JohnL

Whatever your definitions of "ignorance and stupidity re: ethnic diversity;" I would note that Minneapolis has a thriving Asian restaurant scene as well as a large Asian population. Especially Hmong peoples from Laos and Viet Nam. There are relatively large african American ans Native American populations as well. (Prince is from and lives in the Minneapolis area) Aquavit in Minneapolis was closed as was the flagship here in New York City. You seem to want to make a case of racism where none exists. Racism? Unfortunately, it resides everywhere in the entire world among all peoples. It certainly is not unique to Minneapolis! also --since when is "Americana --boring"?????

For the purposes of this discussion I am focusing on the world of haute cuisine. The numbers appear damning, but why are they the way they are? What are the underlying reasons? Individual racism is probably still a factor in at least some instances, but the question must go beyond that. Are black men and women entering the culinary field in proportional numbers? If not, why not? If they are, what is happening to them to hold them back? Is it inherent in the system? Are there cultural issues dissuading some black men and women from haute cuisine? ← all of the above! --by the way, a while back I asked why there are so few people of Asian descent playing professional ice hockey? Seems to me, looking for "proportional numbers" is a big part of the problem. We can and should look at systems in place that provide a track to success and make sure they are not "holding anyone back." It also seems that working in a kitchen and/or entering a culinary school are not currently closed to any applicant for any reasons other than a desire to enter the field. Economics and social factors, yes. Our society is changing though and these factors are lessening in their overall impact. As more people like Samuelson become successul more African Americans will see benefit in working in the Haute cuisine industry as chefs. There are already many black cooks and restaurant owners throughout the country just as there are myriad Asians and others. Haute cuisine is a very rarified end of the food and dining business and add to that "prominent" Haute cuisine chefs and the air is even thinner. These chefs (like Samuelson) are also possessing of engaging personalities and an ability to promote themselves and their business endeavors. The history of Haute cuisine is distinctly European in nature. As more and more different cuisines from different cultures emerge as accepted by more people and thus, increase in their importance as viable economic enterprises, the appeal of becoming a leader in any of them is also increasing. One could ask why any people of any particular culture seem to "dominate" any industry. The answers are more complex and varied---how come few African Americans are Lobster fishermen?--is answered mainly by their not living in the coastal areas of Maine etc. I would venture that currently, working in a restaurant and becoming a chef is not seen as glamorous and rewarding (financially and otherwise) by not only African Americans but by most Americans period! As it does, witness the success of TV programming and the emergence of personalities like Samuelson, the glamor will be embraced by more and more people of all ethnic backgrounds. I believe that the real question here is not why an industry does not respect and embrace a particular peoples but rather why a particular people do not embrace and respect an industry. Folks like Samuelson can go a long way to changing this!

←

Almost every writer who interviews me tries to get me to talk about the terrior of the sugar cane countries, and to date I haven't been quoted to my knowledge of saying that it is the particular soil that makes a difference. But, having said that, in Martinique only cane grown in certain areas, where their is good drainage for example, can the cane used to make AOC rhum agricole. But how the spirit is fermented, distilled, aged and diluted for bottling is much more important than what field it came from. ← There's a raging debate (or a debate raging!) over terroir's impact on Scotch as well. The press in general is pretty uneducated about concepts like terroir. It is also a point of contention in the ongoing debate over old world and new world in wine styles today. The current science based thinking in wine at the moment is that terroir in terms of drainage and sunshine as well as the soil's heat retention or reflection properties contributing to how a grape ripens is very important. So your note about Martinique and rum makes a lot of sense. How and to what degree a grape ripens does impact its flavor. there are still a lot of folks who believe that somehow the soil or geology imparts specific flavors. This is a bit of voodoo. What is needed is some perspective on what terroir is and isn't and how it impacts agriculture.

Ummm. How about Discovery Life which has been showing "Inner Chef" for about 6 months. Also shown there is License to Grill, hosted by Rob Rainford (sp?). Interesting that a channel tha shows only 5 or 6 cooking shows has two hosted by African-Americans, while Food Network has how many???? Oh yeah. NONE ← Al Roker Sandra Pinkney also the Food Network long ago often featured the late (and great) Chef Patrick Clark. there's also another host on currently whose name escapes me as well as a number of others who have appeared on the Food Network over the years. The truth is less nefarious than some might believe but a couple of posters have touched upon it. How many African Americans have graduated one of the cooking schools that seem to turn out most of our successful chefs today? How many have decided on a career path to being an executive chef? How many are currently executive chef's How many of those currently executive chefs have the personality and the originality to be featured on TV? I believe they'll get there as the numbers increase. By the way, how come not many Asians seem to be playing professional ice hockey these days? It is nice to note as one poster does--that there are more and more African Americans enrolled in cooking school today--one would expect to see more running kitchens and eventually appearing in the media. It is also nice to see someone like Marcus Samuelson (who lived next door to me not long ago) becoming a role model and taking a leadership role. So let's think before we start bashing the Food Network or America or Europe or anyone. Things are getting better all the time!

We had a lot of those things at one time. Especially all those great German,Hungarian, Eastern European places in Yorkville. I really miss them. you are right though--things are pretty good right now!

I feel the same as I always have. If they are produced by reputable cheesemakers, I will take my chances. ← My concern is more that the cheeses are handled and stored correctly. Not just flavor concerns but safety as well. I try to buy from reputable cheese mongers. I feel safe in my assumption that these folks deal with reputable sources.

Good Chianti "few and far between"? I think not, the quality level of Chianti has skyrocketed over the last decade. Sure if you want to include all the crap in "fiasci" and the low end Ruffino type stuff there is a lot of junk, but you can apply that logic to Bordeaux and Napa too. Do you really want to define a region by its industrial mass production - its "boatloads"?. Fine sangiovese is nervous, high-strung and refined. I don't think it should be Rhone-like. It is a varietal known for both high acidity and low color and a dark over-ripe wine is just not varietal in character. ← See my comments earlier in this thread. Yes--over the past several years things have improved markedly. It is hard to establish or generalize just what constitutes a paradigm for wines made from sangiovese. The wines of the sixties and seventies? The changes in Tuscan wine making have been so dramatic since the nineties that many of the shortcomings in sangiovese are/have been overcome by viticultural and vinicultural progress. I am not talking mass production only. I believe we are in general agreement. However, you are attempting to establish a paradigm for sangiovese wines (a romantic view). I am being pragmatic. Sangiovese produced in a warmer climate where it can ripen more fully produces a different wine than sangiovese grown in a cooler climate. It is as simple as that. If one establishes a paradigm based on wines from a cooler climate then wine from a warmer clime from the same grape will taste over ripe or at least different. So which one is the "true expression" of the grape? The Italians realized this and thus, chianti can be a blend. Blending, use of oak, clonal selection, etc etc etc are all attempts to overcome the shortcomings of the sangiovese grape. Many of the wines from past years were often tannic, acidic, thin, charmless and easily oxidized wines. (not just the industrial versions). These are traits of Sangiovese that does not achieve ripeness. Anyway--I have recently tasted so many different styles of Tuscan, sangiovase based wines, blends, non blends, oaked, non oaked I would be hard pressed to relate any of them back to some paradigm from the sixties--I can only say they are much much better quality overall. I will say that to me, sangiovese of any style has a note of cherries (black) and a tang that comes from acidity with smoke and an earthy woodsy quality. I will also say that too much oak flavor or cabernet or merlot or anything in a blend will certainly over come the sangiovese--the wine may be fine and very enjoyable but it will not be recognizable as a sangiovese based wine.

While old plantings in Tuscany may have been a mess, new ones are not. The family of sangiovese clones, thanks to the Chianti 2000 project and Banfi's research, is among the most defined on the planet. New plantings have been based on better clonal selection for years. Certainly sangiovese, like cabernet sauvignon, can benefit from blending (with the notable exception of the magnificent Montevertine Le Pergole Torte) unlike mono-varietals like pinot noir and nebbiolo. However, unlike the more robust cabernet, the delicate nature and naturally light color of sangiovese make it a poor candidate for new oak barrique, which quickly overwhelm its character. ← Good points Craig. I have noticed over the past few years that we are seeing more good to very good Chianti's--it is not news that Italian wine makers have really improved both growing situation via better clonal selection and better wine making technique. Especially with whites--there are more interesting whites coming out of Italy than anywhere else in the world at the moment. I partially agree about the new oak issue. As better clones are utilized combined with more ripeness and substance in the grapes, judicious use of new oak can be a plus but also healthier riper fruit means that Sangiovese will be better able to stand on its own. There will always be different styles of sangiovese. By the way--as a side note: I just last week tasted a number of Barolos and Barbarescos from the 1982 vintage. what magnificent wines. Gaja, Conterno (A and G), Ratti, Marcarini, Borgogno, Cesare,Giacosa. Scavino, Rinaldi etc all I can say is Mama Mia what wines!!!!!!

The label states: "An exclusive Whole Foods limited blend" also "2005 Harvest picked by hand and cold pressed" then there is an insert inside the box touting Manni oils with the following: "This year we created Manni special blend, exclusively for Whole Foods, using the expertise that has made Manni oils superior. It's an exclusive Whole Foods limited blend of only 4000 numbered bottles. I hope you'll enjoy it. It's Buonissimo." There is no mention of any blends other than the Per Me and per Mio Figlio oils on the Manni site and no mention of Manni oils on the WF site. I also checked Balducci's site--no results. I am going to ask the folks at balduccis what the shelf label indicating Manni olive oil at $39.95 was all about this weekend. I suspect that what I purchased at Whole Foods is indeed a blend other than Per Me or Per Mio Figlio. I am curious as to whether or not this same "special" blend is also available at stores other than Whole Foods and if so, are these the same as the WF blend or are truly other special blends. Ultimately, I am sure I have a fine olive oil, I am interested how this blend compares to the two Manni mainstay blends. The Manni site offers their per Mio and Per Mio Figlio blends but you have to buy a case--10 bottles (100ml each) at the going rate of app $275 (plus shipping). Tempting! I would love to know if anyone has tasted the Manni oils and how they compare to other fine Italian oils. When I taste my WF Manni oil I will post some notes on it! as a side note--I was in WF looking for one of my favorite oils they carry--McEvoy Ranch. unfortunately, the shelves are loaded with McEvoy oil from the 2004 Harvest. Too old for me so I will get the McEvoy on line. Really fine stuff.

I would agree. I am relatively new to spirits but am an unrepentant oenophile of many years. "Terroir" is a misunderstood and greatly abused concept. It is all too often used to add some mystical qualities to a wine resulting in higher prices. In the article linked there is mention of "recipe" and therein lies the key. How a Rum is made and aged is probably the major determination in how it will taste not where the raw ingredients are from.

the internet has a zillion sources. also I have bought wood chips at Sears, Home Depot and Loews. also hardware stores can have em as well. I am sure there is someplace near you (if not you can get em by mail via the net).

that's a great idea! (I will pick up a bottle did you order the 2003?) I tasted the 2000 Leonetti--my notes indicate a nice wine. I thought it was a bit Rhone like with black pepper notes. However, there have been boatloads of poor, high acid thin wines from Italy over the years--this is not an easy grape to grow and make wine from. A good chianti can be very nice but they are so few and far between I hate the term "food wine" but good Sangiovese cries out for food!!! Craig is correct --I believe-- in noting the "modern style" wines of Tuscany. Some producers seem to lose the attributes of Sangiovese in their blends etc and some really get it right. It will be interesting to taste some of the efforts from California and the Pacific Northwest. What's yours like? (your wines --all of them are hard to find if at all here on the East Coast) also I am interested in tasting the wine Cole noted.

Because places like Oregon and New Zealand have established themselves as unique and successful growing regions for pinot noir. Many fine wines of definable styles are made. The best soil types and clones are known and in use. There is no such region outside of Italy when it comes to sangiovese, which is still experimental in the new world. Tuscany is the home of the international style of winemaking in Italy and there are many wines just as ripe and fruity as new world wines. Oak and over-oaked are indeed two different terms, that's why I use them. ← My point was simply that choosing a wine doesn't necessarily come down to cost/price. Where this fits into a person's list of criteria is up to them. You are lumping the Leonetti in with those wines you deem to be "over oaked" (and high quality) and making a selection based on cost. Actually, I would spend the extra money on the Leonetti. Why? To see what a wine maker and vineyard outside Tuscany can do with Sangiovese. (actually Cole's heads up has peaked my curiosity). I may also find that I enjoy the Leonetti more that many of these similar Tuscan wines. Sangiovese may well become established outside Italy and as with many other varietals it may open up new wine drinking experiences and options. Oak or no oak is the least of the issues with this varietal. Getting the right clone is critical. (you have to admit Italy has been a mess in terms of prodigious plantings of awful clones of this grape). It may well be that outside of a handful of areas and producers who make some of the world's most magnificent wines, sangiovese may benefit from at least moderate oak and even blending. So the producers of truly great sangiovese are not going away, many other producers are finding new and exciting ways to make wine from the varietal. (Gary Figgins may be one of them, who knows?). It iwll be fun to watch (and taste)!!!

I have read the accolades re: Manni olive oil. Hard to find and damned expensive. Yesterday I came across Manni oil at the local Whole Foods. $39.95 for 250ml It is labeled as "an exclusive Whole Foods limited blend" I am always a bit suspicious when I see "exclusive" and "limited" in the same sentence. I know Manni oils labeled as "Per Me" or "per Mio Figlio" are the one's people like Thomas Keller rave about. So what's with this special bottling? I am curious as to how it compares with the renown bottlings. also I noticed a shelf label at Balducci's indicating "Manni Oil" for the same price --they did not have any in stock (or on the shelf) so I do not know if this too is/was a special bottling for them. Suddenly exclusive and limited are lookin even more suspicious. anyway--I would be interested in any additional info anyone might contribute to this. I have never tasted any bottling of Manni oil so I have no point of reference when I open my Whole Foods find.

You are lucky! My friends mostly wanna borrow money! I have all the Baumard wines listed--I like them all--the savenierres is quite good especially the "Papillion"--nice chenin blanc at a good price! As for vintages--2003 was very hot in most places so the wines at best have a ripeness to them. Taste some 03's and some 04's see if you notice a difference--depends on your own preferences. If possible taste each vintage from the same maker. I like the Morot burgundies--the Beaune 1er cru may be a nice quality wine for the money. The Guigal Cote Rotie 01 is a very fine wine (should be a bit expensive). Guigal also has a "house" style--overall they make some very fine wines. Jadot has a house style--if you like it--these wines should be good values as well. Ambroise also makes some nice wines. In fact--most of the wines listed are interesting. Nice mix of styles. I wish I could go!!!

Why would anyone pay such prices for oaky sangiovese? There is a glut of high quality over-oaked sangiovese in Tuscany that you can find for half the price. ←

The Times piece is pretty good. I think the interview Tanzer did with Rolland in his newsletter a while back (Nov/Dec 05) was even better. I really dislike the current polemics splitting the wine world "satan or savior" promoted by people like Nossitor and a handful of British writers/critics. Their position is easily dealt with as they have little factual evidence to support their claims. Rolland deals with terroir in the Tanzer interview--unfortunately I can not link it here--it is a paid site--I highly recommend you get access to it. Rolland deals with the issue of terroir and he answers his critics with specifics: Tanzer: When you begin working with a client what's the fastest easiest way to bring about a 20% improvement in the quality of their wines? Rolland: Work in the vineyards. better management in the vineyard. Better balance, less fertilizers, better control of yields, better trellising. I am sure these relatively simple improvements represent 70% of the improvements we can make in the first year. After that it's more complicated, it's more a matter of details in winemaking, of the way we age the wine, and each of these details makes a very small difference. also Rolland: "Harlan estate is a very good example of an exceptional place. Araujo is another one with a very specific character. Ornellaia is very special.....sites that make very nice wine but also wines with a very specific personality. That's the goal we have." He seems to have a firm grasp of terroir and its importance. As for your question. It sounds like Rolland provides general guidance for the most part (probably specific where he can) and leaves many smaller details up to the vineyard owners/management. I doubt he gets involved in day to day minutia and actual execution. From everything I have heard/read, Rolland seems to act as a true consultant with give and take and provides guidance--he does not take over the running of the operation. Like most consultants, people believe in him (some don't) and the key to his success is to look at what he promises against what he delivers. Basically, his promise seems to be to help a winery make better wine. These "gurus" come and go. Remember Guy Accad? Wine making can be so ethereal that wine makers are especially susceptible to "advice"--look at the current fads of biodynamiques etc. Rolland is certainly nothing new. Rolland certainly seems to have his supporters. As for the detractors, the fact is Rolland works with a tiny percentage of the wine making universe. They vastly overstate his influence to try to make their point. Again, the Tanzer interview is much richer and more detailed as to what Rolland does and his philosophical and practical approach to wine is--a must read!

Good suggestion! I am in the market for a good read at the moment. Maybe we can trade book reports!!!

I am suprised (mildly) that you can't get some kind of reciprocal deal going with Leonetti and your winery. Professional courtesy etc etc. Agree with J Bonne. The Sangiovese is quite good. A brief check on Wine Search Pro shows the 2004 available at Wine cask in Santa barbara for $62 and at Taylor and Norton in Sonoma $69.00. (they have the 2003 for the same price) Leonetti wines have a lot of fans and they have no problem selling out at these prices. They can be found on the retail market with a little perseverance.

Ya know! I wonder if the writer is that clever to subtly poke fun at an insufferable wine geek like Miles. The two varietals he derides end up comprising the wine he cherishes! If so--that is truly great writing!!!!!

Cole--thank you for a very sane look at the vintage assessment subject! I believe that a good critic needs to provide a context for the consumer. You may have a preference for "leaner lower acidity...." pinots but this should not get in the way of accurately describing other styles of pinot. Wine evaluation is very subjective but it also has objective elements. I thought you did a very good job with your descriptions above. I happen to enjoy both contrasting styles of pinot (lucky me). What I look for is some objectiveness and accuracy from a critic. (there is plenty of room for personal preference). I agree re: winemakers. I have listened to many as a consumer and as a professional. Understandably, they are selling their latest vintage and like grand parents describing their grand children...... So a good critic can provide some insight. If a wine is well made it is well made regardless of style. There is too much either or permeating the business these days. Especially important for a consumer (and retailer) is a good idea of what to expect and what to look for good and bad in terms of an overall vintage! I think you did a superb job (I am closer to becoming a subscriber). Many thanks ps I look forward to bumping into you here in the future!!!!

Much of a wine lover as I am (is this a legitimate sentence??!) .......I would take the studies with the proverbial grain of salt. Human beings are just too complex to come to these pat conclusions. (maybe it was the Gauloises or better yet the goose fat!) That said... A glass certainly can't hurt you (at least there is no study to show this yet). And wine opens the door to food, new friends and fun........ I believe it is actually proven better for mental health! So I would not scoff at half bottles--most of the really good stuff can be had in this format. It can be a bit tricky finding a good selection but they are out there. Also screw top wines--more and more fine wine is being bottled with these handy closures. There are some excellent wines available--even the French are giving in!

Thanks for your assessment of the 2005's. I also liked your newsletter--very readable. (I may actually subscribe!) I must say that I have heard that 2005 was a very problematic vintage (this from wineries themselves). Rain, dilution, rot, low sugar levels etc etc etc. You do hint at this. Of course, one must always take vintage assessments with a grain of salt (as you point out so well here) individual wines need to be tasted and assessed. I have not tasted any of these wines (you have) so I will defer to your judgement here but I am skeptical as to just how good this vintage really is. (I agree with you re: the '99's). I am concerned that there seems to be a spin or conventional wisdom that 2005 is some sort of wine making triumph over nature. Again, this is what I am hearing from various wineries themselves. I would appreciate your elaborating a bit on this. In the end--I agree that one needs to taste the wines and make up their own minds. The 2005 vintage at least sounds interesting at this point--I do look forward to tasting some of the results.

I have always thought that the Wine Spectator was quite well executed. Good interesting features, the columnists are often thought provoking and the tasting notes and recommendations are ok as well. Really, what's the problem with the publication?