Capaneus

Yes, I'm listening. How much is the five-course prix fixe? ← Sixty. Which sounds high. Until you think "Five entrees for twelve bucks apiece"... Not sure they'd let you get away with it, but the menu does say *any* five menu items.

Nothing I mentioned is terribly far (ten blocks tops). Chinatown is cheapest, but the other places are all under $40/head, and the BYO feature will allow those of you with the cushy ride to subsidize the poor working stiffs (there's a good wine store at 1218 Chestnut - ask for Cory).

I went the second day they were open and didn't have to deal with any of the crowd issues, thankfully. I also didn't notice a smoky taste in anything that wasn't supposed to have it, maybe our meals didn't need to be kept warm. The food is excellent, though. We had the beef croquettes and the risotto fingers, both were outstanding. Our entrees were a little on the small side, and not quite as fabulous as the apps, but still great. Did you bring a bottle of wine, or did they finally get their liquor license? We took our own bottle when we went since they weren't serving wine yet, and last I heard they were still waiting for their license. I don't know if you found out while you were there, but they do reservations and the prix fixe only Friday through Sunday (or maybe it starts on Thursday, I forget). Early in the week you can just walk in, and it's a la carte. Of course, whether you'd actually be able to sit down is another matter.. ← The prix fixe is just Friday and Saturday, and in this case not necessarily a great deal. Though, actually, since the five-course is *any* five courses, those of boundless appetites could do quite well (you listening, Herb?); and the three courses for forty is reasonable. So money isn't a real issue, though the liquor license - not yet arrived - will probably nudge them out of my comfort zone. But the crowding is simply insane, and, given the tabling, it's an actual darn *choice* by management, which irks me: it isn't fair to anyone, not the customers, not the servers, not even Chef Stern, whose food deserves better. And the smoker thing was generally acknowledged the night we were there, but only seemed to apply to a few baked goods (and the steak, where it was advertised and welcome). Thing is, the place is *really* good, foodwise, which is the only reason I bothered railing at the other stuff. It's just silly. I guess they're trying to recoup the investment, what with the liquor license and all, but it could easily backfire. Just now there's a lot of see-and-be-seen folks coming in, but they could alienate the rest of us with a couple of visits like mine, and the Pretty People will find a new Flavor of the Month and move on...

Dozens. Maybe you can give us a bit more on price range, willingness to cab, prefer BYO or full bar, other preferences? We're a complicated city! Off the top of my head, there's all of Chinatown within a quick walk, Raddichio offering excellent inexpensive Italian just a hair further away, a number of more ambitious places in various directions for about $40/head (Matyson, Gayle, Chloe, Mercato, many others - and that's sticking to BYOs for the moment).

Went Friday. Great food, with one exception: they use the smoker to keep items warm, and smoked bread and apple pie are not my speed. On the other hand, Mr. Stern has very clearly kept the skill he displayed at Le Bec-Fin. An appetizer of Moroccan-spiced braised lamb paired with raw toro was lovely, the seemingly mismatched flavors bridged by cucumber in different iterations: a little mound of puree and a few raw, lightly seasoned slices; I wasn't allowed to touch the risotto fries - apparently too tasty for the likes of me; the skate was delicious, very straightforward preparation, but perfectly executed; duck two ways was likewise delightful. Etc, etc. You get the point: food good, and I would trust this kitchen with *anything* on the menu. Before you think I'm just shilling for them, though, I have *major* problems with the rest of the Gayle experience. I should say, before continuing, that every staff person we dealt with was perfectly lovely, curteous, helpful and personable. So when I say the place was completely intolerable- at 9:30pm, yet -, you should visualize Azafran that was, then double the number of tables: the space is so infernally crowded, our twosome actually became a foursome, as making new intimate friends was much the better option, since I wasn't able to move without elbowing our neighbors. A server actually did elbow me in the back of the head. I spent a good quarter-hour waiting to be spoken to, on first arriving, and furthermore spent that time trying to negotiate with sundry arrivals and departures for the use of the four square inches of floor available to us all. Blood was not shed, but it was a close-run thing. We were not given the amuse-bouche other tables were offered, most likely because the servers were in permanent overdrive. While these nice young men and women were pleasant and helpful, they clearly did not have the training or experience that allows the staff at La Viola (the only other restaurant in town I think may be as crowded) to minimize the damage to the eating experience. All in all, I am glad I tasted chef Stern's food, but if I return it will be on an off-day and at an off-time. For the $130 I dropped, not including the wine, I need a bit more space, physically and mentally.

For a BYOB on a Monday, I'd try Radicchio, 4th and Wood. I think Matyson may also be open Monday, but not sure.

I'm there. Like, totally! Really, you're safe. We're like a religious cult, only much fatter.

It's the project of one of the founders of Meritage (the wine one, I think). Michael Klein had a short mention in Thursday's Inky: http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/entertain...ng/13130480.htm

Note, however, the penultimate sentence of the Order. Far as I can tell, it is currently a free-for-all. It would be customary at this point for the court to grant an injunction maintaining the status quo (whatever that is right now) until the Legislature can come up with a regulatory framework to satisfy the judgement. As Jeff L implied. But I see no trace of that anywhere. Anybody know? Or should I get on the horn to my various Pushers, Dealers, Mules and Legmen?

Couldn't find the full text of an opinion. Reading the following, it strikes me that the Commonwealth is free to adopt any of a number of systems that would allow out-of-state wineries to function on the same terms as our native-born winemakers. I would expect them to set something up where places would be able to register, then ship to PLCB stores where state sales taxes could be levied. Not sure how much of an advantage that would be for consumers over the several dodges currently available. In general, all this seems to me to make life not much better than it used to be. That may be just my life, though. Any rate, Judge Fullams Memorandum and Order in Cutner v. Newman: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CLYDE H. CUTNER, et al. : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : JONATHAN H. NEWMAN, et al. : NO. 05-03007-JF MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Fullam, Sr. J. November 9 , 2005 At the present time, Pennsylvania law discriminates against out-of-state wineries, and favors in-state wineries. Out-of-state wineries are not permitted to sell or ship directly to consumers or restaurants, nor may they take telephone orders or internet orders. They must sell only to state-run Pennsylvania liquor stores, and may make such sales only at the rate of nine liters per month or less. 47 Pa. Stat. §§ 4-488, 4- 404, 4-491; 40 Pa. Code § 9.143. By contrast, a winery which is “both a citizen and resident of the Commonwealth” may sell wine on its own premises and at other approved locations, directly to individuals, hotels and restaurants. 47 Pa. Stat. § 5-505.2; 40 Pa. Code § 11.111. They may make direct sales without limitation as to quantity, and may ship wine by common carrier. 40 Pa. Code § 11.111. Plaintiff Chateau Thomas Winery, Inc. is an out-of- state (Indiana) winery which would like to sell its product directly to Pennsylvania consumers. Plaintiff Clyde H. Cutner, a Pennsylvania resident, would like to be able to buy and receive wine from out-of-state wineries. Plaintiffs brought this action seeking to invalidate the Pennsylvania laws and regulations which discriminate against out-of-state wineries – discrimination which has recently been ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court, Granholm v. Heald, 125 S. Ct. 1885 (May 16, 2005). Defendants are the appropriate officials of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, sued in their official capaciti es. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The defendants agree that the current Pennsylvania statutory scheme is unconstitutional under the Granholm decision, and agree that plaintiffs are entitled to judgment on the pleadings. The disagreement has to do with the nature of the relief to be afforded. Plaintiffs seek an injunction against continued enforcement of the limitations on out-of-state wineries. Defendants argue, among other things, that this court should simply impose upon in-state wineries the same restrictions against direct sales and shipments as apply to out-of-state wineries. Indeed, defendants argue, in the alternative, that this action is moot, because the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board has issued an “advisory” to the effect that in-state wineries can no longer sell or ship directly to customers. Plaintiffs counter with the argument that the recent “advisory” is a nullity, because the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board does 2 not have the legal authority to repeal Pennsylvania statutes which expressly permit in-state wineries to make direct sales and shipments. It so happens that the Pennsylvania Wine Association and two in-state wineries have recently filed suit in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Wine Ass’n v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, No. 564 MD 2005 (Pa. Commw. Ct., filed Nov. 4, 2005), challenging the validity of the “advisory” notice. On November 7, 2005 – the same date the pending motion for judgment on the pleadings was argued in this court, the Commonwealth Court granted a temporary restraining order against enforcement of the “advisory” notice. Thus, at least for the present, the restrictions against direct sales and shipments by out-of-state wineries continue to be unconstitutional, under Granholm. This case has not been rendered moot. Defendants have also advanced an argument to the effect that this court should abstain from resolving the constitutional issue, but I am not persuaded there is any basis for such an argument. The issue before this court is unconstitutionality under the United States Constitution. An injunction against continuation of the unconstitutional application of state statutes does not, of course, preclude action by the state legislature to correct the situation – in whatever manner the legislature deems appropriate. 3 This court does not have the power to declare perfectly valid state statutes and regulations unconstitutional, but can only invalidate unconstitutional statutes. It is, obviously, not unconstitutional for the state to permit in-state wineries to sell direct to customers. Moreover, as noted by plaintiffs, it would violate due process to impair the statutory rights of in- state wineries in litigation in which they are not represented. For all of these reasons, I decline the defendants’ invitation to resolve the constitutional dilemma by purporting to impose upon in-state wineries the same restrictions which the challenged statutes now impose on out-of-state wineries. That is a matter for the legislature to address. Accordingly, it is clear that the present restrictions against out-of-state wineries cannot constitutionally be enforced. An appropriate Order follows. 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CLYDE H. CUTNER, et al. : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : JONATHAN H. NEWMAN, et al. : NO. 05-03007-JF O R D E R AND NOW, this 9th day of November 2005, upon consideration of plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and defendants’ response, IT IS ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED. 2. It is hereby DECLARED that Pennsylvania’s statutory and regulatory scheme which prohibits out-of-state wineries from selling and shipping directly to consumers, hotels and restaurants, while allowing in-state wineries to do so, is unconstitutional, under the authority of Granholm v. Heald, 125 S. Ct. 1885 (May 16, 2005). 3. Defendants are hereby ENJOINED from enforcing Pennsylvania Statutes, Title 47 §§ 4-488, 4-491, and 4-404, and Pennsylvania Administrative Code, Title 40 §§ 9.143 and 9.145, so as to prohibit out-of-state wineries from selling and shipping wine directly to consumers, hotels and restaurants in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, if, and so long as, in-state wineries are not subject to equivalent restrictions. 5 4. The only alcoholic beverage at issue in this case is wine. This order does not affect the validity of any statute or regulation with respect to other types of alcoholic beverages. 5. Plaintiffs may submit an application for attorney’s fees within 10 days. BY THE COURT: /s/ John P. Fullam John P. Fullam, Sr. J.

Heh. I spend too much money as is. In for a penny...

Also, I wonder why the Omaka Springs Sauvignon Blanc is available at different stores at two different prices under two different stock numbers...

I imagine the rent from the premium-product retailer is one reason they can affor to provide affordable housing. I believe the previous incarnation was also a non-profit of some sort. So the purchasing price is likely to have been well below retail, and the tax burden is probably light. It's admirable they are forgoing the potential windfall, but they're unlikely to be under a heavy out-of-pocket burden.

Yes, of course I realize that one can search inventory and I do this all the time. However if you search for this one you'll see that only a dozen or so stores all show <10 each. In my experience these numbers are usually off, for reasons I don't know, perhaps just poor tracking or breakage or shrinkage or there are inventoried bottles in the store that are earmarked for people and not actually available for sale... many times I've seen some number X shown and then I call the store and they can't find any or they say the number is wrong, etc. When I've seen a large number like 50 or 150, then I can usually just go there and buy some. Anyway, I asked because I thought an "insider" who reads this forum may have a more accurate read on how many might actually be available for sale, generally, or if the word is that they're all basically gone. Since the LCB inventory data is not reliable (at the margin), and since more nuanced info isn't provided on their web site, and since most store employees are not helpful in this regard, I'm left to hope for a better answer here. ← I've generally found the numbers to be accurate, both in my local stores and in other stores nearby when I call to have something transferred. When there is an apparent discrepancy, there's usually a prosaic answer, like the five bottles of Kim Crawford SB being held for an ailing emplyee, or the two cases of Latour Mersault being held for later pickup by a customer. I imagine there is some variance between stores, though, so your local outlet may well have poor inventory control. Also, keep in mind that numbers are updated overnight, not in real time, so any same-day sales will not be reflected on the site. I share your puzzlement about the '04 Burgess, though. I'm positive it never hit Philadelphia stores: I watch them like a dipsomaniacal hawk.

I find Mark Squires to be even tempered and he is not one of those shrill voices against PA that you will on his board. Truth is that his and other people's arguments are valid and I can see how these guys can be frustrated by the system given how and what they buy. PA prices to put it mildly are not the best - that is no secret and then there is all the tax . The CS program and the PLCB in general is not geared to the high end educated palate but toward the general consumer. Its simple dollars and cents. I would not expect many folks on that board to find that a cheaper wine from an off vintage would be worth it. Even if they did, we would only be talking about - what - like 0.005% of wine consumers in the state? Not a market worth trying to capture to help revenue. Having said that, to poo-poo the whole program blindly is to miss out on some good deals. Granted, they are not all amazing buys, but some really are. Random thoughts...... ← I would dispute at least part of that: the greatest virtue of the Chairman Selection program is that it allows those of us with palates different from Mr. Squires - and Robert Parker's - to have access to wines that are widely underrated simply because they do not match those gentlemen's likes. The flaw in the argument is to assume Squires' opinion, or Parker's, somehow trump your own, or mine, or anyone's. I like what I please to like, and so should any thinking wino. The Lancaster Red is a case in point: I enjoyed it greatly, and Mr. Squires throwaway comment that "...it will be better with food" got an uncontrollable "duh!" from yours truly. In fact, I truly *prefer* much of what I've gotten from the PLCB recently to anything I could have found at anywhere near the same price. Would I dump Mr. Newman for a lifetime supply of, say Leroy Richebourgs and first-growth Bordeaux? Who would I be kidding if I said "no"? But that isn't the choice, at least not for me. What Mr. Squires has failed to do is put forth the wines he feels are supperior to the Selections at the price-point offered. Then we will have an oranges-and-oranges discussion, and will be able to debate the merits of each palate. Not to say he is wrong. Not in the least. Or at least not quite. His is clearly an informed and fair-minded opinion, and he states it clearly, giving the reader plenty of warning as to what his likes, dislikes and prejudices are. As, for that matter, does Parker. The culprits, in this as in most things, are the acolytes, those that follow after and have no sense or the relative and contingent nature of all aesthetic judgements. Their loud, unmodulated stridulations give me a sharp pain several places. For them I would prescribe a quick drowning in barely-fermented overripe grape juice. But they do not, if you pay attention, sound much like their leader. And again, I wish them Godspeed in their quest to pay as much as humanly possible for alcoholic, viscous Napa fruit juice and likeminded garagiste St. Emilions. I will continue to seek out sleeker, more structured wines that actually harmonize with food. And, always, St. Estephe. I just wish Parker would go back to giving Cos D'Estournel crappy ratings, so I could afford it. But I cannot blame him too harshly: he's done his level best to steer the masses away from the wines I think are great. And that would be my $.02. Which you cannot have, since I still have a case of Mersault to pay for.

That's the thing: there aren't. This was a particularly extreme example, with our allocation selling out within a day, but the pattern holds for most items: we get less, sell it faster, and then the argument becomes that we "only" sold our tiny allocation. Maybe the problem is that the Chairman Selection allocations are tied to *overall* sales (which I have no idea whatever about). If that's the case, we could be getting hurt badly by the Jersey Factor, and the darn fault is no-one's but our own. But there should still be a way to correct for that, if only to reward those of us who have developed deep loyalties to the Selection program.

And now any lingering doubts as to the strangeness are cleared, as far as I'm concerned: there is currently not one drop of the Latour Chardonnay Chairman's Selection wines for sale in downtown Philadelphia. I just bought the last few bottles of the Chassagne Montrachet, and missed the Mersault entirely. Meanwhile, suburban stores, and stores throughout the Commonwealth, are swimming in vast piles of the stuff. Because, presumably, "sales-based allocations" dictate it should be so. I love love love the Selection program. But something keeps just not adding up here. The kindest construction I can put on this is that someone in Harrisburg really believes that Ardmore and Bryn Mawr are in Philadelphia. As if we'd have them!

Thank you for your kind words. Nice to hear a calming, friendly voice when I'm all verklemt like this. I might need to delegate this purchase to one of you bucolic types, if you're willing. It really does look bad.

You must be reading my mind Mike. Newtown got 35 cases today, I got 12 also, bottles that is. Also picked up some of the lovely Latour Mersault along with that nice St. Frances chard we had the other night at RX. Next for me is a few bottles of the ridiculously priced Chassagne Montrachet. Jeff ← Pop 'em open gents. Let's hear it. Still waiting here..... At Rx, Deidre told me the Il Futuro benefited from 2 hours of decant time when she drank it. Evan ← Also either Parker or the Spectator says it has 10 years aging in it. I truly doubt I'll hold onto any of it for that long. If you're in the neighborhood, I'll pop one for you! ← Must have been the WS. I have seen the WA note on this vintage already. Checking the site daily for any word of Montgomery county stock. Evan ← I %&@# *hate* this: not a drop of the Latour Mersault or the Colombaio near me; the allocations for the two area stores that do have the Mersault are absolutely ridiculously low, compared to what other parts of the state are seeing. *Four* cases per store, in Philadelphia, versus what looks like ten to twelve elsewhere in the area. It's going to get bloody out there, mark my words. Gah! This peeves me greatly.

If you can give us a sneak peek at the date when you know - that'll be just purdy. Evan PS - That Buller Muscat just got a Parker 96 so get some now while it is still around. That was good stuff - thanks Greg. ← It's his kind of thing: he always rates the Chambers-Rosewood highly as well, and it never runs out. Personally, I was a heck of a lot more impressed with the Two Hands.

I tried the Beaune two nights ago, and again last night. I really wanted to like this wine, as the price is certainly outstanding. The bottle I had was very disappointing, very little fruit, nothing off, but just not flavorful. Maybe it was just a bad bottle. I bought a half case and was going back for more, but I'm undecided. And yes, it was open for a couple hours and sampled throughout. In any event, plenty of it in Lansdale as of Monday (as in multiple cases). ← Matter of preference, of course. It was certainly the least fruit-forward wine we had all night. I would describe it as earthy, leathery, terroir-laden Pinot, and bought the first of what will be two cases today. It matched up admirably with both the ragout and the lamb, on Tuesday. By the bye, I will take this opportunity to add my thanks to all involved in this production, paticularly Greg, Mr. Newman, Katie and Deidre. Forgive if I forgot anyone.

But not, of course, a Port.

It was, I believe, the RL Buller Premium Fine Muscat, PLCB code 11402. A great value at $12.49/375ml.

Alrighty, then! This place really is remarkably good. Saturday night 8:45 dinner, we elect to sit at the kitchen counter (which I recommend, since given how the place is set up you get a bit more privacy there). Staff were pleasant and helpful, the space is attractive. The somewhat high ambient noise, abetted by a pulsating soundtrack is initially lively, though with time it will get on my nerves. The kitchen staff behind the counter are young, efficient, their assorted creations appetizing even incomplete, even from a distance. We know we will be ordering the tasting menu, so I get to focus on the wine list: we start off with short pours of the Sly Fox Weisse and the Dogfish Head... IPA? I forget. The existence of the smaller servings of the well-chosen beers is a nice touch, as they are much cheaper ($2 vs. $5), and make a stress-free choice for a quick starter. The wine list itself is small but heavy with reasonably-priced choices, many $40 and under. I settle on a '99 Crianza. Which is out of stock. A quick switch to the homeboy favorite, and I order the '01 Dom Martinho Alentejano, a Portuguese red I've had before and I feel should work well with the menu: more of a food wine, won't have the polish or sophistication of some of the Spanish and New World bottles, but it's closer to what I think of as a tapas red. The tapas start arriving within minutes, as soon as the beers hit the table. That might have felt a bit hurried, but we're hungry, and in any case the added informality works with the experience, so no problems. The first dish is a creamy tuna dip with balsamic, presented with crisp flatbreads. Very tasty. Manchego with honey, apples and bread, and jamon with cornichons, pickled caper berries, mustard and bread follow quickly. These three... well, the sequence was as reported by Cinghiale. My favorite was also the octopus, but I thought the chickpeas with spinach, garlich and tomato was a very near competitor. The chorizo... well, I'm Portuguese. "Theirs" doesn't taste quite right. Very nice, sure, but not like *ours*! I ask about alternative tasting menus for repeat customers, and am told they envision changing the selections every week or two, starting soon. For dessert, we ordered wine-poached figs with a goat-and-cream-cheese-cake made with lime zest, pistachios and something else I forget. Delicious. The service remain assured and pleasant throughout the meal, personable without ever crossing over into intrusive. It was actually one of the better, and better-served, meals I've had in a long time. The tasting menu actually ends up being a *lot* of food. I do wonder how the restaurant works it if you have odd numbers at your table, though? Total was $146 before tip. Not at all bad, considering, and it could have been lower: several drinking options, like beer or sangria, would have cut the total without greatly undercutting the overall concept - they may in fact be closer to the real deal; and dessert was really surplus to requirements: order it if you are eating a la carte, but it is really excessive with the tasting menu. Anyway, very little to quibble about: a duplicate tapa was quickly whisked away; the music was a touch loud towards the end of the night; one of the figs was both unripe and unpoached; Mr. Garces turned out not to be nearly as tall as he looked atop his podium; a dessert wine accidentaly made it onto the very fine and thoughtful list with a 600% markup. All small misteps that did not detract from a terrific and original dining experience. Terrific, terrific addition to Philadelphia's dining scene.

Okay. There's a direct criticism I can understand, not a vague statement based on heresay. I could be wrong. Maybe the new chef ISN'T competent. I've been wrong before, and undoubtedly will be again sometime soon. That's a damned shame. Royal was a go to for me for a couple of drinks and a nice bite to eat. <sigh> Good thing Ben McNamara is back at the New Wave. There's still good bar grub to be had in my 'hood. ← Has Dark Horse definitely gone to Heck, then? I haven't been there since he left, but it was darn decent for a while there...