JohnL

The cream will usually rise to the top! Desktop published works you site became "popular" because the writers executed them and then sent out direct mail with samples--one then paid money to receive them. If no one (or too few people) subscribed their publication would have ceased. With the internet--there is no "winnowing" process. Anyone can write anything for their entire lifespan even it no one else ever reads them. It is as if suddenly everyone who writes a diary had their efforts available in a library--thousands--millions of diaries. It is as if you are on a train and everyone is yammering into a cell phone talking to family,neighbors and friends-- making plans or even withoput cell phones--just talking about things that are on their minds into the air! It is like a discotheque or a club--everone likes to complain about the doorman and the velvet rope--how the process is facist and un democratic--only the beautiful people are let in--how snobbish! Soon as the club agrees and removes their door policy and anyone can get in--these complainers suddenly lose their desire to enter. I know--I don't have to listen. What I am saying is--few people are interesting or entertaining --let's be honest! Those that are and have any motivation will have some success--they are willing to take a risk to express themselves--with these blogs there is no risk. Most are everyday people just talking into space! As for my comments aboput grousing and sniping--many of these folks use pseudonyms like "Zinfidel" and talk about anarchy--they are angry--they complain about the establishment. this is not bad--Robert Parker was angry and complained--there's some irony here--however, he put his mouth where his money was--he succeeded for many reasons. Let all the bloggers charge money (some do) for their ramblings--let's see how many survive! I think that the net should be free but I also put a premium on anyone who takes a risk anyone who puts their talent out there in an arena where there is some winnowing out process where the strong--talented survive! it is the difference between having to listen to Uncle Fred (everyone in the family thinks he's so funny) and a professional comedian. Fred may be funnier than many pros but I respect the pros more.

I think we are getting somewhere here. First a blog is defined as a web log or diary. I believe one problem is that many are deviating from this and are offering up what are essentially web pages with all sorts of verbiage--rants, diatribes, musings, ramblings, reader comments, commentary, Q and A etc etc etc. Second--let me start with the mandatory first amendment disclaimer--I do believe that one has the "right" to say anything on the web on one's own web page. Third-- You use the term anarchy. I would ask why you feel we need "anarchy" and how this could possibly be a good thing? You cite Robert Parker and the Wine Spectator--ok these are two relatively popular "main stream" establishments. I am curious why you leave out any of the hundreds of other established folks. Tanzer, Jancis Robinson, Quarterly Wine Review, Burghound, Wine Enthusiast, Kolm, Hugh Johnson, Andrea Immer, the many wine columns--the NY Times, GQ, Food and Wine, Gourmet, Lettie Teague, WSJ, Jay McInerny in HG and on and on and......... So why are Parker and WS are singled out as motivating reasons for bloggers to exists? also--you cite their "influence"--I would point out that the total subscription list for Parker and the circ of the Wine Spectator even combined (and I am sure there is a lot of overlap here) would merely scratch the surface. I believe you greatly overinflate their influence. Anyway--just who are these people influencing? and how are they influencing them? Why do we (or anyone) need bloggers to supply an-- "antidote?" This accepting that the hundreds of other voices in the wine world (I cited a handful above) are present in all sorts of media from TV and radio to newspapers, newsletters, web sites, books, periodicals, journals, diaries,--all writing about wine! I believe Mr Rogov asked--what issues are uncovered by these outlets? Let's look at one of the sites you cite--"Zinfidel" There's a link (thank you) to a page wherein the Zinfidel explores: "Minerality: Mythos and real;ity." I challenge anyone to navigate the gibberish that follows! Even if one could--the conclusion reached is so inane as to leave one breathless with astonishment. I am sure the Zinfidel is a nice guy and he or she may even be reasonably about wine but really! So-even if one accepts the thinking about minerality and the conclusion--I would still ask: is there anything here that is new--that is not covered with more accuracy and clearer writing in say thousand other places? (say the Oxford Encyclopedia for eg). So why do we need the "Zinfidel?" why would one be the better for having spent even a few p[resious minutes perusing the Zinfidel's musings? As I noted earlier in this thread-there are some good blogs out there. Most IMOP are written by industry insiders-people whose opinions carry some weight. Some are not very good writers some are quite engaging. I would note a good example is Joe Dressner's web musings. There are also some good sites that offer links to other sites and information on the web--performing a clearing house of information and thought. The vast majority of sites are just plain awful! Loaded with confusing prose, muddled thinking, and just plain rubbish. They are akin to family vacation photos accompanied by rambling narrative--only a friend or family member would care. They are loaded with opinions offered up by people who are not even minimally educated in the topics about which they ruminate--no--pontificate. I am also fearful of the overall level of discourse that these blogs encourage. The lack of any rigorous thinking. I offer this response from a reader to the Zinfidel's tome on minerality in wine: "....I have little doubt that most of what I say below will prove incorrect at least for the reason stated. but hey, that is part of the fun in armchair speculation. all I need is a computer, a web browser and an internet connection to put my two cents in." The Horror!!!! By the way--I am rescinding my disclaimer about protecting one's first amendment rights--it may be time for a repeal!!!!

I love the quote--thanks! This is why I posted a definition--the term "blog" is now becoming confused and confusing. The problem with a lot of these on line "diaries" is there is no "weeding out" process. I do believe this is a good thing but it does lead to a massive amount of writing that is at worst gobbledygook and at best mundane and of little value. Much like looking at peoples photos of their vacations or those insufferable Christmas cards loaded with a recounting of the family's year in retrospect.--lest you are a friend or family there is little or nothing of interest. Lest those vacation photos were taken by Ansel Adams or that Christmas card was sent by Tennessee Williams! That is why 99.999% of the blogs --wine or otherwise are crap. This still leaves a not inconsiderable number of blogs that are interesting--many written by industry insiders who do have interesting things to say and a precious few by citizens who do have some ability to turn a phrase. So while I am suppportive of the medium I am also being realistic.

As for the sniping--well you must have been missing the many petty feuds ongoing! (I noticed a shot or two taken at the venerable Mr Shanken's effort right here). As Daniel noted--most blogs are read by relatively minute numbers of people. That's not to say there are not a lot of total people who read blogs just that there are few readers of any given blog. (again compared to major well known websites and other publications --like the WS for eg.) I agree that wine blogs are probably read more by people in the industry (while on line) than by the general public. As more and more people access the internet then these people become possible blog readers. The press has been (newspapers) have been losing readership as more people are on line--hence USA Today and others flocking to the web. As for me--I subscribe to a dozen or so publications and visit a site or two regularly. I just don';t have the time to regularly visit blogs. I have not found many I would allocate time for.

I don't believe that bloggers deserve success just by virtue of being bloggers, but nor do I believe that "blogger" should automatically qualify one for scorn and derision. Some bloggers offer solid authority and good writing. Others don't. I don't like every wine magazine I've ever seen, and I don't like every blog I've ever seen. But I don't discount an information source just because it's a blog. (I should note here that my own blog exists solely as a way for me to practice writing; the fact that lots of people like to read it is a constant surprise to me. As Carolyn says, I much prefer getting paid for my writing, but I can write about lots of small topics I'll never get paid for, so I might as well use them as writing exercises.) As for internal grousing and the laments of the poor, ignored blogger...such are the complaints of artists everywhere throughout time. Bloggers merely perpretrate the tradition. ← I really don't think there is a debate here. The internet provides anyone with a computer (or access to one) an opportunity to reach others. We need to make some distinctions here. Blogs are written by people of widely varying degrees of reputation and public recognition. From unknown to known in industry circles to more widely known. Most of the best blogs IMOP are those that reflect the thoughts and opinions of industry insiders. Most of these blogs will be viewed/read by a very few people in the business or passionate about wine. They will always have limited appeal. Then there are blogs by well known critics and writers. many of these are extensions of already active web sites. Often these offer an opportunity for a critic to expound on some issue or another or to perhaps add another dimension to his or her domain. that is to say a wine critic adding a journal of his or her dining adventures for example. There are blogs that have a PR element to them--for eg blogs by wine makers, winery reps or retail people. Finally there are blogs by what I call (and not derogatorily) wannabees. These are people who either just like expressing themselves in public or have ambitions to be well known (respected) critics and writers. This second group is at best a very mixed bag. A lot of these folks post tasting notes and/or talk about their daily lives. Sorry but most of these people are just not that interesting to anyone outside their circle of friends and acquaintances. Some are fine writers some are quite knowledgeable. few possess the combination of talents and knowledge to have much broader appeal. The fact is, the world is full of critics and tasting notes and opinions. There is room for only so many in even the most rabid wine lovers lives. That's all I am saying. everyone has opinions. Few have the background and knowledge to add gravitas to these opinions and few of these opinions are very original--most are recycled thinking. as for tasting notes--my gosh--are there already enough notes out there?! I am also seeing a lot of sloppy notes--wine tasting and evaluation is a discipline that requires more than just a set of taste buds and a passion for wine. My only pet peeve here is that it seems the entire wine industry is rife with self importance and petty griping and sniping. The vast majority of people who buy and drink wine just don't care. They want a nice red or white that will complement their dinner. If they see a wine that sounds good in their local paper's wine column they may look for it at the corner wine shop. Maybe they read McInerny in HG or John and Dorothy in WSJ as they peruse the pages of these publications (I doubt many buy these for the wine writing alone). They may be open to learning a little bit about a wine type or a varietal or region or a nice story behind a wine's provenance. So blog away! Just be realistic about the market and respectful of those who have "made a name" for themselves. I am all for free expression. Just don't expect a free dride! Cheers!

A good idea would be to define blog: A journal or newsletter that is frequently updated and intended for general public consumption. Blogs usually represent the personality of the author or website. At least that's one definition. Forgive me but I do find the grousing among bloggers one often encounters to be amusing. Much like what one hears when a bunch of amateur musicians gets together and complain about other more "successful" musicians: "Gee that guitarist (insert any successful player) really sucks--I am so much better! How come he/she is getting paid. Why probably because the public is ignorant and don't appreciate real genius talent like me!" "How come everyone follows the (ok let's say--The Wine Spectator) and not me or not so and so...." The answer probably lies in looking at the specifics for each case. You noted the duo at the Journal. Their success is due to a nice writing style (entertainment factor) and a level of professional authority -- having established a certain level of credibility with their readers. Obviously the editors at the Journal had any number of possible talent available--John and Dorothy were already writing for the Journal --so they had an inside track. That's not to say that any number of others could not do a good job at the Journal--and maybe some are bloggers. It is that getting an opportunity comes to those who position themselves for that opportunity and then make the most of it--sure some luck and some connections are involved. I would ask--bluntly--I admit. Why should one bother reading or viewing anything? What does a blogger offer in terms of information and/or entertainment. IMOP-most blogs seem to lack one or more: --gravitas --writing ability/entertainment factor --a level of credibility --interesting well informed opinion etc The fact is most people do not need to go beyond one or two resources. There are any number of easily accessible outlets for wine tasting notes and info or general news and opinion etc. Most well informed and well written. I hear a lot of grumbling about these outlets --a lot of grumbling that is either ill informed or so non specific as to be nothing more than "grumbling." (a lot of these outlets also do their own fair share of grumbling about each other). The vast majority of people who enjoy wine don't actively subscribe to any publication (or web page). Those who do utilize maybe one or two resources. The Spectator for eg reviews thousands of wines, provides most major news about wine and has several writers who present their informed opinions on the major issues of the day. They also cover areas most of their readers also enjoy--food, travel etc. That's why The Spectator has a relatively large audience. Simple! If there were not enough outlets offering news and information and opinion and insight then I'm sure wine blogging and wine bloggers would have larger audiences. Right now most of the blogging about wine is for and by trade professionals and geeks and connoisseurs who can't get enough about wine. Most of these sites take sides with established opinion --one side or the other, offer tasting notes about wines that are reviewed elsewhere or are obscure and of interest to other geeks. I would say that some sites/blogs are welcome sources of information about wines and winemaking issues that are not covered by more mainstream outlets-- The fact is, how many bloggers are all that interesting--let alone well informed and entertaining? Yes there are a number of them who with some luck or a little energy and networking could become the next Dorothy and John. Yes there are some talented and very fine bloggers who will toil in relative obscurity--life isn't always fair. But it is a competitive world out there and there is simply not enough time or enough people with the time to be reading blogs.

You may be right. However--I believe it is even simpler than rich vs poor or a snob thing--it is about numbers. They are going after factory raised chicken--it is just that their tactics need to be different because so many people enjoy factory raised chicken--they are up against a large number of people who will not be easily turned against something they enjoy. Fois Gras is an "easier" target. Most people do not eat it and most people do not even know what it is. This allows the anti folks to "educate" people on their terms from their perspective. It is thus hard for anyone to "defend" it--people are already loath or at best too lazy to stand up for the rights of "others." So fois gras is a loser!

Exactly...I think Lonnie's point was that some Americans have a tendency to demonize the French for this very reason, turning a love and appreciation for things culinary into decadence and gluttony on par with the late Roman Empire. Ironic, really, considering we're the country with the weight problem. ← Not to mention the current (or at least recent) retarded anti-French sentiment on account of differences over invading Muslim countries. Don't you remember the Bordeaux boycott, Larry? ← I would love for anyone to provide some real evidence that the fois gras bans have anything whatsoever to do with perceived or real "anti French" sentiment. people "boycott" things for various reasons (a result of free societies). I have heard no one attribute or even associate the bans of fois gras in question here, with anything other than animal rights issues. One result of boycotts--is the reasons are clearly and loudly proclaimed--that's the point of a boycott in the first place isn't it? I sense a touch of American self loathing here! really--if we start bringing in red herrings to this discussion then the opposition viewpoint will be watered down. The fois gras bans in question here are not limited to imported product--it includes fois gras made by Americans from domestic bred ducks and geese served to Americans (or anyone regardless of citizenship)-- eating it on our soil.

sorry to do this to you, Rose, but shall we turn this question around and posit: Does anyone here (here being a blog-friendly habitat as is) not turn to blogs for wine blather? Disclaimer #1: With full credit and respect to Mr. Rogov, who makes an excellent point about signal-noise ratios on most blogs, wine or otherwise. Disclaimer #2: Question posed as someone who recently addressed a room full of food types and exhorted them all not to start blogging, for the exact signal-noise problems mentioned above. Disclaimer #3: Despite my tending to agree on the signal-noise issue, I am a perpetrator myself. [edited to add a needed space] ←

Rieslings are great with smoked meats in general. I love the pairing. However we are talking some serious bbq here and the flavors are just too big and spicey IMOP. There's a reason that beer is the beverage of choice for so many aficionados. Why fight it? I think that food like this will just overpower most every wine under the sun.

Funny but the writer of the article referenced doesn't provide many specifics. He rails a lot-- but what specific wines is he talking about? Also the piece does note that alcohol is a complicated subject that needs to be put into context--yet the piece goes on to make some unsupported claims for eg--"high alcohol wines don't age well..." What wines--Amarones?-- Australian Shiraz?-- Southern Rhones?--Priorat? --California--Napa or Sonoma? --which wines from which vintages? Also the comparisons are silly--California Cabernet is grown, for the most part, in an entirely different climate than Bordeaux! It is not just high alcohol or just ripeness--a balanced wine will not "show" its alcohol content. I also wonder if all these people who "long for the good old days" of California wines really "remember" these wines. Are they really saying that most california wines today are inferior? My recollection is that a large number of California wines from the sixties and seventies were often under ripe or lacked healthy fruit and were hugely tannic and many dried out--sure one can point to a handful of magnificent wines but there are literally hundreds more wines produced today with healthier fruit. Let's not even talk about the many poor vintages in Bordeaux in the sixties and seventies and the unclean brett laden wines and unripe even green tasting fruit-- Might it be possible that modern viticulture and viticulture is enabling riper fruit to be picked and better cleaner wines to be made? Riper tannins healthier fruit? Could this be the reason we have had so many more "good" vintages in the eighties and nineties? Really what exactly is the point of all this hullabaloo? Sure there are a lot of wines produced where the alcohol intrudes and leaves an unpleasant burn--these are not good wines.... But let's face it--California--Napa especially, is not Bordeaux, it is often quite hot, grapes ripen to degrees greater than many places in the world. So too are parts of Australia and Chile and Spain and..... Could this also be another possible factor--more wines from warmer climates available today? There's a good and interesting discussion possible here if we can get past the "fashionable agenda and conclusions" that seem to lie just under the surface.

Interesting! That fundamental difference you cite is not so different or fundamental. These bans are always propelled by the argument that a weaker group needs protection. Hence the constant citing of a need to "protect the children...." etc. PETA is cleverly asserting that animals are a weaker group--with rights--just like people. and we need to "protect them..." I have never heard reasonable adults claim that they need government protection from themselves in support of a ban. (prohibition came close with "demon alcohol.") It is always some weaker group that needs protecting. Also--addiction is oft cited--as the reason people just can't help themselves--"it's not my fault--the devil made me do it..."

Fois gras is created by force feeding the fowl. The debate is between those who say that the force feeding is not harmful to the birds and those who do. Those who say the feeding is not harmful--or painful cite the fact that the geese or ducks actually come running to the feeder--if there was discomfort or pain involved the geese would run away. I have seen no evidence to support the other side.

I would agree "sneaky" a big zin--even better beer. The problem is not the smoked meat--it is the sauce! (and the spice). They would overwhelm most wines. But if the meat is really good --then no sauce would be required and the wine options open up a bit.

I like that one Russ! Just yesterday someone in the wine business (aren't we all) remarked that the French made Bordeaux for the British and Burgundy for themselves. guess there's some truth in all these saws.

good point Chef. actually the prohibition (18th) ammendment was passed/ratified by two thirds of the state legislatures. this is the other way to enact or repeal a constitutional ammendment. anyway--the analogy is strained at best. though I would agree that special interest groups banded together to change public opinion on alcohol just as they have done with fois gras. politicians respond to public opinion most of the time--there's where the votes are. I would bet that the Chcago City Council individually had little interest in this until polls (suspect some driven by PETA et al) began to show this as a no brainer vote.

And, as usual, the government is right on target as to what our problem is. It's definitely foie gras that's making our children obese. Absolutely. I know I see kids everywhere chowing down on it like it's...soda. ← Ihear MacDonald's is thinkin of offering a "Big Quack" 1/4 pound of fattened duck liver on a sesame seed bun....or maybe in a "PETA" bread. seriously-- the real culprits are PETA and the other special interest groups. They have managed to sway public opinion in their favor on this one--easy enough because most folks don't eat fois gras (or even know what it is) so they really don't care. It can also be easily labelled a "rich man's treat." The cute gooseys and duckies win out here. The politicians are following public opinion. As I see it--the only way to win this is to make the argument that rights of people are being sacrificed and that yesterday it was tobacco --today fois gras--furs are next and then... eventually something "you" like to indulge in Also this "rights" idiocy has gone way too far. Everytime someone wants something they couch it as a "right." What we forget is that every right gained someone loses a "right." To take a responsibility to respect animals within reason to giving animals rights is a path to a place I do not want to live in. and don't think it will stop at animal rights either--there is actually some thinking (as insane as it is) that plants should have "rights" too. yeeeeesh

You touched upon some interesting points. first--the thing to note about the Bespaloff piece is that his was a well constructed test (I ma not sure whether or not it was blind). It should carry quite a bit of weight in any discussion. You are on to something with your anecdote about the gentleman who prefers his wine on the "old" side. A lot of the determination of when a wine is drunk depends upon one's preferences and also what one expects from a wine. we are also talking about wine styles and fashion. For example the British (at least the old guard writers) have long preferred wines that were drunk very old. This preference actually had an impact on how wines were vinified. particularly Bordeaux. (I am also of the mind that much of the angst among some writers today is sourced in the changing styles of Bordeaux to suit different palates). On the other hand the French have a general preference for drinking younger wines. Fear of tannins: I believe that often people are a bit mystified by wines and aging. There is a belief that the presence of tannins is not good--that wines young or old should be soft and "round." Also some folks confuse the "softening effect" one can achieve in a wine by leaving it out in the air for hours or days with aging a wine properly in a closed bottle until it has evolved. Wines left out in the air do not have the same flavors and secondary aromas etc that are achieved by bottle aging. They may be more approachable but that's it. Finally, I agree with your SO--when a wine loses its fruit--it also loses its vibrancy--it is a matter of taste though!

Now, I've had my (un)fair share of overcooked meat and two veg from my New England forebears, but I got a bit miffed at that statement (and to the word "cuisine" being in quotation marks). After all, while "New England cuisine" could be defined by the traditions established by the Yankee settlers, it could also be defined by the Italians in the North End of Boston, or the Portuguese or Quebecoise along the coast, or the Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Thai folks here in Providence -- or by Jasper White, Lydia Shire, Gordon Hammersley, Neath Pal, George Germon and Johanne Killeen.... Harumph. Having said that, I don't think that I really have a clear sense of what New England cuisine was or is. Seemed like an interesting question to toss your way. Thoughts? ← What's wrong with "plain?" I think Doc touched on some good points in this thread. "Cuisines are always evolving"--is one. New England has a abundance of really fine resources--milk and dairy products--cheeses for example. Blueberries and other fruits. Incredible seafood! (both freshwater and saltwater) great small (and some not so small) farms. Game. My theory is that a lot of more complex "cuisines" are the result of poor quality or not so fresh products--spices and sauces were often developed to mask poor quality meats or fish etc. I would say that New England cuisine is plain is a good way--simple, direct flavors that let the quality of the basic ingredients shine.

Whenever one is driven by one's ideology this is the result. Muddled thinking and strained analogies. In the end one actually nullifies any substantive points they are attempting to make. First--I suggest revisiting the history of prohibition--the subject is much more complex as to lead one to the simplistic conclusions reached here. Your comparisons regarding the moral and economic climates are pretty strained. Second--Attempting to assign some sort of political responsibility for the current fois gras ban is likewise--not well served by the facts either. Let me help you along: The Chicago City Council is dominated by Democrats who voted overwhelmingly for the legislative ban. The mayor is a Democrat. Fois gras was banned in California The bill was signed by a Republican Governor The bill was introduced by a Democrat state legislator and voted on by both democrats and Republicans. There is a movement in Washington State to ban fois gras led by Democrat politicians. I suggest that the current Zogby poll that indicates that 80% of Americans (and 79% of your fellow Illini---I am sure some of them are liberals) Favor a ban on fois gras--has a little something to do with these legislative efforts. I would also suggest that PETA and other animal rights groups (hardly bastions of conservative thinking) have mounted a highly motivated and well funded efforts. The story behind the polls. Given that most people have not eaten fois gras and given our love of cute farm animals ("mother" was a goose after all) fois gras is an easy target. (let's not forget ducks either). I am also gonna suggest something a lot of folks may have a hard time with. We all sat around when the government went after tobacco. (you mentioned this in your post). This prohibition stuff is a slippery slope. Now its fois gras. Alcohol and Fatty foods are targets. Let's face it--we are lazy--better the government steps in and solves all our problems. Fat kids? No willpower?--hey big brother will just take the offending foods away. This isn't about one political party or another it isn't about conservative or liberal it is about people and public opinion. When we bring in ideology-- good cohesive arguments fizzle out--what we need here is clear thinking and realistic assessments--there is a compelling argument for fois gras. It needs to be made.

Thanks woodburner. I want to go the charcoal route and was curious about how you effectively adjust the heat, Hasty Bake's option of an adjustable fire box does seem to give you the best of both worlds. ← I have been cookin with 'wood" for twenty years or so on various grills. I suggest you go to Barbeque's Galore. Barbeques Galore My current grill is a Bar B Chef (their house brand) Best I have ever used for the money! This is the rig that Alton Brown uses on his grilling episodes. These grills have an adjustable fire box (crank handle) like the Hasty Bake (a good model but IMOP expensive). Cast iron grates etc and a front loading door with easy access to the fire box so you can add fuel easily. Mine cost me about $500 and is very well made. also Barbeques Galore (a chain operation) is a great place-everything one needs for grilling and smoking--from a large selection of fuels to implements to grills gas and wood, charcoal grills and smokers , hot sauces, marinades, you name it they probably got it. Highly recommended.

The DRC is a budget buster on it's own but thank you for the TNs. Back to budget, Cheval is out as is Margaux (I'd go Petrus anyway) Probably looking at Ports, 47 Corton, 47 Vouvray Moelleux, 47 pauillac, 47 LaFleur is on the wish list, 47 Krug, 47 Alsatian Reisling but I'm clueless on older Burgs ← As I see it--1947 was a good burgundy vintage per most critics. However, being Burgundy you would be advised to stick to top producers and bottles that have been impeccably stored. Hard to find and very expensive. Your best bet may be to talk to someone at one of the major auction houses and get some advice. As for Bordeaux--your budget will afford "lesser" growths from 47--I would think that some decent bottles could be found for pretty fair prices at auction. Port--1947 was a good vintage but it was only declared by 11 shippers. Michael Broadbent notes in "Vintage Wine" that there is little of this wine available anywhere. All in all-with some help from a good merchant and/or auction house--you may be able to put together a few very interesting wines that would come in at your "modest" budget. This is a pretty daunting task! I would love for you to post a recap of how this comes out for you--most interesting!!!

Curious--Is the Johnson to whom you refer--Hugh? also--where did you see a "100 point rating" by Mr Johnson? thanks! ← Hugh Johnson has railed against the 100 point scale for years. He scoffs at a system that fails any score below 80, and has pointed out the inflationary and overly commercial need for higher numbers. A bit like many college grades. ← I believe that Mr Johnson "scored" the Leoville: four stars. Also--in the 100 point system a "failling" mark would be 50-59 not 80 which denotes a "barely above average" wine--clearly not a poor or failing wine. Food for a separate thread?

I thought so. I just believe you were right on with your initial recommendation. Basically there are so many of styles of wines available that food and wine pairing recommendations are difficult at best. You really have to note what specific type of any given wine you are talking about. Riesling and Gewurtz and Pinot Blanc are all fine wines (again, there are different types of these wines available). There are some nice pairing possibilities they would work very well with the fish. I just believe that for the dish in question there is a better option. Now if we were talking about choucroute or roast loin of pork with sauteed apples well......