TN: Clos des Papes 2001 - Same wine, four different glasses, 180ml pours, 14%vol

Only brief unscientific notes but a basic impression of how a wine glass may affect a specific wine…

Riedel Vinum Burgundy - perhaps, unsurprisingly, gives the impression of heat the most but also conveys the more floral elements in this wine. The wine seems soft and flabby with lots of sweetness showing too and a distinct lack of garrigue & spice. Tempers the acidity and comes across as slightly stewed. 89pts

Riedel Vinum Syrah / Shiraz - the alcohol is less prominent in this and the nose is beautifully poised. Pure, delicious and delightfully balanced. The fruit comes across as slightly richer/brighter/younger with lots of finesse with a touch more meaty density. Illustrates the herbal/spice notes to perfection. Easily my favourite glass of the night. 94pts

Riedel Vinum Chianti / Riesling - similar to the Syrah but the wine seems less sweet and dryer/tannic with much persistence. Some good meaty aspects here with good spicy notes. Overall the wine was nicely presented but lacked personality although the wines perfume showed remarkable well here. Certainly the best glass for general mix of wines. 91pts

Schott Zwiesel Pure Burgundy - the wine come across as a stewed mess after 15 minutes. Disjointed and unbalanced. I can imaging anyone drinking this wine from this massive bowl would be disappointed - to hot, flabby and sweet. No garrigue here either and the least successful glass for this wine. The acidity is non-existent here. 85pts

Left to right… Riedel Vinum Burgundy, Schott Zwiesel Pure Burgundy, Riedel Vinum Syrah/Shiraz, Riedel Vinum Chianti/Riesling

I have never been able to find much variation with 10 points swings like that between any decent wine glass. My taste buds must be shot.

I agree that different stemware will change what is emphasized in a wine, but don’t find the degree of variation as high as you suggest.

Phil, a really interesting trial, thanks for the report. As someone who is skeptical of wine glass shape making any difference to the taste of a wine, a few questions: Did you try the four glasses in fairly rapid succession, or did you let your palate recover for a few minutes between each taste? Or did you drink from one glass for a while, them move on to the next? Was there food involved? Any other wines?

did you repeat each wine in a different order?

What? no Zalto?

Were you blindfolded as the glasses were held up to your lips by Master Sommeliers?

In what order were the glasses poured?

Were the glasses all washed at the same time, in the same manner?

What day of the week was it?

Are you a Pisces?

We’re just trying to get to the facts, you see!

I did this recently with champagne in 3 different glasses and I doubt I would blindly call them the same wines. Differences were massive. None were bad, just very different. I’m not surprised by these results.

Fantastic superlative note!

I love stem tastings!

Thank you for posting your experience.

For many years I have experimented with different glasses - actually I have almost all Riedels thru, as well as a lot others.
Ok, the strongest difference is the nose … for me personally too wide glasses diminish the intensity of the bouquet too much (so I don´t like the R. Burgundy) - and also the glass should be slightly tighter on the upper rim than the bowl … (the traditional French Burgundy glasses are crap …)
but on the other hand: when the wine is in the mouth, on the palate - there is no difference any more at all … so I would never see such huge differences …
Personally I use Riedel Chianti and similar shaped glasses for almost all wine tastings … only at home at the tabel I have some others, too.

Many people swirl the wine in the glass immediately after pouring - and heavily … I think this is a mistake. I leave it sitting in the glass for a minute or so, then smell without swirling (when several wines are to compare I don´t taste befoer I have smelled all wines) - the smell again, taste the wine, swirl it - and smell again … there are significant differences before and after swirling, so these easily can get lost …

Just my 2 c

This is great! We no longer need to buy great wines, just great wine glasses.

+1

Amaxing how diffuse the wine is in the Reidel Burg stems. A complete waste of an expensive glass for me.

Agreed with Burgundy in the glass. I let the Crate & Barrel Hip Red or Zalto Burgundy glass do the work of concentrating aroma with swirling kept to a minimum or not at all.

I’m always amazed at the variation when the same wine is served from different styles of glasses side by side – not just the intensity of the flavors and aromas but the structures can seem quite different.

I applaud Phil for the really nice post, and particularly for the photo. I took the liberty of putting together a little collage of the four glasses, and then showing them at roughly a normal drinking angle, adding in little triangles to represent the liquid surface as it would flow into your mouth:

I’m open to some physically based explanation of how differences in the interface between lips, glass, and liquid surface could have any impact on the taste of a wine, particularly once it’s out of the glass and in your mouth.

There are so many variables at play when tasting multiple wines (or glasses of the same wine). But I remain unconvinced that glass shape is one of them.

Alan – Great graphic work there!

I’m curious: Have you ever tried the same wine from different glasses? Given your scientific interests, I think you’d find it fascinating and surprising.

I’ve done it on a number of occasions – including several times where I hoped to convince the members of a tasting group to upgrade the stemware they provide when they host. The differences are in many cases far beyond what you can explain as merely the power of suggestion or expectations.

John,
Oh yes, I’ve done it, using a range of glasses similar to what Phil did here (pretty much the standards). For me, I just haven’t found much, if any, difference between glasses - except for certain aroma aspects. And of course really cheap, thick glassware has a definite negative psychological effect, even for me.

I absolutely believe people perceive differences between glass shapes when doing comparative tastings. I just believe those differences must be due to other variables when tasting, like which glass was tasted first, time between successive tastes, effects of aeration over time, deterioration or saturation of palate, subconscious expectations or biases, etc., etc. Other than the “autodecanting” aspect of having wine in different shapes, with different surface/volume ratios, I can’t understand how the glass shape has any impact on the wine flowing into your mouth. It’s like water flowing over a dam - doesn’t really matter how big the lake is behind it, could be lake Mead, or a local reservoir, the water flows exactly the same from each if it gets over the edge.

Thick, Libby-type glasses do suck. And it does seem to be more than the aesthetics. Wines tasted out of them just seem to have no flavor at all. I’ve wondered if the very thick lips have some impact.

As for the shape of the bowl, Riedel’s theory is that it alters where the wine lands on your tongue and thus which taste buds the wine flows past. That has some plausibility, even if you find the full Riedel rationale of different glasses for every appelation a bit self-serving.

Also, since aromas are a huge part of what we think of as taste (and not just smell), to the extend different bowls amplify aromas, that obviously can affect taste.

The first glass tasting I attended was sponsored by Riedel. I found the good mid-range glasses were just as good as Riedels, and far better than the cheaper glasses with the same wine. So, in my case, my perceptions of glass quality don’t correlate perfectly with price or reputation.

Hmm, first, the notion that there are different groups of taste buds sensitive to different flavors or sensations (acid, bitter, etc.) has been put to rest for a long time. That’s an idea from two centuries ago. Second, does my little illustration not raise suspicion about that argument?

Also, since aromas are a huge part of what we think of as taste (and not just smell), to the extend different bowls amplify aromas, that obviously can affect taste.

This is a strong argument, that is often made. And as I said, there is zero doubt in my mind (through direct experience) that glass shape can have a large impact on the aromas we smell while nosing a wine. My current theory is that it’s mainly the height of the glass that is most important (not the total volume), because the glass acts something like a distillation column, with heavier, less volatile compounds less likely to reach the opening of the glass (e.g., TCA).

But let me counter it: while the glass shape may have an impact on what we smell coming out of the glass, I claim that the “aroma” aspect of taste doesn’t depend on what we’re smelling before the wine is in the mouth, but how the volatile components reach the nasal receptors once you’re swishing the wine around in your mouth. If that’s not true, how do we distinguish and enjoy the huge range of flavors found in solid foods, many of which don’t even have strong aromas (e.g., a carrot, a peach, a chocolate chip cookie).

If you believe that the wine aroma emanating from the glass makes a significant contribution to how it tastes once sipped, then I would argue we’re all making a huge mistake by not putting all our food in the cuisinart and blending into liquid form before we consume it. Imagine how much better a good New York Strip would taste if we could set all those aromas free before putting it in our mouth!

BTW, I find this never-ending discussion fascinating, and in no way would I ever try to persuade someone that their choice of glass/shape isn’t the right thing for them. If you believe a glass makes the wine taste better, and you feel more comfortable and confident with a particular glass, by all means use that glass.

That’s pretty funny that the taste bud distribution theory has been debunked. I guess someone forgot to tell Georg Riedel (or me).

Just because the aromas of food before entry into the mouth may not be critical to tasting them, I don’t think it necessarily follows that the aromas of wine entering the nose from the glass rather than from the mouth are irrelevant. If you’ve ever had a garlicky dish or truffles, you know that the pre-chewing aromas are a big part of the experience. (Also, with food you get salt and sweet sensations in the mouth more often than you get those in wines, so food offers true taste dimensions that wines don’t usually have.)

As I said, in my glass testings I’ve tried hard to be skeptical, and the fanciest glasses haven’t always come out on top, so for me I think the differences go beyond the power of suggestion.

Phil, that’s quite a nice ‘casual’ photo!