Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
News

Wine Glasses Are Seven Times Larger Than They Used To Be (theguardian.com) 220

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wine Glasses Are Seven Times Larger Than They Used To Be

Comments Filter:
  • How full? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by b0s0z0ku ( 752509 ) on Thursday December 14, 2017 @12:44PM (#55738933)
    Modern wine glasses are also seldom filled to the top. But yeah, I have wine glasses from the 1940'ies and they're much smaller than "typical" today.
    • by denzacar ( 181829 ) on Thursday December 14, 2017 @01:19PM (#55739349) Journal

      This story reminds me how on our high school road trip a friend of mine was only drinking from small glasses, so as not to get drunk.
      Or was that me? It's all a bit fuzzy.

      I am certain I was the one running through the hotel halls shooting a staple gun and wearing a lampshade on my head.
      Which is something you want to be wearing when shooting staples at walls in a cramped space. Those staples will ricochet all around.

      • by pz ( 113803 )

        MR CUNNINGHAM
        It couldn't be that you had too much to drink, now could it?

        RICHIE
        Oh that's silly! All we had was some beer in teeny weeny glasses.

        MR CUNNINGHAM
        How many teeny weeny glasses did you have?

        RICHIE (sheepish)
        72.

    • I was cleaning out my grandmother's house and found the glassware set from her wedding. The glasses were tiny! My family discussed keeping them, but didn't for two reasons.
      1. Nobody uses glasses that small anymore. I don't know how anyone did in those days. They were like shot glasses.
      1. They were monogrammed, and they had only daughters. So the family name was dead.
      • Re:How full? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Thursday December 14, 2017 @01:49PM (#55739601) Journal

        Nobody uses glasses that small anymore. I don't know how anyone did in those days. They were like shot glasses.

        They had armies of servants to keep them filled. Small was a feature, because it meant it needed refilling more often and so you got to show off the number of servants that you had more visibly. If you had larger glasses then you wouldn't have an excuse for your servants to wander around the room refilling glasses as much and people might not notice that you could afford so many.

        The middle classes (who couldn't afford servants, but could afford wine and expensive glasses) used small ones because that's what fashionable people used. This changed when mass production meant that the size of a fashionable glass was set by the more-numerous middle classes.

    • Absolutely. I have old small-ish wine glasses which are clearly intended to be filled near-full (for a 1/4l of wine) and huge modern wine glasses which are still nearly empty if they are at filled to the intended height (for 1/8l of wine).

    • by jandrese ( 485 )
      I'm guessing they were also less obsessed with swirling and looking at the legs and all of that jazz.
  • Wine glasses are nearly 0.5litres now?!? Wow. I thought the standard size was 0.2litres... For about six glasses per bottle.

    Could it just be those are “designer” glasses, that you aren’t supposed fill to the brim.

    • Re:0.5l (Score:5, Informative)

      by vux984 ( 928602 ) on Thursday December 14, 2017 @01:32PM (#55739453)

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

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

      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.

      • Re:0.5l (Score:5, Funny)

        by apoc.famine ( 621563 ) <apoc.famine@gmail . c om> on Thursday December 14, 2017 @01:55PM (#55739659) Journal

        Speak for yourself! The box of wine is all the way in the other room. Filling up that 0.6L glass means I'm sitting down with a fancy $7 glass of wine. That's called being classy, not being a drunk when your wine costs that much by the glass.

      • Re:0.5l (Score:5, Funny)

        by SirSlud ( 67381 ) on Thursday December 14, 2017 @02:23PM (#55739917) Homepage

        Nobody would ever fill them

        I'm curious, hypothetically asking, if you'd never met a lumberjack, would you conclude that it's absurd that they exist? Because people fill glasses like those. You just don't know them.

        • by vux984 ( 928602 )

          "Because people fill glasses like those. You just don't know them."

          Or maybe I just don't consider them 'people'. ;)

          Seriously, if you want to go full pedant, fine... "Nobody who has the slightest clue how how to use those glasses, and how to behave in polite society, would ever fill them to the top with wine."

          Any use of the phrase 'nobody' applied to a 'thing' that is 'physically possible' is going to have some exception for a bunch of fringe idiots who do the 'thing'. That doesn't need to be pointed out, ev

        • The last time I was sick(poisoned) drinking nearly 20 years ago it was something to do with mis-poured wine glasses.
  • 449ml? Where?!? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Contact ( 109819 ) on Thursday December 14, 2017 @12:47PM (#55738975)
    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!
    • Re:449ml? Where?!? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Nemyst ( 1383049 ) on Thursday December 14, 2017 @01:01PM (#55739137) Homepage
      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 [williams-sonoma.com] 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.
      • In the UK, the Weights and Measures Act defines a small glass as 125ml and 175ml, and multiples of these, as the permitted serving sizes. Most places use 125ml and 250ml as the standard serving sizes.
    • Re:449ml? Where?!? (Score:5, Informative)

      by jonnythan ( 79727 ) on Thursday December 14, 2017 @01:02PM (#55739143)

      $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).

    • 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!

      As well, this study seems to conclude that people couldn't figure out how to refill their glasses back then. Even with that bit of brilliance, today's wine glasses are pretty specifically designed. different type glasses for different things. We don't often drink Cabernet out of a champagne glass. I suspect that the glasses were the sizes they were because they were the sizes they were, and that refills were easy to procure.

    • A 449ml glass sounds about right for 125ml of red wine or 250ml of white wine.
    • by jon3k ( 691256 )
      Wine glasses are a specific size and shape for specific wines. I have some ENORMOUS wine glasses, they even dwarf my snifters in volume (obviously with a longer stem). No matter how big the glass is, a wine pour is 4 oz and a bottle is 750ml. That hasn't changed in a very long time.
  • Wrong (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

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

    • I think this is an american thing.

      False, otherwise it would have been reported in oz (ounces). Really the glass just grew to match the ego of a wine snob.

      -"Buttery with an undertone of charcoal."

  • Glassmaking (Score:5, Informative)

    by MightyYar ( 622222 ) on Thursday December 14, 2017 @12:49PM (#55739001)

    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.

    • I recall seeing an amusing anecdote elsewhere about English 3 legged stools and corner chairs and how they existed primarily because of some tax on four legged furniture.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Stop with all this rational thinking and study reading right this minute! We need to get eyeballs not facts, now drop and give me 10 health tricks your doctor doesn't want you to know.

      • by MightyYar ( 622222 ) on Thursday December 14, 2017 @01:41PM (#55739531)

        1. Regulate your own breathing. Lazy breathing leads to inadequate lung utilization. Think about your breathing and try to use all of your lung. One good strategy is to alternate a single really deep breath with a few very shallow breaths.
        2. You are drinking your water all wrong. Atmospheric gasses can leave water over time, creating dead water. Don't drink dead water! Always decant your water (especially factory-produced bottled water!) into a cup, and then pour it back and forth into another cup to properly aerate it.
        3. Most people don't get enough acid in their diet, forcing their stomach to work harder. Eat lots of citrus, tomato, and vinegar.
        4. People in cold climates rely too much on nutritional vitamin D. This is nothing but factory-produced vitamin D added to your food artificially... yuck! The only natural way to get your daily allowance is to remove as much of your clothing as possible and get out into the mid-day sunshine.
        5. During the winter, some people develop a sensitivity to wood-burning smoke. Fire places and fire pits are much more popular in the winter, and people's unaccustomed systems react poorly. To keep your system smoke-ready, eat plenty of smoked fish and barbeque during the warmer months.
        6. Bad blood tends to accumulate in your lower extremities. Heavy metals and other toxins collect and need to be distributed so that your organs can filter them from your body. To accomplish this, a simple headstand is sufficient. Every two hours, pause what you are doing and hold a head stand for about 1 minute.
        7. Ceramic coffee cups are made from oxides of Aluminum and Silicon, which can cause human health issues. Always use a disposable paper cup.
        8. The little "donut" ring on your computer's cords is great for limiting electrical noise through the wire, but the tradeoff is a disturbed electromagnetic energy field. Always tear these little donuts off to improve your electromagnetic environment.
        9. The interior air of cars is laden with mold spores and plasticizer vapor - always drive with the windows down, even in winter.
        10. Raw or undercooked chicken can indeed contain salmonella, but cooking the chicken straight through denatures critical proteins. A healthy person can handle exposure to salmonella, and regular exposure should make you more resistant. Always under-cook your chicken.

        How'd I do?

    • Nor can we infer that reducing glass size would cut drinking.

      Heh - here's your legally approved thimble size glass of wine sir.
      Screw that - gimme the bottle!

    • Did they also consider that wine was drunk mostly by mid to upper classes, who always had servants to attend at table? A small glass might then be filled ad-lib, whereas today you fill up once, or twice (or whenever you can reach the bottle). Compare 'Port', where there is still some ceremony and the glasses are much smaller.
      • Yeah, it sounds to me like both wine and glassmaking have become more affordable and more accessible. Cheap packs of a dozen 12oz glasses for a buck a piece were simply not available in the 1940s (or even 20 years ago). I don't think there was anything approaching the quality/price ratio of "two-buck Chuck", either - and in any event, wine was simply not as fashionable back then among the general populace.

  • Now, glasses... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by OpenSourced ( 323149 ) on Thursday December 14, 2017 @12:52PM (#55739047) Journal

    Who used glasses back then? Not any serious drinker. French kissing the bottle was the absolute minimum. Anybody serious bathed directly in the wine barrel head first.

  • Nonsense, nobody ever fills up a glass and with the "swimming-pool" type ones you only have a thin strip of wine in the bottom. Big glasses are better to develop aromas as all wine geeks will tell you (that's a fact you can check for yourself), so the glassware manufacturers took notice, made them bigger and so even the dollarstore glasses have changed because everybody wants to look cool. There are even glass shapes per grape variety these days, and you'll find wine geeks ascertain they work, although that
  • I've been to a couple of wine tastings and there's always a few minutes spent on the variety of wineglasses in use and on display.

    A part of wine snobbery seems to be sloshing around the wine in the glass. OK, I know this has some practical purpose if you're way into wine. But it also seems to lead to ever larger glasses as a kind of way of demonstrating you (or some restaurant you're eating in) is super serious about wine.

    This seems to me to lead to a wine glass arms race, as everyone gets more eager to m

    • If wine snobbery never became a thing, would we still be drinking out of smaller glasses?

      Oh yeah, there are wine snobs. They are the adult beverage analogy of audiophiles.

      That being said, there are some differences in the wine types that do lend themselves to different type glasses. Some glasses taper in at the top to let you catch the smell, some are more open, like champagne. Personally, I think that's a good thing, since the bubbles are fun popping all over, besides, the worst part of champagne is the smell.

      • by swb ( 14022 )

        I'm guess I'm well aware of the practical rationale for the various wine glasses (nose, aeration, etc etc).

        The funny thing is, if you're ever around an old-world wine drinker, they often just use a juice glass. My sense is that for 99% of the population for most of history, wine was just a beverage, not something with a huge amount of snobbery associated with it.

        The Romans regularly diluted it with water to make it less alcoholic, something that would make your ordinary wine snob have a stroke.

        • That was about the quality of their water. The wine they drank back then would give a wine snob a stroke.

          A few years ago, makers of cheap frog wine threatened to 'go on strike' because box wine was putting small makers of 'vin ordinaire' out of business. Gallo and the rest of the world, had gotten their act together. Cheap frog wine still averaged 3 flies per bottle in the sediment. The french really don't get the whole 'striking' thing. Owners of small business can't go on strike to force their customer

    • I'm in a restaurant and I think my wine glass is a reaction chamber for a chemistry experiment.

      It is. Wine tends to improve (sometimes significantly) with short-term exposure to oxygen. The more surface area of the wine you expose, the faster those favorable reactions happen. This is the reason for decanters, and, yes, one of the reasons for larger glasses. The increased surface area in the glass also releases more aroma.

      To call it "snobbery" seems a bit off -- these are well-recognized scientific principles that hold true for wine at pretty much any price point. If you're going to spend money o

      • by swb ( 14022 )

        Yeah, but I bet a lot of the people with giant glasses aren't actively engaging in "oenophilia", they're just people trying to signal their sophistication.

        I went to a real wine tasting once put on by someone from a winery and I was pretty impressed with what they knew and the whole process, so I know it's real.

        But my guess is overall it's no different than Slashdot -- people "know" the real reasons for CPU cooling and certain aspects of hardware for computing performance, but most of them figure the more LE

        • Yeah, but I bet a lot of the people with giant glasses aren't actively engaging in "oenophilia", they're just people trying to signal their sophistication.

          Oh, there are plenty of pretentious thirty thousandaires out there drinking subpar wines with famous big-box labels out of fancy glasses just because that's what they're s'posed to do, don't get me wrong. But they do the same thing with food, clothes, houses, cars, and any other normal life experience they can twist into a status symbol.

    • by vux984 ( 928602 )

      "A part of wine snobbery seems to be sloshing around the wine in the glass."

      The purpose of something like wine to anyone one not just looking to get sloshed themselves is to "enjoy the wine".

      The larger glasses have several real purposes. The idea that larger glasses make the wine taste better is real. The exposure to oxygen makes a big difference. And letting the aromas gather in the glass makes a big difference... most of taste is really smell after all.

      Sure, the idea that you need a different shape glass

  • The article cites one reason why this wine glass size increase is less surprising - the practice of letting red wines "breathe". You aren't doing that in a two ounce glass. And is is not a common practice to fill a balloon-bowl wine glass close to the rim, especially with the aforementioned red wines. Looking at examples of properly served wines on-line I see such bowls never more than half full, and often as little as a quarter full.

    Then too, consider that this may simply be to a shift in the role of wine

    • Then too, consider that this may simply be to a shift in the role of wine as a beverage. Perhaps wine in 1700 was viewed similar to a cordial today, something consumed in small volumes for its flavor, part of social ritual perhaps.

      Don't forget that the less alcoholic beverages were often used as a substitute for water, given that many water supplies were pretty skanky. Beer probably more often, but weak wines wer also a good water substitute.

    • >Looking at examples of properly served wines on-line I see such bowls never more than half full, and often as little as a quarter full.

      As a (mostly) non-drinker who occasionally pours for others... I just learned I've been over-serving.

      Never had a complaint, though.

    • by bws111 ( 1216812 ) on Thursday December 14, 2017 @02:34PM (#55740017)

      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.

    • Looking at examples of properly served wines on-line I see such bowls never more than half full, and often as little as a quarter full.

      When you fill wine glasses to the widest point on the bowl, which is a good rule of thumb, most wine glasses hold a surprisingly similar amount of wine. That is not 25% full. That is 100% filled to an implied fill line.

      In related news, a standard cup of coffee is four ounces. SCAA cupping standard. [scaa.org] They brew with 5 ounces, but I'm betting most brewing methods leave close to

  • Wine bottles have 75 cl of content because a couple of hundred years ago people thought that was the right amount for 1 person to drink with their evening meal.

  • litre of beer is the common size in Germany usa is half of that or less.

    • One liter is not common in Germany.
      The normal sizes are 0.4 or 0.5 for a big glass and 0.2 or 0.33 for a small glass. Smalers do exist.
      Some beers are served in traditional glasses, which implies 1 liter in Bavaria or 0.2 in Cologne and Duesseldorf.

    • The most common packaging is 6, 12, 18, or 24 * 16oz bottles or 12 oz cans but if it's sold as a single then it's 40oz bottle or 24oz can. A 6 pack of cans is a little over 2 liters and it would be considered normal for a guy to drink an entire 6 pack over a weekend or a 40oz bottle or 2 * 24oz cans in one evening.

      • In Germany a case of good beer costs under 10 euro (plus bottle deposit) and is 20 half liter bottles. We're horribly overtaxed on alcohol in America. I'm guessing suggesting beer taxes is a good way to not get reelected in Germany. As it should be in the USA.

        • That is cheap I think the last time I looked the 12 pack of bottles was like $15 and they are 16.9oz which is .5 liter (no idea if they have gone up). I rarely drink but I still remember getting a case of 24 cans for $4.99 that wasn't anytime this century though we're talking 1980s. I also remember albums, 8 tracks, gas was $.69 when I started driving, and soda fountains where they would squirt the syrup in the glass first then the carbonated water.

  • I need another drink to deal with this!

    Heck.. Just give me a bigger glass next time!

  • by dcw3 ( 649211 )

    What non-alcoholic drinks a full 449ml class of wine? My bet is that the glasses are mostly larger for esthetics. The glasses are typically much less than half full when the wine is poured.

  • But people are seven times larger than they used to be so they are not getting any drunker.
  • As one of my professors told us, you have to volatize your esters...swirl the wine around. I'm betting that that didn't used to be common practice, and thus there was no need for larger glasses.

  • My sippy cup is also much bigger today than in the past.

  • ...back then and wasn't a multi-billion dollar industry.

    Marketing basics calls for increased vessel size, like saying, "apply liberally."

    • by dargaud ( 518470 )
      When you say "wine sucked back then", you are right. Making good wine is difficult. But nowadays there's a whole gamut of analyses to understand the problems (too acid, not enough alcohol, not tannic enough, etc) and chemicals to remediate. Just go on a website that sell winemaking accessories to have an idea of the possible issues... And this means that nowadays there are no bad wines anymore. Even 2$ bottles are quite drinkable while 50 years ago you'd use them to clean rusted metal.
  • by Rick Schumann ( 4662797 ) on Thursday December 14, 2017 @01:24PM (#55739391) Journal
    I was under the impression that wine glasses (which by the way are different shapes for use with different varieties of wine) were the size they are to allow space for the 'nose' of the wine poured to develop, and that there was an olfactory component to the experience of drinking wine. Of course if you're talking about bottles of Two Buck Chuck or Night Train, then I guess a disposable red plastic cup is good enough -- if you don't just swill it straight from the bottle, that is.
  • If you wanna get *really* serious about drinking wine, try this [amazon.com].
  • The striking nugget of info I got while touring Monticello was that, Thomas Jefferson rationed half a pound of meat per week per slave/worker. They also grew some 40 different vegetables, but they ate pathetically little meat.

    Letters from immigrants to Ameica sent back home to Bavaria, Italy, Greece etc were recovered from dusty attics and long forgotten chests. They mention being able to eat meat/chicken every day as an astonishing thing.

    Even in America 100 years ago middle class had horses and a few r

  • by Whatever Fits ( 262060 ) on Thursday December 14, 2017 @01:45PM (#55739563) Homepage Journal

    Glasses are designed to aerate the wine in order to improve the flavor as well as the shape holds the aroma in the glass allowing the consumer to smell the wine as they taste it. The size and shape of the glass are important for this and specific wines have specific glasses designed just for them. I firmly believe this is dramatic overkill as I can't tell the differences between the glasses but my sommelier friends might disagree with me.

  • I thought that different sized glasses were to help with the bouquet and make the experience better! Not that you should Fill the glass to the top.

    But it is difficult to understand where a "single serving" of wine should be filled to.

    Super size everything. 20oz beer, 24oz soda, 32oz big gulp.

    I looked into this awhile ago because I became concerned around drinking & driving. When I was young the limit was 0.10 the rule of thumb was "one drink per hour" Nice and simple to remember (of course now it'

  • by roc97007 ( 608802 ) on Thursday December 14, 2017 @01:56PM (#55739673) Journal

    This looks like a huge extrapolation from a single datum.

    My understanding of those large wine glasses are to show off the other, non-drinking qualities of the wine. The empty space in the globe collects the wine's bouquet, allowing you to experience more of the wine's scent as you drink, and the large diameter makes it easy to check the wine's density (tip slightly, return to upright, observe how fast the wine on the side of the glass returns to the pool).

    Test by: Take your SO to a nice restaurant, order a bottle, and observe the waiter filling the glass. If he fills it all the way to the top, he's doing it wrong (and you should rethink your choice in restaurants). The glass will be about 1/3 full.

    Also test by: In, say, 1930, two people would have one approx 730 ml bottle of wine with dinner. In 2017, two people would have one 730 ml bottle of wine with dinner. The size of the glass does not indicate the amount of wine consumed.

    Glasses in which adult beverages are served have changed over the years. Champagne glasses, you may have noticed, generally switched in the latter part of last century from the wide "Marie Antoinette" glasses to the slightly taller, slender tulip glasses. (The reason being, the tulip glasses hold the carbonation longer.) Shall we look at this and make the leap that people are drinking drastically less champagne? Panic!

    Of course, your mileage may vary. If you're drinking Badger Mountain from a box while watching Claws, you're probably using a water glass anyway. Or a jelly jar.

  • I have some very old wine glasses - from the '30s and '40s as well as my more recent acquisitions. The glass from which I drank a nice Pinot Noir last night was twice as large as the one my beautiful young bride used to drink her Chardonnay. Her glass was one of the older ones.

    Go figure! You'd think bars and restaurants would want smaller glasses to sell more.
  • We have very good information on EXACTLY how much they drank, so we don't need very indirect info, like the size of wine glasses that have survived.

    We have real info from things like George Washington's expense account, the manifests for ships, etc.

  • When I was a kid, soda normally came in 6 1/2 oz bottles. The only place I even see 12 oz any more is in a few vending machine. I normally see them starting at 32 oz in the convenience stores.

"If it's not loud, it doesn't work!" -- Blank Reg, from "Max Headroom"

Working...