One of my worst days as a wine writer came about 10 years ago when I tried to lift a 12-bottle box of wine and heard something in my back that didn’t sound very good. It also was painful. The resulting disability has continued to plague me for a decade.
The subject of huge bottles that weigh a lot more than they once did is not a new subject for me, especially since I have suffered over the last several years from a compressed disc that I suspect was caused by excessive weight from lifting oversized cases of wine.
I have avoided surgery, but it was an option suggested by one doctor long ago. When I last wrote about this subject, I pointed an accusatory finger at the marketing geniuses who use ultraheavy bottles as if to imply that the wines inside are better than wines in lighter bottles. They still deserve blame.
Since when did the weight of a bottle make a wine taste better? It need not be said, but bottle weight has nothing to do with wine quality. What’s inside is what counts.
After complaining about this issue in print for many years, I have gotten a few apologetic comments from the guilty parties, but I have seen no changes in this waste of money (heavier bottles cost more to make and ship) and disrespect for the environment. For me, one outrageous aspect of this is how it affects humans. My back ailment cannot be the only one attributable to heavy bottles. Years ago, a restaurant server suggested that her carpal tunnel syndrome was the result of her having to pour these dead weights across dinner tables with one arm.
She added that magnums (1.5-liter bottles) are even worse. “I’m not a linebacker, you know,” she said.
Most wine bottles once were about 11 to 12 inches high. Now we’re seeing lots of high-end cabernets in bottles that are 13 to 14 inches tall. With the added height comes added weight.
The standard flat-bottomed bottle filled with wine once weighed in at 2.7 pounds. A case was just over 32 pounds. I now routinely see bottles weighing 4 pounds, and one I saw was almost 5 pounds. All this represents a big added load for consumers who buy cases of wine. Not to mention clerks in wine shops and servers in restaurants.
Today, with bottles that weigh 4.5 pounds each, a case is 54 pounds—and that’s if the wine is in a cardboard box. Don’t even inquire about wines in wooden cases.
Then there’s the issue of bottle thickness. Many wine producers are using bottles with fatter diameters. These do not fit into standard wine racks; some do not even fit into my refrigerator.
Who came up with this preposterousness? Marketing geniuses, that’s who. I think it’s time for consumers to fight back. Are you concerned about the environment and the wasted fuel to get these monstrosities to market? Are clerks in wine shops fearful of needing surgery just to do their jobs?
Consumers can fight back. If there is a choice between one wine and another, it would probably be a good idea to choose the one in the lighter bottle. Besides, I often find that the reason ultraheavy bottles are used is to make up for the fact that the wine inside lacks something.
