Daniel Rogov

Russ, Hi.... As to the "um''s, I have no problem deleting those as those are the same as pauses between thoughts and not words or thoughts in themselves. As to tweaking grammar, that's tempting but imagine the problem of six different publications quoting the same person in different ways...... I cannot think that a better way might be paraphrasing within quotes.... From your own quote above, for example: Parson's asked: "...Daniel, when was the last time you used 'um" in a direct quote?" He went on to comment that "...people don't just talk like they should..."

I cannot help but think that even vulgarity has its place for when used well and discretely it can be useful in catching the eye or ear of one's reader or listener. The key, of course is discretion, and that is what sets the intelligent adult apart from even the most intelligent of children. As to quotes.....sorry good people, but changing a person's quotation has something distinctly akin to mis-spelling their name. Once you use quotation marks you'd best be sure that the quotation is precise. If one cannot use a quotation, simply scrap it and paraphrase. Or even mention, if you like, that "every other word from his/her mouth was of four-letter duration". As to your own use of what many consider "dirty words", well, that's up to each of us. If we use them badly we make fools of ourselves. But if we use them in the sake of, for example, nouveau journalism, that becomes a different matter altogether. Two points of view. The first of Cyril Connolly who said that "vulgarity is the garlic in the salad of life" and the second of Mel Brooks who observed "I've been accused of vulgarity. I say that's bullshit". Both make their point and make it well. Which one prefers is a question of choice.

Adam... Perhaps on this issue you and I will do best by agreeing to disagree on many of the issues.

Adam.... Methinks you may become insulted and in turn a bit insulting a bit too easily. I am certainly not opposed to wanting to learn about the culinary habits of other people....and certainly not to historic interests.....in fact, one of my major interests is in precisely that field. My little book about culinary history and mythology is, for example, no in press. What I am trying to do is say that dining habits and the preparation of food changes, sometimes drastically, and what may have been of fine taste to people in other periods of history may seem "of" or even repulsive to modern folk. That does not mean of course that the people of the future may perceive us as having "barbaric" habits. I think as well that if you do your research you will find that the liquamen and the verjuice of Roman days was considerably different than that of today. In the same vein, wines were made differently in those days, by different processes and from different grapes. To add to that, they were shipped in the steaming hot holds of ships and by the time they arrived in Rome they were pretty well stewed. Indeed you are correct in that some dishes have not changed.....porridge was and remains pretty much porridge. One of the questions is whether these are the kind of "treats" in which we are interested. Another question that has to be faced is whether we are interested in "romance" or in "realities".

Adam, Hello.... Indeed the Romans were not of a different species, but tastes change and change radically over time and I'll stand with my point of view, offering descriptive evidence from Pliny the Elder, Josephus, Herodotus, and the archaeological evidence found at such places as Massada and Pompei. I'll also cite a few more modern historians, among those Magen Broshi and M.A. Powell as well as the curator of the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, Michal Dayagi-Mendeis. The Romans, for example, were known connoiseurs of wine. Let us think first of what they did with their wines, especially those imported to Rome from Gaul, to make them enjoyable. The wines in their pure form, according to Josephus were "as bitter as Hades", and according to Pliny the Elder, "somewhat with the aroma one will find at the third bridge of the Tiber". In order to drink the wines they were diluted with sea water and then underwent the addition of honey, juniper berries, basilicum and a variety of other herbs and spices. Hardly today's cup of proverbial tea. As to dining, let's keep in mind that during Roman days the meat of lions was prized and during Medieval days swans were considered a great delicacy. Lions and swans are considered largely inedible today and for good reason. It is true that Apicius does not give specific amounts of the various herbs and spices to be used but looking at the mere combinations he uses together with such as liquamen, verjuice and other seasoning agents, many of the dishes even "look" unappealing on the reading. As social habits change (during the heyday of Rome, women were barred from most meals unless they happened to be dancing girls, acrobats or whores), so do tastes. Best Rogov

As to Roman cookery, let us keep in mind that although often served in luxurious feasts, the dishes of Apicius and the dining habits of the Romans were unsophisticated enough that the great chef Careme referred to them as "fundamentally barbaric". Relying heavily on vinegar, honey, sea water, heavy and greasy sauces as well as on an overly generous abundance of spices and herbs, very few of the dishes adored by Apicius would be considered appealing to today's diners. In a phrase, if you're going to do either Roman or Medieval cookery, you have no choice but to modernize it (call that bastardization if you will), but if you serve the original, you'll have a good many hungry and frustrated people leaving your table.

Don't knock ignorance. After all, it can make us chuckle. I recall about ten years ago receiving a letter from a reader that asked: "I know how to boil water but tell me why the bubbles stop the minute I take the pot off the stove"

When Anne Barr and Paul Levy wrote "The Official Foodie Handbook" the term foodie had a certain appeal to it - an almost self-derogatory and self-amused, perhaps even post-modern point of view. When used in that sense, I have no objection whatever to the word but when used in earnestness it rings of being just a bit too cute, a bit too self-congratulatory. Personally, when it comes to fine dining I think more of the gourmet who might be considered "a distinct species of people who give priority in all human affairs to the discriminate pleasures of the palate". To the gourmet, this connoisseur of fine food and drink, gastronomy is part of a humanistic vision. After all, one of the reasons we human beings are unique is because we are the only animals who cook our food, and are capable of eating when we are not hungry. Nothing to the gourmet could be more gratifying to the gourmet than the satisfaction of the palate, and no social act is more enjoyable than that of sharing a meal and meditating on its merits. Literary critic Charles Augustin Sainte-Beuve, a famous gourmet in 19th nineteenth century France, bemoaned the fact that he had to earn a living, in the following words: "But rejoice my little stomach, for all that I earn is yours.". Now it is true that gourmets exaggerate, but they do so in the sense of fun. In that, I'm as opposed to "foodies" as to those who sit down to "din-din" but I'm all for the gourmet

Older Madeira wines are available primarily through auctions at Christies or Sotheby's. For younger wines, try Berry Brothers & Rudd at 3 St James's Street in London. Their choices can be seen at http://www.bbr.com/GB/shopping/list.lml?se...WGX5BZL0P0700HZ

Jeff, Hi..... Nikos Kazantzis, in his book "Zorba the Greek" had Zorba say: "If a woman invites you into her bed and you refuse, there is no greater sin". Perhaps or perhaps not true, but indeed there is no greater sin than turning down a complimentary glass of wine. That, after all, is why God invented taxis. All in good fun......

Gabe, Hello... I'm a true wine lover but can appreciate that many do not enjoy wine and that even more, for various health reasons (allergies, hypersensitivity to alcohol, etc) cannot drink it. Certainly if you "cannot stand" wine, you should not order it. And that is not a question of cost but of personal preference..... In most truly fine restaurants featuring what we might think of as either haute- or modern French, Italian or American cuisine, no-one will object or look at you askance if you stay with mineral water (still or sparkling as you choose). In many fine restaurants featuring the dishes of the Far-East you will also find a wide variety of cocktails offered, those including non-alcoholic cocktails that can make pleasant matches with the dishes served there. You did not mention if you enjoy beer but in the case of Middle-Eastern restaurants and again, in many restaurants featuring Far-Eastern cuisine, beer is a perfectly acceptable beverage. I will add that what is to be avoided in truly fine restaurants are soft drinks such as Coca Cola, Sprite and the like because if the truth be told, they will simply spoil the flavors of your meal.

Kent, Hi.... Hie thee not to a nunnery but to Bretagne (the Brittany coast) in France. None of the oyster beds have facilities for overnight but many will gladly show you around, offer the opportunity for some marvelous tastings (matched with good wines!!) and the area is full of charming small inns.

Check the internet sites of Sherry-Lehmann and Zachy's wine stores. They are both well stocked and may well have many of the wines the prices for which you are seeking.

If what you want is to see comparative prices on wines, a very good bet is Wine Searcher and they are at http://www.wine-searcher.com/

Great piece! As to whether I'm a food snob.....absolutely but not necessarily according to Tim's standards. I chuckle at sous vide cooking, find molecular gastronomy nothing more than a joke in bad taste, and would no sooner think of asking Monsieurs Ducasse or Savoy to cook a special dish for me than I would of asking them to jump into the Seine. On the other hand, I scorn most mass-produced foods and the vast majority of offerings at supermarkets as inferior, suffer physically and emotionally when I am served (or prepare) a sauce that has curdled; find that the true plague of the 20th and 21st centuries is junk food; would never dream of buying a bottle of Two Buck Chuck or Yellowtail for my personal pleasure; and think that McDonald's, Starbucks and Taco Bell have something distinctly akin to the Bubonic Plague. I do not scorn the people who eat or even thrive on such foods. After all, I believe in freedom - even the freedom to be foolish. In fact, I'm such a snob that I will go as far as to say the best meal or the best wine is the one someone likes the best. That I happen not to agree with many of those people is simply part of my own freedom. I cannot help but call to mind William Makepeace Thackery who wrote "It is impossible, in the condition of society, for the intelligent person to be sometimes a Snob" Here, for those who may not have found it is a link to Tim's piece in the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/food/story/0,,1804095,00.html

But there is another point of view about wine......that expressed by the poet Beaumarchais when he write that when he opens a bottle of awe that he stands in awe, for "it is not merely a bottle of wine but five thousand years of human civilization that I open". Extend that a bit if you will to the World War I attitude that "wine is the sunshine of the trenches"; that wine is an old and comfortable friend, one that if you do not abuse it, will never abuse or abandon you..... All perhaps a question of the passion with which one loves something? And believe me, I am not defending les grands chateaux in all of this. Depending on the time, the setting, the company and the mood the ballon de rouge to which I referred earlier in this thread can give me no less pleasure than the finest of Margaux. I suppose if I am defending anything at all it is passion.

Charles, Hi..... No..... the real difference is that the bottle of wine, like the creation of a chef, must be destroyed in order to be appreciated while the creation of the sculptor or painter (unless he is Tingueley whose works were self-destructing) can exist for hundreds if not thousands of years and continue to be appreciated. That is to say, to truly admire a bottle of wine we must drink it, to appreciate a fine culinary creation, we must eat it. And may I ask, how much would it cost you to fly to Florence and to stay at an even decent hotel for those two days? Heck, while you're there you might even choose to dine at Il Cipreo and with your meal to have one of the fine Bordeaux or Burgundy wines on their excellent wine list. I'm sure you do, by the way, realize that as you are to some extent "playing", so indeed am I.

In the name of the "fun" that has been used happily here, let me toss out a set of hypothetical questions.... (a) We go to the Uffizzi Museum in Florence, there to see a long-lost Leonardo that has been purchased for 13,000,000 Euros. How does one determine the "value" of this? (b) Somebody purchases a double magnum of Chateau d'Yquem, 1900 (still magnificent, believe me) for 23,000 pound sterling. Has the person purchased merely a bottle of wine or has he/she purchsed a significant part of the 20th century. And the difference between the person who plans to open that bottle and share it with friends and the one who intends only to "show it off" © The soldier in the midst of combat who is out of cigarettes and willingly pays US$100 for a single package. Too expensive? In a sense, have we not in each of these cases as in the case of Bordeaux 2005 gone beyond the question of price and are in fact talking about "value". Not value for money (QPR) but value to the individual. And if those values are truly aesthetic how can we fault the person who spends that money?

Sadistik, Hi..... With re the 1982 Lynch Bages, my most recent tasting note follows. With regard to food-matches, with this one I'd go for a shoulder or leg of lamb, ideally served with mixed grilled root vegetables (carrots, whole small red onions, turnips, etc). As to sauce - something akin to a demi-glace. Chateau Lynch Bages, 1982: This wine may not be as massive as when it was younger, but it remains full bodied and velvety, with an abundance of black currants, vanilla and even hints of mint. With layer after layer of complexity, the wine is literally perfect for drinking now. Now showing delicious milk chocolate and a hint of licorice on the long finish. Drinking beautifully now but don’t hesitate to cellar until 2008. Score 93. (Retasted 2 Aug 2002)

As is sometimes said, there is good news and there is bad news. The good news is that if it has been cellared well, the wine will be absolutely lovely (see my latest tasting note that follows). The bad news is that this is most definitely not a wine to match with canapes, hors d'oeuvres of cheeses before the onset of a meal but one to be served with either a fine steak or roast beef, the steak ideally with nothing more than a maitre d'hotel butter or the roast beef with nothing more than an enriched pan gravy. If some of the wine remains after the main course, go for a well aged Parmesan or Manchego cheese, that served of course with bread and the best butter you can find. Chateau Mouton Rothschild, Pauillac, 1988: With tannins well integrated with spicy wood and showing tempting currant, berry, espresso coffee as one sips and then, on the long finish generous tobacco and a light hint of mint that has crept in during recent years. Drink now-2020, perhaps longer. Perhaps not the greatest Mouton ever but certainly a damned good one. Score 93. (Re-tasted 30 Oct 2005)

At the risk of sounding argumentative (well…..perhaps I am being a bit argumentative), I cannot help but think that you are harboring a rather negative image of too many people. Believe it….many people buy books for the actual purpose of reading and re-reading them, perhaps over and over again as the years go on… of making those books an integral and perhaps even beloved part of themselves and their lives. The same is often also true for wine, and a great many of those who buy fine wines actually do so with the intent of opening them and sharing them with friends. Perhaps even more shocking, not all even give a hoot about impressing friends or strangers but actually do purchase such wines because of the deep love they have for wine. Indeed it is only the well-off who can buy the Lafites and the Cheval Blancs by the case but then again for most people of the world any wine costing more than five or six Euros is considered not only a luxury but an extravagance. Indeed as well, most of those who do buy fine Bordeaux or other very expensive first growths,do not buy by the case but purchase one, two or perhaps three bottles of several wines, with the plan (the dream if you like) of opening them in five, ten or twenty years; perhaps to celebrate the 21st birthday of a child, a special anniversary or even a special moment that just seems to make that wine beckon. And I'll let you in on a great secret. Even those who can afford to buy such wines do not drink them every morning, afternoon and evening. Sometimes those people with the great wines in their cellars actually enjoy a sparklingly young Vinho Verde, a glass of Morgon, and even at times,perhaps when seated at a café in Paris, and to accompany a cheese sandwich on a baguette, nothing more than a ballon de rouge.

I usually avoid stories such as this as so many are filled with pure "shmaltz" (that is to say in this case, sentimental drivel). I read this one through and have several comments. First of all, accept my thanks for writing the story well and with facts instead of sentiment. And in that, building in just the right amounts of sentiment! Second, before reading your piece I knew nothing about this program or the people involved. My thanks again for making me aware. Third, I reach out my hand to thank all involved with a program that values human dignity. The next time I am in your city I shall contact and visit and then shall write about it in the various European and Israeli newspapers to which I contribute.

I do agree that Bordeaux prices have entered the strata that we can consider ludicrous, but extending that argument to all wines over a certain price limit may not be quite fair. May I remind us all that in 1920 the Model T Ford was selling for US$ 300 (the equivalent to approximately $3,300 in todays dollars), that as recently as 1955 a cup of coffee (including refills) could be had for five cents...... Eliminating comparative and historical pricing should we thus also ban Lamborghini cars, Beluga caviar, Perigord truffles, women's dresses that cost more than $18.00, men's shoes that cost more than $12.00.......... As to Bordeaux, 2005, my own suggestion is to pass on nearly all futures and to wait until the wines are released, very probably at the same prices as futures are now going for, when we can actually taste these wines and then decide if the investment is worth our personal while.

A question: Was the tasting done blind? That is to say, did your participants know which wine had come from large or regular format bottes?

I agree with everything that Rebecca says but, being a man of many words, let me add some. First of all, it's not called "Greek coffee" everyplace. Call it by that name in Turkey for example and you're looking for a fight for in Turkey it is called "Turkish coffee" and throughout North Africa it is called "Bedouin coffee". By whatever name, this coffee, made basically by the process of boiling, is highly popular throughout North Africa and the Mediterranean Basin and coffee lovers all over the world admit that a well made cup of "Turkish coffee" is a gift from the gods. Most people think that the narrow-necked pot used to make their Turkish coffee is called a finjan. They are wrong. Finjans are the small, generally glazed earthenware demi-tasse sized, cups in which the coffee is served. The pot is a briki (or ibrik) and a good rule of thumb is that the heavier the briki, the better will be the coffee. So adored is this style of coffee that from Paris to New York and from Denver to Tokyo, brikis and finjans are available not only in ethnic grocery shops but in the very best stores carrying housewares. There are many ways to make Turkish coffee, but most agree that the most reliable method for producing consistently good coffee is to fill a 250 ml. briki to within 2 1/2 cm. (1") of the brim with cold water. To the water, before heating, add 4 or more heaping teaspoons of coffee. For moderately sweet coffee 2 tsp. of sugar should be added. The mixture should then be stirred and put on a high flame. Some believe that the coffee should not be stirred again after being put on the flame. Others disagree. My own feeling is that occasional stirring during heating is crucial. As the mixture approaches a first boil it should be removed from the flame for a few moments to let the foam settle. One should take care not to let the mixture boil over, for this will result in a very messy stove top. In the same way, but without further stirring, the mixture should then be allowed to come to a boil for a second and a third time before being poured. Pouring is also important, and it is considered polite to pour a small initial amount into each cup and only then to pour the rest. This allows the foamy top, the best part of the coffee to be shared by all. Turkish coffee should always be served with glasses of cold water on the side. Important Note: When buying coffee to make this delectable beverage, be sure to buy strong coffee, ground finely (as for espresso or even finer). Under no circumstances should you attempt to make Turkish coffee by using any of the standard American brands.