Slashdot Mirror


Wine Glasses Are Seven Times Larger Than They Used To Be (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: Our Georgian and Victorian ancestors may have enjoyed a Christmas tipple but -- judging by the size of the glasses they used -- they probably drank less wine than we do today. Scientists at the University of Cambridge have found that the capacity of wine glasses has ballooned nearly seven-fold over the past 300 years, rising most sharply in the last two decades in line with a surge in wine consumption. Wine glasses have swelled in size from an average capacity of 66ml in the early 1700s to 449ml today, the study reveals -- a change that may have encouraged us to drink far more than is healthy. Indeed, a typical wine glass 300 years ago would only have held about a half of today's smallest "official" measure of 125ml.

7 of 220 comments (clear)

  1. 449ml? Where?!? by Contact · · Score: 3, Informative

    That's crazy, I'm in the UK and I've never seen a glass that size outside of a novelty catalog. I'll concede that wine glass sizes have increased (they used to be sold in 125ml measures, nowadays it's usually 175ml or 250ml) but I've never seen a restaurant or pub selling a measure larger than 250ml, and I drink a lot of wine!

    1. Re:449ml? Where?!? by Nemyst · · Score: 3, Informative

      Restaurants and pubs have no interest in serving larger quantities. They'd much rather you took multiple glasses or an entire bottle, and that way they don't have to stock large, expensive glasses which often require unusual cleaning setups (since they're just too large to fit in normal washing systems). For home use, though, you'll find a lot of glasses like this with capacities well above 300ml (this one's around 900ml filled to the brim, so something like 450ml half filled is reasonable).

      Of course, those glasses are also expected to be filled to a much lower degree. The goal is to have a really large surface area for the wine to mix its aromas with the surrounding air while ensuring that it remains contained within the glass thanks to a taller glass with a narrower opening.

    2. Re:449ml? Where?!? by jonnythan · · Score: 4, Informative

      $12.99 for a 4-pack of 20 oz (591 mL) wine glasses at Target right now. The smallest red wine glass I see there is 12 oz (355 mL).

      Virtually all of their white wine glasses are 12 oz (355 mL) or larger. They have a couple of smaller glasses, mostly champagne flutes. The average wine glass I see for sale in Target is 15 oz (443 mL).

      Head over to IKEA and their standard white wine glass is 8 oz (237 mL), red wine glass 10 oz (295 mL). Those are the smallest they sell that aren't small novelty glasses. Their range for regular-looking wine glasses is 8 to 20 oz (237 - 591 mL).

  2. Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I was in Itally recently, and their wine glasses are still pretty small.
    I think this is an american thing.

  3. Glassmaking by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Informative

    The summary has it wrong - it was a technological (and tax!) limitation, not an indication of portion size. From the actual study:

    Possible causes
    Increases in wine glass size over time may reflect changes in several factors including price, technology, societal wealth, and wine appreciation. The “glass excise” tax, levied in 1746, led to the manufacture of smaller glass products.16 This tax was abolished in 1845,17 and in the late 1800s glass production began to shift from more traditional mouth blowing techniques to more automated processes.18 These changes in production reflect our data, which show the smallest wine glasses during the 1700s and no increases in glass size during that period, as the observed increase occurred from the 19th century.

    And to emphasize the point, the study says:

    We cannot infer that the increase in glass size and the rise in wine consumption in England are causally linked. Nor can we infer that reducing glass size would cut drinking.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  4. Re:0.5l by vux984 · · Score: 5, Informative

    yup pretty much. we use these at home...

    https://www.amazon.com/Riedel-...

    It's a 21oz+ glass. (0.6L) But see the picture... that's about how full you full them. You can swirl the wine in them, see the legs, and enjoy the 'bouquet'.

    Nobody would ever fill them, even halfway would be pretty absurd.

  5. Re:Wine Does Not Equal Alcohol Consumption by bws111 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I think another difference is decanting. I remember when I was a kid and my parents had wine it was first decanted, then poured into relatively small glasses. The decanting is when the 'breathing' happened. The problem there is that the decanting process took some time (it seems to me they let it sit about 1/2 hour before drinking), so you want to be sure to decant enough for what you will be drinking. But once decanted, you pretty much have to drink it or throw it out. The larger glasses allow you to skip the decanting by allowing swishing.