JohnL

Thanks! You have also made some good points. You may be right about the perfunctory nature of Richman's piece. The issues certainly demand some lengthy consideration. If one reads Richman on a regular basis, I think he has delved into the notion of the Chef/restaurant as a brand issue on other occasions--so this latest foray may be best viewed in that context. It is a hot topic--Ruhlman's book etc. I disagree with your point about bias. The same questions were asked ,for example, when Ducasse and Keller opened here in New York or JGV opens another local place. Richman is not a reviewer to the degree that the local paper or magazine person would be wherein he has several meals over time at a place. He writes for a national publication and tries to cover larger themes. Basically he went to Las Vegas, ate is several big name restaurants and gives an overview in the context of what kind of experience they offered. He asks some questions about what these places are and what they offer diners (I am not sure there are any definitive answers, he certainly doesn't provide any). He did like some and disliked some others, no big deal. Las Vegas is unique in that it is basically a "constructed" city with one singular purpose--gambling. The casino owners are attempting to do two things--draw people into a place that has no "natural" (cultural) or more "organic" attractions--certainly little or no history. No physical attractions (even Lake Mead is manmade) and to entertain the people who are there. Even they would admit that just gambling on its own is not enough. Thus the trend to offer additional experiences to gamblers via entertainment and now food. If there is an Eiffel Tower for that "French" experience--then why not Robuchon! The natural question to ask is--if there is a replica of the Tower there what is one missing from the experience of seeing the original? If one can dine at Robuchon in Las Vegas then how does that experience compare to eating at the original. And by the way, is the comparison valid? Can Robuchon offer a different experience but equal in quality? I believe these questions need to be applied and answered on a case by case basis--there are no sweeping generalizations here. Just like pondering: I ate a Per Se so should I bother going to Yountville? I do think that Richman is concerned that people feel they can merely save time and money and go to Las Vagas instead of Paris or New York or wherever. Just as I would say going to Atlantic City and gambling is not the same experience as going to Las Vegas or Monte Carlo or.....

We also just got back. Guess we missed each other! Agree with your assessments, especially Sfoglia. We have been to the New York version and it is very similar. I believe Gael Greene gave it a nice mention in New York Magazine recently. It is pretty much packed every night (like the Nantucket original it is very small). You might want to check and see if they got their liquor license (it has been BYOB for a while). Wauwinet was, as always, quite wonderful for lunch though the new chef has dispensed with the small plates concept. The food is very good and the level of service also near perfect. One major problem Nantucket has is service help--waitstaff etc. Because the island is so expensive it is impossible to get good professional help. Many places rely on foreign labor--students etc and the service at many places can be very spotty. Did not make it to Chanticleer which had just opened under the management of Susan (from Black Eyed Susan's) as a French Bistro type place. If they get it right--this spot can be one of the most romantic and pretty places in the world. As for wines, The Cellar (a bit out of town) is superb. It opened a year or so ago and is run by a wonderful person--Leslie Chumsae. She has a very nice and eclectic selection at fair prices. Most reports indicate that restaurant business was down this year (as much as 20%). The thinking is the"new money" folks who have built million dollar mansions are dining at home more often than not.

Good points! This is why I suggested applying some method and organization and getting some assistance (a book, advice from the cheese monger and/or wine shop clerks etc). Just pairing wine and cheese haphazardly, makes little sense. Chaos can be fun for a few minutes but eventually promotes boredom!

A restaurant in Las Vegas can be as much a destination as a restaurant in New York City our in Yountville, California. Vegas casinos are gettting more and more revenue from NON-gaming sources now. If fact, in some places, I believe that more revenue comes from non-gaming than from gaming sources. ← Yes, they "can be." The reality is--they aren't. There are not enough foodies to sustain all these places even if Las vegas were to become a restaurant destination. The main attraction is (and always will be, if I may be so bold) Gambling. Remember Las Vegas tried the family destination --we are just like Disney world approach and it didn't work. These restaurants are part of the side show. Just like the Gucci outposts and Celine Dion and Wayne Newton and the volcano and Siggy and Roy. The slot players got their all night (what here isn't all night) endless free buffets, now the upscale folks have Buchon and Bobby Flay. I doubt that Thomas Keller (or anyone else) would be there were they not lured by casino owners with massive amounts of money. Ask Steve Wynn if he would rather have foodies or gamblers as his "guests." This is what Richman is contemplating. He deals with these restaurants on a basic--how's the food--level. But he is also looking at the raison d' etre of a restaurant and questioning what "authenticity" of food and experience meant, its importance, and how we apply it to restaurants and why one goes to a particular restaurant in the first place. Even more elemental, why does any particular restaurant exist? and--how important is this? Why does Keller not open a "French Laundry" in Las Vegas? Why did he choose not to call his New York effort--the French Laundry? Are all of Emeril's restaurants offering the same food, the same experiences to diners? How about Wolfgang? Is the experience and food at his Las Vegas spot the same as his flagship? Should they be? How about Guy Savoy? How has this "branding" impacted the dining industry? I think all these questions are being contemplated by Richman. So, one can approach things from a pure--is the food any good point of view. Or, one can contemplate the larger issues.

Bistro Ralph in Healdsburg. one of my favorites. Great food no pretensions--reasonable cost.

Best way is to take turns. One person buys the cheeses and wines then split the costs (each pays an equal share). Rotate the responsibility. You could set the theme and buy the cheeses then have everybody bring a bottle of wine that they think would go well with the cheeses. You could also just have each bring cheese and wine but you will end up with a lot of cheese and wine and no real focus. (not that this wouldn't be fun). I just think it is more fun when there is a little thought behind these things. People can vote on their favorite combinations and note those that don't work.

I think Richman's problem is that he sees the Vegas dining scene as defined by money, glitz and absentee chefs, and does not lie with any individual restaurant or with chains per se. In addition, he is skeptical of a scene dominated by few high-end transplants as opposed to the more organic environment one finds in New York and other major cities. ← Richman is always thought provoking. And as usual, this piece is, I believe, about larger issues than just a critical review of Vegas restaurants. Is a restaurant or a chef a brand? If so then all the marketing questions/problems etc that arise when a brand is established and defined and, importantly, extended apply. Or is a restaurant something else? What is a dining experience? What is "authenticity"? Are the Vegas restaurants "authentic"--or ersatz? Las Vegas is a theme park. Just as Epcot and Disney World offer "experiences" like a trip into space or sailing on a pirate ship--recreated experiences--not the real thing. Is Vegas offering a culinary "ride" or something else? The restaurants in Las Vegas are not "organic" they exist not as destinations in and of themselves (for some they may) they exist just as the art work in the Bellagio, the volcano, the pirate ship the fountains, the shops et al exist. To provide an overall experience a draw to attract people in large numbers to entertain these people to be part of an atmosphere conducive to one thing and one thing only--GAMBLING! These restaurants are an element of a marketing plan. I do not think Richman is making any bold statements or reaching any conclusions. I believe he is asking questions. Provoking some thought and discussion. He has written on this theme before. In the piece he is fair--he looks at each restaurant in terms of the food--his overall experience--but he also looks at each in the context of the larger issues and in the context of Las Vegas. It is obvious to me that if one is dining in a restaurant that is a spin off or clone or whatever you want top call it --the first question is: is the experience the same, similar? different? is the food the same etc? The next logical step is to revisit the original and establish what that experience is for the comparison. It can end here or one can look at some related philosophical issues--authenticity etc. I believe Richman works on all these levels. Some more successfully than others but he is thought provoking (provided one wants to think) beyond just basic restaurant reviewing.

You need a bit of organization. You can select the cheeses first and "match" the wines. or You can select the wines and match the cheeses. Keep things simple! Six cheeses maximum--any more and it will be too easy to lose track of things. Have fewer wines than cheeses (or have fewer cheeses than wines). Have a "theme"--for eg taste a few cheeses of one type say goat cheeses then attempt to "discover" from a selection of wines which work best--have a vote then a discussion. or try cheeses from a specific country with wines from that country. provide a bit of interesting information about the cheeses and wines you will be serving--how they are made? where? etc. everyone should have fun and learn something. the variations are as endless as the number of cheeses and wines available in the world! most of all--have fun! also--when you are putting one of these events together--get advice from 1--your local wine shop 2--your local cheese shop These folks should be able to provide "expert" advice! Get a book--there must be a dozen or so dealing with cheese that are good reference points. By the way--I am not an expert--but I did stay at a Holiday Inn once!

Sorry to cause even more thread drift, but hasn't Jancis Robinson just hired Linda Murphy to cover American wines? And indeed, the subject of palates did come up and she was asked about it by a couple of people. She answered: "But as for how our palates compare, yes I have indeed tasted with both Julia and Linda and compared notes so that I did ensure that we like the same characteristics in wine – balance, refreshment, ability to develop in glass and bottle, integrity and interest." (quoted from "your Turn" on the Purple Pages 25 Aug). So, it seems more than possible that Jancis Robinson would want someone with a 'similar palate' to hers representing her. Therefore (to try and bring this back to the original topic), as Rovani and Thomases are both leaving, it might probably be of some concern to Robert Parker that he find replacements who have a palate akin to his, if he has a similar approach to his wine-tasting publishing as Jancis Robinson. But seeing as I have never gotten hold of a copy of Wine Advocate myself for careful study...it's all a pretty closed book to me. I do read the eBob board at times, but find it all quite too much to take in properly! ← "Drift"??? IMOP you have actually touched upon what the real issue in this thread is. The issue is with a rapidly expanding wine world can one critic (any critic) adeqautely cover so many regions and so much wine for consumers. Can any singular publication maintain a level of comprehensiveness? Thus, Jancis Robinson is not bringing Ms Murphy aboard because she (Jancis) can not or is not qualified to write about and assess wines from California. (or anywhere). Same for Steve Tanzer, the Wine Spectator and yes, Mr Parker. They all have help now! I would ask how much longer Meadows can keep his very narrowly focused publication as such (he has already "branched out" to include New World Pinot Noir). Also, will the future allow for any one individual to be as established across the entire wine world as Parker was when he carried the entire load alone? I do not think so. Interestingly, there is way too much talk about "palates" here. The attributes Jancis Robinson cites ".....I did ensure we like the same characteristics in wine balance, refreshment, ability to develop in glass and bottle....." ARE IDENTICAL TO THE ATTRIBUTES OF QUALITY WINE THAT ROBERT PARKER CITES IN HIS MOST RECENT BOOK. If one thinks for just a moment, one would realize that the attributes Robinson cites are almost universally accepted by most everyone (professional and amateur) everywhere for all wines. I would be shocked if Ms Murphy (or anyone) had a different set of criteria. In the end, this had nothing to do with any real or imagined "Parker palate" or even the tasting abilities of Rovani or Thomasses. The one (and only) fact that can be cited is that the scope, the breadth and depth of the coverage of key areas Italy and Burgundy (and others) was lacking. I would accept a quality argument but no one seems able to make one with any logic or evidence in support. Rumour and innuendo still abound. "Parker is not competent to write on Burgundy so he has to hire somepone else to do it..." "He has the wrong palate for Burgundy..." Blah, Blah, Blah....... I realize that many are far too hung up in the "palate" matching nonsense to ever even consider they just might be wrong. Conventional wisdom, even the most erroneous and myth based just lives on. So instead of Oliver Stone's "JFK" we get Nossitor's "Mondovino." What we do have, in abundance, is good wine. From many places. "Old Style" "New Style" "Old world" and "New World" Whatever and however you want to label it. I refuse to look at wine as a zero sum game. Oak vs no Oak or "Cult wine" vs whatever.... To me, good wine is good wine and those who insist in making wine an issue of polemics ("I only drink unoaked chardonnay..") are missing half the fun!!!! Pigeon holing critics and writers (really one writer) has become a sport that adds nothing to anything. When they stick to writing about wine all of them are good (some better). The criteria Jancis Robinson cites applies to all wine. All styles. Those who selectively apply that criteria are dishonest and are not good critics. A good critic can write and assess all types of wines and when a critic is confused or baffled by a wine they need only note it. All critics (and people at large) have likes and dislikes--the difference for a professional is they can put them aside. Anyone who has taken even a rudimentary tasting class at a good school is taught to taste and evaluate many different types of wines and to recognize the universal attributes in all of them. Not just taste and evaluate only wines they "like." IMOP (of course).

Everything! The original post notes: "Parker must select writers that are both highly respected and in tune with his palate, something that may be mutually exclusive." I would also note that one rarely sees much debate/discussion regarding other noted critics. For eg. Clive Coates recently stopped publishing his newsletter. Not much discussion over this--especially re who would take his place. The fact is Parker seems to be dragged into any debate/discussion about wine these days. Note also that no one has really provided any specific complaint about either Rovani or Thomases. Most of this, again, seems to be from a perspective that brings Parker into it. I would suggest, having read both Rovani and Thomases this problem has more to do with their comprehensiveness in covering two very important regions. It raises a larger issue of given the wine world's expansion both in terms of drinkers (readers/subscribers) and the sheer number and diversity of wines being produced--Italy alone has exploded--can one journal, newsletter--what have you--do a good job? I would also add that Rovani took some strong positions and should have been a bit more diplomatic in how he espoused them. Basically, he stuck his neck out and appeared somewhat arrogant before he had "established" himself more firmly. I believe he needed to keep his head down and work harder in covering Burgundy and establish himself more before he made some of his bold pronouncements. The silliness about "matching palates" or tuned palates and grousing wine makers (bans etc) are not the real issues. Unless, of course, one is obsessed with Parker. One also rarely hears any criticism about any other critic's abilities to assess and write about particular wines. If this palate nonsense hods any water (wine) then critics like Jancis Robinson, or Hugh Johnson for eg, who write and critique wines from all over the world would be scrutinized as closely as Parker. For eg. if Hugh Johnson "knocks" a Caligornian Cabernet or an Australian shiraz no one seems to question whether or not his "European/ Old World preferences/tuned palate whatever--should somehow disqualify him from writing about these wines. No one suggests that Jancis Robinson Hire someone "in tune" with her palate, to cover Oregon etc. I keep asking that anyone who believes that Parker is somehow not qualified to cover Burgundy or has a palate that is not in tune with some notion of what Burgundy wines are supposed to be (the delicacy and finess stuff)--to please provide some empirical evidence in support. In fact, I would love to see someone even make a case that Burgundy is or should be all about delicacy and finesse. These words are fine in context of tasting notes but to toss them around in such broad terms is sheer folly. I would argue that if your Pommard displays delicacy and finesse--it is atypical Pommard, same for La Tache or Chambertin.--wines that distinctly about power and size when at their best. Let's remember Parker wrote a pretty good book on Burgundy and is involved in growing and making pinot noir. To say he somehow doesn't get Burgundy is nuts! But Parker has, as been noted (especially by Russ) is a lightening rod for people who have an agenda. Wine Makers, wine critics, retailers, distributors etc etc etc. I would love to discuss Parker without the baggage. He has his faults his notes and scores are interesting. They deserve to be discussed, not trashed out of hand or praised blindly either. But this ain'y gonna happen--when the wine world would rather get wrapped up in old world vs new world smackdowns and use Parker as a whipping boy for all their perceived wine world ills.

Love him, hate him or anywhere in between, it should be no surprise why people care. Robert Parker is the most influential wine critic on the planet, possibly ever. His ratings or the ratings from the WA have an inordinate influence on the price of wine and more importantly the kinds of wines produced aiming to "please the Parker palate" or at least what is often perceived as such rightly or wrongly. For that a lot of people resent Parker, especially those who make wines that don't generally fit that perceived profile. Frankly, as a buyer I would be very happy if my favorite wines did not get good scores from him, although my ego might suffer a little bit Of course, you already know all this, but I thought I would supply an answer to your question anyway. I am not being sarcastic, John. You obviously have a very extensive knowledge of wine and the wine world and I believe your question is a rhetorical one. ←

So you are saying Parker does not understand: "tradition. finesse, elegance"????? Have you any first hand evidence to support this? Can you cite something from his book or notes for eg --that would support these sweeping claims? also Please explain what exactly finesse and elegance are and what they have to do with tradition? These terms are tossed around quite a bit. Also--I would love for you to explain which wineries do not want Parker around. as well as your comment that he is "not welcome" in Burgundy. Lastly, It is ultimately amusing that all this silliness and innuendo and gossip are of interest to anyone. Especially anyone who really loves wine. Parker is a wine writer and critic, if he not one's cup of tea--then one shouldn't subscribe or certainly be bothered by anything Parker writes. Really? What's the fuss? More importantly--why is of concern to anyone who doesn't subscribe to Parker that they have to run him down even take the time to "jump in"??? I would really love to know why these people care?

"Palo Cortado is a wine that couldn't make up its mind. It started growing Flor like a Fino, but after a while the Flor disappeared and it aged like an Oloroso. The style is in between Amontillado and Oloroso in style. Some of the finest wines of Sherry fall into this category. Both Palo Cortado and Oloroso should be served at cool room temperature." ...and you may find this helpful ← you mean --even those lemmings that follow Parker won't take his advice to try sherry!!!??? maybe he's not so influential; or they are not so lemminglike! sorry, I couldn't resist! Seriously, though, thanks. I am not much of a fan of blogs but I must admit, yours is well done. You are an engaging writer. How long would a palo cortado "keep" in unopened bottles and also once opened? I would also appreciate any further thoughts as to why sherry really hasn't caught on here (and elsewhere). thanks!

I am in the process of broadening my sherry drinking experience. I would appreciate some input and opinion about palo cortado's in general. How to serve etc and specifically about the Hidalgo Vinicola Palo Cortado Viejo. much thanks ps this will be enjoyed at Amada in Philadelphia tomorrow evening.

John - Rovani has been under attack for years by Burgundy producers and aficionados for what can only be called inaccurate reports and blatant errors. The final straw seems to have been the whole issue with the premature oxidation of white Burgundy (http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/showthread.php?t=162). where Rovani was clearly and publicly blown own of the water for taking an indefensible position on why and how the problem occurred. Supposedly this last issue pushed things over the top for Parker. ← First, can you please provide some specific support to your statement that "Rovani has been under attack for inaccurate reports and blatant errors." What reports? What errors? I would also love for you to please name these "producers" and "aficionados"--just a few. Second, You note that the "oxidation issue is the final straw." The link you provide is six years old. How and where has Rovani "taken an indefensible position"? His post in the thread is quite well reasoned. Third, would you guys at least admit that it is even remotely possible that Parker hired Rovani to cover Burgundy (he also covers other wine regions) because Parker approaching sixty at the time found it difficult to personally cover every major (and some minor) wine making regions? And not because Parker: A) was run out of Burgundy by the wine makers, B) realized he is not competent to evaluate Burgundy and/or C) doesn't appreciate burgundy????????????? How is it you are not criticizing Tanzer for doing the same? Fourth, I have scanned the reviews and ratings for Burgundy by Rovani, Tanzer, Coates, Robinson and Meadows. Interestingly I find they generally agree as to a wine's quality more often than not. Can you explain this? Fifth, as to the "Parker palate" I do agree that Parker favors wines where the grapes achieved adequate ripeness (he himself has complained about over ripe or over extracted grapes/wines. He also looks for adequate mouth feel as well as complexity and typicity and a sense of place. If one looks at the wine makers in Burgundy that Parker promotes as making the best wines: D'Angerville, D'Auvenay,Coche-Dury,Dugat, Dugat-Py,Jadot, Comtes Lafon,Domaine leflaive, leroy, Lignier, Niellon, DRC, De Vogue, and also see that he has championed wines from Beaujolais and the Macon--please tell me where there is a monolithic palate that only likes big wines. really, the breadth of styles this small list represents is --well--breathtaking! If you assert that Parker "doesn't get" Burgundy--I wonder If you have read what he has written about it in his book "Burgundy" and his buying guides. Show me where you disagree with anything he has written. "Big, Brash, Blockbuster wines? Are you saying that D'Angerville is making "Big Brash Blockbuster wines???? Parker championed Dominus for years. (I disagreed with him here) he also championed Harlan estates--would you or anyone seriously say that Dominus was/is making Big brash Blockbusters? recently Parker was criticized for liking Aussie Shiraz--wines that were big and brash etc yet at the same time Parker wrote glowingly (and rated highly) many unoaked Clare valley Chardonnays. No one seemed to notice this. The critics only seem to select the reviews that make their case--ignoring those that do not. While we are on Shiraz/syrah--how is it that Parker can love Australian Shiraz and Rhone wines? Can the styles be more different? Yes he likes Guigal but he also likes Ogier. some people like to buy into a piece of conventional wisdom--"Parker only likes ---type of wines. They jump all over anything that supports this while totally ignoring the mass of evidence that refutes the wisdom. I realize a lot of this debate and criticism is generated by the trade--Clive Coates called Rovani a "naive ingenue" months before Rovani had written a word. The trade is more obsessed with Parker (and Rovani) than the general public certainly is. I too believe that the WA has lost some of its authority in some areas. Not because Rovani or Parker are incompetent or somehow possessing palates that "don't get" some mythical paradigm. Rather Parker is getting old--publishing notes on huge numbers of wines from an ever expanding world of wine making is a mentally and physically demanding task. There is also more competition out there/here. Just as meadows is discovering that he may have to cover more than just Burgundy, Parker is finding that one can only cover so much. Again, I ask the question--why is it that no one seems to be questioning if Meadows with his "Burgundian" palate can possibly cover New World Pinot and Rhone wines??? Rovani (or anyone Parker hires) is walking into a hornets nest of petty sniping, jealousy, and back stabbing. I would advise anyone who revels in the conventional wisdom to at least read Parker. His current "The World's greatest Wine Estates" opens with some wonderful insights into how Parker views all the big issues in the world of wine today (the downside is the book is very expensive). I leave you with this: two tasting notes: same producer same vintage --the first wine is "a fragrant effort exhibiting scents of tropical fruits and orange rind, crisp acidity, and a lively, medium bodied, citrusy finish." --the second wine is '`restrained, well delineated white...(which) represents the the essence of granite liquor. There is no real fruit character, just glycerin and, alcohol and liquid stones." the first is Chapoutier's 1999 Crozes hermitage Blanc the second is his Hermitage Blanc l'Ermite the first wine is scored 85 points (good) the second is scored 93-95 points (outstanding) by Robert Parker so please tell me more about that Parker palate that only loves big massive fruit bombs! (by the way--how can Parker cover Rhone whites--they are much too terroir driven--Parker likes fruit and oak!!!!) The comparison or notes and scores by Parker is from Andrew Jefford's superb "The New France" cheers!!!! ← JonnL, I refuse to get into yet another circular argument with you. You have your positions and that's that. I don't happen to agree with many of those positions and your arguments only convince me of the futility of arguing with you. Let's just say you're right and I'm wrong and save time, but a few points first... If you are unaware of the controversy surrounding Rovani's coverage of Burgundy you are out of the loop. He has been ridiculed by both winemakers and Burgundy collectors for years. He has been banned from a long list of cellars - thank God the Burgundians have enough guts to make such a risky commercial decision. Even on Parker's own forum there have been ongoing howls of protest over the content, timeliness and comprehensiveness of the Burgundy coverage. Burghound has completely overwhelmed the WA as the journal of record when it comes to reporting on Burgundy. It should be noted that Allen lives there almost half the year and this depth of experience shows in his reports. If you don't understand the problem with Rovani's post on why white Burgudies are oxidizing prematurely you did not read the entire thread where he is torn apart by chemists and winemakers. This was a major embarrassment to Parker, which was widely reported in the wine world. How did you not know this? Not of these things are (or should be) news to anyone following Burgundy. I don't think Parker hired Rovani because of age, I think he hired him because he is a very smart guy and knew his coverage of Burgundy was not stellar and because the world of wine is just too big for one person to report on in-depth four times a year. He wanted someone to come in and pick up an area he was weak on - and knew he was weak on. As most of your post defends Parker and we are discussing Rovani and Thomases (who for some reason you don't mention) we will ignore that part. I have made clear many times my great respect for Parker at what he does. The Wine Advocate is still the wine journal of record, but only for the regions that Parker covers personally and now also for German wine as David Schildknecht's coverage is excellent. Good coverage is not defined by the palate of the writer, but by their consistency of palate and depth of knowledge. I don't agree with Parker's Bordeaux scores, but I respect them for their accuracy and ability to communicate to me exactly what the wines taste like. You don't have to agree with a critic for them to be useful to you as long as that critic is precise and consistent in their notes. No one is better than this than Robert Parker when it comes to Bordeaux. (by the way, the e e cummings style posts are hard to read for old guys like me) ← \Craig "Circular arguments"??? I ask you a questions and you chose to ignore them. Anyway, I am not "defending" Parker (or anyone), I am merely asking you to support your claims and criticisms. You do take a jab or two at Parker. I am fully aware of the various "controversies"--Rovani has been quite outspoken. As for the oxidized Burgundies thread you provided, I see a theory as valid at this point as any, you believe that Rovani was "trashed" and discredited. What you are reading are many conflicting opinions and theories, with no resolution. It may well be that Parker has lost confidence in Rovani (and Thomases) I agree that the WA has lost some standing in the areas of Burgundy and Italy. However, I do not believe it is because either Rovani or Thomases are incompetent. My criticism, which I can support, is that Rovani needed to spend more time in Burgundy and focus more on reviewing and rating the wines. He was often too intent on making bold statements and set himself up as an easy target. I am not sure about Thomases though broader coverage of all the regions would be an immediate improvement. I also believe that the WA was stronger when Parker did it all. We agree. I am still waiting for some evidence from you to support your assertion that Parker's coverage "was not stellar." And I am still waiting for any support that Parker is somehow adrift when it comes to Burgundy. At the time, and for many years, it was basically just Parker and Coates when it came to Burgundy. What we are dealing with here is mostly gossip. The wine business is rife with it. I listen to distributors and wine makers and importers and retailers all day long. I read it from critics and writers, endless sniping and innuendo. You see it out here in chat rooms and on web sites, people just passing along the conventional wisdom, tossing out bon mots about the Parker palate and old world vs new world (why does this have to be a competition?). Like the oxidation thing. The truth is no one, critics, writers, chemists, wine makers et al have discovered the answer. There may be no answer (this is wine after all). finally, you should reacquaint yourself with ee cummings, he was a great poet after all. (I got evidence to support that )

you are right--I stand corrected. the "issue" has been around for a while.

John - Rovani has been under attack for years by Burgundy producers and aficionados for what can only be called inaccurate reports and blatant errors. The final straw seems to have been the whole issue with the premature oxidation of white Burgundy (http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/showthread.php?t=162). where Rovani was clearly and publicly blown own of the water for taking an indefensible position on why and how the problem occurred. Supposedly this last issue pushed things over the top for Parker. ← First, can you please provide some specific support to your statement that "Rovani has been under attack for inaccurate reports and blatant errors." What reports? What errors? I would also love for you to please name these "producers" and "aficionados"--just a few. Second, You note that the "oxidation issue is the final straw." The link you provide is six years old. How and where has Rovani "taken an indefensible position"? His post in the thread is quite well reasoned. Third, would you guys at least admit that it is even remotely possible that Parker hired Rovani to cover Burgundy (he also covers other wine regions) because Parker approaching sixty at the time found it difficult to personally cover every major (and some minor) wine making regions? And not because Parker: A) was run out of Burgundy by the wine makers, B) realized he is not competent to evaluate Burgundy and/or C) doesn't appreciate burgundy????????????? How is it you are not criticizing Tanzer for doing the same? Fourth, I have scanned the reviews and ratings for Burgundy by Rovani, Tanzer, Coates, Robinson and Meadows. Interestingly I find they generally agree as to a wine's quality more often than not. Can you explain this? Fifth, as to the "Parker palate" I do agree that Parker favors wines where the grapes achieved adequate ripeness (he himself has complained about over ripe or over extracted grapes/wines. He also looks for adequate mouth feel as well as complexity and typicity and a sense of place. If one looks at the wine makers in Burgundy that Parker promotes as making the best wines: D'Angerville, D'Auvenay,Coche-Dury,Dugat, Dugat-Py,Jadot, Comtes Lafon,Domaine leflaive, leroy, Lignier, Niellon, DRC, De Vogue, and also see that he has championed wines from Beaujolais and the Macon--please tell me where there is a monolithic palate that only likes big wines. really, the breadth of styles this small list represents is --well--breathtaking! If you assert that Parker "doesn't get" Burgundy--I wonder If you have read what he has written about it in his book "Burgundy" and his buying guides. Show me where you disagree with anything he has written. "Big, Brash, Blockbuster wines? Are you saying that D'Angerville is making "Big Brash Blockbuster wines???? Parker championed Dominus for years. (I disagreed with him here) he also championed Harlan estates--would you or anyone seriously say that Dominus was/is making Big brash Blockbusters? recently Parker was criticized for liking Aussie Shiraz--wines that were big and brash etc yet at the same time Parker wrote glowingly (and rated highly) many unoaked Clare valley Chardonnays. No one seemed to notice this. The critics only seem to select the reviews that make their case--ignoring those that do not. While we are on Shiraz/syrah--how is it that Parker can love Australian Shiraz and Rhone wines? Can the styles be more different? Yes he likes Guigal but he also likes Ogier. some people like to buy into a piece of conventional wisdom--"Parker only likes ---type of wines. They jump all over anything that supports this while totally ignoring the mass of evidence that refutes the wisdom. I realize a lot of this debate and criticism is generated by the trade--Clive Coates called Rovani a "naive ingenue" months before Rovani had written a word. The trade is more obsessed with Parker (and Rovani) than the general public certainly is. I too believe that the WA has lost some of its authority in some areas. Not because Rovani or Parker are incompetent or somehow possessing palates that "don't get" some mythical paradigm. Rather Parker is getting old--publishing notes on huge numbers of wines from an ever expanding world of wine making is a mentally and physically demanding task. There is also more competition out there/here. Just as meadows is discovering that he may have to cover more than just Burgundy, Parker is finding that one can only cover so much. Again, I ask the question--why is it that no one seems to be questioning if Meadows with his "Burgundian" palate can possibly cover New World Pinot and Rhone wines??? Rovani (or anyone Parker hires) is walking into a hornets nest of petty sniping, jealousy, and back stabbing. I would advise anyone who revels in the conventional wisdom to at least read Parker. His current "The World's greatest Wine Estates" opens with some wonderful insights into how Parker views all the big issues in the world of wine today (the downside is the book is very expensive). I leave you with this: two tasting notes: same producer same vintage --the first wine is "a fragrant effort exhibiting scents of tropical fruits and orange rind, crisp acidity, and a lively, medium bodied, citrusy finish." --the second wine is '`restrained, well delineated white...(which) represents the the essence of granite liquor. There is no real fruit character, just glycerin and, alcohol and liquid stones." the first is Chapoutier's 1999 Crozes hermitage Blanc the second is his Hermitage Blanc l'Ermite the first wine is scored 85 points (good) the second is scored 93-95 points (outstanding) by Robert Parker so please tell me more about that Parker palate that only loves big massive fruit bombs! (by the way--how can Parker cover Rhone whites--they are much too terroir driven--Parker likes fruit and oak!!!!) The comparison or notes and scores by Parker is from Andrew Jefford's superb "The New France" cheers!!!!

I'm sorry but this "palate" stuff is patently ridiculous. A good wine critic should be able to evaluate all types of wines. Some choose to specialize--it is difficult and demanding to cover all areas of wine (especially today). I find it very curious that this theory holding that one must have a specifically "tuned" palate to appreciate a specific type of wine persists, especially applied as it is to wine writers and critics. Let me qualify this--to one specific critic. Palate "tuning" is a myth. Professional (and many amateur) tasters are trained to be able to assess and evaluate a wide range of wines and to convey these assessments accurately. If, in fact, there is a "Parker palate" then there is a Robinson palate and a Kolm palate and a Tanzer palate and on and on. These people then are only "qualified" to write credibly about certain wines. Nonsense. So if Meadows decides to write about anything but Burgundy his opinions of wines from other areas are less valid? How is it he can write about distinctly different types of pinot noir wines from various parts of the world with any authority. How can his finely "tuned" Burgundy palate properly assess New World Pinot let alone other varietals--can we trust him to tell us about a cabernet?? Every wine evaluation course I have ever seen--assumes people can appreciate, assess and evaluate many types of wines--will they "like" or "love" them? Not necessarily. The wine world is really fascinating. I have never seen so much petty sniping and snarky gossip in any other industry I was previously a part of. If any wine critic is so out of touch with the public he/she would cease to exist--people would simply not subscribe to that critic's opinions. This is a critical point I believe. Critics write for people, consumers not for other critics and wine writers. This is where most of the sniping comes from--insiders. critics sniping at other critics, wholesalers touting a critics good scores for their wines and in the next breath slamming that same critic for a bad review of one of their offerings. Wine makers bemoaning a critic's influence then jacking up their prices after a good review. Retailers who complain they can't sell a wine unless it gets a good review--yet, oddly, all their wine seems to get sold somehow. So I would ask--what specifically did Rovanni or Thomases write that led to this supposed "damage"? Most importantly, who is it that is making these claims? Is there a significant decline in subscribers to the newsletter? (There may be--I have no statistics). The grapevine possibly? anyway-- it is so much more fun to just drink wine. and we should appreciate all the critics and writers who simply want to educate and guide consumers.

John, He does have a lot of tasting notes (no scores though) but he lists them under the description for each domaine which, I think, gives one a little background info. about what kind of wines (by comparison to others) the domaine makes. So rather than a compendium of "this is what's good and bad" I get a some relative information as to style over the years. Anyway, helpful for me. The information on the land, villages and vineyards is pretty detailed and his introduction about Burgundy in general is comprehensive. I do wish he'd do a new edition as the vintage comments are a bit dated. Hence, the strong point of Meadow's publication. Best, Jim ← Unfortunately, Coates has ceased publishing his newsletter. I believe he has not been in the best of health recently. His book Cote D' Or has about three hundred pages of notes and scores arranged by vintage--the last third or so of his book. His book on Burgundy is somewhat similar to Robert Parker's book (Parker's was published 1990 and Coates 1997). Both are very good in terms of general information. Both contain tasting notes. I would note that Parker's buying guides contain very good overviews of most wine regions and are very informative in terms of general information and reasonably up to date. Neither one IMOP, touch Hanson in terms of pure scope of information, knowledge and insight into Burgundy. The Hanson book was last updated in 2003 and I have heard that a revision of that book is in the works. What sets it apart aside from its scope and depth, I believe, is his straightforward assessments and opinions--he is very open and honest when expressing an opinion. refreshing! Sutcliffe's book was updated in 2003 and remains for me, number two. It is also the briefest of these. Kramer's book does make for interesting reading--he is always provocative--but his single minded approach often boxes him in and gives a somewhat skewed view. I also highly recommend "The New france--a complete guide to contemporary French wine" by Andrew Jefford (Beazley 2002). It also covers all of France but it is loaded with very good insight into the wines and winemakers (his section on burgundy is superb)--he is a very good writer. Burghound's newsletter is still basically a newsletter with reviews and scores of specific wines. It is good--Meadows is branching out and including a broader focus than just Burgundy. (can one make a living writing about just Burgundy?). But the focus is on tasting notes and scores. As with Coates and Parker (and Tanzer and Kolm and....) they are what they are. certainly good tools for any enthusiast.

Yeah, Coates book is about as comprehensive on the Côte d'Or as one gets. I have read all those mentioned and enjoyed them but Coates' book is the bible. Best, Jim ← Coates is quite good too but a large part of his "bible" consists of his ratings and scores for wines!

Ronnybrook milk is good-- as is their butter. However their ice cream is IMOP--awful! contains carageenan etc leading to poor mouthfeel and the flavors/taste are pretty mediocre. I wonder how they can produce such good dairy products and fall on their faces with their ice cream. The best domestic butter I have found is KATE's from Maine. Whole Foods carries it. Supposedly made in small batches and supposedly organic (whatever that means). It is really superb!!!

I think with dairy products mouthfeel is important. One big problem is additives/stabilizers like guar gum and carageenan--somewhat tolerable in Half and Half etc but for me intolerable in ice cream (most anyway). I am sure these are "organic" --but to me organic has little meaning. It seems to be pretty confused given some threads and discussions here and elsewhere. In the end--for me--it is about flavor--good tasting things whether they are processed or not. (I like processed cheese stuff--melted on a cheese steak or on a slice of Wonder bread!!!) I also love artisinal cheeses like Vermont Shepherd and Coach and.... If I am in the mood for a BLT I may go for the riper better tasting (to me) hot house tomato over the locally grown so called "heirloom" that has little taste. I also have had some outrageous tasting heirlooms! I like a twinkie now and then and also love local NY fois gras (natural and organic and local) but I also do not eat either the twinkies or the fois gras three times a week! (the great lesson Morgan Spurlock taught us is--moderation--not abstinence) so--yes a lot of folks will order that diet coke with the supersized happy meal--but in the end the key is "happy." We try to do what we can to balance the need for pleasure and enjoyment with the fear of death--and somehow get through life as best we can!

Daniel! I am honored and humbled that someone of your stature has found some points of agreement with my position. I would like to note that I am not disparaging the original post by Busboy. In fact, his post inspired me to think about the issue. Prices for wine are quite high, in general, but so are prices for many things. (in 1972 I bought a brand new automobile for $3,500, my latest car of similar quality set me back $40,000) I too have "discovered" a wine only to see it become priced either too highly for it to represent a good value to me or worse, become priced too high for me to even afford. The wine press has become fixated on prices of some wines and seem to prefer the attention grabbing headline "A California Cabernet for a thousand dollars a bottle!" to any kind of insight or perspective (good reporting). They would rather create a controversy and feed off of it than to present a well informed look at the situation. In turn, consumers get caught up in the hullabaloo and lose sight of reality. That thousand dollar bottle of cabernet is, in reality, often a two hundred dollar bottle--its true initial offering price. But a thousand dollars (its secondary market price) is far sexier in a headline. What is a wine worth? I firmly believe that each wine deserves to be judged individually in terms of its quality. Tasted blind. Then we can debate its "value." In the end, value is always a relative term whose definition is determined by the individual (sometimes collectively). Time and the marketplace seem to take care of prices, moderating the hype and PR. Also many highly prized wines often live off of their reputations, a reminder that man plays an awfully important role in quality. We'd like to believe the hype that Margaux, for eg, is always "Margaux" but the truth is before the current regime (ownership and wine maker) Margaux was often of less than first growth quality (and price). All wines regardless of provenance and terroir can have their ups and downs--they are after all, only"human" (endeavors). Let's not forget nature! A bad vintage is a bad vintage (sometimes overcome by man often not). So first growths are priced dearly. Those lucky enough to afford them will have a great time drinking them--I simply can not get inside their heads and determine if they appreciate them to my satisfaction--their "worthiness" to own and drink these wines. But the silver lining is many lesser growths are now of great quality and lower price. Some upstart vintners are populating every corner of the globe and making some exciting wines. New generations are taking ownership of hallowed and not so hallowed properties. I recently tasted an Argentine Malbec that reminded me of a young Haute Brion from a great vintage. The Haut Brion is several hundred dollars, the Malbec eighty! The number of good quality wines under even ten dollars a bottle is staggering. There is a trickle down effect with wine. I have only begun to explore the Middle East! As you can attest far better than I--this is an area with a great future for wine (hopefully some enduring peace will promote the evolution of wine making). I can't help but be a glass is half full person. Sure one half of my glass is empty--but look--I have some wine left!!!! Cheers!!!

Good suggestion--I subscribe to Mr Meadows newsletter. However--I disagree that this is the best place to "learn" about Burgundy. Meadows is a critic whose primary function is to critique and rate the wines of Burgundy. (he does a good job--IMOP). For one who is interested in buying the wines of Burgundy--the Burghound is a good resource to how various wine makers/properties are performing.

IMOP there is one work that stands out for its thoroughness in dealing with Burgundy: "Burgundy" by Anthony Hanson (Mitchell Beazley Classic Wine Library) be sure to get the latest edition (mine is 2003 I have heard he is working on a newer edition). Serena Sutcliffe's "Wines of Burgundy" is a compact well written guide. also from Mitchell Beazley--again, make sure you get the latest edition.