Wine: The Big Bottom Theory

Logic or Codswallop?

Today’s backside that I will be poking my nose into is the 'punt': the dimple at the base of a bottle of wine.

And the size can vary considerably, from a dead-flat plateau to a 2-inch sinkhole. Time and again, I dismiss the mantra "don't judge a book by its cover", and buy a wine based on the logic that if I can lose my middle-finger in its bottom, then it's more likely to be good. Is there a correlation between a good wine and a big bottom, or is this 'logic' actually codswallop?

FOR A BIG BOTTOM - if your wine is prone to sediment, a steep punt will collect it together and lessen the risk of 'bits' ending up in your glass.

AGAINST A BIG BOTTOM - the bottle can be so damn heavy that you don't realise you're pouring the last mouthful and the sediment 'plops' into the glass anyway.

FOR - a big-punted bottle uses more glass and costs more to produce and transport, so why waste money filling an expensive bottle with a cheap wine?

AGAINST - a heavy bottle raises a middle-finger to the environment. To quote Andrew Jefford in his Jan 2020 Decanter column, “glass production and wine transport account for 68% of wine’s carbon footprint”.

FOR - a deep punt makes the bottle easier to pour. A picture paints a thousand words.

AGAINST - really? My flat bottom isn't causing me a problem either. Maybe it's because the lighter bottle is less tiring to hold?

FOR - Big-bottomed bottles are stronger. Fact. Not only is this necessary to withstand the pressure in a bottle of bubbly, it increases the chances of a dropped bottle surviving the fall onto a hard floor.

AGAINST - but most wine isn't bubbly and if I do drop a bottle, I'd rather my toe wasn't crushed.

So the jury's out. My head tells me that a big bottom shouldn't affect quality, but my heart still says it might. I'll have to do some more sampling and let my mouth decide...