Port Glasses Test
- JacobH
- Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
- Posts: 3300
- Joined: 16:37 Sat 03 May 2008
- Location: London, UK
- Contact:
Port Glasses Test
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:
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
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.
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.
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:
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
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.
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.
Re: Port Glasses Test
May I nominate the above post to be entered in the Glass category of this year's GOTYAs?
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn
Ernest H. Cockburn
-
- Dalva Golden White Colheita 1952
- Posts: 3546
- Joined: 14:22 Wed 15 Dec 2010
- Location: Near Cambridge, UK
Re: Port Glasses Test
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.
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.
Re: Port Glasses Test
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)
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)
Disclosure: Distributor of Quevedo wines and Quinta do Gomariz
- JacobH
- Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
- Posts: 3300
- Joined: 16:37 Sat 03 May 2008
- Location: London, UK
- Contact:
Re: Port Glasses Test
I’m glad to hear it! I am now using that as justification that it is not completely mad to explore this topic further...PhilW wrote:Very interesting read Jacob, thanks for posting it; coincidentally enough I had been discussing the same issue with my wife on Saturday,
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.PhilW wrote: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.
That’s a shame! Though do try again and let us know what you think! What sort of glasses do you usually use?PhilW wrote: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...).
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.
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): 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.g-man wrote: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)
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:
Re: Port Glasses Test
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?
Gives reason to smell all the wines before making a go around at tasting them!
Perhaps we should change our tasting formats going forward?
Disclosure: Distributor of Quevedo wines and Quinta do Gomariz
Re: Port Glasses Test
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
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
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn
Ernest H. Cockburn
Re: Port Glasses Test
i shall try that with my cockburn 91.DRT wrote: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 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.
Disclosure: Distributor of Quevedo wines and Quinta do Gomariz
Re: Port Glasses Test
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
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
Disclosure: Distributor of Quevedo wines and Quinta do Gomariz
- JacobH
- Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
- Posts: 3300
- Joined: 16:37 Sat 03 May 2008
- Location: London, UK
- Contact:
Re: Port Glasses Test
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 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)?
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!g-man wrote: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’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.g-man wrote: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 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)?
Re: Port Glasses Test
I meant to say that the larger glass with the larger rim openings is what attributed to the less heat detected.JacobH wrote: 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 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
Last edited by g-man on 16:02 Thu 26 May 2011, edited 2 times in total.
Disclosure: Distributor of Quevedo wines and Quinta do Gomariz
Re: Port Glasses Test
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.JacobH wrote:
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)?
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
Last edited by g-man on 02:53 Sat 28 May 2011, edited 1 time in total.
Disclosure: Distributor of Quevedo wines and Quinta do Gomariz
Re: Port Glasses Test
Thank you for doing these tests so carefully, and documenting them so well.
- Alex Bridgeman
- Fonseca 1966
- Posts: 15036
- Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
- Location: Berkshire, UK
Re: Port Glasses Test
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.
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.
Top Ports in 2023: Taylor 1896 Colheita, b. 2021. A perfect Port.
2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
- JacobH
- Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
- Posts: 3300
- Joined: 16:37 Sat 03 May 2008
- Location: London, UK
- Contact:
Re: Port Glasses Test
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: 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?
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: 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?
Re: Port Glasses Test
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.
what i've found is that the larger bowls with smaller openings the more leeway you have with pours.
Disclosure: Distributor of Quevedo wines and Quinta do Gomariz
Re: Port Glasses Test
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.
Re: Port Glasses Test
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?)
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?)
Rob C.
- JacobH
- Quinta do Vesuvio 1994
- Posts: 3300
- Joined: 16:37 Sat 03 May 2008
- Location: London, UK
- Contact:
Re: Port Glasses Test
That’s interesting. I will have a look this evening to compare the sides!g-man wrote: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.
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.marc j. wrote: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.
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.RAYC wrote: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?)
Re: Port Glasses Test
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.JacobH wrote: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 Elliott
Re: Port Glasses Test
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. wrote: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.JacobH wrote: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.
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn
Ernest H. Cockburn
Re: Port Glasses Test
Surely Derek’s standard port glass is one of these.
Re: Port Glasses Test
i've got two of those,jdaw1 wrote:Surely Derek’s standard port glass is one of these.
shall i bring one to an offline for educational purposes?
Disclosure: Distributor of Quevedo wines and Quinta do Gomariz
Re: Port Glasses Test
Yes, just the right size, unless you are in need of a Magnum.jdaw1 wrote:Surely Derek’s standard port glass is one of these.
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn
Ernest H. Cockburn