Brad Ballinger

It might lose a little something in translation for me. Than you, I'll be here all week.

Aside from the Banyuls, what have you done on the fortified front? My guess is you probably don't want to go that route if this is a transition course and not the end of the meal, but I'm curious what you think. If you don't want to pursue that direction, perhaps a Verduzzo Friulano. Also, I have a note below on an Alsatian Gewurz VT that seemed to be a "bridge" wine. Here's the note copied and pasted...

The cynic in me says he's doing this just for the pub. Parker is largely responsible for putting him on the map. As long as Parker continues to like the wines, why should he care what anyone else thinks?

Dry Marsala for cooking. Sweet Marsala for baking.

Try a nice piece of aged Parmigiano Reggiano with some really high quality aged Balsamic vinegar (old enough to be really viscous and concentrated - I use a 20 year old) drizzled on it. :wub: This is truly one of the most delicious things EVER. Yes, tru aceto balsamico di modena (the stuff certified by the consorzio produttori) on reggiano is hard to beat. For a wine (whether or not balsamico is in the picture) I like Amarone. I also like Amarone with gorgonzola. But I'm simply gaga over explorateur and Champagne.

I haven't read the Trib piece, but to answer the question at the title of this thread is such a no-brainer -- Milwaukee. But I have to invoke a caveat here: IF the food from the old County Stadium is the same stuff being served at Miller Park. The food at old County was head and shoulders above any other ballpark food.

International wine exports from California jumped 29 percent by volume last year to 96 million gallons, the largest increase since 1990, as sales got a boost from the weaker dollar and growing demand overseas for modestly priced California Chardonnay and Cabernet Sauvignon.

Same way you'd thicken gravy itself. Use a roux. Mix equal parts flour and butter (oil or crisco if you prefer) and brown in a little pan. Lighter colored rouxs give you thicker gravies and sauces. A roux is equal parts butter and flour? Who knew? Apparently everyone but me To be utterly technical, a roux is the cooked version. The uncooked version of equal parts butter and flour, uncooked, is a beurre manie. another way to thicken the sauce in stews that doesn't resort to rouxs or slurries (or reduction, if reducing too much will make the sauce bitter), is to take out some of the vegetables (you may wish to add a few more to begin with), puree them in a blender, then add the puree back into the stew.

I'm cynical/skeptical, and think the spiral will continue. The Food Network is not for the food geeks who are registered on this site. It's entertainment for the masses. When it first started out years ago, it was more "geeky," in that there were actually shows on how to cook. But people want to be entertained. And few shows on any network can do a good job of entertaining those who only want that and educating those who only want that -- all in the same show. The Food Network isn't competing against cooking shows on PBS; it's competing against MTV, VH1, Queer Eye, Tradig Spaces, Designer's Challenge, The Apprentice, etc.

Thanks for the thought of the eCGI link. I have to keep remembering that part of the site (I really should know better). It had the information I needed. My post was to ask about what kind of potato for a boiling potato, not how do you like to cook boiled potatoes. The main thing I can tell that distinguishes a boiling potato is thin skin and higher starch.

A little bretty, yes. But not flawed. Just because a wine smells poopy doesn't mean it's afflicted with brett. There was no adverse brett character in the mouth. Beaucastel is been a point of controversy with respect to brett -- is there any or isn't there. But a very general opinion is that while there may be a little bit that somemay detect, it doesn't affect the integrity of the overall wine. The 1991 vintage of this wines was flawed. By 1992 it was apparent that although not completely rid of brett, it was no longer flawing the wines.

You really don't see potatoes labeled "boiling potatoes" in the supermarkets. When you come across a recipe that calls for them, what do you use. Yukon Golds?

I'm generally conflicted when reading stories like this one. One the one hand... It's great that efforts like the ones mentioned in the article will get more people drinking wine (always a good thing IMO). In the U.S. (the audience for whom this piece was written), wine is so much not a part of this culture. And I feel our culture lacks a little because of that. So, on this one hand I'm all for accessibility and demystificantion. But on the other hand... I'm worried about the purely business-driven implications. If strategies like the ones mentioned in the article prove themselves to be successful over time, I have this fear (irrational or not) that retailers will switch over to this business model, that producers will as well, that other parts of the industry will follow suit. Taken a step further, my irrational fear has me gaining less access to the wines that are a step up in quality from McWine, that they will cost more, that less of it will be made, and that wine will eventually go the way of the restaurant in this franchise/chain age -- more commercial, formulaic, pandering to what's safe, dumbing it down, etc. If my irrational fears become reality, it will be years away yet. But I'm already seeing signs locally in Minnesota. Wines I used to be able to get as little as five years ago are no longer carried by retailers. If they are, they are not put on sale. Instead, sales (and even regular pricing and selection) are all about turning over inventory. Blessedly, some smaller shops still exist and offer something other than McWine, and even put those items on sale on occasion. For the person just getting interested in wine, this is a great time and there are many efforts in the works to make your initiation fun, non-intimidating, and effortless. For the person who has been into this sort of thing for a while, I hope the road doesn't get rockier. Again, I'm probably being irrational, but a guy can have nightmares, right?

Last night, there was an offline dinner/tasting with about 20-25 people at a neighborhood restaurant in south Minneapolis that didn’t quite know what they were in for when they agreed to let us invade the place with our bottles of Southern Rhone wines. Many of us ordered a first course and an entrée. For nearly half, it was three hours from when they sat down to when their entrée arrived. I had to leave without having dessert since I had to conduct an all-day training session the following day. This particular crowd was, as I call them, the boys from eBob. It’s a board to which I don’t post, but I’ll go over there and lurk on occasion. Anyway, they’re kind enough to include me on the invitation list. The notes that follow are the wines I tasted in the order I tasted them. There was only one bottle of each label, and that doesn’t make for much of a pour when there are 20-25 people around. There were many wines I did not get to try, but them’s the breaks. Whites 1999 M. Chapoutier “La Bernardine” Chateauneuf-du-Pape Blanc. Corked. We’re off to a good start. 1999 Arrowood Viognier. I didn’t get a good enough look at the label to tell if this was the Sonoma County bottling or the Saralee’s Vineyard, Russian River bottling. It had a ripe peach and melon nose with vanilla. Texturally, it seemed on the flabby side. A bit high in alcohol for my palate. Slightly nutty. Slightly oaky. 2001 Pierre Gaillard St. Jospeh Blanc. I’m pretty sure this was the “normal” bottling and not Les Pierres or Clos du Cuminaille. There was a clear and distinct mineral component to the nose, with some sulfur. In the mouth, there was a brightness of citrus and melon, bright acidity, and a solid mineral core. Quite nice. 2001 Le Vieux Donjon Chateauneuf-du-Pape Blanc. A bit closed on the nose, but there were elements of hazelnut, citrus, minerals, and a resiny character. Moderate acidity, good balance of fruit and mineral. 1994 Chateau Beaucastel Chateauneuf-du-Pape Blanc. Quite oily and resiny in character. Seems a bit more mature than it should be, but not terribly so. Additional aromas of yellow stone fruits and something like caramelized pineapple. Elegant viscosity in the mouth with a very nice nutty/fruity component. Reds 1995 Chateau Cabrieres Chateauneuf-du-Pape “Prestige.” The label also contained the wording “red dessert wine,” most likely because the alcohol level was 15% and it might be a labeling law type of thing. The nose initially showed a burst of ripe ripe ripe fruit with freshly turned wet black earth and olives. But it dropped the fruit quickly – on the nose and on the palate, turning diluted and alcoholic. Dessert wine indeed. Yeah, right. 1999 Domaine du Grapillon d’Or Gigondas. Timber! This is a wine where the oak unmistakably bars the door to the good stuff. I can tell the good briary fruit, pepper, and olives are in there, but they’re kept under lock and key by too much vanilla on the nose and too much wood in the mouth. 1999 Domaine Les Pallieres Gigondas. A leaping-from-the-glass grenache nose. Juicy red and purple fruit wrapped in some herbs and spice. Nicely balanced, with a good acidity level. 1998 Gourt de Moutens Rasteau. This showed a tale of two wines. On the nose, this showed very attractive fruit, earth, spice, and some olive. On the palate, however, is was too soft, more than a little wooden, more than a little alcoholic, and absent of all the character it promised with its aromas. 2000 Cuvée du Vatican Chateauneuf-du-Pape. Showing lots of grenache fruit on the nose and in the mouth. A bit warm in terms of air temperature compared to the other wines. It was okay, but nothing remarkable. 2000 E. Guigal Chateauneuf-du-Pape. A pleasant enough nose characteristic of Guigal Southern Rhone wines – lots of black pepper. But a wine that seemed to be made to not offend (and also not make much of a statement). Turned okay toward the finish. 1992 Chateau Beaucastel Chateauneuf-du-Pape. Not a great year for either part of the Rhone, but this wine overcame its handicap. A little cloudy. The nose smelled like my boots after walking through the sheep shit in the Cotswolds (all together now – but in a good way). In fact, you could smell it coming down the table. Overall, it’s a bit light, which is to be expected, but it is nicely balanced. I think it would pair well with some strong hard cheese. A pleasant surprise. 1995 Domaine du Pegau Chateauneuf-du-Pape, Cuvée Reservée. Great spice profile. Incredible balance. Tannins still holding a firm enough grip. Nice mineral base. The fruit in nicely woven all throughout. It’s still on the way up. 1998 Domaine du Pegau Chateauneuf-du-Pape, Cuvée Reservée. I was in the minority on this wine. I liked the roasted meat and smoky nuances, and the somewhat chewy texture. It showed good balance. But, IMO, this wine was by no means the behemoth some were making it out to be, and I’m not convinced that it’s going to be a long-term ager. The acid and tannins are much softer than the 95. 1988 Chateau Beaucastel Chateauneuf-du-Pape. This wine is the poster child for balance and harmony. I believe it has peaked. It shows some of the barnyard of the 92, but it’s kept in check with equally present elements of black fruit, black olive, smoke, and spice. It goes down sooooo easy. The tannins are resolved, and the structure is keenly intact. Dessert I was packing up when my dining companions were ordering dessert. I had resigned myself to forgoing the stickies, but I was able to suck down a couple sips before I left. 1998 R. Mure Gewurztraminer Clos Saint Landelin Vendange Tardive, Vorbourg Grand Cru. Seductive floral and apricot nose. Faint spice. Some orange peel oil. Not as sweet on the palate as one might expect. More suited for cheese or even savory cuisine. This is the type of wine I like with foie gras moreso than the thicker stickies. 2000 Domaine du Mas Amiel Maury. For those not familiar with Maury, it’s a fortified wine made from grenache, quite similar to Banyuls, which is nearby. It had a slightly chocolatey character, but was not cloyingly sweet. Nice balanced. I’d also like to have this wine with cheese over dessert.

Well well well. Here we are once again thry to impose absoolutism/legalism into matters of personal taste and preference. Makes one scratch one's head.

Well, I'll believe it when I see it. This isn't quite the same as Italy's DOCG designation since, as I understand the article, AOCE can apply to any AOC -- it's just that certain wines will earn that extra letter. But for the non-European consumer who already doesn't understand French labels, I don't know how this is really going to educate them. Rather, it will teach buyers something like "that extra 'E' means I cost more money."

Not really, but I was once told that the Twin Cities has a higher consumption of "premium" wine, per capita than any other market. For the purpose of the "research," Rochester (which has the Mayo Clinic and a large IBM facility) was included in the Twin Cities. Minnetonka is a suburb on the Western side of Minneapol,is. Some would call it an upper-scale suburb. Now if your owners have a house on Lake Minnetonka, that's a different story.

I'm also going to chime in here in support of George and Lee. A while back I had the 1996 Corton Clos de Roi and it was tighter than a drum over four hours that it was opened. I will add, however, that I'm surprised that such a ripe vintage as 1990 resulted in a wine that today needs extended time to show itself. But it could be a hallmark of this negociant (although I confess to not having had enough of Thomas-Moillard's wines to back up that statement). It could also go to show that most of us will never understand or figure out Burgundy. Edited to put the very small, but very significant, hyphen between Thomas and Moillard (which helps support Lees' point below and also helps further demonstrate my ignorance and I should just shut my piehole when it comes to Burgundy )

About time.

Mary, Welcome to eGullet and the Wine Forum. Thank you for picking this forum for your maiden post. I'm not alone has one who has enjoyed the Paso Robles area, and the diversity of wines it produces. And since you asked, I do have a question about another small producer from the region. A while back a friend of mine returned from California and gave me a bottle of 2000 Maloy O'Neill Syrah. Only 20 cases were produced, so I'm one of the very few that will get to try the wine. I've visted their web site, and got myself boned up on some of the history. Is there anything else you can share to enlighten me? Once again, welcome. Brad

More wine is sold as a result of marketing than as a result of what's in the bottle. That's not necessarily a stunning revelation by the way. Going back many years ago, Sutter Home saw the sale of their white zinfandel increase dramatically (I want to say over 200%, but I can't be completely certain) when they went from green bottle to clear bottle and paper label to the clear, pressure adherent label.

I may be in the minority, but I never "got" the wine with chocolate (any wine, any chocolate) thing. Not even with LBV Port or Banyuls. And the pairing of chocolate with Cabernet or Champagne is completely lost on me. My beverage of choice with chocolate is coffee. I've yet to find a better match.

Well, there's nothing that missing a marketer's beady little brain, eh? The only silver lining I see is if it gets more people to drink wine (other than high carb beer). But I personally can't wait for people to ask "Remember when there used to be all this low-carb stuff?" That day can't come soon enough.

Usually ground venison from a processor is 50% venison and 50% pork. Do you know if yours is a similar mix or is it all venison. If all venison, I love chili prepared with it. If cut with pork treat it as any ground up sausage.

Like several responders, I roast or grill them. Regarding the tops, they can be very, very bitter, so they usually need something to counter that -- balsamic, lots of butter, fruit juice, that sort of thing.