Fact or Fiction: Does a Spoon in the Bottle Keep Champagne Bubbly?

A persistent bit of kitchen folklore appears to have little basis in fact














Share on Tumblr

champagne bottle and glasses

SPOONERISM: Many people stick a teaspoon into the neck of a sparkling wine bottle in an effort to preserve the wine's fizz. Image: © iStockphoto/Dawn Poland

  • Gravity's Engines

    We’ve long understood black holes to be the points at which the universe as we know it comes to an end. Often billions of times more massive than the Sun, they...

    Read More »

If you had trouble polishing off any open bottles of sparkling wine on New Year’s Eve, you may have employed an old kitchen trick to keep the leftover bubbly ... well, bubbly.

The trick is simple: just put a teaspoon, handle down, into the bottle’s mouth. Many people have cited anecdotal evidence that the spoon helps keep sparkling wines effervescent in the fridge for a day or more after opening.

There’s just one problem. Belief in the spoon tactic, which is of uncertain origin but seems especially prevalent in Europe, appears to be misplaced.

“I think it’s a myth,” says Stanford University chemist Richard Zare, who undertook an extracurricular investigation of the teaspoon’s preservative powers in 1994. Zare, along with food writer and San Francisco Bay Area resident Harold McGee, their wives and other friends, uncorked several bottles of bubbly and refrigerated them for 26 hours under different preservation methods—including some with spoons and some without. Then they sampled and scored the sparkling wines in a blind test. The result: Zare and his fellow testers did not detect any boost in the sparkle of the spooned bottles. A more recent, smaller-scale test on the television show MythBusters arrived at a similar conclusion.

Although Zare's study was somewhat informal, he believes the methodology was solid. “Hal McGee had just bought a new refrigerator that had nothing in it,” he recalls. “This was great—because it had no smells or anything in it.” And the bottles of wine, which all came from the same lot, were kept under identical ambient conditions. “We really tested it quite extensively,” Zare says.

What is more, the California test jibes with the results of a similar experiment conducted around the same time by researchers at the Interprofessional Committee of Champagne. The CIVC, as it is known by its French initials, is an association of grape-growers and winemakers in the Champagne region of France that defends the literal geographic meaning of the appellation “champagne”—bubbly from other locations is sparkling wine. “The experiment was done in Épernay, near Reims, with champagne from the same batch, and the pressure was measured in various circumstances, such as opened bottles, opened bottles with spoon, bottle closed with stopper [and] bottle closed with cork (after having been opened),” wrote chemist and food journalist Hervé This in an e-mail; This described the research in his 2006 book, Molecular Gastronomy. “The pressure in bottles opened and left open or in bottles opened and left open with a spoon decreased in the same way—whereas a stopper or cork prevented the gas escape,” he added.

So if the dangling teaspoon appears to have little to no effect on preserving carbonation, what is a champagne sipper to do with his or her half-empty bottle? No special stopper is needed, says Zare, in whose (admittedly subjective) taste test recorked wine rated poorly. “Keep it cold. In fact, never let it warm up. That’s the secret,” he says. The reason: in many liquids, including water, carbon dioxide is more soluble at low temperature, so cold liquids better retain their dissolved gas. Some sparkling wines are so saturated with carbon dioxide, Zare says, that they can remain bubbly in the fridge for days, even without a stopper. “If you keep it cold from the start,” he adds, “it just goes on and on.”


Rights & Permissions

4 Comments

Add Comment
View
  1. 1. lamorpa 09:06 AM 1/4/13

    It only works for anecdotal champagne.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  2. 2. jbquicheron 03:15 PM 1/4/13

    I am 73, was born in a small village in the Champagne region and was in the businesss of champagnemaking. I can assure you that this spoon in the bottle does not work. We have known it for decennia but still a few people believe in it ! We did not neede scientists to prove it ! Still, thank you "the proof of the sparkling is in the drinking" ! Simply use a good stopper, this is what I do quite often and advise anybody!
    JB Quicheron

    Regards

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  3. 3. jgrosay 05:36 PM 1/4/13

    "All you need is a little bit of Pyramidic help" -The Alan Parsons Project.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  4. 4. thefrankreport 07:54 PM 1/7/13

    use pure argon and a good quality sparkling wine stopper. I use "winesave" which retains excellent level of effervescence for approx 4+ days after first opening the bottle.

    I declare a pecuniary interest in this product.
    Kind regards
    Frank

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Leave this field empty

Add a Comment

You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.
Click one of the buttons below to register using an existing Social Account.

More from Scientific American

See what we're tweeting about

Scientific American Editors

More »

Free Newsletters


Get the best from Scientific American in your inbox

Solve Innovation Challenges

Powered By: Innocentive

  SA Digital
  SA Digital

Email this Article

Fact or Fiction: Does a Spoon in the Bottle Keep Champagne Bubbly?

X
Scientific American Magazine

Subscribe Today

Save 66% off the cover price and get a free gift!

Learn More >>

X

Please Log In

Forgot: Password

X

Account Linking

Welcome, . Do you have an existing ScientificAmerican.com account?

Yes, please link my existing account with for quick, secure access.



Forgot Password?

No, I would like to create a new account with my profile information.

Create Account
X

Report Abuse

Are you sure?

X

Institutional Access

It has been identified that the institution you are trying to access this article from has institutional site license access to Scientific American on nature.com. To access this article in its entirety through site license access, click below.

Site license access
X

Error

X

Share this Article

X