By Peter Vetsch
From the very first day I bought this year’s Bricks Half-Bottle Advent Calendar, it was eminently clear that one of these neatly wrapped things was not like the others. This is that thing:
Why settle for a half-bottle when you can have a full can? Although alternative wine packaging has developed quite the stigma over the years (whether cans, or bag-in-box, or tetra-packs, or anything other than tall glass bottles), and although it has often been relegated to the purview of forgettable plonk, a few forward-thinking and quality-minded producers are slowly starting to try to take it back. As a huge proponent of wines in novel containers, I think wines in cans are utterly brilliant. Cans offer a number of advantages over bottles:
- Aluminum is much, much lighter than glass, which saves on shipping costs (often charged by weight), takes less energy to transport and at least theoretically should reduce the shelf price of the product accordingly.
- Cans are fully opaque and do not let any damaging UV light through to the wine (which can cause chemical reactions and form sulphurous compounds within the wine that are notably unpleasant). Glass, on the other hand, especially CLEAR glass…
- A sealed can allows no oxygen penetration into the wine and thus acts as a foolproof preservative. There’s a reason why all your bomb shelter food is canned.
- No corks mean no risk of cork taint and closure-based wine spoilage. Away, TCA!
- Cans are easily portable and allow for casual (and, as needed, discreet) enjoyment wherever you happen to be.
The increase of halfway-decent wines in cans is one of the best vinous developments of the decade, and the inclusion of this one in the calendar is at least partially indicative of the growing popular acceptance of the can as a wine-holding medium. Not a moment too soon. Read the rest of this entry »