How to Choose the Right Wine Gift
Kanebridge News
Share Button

How to Choose the Right Wine Gift

Whether you’re bringing a wine to drink with dinner or wrapping a bottle to bequeath, our wine columnist and the wine pros she polled have some very helpful tips to consider.

Thu, Dec 22, 2022 8:58amGrey Clock 5 min

IT’S THE SEASON of giving, and wine lovers know what that means: You’re likely to give, and to get, a bottle of wine.

Will your bottle be gratefully received or quickly regifted? I always hope for the former, and I’ve been mostly—though not entirely—successful with the wines that I’ve brought to houses of both strangers and friends. I’ve given wines that I considered interesting or fun, or that pair well with food; sometimes they’re just wines that I like to drink (Champagne). How do other wine lovers choose the bottles that they bring along? When I asked oenophiles, both pro and amateur, I heard some good stories and a few useful tips.

For my part, I’ve found that the easiest wine to bring to somebody’s house is one meant to match with a particular meal. I often bring bottles to dinners with friends whose menus I’ve inquired about in advance, and the wines, carefully chosen to pair with the meal, are invariably well-received. Sometimes I’ll bring a wine to match with the meal and a second for the host to keep.

When it comes to bringing wines to the houses of people I don’t know, let’s just say that my track record isn’t exactly 100%. One of my biggest failures in that regard came a few years ago, when my husband and I were invited to an avid wine collector’s house along with the friends that we had in common. The host, I was told, loved expensive Bordeaux.

Since I don’t have lots of expensive Bordeaux in my cellar, I decided to bring something fun that the collector probably hadn’t encountered. I chose the Ceretto Moscato d’Asti, a slightly fizzy, fresh, peach-inflected wine from a top producer in Piedmont, Italy. The Ceretto Moscato costs around $20, and it’s not only delicious, but comes in a cool triangle-shaped bottle.

The wine was no mere novelty, however. Although some wine drinkers think of Moscato as cheap commercial wine that comes in a jug, Moscato from Piedmont is quality stuff. Still, it seemed the collector presumed that my gift belonged in the former category. He took one look at my bottle and left it by his front door. All the easier to re-gift to his letter-carrier, I thought.

Sometimes I’ve brought wines that are a little too quirky for popular taste. Take, for example, the 2012 Calabretta Nerello Mascalese Vigne Vecchie ($35) that I recently brought to the house of a friend. A rich, earthy, complex red from the Etna region of Sicily, it reminds me of an old-school Barolo. But the wine can be a little bit funky when it’s first opened, and it definitely benefits from a good decanting. And sometimes that takes too long when you’ve brought it to drink with a dinner.

Such uncertainties are why I usually opt for a bottle of Champagne or a Cremant d’Alsace. Everyone knows what to do with sparkling wine, and if they don’t like it or don’t want to drink it, it’s the easiest sort of wine to regift. I usually give Champagnes from small growers like Pierre Péters or Pierre Moncuit to friends. To someone I don’t know well or whom I suspect would like a “brand” name, I’ll bring a Champagne from Louis Roederer instead.

Katja Scharnagl, beverage director of Koloman NYC restaurant in Manhattan, told me that she likes to bring Champagne, too, and her budget is a rather generous $40-$50 a bottle. Ms. Scharnagl also takes care to bestow the bottle ready to drink. “I always bring it chilled,” she said.

My friend RJ, a big wine collector, used to bring very good Champagne and wines to his friends’ houses. As he explained, “I bring wines I like to drink.” But sometimes the bottles are so good they’re completely drained before RJ gets a glass. “I brought a bottle of Tignanello to someone’s house, and it was gone in two seconds,” he said, naming a famous Super Tuscan that costs around $150 a bottle. RJ decided to stop gifting wine and gives expensive Japanese knives instead. (“They’re really great knives,” he said.) That way, I guess, he’s spared the pain of missing out on something he truly loves.

I wondered what wines a winemaker might bring to a party or a dinner. So I put the question to Richard Olsen-Harbich, head winemaker at Bedell Cellars in Cutchogue, N.Y., on the North Fork of Long Island. Does Mr. Olsen-Harbich typically give wines he made, or wines made by somebody else? And what wines do others tend to bring to his house?

Sometimes Mr. Olsen-Harbich brings his own wine—but not necessarily in a bottle. “I’ll bring a sample right out of barrel, which is always fun,” he wrote in an email. If he’s dining with fellow North Forkers, he’ll bring a wine from elsewhere. “I like turning people on to wines from the Finger Lakes or Virginia, which are harder to find and beautiful examples of winemaking,” he said.

Is it daunting for others to bring him a bottle? “They often stress out about it because they think I’m a tough audience, which I’m not,” Mr. Olsen-Harbich replied. But he loves getting wines he doesn’t know much about or has never encountered, and is especially keen on wines from Germany and Alsace, France.

When Alison Smith Story, co-winemaker at Smith Story Wine Cellars in Healdsburg, Calif., visits friends, she might bring a bottle of her own Smith Story Wine Cellars Brut Méthode Traditionnelle Mendocino County Sparkling Wine but also a vintage cookbook or an old book of poetry. “The vintage cookbook almost always becomes a topic of conversation at the table and is passed around,” she said. What wines do others bring to her house? She said her friends tend not to bring wine at all but, rather, “single-origin coffee beans or packets of flowers for my garden.”

I imagined it would be just as hard to bring a bottle to a wine retailer as to a winemaker, and perhaps even harder. After all, a retailer can get any wine he or she wants. And what might a retailer give to someone, given all the options? I asked Gina Trippi, co-owner of Metro Wines in Asheville, N.C.

Unsurprisingly, Ms. Trippi said she tailors the wine to the taste of the recipient. For a female and/or Francophile friend fond of crisp white wines, it might be a Picpoul made by a woman winemaker. Ms. Trippi had actually just published a set of gifting guidelines in the Metro Wines newsletter “The Public Palate.” One key criterion: “A gift should not have a screw cap.” Another piece of advice: “A bottle [should be] shelf priced at $20. A bottle under $20 may make you look a little too holiday frugal and one [costing] way over can be seen as showing off.”

For Ms. Trippi, a great gift bottle is one purchased from a small retailer like her, not a big-box store. “It’s a bottle that says ‘You know me. Or, at least you tried!’ ” she said. (And by the way, she really likes a good bottle of Cinsault.)

I can’t say I agree with or abide by all of her gift criteria. For instance, it’s near-impossible to find a wine from Austria, Australia or New Zealand that isn’t screw capped, yet some of those wines make wonderful gifts. I’ve also given (and received) wines that cost more than $20. But I definitely agree about choosing a wine that shows care and intention.


This stylish family home combines a classic palette and finishes with a flexible floorplan

35 North Street Windsor

Just 55 minutes from Sydney, make this your creative getaway located in the majestic Hawkesbury region.

Related Stories
Should AI Have Access to Your Medical Records? What if It Can Save Many Lives?
How an Ex-Teacher Turned a Tiny Pension Into a Giant-Killer
By MATT WIRZ 27/05/2024
The Problem With Behavioural Nudges
By Evan Polman and Sam J. Maglio 27/05/2024
Should AI Have Access to Your Medical Records? What if It Can Save Many Lives?

We asked readers: Is it worth giving up some potential privacy if the public benefit could be great? Here’s what they said.

Tue, May 28, 2024 4 min

We’re constantly told that one of the potentially biggest benefits of artificial intelligence is in the area of health. By collecting large amounts of data, AI can create all sorts of drugs for diseases that have been resistant to treatment.

But the price of that could be that we have to share more of our medical information. After all, researchers can’t collect large amounts of data if people aren’t willing to part with that data.

We wanted to see where our readers stand on the balance of privacy versus public-health gains as part of our series on ethical dilemmas created by the advent of AI.

Here are the questions we posed…

AI may be able to discover new medical treatments if it can scan large volumes of health records. Should our personal health records be made available for this purpose, if it has the potential to improve or save millions of lives? How would we guard privacy in that case?

…and some of the answers we received. undefined

Rely on nonpartisan overseers

While my own recent experience with a data breach highlights the importance of robust data security, I recognise the potential for AI to revolutionise healthcare. To ensure privacy, I would be more comfortable if an independent, nonpartisan body—overseen by medical professionals, data-security experts, and citizen representatives—managed a secure database.

Anonymity cuts both ways

Yes. Simply sanitise the health records of any identifying information, which is quite doable. Although there is an argument to be made that AI may discover something that an individual needs or wants to know.

Executive-level oversight

I think we can make AI scanning of health records available with strict privacy controls. Create an AI-CEO position at medical facilities with extreme vetting of that individual before hiring them.

Well worth it

This actually sounds like a very GOOD use of AI. There are several methods for anonymising data which would allow for studies over massive cross-sections of the population without compromising individuals’ privacy. The AI would just be doing the same things meta-studies do now, only faster and maybe better.

Human touch

My concern is that the next generations of doctors will rely more heavily, maybe exclusively, on AI and lose the ability or even the desire to respect the art of medicine which demands one-on-one interaction with a patient for discussion and examination (already a dying skill).


People should be able to sign over rights to their complete “anonymised” health record upon death just as they can sign over rights to their organs. Waiting for death for such access does temporarily slow down the pace of such research, but ultimately will make the research better. Data sets will be more complete, too. Before signing over such rights, however, a person would have to be fully informed on how their relatives’ privacy may also be affected.

Pay me or make it free for all

As long as this is open-source and free, they can use my records. I have a problem with people using my data to make a profit without compensation.

Privacy above all

As a free society, we value freedoms and privacy, often over greater utilitarian benefits that could come. AI does not get any greater right to infringe on that liberty than anything else does.

Opt-in only

You should be able to opt in and choose a plan that protects your privacy.

Privacy doesn’t exist anyway

If it is decided to extend human lives indefinitely, then by all means, scan all health records. As for privacy, there is no such thing. All databases, once established, will eventually, if not immediately, be accessed or hacked by both the good and bad guys.

The data’s already out there

I think it should be made available. We already sign our rights for information over to large insurance companies. Making health records in the aggregate available for helping AI spot potential ways to improve medical care makes sense to me.

Overarching benefit

Of course they should be made available. Privacy is no serious concern when the benefits are so huge for so many.

Compensation for breakthroughs

We should be given the choice to release our records and compensated if our particular genome creates a pathway to treatment and medications.

Too risky

I like the idea of improving healthcare by accessing health records. However, as great as that potential is, the risks outweigh it. Access to the information would not be controlled. Too many would see personal opportunity in it for personal gain.

Nothing personal

The personal info should never be available to anyone who is not specifically authorised by the patient to have it. Medical information can be used to deny people employment or licenses!

No guarantee, but go ahead

This should be allowed on an anonymous basis, without question. But how to provide that anonymity?

Anonymously isolating the information is probably easy, but that information probably contains enough information to identify you if someone had access to the data and was strongly motivated. So the answer lies in restricting access to the raw data to trusted individuals.

Take my records, please

As a person with multiple medical conditions taking 28 medications a day, I highly endorse the use of my records. It is an area where I have found AI particularly valuable. With no medical educational background, I find it very helpful when AI describes in layman’s terms both my conditions and medications. In one instance, while interpreting a CT scan, AI noted a growth on my kidney that looked suspiciously like cancer and had not been disclosed to me by any of the four doctors examining the chart.


This stylish family home combines a classic palette and finishes with a flexible floorplan

35 North Street Windsor

Just 55 minutes from Sydney, make this your creative getaway located in the majestic Hawkesbury region.

Related Stories
Young Australians cut back on essentials while Baby Boomers spend freely
By Bronwyn Allen 24/05/2024
The suburbs where we’re building the most new homes
By Bronwyn Allen 28/05/2024
The Problem With Behavioural Nudges
By Evan Polman and Sam J. Maglio 27/05/2024
    Your Cart
    Your cart is emptyReturn to Shop