Hello good gentles all,
The last few days have seen (in the wake of a perfectly legitimate and
courteous question from a lady wishing to learn more) rise the spectre of
wine snobbism. The possibility has been mentioned that so and so is a wine
snob - others have embraced the term with sincerety.
Of course the group is heterogenous. It contains francophils and
francophobes, cork dorks and screwcap fans. There are members from New
Zealand to Norway and beyond. Newbies come and all too often go, whether in
pain and anger, or wonder and mystfication, or, having found out that it is
preferable to get a life, they being, apparently , very useful to many
things, some of which has nothing to do with wines whatsoever.

I wanted to look into the matter. To start with, what is a snob (I know what
wine is)?
Google-san-wa anata-no tomodachi-desu as I always say - and found that the
roots that I had heard, that it was short for "sine nobilitas", i e, without
nobility (which would have meant we were ALL snobs [1]) was, in fact, false,
and that it apparently originally meant shoemaker. I am not aware of anyone
on the group having proclaimed to be a shoemaker.

A snob is, then, "a person that adopts the world-view that other people are
inherently inferior for any one of a variety of reasons including supposed
intellect, wealth, education, ancestry, etc".

Do we do that? Does anybody here consider other people "inherently inferior"
because of their taste in wines? Harsh words, dangerous grounds ... Anybody
tempted to share their thoughts?

Cheers

Nils Gustaf
[1] Except Lord St Helier of course
--
Respond to nils dot lindgren at drchips dot se

"Nils Gustaf Lindgren" > wrote in
:

> Hello good gentles all,
> The last few days have seen (in the wake of a perfectly legitimate and
> courteous question from a lady wishing to learn more) rise the spectre
> of wine snobbism. The possibility has been mentioned that so and so is
> a wine snob - others have embraced the term with sincerety.
> Of course the group is heterogenous. It contains francophils and
> francophobes, cork dorks and screwcap fans. There are members from New
> Zealand to Norway and beyond. Newbies come and all too often go,
> whether in pain and anger, or wonder and mystfication, or, having
> found out that it is preferable to get a life, they being, apparently
> , very useful to many things, some of which has nothing to do with
> wines whatsoever.
>
> I wanted to look into the matter. To start with, what is a snob (I
> know what wine is)?
> Google-san-wa anata-no tomodachi-desu as I always say - and found that
> the roots that I had heard, that it was short for "sine nobilitas", i
> e, without nobility (which would have meant we were ALL snobs [1])
> was, in fact, false, and that it apparently originally meant
> shoemaker. I am not aware of anyone on the group having proclaimed to
> be a shoemaker.
>
> A snob is, then, "a person that adopts the world-view that other
> people are inherently inferior for any one of a variety of reasons
> including supposed intellect, wealth, education, ancestry, etc".
>
> Do we do that? Does anybody here consider other people "inherently
> inferior" because of their taste in wines? Harsh words, dangerous
> grounds ... Anybody tempted to share their thoughts?
>
> Cheers
>
> Nils Gustaf
> [1] Except Lord St Helier of course

A serious post from someone who clearly views the world in a reasoned and
reflective manner. We should always strive to show such intellectual
honesty and integrity.

I can think of only one person currently posting that would seem to fit
this description. I suspect we can all recognize intolerance and
radicalism when we see it.

John

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 18:40:04 GMT, "Nils Gustaf Lindgren"
> wrote:

>Hello good gentles all,
>The last few days have seen (in the wake of a perfectly legitimate and
>courteous question from a lady wishing to learn more) rise the spectre of
>wine snobbism. The possibility has been mentioned that so and so is a wine
>snob - others have embraced the term with sincerety.
>Of course the group is heterogenous. It contains francophils and
>francophobes, cork dorks and screwcap fans. There are members from New
>Zealand to Norway and beyond. Newbies come and all too often go, whether in
>pain and anger, or wonder and mystfication, or, having found out that it is
>preferable to get a life, they being, apparently , very useful to many
>things, some of which has nothing to do with wines whatsoever.
>
>I wanted to look into the matter. To start with, what is a snob (I know what
>wine is)?
>Google-san-wa anata-no tomodachi-desu as I always say - and found that the
>roots that I had heard, that it was short for "sine nobilitas", i e, without
>nobility (which would have meant we were ALL snobs [1]) was, in fact, false,
>and that it apparently originally meant shoemaker. I am not aware of anyone
>on the group having proclaimed to be a shoemaker.
>
>A snob is, then, "a person that adopts the world-view that other people are
>inherently inferior for any one of a variety of reasons including supposed
>intellect, wealth, education, ancestry, etc".
>
>Do we do that? Does anybody here consider other people "inherently inferior"
>because of their taste in wines? Harsh words, dangerous grounds ... Anybody
>tempted to share their thoughts?
>
>Cheers
>
>Nils Gustaf
>[1] Except Lord St Helier of course

G'day Nils.

Wine snobbery in itself seems to vary depending on where the speaker
hails from, and who is doing the listening. There also seems varying
degrees of "snobbery", some quite acceptable, some pretentious clap
trap.

I do see plenty of "wine snobbery" in this Ng, most of it leaning
towards the acceptable, as the majority of wine discussions in this
forum happen to be regarding French wines, by folks I respect and
admire for their knowledge. Over the years I have learnt so much
regarding the mysteries surrounding certain appellations and the
blends used in producing them. French wines and the consumption of
them are considered "snobby" by Australians, (acceptable snobbery
however, and really only reflects the low level of knowledge of "frog
- juice" to Aussies), yet to wax lyrical about a specific patch of
dirt combined with a specific vintage in respect to a wine which we
would not even know the varietal(s) used to make it, is considered
snobbery. It becomes real wine snobbery (and perhaps prompting a
direction to the exit door...:>)) if the speaker infers his colleagues
are stupid for not knowing what the speaker had stated. Snobbery is
often claimed by those who are simply envious of the speakers
knowledge, however, the opposite can be applied, when a speaker is
talking way over the levels of knowledge of the listener(s), in a "See
how clever I am way".

Wine however is not the only topic that reveals these types of
characteristics.... it is simply a human trait.

hooroo from the "Roo"....

Nils Gustaf Lindgren wrote:
> Hello good gentles all,
> The last few days have seen (in the wake of a perfectly legitimate and
> courteous question from a lady wishing to learn more) rise the spectre of
> wine snobbism. The possibility has been mentioned that so and so is a wine
> snob - others have embraced the term with sincerety.
> Of course the group is heterogenous. It contains francophils and
> francophobes, cork dorks and screwcap fans. There are members from New
> Zealand to Norway and beyond. Newbies come and all too often go, whether in
> pain and anger, or wonder and mystfication, or, having found out that it is
> preferable to get a life, they being, apparently , very useful to many
> things, some of which has nothing to do with wines whatsoever.
>
> I wanted to look into the matter. To start with, what is a snob (I know what
> wine is)?
> Google-san-wa anata-no tomodachi-desu as I always say - and found that the
> roots that I had heard, that it was short for "sine nobilitas", i e, without
> nobility (which would have meant we were ALL snobs [1]) was, in fact, false,
> and that it apparently originally meant shoemaker. I am not aware of anyone
> on the group having proclaimed to be a shoemaker.
>
> A snob is, then, "a person that adopts the world-view that other people are
> inherently inferior for any one of a variety of reasons including supposed
> intellect, wealth, education, ancestry, etc".
>
> Do we do that? Does anybody here consider other people "inherently inferior"
> because of their taste in wines? Harsh words, dangerous grounds ... Anybody
> tempted to share their thoughts?
>
> Cheers
>
> Nils Gustaf
> [1] Except Lord St Helier of course
> --
> Respond to nils dot lindgren at drchips dot se

Nils:

I am a snob about some things, but not a wine snob. What I find
puzzling (actually distressing) is that people are being taught that
they need to 'learn' about wine. Do people need to 'learn' about
chicken? About steak? Do we gather in groups at a restaurant, to be
given tiny pieces of meat that we chew briefly and spit out, nodding to
one another, muttering about "barnyard notes"? No. then why do it with
wine? Wine is nothing but a beverage to accompany food, for the most
part. If you find a recipe and try it and like it, you make it again,
right? If you open a bottle of Prima Donna Chianto Classici Preserva
1997, and like it, what more is there to say or do? Liking or not
liking is all there is to it. You buy more if you like it, and avoid it
if you don't. It is only because Americans have grown up up in a
Puritanical society, in which allcohol is viewed as an evil, that there
is any reason to be unfamiliar with wine drinking. Europe has made wine
for millennia, and it is a natural, integral part of European life,
from Greece to England. You won't find Italians or Hungraians or
Spaniards or F________ needing to be 'educated' about wine. It's
quotidian. The contadino (peasant) drinks his daily draught when he
gets home from the fields and digs into his pasta and sausages. There's
nothing special or snobbish about it. It's just wine!

In America, we have to take a class for everything. The culture is one
of cultivated stupidity. Talking heads on infomercials tell us we need
to know more about this or that, that our health care system is
suppressing truths about natural healing (utter rubbish), that we are
ugly if we are bald (I'm bald and have no hang-ups about it), etc.
There are cooking shows and exercise shows. BLAH BLAH BLAH. People are
told everything except that they have a brain of their own, and are
capable of making their own decisions. If Jenna had been raised in
Italy, F_____, or Germany, she would have never posed the question she
did. Of course, she would never have dreamed of drinking wine "with the
girls" in the way she describes: It would be inconceivable.

You don't need to be 'educated' about wine, or visit vinyards as a
tourist. I find this puzzling behaviour. You just go to the store and
buy a few bottles. You drink them. You like them or not. The ones you
like go into your cellar again. That's all there is to it. No speeches,
essays, or "tasting notes" are necessary. Only enjoyment matters.

> Do people need to 'learn' about
> chicken? About steak?

Well, yes, actually. Ever eaten chicken made by somebody who could
stand to learn about chicken?? More to the point, cooks =do= have to
learn about spices and herbs and seasonings and accompaniments.

> then why do it with
> wine?

Because there are few kinds of chicken, a few more kinds of meat, but
lots of kinds of wine. I bet you could list a hundred different kinds
of wine from Italy alone, off the top of your head.

> It is only because Americans have grown up up in a
> Puritanical society, in which allcohol is viewed as an evil, that there
> is any reason to be unfamiliar with wine drinking.

Probably true. In Europe people learn about wine too, they just start
younger, and by the time they are of salary age, they already know
enough. Americans aren't that lucky, and we have to make up for it.

> Talking heads on infomercials tell us...

That part is all about money. We don't need makeup either, but girls
are taught (falsely) that they look ugly without them.

> People are told everything except
> that they have a brain of their own

Where's the profit in that kind of revolutionary thinking?

> You don't need to be 'educated' about wine

Well, if you already know about wine, that is true. If you don't, then
that is false.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Nils Gustaf Lindgren wrote:
> Hello good gentles all,
> The last few days have seen (in the wake of a perfectly legitimate and
> courteous question from a lady wishing to learn more) rise the spectre of
> wine snobbism. The possibility has been mentioned that so and so is a wine
> snob - others have embraced the term with sincerety.
> Of course the group is heterogenous. It contains francophils and
> francophobes, cork dorks and screwcap fans. There are members from New
> Zealand to Norway and beyond. Newbies come and all too often go, whether in
> pain and anger, or wonder and mystfication, or, having found out that it is
> preferable to get a life, they being, apparently , very useful to many
> things, some of which has nothing to do with wines whatsoever.
>
> I wanted to look into the matter. To start with, what is a snob (I know what
> wine is)?
> Google-san-wa anata-no tomodachi-desu as I always say - and found that the
> roots that I had heard, that it was short for "sine nobilitas", i e, without
> nobility (which would have meant we were ALL snobs [1]) was, in fact, false,
> and that it apparently originally meant shoemaker. I am not aware of anyone
> on the group having proclaimed to be a shoemaker.
>
> A snob is, then, "a person that adopts the world-view that other people are
> inherently inferior for any one of a variety of reasons including supposed
> intellect, wealth, education, ancestry, etc".
>
> Do we do that? Does anybody here consider other people "inherently inferior"
> because of their taste in wines? Harsh words, dangerous grounds ... Anybody
> tempted to share their thoughts?
>
> Cheers
>
> Nils Gustaf
> [1] Except Lord St Helier of course

I am relatively new to wines and this NG. What I find here is often hard
nose language when just trying to relay their feelings. I'm sure most
find the impersonal security of not facing folks as emboldening. While
only a few would be so harsh in a face to face encounter (can you see
how bar fights begin? ha). If I harden my heart and wade through the
abuse, I find good education. If I was sensitive, I'd leave. This
doesn't mean those that like to be smart-asses should continue their
abuse, but that as for most of life - ya wade through the swamp of folks
to find things that make you wiser. I have learned from the most boring
snob at a dinner party, if you just wade through it.

Good note, Nils,not sure it will make a difference, but was nice to hear
someone say it.
DAve
p.s. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure we are all snobs on some aspects of
life - for me, drivers with cell phones. Don't get me started.... haha

Jose wrote:
> > Do people need to 'learn' about
> > chicken? About steak?
>
> Well, yes, actually. Ever eaten chicken made by somebody who could
> stand to learn about chicken?? More to the point, cooks =do= have to
> learn about spices and herbs and seasonings and accompaniments.
>
> > then why do it with
> > wine?
>
> Because there are few kinds of chicken, a few more kinds of meat, but
> lots of kinds of wine. I bet you could list a hundred different kinds
> of wine from Italy alone, off the top of your head.
>
> > It is only because Americans have grown up up in a
> > Puritanical society, in which allcohol is viewed as an evil, that there
> > is any reason to be unfamiliar with wine drinking.
>
> Probably true. In Europe people learn about wine too, they just start
> younger, and by the time they are of salary age, they already know
> enough. Americans aren't that lucky, and we have to make up for it.
>
> > Talking heads on infomercials tell us...
>
> That part is all about money. We don't need makeup either, but girls
> are taught (falsely) that they look ugly without them.
>
> > People are told everything except
> > that they have a brain of their own
>
> Where's the profit in that kind of revolutionary thinking?
>
> > You don't need to be 'educated' about wine
>
> Well, if you already know about wine, that is true. If you don't, then
> that is false.

What I mean is we don't need to be 'educated' about wine, in an
elaborate, ritualized, manner. We don't need to be 'educated' about
walking, though we do need to 'learn' how to walk. We need to learn
about wine the way we learn to walk, through experience, not through
pretentious 'classes' and reviews. You didn't take a class to learn how
to walk, did you?

>
> Jose
> --
> "Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
> it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> What I mean is we don't need to be 'educated' about wine, in an
> elaborate, ritualized, manner.

I agree. And I think most folks here agree too. I also think that most
folks here are not "educating themselves in an elaborate ritualized
manner", but rather, are just having a good time with wine. You seem to
get very militant about the word "tasting", but I doubt that what people
are doing when they are tasting wine is what you make it out to be.
That girl who started this whole thing because she was surprised at how
the flavors didn't go with what she was having... she was just trying to
have some fun with the girls, and learn something at the same time. I
highly doubt that they were doing anything like what professional
tasters do.

> You didn't take a class to learn how
> to walk, did you?

I didn't. But such classes exist, and are not as fruity as they sound.
Have you heard of Alexander technique? Feldenkrais?

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"UC" > wrote in
oups.com:

>
> Nils Gustaf Lindgren wrote:
>> Hello good gentles all,
>> The last few days have seen (in the wake of a perfectly legitimate
>> and courteous question from a lady wishing to learn more) rise the
>> spectre of wine snobbism. The possibility has been mentioned that so
>> and so is a wine snob - others have embraced the term with sincerety.
>> Of course the group is heterogenous. It contains francophils and
>> francophobes, cork dorks and screwcap fans. There are members from
>> New Zealand to Norway and beyond. Newbies come and all too often go,
>> whether in pain and anger, or wonder and mystfication, or, having
>> found out that it is preferable to get a life, they being, apparently
>> , very useful to many things, some of which has nothing to do with
>> wines whatsoever.
>>
>> I wanted to look into the matter. To start with, what is a snob (I
>> know what wine is)?
>> Google-san-wa anata-no tomodachi-desu as I always say - and found
>> that the roots that I had heard, that it was short for "sine
>> nobilitas", i e, without nobility (which would have meant we were ALL
>> snobs [1]) was, in fact, false, and that it apparently originally
>> meant shoemaker. I am not aware of anyone on the group having
>> proclaimed to be a shoemaker.
>>
>> A snob is, then, "a person that adopts the world-view that other
>> people are inherently inferior for any one of a variety of reasons
>> including supposed intellect, wealth, education, ancestry, etc".
>>
>> Do we do that? Does anybody here consider other people "inherently
>> inferior" because of their taste in wines? Harsh words, dangerous
>> grounds ... Anybody tempted to share their thoughts?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Nils Gustaf
>> [1] Except Lord St Helier of course
>> --
>> Respond to nils dot lindgren at drchips dot se
>
> Nils:
>
> I am a snob about some things, but not a wine snob. What I find
> puzzling (actually distressing) is that people are being taught that
> they need to 'learn' about wine. Do people need to 'learn' about
> chicken? About steak? Do we gather in groups at a restaurant, to be
> given tiny pieces of meat that we chew briefly and spit out, nodding
> to one another, muttering about "barnyard notes"? No. then why do it
> with wine? Wine is nothing but a beverage to accompany food, for the
> most part. If you find a recipe and try it and like it, you make it
> again, right? If you open a bottle of Prima Donna Chianto Classici
> Preserva 1997, and like it, what more is there to say or do? Liking or
> not liking is all there is to it. You buy more if you like it, and
> avoid it if you don't. It is only because Americans have grown up up
> in a Puritanical society, in which allcohol is viewed as an evil, that
> there is any reason to be unfamiliar with wine drinking. Europe has
> made wine for millennia, and it is a natural, integral part of
> European life, from Greece to England. You won't find Italians or
> Hungraians or Spaniards or F________ needing to be 'educated' about
> wine. It's quotidian. The contadino (peasant) drinks his daily draught
> when he gets home from the fields and digs into his pasta and
> sausages. There's nothing special or snobbish about it. It's just
> wine!
>
> In America, we have to take a class for everything. The culture is one
> of cultivated stupidity. Talking heads on infomercials tell us we need
> to know more about this or that, that our health care system is
> suppressing truths about natural healing (utter rubbish), that we are
> ugly if we are bald (I'm bald and have no hang-ups about it), etc.
> There are cooking shows and exercise shows. BLAH BLAH BLAH. People are
> told everything except that they have a brain of their own, and are
> capable of making their own decisions. If Jenna had been raised in
> Italy, F_____, or Germany, she would have never posed the question she
> did. Of course, she would never have dreamed of drinking wine "with
> the girls" in the way she describes: It would be inconceivable.
>
> You don't need to be 'educated' about wine, or visit vinyards as a
> tourist. I find this puzzling behaviour. You just go to the store and
> buy a few bottles. You drink them. You like them or not. The ones you
> like go into your cellar again. That's all there is to it. No
> speeches, essays, or "tasting notes" are necessary. Only enjoyment
> matters.
>

Michael,

It might be wise for you to review Nils' definition carefully. I know
that is not your strength, but clearly you qualify.

Well, as much as I hate to admit it, I think UC actually has something to
say here. I am 63 and have been drinking wine for 50 years, more or less.
In my family, wine was considered a food, and paired with the food much as
the starch was paired with the vegetable and meat. It was good or not.
(there was much less choice in the "old" days. On the other hand, with lots
of choice, one needs a vocabulary to communicate the characteristics of a
find to others who enjoy wine, so they might decide if they want to try it
for themselves. This gave rise to the vocabulary that many attribute to
wine snobbishness. I don't think fluency in wine terms makes one a snob.
To me, a (wine) snob is one who would not buy a wine that one has not heard
of or hear that it was good, and would not be caught dead drinking and
enjoying a good wine that cost under $10.

And I still "taste" wines before I buy for the cellar to "drink."

John Gunn wrote:

>
> It might be wise for you to review Nils' definition carefully. I know
> that is not your strength, but clearly you qualify.

I am sure you are quite mad. I am militantly anti-wine snob. The core
of snobbery is actually ignorance. I shop for wine frequently. I see
people buying wine. I can recognize the snobs, many of whom actually
know little about wine other than what they read in the wine magazines.
The affluent ones buy stuff like Opus One, etc. They buy according to
'points' ratings. I witness it myself. I feel sorry for these chumps.
Many of the wine shops around here offer wine 'tastings'. Do I ever
attend these? No. I am opposed to the practice, and militantly so. Is
that "wine snobbery"? I think not. It's reverse snobbery, if anything.
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. I'll not be swayed by magazine reviews. I learned this the hard
way. Often, Vietti wines receive rave reviews in the wine press. Every
bottle of Vietti wine I have tried has been crap. After 4 or 5
purchases, all of which were substandard, I dismissed Vietti wine as
plonk. End of story. Who knows what 'persuasion' is used to get those
wine ratings?

Ich bin ein Winesnob (I am a wine shoemaker)

As noted in our periodic courtesy reminders:
"No one is superior (In My Humble Opinion) based on either the
simplicity or elegance of what they eat or drink. Isn't this group big
enough for someone to have Shiraz with BBQed chicken and another to
have rack of lamb with a fine Pauillac? Does it somehow offend you to
read about a meal you wouldn't eat yourself? If someone says that they
will not drink certain types of wines, don't waste your time worrying
about their opinions of those wines, listen to those that do. "

I personally enjoy posting notes from a great QPR wine like the '04
Heretiques (last night, yum) or the Pepiere Muscadet as much as a great
mature Bordeaux. But I do take exception to the idea that "all wines
are equal." If there is any point to having a wine newsgroup, it is
for people to voice opinions on wines (regardless of
price), pairings, travel, etc. That's not snobbery.

DaleW wrote:
> Ich bin ein Winesnob (I am a wine shoemaker)
>
> As noted in our periodic courtesy reminders:
> "No one is superior (In My Humble Opinion) based on either the
> simplicity or elegance of what they eat or drink. Isn't this group big
> enough for someone to have Shiraz with BBQed chicken and another to
> have rack of lamb with a fine Pauillac? Does it somehow offend you to
> read about a meal you wouldn't eat yourself? If someone says that they
> will not drink certain types of wines, don't waste your time worrying
> about their opinions of those wines, listen to those that do. "
>
> I personally enjoy posting notes from a great QPR wine like the '04
> Heretiques (last night, yum) or the Pepiere Muscadet as much as a great
> mature Bordeaux. But I do take exception to the idea that "all wines
> are equal." If there is any point to having a wine newsgroup, it is
> for people to voice opinions on wines (regardless of
> price), pairings, travel, etc. That's not snobbery.

Of course not all wines are equal. The quality of wine usually
corresponds quite closely to its price. Not always, but usually.
Speaking of my own experience with Italian wines, I have had very few
wines over $20 that were not good. I have never had a bottle over $30
that was not excellent.The most remarkable wines I have had recently
are the Avulisi Nero d'Avola by Santa Tresa ($32) and the Patriglione
by Taurino ($40) I cannot describe the flavours. I don't understand the
vocabulary, even after reading about wine for decades. All I know is
that these are big, intense, complex wines. You don't get this kind of
extraction cheap.

> 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.

> 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?

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.

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.

> 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?

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

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.

"UC" > wrote in news:1159540787.177822.121040
@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:


>>
>> No, the core of snobbery is pretention - making of something what it
>> isn't, and thinking (or portraying) yourself as superior because of it.


Unfortunately, you didn't read or recall the definition that was posted.
Like so many other times, you simply state what you want to be true.



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.

There are, of course, several ironies here. The first is that the key
writer for Gambero Rosso is an American not an Italian. The second is that
until recently he was the same person who reviewed Italian wines for Robert
Parker. The third is that Gambero Rosso has a reputation for liking
international styled wines with prominent oak rather than traditional
Italian wines.

John Gunn wrote:
> "UC" > wrote in news:1159540787.177822.121040
> @i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>
> >>
> >> No, the core of snobbery is pretention - making of something what it
> >> isn't, and thinking (or portraying) yourself as superior because of it.
>
>
> Unfortunately, you didn't read or recall the definition that was posted.
> Like so many other times, you simply state what you want to be true.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> There are, of course, several ironies here. The first is that the key
> writer for Gambero Rosso is an American not an Italian. The second is that
> until recently he was the same person who reviewed Italian wines for Robert
> Parker. The third is that Gambero Rosso has a reputation for liking
> international styled wines with prominent oak rather than traditional
> Italian wines.

I understand that this is a group of reviewers, located in Italy,
mostly of Italian birth.

Mike Tommasi > wrote in
:


>> There are, of course, several ironies here. The first is that the
>> key writer for Gambero Rosso is an American not an Italian.
>
> Oh, who's that?

Mike - I had understood that to be Thomases. I'm sure you will enlighten.
My main point was in responding to the hyperbole.



>
> > The second is that
>> until recently he was the same person who reviewed Italian wines for
>> Robert Parker. The third is that Gambero Rosso has a reputation for
>> liking international styled wines with prominent oak rather than
>> traditional Italian wines.
>
> Very true. Sad to say, it is the guide edited by Slow Food with
> Gambero Rosso...
>

Mike Tommasi wrote:
> UC wrote:
> > John Gunn wrote:
> >
> >>"UC" > wrote in news:1159540787.177822.121040
> :
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>No, the core of snobbery is pretention - making of something what it
> >>>>isn't, and thinking (or portraying) yourself as superior because of it.
> >>
> >>
> >>Unfortunately, you didn't read or recall the definition that was posted.
> >>Like so many other times, you simply state what you want to be true.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >>There are, of course, several ironies here. The first is that the key
> >>writer for Gambero Rosso is an American not an Italian. The second is that
> >>until recently he was the same person who reviewed Italian wines for Robert
> >>Parker. The third is that Gambero Rosso has a reputation for liking
> >>international styled wines with prominent oak rather than traditional
> >>Italian wines.
> >
> >
> > I understand that this is a group of reviewers, located in Italy,
> > mostly of Italian birth.
>
> Correct.
>
> The regions of Italy are split randomly between the guys at Gambero
> Rosso magazine and the guys at Slow Food.

So, what John says is false?

The work is translated into English from the Italian edition, so how
could an American be the principal writer? I'm confused. I was under
the impression that this was an Italian-based project. It is remarkably
free from snobbery, in my opinion. I don't look at it that often, but
when I am trying something out that I have not had before, I will look
at the write-ups, usually AFTER I have tried the wine, to see wht they
say. If they liked it, I make a note of that.

John Gunn wrote:
> Mike Tommasi > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>> There are, of course, several ironies here. The first is that the
>>> key writer for Gambero Rosso is an American not an Italian.
>> Oh, who's that?
>
> Mike - I had understood that to be Thomases. I'm sure you will enlighten.
> My main point was in responding to the hyperbole.

John, I believe that you are slightly mistaken here. Thomases co-edits
I Vini Veronelli with, naturally enough, Veronelli. It is Veronelli
IIRC who has the connection to Gambero Rosso.

Mark Lipton
(Patiently waiting for the latest edition of I Vini Tommasi)

Mark Lipton > wrote in
:

> John Gunn wrote:
>> Mike Tommasi > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>>> There are, of course, several ironies here. The first is that the
>>>> key writer for Gambero Rosso is an American not an Italian.
>>> Oh, who's that?
>>
>> Mike - I had understood that to be Thomases. I'm sure you will
>> enlighten. My main point was in responding to the hyperbole.
>
> John, I believe that you are slightly mistaken here. Thomases
> co-edits I Vini Veronelli with, naturally enough, Veronelli. It is
> Veronelli IIRC who has the connection to Gambero Rosso.
>
> Mark Lipton
> (Patiently waiting for the latest edition of I Vini Tommasi)
>


Yes, Thanks for the clarification. It's one of those....."I knew that"
moments.

In article .com>,
says...
>
>
>Nils Gustaf Lindgren wrote:
[SNIP[

UC,

I agree with you about many of the aspects in you statements, but differ with
some others - the extent of my agreement/disagreement is really moot, hence
the snippage.

I probably disagree, because I am both a food and a wine snob. I spend a great
deal of time tasting both food and wine, though through different techniques.
For me, both are very intertwined, though can be separated to some degree.

As for the food aspect, I narrow the consumption down to two classes: one,
eats to live, the other lives to eat. Oversimplification? Sure, but it works
for me, both with food and with wine.

Hunt

Mike Tommasi wrote:

> > So, what John says is false?
> >
> > The work is translated into English from the Italian edition, so how
> > could an American be the principal writer? I'm confused. I was under
> > the impression that this was an Italian-based project. It is remarkably
> > free from snobbery, in my opinion. I don't look at it that often, but
> > when I am trying something out that I have not had before, I will look
> > at the write-ups, usually AFTER I have tried the wine, to see wht they
> > say. If they liked it, I make a note of that.
> >
>
> I think John has it wrong on that point, the contributors are numerous
> (dozens) and I am not aware of any non-Italian in the list.
>
> But he's right about this guide being more influential in Italy and more
> international style than even Parker.

Well, I have not really tried everything in the book (heh heh heh) so I
can't say. I do like Argiolas wines (and Santadi wines), and they do
too, so on that basis I have to say we're in agreement. But I would
hardly call Argiolas' or Santadi's style 'international'. Would you?

Hunt wrote:
> In article .com>,
> says...
> >
> >
> >Nils Gustaf Lindgren wrote:
> [SNIP[
>
> UC,
>
> I agree with you about many of the aspects in you statements, but differ with
> some others - the extent of my agreement/disagreement is really moot, hence
> the snippage.
>
> I probably disagree, because I am both a food and a wine snob. I spend a great
> deal of time tasting both food and wine, though through different techniques.
> For me, both are very intertwined, though can be separated to some degree.
>
> As for the food aspect, I narrow the consumption down to two classes: one,
> eats to live, the other lives to eat. Oversimplification? Sure, but it works
> for me, both with food and with wine.
>
> Hunt

To me, saying something like this is snobbery. Suppose you have two
wine snobs talling to each other:

"Q: Have you tried the Petrus Pomerol 1998?

A: Yes. Rather nice. Bought three cases last week. The '97, of course,
is hopeless. I wouldn't serve it to my dogs."

Hello Nils,

I certainly try hard not to be snobbish when dealing with inexperienced
drinkers. "So you like Mogen David Kosher Concord? Go for it!" Of
course, it can be very tempting to try to "correct" someone if he says
that Sutter Home White Zinfandel is "the best wine I EVER tried!" But
the best you can do in that case is to recommend something more classy
that might suit his taste, like an Auslese Riesling or Moscato. That's
the best way to avoid being seen as a snob.

Dan-O

Nils Gustaf Lindgren wrote:
> Hello good gentles all,
> The last few days have seen (in the wake of a perfectly legitimate and
> courteous question from a lady wishing to learn more) rise the spectre of
> wine snobbism. The possibility has been mentioned that so and so is a wine
> snob - others have embraced the term with sincerety.
> Of course the group is heterogenous. It contains francophils and
> francophobes, cork dorks and screwcap fans. There are members from New
> Zealand to Norway and beyond. Newbies come and all too often go, whether in
> pain and anger, or wonder and mystfication, or, having found out that it is
> preferable to get a life, they being, apparently , very useful to many
> things, some of which has nothing to do with wines whatsoever.
>
> I wanted to look into the matter. To start with, what is a snob (I know what
> wine is)?
> Google-san-wa anata-no tomodachi-desu as I always say - and found that the
> roots that I had heard, that it was short for "sine nobilitas", i e, without
> nobility (which would have meant we were ALL snobs [1]) was, in fact, false,
> and that it apparently originally meant shoemaker. I am not aware of anyone
> on the group having proclaimed to be a shoemaker.
>
> A snob is, then, "a person that adopts the world-view that other people are
> inherently inferior for any one of a variety of reasons including supposed
> intellect, wealth, education, ancestry, etc".
>
> Do we do that? Does anybody here consider other people "inherently inferior"
> because of their taste in wines? Harsh words, dangerous grounds ... Anybody
> tempted to share their thoughts?
>
> Cheers
>
> Nils Gustaf
> [1] Except Lord St Helier of course
> --
> Respond to nils dot lindgren at drchips dot se

Dan The Man wrote:
> Hello Nils,
>
> I certainly try hard not to be snobbish when dealing with inexperienced
> drinkers. "So you like Mogen David Kosher Concord? Go for it!" Of
> course, it can be very tempting to try to "correct" someone if he says
> that Sutter Home White Zinfandel is "the best wine I EVER tried!" But
> the best you can do in that case is to recommend something more classy
> that might suit his taste, like an Auslese Riesling or Moscato. That's
> the best way to avoid being seen as a snob.
>
> Dan-O


Or you could simply invite them to dinner and serve something really
nice, without comment.

"DaleW" > skrev i meddelandet
oups.com...
> Ich bin ein Winesnob (I am a wine shoemaker)
>
> As noted in our periodic courtesy reminders:
> "No one is superior (In My Humble Opinion) based on either the
> simplicity or elegance of what they eat or drink.

Hear, hear!

> Does it somehow offend you to
> read about a meal you wouldn't eat yourself?

I swear I'll never mention lutfisk again! No, seriously ...

> I personally enjoy posting notes from a great QPR wine like the '04
> Heretiques (last night, yum) or the Pepiere Muscadet as much as a great
> mature Bordeaux.

And I enjoy reading them. Only thing is they make me hungry - and makes me
look in a thoughtful manner towards the wine cellar (easily seen from the
computer I use at home).

> But I do take exception to the idea that "all wines
> are equal." If there is any point to having a wine newsgroup, it is
> for people to voice opinions on wines (regardless of
> price), pairings, travel, etc. That's not snobbery.

It is an old Latin saying, de gustibus non est disputandem, taste is not to
be discussed - and a more erroneous Latin saying is hard to find. I most
certainly hope we will continue to hear opinions raised, suggestions made,
and so on. I just sincerely hope that people are not put off from the group
for reasons not always clear to me (I know why I no longer psot in the
Italian NG, and quite rarely in the French).

Xina will, I hope, soon arrive, and she will be greeted with pumpkin soup,
baked scallops, a casserole of corn and crab meat, and foie gras with an
apple gastrique. Hmmmmm - wonder what will be the main course ?

Cheers!
--
Respond to nils dot lindgren at drchips dot se
>

Hello, Nils!
You wrote on Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:57:15 GMT:
NGL> It is an old Latin saying, de gustibus non est
NGL> disputandem, taste is not to be discussed - and a more
NGL> erroneous Latin saying is hard to find. I NGL>

The interpretation of the Latin phrase can be done in several
ways :-) Many people paraphrase it as "There's no accounting for
tastes!" and I think that includes your opinion!

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not

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

You mean, like a certain poster who put down the girl who wanted to have
some fun with wine and cheese and the girls?

> I'll try something if the seller has sampled it and gives
> it high marks

You trust the seller's "tasting" over yours? I suppose you might if you
know the seller's tastes and agree with them, but if you don't know the
wine merchant, and he reccomends a wine because he himself has tried it,
how do you know he knows what he's tasting? I'd just as soon try it
myself if he has a bottle open.

Yeah, it's not going to be the same as when I'm at home with a big juicy
beefsteak, but I can identify some of the elemnts and make a judgement
as to whether I think it will work. And yanno, most of the time I've
been right, even though I'm far from a wine pro.

> 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.

That's not disdain of reviewers, or of the review process. That's just
selection of an appropriate reviewer.

> Not sure I find the [movie] analogy valid, Jose.

It's hardly airtight, but it's just an illustration, not a proof.
Samples of =anything= outside of context don't reflect the "true nature"
of the thing. But with some experience, one can extrapolate and make
valuable judgements for oneself. With more experience and some
vocabulary, one can make evaluations that will make sense to others, and
be useful to them.

Now, for somebody like me to go to a wine tasting, make a few comments
on what I might notice in a wine, write them down so I can remebmer
them, and predict how well it might do with some foods with which I am
familiar, would not be pretention. For me to go further than my ability
(for example, to the extent of DaleW's reviews) would be pretense on my
part, because I am not really able to isolate and identify the flavors
(though when told to me, I can sometimes discern them separately). It
would seem to be a useful trick, since (I would presume) a wine that has
melon notes would go well with meals which would go well with melon.
This is helpful pairing an unfamiliar wine.

> That's why I stick with Italian wines.

.... and it's why I have favored California wines. I am familiar with
them. However, I am expanding my horizons, and learning about other
wines too. It's a slow process, since I can't be drunk all the time.

Jose

--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> Or you could simply invite them to dinner and serve something really
> nice, without comment.

.... and it may well be wasted, because they aren't paying attention.
"Try this, I think you'll like it. Let me know what you think." at
least focuses the attention, so that your classy wine has a chance to
make an impression.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> It is an old Latin saying, de gustibus non est disputandem, taste is not to
> be discussed - and a more erroneous Latin saying is hard to find.

I always took it as "not to be argued with".

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
> > But those who have to put down others are actually insecure about what
> > they know.
>
> You mean, like a certain poster who put down the girl who wanted to have
> some fun with wine and cheese and the girls?

I didn't put her down. SHE said she was very dissatisfied with her
experience. I explained why. .

> > I'll try something if the seller has sampled it and gives
> > it high marks
>
> You trust the seller's "tasting" over yours?

Yes. I have no confidence that I can judge a wine apart from food. They
taste bitter and harsh. From what I have read about Italian wines, they
are SUPPOSED to taste bitter and hash apart from food.

http://wine.blogs.com/

"Before getting into the wine, though, it is important to talk about
the food. Wine is made to drink with food. Serving a relatively mild
cheese or mild olives can really enhance the tasting experience as they
will both taste good with most red and white wines. Even just crackers
or bread with olive oil will do the trick if you don't want to get too
fancy. But some wines, especially those from Europe, can be difficult
to enjoy without food."

> I suppose you might if you
> know the seller's tastes and agree with them, but if you don't know the
> wine merchant, and he reccomends a wine because he himself has tried it,
> how do you know he knows what he's tasting? I'd just as soon try it
> myself if he has a bottle open.

Sometimes it works out that way. I have established a close working
relationship with one seller in particular, whose recommendations I
trust.

> Yeah, it's not going to be the same as when I'm at home with a big juicy
> beefsteak, but I can identify some of the elemnts and make a judgement
> as to whether I think it will work. And yanno, most of the time I've
> been right, even though I'm far from a wine pro.

I don't get any pleasure from it, so I don't generally take tastes in
stores, though occasionally I do so to be polite when a distributor's
salesman happens to be in the shop and asks me to try something.

> > 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.
>
> That's not disdain of reviewers, or of the review process. That's just
> selection of an appropriate reviewer.

Yes.

> > Not sure I find the [movie] analogy valid, Jose.
>
> It's hardly airtight, but it's just an illustration, not a proof.
> Samples of =anything= outside of context don't reflect the "true nature"
> of the thing.

But a trailer of a film is not like tasting a wine without a meal. The
trailer is something made of the parts of the film; the wine is exactly
the same, in different circumstances.

> But with some experience, one can extrapolate and make
> valuable judgements for oneself. With more experience and some
> vocabulary, one can make evaluations that will make sense to others, and
> be useful to them.

Despite deacdes of reading about and drinking wine, I cannot fathom
wine review language, other than 'dry', "highly extracted", 'raisiny',
and 'elegant'. What 'vegetal' is, I have no idea. What 'earthy' is, I
have only a vague idea. I understand 'complex' and "long finish", too.
But after that, I am lost. It is my belief that wine review language
(and reviewers' taste preferences) are highly biased toward F____ wines
and Northern Italian/Tuscan wines. Sicilian and southern Italian wines,
which are so vastly different, confuse reviewers, who downgrade and
dismiss them because they are so different. I am actually not that fond
of Sangiovese-based wines. I prefer Northern and Southern
Italian/Sicilian/Sardinian wines.

> Now, for somebody like me to go to a wine tasting, make a few comments
> on what I might notice in a wine, write them down so I can remebmer
> them, and predict how well it might do with some foods with which I am
> familiar, would not be pretention. For me to go further than my ability
> (for example, to the extent of DaleW's reviews) would be pretense on my
> part, because I am not really able to isolate and identify the flavors
> (though when told to me, I can sometimes discern them separately). It
> would seem to be a useful trick, since (I would presume) a wine that has
> melon notes would go well with meals which would go well with melon.
> This is helpful pairing an unfamiliar wine.
>
> > That's why I stick with Italian wines.
>
> ... and it's why I have favored California wines. I am familiar with
> them. However, I am expanding my horizons, and learning about other
> wines too. It's a slow process, since I can't be drunk all the time.
>
> Jose

Feel free to ask me about Italian wines, any time.
>
> --
> "Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
> it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
> > Or you could simply invite them to dinner and serve something really
> > nice, without comment.
>
> ... and it may well be wasted, because they aren't paying attention.
> "Try this, I think you'll like it. Let me know what you think." at
> least focuses the attention, so that your classy wine has a chance to
> make an impression.

Well, yes, that could be included in what I meant by "without comment".
I mean without a big buildup. When I bring a bottle to someone's house,
I bring something really good. It usually prompts positive comment
without my having to say anything.

> I didn't put her down. SHE said she was very dissatisfied with her
> experience. I explained why.

Uh... you said, "It sounds like you have no clue as to what you are
doing.". Then you said, "You have NO CLUE as to what you are doing."
You followed that with "How...charmingly naive...." after which you
started shouting at her in all caps, ending with "DO YOU UNDERSTAND?"

In some circles that would be taken as a put down.

>>You trust the seller's "tasting" over yours?
>
> Yes. I have no confidence that I can judge a wine apart from food.

You might find that if you do both for a while, you will learn how to
associate what you taste (alone) in a wine with what it will taste like
with food. For example, a wine that is very tannic will probably not
taste all that "good" by itself. However, upon tasting it by itself, I
will note that it is tannic. This tells me that it probably wants some
big food to go with it - a steak for example. A wine that is not tannic
is likely to pair well with something lighter, like duck or lamb.

Similarly, if I taste a chardonnay by itself, no matter what it tastes
=like=, I can taste oak (or not), butter (or not), and these are clues
to me as to what they might pair with.

The more I do it, the better I get. You can too, if you can get over
the idea that doing so somehow betrays the idea that wine is meant for food.

> But a trailer of a film is not like tasting a wine without a meal. The
> trailer is something made of the parts of the film; the wine is exactly
> the same, in different circumstances.

The analogy can work if you consider that each individual scene is
exactly the same, but in different circumstances. The classic example
is that a smile can be made into a leer by pairing it with an
appropriate prior scene.

> Despite deacdes of reading about and drinking wine, I cannot fathom
> wine review language, other than 'dry', "highly extracted", 'raisiny',
> and 'elegant'.

Neither can I. And I don't understand some of your words, though some
of the words that don't resonate with you are in fact meaningful to me.
Earthy, for example. Perhaps it's because the wines I've had have
been different (from each other) in that respect, and the wines that you
have had have mostly been similar in that respect, so it never came out
of the background for you. But that doesn't make the use of the words
we =do= know into snobbery, or the betrayal of wine's essential nature
with food.

> Sicilian and southern Italian wines, which are so
> vastly different, confuse reviewers, who downgrade and
> dismiss them because they are so different.

So don't listen to them. That doesn't make =your= (or my) tasting of
wines into a bad thing.

> Feel free to ask me about Italian wines, any time.

I asked about Tocai Friulano. But talking about wine isn't the same as
drinking it. I'm looking forward to opening that bottle, perhaps with
eggplant as you suggested, perhaps with scallops, with which I suspect
it would also do nicely. I'll get four tries at it.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

John, as noted below Thomases didn't write for Gambero Rosso. But an
understandable mistake- GR and WA often agree on the wonders of modern
winemaking. I have pretty broad tastes, but up until last two years
the Tuscan and Piedmont sections of GR 3B have read like the de Grazia
Brotherhood of Oaky Winemaking (though Giacosa has always slipped in,
and recently both Mascarellos and Marcarini made the list). We
sometimes joke that Gambero Rosso is Italian for "More Oak! More
Vanilla! More Chocolate", and Tre Bicchieri means " Tres Oaky"

I've heard good things about the reviewers of the northern white areas
like Friuli. Usually if I think that the few Southern Italians I try
that get 3 glasses are as much the product of lumberyards as vineyards,
but that's a small sample.

Jose wrote:
> > I didn't put her down. SHE said she was very dissatisfied with her
> > experience. I explained why.
>
> Uh... you said, "It sounds like you have no clue as to what you are
> doing.". Then you said, "You have NO CLUE as to what you are doing."
> You followed that with "How...charmingly naive...." after which you
> started shouting at her in all caps, ending with "DO YOU UNDERSTAND?"

That was after her reply that she was "too tired" to cook.

> In some circles that would be taken as a put down.

My initial response was not what she wanted to hear.

> >>You trust the seller's "tasting" over yours?
> >
> > Yes. I have no confidence that I can judge a wine apart from food.
>
> You might find that if you do both for a while, you will learn how to
> associate what you taste (alone) in a wine with what it will taste like
> with food.

But I have no interest in doing it, so I won't.

> For example, a wine that is very tannic will probably not
> taste all that "good" by itself. However, upon tasting it by itself, I
> will note that it is tannic. This tells me that it probably wants some
> big food to go with it - a steak for example. A wine that is not tannic
> is likely to pair well with something lighter, like duck or lamb.

Most reds are tannic, some are highly so. No mystery what to do with
red wines (for me).

> Similarly, if I taste a chardonnay by itself, no matter what it tastes
> =like=, I can taste oak (or not), butter (or not), and these are clues
> to me as to what they might pair with.
>
> The more I do it, the better I get. You can too, if you can get over
> the idea that doing so somehow betrays the idea that wine is meant for food.
>
> > But a trailer of a film is not like tasting a wine without a meal. The
> > trailer is something made of the parts of the film; the wine is exactly
> > the same, in different circumstances.
>
> The analogy can work if you consider that each individual scene is
> exactly the same, but in different circumstances. The classic example
> is that a smile can be made into a leer by pairing it with an
> appropriate prior scene.
>
> > Despite deacdes of reading about and drinking wine, I cannot fathom
> > wine review language, other than 'dry', "highly extracted", 'raisiny',
> > and 'elegant'.
>
> Neither can I. And I don't understand some of your words, though some
> of the words that don't resonate with you are in fact meaningful to me.

'Extracted' means highly concentrated.

> Earthy, for example. Perhaps it's because the wines I've had have
> been different (from each other) in that respect, and the wines that you
> have had have mostly been similar in that respect, so it never came out
> of the background for you. But that doesn't make the use of the words
> we =do= know into snobbery, or the betrayal of wine's essential nature
> with food.

Typical "tasting notes" are largely opaque to me.

> > Sicilian and southern Italian wines, which are so
> > vastly different, confuse reviewers, who downgrade and
> > dismiss them because they are so different.
>
> So don't listen to them. That doesn't make =your= (or my) tasting of
> wines into a bad thing.

I don't follow you. My point was that the language used in the trade
has evolved largely to refer to F_____ wines and Northern Italian wines
based on Nebbiolo, and to a lesser extent Tuscan wines. Piedmont
produces wines most like F_____ ones. In addition, tasters who are
quite familiar with F_____ wines may not 'get' Sicilian wines such as
Nero d'Avola or Sardinian wines such as Carignano or Campanian wines
such as Taurasi Riserva. None of these wines tastes remotely like Pinot
Noir.

> > Feel free to ask me about Italian wines, any time.
>
> I asked about Tocai Friulano. But talking about wine isn't the same as
> drinking it. I'm looking forward to opening that bottle, perhaps with
> eggplant as you suggested, perhaps with scallops, with which I suspect
> it would also do nicely. I'll get four tries at it.

The eggplant sandwiches were a huge hit when we made them. Phenomenally
appealing!

DaleW wrote:
> John, as noted below Thomases didn't write for Gambero Rosso. But an
> understandable mistake- GR and WA often agree on the wonders of modern
> winemaking. I have pretty broad tastes, but up until last two years
> the Tuscan and Piedmont sections of GR 3B have read like the de Grazia
> Brotherhood of Oaky Winemaking (though Giacosa has always slipped in,
> and recently both Mascarellos and Marcarini made the list). We
> sometimes joke that Gambero Rosso is Italian for "More Oak! More
> Vanilla! More Chocolate", and Tre Bicchieri means " Tres Oaky"
>
> I've heard good things about the reviewers of the northern white areas
> like Friuli. Usually if I think that the few Southern Italians I try
> that get 3 glasses are as much the product of lumberyards as vineyards,
> but that's a small sample.

Interestingly, I just read the introduction to the 2004 edition, and
the editors were very specific about stating that they were penalizing
producers in scoring for using too much oak. They were very empphatic
about wanting more traditional grapes and styles, less use of
standardized methods, and planting Cabernet instead of local varities.
What they say could not be further from what you say.

In article . com>,
says...
>
>
>Jose wrote:
>> > Do people need to 'learn' about
>> > chicken? About steak?
>>
>> Well, yes, actually. Ever eaten chicken made by somebody who could
>> stand to learn about chicken?? More to the point, cooks =do= have to
>> learn about spices and herbs and seasonings and accompaniments.
>>
>> > then why do it with
>> > wine?
>>
>> Because there are few kinds of chicken, a few more kinds of meat, but
>> lots of kinds of wine. I bet you could list a hundred different kinds
>> of wine from Italy alone, off the top of your head.
>>
>> > It is only because Americans have grown up up in a
>> > Puritanical society, in which allcohol is viewed as an evil, that there
>> > is any reason to be unfamiliar with wine drinking.
>>
>> Probably true. In Europe people learn about wine too, they just start
>> younger, and by the time they are of salary age, they already know
>> enough. Americans aren't that lucky, and we have to make up for it.
>>
>> > Talking heads on infomercials tell us...
>>
>> That part is all about money. We don't need makeup either, but girls
>> are taught (falsely) that they look ugly without them.
>>
>> > People are told everything except
>> > that they have a brain of their own
>>
>> Where's the profit in that kind of revolutionary thinking?
>>
>> > You don't need to be 'educated' about wine
>>
>> Well, if you already know about wine, that is true. If you don't, then
>> that is false.
>
>What I mean is we don't need to be 'educated' about wine, in an
>elaborate, ritualized, manner. We don't need to be 'educated' about
>walking, though we do need to 'learn' how to walk. We need to learn
>about wine the way we learn to walk, through experience, not through
>pretentious 'classes' and reviews. You didn't take a class to learn how
>to walk, did you?

You are, again, partially correct. Actually, most folk would benefit from
learning how to walk properly, with good posture, and equal weighting of their
feet, plus how to chose proper shoes. But I digress from wine, which is, after
all, why we are here.

If one finds a class, a book, or a discussion "pretentious," they should walk
(properly) away from it.

One should face every day as a "student." There is far too much to be learned
to miss just one day. I feel that way about wine. I have not sampled it all. I
have not visited every wine producing region. I do not even know some of the
major producers, but I am always ready to learn - to be "educated" about wine.

Hunt

In article om>,
says...
>
>
>Hunt wrote:
>> In article .com>,
>> says...
>> >
>> >
>> >Nils Gustaf Lindgren wrote:
>> [SNIP[
>>
>> UC,
>>
>> I agree with you about many of the aspects in you statements, but differ
with
>> some others - the extent of my agreement/disagreement is really moot, hence
>> the snippage.
>>
>> I probably disagree, because I am both a food and a wine snob. I spend a
great
>> deal of time tasting both food and wine, though through different
techniques.
>> For me, both are very intertwined, though can be separated to some degree.
>>
>> As for the food aspect, I narrow the consumption down to two classes: one,
>> eats to live, the other lives to eat. Oversimplification? Sure, but it
works
>> for me, both with food and with wine.
>>
>> Hunt
>
>To me, saying something like this is snobbery. Suppose you have two
>wine snobs talling to each other:
>
>"Q: Have you tried the Petrus Pomerol 1998?
>
>A: Yes. Rather nice. Bought three cases last week. The '97, of course,
>is hopeless. I wouldn't serve it to my dogs."

I'm sorry, but your allusion is lost on me here. After all, I have already
admitted to being both a wine and a food snob. Now, if you are refering to
pomposity, I try to shy away from that, though might not always be successful,
but I am learning...

Hunt

In article >, nils.
says...

[SNIP]
>
>Xina will, I hope, soon arrive, and she will be greeted with pumpkin soup,
>baked scallops, a casserole of corn and crab meat, and foie gras with an
>apple gastrique. Hmmmmm - wonder what will be the main course ?
>
>Cheers!

Uh, lutfish? Seriously, it sounds like a great start to the evening. Only
problem that is see is pairing the wines: soup=PN, scallops=SB, corn&crab=
Chard, or maybe a white Meritage (not the actual "Meritage" necessarily, but a
nice blend), then the foi gras w/ apple, hm-m, maybe a Muscat de Beaun de
Venise, or a TBA Riesling? Lotta' possibilities. BTW, how will the lutfish be
prepared?

Hunt