Events Calendar
In This Section
Most Read Stories
Police accuse bank robbery suspect of gobbling up note (with dashcam video)
Man found dead in North Akron home is identified
Dad accused of forcing son into field, killing him
NFL star Chris Spielman's wife loses cancer battle
Coventry man killed in crash at I-77 ramp
College student mistaken for deer, shot to death
Man allegedly paid teens to spit in his face
Angel Food Ministries helps stretch grocery dollars
Blogs:
Pets:
Cat-loving chihuahua suckles seven abandoned kittens
The Heldenfiles:
Friday Night Notebook
Patrick McManamon:
For your Saturday entertainment …
Akron Zips:
Hitchens leads Zips in second-half comeback
Tribe Matters:
Seven players added to Tribe’s 40-man roster
Cleveland Browns:
Holmgren expresses interest in Browns position
Kent State Sports:
Kent State blown out in second half, loses to Temple 13-47
Cleveland Cavaliers:
Gameblog: Cavs at Indiana Pacers – Here’s to LBJ and Free Throws
Buckeye Blogging:
OSU – Michigan college football rivals meet in Baghdad
Varsity Letters:
Bowling season starts today
All Da King's Men:
Headed For Disaster
Blog of Mass Destruction:
Will Health Care Reform Pass?
Akron Law Café:
Federal Judge Declares DOMA Unconstitutional
See Jane Style:
Vintage Chic
Car Chase:
TIME TO GET YOUR COLLECTOR CARS WINTERIZED
Let's Talk Real Estate:
Silverdome Potentially SOLD!
Ohio Travels with Betty:
George is looking for a Thanksgiving buffet in Akron.
Sound Check:
Steely Dan Plays "The Royal Scam" at E.J. Thomas Hall
HRLite House:
Colloquium at University of Akron
Akron Gamer:
Nintendo's Mario endures even as games come and go
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
