying the data for key words "corked", "VA", "stink" etc?

To provide balance we should perhaps also be recording what % of the bottles we open are tainted in some way. For example, I recently had a stinky Morgan 91 but it is probably the first bad bottle out of 50+ opened by members of this site.

Derek

Post by **jdaw1** » 18:18 Wed 07 Jan 2009

A shortlist can be made by machine, but eliminating the likes of ‟unlike last week’s bottle, this had no TCA at all” requires human reading.

Post by **DRT** » 19:21 Wed 07 Jan 2009

jdaw1 wrote:A shortlist can be made by machine, but eliminating the likes of ‟unlike last week’s bottle, this had no TCA at all” requires human reading.

Perhaps you could volunteer to create the shortlist and others could volunteer to do the human reading?

KillerB · Post by **KillerB** » 20:15 Wed 07 Jan 2009

DRT wrote:
jdaw1 wrote:A shortlist can be made by machine, but eliminating the likes of ‟unlike last week’s bottle, this had no TCA at all” requires human reading.
Perhaps you could volunteer to create the shortlist and others could volunteer to do the human reading?

I can write the SQL do this and provide a file with the results.

Post by **DRT** » 20:36 Wed 07 Jan 2009

KillerB wrote:
DRT wrote:
jdaw1 wrote:A shortlist can be made by machine, but eliminating the likes of ‟unlike last week’s bottle, this had no TCA at all” requires human reading.
Perhaps you could volunteer to create the shortlist and others could volunteer to do the human reading?
I can write the SQL do this and provide a file with the results.

OK:

1. I came up with the idea of using the TNs
2. Jdaw provided a very useful insight into the implications of my suggestion
3. KillerB has volunteered to produce the data
4. We need a volunteer to read, analyse and document the results.

...please form an orderly queue

g-man · Post by **g-man** » 22:06 Wed 07 Jan 2009

uncle tom wrote:There is a spoilage condition that I've noted very occasionally in port (most recently in a Niepoort '97, which, as Derek witnessed, erupted on me while I was in my DJ - fortunately after the event..) but also in CDP's

The condition renders the wine spritzy and foul on the palate. Gas is produced, but I don't think it is normal fermentation.

There is probably a technical term for the condition, which I imagine is some sort of bacterial contamination.

It might be worth identifying those wines that have a history of this - and also trying to find its causes..

Tom

I've found this in my beer making experiences. Sounds like a dirty facility /bottling leading to undesired bacteria refermenting the residual sugars in the wine. For my beers, it has this very weird bitterness to it. Curious to know, was the wine cloudy or too dark to notice?

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 12:06 Thu 08 Jan 2009

DRT wrote:
KillerB wrote:
DRT wrote:
jdaw1 wrote:A shortlist can be made by machine, but eliminating the likes of ‟unlike last week’s bottle, this had no TCA at all” requires human reading.
Perhaps you could volunteer to create the shortlist and others could volunteer to do the human reading?
I can write the SQL do this and provide a file with the results.
OK:

1. I came up with the idea of using the TNs
2. Jdaw provided a very useful insight into the implications of my suggestion
3. KillerB has volunteered to produce the data
4. We need a volunteer to read, analyse and document the results.

...please form an orderly queue

If someone gives me the data, I'll do it.

I'll even add in all the duff bottles I've tasted but not posted notes...

Post by **DRT** » 15:57 Thu 08 Jan 2009

AHB wrote:
DRT wrote:
KillerB wrote:
DRT wrote:
jdaw1 wrote:A shortlist can be made by machine, but eliminating the likes of ‟unlike last week’s bottle, this had no TCA at all” requires human reading.
Perhaps you could volunteer to create the shortlist and others could volunteer to do the human reading?
I can write the SQL do this and provide a file with the results.
OK:

1. I came up with the idea of using the TNs
2. Jdaw provided a very useful insight into the implications of my suggestion
3. KillerB has volunteered to produce the data
4. We need a volunteer to read, analyse and document the results.

...please form an orderly queue
If someone gives me the data, I'll do it.

I'll even add in all the duff bottles I've tasted but not posted notes...

Excellent! This is teamwork at its best - most of the team thrash an idea around and then one poor sod ends up with all the hard work to do

Thanks Alex

Derek

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 17:54 Thu 08 Jan 2009

A quick trawl through my notes reveals the following:

Burmester 1970 - 1 TCA tainted
Cavadinha 1988 - 2 bottle stink
Cockburn 1955 - 1 spoiled bottle
Cockburn 1983 - 2 TCA tainted
Cockburn 1985 - 1 TCA tainted
Cockburn 1991 - 1 VA spoiled
Cockburn 1994 - 1 VA spoiled
Crasto 1987 - 1 slight TCA taint
Croft 1966 - 1 VA spoiled
Cruz 1989 - 1 bottle stink
Dow 1955 - 1 bottle stink
Dow 1983 - 1 bottle stink
Dow 1985 - 1 TCA tainted
Fonseca 1966 - 1 very slight TCA
Fonseca 1966 - 1 VA spoiled
Fonseca Guimaraens 1972 - 1 spoiled bottle
Fonseca Guimaraens 1987 - 1 bottle spoiled by VA and bottle stink!
Gould Campbell 1977 - 2 TCA tainted
Graham 1985 - 1 TCA tainted
Hutcheson 1980 - 1 VA spoiled
Kopke Sao Luiz 1983 - 2 TCA tainted
Niepoort 1991 - 1 slight TCA taint
Niepoort 1997 - 1 VA spoiled
Nacional 1997 - 1 TCA tainted
Offley Boa Vista 1963 - 1 TCA tainted
Quarles Harris (Tesco) 1995 - 1 slight TCA taint
Rebello Valente 1977 - 1 bottle stink
Royal Oporto 1963 - 1 VA spoiled
Sandeman 1977 - 1 TCA tainted
Smith Woodhouse 1980 - 2 bottle stink
Taylor 1970 - 1 TCA tainted
Van Zeller 1983 - 1 slight TCA taint
Vargellas 1978 - 1 bottle stink
Vargellas 1988 - 1 bottle stink
Warre 1966 - 1 VA spoiled
Warre 1983 - 1 TCA tainted

mosesbotbol · Post by **mosesbotbol** » 17:57 Thu 08 Jan 2009

AHB wrote:A quick trawl through my notes reveals the following:

Burmester 1970 - 1 TCA tainted
Cavadinha 1988 - 2 bottle stink
Cockburn 1955 - 1 spoiled bottle
Cockburn 1983 - 2 TCA tainted
Cockburn 1985 - 1 TCA tainted
Cockburn 1991 - 1 VA spoiled
Cockburn 1994 - 1 VA spoiled
Crasto 1987 - 1 slight TCA taint
Croft 1966 - 1 VA spoiled
Cruz 1989 - 1 bottle stink
Dow 1955 - 1 bottle stink
Dow 1983 - 1 bottle stink
Dow 1985 - 1 TCA tainted
Fonseca 1966 - 1 very slight TCA
Fonseca 1966 - 1 VA spoiled
Fonseca Guimaraens 1972 - 1 spoiled bottle
Fonseca Guimaraens 1987 - 1 bottle spoiled by VA and bottle stink!
Gould Campbell 1977 - 2 TCA tainted
Graham 1985 - 1 TCA tainted
Hutcheson 1980 - 1 VA spoiled
Kopke Sao Luiz 1983 - 2 TCA tainted
Niepoort 1991 - 1 slight TCA taint
Niepoort 1997 - 1 VA spoiled
Nacional 1997 - 1 TCA tainted
Offley Boa Vista 1963 - 1 TCA tainted
Quarles Harris (Tesco) 1995 - 1 slight TCA taint
Rebello Valente 1977 - 1 bottle stink
Royal Oporto 1963 - 1 VA spoiled
Sandeman 1977 - 1 TCA tainted
Smith Woodhouse 1980 - 2 bottle stink
Taylor 1970 - 1 TCA tainted
Van Zeller 1983 - 1 slight TCA taint
Vargellas 1978 - 1 bottle stink
Vargellas 1988 - 1 bottle stink
Warre 1966 - 1 VA spoiled
Warre 1983 - 1 TCA tainted

Is that just from 2008's notes? You got some bad luck or you're drinking way to much, lol...

Why are drinking 97 Nacional so soon? I guess in this case it was warranted?

Axel P · Post by **Axel P** » 20:16 Thu 08 Jan 2009

mosesbotbol wrote:Why are drinking 97 Nacional so soon? I guess in this case it was warranted?

Moses,

it actually was as there was a very generous re-tasting with another bottle, which I had to miss for not being in London at this time

Axel

uncle tom · Post by **uncle tom** » 05:06 Tue 13 Jan 2009

Curious to know, was the wine cloudy or too dark to notice?

With the Niepoort it was unclear whether the wine was generally cloudy or if the eruption had raised the sediment.

I recall that affected CDP's lack clarity in the glass, so you may be on to a characteristic of the problem.

Odd that old bottles seem to have no history of this - is it a new bug? - or can wines eventually recover??

Anyone seen references to this type of problem in old writings? - I can't recall any..

Tom

RonnieRoots · Post by **RonnieRoots** » 04:37 Tue 20 Jan 2009

1977 Quarles Harris - corked.

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 20:02 Sun 01 Feb 2009

At the 1970 tasting on 30 January 2009 in London, the Fonseca 1970 was badly corked.

Glenn E. · Post by **Glenn E.** » 07:21 Mon 02 Feb 2009

At the 2009 Port Gala in Seattle:

1970 Dow's was corked, but covered it well with massive fruits for a while. This is the second such bottle corked in this manner that I have encountered in the last month. In both cases the Port just seemed a little muted to me, but otherwise fine. In both cases others were absolutely sure it was corked.

1983 Cockburn's was so badly corked that some people recoiled physically. This was the first time I've ever been able to smell TCA, and to me it really wasn't that offensive. General concensus is that I'm whacked.

1970 Ferreira was very mildly corked... there was some argument about whether or not it was actually corked or not. Naturally it tasted and smelled fine to me, and I rather liked it. More proof that I'm whacked.

I also thought that the 1963 Warre's was corked - it tasted strongly of wet cardboard to me - but no one else out of 17 people could smell it or taste it. Since I normally cannot taste or smell it when a bottle is corked unless (like the 1983 Cockburn) it is really horribly corked, me being the only person to note it is probably an aberration. Others thought something was off, but were certain that it was not corked.

I recall there being one other corked bottle during the 3 days, but can't find it in my notes at the moment and cannot remember which one it was. One of the Douro dry reds was also corked, but I didn't take note because I wasn't drinking wine.

RonnieRoots · Post by **RonnieRoots** » 08:59 Mon 02 Feb 2009

Glenn E. wrote:At the 2009 Port Gala in Seattle:

1983 Cockburn's was so badly corked that some people recoiled physically. This was the first time I've ever been able to smell TCA, and to me it really wasn't that offensive. General concensus is that I'm whacked.

Roy really has that effect on this port doesn't he?

Glenn E. · Post by **Glenn E.** » 17:32 Mon 02 Feb 2009

It wasn't Roy's!

I don't remember who brought the bottle - it might have been David Spriggs - but it was someone who has had good luck with his case of the 1983, and so the idea was that the rest of his case should also be good and we could all enjoy a good bottle of it. In theory. In practice, any 1983 Cockburn's that gets within an arm's length of Roy appears to instantly become corked on the spot.

Since I'm so immune to TCA, or at least seem to be, I actually thought the Cockburn's was decent. Yeah, it smelled a little musty and tasted somewhat subdued, but I could tell that there was a really nice Port hiding in there.

RonnieRoots · Post by **RonnieRoots** » 06:56 Tue 03 Feb 2009

Ah, so the conclusion is that Roy's attendance is enough to cork a Cockburn. Wicked.

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 23:59 Sat 07 Feb 2009

1983 Cockburn that I opened at home tonight was very mildly corked - but still hugely powerful and massively fruity.

Andy Velebil · Post by **Andy Velebil** » 15:18 Sun 08 Feb 2009

AHB wrote:1983 Cockburn that I opened at home tonight was very mildly corked - but still hugely powerful and massively fruity.

Almost all the corked Cockburns I've had didn't show corked at first decanting as there was so much fruit it really hid it. But with some decanting it just gets more and more pronounced to the point where its just a liquid soggy wet cardboard and is undrinkable. Sadly this is approaching about a 80-90% corked rate.

g-man · Post by **g-man** » 15:34 Fri 13 Feb 2009

With tonight's grahams tasting
I'd like to point out that Grahams is one house I've never had luck with and today being Friday the 13th ....
welp .. let's hope my luck changes for the better.

Grahams 77- 2x (out of 7)
, 80 - 1x (out of 5)
, 85- 2x( out of 8)
, 70- 1x (out of 2)

RonnieRoots · Post by **RonnieRoots** » 04:43 Wed 18 Feb 2009

Conclusion: If you open a Cockburn 1983: Don't decant.

Post by **jdaw1** » 14:41 Thu 19 Feb 2009

Several posts moved by jdaw1 into new thread The Great TCA Debate.

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 22:03 Sat 11 Jul 2009

Morgan 1963 - badly corked, but this was the first bad one out of 5 drunk. 26 June 2009.

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 13:17 Thu 23 Jul 2009

At The Crusting Pipe on 21st July, we experienced a bad bottle of 1983 Churchill Agua Alta and a mildly corked bottle of 1987 Cavadinha.

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 22:06 Mon 19 Oct 2009

Warre 1991, a bad bottle spoiled perhaps by bacterial infection

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 18:26 Sat 07 Nov 2009

On October 26, 2009, a bottle of Morgan 1977 was opened and found to be mildly corked

VJR · Post by **VJR** » 21:33 Tue 08 Dec 2009

Great thread. I've experienced a slight "saltiness" that frequently reflects excessive VA - across almost all major houses (a widespread flaw among 85 VPs?)

This appears to be a systemic issue in 85... Fonseca being a notable exception, Grahams less volatile than others.
As a result, I'm concerned that many 85s may already be in decline.

I've also had several bottles of the 97 Niepoort with prominent VA...and then there were the leakage problems during one of the bottling runs.
On the same topic see also related thread http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/sho ... light=port

Cheers, victor

KillerB · Post by **KillerB** » 17:25 Thu 10 Dec 2009

Tasting Notes with "TCA" written in them. If any are unjustified, please let me know

1970 Taylor's VP
1985 Graham
1970 Dalva Vintage Port
1985 Croft
1977 DOW Vintage Port
1970 Taylor
2001 Dows Late Bottled Vintage Port
1983 Cockburn
1983 Kopke vintage port
1985 Fonseca
1970 Dow
1970 Fonseca
1963 Graham
1977 Croft Vintage Port - TCA
1978 Taylor's Quinta de Vargellas
1994 Martinez vintage port
1983 Cockburn VP
1980 Niepoort Vintage Port
1967 Quinta do Noval Nacional

KillerB · Post by **KillerB** » 17:45 Thu 10 Dec 2009

could peope stop using the words 'nighTCAp', 'fruiTCAke' and 'suiTCAse' in their tasting notes please?

Deleted_User_1 · Post by **Deleted_User_1** » 02:27 Mon 01 Feb 2010

Is it me or am I just unlucky as I opened a Moggies 91 earlier today and the cork almost exploded from the bottle. The contents, however, remained and is bearing up like most M91's I have had before, however, a non Port drinking member of my family who I asked to taste it noted a distinct 'fizz'...anyone had that before?

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 13:52 Tue 02 Feb 2010

Cookie wrote:Is it me or am I just unlucky as I opened a Moggies 91 earlier today and the cork almost exploded from the bottle. The contents, however, remained and is bearing up like most M91's I have had before, however, a non Port drinking member of my family who I asked to taste it noted a distinct 'fizz'...anyone had that before?

I've had fizzy port before (not the Morgan 1991 though), but never been able to get a definitive explanation as to what makes it fizzy. I've always assumed that port is too alcoholic for a malolactic fermentation so the only other process I could come up with to explain the fizz was a bacterial infection in the bottle.

clawhit · Post by **clawhit** » 17:12 Thu 11 Feb 2010

1963 Warres - but was showing signs of recent seepage
1950 Dow's - had a really sticky capsule, and on opening was completely gone, extremely medicinal on nose.

A second 63 Warres was also showing to have recent seepage but was beautiful - let's hope the rest of the case is like this and not like the 1st bottle.

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 20:52 Wed 10 Mar 2010

Two bottles of Croft 1985 opened yesterday were full of VA. I took a sample bottle home and tried it again, 24 hours after opening. Still full of VA but underneath all that nail varnish is a tasty and powerful port. One to avoid if you don't like VA but a nice port if you don't mind VA (I'm in the latter camp).

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 12:04 Fri 23 Apr 2010

Dow 1977 at the blind tasting at TCP on Monday 19 April 2010.

Warre 1980 at a Warre tasting on Saturday 17 April 2010.

Mark D · Post by **Mark D** » 18:31 Fri 23 Apr 2010

Dow's Quinta de Bomfim 1996

Crumbly cork. Breaks apart every time.

Grrr.

dcs · Post by **dcs** » 23:38 Sat 26 Jun 2010

Glenn E. wrote:It wasn't Roy's!

I don't remember who brought the bottle - it might have been David Spriggs

It wasn't me who brought it! I brought :

1966 Taylor VP
1994 Vesuvio VP
2003 Casa de Casal de Loivos
2004 Quinta do Crasto "Vinha da Ponte"

I believe the guy who brought it lived in Florida.

Roy Hersh · Post by **Roy Hersh** » 01:18 Sat 03 Jul 2010

A few points of clarification:

a. the last bottle of 1983 Cockburn I opened from my own cellar was in very fine condition. Not as great a bottle as some I've had, but with extended decanting ... zero signs of TCA. Back in the 1990s, I considered this the Port of the vintage. Not anymore.

b. the 1983 mentioned in this thread from our Gala in 2009, was actually brought by an old friend of mine who had NEVER had a corked 1983 Cockburn from the many he'd opened. Todd lives in Atlanta, GA.

c. Although I have had a few dozen bottles of 1983 Cockburn's, the first case I owned in the 1990s, showed a 100% rate of successful bottles w/o any bad bottles. This was purchased from a now defunct company called Tinamou (in CA). The second case was purchased along with a 3rd from the same source ... The Wine Club (SF) in around 1998 or 1999. I had only one or two TCA infected bottles from the 2nd case. The 3rd which I am currently on, has had six of the past eight bottles corked. Every time I open one, I now worry. I don't know that I'd agree with an 80-90% rate of TCA on that bottling ... but none of us will ever know.

d. The bottle Miguel Corte Real brought to The Crusting Pipe in 2008 was lightly corked too and I was the first to mention, as it appeared other people were initially vacillating whether or not to bring it up, while some present, did not even notice TCA at all. Agreed it was probably only 2-3 ppt; but it certainly got worse over the subsequent hour and should have left no doubt in anyone's mind. In 2009, when Derek and I had lunch with Miguel, I even asked him about this "phenomenon" and inquired if Cockburn's would be willing to trade another vintage for bottles left in people's cellars and he was clear that was not possible. I felt it inappropriate to push on this point.

I'd hate to list all of the corked Ports I've had over the years, white/Ruby/LBV/VP/even a bad bottle of 1952 Dalva a few months ago. Too many to list, that's for sure. However, only within the past year, after several hundred bottles of Madeira, did I finally come across ONE with TCA. Remarkable!

Post by **DRT** » 18:43 Wed 07 Jul 2010

Roy Hersh wrote:I'd hate to list all of the corked Ports I've had over the years, white/Ruby/LBV/VP/even a bad bottle of 1952 Dalva a few months ago. Too many to list, that's for sure. However, only within the past year, after several hundred bottles of Madeira, did I finally come across ONE with TCA. Remarkable!

The discussion prompted by the above quote has been split from this thread and can be found here

RonnieRoots · Post by **RonnieRoots** » 18:32 Tue 17 Aug 2010

AHB wrote:
Cookie wrote:Is it me or am I just unlucky as I opened a Moggies 91 earlier today and the cork almost exploded from the bottle. The contents, however, remained and is bearing up like most M91's I have had before, however, a non Port drinking member of my family who I asked to taste it noted a distinct 'fizz'...anyone had that before?
I've had fizzy port before (not the Morgan 1991 though), but never been able to get a definitive explanation as to what makes it fizzy. I've always assumed that port is too alcoholic for a malolactic fermentation so the only other process I could come up with to explain the fizz was a bacterial infection in the bottle.

I know StevieCage had this once with a Niepoort 1997. Strange phenomenon.