JohnL

All this price information is interesting but I am trying to figure out what the point is. Are we a bit off topic? Suffice to say that Diamond Creek cabernets sold for considerably more than the average or median price of premium California cabernets, from their initial release and through subsequent decades. This is an indication that consumers responded positively. This puts Brounstein's efforts in the peer group with other cabernets that consumers and critics deemed distinctive and worthy of attention. Quite an accomplishment. In 2003 the release prices for the three original vineyard wines was $175/bottle the even rarer Lake Vineyard wine was $350. they have always been in demand--personally, I have enjoyed most of the bottlings I have tasted--they are distinctive well made wines with great fruit and structure. ps someone mentioned the 76 BV GDL as still drinking nicely--I owned quite a bit of that wine--sadly all gone--my experience was that this wine suffered a lot of bottle variation--they were all good but some bottles really stood out. wonder if anyone had the same experience.

Good points! fact is grapes can grow pretty much everywhere. Grapes that yield good wine don't grow everywhere. The whole global warming thing is so overheated! It has been so thoroughly politicized on all sides of the issue, that any reasonable perspective is hard to find. The one truth I can find in all this is that headlines proclaiming "the end is near" tend to get one's attention! (and sell more papers, generate more hits etc etc etc).

I hope this helps illustrate better what the NYT felt his role was. I don't know anyone who was as feverish for these wines as some other Cal cabs like Silver Oak, Harlan, etc., so I don't believe they had the same "cult" status. I do believe that they were amongst the first if not the first to have single vineyard designations on their labels, at least in the US. ← One would have to have at least a low grade "fever" to pay higher than average prices. Also--at one point Diamond Creek had no track record (for aging or anything). It is apparent that the term "cult" in reference to wine has been appropriated by a group of people who are primarily intent on denigrating some wines made in California after 1990. The term is basically derogatory implying that the "fans" are willing to pay more than a wine's real worth (as if that can be determined objectively) because they are "brainwashed" or foolish (or both). a lot of this is pure wine snobbery. As for Diamond Creek, I would say that the wine early on (before it had the required "track record") was in demand and sold for more than the average price of a new california cabernet. It did have a lot of devoted fans (it still does). Same can be said for Heitz Martha's Vineyard, Dunn Howell Mountains and Ridge offerings. Ay one point Opus One was a "cult" wine --it established a record for a new wine selling at the Napa Valley auction for the then unheard of price of $2000 a bottle! You note Silver Oak. This may be one wine wherein there is a true "cult" surrounding it. Though I refuse to use cult here to impugn the members--they are people who are having fun! One could argue that Petrus is a cult wine--same for Romanee Conti given many people are willing to pay astronomical sums for these wines without ever having tasted them. Super Tuscans as well. In fact many wines have a mythological aspect--wine has long been much about the sizzle. In today's world of instant communication things are easily overheated and exaggerated--no doubt wines like Diamond Creek would become instant "cult' wines within a few vintages of release. To be clear faddish devotion is a good thing if the end result is people who enjoy life and life's pleasures. There is no other reason to explain why people buy tickets to see losing athletic teams, why folks lust after Jaguars even with the electrical problems..... So Diamond Creek was a special endeavor. Al Brounstein was a passionate man with a vision and many were willing to believe in the results of that vision and to pay more for it. He was one of the great pioneers of California wine.

I would take a step back and remove myself from the hysteria. There are some interesting and salient points that can be found at the end of the piece. One--climate has always been changing--back and forth from hotter to colder and colder to hotter. (over thousands of years). Remember the ice age? (great for anyone producing eiswein!!!) Two--what is primarily fueling the current "sky is falling" angst is data based upon computer modeling. Of course we all know how infallible computers are! For entertainment--I note the statement about historians being "perplexed" that grapes were once found in New England and Eastern Canada and are no longer seen there. The implication is that climate is somehow responsible. maybe it is just not that simple? We all know how the pilgrims loved their wine!!! (maybe the grapes migrated a tad south to the finger lakes of NY where they are found in abundance today. Gotta love those nutty historians!!! My point is not to ignore or denigrate any concerns over "global warming" --rather to try to put the issue into some perspective. (and to point out some of the shoddy journalism that has been tossing gasoline on the proverbial fire--gotta sell papers). Anyway-- all this talk of imminent destruction of the human race is makin me thirsty--time for a nice oregon pinot gris!!! (or maybe I should go for a California Sauvignon blanc--according to the articel they won't be around much longer!) cheers to all

You are expressing what I believe to be a great myth. Like most conventional wisdom there is a nugget of truth. There are a number of "speculators" out there. There is a healthy auction market. But a sour grapes attitude has driven the belief that high prices are a result of "Wall street" speculators (barbarians at the grapes) effete well heeled snobs who gloat over immense cellars of great wines they never open etc etc etc. Those people do exist and probably have a very small impact. The most insidious results of this sour grapes thinking are rumors of wealthy Japanese businessmen who buy up Lafitte and mix it with coca cola or fill swimming pools with Margaux. Again there may be a nugget of truth here and there but the racism aside--one should be able to enjoy anything one can purchase anyway one wants and there is simply no evidence that these behaviors exist to any great degree. Anecdotal evidence is dicey but I personally know many wealthy collectors (of many races) all who have large cellars buy lots of futures and all of whom are passionate lovers of fine wines and who not only enjoy their cellars bounty but share those bottles often. They do drink the stuff! The fact is there has been an explosion in appreciation of wines (fine and not so fine) and coupled with a very healthy global economy, has led to great demand and high prices and scarcity. One simply needs to look at the fast growing interest in food and restaurants that goes hand in hand with an increase in interest in wine. It is hard to find 82 Bordeaux on restaurant wine lists--most has been ordered and drunk. It is tempting to develop theories that attribute high prices to devious behavior by unworthy snobs and interlopers. How many times does one hear about all the really good California cabs being guzzled by ignorant drunk and rowdy stock brokers or the talk that has those California Cabs not being really all that good anyway. Snobbism is rampant in the world of wine. Hopefully one day it will subside and we can just enjoy drinking whatever it is we can afford but then again, we are only human.

IMOP--"Boy do they ever!!!" As for type of cheese--well I would say that just about any cheese works with these wines. I believe that attempts to find a "perfect" match in wine and food is a noble but mostly futile endeavor. With fine wines--simple foods work best. With fine foods then go with simple wines. Too many pairings IMOP-clash--that is in the search for the perfect match--two great (complex) entities end up often canceling each other out. so prosecco and cava are basic simple wines--they are refreshing and immensely enjoyable. as a rule of thumb drink em with the cheeses from where they were produced. I love manchego with cava ( works with prosecco too). Prosecco and pecorino are nice. any lighter salty cheese. I would stay away from really strong aged cheeses (some cheddars) though some good muenster and a sparkling wine would be nice. it would be great fun to get a bottle of cava and a bottle of prosecco and a range of small amounts of different types of cheeses--have some friends over and have fun finding what works and what doesn't. (and report back, of course)

"Value" is quite subjective and very relative. I was once a guest of an honest to goodness billionaire whose sailing ship was stocked with a very good white Burgundy. His "house" wine so to speak. Interestingly, it was a basic village wine (Puligny) from a good producer. My guess is the wine cost around fifty dollars a bottle. For most people this wine would be something more than an everyday white. For this wealthy man though a different perspective is applied. While he certainly could have afforded a much more extravagent bottle for everyday use--somehow the white selected seemed quite appropriate and reasonable. The very best wines have always been expensive--they are in demand (often they are produced in limited quantities). Looking for value is good sense for anyone who is interested in wine (no matter what the person's economic status). I recently found a bottle of 95 La Turque and a bottle of 95 La Mouline for less than $200 each on a retailer's shelf--sensing a good deal (good value) I snapped em up. The fact is, the wine consumption market has grown rapidly. Once, much of the better Bordeaux was purchased by a small group of Europeans (mostly Brits) they controlled the market and the prices accordingly. But today first growth Bordeaux is in demand all over the world--the emergence of the Pacific Rim as a market for eg.--and the US. More people with more money are vying for the top wines. Thus these wines become scarcer and more expensive. try finding a bottle of Romanee Copnti or Petrus at any price these days! It is also a truth that there are few unsung or undiscovered "great" wines. The wine press and the educated market place see to that. At the moment if one is looking for wines that are truly distinctive and great at relative bargain prices--good value-- then one could look to vintage Port. Also Sauternes and white Bordeaux and the Loire. I have found that if a great wine is out of fashion (for whatever reason) or less fashionable--prices--of course--tend to be lower--there's more "value" for the dollar. The really good thing today is that the market place has "lifted" many lesser wines. Because the money is there wine makers can get a decent return on their wines--many lesser growth Bordeaux have been able to upgrade their facilities and there is more good the very good Bordeaux available at good prices. There are also many more good vintages. Wine making technique and science has enabled wine makers to better counter mother nature so once poor vintages weather wise now see many good wines produced. Also basic entry level wines are more abundant and are much better quality overall. Sure, if one wants to drink first growth Bordeaux or Burgundy the entry fee is extremely high. But I would argue that the gap in quality between them and lesser growths has been reduced considerably. In the end though--it is all relative!

Haven't read the NYT piece, but I did enjoy some of those wines (which, indeed, became rare and expensive although I don't know exactly when that occurred). As to what these wines "started," Doc: again not knowing content of the NYT piece, 1968 or 1972 were more or less the middle of the evolution of the modern (that is, post-Prohibition) California wine industry. (Always remember, on an even longer view, that California had a substantial wine industry in the 1800s, whose peak of 800 wineries was surpassed in the post-Prohibition era only after 1990). But again just within the world of premium modern California wines, the boutique wineries that began in the 1940s, Martin Ray and the Pinot Noir experiments, the world-class California Cabernets of a sort of golden age in the 1950s and early 60s woke up many wine geeks in and out of California, accustomed to serious European wines, and these preceded Diamond Creek. (In 1981 I remember that the legendary 1955 Inglenook Cabernet -- Inglenook was a leading artisanal producer before being bought by a larger firm and becoming known instead for dating-bar Chablis, as one critic then put it -- this wine, drinking magnificently at age 26, sold at auction for the celebrated, unprecedented price of $12k/dozen or $1000 a bottle or some $2200 in 2006 dollars per CPI. A friend who had bought it in quantity in the 1950s, because it was good, could serve it even though few of us would have gone out and bought it at the current 1981 price.) Diamond Creek may qualify in the generic sense of "cult" though then it's not a pioneer, having extremely high-profile antecedents like the '55 Inglenook. There's a second, recent (1990s) sense of "cult" that the wine industry uses and seems to understand pretty widely, as anyone can verify at will if they do their homework; the Diamond Creek would qualify if it fits the de-facto meaning of that sense of "cult," which Florida Jim spelled out not long ago. Many serious earlier California Cabernets that paved the way (again: Ridge, BV G. de L., Heitz Martha's, Stag's Leap, etc.; various Inglenooks of course) don't fit that newer sense of "cult" and weren't sought by the broker I mentioned here who called for "Cult California Cabernets" to meet particular recent demand. ← "cult" means --"faddish devotion." according to Webster. Using that definition there have always been "cult" wines. (you provide some good supporting evidence). as a general rule--limited production and high demand leads to scarcity and high prices. That demand is the "cult" part. I would say that the devotion to , say, Silver Oak (also Heitz Martha's) wherein large numbers of people would make "pilgrimages" to the wineries for a small allocation of the new releases establishes them squarely in the "cult" column. Diamond creek wines were produced in relatively small quantities and there has been high demand for them. Are they cult wines? who knows and who cares?--they have been hard to find and sell for fairly high prices. Brounstein is a pioneer--in 1968 he took a 79 acre piece of land and while clearing the property for vine planting, he noted that there were three distinct sections each with its own elevation and soil composition so he bottled three cabernets. Diamond Creek was the FIRST cabernet only estate (according to Laube). He is not the only wine maker to recognize this but he certainly was one of the strongest early proponents of bottling vineyard designated cabernets.

I believe you are wrong. The food products are all strictly controlled/overseen by the family/ owners of Rao's--Pellegrino and Straci. Frank Pellegrino is the Chairman and CEO and Ron Straci's wife Sharon runs the business--"Rao's Specialty foods" The marinara sauce is an old family recipe. I have tried a number of them and I can say--they are quite good! As for "hobnobbing with VIP's" most of the people who "own" tables are probably not known to most people. Whatever Rao's is --it ain't Spago!

I used to be somewhat of a contrarian on this topic but recently there has been a lot of support from some folks with impressive credentials! (certainly far more impressive than mine). I would not serve cheese with a fine red Bordeaux. (the Lynch is a really nice wine!). Why? The fats in most cheeses can dull the palate (they do mine). Most red wine and cheese combinations leave the red wine tasting flat. I realize there are a lot of people who swear by red wine and cheese. maybe you are fine with red wine and cheese--it is your palate after all. If I had to--I would opt for a dry hard cheese like parmesan or manchego or pecorino. My real recommendation would be to enjoy the wine by itself! It is certainly that good and worthy of one's undivided attention!!!!

Brounstein was definitely a pioneer. He was one of the first wine makers to exploit the concept of terroir via his bottlings from distinct and separate vineyard locations. I am glad you used the term "cult." There seem to be a number of folks who believe that "cult" wine from California is a recent development. Diamond creek wines were truly distinctive--tasted side by side they display differences in ripeness and flavors. Also IMOP--the wines he made in the seventies are among the best ever from california. Yes, as one poster notes--the wines were "tough nuts." Young they were pretty tannic but they had a richness and solid core of ripe fruit. They did age quite well--it took a few years for the tannins to integrate. Recent efforts have not lived up to what Brounstein achieved in the seventies though. The recent bottlings have not been very good. IMOP. All in all--Brounstein deserves a lot of credit for what he accomplished. One could say he was a visionary. (ok I said it).

I have basically stopped buying first growth Bordeaux years ago. Unfortunately (or fortunately really) the world's economy is pretty robust and wine being a business venture is benefitting. There are few "hidden" bargains as the wine press and the growing interest in wine among consumers has led to the uncovering of most really fine wines that see rapid growth in pricing as they are 'discovered." There are plenty of wines for the "common man." There always have been but currently there are more well made interesting wines at relatively low prices available from more places in the world than ever before. (also a result of the rising tide generated by the high priced wines). "Finding producers who "bring passion, art and respect to their pricing" is not the answer--because prices are established by supply and demand --not the producers. Given the cost to produce and sell fine wines--a producer who prices his or her wines based upon altruism will soon be out of business. also--the producer is not really responsible for the final retail prices of their wines (most of the California "so called "Cult" wines are pretty reasonable when released--it is demand--the auction prices and retailers etc who are--becaise of the demand--setting the prices we see. Your call for a 'boycott" in order to reduce demand is fine but basically it wont work--there are just too many people around the world who have the wherewithal to afford the acclaimed wines like Bordeaux first growths. as I noted I, for one, have stopped buying many wines I enjoy and have searched for others that I can afford. However, it is all relative--fine Malbecs (the best) from Argentina are up around a hundred bucks a bottle now and will go higher as more people like me "discover" them as alternatives to two hundred dollar bottles from Bordeaux. Basically people like me are driving up the prices and soon the folks who drive the prices of Bordeaux and Burgundy will take over and drive up the prices of the wines I am enjoying--ahh! The cycle of wine life!!! I jumped on Viader wines at $40 when other Cal wines I had been enjoying were priced out of my range--soon enough the Viaders were up to $80 then $100 as more people (with more money) found them too! anyway--good luck with your boycott (I really don't believe you are serious--you are probably letting off some steam). Remember it's all relative! --back in seventy five or so--one could buy Chateau Latour or Margaux for twenty bucks a bottle and one could buy a really nice new car for less than five thousand dollars. One also made a hundred dollars a week. Personally, I am also boycotting Mercedes Benz and BMW as well as Latour and Margaux!!!! La Di La Di--Life goes on!!!!

I think categorizing Rao's in the same breath as Ducasse and Jean Georges is quite a stretch, IMHO. These are 2 of the most acclaimed chefs in the world. Rao's is just a bit of pop culture, urban legend, folklore, and Hollywood. I don't think too many folks are going to Rao's for the cuisine. ← I think the point re: Ducasse and JGV was well made and appropriate. The issue is whether Rao's (or any place for that matter) can maintain a level of quality with expansion. Rao's already has a line of products (spaghetti sauces, the peppers, the marinade for the lemon chicken etc) on the shelves of gourmet shops (Whole Foods for one carries them). They are quite good. There is an interesting topic for discussion here--does a fine restaurant need a recognizable chef at the helm to be considered great? Are simple "classic" dishes executed perfectly with superb ingredients worthy of comparison with those "designed" by big name chefs. I think we are talking about different experiences that can be equally satisfying for a diner. Also worth noting. Rao's-- as I understand it-- is a small place-- eleven tables or so--that is more akin to a private dining club than a restaurant. The tables are "owned" For eg Mr X has a permanent reservation for Wednesday nights while Mrs Y has the table for Saturday evenings. (much the way Yankee stadium is "booked" for the season). Therefore one has to have a connection to Mr X or Mrs Y to get use of the table. Also each table is available for the entire evening--they don't turn tables. Anyway that is my understanding.

No wives tale. At one time--meats (pork singled out) carried a nasty organism/parasite that if ingested is potentially fatal. trichinellosis. The organism can not survive temperatures over 150 degrees F. (or freezing meat for ten days) The most recent cases 1997-01 (total 72) are attributed to eating undercooked wild game. Modern techniques in raising pigs (and other livestock) have made this disease relatively rare. While most health departments still "recommend" minimal temperature levels--most industry professionals (chefs etc) are comfortable with preparing and serving pork at less than the "recommended" temperatures. I always go with the chefs! cdc info

Three of the greatest young wines I have ever experienced were single vinyard malbecs from the 2003 vintage by Acheval Ferrer--what absolutely stunning wines and wine making!!!

Thanks for the report! I enjoyed reading it. Couple of observations: Nantucket is not IMOP a "food destination." It is a special Island with a high level of consistency across many fine restaurants. The island is very expensive--real estatewise and has long catered to old money. Over the last twenty years a lot of new money has joined the scene. Prices are, as to be expected, high--across the board. High overhead, wealthy clientel. As for wine, one would also expect big names and high prices. I am not sure the markups are, in general, usurious--one would have a hard time finding bargains in lower end wines (that find of a Cotes du Rhone at thirty bucks for eg). One can find some relative "bargains" if one is prepared to spend though. The list at Topper's is a pretty fine tome with some really great wines at fair prices--especially some older vintages. The list at the late lamented Chanticleer was also quite wonderful. The Boarding House has a fine list but again--big names big prices. As for the restaurants--I thank you for the note about Seasons. I hate to admit it but this is one place we have not been to in twenty plus years--it will definitely be on the list for this year's visit. My suggestion would be to try Toppers at the Wauwinnet for lunch. The menu is comprised of small plates the cost not overly steep (something like $25 for three or four plates). The food is good but if you sit in the garden the atmosphere is fantastic. Also the Galley at Cliffside beach--fine for dinner but really nice for lunch and far less expensive. Same for the Grill at Brant Point--all have great outdsoor dining and atmosphere. Lunch at one of these spots then dinner at a more modest spot (try the Rope Walk for burgers and chowder and raw bar will take the financial sting away. Interesting news re: Chanticleer--this was one of the last remaining old style French places with a touch of Normandy in the cooking--the garden was pure magic for lunch. The wine list was magnificent. (older vintages especially). It iwll be interesting to see what the new owners do there. I would also note that when one goes to Nantucket probably has an impact on the food/dining situation. On island there are two family owned and operatied farms. Moors End Farm and Bartlet's Farm. The latter is a fairly large operation and provides many restaurants with produce. (worth a visit). Also fresh local fish tend to be somewhat seasonal. The Bay scallops most notably. Otherwise most of the produce and meat and fish probably comes from Boston. If you have cooking facilities it is well worth it. (and less expensive). We often get some local spear caught swordfish tomatoes and lettuce and corn form Bartletts (or Moors End) some cheeses and some wine from Fahey and Frommagerie and have a meal to remember at home. There are some great wines at pretty good prices via Michael Fahey. All in all quite a place! I am now the "old" man from Nantucket!!!

My understanding of the definitions is: Sake is not wine. It is actually closer to beer. (wine can only be made from fruit) I am curious if I am technically correct in this? Is this a Eurocentric definition (the EU)? or are the Japanese in agreement? In the end --no big deal-sake is a wonderful beverage.

I wonder how much pizza-eating you have done outside of the general Philadelphia-to-Boston area. I ask this simply because, although I agree with your basic premise that the pizza here is often burdened with too much cheese and toppings, I think this is much more prevalent around the country in general than it is in the Philadelphia-to-Boston area, where the pizza tends to be thinner and less copiously topped. Think of one of those disgusting Pizza Hut "meat lover's" pizzas. . . that's considered standard in most of the country. I absolutely agree with your premise that the assemblage and proportion (and quality) of the ingredients is of primary importance. If you don't have that right, you can never achieve a superior pizza. However, it is fact that wood or coal fired retained heat ovens are capable of producing certain effects that stainless steel deck ovens cannot. So, for example, as much as I love the pizza at Di Fara, the actual crust itself just doesn't match up to, say, Patsy's East Harlem. I have a theory about this. From a post in the NYC Pizza Favorites thread: ← I have enough experience outside the "corridor." I agree that the farther one gets from the "old country" in both distance and time the less "authentic" the cuisine. --the more likely that cuisine will be "localized." (some of the best and most authentic Vietnamese food is to be found in Minneapolis--thanks to a large recent immigrant population). I also agree with you that the crust is viewed as nothing more than a carrier of toppings. So too pasta is less important than the sauce/condiment but I also believe that Americans in general, view meat or fish as main course items and have a hard time accepting pasta or rice (paella) as anything more than a "side" dish. Pizza crust is like bread--a carrier to facilitate the delivery of meat or to be slathered with a condiment. I also agree to a point, that coal or brick ovens can add a dimension to a pizza --I am just not sure if that dimension is all that critical--or at least lives up to the hoopla. I disagree a bit on your assessment of Patsy's. I have bought there by the slice numerous times and found the pizza good but "soggy." I probably need to try a whole pie. There is probably a pretty good debate on how the cheese is handled--sliced vs shredded etc. In the end, I think we both seem to agree that if the proportions are not there no pie or slice stands a chance of rising above mediocrity!

I think you answer this question yourself below: (Emphasis mine.) I can't stress how important this can be in making a good pizza at any level, regardless of the quality of the ingredients. Loading on the cheese (and any other toppings) is a sure-fire way to a mediocre pizza -- especially when you consider that it's often a huge pile of crappy cheese. Also, if you are using crappy cheese, and I'm not saying Johnny's does, using a light hand with the cheese and a decent sauce can go a long way towards getting the most out of the ingredients. And, you're right. . . there's no reason 75% of the pizzeria in the greater New York City area can't be turning out pizza on this level. In fact, I think overall quality would take a huge leap up if pizzeria owners simply started using half the cheese they're currently using. Sounds like an interesting place. ← You are on to something! To me the elements of pizza are --crust --sauce --toppings --oven temperature The key is to achieve a balance that results in all three food elements complementing each other. The oven (heat) is the catalyst that facilitates the process. All three (or more) ingredients need to heated so that they all achieve optimal levels of doneness at the same time. Simple? Obviously not! There is an awful lot of mediocrity (and maybe even more awfulness) out there. As you point out so well. I believe a big culprit is the cheese. Not even the quality--the quantity. For some reason far too many New Yorkers are in love with the notion that the more cheese on a slice (or pie) the more "value" they are getting. Witness the number of pies and slices overloaded with the stuff. So much cheese that the crust can't adequately hold it. (eating a crappy slice of NY pizza is in itself a well developed art that combines origami and yoga). Even the masters of this art know that a good dry cleaner is the requisite safety net. How often, while standing in line at a NY pizzeria, does one hear the request/demand/plea for "extra cheese." Even more insane is the practice wherein one asks for a topping like sausage or broccoli or... and on top of the topping the pie man sees fit to add.....more cheese!!!!! IMOP--the bane of much MYC pizza is not even the quality it is the quantity. Regardless of the oven and the skill of the pizza maker most slices have no chance even before they are put into the oven--they are doomed. Soo much cheese results in a situation where the crust becomes soggy (the weight of the cheese aside--the moisture released--the oil running out of the cheese). Invariably the cheese never reaches the appropriate degree of doneness and the crust is either overdone or underdone and/or soggy. To me the oven--coal or gas fired or whatever is last on the list of priorities (coal may be as FG notes, vastly over rated). The real starting point is the assemblage process--the proportion of ingredients. Until most people realize the subtlety of a well made pie or slice we will have to suffer the "more cheese the better" syndrome! I wonder if anyone else has some thoughts as to why cheese has become the "key" ingredient in pizza. Why do we emphasize it so much???

Bravo Bruni! This is a nicely written and well thought out and thought provoking piece. My problem is that many of the people taking a position should be using reasoned and rational argument for their point of view. What I find problematic is many have become crusaders with a religious fervor--it is their view or no view. They often resort to subversive campaigns and twist facts and generally misrepresent themselves. I appreciate the references to unions etc but this is a side issue. I am certainly willing to consider any argument made by labor union advocates--I do think this is an area for some other forum. I am very wary of anyone putting animals--from mollusks to bunny rabbits on equal footing with human beings. Respect and humane treatment are very good things but some perspective that makes sense and has some scientific support is needed. I do have a lot of faith that in the end people-- consumers will make good decisions.

ya sure y'all can tell the difference? by the way--I betcha the BBC was trying to make some editorial comment about globalization with their little taste test. --all wines taste the same nowadays. or --the French will be forced to make global style wines. The EU efforts have little or nothing to do with wine styles or tastes etc. they are economically driven--too much wine too few drinkers. The French have no problem selling at home or abroad such vastly differing wines as classed Bordeaux, Burgundies, Rhone wines, Loire whites (and a number of reds) as well as many other wines from in all sorts of styles and places around the country. and at nice profits too. The dirty little secret of wine tasting is-- It is very hard to tell the provenance of many wines when tasted blind. Old style new style any style! How many of us have mistaken an aged syrah like Grange or a cote rotie for a Bordeaux or a Bordeaux for a Californian cabernet or an Argentina malbec for a Bordeaux or a ...for a.... Think its easy? Remember the tasting of 76!!!!!

I believe there is a bit of confusion here. The facts are--French wine consumption has dramatically decreased (by app half) over the last 40 years. (the BBC has reported this). In large part, the wines that have suffered most are basic French table wines (Vins Pays D'Oc etc). Most of these wines were never exported but were consumed locally. They would have a hard time competing profitably on the world market. That is, when the costs of shipping and marketing were added in the resultant price would by out of synch with the price consumers would be willing to pay for them. The single most cited reason for the decrease in drinking are the French drunk driving laws. Also cited are new attitudes toward drinking in French society. (perhaps signaling a French "puritanism"--sorry I couldn't resist). I really do not know the rationale for the seemingly silly tasting stunt. What did it have to do with the report on vines being pulled up? What were his "comments..."?

Ed Wow! Over here we are afraid that the EU will legislate all your great cheeses into mediocrity!!!! To assuage your concerns about Mr Parker, I would suggest you get hold of his book "The World's Greatest Wine Estates" it is expensive so maybe via a library of a few minutes reading in a book store. Just read the chapter on "A workable definition of greatness." The problem is Parker is "used" to promote agenda's and theories--taken out of context if you will. To move on, I believe that the real concern today is that science in service of globalization is somehow "ruining" the distinctive characteristics of locally produced wines. What a lot of people fail to realize (or acknowledge) is that wine making is a business. Yes there are some who make wine out of pure love. they are called amateurs, they make the wines for their own and their family's enjoyment. (Italy is rife with these wonderful people). But once the wine maker offers his or her wine for sale (or trade) the game changes. Yes the love and the passion can still be there. But wine produced as a commercial enterprise has always been reflective of the market place. Forget Parker. If one wants to talk of "influence" upon wine making let's talk Bobby Kacher and kermit Lynch and Neal Rosenthal and the many importers who tell wine makers what their customers want. Let's talk about the influence over Bordeaux wine making by a handful of British merchants and critics (often one and the same). hence the saying--"The French make Bordeaux for the Brits and Burgundy for themselves." It is naive to look at wine making as some pure and noble endeavor. There has always been fraud and manipulation. wine makers in France often "blended in" some North African wine to "enrich or flesh out" their Pommard. (just recently, a "mystery" ship loaded with industrial Italian wine was discovered docked in a French port). Thus all the laws in labeling--basic consumer protection. Now about science. Chaptalization could be viewed as "un natural" as micro oxygenation. Yet some really wonderful wine producers would not exist if they were not able to use science to counter the effects of a poor weather vintage. A wine that has been chaptalized from a poor vintage will taste no different (to most tasters) than the same wine from the same producer in a vintage that allowed for optimum ripeness. Over chaptalized wines will be noticeably bad and yes will tend to taste the same. So is chaptalization wrong? If a particular vintage involves much rain and the must is dilute which will result in thin and insipid wines a wine maker can practice soignee to help concentrate the must --is use of a machine to accomplish the same end wrong? The point being, science has always impacted wine making and I am sure that every "innovation" was controversial--probably the first person to put wine in an oak barrel (as opposed to an earthenware amphora) was greeted with some skepticism. And use of that oak barrel was probably done for economic reasons! Winestyles and wine fashion has always been a result of the tastes of the marketplace. I find an incredible amount of irony in all the anti globalization arguments (and some outright hypocrisy). for eg All those folks who deride oaky California Cabs don't seem to have a problem with Riojas. All those who complain about alcohol levels are ok with Amarones. "But that's how they are supposed to be." Really? Paradigms do shift! Tastes change, markets change. Why shouldn't wine change with them --it always has. burgundies were once high in alcohol etc I always ask when someone claims a wine doesn't taste like something else to define the paradigm they are using and where/when it comes from. As for wines all taste the same. Yes I will grant that there are general shifts in style and taste that result is similarities. But to declare that wines from around the world at all levels of quality taste the same is far too simplistic and impossible to prove. To say that Madame Bize Leroy is making Burgundy to taste like other Burgundies? That Grange is made to taste like other Syrah's and that Gaja is making wine that tastes like Conterno's that all California cabs taste the same makes no sense. There are still thousands of small wine makers, lot's of medium size and larger makers sellling to hundreds of different markets --billions of different drinkers--to say they are all caught up in some sort of collusion or mass hypnosis is equally absurd. All I can say is that there are more wines from more varietals from more different countries and wine makers available on our wine shelves today. Fun times for drinkers. So just as when I am dining at a restaurant I never really question the preparation methods or techniques or the provenance of the ingredients unless I taste something wrong or off putting to my palate--I never really question the wine making as long as I am enjoying the wine. all the best By the way --one day (with some luck) perhaps I will be near your restaurant. It is a place where I would love to dine. I have "discovered" many wonderful wines that were offered by restaurateurs who selected wines they loved and shared with their customers.

I think the correct term is "journalistic integrity." Dishonesty implies that the writer/journalist intentionally (and with malice aforethought) leaves out or distorts or fails to....... yadda yadda yadda! (latin for I am beginning to descend into incoherence). I don't think that is the case here. The situation re WF as I see it is one of sheer size and the reconciliation of adhering to its mission statement in the face of rapid growth. WF was once a small operation so the altruistic mission statement was easier to follow. WF could simply deliver on the promise and as long as it made enough profit to cover overhead etc things were fine. (in fact if the owners were really fervent in their beliefs they could have lost money or made very little if they so chose. As a public company there is an obligation to make and increase profits that over rides any other mission statement. There has to be compromise somewhere. Higher prices, less quality, lower overhead, somewhere, somehow..... Same on the supplier side. Artisanal producers also have to make sacrifices somewhere in the face of growth. It is easier to produce ,say, a hundred free range organic yadda yadda chickens than it is to produce a thousand (land costs--a bigger "range" for eg). The key question is--at what point in the production of anything does size of production compromise quality? And at what cost to the consumer? IMOP, Whole Foods has a mission statement that is impossible to maintain in the face of such massive and rapid growth. They need to turn to massive producers of "organic" items (Earthbound Farms) who have, ion turn, had to make compromises to produce so much. WF is a chain, they are not a small local operation that can sell items produced locally by small producers. On top of this, small local markets can sell Earthbound produce and small local produced items--they are smaller and can run leaner and make faster decisions. WF, IMOP will have a much more difficult time adhering to their promise/mission than will Wal Mart. Wal Mart has a simple basic mission statement. They are far more flexible than WF. In fact they probably can outsell WF in terms of organic, natural or whatever products by offering operations like Earthbound, a better deal than WF. I have always wondered why--with their lofty mission statement WF sells both "organic" and non "organic" produce and then place signs up convincing the consumer that organic is so much better (and expensive). Perhaps the answer to this will reveal much about WF and where they are going and how they operate to get there. trouble in paradise? As I noted before--I am visiting the WF nextdoor much less. When they opened, there was a real wow factor. What I have come to realize is: WF is really more like a supermarket than a gourmet food market. The quality of their produce is good overall but for eg. the produce from the Korean market is often equally good and sometimes better I can get Earthbound Farms stuff at the local DAG. fairway has as good or better a range of items. The fish at Citarella and other fish mongers is equally good and often much better. The meat at WF is good but often many of the same brands--Murray's chicken, Niman Ranch are available at the local DAG and there is much better meat and poultry at other markets. The prepared stuff? IMOP quite mediocre. (maybe this is one of the first areas where compromise reflected). As for the service? WF is fine--everyone is polite. But overall the knowledge and expertise is no better than that of the local DAG. If I want a special cut of meat or help with seafood the guys at Citarella or Fairway or Lobel brothers or .... What is the biggest benefit? I believe WF has raised the level of mediocrity. The local DAG has made an attempt to compete with WF. I also believe that WF can be beneficial to areas where there are few (or no) Citarella's, Fairways, Balducci's, Ottomanelli's or smaller more focused operations like Di Palo or.... I do wish that WF would lose a lot of the altruism and focus on what they can be. Their current mission statement is strangling them as they grow rapidly. What is good for consumers are choices. people shop for good quality at reasonable prices. There should be more outlets at retail for artisanal farmers and cheese makers and bakers and fishermen etc. The religious fervor over organic and macro or micro biotic or whatever is fine as long as the producers and sellers keep their religion and their crusades to save the world to themselves! (or put a donation jar on the counter by the register). I would just like to see the best quality food items available at fair and reasonable prices. Simple. How the producers and sellers get their us up to them. I will decide where to shop and how much I want to pay. just give me the choices!!!!

Ed Nice to see that you are concerned. There are a few issues here. First, a wine maker has any number of options available to him/her when making wine. many of these options are to counter the vagaries of nature--dilution due to rain, unripe grapes, too ripe grapes and on and on. Chaptalization has been used in Europe (and elsewhere) when grapes do not ripen enough to produce adequate levels of alcohol. Conversely, wine has been acidified to counter grapes that are over ripe. Oak barrels have been used not just to flavor wine but to allow for some addition of oxygen to the wine (racking helps this). Micro oxygenation can accomplish the same effect as barrels at less cost (better for smaller makers) while allowing for the benefits to many grapes held in stainless steel (vs oak). Wines have been fined and filtered to one degree or another (or not). So2 is added to most wines--without it there would be many problems. My point, I think, is that the hand of man (and woman) is always present. A lot of these applications are tools--they can be misused--that can result in fine good quality wines. You are wearing rose colored glasses. Wine is bio chemistry--a winery no matter how small or "rustic" is a laboratory. Wine makers are craftsmen. Wine making involves tools and selection and decisions. Those tiny producers may be involved a lot more than you think and "old fashioned" is not necessarily better. were it not for advances in science and wine making, a lotr of them would be out of business or making lousy wines. (no different than with large producers). But rose colored glasses are fine (as long as you can remove them once in a while). There is a lot of romance and alchemy involved. Chemistry will never replace the magic of wine. Would you call the great Amarones manipulated wines? They are--grapes are concentrated via a technique. They are high in alcohol. Is an Amarone any more or less worthy of our attention than a Southern Rhone wine or a Cabernet from Napa valley? All are concentrated, from ripe grapes and high in alcohol. I believe that most wine makers like to play down their methods--not because these methods are fraudulent or illegal but because they are selling the romance of wine. For a long long time for eg--Europeans resisted putting varietal information on labels--why?--they were selling the magic of place. In the end what really matters is what is in the bottle/glass. How it tastes. That the wines you select "are really good" is what matters to you and ultimately to your customers. Not whether or not they were made by small producers or large or what specific techniques were utilized by the wine maker. Wines that are over manipulated will taste so. Wines that are well made will also provide much pleasure. One has to admit that there are times when canned tomatoes are preferable to fresh. or perhaps the tomatoes are not as ripe as one would like so adding just the right amount of sugar... The real test is how the dish tastes!