JohnL

I don't believe this has much to do with sensationalism or tabloid journalism as much as it has to do with the basic function of a newspaper in providing accurate reporting as well as gravitas. There's plenty of room for entertainment and opinion. The Times (and other new outlets) are basically downplaying or sublimating good accurate reporting which engenders trust and lends gravitas to their coverage (of whatever)-- in favor of "personality reporting" that amounts to reporting imbued with the so called life experience and personality of the person doing the reporting. There are some very talented reporters/writers who can pull this off and maintain a standard of accuracy and detachment a good reporter needs to accurately convey information and perspective. A review (of anything) is always part objective and part subjective. The fact that the paper itself "brags" that their reporter on global climate is in fact, a musician who plays with an environmental activist like Pete Seeger is indicative of how the current management "sees" the role of reporters. How anyone could possibly read a piece on global warming and feel comfortable that the paper is presenting a subject with accuracy and expertise is beyond me. Restaurant reviewing is not as serious as general news reporting. I agree. However, isn't it more important that its reviews (as opposed to feature writing or blogging are imbued with perspective and experience as well as overall expertise? (one can provide this and be witty and entertaining in the process). To use someone you note as an example Mimi Sheraton is more than qualified to write reviews of restaurants. She is also an entertaining writer. While her writing is personal she does not let her personality get in the way of the task at had--reviewing a restaurant. I feel that while he has his moments, Bruni's writing is awkward and one wonders what how to take his comments--does he really know what he is talking about? I agree he knows his cinema and musical theatre! There's just way too much debate over Bruni at this point to make even his fans feel comfortable that he has credibility as a restaurant and food critic.

John, you see it that way because that's the way it is - sophomoric at best, self-serving at worst. The Times has become a parody of itself. A once meaningful, liberal-oriented newspaper with a sometimes keen insight on the substantive issues of the day, it has become no more than a sensationalist tabloid with a flare for the absurd - and nothing exemplifies that better than the Dining Section. I agree with your entire statement. ← I miss Johnny Apple! (and AM Rosenthal and Punch and Frankel and.....)

Serving a cheaper wine than ordered. I don't know what's in it for the server, but the restaurant would save on cost if the person didn't notice. Oh course this is usually only true if the restaurant has a lot of wines by the glass. Personally, I always like to see the bottle before I get a glass, and this is the way we do it at the restaurant I work at. Sometimes they pour a taste, and sometimes not (depends on the server, although if ordering at the bar, this is always done).That way the customer knows they are getting the right wine, and also so they can see the bottle if they are interested in the brand. If I had been poured the wrong glass before, I could see wanting to see the bottle in future restaurants because it just saves the hassle of possibly complaining, and makes the situation easier for everyone, since I hate having to complain about something in a restaurant, it just sets a tone I don't like to deal with. ← Thanks. I still find it hard to believe a place would be so chintzy as to try to squeeze a buck or two out of a glass of already highly marked up wine! I would guess places like this have no problem serving "scallops" punched out of skate wings! Cheeesh! Also you bring up a nice aspect of pouring the glass from a bottle at the table. allowing the customer a "taste" of the wine before pouring the full glass is a very nice touch.

Interestingly, in yesterday's Times there was a special section dedicated to "selling" some of the Time's reporters as serious "journalists." On the front page of this section was an ad for bruni. Headlined: "He's Doing some serious eating. with Your next meal in mind." (this under a large photo of someone (presumably Bruni) sitting at a table with a water pitcher hiding his face). In the large type body copy is the following: "...he has learned the importance of keeping a low profile; for this beat discretion is key." also "As he sees it, he is an investigative restaurant reporter." This section also has a page dedicated to Andrew Revkin who has been reporting for the Times on global warming and climate change who by the way has another beat:"music." In fact this guy when not covering the very serious topic like global climate plays in a band with Pete Seeger! Really! This section has to be read to be believed. it IMOP synthesizes everything that is wrong and wrongheaded about the Times present direction. The sort o mini profiles of the reporters featured are dangerously close to unintended self parody! The Times clearly does not understand the difference between reporters who are knowledgeable journalists and "interesting" people who have really cool life experience and travel a lot. As I see it, the debate here has come down to whether or not the poster finds Bruni's recent piece funny or not. I do not--as I stated before I find Bruni's humor to be sophomoric and often self serving. The fact is, if someone enjoys bitchy, and self interested witty restaurant reporting there are a lot of places where this is done much better. There is a line between good and entertaining writing that is also good journalism and self interested/important personal diary pieces (read blogs) . The Time and Bruni IMOP--have not only crossed the line but trampled on it.

I think the problem is that industry (healthy or otherwise, large or small) does not want special interest groups using the government to establish rules and regulations for them. We do need rules and regulations and there is always a fight between interests which is usually a healthy one that results in rules and regs but maintains a healthy free market. My problem here is that I believe that outfits like CSPI are not fairly presenting a case. (industry doesn't have totally clean hands either). I also believe that the agenda of group like CSPI goes far beyond representing the consumer. The debate should start with studies like the Pew study linked here which indicates the problem is much more complex and points to solutions that are not so easy. It is easy to target things like advertising. Lot's of money there and finding a "culprit" that absolves everyone else of any responsibility ("the TV told me to eat at MacDonalds's") means there will be little resistance to heavily regulating an industry. These consumer interest groups rely on money generated by often helping create the belief there is a problem rather than identifying real problems for consumers. They are often driven by profit motives as much as the industries they look to keep in check.

Your cost to produce the juice comparisons are flawed. Very fine wines for the most part cost a lot more to produce than basic table wines. Most fine wines are from limited growing areas--often single vineyards. Yields are most often well below those of so called industrial vineyards. Fine wines are often made from vineyards that require a lot of work--canopy management, crop thinning, etc. In the winery, these wines receive a lot of focused and labor intensive treatment as well as expensive oak barrels (mass market wines are more often flavored with oak chips etc.). Interestingly, it is in the area of marketing where many fine wines are more efficient than mass market wines. Most truly fine wines are sought after by their much more discerning market and require little if any "marketing or advertising."

If you can tell that the wine served wasn't the one ordered, why do you need to see it poured from the bottle? I should explain - I don't mean this as a nasty or sarcastic comment one bit. I'm curious though. Before I say why I'm curious, I'm hoping you'll answer. This happens to me a lot with varietals; I get brought a glass of a different grape than I ordered (even in France where we're not ordering by the grape). Sometimes it can be a legitmate mistake, and other times it's deliberate (I know this because people have confessed). So I'm wonderng why you say that. ← I am confused. I hadn't realized that these problems exist in wine by the glass service. Pouring the wine from the bottle at the table is a nice touch, especially if the wines offered by the glass are a cut above the usual selection of house wines. Normally, the bottle is presented when ordering a full bottle to let the customer see what he or she is buying and to ensure that they are getting the wine they specifically ordered. The problem encountered most here is often a vintage different than the one ordered (rarely if ever is the wrong wine mistakenly brought). I would also add another area that many customers often overlook--the condition of the bottle and the fill level. When ordering by the glass, if the wines are basic house wines anything more than bringing a glass of the wine could be a bit pretentious. Having the customer "inspect" a bottle already open, of an unpretentious house wine is, well, pretentious, IMOP. it also is a possible reminder that the restaurant is serving an inexpensive wine at a high by the glass mark up. I wonder why a restaurant would "deliberately" bring the wrong wine by the glass? What's in it for them?

You are so right--perspective does color opinion! Also thanks--the Pew study is very interesting. My point has always been--people know they are overweight and they know how they got there. This is very complex and there are no easy answers. The people who like to lecture us are quick to find easy answers that suit them.

I don't know if "failed" is the correct term but I believe Liebrandt's previous efforts were somewhat unsuccessful because he was in the wrong locations where expectations were such that he did not deliver. There is a reason Wylie Dufresne has been successful--location. He has also met the expectations of his audience (they also find him). Liebrandt may be better off downtown much more accessible to a more adventurous dining crowd.

I think some interesting points are brought up in an article by Michael Pollan regarding the phenomena of supersizing--which applies not just to the supersize options offered at fast food joints, but also to the evolution of "regular" portion sizes, especially at chain restaurants to their current proportions. It makes sense that these concepts do apply to chain restaurants to a larger extent than they do to independent restaurants due to the economies of scale available to the former. The article is “Fat Land: Supersizing America” by Michael Pollan. click I think it's best to read the article but I've tried to capture the main points below. (A more complete treatment of this phenomena and how it fits into the even larger and more genernal picture of the U.S. food supply and its production is given in his book, The Omnivore's Dilemma. The industry term for this conundrum of being able to increase profits when bounded by a given number of consumers and the amount of food that they can eat in one day is "fixed stomach". In The Omnivore's Dilemma Pollan also mentions the term used by economists, "inelastic demand". The article than describes how the concept of supersizing developed as an idea and strategy to sell people more food—given the restraints of psychology and price. The main point is that they found through testing and starting in about the late 1960's that people would be willing to eat more if the individual serving size was increased as opposed to choosing the route of ordering multiple servings. Another point that is discussed is the issue of saiety. That is, how can or will people eat more if they are full? Isn’t that a constant? Studies on saiety show that people when given larger portion sizes will eat up to 30% more than they otherwise would have. (This definately fits with my experience and eating more than I "need to" sometimes is certainly pleasurable. But is this a good way to eat on a regular basis?) This phenomena is described as being related to an “elasticity” in hunger which may well be a good evolutionary advantage. The key is, though, that the advantages of this behavior are found in times where potential famine or low food supply is a possibility and arguably not when food is available twenty four hours a day and seven days a week. Lastly, the article ties in how the decreased cost of manufacturing food permits sellers to increase the price of food relative to the portion size so that they can still make a good profit. Pollan's book also discusses how processed food, including but not restricted to the famous example of corn and corn syrup, critically fit into this cycle. This last point is also fleshed out in a lot more detail in Pollan's book. In any case, reading the article and the book made me think a bit more deeply about the issues raised in this and other threads. How one decides to respond on a personal level to this information and how or if we as a society decide to work to "combat" some of these trends is, I think, a separate issue. Nevertheless, there will be many who will be resistant to even being informed. I also think it is a bit simplistic, once becoming aware of some of these issues, to think that the state and size of food offerings at restaurants (and also on supermarket shelves) is only driven by consumer "choice". One needn't look to plots or conspiracies but simply economics. ← It is equally "simplistic" to argue that Madison avenue and corporate America are responsible for "tricking" us into acting irresponsibly. We are awash in information and unfortunately, those who are reasonable and have a more balanced perspective are often not heard. Pollan says many interesting things--he has an agenda. He often takes information and uses it to advance his agenda. I am as skeptical of pollan as I am of Madison Avenue. Things are not so simple--as Pollan would have us believe (or Madison Avenue). Take alcohol--beer wine liquor. There is not a single case to be made from a health standpoint (I haven't seen it) that we need alcoholic beverages in our diets. In fact most humans do not have a natural taste for wine beer or liquor-- these are "acquired" tastes. Most kids do not "like" the taste. However, I have seen many very compelling arguments about the negative impact upon society of alcoholic beverages. The case seem to be right there staring us as society in the face. Alcoholic beverages should be banned! Society would be better from a health standpoint. Are we ready to take this perfectly logical step? Or are things a bit more complex? Pollan likes to make assumption (based on information/data/studies of course) and then proceed with his thesis. OK--he starts with obesity, makes the case it is bad and then the case we have an epidemic at hand. I am not so sure that any of this is reality. what's "obese"? I know, there is a definition but take obese to the next step--unhealthy. Is a three hundred pound NFL lineman who can outrun most of the non obese population and is by most standards more healthy than the average person---someone who should lose weight (and his job) immediately? I know this is an extreme example but the Pollan and the CSPI people like to use "extreme" examples to make their case. Pollan does offer plenty of food for thought but his "utopia" also involves trade offsa--there are negative consequences to what he proposes. see where this is going? Are we truly worse off healthwise today with all the fast food and chain restaurants than we were long ago before these places existed? Does the fact that some kids spend a lot of time in front of TV sets and computer terminals and gameboys rather than run around outdoors perhaps play a not so insignificant role in any real health problem? Should we as a society force the industry to put timers on gameboys? ban them? or maybe we should provide good balanced and fair information to parents and let them take whatever action they deem appropriate? Maybe we should all watch A Clockwork Orange again (reading the book is too much to ask these days). Are there tradeoffs in removing pleasure from the equation? Should we continue to rely upon individuals to make informed choices and enjoy certain leasurable things accepting a level of trade off (consequence) they deem appropriate for them and their families. or should "society" take control and "do something"??? It is just not so easy.

Actually I believe a decade or so ago Mark Strausman was the chef at Stringfellow's. Also, not exactly a strip club but related, David Burke is involved with Hawaiian Tropic Zone. ← This is interesting. Perhaps some perspective in the review noting the state of food in strip clubs (the buffet in Scores was "interesting") would have been better than inside film and theatrical references. Perhaps more about the chef than the barbeque note. Some history some perspective. Funny, I can't help but think that years ago the paper (any paper) would be horrified if the major buzz about a piece was over the writers gayness or blackness or femaleness or their credibility rather than the content and quality of the story. I suppose today that the buzz is what's important--any buzz--everybody is a star--everybody is famous--it's all good!

Humor and wit are welcome in any writing. I suppose the options here were to write a shorter review or fluff up the piece with--wit and humor. The difference for me is wit and humor in the service of being informative and readable are one thing. With Bruni I often find that he applies wit and humor for its own sake. This review was almost buffoonish--more than a bit over the top. A good joke is a good joke and one should move on. We get the point--it's a seakhouse in a strip joint and the meat is very good. The wit and humor of say a Johnny Apple was always erudite and in service of the greater task at hand. The wit and humor of Bruni is often sophmoric--like a bunch of high school smartasses giggling at their own cleverness and cackling over how "inside" they are. Bruni who already had credibility problems has only added fuel to the fire here. I think the paper has done a good job with the food section overall. It is the paper's reporting (of which criticism is part) that is suffering from less than highly credible voices who write well and understand the subjects about which they write. If the Times wants to have a bitchy, gay columnist who writes about the food scene with a bitchy gay perspective--okay, I can buy that. But when that writer is supposed to be writing critical reviews of restaurants --I have a huge problem. Just the way I have no problem with a reporter with political views (everyone is human) but when those politics begin to inform the reporting, the line has been crossed and I can no longer trust the writing. I always believe that Shakespeare was right (I think it was him) when he said "trust the tale not the teller."

The problem is the Times is trying desperately to compete with the internet, other papers and publications. It can do this by being a standard bearer for journalism or it can attempt to out do these other outlets by being more "snarky" and "clever" and hip. It was once an "elite" publication because it set standards and adhered to them and people respected the paper. Now it is "elite" because it is taking on an "elitist" stance as a paper for those who are hip and in the know. Pinch has combined his mis guided multicultural we can change the world view with if you can't beat em join em and the results are scandal and embarrassment, lost credibility and circulation. In the battle with National Inquirer and People and the the blogs it will ultimately lose. Instead of challenging other news outlets with its quality it is descending to their level.

The Times continues to lose circulation. It continues to be relevant as a paper of record. This is clearly a result of the multicultural mentality of Pinch (and Keller). Professional journalism went out the window long ago in favor of politics and lifestyle and race--the paper, once an observer with a slightly left liberal political bent-- has become an advocate a cheerleader and a promoter. A restaurant reviewer's political views or sexual orientation has no place in a professional review for a "mainstream" newspaper of record. For example reviewing a restaurant from a political viewpoint--say Democrat--would be acceptable in a publication that declares itself a "liberal publication" say the New Republic or for Conservative perspective--the Weekly Standard. What the Times does not realize, and what I suspect is at least partly to blame for declining circulation--is that those who want or appreciate a gay perspective in restaurant reviewing have places to go--the rest of the world who, whether straight or gay, want restaurant reviews according to professional journalistic standards--based upon criteria like food, decor, and value--from a reviewer who understands these criteria and upholds standards from a perspective of love of food and dining out, a knowledge of and respect for the history and experience in dining out as well as how dishes are prepared etc. The whole gay perspective gets in the way. What is clever, bitchy and funny in a Gay paper or a general entertainment publication is obnoxious and out of place in the Times. Now, every Times restaurant review will be read with a jaundiced eye--instead of insight into the establishment being reviewed, people will "look" for the witty inside jokes wondering if they "get" them or are missing anything. The criticism will be assumed to be based on criteria like is the place hip for New York gays not New York diners (from casual eaters out to gourmets). In effect, the reviews are less about the restaurant and more about gayness and Bruni, personal diary stuff not professional journalism. Bruni is now a "gay restaurant reviewer" instead of just a professional critic a journalist. The great paradox of political correctness is that true equality means acceptance into a mainstream and respect for a person based on their skills and talents not their politics or sexuality. The reviews will cease to matter for most people--the circulation will continue its downward slide and a once great paper will eventually hit bottom.

Does anyone really believe that the people who order these "extreme" examples have no idea that they contain a lot of calories? Suppose we list all the calories and the fats and whatever and people still order these items. Then what? Would everyone be satisfied that the consumers have been adequately informed and are "aware." and drop the issue???? Some of the answers are in munchymoms great post. I personally like the idea of providing information as to calories etc. But that is where it should end. Unfortunately, the good folks ay CSPI are, I fear, not going to be happy that they have done their job informing the public. I have a sneaking suspicion they are up to a bit more than just helping us make good decisions.

My point re the four star joints is that the food police will not stop at fast food chains. Also--fair is fair! If informing consumers about fat and calorie content in restaurants is a good thing then it is good regardless of the restaurant setting. The real issue is should we be allowed to make our own decisions bad or good. When you say "we have a problem" I have a problem. If people want to line up for fast food or four star food or good or bad or whatever that is their decision. If MacDonald's offers so called healthy food and people do not order it then they have spoken. I do not have a problem with regulating food offered in schools or establishing reasonable labeling laws etc. Let's not be naive--we know what's bad for us and what moderation is--the CSPI have been screaming about calories in food for years--remember they were the people who said Chinese food and Mexican food were bad for us! The problem is when we make our choices they are not happy--that's not enough for them because they believe they know what is best for us. By the way--wanna eliminate obesity? Why not go after white flour pasta--complex carbos are now though to be a problem let's ban Italian restaurants. This never ends. The fact is the head of the CSPI is a vegetarian with views on eating that are well outside the mainstream. That's fine. But he is not someone I trust to tell me what I should or should not be eating. I simply question their "science" their motives and their methods. I know what Burger King is all about I can deal with them (remember moderation and exercise--works in most every food situation).

With the ongoing debate between Pollan and MacKey this Times piece by the inimitable Marion Burros will be of interest to many here. I have long felt that the new religion of healthy eating and sustainable agriculture (an off shoot or sect if the "save the earth/environmental religion) presents some interesting problems for its proponents. Organic is good but when organic is adapted to large scale operations like Earthbound farms and the benefits of economy of scale -- suddenly organic gives way to to the "holier" goals of small and sustainable. While the high priests like Pollan fall all over themselves defining and explaining the quasi religious terminology: organic, small, sustainable, bio dynamic (we often forget that the original philosopher/holy man Rudoph Steiner came long before the Pollan's of the world), the acolytes like MacKey are struggling mightily to reconcile these beliefs with reality and commerce. "can we be large and economical and yet remain pure and ....." I long for the days and beliefs of people like Eli Zabar and the Balducci's and Dean and Delucca and Citarella and the Lobels et al who simply tried to bring the best quality (read tasting) items at fair (and sometimes not so fair) prices to those of us who appreciate the best as well as all the artisans who produced these wonderful food items. Times were simpler and the food was better (IMOP of course) NY Times

Remembering a recent and wonderful three course dinner at Canteen in SF, I'd be willing to make the same bet as well! The comparsion leapt to my mind after reading the previous comments. ← The truth is you don't know what the caloric or fat content of your "4-star tasting menus" was. I have seen enough chefs "finish with butter" to be somewhat skeptical. So to follow through--all menus should list fat and caloric information. As for the center for Science in the Public interest. Well, I often wonder how otherwise intelligent people accept their dire warnings with no skepticism. Interestingly, these people are self professed-- public activists with a history of making claims that are often based on junk science. In fact, I wonder if you have looked at who is on their board and how they are funded. The truth is, many of these groups are not dedicated to informing the public so that we can make our own choices based upon sound science and common sense. Rather, they are fear mongers who have an agenda that that goes far beyond information. Witness the myriad lawsuits and threats they are quick to enact. I would argue that these people are far from a group of concerned mainstream citizens and some of the comments they make and positions they take indicate clearly that they do not believe that you (we) are capable of making our own well informed choices. So--once again. Is a lot of fast food over loaded with fats and calories--yes. remember fat tastes good--those four star chefs are finishing sauces and dishes with fat for a reason! Should we be aware of what we eat and the consequences--well that's a no brainer really. I believe we should have choices and with that freedom comes a downside--somke will make bad choices--they will have to live with the consequences. I do nor want a world where some people with questionable ethics and motives eliminate choices for us through fear mongering and bans and prohibition (I suggest you look at the CSPI views on alcohol) and legal action. I have no problem if there are regulations based on open and accurate public forums and debate. I also--suprise--have no problem with public interest groups--if they use good science and logic---and if they disseminate solidly supported information without screaming at me that my children will die if I don't listen. That's just me though.

I wonder why they are not looking at the menus from say four star restaurants. Seems to me the menus of most places are loaded with calories. Why go after the so called chains only? Also these folks are becoming pretty tiresome with their puritanical warnings of gloom and doom. For some reason if things are so bad--how is it that we are living far longer these days compared to a time when there were no chains? Listening to these people one would think we'd be tripping over dead bodies in the streets! Not that we should not be aware of what we eat or practice moderation. But enough already!

I think the key is the advice offered at the very end of the piece. "It's still a real handy book, but I think people should take it with a grain of salt..." I suspect that the people who participate in the reviews and ratings face the dilemma inherent in any rating system, can a pizza joint be rated along side a high end establishment? I have never had a problem with this, it is obvious to me that a score relates to a restaurant within its peer group. I also wonder if the general public is all that discerning. People who frequent the Cheesecake Factory often probably believe it is a twenty point or more establishment, it is popular and it probably does do a better job than most of its competitors but.... So, I think that using Zagat's (or any guide) one must bring some common sense, some outside knowledge and try to put the guide into as much context as possible. Anyone who takes the numbers literally, is IMOP, being naive or foolish. Now let's see--does three stars from Bruni equal a twenty or a twenty five in Zagat?

I also have been thinking about this. I too often prefer lunch to dinner in a fine restaurant. Even in the most formal of restaurants there is a slightly more relaxed atmosphere, less tension, things seem more convivial, the restaurant is not as "on stage" as during dinner and patrons seem to be more interested in good food and conversation and less aware of "being in a special place." Everyone seems to be less conscious of where they are, what they are doing, and more aware of each other. I believe that the staff is is actually more focused on you and less tense less concerned with other things other people. I also agree that most restaurants "look" better in daylight and there is an air of naughtiness--the rest of the world is scurrying about, working and we are here relaxing enjoying a drink or some wine and great food. I had a great lunch at cafe Boulud recently, the place was maybe three quarters full, there was a nice mix of upper Eastside ladies who lunch, well to do businessmen (antiques, old money finance?) some tourists etc one or two dining alone. the staff couldn't have been more congenial, there was even time to chat a bit with them. The captain stopped by more than once to inquire about the food. The room looked great in the sunlight. Another recent lunch at L' Atelier Robuchon at the counter--we brought wine which the staff opened and discussed with us--they couldn't have been friendlier or more casually professional (a good thing). The atmosphere was more conducive to enjoying the food--there was less a sense of "we are at Robuchon" no sense that we were part of a theatrical endeavor. Again the staff was amenable to chatting about anything--we learned something about some wonderful people--a very young server who was learning more about wine--she was curious about what we had brought with us, the feeling was that we were part of a family rather than server and patron--though everyone was very professional--there wasn't that sort of sheer curtain of formality between staff and diner one experiences at dinner. Again the staff was not overly friendly but rather let us engage them as we wished--they were just more open to it. I think the future of lunch depends upon the usual--location, location, location. The midtown lunch fixtures are fewer than ever due to the direction business has taken--less formal less time. Places in Hotels will do better--tourists etc. "Hangouts" for specific industries should be ok--Michaels, The Four Seasons etc. There are still enough upper east side ladies who lunch to keep a few places going. It would be a shame if the mid day dining experience is lost to "progress." This brings me to another favorite dining time for me. Early dinner. I have found that dining at say five or six pm can, depending upon the restaurant, be a terrific experience. better than diner at eight!

I can't help but wonder if the biodynamic farming philosophy is pushing things a bit too far--to the point of absurdity actually. Steiner is a fascinating fellow with some fascinating ideas, many of which are certainly worth considering. However, I also wonder if biodynamic farming which takes organic farming to an extreme degree bordering on witchcraft, voodoo, and quasi religious mumbo jumbo, is just a further complication in considering wine. Consumers are confused enough, especially when it comes to wine. I also believe that if a farmer believes that certain methods are better for the grapes, the wine and/or the planet then he or she should simply practice them quietly. I admit I am skeptical about touting such things on the wine label. The wine should speak for itself. The truth is, it is impossible to ascertain by taste or any qualitative standards, a wine made using conventional methods from one from organically grown grapes or one made according to biodynamic principles. Proponants are quick to cite Joly (not a good example as the Coulee de Serrant has been up and down in quality for some time) or Leroy et al; ignoring the many more equally fine wines made conventionally as well as the biodynamic wines that are less than stellar in quality. There seems to be a search for some spitrituality in farming and wine making and this is welcome but within reason. If a wine maker believes that standing naked in the vinyard and baying at the moon on every third Tuesday of the growing season is a good thing so be it, religion is fine, his or her job is to grow the best they can-- but I prefer they keep their methods to themselves! Like the sausage maker, I prefer to enjoy the fruits of their labor in ignorant bliss. I just want to drink good wine. (wine I think is good).

As you said, it's just your opinion. I just described the concept as described to me by the restaurant's food and wine director. ← Yes, it is my opinion. The inevitable conclusion is this place is suffering from being over thought conceptually. Resulting in a lot of confusion. Maybe they should have opened three separate and distinct places. One hopes they will be able to somehow make some adjustments and add some much needed cohesiveness.

Thanks for the comment. Though I can imagine that the upshot could be true in some broad sense, it contradicts my own experience of 1996 reds in a couple of ways. Luck isn't to be disparaged, but selective buying entered here too of course, as is often important. Wines I mention here were chosen for buying after tasting them (when new on the market) or with considerable knowledge of the producer, by experienced Burgundy fans. I tried a few score of them when new, and bought some. Other people that I taste with did likewise. We try them occasionally, including (as above) in group tastings. (Including a large tasting a couple years ago merging multiple tasting groups; Allen Meadows attended that one.) Given all of this, with 96 reds I've tried in recent years the issue was rarely that they didn't last (in fact, surprisingly, I have a Bourgogne-Rouge, cost around $15, drinking very well, and some village wines only slightly more expensive; again, they were not random). Rather, the issue especially in denser wines has been long "closed" or hibernating intervals. Some of them may stay comatose; who knows. (Some people are still waiting for 1988s to "come around" and it is getting to be a long wait ...) ← I have had little luck with the 96's. I have dumped more than a few down the drain after a taste or two. Some have bizarre notes and flavors and some are just plain dull. I agree with you about the 1988's. if they haven't "come around" by now they are not going to ever. Of course someone will open one at age fifty and declare it vibrant and alive--la di da! This is a reminder of the pain and suffering one endures with Burgundy. I just enjoyed my last 1990 La Romanee (Bouchard) and it was IMOP as good as it gets. I excitedly, started opening some of my 96's and came crashing back to earth!

I have to admit, using white "to enable wine drinkers to get a sense of the wine's color" is IMOP--pretentious bordering on the idiotic. The primary goal of restaurant decor should be to create a comfortable atmosphere for the enjoyment of food and wine and camaraderie. The white bar is not, in and of itself, a problem--though a simple white mat would suffice. However, if the use of white in the overall decor is such that the "starkness" is off putting or cold, then it is a definite problem. There's a big difference between tasting, and evaluating and enjoying wine. This restaurant would be better off if they were simply concerned with people enjoying wine and having fun. Beyond a swirl a sniff and a swallow, there's not much more to it. I sense that this place may be stubbing its own toe in trying to be too many things rather than just a fun place to go for a drink and a meal. A wine bar is different (at least it should be) than a wine school.