Is there a difference? Does only liking rare and expensive thing make you a snob?
A connoisseur appreciates the fine fillet, while admitting that a Quarter Pounder with Cheese makes a mighty fine midnight meal.
A snob won’t, and will tear you down for deigning to profess a fondness for Quarter Pounders with Cheese.
Put another way, a connoisseur likes what he likes, a snob hates what you like.
I’d say the difference is in what you think of people who have different tastes than you do. If you think people who like common and inexpensive things are somehow inferior to those who like rare and expensive things, you’re a snob.
I think the question of why you like rare and expensive things comes into it, too. If you like some things which happen to be rare and expensive, you’re not a snob. But if you assume that A must be better than B just because A is rarer or more expensive than B, you’re a snob.
Thanks for clearing that up.
As Why Not noted, being a connoisseur is about appreciating the finer things; being a snob is about disdaining the less-fine things.
It takes some knowledge, experience, or discernment to be a connoisseur. Anyone can be a snob.
What about a person who disdain others for liking rare and expensive things. Would that make that person a snob?
No, it makes you a red neck.
That was very well put.
No, that’s a Marxist.
I’d call them a reverse snob.
That would be a bons?
This makes one a “player hater sucking down haterade.”
lol 
Actually, most of the “reverse snobs” I’ve encountered tend to be anti-intellectual pseudopopulists. You see this a lot on Netflix customer reviews. “The only people who like The Convolutions are coffee-house going black turtleneck wearing pretentious geeks.” Immediately followed by “If you couldn’t see how great The Convolutions is you should go back to your Steven Seagal movies, you Cheeto eating moron!”
Yes. But “snob” is almost always in the eye of the snubbed: an accusation of snobbery is accurate one in a hundred times; otherwise, it’s always an unintentional admission of defensiveness on the part of the accuser. In other words, the idea of classes of quality is almost always more real to the person who accuses others of snobbery: that’s the person who distinguishes high art from low art.
However, if you just like what you like, whether it also happens to be rare and expensive should be irrelevant. Unfortunately, people who defensively feel themselves left out will point out any such coincidence and call it snobbery.
Ironically, around here, the more enthusiastic you are about explaining *why *you like or dislike something is more likely to get you labeled a snob. THAT is something I’ll never understand.
I mean, in strong contrast to other Forums here (notably GQ and GD), here in CS, attempts to seriously discuss an artistic opinion tends to get shouted down by cries of “elitist!” and “snob!”
It’s oddly Colbertian: in this forum, unlike the others, the gut is king, and the brain is the redheaded stepchild. There’s a bewildering culture of anti-intellectualism in Cafe Society, and accusations of snobbery are how it’s enforced.
Karl Marx would disagree with you.
Looking back at my younger self, 25 years ago, I realize I was a snob. I bought stuff for brand name alone, showed disdain for outlets and people who shopped there (and wore a black turle neck, and was a film student [failed]). Nowadays I see that there is a certain correlation between price and quality, for some goods.
I like cognac. But the cheapo stuff, even ‘real’ Cognac, properly labeled, is only fit to use as lighter fluid. I don’t have the means to drink the expensive stuff very often. When it’s starting @ $75 a bottle, it’s beyond my paycheck, but I can appreciate the difference.
I would also like a properly chilled Sauterne with my Creme Caramel.
I think that the double cheese burger is the best sandwich McD ever made. It’s simple, straight forward and blissfully free of burger nonsense.
These days, I read what engulfs (engulves?) me, see the movies that entertain me and eat whatever damn food I like. I have claret with fish and when it’s hot, I add a couple of ice cubes.
My younger self would be horrfied at so many breaches of good taste.
According to this, I will have to stop calling myself a 'Vodka Snob", and call myself a conn… a conne… (reads thread title) connoisseur.
I enjoy the occasional Vodka shot, neat. I prefer Stoli. A lot of my club going aquiantences rave on and on about Grey Goose.
Grey Goose is WAY down on my scale of decent vodkas. I was given 2 bottles by a friend, and I’m using one as disinfectant for my brewing equipment. I open the bottle and I can smell the ethanol… it tastes chemically (to me) and shoots like swallowing broken glass.
Stoli has little smell, a smooth mouth feel and I get an almost pleasant, non grating burn upon swallowing.
I have had people tell me that I’m wrong, because GG is so expensive, it can’t possibly be worse than Stoli. I smile, shake my head, and inform them that since it’s a matter of personal taste, they can go F themselves.
Well, again, you’ve laid out the difference between a connoisseur and a snob: a snob drinks Grey Goose, even if they don’t like it, because they’re *supposed * to like it. Frinstance, you’re *supposed * to like Absolut, because it has the most successful ad campaign in marketing history. But every time a friend insists they like Absolut, I make them do a blind taste test. So far, 100% of the time, they pick Ketel One or Stoli over Absolut. Because Absolut sucks.
Note to self:
- Cultivate lissener’s acquaintance.
- Insistently express a preference for Absolut vodka.
- Lissener buys me drinks!
- PROF-- errr, FREE DRINKS!