We kept you waiting for the result of our inquest, but with a good reason: we wanted to divulge the result and introduce at the same time our new icon that, as per today, will highlight in our tastings the pointlessly heavy bottles. We’ll discuss this in an apposite article, (see “a very heavy chimney-bottle”), and so let’s come to the results of the inquest. There were very few questions:
 

1. Do you think that a heavy bottle is synonymous with quality?
2. Do you think that lighter bottles are more fragile?
3. Do you think that your estate could switch to lighter bottles without damaging its image and the image of the products?
4. Do you think you will do something to lessen the weight of the bottles you use?
5. Have you already reduced the weight of your bottles? If you answered yes, then which ones?
 

The first remarkable thing for us is that 472 estates answered to our questionnaire!!! This is a number never reached before, that allows us to say that our inquest also has some statistic value to it. Also, considering the number of comments we received, it shows that this is a quite “felt” issue.

We’ve had producers who calculated how many quintals of glass they’ll save next year (a whapping 62 for an estate producing 50.000 bottles!). We’ve had someone saying clearly that they reduced the weight only because of economic reasons, and often their clients didn’t even notice the change. We’ve also received some harsh criticism. Someone said that we are becoming too political, and who says that to talk about glass weight is very diminutive for who adopts ecological solutions in the cellar in the vineyards and in the cellar. There’s also who calculated how many articulated lorries are on the road every year, concluding that 1500 more is really nothing…
Someone stressed on the fact that the basic Bordeaux bottle (410 grams) has a more fragile neck of the heavier and costlier ones. The producers of sparkling wine, rightly said that with those pressures they can’t risk it, and that even 30 grams less (out of 900) could cause breakages. And we could go on for quite a while, but we believe that the participation to this inquest was quite high.

Now let’s come to some figures.

To the first question “Do you think that a heavy bottle is a synonym with quality?” the vast majority of the producers (379, which is the 79% of the total) answered NO, even though someone highlighted that the final consumer often sees it in a different way. Anyhow, the 99 ones that answered YES are not a tiny minority, but it should be clear by now that the idea of “heavier means better quality” should have been abandoned.

The second question was more technical. “Do you think that lighter bottles are more fragile?” A good 297 producers (the 63% of them) answered NO, but there were also 175 producers (37% of the total) that reckon this is true. Here too we had a lot of comments, firstly by who produces sparkling wines. These producers, quoting from their “breakage figures” stated that even a handful of grams less, can create huge problems. We want to reassure them: our campaign is not shortsighted, and we do understand that for a sparkling wine, a bottle weighting 900 grams is of paramount importance (but it’s totally useless for a still wine!). So, dear producers of Franciacorta, Trento DOC and so on do not worry: it’s quite unlikely that your wines will be branded with our “chimney-bottle”.

To the third question, which was “Do you think that your estate could switch to lighter bottles without damaging its image and the image of the products?” 349 producers (74%) answered YES. This is a most positive result, and completes what was the response to the first question. In some ways it even strengthens it, because here we were talking of the present, not the future. If a 74% thinks that they won’t have any image damage, it means that in future he won’t have any problem in using lighter bottles, and that’s what we are aiming to.
The fourth question, “Do you think you will do something to lessen the weight of the bottles you use?”, with a “mere” 302 producers answering YES (64%) could be seen as a step back from the previous one. Something like “Yes, we do agree in principle but…”. But this figure is only lower because many producers have already done something to lessen the weight of their bottles, so they answered NO, but then they explained why.
To the last question “Have you already reduced the weight of your bottles? If you answered yes, then which ones?” 311 producers answered YES (66%). This was the answer that made us happy, but that also rang some alarm bells. Many producers actually diminished the weight of the bottles of their most important wines, passing from 900 grams to 800 grams, and are contented like that. Not to mention of those ones that lessened the weight of the bottles of their entry wines from 600 grams to a little less, but just because they changed the shape of the bottle. We want to be clear once and for all: this is not a transitory campaign, this is here to stay! No one should feel contented with what one has, but both, the producers and us, should work towards diminishing the carbon footprint of a bottle of wine. That’s why every step forward is welcome, but it shouldn’t be seen as the achievement of a commercial target, or as something to boast at need. For the moment our attention is for the glass bottles, but in the future we mean to expand our views, to take into account the capsules, the corks and everything that gets used in the vineyards (herbicides, pesticides) and in the cellar.
How to conclude? We reckon that the bottle-issue (also because of the higher and higher cost of glass) is quite felt by the producers. Someone sees this as a new marketing tool, but the vast majority of the producers are well conscious of the risks involved. A not small number of producers (about the 20-25% of them) see this as a false problem. Now the last word is for who buys the wine, the consumers: these should really take this into account and start to doubt of those producers that are actually selling glass instead of wine.