There have been some old threads and articles on the science of this and I’m not going to look them up. But one of the main takeaways is that the differences in how a wine presents in one glass vs. another have a lot more to do with what you can’t see than what you can - i.e. the shape of the glass is not particularly important, but the surface texture (how smooth or rough it is under a high powered microscope) will affect the aromas after you swirl the wine around in your glass because there is more or less surface area covered by the aromatic compounds. And this can be dictated both by the material of the glass itself and by how clean or dirty it is. I don’t know if anybody ever debunked Reidel’s claims about their glass shapes directing the wine to a particular part of your tongue, but I’m fairly certain nobody’s ever substantiated it, and Reidel itself has made a mockery of the idea by having as much glass shape variation for wines of a particular variety within their whole product line than they do across wine types within a particular style. Regardless, “differences” in glass performance - even if one concedes they are material/perceptible differences, which I don’t - are irrelevant unless they are consistent differences. Obviously, if the differences are basically random, then this whole sub-hobby of geeking out over wine glass shapes is self-deception.
Okay, so what you’re saying is there are differences. But Riedel’s specific claims (are there specific claims or just marketing jargon?) are dubious at best.
I don’t see how this all should preclude an interest in getting good glassware. What you might be advocating is at some level “it’s all good enough” which isn’t helpful to someone that really, really likes and prefers Zalto over whatever else.
as for your concessions - you already admitted there are potential differences. therefore the limitations may reside with you and not with the glass. just taking my champagne example, the differences are consistently different; the glass therefore makes a difference. there’s no value in quantifying that difference to the customer, only to the marketer of those glasses.
The problem with Reidel’s rationale is that the notion of different taste buds being concentrated on different parts of the tongue came from an 1894 study and has been debunked.
![[berserker.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/8/8600bbd4810d342b8fbd4ffb62b4f0026275fd37.gif "berserker"){kind=small}
What this discussion looks like from 30,000 ft.
Heck, I’m just excited we are geeking out about, “this whole sub-hobby of geeking out over wine glass shapes”. One of many reasons I enjoy this hobby so damn much. 
FWIW, I’m solidly in the camp that wine glass quality and shape plays a definite part in the enjoyment of wine. Don’t really give a damn about why, or whether or not I’m foolish for thinking it makes a difference, I just know from my own experience it does make a difference. Viva la difference!!
Love the discussion and the passion. But I also see some “conventional wisdom”, and maybe incorrect assumptions about what happens in a glass of wine.
I’ll link back to a similar discussion where some of these points were raised last year, and the contention made that the majority of a wine’s aroma contributes to taste through the retronasal effect, and even that to a greater degree through what we pick up through exhaling after swallowing:
My biggest objection to these glass comparisons is that they aren’t controlled in any way, and they almost certainly don’t account for the fact that smell and taste receptors get saturated and need time to recover, which they probably haven’t done when people compare wines in different glasses (as an aside, also an objection to the way most professional reviewers taste wine - too fast, without their palates being able to recover between wines, but that’s for a different thread). If you have any doubt about this, next time you have a corked wine, try coming back and smelling it 10 or 20 seconds later and see if it seems as corked as it did on the first whiff.
Then, some elementary geometry: look at the average glass, and you’ll see that the diameter of the opening is typically about proportional to the diameter of the surface of the wine when filled “properly” (whatever that means, and remember that you aren’t keeping the glass filled as you drink it, so the surface area is changing). This means that the surface-to-volume ratio in a glass depends mainly on the height of the bowl, independent of glass shape - which is a little counterintuitive relative to how we think about surface-to-volume as objects increase in size (it goes up linearly with size), because in this case we only have the one liquid surface, not the entire object. The Gabriel (below on the left) and Zalto (center) have about the same ratios of diameter at wine level to diameter at opening (I also included the Zalto Burg glass for comparison). The conclusion I draw is that the ratio of glass volume to wine surface is about the same for the Gabriel and Zalto glasses. Given that, I can’t see how the two should be very different in comparing aroma.
What does that mean? if you just pour a glass and let it sit there, whatever volatile compounds there are will evaporate from the surface and diffuse into the space above the liquid. Some compounds will evaporate faster than others. Some will diffuse up through the air space faster than others (and not necessarily faster than the fast evaporating compounds). BTW, that diffusion from the liquid surface up to the opening can take minutes for the average compound, and it can vary by factors of 2 or 3 or more across the variety of molecular sizes and compositions (that just means that some compounds will reach the opening faster than others).
There are lots of other factors that are hard to model: most of the time we aren’t just leaving a glass to sit for minutes before taking a sip; we swirl the wine, which pushes the liquid around, which pushes the air space around, which moves aroma compounds around and encourages air from outside to get in. I think there is a misconception about what happens in the glass, i.e., people believe that the volatile compounds are rushing out of the glass like air out of a balloon, so having a large volume and a small opening is somehow beneficial in containing those compounds. That’s not a good description at all. The compounds are very slowly evaporating and diffusing up to fill the bowl, and when you stick your nose in you smell what’s managed to make it to that height at that point in time. If you take a whiff right after pouring, you’re not getting the larger, less volatile, slower moving compounds (of which, BTW, TCA is one), you’re getting the smaller, faster, more volatile compounds like VA, SO2, small sulfur compounds, etc. Not the larger flavor esters that give a wine it’s positive aromas.
There is no question (in my own experience) that glass “shape” affects our perception of the aroma of a wine. But my own hypothesis is that shape itself has less to do with it, and height is a principal factor. I actually think you’ll experience more aroma from a smaller, shorter glass than from a larger taller glass.
But again, I contend that the aroma contributing to what we taste is not so much what we smell before taking a sip, as it is what volatizes in the mouth, throat, and airway as we swish and swallow. And as always, drink from whatever glass gives you the most enjoyment ![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
I’m super-interested in getting good glassware. Design stuff interests me. I love the Gabriel Glas. It’s a beautiful thing. But I’m under no illusions that it’s making my wine taste any better. People should buy and be happy with whatever glass looks cool to them, feels good in their hand, and doesn’t break all the time.
Why do you and GregT doubt glass shape and type can make a difference? It’s a proven scientific fact that smell influences taste. It’s bluntly obvious when you compare glasses that different shaped bowls accentuate aromas in different manners, which will affect taste perception.
I am going to dip my toes a bit in this whole kerfuffle just because we are all geeks here. I was a bit skeptic before but I am in the camp that the glass that you use can make a difference in your overall wine drinking experience. I was a skeptic before but a few years ago (maybe around 7+) me and my wife went into a wine bar in Marin. It was a om and pop joint, operated by the owner and his daughter. Very talkative guy and very passionate about wines in general. This was during the infancy of my wine hobby and was skeptical about wine glasses and their effect on wine taste. The owner had this interesting experiment, he poured us the same wine in two different glasses, a Riedel Extreme pinot noir glass and an ordinary “ikea” looking thick-lipped wine goblet type of lass (the one you can buy for $1.50 back then). Lo and behold the wine did actually taste different in both glasses particularly because I could barely smell the wine in the Ikea like glass. Again the argument I see here is that wine glasses influence only smell not taste, but isn’t the overall tasting experience a combination of taste AND smell? I am sure everyone here agrees that when one has a really bad cold that wines taste very different, even food. So yes, I do believe that the wine glass has an effect on how we wine taste overall when we consider smell as a integral part of the whole tasting experience.
However, through anecdotal experience, I believe that the difference between wine glass types are not that great if the wine glasses are all of good quality. So for example, I would personally not see a big difference between a pinot noir in an SZ forte burg glass and a Zalto Burg glass. Neither do I think I would be able to tell the difference of the same wine poured in a Zalto universal and a Gabriel glass. I do sometimes see differences if the same wine poured on lets say a champagne flute versus a big bowl burg glass, but that is pretty much common sense as the smell in the burg glass is going to be different from a tiny flute. Although to say which one is better is a whole other topic…
yeah, but “better” than what exactly? another high end proper glass or a mason jar? a solo cup?
you can’t have it both ways. either the glass makes a difference (and reasonable folks can debate the amount) or it doesn’t make a difference at all - meaning; any vessel for consuming wine equals any other vessel for consuming wine.
I agree with you – the bolded proposition is what I think interests all of us here. Like you, my eyes were opened at a glass tasting that Georg Riedel put on in San Francisco in the early 90s. They had three sets of glasses – some thick Libby things you’d find in a dive cafe; a mid-range, relatively light glass; and the Riedels. I found the mid-range glasses pretty much on a par with the Riedels – not what Georg would have liked me to conclude. I confess I haven’t ever compared high-end glasses side by side with the same wine.
I do think shape makes a difference. Like a lot of people, I prefer Burgundy balloons for Burgundy and nebbiolo. I’m less fussy about other types of wines.
Burgundy glasses make great port and beer glasses too.
Keith is saying (if I may) that he gets more pleasure out of drinking from a beautiful, high quality glass. While the glass itself may physically contribute little to the actual taste, the “experience” is more than just the biochemical taste of the wine. Otherwise we could just drink out of the bottle, like a beer.
I’ve said before, if the aroma you get before you put a wine in your mouth has that much of an effect on the overall taste, some restaurateur needs to capitalize on this by using dishes that “focus” the food aromas before you take a bite.
Aroma does have an effect on how you process food:
Yes, after you start chewing: “Make sure you hold your nose the entire time you are chewing and swallowing.”
Though clearly being able to smell the apple before you take the bite is going to be a dead giveaway.
Just did a taste test between these two glasses (Riedel Ouverture Red wine, and Libbey medium juice). Smells and tastes exactly the same to me. Of course, that being my expectation was probably a factor.
Retronasal olfaction doesn’t depend on sticking your nose in a glass and sniffing. You can hold your nose and still taste wine just fine.
Brilliant. Reidel needs to get in on this game. Can’t eat your ribeye off of a KC strip plate…