Traditional wisdom runs that leaving a silver teaspoon, handle down, in the neck of a champagne bottle can help preserve the bubbles in an open bottle for longer.
There is an element of truth to this, but also a wide-ranging mythology which has grown up around it. Part of the problem in coming to an accurate judgement is the fact that all bottles of sparkling wine produced in the Champagne method are essentially unique micro-climates. Whilst this sounds technical and confusing, all it implies is that the second bottle fermentation which takes place leaves all bottles in slightly varying conditions. This isn’t to say that flavour or the fineness of the bead (a fine bead means that the bubbles in the wine are small, tightly packed and vigorous) varies, simply that its reaction to air once it has been opened is an essentially unknowable variable. The French refer to this loss of fizz as ‘éventage’, and it’s from the Gauls we inherit the spoon trick to prevent exactly this phenomenon.
Now, there have been plenty of investigations into different means to keep Champagne sparkling which have claimed to be scientific. Some are merely PR exercises for wineries, brands or universities, whilst others are led by industry bodies keen to develop best practice. One thing to watch out for is the tone with which the subject is approached. Even studies from respected universities tend to be phrased and conducted in the style of ‘And in other news…’ segments for TV News programs.
What seems clear from the various studies, most notably one from Stanford University, is that the spoon being silver had little to do with the end result. Many studies also found that the spoon’s influence was negligible, if detectable at all. That said, it was certainly not a negative influence. Indeed, the Stanford study found that the best results came from a refrigerated bottle left completely open and unsealed. Yet, the sticking point was that notionally identical bottles tested by the same methods produced differing results due to their innate differences – the micro-climates we spoke about earlier.
Another study conducted by the Centre Interprofessionel des Vins de Champagne (an industry body) agreed that the spoon’s influence seemed to be non-existent. US TV show ‘Mythbusters’ conducted their own limited test and determined that the influence of the spoon was actually negative, reducing the fizz in the bottle on the whole. Such programs cast an air of authority which their methods seldom justify, however, and it seems in this case that they are in direct disagreement with both scientists and industry specialists.
Indeed, Dr Richard Zare of Stanford University has posited that it is temperature which most affects a Champagne’s fizz. Warm liquids hold less gas and this means that chilling the wine ensures that more Carbon Dioxide (what creates the sparkle) is retained in the liquid itself. Likewise, the cleanliness of the glass you pour your Champagne into affects how bubbly the wine appears. Bubble trails start when they come into contact with tiny faults or microscopic dust and lint particles (think the cloth you dried your glass with) and this can start the wine a-bubbling.
Yet circumstantial evidence suggests that the spoon helps. You can speak to any number of different friends and relatives who swear by the method and avow that only silver does the trick. The answer undoubtedly lies in the micro-climate of the bottle. Spoons may do almost nothing, yet some bottles may retain their fizz a little longer naturally, seemingly affirming the impression that it’s the spoon that’s solved the problem. This is the kind of phenomenon which fuels many urban myths.
Another modern experiment (this one done in 2009, whilst Zare’s was back in 1994) has suggested, however, that the spoon can be a positive influence! The South African winery Twee Jonge Gezellen responded to a travel company’s query and tested the same hypothesis as Zare, Mythbusters and the Champagne organisation. They found that results showed some improvement with the insertion of a spoon into the neck of the open bottle. They theorised that the spoon worked to radiate cold air from the regrigerator into the bottle quicker, creating a seal of cold air in the neck of the bottle better than would be created by an open neck and slowing the ‘éventage’. In this model, silver helps as it is an efficient conductor. Likewise, some have posited that silver’s anti-oxidant qualities may help in some way ward off oxidisation in the wine, though this remains anecdotal at best.
Others have spoken about a pressure phenomenon called the ‘Venturi effect’ which essentially means that within the open bottle pressure remains high with a pressure differential towards the low pressure outside of the neck. According to this wisdom, a spoon would break this barrier and de-pressurise the bottle quickly, encouraging gas to leave the wine by ventilating the bottle and encouraging ‘éventage’. What’s also important to remember is that the wine seldom bubbles inside the bottle (its almost faultlessly smooth interior belying the effect of your dirty glass) and that anything microscopic attached to the spoon could cause some kind of cross contamination which provokes excess fizz in the short term.
In conclusion, I would hazard a guess at a means of reconciling all these divergent results. Firstly, temperature is obviously important – a fact recognised in all the studies. Secondly, Zare’s tests were conducted for 26 hours, a period of time which would nullify the quick cooling effect of the spoon. This is, to be honest, a slightly unrealistic expectation and it stands to reason that whilst a silver spoon overnight may help ensure an enjoyably sparkling Champagne breakfast, it is unlikely prevent ‘éventage’ in perpetuity. Lastly, and perhaps obviously, use a clean spoon if you’re going to try it.
A silver spoon may not actually preserve the wine, but it may help in some way and is unlikely to do any harm. The only sure fire solution, it seems, is to drink the lot!
