JohnL

I think you guys are missin the point. No one is "afraid" of TJ's. The point is--Trader Joe's has achieved cult status. The proof--just google the name. Also the PR and hype this opening in Manhattan generated leaves them open to scrutiny. You now want to deflect that scrutiny with--"gee its just a fun little place with some neat stuff..what's the big deal?" That is exactly my sentiment. The problem is the hype IMOP (and a lot of others) doesn't seem to jibe with the reality. No one is saying one shouldn't shop there or that they shouldn't exist. I think that long lines of people (many dressed in silly outfits) waiting to get into "simple little fun place" is behavior a little out of synch with reality. That's all. So in the end, the discussion is really about just what is TJ's, who are they, and how is it that so many people are fawning over them? You may have answered the first question--maybe they are just a place to get some fun stuff at as good price. Now --how is it that such a simple place has generated near religious ferver? Are so many people that starved for "good and unusual things...?" On second thought--I would definitely not label most of the TJ's inventory as "unusual." --see! hard to figure out. So maybe I should'nt ask questions--I will suspend my inquisitive nature and just have fun! Think I will put on my Hawiian shirt and go down and stand on line for a half hour--my cupboard is lookin bare--definitely could use some "good and unusual" things!

You know...I have to totally and completely disagree with the above post. The problem with Jasper White's is inconsistency. Some of them are better than others, and it can also depend on what you order. Since it's your honeymoon, and you're not traveling with kids, I would skip it, and go for B&G Oyster or Neptunes. As for East Coast Grill and Chris Schlesinger... that's pretty harsh stuff above. I've found ECG and the staff there to be tops! The menu is creative and interesting -- particularly for this part of the country, and Schlesinger is Beard-recognized for his cookbooks. He's no "hack" running a dirty restaurant. I'm pretty surprised by what you wrote above. Plus, if ECG was such a dump, why would the NYTs food critic spend a week there as a waiter? pah-lease.... ← I also agree here. ECG is IMOP pretty unique to Boston--there are really few --if any--places quite like it anywhere. It is also a lot of fun. I believe that when visiting a city people should seek out places that are somewhat unique to that place.

One can point to almost any industry and find "still crumbling edifaces..." So there I agree. However--in looking at the much bigger picture--the world of wine is anything but a "man's world." We --in this thread--are guilty of generalizations and assumptions. This initial comments by the fellow making that $28 Bordeaux blend targeted at women does the same. He states that "people in Napa told me I was absolutely wrong...that women drink only white wine..cheap white wine..." Yes many women do drink cheap white wine--so do many men.--cheap white wine sales are pretty significant--somebody is drinkin and buyin it! Somebody is also drinking and buying $28 Bordeaux blends--a lot of this type of wine is sold as well! A marketer has to target the proper segment for his/her product and the advertising and marketing he/she employs better do a good job in effectively reaching that target audience or that product won't be around long (the ad agency has a lot less time to prove themselves). we all feel that we here are sophisticated folks who are pretty immune to advertising. we are wrong (to varying degrees). This isn't a male female thing--look at a decidedly male area--beer. Some beer is targeting a very broad market of twenty somethings who are interested in--beer and girls--so what you get are ad messages that feature--girls. Other beers are more narrowly targeted--fancy micro brews and belgian ales and... the advertising--well--more subtle--targeting older (more wealthy) men. Get the picture? I refuse to look down on one group or another--one type of message vs another--they are what they are. Same with this wine and women thing. There are women who will respond to a product like Little White Lie (or whatever its called) there are other women who are interested in a $28 Bordeaux blend. This is a fact of life--it is a bit snobbish (IMOP) to assume that someone who has less interest in what we would deem a "sophisticated" beverage than ourselves--is well....less sophisticated and therefore less of a person. So if someone is "offended" by a product or the advertising--they probably won't respond positively and buy it--but then again--that person was not the intended target of the product and the message so just turn the magazine page and move on--you'll get to something that appeals to you sooner or later (or else you are reading the wrong magazine--but that's another issue altogether). By the way--I looked through a few Wine Spectators--guess what-- the vast majority of wine ads are non gender specific (another faulty assumption on our part). Lots of talk about how such and such wine goes with food and is fun to drink though. I guess that covers the market most wine makers are looking to target--men and or women who eat and like to socialize! Hey that's me!!!!!

Does it really matter? I would guess that most food shopping in Manhattan is done with convenience being a major factor. Places near home or work.

My experience reflects something quite different.--at least here in NY. Today--there are may women in the "business" from wine makers to wholesale representatives to sommelier's to retail to writers etc. There are more women than men enrolled in classes at the International Wine Center (which incidentally, is run by a woman, also the majority of instructors are women). I would say things are far from "hard" for women. ← We are in NY, and sure it's gotten better. She came to NY because it was the best place to get a shot at getting into the biz, but there still is bias. Try dealing with folks in Bordeuax. Still pretty old school. ← You noted the "old boys network especially here in the states." That is basically what I was questioning. Your point about Bordeaux indicates something quite different. (I would tend to agree with you there). In the US for quite a while now--women have been fairly well integrated into the wine and liquor business from grower to wine maker to wholesale to retail and writers and educators etc etc etc. (the beer business is an exception). yes-at one time things were different.--agreed.

I agree generally with what you are saying. However, the French (and others in Europe) created most of their laws with the goal being the production of the best wines possible. Ie-regulating what grapes should be planted where. Use of chaptalization etc. Many of these laws have the intent of ensuring a level of quality. This is decidedly a good thing--witness the many truly fine wines produced there. In the New World things are driven more by the market with more freedom to experiment. While the government is king (literally) in France-- here independence is king. Thus only recently have US growers and wine makers begun to discover that certain grapes do better in certain terrors. In both cases the goal is a noble one--good wine. As I noted earlier--I believe that terroir has been used in error--sometimes to sell poorly made wine or to justify high prices etc. It has been used/misused in ridiculous arguments to support beliefs about "old world" and "new world" or "our wine is better than your wine." It has also been wrongly used to support a certain --IMOP--snobbism revolving around identifying wines--sort of a parlor game for wine snobs and geeks who prattle on about "text book" this or that. It is also worth noting that the scientific discussion is fascinating and evolving. It is now believed by many that the most important aspect of terroir is climate and drainage and not so much actual soil composition--mineral etc. In the end--only a fool would say that terroir has no bearing on a wine's quality or flavor profile. --this is easily disproved empirically and scientifically.--wine is an expression of place to a greater or lesser degree. Beyond this, , the discussion can be interesting, fascinating and--- inconclusive. It can be a lot of fun though.

After I wrote this I realized how unfair I was being to Fairway. In truth, Fairway carries far more items and it would not be easy to match the two stores straight up. For many things I would still go to Fairway. I suppose I should have said that I don't like Fairway prepared foods that I've tried, and have enjoyed the prepared items I've bought at Trader more. ← I don't think that TJ's should be compared to Fairway. TJ's exists in its own little quirky universe. I am still totally mystified by the "cult" that seems to rave about TJ's. If they can be compared to anyone--I believe one should look to traditional supermarkets. Food Town, A and P, Stop and Shop and or small local delis Korean markets etc. It seems the cult likes to rave about specific items the TJ's offers --things that fall into a decidedly "quirky" food category while over looking TJ's short comings. By the way--I have shopped at TJ's--they are fine for what they are but I am convinced that many local supermarkets offer a lot more positives. As I see it--TJ's is weak on selection--they do not carry enough everyday items. Their strategy seems to be get people hooked on some off beat items that only TJ's seems to offer. TJ's falls short on fresh items--meat, produce etc. I believe they prefer to deal mostly in items that have long shelf life. Frozen and pre packaged items as well as things they can buy in bulk. (they have a similar strategy re: low prices that Wal Mart shares). Nothing wrong in any of this but TJ's seems to be successful in pulling off a bit of slight of hand--marketing wise. Take their "Two Buck Chuck" effort. This is pure marketing schtick. The folksy atmosphere and quirkiness are carefully nurtured--they are after all a huge chain operation. Like the Wizzard of OZ they count on people not looking behind the curtain.

Thanks for the link. I read the article and have some thoughts. First--the "Suzuki Foundation" has a clearly stated mission. They are not unbiased. The piece is interesting in that it presents an argument against GM foods based upon a "what if worst case scenerio" with no scientific support. Interesting coming from such a well credentialed scientist. The truth is--this issue has been "hijacked" by various special interest groups (on both sides). Change is sometimes good sometimes bad but always met with trepidation. That is a good thing--but only if we are reasonable and rational in our debating these issues.

My experience reflects something quite different.--at least here in NY. Today--there are may women in the "business" from wine makers to wholesale representatives to sommelier's to retail to writers etc. There are more women than men enrolled in classes at the International Wine Center (which incidentally, is run by a woman, also the majority of instructors are women). I would say things are far from "hard" for women.

← Mary Wonderful piece. I agree with most everything you say and you said it well. First--that stuff about Latour--the original post with that statement is misguided and as confusing as the issue it tries to make sense of can be. Terroir is simple--the accepted definition is fine. IMOP we do not need to create a different definition. It is not the definition that is causing so much grief and debate. It is how it is perceived in wine by tasters. And its use by people who have an agenda and are using it to make a point. All grapes are grown somewhere. That's terroir--the where. It can be defined and measured scientifically--soil construct content, drainage, sunlight etc etc etc. Beyond this how the terroir is manifested in wine and further--how tasters perceive it are where things become murky. It has been used to sell wine. It has been used to score political points. This is where most of the confusion and hullabaloo have arisen. You are right on target when you note the "envy" of things European and the inferiority complex Americans have long had. These are thankfully going away--gradually. Winemakers and grape growers should grow grapes in locations beneficial to the making of good wine no matter where they are--Europe, Australia, US, Canada --wherever. They should try to make the best wine they can in a style that suits them and their customers. That's it! The terroir as manifested in the wine itself is a subject for geeks and intellectuals--if they are honest--then they will have some important things to say --the discussion and debate will be honest. You have approached the issue honestly!

I have to say this speech is an extreme case of not only preaching to the choir but pandering to it. There are a lot of positive things about the good wholesalers have done. So on the plus side --wholesalers have made a positive contribution and on the "whole" are performing a beneficial role. However what is good for America is what is good for consumers. What is good for America is competition. The current jumble of state laws is a mess and is not good for consumers and I would argue it isn't good for retailers, wholesalers, importers, winemakers--in short anybody. She uses "trial lawyers" as a scapegoat (I must say they are too easy a target). I also believe that this is not asbestos, or tobacco or vioxx 0r.... The states have the right to regulate alcohol. Fair enough. As long as we are talking local consumption laws and licensing etc. I take issue with the states using alcohol as a money grab--the extreme examples being PA etc. This mish mash of laws and regulations and over taxation is IMOP-unconstitutional. It is detrimental to free trade/enterprise and consumers (we the people). What has happened is--businesses--mainly the wholesalers have adapted to this insanity and have used it to provide them with protection--they hide behind the chaos (in essence in collusion with state governments. What we need is to establish laws that allow for free trade and competition that are uniform across state lines. Fairness--for consumers which in turn will lead to a more fair system for all --wholesalers included. fairness for the greater good! The states need to be focusing on local issues without impeding this fair trade spirit. Wholesalers--well-these folks will adapt--the three tier system actually makes some sense --for all--it simply needs to be adjusted/changed. This whole issue comes down to money--the states and the wholesalers have colluded to the detriment of consumers and the wine and liquor business as a whole. It is time for this to end. Change can be difficult and frightening--the wholesalers are obviously pretty scared.

Ah, the ferry. When we lived in North Jersey, another lifetime ago, it was my favorite way to get into the city. I wonder how much time this would eat up? And my friend is more of a princess than I am , so I am wondering in advance about our hairdo's. Yeah, I know, we can sit inside, but that kind of defeats the ferry purpose. This is a very cool suggestion -- it'll be on the list I email to her later in the week. ← The best views (most dramatic) are of Manhattan from the boroughs or especially from NJ. (the River Cafe is pretty good). There are all sorts of water taxi's now--they run from the South street Seaport as well as up and down the west side of Manhattan to NJ. Arthur's landing Restaurant is right on the water with a spectacular view of Manhattan. Depending on where you leave NY--the water taxis can take anywhere from ten minutes to twenty. I would call em and check out the times. I know there is a dock at the financial center which would put you within a ten minutes ride to Nobu. anyway--i thought this would be a fun anbd memorable activity--if you can work out the timing/logistics. By the way--have you been to Harvest on Hudson?--Westchester. talk about a view!

I have an offbeat suggestion. Take the ferry--NY Waterway Taxi-- across the Hudson to Arthur's Landing Restaurant--the views of Manhattan are absolutely fabulous! (the shortest ferry route is from 38th Street pier and takes about ten minutes--you could take a longer route for fun so check with NY Waterways). after drinks you can catch a ferry back to the world financial center and be fairly close to Nobu. Arthur's Landing restaurant in Weehawken NJ is outstanding for drinks (the food is just ok) and the view of the Manhattan skyline is about as good as it gets). The short ferry ride is a lot of fun)--go at dusk.

From Jen's Cincinnati Wine Warehouse blog. ← This is a bit of a "side" issue and may be appropriate for its own thread but...... "...the American palate that talks dry but likes "sweet." I wish so called "wine reviewers" would stop talking about things like the "American palate." It would be nice if they offered some support to back up these silly statements. If the American palate liked sweet--then riesling would be selling a lot more than it does here. What patent nonsense!

Nice article. The approach they are taking is IMOP the only logical one re: this issue. That is focusing on price range not profit. Restaurants can and should offer some selections of good wines in the twenty to thirty dollar a bottle range. Instead of obsessing about mark ups people should be looking at choice. There are plenty of interesting wines out there that can be added to restaurant lists in the lower end of the price range. Nice to see folks (Wine patrol) having some fun with wine--

I think the Jeffords book is a Mitchel Beazley book (publisher)--they seem to focus on wine related books. The New Spain book is probably theirs as well. I have found most of these books to be quite well written (a lot depends upon the individual writers). The Jeffords book is IMOP very good because he covers a lot of the issues confronting the wine world--France in particular so the book is a lot more than just a basic guide book--it is very readable. I would also second a suggestion another poster made--the Wine Bible by Karen MacNeill. This book is pretty comprehensive in that it covers the world--not just France--and provides a lot of information--it is also very readable. finally--I couldn't recommend more enthusiastically --a book by Mary Ewing Mulligan called "Wine Styles"--Mary and her husband Ed McCarthy are educators--Mary runs the International Wine Center. The book looks at wine from allover the world from a flavor profile view and is great fun and very informative. It is a great read and amazingly informative.

Your post was one of the more baffling I have encountered anywhere. The vast majority of wine produced is made to be drunk upon release or soon after. red wine has tannin in it and I would be suspicious of any young red that was completely lacking in them. That said--the key to your dilemma lies in the fact that you note that this aversion to tannins seems to be an erratic occurrence. There is no doubt that one has good and bad days --for just about everything. I am often not "in the mood for....." If your "problem" (and maybe it isn't really a problem) may be that you just don't like tannins or have difficulty dealing with them. I don't like tasting young vintage ports because it requires a bit of work in dealing with all those tannins. It is not necessarily that I can not taste and evaluate young port --I merely prefer not to. Also the fact that this "phenomena" sometimes happens with whites tells me that maybe there are just days when you are not up to tasting wine in general. I would guess that even professionals have their days--I certainly do--and thus have to work through them. Mary's advice was good though barrel samples are quite another thing apart from wine that is in bottle and released to the public. I suppose that you should on good days taste a variety of red wines and see if you can train your palate to get past the tannins. And certainly when you are having an off day--just drink other beverages--might be a great opportunity to try beers or iced teas or sakes or.... If there is anything more complex than wine itself it is human beings! best of luck and cheers!

I would agree with what most posters here have said and recommended. When I travel I try to go to some places that are well established and avoid the so called "hot/trendy" operations of the moment. East Coast grill and Jasper White's Summer Shack are musts. I would also add Loch Ober--maybe for lunch--this is a Boston/New England institution that has been updated by Lydia Shire (I believe she is still there) she is an outstanding chef and also somewhat of a Boston institution. The atmosphere here is priceless--old world Boston! I would also look at Hammersley's Bistro--this has been around quite a while and IMOP is often overlooked in favor of more trendy and fleeting spots. The food here French/Mediterranean is wonderful and Gordon Hammersley is usually at the stove. Also the Legal Seafood in the Park Plaza Hotel is great (I believe this is the original)--inexpensive seafood really done well--stick to the simple offerings.

← Thanks Mary. The Goldfarb "report" was well done and illuminating. I have begun to believe (in agreement with Goldfarb and others) that terroir is well and easily defined. The problem lies in its manifestation in finished wine. Science has not been able to fully and completely, quantify what drinkers taste. In the Oxford encyclopedia, Jancis Robinson notes that some studies have been done that indicate a widely held belief that the "geology" of a site is a very important contributor to the quality of a wine may be of much less import. I also have found that the use of terroir is politically charged. That is people use it to make a political point. It has, for example, become a "football" in the debate over new world vs old world wine styles. Everyone seems to admit that terroir is important, at its basic level there is little dispute that where grapes are grown is a contributing factor to a wine's taste and quality. The problems come to the fore when terroir is used to "explain" its relevance to a wine's flavor. It is not enough for many folks to simply note what they are tasting in a wine--the real trick is to identify the source of those flavors right down to the specific vinyard. This is an incredibly difficult task even under ideal conditions. It is a guessing game with formidable odds. Take Burgundy for example. We are told in countless tomes not only about differences in wines produced form commune to commune and grand cru to village wines but how wines should taste from vinyard to vinyard. "Nuits St Georges Vaucrains tastes of...." The problem here is a result of a not perfect world. For example given that wine styles and fashions change--just where and when were those flavor profiles for Nuits St George established? Basically what exactly is "textbook Nuits?" Who wrote that book and when? Secondly, with so many producers (winemakers) of Nuits it is clear that there are many styles of Nuits--which one is "correct?" That's just the beginning. The point is there are differences from commune to commune and from vinyard to vinyard. There are also differences in winemaking styles from producer to producer. In a broad sense we can taste these differences--they are there in the wine. However there are so many variables at play, many of which are vaguely manifested. There are too many instances where experienced tasters stumble. The Paris tasting of 1976 is a good example--the tasters "couldn't tell the difference between French white Burgundy and Californian Chardonnay." So much for "old world" vs "new world terroir." Does this mean terroir doesn't exist?--not at all. Should the French classification system be thrown out?--No. What it does mean is that we need to be careful how we apply the term (terroir) and how much importance we give it to that end. romance is a good thing but the romanticists and the scientists need to find a middle ground where things make at least a little sense!

← Good points. There are too many well made wines with low acidity that have aged very nicely. there are loads of examples of poorly made wines with high acidity levels that did not age well. PH level is only a part of a very complex puzzle. Trying to establish rules of thumb re wine is a dicey proposition.

I believe that you are oversimplifying things a bit. When wine is the subject --this is always a dicey practice. Acidity is difficult to discuss without putting it in context. The interplay between acidity, tannins, ripeness of the fruit, alcohol levels and many other things in wine all contribute to "mouthfeel." Peynaud notes a "suppleness index" in "Knowing and Making wine" that is--alcoholic strength-(total acidity plus tannins)=suppleness index. I believe that today's wines are more supple due in large part to the use of riper fruit. just looking at ph levels only tells a small part of the story. In fact--how a wine tastes--especially suppleness and mouthfeel are IMOP difficult to attribute to ph levels alone--the fact is high acidity can be present (this is a measurable thing) and yet not be easily detected by a taster. This is why IMOP--putting these data on labels is in reality meaningless to a consumer is conveying how a wine will taste. As for these wines not being able to age well. The indications are--this is simply not true. For evidence I would submit tasting notes on numerous california Cabs made in the late eighties and early nineties as having drunk very well on release and still drinking well at ten plus years. I would also add that a number of writers have noted that the Bordeaux from 1959 and 1982 had low acidity and have aged quite nicely. (I am still waiting for my first and super second growth 82's to come around and many other lesser growths are still in good drinking form). I remember tasting Cal cabs from the seventies that were monolithic monsters-high acidity, less ripe tannins that most definitely did not age well. In fact, the "good old days" produced far fewer wines that in fact did age well then we would often like to remember. PH--yes it is important but in context things are not so simple. here is a lot going on in a bottle--or glass of wine!

"The New France" by Andrew Jefford is very good. covers French wine region by region from a modern perspective. Is concise and informative.

Why or why not? ← Thanks--I had to reread a lot of the thread. It is all coming back to me now--so is the headache I got reading this stuff the first time! I would point out that the issue of terroir is covered nicely in the Oxford Companion to Wine. As well as numerous other places. This thread is loaded with misperceptions and faulty reasoning. The "old world" vs "new world" stuff is an example. interestingly--there has been some recent significant research (by the French) that indicates "geology" has less to do with quality than once thought and that soil drainage may be a more prominent factor in "terroir." I have read a lot, listened to a lot of "experts" from professional tasters to wine makers and grape growers and tasted quite a bit of wine. I have tasted it but I still hold that it is more often than not-so elusive as to be more of an academic subject for debate. To those who deny it-I would offer the wines of Zind Humbrecht from differing vinyards. To those who extol it (beyond reason) I offer the numerous tastings where everyone was/is fooled. (Take the 1976 Paris tasting for an example). The subject has become so confused and confusing that I have learned to ask--what is the purpose of the discussion? every time the term comes up.

Mary-- what the heck is "Old World Terroir" and "New world Terroir"??? or at least what are they supposed to be?

Russ-- I don't think there is any attempt to "condemn" Whole Foods. Slate is simply looking at the WF marketing strategy and tactics. When you strip away the marketing and PR--WF is a supermarket. What they have done is incorporate a traditional health food store into a traditional supermarket--A and P, Safeway etc etc etc. Nothing wrong with that. It is definitely working. However --just because someone applies terms like health food, organic, local, CSA, and supports causes we like should not provide them immunity from scrutiny. First to determine if the party in question is, in fact, practicing what they preach and two--the more difficult debate as to what these terms really mean and their real impact on the community. There are two (and often many more) sides to all these issues. WF is capitalizing on these things--who would be against --fair wages for employees.?! However, the issue of what constitutes fair wages and how they impact the community is complex. "Organic" vs----what exactly? WF is making a case that we should care about this --also complex issue--and pay more. Just what does WF mean by "local" farms--of course we would want to support local farms--who wouldn't? Again--not such a simple issue. The problem is, WF is using the "premise" and the "promise" of all these things as a reason to shop there and to, in many cases, pay a premium. It is WF who are raising all these issues and questions--I would question why--if "organic" is so much better for the consumer--then why does WF even sell "non-organic" produce? --let alone try to convince us to pay more for "organic." I would also question why it should be important to consumers looking for good quality service and value--why we should care what WF pays its executives (or its employees)! That's what this is about I believe. Questioning what WF is saying to us as consumers-- and weighing this against what they are delivering in terms of quality and value and a shopping experience. They are not just offering traditional goods and services they are offering an chance to feel good about ourselves for having shopped there--a decidedly elitist marketing ploy. Nothing wrong with that--all luxury retailers and manufacturers offer this via their marketing efforts. What is fascinating (to me at least) is the contrast with Wal-Mart who has a very simple credo--lowest prices possible, Neither WF or Wal- Mart are "bad" people corporately. neither of these approaches is inherently wrong or evil. Both are "altruistic" in their stated goals. Yet one is demonized and the other canonized. I would argue that--there is a lot to be debated and that neither is all good or all bad! One is a complex credo (WF) and one is simple (WM). Interestingly, I would ask if WF and their complex credo are really having much viable impact on the areas they claim to be concerned with and conversely, are WM with their simple credo having a very real and much more complex impact in areas they are not claiming to be concerned with?.