JohnL

I think that the brilliance of the Food Network is slowly becoming apparent. It is not about food! Food is merely a hook a sort of general theme. Obviously, the audience that is really interested in cooking and learning about cooking is limited. The audience for game shows and thrillers and travelogues and challenges and throw downs and.... well, let's say this audience is quite large! What's so compelling about watching someone cook a meal (for most people)? However--have someone cook a meal under duress or even a simple time limit and now you got drama, action, mystery, intrigue, comedy--can the girl next door prepare food for a ten person superbowl party--in time for the kickoff ---in just thirty minutes!!!??? Let other networks drop a survivalist into an impossible situation and make do--the Food Network will have him have to prepare a dinner for eight--before nightfall!!!! ---now that's entertainment! These folks know exactly what they are doing.

I thought you were ok in not liking the ick factor (tiring). I would agree. In fact, I believe that Bourdain's show is now one part National Geographic special, one part travelogue and one part foods of the world (with a touch of ick thrown in). The ick alone wears thin after a while. You lost me on the "fat guy" issue. Weight has nothing to do with it. The main problem is that Bourdain has already done this and evolved. Maybe they figure that Zimmern can get a visibility boost from the sensationalism factor and also evolve into something more.--we'll see. For pure "ick" quotient, these food shows can't hold a candle to programs like Fear Factor who dispense with the restriction that what is eaten has to be tied in to some culture--they just go ahead and create weird and disgusting stuff to eat out of whole cloth--now that's real creative genius!!!

Maybe you should have at least seen an episode or two before forming an opinion. "ethnocentric" "divisive"? First, when it comes to poking fun (or even being disrespectful) at other cultures no one is innocent. If we are having fun with them they are having fun with us and others. Second, the program in question has in no way been disrespectful. The host is often joined by one or more locals and the dialog often approaches preachiness in its attempt to show some deference to another cultures. Third, no one seems to notice that the locals often seem to be having as much fun watching this foreigner wrestle with what they themselves often seem to be aware is "odd" cuisine. Like some country folk enjoying the city slickers try to eat mountains oysters. How many of these so called "strange" (to us at least) items are universally accepted as standard fare in the country of origin? Even the Asians seem to know that durian is a "special" item given they have laws against eating it in many public places. The average Japanese family is probably not feasting on fugu three times a week either. In reality, many of these food items share a level of strangeness or rarity even within the cultures in which they have originated. Strange and bizarre are relative terms. People often revel in being offbeat or enjoying "different" things" not everyone else likes. "gee you don't like peanut butter and banana sandwiches?--heh heh heh!" So please, this has nothing to do with disrespecting other cultures. In fact the more of this people are exposed to the better. After watching everyone from Bourdain to Bayless to....eat those fried crickets in Mexico, I wouldn't be adverse to one or two myself! (I am not ready for the live cobra heart). I think we should stop reading into these programs and just enjoy the guilty pleasure in watching someone try something new and different! "Look aunt mabel is trying an oyster!"

Lateralus, You sound a bit like Sgt Friday from the popular TV program "Dragnet" who spoke in a rapid fire monotone--"just the facts m'am just the facts." TV is first and foremost an entertainment medium. The quality of American TV IMOP is no better or worse, for the most part, than TV anywhere else in the world. In your noting our "narrow culture" I would refer you to Benny Hill, and myriad European efforts involving sex and nudity. (ah but they are so sophisticated over there) especially a Russian effort wherein the nightly news is offered by nude women. By the way, have you checked out Japanese TV some seriously gnarly programming there! Turns out that in reality the Europeans (and the rest of the world) love their entertainment as much as we do--it ain't all "Upstairs Downstairs." As for the Food Network. I am not sure why it doesn't seem to sink in with some folks that the Food Network is not really about food. It is entertainment involving lifestyles with some food thrown in. Will that eightfoot spun sugar rendering of the Eiffle Tower fall over before the judges have at it? Will Alton Brown run into a real motor cycle gang out there in search of authentic barbeque? Will Morimoto prevail? And can Bobby Flay smackdown yet another amateur? Can Ms Ray get those nachos done in time for her superbowl party?--now that's entertainment! We need to stop agonizing over its lack of "purity" It is aimed at people who do not obsess over the origin of their shad roe or foie gras or whether or not an obscure Gewurtztraminer made from a vinyard in Alsace will match up with the harpooned swordfish with black summer truffles and ..... For the truly serious folks, like us, there's plenty of programming on any of several cable networks and PBS. Programs where serious and authentic chefs cook serious food and look serious doing it! I don't mean to be too serious though. Seriously, for people who enjoy talking about brix levels in the Willmette Valley or acid levels in the Rheingau there are serious journals. For the rest of the world there is the Wine Spectator. I also would argue that information disemination and teaching and knowledge and learning are better served by serious people who are also entertaining! Remember, when you get down to it, Shakespeare wrote potboilers for the common man. So can we please leave the TV Food Network alone. They are what they are. Live and let live I say. Now let's see--do I watch Charlie Trotter on PBS? Or that Fawlty Towers retrospective (I love the scenes where Basil and Manuel go through their paces in the hotel dining room.......Hmmmmmmmmmm!

I enjoyed reading these notes--thanks. As for the vintage, I drank up all my 66's by the mid eighties. I always thought that there were some fine wines, Palmer, Pichon Lalande, Cheval Blanc, Gruaud Larose, Talbot and Beychevelle were some of my favorites. Latour was exceptional. I remember tasting a number of other wines and feeling they were a bit too lean and angular with alcohol and acid not in balance. As for the critics: Interestingly, a few have expressed reservations about this vintage. Both Coates and Penning- Rowsell note that their initial enthusiasm should be tempered a bit. Penning Rowsell notes that at an extensive tasting in 1983 by numerous wine merchants in England: "in spite of support for the leading wines, general disappointment was expressed as to the future prospects of the vintage. Many had reached their peak and some were in decline." He also notes that subsequent experiences with the wines "have not removed a disappointment "...owing to high early expectations." Coates seems to concur noting the wines were aging more rapidly than predicted. Coates gives the La Lagune rather low marks noting there may be some bottle variation problems. I can't say much about these wines beyond my somewhat limited experience in the early mid eighties, I did not taste them when young. As noted, I thought some of the wines were quite good and others not so good. Your post points up the need to read reviews from a range of critics in order to get some perspective. I think Broadbent is a tad too effusive in his praise of the overall vintage. For example, In 1998 he notes that Montrose is "massive, still tannic. It will come around eventually." This about a thirty two year old wine! Yikes! Coates asks about the same Montrose at age twenty "Will it ever soften?" I think that back when these wines were released it was assumed that big, highly tannic, high acidity and austere wines were deemed age worthy the question was always "was there enough ripe and concentrated fruit to survive when the tannins finally attenuated or softened?" Sometimes yes and unfortunately, all too often no. Anyway, sounds like you had a wonderful evening it is always a treat to taste very old wines and see where they are in their life span. (the food sounds equally wonderful).

I believe this is a bit unfair. Are you posting this as a result of the one bad experience you noted earlier? To deem him "the most sarcastic owner/chef in NY" based upon this is IMOP unjustified. I have had several experiences where I found Mr Nish to be gracious and accommodating.

I took a few minutes to come up to speed on this thread from the top, and, Holy Cow, Batman, Markk never said any such thing. He never said that he's "a regular". What he said was: And then in a request for further details, he said: The owner very definitely knows that we're from out of town, how long we're there for (usually a week at a time), and how many times we come in a particular week/year. (She's the only one serving customers.) And she knows that we've traveled extensively in France, and come to her place because we like the food. He also definitely never said later on that he "sees everything in a restaurant visit as simply a 'monetary transaction'". (What he said was that the corkage fee was a monetary transaction.) Those were words that you put in his mouth, and then argued with him over it, which you seem to be doing throughout the thread, twisting words, claiming they came from somebody else, then arguing with them. This is a pretty interesting discussion of the finer points of hospitality and graciousness, and while you seem to be a restaurant owner (you mention your customers asking for things) your posts on the matter are argumentative, confrontational, contrary, and really insensitive. Not to mention consistently inhospitable. One can't switch on hospitality and graciousness - they have to exist in your soul, inherently, and it would seem from your posts that they're foreign to your nature. Who in the hospitality industry would be instinctively contrary or combative with a customer who dines in a place three to four times a week, and does so at different times of the year? And for that matter, who in the hospitality industry belittles tourists? Restaurants in destination cities depend on a mix of local patrons plus a steady stream of out of towners, and are always thrilled to see people from afar who return time after time. Locals vacation elsewhere, out-of-towners come in their place, and this is the rhythm of a city's restaurant industry. It's an important part of having a broad customer base, appreciated by all restaurateurs. Personally, I don't see any reason why he should have to spend any time discussing the wine list with the owner. If they offer a corkage fee and don't care what you bring, I think what he does is the most logical thing. He drinks what he enjoys, and if the list has what it has because the other patrons enjoy it, it's a win-win situation all around. ← Ah but he also said: "It's just that maybe I'm used to restaurants who in some way do something thoughtful for their regular guests." As I see it, the issue Markk raised was his belief that the restaurant should not charge him corkage in the second bottle of wine. he also raised the issue in the context of his belief that he is a regular or at least known customer. I would say that regardless of how he sees his status, it is really how the restaurant sees him and whether or not they want to waive the corkage fee on the second bottle he brings. I also see this as a situation where there is a failure to communicate. Further supported by Markk relaying the incident of the bass. If the type of bass served is important to a customer then the customer should indicate this when ordering. I feel the restuarant is under no obligation or rule of hospitality to indicate where the bass is from, it obviously is not an issue with their clientele. When the dish was delivered to the table and sampled was IMOP the time to raise the issue with the restaurant, not when the table was being cleared. If one has a question as to why they are charged or not charged for something then they should bring it up with the restaurant. This goes for the type of bass served as well as the corkage fee. Oddly, this corkage issue is sort of a moot issue. If one goes to a restaurant with a wonderful list of wines and top notch wine service, the corkage is built into the price of the wines--the mark up. So opening a second or a third bottle, one will be, in fact, paying for wine service on each bottle. The mark up is not reduced for someone who only finishes half the bottle. This actually sounds like a nice place with good food and service. Okay so the wine list is lacking so they charge a reasonable fee for corkage and let you bring your own wine--sounds like a good deal to me. I just wouldn't let the petty (to me anyway) issue of being charged corkage for a bottle I didn't finish get in the way--but again that's me. If this is a big issue then one should talk to the restaurant about it or simply dine elsewhere. saying the restaurant is somehow to blame or is at fault for not providing a professional level of hospitality is really stretching things a bit--the mountain out of a mole hill etc.

Last night while channel surfing I, for some reason, was intrigued by a segment on garbage disposals on the Food Network. (I don't know what program). I believe the Sinkerator company was featured--they seem to have a large market share of these things. Anyway--what was interesting is the fact that garbage disposals (in sink) do not "chop" the food up--there are no blades. Amazingly the disposal acts as sort of a centrifuge and the food/garbage is sort of spun up against the walls of a spinning cylinder at very high speed. These walls have an abrasive aspect and the food is literally pulverized into small particles. The testing at the factory involves successfully "pulverizing" items like beef bones. It was pretty fascinating for an info junkie like me at least!

Nathan The fact that you never complained before really has little bearing on this complaint. let's see: you walked into a restaurant on one of the busiest restaurant nights of the year--sat at the bar where you were told the tasting menu was no longer available (restaurant policy) and were told that food was not being served at the bar at all on this--the busiest night of the year! (restaurant policy). You say nothing more--and leave in a snit! (understandable given the "crimp" in your evening.--by the way happy birthday!). For this, you, in a public forum accuse the restaurant with words like "draconian" and "ill considered policies" You are also certain that if you were part of a "snuggly couple" the place would certainly have broken their policy and accommodated you. (another in a long list of assumptions)--further fueling your ire. I do sympathize with you. But I just can not see where the restaurant is remotely at fault here. Any restaurant (even BR Guest operations which you also slight with no justification) would be wrong for behavior or policies that are genuinely "Draconian" or "ill considered." I think that you are just stewing over this a bit too much and are over reacting to perceived slights. I am sorry, but I just don't see how your misfortune warrants such perceptions and reactions. But that's just me. My advice would be to move on. If I am free (next valentine's Day--though I try my damnedest to be part of a snuggly couple) I will gladly meet you at any fine restaurant--no one should be alone on one's birthday! We can just walk in and eat at the bar But if you don't mind--I will call ahead! Cheers!!!!

It would be interesting to hear an informed legal opinion on this (okay maybe not) Here goes: (I am not a legal authority but I watch Boston legal a lot so--let's see what would Denny Crane do hummmmmm...... Actually, I think the restaurant is at fault. One would have reasonable expectation that food or wine will not be spilled on one's person or possessions when dining in a professional establishment. If the coat being on the back of the chair caused said waiter to trip and... well that's another issue. I would give the patron the $400 bucks but I would also insist that the patron check their coat if they ever return, or sign a waiver! Wait--maybe offer four hundred dollars in meals and have them sign a waiver--the ol store credit only scheme!!! I wouldn't have a problem if the restaurant owner called all the other owners in the area and warned them about this patron!! --sneaky--yeah--like something Denny would recommend!

Addiction! There's a pattern here. first something--your favorite evil here-- is harmful and yes, maybe even fatal--it is "killing" us (usually if one can make a case that the item in question is killing our children all the better for dramatic sake and urgency). Next--once some studies are cited and some science twisted and convoluted to make the case, the calls for restrictions, taxes, laws --you know action! I especially love the tax thing--"hey we can all feel good and make some money off of these killers!" Then--we need to establish that this item is addictive! We can't help ourselves (everyone is off the hook for any personal responsibility) and those evil bastards producing this stuff are plotting to get us all hooked! "Let's tax em even more!" --some people wanna actually ban foie gras because it "is uncomfortable" for the ducks and geese. But a substance that many claim actually kills humans--we're okay with--as long as we can get some tax money.--Art Linkletter was right--people are funny. It has been shown that people can actually be addicted to hot peppers (I may be--whatta rush!). If someone will just make the connection between the acid reflux epidemic and, well, spicy foods......well my bowl of vindaloo will be $39.95!!!! (what with the inevitable tax). I have a "healthy" respect for anyone who is concerned with what they eat and make choices based on whatever belief system they may have. As long as their choices are theirs and their families that is. My concern is food substance health zealotry that threatens the incredible amount of choices we have. We are using "addiction" as a political tactic and thus are cheapening it--there's too much hyperventilation and hyperbole too much matter of life or death assigned to too many issues. I say let's live and let live, adhere to the golden rule and keep our fingers out of our neighbors vindaloo!!!

Not calling ahead or having a backup plan is not an "error in judgment"--it is common sense that if used will help raise the odds that one will have a success in dining out. The more assumptions one relies upon the greater likelihood one will be disappointed. I believe that diners are often quick to assign blame to a restaurant for a less than perfect dining experience when in fact, the problem is due to unreasonable expectations and assumptions on the diner's part. Many times these issues arise as the result of a misunderstanding or miscommunication that would be resolved by simply engaging the staff and if necessary, the manager or sommelier etc. I also believe that many people with complaints sit passively and don't speak up and deal with the issue or problem in the moment but rather go home and stew over it by which time the perceived slight and the irritation has grown out of proportion to reality. It is understandable that Nathan was irritated but I see no way that the restaurant was at fault here. Could the restaurant have done something to assuage that irritation even though they were in no way obligated to do so? Possibly, and only if nathan had spoken up and, if he felt it necessary, engage the manager. But I also believe that regardless, Nathan should have just chalked this up to some bad luck and moved on--life is too short.....

Pollan's "thing" if you will, is a belief that we have become a nation reliant on "industrial" food which is bad. The solution is to shift to small local sustainable farms etc. I believe this is Pollan in a nutshell: The root of this evil according to Pollan is corn (see his piece "We Are What We Eat"--what we eat is corn or a result of corn products. It is responsible for french fries (fried in corn oil), fast food, corn fed beef (as opposed to grass fed) soft drinks, and a zillion other so called industrial foods. basically if it is mass produced it is evil. Pollan even has a problem with mass produced organic foods. Health issues are secondary to Pollan's thesis. They play a supporting role. I personally disagree with Pollan's entire thesis. It is a noble effort but is hugely flawed and his conclusion is largely unworkable. In short he sounds good but on closer inspection..... I find a lot of the belief's about food and health to be based on a near religious fervor and as unreasonable as any prohibition movement. If it's not demon rum its demon sugar, white flour, salt etc. Gimme that ol time religion---folks I rid my life of (pick a food item) and I feel better, look better and I am on the road to salvation. Unfortunately, common sense like eat a varied diet in moderation and exercise doesn't sell books and self help tapes and is too easy to possibly be true. On a lighter note: I was riding down Ninth avenue in a cab here in NYC and passed a Pakistani restaurant that had a large sign in the window looking like a newspaper headline and article below: "CURRY HELPS PREVENT CANCER!" Now I don't know if there's any solid science here but this is enough reason for me for an extra visit to my favorite Indian (or Pakistani) restaurant (can't hurt can it?)

Yes, it does happen, but rarely. Again, because of shipping, consolidation, and inventory issues. Plus, it is SO easy for a little order like this to get lost in transit across the US. It happens, but yin/yang, sometimes successfully, sometimes tragically. Many wineries (ours included) will not take the risk. Yes, the Wine Institute and Free the Grapes are spearheading the free shipping movement. The executive director of the Wine Institute is Bobby Koch, President G.W. Bush's brother-in-law. In addition to being a very personable guy, his staff is making great strides in lobbying for the small family winery, and they maintain the most comprehensive database of online shipping regulations, with direct links to each state's requirements and forms. But, as in all good conversations, your statement sparked a thought . . . Why does the WSWA bill themselves as the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America if their interests are clearly antagonistic toward wine producers? How many of America's 4,000 wineries (most of whom are small, family-owned affairs) do their members represent? Is it even 50%? 25%? Why use our product to headline their name, while reviling us as corruptors of youth? Why use Wine as the first word in their association title, and not even feature wine at their annual convention? Are we supposed to lend some remote veneer of sophistication to their Jello shots served by strippers in nurse's uniforms? ← It's really about alcohol Mary. Unfortunately, all alcoholic beverages are lumped together. The same complaints are heard from the small brewers who either are "handled" by a Bud distributor or a Miller distributor and rarely get the attention the quality of their products deserves. The states control alcohol sales and distribution--fine we are a republic--but at some point what the states do begins to conflict with interstate commerce and the rights of small businesses to make a living and the rights to access the marketplace. Tgus the supreme court. I do agree that small (and large) wineries need to find common ground and realize that being lumped ion with spirits is not to their long term benefit.

Mary Thanks for the thoughtful and informative response! --the fact that historically wine has been lumped in with liquor is really at the root of the problem. The WSWA is really functioning to protect its self interests (read financial) not really those of wine makers. The lack of "respect" while lamentable is understandable. --I know of retailers who have "arranged" to get wines from small producers--large wholesalers will "step in" and handle the wines making the transaction "kosher." --Wine makers also have used a warehouse or wholesaler operation--I get Beaux Freres wines for eg by having the winery ship to an intermediary. I don't like paying extra but I can get the wines--if I want them. --any "movement" on the part of consumers is modest at best. The average consumer just does not care enough. Most of the press and the clamor is from the wine makers not consumers. Again, look at the worst states. There is little concern being expressed by people in these states. The court cases are not being brought by consumers or consumer groups for the most part--they are being brought by local wineries. (some consumer interest and participation comes after the issues get the publicity generated by the court cases). --I think that maybe small producers should band together and try to work with other consumer and trade groups (maybe they already have) rather than expect the WSWA to be more sympathetic.

I agree with FG--the place to go with a complaint or a problem is the manager. However, as I see this particular case, the restaurant acted well within acceptable professional bounds. they politely explained that the tasting menu was no longer being served as of a specific time and that on this night food was not being served at the bar. At this point it is understandable that the patron would be disappointed but beyond that? If the patron wanted help with finding a place for dinner then why not simply ask? The problem for me is the assumption that the restaurant was somehow slighting the patron when all they did was explain the situation they were in that night. Or that the restaurant personnel were not doing enough to anticipate the patron's needs--how far should this go? Should the bar tender have offered to get a cab? Sounds to me like a simple case of "tough noogies" as we used to say in the Bronx! Also a lesson to never assume anything-- always call ahead in New York City!--saves a lot of disappointment. Too many times I --with great anticipation--tried a place as a walk in only to find it closed for a wedding or private party!

This is exactly what Mike Colameco said on his radio program (food talk) last Saturday. All those terrible twos!

I am still perplexed. What exactly do you folks want? From a consumer standpoint in most major urban areas there are more wines from more places available than ever before. On retailer shelves. There is a huge amount of wine available from producers large and small. I readily admit that allowing anyone to sell wine to anyone old enough anywhere in the US via the internet or any other means is a good thing. Any retailer anywhere in the US should be able to buy at wholesale any wine from anyone anywhere in a free and open marketplace. Who, without some vested interest, otherwise, is against a free and open marketplace? Here's the reality though. (at least as I see it) The current system sucks--agreed but those who want to--can find a way around or within it. If a retailer wants to get hold of some wine from a small producer, most wholesalers will get the wine for them. If a consumer wants a wine not available locally they can find a way to get it. Small wineries can find ways to ship wines to problem states. There is an opportunity for small independent importers and wholesalers to step in. They are. Small independent wine makers need to find them. these folks need to find each other! A little anecdote. A producer like Compass Box enters a declining over loaded category like Scotch Whiskey finds a small independent wholesaler importer who in turn finds some enthusiastic retailers and-- wallah! A great success. Yes, the ideal situation would be that free and open marketplace. But I see no widespread movement by consumers to speak up for it. Basically, the average consumer has more choices in wine than they can deal with over a lifetime--not having access to every wine from every producer is not a critical issue to them. Factor in the kinds of response one gets from people living in the most restrictive states like Pennsylvania. Even here, check the threads out! people actually will argue that things are fine in PA and maybe they are even better off with the state running the wine business. There is even little outrage over the 17% Johnstown flood tax they pay on each bottle of wine. So--I believe that the situation will get better. Too many wills finding ways--and eventually the internet and state regulations will become more favorable to all. But the current state of affairs is just not so dire to that many people to warrant the the outrage expressed by these rants over a trade organization.

Valentine's Day is for me, not special at all. it has become routine and boring. It is for most an obligation to buy sappy greeting cards, insipid chocolates, mass produced roses, industrial grade Champagne, tawdry lingerie.... And worst of all--to go out to dinner! The one time all year (ok there's New Years eve) when perfectly good restaurants clean up on mundane boring buffet quality food. I prefer to celebrate by cooking a really great meal opening a special bottle of wine and having a quiet dinner at home! but then if I were married or had a girlfriend.................

I recall an episode on PBS of Bittman Takes on America's Chefs... In fact the recipes are in the accompanying cook book. In the program (and in the book) Jean Georges makes Broiled Squab with Jordan Almonds (a candy) and Bittman responds with broiled cornish Hens with Red Hots! (melting the candies over the birds).

You are on to something, I think. This is really not about cuisine per se. Yes pretty much all cuisines are "equal." However some cuisines have been elevated far above the average or the norm. For eg Spanish cuisine is no better or worse than Greek cuisine (actually there are many similarities--both are Mediterranean etc). However some enterprising individuals like Arzak and others have taken traditional Spanish cuisine to new heights of creativity and refinement. I do not know if Greece has experienced a similar renaissance. If not maybe it will. The step up in quality and creativity here in New York City has been noticeable. Again, I think this is about "haute cuisine" not cuisine in general.

So, were the charity beneficiaries really the 25 invited guests? If they payed as well, than no problem. Otherwise.... ← The article made it clear that the invited guests were part of an effort to fill the seats after some cancellations (due to safety concerns). It is nice to see an effort like this benefitting charity. But in the end, I find a lot of the snarky moralizing a bit off putting. It's all relative. If I were to ask how many people would go without a television set to feed a starving person what lovely squirming and convoluted logic would result.

maybe I am missing something here but: IMOP this is much ado about nothing (well very little). First, the restaurant policy is to charge a corkage fee per bottle. This is in my experience quite common. Second, fifteen dollars per bottle is pretty reasonable. Third, whether or not the restaurant views you as a regular has nothing to do with their waiving a policy. I would argue that visiting four (or even eight) times a year doesn't give you "regular" status. Try once per week or twice a month at least. Fourth: you enjoy the food and the experience of eating there--plus you get to bring two bottles of wine you select from a much larger universe than the modest list for a modest charge. So you like the food and you like the wine you have with your meal. It seems to me you are quibbling over restaurant policy. You see yourself as a "regular" who should be treated specially. Obviously the restaurant does not (I don't either based on the info you provide). The whole "we only consume half of the second bottle thing is, IMOP, a red herring. You are bringing two bottles of wine rather than ordering them from the list. If it bothers you to be charged for the second bottle because it was only partially emptied then just bring a half bottle to start. Debating the restaurant's policy in the context of state and local laws is also a big red herring. The issue is simple. Should the restaurant waive their policy--which is quite reasonable? -- a place where you like the food and get to drink wine you like (for a modest fee) where there is seemingly professional and courteous service? really, what is the issue that bothers you? So in the spirit of "I'll show em" You traded this experience for other restaurants with "great wine lists" so you are still paying (probably a good bit more than fifteen dollars per bottle over cost!) for wine service-- and you will pay that regardless of whether or not you finish the second bottle so it seems that this is a case of cutting one's nose off to ....... edited to add this: After reading more of this thread I must say that you made things pretty confusing. You add in an issue over how the restaurant treated you over l'affaire bass identification thing. Even here, I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt but if the origin of the bass is important to you why didn't you inquire about it prior to ordering? I do agree the restaurant could have handled this a bit better but really.... Is it the corkage thing, the bass thing the regular customer recognition thing? I guess you answer your own question--it seems to be all of the above! Anyway--may you find happiness in the restaurant world and dine in peace.

It is possible that a "famous" chateau did sell off some grapes/wine to some import/export entity. often grapes/wine deemed not worthy of a specific label are sold off in bulk. For obvious reasons the chateau or property would not want to be associated with any such wine. Enter the retailers or importer who like to tantalize people with a wink and a nod. Though these wines are usually inexpensive there is often a lot of profit to whomever is selling them. As always, it is in the glass what counts and some of these wines can be good and good bargains. I would ignore the hype--it doesn't matter where the wine or the grapes came from the only thing that counts is how the wine tastes. "Clever" marketing of wines has been around forever! ever spent a fortune on a Grand Cru burgundy and have something barely worthy of a village wine in your glass!!!???

You make some good points based upon common sense! Too often statistics are used to make a case; using ,say, infant mortality rates to make a point. It is not so simple. I believe this minimalizes a serious subject like infant mortality--worthy of discussion in and of itself.