People love to talk about wine. It's been called the beverage of conversation, but with some folks it's really blather and with others it's ostentation.
Showing off your knowledge, even if it's completely inaccurate, is fun for some people. Snobs get a lot of credit for this. They toss off words like "malolactic" and "d?estage" like they invented the ideas.
A lot of what passes for wine expertise these days is a lot of bunk. Just look at the florid language of press releases, the absurd claims of winery newsletters, the meanderings of a few of my contemporaries in the wine-writing dodge. And don't get me started on bloggers or snooty waiters.
Some of this high-flown verbiage is embedded in wine reviews. Many of the phrases we see are simply gobbledegook.
Now everyone with a BlackBerry and a glass is an expert. And the euphemistic language of today's wine blogger has evolved from "great!" to "OMG!"
So pervasive is the wine chatter among social media types that everyone is now getting good at vinous verbal obfuscation. It's no longer appropriate to simply say you like a wine. Now you have to sound like an expert.
Like, "This chardonnay is just like they do it in Alsace." Or, "Chile is noted for its great malbecs."
What I recently have seen is the escalation of terms alleging greatness for wines that are expensive, and a consequent disparagement of wines of low price. This is natural. If something is $150 a bottle, it must be good, right?
Yet look at the results of many wine competitions held around the United States. Most of the judges are professionals with lots of experience, and they do not shy away from giving gold medals to inexpensive stuff.
And often the two reasons for this are 1) the wines are tasted blind and the judges do not know their prices, and 2) cheap wines are getting really good.