JohnL

Jim! Actually, I think we do agree--for the most part. My point was/is Champagne is a difficult region to grow grapes for wine. The climate is the culprit. Because of this the wine makers have resorted to blending. I agree with you regarding terroir (with some reservations) it can add to the enjoyment of wine but I believe the whole issue of terroir --especially in discussing Champagne is somewhat murkier than the "perfect world" one hopes for. The fact is, blending is, most often, a neccessity in Champagne and not a result of a choice by wine makers. In the end--it comes down to what is in the glass.

Xavier's and Frelance Cafe in Piermont are great. Both owned by Peter kelly Careful though--they only take cash and are not cheap. also another Peter Kelly place in valley Cottage on rt 303 is Restaurant X also very good. check out Old Tappan as well there is a good Italian restaurant there (the name escapes me). There is a very good thin crust pizza spot/tavern --"Mountain House" (family friendly)

← The results as noted in the piece indicate this is very close. Especially on taste. I would be careful drawing any conclusions from this study. That said. I wonder if the price/quality/ taste results for california are a result of the cost of producing interesting wine to sell at a low price point. We are talking under ten bucks a bottle. Taking Italy for example--do they have more beneficial terroir (vinyard sites) under vine wherein a low cost wine --of relative higher quality (a result of the terroir) can be exported (under ten dollars a bottle retail)--compared to California where much of the low price wine is produced in less interesting vinyards thus demanding more "wine maker" manipulation???? I guess what I am getting at-- Does Italy have more capability to produce a basic low cost white wine that is more complex and with more character than does California? I have noticed--with some measure of disappointment--that a lot of the more interesting California wines are priced higher and higher--possibly a result of the overhead to make these wines--especially the cost to plant vines in the best terroirs california has. Ironically--if my theory is correct--Italy has great potential to make good interesting wines that well sell for under ten dollars--all they need do is make the most of their many good sites by cleaning up their wine making. (there is evidence they are doing this) while california simply does not have interesting terroirs and has for years relied on wine making to produce their inexpensive wines. I believe that California can compete with the world in higher end wines--but are they in trouble at the very low end?

I believe that one could probably find some red wine that would be ok with Indian food. (especially curries). But in general. IMOP, red wine (any red wine) is simply not a very good option for strongly spiced foods. Why settle for just ok when opting for white wine, beer,or something else would provide a much more agreeable match. (I love the cider suggestion below). Really good Indian cuisine is complex (layers of flavors) and to me "swamps" the more subtle flavors found in red wine. The beverage temperature is also a problem for me. Therefore the food will 'overpower" the wine--looking at this from the otherway round--the red wine will not provide much in the way of thirst quenching and palate cleansing with this food. IMOP with great red wines --simple dishes work best to showcase the wine's attributes and subtleties and with complex dishes a simpler wine works to allow the dish's compelxity to shine. There are more simple Indian dishes where I see red wine working better--samosas etc. still--why try to force the issue with red wine when there are many other choices that would work better?

I think it is becoming evident that the beliefs about Red Wine and cheese pairing are being rethought. Regardless of our personal preferences there is at least a debate underway. add to one side of the debate--Michel Roux (chef at Le Gavroche in London) In his recently published book "Matching Food and Wine..." he notes the problems with red wine and cheese and even suggests that the notion be thrown out completely. --there is a history of the concept of red wine and cheese as a good combination (Mr Rogov notes this eloquently in his post). My own experience led me to question this. I am seeing more and more agreement with my belief that most cheeses do not compliment most red wines. (there is now some science to confrim this). I also realize that just as I came to my beliefs via my own experience--there will be those who have a different belief based upon their experience.--the science IMOP is strong but not definitive yet-- and there are plenty of respected people who hold the opposite opinion. In the end one will either agree or disagree and proceed accordingly. Many beliefs go in and out of fashion in the food and wine world and I am curious to see where the consensus goes regarding this one.

I just thought of something! Ya know what this thread proves? Most every one of the neighborhoods mentioned in this thread are no more than twenty minutes (maybe half an hour) from any point in Manhattan. By subway--cab/car--walking--biking--roller blading--any combination. not only that-- but throw in the food delivery options and one can see why New York is such an amazing city for food options! Every neighborhood is a pretty good place to live here.

I believe that "iced tea" was "invented" and served first at the St Louis World's fair.

Good idea for a thread. Cafe des artistes is well known but I believe it is often passed over in favor of more "trendy" places. The atmosphere is really special and the food has been consistently good (if somewhat unexciting) over the years. also on the West Side: My wife and I have been fans of Gabriels on 60th Street (across from the TW Center). Great atmosphere (nice energy) and very good Northern Italian food.

I am more than fine with all the judges i have seen on the program. why? None of this is meant to be taken very seriously! The goal is entertainment --first and foremost. This is about theatre--not serious cuilinary artistry. (although that is an element) It is nice to have some everyday people on the panels--as opposed to food experts. IMOP--the show is not the same as, say, the pastry competitions or the Bocuse'd'or (or whatever it is). maybe it's just me--but I see Iron Chef America to be more related to the WWF Smackdowns than say, Charlie Trotter's Kitchen sessions or Colameco's PBS fare. so the more outrageous the panel's comments--the better--and i really don't care if they "know what they are talking about or not--it's all just fun!

Boy is all this confusing!!!! or what? the fact remains that the number of cases of both infected animals and more importantly humans getting the disease from BSE is miniscule! between this and bird flu.... by the way, I believe that more people get sick from eating unwashed vegetables that from either BSE or bird flu. I wish someone would put all this into perspective--I am having trouble sleeping these days!!!!

I have long enjoyed a cocktail as an aperitif. It consists of half white vermouth and half dark vermouth on the rocks with a twist! That is exactly how I order it. I have engaged bar tenders and restaurant wait staff in many attempts to discover if this concoction has a name. There seems to be a lot of confusion. Many bar tenders have told me there definitely is a name--something like half and half or cin cin--but can't swear to any one specifically. I am also told that this is rarely, if ever, ordered today. so Does anyone have an official name for this thing? Is it true that this is rarely ordered today? (I am amazed as this is a really nice cocktail--not too alcoholic and for a wine lover like me --a nice way to begin an evening) and I prefer Boissiere vermouth (white and dark) are there better choices? thanks!

That's a good point. (I missed the link earlier, and couldn't find the full article, so I was going by the quotation posted above.) Most things to help demystify wine are all to the good, in my opinion. ← Max! The troubling thing is--often these atempts to demystify wine often end up adding to the confusion. (see the part about tastebuds). The truth is, most people would like to enjoy wine at a very basic level. If the industry can make the whole experience easier and more accessible then more people will be comfortable with wine and more people will want to learn more about it. This kiosk idea may be a good one--maybe not. I have mixed thoughts about wine being sold in supermarkets but it really does make sense--if you can pick up your lamb chops and beer or soda or sparkling water why not have the option of a nice wine available there too? It also makes sense that in a supermarket you are not going to get access to a knowledgeable wine salesperson (you probably aren't going to find a good butcher either). In a perfect world (well maybe my perfect world) every street would have a great little wine shop a terriffic butcher and baker and......ok i can dream can't I?

Is anyone else aware of this software? Or the concept of the kiosk for the wine buyers? ← I think many of us are missing the point of this endeavor. Aside from the nonsense regarding taste buds this is really an attempt to provide assistance to customers of supermarkets where wine is sold and where there are no sales persons available to assist these folks. As I see it, there is nothing wrong with taking a data base of wine inventory and categorizing it by flavor profile enabling consumers to input some of their requirements and receiving "recommendations" that may meet thier needs. Suggesting to an average consumer looking for a bottle of wine to enjoy with their lamb chops, that they need to read a book or consult an "expert" is indicative of a major problem with wine today (and yesterday). Can you imagine a butcher telling you you need to read a book on meat before you can appreciate your lamb chops? Many people do not want to "learn" about wine, beyond some basic knowledge-- and one need not have to know much about wine to enjoy it. If the wine industry would simply do more to make wine more accessable they would sell more. How: Easy to read labels with basic information. Promote and sell wines based upon their flavor profiles. What is so problematic about noting that Burgundy is made from Pinot Noir or Chardonnay Grapes on the label? To most people this is more important than noting that Chambertin is a grand cru. Tell folks that Sancerre is sauvignon blanc etc. A good sign is I see that there is a movement in this direction underway--about time!!!! People have a pretty good idea what kind of wine they might like so why not provie them with information that tells them which specific wines they should consider. Without resorting to winespeak--how about some simple basic easy to understand language that accurately describes wine? If done well, the info kiosk could be more consumer friendly and encourage more wine buying than many of the wine salespeople I have run into in shops lately. Though remember--they are talking supermarkets here not wine shops. Guess what--if this is done and done well--many people will move beyond the kiosk and maybe read a book about wine or take a class or engage the owner of a local wine shop. So what's so wrong about someone punching in Lamb Chops and getting a read out of some wines available that would work with --Lamb Chops. Along with some additional info about the wines--people could read it and learn a bit or ignore it and still have a decent wine food experience. sounds like a good idea to me. (though that stuff about tastebuds is really troublesome)

I used to live in Yorkville (yes it is Yorkville) You are right about the german places. i used to love the Ideal restaurant on 86th, You could get a glass of beer for fifty cents (I recall) and they had some great inexpensive and well made German dishes. There were some great Hungarian shops--they do cured meats and sausages as well as anyone! also not quite a "wasteland"--papaya king is still there (I hope) and I remember an Indian place--Mumtaz that was pretty good. also Sizhuan kitchen--don't know if that is still there either. and there was Wilkinson's Seafood cafe--at one time one of the best seafood restaurants in the city. I am really dating myself now (which is what I did back then--date myself--I ate alone a lot)

The piece by the BBC referenced is dead on! For years, I thought I was a freak who just didn't get it.. Over and over I tried dozens of different cheeses with dozens of wines and in most every instance I found that the cheeses "dulled" my palate making it less sensative to the flavors of the wine. In most every case, the cheese overpowered the wine and dominated. Then I attended a wine tasting with Robert Parker who remarked that he found few cheeses that enhanced the taste of wine stating that he believed the fat in cheese was the main culprit as well as the tannins in the wines. I also heard the same thing from Georges Perrier the much respected chef of Philadelphia's Le Bec Fin. Ureeeka! I was not alone. Most cheeses work better with white wines--especially white wines that have good acidity. Cheese also works well with Beers, fortified wines, sweet wines. The quest for a perfect union between red wines and cheeses is IMOP a hopeless journey. There are many experts who disagree. I find Max McCalman's suggestion to slosh red wines with cheese in one's mouth--thus gaining a whole is better than the sum of the parts effect-- to be wishful thinking. (I grant Max does know cheese). I also believe that drinking "coarse" --out of balance red country wines-- so called "picnic wines" is ok with cheese. I prefer beer, sweet wines (white or red) and fortified wines (Sherries, Ports etc). last-dry whites can be ok--depending upon the cheese. but hey that's just me........(and Robert parker and Georges Perrier)

the only good thing about four starbucks within one block of each other is instead of waiting on line you can walk to one with less or no line and get some exercise--which helps when you are "into" white chocolate mocha latte's (or rather they are into you). not to worry though--there is also a Subway's next to one Starbuck's -some guy named Jared claims you can actually lose weight eating their sandwiches! anyway here on the West Side we certainly have plenty of variety!

I also live on 58th and Ninth!!! (nypork--open your window and wave!) anyway-- just to the south on ninth are some good ethnic places--Uncle Nick's to Thai decent hot dogs, barbeque etc. just to the east is Wholefoods and the TW center. Just to the North we got--Citarella, Zabar's, Fairway. not to mention all the small markets and bakeries on Ninth. also four (count em four-Starbucks all within one block of each other) decent wine shops-Columbus Circle and 68th Street wines (Acker is not that far either) and don't forget: Cafe Des Artistes, Shun Lee West, Picholine and Gabriels (a very under rated Northern Italian on 60th Street). also just to the east-Red Eye Grill and Carnegie deli. (midtown is a short walk away) add the fact that rents are relatively decent (emphasis on relatively) this is a pretty nice place in Manhattan at the moment!

I agree with you. Bruni was not "reviewing" Gilt--he was writing a piece with an angle: NY Restaurant rip off's. Which he was likely inspired to write after visiting Gilt on preparation for his formal review. IMOP--Bruni focuses too much on Gilt--in what should be a broader focused piece, thus, turning it into a sort of mini-review. What bothers me about Bruni (and many of thge other writers at the Times) is I feel as though there is an all too obvious attempt to find the "hook" in every piece. Rather than just good writing and reviewing and then looking for a hook to hang a headline on--it seems as though the Times folks go into the review of piece looking for the hook first and then hanging the review or writing on it. Contrasted with Cuozzo and the Post--it is clear that Cuozzo went in and wrote a review and then he or an editor "found" the hook to hang the headline on. You are correct about prices in New York City--the place is expensive and difficult to do business in. Prices can be outrageous (ever look at the cost of a steak at Lobel's?). I feel Cuozzo handled the price issue at Gilt (see my post below) very nicely. He put things into perspective--which is what the Times has trouble doing.

Yesterday (wednesday) the Post carried steve Cuozzo's review of Gilt. In pithy Post fashion the review was headed: "The Ego Has Landed" subhead--"Presumptuous Gilt faces trials" In short--Cuozzo gives the place a very good review. He notes the high prices (he gives a slap to the restaurant for "the shakedown wine list" and the $18-$28 supplements--but also notes that Gilt has exteremely high overhead--Rent aside, he states that to execute the complex dishes and deliver the luxury the target patrons expect, there are 90 employees for just 52 seats. ( a higher ratio than Le Bernardin). It is the complexity of the dishes (and the quality--Cuozzo uses "sublime intricacy" to describe a dish of "Scottish langoustine in Preparation, royale, tartar and crispy."--going on to describe its preparation: "The creature is alive in the kitchen. In a frenzy of simultaneous maneuvers, different segments are cut, rolled, spiced, grilled, consommed, pureed and creamed. The results are embraced in a fantasia of Shanghai cabbage, cucumber, green mango, Thai lentils, cilantro, micro licorice basil, saffron and garlic." Basically Cuozzo concludes that Liebrandt's cooking may be worth the high prices--he asks if people whose meals are not covered by a newspaper will spend as much as they do at "Daniel, Jean Georges or Le Bernardin on a cult figure, 29 year old chef in a hotel dining room?" He does note that Gilt in comparison to Liebrandt's earlier places--Atlas and Papillon--" is many times more mature with magical dishes like ocean trout cooked with clementines and sunchokes It's (Gilt) even potentially great." All in all a very good review.

I don't disagree with you totally which is why I said what I did in the last line of my post. Chains are not necessarily crap, although I consider your choice of MacDonald's a poor example. My issue is with total homogenization and standardization everywhere one goes. If they were all of the highest quality it might not be so bad, but unfortunately they have a tendency to glorify mediocrity. ← Yeah--MacDonalds probably not the best example. One could make an argument that box stores and chain restaurants have actually improved things. I can point to a number of downtown areas that were blighted (often a mall or a big box store hastened the total collapse) only to be reborn with high quality small businesses.--New Rochelle, White Plains here in NY state are examples. Like most things in life --this seems to go in cycles.

Good post jrufusj! You touched all the basis--I found your observations to be interesting and informative. I think that we have become a bit "terroir crazy." There are three elements in the making of any wine: the terroir, the grower, the wine maker. Champagne has long been the bastion of the wine maker. There are reasons that the terroir has been of lesser importance here. There are also reasons why much wine produced in champagne has been a result of blending--not only different varietals but different vintages. That "house style" is operative here. That reason is mostly weather/climate (a key element of terroir). I am not saying that place is not important in Champagne--I am saying that it is less important. Unfortunately, there has been a trend toward emphasis on specific place (where the grapes are grown). That is a label with a specific place or vinyard on it carries a premium. That is to say, we assume that a wine made from grapes from a single vinyard is a better wine than one not. We are thus willing to pay more (the winemaker can charge more). This works sometimes and sometimes not. Often the better value (dare I say bargain) is in a wine that is blended-- sometimes the wine from the single vinyard is really more interesting and more "worth the premium or attention."

I just believe that "chains" are not all bad. Nor are local mom and pop businesses all good. A lot of the local hamburger joints replaced by macDonald's were lousy greasy spoons that served crap. Many of the small hardware stores fallen to Home Depot were also poorly stocked etc. We have a romanticized view of the good old days. That said--we are losing what is a delicate balance between high quality smaller local businesses and high quality large chains. They each can offer a lot of good things to a community.

I have shopped at a few Trader Joe's in the suburbs. I have somewhat mixed feelings about them. I think some perspective regarding Manhattan is needed. This is not so much about quality of products and services as it is about the uniqueness of neighborhoods. I am concerned about the homogenization of the city. It seems that every neighborhood is losing a lot of their respective identitiy. A big part of that identity is local shops. (it is also the architecture--even the buildings--apartments etc-- are looking the same all over town). It used to be fun to "travel" from the upper Westside to, say, SOHO on a Saturday afternoon--now SOHO really doesn't look or feel much different than my own area. I also miss some local establishments like the Nevada Market even though there are still Citarella and Fairway and Zabars. I would also note that sort of mini chains are emerging from what were once NY establishments--Balducci's, Eli's etc.--I believe the overall quality is dropping at these places. What is a positive note to all this is the revitalization of the Boroughs some areas of which look and feel like the old Manhattan.

The concept and goals are good the execution is problematic. I am all for demystifying wine. For many years the wine world was like an exclusive club. The trade and the press conspired to keep wine enshrouded in fog--they made and sold a lot of befuddled consumers a lot of poorly made wine. Things are changing! The $64,000 question is: What's in the bottle? At best, too many labels are utterly useless in informing consumers and at worst, many actually add to the confusion. All consumers are interested in some basics: white or red, light, medium or full bodied, what grapes are used, sweetness or dryness etc. Next, is some idea of what the wine tastes like. A lot of folks in the wine business like to push the notion that wine must be approached from a totally "subjective" perspective. The dirty little secret is much about wine is "objective"--that is, a trained taster can convey elements about what a wine tastes like in clear language that anyone can understand. The wine's basic flavor profile, if you will. Yes, in the end, this can only go so far--there is a lot of subjectivity involved in one's determination of what they ultimately like or dislike. but it can go a long way toward helping a consumer in making a selection to try and increases the odds that the consumer will like the bottle they select. I, for one, am amazed at how many people, especially professionals are pushing the notion that wine can not be objectively described or its attributes quantified--this in the face of reams of study--is Peynaud wrong? The whole Master of Wine program (and myriad other education programs) is based upon the idea that wine is not some mystical experience. I have no problem with the "mystical" aspect either. As long as it is in proper perspective. The glass of simple chianti enjoyed on a balcony in Tuscany can be magical while that same wine drunk with a slice of mediocre pizza in one's kitchen is an entirely different sensation. But the basics as to what that chianti's flavor profile is do not change. As for the "active wine advisor" this seems to me to be a somewhat gimmicky means of conveying some basic information that will help consumers make a purchase decision. If it is fun and easy to use and provides accurate information-- great! I suspect, however, that there is more "gimmick" at play here. In agreement with Daniel's comments re the nonsense about taste buds, I too was put off by the notion that consumers can be categorized by the number of taste buds they possess. Thus, what seems to be a noble concept is based upon some very faulty science. If supermarkets sell enough wine, then they should be able to pay adequately trained salespersons. This smacks of a means to avoid some expense rather than a way of actually helping people buy wine.

I read this thread with some interest. I guess Thunevin is "making the rounds" as I will be attending a tasting (led by him) of all thirteen vintages of Valandraud (plus his kosher wine) at the end of January here in New York City. I find many of the comments/reactions here to be interesting. I wonder how many people with strong opinions about the wine have actually tasted it? It is funny (and frustrating) how people often react to wine based upon conventional wisdom rather than actual experience. I would be more interested in how individuals respond to the wine in question not what some critic or writer has written. (I can always read them). I have also found that the conventional wisdom is often wrong when I actually experienced the wine personally. I believe if more people really did form their own opinions via their own experience that wisdom would not be so "conventional." As an example, I offer my experience with some so called "cult" cabernets from California. The conventional wisdom is that many of these wines are over priced, over oaked, over extracted, modern (used as a perjorative), big, monolithic, uninteresting , not elegant etc etc etc. When I have actually tasted them (Screaming Eagle, Colgin, Harlan etc) I have found them to be "none of the above." So where does this "conventional wisdom" come from? We often get caught up in taking sides in whatever the critical debate of the moment is. We form opinions based upon what other people think/write. Not on our own experiences. To be fair to the writers and critics etc, they are offering up opinion for discussion and review--information to be used by us. Unfortunately, we often buy into (or disagree with) their opinions without the most important element in the equation--our own experience--we don't taste the wines in question. I have not tasted Valandraud--yet. One reason I am looking forward to tasting them is I am curious to see what all the hoopla is. To form my own educated opinion about these wines. I also believe that a lot of the conventional wisdom is a result of price. That is, anything that costs a lot of money (for whatever reasons) is fair game. Fair enough, but price and value can only be assigned or discussed after a wine is tasted and evaluated. I recall that at one time, I thought paying over a hundred dollars for any wine was obscene-- Until I tasted a 1978 Cros Parantoux from Jayer and then a Montrachet from DRC and a Grange hermitage and a 75 D'Yquem............... One can always disagree here but the discussion/debate is always more rewarding when price is the last (and least) part of the equation. Anyway--I will post my impressions of the Valandrauds here (in the wine forum) I would hope that any who are attending the Montreal event will do the same! I look forward to discussing these wines with others who have experienced them! Cheers!!!!!