Events Calendar
In This Section
Most Read Stories
Family found dead in Ohio home
Robbers order bar patrons to empty pockets
Man gets 3 years in prison for having sex with horse
Sex-toy study at Duke University raises some eyebrows
Akron man turns himself in after authorities turn up heat
Get ready for detour, delays on Route 8
Man appears alive at own funeral
Blogs:
Pets:
Not 101 Dalmations…but close!
The Heldenfiles:
Friday Notebook
Patrick McManamon:
An agent's tale
Akron Zips:
No. 1 UA soccer remains perfect, Zips football defeats rival Flashes
Tribe Matters:
Tribe makes roster moves
Cleveland Browns:
Lewis doesn't like boycott
Kent State Sports:
Kent State falls to Akron, 20-28
Cleveland Cavaliers:
Gameblog: Cavs at Knicks
Buckeye Blogging:
Weekly ‘B’ Deck Report – New Mexico St.
Varsity Letters:
Wrestling, bowling teams prepare for season
All Da King's Men:
Bigger And Better Boondoggles
Blog of Mass Destruction:
The Shooter
Akron Law Café:
NEW U.S. Supreme Court Database
See Jane Style:
Muffle Your Muffler
Car Chase:
Perfect Weather for an Autumn Drive
Let's Talk Real Estate:
RUMORS: Downtown Restaurant Explosion
Ohio Travels with Betty:
Jack is looking for a trip to Southern Ohio the week of November 16.
Sound Check:
The Black Keys to perform benefit concert at Musica on November 27
HRLite House:
Personal Rant – Why People Do Not Live in Northeast Ohio
Akron Gamer:
New 'Call of Duty' could set entertainment record
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
