Does it matter what glass you drink a beer with? A recent piece in the San Francisco Chronicle serves as a thumbnail guide to the theory and history of drinking beer out of different kinds of glasses. Is there a gastronomic method to the madness? Apparently so:
[Beer historian Gregg] Smith points out that a Pilsner, with its high carbonation, requires a wide top and thin bottom of a tall funnel shape: Bubbles will dissipate quickly at the top, releasing aroma. ‘For a less-carbonated beer,’ he says, citing older Belgians, ‘you would want a glass with a fairly large surface area on the bottom to encourage the release of carbon dioxide, and then a large surface area at the top to also allow the consumer to enjoy the aroma.’
For those who don’t want to go out and accumulate (another) elaborate collection of glasses, the article posits a no-nonsense solution to the problem:
Garrett Oliver, author of ‘The Brewmaster’s Table’ (Ecco, 2003), offers a surprising suggestion for the beer drinker who lacks pantry space for all the different glass types. ‘Wineglasses are designed to help you get the best out of your wine,” he says. ‘Almost any stemmed wineglass will do the same for beer.’
If you trudge through cyberspace to the Chronicle writer’s blog, An Obsession with Food & Wine, you’ll also uncover a little nugget from 2006 directed at the pricey glassware of Riedel:
Last Friday, the San Francisco Chronicle ran a big ad for Riedel stemware, disguised as an article about the way that the shape of a glass affects the taste of the wine. I love my Riedel glasses, but author Richard Hacker forgot to ask some interesting questions.
What of the research that Daniel Zwerding described in Gourmet two years ago, when a clinical, scientific trial found the Riedel claims to be bunk?
What of the superbly untested and unquestioned Riedel claim of a tongue’s ‘flavor map?’
It’s true; there’s no lack of debunkery on the “taste map” front. A post over on the Zinquisition blog is among the finest and most detailed.
I have done a “glass tasting” with George Riedel, and several times (with my students) with one of his representatives: What Riedel says is true. I’ve proven it to friends many times in my own home with Riedel glassware, too. The shape of the glass GREATLY influences the way that we smell and taste the wine. Take some of that ripe, berry-scented Pinot Noir that tastes so smooth and luscious in the Burgundy glass and pour some into the Bordeaux glass. Tell me that there is not a big difference.
As for Gourmet, perhaps Riedel didn’t give Ruth Reichl the free glasses she wanted, or they didn’t buy enough ad pages. That, or the “experts” were hacks. I can’t see another logical conclusion.
Well, the person who did the research about wine glass shapes is a respected scientist in the field of sensory evaluation. Gourmet was just reporting his findings (the article written by a writer better known as an investigative journalist than a food writer).
In controlled tests — i.e., not ones steered intelligently by Riedel marketing staff (was your Riedel rep silent during your tasting, or commenting on the taste?) — glass shapes did make a big difference in smell, though test subjects often preferred the wines in what we would think of as inferior glasses. For the actual taste, however, the glass shape didn’t make a whit of difference, again because Riedel’s taste map is based on long-debunked philosophies.
So if Riedel’s glasses are all that, I still want to know why they didn’t change the Spiegelau shapes when they bought the company. Do they willingly sell inappropriate glassware now?
The third time I went through a glass tasting of Riedel glasses was in Tokyo, during the international “Olympics” for Sommeliers in 1995. The top Sommeliers from almost two dozen nations participated. At the end of the session we gave George Riedel a standing ovation. The best Sommeliers from all over the world, all agreeing that yes, the shape of the glass makes a big difference. George Riedel was not “leading” us in any way. We tasted the same wine, poured from the same bottle, from three different glasses. After we finished, George asked for our comments.
Instead of defending someone else’s findings, though, have you tried it yourself? I have, several times, and I’ll trust my palate. There IS a difference.
As for the “respected scientist” claim… I can find someone matching the same description who claims that the earth is flat:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/03/iraqi-tv-scientists-is-earth-flat.html
I have tried the test, and in fact I own several different sets of the Riedel Sommelier series.
But psychology is a screwy thing, and the fact that no scientific trial has turned up results to support Riedel (Hummel’s work is the best known and the most extensive, but there are two or three other studies that have also failed to turn up results) gives me pause, as it should to any critical thinker.
I know lots of sommeliers who tout the Riedel glass. Sommeliers I respect, even. But again, none of the clinical trials has turned up supporting evidence. Yes, you can always find credible scientists who believe the wrong thing: But in this case, you can’t find credible scientists who _do_ have proof of Riedel’s claims. (Admittedly, there haven’t been huge numbers of studies.)
Actually, that’s not true. They didn’t turn up evidence that the wine _tastes_ different. The wine definitely smelled different, but once it was in the subject’s mouth, nada. And though it smelled different, people preferred the wine in less “perfect” glasses.
But I continue to ask: Why don’t the Spiegelau glasses have the exact same shape as the Riedel glasses? Riedel owns Spiegelau, so are they now selling “inappropriate” glasses to customers? As I’m sure you know, the Vinum and Vinum Extreme lines are pretty different. Do you think Riedel is saying that each one enhances the wine to some “perfect” state? How does that work, exactly? For that matter, why have Vinum and Sommelier lines, each of which have similar numbers of glasses? Doesn’t Riedel’s own marketing material say that there’s a (not many) perfect shape for a given wine? How come their product lines don’t actually bear that out?
And if there are many perfect shapes for a wine, where does that leave Riedel’s claims?
And Riedel’s taste results are based on a tongue map that lots of scientists say should go away.
Derricks: Your point about the shape of the Spiegelau glasses is very well taken. I don’t have an answer, but I will ask the rep from Riedel when I see him next. My own problem with Riedel is with the stemless glasses. The “legend” version is that Maximillian Riedel was renting an apartment in Hoboken and had very little cabinet space for his glassware, so he decided to have the stems eliminated. Cute story, I suppose… but the stems have evolved over time as a way of keeping the heat from our hands from warming the wine. There have been more than a few tests done with wine & temperature, and warm wines don’t taste nearly as good. Besides, I have a prejudice of my own here: fingerprints!
1. Dishwasher takes glass from rack
2. Busser picks up glass, puts on tray
3. Busser takes glass from tray, puts on bar
4. Bartender picks up glass, puts on shelf
5. Bartender picks up glass, pours wine
6. Bartender picks up glass, gives to waiter
7. Waiter picks up glass, puts on tray
8. Waiter picks up glass, puts on table for customer.
Eight sets of fingerprints before the customer even gets to touch the glass!!!!
But, that’s only me. I like clean glasses.
Yeah, I’m totally with you on the O glasses, though, not being in a restaurant, I hadn’t fully considered the fingerprint issue. I imagine that’s a constant headache.
I always wonder if the O glass was just a way for Maximillian to make a name for himself in the family dynasty.