Clear confidence or just plain foolishness
I look at LOTS of bottles of wine every day. There are Burgundy bottles, Bordeaux bottles, Mosel bottles, bottles that are too big, ones that are far too small, and some that are JUST RIGHT! And though I don’t see them all that often, there are certain bottle types that when I do, make me wonder about the winemaker’s choice. The choice to which I’m referring is the bottling of (almost exclusively) white wine in clear bottles. In short, it seems to me that this choice is one of either unbridaled confidence or just plain foolishness.
Everyone knows that heat is likely the greatest enemy of wine (apart from ice cubes or packets of saccharine, but let’s not go down that path…), and many people also know that excessive vibration can accelerate the aging process, but LIGHT is also a major problem for wine, especially for white wines that have fewer protections from the ravages of intense light (it’s the tannins again).
Now the most obvious (business) reason to bottle in clear glass is so that your prospective customer can see what a beautful color your wine has (or at least you think that it’s beautiful). The other type of wine bottled in clear glass that once can run across are rose` wines. And though I’m still not sure that clear glass is ultimately the best choice in this case either, it’s easy to see why some decide to go that route. First, rose` wine has the greatest range of colors, hues, and highlights, and these colors give the experienced consumer a “sneak preview” of what the wine may taste like. For example, one could imagine what a pale, copper-colored rose` wine might taste like in comparison with a deep, cherry-red one, and having this information might indeed help to take one from the shelf and leave the other. Moreover, with a wine that, right or wrong, is perceived to be a hot weather tipple (i.e. highly seasonal), bottling in clear glass is less risky because any rose` wine that hasn’t been sold by the end of September is perceived by many to be “toast” whether it comes packaged in a clear bottle or a bank vault, so the feeling is is that the the potential benefits of transparent bottles far outweigh any of the associated negatives when considering roses. But like rose wines, white wines are always served chilled, they seem to transcend seasonal prejudices that plague rose` sales, so white wines, even the decidedly less stalwart examples, are still perceived to be “year round” items by many wine drinkers, so whites tend to linger longer on shelves than roses do…Which returns us to the central question “Why bottle white wine in clear bottles?”
As I’ve already said, color is THE determining factor for the decision, and I might GUESS (I don’t really know for sure however) that clear glass might be SLIGHTLY cheaper, but to me, the potential risks are just too great to mess with. Sure, seeing shiney gold nectar in a bottle is quite appealing, but equally UNAPPEALING is obviously browned, oxidized wine that most likely got that way because of too much light exposure. Now if you get an over-the-hill bottle of Mario Cuppacoffi’s white wine, you’re unlikely to forget it even if it did come in a dark bottle - your brain has made a a negative connection between that producer and that problem. But imagine the identical situation with a clear bottle - in this case, you’ll not only make the connection to the producer’s name, but very likely, you’ll also form a visual negative connotation as well (the memory of how bad that deep yellow liquid tasted). To me, it’s just one more pitfall that is COMPLETELY avoidable
Now some might argue that a clear bottle assures the knowledgeable customer some assurance that what he or she is buying is fresh, but I’d reply with two counter-points. First, the VINATGE of a wine is the first clue to me whether a wine is fresh or tired (crazy idea, huh?) - no need to look any further on that front…Second, there are wines, that for reasons of either style or the natural color properties of the grape/grapes in question, are just naturally darker, and sometimes alarmingly so, so this is a case in which some general knowledge about what sunstruck wine looks like can actually put people off of perfectly sound bottles because they LOOK dodgy, but in reality are just fine…
So unless I’m missing something, a cocktail of sales hubris and (perhaps) some slight cost savings are afoot in this little clear glass conundrum…Now obviously I’m not telling you to run away screaming from the first bottle of wine in clear glass that happens to cross your path - I’ve got a few of these gems scattered about on our shelves even as we speak - just pay extra attention to the color of the wine your bottle, and if you’re in doubt, ASK SOMEBODY…thoughts?
TOM CIOCCO
3 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
but what about sauternes??
1. those wines last forever
2. But I think that proves your color theory right
:) Great post!
Comment by Ferrigno — September 5, 2007 @ 12:41 am
Tom,
I have to respectfully disagree. I would prefer that all wine be packaged in clear bottles for the very reasons that you cite. I would also prefer them to be light in weight. Those producers that try to make their wine seem to have more gravitas by using half inch thick glass aren’t fooling anyone and they’re helping to ruin the lower backs of many a store clerk. But, that’s another topic.
I’ve often thought that putting a Sauvignon Blanc in a dark bottle is a little like selling bananas in an opaque box. I suspect that the producers that use colored glass for their white wines are more concerned about the consumer being able to see that a wine is old than they are about the ravages of exposure to light.
Many consumers don’t even look at vintages. Or, if they do, they don’t know to be careful about buying older whites. But, if all Sauvignon Blancs were in clear bottles and one looks like a Tokaji while all the others look normal, even the most uninitiated consumer is likely to stay away.
I’ve seen many old white vintages on store shelves that had no business being anywhere but in the discount bin. They are routinely purchased by unsuspecting consumers, who in all likelihood form an unfair, negative impression of those producers because the wine was at a less than optimal drinking age. Producers can better protect their reputations by using clear bottles.
Is there a risk that some perfectly good bottles will get passed over because their color is unusually dark? Sure. But, I think it’s worth the trade-off for full-disclosure. Besides, as a wine educator I’m always looking for ways for consumers to better identify wines that are highly likely to please them. Color adds one more criterion. For example, the person who prefers their Chardonnays unoaked may do well to look for those lighter in color – hard to do if all the bottles are light brown.
Regarding the protection of the wine from light; it is an issue, but one that is easily dealt with by conscientious retailers and informed consumers. Retailers should be protecting their wines from light damage by their choices of lighting and the positioning of their displays away from direct sunlight. Those that don’t; deserve to lose customers. Most consumers open wines the same day they purchase them. Those who do go to the trouble to store their wine usually know to keep light exposure to a minimum.
The vintage is a good indicator of a white wine’s health, but not always a fool-proof one. Varying production methods and sulfur regimens can make a huge difference. Many low sulfur, unfiltered whites are toast after one year, while other versions of the same grape may be fine for 4 or 5 years. The best way to tell is by the color.
I think you have it exactly backwards with your contrast of negative impressions. The old wine in the dark bottle left a negative impression of the producer. This is most likely unfair to the producer. The culprit is more likely to be a lazy or unscrupulous retailer. The negative impression is misplaced. Besides, aren’t they going to get a good look at the color as soon as they pour it into a glass?
On the other hand, creating a negative impression of a browning wine is precisely what will allow the consumer to make a more informed choice the next time. It’s not a pitfall, it’s an advantage. Sure, consumers need to learn that certain grapes are naturally darker than others. That fact would be more easily discerned if all whites were in clear bottles for all to see.
I also think red wines should be in clear glass. I often find myself saying to customers looking for a light red wine, “Trust me. It looks dark, but that’s just the color of the glass.” Why not allow the consumer to see for themselves that a Pinot Noir has a lighter body than a Cabernet Sauvignon, or that a $50 Pinot Noir is probably going to be fuller and richer than a $10 Pinot Noir?
Ultimately, as with everything; knowledge is power. The more the consumer knows about wine the better equipped they are to select a wine that will please them. With a little bit of knowledge and a clear, unobstructed view of the wines for sale, their chances are enhanced.
Comment by Kent Benson, CSW — September 5, 2007 @ 11:17 am
Talking about the effects of light on wine made me wonder – what makes us think light has a detrimental effect on wine? I know from experience that wine left in direct sunlight is affected. But, that could be due to the associated increased temperature, not the light itself.
So, I did a little surfing. I failed to find any recent conclusive science on the matter.
In Matt Kramer’s book, “Making Sense of Wine”, while stating that ultra-violet rays from the sun and super halogen bulbs right on top of bottles can damage wine, he claims that artificial light is hardly strong enough to affect a wine.
A study by N. M. Dozen (Campus Universitaire, Dijon, France) and A. C. Noble (U. C. Davis) published in a 1989 issue of the American Journal of Enology & Viticulture showed a measurable effect of fluorescent light on sparkling wine and the still wine from which it was made. The effect was a decrease in citrus aroma intensity and an increase in the intensity of the lightstruck aromas (goûts de lumière) of cooked cabbage, corn nuts, wet dog/wet wool, and soy/marmite.
The clear bottles showed significant differences after only about 3 ½ hours of exposure. The green-tinted bottles only afforded a modicum of protection, with significant differences produced after about 18 hours (still wine). The study suggested that uv-screening agents be used in clear glass bottles.
Comment by Kent Benson, CSW — September 5, 2007 @ 2:26 pm