JohnL

I'm going to disagree with this for a couple of reasons. First, because when it comes to an emotional subject like foie gras, one person's "facts" are another person's ideology. But more importantly, even a polite version of this statement runs the risk of turning into an argument. It's not worth it to argue with a stranger over the phone. This is doubly true for an employee: it's not your place to argue about this kind of restaurant policy, let alone about issues of culinary ethics. If the caller wants to discuss this, take their number and tell the manager or owner to call them back. (Or, more likely, not call them back.) But the best response is to just say, "we're sorry that you won't be eating with us" and hang up. ← "one persons facts are another person's ideology" Sorry, facts are facts. People are entitled to whatever ideology they want to hold. These are two different things. The point is, the PETA folks have no facts to support their argument (I have seen none at least) therefore this "ideology" is false. (that does not mean people can not hold to it--it does mean that enacting laws based upon it is in effect, forcing it upon those that do not hold it.) If the women had called and simply said I am canceling my reservation because you serve foie gras and I am against this. Or words to that effect then fine, simply thank her for calling and hang up. However, this woman engaged the restaurant further and I believe it is well within the restaurant's right to simply and politely inform her that they are not just blindly serving products to an unsuspecting (or unenlightened) public. This was her implication. IMOP we need to stop this ridiculous concept of political correctness and concern about "offending" people and stand up when we are in the right. I am all for the "customer is always right" as a policy. However this woman made it clear she was not a customer and would not be. The restaurant could have coddled her by taking the position that when it was illegal to serve foie gras, they would of course, obey the law and would be happy to see her again! or worse--they could have accommodated her and told her they would take it off the menu then and there and would look forward to seeing her at the reserved time. Talk about ideology!

A couple of weeks ago I had an experience that will explain the situation. First, I love eggs with raw or almost raw yolks! Oddly, I can't stand hard boiled or eggs with yolks that do not run. (I do like a good scrambled egg but loose not too cooked). I love em sunnyside up, poached lightly, on a classic frisee salad, steak tartare--heaven! spaghetti carbonara--my favorite pasta dish, Holly's description of a classic veal dish--I am drooling.. Get the picture? so I recently had my usual egg fresh,from a very reputable organic producer fried with a runny yolk. As usual it tasted heavenly. After years (ok decades) of enjoying raw and lightly cooked eggs, my number came up. Salmonella poisoning. It is a cruel God! Hell hath no fury like someone with serious food poisoning--it is so bad suicide would be a viable option if I could have stopped wretching and...long enough to get to an open window (I am on the 9th Floor). It is a merciful God! This thing lasted for one day. So while it will be quite a while before I get back on the horse (I love raw eggs enough to roll the dice again) I can easily see why there is reluctance on the part of restaurants to also roll the dice. Given the heightened media coverage (having news copter four hovering over your establishment and greta van Susteren assembling a panel to indict your diner) and the proclivity of the public to make a stink and worse, want to hold someone responsible and the plethora of attorneys who are on standby waiting to answer your call to their toll free line--I think i understand why the current scene is what it is.

It is illegal for any wine shop in New York State to sell food of any kind. I can understand a wine shop selling meats and cheeses in less populated areas of the country but like wine, cheese is a very complex item to sell and frankly, there's no need for it in New York. We are lucky to have many great cheese shops! As for glasses, many wine shops here sell one brand or the other. Ravenscroft, Riedel Spiegelau etc. As well as other wine related items: decanters, corkscrews , even wine books. It is hard enough stocking and selling wine so the less emphasis on these things the better. Frankly, most places (exempting high end food courts) I have visited (mostly in NJ) that sell wine do not do a very good job with the cheeses. As for special orders. Most wine shops will do this. In fact, many places often carry only a few bottles of a given wine. Getting a case or two or three often involves calling a distributor and having delivered to the shop who then send it along to the customer. Most wine shops will be happy to track down a wine they don't carry and order it for you. Again, this involves minimal phone work and effort. Anytime a wine shop can sell wine they do not have to stock in quantity (or stock at all) is a chance to make a profit with very little effort. When I was getting married I was buying the wines for the reception at a very high end shop here in NY (Morrell) I wanted a particular wine they did not carry. They informed me they had a similar wine from another producer but if I insisted on a specific producer they did not have, they would be happy to get it for me.

I agree that a wine shop is in, very many ways, no different than any other retail business. The shops that know who they are and who their customers are and can satisfy those customers will most likely, be successful. this is business 101. I also believe that in the words of that retailing genius, Sy Simms, "an educated consumer is our best customer." I do not meant that a customer need to know a lot about wine. Rather, the customer needs to know how to be a "good" customer/consumer. Good personnel can help a customer become a good customer--being able to determine what that customer is looking for and providing it while making that customer comfortable with the process. Some random observations-- if a customer visits a wine shop when the shop is not very busy then odds are that customer will benefit from more attention from the staff. This is the time to ask for help with a trip to wine country or Paris or whatever or to get more in depth information about wine. I agree with most of what FG says, however, decor, or lack thereof, often has little to do with prices, especially in Manhattan which is a highly competitive market. One can find examples of very low prices and higher prices in every wine shop in New York and what some people may think is a "high end" swanky shop because of its amenities are often wrong. Most wine shops are, despite the internet and any national business, local businesses. They serve a neighborhood. Most of their business will be from a ten block radius in Manhattan or within easy driving distance in less populated areas. There are two kinds of wine shops emerging today. The very large "wine warehouse" attempting to serve a very large area. Most of these places can have very helpful staff and provide good service but as they are trying to draw a very large number of people from a very wide ranging area and are less focused on the people who live next door they are probably less likely to try to cultivate you as a regular customer for that one or two bottles of inexpensive wine you may buy twice a week. The "local" wine shop wants to be your friendly neighborhood store and wants (needs) you to be happy and return often. They want to cultivate a relationship with you. Here in Manhattan where there is fairly intense competition, many wine shops offer in store tastings and many have tasting rooms and hold or sponsor events--tastings, dinners, lectures and education etc. As a consumer, know what you are comfortable with. Know your priorities. How much do you know about wine, do you want to learn more , how much assistance do you want? What kind of relationship, if any, with a wine shop do you want? Finally, in any competitive market, there is not a lot of money in being the local wine shop. Profit margins are fairly low. Salespersons are not paid very much to sell a fairly complex product. It is very hard to find motivated people who have a combination of wine knowledge and possess good sales ability.

The foie gras discussion has been thriving here for a while. I have seen absolutely no evidence that the side for banning it has a leg (or a wing) to stand on. Basically, their argument is wrong--it is based upon emotion not fact and the impetus for their argument is rooted in a larger effort that they are concealing. The response to these people is to present a simple case based upon reason, and facts to the public. I wish people would stop trying to present their argument for foie gras by attempting to deflect the criticism. Noting that the ban proponents should really be looking at veal and chicken and... believe me the people who are behind this effort will get to veal and chicken and lamb. I suggest everyone actually read what PETA is all about. This issue is far larger than just protecting ducks or geese. Anyone who calls a restaurant and raises this issue should be told very politely, they are appreciative of the person's concerns but the restaurant is aware of all the facts and serves foie gras because knowing the facts, they can, in good conscience serve it.

Wow! I have eaten at a few BYOB's in Philly and to be honest, I never paid attention to whether or not there was a corkage fee. I assumed there was. (i gotta pay attention) As much as I am for the consumer this is an absurd situation. Are you folks bringing your own glassware and ice buckets too? Really, no wonder Capaneus is such a staunch defender of the status quo! and why folks like Ms White are challenging it. If I were thinking of opening a world class restaurant (and my name wasn't Starr) I would think twice about doing it in Philadelphia.

This is just me, but I'm not all that interested in "authentic" per se. I'm interested in sincere, and delicious. There's just too much bound up in the authenticity argument: I'm not sure one can really have authentic experience divorced from the context of the original place. So outside of its home, it's all an interpretation. And those acts of interpretation strike me as a much more "authentic" expression of the world we inhabit. We're not living in an isolated village in 1807, we're in a multiculti, cosmopolitan 2007. Cuisines, and all artistic expressions, expand and embrace new influences. If a penguin had waddled into a mediaeval French town, its legs would probably have ended up in a cassoulet, and they would have done something bizarre to its liver, and we would have thought that authentic French food used penguin. I don't happen to subscribe to the opinion that Miles wasn't doing Jazz anymore when he used a wah-wah pedal on his horn, so it's OK with me if Tinto decides to serve foie gras pintxos. I'll bet Arzak serves a few things that would have mystified his grandmother. But that's just my perspective. I trust V's opinion that Tia Pol has better tapas than Amada. But I always leave Amada very satisfied, and impressed, so I'm just not concerned with comparing it to anything. I'm just saying it's an enjoyable place to have a meal, and that's something Philly's got going for it. ← I think we can certainly agree to disagree re: Amada. (and Tia Pol and...). In my opinion (and a number of others) this is a very special restaurant. There is no Spanish restaurant of any type in NY that equals it. Tia Pol is very good but it's pretensions are different than those of Amada. The "authentic" thing is IMOP not a big deal. It could be argued that any number of leading restaurants in Spain are not authentic. El Bulli? Arzak? In most cases authentic depends upon one person's definition that is locked into a certain point in time. I would also ask Capaneus what corckage fees he is currently paying--I sympathize with his situation. New York has a number of restuarants with very interesting and very inexpensive wine lists--there is no reason Philadelphia shouldn't have a similar situation.

I live inside of the culture and have no trouble seeing American cuisine. First, because I've traveled cross-country so many times on extended trips that focused on eating, it has been vividly apparent that there are many regional cuisines in America. Second, because I read books and follow other media, I know about those cuisines. Again, a good starting point for all this is the Knopf Cooks American series. You can't read even one of the regional books in that series and walk away thinking there's no American regional cuisine any more than you could deny that there's such a thing as Piedmontese or Burgundian cuisine. Some of the books: Dungeness Crabs And Blackberry Cobblers: The Northwest Heritage Cookbook, by Janie Hibler The Florida Cookbook: From Gulf Coast Gumbo to Key Lime Pie, by Jeanne Voltz and Caroline Stuart Savoring the Seasons of the Northern Heartland, by Beth Dooley and Lucia Watson etc. ← here! here! I would add that a lot of James Beard's books reflect American regional cooking quite well.

Unfortunately, the attempt to neatly define a national anything usually ends up as an exercise in tossing about stereotypes. Food historically was most certainly a regional issue. What people ate was driven by economics and geography as well as influences from outside the region migration into and out of the region, trade etc. Today, transportation and science have impacted what we eat no matter where we live. As for the US, suprisingly, we are no different. We are a nation of regional cuisines--from New England to the low country of the Carolinas and Georgia to California cuisine to Tex Mex. and so on. To try to boil it all down to hot dogs and hamburgers or fast food is IMOP a hopeless task. Worse--doing so is either an indication of ignorance or an attempt to be provocative. Hard to make one's case with clam chowder and she crab soup as the set up for "obesity" and "diabetes." We could have a debate over spaghetti: pasta--Italian or Chinese? And tomato sauce? Where exactly did those tomatoe come from? All pointless and too often driven by jingoism--Gosh we (insert country) are so much more sophisticated than those (insert country) or self loathing: gosh those------- are so much more sophisticated than we ---------. (insert the country of choice). Of course, it would be nice to take a serious look at the development of local foods and cooking--I have a problem with "cuisine" it has taken on some connotations that I believe are somewhat pretentious. That would be illuminating and fun. Especially looking at the impact across regional and national and cultural borders. But alas, it is so much easier rolling around in stereotypes. i gotta take my super sized diseased body out for some of my national cuisine at MacDonalds--or maybe i will cook at home--I have a can of spam i've been meaning to open.......gotta go!

I believe the Earl of Sandwich was British!

You make a great case for redoing the PA liquor laws! The restaurant scene could be much better than it is! You also seem to under rate Philadelphia restaurants. I think if we simply look at places in terms of how they stack up in more general terms it would be easier. "Best" is subjective and really one's personal tastes, preferences experiences are a determining factor in applying superlatives. I think it is safe to say that Philadelphia has many fine restaurants period. For eg, in its hayday, Striped bass would be included in most people's top ten seafood restaurants for the US (ok so it wasn't number one). It is also safe to say that the food scene on Philadelphia is limited by two things--the makeup of Philadelphia itself and the laws and restrictions that impact how the restaurant business operates. Every city has its own population and socio economic make up and in addition, I believe that every city competes for business and tourist dollars. As for the Spanish restaurant issue (Tapas is really more like small plates here and not the bar food of Spain)--I believe you vastly underestimate Amada and you over rate some fine establishments in New York City. The city is still without a Spanish restaurant that is top rank. Meigas which had potential fled a bad Manhattan location for Norwalk CT. Bocqueria is still young and the food is erratic. (the place has potential). Tia Pol--the pretensions of this place are lower than those of Amada (the space is cramped) and Batali does nice Tapas in a small uncomfortable space (more akin to the Spanish bar food scenerio). You are right on in your statement about profits and profit potential leading to a better restaurant and food situation. I do disagree that BYO's will disappear. There is an audience for them in Philly. Also, most restaurants offer the oppty to bring one's own wine for the most part and pay corkage). The upshot of all this is that there are few cities whose main attraction to most people traveling is food. (in fact I am hard pressed to name one). Good food does make one's trip more pleasurable and can even be a key factor(one of many) in choosing a city in which to schedule a visit or a business trip or vacation. It seems to me that one should look at Philadelphia in terms of what the city is and has to offer first, rather than attempt to compare it to other cities.

I agree with much of what you say (I think). You are half wrong (or half right) re: Yountville and the French Laundry. Yountville in part of a huge tourist attraction--the Napa Valley. Throngs of people visited and passed through it long before the Keller endeavor opened up. It is quite a stretch to say the FL "put it on the map." Also, Yountville is a tiny place geographically and population wise. (also let's not forget--Napa is a weekend getaway for folks from San Francisco). In the end, I think this is about opportunity for Philadelphia-- the business climate that impacts the restaurant business. The easier it is to open a restaurant and to make money the better the restaurant scene--for everyone. As I see it (I think Ms White sees it this was as well) Philadelphia has done well in comparison to other cities--you can eat well in Philadelphia--agreed. However some points: BYOB's are hampered by their limited potential to make money. Their appeal is local--visitors on business and tourists as well as local businesspersons are not very likely to frequent these places. While ok for a chef/owner they are not very appealing to restaurateurs or salaried chefs who either have a name or are on the cusp of the big time or have big time aspirations. I would think that most of these chefs (and restaurateurs) would want exposure not just to locals but to as wide a range of diverse people from all over the world--tourists and business travelers! So what I believe Ms White is saying is that while BYOB's may serve world class food their appeal is primarily local! To local chefs starting out and to local patrons. If one is a well heeled tourist or on a business trip or even a local business person entertaining clients that person is likely to be put off by having to buy alcohol off premise and schlep it to the restaurant. These folks will most likely visit one of the many Starr spots or a chain--these are fine to be sure--but is the Philadelphia restaurant scene as dynamic and diverse as it could be for a "world class audience" (sure it is dynamic for locals who enjoy saving some money on wine and beer). Finally, the proponents of the BYOB scene lose a bit of their argument. BYOB's would not disappear if things changed. Also most restaurants that do serve alcohol also allow for corkage. Many restaurants would be able to join the current trend (in other cities) of very diverse wine lists with very reasonably priced wines. All the food festivals and PR in the world will not help if Philadelphia does not join the rest of the Country (really, the world) and allow restaurants to make money and visitors to enjoy world class beverage service! Just think how great Philadelphia could really be as a restaurant city! By the way--thanks to all who reminded me --Jeanine's Bistro and La Truffe! I have some great memories of both--especially of Jeanine!

There seems to be a tendency to focus on restaurants that fail (and the more spectacular failures at that) rather than the myriad places that have survived and thrived over a long period of time. My guess (using common sense) is that of the places that have failed, many have failed for reasons other than over saturation. I do not believe that anyone has presented any compelling evidence to support this theory of over saturation leading to high end restaurant failures in New York. Therefore, I would posit that Manhattan is not over saturated with "high end" restaurants. Rather it is a very dynamic and fluid restaurant scene with plenty of opportunity to succeed in all price ranges (not just high end). It is also a very difficult place to operate a restaurant and the success rate has always been relatively low. i would further posit that of all the reasons restaurants fail here, over saturation is relatively low on the scale.

"BYOB" is a pretty handy shorthand for that stereotype; it's one that most of us use and recognize. As far as I can tell, White is referring to that stereotype (as was I). White's point isn't anything about the sale of alcohol in Pennsylvania, it's about a stagnation that has followed the growth of this style of restaurant over the last five or so years. And wkl raises a good point. The PALCB doesn't control the number of liquor licenses in Philadelphia; there are also lots of liquor license-free restaurants in New Jersey. ← Fair enough. For what it's worth, I was not in fact addressing the article: frankly, it struck me as typical mealy-mouthed, half-baked reasoning intended to appeal the PM's readership's perceived prejudices. I was replying to points made on this forum, from which I expect better. As to the substance of your point... we are a bunch of snobs. I come from a place where "innovative" cuisine was unknown, at least while I lived there. A fancy restaurant was a place dumb people on expense accounts went to waste money. The rest of us enjoyed ourselves in inexpensive, street-corner little joints, called "tascas", where the food served was predictable - very probably the same dishes my great-grandfather would have found if he had visited the same place, and been served by the owner's great-grandfather. They provided inexpensive food, cheap rough-and-ready wine and beer, and a welcoming table. None of this was original, none of this was creative, none of this was, probably, terribly sanitary. But we had some amazing meals in places like that, a dozen friends and acquaintances sitting around for several hours making and discarding drunken philosophy. BYOBs aren't necessarily "cuisine", nor, I would argue, should they be. Ideally, they would serve the function tascas filled in Lisbon. Or bistros originally served in Paris, before the Americans ruined everything by winning WWII and overstaying their invitation They're supposed to serve good, solid food around which friends can sit and enjoy themselves. And since the economy of this country somehow doesn't allow for the $1 glass of wine, they let me bring my own. All of which is a necessary component of the model. In fact, if they have a flaw, it's that they're often too expensive for daily use, which limits their suitability as neighborhhod hangouts. That's what this country needs lots of - not clones of Alinea, with all due respect to a great chef. The original will suffice. In fact, that's what we all here, on some level, really crave, it seems to me. That's where our constant talk of the rarity of bistros, of the greatness of Italy's trattorias, really leads: we want public spaces where we can eat and hang out. We got none, really. Whatever happens in most bars is a pathetic approximation. Leave my BYOBs alone. They're the closest we've got. ← Is it possible that the reason there is a dearth of tratorias and bistros is due in some small part to the liquor and wine situation? By thye way--one of my most favorite places in the world was a french bistro on front street by the water--long gone--I forget the name but the owner was a wonderful woman who would often sing along with the Edith Piaf record on the sound system--the place was cluttered with French plates and cookware etc.--unique and wonderful!

Like it or not, the future in feeding the world is likely going to be due to the efforts of companies like Monsanto and Cargill. I am not sure why these companies are so often targeted for criticism. They have their good and bad points to be sure, but overall, they do not IMOP deserve the indiscriminate bashing they often receive.

There are two issues here. One is Philadelphia's standing as a restaurant town and the second is the BYOB situation which is somewhat unique to Pennsylvania. A third issue may be the impact of the PLCB on the current restaurant situation. As an outsider (not too far outside) from New York City who has family in Philadelphia and has spen quite a bit of time there, I can say the restaurant situation is fine. As noted earlier by me and others, Philadelphia should be compared to similar sized cities in the Northeast. New York should be excluded. I have never had a problem in dining very well in Philadelphia and in Amada, I believe Philadelphia has a very special restaurant. (we do not have one as good in NYC and some very well traveled foodies I know have declared it world class). As for the PLCB, the state control of liquor to this degree--government actually running a consumer business is fundamentally wrong. In reality, I believe that a free and open market would lead to greater selection and better pricing. (I will not even get into the absolutely ridiculous Flood tax). There is a possibilty, worth considering, that the proliferation of BYOB's has some benefits to some consumers. I do not believe that it benefits the industry. It does not benefit visitors to Philadelphia for the most part, who do not want to scrounge around for a state owned liquor store at dinner time. I believe that Ms White is making a case that if Philadelphia were to have more revenue sources available to restaurateurs and the ability to offer visitors world class beverage service there may be an improvement in the restaurant scene, possibly more competition and greater depth in all types of restaurants. I may be wrong, but I believe this is the case she is making. Right now, a chain like Capital Grill or one of the Starr Empire or Bec Fin are successful in attacting the business and tourist crowd but would it be beneficial overall if more establishments had a good chance to compete with them on a financial basis. I also doubt that many of the more successful BYOB only places--a possible benefit of the PLCB situation would go out of business or suddenly become expensive. Anyway, I have always enjoyed eating in Philadelphia, I often boarded the Amtrak to New York with an assortment of Hoagies and Cheese steaks--after lunch and or dinner at one of many fine restaurants. IMOP Philly does just fine in the competitive dept. Could it be better? Maybe. Even New York City could improve its dining scene--the addition of an equal to Amada would be a plus!

This seems real simple to me. A restaurant is in the service business. The customer is always right. Customers should be considerate and polite. When being shown to your table, the customer should make a fast assessment and either accept the table or refuse it. The restaurant should make every effort within reason to accommodate the customer. If, having accepted the table and being seated the customer is unhappy with the table. (bad ventilation, noisy neighbors, anything that is making that customer uncomfortable). The customer should speak up and engage staff. I believe the customer at this point needs to explain why they are unhappy with the table and the restaurant staff should do whatever is reasonable to accommodate the customer. bad behavior on the part of the restaurant--arrogance, rudeness etc is unacceptable in all instances. bad behavior on the part of customers is also unacceptable but the restaurant staff must never sink to the level of the customer/offender. There are ways to diffuse most very situation short of having someone thrown out of an establishment. In the valentine's Day case--I would have politely told the customer that we (the restaurant) will gladly note your preference and make every effort to give you the table but "we can not guarantee it." If that is not good enough--then the customer should be told that he can speak to the manager (via phone if the manager is not present). The hostess should not engage the customer in a debate or try to continue explain why she can not guarantee the table but rather pass the customer up the chain as a positive course of action--"I can go as far as noting your preference, as policy I am not empowered to guarantee it--however, I will be happy to have our manager call you--of you can call him or her.

What exactly do you mean by "compete on a national level"? I would say there a re a number of places in Philadelphia that "compete" quite nicely in any number of areas. As for national recognition, a number of Philadelphia establishments have been "recognized" by national publications and critics--from Food and Wine to Gourmet and Esquire. I recall being struck by a piece on Striped Bass when it opened-- in Esquire (I believe). Bec Fin has long been recognized as one of the top restaurants in the country. Again, I think there is a tendency among Philadelphians toward a bit of self loathing. I also believe that a lot of this is not really about the dining scene but rather about Philadelphia as a destination city in general. this is IMOP the real area of competition. It is better to look at Philadelphia in comparison to other cities in the Northeast--that's why I mentioned Boston. let's remove New York from the equation to be fair. Philly is doing just fine. Could Phil do better? Sure. Is the BYOB thing a major factor? Maybe. In the end, this introspection is a good thing, it indicates that Philadelphia must have a pretty strong and healthy dining scene if people are even making an issue out of this.

You are right this is an "old" argument. I believe that in spite of the BYOB culture Philadelphia has done just fine. I also believe that any policy that does not promote economic growth and provide opportunity to make money is not a good thing. Pennsylvania's liquor laws are ridiculous whatever their impact is on the restaurant scene. The state is basically operating a business for the sole purpose of making money. Money that is not being made by private citizens. In essence this is a massive taxation scheme. The rationale for opposing it is not its impact on Philadelphia's inability to have "cutting edge" restaurants. It is a legal and constitutional issue, it is plain wrong.

Ya know, all this agonizing and self analysis is, as I see it, where the real problem lies. Philadelphia needs to stop wondering and worrying why it is not New York or San Francisco (or Chicago or...) and relax. This seems to be about self identity--being comfortable in one's own skin. If one is realistic, for a city of its size and socioeconomic make up, Philadelphia has done quite well in the restaurant/food department. If one must make comparisons, I would say Boston is more appropriate than San Francisco or New York or Chicago. In fact, most of the comparisons Ms White makes are in My opinion, faulty. She doesn't assess most of these cities accurately in terms of their food scenes. Rather, she seems to look at other cities with a rather myopic view basically agonizing that Philadelphia does not have "cutting edge, destination" restaurants or enough really good Italian places (which is it?). The fact is, there are only a handful of truly "cutting edge" restaurants (Alinea, French Laundry/ Per Se, Jean Georges etc etc) in the country. It is also a fact that there really aren't any cities that are places where people travel simply because of the food scene. Yes, there are a handful of foodies who will make the trip for a perfect whatever dish or will travel long distances for food alone but again this is a small and fickle crowd. For the vast majority of folks, food is only a part of the reason for travel, and a rather small one at that. To talk of Philadelphia as a "destination" city one really needs to look at all the reasons most people travel and assess how Philadelphia stacks up. I would say, that Chicago has long gotten over its "second city" and "toddlin town" designations and has accepted itself for what it is rather than agonize over what it is not. Philadelphia needs to do the same. As for Ms White's worry that Philly is simply not dominating any one category of restaurant, I would offer that currently there is no Spanish (Tapas etc) restaurant on the Eastern seaboard that equals Amada. (there is nothing of its caliber in New York). There are many truly fine restaurants and one can have a very nice dining experience--let's face it, Philadelphia is a fine city to eat in from local stuff like cheese steak sandwiches and soft pretzels to high end cuisines and everything in between. So what's the problem?

Right. I think the "classic" matches like Muscadet and oysters or Sauternes and foie gras or Rioja and Jamon Iberico fit this model moreso than others and that's precisely why they're considered classics! JohnL: I must seriously try the lambrusco with Mexican food or barbeque pairing. Sounds perfect and not something I ever would have thought of. ← I agree. Those classic pairings are well---classic. However we are still really talking about a wine's flavor profile as a reason for the success in the pairing. One can find wines from all over the world that would pair as well with any classic dish. I also believe that a lot of the Europena resistance to new World wines is that many of the new World wines do not have the flavor profiles that work well with what a European would consider their classic dishes. This has led to a lot of "trashing" of new world wines by the European press and a backlash against any European producers who make wine in a different style than what people are used to. I also believe that as every country now produces many styles of wine and as many countries have access to the cuisines of other countries in addition to evolution of their own cuisines a lot of this angst and gnashing of teeth will go away. Ahhh the problems with globalization! Incidently, I kind of rediscovered lambrusco at a restaurant called "Via Emilia" here in NYC. They serve the cuisine of Emilia Romana and have a list of wines from there. They offer a number of Lambrusco's by the glass. I have recommended lambrusco (a good one like the Medici) with Mexican and Barbeque and people have raved about the pairing.

I think that's the point. The way I see it: 1. I don't like the law. Then again, I'm biassed, as I grew up in latin america, where drinking age is 18... and I don't remember ever getting carded. Of course I didn't do much buying before I turned 18, but there was a few times before that. 2. I had my first drink (beer) when I was about 3 or 4. My grandpa (who was German) gave me a zip of his. Did I get drunk? No, I didn't. Was it iresponsible of him to let me taste what he was drinking? I don't think so. Almost 30 years later I don't see anything wrong with what he did. In fact, I hope to share similar moments with my kids-grandkids one day. 3. What Markk said is right "people who could imbibe responsibly". A kid at 16 having a quarter of a glass of wine with a meal is not wrong in my book. That 16 year old kid driving drunk after a party is. 4. Now, can having some wine with your meal at a fancy restaurant be considered "drinking responsibly?" It depends on how much wine are you going to consume. Also, are you on any kind of medication? Or... well, you get the point. I have seen people hammered at high end restaurants before. So, how old do you have to be to drink responibly? I think education (home and school) have a lot to do with that. I had my first drink very early, got drunk for the first time when I was quite drunk (about 14), but I learned to drink responsibly, and by the time I was 21 (living in the states) I was cautious on how much I drank. ← I think there is some over reaction. It is often not the actual laws but rather how and when they are enforced and the leeway the legal system provides for individual cases. However you touch upon what I believe to be a great myth. That is, countries where young children are exposed to drinking in the home and alcohol is a normal part of family meals, have thus, avoided problems. After poking around the internet and looking at some EU documents as well as applying some common sense it is clear this is not the case at all. First--alcoholism, drunk driving, underage drinking and related problems in European nations are very serious indeed--the EU certainly believes so. Second--most countries and the EU are in the process of tightening their laws which in many cases are more stringent than ours. in fact wine consumption in france is down dramiticallyu as a result of much stricter drunk driving laws. this points up possible reasons for leniency toward alcohol over the years (most of these countries are wine and liquor producing nations whose economies have relied heavily upon the sale domestically of wine etc.--there may be a dark side to the tradition of alcohol consumption with meals). There is good debate as to the approaches to deal with alcohol related problems there should be little to debate over their actual existence in most other countries.

Read the part in the link to the SLA literature. Using a "fake" ID adds additional criminal penalties. Using a fake ID ups the ante considerably with four possible criminal charges two of which are felonies! There are also possible criminal charges that can be brought against parents who provide alcohol in the home. Again, there is the issue of how and how often these laws are enforced. There has to be motivation for law enforcement to act--we probably do not have enough people to enforce the laws rigorously on an ongoing basis. that's why restaurants, bars and retail establishments are counted upon to do their part and why penalties are especially stringent for them. Although I believe it is not easy to pull a liquor license there is often quite a bit of legal wrangling involved. A good example isd the recent unfortunate incident in Queens where undercover cops were working a club that obviously should never have been in business in the first place.

The law reads--"possession by anyone under the age of twenty one with intent to consume." Here is a link to the state Liquor Board info on this topic. It covers pretty much everything we are discussing. also-according to the SLA underage drinking is increasing in incidence and seriousness. NY SLA Drinking and Children

The point some of us are making i think is: obviously, the problem of minors being served in the presence of their parents in fine restaurants with any stars or no stars is not perceived as a social problem. What some of us are trying to posit is that underage drinking is rapidly becoming a major perceived problem. It wasn't too long ago that MADD didn't exist and TV stations rarely did any stories on binge drinking. In fact, not long ago bars were not concerned all that much with liability for their patrons (of or under age) actions after they left the establishment. DA's were not looking at parties held in private homes--until some tragic incidents happened. So the point is--fine dining establishments are potential targets--one simply can not ignore the history. They may not be now right this moment but if they want to take a calculated gamble as a business decision then fine. Finally (I hope) we can either debate the laws or we can accept them in which case underage people who drink alcohol and the people who facilitate that behavior are potentially liable for their actions. Wanna let junior have a glass of wine? Fine but don't get upset if someone (the restaurant) calls you on it. We all (well many of us) sometimes drive faster than the speed limit--it should be no suprise or cause for whining if we get caught and fined for it. Blame the law? Blame the cop? No--blame yourself!!!