Wine (alt.food.wine) Devoted to the discussion of wine and wine-related topics. A place to read and comment about wines, wine and food matching, storage systems, wine paraphernalia, etc. In general, any topic related to wine is valid fodder for the group.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ken Blake
 
Posts: n/a
Default Gormet Magazine - Article on Glassware

Anyone read the article on glassware (Riedel in particular) in
the August Gourmet magazine? It deals with whether there really
is a difference.

If you've read it, any comments?


--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup


  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ken Blake
 
Posts: n/a
Default Gormet Magazine - Article on Glassware

In om,
Huge Johnson > typed:

> I'll have to read the article, I'm curious to see what they

found,
> although I already have my own opinions on Riedel:
>

http://hugejohnsonsworldofwine.blogs...layed-was.html


It sounds like you agree with them. But let us know what you
think of the article.

--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup



> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message
> >...
>> Anyone read the article on glassware (Riedel in particular) in
>> the August Gourmet magazine? It deals with whether there

really
>> is a difference.
>>
>> If you've read it, any comments?



  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Cwdjrx _
 
Posts: n/a
Default Gormet Magazine - Article on Glassware

Riedel makes good wine glasses in a variety of price ranges. However I
find some of their hype laughable. To me, they would have do do proper
double blind controlled tasting tests before I pay much attention to
their hype. To avoid bias, this probably would require using blind or
blindfolded tasters and having a helper hold the glasses to the tasters
lips so the taster could not feel the shape of the glass.

I consider Baccarat a far superior crystal maker to Riedel. All of my
good glasses are Baccarat, except for a few antiques. At least when I
bought my Baccarat many years ago, they were using about 35% lead
compared to about 25% that Riedel and many others use. This gives a
crystal with a higher refractive index and more sparkle. From what I
have read, lead is not an issue in glasses for serving wine. It might be
a borderline issue for strong spirits stored in a high lead content
decanter for many months or years. This was the subject of a thread in
this group a year or so ago. Also, when I bought my Baccarat, they
destroyed all imperfect glasses and did not sell seconds. Many other
crystal makers degrade their reputation by selling seconds. Baccarat can
provide crystal of a very wide range in style to satisfy the likes of a
wide variety of people. The downside is that Baccarat has become
extremely expensive since I bought mine. Of course I have more ordinary
glasses for everyday. You can buy glasses of the Riedel shapes at a
fraction of the Riedel price for everyday use. I have some made in China
that look decent and work quite well.

My mailbox is always full to avoid spam. To contact me, erase
from my email address. Then add . I do not
check this box every day, so post if you need a quick response.

  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Leo Bueno
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Please post the article's title and page number on which it starts, so
we can grab a copy from the library's microfilm.


On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 08:53:14 -0700, "Ken Blake"
> wrote:

>Anyone read the article on glassware (Riedel in particular) in
>the August Gourmet magazine? It deals with whether there really
>is a difference.
>
>If you've read it, any comments?


--
=================================================
Do you like wine? Do you live in South Florida?
Visit the MIAMI WINE TASTERS group at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/miamiWINE
=================================================
  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Cwdjrx _
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Shattered Myths by Daniel Zwerdling, Gourmet, August 2004, p. 72.

My mailbox is always full to avoid spam. To contact me, erase
from my email address. Then add . I do not
check this box every day, so post if you need a quick response.



  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Leo Bueno
 
Posts: n/a
Default


On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 08:53:14 -0700, "Ken Blake"
> wrote:

>Anyone read the article on glassware (Riedel in particular) in
>the August Gourmet magazine? It deals with whether there really
>is a difference.
>
>If you've read it, any comments?


It is titled "Shattered Myths" by Daniel Zwerdling on page 72 of the
August 2004 issue of Gourmet Magazine, a Conde Nast publication, phone
US (212)286-2860 in New York.

The article bolstered my suspicion about the power of suggestion and
wine: if someone tells you X, then you are likely to perceive X. So,
I still think this business that the shape of the glass affects the
quality of the taste/smell is plain old marketing bull$hit.

For example, according to the article, the glass pushers predicate the
shape effect on the "tongue" map, while acknowledging that this is a
debunked idea.

I also liked the discussion about how the "proof" was supposed to have
been provided by an American University study. Turns out to be an
undergraduate research project which actually concluded the opposite,
but apparently a journalist misunderstood the findings; however, the
initial--and incorrect--story got replicated by other media.

Get it through your library. Definitely worth the effort to get it
and to read it, especially before you go to a glass manufacturer's
presentation on how shape affects taste. I am looking forward to
going to one of them in which they let me ask questions.

--
=================================================
Do you like wine? Do you live in South Florida?
Visit the MIAMI WINE TASTERS group at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/miamiWINE
=================================================
  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Leo Bueno
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 19:48:51 GMT, Leo Bueno
> wrote:

>I also liked the discussion about how the "proof" was supposed to have
>been provided by an American University study.


I should have said:
"I also liked the discussion about how the "proof" was supposed to
have been provided by an American university (U. of Tennessee) study."
Note, there is an "American University" in Washington, DC.


--
=================================================
Do you like wine? Do you live in South Florida?
Visit the MIAMI WINE TASTERS group at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/miamiWINE
=================================================
  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dana H. Myers
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Leo Bueno wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 08:53:14 -0700, "Ken Blake"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Anyone read the article on glassware (Riedel in particular) in
>>the August Gourmet magazine? It deals with whether there really
>>is a difference.
>>
>>If you've read it, any comments?

>
>
> It is titled "Shattered Myths" by Daniel Zwerdling on page 72 of the
> August 2004 issue of Gourmet Magazine, a Conde Nast publication, phone
> US (212)286-2860 in New York.
>
> The article bolstered my suspicion about the power of suggestion and
> wine: if someone tells you X, then you are likely to perceive X. So,
> I still think this business that the shape of the glass affects the
> quality of the taste/smell is plain old marketing bull$hit.


Shape clearly has an influence on how well a wine presents
in a glass, but, like you, I don't believe the impact of shape
to be subtle. There are basically glasses that work and those
that don't. If you're spending more than $3/stem for glasses
that work, you're generally paying for something other than
functional qualities.

Dana
  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Cwdjrx _
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Yes, I read the Gourmet article, and the conclusions are just about what
I expected. I concluded long ago that the claims made by certain glass
makers were a lot of hot air with no scientific basis. Even the one
proper double blind scientific experiment arranged for by a major glass
maker failed to prove that the shape of his glasses made any important
difference.

One thing that can influence the perception of the wine is the weight of
the bowl of the glass. For example, you can pour cool, fairly young,
cellar-temperature red wine into both a very heavy cut crystal glass and
a paper-thin one. with both glasses starting out at warm room
temperature. The temperature of the wine is hardly changed in the ultra
thin glass and the wine may appear a bit thin and tannic without much
bouquet. However the very heavy glass at warm room temperature very
rapidly warms the wine considerably, and it may appear much better
balanced with much more bouquet. On the other hand, if one uses a
chilled sweet white wine at the proper serving temperature, it may show
best in the ultra thin glass that does not change the temperature of it
much. In the heavy crystal glass, the white rapidly warms and shows less
well. The moral of this story is that if you use very heavy crystal, it
should be at about the correct temperature for the wine, and the wine
also shold be at the correct temperature. For paper-thin crystal, you do
not have to worry as much about the temperature of the glass, but the
wine temperature still is important. A clever sales person probably
could "prove" that either their heavy cut crystal or paper-thin glass is
best by taking advantage of the above. The same sorts of tricks can be
done on the ear also. It is a well known that if you want to sell a
loudspeaker system that gives the most profit, you have it playing just
a bit louder than the comparison speaker system with less profit margin.
It must be just a slight increase that is not obvious. By far the most
people will pick the speaker system that is playing slightly louder when
the quality of the two speaker systems is not very different.

I have drunk wine form very ornate glasses from the 1800s. They usually
work well. You cannot see the wine in some of them, but then you can
always judge the color of the wine in a small tasting glass used to
judge if the opened bottle of wine is fit to serve. I usually like to do
this, even when using clear glasses for serving. Old or new, there are a
few shapes that can cause practical problems. A glass that is very small
and too full makes it very difficult to swirl the wine. Likewise, for a
very tall and narrow flute. On the other extreme wine is difficult to
swirl in a saucer shaped glass without making a mess. I have found that
a truly superior wine makes itself very apparent without a lot of fuss
about glass shape, size, etc. You do not have to try hard to know that
it is great. The problems come with young wines that are not ready and
poor, thin wines that you have to struggle with to make out much fruit
or complexity at all. If all else fails, you can pour some wine in a
large brandy sniffer, seal the top with your hand or some plastic film,
and shake it very well. Then you may be able to smell a trace of
something if it is there at all. But such extreme measures are for
evaluaton of new wines that one might want to buy to age - not for wines
to be served with the dinner.


My mailbox is always full to avoid spam. To contact me, erase
from my email address. Then add . I do not
check this box every day, so post if you need a quick response.

  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
CabFan
 
Posts: n/a
Default


On 13-Feb-2005, (Cwdjrx _) wrote:

> Yes, I read the Gourmet article, and the conclusions are just about what
> I expected. I concluded long ago that the claims made by certain glass
> makers were a lot of hot air with no scientific basis. Even the one
> proper double blind scientific experiment arranged for by a major glass
> maker failed to prove that the shape of his glasses made any important
> difference.
>
> One thing that can influence the perception of the wine is the weight of
> the bowl of the glass. For example, you can pour cool, fairly young,
> cellar-temperature red wine into both a very heavy cut crystal glass and
> a paper-thin one. with both glasses starting out at warm room
> temperature. The temperature of the wine is hardly changed in the ultra
> thin glass and the wine may appear a bit thin and tannic without much
> bouquet. However the very heavy glass at warm room temperature very
> rapidly warms the wine considerably, and it may appear much better
> balanced with much more bouquet. On the other hand, if one uses a
> chilled sweet white wine at the proper serving temperature, it may show
> best in the ultra thin glass that does not change the temperature of it
> much. In the heavy crystal glass, the white rapidly warms and shows less
> well. The moral of this story is that if you use very heavy crystal, it
> should be at about the correct temperature for the wine, and the wine
> also shold be at the correct temperature. For paper-thin crystal, you do
> not have to worry as much about the temperature of the glass, but the
> wine temperature still is important. A clever sales person probably
> could "prove" that either their heavy cut crystal or paper-thin glass is
> best by taking advantage of the above. The same sorts of tricks can be
> done on the ear also. It is a well known that if you want to sell a
> loudspeaker system that gives the most profit, you have it playing just
> a bit louder than the comparison speaker system with less profit margin.
> It must be just a slight increase that is not obvious. By far the most
> people will pick the speaker system that is playing slightly louder when
> the quality of the two speaker systems is not very different.
>
> I have drunk wine form very ornate glasses from the 1800s. They usually
> work well. You cannot see the wine in some of them, but then you can
> always judge the color of the wine in a small tasting glass used to
> judge if the opened bottle of wine is fit to serve. I usually like to do
> this, even when using clear glasses for serving. Old or new, there are a
> few shapes that can cause practical problems. A glass that is very small
> and too full makes it very difficult to swirl the wine. Likewise, for a
> very tall and narrow flute. On the other extreme wine is difficult to
> swirl in a saucer shaped glass without making a mess. I have found that
> a truly superior wine makes itself very apparent without a lot of fuss
> about glass shape, size, etc. You do not have to try hard to know that
> it is great. The problems come with young wines that are not ready and
> poor, thin wines that you have to struggle with to make out much fruit
> or complexity at all. If all else fails, you can pour some wine in a
> large brandy sniffer, seal the top with your hand or some plastic film,
> and shake it very well. Then you may be able to smell a trace of
> something if it is there at all. But such extreme measures are for
> evaluaton of new wines that one might want to buy to age - not for wines
> to be served with the dinner.


Let me first state that I sell wine retail, along with Riedel and Spiegelau
crystal. That being said....

While I agree that there is a good bit of "play" in the marketing aspect of
both companies (especially if you look at the 30+ different Vinum series
Riedel stems), I have yet to see anyone ever NOT prefer the Riedel stem for
a particular wine when compared to any other. For example, pour a taste of
a cabernet (or cabernet based wine) into your current favorite glass, a
Riedel Vinum Bordeaux stem and a Riedel Vinum Pinot Noir (or any other Vinum
series stem that you care to try --- I recommend the Pinot because they are
similarly sized) glass. Try each one and think about the wine and how you
experience it. The other requirement is that you pour the same wine, from
the same bottle, in all three (or how many ever) glasses so you truely see
the difference.

We contact a regular Riedel seminar in which there are 5 wines tasted: a
sparkling, a Sauvignon Blanc, a Chardonnay, a Pinot Noir and a Cabernet. I
have personally conducted more than 20 of these seminars (average 18-20
people) over the past 3 years and ever single person has always preferred
the correct Riedel stem for a given wine.

I have also simply poured people wine in a couple of different stems and
asked them if they preferred the particular wine from any particular glass.
Many times, the people had never heard of Riedel (or Spiegelau) and yet they
too have always said they preferred it from the correct stem.

Now the other side of this coin is that I too was very skeptical when I
first heard this and so I can understand where you are coming from. And I
still don't know that I find very much, if any variation in a lot of the
stems (again, there's 30+ Vinum series and many of these are very close to
each other in size, shape, etc.). For everyday drinking, we use the
following stems (all from the Vinum series): Sparkling/Champagne, Sauvignon
Blanc, Chardonnay, Bordeaux/Cabernet/Merlot and Burgundy/Pinot Noir. We
also use the Zinfandel/Chianti stem when we travel or go out.

And yes, I am partial to Riedel over Spiegelau simply because that was the
first ones that I used. I believe you can use either with the same results
equally well.

The final, bottom line (in my opinion) is that you really should just enjoy
your wine, along with some good food and friends, in whatever particular
stemware you happen to prefer. That's why it's made.

Cheers,
Gary


  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ian Hoare
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Salut/Hi Leo Bueno,

le/on Sun, 13 Feb 2005 19:48:51 GMT, tu disais/you said:-


>The article bolstered my suspicion about the power of suggestion and
>wine: if someone tells you X, then you are likely to perceive X. So,
>I still think this business that the shape of the glass affects the
>quality of the taste/smell is plain old marketing bull$hit.


That's what I thought until I went to the Riedel factory with my own wine
and tasted their glasses. I have no doubt at all that the winew showed
differently when drunk from their Sommelier range Burgundy and Bordeaux
glasses. What is also interesting - and unexpected - was that when tasting
down the ranges in the same region (Bordeaux glasses while drinking an
Austrian Cab Sauv) the wine showed substantially the same but less so.

Leo, you've seen enough of my posts to know that I'm pretty skeptical about
claims for magic effect from glasses, decanters, magnets and so on, so I can
only say what we found on tasting. No one was more surprised than I.

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website
  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Leo Bueno
 
Posts: n/a
Default


On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 23:55:27 +0100, Ian Hoare >
wrote:

> What is also interesting - and unexpected - was that when tasting
>down the ranges in the same region (Bordeaux glasses while drinking an
>Austrian Cab Sauv) the wine showed substantially the same but less so.


Please clarify this observation.


>Leo, you've seen enough of my posts to know that I'm pretty skeptical about
>claims for magic effect from glasses, decanters, magnets and so on, so I can
>only say what we found on tasting. No one was more surprised than I.


As Cwdjrx _ explained in a previous post, do you think the temperature
effect as opposed to the *shape* may have been at work?

As I mentioned before, the Gourmet article indicated that the Riedel
people attribute the difference, in part, to how the wine is precisely
delivered to the tongue, i.e., on the old tongue map concept--which I
understand to be scientific bunk. This appeal to pseudo-science
indicates marketing mullarky.


--
=================================================
Do you like wine? Do you live in South Florida?
Visit the MIAMI WINE TASTERS group at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/miamiWINE
=================================================
  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Michael Pronay
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Leo Bueno > wrote:

> As Cwdjrx _ explained in a previous post, do you think the
> temperature effect as opposed to the *shape* may have been at
> work?


I don't think so.

> As I mentioned before, the Gourmet article indicated that the
> Riedel people attribute the difference, in part, to how the wine
> is precisely delivered to the tongue, i.e., on the old tongue
> map concept--which I understand to be scientific bunk. This
> appeal to pseudo-science indicates marketing mullarky.


As Gary/CabFan and Ian have said: Why don't you simply attend a
Riedel glass tasting?

M. (having had his first Riedel glass tasting exactly 21 years ago)
  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Cwdjrx _
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The writer of the Gourmet article did attend a Riedel comparison
tasting, I believe somewhere on the US East coast. Such tastings may
vary somewhat. However the flaws were that the speaker made comments
about how poorly some wines being tasted showed in glasses other than
Riedel, and the tasters could see the glasses they were using. Results
under such condtions are scientifically meaningless. The very
elaborate, proper scientific comparison that was arranged for comparison
of Riedel glases, I believe in France, was properly designed, blind, the
tasters could not see the glasses, and the glasses were presented to the
lips in a precisely controlled manner. There was statistically
insignificant correlation in identification of service of wine in the
Riedel glasses rather than in some rather quite different glasses. As
for the tongue maps, this is nothing new. It has long been known that we
taste sweet, sour, bitter, and salty on different areas of the tongue.
Unless you have a bad case of arthritis of the tongue, it is easy to
move it around to contact the wine in many different ways, as wine
tasters were doing long before the Riedel tongue maps. I am surprised
that Riedel has not made a super glass designed for an individual. You
would have the size of your nose and the distance from your nostrils to
lips measured. Then a special glass would be made just for your at
perhaps $US1000 per glass. There is nothing wrong with the Riedel
glasses, but there is plenty wrong with the hype, in my opinion. Most
people seem to buy the 30 oz Riedel Bordeaux Sommelier rather than the
12 oz one for mature Bordeaux. It would seem that the 30 oz fishbowl is
designed for those who drink Bordeaux before it is mature or not-so-good
Bordeaux - what a waste of money.

Riedel(connection with the current one unknown to me) was making glasses
in central Europe in the 1800s along with Moser and several others. Some
of the old Riedel glasses sometimes appear at auction. However they
never had the great fame of Moser or Baccarat in France. Moser probably
is the king of crystal in the long run, but it perhaps is not quite what
it was in the late 1800s. Baccarat probably is now the world's best
crystal, and they have a huge selection of types for every taste. I have
not checked lately, but when I bought my Baccarat glasses many years ago
they were using about a 35% lead crystal in contrast to the 24% used by
Riedel and many others today. This gives glass with a very high
refractive index to makes it sparkle well. Baccarat can supply you with
a large, thin, plain wine glass if you wish. They can also supply you
with the crystal they designed for the last Tsar of Russia, some of the
most elaborate multi-layered colored and cut glass that the world has
ever known. When I bought my Baccarat, they would not lower their
standards by making any lower line glasses using machine or partial
machine work. They destroyed all imperfect glasses rather than selling
them to avoid having any imperfect glasses on the market. Hopefully they
still do. Unfortunately the price of Baccarat has now become extreme.
For those with a taste for very elaborate cut glass, Saint Louis makes
high quality crystal and still has a fairly large following even though
their crystal is very expensive.

For everyday glasses, there are glasses in the Riedel shapes made in
China and elsewhere that can be had for much less than Riedel. They may
not be lead crystal, but then many people do not bring out the silver
and best china for everyday meals either.

My mailbox is always full to avoid spam. To contact me, erase
from my email address. Then add . I do not
check this box every day, so post if you need a quick response.

  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Steve Slatcher
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 14 Feb 2005 15:44:30 GMT, Michael Pronay > wrote:

>As Gary/CabFan and Ian have said: Why don't you simply attend a
>Riedel glass tasting?
>
>M. (having had his first Riedel glass tasting exactly 21 years ago)


Are Riedel glass tastings in any sense blind?

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher


  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Michael Pronay
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Steve Slatcher > wrote:

> Are Riedel glass tastings in any sense blind?


No. Wine tastings can be, glass tastings for obvious reasons not.

M.
  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
pavane
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Michael Pronay" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Slatcher > wrote:
>
> > Are Riedel glass tastings in any sense blind?

>
> No. Wine tastings can be, glass tastings for obvious reasons not.
>


One can imagine a blind glass tasting as being a somewhat
shattering experience, eh?

pavane


  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Steve Slatcher
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 14 Feb 2005 20:15:59 GMT, Michael Pronay > wrote:

>Steve Slatcher > wrote:
>
>> Are Riedel glass tastings in any sense blind?

>
>No. Wine tastings can be, glass tastings for obvious reasons not.


Gass tastings can be blind in exactly the same sense that most wine
tastings can - you are not told what glass you are drinking from.

Of course, if you know the glassware range that would not help. For
many others (me included) if they were not told they would not know.

I would not trust even my own judgement if I were presented with a
Reidel salesperson with the perfect glass and asked to compare it with
an inferior one. Either I would believe what I was told or (more
likely in my case) I would over-compensate for any suggestion.

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher
  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Michael Pronay
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Steve Slatcher > wrote:

> Gass tastings can be blind in exactly the same sense that most
> wine tastings can - you are not told what glass you are drinking
> from.
>
> Of course, if you know the glassware range that would not help.
> For many others (me included) if they were not told they would
> not know.


But this was exactly what was reported he Even without knowing
people invariable chose the appropriate Riedel stem.

M.
  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Cwdjrx _
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Unfortunately I have discarded my copy of Gourmet concering this
subject. If I remember the details of the scientific blind tasting
correctly, the people tasting wore bindfolds. The glasses were moved
into position by machine so the tasters could not feel the shape of the
glass. Such a test, if done properly, can never prove there is no slight
difference in taste for some people. However thay can strongly indicate
that any such differences are extremely small for most people. Of course
several repeat experiments would be nice to improve the statistics.
However I doubt if Riedel would be willing to pay for these. By the way,
blind people often make outstanding testers for senses other than sight.
Many years ago a person I know had to set up a test for levels at which
various compounds in diesel exaust became noticable. His best sniffers
were a blind couple.

It is very easy to underestimate how much interactions with other people
can influence your thoughts on a hidden level. A classic experiment in
social psychology would place several people in a dark room and shine a
tiny dot of light on the wall. After a certain time, the dot seems to
jump for most people. By planting people in the room who would say they
saw the dot move earlier than the average, others would report an
earlier time that they saw the dot move, on the average.

My mailbox is always full to avoid spam. To contact me, erase
from my email address. Then add . I do not
check this box every day, so post if you need a quick response.



  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Steve Slatcher
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 14 Feb 2005 21:13:17 GMT, Michael Pronay > wrote:

>Steve Slatcher > wrote:
>
>> Gass tastings can be blind in exactly the same sense that most
>> wine tastings can - you are not told what glass you are drinking
>> from.
>>
>> Of course, if you know the glassware range that would not help.
>> For many others (me included) if they were not told they would
>> not know.

>
>But this was exactly what was reported he Even without knowing
>people invariable chose the appropriate Riedel stem.


I see nothing in this thread to suggest that anyone prefers Riedel in
a tasting that is in any sense blind.

Cwdjrx _ reported a blind study where *no* statisitically significant
result was found: "There was statistically insignificant correlation
in identification of service of wine in the Riedel glasses rather than
in some rather quite different glasses."

Ian and CabFan expressed a preference for Riedel, but presumably know
what they are drinking out of. I do not deny their experience, but
it's not going to persuade me to upgrade my glassware.

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher
  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
CabFan
 
Posts: n/a
Default


On 14-Feb-2005, Steve Slatcher > wrote:

> >Steve Slatcher > wrote:
> >
> >> Gass tastings can be blind in exactly the same sense that most
> >> wine tastings can - you are not told what glass you are drinking
> >> from.
> >>
> >> Of course, if you know the glassware range that would not help.
> >> For many others (me included) if they were not told they would
> >> not know.

> >
> >But this was exactly what was reported he Even without knowing
> >people invariable chose the appropriate Riedel stem.

>
> I see nothing in this thread to suggest that anyone prefers Riedel in
> a tasting that is in any sense blind.
>
> Cwdjrx _ reported a blind study where *no* statisitically significant
> result was found: "There was statistically insignificant correlation
> in identification of service of wine in the Riedel glasses rather than
> in some rather quite different glasses."
>
> Ian and CabFan expressed a preference for Riedel, but presumably know
> what they are drinking out of. I do not deny their experience, but
> it's not going to persuade me to upgrade my glassware.


Yes, I do know which glass I am drinking out of.... as I indicated in my
original post, the sheer number of glasses which are similar but not quite
exact makes me believe that there is some degree of marketing in play here.
As an example, compare the Shiraz/Syrah Vinum stem (#416/30), the Bordeaux
Vinum stem (#416/0) and the Brunello di Montalcino Vinum stem (#416/90) side
by side. That is about the only way you could ever tell them apart;
otherwise they are just to close together. Again, I use the Bordeaux Vinum
glass for most of my reds.

In any event, I have for my own curiousity's sake "blind tasted" people who
knew the differences and some who did not. By blind tasted, I mean I have
used the 3 glasses identified above with the same wine. On a couple of
occasions, people have gotten it "right" and on others they have gotten it
"wrong". By right and wrong, I am only referring to the particular stem in
question. In other cases, I have mixed Spiegelau and Riedel glasses
(including a Bordeaux stem from each). In every one of these, the right
stem was choosen but the split between Spiegelau and Riedel was about
40%/60%.

And as I mentioned previously, if you enjoy your wine out of the glasses you
current use, then by all means continue to do so. I would never personally
try and tell you that one glass is better than another, only that in my
experience I prefer certain glasses for certain wines.

Cheers!
Gary
  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dana H. Myers
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Cwdjrx _ wrote:
> Old or new, there are a
> few shapes that can cause practical problems. A glass that is very small
> and too full makes it very difficult to swirl the wine. Likewise, for a
> very tall and narrow flute. On the other extreme wine is difficult to
> swirl in a saucer shaped glass without making a mess. I have found that
> a truly superior wine makes itself very apparent without a lot of fuss
> about glass shape, size, etc. You do not have to try hard to know that
> it is great.


This is basically what I meant when I said that there are glasses
that work and those that don't.

Cheers,
Dana
  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Andrew Goldfinch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Steve Slatcher > wrote:
> Ian and CabFan expressed a preference for Riedel, but presumably know
> what they are drinking out of. I do not deny their experience, but
> it's not going to persuade me to upgrade my glassware.


Hi Steve
That is of course if you consider Riedel an upgrade. I attended a Riedel
wine dinner some years back (around 97 I think) where you got to keep the
glasses after the function. I had been given a table to host for 4 and so
ended up with all 16 glasses. 4 each of (all Vinum) Champagne, White
Burgundy, Bordeaux & Burgundy. I had never given much thought to the glass I
used to that point, so long as it was clean, large enough to swirl & not too
thick (as I hate the intrusive feeling on my lips) I didn't care what it
was. The Riedel rep had crapped on a bit at the dinner about what a
difference the glass made, all the tongue map mumbo jumbo etc. I was a bit
bored and really not too interested I was there for the food (3 hat
restaurant) and wine (Dom P to start then Rosemount Estate Top end & back
vintages). I was happy however to take home some nice glasses. I conducted
my own experiments with these glasses and the ones I had at home and I was
pleasantly surprised to find that I did indeed prefer the nose of the
Riedel's. It wasn't a huge difference mind, subtle notes of the wine were
more evident, (though after finding them in the Riedel I could then detect
them in the old glasses as well (power of suggestion??)) it seemed more
perfumed and there was more concentrated fruit sweetness. On the palate I
could detect no difference whatsoever. These glasses slowly died a natural
death, some jumped and some were pushed (my dad broke 4 in one go after
christmas lunch one year) and it eventually got to the point where I was
drinking out of the last few remaining Riedels and everybody else got the
old stock (of which there were plenty as I had picked them up from a hotel
restaurant I had worked at that had been "realigned"). At that point I
decided to go shopping for some more Riedels (which we were now also using
in the restaurant) Well at $35 - 40 a stem retail and around $22 wholesale
they were out of my league financially. I then stumbled across some German
glasses on sale at Myers (large Oz department store) Esse design at $30 for
6. I bought a box each of the Chardonnay, Cabernet & Flutes and took them
home for some comparison with the surviving Riedels. These glasses were just
about indistinguishable from the Riedels on inspection, I then did a tasting
with the Esse, Riedels & old stock glasses, I was unable to detect any
difference between the Riedel and the Esse. So off I went back to Myers and
I now have around 60 of these glassessplit amongst the three types
mentioned. My budget doesn't allow me to spend as I would like, if I had
unlimited funds I would buy plenty of nice Riedel glasses, I can however get
something very similar for much less cost and then I can spend the
difference on wine
Cheers Andrew


  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dana H. Myers
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Andrew Goldfinch wrote:
> I was happy however to take home some nice glasses. I conducted
> my own experiments with these glasses and the ones I had at home and I was
> pleasantly surprised to find that I did indeed prefer the nose of the
> Riedel's. It wasn't a huge difference mind, subtle notes of the wine were
> more evident, (though after finding them in the Riedel I could then detect
> them in the old glasses as well (power of suggestion??)) it seemed more
> perfumed and there was more concentrated fruit sweetness. On the palate I
> could detect no difference whatsoever.


This has been my experience with the little bit of experimentation
I've done at home myself. A glass can have a great deal of influence
on how well the nose of the wine presents itself, but they don't seem
to make a difference on the palate (as long as the rim is not beaded,
IMHO). In particular, there's a bit of research which suggests that
taste receptors are randomly distributed on the tongue, so even if
glasses did "direct the flow" of the wine, it isn't likely to make
a difference.

Dana


  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Cwdjrx _
 
Posts: n/a
Default

A very interesting discussion of the Gourmet magazine article is at:

http://winetalk.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-383.html

They give the exact reference to the article. The tests mentioned in the
Gourmet article were paid for by Riedel and done by Thomas Hummel, a
very famous physician and scientist at Dresden. In one of the threads,
just look up the link to Hummel and his qualifications. I doubt if
Riedel is using the results of Hummel's study in their sales pitches,
and I very much doubt if they will pay Hummel for another study.

My mailbox is always full to avoid spam. To contact me, erase
from my email address. Then add . I do not
check this box every day, so post if you need a quick response.

  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ian Hoare
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Salut/Hi Leo Bueno,

le/on Mon, 14 Feb 2005 12:56:33 GMT, tu disais/you said:-

>
>On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 23:55:27 +0100, Ian Hoare >
>wrote:
>
>> What is also interesting - and unexpected - was that when tasting
>>down the ranges in the same region (Bordeaux glasses while drinking an
>>Austrian Cab Sauv) the wine showed substantially the same but less so.

>
>Please clarify this observation.


Sorry. Sure.

As you may know, Riedel makes glasses in several ranges, of varying sizes. I
had bought a bottle of wine (cab sauv) from the Hotel to take there. As
someone who was deeply cycnical about their claims, I decided first of all
to test whether I could detect a difference in taste/smell between their
"top" glasses one of which was designed for that style of wine and another
which wasn't. So I chose (whatever they called them) two glasses from their
Sommelier range, one was for top Bordeaux wines the other for top
Burgundies. We poured two samples (one for each of us) into the four glasses
at the same time and then smelled and tasted to see if we could detect any
differences. We could. We both felt the bordeaux shape showed the wine
better - the wine seemed more in balance, in some way. I was very suprised
at the extent of the differences between the way the wine showed in the two
glasses.

OK. With that test out of the way, we then got the staff to put out two of
each of the lesser ranges - vinum and whatever the others were called, and
we first combined the remaining wine from the two Sommelier burgundy
glasses into the two Sommelier "bordeaux" and then tipped from those out
into each of the smaller glasses, so that the wine in each glass was
identical.

We then tasted each glass in turn. This time, the wine showed more or less
(very closely) the same sort of balance and flavour profile, but as we
descended the ranges, we found we could detect less on the nose. They showed
less of the faults, but also less of the good points. So one the basis of
that, we concluded that the Sommelier glasses were the best analytical
tools, and probably the best for drinking wines with few faults! Since I
already have glasses more or less of the size and shape of the lesser
ranges, I didn't feel the need to buy any. I did, however, buy two each of
the seconds on both burgundy and bordeaux sommelier ranges and four seconds
in their Sommelier sauternes shape.

Since then I've done a number of tests, with friends, semi blind, not
telling them which stem was which but getting them to taste bordeaux or
burgundies out of both shaped glasses and asking a) if they could tell a
difference and b) which they preferred. Not _everyone_ preferred the "right"
glasses, but I think everyone could tell a difference when comparing.

Note that I'm not making any claims about whether Riedel glasses are better
than any other makes, or that they improve the wine drunk from them. I DO
say, however, that I have no doubt whatsoever that the different shaped
glasses do influence my perception of the wine.

>As Cwdjrx _ explained in a previous post, do you think the temperature
>effect as opposed to the *shape* may have been at work?


No, because I took some pains to ensure that any temperature effects were -
if not eliminated - at least minimised.

>As I mentioned before, the Gourmet article indicated that the Riedel
>people attribute the difference, in part, to how the wine is precisely
>delivered to the tongue, i.e., on the old tongue map concept--which I
>understand to be scientific bunk.


That's what they were claiming at the factory. I thought it was suspect,
although _something_ affected my perception. I assumed at the time that it
was the shape, and while I remain sceptic about the reasoning, I can't argue
with my perception of the effect.

> This appeal to pseudo-science indicates marketing mullarky.


Agreed. I also reject the claims that I've seen, that they have a special
micro-crystalline surface structure which causes them to show the wine
better. The wines are hand blown crystal glass, which as such is a glass,
(speaking technically) and that therefore HAS no crystalline structure,
micro or other. A glass is very similar to a liquid, structurally, and the
molecules within it have no form or symmetry. Effectively, the surface of a
glass is even, without any micro structure. I was interested to see the
blowing process (I have done laboratory glass blowing, so I have some idea
about the process) because there was no special treatment that I could see,
to alter the natural surface.
--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website
  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ian Hoare
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Salut/Hi Cwdjrx _,

le/on Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:02:53 -0600, tu disais/you said:-


>Riedel glasses rather than in some rather quite different glasses. As
>for the tongue maps, this is nothing new. It has long been known that we
>taste sweet, sour, bitter, and salty on different areas of the tongue.
>Unless you have a bad case of arthritis of the tongue, it is easy to
>move it around to contact the wine in many different ways, as wine
>tasters were doing long before the Riedel tongue maps.


I share your scepticism at this.

>perhaps $US1000 per glass. There is nothing wrong with the Riedel
>glasses, but there is plenty wrong with the hype, in my opinion.


Agreed, up to the point where, like it or not, I DID find a difference in
wine drunk from the different glasses and I DID find a difference in the
analytical ability of the different size glasses.

>people seem to buy the 30 oz Riedel Bordeaux Sommelier rather than the
>12 oz one for mature Bordeaux. It would seem that the 30 oz fishbowl is
>designed for those who drink Bordeaux before it is mature or not-so-good
>Bordeaux - what a waste of money.


Frankly, I'd not do either. I use them either analytically (as explained
elsewhere - for wine tasting) OR for my very top wines, to let them show off
at their best.

>For everyday glasses, there are glasses in the Riedel shapes made in
>China and elsewhere that can be had for much less than Riedel. They may
>not be lead crystal, but then many people do not bring out the silver
>and best china for everyday meals either.


I have to agree. "Horses for courses". I use my standard INAO tasting
glasses for most of my wines. When serving a decent wine for a dinner party,
I use my Berry Bros glasses. My Riedels are reserved for specific
circumstances.

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website
  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dana H. Myers
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Cwdjrx _ wrote:
> A very interesting discussion of the Gourmet magazine article is at:
>
> http://winetalk.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-383.html
>
> They give the exact reference to the article. The tests mentioned in the
> Gourmet article were paid for by Riedel and done by Thomas Hummel, a
> very famous physician and scientist at Dresden. In one of the threads,
> just look up the link to Hummel and his qualifications. I doubt if
> Riedel is using the results of Hummel's study in their sales pitches,
> and I very much doubt if they will pay Hummel for another study.


Heh. Sounds like raging agreement for the most part.

Of course, none of this addresses the truly significant
difference in the nose that I observed with the Eisch
glasses last week... same shape, but one glass really
did bring out the nose much more than the other.

Cheers,
Dana
  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Mark Lipton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dana H. Myers wrote:

> Heh. Sounds like raging agreement for the most part.
>
> Of course, none of this addresses the truly significant
> difference in the nose that I observed with the Eisch
> glasses last week... same shape, but one glass really
> did bring out the nose much more than the other.


Dana,
Is it possible that the Eisch glass was warmer than the other? That
could certainly account for a more intense nose.

Just a thought,
Mark Lipton


  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Michael Pronay
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Steve Slatcher > wrote:

>> But this was exactly what was reported he Even without
>> knowing people invariable chose the appropriate Riedel stem.


> I see nothing in this thread to suggest that anyone prefers
> Riedel in a tasting that is in any sense blind.


Quite apparently it was in the precursor thread.

M.
  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dana H. Myers
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mark Lipton wrote:
> Dana H. Myers wrote:
>
>> Heh. Sounds like raging agreement for the most part.
>>
>> Of course, none of this addresses the truly significant
>> difference in the nose that I observed with the Eisch
>> glasses last week... same shape, but one glass really
>> did bring out the nose much more than the other.


> Dana,
> Is it possible that the Eisch glass was warmer than the other? That
> could certainly account for a more intense nose.


Actually, there were two Eisch glasses, identical in appearance.
One had been treated, the other not. They were sitting on a table
close to each other, and the wine was poured from the same bottle
into each glass sequentially. The glasses were not at different
temperatures that I could tell.

I certainly did not expect what I found.

Dana
  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Steve Slatcher
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 15 Feb 2005 15:16:54 GMT, Michael Pronay > wrote:

>Steve Slatcher > wrote:
>
>>> But this was exactly what was reported he Even without
>>> knowing people invariable chose the appropriate Riedel stem.

>
>> I see nothing in this thread to suggest that anyone prefers
>> Riedel in a tasting that is in any sense blind.

>
>Quite apparently it was in the precursor thread.


Which one was that?

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher
  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
Steve Slatcher
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 16:19:41 -0800, "Dana H. Myers"
> wrote:

>This has been my experience with the little bit of experimentation
>I've done at home myself. A glass can have a great deal of influence
>on how well the nose of the wine presents itself,


That makes absolute sense.

What I find unbelievable is that a Chianti, for example, is so similar
to other Chiantis in term of aromatics, and so different to wine from
anywhere else, that it makes sense to have a Chianti glass.

> but they don't seem to make a difference on the palate


That makes sense too.

>(as long as the rim is not beaded, IMHO)


From an aesthetic view I would agree 100% an unbeaded rim is nicer.
But do you really mean it affects the palate? I suppose, short of
anaesthetising a taster's lips, that is pretty impossible to test
blind!

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher
  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dana H. Myers
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Steve Slatcher wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 16:19:41 -0800, "Dana H. Myers"
> > wrote:


>>(as long as the rim is not beaded, IMHO)

>
>
> From an aesthetic view I would agree 100% an unbeaded rim is nicer.
> But do you really mean it affects the palate? I suppose, short of
> anaesthetising a taster's lips, that is pretty impossible to test
> blind!


Heh, I knew I'd get a reaction from this. I can't taste the
bead, and it doesn't change the wine, but something about the
tactile sensation of a beaded rim just takes the whole
experience down a notch ;-)

It's purely subjective for me...

Cheers,
Dana


  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Steve Slatcher
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 11:36:14 -0800, "Dana H. Myers"
> wrote:

>Steve Slatcher wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 16:19:41 -0800, "Dana H. Myers"
>> > wrote:

>
>>>(as long as the rim is not beaded, IMHO)

>>
>>
>> From an aesthetic view I would agree 100% an unbeaded rim is nicer.
>> But do you really mean it affects the palate? I suppose, short of
>> anaesthetising a taster's lips, that is pretty impossible to test
>> blind!

>
>Heh, I knew I'd get a reaction from this. I can't taste the
>bead, and it doesn't change the wine, but something about the
>tactile sensation of a beaded rim just takes the whole
>experience down a notch ;-)
>
>It's purely subjective for me...


Then we agree on that too :-)

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher
  #37 (permalink)   Report Post  
Michael Pronay
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Steve Slatcher > wrote:

>>>> But this was exactly what was reported he Even without
>>>> knowing people invariable chose the appropriate Riedel stem.


>>> I see nothing in this thread to suggest that anyone prefers
>>> Riedel in a tasting that is in any sense blind.


>> Quite apparently it was in the precursor thread.


> Which one was that?


Sorry, after 20 minutes of intense google.groups searching I don't
semm to be able to find the posting.

But I remember that the poster said that he had held Riedel glass
tastings and also informal tastings, where clients where just
offered the same wine in 3, 4 or 5 glasses (without them being
told which was which) und were asked to whether they would
perceive a difference, and, if yes, which wine glass they
preferred. The poster said that almost invariably the clients
chose the "right" glass from the respective Riedel range.

M.
  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
Steve Slatcher
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 15 Feb 2005 21:27:09 GMT, Michael Pronay > wrote:

>Steve Slatcher > wrote:
>
>>>>> But this was exactly what was reported he Even without
>>>>> knowing people invariable chose the appropriate Riedel stem.

>
>>>> I see nothing in this thread to suggest that anyone prefers
>>>> Riedel in a tasting that is in any sense blind.

>
>>> Quite apparently it was in the precursor thread.

>
>> Which one was that?

>
>Sorry, after 20 minutes of intense google.groups searching I don't
>semm to be able to find the posting.
>
>But I remember that the poster said that he had held Riedel glass
>tastings and also informal tastings, where clients where just
>offered the same wine in 3, 4 or 5 glasses (without them being
>told which was which) und were asked to whether they would
>perceive a difference, and, if yes, which wine glass they
>preferred. The poster said that almost invariably the clients
>chose the "right" glass from the respective Riedel range.


Thank you. I shall watch out for future evidence.

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher
  #39 (permalink)   Report Post  
Hunt
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, steve.slatcher@pobox
..com says...
>
>On 15 Feb 2005 15:16:54 GMT, Michael Pronay > wrote:
>
>>Steve Slatcher > wrote:
>>
>>>> But this was exactly what was reported he Even without
>>>> knowing people invariable chose the appropriate Riedel stem.

>>
>>> I see nothing in this thread to suggest that anyone prefers
>>> Riedel in a tasting that is in any sense blind.

>>
>>Quite apparently it was in the precursor thread.

>
>Which one was that?
>
>--
>Steve Slatcher
>http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher


Steve,

That part of the discussion was posted by CabFan (Gary) and follows:

"Let me first state that I sell wine retail, along with Riedel and Spiegelau
crystal. That being said....

While I agree that there is a good bit of "play" in the marketing aspect of
both companies (especially if you look at the 30+ different Vinum series
Riedel stems), I have yet to see anyone ever NOT prefer the Riedel stem for
a particular wine when compared to any other. For example, pour a taste of
a cabernet (or cabernet based wine) into your current favorite glass, a
Riedel Vinum Bordeaux stem and a Riedel Vinum Pinot Noir (or any other Vinum
series stem that you care to try --- I recommend the Pinot because they are
similarly sized) glass. Try each one and think about the wine and how you
experience it. The other requirement is that you pour the same wine, from
the same bottle, in all three (or how many ever) glasses so you truely see
the difference.

We contact a regular Riedel seminar in which there are 5 wines tasted: a
sparkling, a Sauvignon Blanc, a Chardonnay, a Pinot Noir and a Cabernet. I
have personally conducted more than 20 of these seminars (average 18-20
people) over the past 3 years and ever single person has always preferred
the correct Riedel stem for a given wine.

I have also simply poured people wine in a couple of different stems and
asked them if they preferred the particular wine from any particular glass.
Many times, the people had never heard of Riedel (or Spiegelau) and yet they
too have always said they preferred it from the correct stem.

Now the other side of this coin is that I too was very skeptical when I
first heard this and so I can understand where you are coming from. And I
still don't know that I find very much, if any variation in a lot of the
stems (again, there's 30+ Vinum series and many of these are very close to
each other in size, shape, etc.). For everyday drinking, we use the
following stems (all from the Vinum series): Sparkling/Champagne, Sauvignon
Blanc, Chardonnay, Bordeaux/Cabernet/Merlot and Burgundy/Pinot Noir. We
also use the Zinfandel/Chianti stem when we travel or go out.

And yes, I am partial to Riedel over Spiegelau simply because that was the
first ones that I used. I believe you can use either with the same results
equally well.

The final, bottom line (in my opinion) is that you really should just enjoy
your wine, along with some good food and friends, in whatever particular
stemware you happen to prefer. That's why it's made.

Cheers,
Gary"

Hope that this helps,
Hunt

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Intersting Smithsonian magazine article [email protected] Barbecue 1 02-09-2013 05:42 PM
The Perfect Gormet Hamburger JuanGuady Recipes 0 05-08-2009 02:02 AM
Old Galloping Gormet recipe [email protected] General Cooking 3 10-02-2007 03:57 AM
Sunday NYT Magazine Article Warren C. Liebold Asian Cooking 1 20-12-2004 04:36 AM
Magazine article Big Jim Barbecue 41 14-06-2004 03:25 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"