Enough with the Champagne glass conspiracy already – can’t we just drink and enjoy?

Champgne glass

$60 will buy two Reidel Veritas Champagne glasses — and won’t we sleep better at night after that purchase?

Once again, we’re being told that we aren’t drinking bubbly from the correct glasses, and we’d better stop – or else

A couple of months ago, when I wrote about the most recent Champagne glass conspiracy, I thought we were done with worrying about what a Champagne glass should look like. The glass in that post was so over the top that only the geekiest among us would pay attention. And the rest of us could enjoy our bubbly in whatever glasses we had, content that the wine business has passed us by.

Silly me.

Once again, we’re being told that we aren’t drinking bubbly from the correct glasses, and that we must spend $30 a glass to do it the proper way. It’s called the Veritas glass from our friends at Reidel – with a wider middle and narrow top, two design changes that are supposed to help us enjoy more aromas and flavors. No, this isn’t as bizarre as the cement mixer glass from the previous post (which also needs to be dusty to work most efficiently), but it’s overkill nonetheless.

Most of us spend less than $15 a bottle for sparkling wine. Why do we need to pay twice as much for the glass? Why can’t we enjoy our bubbly in whatever glasses we have and be done with it?

Because this is wine, and if they aren’t telling us what to do, they’re reminding us that what we do is wrong. And, by the way, spend more money.

I wrote this in the previous Champagne glass post, and it’s worth repeating: “What difference does the design make to the vast majority of wine drinkers? Can we tell the difference between the bubbles in a flute glass and in the cement mixer glass? Isn’t the wine just as enjoyable in the former? The answers: Almost certainly not, and of course. And I can’t imagine most of us want to drink wine out of a dusty glass.”

But then again, what do we know? We’re just the slobs who pay for everything.

6 thoughts on “Enough with the Champagne glass conspiracy already – can’t we just drink and enjoy?

  • By Bill Walters - Reply

    I am not taking a position on the glass issue, although I am curious enough to invest in one glass to find out if there is any merit to the idea. As for as a $30 glass, which will last a lot longer than a bottle of wine, let’s say 10 years, that works out to $3/year, or 25 cents a month versus a monthly $15 bottle of wine. A bargain I would say!

  • By Marie - Reply

    Wait a minute! I thought we were drinking champagne out of a glass slipper!
    After a rough day I’ve drunk champagne out of a DOF because I was not going to keep refilling the glass. Seriously!

  • By Marie - Reply

    We have cats. They walk the coffee table and can knock over flutes. Stemless flutes or short glasses do just fine. Unless you’re drinking a vintage Krug [so far once in my lifetime] it’s not critical mass.

  • By Joe - Reply

    Hey, before criticizing, try the same wine from 2-3 different glasses. There IS a difference.

    • By Wine Curmudgeon - Reply

      Me, criticize?

      As I wrote in the initial post, I have tasted sparkling wine in every glass imaginable. That includes plastic and Styrofoam.

      My point is not that there isn;t a difference, but that it doesn’t matter for almost all wine drinkers. We’re not drinking $100 Champagne, with subtleties and nuances. We’re drinking $15 Prosecco and $10 cava. In which case, glasses aren’t as important.

  • By Titus - Reply

    That looks like a pretty ordinary white-wine glass. No new purchases required!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.