JohnL

Good tip about the RM designation. I disagree a bit that they are "usually of the similar or higher quality as the premium brands..." I would say they are, generally better quality and value than many of the Non Vintage Champagnes from the large establishments. I would also say that some do compete nicely with the top or prestige couvees from the large houses. Most grower Champagnes are not cheap. (they can range from twenty bucks up to a hundred or more). I would recommend that anyone interested-- try a bottle of Grower Champagne and see if they like it better than other champagnes they are familiar with. Many are suprisingly good!

There are lots of things people don't need. That doesn't mean we go banning them. ← That's my point. If a case can be made that somehow we or our children or the animals or the planet would be better off if we did ban something then there are plenty of groups out there who will take action to get that something regulated or banned. Lot's of folks who are willing to make choices for you by eliminating or reducing your options. Count on it!

I tend to agree with you. The problem with Pollan is much of what he advocates is not practical and has a downside. First "organic" was sold in as better for us and the earth. Then someone like Earthbound farms finds a way to make organic inexpensive and widely available but that's not good enough for the Pollan's of the world. Pollan really wants a return to the eighteenth century where we all drank from the local well or stream. Local farming means cutting down trees! just as many local forests are recovering from the deforestation driven by guess what--local farming. We ban DDT to save some birds and millions of people die from malaria. There are no perfect solutions--to anything. With some common sense and ingenuity we can improve life and protect nature.

A case can be made for a ban or a regulation or a boycott of almost everything and anything etc based upon some altruistic motive or another. sooner or later there will be a movement to restrict or ban an item you may like. (bound to happen). Some people like bottled water. Some people need it for health reasons. Chlorinated tap water may not be the H2O of choice for some. High mineral content well water may not be best for brewing coffee or tea etc for some for whom this water source is the only option. I suggest that if Chez Panisse wants to really do something to "save the world" they stop providing alcohol! Really, alcohol is responsible for the deaths, suffering and illness of tens of thousands of people. I challenge anyone to make a case that alcoholic beverages are a necessity for humans--that we can not live without them. Really, people can have that great local tap water with their meals--the world will be a better place!

Here's my take: Bruni is using the GC thing with the ingredient listings and the ingredient sourcing (the thanking the following suppliers) to support the statement: "Varietal isn't just a restaurant. It's an epicurean advanced placement exam with a dollop of Oscar acceptance speech." This is his way of making the point that Varietal has serious pretensions and pretty much proclaims these pretensions. This is his reporter's "hook"--it is what he builds his review upon. It is his chance to be "witty" and entertaining. Again, I have argued that for the most part, Bruni tends to overdo this at the expense of offering more and more useful information and solid criticism. too often he tries to use things like decor to set a tone and to act as a sort of metaphor for what he believes a restaurant's pretensions are. Here's my theory: Bruni approaches restaurant and food criticism as a reporter. Most restaurant critics are experienced diners and are passionate and knowledgeable about food and restaurants. They provide their perspective and quality assessments based on their knowledge and experience. Bruni, on the other hand, seems to see himself as more of a consumer reporter/advocate an "investigative" reporter of restaurants and the food scene. He is a guy who obviously likes to dine out and enjoys food but who is not an advocate for great food and restaurant experiences. He is an advocate for the consumer--everyman (and woman). Where most other critics would elaborate on a wine list providing more information and insight, Bruni simply wants to convey that " hey this place is serious about wine and food and if you are a real serious gourmand, you could have a good time here...but others may find this stuff a bit over the top..."" A news reporter's or a consumer reporter's approach not a serious gourmand writing restaurant criticism! This approach is not the traditional approach it is found more on blogs and websites where "amateurs" who think they know a bit about food and wine and eating out, like to voice their opinions. You know they are just folks--just like many of us. It is a continuation of the Zagat philosophy that who better to trust for a restaurant recommendation than plain folks. Not some high fallutin foodie/wine geek! real reviews from real people! I believe this is what drives many of us nuts over Bruni and his reviews. It is what the Times (and many other papers) are doing to fight the fact that people are going elsewhere for the things newspapers provide. They suspect (correctly) that their restaurant reviews are no longer as important as they once were. So they have adopted the can't beat em join em philosophy and wrongheadedly adapted the worst aspects of the internet etc. anyway, that's my opinion and I am stickin to it!!! (insert a mental picture of winking smiley face here)

The Center for Science in the Public Interest is a radical organization that use junk science to promote its agenda. What's that agenda? (hint: the head of this outfit is an avowed vegetarian). They basically want to impose their beliefs as to how people should live and eat.

← Wow, this is really brave stuff. They're going to send a letter. That's pretty serious. Next thing you know they'll make a phone call or even call a meeting. Vegetarian options on menus? That's pretty radical. What, you mean like pizza? ← Before anyone forms any opinions on this, I would suggest the consideration of the motivation behind these efforts. The non profit group Farm Sanctuary has a goal of eliminating the "use" of animals for any purpose. Those who believe that these people are promoting the ethical treatment of farm animals are naive at best. The real goal is the complete abolition of livestock agriculture. Here's a quote from a former investigator for the group David cantor: "Everyone who agrees unnecessary animal suffering should be ended must eat no animal food products." Their website states somewhat matter of factly:"these animals are our friends not our food." Interestingly, the obesity issue has become a tool to leverage their political action. It is no coincidence that the head of People for Science in the Public interest is an avowed vegetarian. Puck was obviously brow beaten into submission via a relentless campaign targeting him by the Farm Sanctuary folks. Well meaning people like Charlie Trotter buy into and support foie gras bans. I wonder if Charlie has an inkling that the people behind the movement to get foie gras off his menu are really intent on turning his restaurant into a vegetarian establishment. Again, I suggest people look into these groups and determine their real goals and learn about their tactics and then decide if they are comfortable in applauding their efforts or worse the results of their efforts. farmsanctuary

Boy you guys (FG, Sneak) are really picking nits with your literal readings/interpretations. Only a talented lawyer IMOP-could take what Bruni wrote and convict him! This is a restaurant review not a Bergman film. Maybe the fact that so many can disagree as to Bruni's intent is evidence of Bruni's problem! He is not clear and concise enough? We all seem to be unhappy with Bruni in general but disagree as to specifics. If the term "grower Champagne" was as widely used and known as you assert then it is extremely difficult to believe that Bruni has no idea what it means. In this case I give him the benefit of the doubt. GC's are a fairly recent introduction here. I would guess that relatively few restaurants around the country offer them. (we are spoiled here in NYC). The restaurants (and retailers) that do carry them have to "sell" them because unlike the big names in Champagne these are obscure brands at the moment. Very few people understand the vineyard sourcing of Champagne in general and these small production wines specifically. I still believe that Bruni's point is that Varietal is not a typical restaurant and has higher pretensions especially in wine offerings. The restaurant obviously believes that patrons need to be "educated" about these wines. I also wonder if Bruni is acting as a reporter--the "investigative" thing--rather than a food/restaurant critic? Is he representing "everyman" as a critic as opposed to presenting insights based upon his knowledge and experience (as most critics do). Could this explain his approach which as witnessed here can be confusing? I wonder if Bruni is writing with an audience in mind? (remember the paper thinks of itself as a National publication).

Boy--that's a stretch! I would argue that "Grower Champagne" is not a widely accepted term. The fact is these Champagne's are produced in very small quantities and are not widely available. there really are not that many of them around at this point. Most diners (even fairly serious one's) woul not really know what these are. If they did then Varietal wouldn't need to "explain" what they are. (would they?). also I notice that there is a "gottcha" factor here. Any hint that a writer or critic doesn't "know" something or people assume they are ignorant of some finer culinary point--this is immediately seized upon as evidence of said critic's incompetence. (the Cuozzo issue re: varietal). I would argue that even if Bruni did not know what Grower Chajmpagnes were/are, this would not impact the point he was making that Varietal is really into details and "educating" patrons. I think he was having a bit of fun at their expense and making an important point. But, certainly, we can disagree and read into Bruni whatever we want to. I always use the sage advice from a literature course I took long long ago by some long forgotten sage:"trust the tale not the teller!" Jeez--those sages were sharp!

you still can't take that fact and make the assumption he does not know what "grower Champagnes are." IMOP-- that is! ( I am willing to admit maybe he doesn't know but I just can't see drawing that conclusion from this review). I believe that Bruni was noting the card and the list to make a point. ie listing suppliers etc. the fact that Varietal offers up a lot of information via the menu and wine list etc. also that varietal feels all this information is something that customers want or need.

When Bruni clearly states the correct definition in the review, I can't possibly see where one can draw the conclusion that you come to. Unless, of course, you are applying you pre conceived notion of Bruni's lack of knowledge.

It wouldn't pass a blind test. That, I believe is the point of the Times article. If a panel of esteemed experts can't tell (or at least have great difficulty) a California Cabernet from a Bordeaux (see 1976) that is a wine made from mostly one varietal and a wine made from a blend from grapes grown thousands of miles apart then.... The great point of the Times article is that with wine we are dealing with the wine's flavor profile not where it was made. Again the brilliance of Julia who noted that one should look for a "crisp, dry, white." (the macon) in French cooking. One can follow the advice and seek out a wine from the region the dish comes from as a sort of safe choice. I would caution that the Burgundy used in most older recipes was likely vastly different in profile from the same Burgundy wine one encounters today. It is romantic to cook with the wine we believe was used in the original dishes but beyond the romance, there is often little reality.

FG. Allow me to clarify. I think the "grower Champagnes" are quite good and they offer IMOP, pretty good value (though they are not cheap). In general, I would recommend them over most of the major houses basic NV stuff and I also think some actually compete rather well with some of the various prestige cuvees. They are definitely worth trying. the problem is they are not widely distributed throughout the US. (we are talking fairly small quantities) though the situation is improving rapidly. At the moment, I really love the Gimmonnet! The quotes you provide are IMOP a view that at its most basic level elevates terroir to the primary reason to buy these wines. We can (and have had here at eGullet) endless discussions and debates about terroir. The quotes you provide read like they are from a salesman's spiel or a brochure. They are nothing more than The issue comes down to which is preferable. A wine where the wine maker had grapes from various sources from which to make the best wine that he or she can or a wine that is made from grapes from one single source where the wine maker is restricted in the options. I would argue that sometimes terroir works and sometimes it does not. I would further argue that Champagne already expresses terroir--the terroir of the Champagne region! Most Champagnes taste uniquely Champenois. If that is not enough for some-- If one wants to carry the terroir obsession to its ultimate conclusion to wines made from grapes grown in one specific micro climate within the Champagne region then fine. At the moment, it is difficult to attribute the quality of the Grower Champagnes to the fact that they come from smaller sites within the region. Conversely, the reason so many lower and mid priced Champagnes from the major houses are somewhat mediocre and bland has little or nothing to do with the fact that they are not from individual or single locations. There are many other factors at play. It is safe to say that the grower Champagnes are, for the most part, very fine Champagnes. As for my comments about Bruni's comments: I think his statement about the listing of "Grower Champagnes" needs to be taken in the context of his overall review along with the notes about the listing and citing of ingredients and their origins etc. Yes, many restaurants do these things but I think Bruni was trying to make a point specifically about varietal. basically that the restaurant has some lofty pretensions in how they present themselves to diners and in Bruni's opinion, falter somewhat, in the delivery on those promises. He does note that in his opinion: "Varietal isn't just a restaurant,. It's an epicurean advanced placement exam, with a dollop of Oscar acceptance speech." One can agree or disagree with this but I believe Bruni at least provides support for his assessment. I wonder if Bruni, in general, believes that the current trend to exotic ingredients and declaring ingredient's origins (exotic and otherwise) etc to be pretentious and thus a case of varietal getting off to a bad start with him. He does note some not inconsiderable high points though and awards the place a star.

Someone has to play the role of iconoclast here. Ok curmudgeon! why? The traditional pairings are Banyuls and Ports. I also think a Mas Amiel (Maury) works ok. But really--why? I think chocolate--not a chocolate flavored desert but just chocolate--is one of those food items that eaten by itself while a pleasurable indulgence does not cry out for a particular beverage especially wine. Who these days is serving a candy bar for desert? This chocolate and wine thing is a trend at the moment. In fact, the chocolate biz is promoting chocolate like wine--it's all about the terroir! So we are now looking for the proper wine for the specific chocolate. Wine and....chocolate parties anyone?! Sheesh. I predict a relatively quick return to chocolate based deserts (the old advice--Banyuls and Port etc--really any sweet wine preferably dark) and off you go! Actually, most chocolate deserts cry out for a good cup of coffee. Let's see--my chocolate ganache cake is made with Peruvian blah blah blah single vintage chocolate so maybe a medium city roast Guatemalan Antigua from the Gomez estate or perhaps a Columbian single plantation...... Ok I am done. thanks for you indulgence! carry on......

no, john, in those cases, i do believe it was spelled "terror". they sure tasted scary anyway. ← I remember. Seriously though, there are a lot of folks who believe many of these wines of yore actually were more "expressive." In fact Micro oxygenation was invented to make some of those awful tannic monsters from the South of France (really the Southwest) more palatable. There are people who consider the modern versions (and M-O) the work of the devil! Anyway--this thread and the Times piece is a reminder of just how important Julia Child was and still is!

Yes, they're not Cremant. "grower Champagne" refers to Champagne made from the grapes of a single vineyard. (virtually every standard Champagne, even the most highly regarded V and NV, is blended from the grapes of several vineyards.) grower Champagne is primarily made by small producers. they are very diverse in flavor since they are so expressive of the terroir due to their origin. in contrast, standard Champagnes are specifically designed to reflect the house "feel" year after year. ← Please allow me to correct this. Also apologies to Mr Bruni. I reread the review which reads: "....What servers promote promote at the start of dinner isn't just Champagne. It's "grower Champagne," identified that way on a special card..... The phrase in fact refers to small producers making wines from their own grapes....." I would point out that Bruni (or the restaurant) provides the correct definition of "grower Champagnes." Most Champagne is made by seven major houses who buy grapes (or wines) from growers and/or cooperatives. A very small number of growers also make champagne. Single vineyards have little to do with this as most of these growers own different vinyards and often blend their wines. The grower Champagnes do often come from one or more than one contiguous villages so there is a better chance of the wine being "unique" to or expressive of a smaller area or place.. The trade off is the major houses can select grapes/wines from all over Champagne and theoretically make better champagnes. So called grower Champagnes are no more or less diverse in their flavors than are champagnes from various houses. Voillage to village or house to house! Le difference is le difference. Grower champagnes can be (and often are) better in quality than the basic NV Champagnes from the major houses. and thus can be better value. prices for the grower Champagnes usually sit somewhere between the big house basic offerings and the prestige cuvees. There are very few of these grower Champagnes available (few are made) but I would recommend: Egly-Ouriet, Pierre Gimmonnet, Guy Larmandier, J. Lasalle, Vilmart & Cie, Alain Robert among others. They are certainly worth a try. As for the review--I believe Bruni was right to use the grower Champagne menu to make his case. This place seems to be teetering on the tightrope of overbearingly pretentiousness. In looking at all the other reviews by various critics, I don't feel Bruni "missed" anything and his overall views are pretty much in line with the consensus. I also, upon re reading Bruni, do not believe this is a bad review (the restaurant probably would like two or three stars). Clearly, varietal is targeting more adventurous diners. They are certainly all over the latest trends in food and wine and service. I sense they are also bordering on annoying in their reminders of what they are (or how they see themselves). I recall an old anecdote: A young and still burgeoning actor, Jimmy Stewart was taking some friends to a restaurant in Hollywood. The Captain told the party that they would have to wait a half hour for a table. Mr Stewart's friends urged the actor to, "tell him who you are!" Whereupon Jimmy said, "If you have to tell em who you are....You ain't!"

I am not sure the restaurant review is dying or even sick. I think its venue may be changing or evolving. Zagat and Michelin as well as the internet are all places where restaurant reviews in one form or another are thriving. I think that local newspapers should provide restaurant reviews. They can also cover the sexier trands etc. One problem with the Times is it for some time, has been positioning itself as a "national" newspaper. In doing so, local coverage has been changing in subtle and not so subtle ways. Bruni goes from a position as a reporter on big issues impacting a big audience to a very much smaller position in terms of import and a smaller audience of interested readers. Also given that people go to any number of places for restaurant reviews/information, the role of local restaurant critic becomes even smaller.

Let's not forget that Julia Child's actual recommendations were: a simple Macon white and a basic Borgogne for the red. Of course she offered these as examples of style realizing that back then, these French wines were often not available around the US.

At first I was going to accuse FG of going a bit overboard in his interpretation of Bruni's "swipe" but on second thought I think he may be correct in that Bruni may not understand the term. scary!

Russ those wines you remember were expressing terroir!

I thought there was enough information on the wine program. what specifically did he miss? ← He mentions that there is a wide and varied list with good by the bottle prices, but then fails to give any examples. He mentions the by the glass prices are high, but doesn't give any examples of the choices or the flights. He wasted enough space on the ambiance and on the pedigree of the owners and chefs (and on his mandatory "cute" opening paragraphs). I think he could have devoted another paragraph or two on the focus of the restaurant - wine. ← I agree generally. He could have said more and given some specifics though I thought he captured what the wine service all about well enough. Again, he seems to have found his "hook" and unfortunately, as usual, he spends too much time/verbiage on things that do not matter and not enough on those that do. His real passion seems to be when he gleefully comes up with the hook and then beats it to death (gleefully of course). The decor thing is out of control! He should seriously consider writing for Elle Decor!

I thought there was enough information on the wine program. what specifically did he miss? The "carping" about the grower champagne card was in keeping with his discussion of the pretensions of the place. Most people do not know what is meant by "grower champagnes" and in truth most people do not care though providing a brief explanation/some education is a good thing. I personally think that the whole exotic ingredients thing is becoming a tad pretentious as is citing the provenance of ingredients exotic or not. If diners are interested they can ask. I also continue to believe that Bruni approaches restaurants and food as though he were a reporter of hard news. His pieces seem to lack a certain passion and joy for eating. Dining out, for him, seems to be no different than any reporting assignment.

That wine shop owners and staff hear this, as well as a lot of other misunderstandings about wine, is not surprising. The average consumer frequently picks up pieces of advice without really understanding it. Actually, the Julia quote makes sense in its historical context. At the time she wrote that, there were a lot of truly horrible French wines on the market. She didn't say "great wine to use"; she said "good" and there were a lot that were not. Today we are fortunate to have a great deal of inexpensive, pleasant tasting if not complex, wines available from many parts of the world. ← Basically, the Times piece revisits Julia Child's original advice and pretty much agrees with it. Moskin updates things a bit. The basic advice is use a good quality table wine to cook with. The underlying issue is the price and quality relationship of good quality table wine in today's market. The one manager of a wine shop quoted in the piece notes it is difficult to get a customer to accept that the store's $5.99 or $6.99 Portugese wine he recommends for cooking is "too cheap." The problem is not cooking related it is that customers have not accepted that these wines are good to drink period. I believe he is misreading them. Again, a case of people confusing cost or price with quality. For years the wine industry has too often sold wine on this basis. It is no wonder people are confused. Today, $7 is a fair price for a good basic table wine for drinking and cooking! He needs to sell his customers on the wine as good to drink before they buy into it as good to cook with. The slippery slope is for people to categorize wine into drinking wines and cooking wines. This is the essence of what Julia Child was saying. It was pertinent then and it is pertinent now!

The derivation is right there in the Time's piece. first sentence! "In the beginning there was cooking wine..." This is clearly presented as the impetus for Julia Child's quote. Julia Child recommended using a "good" wine. Not an expensive wine. What Julia said has nothing to do with cost. Moskin notes this and then moves on to her thesis which has to do with cost rather than quality. In the course of her investigation she comes across the truth that wine in cooking has more to do with its physical attributes/and flavor profile than its cost. This has been noted by folks from McGee to Peterson. The issue of the Times piece is "Cheap wine vs expensive wine." For the last twenty years or more myriad food and wine writers have been expounding the virtues of inexpensive quality wines for drinking and noting that cost does not always equate to quality. How one could believe that there is a prevailing "myth" here? I don't know what wine shop owners are stating that there is a consensus that "customers are reluctant to cook with cheap wine." What do they define as "cheap?" This where I believe there is a lot of confusion. Good vs poor, expensive vs cheap. I can see where some people would take the Julia quote to the extreme--if they drink expensive or great wines frequently then they would probably believe that they should cook with these same wines. Outside of Sutton Place where are all these folks? Most people spend less than fifteen dollars for wine so if they cook with what they drink (using Julia as a rule of thumb) then alerting them that they could spend less on the wine they use for cooking is a nice tip but IMOP no huge revelation. Also if there are some wealthy folks who are cooking with the same 1961 First growth Bordeaux they are drinking then they too will now be able to save some money. An equally, less than huge revelation. What the Time piece does do, I believe, is state the fact that it is not price that determines a wine's suitablity for use in cooking and add some explanation. Julia's initial advice was good--it still is-- but many people have refined that advice and elaborated upon it. Frankly, I am suprised that Julia herself did not expound upon it at some point. Anyway, I think we agree the piece is good and the information is good. We can disagree on how revelatory and earth shattering the conclusions are.

The problem may be that there just are not many good restaurant reviewers. Symbols and numbers and any other forms of shorthand can never provide a reader with a real sense of what a restaurant is all about. They can not convey what the experience of dining in a given establishment is like. Most diners want to know--"if I dine there what kind of experience will I expect to have and what is the food like?" Toques and forks and numbers simply can not convey these things. I am not sure a restaurant review needs to be entertaining. Its primary purpose is to convey important information. The entertainment factor is secondary. There are few restaurant critics who can excel at providing this information and being witty insightful and entertaining all at once. Unfortunately, in this age of the internet and video games, a large chunk of society has difficulty dealing with information that is not delivered in shorthand and/or a manner that holds their attention long enough to convey that information. Thoughts and opinions need to be quantified and summarized. People seem to have trouble drawing their own conclusions and subtlety is giving way to the painfully obvious. Style is becoming more important than content or substance. So, I believe that restaurant reviews are important as long as people dine out. The definitions and thus the roles of reporter, investigative reporter, critic, reviewer, writer, humorist, diarist, blogger, etc etc etc --are all blurred. They (the media) are confused and we the audience are equally confused.