A note to read first: I AM NOT REVIEWING THIS PRODUCT, I AM COMMENTING ON THE ADVERTISING OF THE PRODUCT. IF YOU WANT OPINIONS OR A COURT RULING THAT SAYS THIS PRODUCT HAD UNPROVEN CLAIMS TO BE 'BREATHABLE', LOOK AT THE LINKS WITHIN THE COMMENTS SECTION. ALL I WAS DOING WAS COMMENTING ON THE DAFT WAY IN WHICH THESE GLASSES WERE MARKETED. IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS, PLEASE DON'T READ THIS ARTICLE - PARTICULARLY IF YOU HAVE ONE OF THESE GLASSES - AS I REALLY CAN'T BE BOTHERED WITH MORE CRITICISMS OF MY WRITING WHEN YOU HAVEN'T PROPERLY READ THE ARTICLE IN THE FIRST PLACE!
I have to quote you this, it is that stupid. It comes from the I want one of those website.
"Good wine should be enjoyed in the perfect conditions, and as well as getting it to the right temperature, it should also be drunk from the right glass. To fully enjoy your wine you probably won't want to be swigging it from the bottle (even in an emergency) and yet waiting for it to "breathe" fully for an hour or two is really rather boring, and always feels a little O.T.T., especially if you only paid £4.99 for the bottle.
Nevertheless, breathing wine does make a difference to getting the best out of it, a considerable one, so how to avoid that interminable wait, and yet reap the benefit? Until now the rather snooty wine industry buffs have poo-poo'd all modern contraptions for speeding up the breathing process, but this invention has set the wine elite on fire. The Breathable Glass designers have come up with a top secret formula that not only greatly improves the "nose" (smell to you and me) of your wine, but renders any wine poured into the glass ready for drinking within a few minutes. This means you can enjoy that vintage bottle you've been hiding in the cellar for the last few years without clearing a huge window in your schedule.
A few minutes in one of these glasses is the equivalent of it sitting in a decanter for one to two hours, and without any change to the wine's character and structure. Of course you don't need to be a wine lover to appreciate the genius of these glasses as they will work just as well with spirits and fruit juices, lifting the flavours head and shoulders above normal glasses. Discover just how great your wine can taste with the most revolutionary wine improver to hit the market in years."
What a load of crap. Firstly, if you are spending only £4.99 on a bottle of wine, you are very unlikely to go out and spend £25 on two of these miracle glasses. Hell, I'll happily spend £25 on a bottle of wine and wouldn't spend £10 on a wine glass! Secondly, allowing a bottle to breathe for a couple of hours doesn't prohibit you from doing other things, so it shouldn't really be boring, nor do you have to "clear your schedule" . Simply thinking ahead will suffice. Also, if you have the patience to put a bottle of wine in your cellar for a couple of years, two more hours in a decanter isn't going to make any bloody difference. Finally, and this is the bit that amused me the most, it can improve your spirits and fruit juices as well - what sort of tripe is that?!
If you want to buy these miracle products, they cost £24.99 per pair from I want one of those.
If you have bought a pair, you can get psychiatric help here.
Comments
Let me address your last point. You say that a £25 bottle of wine is gone in a couple of hours whereas a £10 glass will outlast many bottles. I can't help thinking that is a rather pointless debate as a bottle of wine is a consumable product - it is supposed to be gone in a couple of hours, so I'm not sure what you are getting at.
I'm also not objecting to the price of this glass, I simply think that buying this is a total waste of money due to the fact that anyone who is seriously thinking about what they are drinking (regardless of price) will factor in the need to allow a bottle of wine to breath, be it in a crystal decanter or a plastic kitchen jug. Anyone who wants a bottle they can rush home with, open and pour will factor this into their wine choice and buy accordingly. Anyone who just wants a glass of wine, will probably not even think about allowing a bottle to breathe and will just crack it open and pour.
This glass may work, it may not, but the marketing appears to be targeted at the latter type of person mentioned above and they aren't really going to be looking to buy a breathable glass.
What you have to remember is that I was objecting to the marketing of the product, NOT the actual product, and pointing out that this is marketed as little more than a gimmick.
If these glasses work, that is fine, buy them, but the way they are marketed is what I have a problem with.
http://www.decanter.com/news/152338.html
Finally, have the guts to put your name to your post, rather than hiding behind 'Anonymous'.
Reidel wins breathable glass case
I'm no stranger to decent glassware. I have a cabinet full of Riedel, Spiegelau, Schott, etc. but this is the first time I had seen an Eisch glass. I took it home, and my mother in law whom we were staying with opened a cheap bottle of Blackstone Merlot, which I haven't had previously. I poured some in my new glass (after a thorough washing) and one of their regular wine glasses, which is one of the old style small bowl "traditional" wine glasses that most Americans had until recent years.
I was drinking the wine out of the Eisch and thinking "not terrible - pretty smooth, no tannins or oak, jammy", when I decided to try it out of her glass. What a STUNNING difference! This was not a small difference - this was something drinkable out of one glass, and something that was unpalatable out of the other! Out of the small glass it was bitter and astringent, and not smooth in the slightest. What is incredible is that time in the glass, being exposed to air, didn't help the wine in the small glass. You could try it out of that glass, make a face, and pour it from that glass to the Eisch and it would be perfectly drinkable.
When my wife got home, I repeated the experiment. I poured about 2 oz in each glass, and had her first try the Eisch, and then try the other glass. She sipped from the first one and shrugged - basically that it was "ok" - and then tried the second. She shuddered and looked at the second one sharply like there was something wrong with it, and asked me "what did you do to this one?". I even pulled a Riedel Chard glass out (the only one at her house) and repeated the test. The Eisch was still a clear difference.
As a previous poster stated, when we tried a better Cab, the Eisch glass didn't make nearly the difference that it did on the cheaper wine. The Cab was a bit different from each glass, but it wasn't as stark of a contrast. I would have to state that the best way to test these is pour some dreck like 2 buck Chuck, and it will be much more apparent when doing a comparison.
I'm not going to even comment on your comment as I didn't criticise the glasses (although the law suit linked above in another comment did). I criticised the marketing. If you can't read the whole article, before jumping on your high horse and commenting, I'm not going to even bother trying to argue the toss anymore.
Would I be right in thinking this is Peter's blog? In that case, isn't it well within his rights to post his opinion on this product irrespective of if he's purchased it or not?
All you 'pro-breathable glass' fanatics are of course at liberty to set up your own blog outlining the virtues of said glasses. I personally wouldn't bother, after a cursory bit of research I think they look like overpriced crap too.
In the meantime, I'm happy to go on reading thee blogs as I am capable of understanding that just because I differ with someone else's opinion, they were not necessarily out of order to state that opinion on their own blog!