Cocktail Glass Thickness and Quality

[Chris Amirault]

For a while now, I've kept a supply of 10-12 cocktail glasses in my freezer, taking them out one or two at a time just before pouring the cold mixed cocktail into the glass. Due to budgetary constraints and a desire to have properly sized glasses, I had stocked up at thrift stores using what appear to me to be restaurant-quality glasses: thick, non-leaded glass in old-school 3-4 oz sizes and shapes.

Lately, however, I've found myself freezing up some glasses that have thinner glass (I found a neat one that looks like eje's here, for example), and they've revealed a problem -- or, rather, a benefit of the thicker glasses that I hadn't appreciated heretofore. When the cocktail gets down to that <32F temperature that causes the shaker to freeze to my hand (a sure sign I'm done) and I pour it into the cold thick glass, the drink not only stays colder longer but produces the wonderful frosting effect that the sub-freezing alcohol mixture creates. The thinner glasses seem to heat up in the air more quickly and rarely produce that frost; if they do, it's shortlived.

This seems to be a situation in which cheaper, lower quality glasses achieve a crucial effect that more expensive, higher quality glasses cannot. Am I missing something? Do these effects all shift if you're using Baccarat crystal instead of restaurant supply warhorses? Or is thicker just better?

[eje]

That's absolutely true.

I've discovered there is almost no point to putting those thin walled glasses in the freezer.

On the other hand, at room temperature, the thin walled glass doesn't suck as much heat from your drink, as a thicker walled glass would.

While I am lucky that I live in a climate where it almost never gets much above 75 degrees Fahrenheit, the only real answer is smaller drinks.

Or to quote one of the Hints for a Young Mixer from the preface to the Savoy Coctail book, "Drink your Cocktail as soon as possible. Harry Craddock was once asked what was the best way to drink a Cocktail : 'Quickly,' replied that great man, 'while it is laughing at you!'"

Though, they also recommend icing your glassware if at all possible.

[KatieLoeb]

The thinned walled glasses look a lot prettier, but tend to be an expensive proposition, especially in a commercial environment where they take all manner of abuse. For putting in the freezer, either at home or in a restaurant, you want something that won't break if you look at it cross-eyed. Thicker is better for this sort of application.

Schott-Zweisel makes a beautiful break resistant Tritan martini glass that might be a fine compromise if you don't mind laying out $13/stem. The Tritan glassware is pretty good stuff and can be knocked over, at least, without shattering into a thousand shards.

[lancastermike]

We keep our cheaper heavier in the freezer as well. Really because they are sturdier than any other reason. We do indeed have some much nicer thin glasses that mostly reside on the shelf. If using them I just give them a nice ice bath before pouring. The fancy glasses are a nice part of enjoying a cocktail, but I hate to loose one in the freezer.

[Alchemist]

the Libby 5 1/2 oz champange coupe. Love it! It is durable, pretty, the right size AND shaped like a breast! What could be better?

[misterdyer]

When it comes to things that are "pretty, the right size, AND shaped like a breast," then naturally, the only thing better would be a matched pair.

[Dave the Cook]

Or 18 pairs from Amazon (here). Unfortunately, you rarely see them traveling in smaller packs; I don't think Libbey packages them for retail.

I can vouch for the glass itself, though: a good compromise between elegance, sturdiness and mass. It's also a rare example (in my experience, anyway) of a mass-produced cocktail glass that's a proper size.

[slkinsey]

Yea, I like the Libbey glasses as well. Got a case for home use, and have been gradually breaking my way through them over the course of a few years. I think mine are 4.5 ounces, but could be mistaken -- they come in a variety of sizes.

As for the effect of glassware on the temperature of the drink, it's a simple matter of physics. If the glass is cold, you benefit from having a glass with a larger thermal mass. If the glass is room temperature, you benefit from having a glass with a smaller thermal mass.

[Chris Amirault]

Sam, how does material affect thermal mass? I'm wondering here not only about glass but also metal.

[slkinsey]

Well... To compare specific heat: aluminum is around 0.89 J/g/K, glass is around 0.84, stainless steel is around 0.50, copper is around 0.38 and silver is around 0.23. The most relevant would be stainless steel, I suppose. Of course, most metals are a lot more dense than glass. Stainless steel is around 7.9 g/cm^3 compared to around 2.6 for common glass (there's not a tremendous range in density when it comes to glassware glass -- the range is perhaps from 2.4 - 2.8).

Most of the time, metal cups and glasses are thinner and lighter than their glass counterparts, which means that they are likely to have a smaller thermal mass. This is why it's okay to shake or stir a cocktail with a room-temperature shaker if it's thin metal, but if it's thick glass you would like for it to be chilled.

For rocks drinks, or drinks like juleps and swizzles where the ice and spirit are reaching thermal equilibrium, I think the thermal mass of the glass is not so important relative to what's going on between the liquid and the ice. You don't want the glass to be warm, but there's not too terribly much to be gained from using a pre-chilled glass.

Edited July 24, 2007 by slkinsey (log)