"Vincent Vega" > wrote in
:

>
> "Mark Lipton" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> Vincent Vega wrote:
>>
>> > I just read the "Official Guide to Wine Snobbery"
>> >
>> >
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...7/104-7594829-
92
> 75134?v=glance
>>
>> It sounds interesting and amusing.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > The book is a great read and reinforces my speculation about the
>> > wine industry and wine snobs. I have come to the conclusion that
>> > most (90%
> and
>> > above) wine snobs really don't know much about wine. These people
> simply
>> > repeat what it is they heard other people say about wine.
>>
>> And how do you identify a wine snob? Do they bear some sigil upon
>> their
> clothing that
>> provides for ready identification? Personally, I find it difficult
>> in
> the extreme to
>> identify a snob upon casual encounter, as it is difficult to know the
> internal working
>> of their minds. No doubt you have cracked this conundrum...
>
> In my experience, I am defining a "wine snob" as a person who
> pretends to know more about wine than they really do.
>
>>
>> >
>> > Meanwhile, Person "C" knows that no matter what he says about wine
> (within
>> > reason), Persons "B" and "A" will eventually consider fact. With
>> > this
> type
>> > of persuasion Person "C" is free to say or make up anything he/she
> wants.
>> > Person "C" eventually gets a job as a wine judge or wine columnist
>> > while
> his
>> > subjectiveness permeates the industry and "winemakers" shake their
>> > head
> in
>> > confusion. The winemakers are left to face the fact that
> subjectiveness,
>> > copycatting and creative writing will dictate the industry.
>>
>> Tasting *is* subjective. Anyone who suggests otherwise has been
>> asleep
> during all
>> their science and philosophy classes. The best that anyone can hope
>> for
> from a wine
>> critic (or a film critic, or a music critic) is that the reviewer's
>> tastes
> are fairly
>> similar to the reader's. Barring that, the reader can at least gain
>> some
> appreciation
>> for how their own tastes differ from the reviewer's, which can also
> provide some measure
>> of guidance from their reviews.
>
> Exactly,, subjective is the key. There are specific and scientific
> flaws in wine that can make them inferior. A wine with no chemical
> imbalances can be rated from 70 - 94. This score range is
> "subjective". Take for instance a few years back a Pennsylvania
> champaign manufacturer submitted one of his sparkling wines to a local
> award show. He won a bronze medal. He then submitted the same
> sparkling wine to an international competition in Paris. He won best
> of show. . Either the PA judges made a mistake or the French judges
> made a mistake, or there isnt much difference between a 70 and a 90
> rating. Examples like this are common
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > I never listen to wine TV shows and only read the wine spectator
>> > and
> such to
>> > keep up on industry trends. But I was flicking the channels the
>> > other
> day
>> > and I heard this wine connoisseur on the food network talking to a
>> > chef
> in
>> > California when she made the comment that "the Sauvignon Blanc they
>> > were drinking was clearly from the Northern Coast of California
>> > because it
> was
>> > high in acidity" LOL ROFLMAO. Now I know someone watching that
> program is
>> > going to repeat that, the next time they drink a white from
>> > Northern
> Cali.
>> > And they will convince people that they know a lot about wines for
> making
>> > such an observant statement. And that statement will get passed
> meanwhile
>> > building the credentials of whoever repeats the line.
>> >
>> > The only problem is that anyone who has a beginners knowledge of
> winemaking
>> > knows that acid additions are currently practiced by just about
>> > wine producing nation in the world,, even if they don't tell you.
>>
>> Sorry, that just ain't so. Many important wine regions have explicit
>> laws
> against
>> acidification. California doesn't because of lack of acidity that
>> plagues
> many of its
>> wine regions; conversely, California has very strict laws about the
> addition of sugar
>> ("chaptalization") that don't exist in parts of France where the
>> grapes
> will often not
>> fully ripen. Bottom line: the regulations are typically
>> self-serving for
> the region
>> involved; if we don't need to add acid, we'll outlaw the practice.
>
> Sorry,, you are wrong. Obviously you havent had any HONEST
> conversations with French winemakers. Next thing you are going to
> tell me is that they dont use sulphites. If you understood the
> complex reasons for acid additions you would realize why it cold be
> necessary from year to year in all parts of the world. The French
> purchased illegal oil from Iraq at discounted prices so Saddam could
> build more palaces,, you think they wouldnt add a little tartaric acid
> to their wines if they had to?
>
>>
>> > The fact that
>> > a wine is high in acidity could not possibly indicate where it is
>> > from.
>>
>> Tried a Savennieres recently? ;-)
>
> No,, but my statement remains true.
>
>>
>> > The more I am force to understand the marketing of this industry,
>> > the
> more I
>> > am convinced of its insanity. I think someday I will write a book
>> > that exposes the foolishness and symantics of the wine industry.
>>
>> In my experience, most of the people who make the wines I like are
> down-to-earth,
>> striaghtforward and sensible about their craft and trade. Moreover,
>> these
> same
>> winemakers share for the most part a genuine passion and enthusiasm
>> for
> what they do.
>> Most will shake their heads about the various insanities and
>> inanities
> perpetrated by
>> the more mendacious and pretentious of their colleagues. It sounds
>> like
> you need to
>> hang out with a better crowd...
>
> Not sure what you mean by that. Its the winemakers whom I am
> defending. It is their market and their critics who turned the
> industry into giant ruse.
>
>
>
>

That is assuming that a bronze rating is a 70 wine, I would think a
bronze would be a 90+ though I would grant you a spread of + or - 5
points on a given panal of judges.

> >
>
> That is assuming that a bronze rating is a 70 wine, I would think a
> bronze would be a 90+ though I would grant you a spread of + or - 5
> points on a given panal of judges.

Typically in wine competitions a wine is judged on a point basis. If the
highest possible point score 18 points,, (say 6 points for nose, 6 points
for appearance and 6 points for taste). In this scenario in most wine
competitions a score of 13 would be bronze.

13 divided by 18 = 72 percentage points. This is not the rule for all
competitions but it is typical.

"Vincent Vega" > wrote in
:

>
>> >
>>
>> That is assuming that a bronze rating is a 70 wine, I
ze.
>
> 13 divided by 18 = 72 percentage points. This is not the
rule for all
> competitions but it is typical.
>
>
>

That assumes that a rating of 90 somehow equates to 90% but
water could score a 50 (IIRC) the two systems just don't
equate that way at all.

"jcoulter" > wrote in message
...
> "Vincent Vega" > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> That is assuming that a bronze rating is a 70 wine, I
> ze.
> >
> > 13 divided by 18 = 72 percentage points. This is not the
> rule for all
> > competitions but it is typical.
> >
> >
> >
>
> That assumes that a rating of 90 somehow equates to 90% but
> water could score a 50 (IIRC) the two systems just don't
> equate that way at all.

Im not playing semantics here. I am just sharing my first hand experience.
My point, which you seem to be missing, is that judges seem capable of
determining if a wine is "flawed" or "not flawed",, any scoring about "not
flawed" is totally subjective and is determined by personal taste but more
importantly (from a marketing standpoint) by heresay, reputation, supply and
demand and "who knows who". This is the dark secret of the wine industry.

"Vincent Vega" > wrote in
:
>
> Im not playing semantics here. I am just sharing my first
hand
> experience. My point, which you seem to be missing, is that
judges
> seem capable of determining if a wine is "flawed" or "not
flawed",,
> any scoring about "not flawed" is totally subjective and is
determined
> by personal taste but more importantly (from a marketing
standpoint)
> by heresay, reputation, supply and demand and "who knows
who". This
> is the dark secret of the wine industry.
>
>
My pint is that the deifference between first and third in
any competiton is often narrow

jcoulter > wrote in
:


> My point is that the difference between first and third in
> any competiton is often narrow

and "no one" is going to drink a wine that gets a 70 and call it
anyting but garbage. Look at what gets 80's and advertises the
fact.
(apologies to Max and others for the failure to snip my other
reply)