Dang. Second post. We should just close this thread now.
So, snobs are pretty common, right, whereas connoisseurs are a lot rarer?
Does that mean if you disdain snobs, you’re a snob snob?
I think the distinctions drawn in the first few posts are pretty cogent. I disagree with lissener: I think that accusations of snobbery are pretty often accurate. And I say that as someone who’s embraced his snobbery in a few different areas. (Second edition D&D? Gross, dude!)
Daniel
I think being a connoisseur isn’t just about liking what you like. It’s about appreciating elements and fine distinctions that the non-conoisseur either doesn’t appreciate or wouldn’t even notice.
I like Bass Ale. I like the pumpkin beer that one local microbrewery has in the autumn. I don’t like the beer at another local microbrewery. really dislike Guinness. I think Coors tastes like pee, but I love Rolling Rock. I like Sam Adams. I like Yuengling. I like a Corona with lime on a hot summer day.
I’m not a beer connoisseur. I don’t appreciate the subtle elements in these beers. I like what I like, but it’s not based on anything more than “yummy” or “not yummy.” A beer conoisseur would have something more to say about a beer than “another please” or “ewww!”
You misunderstand me. I think it’s perfectly valid to judge certain works as being “better” than others. That’s not snobbery; that’s discernment.
I define the word “snobbery” as having connotations of pretension; dishonesty. Pretending that you have discerning taste, while in actuality only pretending to like what you think you’re *supposed * to like.
To expand: I think it’s valid to judge one work as “better”–i.e., more artistically successful–than another. But a non-snob understands that that’s a subjective judgment. A snob judges others by whether they agree with his subjective judgment.
To me, “connoisseur” implies an open mind about the subject. They like what they like, and they like you liking what you like about what you like. 
A true connoisseur is open to finding new ways to enjoy their desire, a snob is a close minded one track master. To give a board example, I find **Silenus ** to be a brown liquor connoisseur. In the endless Scotch/Whiskey/Bourbon threads, he has an informed opinion about the subject, but tries new versions of his passions based off of others reccomendations and tries to see what others see in their explorations. He’s happy finding joy in a down label booze (Old Weller) and doesn’t limit himself to any kind of party line when it comes to what he likes or advises. Each thing is to be considered based only on it’s individual merits.
And if the proceeding isn’t explanation enough, thanks for the Old Weller idea Silenus.
I agree. I like great movies, of course; most movies that have stood the test of time have earned their status (with exceptions, like *Gone with the Wind * and High Noon), but I also like “slumming.” I like discovering movies that have always been written off as bad by the cognoscenti, and “kept down” by snobs who let others tell them what to like, like the films of Douglas Sirk, and Ishtar, and Made in Heaven, and Showgirls. I like to think that if I were a “snob”–according to my definition, and apparently also according to Clurican’s–then I’d take the badness of those movies as dogma, and wouldn’t have been open to judging them on their own merits.
Both traditionally and etymologically, a ‘connoisseur’ is simply one who has detailed knowledge about the subject, enough to make a judgement on it. They don’t necessarily have to enjoy it, but the assumption is that they do (otherwise why devote so much time and energy?).
Green Bean’s illustration shows that one can appreciate something and show some discernment without being a connoisseur.