Port Glasses Test

[JacobH]

On the Graham’s Malvedos Blog, there was a post back in February about a Port Glass Tasting held at the Factory House. This was one of those marketing events where Georg Riedel attempts to demonstrate the superiority of his glasses over all others so none of the main competitors (e.g. the Schott Zweisel IVDP glass) or the glasses actually used in tasting rooms were involved. It spawned quite a bit of discussion both on the Malvedos Blog, and at offlines.

Thinking these all raised more questions then they answered, I decided that I would like to try some experiments myself to find some answers. I armed myself with half-a-bottle of Port, some placemats, and a selection of glasses. Unlike the Factory House tasting, I decided to use only glasses that I have used and have thought were acceptable glasses for Port. I therefore decided on a Riedel Vinum, a Schott Zweisel ‟Official” Port glass (in Sandeman livery, thanks to Axel!), an ISO tasting glass, a Cognac ‟tulip” glass and a lager glass. The final two are perhaps more unusual choices but were included as wild-cards since they were what I used before I bought some ‟proper” Port glasses and since I had always thought that their funnelling effects would make them better than normal wine glasses for Port.

The lineup:

1.jpg (64.22 KiB) Viewed 19310 times

First Test: General Impressions
To start with, I aimed for some general impressions about the Port. I therefore filled the glasses up to their widest point and worked through them in the following order (roughly what I thought would be worst to best) to see how they performed.

These were my contemporaneous notes:

Lager glass
Some heat. A little musty. Is this corked? Quite subdued. A very small amount of fruit.

Cognac glass
Less heat. More concentrated fruit. Very short lived. Quite distant. Similar in bouquet to lager glass, but requiring less of an inhalation of breath to detect. Seems closer to the nose.

ISO glass
Cherries immediately present on placing my nose in the mouth, without any swirling of the wine, the concentration of fruit is significantly improved compared to the Cognac glass. The mustiness is much less present. Reverting back to the lager glass, the difference is striking. It is almost as if I am smelling different wines.

Schott Zwiesel
Similar to the ISO glass but the cherries are a touch fresher and detectably more obvious. But also there is more heat which comes out towards the end of each breath. Shallow inhalations are the best, with much less swirling required to release the bouquet than the others. A slight spiciness; perhaps some cumin, is also detectable on the end of the bouquet which is not present on the other glasses. No serious thought that this is corked now.

Riedel Vinum
First impressions are disappointing. Much more subdued than the Schott Zwiesel. But this seems to be because the glass requires much more work. Lots of swirling releases the bouquet. Perhaps the fruit is a touch more stewed and rounded than the Schott Zwiesel. A difference is detectable. Do I prefer the Riedel? Perhaps. But the difference is subtle and I am not sure if I could otherwise tell the difference.

Second test: Revising first impressions

2.jpg (93.86 KiB) Viewed 19310 times

For my second test, I simply went back through the glasses again, to see whether I changed my mind on any and see whether my impressions of some glasses affected my impressions of others.

I now get very little on the lager glass. The Cognac glass is surprisingly concentrated. Quite different from the ‟Port” glasses. The bouquet does not linger, but the strength of fruit is good. The ISO glass seems to require a lot of work of swirling to bring out the bouquet. The Schott Zwiesel and Riedel are much easier, freeing the bouquet straight-away. This time the Riedel’s roundedness seems to make it more subdued than the Schott Zwiesel which brings out the bouquet immediately.

Third pass: Higher levels of Port in the glasses

One issue which bothers me about glass testing is whether the level of liquid in the glass is more important the shape. Or, if not, whether each glass has a ‟sweet spot” where the fill level allows the glass to bring out the full bouquet irrespective of its quality. I therefore filled up the ISO and Schott Zwiesel, to about a centimeter beyond the maximum point to test the effect of a higher level on the Port. The Riedel stayed the same, for control reasons.

The bouquet on the ISO glass is now immediately present with almost no work. The fruit appears immediately. The heat does not, at all. The sensation is rounded and quite attractive.

In the Schott Zwiesel, the bouquet is more subdued now than the ISO. I wonder if this is because of the difference in difference between the top of the glass and the liquid (the ISO is nearly a centimeter shorter)? It takes more work to properly bring it out. However, with enough swirling, it seems to come to the same degree of concentration as the ISO. The heat also seems slightly less present than before, but perhaps a touch more present than the ISO.

The Riedel is now much more subdued than the other two. It feels a bit like the lager glass did earlier. The greater quantity of heat is also notable.

Filling the Riedel up to the level of the other two seemed to cure this.

Fourth test: Is the distance between the liquid and rim key?

Arising out of the last test is the simple question: does a Port glass with more Port in it smell better? I therefore filled up the Schott Zwiesel glass so that the same distance existed between the top of the liquid and the rim of the glass as on the ISO glass.

3.jpg (55.86 KiB) Viewed 19310 times

The ISO glass smells, unsurprisingly, as before. The Schott Zwiesel now seems much hotter. The fruit is more distant, too. A step down, perhaps from the previous test: there is too much Port in the glass to bring out the bouquet.

Fifth test: Trying lower levels of Port, again

If it is possible to overfill a glass (even when filling it to a reasonable, not excessive) amount, can I find a ‟sweet spot”. I therefore emptied the Schott Zwiesel glass until the level of liquid was just a touch beyond the widest point. I also filled the Riedel up to this point.

This is probably the best fill level. The bouquet is immediate on both, the heat is much less present. The Schott Zwiesel seems a little more dominant compared to the Riedel. The later brings out some more rounded fruit.

Final test: Drinking

It is well known that the taste of a Port is more in its smell than in its flavour. How is the aroma of the Port affected by the glass when drinking?

Due to the width of the rim, more of my nose fits into the lager glass than any other. This and, I think, the long walls of the glass, seem to bring out more sugar than the others, perhaps due to greater evaporation. The Cognac glass is towards the other extreme, because no part of my nose fits into it whilst drinking.

There seems to be no bouquet difference in the others when drinking.

Conclusions

I think a proper-shaped glass (e.g. the ISO, Schott Zwiesel or Riedel) is required, although the Cognac glass isn’t bad and, I think, when filled to their ‟sweet spot” there is little to distinguish them. The ISO by being smaller, may produce more direct aromas but perhaps less rounded than the larger glasses. The Riedel may have a tendency to be over-hot since its larger size necessitates more work to bring out the aroma. I can’t help thinking if the Riedel was the size of the Schott Zwiesel it might be a better glass.

Futher Tests

Of course, I am doing this sighted and so suffer from label bias. The differences are also small and I am not sure how consistent my nose is, especially when trying the same Port many, many times. Another problem is that ran out of glasses and Port (or rather a willingness just to smell and not drink the Port! ) before I could do a proper of all the variables at play. The next step, I think, is to attempt to find the optimal fill level for each glass and then do a blind-tasting of three of each of them: at that fill level, below it and above it to see how important the fill-level actually is and whether one glass stands out as better than the others when overfilled, properly filled and under filled. But how to do it properly blind without swirling Port all over my desk, I’m not sure!

I would encourage all other ers to try a similar experiment, if only with a couple of glasses and see what you think about the subject.

[DRT]

May I nominate the above post to be entered in the Glass category of this year's GOTYAs?

[PhilW]

Very interesting read Jacob, thanks for posting it; coincidentally enough I had been discussing the same issue with my wife on Saturday, arguing back forth over the amount of difference different glasses could make to the actual taste (rather than the smell), and the difficulty of doing a suitable double-blind test to eliminate the bias in expectation or view due to knowledge of which glass you're using at any time.

I was going to tempted to try something similar (albeit with a smaller selection of glasses), but sadly the Grahams 83 I opened on Sun night seems to taste poor from any glass very disappointing, so comparison will have to wait (I was hoping 24hrs might cure it, but no...).

Anyway thanks for the review, it was interesting to read

Phil.

[g-man]

sniffing the same wine diminshes the snozzles capacity to pick out distinct smells.

Did you sniff a control smell in between each glass to make sure that your nose hairs didn't get singed on the first glass thereby opening up the nostrils for better smells later on? (like have a glass of lime juice to the side and sniff the lime juice between each one)

[JacobH]

Very interesting read Jacob, thanks for posting it; coincidentally enough I had been discussing the same issue with my wife on Saturday,

I’m glad to hear it! I am now using that as justification that it is not completely mad to explore this topic further...

arguing back forth over the amount of difference different glasses could make to the actual taste (rather than the smell), and the difficulty of doing a suitable double-blind test to eliminate the bias in expectation or view due to knowledge of which glass you're using at any time.

I’m not sure what I think about the taste issue. The stuff about specific glasses being able to direct the wine to different parts of the tongue is, I think, fairly comprehensively debunked as pseudo-science and, in any event, when I taste wine, I take a sip, hold some in my mouth, breath in and taste, which means that any directionality of the wine glass is rendered redundant. However, I am happy to be proven wrong, although, like you say, I have no idea how to test that. Being objective over smell itself is hard enough.

I was going to tempted to try something similar (albeit with a smaller selection of glasses), but sadly the Grahams 83 I opened on Sun night seems to taste poor from any glass very disappointing, so comparison will have to wait (I was hoping 24hrs might cure it, but no...).

That’s a shame! Though do try again and let us know what you think! What sort of glasses do you usually use?

Port Tests Continued...

Having given some thought to my first tests, I decided that what I would do is try to resolve the ‟does the volume of the the Port in the glass affect its smell?” question and, if so, attempt to work out what the optimal amount of Port is for each of the three top performing glasses. I can then try some proper blind tests at a later point.

Did you sniff a control smell in between each glass to make sure that your nose hairs didn't get singed on the first glass thereby opening up the nostrils for better smells later on? (like have a glass of lime juice to the side and sniff the lime juice between each one)

This is a fair point; no I didn’t and for the stage two test, I armed myself with some coffee (and some water, unlike the first round of tests):

1.jpg (43.28 KiB) Viewed 19265 times

For the second test, I took two Schott Zweisel Port glasses. I marked on the glasses 6 dots, a centimetre apart, starting 1cm above the base of the bowl. I then filled one glass to the 1cm line, the second to the 2cm line, closed my eyes and swapped them around until I forgot which was which (trickier than it sounds, especially as one glass is heavier than the other) and then smelled the bouquet, wrote down some notes and, in the manner of the old House of Commons Speaker elections chose one to go through to the next round.

First Test: 1cm v. 2cm.

One of these is very weak: it is very hard to sense anything. Some grapes perhaps, like a young VP with a very deep inhalation. Identification of the fruit hard. The other is much more open/ Grapes still present. Perhaps some red currants. A little spiciness at the end of the bouquet.

Preferred glass revealed to be: 2cm.

Second Test: 2cm v 3cm

The preferred glass has slightly greater depth of concentration of grapes. Some layers of fruit emerge. Spiciness has developed further in greater complexity.

Preferred glass revealed to be: 3cm.

Third Test: 3cm v 4cm.

The preferred glass has, again, slightly higher concentration of fruit than less preferred one. However, perhaps some heat is developing which could be troublesome and put me off. There is less difference between the two glasses at these fill levels but, on balance, I think the more concentrated fruit, and slightly more hot, one has it.

Preferred glass revealed to be: 4cm.

Fourth Test: 4cm v 5cm

There is similar levels of concentration in both glasses but the one I like less has less heat than the preferred one. I think the heat is now troublesome in the less preferred glass.

Preferred glass revealed to be: 4cm.

Fifth Test: 6cm.

Far too much heat on one of these, with notable drop in concentration of fruit, too. The other one now smells like the 4cm

Preferred glass revealed to be: 4cm.

Conclusion

The fill level does affect the bouquet and does so quite dramatically; the differences between the glasses were enough for me to have written different tasting notes on them, particularly with regards to the heat. Apart from the obvious problems with too little Port in the glass, the effects of too much were striking, too. I think once the fill level reaches a certain level, the concentration of fruit decreases because the geometry of the glass changes.

I therefore think that for, the Schott Zweisel Port glasses, a fill level of about 4cm vertically above the base of the bowl is best, although good results with little variation can be achieved from about 3cm to 4.5cm. This approximates as follows:

2.jpg (36.61 KiB) Viewed 19265 times

[g-man]

That is quite interesting now!!!

Gives reason to smell all the wines before making a go around at tasting them!

Perhaps we should change our tasting formats going forward?

[DRT]

Jacob,

From your description and the marking on the glass in the above picture it looks like the general advice of filling to the widest part of the glass is correct. That being the case, do you think your experiment proves that the amount of port in the glass is what's important, or does it prove that the larger the surface area of the wine the better it will smell?

Perhaps a good way to test this is to have a range of good quality glasses of roughly the same shape but different sizes. Fill each to the widest point and (with a blindfold on) have someone hold each glass under your nose to allow you to rate them in order of preference?

Derek

[g-man]

Jacob,

From your description and the marking on the glass in the above picture it looks like the general advice of filling to the widest part of the glass is correct. That being the case, do you think your experiment proves that the amount of port in the glass is what's important, or does it prove that the larger the surface area of the wine the better it will smell?

Perhaps a good way to test this is to have a range of good quality glasses of roughly the same shape but different sizes. Fill each to the widest point and (with a blindfold on) have someone hold each glass under your nose to allow you to rate them in order of preference?

Derek

i shall try that with my cockburn 91.

I have a schott zwiesel bordeaux glass, a schott zwiesel port glass (from graham's lodge), a white wine glass, a inox tasting glass and a riedel vinum port glass and a magnum bordeaux glass ( it fits a whole magnum in the bowl if filled ot the rim).

They are all of different size proportions but relatively the same shape.

[g-man]

5 glasses lined up

Schott Zwiesel - Bordeaux glass
Riedel - Vinum White wine glass
Riedel - Vinum port wine
Schott Zwiesel - Port glass
Iso standard port glass

control smell glass inox standard: 74' gleinhau riesling

all filled to the widest part of the glass

Wine in question, cockburn 91
decanted for 40 hours.

all wines have sat in glass f or at least 3 minutes before sniffing and tasting.

iso glass:
Nose:spicy, prunes and baked plums on the nose and lingers
Taste:raisiny, brandied burn with a condensed milk body that finishes with a tequila aftertaste.

Schott Zwiesel port glass:
Nose:tingly heat, baked brown sugar, i dont get the prunes as much but it's laying around.
Taste:sweet, plums, the brandy isn't as apparent but shows up as dried cayenne peppers instead?!, finishing with a bitter dark chocolate aftertaste that burns a little.

Reidel vinum port glass
Nose:muted, even more tingly of heat, can't smell anything out of this.
Taste:sweet plums, dark licorice, no signs of heat at all on the palate finishing with a sweet dark chocolate finish.

Reidel white wine
Nose:much like the iso glass, spicy, prunes but fades quickly
Taste:sweet plums, smooth creamy dark chocolate that finishes with a sweet slightly bitter coffee.

Schott Zwiesel bordeaux glass
Nose:spirits are really showing up on this one, with a dusty component appearing in the wine. Incredibly difficult to discern the fruit at all, I'd even would say this bottle was corked if based on smell.
First glass not tasted.

Swapped the bordeaux glass out with new one.
Nose:Sweet noticeable spirits on the nose, a metallicy and dusty component on the nose. No fruits show.
Taste:One of the best mouthfeels, sweet plums, lush dark chocolates with licorice and finishes with a sweet fruity coffee.


As the iso and the two port glasses are similar, the only difference between the three are the opening sizes.
The reidel is the largest of the three. The schott and the iso have the same size with the schott's walls narrowing more from base to opening (due to a small circumference in base)

I'm actually surprised by the results, i went back to the first glass and the notes are still consistent to what i wrote originally.

I do find an interesting effect in that I take bigger mouthfuls unconsciously when drinking from larger glasses. The bordeaux glass I guess by habit when I force myself to try and take the same amount as the iso glass, I find my sips to still be bigger.

It also appears that fruit smells are more apparent with round bodied but smaller opening glasses.

Taste wise, I'm thinking that the larger glasses allow the heat to blow off better with the larger surface area bringing out some more sweetness.

will post pics soon

[JacobH]

I think my plan is now to repeat the ‟optimal volume” test for the ISO and Riedel and then blind test the three, filled to their optimal volume.

I'm actually surprised by the results, i went back to the first glass and the notes are still consistent to what i wrote originally.

Gosh, you got much more definitive results than I did, especially on the flavour! I think tend to see the difference more in concentration and heat rather than changes in fruit... Quite a poor show from the Riedel Port glass, too!

Taste wise, I'm thinking that the larger glasses allow the heat to blow off better with the larger surface area bringing out some more sweetness.

I’m not sure I would agree with this; when drinking Cognac or other brandies, one of those enormous snifters brings out the heat much more than a small tulip-glass since the latter is supposed to concentrate the bouquet of the wine whilst the former emphasises the alcohol.

I wonder a bit about the science of this. If I swirl the Port and then smell, are the majority of the chemicals I am smelling those released by the main body of the Port or the residue (the ‟legs”) left on the side of the glass by the swirling motion (which have a much higher surface-area to volume ratio than the main volume)?

[g-man]

I’m not sure I would agree with this; when drinking Cognac or other brandies, one of those enormous snifters brings out the heat much more than a small tulip-glass since the latter is supposed to concentrate the bouquet of the wine whilst the former emphasises the alcohol.

I wonder a bit about the science of this. If I swirl the Port and then smell, are the majority of the chemicals I am smelling those released by the main body of the Port or the residue (the ‟legs”) left on the side of the glass by the swirling motion (which have a much higher surface-area to volume ratio than the main volume)?

I meant to say that the larger glass with the larger rim openings is what attributed to the less heat detected.

I find the heat to be most apparent on the "smaller" openings on rim glasses that curve in on the taste, but opposite on the nose.

Edit: my thoughts are a jumbled mess when trying to think logically and do work.

For the smell: the burn appears in the larger opening glasses
For the taste: the burn is more apparent in the smaller opening glasses

[g-man]

I wonder a bit about the science of this. If I swirl the Port and then smell, are the majority of the chemicals I am smelling those released by the main body of the Port or the residue (the ‟legs”) left on the side of the glass by the swirling motion (which have a much higher surface-area to volume ratio than the main volume)?

I have also had a sommelier tell me that the proper way to smell wine is not to swirl it, but rather to let it sit in the glass so the smells settles.
the swirling of the wine supposedly kicks off the smell of the "legs" which is mostly heat.

I did not swirl at all in my tests btw

[jdaw1]

Thank you for doing these tests so carefully, and documenting them so well.

[Alex Bridgeman]

This has been a very interesting thread to read, and I might try my own small-scale experiment tonight with 3 glasses (ISO, SW and Reidel).

However, I am delighted to read Jacob's trial of fill levels and determining the sweet spot in a glass. My interpretation of the practical application of his findings is that, in future, I am to fill my glass to the rim because I am then guaranteed to have the fill level at the optimum point at some stage as I drink my way through the contents.

[JacobH]

Glasses Tests Continued: ISO Optimal Fill Level

I have some time to kill tonight so I marked up the ISO glass and found myself a new bottle of Port to test them with.

First Test: 1cm v 2cm

a) Very distant fruit. Gives me very little on the nose. Hard work to get anything.

b) Fruit much more present and obvious. Some grapes. Some complex dense red fruits though hard to tell exactly what they are. Perhaps cherries? Perhaps blackcurrants. I can’t be sure. Quite attractive and not too difficult.

Glass b is the 2cm fill.

Second Test: 2cm v 3cm

There is not a great deal of difference between the two glasses. The preferred glass is much more present and dense on the nose in terms of the fruit than the less preferred one. A greater amount of complexity comes through too. The exact nature of the fruit is still not clear: darker cherries, perhaps. Some grappiness.

Preferred glass is 3cm.

Third Test: 3cm v 4cm

There is pretty much no difference between these two glasses. The aroma seems identical. One seems a little more immediate (especially without swirling) and is therefore preferring but really there isn’t anything in it.

Preferred glass is 4cm.

Fourth Test: 4cm v 5cm

Again, almost nothing in it. The preferred one has slightly more fruit. The less preferred one seems a little more distant.

Preferred glass is 4cm.

Fifth Test: 4cm v 6cm

The less preferred glass is too hot and distant in fruit. The more preferred one now seems to be the 4cm.

Preferred glass is 4cm.

Conclusion

Compared to the Schott Zweisel, what seems interesting about this glass is that fill level has less of an effect on the bouquet, leaving a larger optimal fill zone:

iso.jpg (38.38 KiB) Viewed 19126 times

I did wonder if this is because the glass seems squatter compared to the Schott Zweisel, which is more elongated but then logic would suggest the opposite would be the case. Perhaps a repeat tasting with the Riedel will provide the answers?

[g-man]

Take a look at the diameter of hte opening,

what i've found is that the larger bowls with smaller openings the more leeway you have with pours.

[marc j.]

Very interesting thread! It seems that you took a very scientific approach to an issue that is very hard to quantify, which I think helped in identifying the factors that truly affected the olfactory experience. I found the results to be very intriguing and I think that I may try a few experiments of my own this weekend.

[RAYC]

Out of interest, does a 50ml pour get you into the optimum zone on all the varieties you tested?

Or does this mean that different glasses might be better depending on whether you are drinking alone, with 8-10, or in a group of 14? (or at a barrel/en-primeur tasting, where I assume you don't even get 50ml?)

[JacobH]

Take a look at the diameter of hte opening,

what i've found is that the larger bowls with smaller openings the more leeway you have with pours.

That’s interesting. I will have a look this evening to compare the sides!

Very interesting thread! It seems that you took a very scientific approach to an issue that is very hard to quantify, which I think helped in identifying the factors that truly affected the olfactory experience. I found the results to be very intriguing and I think that I may try a few experiments of my own this weekend.

It is only as scientific as my nose, which I don’t think is very! What I am interested in is how ‟proper” Port glasses compare (rather than Riedel’s test of their glasses v. some oddities) and would definitely encourage others to have a go since all of our noses are different and we might prefer different things.

Out of interest, does a 50ml pour get you into the optimum zone on all the varieties you tested?

Or does this mean that different glasses might be better depending on whether you are drinking alone, with 8-10, or in a group of 14? (or at a barrel/en-primeur tasting, where I assume you don't even get 50ml?)

That’s a good point; I will have a look when I next get a chance. From when I last measured a glass (to try to work out how much I usually drank in an evening when I had ‟a couple of glasses” !) I think 50ml is probably under the optimal fill zone, particularly for the Riedel which is notably larger than the others. I’ve actually often thought the Riedel is a bit too large but perhaps that’s something for some future experiments.

[Glenn E.]

I think 50ml is probably under the optimal fill zone, particularly for the Riedel which is notably larger than the others. I’ve actually often thought the Riedel is a bit too large but perhaps that’s something for some future experiments.

50 ml is a tasting pour. Proper restaurants pour 4-5 glasses of wine from a 750 ml bottle; twice that for Port. I suspect that the Riedel is meant for a standard serving, which would be 75-90 ml.

[DRT]

I think 50ml is probably under the optimal fill zone, particularly for the Riedel which is notably larger than the others. I’ve actually often thought the Riedel is a bit too large but perhaps that’s something for some future experiments.

50 ml is a tasting pour. Proper restaurants pour 4-5 glasses of wine from a 750 ml bottle; twice that for Port. I suspect that the Riedel is meant for a standard serving, which would be 75-90 ml.

That is why I prefer drinking port from a Reidel white wine glass at home. It means you only have 4 to 5 glasses of port per evening, instead of 8 or 10, the latter of which could be considered excessive.

[Glenn E.]

You're using the wrong glass for Port, Derek.

derek_port_glass.jpg (10.13 KiB) Viewed 19018 times

[jdaw1]

Surely Derek’s standard port glass is one of these.

[g-man]

Surely Derek’s standard port glass is one of these.

i've got two of those,

shall i bring one to an offline for educational purposes?

[DRT]

Surely Derek’s standard port glass is one of these.

Yes, just the right size, unless you are in need of a Magnum.

[JacobH]

Surely Derek’s standard port glass is one of these.

Yes, just the right size, unless you are in need of a Magnum.

Do we blame the American ‟super-size” influence for turning the ancient and modest British tradition of a pint of Port into a yard?

[g-man]

only if it comes with a colored little umbrella and a straw.

[Glenn E.]

I read somewhere that the wine glass used on Cougar Town holds 44 oz. I don't know whether or not the picture I posted in the 44 oz glass, though.

[g-man]

I read somewhere that the wine glass used on Cougar Town holds 44 oz. I don't know whether or not the picture I posted in the 44 oz glass, though.

hahah just a little too small to fit a colt 45 =)

[jdaw1]

A new wine glass ”“ unique in its elegance and lightness

The art of drinking Port Wine from a Churchill’s glass
With the true Port Wine connoisseur in mind, Churchill has introduced an exclusive new glass for tasting and enjoying Port Wine. This hand-made glass allows all the unique characteristics of a fine Port Wine to be appreciated to the full.

In continued pursuit of the philosophy of a high-quality Port Wine producer, Churchill’s has tried to bring to the table the same care which is demonstrated from the moment of conception of a Port Wine. In the words of Maria Emília Campos, Churchill’s marketing and sales director, ‟we firmly believe that the glass itself is of fundamental importance to the enjoyment of the very best that a wine can offer, from the actual tasting to the sensation of touch. Since there was nothing on the market which displayed the contours, elegance and lightness we were seeking, it was decided that we should create our own!

In an effort to ensure that drinking Port Wine becomes an ever-more pleasurable act of elegance, distinction and sophistication, Churchill’s has given birth to an exclusive glass for the delight of the true Port Wine connoisseur. With a tulip-shaped bowl and finest calibre glass, it has the slenderest of round stems, creating an immediate impression of lightness and elegance.

Churchill’s chose to reproduce the style of a precious old wine calice which had been discovered amongst family treasures and, in collaboration with Schott Zwiesel, created a glass of Tritan Crystal, completely free of both lead and barium, besides being 60% more resistant and long lasting than lead crystal.

‟We are conscious that the glass is a feature of supreme importance in the serving, drinking and appreciation of Port Wine”, added Maria Emília Campos. ‟The Churchill’s glass has been conceived with the true connoisseur and Port Wine lover in mind, acknowledging his pursuit of a life of quality and tempered pace. This was our challenge in the design of the glass, exclusivity not only in design and style but equally in the materials employed. This glass pays ‘homage’ to Port Wine, which we ardently believe should be appreciated with elegance and style.”

Available for purchase at €15,00 at Churchill’s Visit Centre, in Vila Nova Gaia, Rua da Fonte Nova, 5.

Alas churchills-port.com is down, so there isn’t a picture.

[DRT]

Alas churchills-port.com is down, so there isn’t a picture.

The site is back up, but I can't find any mention of the glass.

[PhilW]

I decided it was about time to join in with this experiment and post my notes, especially after my wife generously bought me a pair of Riedel port glasses for our anniversary

The Setup:

One bottle of Dow 1991, decanted through medical gauze 24hrs ahead of the test (cork out in one piece). I'll have to look into how to create the tasting mats

The Glasses:

The glass lineup was as follows:

1. Riedel port glass
2. ISO tasting glass
3. Taylor Fladgate port glass
4. Schott port glass
5. Penderyn (whisky) glass

The Taylors glass was from a 'gift pack' (bottle of Taylors LBV plus the glass), while the Schott glass was my 'original' port glass from many years; The ISO and Riedel are recent additions which encouraged this test. The Penderyn was used as a wild-card entry with similar surface area for the measure and funneling top.

Using a separate glass marked with a 45ml line to measure, each glass was then filled with a 45ml measure; I picked this amount for initial tests based on 70cl bottle divided by 14 people for tasting; see later for increased portions. The filled glasses were thus ready for test:



Test 1 - 45ml still
For the first test I left the glasses to stand for 3mins after pouring (having spaced them out) and then smelled without lifting the glass.
- Riedel: Full fresh blackcurrants, some vanilla
- ISO: Lighter small, some blackcurrants
- Taylors: As ISO
- Schott: Similar smell, but lighter still
- Penderyn: Almost no nose, slightly spirity

Test 2 - 45ml still repeat, reversed
To try and determine if order was an issue, the same test was repeated in reverse order, after a few deep breaths of air outside to clear any residual odour. As before the glasses remained stationary on the table.
- Penderyn: Slight blackcurrent and vanilla, quite spirity
- Schott: minimal smell
- Taylors: light smell, some hint of orange(?)
- ISO: light smell, seemed to be slightly less that in previous test
- Riedel: fuller and deeper than the ISO, but seemed lighter than previous test
Overall an interesting result which together with the previous one appeared to show that without sufficient pause between, the smell on subsequent glasses may be reduced slightly due to the smell from previous glass. From hereon I therefore gave more of a pause between glasses and smelled all glasses in forward/backward order to make an assessment.

Test 3 - 45ml lift and smell
Similar to at a tasting, this time I simply lifted the glass, held at an angle and smelled without swirling. Attempting to determine whether the angle, or the action of tilting to smell makes any difference.
- Penderyn: A small amount of flavour showing, still quite spirity (more spirit than flavour)
- Schott: Medium level smell definitely showing more fruit now, no spirit
- Taylors: Very slightly more spirit, slightly lighter smell
- ISO: As Taylor
- Riedel: As Taylor
The Schott was very noticeable in this test as having almost no spirit compared with the other glasses, while now showing the fruit; Nose noticeably closer to liquid surface than other glasses, and minimal funneling possible reason for lack of spirit?

Test 4 - 45ml lift, swirl and smell
Same as the previous test, but this time with a deliberate short swirl to see what difference this would cause:
- Penderyn: More flavour showing, but also more spirity
- Schott: Now a good smell showing clear fruit and vanilla, still minimal spirit
- Taylors: Improved level of flavour compared with non-swirl, some spirit
- ISO: Now more intense, improved level of flavour (slightly more than Taylor), some spirit
- Riedel: Also more flavour (more than ISO) also slightly more spirit than ISO
My overall impression was that the slight swirl did improve the ability to detect the fruit in all glasses.

Test 6 - 90ml higher fill level
An initial test to determine the difference a larger portion makes. Created by pouring one glass into the other, stand for 1min then lift, tilt (where possible) and smell
- Penderyn: (skipped)
- Schott: minimal smell, no spirit
- Riedel: Medium level of smell, some spirit
- ISO: medium level of smell, slightly more blackberries?
- Taylors: similar to ISO, though slightly lighter smell
The Reidel, Taylors and ISO all seemed to be able to cope with the 90ml measure similarly to previously, while the Schott glass (now almost full) showed minimal smell.

Test 7+
Subsequent tests abandoned due to the tester drinking the port!
- strawberry and vanilla tones, very slightly sour to start, quite spirited and had a long after-taste with a hint of cloves on the finish.

Conclusions
Some very preliminary conclusions given the limited testing:
(a) The Riedel, ISO and Taylor glass all allow for straightforward smelling, are not too sensitive to quantity in the 45-90ml range, and a slight swirl aids the nose.
(b) The Schott glass when filled to 45ml, provided excellent ability to smell the flavours without the spirit obscuring them compared with the others, but is more sensitive to quantity in the glass
(c) I must leave more time between each glass to gain a proper appreciation of each when moving from glass to glass
(d) I possess only a limited amount of will-power to prevent me from drinking the glasses

Very nice port, and still some left for tomorrow

Phil.

[jdaw1]

I'll have to look into how to create the tasting mats

Either, 1, www.jdawiseman.com/placemat.html; or 2, ask me.

[g-man]

Philw, you need a control smell in between each sniff.

Btw which riedels are you using? Riedel makes well over 6? different kinds of port glasses now.

My glass was the Vinum.

The human nose olafactory senses will diminish if smelling the same aromatics, which is why some old ladies pour on the perfume.

[RAYC]

Conclusions
Some very preliminary conclusions given the limited testing:
(a) The Riedel, ISO and Taylor glass all allow for straightforward smelling, are not too sensitive to quantity in the 45-90ml range, and a slight swirl aids the nose.
(b) The Schott glass when filled to 45ml, provided excellent ability to smell the flavours without the spirit obscuring them compared with the others, but is more sensitive to quantity in the glass
(c) I must leave more time between each glass to gain a proper appreciation of each when moving from glass to glass
(d) I possess only a limited amount of will-power to prevent me from drinking the glasses

Very nice port, and still some left for tomorrow

Phil.

Phil - a very interesting test. But which will be your "go-to" glass...?

I tried something similar (but less well-planned or documented!) with the Riedel Ouverture White, Riedel Vinum Port (which is i assume what you have), Riedel Vinum Chianti and a standard ISO. My conclusion was that i am fairly unfussy and that whilst there were subtle differences, it was hard to come to a firm "preference". However, the factor which distinguished them most for me was the rolled rim of the ISO vs (much better) cut rim of Riedels. Conversely, when down to the last 20ml, I found the smaller size of the ISO was advantageous.

I now drink at home from the Ouverture White or Vinum Port, but am thinking of seeing if i can track down a few cheap cut-rim ISOs for dinner-party/tasting use.

[RAYC]

Riedel makes well over 6? different kinds of port glasses now.

6?! Is that counting lead/non-lead variants of the same shape? I was only aware of the Sommelier (out of my price range!) and Vinum port glasses.

[g-man]

they have many different lines

reidel recommends port with the following lines

vinum - port/sherry glass
vinum xl - icewine glass
o - spirit glass
ouverture - sherry glass


and i'm not including the 5 other wine lines they have that look to be suitable usage as it's the same bowl shape

http://glassware.riedel.com/index.php/riedel.html

[PhilW]

Philw, you need a control smell in between each sniff.

I did think about that, but could not think of a suitable olfactory cleanser as opposed to something which simply overrides, and would therefore likely be no more valid than a suitable pause.

Btw which riedels are you using? Riedel makes well over 6? different kinds of port glasses now.

Riedel Vinum Port

Phil - a very interesting test. But which will be your "go-to" glass...?

Honestly I think I'll probably use the Riedel - the Riedel and ISO were very similar but the Riedel seemed to have the slight edge on immediate pour+smell, and with the slightly wider shape is probably more forgiving on portion size. That said, the Schott might be better on the first night if the bottle were only decanted for short time, as it seemed to help bypass the spirit and give more access to the full flavours on the nose (but only if I pour very small portions) and then use the Riedel on the following night to finish the bottle. I'd be happy drinking from any of them (except the Penderyn).

Phil.

[DRT]

Riedel makes well over 6? different kinds of port glasses now.

6?! Is that counting lead/non-lead variants of the same shape? I was only aware of the Sommelier (out of my price range!) and Vinum port glasses.

they have many different lines

reidel recommends port with the following lines

vinum - port/sherry glass
vinum xl - icewine glass
o - spirit glass
ouverture - sherry glass


and i'm not including the 5 other wine lines they have that look to be suitable usage as it's the same bowl shape

http://glassware.riedel.com/index.php/riedel.html

Doesn't all that say that they have one Port glass which comes in two qualities (Vinum and Sommelier) and lots of other glasses that it is possible to drink Port from?

[g-man]

Riedel makes well over 6? different kinds of port glasses now.

6?! Is that counting lead/non-lead variants of the same shape? I was only aware of the Sommelier (out of my price range!) and Vinum port glasses.

they have many different lines

reidel recommends port with the following lines

vinum - port/sherry glass
vinum xl - icewine glass
o - spirit glass
ouverture - sherry glass


and i'm not including the 5 other wine lines they have that look to be suitable usage as it's the same bowl shape

http://glassware.riedel.com/index.php/riedel.html

Doesn't all that say that they have one Port glass which comes in two qualities (Vinum and Sommelier) and lots of other glasses that it is possible to drink Port from?

yes, but notice the bowl shapes for the 4 i stated are different

[g-man]

Philw, you need a control smell in between each sniff.

I did think about that, but could not think of a suitable olfactory cleanser as opposed to something which simply overrides, and would therefore likely be no more valid than a suitable pause.

Phil.

Tap water.

[PhilW]

Philw, you need a control smell in between each sniff.

I did think about that, but could not think of a suitable olfactory cleanser as opposed to something which simply overrides, and would therefore likely be no more valid than a suitable pause.

Tap water.

I'm assuming you're suggesting smelling it, as opposed to drinking or snorting it?

I expect that filling your nasal cavity with water (by whatever means) would be pretty guaranteed to clear any residual odour from the nasal cavity and cleanse the sensors to the olfactory bulb, but I can't say I fancy it much. If we're considering smelling the water, is that likely to be any more effective at removal residual odor and/or restoring the olfactory sensors than sniffing an empty glass, or taking several large breaths in through the nose and expelling via the mouth? (I don't know)

[g-man]

Philw, you need a control smell in between each sniff.

I did think about that, but could not think of a suitable olfactory cleanser as opposed to something which simply overrides, and would therefore likely be no more valid than a suitable pause.

Tap water.

I'm assuming you're suggesting smelling it, as opposed to drinking or snorting it?

sounds like something else i should try this weekend

I believe i read in some journal that the olfactory senses gets revived by sniffing something that's completely different. but then again a few snozzles of fresh airs would probably do the trick.

i'll have to dig through the net to find it again.

[Glenn E.]

Doesn't all that say that they have one Port glass which comes in two qualities (Vinum and Sommelier) and lots of other glasses that it is possible to drink Port from?

No. The Vinum is a "generic" Port glass. The Sommelier glasses come in Tawny and Vintage varieties, neither of which is exactly the same as the Vinum Port glass. So they have at least 3 different Port glasses as well as several other glasses that might be appropriate (or not) for Port. They also have a Riedel Bar series Port glass, but it looks to me like it's the same as the Vinum Port glass.

The Vinum Port glass is my preferred glass. I like the weight and feel better than the IVdP (Schott Zwiesel) and ISO glasses. I do like my two Sommelier glasses, but they just feel too fragile. I'm afraid to use them for fear of breaking them, and that's no way to drink Port.

[RAYC]

The Vinum is a "generic" Port glass. The Sommelier glasses come in Tawny and Vintage varieties, neither of which is exactly the same as the Vinum Port glass.

The Mqlvedos blog suggests that the Sommelier Vintqge Port also comes in two varieties - hand blown lead crystal and machine blown non-lead. Presumably, if/when the latter is available commerciqlly, it will be signifiantly cheaper.

[Glenn E.]

The Vinum is a "generic" Port glass. The Sommelier glasses come in Tawny and Vintage varieties, neither of which is exactly the same as the Vinum Port glass.

The Mqlvedos blog suggests that the Sommelier Vintqge Port also comes in two varieties - mouth blown lead crystal and machine blown non-lead. Presumably, if/when the latter is available commerciqlly, it will be signifiantly cheaper.

That doesn't sound right to me. I believe that the distinguising characteristic of the Sommelier series is that they are all mouth-blown lead crystal. Anything machine made would by definition be a different series. As near as I can tell from the Malvedos blog, the machine-blown glass in question is the Restaurant Series Port glass, which is alleged to be identical to the Sommelier Vintage Port glass.

Why alleged? It's not really possible for these machine-blown glasses to be identical to mouth-blown glasses. The mouth-blown glasses have pulled stems while the machine-blown glasses have attached stems and that difference affects the shape of the bottom of the bowl. I'm sure it's a very minor difference, but then again the difference in shape between a Sommelier Vintage Port glass and a Vinum Port Glass is pretty minor also. (The Sommelier Tawny Port glass is significantly different.)

I wonder if the Restaurant Port glass that the Malvedos blog mentions and the Bar Port glass that can be found in g-man's link are the same? At the time of the Malvedos blog post, the restaurant glass had only first been made 10 days before so that might not have ended up being the name of the series.

[DRT]

From 1934 to the mid 1970s there was a quarterly magazine titled "Wine and Food", published by the Wine and Food Society.

Later editions included a regular feature named "We disapprove of:" which typically listed a few grumbles about what was wrong with restaurants, cook books, wine lists, etc. A form of constructive criticism for the food and wine trade.

I found this today, which is relevant to this thread!

We disapprove of: ! The way so many fine British wine glasses are made of crystal thick enough to support heavy decorative cutting on the bowls Why not restrict this to the stems and feet? Trying to drink a fine wine from a thick glass is like trying to make love to a woman who is wearing long woolly underwear.

Now then, chaps, who's going to step up to the challenge and report back with a test of this one? {no photographs please}

[Andy Velebil]

i can attest that a small plastic cup does not make a good Port drinking apparatus, but works in a pinch.

[g-man]

Perhaps we should point members of the TFP clan to this particular thread

http://blogs.wsj.com/scene/2011/11/08/s ... t-glasses/

[PhilW]

Alternatively you could use the box at the bottom of their blog page to add a comment to say "we agree" and point them at our thread for more information, detailed tests, discussion of how fill level affects tastings, and offer our services if The Vintage Port Academy would like any further testing performed