Jose wrote:
> > I am militantly anti-wine snob.
>
> ... and think yourself superior because of it. Thus...
>
> > The core of snobbery is actually ignorance.
>
> No, the core of snobbery is pretention - making of something what it
> isn't, and thinking (or portraying) yourself as superior because of it.

But those who have to put down others are actually insecure about what
they know.

> > When I visit shops, if a clerk tells me "this wine earned 93 points in
> > the Spectator" I immediately make it clear that that is not the way to
> > talk to me if he wants to make a sale. I don't give a shit how many
> > 'points' Parker or Anderson gives it. What matters is what I think of
> > it.
>
> So, how do you know what to think of a wine you haven't had?

Yeah, right. I'll try something if the seller has sampled it and gives
it high marks, because I know I can rely on his judgement. Magazines
are worthless. If a clerk has read a magazine and quotes the rating to
me, I immediately clarify my position to him on such an approach: don't
try that with me. I find it insulting, really, that some young punk
quotes a magazine at me. If you have not sampled it, I don't want to
hear about it. Gambero Rosso's "Italian Wines" book is always a good
guide. They are based in Italy and know Italian wine types. American
magazines are worthless for Italian wines. They don't understand them
at all.

> Yanno, it's sort of like going to the movies. A new movie comes out,
> and you haven't seen it. Will you go see it? Obviously, after you've
> seen it, you'll know whether or not you should have spent the time, but
> that is not useful information any more. Among the alternatives are the
> equivalent of Parker (reviewer comments). I may not agree with reviewer
> comments, and I think that there are some reviewers who are buffoons. I
> don't pick a film because a reviewer said "two thumbs up", nonetheless I
> find the reviews useful.

Yes. Often, the recommendation of a reviewer means that it should be
avoided at all costs.

> Theaters also host "tastings". In fact, they foist them upon the
> audience before the main feature. While it is true that any given scene
> in a movie needs to be appreciated "with food", that is, along with the
> surrounding scenes, and in the previews such scenes are taken out and
> reassembled in some other sequence. However, having seen many such
> tastings, and later, seen the entire movie "with food", I have learned
> how to correlate the two. Having done so, I find movie tastings to be
> useful too.

Not sure I find the analogy valid, Jose.
>
> > After 4 or 5 purchases, all of which
> > were substandard, I dismissed Vietti wine as
> > plonk.
>
> So you disagree with the reviewer. So you even disagree with Parker.
> So, like me, you don't revere them as gods. I don't revere Siskel and
> Ebert as gods either, but I still taste movies, and I still read
> reviews, and I still find that it's a better way to pick flicks than
> looking at the titles alone.
>
> I present to you a bottle of Domaine Chartruse Le Feet 1994. The bottle
> is somewhat short, with a pronounced shoulder. The label consists
> primarily of the name of the wine ("Chartruse Le Feet"), an indication
> that it's a blend of Cabernet, Petit Syrah, Pinot Noir, Nebbiolo, and
> Cabernet Franc, and a picture. This shows a pastoral scene showing two
> young girls in a field; there is a barrel in the field and the two girls
> are barefoot and dressed in off-white peasant clothing. One is blond,
> the other isn't. The wine comes from Monterrey from a small vintner
> neither of us has ever heard of. The bottle is dark green, and one
> presumes it's a red wine. It is sealed with a stopper of some sort, and
> there is a foil seal around the top of the bottle.
>
> Is it any good? What would you drink it with? Is it worth the $22.50
> price tag?

That's why I stick with Italian wines. I get to know the types and
producers over time. I look in Gambero Rosso's "Italian Wines" book for
guidance if I encounter something I with which I am completely
unfamiliar.