Brad Ballinger

Richard Juhlin for Champagne.

Beer and gin and tonic. If I must drink wine, I'll opt for riesling or rose.

Appointments are necessary when the winery isn't staffed up to accommodate the large number of folks who would walk in wanting to taste through the wines. Also, some of them are off the beaten track, and it would be difficult to keep a tasting room staffed for an unpredictable traffic flow. Others are also small production operations, and they'd prefer to limit the amount of wine set aside for tastings. Some of them are also small operations where the person pouring the wine in the tasting room has a list of other duties he or she performs around the winery. Making an appointment allows them to devote the time to give you a good experience. For sure, stop in at Schweiger. Andy Schweiger is a great personality, not to be missed. For the Spring Mountain District, I would also add to your list Smith Madrone Winery. Stuart and Charles Smith are true charcters, and Stuart is not short on opinions at all. While you're in that area, you can also stop in at Stony Hill and see what you think of their Chardonnay.

Come clean. You just like Pahlmeyer because of the seductive properties it held in the movie Disclosure.

For oaked Chardonnay that I've actually enjoyed (as opposed to merely being not offended by), I can recommend the Qupe mentioned above (which only sees 20% new oak), as well as some from Au Bon Climat and Kongsgaard (both of which age well). And some Kistler wines with age on them approach the nut-mineral-honey that Really Nice! likes. Stony Hill is a big favorite. It sees oak, but it is neutral and not new oak. Hanzell is another favorite where most of the barrels are not new, only 20% of the wine is fermented in barrel, and only half of it undergoes malolactic. Yet another favorite is Long Vineyards, of which only half (if even that) of the oak used is new. Finally, it's been some time, but the ZD Chards are interesting -- no malo, but American oak. In my opinion, all of those are worth trying before throwing out the baby with the Chardonnay. As far as good non-Chablis Burgundy wines that see oak, that list is very, very long. The terroir and character of the wines is different than that of Chablis that one could argue an apples to oranges analogy.

I posted at the end of the thread on Phoenix/Scottsdale asking about a couple of restaurants that I enjoyed years ago. Glad to hear Vincent on Camelback is still in business, but I don't know if the quality is still high. I'm also interested in any BYO places for when I travel there in July. I know of one restaurant, Coup des Tartes, that is reported to be BYO friendly. But the rumor is if you ask a local if they know of any BYO establishments, you'll usually get a wink or a smile, but no info. I know some states and some municipalities don't allow BYO, and maybe that's the case with the Phoenix area. But I'd appreciate any information the locals may have. Thanks.

Never? You're eliminating some good Burgundies with that rule, and even a few California wines. I don't like out of balance oak in my wine either, but there are many winemakers who use oak well without overdoing it.

Regarding ettiquette, I may choose the words customer service instead. There are varying schools of thought on the issue you raise. One school is that even if there is nothing technically wrong with the wine, the restaurant should replace it anyway. But, if I were serving, I would steer you toward a different selection and not another bottle of the same wine if there was nothing wrong with it other than you simply not liking it. Another school would charge you for the wine. Another yet, would work out something in between, such as charge you for the wine with the greater cost, or give you half off, or something else. Those in the hospitality biz can add more here. If you received help from the server or sommelier in your selection, I think the restaurant is more on the hook for you not liking an otherwise non-flawed bottle than if you went it alone. The main thing, though, is that the restaurant wants you to come back (with the exception of those customers who aren't worth the hassle -- but this doesn't sound like you). Regarding the spritz. Without tasting the wine, I can't say if it was flawed or not. But, as I mentioned above, I'd be more concerned about the fermenting quality in terms of taste than a pin-prick to the texture. And, if there is an obvious mousse (equivalent to "head" when referring to beer) to what is supposed to be a still (non-sparkling) wine, then it is likely flawed.

There are a number of issues here, all lightly touched upon. 1. The waiter poured you a glass without showing you the label. Sometimes wines by the glass are poured at the bar, and you trust the establishment to pour the correct wine. But if the waiter brought the bottle to the table to pour, he should've showed you the label. Bad, bad waiter. 2. The waiter scoffed. All he did was contribute to the perception that wine isn't for everyone. He didn't use it as an oppotunity to educate, but an opportunity to condescend. Bad, bad waiter. 3. The waiter commented on smell and taste. Your issue with the wine was texture. He didn't listen to you. Bad, bad waiter. 4. The waiter said it is usually a dessert wine or after dinner wine. Now he's just being ignorant. Riesling, IMO, is one of the better food wines because of the amount of acidity the wines have. While his statement may be more true of the Riesling wines that our parents were served, it's hardly true anymore -- especially unlikely to be true of the wine you ordered. 5. The spritziness or effervescence you experienced. While Adam is correct that it can be a flaw, some German Reisling wines will have a spritzy mouthfeel. This could be the high level of acidity, the residual sugar reacting with some unspent yeast (usually a flaw as Adam describes and could be the case with this bottle if you detected a fermenting quality), or perhaps something else. Your bottle came from the Mosel region where the wines are incredibly crisp and can give the impression of spritziness. Don't be surprised if you have another Riesling at some point with a pin-pricking sensation. That may be okay. My bigger concern would be the fermenting character.

It's hard to say who is a true garagiste and who is not. The term has come to mean something different than what it first meant. If you travel in any wine region in the world, particularly in Europe, you will come across many people making wine out of their garage, or similar set up. In an overwhelming majority of these instances, the wine is sold locally and there isn't much distribution beyond that, except maybe in a wine shop or market the next town down the road. The term gained more usage when certain small producers in Bordeaux started being noticed by Robert Parker and other critics. Of course, this didn't sit well with the large chateaux, and garagiste was used as a pejorative label. But those to whom the label applied wore it as a badge of honor, and soon it was fashionable to be one. Naturally, use of the term spread outside of Bordeaux. Many of the producers in the linked article have been making wine for years and are hardly johnny-come-lately garagistes. What's next? Will the Family Wineries Tasting Room in Kenwood be renamed the Garagiste Tasting Room?

Okay, it's been 12 years since I've last been to Scottsdale, and I'll be there in July. This thread is helpful for suggestions. I've heared of Cowboy Ciao before, and plan to go. But my question is about two places I loved 12 years ago that I believe are still in business. Are they still good, or coasting on a reputation? Vincent's on Camelback. Ate here twice. Have his cookbook. RoxSand in the Biltmore Fashion Park. Well?

Actually they reflect the prices the wines fetched in the market place. Check out the book. ← John is correct here. The classification was based on price more than vineyard location, vine quality, etc. And this was in a time where there was more truth in the relationship between quality and price. Nowadays, there may be more illusion than truth. Regarding the classification in general, some wines still belong where they are. Others deserve promotions. Others deserve demotions. But the whole process is probably more obsolete than meaningful any longer.

I'd second John, and recommend opening the Leoville Barton sooner rather than later. I've not had the wine, but I've had plenty of other 1986 wines, and I've found that more often than not, the fruit has shown some weariness and the tannins have had a firm grip. I'd take a taste upon uncorking and see what you think. Some aeration may be in order to tame the tannin, but then you run the risk of the fruit fading even more. I'd probably be one to check in on it every 15 minutes or so. Don't know anything about your Languedoc wine except you can probably let it be.

That Donnafugata Chiandara is waaaay too much money for an oaky chardonnay and ansonica blend. But I'll bet GR gave it two or more bicchieri. For a far better value, and a more interesting wine, I'd steer you toward Donnafugata's Anthilla -- more ansonica, less oak. But the 2003 version is a bit fat. If you can find a 2002, you'll enjoy it.

FYI, Spadina also makes a Nero d'Avola wine labeled "Una Rosa." It will command a higher prices, come across as fuller-bodied, and may have more time in oak. I've not tasted that wine, so I can't offer much beyond that. But I wanted you to know that Spadina produces two versions of Nero d'Avola.

Probably takes about 2-3 glasses, if not bottles, of Muscadet to do the job, eh?

If by "business end," you mean the end that has contact with the wine, the green-gray color may or may not mean anything. If on the end not in contact with the wine, it means even less. I've seen with many different colors on the business end where the wine was fine. And I've seen plenty that look "perfect" and the wine was horribly corked. Some wines will have a little "bottle stink" when you first pull the cork. This usually blows off fairly quickly.

QPR = Quality to Price Ratio 2002 Spadina Nero d'Avola, Sicilia IGT. For those who like what zinfandel wines used to be before they became port-like, this is a wine to consider giving a try. Medium to dark garnet color. Delicate attractive nose of just-harvested red berry fruits, light herb, light spice, light floral, a bit of earth. In the mouth, there is bright berry fruit that turns spicy toward the finish. The wine has been lightly oaked for structure and softness, and I'm pleased to say the oak remains in the background. Tannins are a bit dusty, but the brightness and sweetness of the fruit balance the wine out nicely. Again, spicy on the finish with a slight astringency. The wine is not incredibly complex, but it is a forward, balanced wine that provides enjoyment now, particularly with whatever is on the grill. It stood up well to grilled flank steak. You should be able to find it for between $10 and $15. I purchased a case of this to be my summer grilling "house wine."

I remember the Slate article when it first came out. At the time I thought it was one of the best written pieces on any aspect of wine appreciation. I still do. I think Steinberger has a gift for writing about wine that doesn't make it seem primer-like. And he doesn't take himself or the topic too seriously.

To me, this practice (if true) does seem like a waste of wine, however small. All it is going to do is mask the odor-causing agent, not remove it. Glasses washed in iron rich water (think well water in a remote location) will retain an iron-like odor. Priming the glasses won't remove it. The glasses require rewashing. Ditto, glasses dried with an old dishtowel that end up smelling of mildew. I've experienced both of these situations. I still can't see any benefit, or even appeal, beyond the "ooh ahh" factor.

Forgive me, but white balsamic sounds like it was created in the marketing department. And the Aceto Balsamico Tradizionale di Modena of which Albiston writes is never used on salad. When it is dirzzled on veggies where the color will look much like the color of supermarket balsamic vinegars look in salads, no one really gives a damn. I'd put it in the same category as "cooking wine."

Actually, when done correctly and well, priming four glasses can be done with less than one ounce of wine, and some wouldn't even consider that a waste. My issue is not with the fact that it uses wine, but that it just seems like a stupid little practice that does little to enhance wine enjoyment. I can't imagine anyone walking out of a restaurant with the following complaint: "Can you believe it? They didn't even prime the glasses. I'm not going back."

I confess to not knowing much about the restaurant prior to reading the Sun Times review and then quickly clicking through some posts on this site, but reviews like Bruno's bother me whenever I see them. The reveiw, it could be argued, appears to be more about the reviewer than the reader -- an oversight the journalistically challenged might make. I only hope that he personally achieved whatever cathartic release he was aiming for. It would've been a better piece of journalism if it started with the paragraph that begins "Achatz is definitely on a mission." Culinary Challenged -- I'd like to think of this as a compliment one of two ways: 1) as in a web site for the culinary challenged, it could mean "if you find yourself culinary challenged, go to eGullet for help," or 2) if being culinary challenged means not being as "evolved," "enlightened," or maybe just plain jaded, as Bruno, then sign me up. Foodista -- Yes, it's meant as a pejorative. It refers to someone who is fanatic, more militantly than rabidly, about the topic of food, and is a self-appointed authority on the subject. Both terms occur before the acutal review, in the part of the piece that distracts from more than enhances the review of the experience. Perhaps the deduction of half a star was because he just couldn't see aligning himself with the foodistas of the world.

Who knew wine possessed such power as a soap residue solvent? "Hey, guys. Let's no longer take time to properly rinse, dry, and wipe the stemware free of spots from soap or hard water. Let's use wine to do it for us. Oh, better, yet: let's call it seasoning or priming the glass and really 'wow' our diners."

Yes, I do this all the time if I'm rinsing one wine out of my glass before pouring a new wine. I prefer to rinse with the new wine over rinsing with water. But that's different than priming an otherwise unadulterated glass.