Events Calendar
In This Section
Most Read Stories
Fourth of July Events; fireworks, neighborhood parades
Tragic accident cause of death of BMX biker
Indians' Borowski on borrowed time
Governor will use cornhole to fund campaign
Police seek Akron man in deadly shooting
Mail Pouch signs are fading fast
Blogs:
Akron Law Café:
Exxon Saved From the Rocks: The Supreme Court Limits Punitive Damages
The Heldenfiles:
Happy Day
Balanced Ledger:
Olympics, interested?
Patrick McManamon:
Yellowstone, C.C. Sabathia, Brian Windhorst and … yes … Yellowstone
Browns Bulletin:
ESPN's Browns love-in chugs along
Cleveland Browns:
Bentley leaves minicamp
Cleveland Indians:
Spanked on Independence Day
Akron Aeros:
All Stars, Roster Moves and More!
Akron Zips:
Contemplating fall camp
Varsity Letters:
CVCA junior soccer stars Speas & Mason to play at UA
Kent State Sports:
Jarvis on Maxwell watch list
Ohio Politics:
2008 = 1972? 1976? 1992? 2000? 2004?
All Da King's Men:
Words For Independence Day
Blog of Mass Destruction:
Dependence Day
Akrocentric:
Charles Taormina discusses "Acceptance of Individual Authors," self-publishing resources
Akron Gamer:
Harmonix keeps on Rock'n
BokBluster:
Patriot Games
Ohio Travels with Betty:
Is there an American Girl store in Ohio?
Olympic Dreams - Running:
Back to Phase One
Sound Check:
Tim McGraw wows and woos Blossom
Tia's Trends:
Saks Saleswoman Accused of Stealing $1 Million
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.
