![The Port Forum :tpf:](./images/smilies/tpf.gif)
![The Port Forum :tpf:](./images/smilies/tpf.gif)
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!
![Twisted Evil :twisted:](./images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif)
![Twisted Evil :twisted:](./images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif)
I would encourage all other
![The Port Forum :tpf:](./images/smilies/tpf.gif)