Who decided how much wine I should drink?

July 1, 2008 2:18 AM

Why are wine bottles 750ml in size? My lady and I find that we usually don't want to drink that much when we order wine with dinner, but ordering wine by the glass isn't always an available option. 500ml would be more suitable, I would have thought.

I have read that this particular size was established by the technology of early glass-blowing, but that sounds a bit apocryphal.

Is 750ml considered to be the 'normal' amount for two people for a meal?

posted by woodblock100 to food & drink (39 comments total)

IIRC it has something to do with aging. The bigger the bottle, the longer the wine can be kept without going bad, the better it becomes.
posted by stereo at 2:40 AM on July 1, 2008

750ml is really only about 4 glasses. Don't bother asking how I know. (hic) For two people, two glasses of wine with dinner is perfectly acceptable. If red, it's likely medically recommended. (you can do your own research on that one)
posted by hungrysquirrels at 2:43 AM on July 1, 2008

Oh, and even in France 750 ml is a bit much for two persons. The French push the cork halfway back in upside down; the bottle is then invariably casually placed on the kitchen countertop next to the sink until the next meal.
posted by stereo at 2:44 AM on July 1, 2008

In the 19th century bottle manufacturers tended to make bottles anywhere in the range of 700-800ml. This size was most conveniently manufactured and was also a handy size/weight for carrying.

In 1979 the US introduced the standard wine bottle of 750ml. This size was chosen because it fell neatly in the range of sizes already in common use.

I would say that 750ml isn't an unreasonable amount for two people to share at a meal. But then, I likes me some wine. Here in the UK at least, it's very common for restaurants to offer the smaller 375ml 'half bottle', or even a 500ml carafe of house wine.
posted by le morte de bea arthur at 2:46 AM on July 1, 2008

push the cork halfway back in upside down; the bottle is then invariably casually placed on the kitchen countertop next to the sink until the next meal.

At home, that's exactly what we do ... but we don't have that option at a restaurant!
posted by woodblock100 at 2:52 AM on July 1, 2008

I do the same thing with the cork, but it all goes back in the fridge.
posted by hungrysquirrels at 2:56 AM on July 1, 2008

I just cork the bottle and take the left over wine home in a bag. I don't even ask the restaurant if that's okay, because that bottle is mine! Then I stick the bottle in the trunk and take it home.
posted by Titania at 3:02 AM on July 1, 2008

750ml is really only about 4 glasses. Don't bother asking how I know. (hic) For two people, two glasses of wine with dinner is perfectly acceptable. If red, it's likely medically recommended. (you can do your own research on that one)

It's not medically recommended to drink half a bottle of wine a day. Also, I don't think a bottle is four glasses. A glass of wine is about 150 ml. For champagne it's less: you can count on serving 6 or 7 glasses from a 750 ml bottle (about 120 ml I guess). Still wines are usually poured a bit more liberal, but even then 750 ml is five decent sized glasses of wine.

I agree with OP that the size is ill adapted at modern drinking habits: it's too large to finish when you're drinking it with two persons, especially with wines hitting 13,5 to 14,5 % vol alcohol routinely these days. On the other hand, it's barely enough when you're a party of four. The standard "half" bottle of 375 ml is equally ill suited: it's ridiculously small for two, and likewise too much to drink on your own.

500 ml or about 4 medium glasses would be a lot handier, a 1 l bottle for larger parties.

By the way, just pushing the cork back in is guaranteed to kill your wine if you leave it for more than a few hours. At least get something like a VacuVin and put the wine (even red) in the fridge.
posted by NekulturnY at 3:02 AM on July 1, 2008

(slight derail- NekulturnY, plenty of cellar doors I've visited open bottles for tasting and just cork them at the end of the day and serve them the next day without a problem. Some do use fancy vacuum devices, but many seem to get by fine without. There's some oxidation, but I don't think the wine will be 'killed' by one day in a bottle that was opened and then corked)
posted by twirlypen at 3:17 AM on July 1, 2008

There's no such thing as a 'normal' amount. I would always have at least a bottle of wine between two but different people drink different amounts.

As le morte de bea arthur says lots of place do half bottles but since you are visiting places that don't sell wine by the glass (!?) then I guess that isn't an option.
posted by ninebelow at 3:27 AM on July 1, 2008

Some wine is still sold in idiosyncratic bottle sizes: Jura's vin jaune has the 62cl clavelin which means it's rarely found in the US.

I suspect that the rough standards of the late 19th c that developed into the standardisation of the 20th c. had much to do with the automation of bottle-making. (There's a bit here taking about the transition, which suggests that the 70-80cl form is easier to make and easier to carry. That's a little unsatisfying, but I suspect it's accurate.)
posted by holgate at 3:39 AM on July 1, 2008

Look out for 'carafe' on the menu, especially in spanish or italian places.

This is usually 375 or 500ml. Not going to be the best wine on offer but is usually good enough for joe soap. though YMMV.
posted by MarvinJ at 4:41 AM on July 1, 2008

I can't remember the writer - possibly Bill Bryson or P. J. O'Rourke? - complaining that 375mL was too small , but 750mL was too large for him to drink on his own, so I would expect you will find a lot of disagreement with your presumption that 750mL is too much for a couple.
In my experience, it is about right, and may even be accompanied by an apertif.
I suppose if you are drinking this every night it might be an issue of moderation, but a restaurant meal is surely a time to let the hair down somewhat?
posted by bystander at 4:41 AM on July 1, 2008

500 ml wine bottles do exist, but they are quite rare. Here are some examples, most of these are sweet, white wines or Port. The Pays d'Oc varietal wines (red and white) from Baron Philippe de Rothschild is (or was?) available also in 500 ml bottles. The 500 ml bottles are not mentioned on the BPdR website, so I'm not sure if they still produce wine in these smaller bottles.
posted by iviken at 5:12 AM on July 1, 2008

At home, that's exactly what we do ... but we don't have that option at a restaurant!

Are you sure? In many states, you have exactly that option.

Here's a link.
posted by Perplexity at 6:07 AM on July 1, 2008

The feds define a standard serving of wine as 5 ounces, which is close to the 125 ml. wine glasses that used to be the standard in pubs. This gives you about 6 standard servings per bottle. Here's another nice summary comparison.
posted by Shoggoth at 6:17 AM on July 1, 2008

750ml is very nearly exactly 1/5th of a US (liquid) gallon. This is the standard "fifth" bottle.
posted by three blind mice at 6:25 AM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]

I would strongly recomend not putting the cork back in upside down as stereo said... Remember the bit on the outside has been sat in a warehouse for at least a few months and probably got all sorts of rat pee and gunk on it.
posted by jon4009 at 6:50 AM on July 1, 2008

I would strongly recomend not putting the cork back in upside down as stereo said... Remember the bit on the outside has been sat in a warehouse for at least a few months and probably got all sorts of rat pee and gunk on it.

Not likely, as every single bottle of wine I've ever opened has a seal over it that you have to cut and remove before you can get to the cork.
posted by cooker girl at 7:12 AM on July 1, 2008

just pushing the cork back in is guaranteed to kill your wine if you leave it for more than a few hours.

This is absolutely not true. One of the best wines I ever had in my life was a Burgundy that had been sitting around for days, half-full, with just a cork in it.

Also, it is perfectly normal for two people to drink a bottle between them. I wouldn't want to do it every day, but I have done it many times in the past.

In 1979 the US introduced the standard wine bottle of 750ml.

Huh? I think you mean "In 1979 the some US agency defined a standard wine bottle as 750ml." Wine bottles (at least in France) have been that size for a long time.
posted by languagehat at 7:33 AM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]

push the cork halfway back in upside down; the bottle is then invariably casually placed on the kitchen countertop next to the sink until the next meal.

At home, that's exactly what we do ... but we don't have that option at a restaurant!

This is a US-centric response, so I don't know if it applies where you live, however even in states with draconian open container laws, a recorked restaurant wine bottle is perfectly acceptable to take home and further is not considered and open container for legal purposes. This is not the case for other types of alcohol.
posted by Pollomacho at 7:49 AM on July 1, 2008

In Europe (I don't think I've encountered this much in the UK, but in France definitely) you get the option to order a quarter litre / half litre in a pichet (pitcher) - usually only a few options or house wine only.

As others here have stated, the size of the bottle wasn't really designed with "a couple having one in a restaurant" in mind.

Semi-related anecdote regarding whether a bottle is too much for 2 people at a meal (whether in France or elsewhere)... when I registered at uni in Paris I had to go see the uni doc who asked me various questions, and when I mentioned (don't ask me why) that my parents usually drank a bottle of wine at dinner, she said "eh bein, ils ont un bon débit!" (more or less "wow, they down quite a lot").
posted by ClarissaWAM at 8:16 AM on July 1, 2008

do you guys still drive home after drinking half a bottle of wine? Is that safe?

Count me out on this part of the conversation; I have no driver's license. (Here in Tokyo it's not the necessity it may be in other places ...)

But the drink/drive question is a major factor in this whole point of bottle sizes ('portion control' of alcohol). You've ordered a bottle of wine, and each had a couple of small glasses - 'just enough'. But there are still a few inches of wine left in the bottle. Sure, it would be possible to just leave it there and walk away, but how many people would really do that? Most of us would 'finish it off', thus leaving us perhaps now just a bit too far 'over the line' for driving home.

For me anyway, 750ml just seems too much for a useful 'portion', unless/until the 'wine doggie bag' concept as linked above becomes a practical option.
posted by woodblock100 at 8:20 AM on July 1, 2008

And BTW, if you still want the original question answered, here's one good explanation.
posted by Shoggoth at 8:45 AM on July 1, 2008

do you guys still drive home after drinking half a bottle of wine? Is that safe?

Unless you're a real lightweight, most people are fine after a glass. Two glasses is a toss-up. Three is a no-go.

And it sounds like le mort's answer is the closest thing to a satisfactory one: convenience/tradition. I remember hearing some time back that a standard bottle was equivalent to five-and-a-half glasses, which always struck me as odd, but perhaps no more that the various Imperial measurements.
posted by kittyprecious at 9:36 AM on July 1, 2008

There was a recent article about wine bottle sizes in the 30 Second Wine Advisor.
posted by maurice at 9:48 AM on July 1, 2008

but how many people would really do that? Most of us would 'finish it off', thus leaving us perhaps now just a bit too far 'over the line' for driving home.

Buh?? Umm, I tend to carpool to restaurants, so that one can finish off the bottle and one can still drive home.

Also, I feel like most places in the states offer wine by the glass, so that's a moot point. And again, since you're obviously not driving, it doesn't matter for you. The answer to your question is, "It's tradition to sell wine in 750 ml bottles, and there's no convincing reason not to do it that way. Even if they offered it in smaller bottles, many people would find that half a bottle was 'too much' to drink before driving home."
posted by muddgirl at 10:04 AM on July 1, 2008

One of the best wines I ever had in my life was a Burgundy that had been sitting around for days, half-full, with just a cork in it.

Maybe you just don't like wine that much, or maybe the wine wasn't very good to begin with. A few hours of decanting or aeration is fine for (some) old wines, but letting a pinot noir stand around "for days", with just a cork in it, will have completely killed it, I can assure you. Are you also one of those people who lets port wine opened for months or years on end?

If you let a bottle of wine opened for more than 24 hours, the quality will have deteriorated noticeably. It will probably still be drinkable, but it certainly won't be 'the best wine you ever had' anymore. Oxygen is very bad for wine.
posted by NekulturnY at 10:22 AM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]

nthing just re-corking the bottle and taking it home. You bought the bottle of wine; if you don't want to finish it then with the meal, that's your business. I'm not aware of any U.S. state where that would be illegal, and I've never had any restaurant give me trouble with it either. (Why would they? By letting people take the bottle home, it encourages people to buy by the bottle, which is ridiculously profitable for the restaurant. They're just going to toss it if you leave it, anyway.)

So just cork it and take it home; when you get home you can fuss around with using a nitrogen-purge or a vacuum sealer if you care. Personally, I'm okay with a half-bottle or more of wine, as long as it's refrigerated, for 12-24 hours after opening. After that, things start to get sketchy ... but then you just cook with it.

Leaving a half-full bottle of wine at a restaurant, or worse yet just guzzling it, is sacrilege.
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:29 AM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]

I always heard that 750ml was the amount the average Frenchman would drink at a meal.

Given that most wine historically hasn't been as alcoholic as the pumped California monsters of today, that seems quite plausible.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 12:58 PM on July 1, 2008

Maybe you just don't like wine that much

I like wine and am knowledgeable about it.

or maybe the wine wasn't very good to begin with.

It was a 1978 Domaine Dujac Clos de la Roche. I trust you'll accept that as a good wine.

letting a pinot noir stand around "for days", with just a cork in it, will have completely killed it, I can assure you.

You are incorrect. I drank the wine; it was excellent. It was not, of course, the same wine it would have been when it was first opened; alas, I did not have the chance to compare. But it was dark, intense, barnyardy, all the things great Burgundies are supposed to be. It was a revelation.

Oxygen is very bad for wine.

This is overly simplistic. Oxygen has various effects on wine, some desirable, others not.
posted by languagehat at 2:12 PM on July 1, 2008

This page claims "when they were originally designed in the early 18th century, they were considered an ideal portion for one person".

This page claims "in the 1600's when bottles were made by hand, the wine bottle was about 46.24 cubic inches (26 and two-thirds fluid ounces) in capacity, a measure which was known as a 'reputed quart'. This came from being one-quarter of a wine gallon which was the size of 8 troy pounds of wine."

Incidentally, in my country the guidelines for an 80kg man to stay under the legal limit for driving used to be: no more than three standard drinks in the first hour and 1 per hour thereafter, up to a limit of six. A 13.5% bottle contains about 8 standard drinks in that system, and so half the bottle would be "safe" if spread over a couple of hours. I would have no compunction about driving home after two glasses of 10% riesling. (I say "used to be" because I believe they no longer publish these guidelines, owing to the large variation in different people's capacities).
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 8:30 PM on July 1, 2008

> in the early 18th century, they were considered an ideal portion for one person

This isn't hard to believe; some of the stats for alcohol consumption in the 18th century are pretty ridiculous. (The one I've heard quoted is 3-1/2 gal of pure ethanol per person—man, woman and child; double the current figure.) It's surprising that anybody got anything done at all, much less founding a country, given that they must have been half in the bag a good amount of the time.
posted by Kadin2048 at 11:55 PM on July 1, 2008

(That's 3-1/2 gal EtOH per person per year.)
posted by Kadin2048 at 12:00 AM on July 2, 2008

This isn't hard to believe; some of the stats for alcohol consumption in the 18th century are pretty ridiculous.

Take his entry for the night of 16 October 1783. Boswell records that he and six friends consumed 11 bottles of claret, two of other wines, two of Madeira, three of port, and one of rum. The next night, they polished off 11 bottles of claret, three of other wines, three of port and three of rum.

Looking at Hugh Johnson's History of Wine, those bottles were likely to be pints, which made it slightly less, um, heroic. And back then, people bought wine (both fortified and 'small') by the hogshead.
posted by holgate at 4:53 AM on July 2, 2008

Many (most?) Australian restaurants won't allow you to recork wine purchased on premises and take the bottle away with you - something about off-license laws. Whatever you don't drink goes back to the kitchen or down the sink.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 5:36 AM on July 2, 2008

Incidentally, in my country ... an 80kg man ... the legal limit for driving ... up to a limit of six.

Wow. It is a damn good thing NZ is so sparsely populated.
posted by kittyprecious at 5:39 AM on July 2, 2008

A lot of this is purely relative. Different people have different tolerances, either due to body size, or gradually building-up a tolerance. Whether 750ml will have an adverse affect, will depend on you and your partner. The period of time is also very important, as well as whether it's taken with food, which appears to be your case.

For me, I weigh about 135lbs, and two glasses of wine has virtually no effect, except to quell some of the shakes. (working on that, no lectures please, I know what sort of shape my liver and body is in, and have sought treatment).

For others, two glasses of wine will put them on their arse. Heck, I can drink 3 bottles easily over a day, and as long as it's spread-out to about a drink an hour, I don't get drunk. But when I'm drinking that much, it's because I have nothing else to do anyway. Tolerance again, and what one's personally body can process over a period of time.
posted by hungrysquirrels at 9:24 AM on July 2, 2008

kittyprecious: that was the maximum consumption where you could stay under the limit, not a recommendation. And that six would be over a period of four hours.

You may find this interesting: the US has the same limit we do (80 mg per ml of blood).

I do agree that's quite a high limit given the impairment some people would experience.

obiwanwasabi: in at least some restaurants I know of, leftover wine is a perk for the kitchen staff.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 3:50 PM on July 2, 2008