Hi All,

I know this issue has been discussed before, but I think it deserves
its own space. How many different Riedel glasses do you think you
should have in order to appreciate various wines/spirits? Consider
the majority of my day-to-day wines are within $20 – 30 range, and I
might taste >$100 bottle with friends monthly. Drink XO, single malt
scotch, and vintage port occasionally. It's obviously an overkill to
have one sommelier for every different $20-30/bottle wines I taste.

Here are my current collections:

4 Wine-Series Burgundy glasses: Pinot Noir, Red Burgundy
4 Wine- Series Chardonnay glasses: Chardonnay, White Burgundy
4 Vinum-Extreme Cabernet glasses: Cabernet, Merlot, Red Bordeaux

And
1 Sommelier Bordeaux
1 Sommelier Chardonnay
when I'm having a nice bottle myself.

I also love premium sake (Junmai Daiginjo, >$50 per 720 ml bottle),
and think Sommelier Chardonnay is best for it. Here are my
questions:

1. I am starting to take a class of European wine introductions. What
other Riedel glasses do you recommend?
2. Do I really need a separate Cognac, Port, or Whisky glasses? As I
mentioned earlier, I only drink them occasionally, but only XO and
vintage ports (>$100).

Thanks in advance for your feedback,

Andy Lee

On 18-Mar-2004, (Andy Lee) wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I know this issue has been discussed before, but I think it deserves
> its own space. How many different Riedel glasses do you think you
> should have in order to appreciate various wines/spirits? Consider
> the majority of my day-to-day wines are within $20 – 30 range, and I
> might taste >$100 bottle with friends monthly. Drink XO, single malt
> scotch, and vintage port occasionally. It's obviously an overkill to
> have one sommelier for every different $20-30/bottle wines I taste.
>
> Here are my current collections:
>
> 4 Wine-Series Burgundy glasses: Pinot Noir, Red Burgundy
> 4 Wine- Series Chardonnay glasses: Chardonnay, White Burgundy
> 4 Vinum-Extreme Cabernet glasses: Cabernet, Merlot, Red Bordeaux
>
> And
> 1 Sommelier Bordeaux
> 1 Sommelier Chardonnay
> when I'm having a nice bottle myself.
>
> I also love premium sake (Junmai Daiginjo, >$50 per 720 ml bottle),
> and think Sommelier Chardonnay is best for it. Here are my
> questions:
>
> 1. I am starting to take a class of European wine introductions. What
> other Riedel glasses do you recommend?
> 2. Do I really need a separate Cognac, Port, or Whisky glasses? As I
> mentioned earlier, I only drink them occasionally, but only XO and
> vintage ports (>$100).
>
> Thanks in advance for your feedback,
>
> Andy Lee

My wife and I use 3 glasses for most of our wines:

Vinum Bordeaux --- Reds, except for Pinot Noir and Burgundy
Vinum Sauvignon Blanc (New style, not tulip) --- most whites, except white
burgundy
Vinum Champagne Flute

We also have:

Vinum Pinot Noir/Burgundy
Vinum Montrachet (for white burgundy, and some chardonnay)
Vinum Port
Vinum Single Malt
Vinum Cognac

I find that these work in just about all cases. Personally, we can't tell
enough difference in many of the wine/glass pairs to justify much more than
this, although we have discussed maybe adding some Zinfandel/Chianti
glasses, but just don't have cabinet space right now.

Have you found enough difference between the Sommelier series and the
Vinum/Wine series to justify the cost? Even at wholesale prices that I pay,
I just don't feel I can justify them....

Gary

"Andy Lee" > wrote in message
m...
> Hi All,
>
> I know this issue has been discussed before, but I think it deserves
> its own space. How many different Riedel glasses do you think you
> should have in order to appreciate various wines/spirits? Consider
> the majority of my day-to-day wines are within $20 - 30 range, and I
> might taste >$100 bottle with friends monthly. Drink XO, single malt
> scotch, and vintage port occasionally. It's obviously an overkill to
> have one sommelier for every different $20-30/bottle wines I taste.
>
> Here are my current collections:
>
> 4 Wine-Series Burgundy glasses: Pinot Noir, Red Burgundy
> 4 Wine- Series Chardonnay glasses: Chardonnay, White Burgundy
> 4 Vinum-Extreme Cabernet glasses: Cabernet, Merlot, Red Bordeaux
>
> And
> 1 Sommelier Bordeaux
> 1 Sommelier Chardonnay
> when I'm having a nice bottle myself.
>
> I also love premium sake (Junmai Daiginjo, >$50 per 720 ml bottle),
> and think Sommelier Chardonnay is best for it. Here are my
> questions:
>
> 1. I am starting to take a class of European wine introductions. What
> other Riedel glasses do you recommend?
> 2. Do I really need a separate Cognac, Port, or Whisky glasses? As I
> mentioned earlier, I only drink them occasionally, but only XO and
> vintage ports (>$100).
>
> Thanks in advance for your feedback,
>
> Andy Lee

Hi Andy,

Not to rain on your parade, but I own no Riedel glasses. Here is why:

1. The best glass (IMHO) for both reds and whites is a simple jelly jar or a
glass of about the same general shape.

2. I have tried the Riedels and knock-offs (at others expense) and could not
tell any difference between, say, a Cab glass and a Sangiviovese glass. And
I have a pretty good nose!

3. The quality is either in the bottle or not. The glass makes no
difference.

Rich

"Rich R" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> Not to rain on your parade, but I own no Riedel glasses. Here is why:
>
> 1. The best glass (IMHO) for both reds and whites is a simple jelly jar or
a
> glass of about the same general shape.
>
> 2. I have tried the Riedels and knock-offs (at others expense) and could
not
> tell any difference between, say, a Cab glass and a Sangiviovese glass.
And
> I have a pretty good nose!
>
> 3. The quality is either in the bottle or not. The glass makes no
> difference.
>

Great satire, Joe...why didn't you sign it?

pavane

"Rich R" in . com...
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> Not to rain on your parade, but I own no Riedel glasses. Here is why:
>
> 1. The best glass (IMHO) for both reds and whites is a simple jelly jar or
a
> glass of about the same general shape.
>
> 2. I have tried the Riedels and knock-offs (at others expense) and could
not
> tell any difference between, say, a Cab glass and a Sangiviovese glass.
And
> I have a pretty good nose!
>
> 3. The quality is either in the bottle or not. The glass makes no
> difference.


1. I had been wondering if we need a subgroup for Riedel, a subject
essentially unheard-of online until a very few years ago but now of
important traffic volume.

2. 20 years ago at blind tastings I was skeptical of claims for terrible
importance to glass shape (the fashionable shapes and manufacturers were, of
course, different then but they were, of course, considered the ultimate
word by their partisans at the time). However the glasses have indeed
improved esthetically I suspect, and also, some of the younger merchants I
sometimes taste with advanced claims a couple of years ago that they could
sense different aromas of specific wines (Rieslings, zum Beispiel) in
glasses of different shapes. Not proven, as the Scots say, but interesting.
Then again (as you can see on some gushing wine Web sites), two-year newbies
lecture half-year newbies confidently about 20-year wine aging profiles (for
example) while 40-year newbies admit they still have much to learn about it.
There seems to be throughout (o)enophilia something of Pierian waters: the
shallow drink intoxicates while the larger sobers. (Drink Deep or Taste
Not.)

3. I will mention that when A Well-Known US Retired Winemaker Closely
Associated With R+dge V+neyards comes to taste, he carries, as I do, compact
Schott-Zwiesel Columbia Burgundy Goblets that work just fine even though 20
or 30 years old and a little small. (Don't let those spam claims affect
even your glassware buying habits, as some so anxiously do.)

4. I do admit that popular restaurant Libby 3765s, with their big rolled
lips, do engender quips, and wall thickness control leaves something for
improvement (view someone through an empty Libby 3765 and spin the stem and
watch the person's size vary alarmingly, just like Peter Lorre 1935-1960).
But! They are Guaranteed for Life against foot and rim breakage.

5. The last word on wine glasses (for the moment). Several years ago when
I taught in the northeastern US, one student's family lived on a farm and
kept animals. I was invited to a small local graduation party of theirs in
town and, arriving, found the family outdoors relaxing in the heat and
drinking from small heavy glass cylinders (labeled with molded letters URINE
SPECIMEN) a frothy yellow liquid that was, of course, beer. It developed
that this family had many such containers because of the animals, and used
them for all-purpose containers not without occasional calculated irony or
shock value. My expressions of interest (remembering snobbish maneuvers I'd
witnessed around wine glasses) led to receiving a supply of these glass
cylinders -- which though thick-walled are of good size for tastings -- and
keeping them "en garage" lest I ever got invited to a tasting whose take on
glassware was too precious. I would use them with dignity and gravity.




Max (Copyright 2004)

Personally, while I admire the Riedels, I only own the champagne flutes (a
gift). I own 8-10 each of the Speigelau Bordeaux and Burgundy stems (unsure of
exact numbers,a couple have broken). If I have a big wine dinner I like to give
everyone multiple stems to compare. I also have 8 generic white wine glasses
(forget maker, a bit smaller than the Riedel/Speigelau white glasses), and a
bunch of generic balloons. Plus some Swedish glasses that are great for really
big parties (hard to break , but thinner rims than Libbys).

As to actual (non-party) usage, I use the Bordeaux stems for the vast majority
of reds, pretty much everything except Pinot Noirs & Burgundy. I also use the
Bdxs for bigger whites that need air (big Rieslings, white Burgs). The generic
whites are used for more modestly built whites and for dessert wines (both
casual and at parties).

One care note: I usually hand wash (with minimal detergent) stems. Ever notice
that crystal glasses used for reds -even if you're careful- start to develop a
tinge? A friend made a suggestion, and I sceptically tried. Soaked the stems in
a solution with Oxiclean ( a peroxide cleaner often hawked on TV). The glasses
came out "crystal clear" and with no odor. I now plan on doing this
periodically.

If one wishes to use jelly jars, more power to you. I personally feel I can
sense a subtle difference between the glass styles, but not enough to make me
buy 8 different styles.

I do feel a large bowl and a thin rim are pretty crucial. Does a good wine
taste like crap in a bad glass? No. But with all the care & expense I put into
wine, I try to maximize the experience.

I'm sure that there are plenty of folks who feel differently. But I will point
out that (unless its the rare occasion a restaurant assures us that they have
plenty of quality stems for each of us- actually the vino-centric Morrells is
only place I can think of), my regular monthly tasting group always carry our
own stems. The group consists of folks who have been serious collectors from 3
to 33 years. And includes auction specialists from Christies, Zachy's, & Acker
Merrill. Not one member ever feels that the Libby stems that most restuarants
provide would be adequate. YMMV.

Cheers!


Dale

Dale Williams
Drop "damnspam" to reply

Rich R wrote:

> 3. The quality is either in the bottle or not. The glass makes no
> difference.

*sigh* Rich, I would suggest that you refrain from such categorical statements
in a newsgroup like this. There are probably thousands of other wine
enthusiasts out there whose experience runs entirely contrary to your own.
Are they all shills for Georg Riedel? If so, the door marked "conspiracy
theories" is on the left; if not, then perhaps we should allow that there just
_might_ be some divergence of experience on this topic? I know from my own
firsthand experience that I can notice a significant difference in bouquet when
comparing the same wine from my INAO tasting glasses and a Riedel Bordeaux
glass (or a Speigelau Burgundy glass for that matter). Moreover, I was at
dinner (with Ian Hoare, his wife Jacquie and Lord St. Helier) at the Herzog
winery in Canterbury, NZ when they poured their Pinot Noir into both Riedel
Burgundy and Riedel Bordeaux glasses. The difference was quite noticeable for
all of us, I believe. Having said that, I will also point out that these
differences are not huge. In the scheme of things a wine's character is the
same in either glass, but the nuances differ. Additionally, it is far from
obvious to me that the formula of "a Bordeaux will always taste better from a
Riedel Bordeaux glass than it will from a Riedel Burgundy glass" is an
absolute, either.

Back to the original topic: For our needs, I find that sets of Bordeaux,
Burgundy, Chardonnay and Zinfandel glasses are sufficient. I'll serve most
white wines in either the Chardonnay or Zinfandel glass, Grenache-based reds
and Beaujolais in the Burgundy glasses, Syrahs and most Italian wines in the
Zinfandel glasses and most other big reds in the Bordeaux glasses. I don't buy
Riedel Sommelier series because they're both too expensive and too fragile for
our needs, so I end up buying both Riedel Vinum and Spiegelau glasses (I don't
really detect much of a difference between the two lines).

Mark Lipton

Salut/Hi Mark Lipton,

le/on Sat, 20 Mar 2004 19:21:24 GMT, tu disais/you said:-


>Rich R wrote:
>
>> 3. The quality is either in the bottle or not. The glass makes no
>> difference.
>
>*sigh* Rich, I would suggest that you refrain from such categorical statements
>in a newsgroup like this.

The remark was so asinine that I assumed it was either joke or troll, so
ignored it.

>glass (or a Speigelau Burgundy glass for that matter). Moreover, I was at
>dinner (with Ian Hoare, his wife Jacquie and Lord St. Helier) at the Herzog
>winery in Canterbury, NZ when they poured their Pinot Noir into both Riedel
>Burgundy and Riedel Bordeaux glasses. The difference was quite noticeable for
>all of us, I believe.

I confirm. Before buying any Riedel glasses, I went, full of cynicism to the
factory and did a "glass tasting" with an Austrian Cabernet Sauvignon. Again
the difference was marked.

>Back to the original topic: For our needs, I find that sets of Bordeaux,
>Burgundy, Chardonnay and Zinfandel glasses are sufficient.

and answering that too:-

I have champagne flutes & INAO tasting glasses which are fine for most of my
lesser wines. For better wines such as the magnificent Ch Burbank reserve
Chardonnay 2001, we had tonight, I use either the Berry Bros white wine
glasses or the similar red wine glasses - which I als use for bigger whites
such as the above. I've a couple of other patterns of smaller glasses for
things like madeira when served with food etc.

For top wines we have two each Sommelier Riedel Grand Cru and Cru classé or
whatever they call them, burg and bordeaux, and 4 sauternes glasses in the
same range.

>Riedel Sommelier series because they're both too expensive and too fragile for
>our needs, so I end up buying both Riedel Vinum and Spiegelau glasses (I don't
>really detect much of a difference between the two lines).

We wouldn't have paid full whack, but they were in sale as seconds at 1/3
price from the factory.

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website

"Mark Lipton" wrote in message

> Moreover, I was at dinner (with Ian Hoare, his wife Jacquie
> and Lord St. Helier) at the Herzog winery in Canterbury, NZ
> when they poured their Pinot Noir into both Riedel Burgundy
> and Riedel Bordeaux glasses.

> The difference was quite noticeable for all of us, I believe.

His Lordship concurs fully.

In fact, this full-time skeptic, part-time bar-room brawler and occasional
"shit-slinger-at-US-antiquarian-alcohol-law" was gob-smacked (and believe
me, I do not get smacked in the gob very often).

No, I have not run off and sold a couple of thousand sheep to invest in
Riedel stemware; well, not so far.

We have a nine tier distribution system downunder for imported glassware, so
I will stick with plastic buckets!!!!!

--

st.helier

> Have you found enough difference between the Sommelier series and the
> Vinum/Wine series to justify the cost? Even at wholesale prices that I pay,
> I just don't feel I can justify them....
>

No, I didn't. Tastewise, it's not going to justify. However,
Sommeliers definitely look a lot better, and as a result, I feel
better especially when I'm tasting a nice wine by myself Because
of the glassware, it's a much better looking wine.

andy

I have not found a difference. I chose to buy riedel because I wanted
a nice glass to use with elegant functions (that I would not be
embarrased with) but I did not want something etched and carved. I
think they are worth the money because everytime that I drink out of
them, I feel fancy and it makes drinking a bottle of wine an
experience..not just a drink.

Salut/Hi alexbrown77,

le/on 25 Mar 2004 13:45:26 -0800, tu disais/you said:-

>I have not found a difference.

Between what and what?

> I chose to buy riedel because I wanted a nice glass to use with elegant functions (that I would not be
>embarrased with) but I did not want something etched and carved.

Which Riedel?

>think they are worth the money because everytime that I drink out of
>them, I feel fancy and it makes drinking a bottle of wine an
>experience..not just a drink.

The only thing that interests me in a glass, is how well it shows off the
wine. I get my kicks from the wine not from the glass, or the label on the
bottle.

However, different strokes for different folks.

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website

Andy: I don't find that ridel makes any difference to my smelling or tasting
experience. the ISG (International Sommelier Guild) has standardised
tasting glasses for all their courses. To find out where you can purchase
them in your area, check their website...
www.internationalsommelier.com

cheers
Mathew

I
> think they are worth the money because everytime that I drink out of
> them, I feel fancy and it makes drinking a bottle of wine an
> experience..not just a drink.

Excellent! Ditto!

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 19:21:24 GMT, Mark Lipton >
wrote:

> I know from my own
>firsthand experience that I can notice a significant difference in bouquet when
>comparing the same wine from my INAO tasting glasses and a Riedel Bordeaux
>glass (or a Speigelau Burgundy glass for that matter).

Last night we were at a Slow Food demonstration of the effect of the
container on the containee... We had 3 glasses, a small
restaurant-type glass with thick rim, a well made INAO by Spiegelau,
and a Spiegelau Expert.

On the first white, a Languedoc, I noticed that the differences were
mostly in the nose, but we were told to just swirl, and immediately
sip and swallow, without too much sniffing. Most people found the
mouth effect different, I did not.

On the Faugeres, I found the difference in the mouth was remarkable,
the small glas hiding everything and leaving only a strong tannic
mouthfeel, while the larger glass made for a much more drinkable wine.

>>Back to the original topic: For our needs, I find that sets of Bordeaux,
>Burgundy, Chardonnay and Zinfandel glasses are sufficient.

This is just petty jealousy of all your Riedel glasses, but I am very
satisfied with having TWO sets of glasses, Spiegelau Authentis 3 and
Spiegelau Champagne tulip-shaped glass. I use the latter for bubbles
and for that major passion of mine, botrytis. With only two sets, you
have a good compromise and fewer glasses to wash up. With Spiegelau,
you have fewer broken stems yet top performance.

Mike

Mike Tommasi, Six Fours, France
email link http://www.tommasi.org/mymail

"Mathew Kagis" > wrote:

> Andy: I don't find that ridel makes any difference to my
> smelling or tasting experience. the ISG (International
> Sommelier Guild) has standardised tasting glasses for all their
> courses. To find out where you can purchase them in your area,
> check their website... www.internationalsommelier.com

I don't find anything on their site about their tasting glass.

The only glass they depict is absolutely ridicolous:

<www.internationalsommelier.com/international_sommelier_aboutus.html>

M.

Mike Tommasi wrote:

>
> Last night we were at a Slow Food demonstration of the effect of the
> container on the containee... We had 3 glasses, a small
> restaurant-type glass with thick rim, a well made INAO by Spiegelau,
> and a Spiegelau Expert.

Hmmm... What exactly constitutes a "well made" INAO, Mike? Ours, I
confess, are made by some unknown manufacturer in the US and sold at a
laughably low price: useful, attractive and no trauma if broken.


> On the Faugeres, I found the difference in the mouth was remarkable,
> the small glas hiding everything and leaving only a strong tannic
> mouthfeel, while the larger glass made for a much more drinkable wine.

Yes, that's what I've noted, too: many red wines seem more closed and
tannic in an INAO glass than in one of the bigger bowls, in which they
tend to seem rounder. Most interesting!

> This is just petty jealousy of all your Riedel glasses, but I am very
> satisfied with having TWO sets of glasses, Spiegelau Authentis 3 and
> Spiegelau Champagne tulip-shaped glass. I use the latter for bubbles
> and for that major passion of mine, botrytis. With only two sets, you
> have a good compromise and fewer glasses to wash up. With Spiegelau,
> you have fewer broken stems yet top performance.

Dunno if it'll help your jealousy, but several of our Riedels were gifts
from former students (a nice byproduct of our professional lives). On
my own, I've mostly bought Spiegelau Authentis through Amazon's periodic
sales. OTOH, we continue to be given fancy decanters at Xmas. Care
for a Riedel "Extreme" decanter, Mike? To me, it looks downright
frightening, as it seems to be designed along the lines of a "yard" beer
glass, if you can imagine such a thing... Imagine getting a sudden
downpour of your '82 Petrus that swamps your glass!

Mark Lipton

About three months ago I attended a tasting conducted by Riedel to see if
there was a difference in the taste, nose and appearance of the wines when
using Riedel Vinum glasses. We tasted two whites and two reds, each was
tasted in an ordinary glass then in an appropriate Riedel glass. It was the
consensus that all of the wines stimulated all of senses better in the
Riedel glasses.



"Ian Hoare" > wrote in message
...
> Salut/Hi alexbrown77,
>
> le/on 25 Mar 2004 13:45:26 -0800, tu disais/you said:-
>
> >I have not found a difference.
>
> Between what and what?
>
> > I chose to buy riedel because I wanted a nice glass to use with elegant
functions (that I would not be
> >embarrased with) but I did not want something etched and carved.
>
> Which Riedel?
>
> >think they are worth the money because everytime that I drink out of
> >them, I feel fancy and it makes drinking a bottle of wine an
> >experience..not just a drink.
>
> The only thing that interests me in a glass, is how well it shows off the
> wine. I get my kicks from the wine not from the glass, or the label on the
> bottle.
>
> However, different strokes for different folks.
>
> --
> All the Best
> Ian Hoare
> http://www.souvigne.com
> mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:08:09 -0500, Mark Lipton >
wrote:

>Hmmm... What exactly constitutes a "well made" INAO, Mike?

You know, INAO definition refers to maybe 4 or 5 size parameters. No
mention about glass thickness or quality. Sometimes you get these
thick clunky IANO glasses, the Spiegelau one is thin yet solid enough.

>Care
>for a Riedel "Extreme" decanter, Mike? To me, it looks downright
>frightening, as it seems to be designed along the lines of a "yard" beer
>glass, if you can imagine such a thing... Imagine getting a sudden
>downpour of your '82 Petrus that swamps your glass!

Yeah, but I bet the few drops remaining in the glass taste better

Mike


Mike Tommasi, Six Fours, France
email link http://www.tommasi.org/mymail

Mike Tommasi > wrote:

> You know, INAO definition refers to maybe 4 or 5 size
> parameters. No mention about glass thickness or quality.

I beg to differ. At least ISO 3591-1977 (cited from the German
edition of Michael Broadbent's "Wine Tasting": "Weine. Prüfen /
kennen / genießen", Raeber & Chriestie, Lucerne & Stuttgart 1986,
p. 33) says: "Glass strength: 0.8 mm ± 0.1 mm"*)

*) In fact it says "*Dicke der Glaswand* / 0,8 mm, plus-minus 1",
but the "1" is a typo, of course.

M.

On 26 Mar 2004 16:41:35 GMT, Michael Pronay > wrote:

>Mike Tommasi > wrote:
>
>> You know, INAO definition refers to maybe 4 or 5 size
>> parameters. No mention about glass thickness or quality.
>
>I beg to differ. At least ISO 3591-1977 (cited from the German
>edition of Michael Broadbent's "Wine Tasting": "Weine. Prüfen /
>kennen / genießen", Raeber & Chriestie, Lucerne & Stuttgart 1986,
>p. 33) says: "Glass strength: 0.8 mm ± 0.1 mm"*)
>
>*) In fact it says "*Dicke der Glaswand* / 0,8 mm, plus-minus 1",
> but the "1" is a typo, of course.

Du hast recht.

Still, I find most of the so-called INAO glasses to feel thicker than
that, specially at the rim.

Mike

Mike Tommasi, Six Fours, France
email link http://www.tommasi.org/mymail

Mike Tommasi > wrote:

> Du hast recht.

Danke.

> Still, I find most of the so-called INAO glasses to feel thicker
> than that, specially at the rim.

Right you are. But there is no special specification, so normally
there should be no exception for the rim.

M.

>The only thing that interests me in a glass, is how well it shows off the
>wine. I get my kicks from the wine not from the glass, or the label on the
>bottle.

I would agree Ian, however, I do always feel good about a restaurant that
removes the everyday stemware and replaces it with Riedel when I order a great
bottle of wine.
Bi!!

Big complex thread. Wanted to mention that despite citations in a previous
posting I do not advocate jam jars or Bovine Specimen Cups for (most) wine
tastings or any dining. For tasting I still carry the small Zwiesels
largely from habit -- were I to get new tasting glasses I might use larger
and more enclosing ones as many of my tasting friends do. I have some
Riedels at home among others and find them very pleasing for dining, a
little bit more work to clean, with that thin stem. Also, I might add,
big -- a lot of the popular "Bordeaux" or "Burgundy" styles today hold circa
a liter. (I can recall the day when a glass was _less_ than a bottle ...)
Also I have seen none of the rolled-rim institutional Libbys I mentioned
used in fine restaurants. I'm inclined to play up the Jar and BSC stories
largely because the business of wine glasses can get to be precious
sometimes, harumph.

--MH


"Mike Tommasi" in ...
>
> This is just petty jealousy of all your Riedel glasses, ...

In article >, "Max Hauser"
> writes:

> Also, I might add,
>big -- a lot of the popular "Bordeaux" or "Burgundy" styles today hold circa
>a liter.

Yeah, one of Betsy's close friends when she was in NC has a couple of those
Riedel Bdx-styled glasses that must be a liter. She always broke out those when
I was coming down, I always felt a tad ridiculous. I do feel that bigger than
average (18-20 oz or so) glasses are nice- a 4 oz pour has lots of air room
(and one can swirl without paying attention). But the liter ones are just plain
silly, IMHO.
Dale

Dale Williams
Drop "damnspam" to reply

Salut/Hi Dale Williams,

le/on 27 Mar 2004 17:22:41 GMT, tu disais/you said:-


>>big -- a lot of the popular "Bordeaux" or "Burgundy" styles today hold circa
>>a liter.

>Riedel Bdx-styled glasses that must be a liter. She always broke out those when
>I was coming down, I always felt a tad ridiculous. I do feel that bigger than
>average (18-20 oz or so) glasses are nice- a 4 oz pour has lots of air room
>(and one can swirl without paying attention). But the liter ones are just plain
>silly, IMHO.

Well, Dale, until I went to Riedel's factory I was 100% in agreement with
you. But as you know, when I actually tasted the _vertical_ range of
glasses, ie all bordeaux style from the smallest up to the Vinum and
Sommelier ranges, both of us, Jacquie & I were in agreement that the very
largest glasses were more analytically expressive. By that I mean that you
could detect more - more of the good points and more of the bad ones too.
You don't put more wine in, obviously, than you would in an more normal
sized glass. I'd never buy 6 or 12 of each style in that size, my house just
isn't that big, nor am I that rich, but nevertheless we felt it was
worthwhile getting a couple of burgs and a couple of bordeaux just to allow
us to tell to the last detail what the wine had to say, when we were
drinking a top wine. For dinner parties etc where we're not sacrificing the
'78 Palmer, I'd agree that one size down either in Riedel or in another
make would be fine. When I lived in the UK I bought Berry Bros glasses and
we still use them, they're fine for 99% of the time.

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website

Dale, when on certain pharmaceuticals you have to limit your wine to 1-2
glasses. They never say 4-8 oz.

Three years ago my Doctor was here for a new years party and saw my glasses.
He revised instructions the next week.

Now I knew that he meant 4-8 ounces. But you should have seen the look on
his face when I brought my big glass out. It would hold a full bottle.


"Dale Williams" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Max Hauser"
> > writes:
>
> > Also, I might add,
> >big -- a lot of the popular "Bordeaux" or "Burgundy" styles today hold
circa
> >a liter.
>
> Yeah, one of Betsy's close friends when she was in NC has a couple of
those
> Riedel Bdx-styled glasses that must be a liter. She always broke out those
when
> I was coming down, I always felt a tad ridiculous. I do feel that bigger
than
> average (18-20 oz or so) glasses are nice- a 4 oz pour has lots of air
room
> (and one can swirl without paying attention). But the liter ones are just
plain
> silly, IMHO.
> Dale
>
> Dale Williams
> Drop "damnspam" to reply

"Dale Williams" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Max Hauser"
> > writes:
>
> > Also, I might add,
> >big -- a lot of the popular "Bordeaux" or "Burgundy" styles today hold
circa
> >a liter.
>
> Yeah, one of Betsy's close friends when she was in NC has a couple of
those
> Riedel Bdx-styled glasses that must be a liter. She always broke out those
when
> I was coming down, I always felt a tad ridiculous. I do feel that bigger
than
> average (18-20 oz or so) glasses are nice- a 4 oz pour has lots of air
room
> (and one can swirl without paying attention). But the liter ones are just
plain
> silly, IMHO.

Dale: the big advantage of those fishbowl & massive bordeaux style glasses
is that they float in hottubs, without spilling the wine..... the
possibilities are endless.

Cheers
mathew

In article >, says...
>
>
>
>Rich R wrote:
>
>> 3. The quality is either in the bottle or not. The glass makes no
>> difference.
>
>*sigh* Rich, I would suggest that you refrain from such categorical
statements
>in a newsgroup like this. There are probably thousands of other wine
>enthusiasts out there whose experience runs entirely contrary to your own.
>Are they all shills for Georg Riedel? If so, the door marked "conspiracy
>theories" is on the left; if not, then perhaps we should allow that there
just
>_might_ be some divergence of experience on this topic? I know from my own
>firsthand experience that I can notice a significant difference in bouquet
when
>comparing the same wine from my INAO tasting glasses and a Riedel Bordeaux
>glass (or a Speigelau Burgundy glass for that matter). Moreover, I was at
>dinner (with Ian Hoare, his wife Jacquie and Lord St. Helier) at the Herzog
>winery in Canterbury, NZ when they poured their Pinot Noir into both Riedel
>Burgundy and Riedel Bordeaux glasses. The difference was quite noticeable
for
>all of us, I believe. Having said that, I will also point out that these
>differences are not huge. In the scheme of things a wine's character is the
>same in either glass, but the nuances differ. Additionally, it is far from
>obvious to me that the formula of "a Bordeaux will always taste better from a
>Riedel Bordeaux glass than it will from a Riedel Burgundy glass" is an
>absolute, either.

[SNIP direct reference to original topic - which was well stated]

A side-by-side tasting comparison between Riedel Vinum Montrachet glasses and
their own Chardonnay glasses with a big Napa Chard and a moderately aged
mid-range Montrachet were very revealing. The strange-to-me shape of their
Montrachet made a world of difference. I bought 48 the next day! Glassware can
make a world of difference. Exactly how much is totally subjective and is
based on the perceptive abilities of the taster - plus bias formed during the
tasting. I'd urge anyone to take four different glasses and try the same wine
in a quiet setting. They might well be surprised.

Hunt

In article >,
says...
>
>I have not found a difference. I chose to buy riedel because I wanted
>a nice glass to use with elegant functions (that I would not be
>embarrased with) but I did not want something etched and carved. I
>think they are worth the money because everytime that I drink out of
>them, I feel fancy and it makes drinking a bottle of wine an
>experience..not just a drink.

And THAT alone can make the difference!

Hunt