Questioning Snobbish Validity
Each week I get from the Baltimore Sun newspaper people an email that tries to entice me to read online various of their "Food & Drink" articles. This week's "newsletter" had this curious teaser in it:
A few gaffes, a lot of golds
The July announcement set the wine blogs buzzing: Charles Shaw Chardonnay, the $2 wine sold at Trader Joe's discount markets, was awarded a double-gold medal at the 2007 California State Fair. One of the most prestigious wine competitions in the country has canonized a wine whose name is synonymous with cheap — bringing into question the validity of all wine competitions.
Now, what's this bit about "bringing into question the validity of all wine competitions"?
Why, for instance, does it not bring into question the validity of opinions rendered by wine snobs?
Why, for instance, should a devoted oenophile not find pleasure in a $2-dollar bottle of Chardonnay, just because the bottle cost $2?
Or, perhaps, this little blurb tells us some things about the assumptions of the person writing the copy.
There are many things about which I'm a hopeless snob — although I can't think of any right off hand, but I'm sure I am — but I nevertheless always try to look for value, and I take particular delight in finding something of quality for a remarkably low price.* I tend to be one of those people who shares such things and exclaims: "Isn't this great? And you wouldn't believe how cheap it was!"
Perhaps, on the other hand, the writers know some truths about wine competitions that I'm not privy to.
———-
*Remind me later to explain about my Italian underwear.