At a dinner party in West London two nights ago I was nearly floored by a bottle of 2004 Lucciolaio from Torraccia di Presura. The sheer weight of this super Tuscan, a 80/20 blend of Sangiovese and Cabernet Sauvignon, was enough to knock me off my chair. I knew Chianti producers were seeking wines with a more robust character, but this one seemed to have gone way OTT.
To verify my impression I decided to conduct a comparison between the Lucciolaio and another red at hand, a 2004 Château Caronne Ste Gemme Haut-Médoc (60% Cabernet, 37% Merlot, 3% Petit Verdot). My host took out a scale and I hauled the Lucciolaio from the dinner table to the kitchen counter for the weigh-in:  These were the results:
Château Caronne Ste Gemme 1.312 kilos (2 lb 14 ounces)
Lucciolaio 1.522 kilos (3 lb 6 oz)
So why was the Tuscan red over 15 percent heavier than the Bordeaux? It surely wasn’t the wine. All wines weigh about the same – 750 grams for 750ml of water plus a few grams for the wine solids. The balance was determined by the weight of the bottles.
Whereas the average bottle weighs 500 grams, about the same as the one used for the Château Caronne Ste Gemme, heavier ones can weigh over twice that. (The Lucciolaio bottle, though hefty enough at roughly 750 grams, would not even qualify for the uppermost weight classification.) To their growing legion of critics, the heavyweight bottles are environmentally irresponsible. They waste glass, leave a larger carbon footprint and are more expensive to ship. Wine writer Jancis Robinson worries they may also pose a health hazard to those lugging cases of them in warehouses and wine stores. (Click here for a discussion of the heavy bottle issue.)
I’m sceptical about claims by producers that thicker, heavier glass helps their wines age more gracefully. But I do see an analogous benefit to those who drink them. The heavy lifting, performed in a sufficient number of repetitions, may tone their pouring arms and invigorate their thirst for greater wine-drinking enjoyment.
Good post, Daniel! I don’t know anyone who’s actually gone through that exercise before (weighing bottles). Jancis, as you point out, has been banging on about this for quite some time so I think – and hope – that producers are beginning to think twice about these ludicrously over-the-top bits of glassware that often bear little correlation to the quantity of the wine in them. Bravo!
As far as I’m aware thicker heavier glass makes no difference at all to the ageing of the wine, if anything it’s the colour of the glass that would make a difference.
Someone please correct me if that is wrong though.
The issue (or rationale) with ageing may have less to do with the weight of the glass as with the presence of a punt, which ostensibly gathers sediment over time. And the larger the punt, the larger and weightier the bottle. Regardless, I think producers who still use heavier bottles are hoping that consumers will associate that heft with quality.