Capaneus

Any of the Beringer Private Reserve show up in your travels? ← Wasn't looking for it, but the website says there's very little around. Which are you looking for, the Cabernet or the Chardonnay? ← With Beringer Private Reserve, red rules Katie. I actually asked my local store to put aside a case of the 96 Cabernet but haven't heard back yet. Website said mid March I think ← Late March. I'd be surprised if any one store gets much more than a case, so I'd ride herd on your people, if I were you.

Let me know about that Kaiken: very much in the market for an inexpensive Malbec with real varietal character. I've liked the ones I've had that weren't JAP wines, but too many are...

That is really a good deal on the Sette Ponti. A quick check on winesearcher pro shows the cheapest to be 65 and the rest begin at 75 dollars. the average is clearly $100 a bottle. This confirms Doviakw's suspicion that it is a great bargain. This is also Wine Spectator's #5 of the top 100 for 2005. This also points out a good example of when the Chairman selections can really benefit, giving someone who doesn't normally have the opportunity to taste higher end wines exactly that chance. Often this is at the expense of an "off" vintage but not in this case. Many wines, touted as x dollars below retail are not as good a deal when comparing to the marketplace pricing. This is one excellent offer that I will be making room for. $45 is not chump change but it's worth considering folks. Thanks for the heads up. Evan ← The rest of the Setti Ponti lineup is also pretty good, and it's heading our way. $45 is a bit rich for my blood.

But, as I have argued elsewhere, I think part of the success of BYOs owes to the distortion in the market created by the liquor laws. So while you are not arguing against them in theory, I believe the net effect of the changes you argue for would be just that. So no, I wouldn't have more options overall. I can look at other markets, the ones you hold up as examples (such as NY), and for someone like me the Philadelphia scene is more attractive. Mind you, I know my position (and the PLCB regulations it defends) are "unfair" in the context of the prevailing regulatory environments across the US. On the other hand, I can in fact argue that there are many ways in which those are unfair from a true free-market perspective, but that would require a different forum. But in this specific case that imbalance works in my favor, those restaurateurs are still making a go of their businesses (and I do believe that a lot of the BYO ventures wouldn't be able to find the financing to open as full-service restaurants), and (most significant evidence in my book) we have a restaurant scene that's buzzing as is, even with the adverse regulations. There are alternative markets available to them elsewhere, but they choose to open in PLCB-Land. Regarding the cost-of-bottle example - you're still missing the point: it's not about bargain-values as such. It's about cost in absolute terms. I will occasionally spend $20 retail on a bottle, very rarely $25. That brings me to the very bottom of virtually any list available, or to nursing each sip of a by-the-glass purchase with jealous attention. Both of those wouldn't be "choices" in any real sense, they'd be hard limits imposed by financial reality.

What they all said! Thanks Evan: great evening.

Well... we do. That's what the entire debate is about. And may I suggest that you review this and previous threads on BYOBs. I think you'll discover that the "griping" is largely being done by the faction that thinks the current system is unfair to restaurateurs when compared to other areas. Personally, I find myself quite content with things as they are. If a corkage is too high, I don't avail myself of it. I think the comments from the ownership at Gayle indicates others feel likewise, and that we are actually a noticeable consumer base. That's a bit of a surprise, but a pleasant one. As to the comparison between booze and other merchandise or services on offer - including other restaurant offerings... the difference is the perception of added value: there is a large difference between what's on my plate and the materials the chef started out with and it is also, I expect (or at least hope), quite different from what I could achieve with them. That bottle of CdR the restaurant is charging me $30 for is precisely the same as the $9 bottle sitting on my wine rack at home. All the loving care you, as an outstanding sommeliere, have lavished on its selection is not visible to me. And its value is greatest for the uneducated wine drinker in any case. As to the costs of carrying a wine inventory... I have heard often from folks in the hospitality industry in Philadelphia that the revenue from wine and liquor sales provide a margin of comfort in your revenue stream that is not there when you are looking at food revenue alone. That tells me that a) liquor licenses and sales are in fact not a financial burden in absolute terms, and b) that if my liquor tab is helping improve the restaurant's margins, then I am being charged a higher markup, even considering labor, breakage, storage and all of it, than food consumers. That's just plain math, and strikes me as unfair. But if it weren't the case, then licenses would be of no value to the restaurant. But quite aside from all that, you are somewhat missing the point: it's not even that we are unwilling to pay these costs, it's that many of us are unable to pay these costs. The difference in my budget from paying the wine markup would turn me from a weekly patron to an occasional patron. It's that simple.

Good wine lists are in fact cropping up: Amada, Gayle, Ansill, to join Fork and a few others, current and past. In my opinion, they are cropping up because they need to compete with BYOs, and because of the price constraints they have to offer value through interesting choices. In the days before BYOs, I saw no great rush by local restaurants to offer great lists. Let's face it: you live in a world where restaurateurs are kind avuncular artisans whose overriding interest is in maximizing their patrons' happiness; and where the State is an Ogre that treads innocents underfoot for... well, no apparent reason but its inherently malicious nature. Whereas I feel restaurants - while staffed by wonderful, warm, creative people in many cases - are primarily in the business of separating me from my paycheck. If in this case the State makes it a little harder for them to do so, it's okay by me, especially if it seems to cause relatively little pain at the other end.

Finally got a chance to try Ansill out for myself Saturday, and with four like-minded perpetrators, I account it a comprehensive experience. I liked it. I knew I would. But... To start with, the prices have crept up from those quoted earlier in this thread, and on various reviews. Nothing enormous, just a dollar or two, but on everything, and in many cases that is the difference between what feels like a casual mouthfull and a purchase with an obligation to please. To begin at the... well, no Begine, but where it hurts the most: the wine list is not bad, in fact, by the standards to which we hold winelists probably well above average. But the house wines, of which I tried a half-carafe each (Pinot Grigio and Shiraz) are, while perfectly agreeable, certainly no better than that: inoffensive, quaffable drinks, where I hoped for something with a bit more character. Elsewhere on the list, it is hard to find something to land on wholeheartedly: a $6 (PLCB - $4 elsewhere) vinho verde is $26; that, believe it or not, is one of the more tempting options. The food is entirely better than that: we start with the oysters with a re-wine granita, and the shirred eggs with foie gras: the eggs are close to perfection, except for a need to double the toast points; the oysters are very good, but the granita makes me wonder what the cucumber gelee I read about elsewhere might have contributed, had Philadining not interfered. A second volley brought pork belly with mustarde spaetzle and boquerones crostini: both excellent, though the pork belly could have had a *little* more fat rendered out. The boquerones were darn nearly perfect, though a tiny portion (at a tiny price). Next we went for the talleggio with sour cherries and the vegetable panino. I like the cheese, found the vegetable sammich underwhelming; my party disagreed, yet I find it in my hear to overlook their misjudgement. Fourthly we ordered the langostinos, the venison crudo and the sweetbreads. Hits all around, though by now my order of the (fairly undistinguished) dark beer on tap had made itself felt and I cannot fairly detail my impressions. Other things may have been ordered by immoderate people such as my less sober self. A good time was widely held to have been had. The tab was roughly $190. No complaints except in the drinks department: it would hurt no-one to expand the list to encompass a couple of rougher and readier wines to go with the two uninteresting house wines currently on offer. Same for the beers.

Third, I always find it interesting that some people will rail about wine markups and not food markups. really, ya think that bottle of Beaujolais is a bad deal check out the markups on a dish of simple pasta!--and guess how much those snazzy Air Jordan's you are wearing have been marked up! Restaurants are complex operations with all sorts of overhead. In a vital and open market with competition and variety of choices I rarely find many places where my experience is tainted because I feel I am being gouged. In fact, I am happy that any place where I enjoy dining, makes a healthy profit--I want them to thrive. ← The key difference in your argument is that I think most wine people feel ripped off having to pay several times (not sure about the 300% markup either) the price for the same bottle they have in their cellars. I know I do. It's really not a fair analogy to compare the price of sneakers with wine marked up in a restaurant. I mean everyone is certainly entitled to a profit, and I agree with you in that absent one, they shut down. It becomes a question of what is a reasonable profit in the minds of the patrons. I really have no idea what a pair of Air Jordans cost (although I suspect it's a fraction of what they sell for) but I do know know what most wine on wine lists retail for. That's the difference. Further, if you don't like the price of Air Jordan's keep shopping. Ditto with usurious wine list prices, keep shopping or don't patronize. ← Also, another key difference is that the restaurant isn't a retailer, really: they're a re-seller. I have no problem with paying the money that enables a winery to stay in business. I will endure the markup that allows the distributor and retailer to stay in business, because, in the end, I have no choice. But the BYOs in Philadelphia give me an alternative to paying the re-sale markup as well, so I choose, by and large, not to. The other issue, of course, is that the elephant in the room is the fact that restaurateurs don't practice what I view as fair pricing: pricing under which all their products, and all their customers, face a similar markup. All hue and cry to the contrary, I often hear tell of liquor sales being a "revenue center" and providing the "profit margin" for a restaurant, because the markup on the food is not large enough. Well, to me, that amounts to a sin tax on drinkers. We are, in essence, being asked to subsidize the meals of all the non-drinkers. That bugs the daylights out of me. So when I find a business model that treats me as an equal, by placing all the burden on the food - which BYOs have to do, obviously - I hop aboard.

Also, New Yorkers can't get no sous-vide-ing no moah... http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/09/nyregion...r=1&oref=slogin

Had another bottle of the Castello di Brolio Chianti with dinner at Sovalo Monday. Much more impressive with better food. Absolutely silky dark, sour cherry fruit, less acidity than I get from most Sangiovese, but beautiful. A bit shut down just now, but excellent extraction and depth of fruit. I'm going to try to pick up another half-case. Also, just got a look at the Coming Attractions on the PLCB website, and there are some very sexy Tuscan and Piedmontese cuties heading our way, chilluns! Also, the new vintage of the Omaka Springs Sauvignon Blanc is coming in at a dollar less, $7.99/btl. That, my friends, is a trend I like. Ah well. Rent, shment.

Actually, I am making the case that the PLCB is, in Philadelphia's particular situation, both a good thing and responsible (to a point) for the current rise of the BYOBs. And, in that regard, yeepee ideed. As far as I can tell, the Philadelpia BYOBs exist for two reasons: because it is too expensive for a new restaurateur to start a licensed restaurant in the city; and because an unlicensed restaurant is, somehow, a better business proposition here than it would be elsewhere. The first condition is simplest to tie to the Board: Philadelphia licenses are very expensive, and a wine cellar is somewhat more expensive to lay down here than it would be elsewhere. But the second part of the equation is often ignored. Because wine is a) expensive for a restaurateur(relative to restaurant situations elsewhere) and b) a relatively scarce commodity because of the limited number of licenses, Philadelphia wine lists are relatively overpriced. For a very long time, that was a bad thing for all diners in the city, but something that only serious wine drinkers actively chafed against, because the high prices and bad service at PLCB stores kept the casual drinkers, largely, from becoming too involved with the sweet juice. The serious collectors, though, had cellars of their own they would have liked to use, but could not - corkage was an almost unknown courtesy in the city, with some restaurants actually spreading the urban myth that it was illegal. In recent years, however, the PLCB has become, first, more user friendly; and, in the last two years, the Chairman's Selections program has actually made it attractive to many of us. As a result, the number of casual wine drinkers in this city that have made the leap to more serious addiction has shot up. That is the case, at least, in my own acquaintanceship. These people started frequenting the relatively small number of BYOBs that existed three-four years ago. That increase in customer base made a BYO a more attractive business proposition, so, suddenly, young talented chefs who would, once, have had to either find a place in the relatively small number of quality licensed establishments in town, or migrate elsewhere - which most did - had a viable alternative business plan. And once a handful of them, led by Django, demonstrated there was, indeed, an audience waiting to be tapped for chefs willing to take risks, these new BYOBs became more and more interesting over the last couple of years. At least, that's how I see the development of the phenomenon. Admittedly, I lack the numbers to substantiate this, but I believe it accounts both for the sudden increase in these places' numbers, which happened in tandem with the improvements in the Labor Board; and for the non-existence of similar trends in other food-friendly cities. And to take this a step further, I believe we are now witnessing a second-wave development: edgy, trendy places like Ansill, Amada and Gayle, which have good, thoughtful wine lists, but are seeking to tap into the customer base developed by the BYOBs. They are, to my mind, a development that would not have been possible, or at least very likely, if the BYOs had not, first, increased the numbers, and decreased the age, of the dining population of Philadelphia. So yeah. I like the much-reviled PLCB. Much of my liking for it depends on the nearby availability of NJ and Delaware, which palliate most of its worse weaknesses, but in that context - for us in Philadelphia, that is, as against the rest of Pennsylvania - I think the Board is an excellent thing.

Everybody's "freedom" to do what? The system as it existed here - and the systems that still exists most places - certainly curtailed the "freedom" of a large segment of the population to enjoy a good meal with a good bottle. Under the current system, assorted restaurateurs are "free" to operate a business under the rules extant - or not. The state, of course, is, as always, "free" to regulate said businesses. I'll note that the only constituency continually carping about the situation are the owners of licensed restaurants. Not, I again note, because they are less "free", but because their revenue stream has thinned. Which Libertarians tend to mix up, but really... My widdle heart bleedeth not. As for most BYO owners opting for a license... There are no immigration restrictions over across the river. They still stay. There is no compulsion of any kind to stay in business in Philadelphia. Still they do. I am willing to bet that the failure rate of BYOs in Philadelphia is lower than the failure rate of full-service restaurants in places where everyone needs to start out with a wine cellar, if only because the initial capital outlay needed is so much less. As for the cost of wine in Pa... Yes, the retail is a bit higher. But of course at a licensed restaurant they won't charge me retail. So my $800 '82 Chateau Margaux becomes $3000 at LBF. Seems to me that the trade-off would be worthwhile, from my perspective. Not to mention that the Chairman's Selection program actually allows me to sample many wines at less than what would be retail elsewhere. The upshot is that any regulatory framework will favor someone. The current Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board one favors, at this point, everyone but licensed restaurants. O-tay by me. Let Hayek and Rand rot, far as I'm concerned.

First regarding Ms Green. The points she was making deserve to be addressed at face value. Attempting to construct a possible conspiracy to slander her motives is dubious at best and with a lack of any evidence futile. Really, all you would be creating is a moot point for use as a red herring. So really, who cares about her or her magazine's motives--it makes sense to debate the content of what she says. Second, I agree that wine service in many restaurants is poor and that there are many instances of high markups. I also am seeing many diverse and well priced lists as well as good service (glasses etc). The current trend for many places is in the positive direction. Third, my whole argument here is not that BYO's are necessarily bad nor that restaurant's with wine service are necessarily good. My point is restaurateurs in Philadelphia (Pennsylvania) are limited by wine laws. Would you argue that because of economic factors, say, the owners of Marigold should be denied the choice to serve wine in their establishment . Would you argue that only a select handful of well heeled and well connected people should be able to own restaurants that serve wine? Again, I am arguing for choice. If a restaurant owner wants to operate as a BYOB that's fine with me. Finally, a BYOB "culture" is fine as long as it is a result of a free marketplace. I can see much benefit to a BYOB near ,say, Penn or Temple. Also, would not some increased competition possibly create a healthier situation wherein wine lists around town would moderate somewhat? So, if you are making a case for BYOB's that is fine. If you are making a case for a situation where a chef/owner, restaurateur has his or her hands tied by restrictive liquor laws, preventing them from offering their customers a wine or alcoholic beverage service, then I would love to hear your case! ← My case entirely ignores the restaurateur's freedom. I have come to like Pennsylvanias restrictive laws because they have created an environment in which I can drink and eat far above my means or station. The regulatory environment is what it is. The fact is that there is a much longer-standing environment that produce a world in which $3000 premiers crus are out of my financial reach. I would like that changed, too. But in the meantime, far from preventing people from opening restaurants, folks are in fact being permitted to come up with a "starter" restaurant concept - the BYO - which is only viable because better-capitalized places are hindered. If you take away the PLCB barriers, you won't see the democratization of the restaurant experience. In essence, you'll be restoring the conditions that led to overpriced wine lists in the first place. You argue about competitive pressure to bring down wine list prices? For the first time in my twenty years in Philly, we got that! And it's the BYOB explosion that's providing it.

Good to know. I picked up three bottles on the strength of what I read about it, good to know actual palates actually agree.

Only town to have two entries in the Top Five: Barclay Prime's Sliders cam in at #5, just behind the Rouge Burger. We rooole! Who's yo' Daddy, NY-f*****g-City?

I've seen black pepper cashews, but not wasabi. Also a chile-lime version.

Ansill is another good example of this too. Evan ← The crux of my problem with Ms. Green's argument, though, is that prior to the BYO explosion I saw no inkling whatever that Philadelphia restaurateurs were interested in operating in this manner. The number of thoughtful, reasonaby-priced wine lists in this city could have been counted on a single-celled critter's fingers (well, maybe two). The fact that they are occurring more and more frequently recently is something I see as another benefit of the BYO culture, not as an indictement. As, for that matter, is the increased sophistication of Philadelphia's wine-drinkers, as they are compelled to navigate the wine purchase unassisted. To blame BYOs for being relatively unambitious is wrong-headed: most restaurants of every kind are mediocre; as, for that matter, are enterprises of every kind. I don't believe the proportion of above-average unlicensed restaurants is any lower than that of the overall restaurant population. Ms. Green's problems strike me as being a reflection of the screeds we keep hearing from the disgruntled restaurateurs who see their customer base eroded by, frankly, better choices elsewhere. I wish she focused a bit more on protecting the interest of her readers, and less on the woes of the established restaurant community.

I would hesitate calling that a serious "review". I would think from the tone and text of the article that the author would agree. Evan ← I think it's intended to be. Dismal failure, by my lights.

Hmmm... Stictly speaking, "boulevardier" would be a man about the boulevards, wide avenues where the social promenade took place, as opposed to residential or commercial streets. A boulevardier was a man who a) had the leisure to stroll and b) had the panache to stroll with intent, and carry it off. So a "boulevardier about town" might be someone who carries that attitude and spirit to parts of the city beyond the boulevards. Or something.

Georges Perrier announces that every few years. ← Especially when Mobile demotes him to 4 Stars again. Yeh it's true, he lost the 5th star AGAIN. I doubt he has it in him to get it back a second time. It would truely be one of the greatest losses in Phila's culinary historyif Le bec was no more. ← When did that happen? The loss of the fifth star that is, not the demise of LBF. And why didn't the Inky catch it? Or did I sleep through class yet again?

Yeah, but he manufactures most of his own problems. And Philadelphia isn't New York, in that our market can support restaurants NY would see as hopelessly outdated for decades. I don't think Perrier can live without the spotlight. And Brasserie Perrier and Le-Mas-Georges-Perrier-Or-Whatever don't provide the needed wattage. His high profile in the city's dining culture is entirely tied to LBF, and that alone ensures it will live on.

Personally, I really don't like having a single bottle: it's never the perfect time/perfect meal, and what if one or the other's coming along any day now... Plus, as a learning experience, you get to see a wine maturing as you open the bottles over the years and take careful, detailed notes (hah!). Verticals are really only fun if you do them as an event - or, I suppose, if you really do follow the wine through the decades, developing a sense of intimacy with the estate, and a sensitivity to the differences of vintage and of changing practices. Basically, if you're a darn sight better off than I am, is what I'm saying, 'cause it takes piles of money and good storage. Read several takes on the various vintages, decide which one is most to your liking (you'll need to ignore the purple prose), then put your whole stash down on your favorite.

Hey Deidre: Thanks again for getting this information out to us. I happened by the store in McCaffreys Supermarket in Yardley to pick up some of the Latour white burgundy that was well received here and other places. While there I spoke with the clerk who told me all about the tasting in King of Prussia the other night. She also told me the Beringer Private Reserve is going to sell for $69.00. Can you confirm that? It was on a sheet and looked pretty official. The Beringer 85 or 86 was rated a 100 by Wine Spectator a while ago and it is an insanely good wine, of course 85 and 86 were also insanely great years for Calif Cabs in general. Let us know about the price points for the 1996 and the other vintages as well if you can. The 96 (rated 90 by WS) will certainly be cellar worthy as are most of the Private Reserves from Beringer. ← No, sorry. Afraid they won't be coming in at $69. They will be coming in at $59.99. That's the '95, '96, '97 and '99. For future reference, I check what's up regularly at http://www.lcb.state.pa.us/plcb/cwp/view.asp?a=1328&q=556370 On other subjects, I have some of the Abadia Retuerta coming in from the 'burbs (since we got nuthin'), and can also recommend the Castello di Brolio-Ricasoli Chianti Classico Riserva Guicciarda 2000. Textbook sangiovese juice, for a very nice $17.99. Otherwise, I'm afraid things are, as Deidre mentioned, looking pretty spare.

They specifically said that to me and lots of people I know on the phone and it was public knowledge. It doesnt offend me at all, I am just telling you that was a fact not a guess. Artificial as in the place is booked 30 days ahead sometime after 29days of that practice because the practice forces people to conform to the schedule. The fact that the place is packed on weeknights as you state is also a result of that. you can fill almost any restaurant on friday and saturday night, the point is to filter people into weeknights. I am not making this up, its a widespread practice. You are completely missing the point, they arent rejecting anybody. Its simple math statistical analysis. It has nothing to do with the economics of philly. The perception of desireability is universally effective regardless of zip code. Of course Django was desirable, it would be very naive to ignore the psychology of reservations. Dude I have worked in 4 restaurants where we had meetings about it. ← 1) I several times made reservations at Django with well less than 30 days lead time. I don't know what you were told, but the thirty day "requirement" is clearly not the case. Acquaintances of mine have done the same at Per Se, so idem there. 2) I'm curious as to how exactly this practice would work. If you claim to be booked thirty days in advance, and if someone calls you past that time, how do you "shift" that reservation? And if you do, but the total number of covers is below your capacity, how does your dining room stay full? Not, in the end, that that would make a bit of difference: without the demand being there in the first place, you wouldn't get the number of calls to allow you do do anything like this in any case. The demand must still be generated either by press or word of mouth. And since Django was thoroughly booked well in advance of LaBan's inital review I'd assume mostly the latter. I can well imagine that in the later stages of the previous ownership habit had as much as anything to do with that demand, since by all accounts - and my experience - the place had slipped quite a bit. But hanky-panky in reservation-taking strikes me as a pretty improbable explanation.