Events Calendar
In This Section
Most Read Stories
Akron judge Linda Kersker dies
DiLullo's closes doors after 63 years
Portage man beaten at home, robbed of coins
Akron police arrest murder suspect within an hour
Call center to cut 250 jobs in Akron
Rib, White and Blue is festival of tastes
Man fit for trial in rape of girl, 2
Powerful sedative found in Michael Jackson's home
Blogs:
Pets:
Summit teams up with Rescue Waggin' to save dogs
The Heldenfiles:
I Hate "More To Love"
Patrick McManamon:
Ron Artest goes to the Lakers
Akron Zips:
Opponent outlook: Northern Illinois
Browns Bulletin:
Single-game ticket sales begin July 11
Tribe Matters:
Tribe needs to slow down opponents
Cleveland Browns:
Stallworth test showed marijuana
Kent State Sports:
Men's Basketball Scheduling update
Cleveland Cavaliers:
Updated: Free Agency: Another Gone - Apparently
All Da King's Men:
IPCC Already Wrong About Global Warming
Blog of Mass Destruction:
Wow….Sarah Palin Resigns Governorship
Akron Law Café:
Abraham Lincoln and the Fourth of July
Varsity Letters:
Highland senior receives honor
See Jane Style:
Picnic Wear
Car Chase:
Where do We Go from Here?
Let's Talk Real Estate:
Hate Crime in Fort Worth Texas: "That F***t had it Coming"
Ohio Travels with Betty:
Linda asks-where is the Ohio Chautauqua?
Sound Check:
Rundgren fans rejoice!: Second night of AWATS at The Civic added
HRLite House:
Sport Psychology and Performance Consulting
Akron Gamer:
Hot link: Best of Nintendo at E3
Published on Thursday, May 15, 2008
The following editorial appeared in the Boston Globe recently:
Wine snobbery can be a funny and foolish pose. The affectations of wine critics' prose, with their evocations of plummy jam and cigar-scented finish, are silly enough to alienate anyone who appreciates clear writing.
Equally preposterous, however, is the attitude of the radical debunker who insists there is no difference between a lovingly cellared 1978 Chambertin and the latest shipment of ''Three-Buck Chuck'' at Trader Joe's.
The enmity between connoisseurs and casual imbibers has reignited because of two recent experiments: one suggesting that high-priced wines are no better than plonk, the other showing that wine drinkers are easily brainwashed to believe a higher price means more quality.
A recent book entitled The Wine Trials describes a blind tasting in which 500 volunteers sampled 540 wines priced from $1.50 to $150. A scoring system based on just four grades produced higher overall ratings for many cheap wines than for pricier ones. But when seasoned oenophiles were culled from the larger herd of tasters, they predictably gave higher ratings to the more expensive bottles, highlighting a crucial flaw in the exercise: People without a certain amount of experience tasting wines are unlikely to have developed a scale of sensory values for the taste and smell of good wine.
In another experiment, researchers from Stanford and Caltech simply lied about the price of a $5 bottle and a $90 one. The drinkers liked the $5 wine more when they thought it cost $45, and they liked the $90 wine less when believing it sold for $10.
These exercises in demystification may say something about the gullibility of American consumers. And if they help subvert the hyperbole of wine writing, that is to be cheered. But no laboratory experiment can devalue the pleasure of drinking a properly aged Musigny in the company of friends.
The following editorial appeared in the Boston Globe recently:
Get the full article here.
Comments
Click here to post your comments
