I just read the "Official Guide to Wine Snobbery"

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...75134?v=glance


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.

Person "B" who knows little about wine could convince Person "A", who knows
nothing about wine, that he/she is a wine expert. Person "C", who has a
moderate knowledge of wine, could convince Person "B" that he/she is an
expert on wine. Person "B", would then mimic what Person "C" says about
wine and will pass this knowledge onto Person "A".

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.

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. The fact that
a wine is high in acidity could not possibly indicate where it is from. A
few grams per liter tartaric/citric addition to an over ripened Napa valley
grape would produce the same effect. But who cares? All anyone is looking
for is a new witty comment to make in order to impress people who know as
little or less than themselves about wine.

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.

Vincent Vega wrote:

I just read the "Official Guide to Wine Snobbery"

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...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...


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.



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.

The fact that
a wine is high in acidity could not possibly indicate where it is from.

Tried a Savennieres recently? ;-)

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...

Mark Lipton

Mark Lipton wrote:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...016057/104-759
4829-9275134?v=glance

It sounds interesting and amusing.

It is. And it's 22 years old.

M.

"Mark Lipton" wrote in message
...


Vincent Vega wrote:

I just read the "Official Guide to Wine Snobbery"


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...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.

"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 message
...
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.

True as far as it goes, but don't extrapolate that too far.

I had a conversation years ago with an Italian restaurateur (now deceased)
who insisted that in his native Italy wines were all made from the same
basic stuff and chemically treated to make them red or white, sweet or dry.
He made it sound more like chemical engineering than winemaking. I knew
enough about winemaking at the time to know that he was full of crap, but I
could tell that it would be a futile effort to try to talk him out of his
notions.

He proceeded to open a bottle of Banfi Brunello di Montalcino - the first
I'd ever tasted - and it was *wonderful*! (I didn't ask him if he thought
it was made in similar fashion to what he'd previously described.) He did
offer the opinion that the recent purchase of that estate by Banfi would be
bad news for ensuing vintages, because Banfi is Mafia connected. Yeah.
Right...

Tom S

"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.

"Tom S" wrote in
om:

He proceeded to open a bottle of Banfi Brunello di Montalcino
- the
first I'd ever tasted - and it was *wonderful*! (I didn't ask
him if
he thought it was made in similar fashion to what he'd
previously
described.) He did offer the opinion that the recent purchase
of that
estate by Banfi would be bad news for ensuing vintages,
because Banfi
is Mafia connected. Yeah.

But hey Tony Sorprano drinks Ruffino tan and gold so go figure.
.. .

"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 my experience, I am defining a "wine snob" as a person who pretends to
know more about wine than they really do.

Aha. I term that sort of person as a poser, a much easier creature to spot in the
wild.

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".

I have no idea what meaning you're ascribing to the term "subjective." To me,
subjective is the opposite of objective and all sensory information is by definition
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

All this means is that the judges in Paris liked it better than the ones in PA did. So
what? It'd be a dull world if we all had identical tastes, and the wines I like would
be more in demand than they already are. De gustibus non disputandum est.

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.

No doubt there's a vast conspiracy of silence going on in the Loire valley, with all
those vintners surreptitiously dumping tartrates into their Chenin Blancs to lower the
pH to -1. Right... My point is that in many places there's no NEED to acidify as the
natural acids are present in abundance, year in and year out. Get it?

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.

That must be it! I disagree with you because I'm ignorant. Oh, and winemakers lie to
me. Thanks for clarifying.

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.

There are certainly greedy and fraudulent winemakers, too. I try to avoid them, by and
large. Remember that it wasn't a distributor or importer who put ethylene glycol into
wine to sweeten it, or who added tankers full of wine from the Southern Rhone and
Algeria into more prestigious bottlings. The rest of your statement I find a bit
perplexing, however.

Mark Lipton

"Mark Lipton" in message ...

There are certainly greedy and fraudulent winemakers, too. I try to
avoid them,
by and large. Remember that it wasn't a distributor or importer who put
ethylene
glycol into wine to sweeten it, or who added tankers full of wine from the
Southern Rhone and Algeria into more prestigious bottlings.

D'accord. Alas in another example, though fraud was necessary for the
famous incident (1976?) of cheap wine being shipped from France in
containers marked "Can be sold as Beaujolais in USA," fraud was not, as
mathematicians would say, sufficient. Buyers should have noticed a
difference if they were then also going to complain indignantly about this.
(Me, I buy for taste.)


By the way: is it just me, or have newsgroups lately acquired newbies who
don't know about editing down the past posts? I'll see 150 lines of repeat
that we've all read already, then one or two lines of response. (Some
newsreader software didn't even let you do that, 10-15 years ago.) Could
somebody ask these people to read RFC1855 or any other source on Netiquette?
(Urgently, if they haven't heard of RFC1855 or Netiquette.) Could we find a
way to require a minimal competency test before permitting postings? Even
the most trivial screening would do. (One or two of the moderated senior
administrative groups have, for decades, enforced the rule that newcomers
must read for three months before posting -- six months if it's not clear
why this is necessary -- these being compromises from double those
intervals.) I myself followed newsgroup wine discussion for several months
or a year before I first presumed to post anything. (That was some time
ago.)

"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)

In article , Mark Lipton
writes:

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

All this means is that the judges in Paris liked it better than the ones in
PA did. So
what? It'd be a dull world if we all had identical tastes, and the wines I
like would
be more in demand than they already are.

Mark, I pretty much agree with all of your points in this thread, so won't add.
But I'd also like to point out a few things re competitions, points, etc.:
1) Depending on the sample size (a winery might furnish one or two bottles to a
competition, or many more to one with many judges) there can be significant
variation due to factors like heat, TCA contamination below most people's
threshhold, etc. The bottle in Paris might not have tasted like the one in PA.
2) There are few things that I pay LESS attention to as far as wine than
medals. If I see a winery touting it's medals, I yawn. [By the way, this is not
intended as an insult to judges, as I know there are a few like BFSON who post
here] But the knowledge that a particular group liked a particular wine without
knowing who was on the panel, what other wines were in the competition, format,
etc. is pretty useless in buying decisions. A quick google shows that the
French Creek Winery's "Champagne" (don't get me started) was one of the gold
medal winners at the Viniales Internationales Wine Competition. But w/o knowing
who is on that panel, what other wines it was up against, etc. I don't feel
compelled to order any PA wine.
3) In many cases my experience is that many local competitions are based on the
wine that has the least flaws model, rather than rewarding points for
particularly distinctive wines.
Dale

Dale Williams
Drop "damnspam" to reply