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

>
> > 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?

Everyone's response has systematically moved from the points I have made.
Remember this convesation got started because I was telling you the story of
how I started lauging out loud when i heard this wine expert saying that
"This wine is clearly from the northern region of California because of its
high acidity", that is an idiotic statement,, feel free to go ahead and
believe such nonsense but you are only fooling yourselves,,, well, you may
also fool the rest of the public too,, but the few people who actually know
the science of winemaking will only look at you as fools.


>
> > 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.

I wouldnt say you are ignorant,, just misinformed.

>
> 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.)

The problem when discussing an important or controversial topic is that most
people can only remember 1 comment in the past. If you don't include the
entire dialog in a post than the thread just becomes a meaningless
utterance. It has already happened in the few posts of this thread.

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 13:44:17 GMT, "Vincent Vega"
> wrote:

>
>I wouldnt say you are ignorant,, just misinformed.

OK Vincent, here you are, suddenly appeared out of nowhere on this NG
and you begin by claiming you are the depositary of "the facts" and
the great myth-debunker.

You start your AFW career with such gems as "The whole organic wine
industry is a sham.": granted, the original post advocating organic
wines was rather pointless, but your response does nothing to improve
things (and you should know better than responding to a cross-posted
message).

If you can tell us more about all this "insanity" with more
documentation and less hype, and refrain from "Sorry,, you are wrong.
Obviously you havent had any HONEST conversations
with .... If you understood the complex reasons for ...", not to
mention "if the French did X, the French will not refrain from Y"
(gee, the same ones that bought oil are acidifying wine? amazing, you
must have some connections high up!)

A little less (gallic?) arrogance might make people take you more
seriously, for now, let's say that we are not convinced by your
"facade" and I recommend a serious "ravalement" and change of
attitude.



Mike



Mike Tommasi, Six Fours, France
email link http://www.tommasi.org/mymail

"Ian Hoare" > wrote in message
...
> Salut/Hi Vincent Vega,
>
> le/on Mon, 05 Apr 2004 00:53:37 GMT, tu disais/you said:-
>
> >> 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.
>
> With the greatest respect, Vincent, I think you'll find that it is
extremely
> rare to give the same number of max possible marks for appearance as for
> taste. The marking scheme I've seen proposed and which I use myself for
> winetastings gives 3 for appearance, 6 for nose, 8 for taste and 3
overall,
> giving 20. But it must be said that using this scheme you could
> hypothetically get a 0/20 wine. RP gives a 50-100 scale.
> >competitions but it is typical.
>
> Really?
>
again with the word games. I thought I would experience intellectual
conversation here.

"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."

"Mike Tommasi" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 13:44:17 GMT, "Vincent Vega"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >I wouldnt say you are ignorant,, just misinformed.
>
> OK Vincent, here you are, suddenly appeared out of nowhere on this NG
> and you begin by claiming you are the depositary of "the facts" and
> the great myth-debunker.
>
> You start your AFW career with such gems as "The whole organic wine
> industry is a sham.": granted, the original post advocating organic
> wines was rather pointless, but your response does nothing to improve
> things (and you should know better than responding to a cross-posted
> message).

I would be happy to discuss this further in the organic wine thread. It
would be off topic for this thread.

>
> If you can tell us more about all this "insanity" with more
> documentation and less hype, and refrain from "Sorry,, you are wrong.
> Obviously you havent had any HONEST conversations
> with .... If you understood the complex reasons for ...", not to
> mention "if the French did X, the French will not refrain from Y"
> (gee, the same ones that bought oil are acidifying wine? amazing, you
> must have some connections high up!)
>
> A little less (gallic?) arrogance might make people take you more
> seriously, for now, let's say that we are not convinced by your
> "facade" and I recommend a serious "ravalement" and change of
> attitude.
>

Feel free to be specific and point out exactly where you disagree with me
and I would be happy to respond. The generality of your insults dont hold
much weight.

As for "Honest" conversations with winemakers I would be happy to give you a
perfect example that points yet another example of the two-faced French.
Nearly every American who tours the wine region in France comes back to the
US and asks if there is sulfites in the American wines that I sell. I say
"of course there is". I am then told of their trip to France and how they
were assured by the wineries that they never use sulfites in their wines.
(the same way they dont add acid or grow Chambourcin either). Since the
French are so good at lying to Americans,, these tourist come back to the US
and make wild accusations that French wines are superior to American wines
because they dont use sulfites. Dont believe me? Contact any French winery
(as an American) and ask them if their wines contain sulfites. Dont take my
word for it.

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 15:10:17 GMT, "Vincent Vega"
> (a french company) wrote in two
subsequent paragraphs :

> The generality of your insults dont hold much weight.

> I would be happy to give you a perfect example that points yet another example of the two-faced French.

I think I will spend no more time on Mr. Vega's trollisms.

Mike

Mike Tommasi, Six Fours, France
email link http://www.tommasi.org/mymail

Do you call everyone who disagrees with your "expertise" a troll? This is
the problem with todays wine culture. It is so closed minded it cant handle
even the most basic criticisms. Its the blind leading the blind.



"Mike Tommasi" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 15:10:17 GMT, "Vincent Vega"
> > (a french company) wrote in two
> subsequent paragraphs :
>
> > The generality of your insults dont hold much weight.
>
> > I would be happy to give you a perfect example that points yet another
example of the two-faced French.
>
> I think I will spend no more time on Mr. Vega's trollisms.
>
> Mike
>
> Mike Tommasi, Six Fours, France
> email link http://www.tommasi.org/mymail

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 16:45:33 GMT, "Vincent Vega"
> wrote:

>Do you call everyone who disagrees with your "expertise" a troll? This is
>the problem with todays wine culture. It is so closed minded it cant handle
>even the most basic criticisms. Its the blind leading the blind.

Sorry, I cannot read your post, as I am blind.

But I can hear you, and you are getting troller by the minute.

Mike Tommasi, Six Fours, France
email link http://www.tommasi.org/mymail

Vincent, I am not going to argue your points either direction...just one
point on Sulfites.

When I was in France and asked at numerous wineries I was informed that
sulfites naturally appear in most grapes. They are not added. I asked the
same question in California and the same was stated.

I don't get your point on this.

When I say that I find many a french wine superior to California/Oregon I am
typically making reference to that fact that in most decent years I find
that French wines tend to be more complex, more ageworthy, longer living and
longer for aging gracefully.

I especially find that to be true of Burgs. Bordeaux most of the classified
growths.

As for Sulfites I consider that argument to be pointless. If you ask if
Sulfites are added vs. do wines contain sulfites I think the answer could
differ.

I am one that knows little about wine and therefore consider myself a novice
after 25 years of making a a life passion. I am not a winemaker...just and
enthusiast.

You can clarify if you want.
"Vincent Vega" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Tommasi" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 13:44:17 GMT, "Vincent Vega"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >I wouldnt say you are ignorant,, just misinformed.
> >
> > OK Vincent, here you are, suddenly appeared out of nowhere on this NG
> > and you begin by claiming you are the depositary of "the facts" and
> > the great myth-debunker.
> >
> > You start your AFW career with such gems as "The whole organic wine
> > industry is a sham.": granted, the original post advocating organic
> > wines was rather pointless, but your response does nothing to improve
> > things (and you should know better than responding to a cross-posted
> > message).
>
> I would be happy to discuss this further in the organic wine thread. It
> would be off topic for this thread.
>
> >
> > If you can tell us more about all this "insanity" with more
> > documentation and less hype, and refrain from "Sorry,, you are wrong.
> > Obviously you havent had any HONEST conversations
> > with .... If you understood the complex reasons for ...", not to
> > mention "if the French did X, the French will not refrain from Y"
> > (gee, the same ones that bought oil are acidifying wine? amazing, you
> > must have some connections high up!)
> >
> > A little less (gallic?) arrogance might make people take you more
> > seriously, for now, let's say that we are not convinced by your
> > "facade" and I recommend a serious "ravalement" and change of
> > attitude.
> >
>
> Feel free to be specific and point out exactly where you disagree with me
> and I would be happy to respond. The generality of your insults dont hold
> much weight.
>
> As for "Honest" conversations with winemakers I would be happy to give you
a
> perfect example that points yet another example of the two-faced French.
> Nearly every American who tours the wine region in France comes back to
the
> US and asks if there is sulfites in the American wines that I sell. I say
> "of course there is". I am then told of their trip to France and how they
> were assured by the wineries that they never use sulfites in their wines.
> (the same way they dont add acid or grow Chambourcin either). Since the
> French are so good at lying to Americans,, these tourist come back to the
US
> and make wild accusations that French wines are superior to American wines
> because they dont use sulfites. Dont believe me? Contact any French
winery
> (as an American) and ask them if their wines contain sulfites. Dont take
my
> word for it.
>
>

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

Would a wine snob know how to spell "champaign"? Would a wine snob know that
"champaign" can't be made in Pennsylvania? Would a wine snob be able to name
the maker of this "champaign" and the "award show" and international
competition where this alledgedly took place? Troll? I think so.
Bi!!

"dick" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Vincent, I am not going to argue your points either direction...just one
> point on Sulfites.
>
> When I was in France and asked at numerous wineries I was informed that
> sulfites naturally appear in most grapes. They are not added. I asked
the
> same question in California and the same was stated.

a very small residual of sulfites remain in wine due to the process of
fermentation. (less than 10 parts per million). If a winery in France or
in Cali tell you that they dont add sulphites, in 99.99% of the cases,, they
would be lying to you. A simple way to verify this is to see if the US
label says "contains sulphites". In the USA, if a wine contains more than
10ppm free SO2 than it has to be tagged "contains sulphites". Rarely will
you have a finished wine that contains more than 10ppm from naturally
occuring sulphites. You can then assume that wines tagged "contains
sulphites" have sulphites added during processing or botteling by the
winemaker.
In France, this law does not exist so the French simply tell their customers
that they dont add sulphits. After all, this is what the customer wants to
hear.

Unless a winery is going after the trendy, yup-yup organic crowed they would
definatly add sulphites. Any winemaker who cares about the quality and the
longevity of his wines will add sulphites. The additions are crucial to
quality winemaking by todays standards.




> When I say that I find many a french wine superior to California/Oregon I
am
> typically making reference to that fact that in most decent years I find
> that French wines tend to be more complex, more ageworthy, longer living
and
> longer for aging gracefully.

In my opinion west coast wines have exceeded the quality of French bordeaux.
but who cares? I have my taste and you have yours. At no time was I ever
debating US vs French wines, so I dont understand the relevance of your
comment to this thread.


> As for Sulfites I consider that argument to be pointless. If you ask if
> Sulfites are added vs. do wines contain sulfites I think the answer could
> differ.

The answer to "are sulfites are added" is yes in 99.999% of wineries.


>
> I am one that knows little about wine and therefore consider myself a
novice
> after 25 years of making a a life passion. I am not a winemaker...just
and
> enthusiast.

And I fully admint that I know very little about the names and vintages and
wineries of the world. I am sure most people in this forum know more about
these things than I do. I do however have a good comprehension of winemaking
and wine chemistry. Enough so, that I am perplexed by some of the things
that "wine enthusiast" say.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

"RV WRLee" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >In my experience, I am defining a "wine snob" as a person who pretends
to
> >know more about wine than they really do.
>
> Would a wine snob know how to spell "champaign"? Would a wine snob know
that
> "champaign" can't be made in Pennsylvania? Would a wine snob be able to
name
> the maker of this "champaign" and the "award show" and international
> competition where this alledgedly took place? Troll? I think so.

champagne

\Cham*pagne"\, n. [F. See Champaign.] A light wine, of several kinds,
originally made in the province of Champagne, in France.

Note: Champagne properly includes several kinds not only of sparkling but of
still wines; but in America the term is usually restricted to wines which
effervesce.

Only a wine snob thinks champaign can only be made in France.

In article >, Mike Tommasi
> writes:

>you are getting troller by the minute.

I might point out that while I'm sure Vincent Vega isn't a totally uncommon
name, it does happen to be the name of the John Travolta character in "Pulp
Fiction".
Dale

Dale Williams
Drop "damnspam" to reply

you think this is Travolta?

"Dale Williams" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Mike Tommasi
> > writes:
>
> >you are getting troller by the minute.
>
> I might point out that while I'm sure Vincent Vega isn't a totally
uncommon
> name, it does happen to be the name of the John Travolta character in
"Pulp
> Fiction".
> Dale
>
> Dale Williams
> Drop "damnspam" to reply

Salut/Hi Vincent Vega,

le/on Mon, 05 Apr 2004 14:58:56 GMT, tu disais/you said:-

>"Ian Hoare" > wrote in message
.. .

>again with the word games. I thought I would experience intellectual
>conversation here.

And you got what?

>"Im not playing semantics here. I am just sharing my first hand experience.

While I'm doing what?

>My point, which you seem to be missing,

No, I didn't miss it, I ignored it.

>importantly (from a marketing standpoint) by heresay, reputation, supply and
>demand and "who knows who". This is the dark secret of the wine industry."


yes you've said that at least three times. I didn't comment on this, as I
think it's ludicrous. What I commented upon was what seemed to me to be
false presumptions.

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website

>
> yes you've said that at least three times. I didn't comment on this, as I
> think it's ludicrous. What I commented upon was what seemed to me to be
> false presumptions.

Well, they only way for me to prove I am right is to do some blind wine
tasting and unfortunatly we can not do this over the internet. My
experience has been that the judging of non-flawed wines is totally
inconsistant. For this reason I am fairly convinced that I am correct. You
can choose not to believe me, you can choose to believe me or you can do
some controlled experimentation for yourself and gather your own empirical
data.

Vincent Vega wrote:

>a very small residual of sulfites remain in wine due to the process of
>fermentation. (less than 10 parts per million).
>
Here are some of the sulfides that are natural to the wine process and
you can see the ppm are even greater.

hydrogen sulfide H2S rotten egg, sewage-like 0.9-1.5
ethyl mercaptan CH3CH2SH burnt match, sulfidy, earthy 1.1-1.8
methyl mercaptan CH3SH rotten cabbage, burnt rubber 1.5
diethy sulfide CH3CH2SCH2CH3 rubbery 0.9-1.3
dimethyl sulfide CH3SCH3 canned corn, cooked cabbage, asparagus 17-25
diethyl disulfide CH3CH2SSCH2CH3 garlic, burnt rubber 3.6-4.3
dimethyl disulfide CH3SSCH3 vegetal, cabbage, onion-like at high levels
9.8-10.2
carbon disulfide CS2 sweet, ethereal, slightly green, sulfidy 5



Given this much sulfide already there, why would anyone want to add more.

40 years ago when I started drinking wine I was rather poor. The thought
of pouring out a wine
would never occur to me. I encounter problems with that good old rotten
egg smell in some of
my burgundies and that veggie smell in some of my Salinas county
California wines but being
cheap I had to overcome that. Someone told me about the old copper penny
trick of getting rid
of the smell and then later the silver spoon was even better. Never
threw one away for sulfide
smell.
Bill

"dick" > wrote in news:hNjcc.12730$yN6.4732
@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

> you think this is Travolta?
>
Actually there seem to be 2 Vincent Vegas operating on the
usenet right now. One that looks like ours hangs out at uk home
built computers and tv areas-I like Ismael and Isaac by the way-
while the other is or appears to be Italian.

I am replying way up on the food chain.

1. You can not spell.
2. You can not parse a sentance.
3. You used the word "semantics", but you probalby can not define it.
5. Using just first predicate logic, so far, you know nothing.

Rich

Hang on Vincent,

le/on Mon, 05 Apr 2004 19:51:09 GMT, tu disais/you said:-

>> When I was in France and asked at numerous wineries I was informed that
>> sulfites naturally appear in most grapes. They are not added. I asked
>> the same question in California and the same was stated.

Dickm I am pretty sure you didn't ask the right question. 99% of french
wineries use SO2 or metabisulphites to sterilise. So, technically they don't
use _sulphites_, but they use sulphur dioxide or substances releasing it.
I've NEVER in all the wineries I visited EVER heard one which claims not to
use it (unless they are genuinely not adding it. But I can only think of one
case.

>a very small residual of sulfites remain in wine due to the process of
>fermentation.

True.

>In France, this law does not exist so the French simply tell their customers
>that they dont add sulphits. After all, this is what the customer wants to
>hear.

Absolutely untrue.

>Unless a winery is going after the trendy, yup-yup organic crowed they would
>definatly add sulphites.

Agreed.

>these things than I do. I do however have a good comprehension of winemaking
>and wine chemistry. Enough so, that I am perplexed by some of the things
>that "wine enthusiast" say.

Who?


--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website

Vincent Vega wrote:


> "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."

So that's what you've been trying to say? Once again, tasting is by
definition subjective and *should* be determined by personal taste (the
alternative, after all, is to blindly parrot what someone else thinks or
says). However, that does not make the judging of wine "totally
inconsistent" as you said elsewhere. A famous case in point is Steven
Spurrier's 1976 blind tasting ("The Judgement of Paris") where the top
two wines ('73 SLV Cask 23 and '70 Ch. Montrose) received no score below
10/20 and were scored by virtually all 11 judges in the range of
14-16/20, whereas the bottom two wines in the tasting received no less
than 6 scores below 10/20. See this link for details:

http://www.liquidasset.com/tasting76.html

Blind tastings, by their very nature, will remove the influence of
heresay, reputation, etc. that you cite -- and many serious wine critics
conduct only blind tastings. However, we all recognize that it is your
own palate that must be the final arbiter of quality. At best, you
might find a critic, or fellow taster, or wine merchant, who can fairly
reliably predict your reaction to a given wine, thereby assisting your
own palate in sifting the wheat from the chaff.

Mark Lipton

> So that's what you've been trying to say?

Exactly,, I dont see what is trollish or so controversial.

Once again, tasting is by
> definition subjective and *should* be determined by personal taste (the
> alternative, after all, is to blindly parrot what someone else thinks or
> says). However, that does not make the judging of wine "totally
> inconsistent" as you said elsewhere. A famous case in point is Steven
> Spurrier's 1976 blind tasting ("The Judgement of Paris") where the top
> two wines ('73 SLV Cask 23 and '70 Ch. Montrose) received no score below
> 10/20 and were scored by virtually all 11 judges in the range of
> 14-16/20, whereas the bottom two wines in the tasting received no less
> than 6 scores below 10/20. See this link for details:
>
> http://www.liquidasset.com/tasting76.html

According to your link, The worst wine was scored higher than the best wine
by 3 seperate judges. This only reinforces my point. I once had an HONEST
conversation with a winemaker as to how he recieved Gold medals for all of
his wines. His secret was to enter every competition he could. "If your
wine isnt flawed and you enter enough competitions you are bound to recieve
a Gold medal" LOL

The other point I was trying to make that seems to be so controversial is
the comment made about Northern California wines about acidity.

"Bill" > wrote in message
...
> Vincent Vega wrote:
>
> >a very small residual of sulfites remain in wine due to the process of
> >fermentation. (less than 10 parts per million).
> >
> Here are some of the sulfides that are natural to the wine process and
> you can see the ppm are even greater.
>
> hydrogen sulfide H2S rotten egg, sewage-like 0.9-1.5
> ethyl mercaptan CH3CH2SH burnt match, sulfidy, earthy 1.1-1.8
> methyl mercaptan CH3SH rotten cabbage, burnt rubber 1.5
> diethy sulfide CH3CH2SCH2CH3 rubbery 0.9-1.3
> dimethyl sulfide CH3SCH3 canned corn, cooked cabbage, asparagus 17-25
> diethyl disulfide CH3CH2SSCH2CH3 garlic, burnt rubber 3.6-4.3
> dimethyl disulfide CH3SSCH3 vegetal, cabbage, onion-like at high levels
> 9.8-10.2
> carbon disulfide CS2 sweet, ethereal, slightly green, sulfidy 5
>
>
>
> Given this much sulfide already there, why would anyone want to add more.
>
> 40 years ago when I started drinking wine I was rather poor. The thought
> of pouring out a wine
> would never occur to me. I encounter problems with that good old rotten
> egg smell in some of
> my burgundies and that veggie smell in some of my Salinas county
> California wines but being
> cheap I had to overcome that. Someone told me about the old copper penny
> trick of getting rid
> of the smell and then later the silver spoon was even better. Never
> threw one away for sulfide
> smell.
> Bill

SO2 is what is regulated by the government. H2S and the others have non of
the same attributes of SO2.



>
>

"Ian Hoare" > wrote in message
...
> Hang on Vincent,
>
> le/on Mon, 05 Apr 2004 19:51:09 GMT, tu disais/you said:-
>
> >> When I was in France and asked at numerous wineries I was informed that
> >> sulfites naturally appear in most grapes. They are not added. I asked
> >> the same question in California and the same was stated.
>
> Dickm I am pretty sure you didn't ask the right question. 99% of french
> wineries use SO2 or metabisulphites to sterilise. So, technically they
don't
> use _sulphites_, but they use sulphur dioxide or substances releasing it.
> I've NEVER in all the wineries I visited EVER heard one which claims not
to
> use it (unless they are genuinely not adding it. But I can only think of
one
> case.

This is another myth. Thanks for pointing it out. I hear alot of
winemakers who dont like to admint (for unknown reasons) that they add SO2
directly to their wine so they claim that residual SO2 gets into their wine
by using it as a sterilizer. This is even more dubious considering the fact
that SO2 is an anti-oxidizing agent and DOES NOT STERILIZE. It is also
combined with citric acid and used as a oak barrel treatment where barrel is
filled up immediatly after the agent is discarded. When doing this they can
still claim that there is no sulfite is added to the wine,, and they are
telling the truth,, the wine is added to the sulfites. LOL.
I can believe you people claim to be wine experts and you dispute the fact
that SO2 is commonly added to ALL quality wines throughout the world. If we
cant agree on this FACT then I dont see any any education or enlightenment
can occur here.

>
> >a very small residual of sulfites remain in wine due to the process of
> >fermentation.
>
> True.
>
> >In France, this law does not exist so the French simply tell their
customers
> >that they dont add sulphits. After all, this is what the customer wants
to
> >hear.
>
> Absolutely untrue.

There is a law in France where sulphites need to be posted on the wine
label? Please show me this law so I can correct myself.

"Rich R" > wrote in message
m...
> I am replying way up on the food chain.
>
> 1. You can not spell.
agreed

> 2. You can not parse a sentance.
not when im in a rush

> 3. You used the word "semantics", but you probalby can not define it.
nah,, I know what it means

> 5. Using just first predicate logic, so far, you know nothing.
i dont know what predicate logic is

> Rich

But I have a wealth of knowledge about winemaking. Try attacking what I say
rather than attacking me as an individual.