JohnL

Wow! While we're at it I am also a great appreciator of the art of the automobile. I can't wait for my government subsidized Aston Martin to arrive!!!!! Enjoying "haute cuisine" is not a right, it is a privilege. Unfortunately, it is a "consumable" entity. One can pay a small fee to "see" and enjoy art and after the experience the painting sits on the wall for someone else to enjoy. The frogs legs in truffled broth are gone forever! Using your logic everyone is "entitled" to a Brioni sports jacket and a Patek! One does not have to be filthy rich to enjoy even haute cuisine. Many people of modest means dine out in a fine restaurant from time to time (we just don't do it every day). many fine restaurants offer deals, I often eat at the bar in fine restaurants for eg. or go for lunch which is often much cheaper than dinner. The point is fine dining--if one wants to enjoy it--is accessible to many more people than you seem to think. I cringe when I see the words "public support." Why not come clean and say "higher taxes." I gladly support programs for the arts but I draw the line at having my taxes go toward enabling someone to enjoy dinner at a three star restaurant. It's getting to the point where any more tax increases--and I won't be able to eat at Per Se twice a year. (but I guess someone else--less fortunate-- will be able to take my place--kind of self defeating isn't it?) The simple fact is, fine dining and haute cuisine are businesses. people choose to enter them. There is decent money to be made at all levels. Chefs and restaurateurs have many options to make money these days. Why--because contrary to what many would like to believe--there are plenty of healthy and thriving economies around the world and millions of people who can afford at least an occasional trip to a temple of gastronomy and maybe a set of Emeril Lagasse cookware and a couple of River Cafe cookbooks (I love those gals). Las Vegas is pretty unique (love it or hate it). I am not sure it is a good case study for broader arguments. By the way --have you ever eaten at the "Haute Cusine" pavillion at Epcott!?

I think that comparative studies are immensely interesting. So do many others--those comparative literature courses are pretty popular. If there were no standards for judging things--then we would have critical anarchy. Every painting would be "equivalent" to Picassos or every sculpture would be as worthy of admiration as a Rodin. (by the way all Rodins would be equal). To simplify things-- one should be able to distinguish between a glass of "spoiled" wine (vinegar) and a glass of healthy wine. There are probably some people who would actually enjoy the spoiled wine and may even prefer it which is fine. But to prefer the vinegar with no understanding and respect for the healthy wine would be to wallow in ignorance. There are scientifically measurable components of wine and palates can be trained to recognize these components. (See any enology school--UC Davis, WSET--MW program, the many French universities etc) Therefore one can judge and assess quality--this is what professional tasters do. There can be plenty of debate as to what one likes or dislikes and likes and dislikes can have absolutely nothing to do with quality. I may not "like" Picasso's works but I understand that Picasso is a great and talented painter. I may not "like" the wines of, say, the DRC; but I can recognize a high level of quality and the reasons so many hold these wines in high esteem. There isn't much to learn from a review that simply declares, "this wine sucks." A critic's opinion is important and one would hope that the critic would present that opinion with well supported observations. A critic also has an obligation to provide some objective context for the wine. Clarity, cleanliness on the nose and palate, style, tipicity etc etc. So a good review (tasting note and score or no score) should be illuminating and informative whether or not the reader agrees with the final assessment of the critic. In the end, the various iterations of the 1976 paris tasting are all illuminating in many areas of wine. Unfortunately many are misreading the conclusions. These tastings can and often do point up interesting comparatives both differences and similarities. There's a lot of fodder for interesting discussion and debate, to spend time on scores and scoring wines is to miss the point (actually many points).

Interesting piece of reportage. I am not sure what the complaint is here. The truth is most of us have no idea who is in the kitchen preparing our food. Mr Bourdain disabused us of many of our pre conceived notions about dining --fine and otherwise (see "Kitchen Confidential"). Today "local" ingredients are universal-given the speed of shipping. I believe that most chefs are entrepreneurial by nature. If it was ever true that chefs basically owned and operated one restaurant and had a hand in preparing every dish every night for every diner--then this would have been a somewhat tedious life after many years. (maybe given the opportunity many would have expanded their horizons). In the past the notion of the chef as "cook" was probably truer than it is today. If one believes that some chefs are highly creative individuals who conceptualize food and dining then what is wrong with their exploring food in different venues? This is less about money than it is about opportunity--the opportunity simply exists for these people today. I also believe that today's explosion in interest in fine dining has presented an opportunity for chefs and restaurateurs to stretch their wings and explore opportunities. So Mario Batali can explore many facets of Italian cooking, Jean Georges can try his hand at ethnic cuisines that have fascinated him in different venues. A miniscule number of diners can eat at the french Laundry so what is negative about the opportunity to taste keller's food at Per Se? Very few people can experience Robuchon's cooking in his original restaurant--so what is wrong with presenting diners who can't fly to Paris with an opportunity to taste his food. true the experience is not the same/identical --nor should it be--but more possibilities for more diners is a good thing. The proof will always be in the pudding--can these chefs control expanding universes so the experience and the food are of a high quality for the diner? Again--who knows who is in the kitchen?--and who should really care?--the proof is always on the plate!

wow, this thread is chock full of heated debate. i didnt mean much by my above post other than California Cabs can age quite well enough to put up a fight with top Bordeaux producers. im not here to fight for who i think is the king of the hill, there's no point in that, we should all drink what we can and be happy wether in Petrus or Puppy kibble. ← There are quite a few people who have long held that in general terms, Bordeaux age better than California cabernets. There is IMOP no "mythos." No one I know of will say this is a hard and fast rule--just a generalization. It is based upon a widely held belief that Bordeaux from fine vintages require many years to "open up" and reveal their potential while California wines are made in a "riper" and easier to drink when young style--revealing their potential at a much earlier age. I would argue that terroir plays a role here. Bordeaux does develop secondary and tertiary aromas and flavors after some age and California Cabernets tend to be fruitier and riper in their youth. Of course these are generalizations. One would expect some differerences in aging and development given the differing terroirs. (weather mostly). Also there seems to be some confusion about scoring wine and point systems. Wine can be critically evaluated--it is not totally a subjective endeavor. Every system has objective and subjective components and tasters can be (and are) trained in assessment of a wine's quality. Tasters do not sample a wine and pronounce it to be good, bad, or great based upon a simplistic subjective response--"gee this tastes good--think I'll give it ninety points." Yes, for those who believe that wine is "art in a bottle"--well even art can be evaluated--there is a reason certain paintings for eg--are revered and others are not, same with music etc. I would recommend "Art and Visual Perception" by Rudolf Arnheim. Yes in the end subjectivity plays a big role but the best art critics (and wine tasters) are highly trained and knowledgeable people who apply rigorous and generally accepted standards to their endeavors. Certainly fashion and popular taste are always a part. Scores are nothing more (or less) than a critic's summary evaluation of the wine in question. One can quibble with the particular system--each has its own set of faults and benefits. What one does with the ratings is important. Scores (or notes) can be used to compare wines (as with art or anything else) comparisons are more valid and make more sense if they are done for similar wines (or paintings etc). Picasso's are compared to other paintings of similar styles etc (so too Bordeaux can be compared to Cabernets from anywhere though one would be better served if the cabernets were from vintages of equal quality or similar climates for eg). That is the more variables the less valid the copmparison--if quality is the motivating factor behind the comparison. One should always establish what the comparison in question is intended to accomplish. More often than not good comparisons can offer a lot of learning about the subjects and their place in the scheme of things. let's not forget there are serious courses of study at most esteemed universities in the world titled "Comparative Literature." The whole notion of Bordeaux is based upon comparison--first growth, second growth etc. The 1976 event and subsequent events are not in and of themselves horse races. One can turn these into a series of athletic competitions--if done for fun fine. But one would be missing out on many more interesting and more subtle pieces of knowledge that can be gained from them. Often these comparisons are helpful in pointing up differences and stimulating debate and discussion about all the variables in terms of their production and styles etc. Yes, the Red Sox are world champs --that's what the score says--but there is a lot to be learned (and a lot of fun) if one looks beyond the final outcome into the reasons why--how this came to be for eg. This invites one to look at and enjoy the nuances of the game of baseball and how teams are constructed--the role of fate and so on all leading to a greater appreciation for the game itself. Finally, I would point out that these blind tastings often help to show how complex wine is and how difficult it is to taste and evaluate. Here's an example A basic concept like "terroir" is revealed to be elusive--how many of these tasters mistake the origins of wines made thousands of miles apart? Are these disparate wines more similar than different? This is just one of many topics for discussion and debate that have arisen from these tastings --if we can look past the basic "competition" aspect.. Interesting food for thought.

This is painful to recount but..... Long ago I bravely went alone to what was to be my first experience in a Mexican restaurant here in New York. The waiter came over and placed a bowl on the table--I had read about gazpacho and was anxious to try it so I was grateful for the complimentary bowl in front of me. I proceeded to eat spoonful after spoonful (it was spicy and good). i suspected something awry when the waiter returned with a quizzical look on his face and asked if I would like some more salsa. yeeeesh!

"It appears that the perfect design....has many variants." You have touched upon the great "flaw" in the whole Riedel schtick! I have several "variants" of Riedel glassware--they are fine glasses. However the silliness over specific shapes for specific wines is taken to extremes by these folks in order to sell more glasses. My favorite champagne glasses are some flutes from Tiffany (the Riedels are fine as well). I also have some Waterford glasses and a few other brands--they all seem to do a good job of preserving bubbles and getting the champagne from the bottle to my mouth. I am waiting for Riedel to announce development of the "perfect" glass for Rose Champagne! Also--I am certain I am not getting the most from prosecco and other sparklers--hurry up Riedel! (by the way--I am looking for some warehouse space to store my Riedel glassware--just the other nite I mistakenly served some Rioja in Bordeaux glasses--ruining an otherwise perfect evening). Cheers!

This topic is more complex than it first appears. I would say that "ethnicity" has nothing to do with this. there are too many (some offered by posters here) examples of "clean" markets run by people who are recent immigrants (and not so recent) of all ethnicities. There are clean and modern small markets and large chains and there are dirty and dingy markets of all sizes. I would say that the neighborhood and clientele of each establishment has a lot to do with the level of cleanliness. Poorer neighborhoods often have more "dingy" markets--large and small--compared to wealthy neighborhoods. But even this is hard to apply across the board. Competition is a factor--some neighborhoods where there is no competition often have businesses that tend to be lax when it comes to overhead--why bother? There can be wealthy or poor. I would offer some evidence by noting a situation in a very wealthy upscale neighborhood in Westchester. For years there was a small grocery--several miles from any competition. The place was fairly dingy (I often shied away from their prepared salads that sometimes looked like they were a bit "old" for example. The place was quite successful. It was eventually bought by some people I know who told me the back kitchen was absolutely filthy. there is another market I am familiar with in Connecticut--very wealthy small town. Often cheeses were out of date as well as sausages, milk etc. Yet this was a successful operation. It was recently sold as well. Clearly though it appeared clean and modern --there were problems that went well beyond appearances. This is a caveat in this argument--often markets that appear dingy are really not and some that appear clean and modern are not. The point being--I do not think this has much to do with ethnicity. I do not think it has to do with large or small. I believe it has more to do with what people are willing to accept as consumers. The proximity of competition. The diligence and commitment of the ownership. All these factors (and probably some others I missed) contribute to the overall operation of a market. The ethnic market on the corner where I live is very clean and modern while a market run by people of the same ethnicity two blocks away is pretty dingy. I just do not see this as being about ethnicity. Or even rich or poor. (though this can be a factor among many). There are too many conflicting examples.

Katie The sangria is just plain superb! (I gotta get a copy of Bon Appetit!) The service was excellent--the person who handled our wine did a wonderful job. --we had three bottles of white and six reds (no we didn't finish them all) including the 1994 Pesquera Janus Reserve (wow). Our friend from Germany brought a wonderful riesling from his latest bottled vintage. (we were all enchanted by your sangria!) I did not know that all the wines are available by the glass--a good idea! A special reserve list would be very good as well. I also did not realize you are involved with the operations --you and the staff deserve a lot of credit for a very nice operation. Interestingly, I wonder what the reaction would be if the place removed the word tapas from the menu and offered the same food in a series of "tasting" menus and the decor was more dramatic and the service more solemn??? My point being --the fact that Amada is presenting itself as a "Tapas bar and restaurant" with a fun and lively atmosphere and service to match would cause some to overlook the fact that the food/cooking here is on a level with some of the finest restaurants anywhere--my group had a discussion about places like Per Se and Le Bernardin as well as some very fine three star restaurants in Europe sparked by the food we were eating at Amada. Another point is the food is not overly creative or gimmicky nor does the chef employ a lot of foams and "food science"--just first rate ingredients and talent. Amazingly, there was not a mis step the entire evening and everything worked. I would also be curious to see if Amada can maintain such a high level over time--the line cooks here must be incredible and there is obviously very strong supervision in the kitchen as well as the front of the room. Next visit I will make sure I stop by and say hello!!!

At some point you should try red wines with cheeses and see for yourself--as I noted there are a lot of proponents of red wines and cheeses as a pairing. Fonseca--yes that is a good idea!!! I am also not one for decanting--for mature wines I just stand em up for several hours and pour carefully--the sediment should stay in the bottom of the bottle. The Lynch is drinking beautifully right now. Sounds like you are set for a great dinner!!!

The 82 Lynch is a wonderful wine--you may also get lucky with the Domaine de Chevalier. food sounds fine--- steak and duck. A simple sauce would be ok for the duck--sweet is ok just not too sweet--maybe a red wine reduction with a touch of thyme would work best. Most anything with mushrooms would be good too. I love root veggies with red wines--good choice! As for cheese? Controversial. I personally (as well as many others) would not serve cheeses with red wine--especially mature Bordeaux. The fats in cheese dull the palate to the wine. If you must--go with a dry cheese like a nice parmesan. I would have the wines with the main courses and then have some port with cheese after dinner.

Where to go next? I would drive into Newark. park at the Train Station, take AMTRAK to Philadelphia and go to AMADA! Seriously, I know this thread is about NJ (isn't Philly a suburb of Camden?) and there is a thread about Amada here at eGullet but I had a meal there last Friday and can't help kvelling! I love Spanish food (my all time favorite--though I haven't been in a while--is Tio Pepe in Baltimore) and have been very disappointed in what we have here in the tri state area including most of the places in the Newark area--I like Meigas in Norwalk CT and both Solera's are ok also La Camelia in Mt Kisco in addition to a couple mentioned in this thread. After Friday though--I will have a really hard time in any place but Amada. WOW!

Last Friday I and three companions met at Amada for what was a very memorable meal. First some background. Our group consisted of a noted German Wine Maker, Vineyard owner (top flight Rieslings), an Attorney, enophile/gourmand and accomplished amateur chef from New Jersey, a well respected figure in the wine business here in New York, and me. I offer this because it was the consensus of the group that Amada is a world class restaurant. we ate a dozen or so appetizers and tapas as well as a few main dishes topped off by a suckling pig that was absolutely magnificent. This pig was loaded with pork flavor juicy and accompanied by perfectly crisped skin. It was simply the best any of us had ever had. There wasn't a single misstep all night. From the Sangria--crisp, refreshing and flavorful to the deserts, everything was just perfect! Many of the dishes we had are described in posts in this thread. One special was soft shell crabs--outside crispy (they were breaded) and dry inside an explosion of flavor and juices. Octopus was very fine--on a par of the octopus I have had at Le Bernardin. Cod was incredible the texture was satiny--the fish was cooked through--and buttery it was ethereal. Squid in ink with a crab risotto was sublime. And on and on and..... The chef is focused. he has a very sound grasp of the Spanish idiom. His textures are dead on, sauces are sublime and in harmony with and in service of each main ingredient. Ingredients are top quality. Presentations are well conceived without being overly fussy or distracting. Flavors are precise and sharply delineated. This is simply top notch cooking and execution. A few thoughts. The wine list is good--there are some interesting selections that would do well with the food. However, this restaurant deserves a reserve list. it may have one but as we brought our own wines we did not spend much time on wine lists. There should be a better more varied selection of sherries and brandies etc. as well as some older wines. --I know this is PA and truth be told, the list here is pretty good as is. The atmosphere--nice, fun, pleasant conducive to a good time. I believe because it (the decor) is not "serious" or overly dramatic--as in the temples of serious food--combined with the fact that the food is not "cutting edge" (there is little evidence of the current vogue of chemistry class cooking) people may tend to give Amada a short shrift or less than it is really due. I would say that the consensus of our group is --Amada is probably the best Spanish restaurant on the East Coast (there is nothing close in New York) and may well be one of the finest restaurants in America. Again, this is after one meal (as extensive as it was)--we are definitely going back (many times--I suspect). The ride to and from Manhattan on AMTRAK is brief (and hour and a half) and pleasant. Throw in a brief stop at Holt's (for cigars) an after dinner walk around old town Philadelphia --and you have a really wonderful experience!

I had this wine several times from about 1986 to 1998 or so. It is very inconsistent. ranging from poor to good. Hopefully you have one of the better bottles. I would simply stand the bottle upright for a few hours before serving. The sediment will fall to the bottom of the bottle and a little care in pouring will prevent any problems. There is no need to decant. (there is certainly no problem if you choose to decant it either) Also I would say there is no possibility of the wine "breaking down." Twenty four years for a well stored Bordeaux is not an undue amount of age. If the wine is a poor example--decanting will have little or no impact on the wine one way or the other.

We almost went last year! Cinco occupies a spot that was once a nice French place (I believe) it does look pretty good. Tapas are featured. We may go this year.

Some good recommendations in this thread. Pork is either a low and slow meat of high and fast. It should be served slightly pink. Also meat when removed from the heat is still cooking for a few minutes. You need to remove your pork from the heat when it is slightly underdone. This is where a lot of pork (and especially fish) end up over cooked. Also thick cut pork chops need to rest (same as for steak) so the juices redistribute. Sear them on each side then use indirect heat to finish them. Pork tenderloins are one of the best and easiest to prepare -especially on a grill. If you pull em off the heat at the right time they are almost foolproof and are incredibly juicy. Chris Schlessinger's "Thrill of the Grill" has some great pork recipes and advice.

Actually your post was what I was hoping for when I said hopefully that "someone else will probably chime in with a better handle..." I guess I was refering to "Southwest Cuisine." vs New Mexican or a "native" cuisine. I would say that the bowl of Green Chile "stew" with pork that I had at a small non descript place in Santa Fe (I forget the name of the place--but I remember the food vividly) was probably closer to "authentic" New Mexican cuisine than anything I ate at the upscale spots in Santa Fe. The discussion of what chef's do in terms of intrepretation of local cuisines is an interesting one. I think). At some point a chef can move far enough from what would be considered a traditional cuisine into what some would label fusion or even something as close to unique as one could get. I think we are moving into an area that warrants its own thread though. I would say that your post made me realize that I left out what was one of the more satisfying food experiences during my trip--that bowl of green chile. I was clearly something not found easily outside of NM--possibly one of the more authentic Mexican places here in New York--I am not sure. It has made me mre anxious to try to find that experience though. thanks!

My wife and I also have just returned from Santa Fe. The city itself is interesting being almost entirely focused on tourism. At times treading a fine line between a sort of "Disneyworld of the Southwest" and an upscale shoppers paradise with an emphasis on art of all sorts. There is a charm to it all though--I was also reminded of places like Marin County in California and towns like Sonoma (replace the wine with art). Most of the "natives" were folks from somewhere else and were extremely friendly. As for the food-- The median level for quality is quite high. Our only regret is we "missed" the Compound." IMOP "Southwest" cuisine involves a sort of fusion --Mexican, Tex-Mex, California (a touch of Pacific Rim, American (meatloaf/burgers, game etc). I'm sure someone else here will have a better handle on this. I also believe that the best expression of Southwest cuisine was found at a long defunct New York restaurant--"Arizona 206" Anyway--The dining highlight was Geronimo. We had a dinner and a wonderful leisurely lunch on the front porch (highly recommended). The service was top notch (a slight quirk here is that any of the very professional servers can assist/serve any table at any time. If you need something the nearest server will provide it). The wine list was a bit pricey though not out of line with restaurants of this level in any major city. Wines by the glass seem to be priced high but the pours are very generous--in fact you get a small carafe of wine that equals two glasses. The wine service is very professional. (in the end a good deal). The food was inventive and well executed (my only negative comment is some dishes would have benefited from one less ingredient. The "Southwest" influence was present-more in some dishes less in others. The Mexican white prawns was probably the most "Southwestern cuisine" item on the menu--it is wonderful. The peppered Elk also very good. The salads are inventive and excellent. The seafood also very good. My wife had a marvelous seafood salad at lunch. the cooking here is very inventive striking a nice balance between creativity and whimsy and staying true to basic flavors and showcasing high quality ingredients. as for Coyote cafe We had dinner and also a lunch at the cantina. If one could eat in only two places (one lunch and one dinner in each) in Santa Fe--I would recommend Geronimo and the Coyote cafe/cantina. They represent two distinct ends of the spectrum. There were other fine restaurants (Santa Cafe was nice) but all were variations on the theme. The cantina at Coyote cafe is fun the drinks are well executed and the food is good. (if you are having lunch don't plan an elaborate dinner--this food is very rich and filling!). Mark Miller pretty much "summarizes" the whole Southwestern cuisine here. The main restaurant the Coyote cafe is good--the food is not as inventive as that at Geronimo but is satisfying--it can be a bit "heavy". service is professional and the ambience is nice--have chips and salsa and a drink at the cafe before dinner here for a nice evening. We loved the Galleries (Geronimo and the Compound) are both on Canyon Road where some of the best are located so a walk before dinner or after lunch is in order. (most galeries and retail shops close at five pm in this town). All in all a very nice relaxing visit with some very good food! I would definitely go back.

My wife and I have been going to Nantucket every year for twenty years now. Some places highly recommended: Blackeyed Susans in town for breakfast (also Arno's). Lunch-- The patio of the Wauwinnet (Toppers)--this place is very good for dinner but is extremely expensive. Have lunch (multiple courses of small plates) on the patio! Spectacular. By the way--the wine list here is superb-best by far on the Island. also The Galley at Cliffside Beach good for dinner but realy special for lunch--right on the beach. Dinner: Sfoglia is a wonderful place for rustic Italian food inexpensive--great bread, pastas,the chicken is superb and wonderful deserts--also inexpensive wines. There is some really first rate cooking here and the cost is very moderate. ps-they just opened a Sfoglia in New York City. 21 Federal is very good also--nice atmosphere very good food. Straight Wharf is still great for seafood. The Boarding House is fine. also Brandt Point Grill (lunch here or early dinner is nice because of the atmosphere). The Pearl--you will either love it or.... I liked it my wife did not.--this is the closest Nantucket has to a scene--more Manhattan or Hamptons (LI) than Nantucket IMOP. Very Expensive. The food can be excellent though. Fifty Six Union Street is very good for dinner. Nice atmosphere and the food is fine. Also the Sconset Cafe. Oran M'or is quite good inventive cuisine it can be expensive. Definitely worth a try. Unfortunately, one of my all time favorite restaurants--anywhere--Chanticleer has closed. let us know how your stay goes!!!

Great article! Oddly enough yesterday before I saw the Times piece I was at Balducci's in Westchester and bought some Felino and some Hungarian slicing salami. Both superb! I would love to learn more--does someone have a good book on cured meats to recommend. As for the complaints over regulation. it isn't just America--the EU is looking to regulate for all its members. It also isn't necc a bad thing. Protecting a food supply is a good thing. Doing it judiciously is another. The press and the food world can do a much better job ensuring that people are better informed resulting in rules and regulations that make sense. Instead of complaining we should be spreading the word and using our votes more wisely.

Believe me--it won't be long! This is precisely the wrong reply to what the animal rights people are inflicting on our society. If one reads the responses to this legislative proposal in the Inquirer article one will see a terrific argument in support of the ban not against it. From the chef Mr Lee "people... should be able to get what they want." to the producer of fois gras Mr Assouline (I won't go for the cheap name related joke) who notes that "farming animals isn't pretty." With responses like these--who wouldn't support the ban!? Those who say the ban supporters should "look" at other areas of production--factory produced chickens and port etc will one day have their wish granted --not only will fois gras be banned but all meat and animal related products. --extreme? Well that is the goal of the animal rights folks. This is a war and the first few battles have been decided in their favor. This is about one key issue--animal rights. Animals have no rights! People have rights. Granting specific rights almost always involves taking away or restricting other rights. There is a price. The only effective response to these bans is to present a sound rational scientifically based argument that Ducks and Geese do not suffer needlessly in the production of fois gras. That they are not "tortured." The other side is presenting a purely emotion based argument. Emotion will win out unless countered with reason.

I totally don't get the green bell pepper thing in California wines -- to me this is poor craftsmanship on the part of the winemaker, often showing the grapes having been picked too early. I find it most often in wines from the Stags Leap district and is close to where Crocker & Starr's vineyards are (Yountville). My latest favorite CabFrancs are coming from William Harrison and Ehlers Estate Winery, having acquired a case of Cab Franc from each of these producers. ← The "green bell pepper thing" is often a result of under ripe grapes (as you note) this is most often due to vintage problems/weather (in the Loire) and wine making problems or vineyard location is warmer climates like California. I have tasted this problem in California merlot planted in poor sites--overly herbal, vegetal notes and a weedy thin quality. I have not "seen" it much lately in California Cab F's. It seems to rear its head more often in LI wines as well as Loire cab francs--again climate. When the vintage complies the loire and LI can produce some exciting wines. I like any number of California Cab Francs but often they suffer the problem of too hot climate. Regardless of where the wine is made or the grapes grown really fine wines are a result of a delicate balance of nature and the hand of man (or woman).

You are right IMOP. But just reading a book (or two) is simply not enough. There is a great deal of misunderstanding of the role of writers and critics. Bordeaux is a perfect example. Prices are very high for these wines. Critics and writers provide a lot of excellent guidance especially given the fact that they are able to taste a wide range of these wines each vintage. They are also able to provide a lot of historical context having tasted many vintages of each of these wines. It is simply impossible for most buyers (that includes retailers who will sell these wines) to taste all these wines before purchase--especially if one is going to play the futures game. These reviewers are one valuable source of information--there are quite a lot of them (seems like everyone has a newsletter these days). Some are better than others. We forget that Bordeaux purchases were once heavily influenced by the trade--cellars were stocked with wines that were "recommended" by merchants/importers/exporters. I would argue that back then people followed "advice" even more strictly than today. And--there were certainly few, if any, independent voices. It will be fun to see how the '05's do once they reach the shelves and how prices hold up or are impacted by subsequent vintages. also a very steeply priced vintage can be (you may have noted this) a positive influence on earlier vintages' pricewise.

It would be interesting if someone looked at each "major" vintage in Bordeaux and compared the comments of the wine makers and the critics after the barrel tastings. (it would also be interesting to make these comparisons for the poorer vintages). The Independent piece was well written. I enjoyed the comments about vintages of the past.

Hi Max! I am not sure what you are having difficulty with? I suppose if one can't address the contents then one can criticize the style.

I don't disagree. However, there needs to be a critical distinction here. USA Today and the NY Times are mainstream publications. They have conventional websites. The internet is a medium. Many people do care what the established writers and editors have to say. These blogs are merely an extension of these powerful publications presence on the internet. There are some winery websites that contain blogs--an additional means of engaging the visitors to the websites. The vast majority of wine blogs are written by people who are regurgitating the conventional wisdom and/or people who believe they have something important to say (don't we all). The number of people who visit these blogs is miniscule. True, a precious few will rise to the top. Finally, there are a handfulof blogs by industry insiders. Some are very interesting offering professional perspectives and information. The number of people who will visit these blogs is tiny--let's not overinflate their importance--IMOP most of the folks who read them are other insiders. The number of people who are self published and actually make a nickel is miniscule. Let's at least apply some perspective here.