A scientist's view of the right Champagne glass

The subject of the right Champagne glasses has been dealt with many times here. I may be late to the party but I just found this video today. https://www.msn.com/en-us/foodanddrink/video/stop-using-champagne-flutes-%e2%80%94-this-is-the-best-way-to-drink-champagne/vi-BBYva8H. It is convincing and I will put it to the test.

Too much Champagne and my mind turns into a ‘slow bubble engine.’

She’s a smart lady but a brandy snifter is a bit much. Any tulip-shaped glass should be just fine, since the same principles apply to all wine. Also, I think she’s a little bit wrong on her physiology. In any event, since we don’t drink much sparkling wine, we just use a regular wine glass.

I doubt that the speed of the bubbles depends on the shape of the glass, so I don’t understand why she says that the flute makes a fast “bubble engine” and the coupe a slow one.The only difference I see between the two cases is the path traveled by the bubbles to get to the surface, which is longer for the flute and shorter for the coupe. At constant speed this means that the flute is slow and the coupe is fast.
Or am I missing something?

Could the longer path traveled by the bubbles in the flute result in a larger bubble, thereby displacing more liquid and creating greater turnover? Ie faster bubble engine (just love that term haha). I think another random factor would be the number of nucleation sites, which could vary from glass to glass.

It’s noticeable that she doesn’t explain the determinants of the speed of displacement. It may be that the narrowness vs. width forces different speeds. I know we have physicists on the board who could answer this, but they may not be bubble experts, as this one is claimed to be. Given my ignorance of the physics, I’m not disposed to dispute the case absent some more information.

Looks like my Burgundy glasses. https://www.klwines.com/p/i?i=720103

Also, I have tulip shaped Champagne glasses that seem to be what she is describing. https://www.klwines.com/p/i?i=1323102

god i love the internet. here we have a video made by a physicist specializing in bubbles of all things (with a phd in experimental explosives physics !!!) and in a few posts we have complete amateurs doubting her conclusions and observations.

cue up the clip from annie hall:

In her defense she did say “to pick something that’s about the shape of a brandy glass” rather than actually suggesting you use one.

But her helping to destroy the myth of the utility of Champagne flutes makes me a fan. I usually prefer something akin to a good white wine stem or Bordeaux style glass. At least for Champagne. Cheaper sparkling wines may be better in something more constricted.

For me, the only sensible conclusion to draw is that you shouldn’t fill your glass too high. It doesn’t really matter that much how big or small the glass is, you just want to contain some of the aroma compounds in the head space, instead of having them wander off into the room.

You missed it I think. What I think she is saying is: in a simple picture each bubble accelerates upward until released at the surface and gets larger so the longer the distance (say in a filled flute), plus add the force on the liquid to get it flowing, means the higher the speed of the bubble at release compared to a shorter vertical distance and the more angular momentum in the fluid flow in the glass. Momentum is conserved. The physics sounds ok.

Now I don’t know if she’s 100% right about release of aromatic compounds, but it sounded plausible that it’s good to have (i) slower bubble machine as she called it so slower release at the surface of aromatic compounds combined with (ii) containment using a tulip-shaped glass for the aromatic compounds.

I understood her to be saying that the movement of bubble and wine through the glass, the bubble machine as she says, was faster. But maybe she meant what you are saying.

I think we are saying the same thing. It’s faster if the liquid depth is larger.

Sounds pretty consistent with the conventional berserkers wisdom

You are seeing the “forest for the trees” I think Alan.

Well, it’s not like she did (at least on video) double-blind experiments with wine glasses. . She is a physicist and oceanographer specializing in ocean wave surface bubbles (who mostly acts as a TV presenter, not that there is anything wrong with that) , and it’s conceivable (though certainly not certain, or even likely) that Champagne acts differently than salty water in motion. More importantly, she is opining about “better” on a thing that is pretty obviously subjective.

My various wine groups have done the flute vs white wine glass competition probably at least 5 times over years (we’ve never done coupes or brandy snifters), and in every case split decisions. And I’ve also often preferred one wine in white glass and other in flute. . I find I seem prefer regular stems for heavier Champagnes (Krug, Bollys) and flutes for crisper styles. But at home use white wine glasses most of time. But I’d also note her example of flute explicitly says “if you fill near top” which no one I know usually does. I think both wine and occasion make a difference. When I have non-geek friends for dinner I always use flutes (ok, I selfishing usually use Zalto Champagnes for me and most geeky) for welcoming wine, because a 2 ounce pour looks fine. Happy to refill (and open as many bottles as needed) but hate proceeding to table with most of a magnum sitting around living room.

Whatever the physics of the bubbles themselves, I have never cared for flutes because (I presume) the smaller cross sectional area from which the aromas emerge. This is as with any wine, a narrow glass just does not cut it. One can take any number of Champagnes and compare between a conventional flute and (for example) a Zalto, and there is NO comparison… I guess she is arguing that the bubbles are responsible for the added volatility and aromas from the glass, which could be true, but I would suggest to use the wider bottom (more sites for nucleation of bubbles) and then the somewhat wider (but perhaps gently focused) bowl from which the aromas emerge.

None of this takes into account the biodynamic interactions of the human sensory interface with the gas transport medium. In other words, if the flute opening is narrow I can’t jam my shnozz in there. Yea I prefer a regular wine glass for champagne for all reasons above, plus I like the bigger opening for greater nasal access.

Best champagne celebrations for me have been the ones drank straight from the bottle.
She could probably make some coin consulting Riedel or another stemware maker.
I typically use ones like this but wouldn’t be able tell flavor or aroma differences on any variations: https://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/store/product/riedel-performance-champagne-glasses-set-of-2/5208612?skuId=65329511&&enginename=google&mcid=PS_googlepla_nonbrand_winebar_online&product_id=65329511&adtype=pla&product_channel=online&adpos=1o3&creative=356208182086&device=c&matchtype=&network=g&mrkgadid=558356621&mrkgcl=609&rkg_id=0&gclsrc=ds&gclsrc=ds

Yes, it must be that the bubbles collect smaller bubbles along the way, become larger and accelerate.