JohnL

Winemakers have been using all sorts of techniques to produce better wines. Not just recently but probably for as long as wine has been made. Concentration (removing volatile compounds--water) techniques have been used for a long time. Dessication (dried grapes)--see Amarone, Freezing grapes (sauternes, eiswein etc) and saignee (bleeding off juice to increase the ratio of juice to skins). Reverse osmosis is allowed by the EU (there are stipulations regarding that use). Same as for other techniques like chaptalization. By the way winemakers don't like to reveal most things they do to make wine--sort of like the sausage makers. These are just techniques for improving wine they can be abused but there is nothing inherently wrong with them. In the end it is what is in the glass. I would say that recently, there has been some hysteria over many of these techniques. Take the "micro oxygenation" snit by the Mondovino crowd. A technique to accomplish what time honored techniques like racking etc did to add tiny amounts of oxygen to wines (a good thing mostly) was excoriated as some new darth vader operation. (part of the global wine conspiracy!). In fact micro oxygenation was invented by the French to help soften the highly tannic wines of Madiran. when the winmakers of Madiran moved from using oak barrels to steel tanks they found that the wines, without the benefit of oak became overly hard and tannic. There are a number of goals in its use. I believe that debate over these various techniques is healthy and that dismissing them out of hand without understanding them to make some political case about wine is very wrong. The wines press can do a much better job in educating consumers in this area.

Hi JohnL. I see these assertions you've posted (repeatedly) with evident sincerity but I don't know where some of it comes from. There's no real misunderstanding of the phrase "cult California wines" on online wine fora today (it denotes wines Florida Jim described in his experience: Screaming Eagle, Harlan, Kistler, etc. -- with mailing lists, multi-hundred-dollar free-market prices, often relatively short histories). These wines can't be confused with the classic California Cabernets jbonne wrote of, because many of those classics are still made, so you can compare them side by side. In earlier decades when the now-classic Cabernets were newer, there was no parallel situation (with hype and mailing lists and high prices with short histories). Why cloud these distinctions? ← Max! Please--I understand what "cult" means. I am challenging the definition a bit. At one time the Heitz Martha's vineyard was a "cult" wine. This is a fact not an unfounded assertion. So were any number of "classic" wines. Chalone etc etc. If we agree that classic indicates a work of enduring quality then I would ask at what point does a wine become a 'classic."? How many vintages? Let's also note that the wines you named have now been around for more than a few vintages. Kistler founded in 1978 Screaming Eagle 1992 Harlan 1987 Since the early sixties many California wines have been "cult" wines. Many are classics. Many have fallen some have fallen and risen up again. Wines come in and out of fashion, that's the nature of the business. Most wineries go through ups and downs from BV to Margaux. My point is simple. In blind tastings of California Cabernets held over the past several years involving different vintages and including wines you call classic and cult wines (from the same vintage) result in the following: --it is difficult to discern which are which (cult or classic) and there is no line of demarcation in quality (the scores are all over the map). This is why I went back and looked at a lot of tasting notes of young classic wines and found them to resemble the notes for young cult wines. So cult or classic what is your point? By the way--it is hard enough to discern which so called cult wine is which. You lump them under the cult rubric yet they are different in many more ways then they are the same. So while the experts in 1976 couldn't taste the differences they so strongly believed existed, so too, tasters today wouldn't be able to discern the differences they believe exist. That is I admit my "assertion." I got a lot of evidence to support it. Now about your assertions.......! best and as always--cheers (ok I am stealing from Jim) John .

Forget about the "trap." A lobster spends its entire life avoiding being eaten by predators (not just man either). The sheer idiocy of talking about a lobster's "quality of life" by WF and others is itself a trap (in logic). If a lobster's quality of life is a concern--then trapping and quickly killing it is a good thing for the lobster. Just think of living in constant fear of being violently killed and eaten by a squid or a cod or an octopus or a seal. You call that "living!!??" Let's not forget those cute seals and loveable cod fish and cuddly octopuses and how they are also --just like man--concerned with killing their lobsters "humanely." By the way --how about those clams, snails, mussels and flounders who are eaten by lobsters. I suppose the lobsters "care" about killing them "humanely." This is sheer idiocy!!!!

There is something disturbing to me about an exchange between two men who believe they have the answer to how America's food production and delivery should be. I also resent their attitude that we consumers need to be educated to their way of thinking. I applaud altruism and passion and many of their ideas are good ones. However, I personally do not like "grass fed beef" I also like fois gras and shell fish and I also want to have access to locally grown whatever. I see no reason why smaller competitors and farm stands and farmers markets should not thrive, offering a different option to WF etc. Unfortunately, WF goal is to offer it all under its one roof squeezing out the little guy! I will gladly make the argument that for all its altruism, WF provides a level of quality that is far from optimum. It achieves a reasonably decent level above that of local supermarket chains (for the most part). Its presence has helped spur local supes to increase their level of quality--a good thing. But, again, I am concerned that WF will squeeze out those smaller operations offering much better quality and/or value. By the way--I also prefer so called factory chicken to over priced free range birds. that's just me. I also believe I have a much healthier view of the man and animal relationship. I, for one, do not need to be "educated" to these guys way of "food life." As for supporting local farmers--if they grow good quality items then I want access to them--and not necessarily under WF roof. I do not want WF or any one entity to "dominate" the food market at the retail or producer level no matter how noble and good WF tells us they are!!

"deep gold; perfumed oaky nose; rich buttery, powerful, long ripe, youthful." "deep cherry color; vanilla nose, fruity, fat, chocolate, round, supple." Tasting notes for the 2003 peter Michael Belle Cote chardonnay and the 2003 Harlan Estates cabernet? Nope-- Those are notes from the SF Vintner's club tasting in 1978 for the 1974 Chalone Chardonnay and the 1973 Stag's leap cabernet. (courtey of Mr Taber's excellent book) "Old style" "New style" These terms are tossed about --just like "old world" and "new world" I believe there is some merit in them but after reading over many tasting notes by many writers and critics one comes away with the thought that things are just not so cut and dried! How about "cult" wines? Well there have always been cult wines. (there will always be). If california is today "defined" by cult wines then it was back in 1976 when, as Mr Taber notes, Chalone and Montelena were considered "cult" wines. (let's not forget the Heitz Martha's). IMOP--only Silver Oak warrants true "cult" status, witness the pilgrimage of devotees every vintage. Current blind tastings of so called "old style" Cal cabs and current so called "cult" wines also reveals that things are not so cut and dried either. Are the "old style" cabs now made in a "new style" that makes them hard to differentiate? Or are the "new style" cabs really not so ...well...."new style"? Or maybe the "old style" cabs were always made in a "new style." is it possible that the song is right?--everything old is new aqain?" or are we deceived when we now recall tasting "old style" cabs when they (and we) were young? ... Ahhh but we were so much older then we're younger than that now? --wow I feel a headache setting in! Is there a tendency to denigrate some of the newer entries onto the scene, just as many of the so called young whipper snappers like Chalone and Montelena and Stags leap were? "Oh they won't age well...." yadda yadda yadda. By the way--every "warmer" vintage of Bordeaux generates the same thinking--1982, 89, etc. --"too ripe...too low acidity...too much alcohol..too this and that."--they won't age. As for the price value thing. Why is California singled out? The fact is the very finest wines from anywhere in the world cost a lot of money. If those wines are produced in small quantities--then prices can get really high. It is also a fact that there are more wine drinkers around the world with more money thanks, in part, to a pretty healthy global economy. There's also a lot more competition. In the fifties and sixties it was mostly Bordeaux and Burgundy and the British (and far fewer Brits then than now at that). Do we have a very "anglo" tendency to devalue wines that provide a lot of pleasure when young? How does one reconcile the fact that the French for eg tend to drink their Bordeaux at earlier ages while the same wines are deemed by others to be too young to provide optimum pleasure? Who's right? Who's wrong? Is this really a zero sum game? Could it be that california cabs are, for the most part, a result of warmer climes and riper fruit? Could they have always been enjoyable at an early age? Also while there is no doubt that Cal cabs can last do they evolve as well that warrants waiting for them? Are they better young when one can appreciate the amazing and complex fruit many can offer? are they better at an older age? IMOP--as always it is a matter of taste. Anyway--the J Bonne piece is interesting. Nice to see the notes on these cabs. The article provoked a lot of thought and reflection (at least for me).

Grub-- You hit the nail on the head (I am sure someone somewhere will protest that nails are subject to pain and suffering). Hypocrisy is rampant here. I am not adverse to anyone being a vegan or whatever they want to be. I am really tiring of people (and corporations) heralding their altruism and going as far as to use their causes and lifestyle choices for marketing purposes. However, as grub points out--the convoluted thinking (and I use this term liberally) behind the beliefs of many of these folks leads them into the realm of hypocrisy. The truth is, many of the issues that WF and others are involved in are complex. For eg a recent piece in Slate notes that WF touts that one should "buy organic" because it "saves energy"--this noble sounding idea is false! It just ain't that simple. The real danger in WF and other like operations is that by becoming so large, WF is exerting influence over a wide swath of society. This is fair enough. It is When their mission goes beyond offering quality and value then there is a serious problem. I don't agree with their views on animal rights. While I respect their right to hold these views (as noted they have trouble practicing what they preach)--I do not want them to have undue influence (beyond the ballot box) over my life and my choices. If I want to enjoy lobsters (or fois gras) I do not want the fact that they have driven out fish markets and other competition to limit my ability to enjoy such items. Whole Foods is a publicly held and traded company--one reason they have been "gobbling up" other companies at a rapid pace (Bread and Circus for eg). They are also open to close scrutiny by the press and the public. In the end--retailers who sell good quality at fair prices should flourish. Consumers should be concerned with this first and foremost. WF should just shut up and sell good stuff at reasonable prices.

I don't know anyone anywhere who does not believe in " terroir and the importance of site." I do know that there is a lot of confusion over how terroir is manifested in the taste of wine. Anyway, for a long time it was believed that the eucalyptus notes in Martha's Vineyard cabs were the result of the proximity to a eucalyptus tree (or trees). Unfortunately, eucalyptus notes are present in a lot of wines that are made from grapes grown nowhere near a eucalyptus tree. Though I often take such assertions from winemakers with a large grain (Maldon) salt--Bob Foley once remarked that there were discernable flavors in some of his wines from some type of Northern California native weed that was present in the vineyards. (I forget the specifics). There is much evidence to support the impact of sunlight (site, elevation etc) as well as the drainage properties of the soil and subsoil on vineyards and their wines. There is much less to support the notion that the mineral content (or any other content) of the soils is "tasted" in wine. Terroir is a fascinating and important subject. It is unfortunate that it has become fodder for arguments about "new world" and "old world" polemics and other silliness. As for growing that elephant garlic near the grapes--well how about planting a eucalyptus tree near some other grapes and making a minty after dinner wine to counter the "effects" of your first wine!!!! There's a great marketing idea here!!!!! --

If WF believes their completely unsupported (and unsupportable) belief about lobsters then they should simply not sell lobsters! It is the preachy Whole--ier than thou attitude that rubs me the wrong way and the fact that they are clearly attempting to capitalize on this approach. That is why many people rightly suspect a bit of marketing hype at play.

Jim You really are IMOP--a gentleman and a scholar! (I am not being my usual facetious self) We could go on for days about Parker. Suffice to say my opinion is that there are a number of people in the wine business who have "used" Parker for their own ends. Most of these people have helped create the myth that is as most myths are-- wildly out of proportion to reality. As for Cal cabs--the new vs the old--it is interesting to go back and read the reviews from the sixties and seventies. Cal cabs have always been--for the most part--early maturing and pleasant to drink young--warmer clime--riper fruit! that's a generality of course and begs the comparison to most vintages of Bordeaux. Cooler clime--less ripe. As for the value issue. I guess this is one area where things are pretty subjective. Hard to argue with someone who is willing to pay X dollars for a particular wine they like--their money and their taste. I would say that a lot of wine today is expensive (so are most things--a slice of pizza is around two fifty here in NY). There are plenty of bargains around--that's subjective too. We all have a list of wines that we wouldn't drink if someone bought us a case! As always--I really enjoy reading your opinions--we actually may agree on more things than it may appear--but one always learns more from people who disagree than those that agree. (IMOP). and as always Cheers!

What an entertaining post! Jim--I just heard that Parker was sighted on the grassy knoll in 63! You are certainly a font of the conventional wisdom. Yes Parker is influential but really --he has become a character of mythical proportions. If there is, as you say, a"Parker mold" that "these wines fit" --then please explain to me how over the years he has spoken highly of such a disparate range of wines? How can he like the wines of say, Dunn and also the wines of Harlan, and Mondavi? Even more striking-- how is it he has been profuse in his praise of not just a wide range of California Cabernets but of the wines of the Rhone? How is it he can praise barolos from Scavino and G. Conterno? Just what is this "Parker palate"? Anyway enough about him--oh one more question! How is it he wrote highly of many of the so called "old style cabs"???? As for the past and current situation re: California. As with most things--the "good old days" were not quite as good as we remember. I recall many fine efforts but I also recall many bottles of thin weedy cabs made from fruit that was grown in less than optimum places. I recall a very high incidence of bottle variation and wines tainted by bret. yes we remember the cabs that aged well and evolved into wonderful drinking experiences--how about all those that didn't--tannic monsters that lost their fruit and never really 'came around." As for today's wines. Wine styles and fashions evolve and change. Today,there are many more wines made more labels--at least a tenfold increase. To say they "all taste the same" just doesn't hold any water. You are saying that the Mondavi Reserve tastes the same as a Colgin Herb lamb Vineyard as a Screaming Eagle as a Beringer PR as a Dunn Howell Mountain as a........???? Really??? You can't tell em apart???? The claim that these wines "don't age well" is IMOP a myth. Where does it come from? well all the folks talking about the good old days--promulgating a belief that young wines must be undrinkable tannic monsters requiring decades in the cellar to "soften" up. As you know, there can be a big difference between evolution and longevity. let's not negate the impact of the evolution of viticulture and viniculture--notice back in the sixties and seventies how few good vintages there were? One reason those great old wines were so few and far between Yes--let's "relive" the goods old days and celebrate the great wines but we need to be a bit more realistic about the even better present and future!!!

The issue of diet and health is far too complex for any resolution anywhere (certainly not here). Disease and longevity are impacted by many many factors--diet is only one. From genetics to socio economics to how people handle stress to environment and on and on.... Science often does not have answers let alone easy answers to all this. A recent study indicated that eating those bran muffins reallly didn't have a positive impact on cancer of the digestive system (or something like that). There is a constant stream of studies and their results with often contradictatory conclusions. Remember not long ago--we were "told" that butter is bad and we should eat more margarine. (anything but butter). If matters weren't complicated enough-all the special interests comission their own research and twist and turn data from every study to "prove" their case. The media also do a lousy job of helping to sort things out for us and to help provide some context--they are too concerned with their special interest--more readers, viewers, listeners, web site hits etc. Then there is common sense. With all due respect to the Inuit, I for one, will stick with my current lifestyle. Yes we can all be healthier (even the Inuit--they don't live forever and I bet they get some diseases we have never heard of). The key IMOP is to step back. Apply some healthy skepticism and use moderation. Some variation in foods and some portion control combined with exercise and everyone (most people) should be fine (no matter where they are living).

I agree. My "beef" is with the media mostly. We should be able to accept that not everything is good or "healthy" and learn to exercise moderation and enjoy "indulgences" once in a while. We also should realize that "utopia" is unobtainable and there are always trade offs. Making the world completely "safe" by banning/removing everything we deem unsafe or unhealthy because we can not teach and exercise self control and take responsibility is IMOP not the way to go. The article in quesion is an example of bad reporting. We really need a responsible press to inform us so we can exercise responsibility --responsibly!

We've finally reached the "bottom" of the wine barrel! No if's and's or "butts." Talking about class in wine marketing-- these two are clearly "bringing up the rear!"

At last! Some common sense. I too have tired of produce that is touted as organic or locally grown or biodynamic or whatever with hefty prices to match the rhetoric. (how about prices that match the quality of the produce?). Once I was driving out in New Jersey some thirty or so miles from Manhattan. I saw a charming farm stand at the edge of a large cornfield. I was in the mood for some good fresh Jersey tomatoes. As the person running the stand bagged my purchase, I asked if it was hard to grow really good totmatoes as they were so hard to find. The reply--"I have no idea, we get these from the Hunt's Point market in New York City. (by the way--they were fairly decent) I am also tired of food retailers who sell a philosophy or a way of life rather than just offering good quality food. Once, not long ago we had a lot of small locally o and o purveyors of produce and meats and poultry, baked goods etc etc etc. The better ones were run by people who had a passion for providing good quality and value--their altruism was their business--maybe a little league support sticker in the window or a jar for donations to MD or heart disease on the counter. I live next door to Whole Foods and I find myself going less and less. I go to Amy's for bread and other small Ninth Avenue shops. I miss the Nevada meat market and the original Balducci's--the "chaining" of once great individual owned operations is lowering the level of quality to that just above the supermarkets. Your approach is refreshing--I will give you a try. best of luck!!!

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=...line-news_rss20 What foods have trans-fats? From the article: fast food, baked goods, processed snacks. Isn't margarine trans-fat? What foods are high in mono-unsaturated fats? Olive oil... Then there's poly-unsaturated (AFAIK - good) and saturated (AFAIK - bad). ← Right off the bat there's a problem with this linked piece. The headline reads: "Why fast foods are bad even in moderation." The first sentence of the piece reads: "Eating a diet consisting LARGELY of fast food COULD cause your waistline to bulge more than eating the same amount of fat from healthier sources." Basically this piece is saying that if you eat a bad diet you will be more prone to be overweight which in turn makes one more prone to disease. SO WHAT ELSE IS NEW?! The piece also indicates that the fast food industry is responding by cutting the bad fats from their offerings. But one has to read through the entire article to get to this piece of news. perhaps the headline should have been: Fast Food Industry Making Their food more Healthy In response to scientific studies.. but that doesn't really scare anyone or shock anyone into reading or buying the magazine does it??

Max-- I enjoyed your post in the other thread. I believe Shanken was just tossing out some thoughts. (the problem with blogs). It is hard to make a lot of them. You make some good points about the original tasting not being a "pioneering" as many have made it out to be. Nor is it as defining. Again, I believe that these "events" often reveal more about the state of affairs of the tasters and the critics and writers than the actual wines. I am amused watching some critics and writers attempt to "explain" the results so as to leave the conventional wisdom they subscribe to, intact.

I once had an interesting chat with a salesman at a very high end audiophile store here in NY. he said that he hated when women looking to buy a stereo came in with their boyfriends. He said the male immediately took over and dominated the sales process-- even though it was the woman who was shopping, making it difficult for the salesman to determine what kind of stereo the woman would appreciate the most. He also noted that though women were often very savvy about music and had well developed tastes--it was the guys who were more into the equipment--often quoting magazine reviews and stats. He said women were less into the equipment and more into just enjoying listening to music and therefore were in their way, better customers.

One reason I dislike most "blogs." Someone posting his or her thoughts often without much rationale and supportive information. Reading them is often akin to listening to one side of a conversation or someone rambling "off the top of their head" into space. Shanken rambles and then we wait for someone to respond to his ramblings. I simply don't take this very seriously. (the reply by Spurrier is interesting though--if one had the time and inclination to read it). I tend to agree with Me Rogov. The "re-enactment" has lost much from the original. I would say that what is interesting is the evolution of the wine press (and the general press). All the critic's and writers involved (and those not involved). The re-enactment is very interesting if one looks not to the actual results but to how the press and the critics have "reported" and "responded" to those results. No one to my knowledge has "noted" the consistencies and inconsistencies of the two "historical" tastings. First and foremost--both point up the problems with recognizing "terroir"--How is it that such esteemed and experienced tasters can not seem to recognize terroirs so different and so far apart? There are other interesting issues pointed up as well that challenge conventional wisdom these writers and critics have actively promoted over the many years between the two events. ---California wines don't age well. This one is still promoted as many writers are fond of noting that current "cult" wines will not age. "They are made to drink young." etc etc etc. In fact, it is rather revealing to watch the critics apply a bit of twist to their logic in their interpretations of the results. For me--this is where the fun is!

"metro centric, competitive?" Perhaps men and women are just "different." (generalities are fun!) Men seem to enjoy toys! Both men and women enjoy music passionately. Most stereo component enthusiasts are men. Most subscribers to stereo magazines are men. Men and women appreciate fine automobiles. Most car enthusiasts are men. Most subscribers to car magazines are...you guessed it! see a pattern developing here? Women and men are equally competitive. That competitiveness often manifests itself differently. So women can and do appreciate wine as do men--their passions are expressed and pursued differently. I am a little confused though. The Wine Advocate and the Wine Spectator are very different publications. I would not compare them head to head. If one is simply looking at their respective wine reviews--I suppose one could make some direct comparisons. Frankly, I believe, too much is made of various critics' real and imagined "preferences." "So and so only likes....wines." Often a small fact/truth is extrapolated out to form a much larger and broader truth or conclusion. In the end, that larger "truth" is often very shaky at best.

Frankly, I am getting a bit tired of all this "philosophical food stuff. (curmudgeon that I am). Family farms, regional produce, in season, outta season, organic, natural, gluten free, macrobiotic, micro biotic, symbiotic (neurotic!), free range, farmer's markets, save the tuna, save the whales, save...--blah blah blah! (we didn't start the fire) Just shut up and sell good quality stuff. I am beginning to long for the days when passionate people with their own high standards just provided products and services for fair prices ---without all the mission statements and altruism. I don't care where my tasty tomato comes from (in today's world of rapid transport/shipping) who grows it or how they grew it--as long as it tastes good and doesn't cost $29.95 a pound! Numerous threads here have attested to the utter confusion over what exactly is "organic" or even what a family farm is and how one defines "local." If farmers--with or with out families located wherever in the world produce good things then great. I-- for one have bought (and passed by) plenty of crap from highly touted green markets and purveyors of "ethically" produced food items (I have also bought lots of really wonderful things too). If Ms Planck's "Real Food." is tasty and high quality and fairly priced--she should do well and would be a welcome addition to the market place.

I would say the posters that suggested the MD wanted a "bribe" were on target. Years ago--maybe fifteen--I had a reservation at Sparks. It was very crowded that night and my guest and I were shunted off to the bar to wait. After forty five minutes or so and several pleas--I handed over forty bucks and got my table. I have been to Sparks since (don't ask why--maybe the steaks and wine) and have not needed to grease anyone. I have also been to Gallaghers several times and have not encountered any similar problems. However, it is known that in many places in NY these things do go on. They are in all cases, deplorable. On top of the bribe "thing" you encountered really obnoxious behaviour. It's hindsight but for fun--I would have set up a confrontation between the coatcheck person and the maitre d. "would you please explain to her/him why I can not seem to get a table?"

NY is a great city for walking. Try walking over to ninth avenue. Then head north. Above 42nd street (mostly) are myriad small ethnic places and shops. Manganeros to Amy's bread to Uncle Nick's (pretty good inexpensive Greek food--try the taverna ---etc etc (by the way you will pass Tony Luke's) Before you know it you will be in the upper fifties and close to the Time Warner Center.

I can't see him aligned with PETA. Maybe I'm missing something. That said, I don't like the idea of growing meat. I don't like the idea of continuing to slaughter animals like we do now either. I'd rather see slaughtering be a safer (for humans) and more humane (for animals) than it is now. I also would like to see us return to the day where we respected the animals we ate by using every last bit of it. If you are going to eat its meat, then use its skin and bones for clothing and other such items. But overall, dogs don't have a problem eating a steak and then hanging out with me, and I don't have a problem eating a steak and then patting a dog. And if I was going to have a problem with eating meat, it would have to do more with the energy used to produce it (it takes 28 calories of fossil fuel to produce 1 calorie of beef) than any ethical or moral dilemma caused by playing with Fido or watching a thoroughbred win a race. ← I would venture to guess that "we" do use every part of every animal slaughtered for food. (at least every part that one could find a use for). as for slaughtering being more "humane" --yes within reason. Unfortunately, this subject is fraught with our silly anthropomorphism. Animals should be killed quickly and cleanly--that's it--end of subject as far as I am concerned. I recently watched the documentary (I forget the title) wherein a maladjusted human thought he could live with and commune with grizzly bears. He was eventually attacked and eaten (along with his girlfriend). The nonsense about horse and dog whispering aside--animals are....animals they respond instinctually. By the way the poor fellow's death was not very "humane." In the end--animals are not "equal" to humans. They have no "rights" unless we assign them. Animals certainly do not assign us any rights.

ok, i have to play devils advocate here and before i do, John let me assure you that this is not directed at you and that your quote is merely a starting point for my point... i like the 100 point system just as much as the next guys, it DOES have alot of benefits, though there is something totaly subjective about wine. for example, i am an avid lover of bonny doon. i know not many on this forum are (or so it seems), but they just release a sangiovese that to quote RG, for the past three years has completely missed the mark, becoming a big bad red instead of the elegent/all food loving chianti. Does this make this wine any less desirable, or any other wine that does not taste like me know it to? i dont think so, but many would rate this lower on a 100 point scale because it doesnt drink like they think sangiovese should. humor me--if you tasted a grape variety you had never tasted before and it tasted like this sangiovese does, you would be pleasantly surprised, praise it, etc, but when its revealed to be sangiovese its suddenly scoffed at. doesnt make much sense to me. many people tend to think that terrior, is a primarily french thing because they taste minerality in their wine. this should not be so. terrior does not = minerality. french terrior just happens to be manifested in the wine as minerality. ah crap, now ive done it...let the flaming begin, back to work for me, but lets here the replys and ill defend my stance later in the day ← No--you make some very good and valid points! I think that all too often we confuse "objective" evaluation of wine with the much more subjective (or totally subjective) final evaluation that includes a tasters preference. Let me try an example: Some people do not like the flavors imparted by oak aging in their wine. Their preference would be for unoaked wines. However, regardless of one's preference, one should be able to appreciate a wine that does have oak flavors--say a great Montrachet from the DRC. A professional taster/critic should be able to note the presence of oak and whether it is well integrated into the wine or prominent. That is he or she should be able to evaluate the quality of the wine for what that wine is. It is up to the consumer to decide if he or she would like that wine based upon their personal preferences. I happen to like a lot of what Graham is doing with Bonney Doon. The Vin Du Glacier is very fine sweet white wine. There are many others I enjoy as well. Interestingly, Graham is a huge proponant of "terroir." As for terroir in general, current thinking by a wide range of scientists/enologists from France to Australia is that "minerality" has little to do with the soil or subsoil or minerals in the ground in vineyards (it is not passed to the grape through the root system). In fact the most important impact on wine by soil is believed to be its drainage properties. I really believe we all want to have our tastes validated. If a critic does not "like" a wine we happen to like and/or scores it lower than we do there is a tendency to resent the critic. We then tend to dismiss that critic. If the critic is good at their job the review will be informative and the review/notes ahould indicate why the score or result is what it is. We can learn something about the wine in question (and something about the critic and ourselves) and we can agree or disagree. I think the key is to at least consider what the critic is saying. In the end if one likes something then one likes something. I can't stand caviar--however I made an effort to learn why so many prize it. I can tell the differences and understand the attributes of fine caviar and the types. I "get it" but still don't like it. But our tastes change so who knows--as a kid I hated eggs--now I love em. that's life--go figure!

Found this very cool site from Jameson Whiskey! I note you are limiting yourself to the more recent and trendy spots. definitely suggest you look into some of the old "classics" --Bemelman's, The King Cole, White Horse etc. World's best bars