I did try the Cru vs. the Zalto Burg tonight. Was initially pleased with the nose in the Cru. Later, I tried the Zalto and got more on the nose than in the Cru. More experimentation is needed. I think I recall reading that some found the Cru better for older burgs and the Zalto better for younger Burgs. This was a 2014 A/C Gevrey from Esmonin so pretty young to me.
From my own limited side by side comparisons using Grassl Cru vs. Zalto Burg my very general guideline is - I’m using Cru for older red burgs and Zalto Burg for younger. This is based off 12-15 examples.
2 Likes
You tried the Zalto later in the evening. I’m wondering if the difference was due to the glass or the wine opening up? I would like to see your findings tasting the wine at the same time side-by-side.
1 Like
The amount of nonsense around glassware never ceases to amaze me. Fortunately, we have a beautiful photo in the OP to illustrate that there is little actual difference between these glass shapes.
Elementary geometry tells you that the wine surface to glass volume ratio is pretty much the same across these four glasses. You think you can tell the 5 or 10% difference between them? And how high do you fill your glass? And what happens as you drink, and the level drops? And what order did you sample each glass?
Come on, the idea that “older burgundy tastes better from this glass”, but “younger burgundy tastes better from that glass” is just silly.
I’m here to tell you that there are a dozen things that impact your perception far more than glass shape.
What I will say is that these are beautiful stems! I have, and love drinking from the Liberte. But not because it makes the wine smell or taste better than my every day Riedel restaurant red wine glasses, but because it just makes the experience seem fancier.
Drink out of whatever glass appeals to your eye, and your hand, and your wallet.
9 Likes
I did try them both side by side.
The size differences are more than 5-10%. Volume varies tremendously with small dimension changes. The Liberté has a capacity of I think 490 ml and the Zalto Burg nearly double at 960 ml. The Cru and 1855 are in between (720?). I cannot provide scientific proof, but I did note a difference in the intensity of the aroma between the Zalto Burg and the Cru side by side as did my wife. This was not confirmation bias as I was expecting the opposite result. But as they say, your mileage may vary. For me, I will continue to experiment and use what I like. I do agree that there is a lot of BS in the marketing claims surrounding glasses—especially in years past—but also think that the size and shape of glasses can have an effect on the nose.
1 Like
Yes, volume varies with diameter. But it does so in the same proportion as the surface area of the wine, which I assume is typically filled around the maximum diameter of the glass (and also varies substantially as you drink the wine). So the ratio of air space to liquid surface area is pretty similar across all four glasses. If they were perfect cylinders, it wouldn’t matter at all, they would be identical in ratio. The small differences attributable to the shape can’t be enough to matter, not in comparison to all the other factors that go into forming an impression about a wine.
Lots of factors—fill will vary, shape of glass, volume of glass, swirl or not, distance from wine to nose, width of opening, how one’s nose/shape of face/with or without eyeglasses fits or doesn’t in a given opening, type of wine, et al. Trying to account for all the variables is difficult. You clearly think the choice of glass does not matter. As I said in my last post, your mileage may vary. However, it does seem like most folks prefer to drink out of tulip shaped glasses and not out of Dixie cups.
2 Likes
I think some aspects might make a modest difference, mainly the height, but that’s just a hunch. My point in this case is that all these glasses (and frankly pretty much every glass anyone talks about around here) have bowls of the same height, so with air space volume being the product of surface area of the liquid x height above the liquid (with some modest variation due to the sloped walls), they all have roughly the same volum-to-wine surface area ratio. The influence of the glass on how the wine smells simply can’t be very different across the array. It’s just simple geometry.
Well, while I appreciate your attempt to apply logic to the issue, I don’t think this issue is as simple as you make it out. There are many studies that have been done. Some of the effects of different wine glass shapes appear psychological in that when tasters cannot touch the glasses used, the ability to distinguish a difference from different glass shapes diminishes or disappears. Yet every study where tasters touched the glasses, differences were found. I never drink wine without holding and swirling with my glass. If you want to get into the weeds in this here is a link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227701843_Influence_of_glass_shape_on_wine_aroma
Bottom line is that we all have to find what works for us.
3 Likes
Well, if you postulate that glass shape physically impacts how a wine smells (I’ve illustrated in previous threads that shape can’t affect how a wine tastes), you need some mechanism to explain it. I’ve pointed out that, for wine just sitting motionless in a glass, the ratio of surface area to glass volume (above the wine) is pretty much constant, with some modest variation due to shape, slope, etc. The only meaningful variable is height - and all these glasses have the same bowl height.
If you want to postulate that swirling is a factor, where aromatics are carried through evaporation from the sides of the glass, the effect is probably counterintuitive: the ratio of surface to volume is inversely proportional to radius. So the smaller the glass, the greater the contribution of evaporation due to swirling.
I’m going to request a copy of the article you linked, I’ve often gone looking for something more scientific. Still, the basic conclusion seems to be that psychological perception of the glass in your hand is the biggest factor, not size or shape.
This I agree with wholeheartedly!
And I applaud the effort, and your fabulous photo of these glasses. I hope Chris trades you something for the right to use the photo 
1 Like
I don’t have to prove anything as I did not post this topic in an effort to get into a debate about whether and to what extent the shape of glasses matter. You decided to advance your own agenda on a topic that I posted merely in an effort to be helpful to others who might like to see and perhaps discuss the differences between the glasses. You allege there is no difference and thus I suppose that the topic is useless. Some might call that trolling. The link I provided contains synopses of many studies if you scroll down. Different methodologies were used. From what I can tell, you can find support in the literature that the shape does not matter. You can also find support–and more of it-- that it does matter. The overall conclusion seems to be that it does matter, but probably not a lot. Some of the differences may well be psychological or connected to the sense of touch interacting with the senses of smell and taste. That does not make these differences nonexistent. The mechanisms of why we, as human beings, find differences between different glasses may be complex/multi-factorial. We all have different aesthetic tastes and sensory perceptions. As I have said twice, your mileage may vary. We are on a board that obsesses over small differences. What matters to me may not to you and vice versa. Don’t see why you feel the need to “prove” your allegation is correct on this issue.
As for the photo, thanks for your kind words but it is just an iphone shot. While I was not unhappy with the look it provided, I suspect I could do better with my real camera.
1 Like
Alan_RathRegular
Well, if you postulate that glass shape physically impacts how a wine smells (I’ve illustrated in previous threads that shape can’t affect how a wine tastes), you need some mechanism to explain it. I’ve pointed out that, for wine just sitting motionless in a glass, the ratio of surface area to glass volume (above the wine) is pretty much constant, with some modest variation due to shape, slope, etc. The only meaningful variable is height - and all these glasses have the same bowl height.
If you want to postulate that swirling is a factor, where aromatics are carried through evaporation from the sides of the glass, the effect is probably counterintuitive: the ratio of surface to volume is inversely proportional to radius. So the smaller the glass, the greater the contribution of evaporation due to swirling.
I’m going to request a copy of the article you linked, I’ve often gone looking for something more scientific. Still, the basic conclusion seems to be that psychological perception of the glass in your hand is the biggest factor, not size or shape.
Have you ever tested different glasses next to each other with the same wine? The differences can be quite dramatic, and in my experience, this is not terribly subjective – the differences will be perceived similarly by others present. (Of course, you have to be careful about soap residue and odors that might linger from a cabinet or box, but those are relatively easy to control for.)
I don’t know the explanation – bowl size, shape, thickness of the glass, whatever. But just because we don’t have a good explanation doesn’t mean it’s not an objectively observable phenomenon.
2 Likes
Stephen, I apologize for what might seem to be criticizing your post, that wasn’t really my intention. Yours is just one of a long stream of “glass shape” threads and for whatever reason I used it to air my thoughts, but it wasn’t meant to be directed at you personally.
As a scientist, I am sensitive to pseudoscience, bad science, and (particularly these past two years, but really you can go back to the beginning of recorded human history) conspiracy science. We live in a time where anyone can “publish” their thoughts on virtually anything, and seem pretty convincing to those without the expertise to know better. So I find myself compelled to respond to topics that encourage acceptance of myths, and conventional wisdoms, no matter how small or harmless. If we don’t push back on small, seemingly harmless beliefs that actually have little or no good understanding behind them, that just opens the door more widely to acceptance of even bigger myths, or outright conspiracy science that has the potential to do real harm.
Having said that, I don’t doubt that different glass shapes and sizes provide a different experience for different people. Certainly some of that (though, based on what I’ve argued here, not as much as it might seem, just looking at different shapes) is due to the physical characteristics of a glass. My own belief is that most of it is psychological, based on how a glass looks and feels to someone.
1 Like
Of course I have, John. But I think those differences are attributable more to psychological perception, order of tasting, palate saturation, etc., than physical shape. Comparing a couple of different glasses at home is a far cry from a large double blind study, with statistically significant results. When I see that - together with some correlation to different physical attributes of the various glass shapes, I’ll be persuaded. Until then, I remain skeptical.
@John_Morris is of course right. Don’t know the science but have experimented quite a bit myself, other wine lovers as well as insisting that friends who really don’t care much about wine (except having a decent beverage in whatever container).
Depends a lot on the wines/varieties though, with a scale from no difference to wow it’s a completely different wine experience.
I had a period (for quite some time) when I tried more or less every wine I opened in 3-4 different glass shapes; from schott zwiesel grand cru series (burgundy, Bordeaux, allround - Riesling/Sangiovese) and a Riedel Syrah.
Something with the glass shape/sizes definitely have an impact on the smell/taste of wines. Like I mentioned in the previous comment, the difference vary a lot between wine/variety (hardly detectable to very significant). Sometimes the glass choices was the difference between a humm not so interesting to wow, this is great.
1 Like
Thanks Alan. I hope I did not come across as being overly critical. That you are a scientist does not surprise me. I think our area of disagreement is that while I very much respect the scientific method, some things are harder to quantify/test/prove than others. I tend to be perfectly comfortable with folks holding different opinions and that both may be valid. I agree with you that scientific testing and A/B comparisons can disprove a lot of myths. In high end audio, there has been a lot of snake oil claims regarding expensive speaker wire and other products that make not a bit of difference to the sound. Here, the issue is complicated by variations of human perception and psychological effects. I don’t agree with the notion that if something is psychological, then it is not real. That most studies seem to support a difference in different glass shapes, albeit subtle, puts this issue for me in a different place than the speaker wire I mention above. Still, reasonable minds may differ and I have no problem with your opinions on the subject.
Without wanting to open a can of worms, there is an awful lot of perception in the wine world beyond glasses that is influenced by psychological effects–confirmation bias, mood, famous names on the labels, etc…
2 Likes
I think we would get along just fine 
1 Like
Do you have the dimensions of these glasses, especially width of opening/mouth and max width?