Tonyfinch

Scott,do you have the address and phone no.?

Cabrales,if you're interested in fine wine tastings,a friend and I are organizing some on the lines of a now defunct wine club that both Magnolia and I belonged to.Our first tasting is good Aussie shiraz and is on April 20th at my flat in Wapping.Magnolia will be there.If you're interested please e-mail me:tfinchy@hotmail.com and I'll supply more details.That goes for any other e-gulleter in London.

Well that's my dose of schaudenfreude(sp?) for the day then.

Maybe the question is,apart from restaurant with Michelin aspirations,do we need every other restaurant tying up capital in a cellar which results in a list like a book,when a couple of well chosen wines in a few broad categoies would suit 99% of diners perfectly well? But this is probably a topic for another thread.

The Trimbach Riesling Reserve 1995 is available for £125 a case from Gauntleys.Admittedly this is an ex.tax price but even if it cost the restaurant,say £14 per bottle that's still a 400%+ mark up. We appear to shrug our shoulders resignedly at these mark ups,tutting but paying up nevertheless.But other countries don't charge them.Why not?

No other single product in the field of gastronomy has been branded and marketed as successfully as champagne.Its fantastically skillful presentation as a "luxury product" means that people are still prepared to pay way over the odds for dross wine and still beam as they drink because they are "drinking champagne". Some champagnes ARE worth plenty of ageing.The best take on all kinds of rich,toasty,patisserie shop aromas and tastes and can be wonderful at 20 years old if properly stored. The difficulty is knowing which champagnes are worth ageing because most are certainly not.A reliable guide is essential here,and deep pockets because probably only the best wines from the best vintages will be worth it.

There may be theives everywhere but I don't know anywhere where they operate with such impunity as Barcelona. Last year,after spending two days on the beach I could identify 4 theives working the beach without a care.Their method was to approach lone sunbathers who appeared to be asleep and steal their stuff.If one woke up they pretended to be collecting for rent of the sunloungers.If challenged they would pretend outrage,swear and make off,disappearing only for the time it took to see whether one could be bothered to call the police.They were soon back in full view of everyone. At no time did I see a single policeman patrolling the beach/marina area.If a tourist like me could ID theives after 2 days,would it be beyond the wit of the city police to know who they were? Or do the police have another agenda?

Ther are some truly fine cheese stalls at Borough Market

I completely agree with Adam about Waitrose.Where supermarkets do score is at the lower end of the market where their superior buying power enables them to purchase large quantities at prices which independent merchants find hard to match. There was one year when Safeway's buyers bought up some enormous percentage of the excellent Turkheim Co-operative's product and was able to offer it at far less than anyone else. Now that cheaper wine is infinitely more drinkable than it used to be,I would still look to supermarkets for most sub £6.50 stuff, plus cheaper champagnes and fortified wines.

I don't detect too much of a WOW factor in your account.You call it a "good " meal,but at the prices charged (you don't say what the food cost but I'm sure it was expensive) aren't we looking for more than "good"? Also,a 70 minute wait to receive your starter is totally unacceptable in my opinion.The fact that you didn't happen to mind is not really the point,unless you've agreed that such a wait is acceptable.The food,as you,ve described it,sounds lovely but its the totality of the experience that makes a meal out in a restaurant so special and the tone of your report indicates that you were a little disappointed-unless I'm reading it wrong.

That's because New York is the only city in the West where everybody is Jewish.....whether they're Jewish or not.

There's an article in today's (Friday Feb.15th) The Guardian(UK) about dog cuisine in Korea vizthis Summer's World Cup(football,not"soccer",that is.) When the reporter protests that we (ie "the West) don't eat dog because they're"cute" and have a "personality" the Korean dog gourmet replies that that's because dogs want to "fool" us into disbelieving how good they are to eat. Bit of a culture clash there ,no?

BBR are good merchants but their wines are nearly always more expensive than the same wines purchased elsewhere.Having said that they are in Central London and you do get that good ol'fashioned personal service,so maybe its worth it to you to pay the extra.In the same street of course is Justerini & Brooks-similar type of merchant.It might be interesting to compare what they have to offer.

Bux,why do you find online post reviews so rarely worth believing?

By " places" do you mean wine bars or do you mean wine shops and merchants? I'd strongly advise you to purchase the wines and carry out your tastings at home.Apart from the much cheaper cost you'll have complete control over atmosphere,timing,what foods to try with the wines etc. If you really want to do this in a wine bar in Central London I'd suggest a discussion with Don Hewitson,the owner of The Cork and Bottle in Leicester Square, who is well known for being passionately caring about the wines he serves.

I don't have a list but one book changed my life.In the late 70's I was living alone and on junk foods and take aways.After being poisoned by a dodgy kebab I decided I ought to learn to cook for myself.I went out and bought several cookbooks,more or less at random.One of them was "An Invitation to Indian Cooking" by Madhur Jaffrey.This book is actually an idiot's introduction,but is never patronising or arrogant.Whereas Child et al's "Mastering the Art of French Cooking" terrified me even to read it, Jaffrey's book was just what I needed. I invested modestly in a spice grinder and blender and all the fresh whole spices and lo-my life was transformed as I cooked my way through this book,filling my grotty flat with the wonderful aroma of roasting spices and producing gorgeous,exotic food for myself and my (suddenly growing number of )friends.The recipes were simple to follow,non technical and produced enough to last to the next day,when it would be even better. This book is still available and I still sometimes use it.It never fails to take me back to that time and the recipes are still delicious.

Macrosan,if you think the main purpose of these ...er let's say "debates" is to get those who disagree with each other to alter their positions then you have a very,let's say optimistic view of the purpose of debating. But you're right it is becoming like the other thread and I've got nothing more to say on the subject so I'm butting out. TCD,I think Steve P. might give you a debate on your assertion "No-one is right or wrong about wine,its all a matter of taste" Enjoy,hic,cheers.

Steve ,you keep asking "is it Parker's fault if........" I am not "blaming" Parker personally for anything.He has seen a niche in the wine world and taken brilliant advantage by virtue of a simple idea. My beef is with "Parkerism",the growing cult of Parker and what the numerical quantifying and rank ordering of wine says about the way we view the subject and,ultimately,all fields of human taste. And I've said all I'm gonna say on that. You keep saying Parker's opinions on wines are almost always "correct" and that THAT's why he's popular.But it follows that in order for punters to know whether Parker is or is not correct,they would have to a) taste as much and as widely as Parker does b) have as refined a palate,or whatever it is he's supposed to have c)be able to arrive at quantified judgements in degrees of one fiftieth like him. Actually most punters have no idea whatsoever whether he is actually correct or not and never will have.What they are doing is PUTTING THEIR FAITH in him.They are FOLLOWING him-not because they know he's "right" but because they want the wine world simplified for them. You might say-"so what? nothing wrong with that" but when someone purport to have "the answers" and others begin to agree because its easy to do so, I worry.....

I'm not sure I agree with your caricature of the wine trade before Parker as being primarily concerned with palming off the consumer with crap. Sure it must happen but some of the more 'enlightened' chains and merchants in the UK,at least, were always quality driven. Let's assume we're in one of the latter.To the ordinary consumer who's not up on wine do you really think the words "Parker-85" imparts more information than,say,"rasberry fruit,medium dry with soft brown sugar finish.Not for keeping."? For the former to be more useful than the latter you'd have to a) know who the hell Parker was in the first place b) know what "85" in this context might mean-including knowing that the scale began at 50 and went to 100. c)accept Parker's judgement as definitive,although you yourself have no way of knowing whether he's right or wrong . I strongly contend that the words are much more helpful and make it much easier for the punter to decide whether that wine meets the needs he requires at the time.

Sorry,didn't mean to re post that whole quote.I don't know how that happened.

"Most people like the numerical scores.In fact I would prefer hardly any text at all" To me THAT'S the nub of the problem.Parker was not the first to try to give the consumer a way of understanding the world wine.Wine writing and wine criticism has a long and (generally) honourable history.He wasn't even the first to use a rating system. His "genius" is not that his palate is so more attuned than any other wine expert(it may or may not be-I'm still not sure what evidence you could produce to "prove" it),but that he realized that by giving every wine a number he could maybe,one day,dispense altogether with those inconvenient and confusing things called "words" and "opinions" and that every wine will simply be known as a "91" or a "78". I know he himself does not do that yet but some wine shops do (Parker-90) is a common shelf tag in several wine shops I've been into. If I was a wine I'd want to shout "I am not a number.I am a FREE WINE" At the end of the day I just think the world is better understood through words and not numbers.

How my family name came to be changed from Solomon to Finch is a long story-and probably more interesting than this discussion. You keep insisting that the only thing that matters is "evidence" that Parker's palate "right" or "wrong" and that no other criticisms are legitimate. It is an unanswerable question. What "evidence" COULD there be? If I said the '86 Cos is not a 95 point wine but a 91 point wine you could say "No it isn't!" What "evidence" could I produce to persuade/convince you otherwise? Also you appear to think that you are some kind of arbiter on what does/doesn't constitute legitimate concerns . Why is it not legitimate to question the desireability of Parker's power in the industry? Why is it not legitimate to question the validity of his 50-100 point system? Why is it not legitimate to desireability of quantifying all wine in numerical rank order? Why is it not legitimate to ask whether we should be looking at matters of taste in terms of hierarchies. I think these are all important matters that should be discussed. I don't disrespect you for defending Parker but I do disrespect you for sneering at my points("I should compile a book called Poor Internet Arguments") and for persistently suggesting that they are motivated by bitterness,envy and that I am someone with "an axe to grind". Having said that,I don't take any of this TOO seriously and I'm looking forward to raising a glass with you(although it probably won't be Parker rated) on Wednesday.

Steve K.,I think my objections to the system boil down to the deliberate blurring of the distinction between opinion and fact.Most rating systems,be they about wine or opera or whatever don't have a pseudo-scientific basis which a 50 point scale confers.When a reviewer awards 3 stars out of 5 or whatever there is no real attempt to disguise the fact that this is anything other than an opinion,and a rough and ready guide to quality.I think Parker's scale is an attempt to create a factual hierarchy which relies for its credibility on the highly questionable fact that the expertise to do it is so refined and skillful that 99% of the public (Steve P. excepted of course) will never be in a position to readily disagree. Steve P,my views have nothing to with bitterness and envy.I have no vested interest whatsoever in the food or wine world and I do not earn a living from it.I am a punter pure and simple and a piss artist who takes a bit of interest in what he drinks.But I have got a fine Jewish nose for bullshit detection and Parker's scoring system reeks of it to me And by the way Parker thinks the Cos is drinking now. And since he is "right" you must be "wrong".(Actually maybe you were both right and wrong,but I get the impression that's a road you don't feel very comfortable going down).