JohnL

Thanks for the link and the post! I thought this was a brilliant piece. We have seen a rise in awareness of ecology, health, food and its impact on our health and well being etc. This is good. However, the awareness is often achieved at a price. It is often achieved via scare tactics. Eat this or that and get sick and/or die. The end of the world is at hand if we don't do this or that. It is often achieved by demonization of one entity or another. So and so corporation is out to kill us for profits. People read a book or see a movie and accept ideas and "facts" as presented. We feel good because we are "aware"and "enlightened" we wear ribbons and act "righteously." So the corporations are evil capitalists and the people who "expose" their evil ways making millions from their books and films are what?--righteous capitalists? What we all too often do not do is think, seek out opposing views, listen to the other side and most of all apply healthy skepticism and common sense. We certainly do not consider the consequences of our actions. We ban pesticides to save animals and as a result people die from diseases. We decide a certain type of farm is good and sacrifice woodlands and forests. We shun technology and people continue to starve. We use science to make a point and ignore it if the facts point elsewhere and we still don't seem to be able to accept the fact that science is often unsure, imprecise and sometimes wrong. So what are we left with? our sense of compassion for others, our skepticism, our common sense. There are no easy answers. We need to think and consider the consequences of what we do. To look at all sides of each issue and not just accept what we are told because it sounds good or pushes the right buttons. Problems can be better dealt with rationally not emotionally. Books like Pollan's should be food for thought not the "bible." The Economist piece should be viewed as just as enlightening. Now let the thinking begin!

Why is it that when we disagree with something we often dismiss the offending ideas as part of one ideology or another? This ignores the fact that the ideas we embrace are ideological. It all depends upon which side you are on!

I haven't read the book but I heard him interviewed on NPR (I believe) the other day. He is a bit thin skinned. Suprisingly so, given his obvious talents for running a successful, fairly large scale operation in a very tough city. I have also found wine makers to fail the "scratch test" as a rule, while chefs are a more mixed bag. Many of the chefs I have met seem to be humble and open to criticism and genuinely concerned that they please the customer while being a bit more cynical and pragmatic about professional critics as opposed to bitter and whiney.

I forgot about Otto's. They have always seemed to fly under the radar. I think that it is pretty clear that this topic/thread is about a person (or persons) dedicated to quality and not compromising in bringing that quality to customers. It is all about passion and drive to deliver the best tasting food to one's customers. The job becomes more difficult as one moves from a single (or a few items/categories) focus to a broader range of goods. it is also impacted by any deviation or watering down of that singular drive/goal to offer the best tasting food items. I always thought that moving from say just meat or fish to adding a cheese counter and then dry goods and prepared foods and then fruits and vegetables and... required a strong hand in leadership and the ability to recognize employees who had the talent and drive to conform to the goal of offering the best quality. Thus, a place like Zabar's excelled in some areas (cheese counter for eg) and fell short in other areas. The accomplishments of the original Balducci's and Dean and Delucca who IMOP got everything right were astounding. There was a second tier of markets that got a few key things right and did well enough with the rest--Jefferson, Nevada Meat market, Akron Market , Citarella, Fairway. Expansion is a huge challenge to these operations and few, if any, can maintain high standards across the board. Something always gives. How many of these mega markets have people behind the counter that are just competent let alone knowledgeable experts when's the last time you were inclined to ask for help or advice believing that the person behind the counter was an expert concerned with selling you the best and had a reverence for and knowledge of what they were selling? When that expansion involves turning over management to people who are not driven to provide quality, and/or the singular goal of quality gives way to other goals--profits etc then these places really suffer. I also believe that an operation like Whole Foods suffers from the fact that it has too many goals that inhibit their offering items that are the very best in their respective categories. Their attempts to make "ethics" and "health" as criteria often, IMOP, conflict with quality. Toss in the fact that growth/sales dollars are important and quality must now share its place with any number of criteria. Balducci is owned by a large "gourmet" company and quality has suffered greatly. Who owns Dand D? Are they even in the store regularly? We also have the problem of growing cost to do business that leads many fine markets (and butchers and fish mongers) to sell out. Only huge food courts that sell everything under the sun seem to be able to afford the rent anymore. There is hope in farmer's markets and small "old time" butchers and bakers who operate in lower rent districts (Ninth Avenue, Arthur Avenue ethnic neighborhoods etc). And true artisinal producers and places that sell their efforts will always find a place in the market somewhere it is just harder to find them these days--one can't just walk into Balduccis anymore and have it all there!

Wait! Are we now gonna critique the critics who critiqued the critics! This could reach critical mass soon! Crikey!

when did Graves cross the river? I thought that it was still in south west Bordeaux in 1998. ← To get to the other side! Oh. When did Graves cross the river. Never mind. Perhaps JohnL was referring to Graves de Veyres, which I had never heard of but which appears to be tucked into the right bank quite close to St. Emillion, Fronsac etc. ← I probably should let this pretty funny and astute reply suffice but.... I confess, I was confused! Graves is across the river from St Emilion and Pomerol. I should have indicated that the river had little to do with the vintage--rather it was the merlot which ripened better than the cabernet sauvignon and thus, wines with higher percentages of merlot were quite good regardless of which side of the river they were from.

There seems to be some confusion here. Botrytis and sweetness are two different things. There are any number of sweet late harvest red wines (zinfandel included) all of which are botrytis free. Botrytis is never a good thing in red grapes. The rot affects the color or pigments and imparts "off" flavors and odors. Basically, the rot removes color so the "red grapes" in essence turn "white" so to peak. (really gray). Any conscientious wine maker would discard red grapes affected with rot before making dry or sweet red wines. White grapes, however, can be affected positively by botrytis (obviously color is not affected and the flavor/odor notes that are "offputting" in red grapes are actually pleasant and welcome in sweet white wines. The rot in white grapes is often referred to as "noble rot." Depending on the weather/vintage, white wines can be botrytised or not.

← Gee! A left wing publication focusing on entertainment and food-- what's next? Time Out NY continues to indicate why it is a tacky, ill informed and poorly written attempt at being New York Magazine which at least is a better written, tacky with panache magazine that has some authority. I miss the old Cue! Really! Do we need a "top crits" issue? Does anyone care? Have we become so totally dependant that we need critics to tell us which critics are good or bad? Can we survive without top ten lists? Must we be told what's in or out? what's hip or not hip? Can we figure anything out for ourselves!? Sheeesh!

For me. There is a tendency to oversimplify things. Big is bad small is good. National (or global) bad, local good. Domestic good, imports bad. Things are not so simple. Why is a big chain "scary" and the local guy friendly? I know a lot of very scary local guys! There is also something bothersome about this whole "eating ethically" thing. Ethics? Whose? I would prefer to eat well. That is to make choices based on flavor and quality as well as price and not worry so much. At the same time I am concerned that all producers of food are making an effort to improve methods etc. --to do the right thing so to speak. Also the situation varies from country to country. Europe?--the very size of most countries compared to the US--both physical geography and population-- needs to be taken into consideration. There is a lot more to this issue! We are all tied up in knots attempting to define terms like "free range" and "organic" etc. How about just good tasting! As for concepts like sustainable farms etc. and 100 mile approaches --well there is no easy answer--there are consequences good and bad to most everything. I prefer to be pragmatic and see both sides (maybe even more than two sides) and then make decisions. I also have a problem starting with the doomsday premise--we are killing ourselves--the earth is being destroyed! evil corporations are colluding with government to destroy the planet!--news at ten. But I prefer to be optimistic--after all we managed to get through the dark ages!!!

That is simply because Kim is thoughtful and way-better-than-decent. She gets it. She's made the effort when she is here to go way, way beyond just getting a few interviews and going back home and writing them up. Lots of people have written lots of things about New Orleans since the storm, both good and bad, but her pieces, along with the one Corby Kummer wrote early this year in The Atlantic, are total standouts in my mind. ← Can you cite a piece that was even moderately critical of New Orleans that you like? Richman is an astute, acerbic and thought provoking writer and critic. (this is a guy who couldn't find any decent pizza in Naples!) I can understand why many people find him too abrasive and do not care for his style. I pretty much subscribe to GQ because of Richman. I have been to New orleans several times and my experiences are pretty much in line with Richman's. The city is not one of my favorites though I am perfectly willing to admit there is probably a lot (a side) of the place I am unaware of. There are also a number of things I like a lot. The people I came into contact with were wonderful. (I also love the Neville Brothers and a lot of the music scene). There are millions of people who do love the city (really is this any different from any other city anywhere? some people love a place others do not). Of all the people I know who have been to New Orleans, I would say a few absolutely love it a few like it a lot and a few don't like it at all. By the way I understand why a lot of folks don't like my city--I am certainly not going to get myself in an apoplectic state when it is criticized. Again, Richman does have a very iconoclastic and smart ass style of writing and his humor is a bit quirky --see his pieces on Pizza and Naples as well as Southern barbeque or hamburgers etc On second thought, don't read em I have a feeling you will just get more upset. Anyway, after surviving such a large scale natural disaster, it is nice to see the city (love it or hate it) coming back, who wouldn't root for New Orleans? The Richman piece won't have much impact one way of the other--a superbowl or two in the dome will.

Thanks--to elaborate a bit: I was hoping to get some info and perspective before I call em. we usually are willing to fork over fifty bucks a bottle maximum (grudgingly though) in a high end establishment--this is Manhattan. I don't know where I got the notion that they had an interesting list--one would think they would though given the nature of the cooking/menu so I am a bit suprised at your comment. I gotta go peruse the thread about Robuchon here at eG.

i agree strongly. see this wtn: http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?act=ST&f=24&t=95567 ← '98 was a pretty good vintage for the entire right bank: St Emilion , Pomerol and Graves. The merlot and cabernet franc ripened much better than the Cabernet sauvignon. That said, there are not many of these 98's around anymore--the best bottles have been gone for a while. I still see a few here and there though. And at the time there were some relative bargains. (certainly compared to prices for the 2000 vintage and after the 95 and 96 vintages). I think the best of the 98 right bank wines will age very nicely and will be very very good. ps I would love to know what 'mint paint"for the lamb chops is. (sounds intriguing--and tasty)

I understand that Robuchon in the Four seasons has an interesting wine list. I wonder if anyone has any thoughts etc. also--I am planning a lunch there soon and my group (three or four of us) usually bring our own wine when we dine together--always interesting and/or usually pretty high end bottles. Does anyone have knowledge of the corkage fee and policy at Robuchon? Thanks!!!

This is just another example of a lazy press in search of something newsworthy. Once again a bit of "conventional wisdom" is passed along with little regard for its veracity and little support save for some stereotyping.

According to Oxford Companion to Wine, Cheval Blanc is a 36 ha. vineyard planted to 66% cabernet franc, 33% merlot and 1% malbec. It seems Jancis and Bob agree on one less thing. The cepage would certainly change from year to year, but they are either throwing out a lot of cabernet franc or someone's numbers are incorrect. ← I suspect both are probably correct. Cheval Blanc makes a second wine Petit Cheval: about 3,000 cases per year. Also the selection process is very strict lots of thinning and pruning a green harvest and low yields (around 35hl per hectare)--a lot of grapes probably are thrown out--though only those not worthy of the second wine which can be quite good IMOP. (it ain't cheap either). there are only about 9,000 cases per year of the first growth wine made. Other wines with a relatively high percentage of merlot are Pichon Lalande Comtesse and Palmer. It is interesting to compare the Comtesse with her sibling: Pichon Baron (a wine that is much higher in Cabernet Sauvignon) from the same vintage.

would that be the fat guy, or the mrs. fat guy who is going to give up their job to manage the homestead? ← Another factor would be the cost. Say there was eough land What would the food cost in terms of money? Do we go for the organic free range chicken at six bucks a pound or do we improve the mass market chicken and keep the price down. What would be the cost in terms of the environment--even sustainable farms create problems--water run off--my understanding is that the Chesapeake Bay has been dramatically impacted by farms. Also--odors. Anyone who has driven route 78 across central Pennsylvania knows what I am talking about. How much and in what ways would our lives change going back to a more agrarian society?

I don't think this is prima facia true. If it were, human society wouldn't have survied a single generation before the advent of modern farming and distribution systems. The entire world had not choice but to eat locally and put food by for off seasons for centuries. But I think you're correct in the sense that the way society is structured now is inextricably linked to global distribution networks and economies of scale, and thus the shift towards purchasing locally will not work from the top down. I think the original argument is flawed, because if you assume that a consumer will either be driving to a supermarket or driving to an equidistant farmer's market or CSA distribution point, fuel usage on the end is equal. If I drive to the farm to pick up my produce at the point of origin, I've saved fuel. If I pick a salad from my garden, I've saved fuel. You also didn't take into account the amount of fossil fuel consumed in the industrial growing process versus a small farm where much of the labor is human rather than fuel intensive. Interesting thought excercise though, to be sure. ← Good points. As I see it this is a matter of consequences and trade offs. You are right in noting that human society was once basically agrarian. Keep in mind that the world's population as well the distribution of that populaton was much smaller. What worked then will not logistically work now not so much for how society is structured but rather the sheer size of it. Not that we can not learn from what worked in the past--we should. Forests once gave way to farms which --for better or worse--are giving way to housing and industry. I see technology as a good thing--a way to facilitate a balance between what was good in the past and what will work now.

I guess you missed all the little faces I peppered my post with. Or you are being a tad oversensative here. By the way as for: "you people"--you know who you are!

I don't think anyone mentioned it but there is a wonderful restaurant here in New York City that features the cuisine--"Via Emila" at 47 e 21st (just off Park Ave South) Wine list has a large selection of Lambruscos by the glass. Food is very good and the prices very reasonable. Well worth a try!

What a lovely compliment. However, if a wine is strikingly delicious why would you want it to be heavier...? ← um...because Robert Parker told me I like "massive, alcoholic, jammy fruit bombs"? Or maybe because the too-rare good bottles of wine I've been drinking lately have been Rhones. On thinking about your post, it did occur to me the "light" impression was kind of a first impression, and not one that I worried about once I started drinking it. It seemed pretty un-tight (open? loose?) to me. The salesman reccomended it specifically as being ready to drink, at one point offering up anpther vintage which, he implied, might be a "better" year but which was coming along more slowly. Generally speaking, is it true that (as I have heard) merlot-based wines mature more quickly than cabs? ← You people kill me!!!! Always complaining how Parker is soooo influential then constantly citing him. I am not sure what he has to do with a discussion of the 98 Certan de May. Unless every discussion about every wine is an opportunity for a snarky comment or two! FYI (for the record) Parker's assessment was that the wine is: Good--showing some degree of finesse and flavor as well as character with no noticeable flaws. And he is in agreement with you (or you him) that the wine is a "little light" noting that there was a lack of concentration in the mid palate. By the way very similar to Tanzer's initial impressions (though he revised his opinion upward at a more recent tasting). So what's the big deal. I would love to see that e-mail or memo or ---where Parker tells you what you like. We could have a discussion about tasting terms here--weight, lightness, finesse (actually finesse is not a reconized descriptor (but we all know what folks mean) body, mouthfeel. I think that it is probably concentration of flavors that applies here. Certan de May is usually not a "big" wine (mouth feel) though your point of reference is important to what you are trying to convey. Most reviews I have seen seem to be in agreement that in 1998 Certan de May did not live up to expectations--this was a very strong vintage for the right bank (I bought a lot of them). The 98 is also not up to snuff in comparing Certan vintage to vintage. That is not to say (and no one has) that the wine is not a good wine that is enjoyable to drink. Your wine salesman seems to be passing on a tried and true means of obtaining good values--"off" vintages can provide some very nice wines for early drinking at nice prices. Looks like you got a good deal. Finally. The ultimate example of Merlot would be Petrus--to make the point attempted in the references to Cheval Blanc. Petrus is app 95% Merlot. There are a number of very fine merlots made here in the USA: Havens, Truchard, Beringer, Pride etc--lots of styles--make good merlots. Look for wines from Pomerol and St Emilion as well as Canon Fronsac etc.

Particularly interesting as when "we" think of doing it, it's all from apparently a good place within ourselves, but when "others" do the same in any formal way it's called "zenophobia". ← I believe that srhcb is making a case that this concept is flawed because it is not practical. It matters not who came up with or is advancing the 100 mile philosophy--it doesn't work. Much of the world's population does not live in areas where local sustainable (we won't bother with the convoluted definitions) makes any sense. So you won't accuse me of "zenophobia" let's take the New York metropolitan area. It is nice to have more produce that is locally grown available--farmer's markets are a good thing. But to think that a population of twenty or thirty million (and expanding) is going to be fed largely from these farms is sheer folly. especially where there is a relatively short growing season. There is simply not enough land for these farms. The food from these farms can not be produced economically--organic chicken costs a hell of a lot more--so do heirloom tomatoes. The whole notion is flawed from an ecological pov.--we are just beginning to see a return of forests (a good thing) farms of any kind create runoff problems (see the problem in the Chesapeake bay re: shellfish production). Sorry--we are simply not going back to the nineteenth century and becoming an agrarian society again. We are a nation of three hundred million people. My guess is we are better off if large agribusiness continues to improve its production methods. I would say that more awareness on the part of consumers and more pressure on all food producers large and small to produce better quality and safer food through better methods is very positive and welcome. But let's be a bit more pragmatic here.

Now, you see, I would consider anything left in its own habitat as "organic". If we pollute that habitat, the fish (or wild turkey or boar) may not be particularly healthy to eat, but it has lived its life as its predecessors have, it has hunted for its own food, and lived its life without the overt (key word) control of man ... whether it is still healthy to eat is another question. The example that sticks in my mind is the salmon from Lake Michigan, which used to have PCP from polluted water in its subcutaneous fat; these fish were not farmed or controlled in any other way by man, and were thus "wild game". They hunted for their food and lived naturally, which ultimately led to their being polluted and being "unhealthy", but "organic" in the USDA definition. I think governmental agencies should not be allowed to redefine words which are already in common use and in the dictionary ... I now longer know what "natural" or "organic" mean ... ← I would suggest that there are consequences to everything. For example--the risk of Mad Cow disease is greater when one eats--natural, organic, wild game! Parasites and myriad diseases from wild--seafood from unpolluted waters are possibilities for people who eat these fish. The truth is--nothing is 100 per cent safe! Years ago when people ate wild caught, natural, organic they died at earlier ages-- they got food poisoning at greater rates as well as myriad other food born illnesses that were once prevalent. I'd say that looking at where we are at today--things are better in terms of health and safety--and we are feeding a population that is a hundredfold larger. Are things perfect-NO--food production mass or otherwise can be improved. This infatuation with vague and debated (by proponents) terms like organic and natural etc assumes we are going to hell in a handbag foodwise.--that just ain't the case. It does sell books and various headline grabbing expose's though. If hormones and antibiotics in cattle were killing us--well seems to me our population growth indicates otherwise! As for the USDA it is a miracle they function as well as they do what with all the special interests --and not just the big so called agrobusinesses, last I looked the healthfood industry and the Sierra Club and the animal rights folks are all registered lobbying groups with lots of cash. People are not dying in the streets. The food supply is pretty safe. (for eg please name the verified cases of say--mad cow disease in humans in this country). We have been eating genetically modified foods for a long time. So far so good! The incidence of famine has decreased dramatically in large part because of the often derided agribusinesses. (the scorecard indicates that Monsanto has done more good for mankind than Whole Foods). Technology has enabled us to clean up polution and correct mistakes (and ok criminal acts)--shad are back in the Hudson River! Fish farming will actually help stocks of wild fish thrive--technology can be good. I have no problem with Mr Pollan. He is thought provoking and we certainly have much to learn. Businesses both large and small as well as our government have their good and bad sides. There are few inherently evil people killing unsuspecting consumers anywhere. There is room for improvement all around!!! This is not a zero sum game. And can we stop this nonsense about how much more "enlightened" the Europeans are. I recommend a film "Our Daily Bread". They are no better or worse off than we are. In the end. I for one, prefer we focus on artisinal foods-- produced by dedicated folks who want to simply produce the best tasting food items. I believe that mass producers can and are improving techniques all the time--to produce safe food. Small producers are welcome competition in quality and price and value is good. it will lead to better techniques--better food. It is good that we have people like Pollan speaking out and provoking thought. Let's not get carried away though-- a little perspective is in order.

I am in general agreement that the quality of fresh meats and poultry sold at many places in New York has declined a bit. I shop quite often at Citarella on on the upper West Side and have never encountered any fish, fowl or meat that wasn't less than fresh and of very good quality. If you bought a prepackaged duck then it is quite possible that the problem you note may not be the market's fault. I do not believe that the upper West side store sells any meat of poultry that is pre wrapped--this makes it near impossible to sell something so obviously "off." That said. I believe that in Manhattan, there has been a trend toward large "gourmet" markets that sell everything from produce to meat, fish, poultry as well as condiments and other packaged items and everything else under the sun including prepared foods for takeout. They are competing with and in many cases, replacing smaller more specialized markets that once thrived in most every neighborhood. See Akron Market, Jefferson Market, Nevada market and myriad local butchers and fish mongers. I also believe that many of these mega "food courts" have been expanding --with branches all over the place as well as mail order and internet operations. Once truly great markets that really got it right like Balducci's and Dean and Delucca have been, spun off, bought, sold, expanded--see Citarella, Fairway, Jefferson Market, Zabar's. The result is the inevitable decline in quality and service. Add in the growing presence of places like Whole Foods and the cost of real estate here and it is easy to see why this is happening. take the original Balducci in the Village. IMOP this place got it right. There wasn't anything sold there that wasn't top quality and the prepared foods were wonderful. The service was outstanding. They offered the best of everything. I recently walked through Grace's market on the upper east side a bastion of mediocrity--yeah one can find some really good items--but one has to wade through a lot of crap. Bought by Sutton Gourmet (I have no idea who owns this once family owned and operated store now) expanded to the upper West side a Balducci's offering uneven quality and service--I was amazed that things could decline so rapidly. The old Jefferson market has moved and expanded, while currently, better than many similar operations, it is a shadow of its former self. Once this market competed with Balducci's--across the avenue--if one couldn't provide a perfect steak the other was ready with it. IMOP convenience has become the scourge of quality. We are all guilty--I have never seen so much oohing and aahing over places like Whole Foods. Again, there are some high quality items there but for the most part this is nothing more than a glorified Food Emporium. The lack of dedicated and knowledgeable service at these places is awful! I would say that areas like Arthur Avenue remain (often tenuously) the best of all worlds. Neighborhoods of competing (healthily) smaller shops dedicated to offering the best quality food items--knowing what they do best and executing it. Want cured meats and deli--Mike's, bakery items Artuso-- bread--fish, poultry meat--there are two or three options for each--the neighborhood is a veritable food court. As for much of Manhattan: Most of the small neighborhood butchers and bakers and fish mongers are long gone. The old food court markets have had to play the expansion game and have lost (or are losing) the ability to offer the best of many different items as well as knowledgeable and caring service. There is hope--some of the farmer's markets are doing a good job. Places like Ninth Avenue are still lined with small specialty shops--though I wonder if they are one more Whole Foods location away from extinction as more and more high rises with five thousand a month one bedrooms and plenty of retail space for another Starbucks etc go up.

Your list is pretty good. I especially like Ghislaine B's efforts. I would add Mugnier and Magnien. As for Parker your list actually proves my point. If Parker was so darn influential these wines would be made in one monolithic style ("Parkerized" as they say). Or no one would be buying these wines because he doesn't tell em to. You simply can't have it both ways. (notably parker has championed many of these growers/makers over the years.) As for influence--I would say that many of the importers have had way more influence as well as any of the wine making gurus--see Guy Accad et al--that pass through over the years. Seems to me that Burgundy offers a fairly wide range of styles based upon the wine maker's criteria. There are so many differing opinions on wine making and wine styles held by these folks that it is hard to see how any individual could have much sway in how their wines are made or taste. I do find it interesting that there has been little mention of terroir in this thread. Perhaps it is finally being understood in better perspective. As a generalization--I have found a relatively large percentage of good wines from Volnay and Santenay as well as Beaune--especially the wines of Albert Morot --I buy the Theurons regularly--a wine that does need ten years in bottle!

I like the Wine Bible very much. In fact, it is one of the best books for what it does. I would recommend two other books-- The Oxford wine Companion (encyclopedia) is indispensable--in tandem with the Wine Bible this is probably a near perfect wine course. While reading the wine Bible, I would reference the places and terms that come up in the Oxford. Wine Style by Mary Ewing Mulligan and Ed McCarthy. This book by two educators (Mary runs the International Wine center) is, IMOP, especially critical for a sommelier. It takes an approach to wine that is becoming more and more prevalent--flavor profile. After all, regardless of knowing how wine is made and here wines come from it is understanding how a wine tastes and what foods it matches up with that consumers (and sommeliers) really need to understand. By the way, Jim, as for that book on Bordeaux? Robert Parker's "Bordeaux" is recommended as the definitive text by Jancis Robinson!