JohnL

Talk about anonymity! For some reason my post doesn't appear in the thread! Anyway, I think the best aspect of what goes on here are the dynamics. These threads reflect a much wider range of thinking and opinion than one would encounter anywhere else. They are also much more "organic" than other media--that is they are the closest to a very large discussion that is ongoing (living and breathing). People come and go etc. There are regular posters here whom I respect for their thoughts and ideas I look for their posts and enjoy their points of view. I do not know many of them--their real names--what they do for a living etc. Some I do--they have chosen to reveal that. it is however, the quality of their opinions that is most important. Nowhere else is one going to find views and opinion from waitstaff, cooks, chefs, managers, critics, writers, serious "gourmets" "foodies" "connoisseurs" winemakers, wine drinkers, and just plain everyday people who enjoy eating and drinking (living basically). We all have access to each other. Then there's the more mundane--news of a new restaurant worth visiting before the reviews appear etc. somebody finds a really good place for fried oysters that may never be reviewed in the media. There's some entertainment too-where else are we going to see a "feud" among highly respected celebrities played out in almost real time--and maybe even jump in ourselves!? ( I thought Mr Mariani was offering to bury the hatchet --not in Ruhlman's back either). Anyway--anonymity is neither good nor bad it is simply what it is. It is really the thought that counts.

I would agree somewhat with the last statement. I belive that posting under one's real name does encourage a bit more thought before hitting the send button and it does lend itself to more civility. It is interesting how the "industry/media professionals" seem to line up in favor of full disclosure. (Ruhlman, Sheraton et al). These are people who thrive on being "known." They are also paid for it. Then there are the rest of us. Many opt to remain anonymous (though the staff at eGullet have real names and e-mail addresses etc) for various reasons, some valid some a bit shady. One potential problem: Search engines like Google etc can pick up your name from threads on some web sites (the experts here at eGullet can probably elaborate). A post can then appear out of context under one's name. There is no way to "explain" or provide that context--hard enough as it is to correct a credit report--once your thought is out on the net it is there forever. Keep in mind these forums are discussions they are casual in nature and ongoing. also someone else may include your name in a post and that can appear as well. This, of course can happen to Ruhlman and Sheraton etc, however they have platforms where they can deal with and respond to issues they have access to mass media outlets-- most people know who they are and are aware of their credentials. One must also realize that anonymity comes with a trade off--that is the content of the post should draw more skepticism. I always abide by what some insightful person (could be Shakespeare) counseled: "Trust the Tale not the Teller." That is the content and the quality of the content is more important than the author and their motivation or agenda etc. That is, a post that is thoughtful and well written will carry more weight or gravitas than a nasty or innuendo laden one. Here at eGullet, (and other sites) posts that make statements that are dubiously or poorly supported are responded to fairly quickly--posts are challenged. Anyone who is out and out fraudulent will likely be "caught" by other posters or in some cases, by the folks who run the site. In the end, I can see a case for both sides of the issue. I do come out in favor of choice--that is people can determine the level of anonymity they are comfortable with for their own reasons. Basically, this is an ongoing discussion of issues--people come and go--some are "celebrities" some are just everyday people.

French law requires that Beaujolais Nouveau can NOT be be released to the consumer prior to midnight of the third Wednesday in November (Thursday AM). It can not be sold by merchants or growers after August 31st of the year following. The release date is based upon the vinification schedule rather than our Thanksgiving holiday. (Nouveau is currently very popular in Japan). It is a means by which producers can get cash early on in the life cycle of a vintage. And consumers can drink a very fresh fruity grapey wine. The grapes for Beaujolais Nouveau are harvested for the vintage in fall so a wine from the 2005 vintage--is from grapes picked in early fall and made into wine to drink in late fall/winter.

John, I am one, although I also drink them young. Recently, I tasted some 1983's which were drinking very similar to old Morey or Chambolle. And, IMO, old Morey or Chambolle is worth the wait. BTW, I agree with you about David and Jamie at Chambers Street; I shop there on a regular basis even though I reside several states away. And a quick look at their website (http://www.chambersstwines.com/) will give one an idea of the inventory. Best, Jim ← The subject of ageing wines would be a good one for a separate thread. I wouldn't disagree with you in principle here--perhaps we differ in our level of enthusiasm. My advice to anyone venturing into the Beaujolais area for the first time would be the general conventional wisdom that most of these wines are best enjoyed on the young side. I would add that some of them can and do age very well. (I know what you mean re: old Chambolle etc) If one is going to buy Beaujolais for laying down--I would advise them to get professional help (not a psychiatrist) like that provided by a place like Chambers Street Wines. As with long term ageing of any wine information like producer and vintage are critical. Also this is an area (Beaujolais) where there is some change ongoing--for the better--and one would be wise to deal with merchants who are up to date. There are few things worse than a bottle (let alone a cellar) of wine that is in decline.

Nothing wrong with chardonnay or Pinot! actually why not try a Beaujolais--cru like Morgon from a good producer etc. Rhone-either a cotes du Rhone or a Cote Rotie from someone like Guigal or a Chateauneuf du Pape. for whites: how about a Vouvray (chenin blanc) or a sancerre (sauvignon blanc)? If you want to stay with an American theme-- Try a good syrah from California or a Zinfandel. Oregon produces some good pinot blancs and Washington State has some good Merlots. Best advice I can give is to check out a good local wine shop. (hopefully there is one) and put them to the test!--a good relationship with a conscientious wine merchant is invaluable!

if there are two who consent to this would be mutual fundus (or fundi). also I propose a society for off beat lovers of mushrooms: funky funghi fundi i guess it is all just fundamental!

This has always been my conclusion as to why appetizers are frequently more interesting than entrees. I am one of those people who have taken to ordering a few appetizers in lieu of a single entree at many restaurants. If I do order an entree it's often due to the sides as much as the main entree. There are only so many ways to do a slab of protein, given its size, so the supporting players can easily steal the show. ← I think that the portions of main courses have been out of control in too many restaurants. The idea is to always leave them wanting more. Consumers are to blame demanding huge portions--I love lamb shanks for eg, but often find them served a a two pound hunk of meat and bone--overkill. I think if we take the discussion at its highest level and assume the pinnacle of each side we would see pluses and minuses to each. For eg Is it better to have fewer dishes excuted by a talented and creative chef wherein the portions were large enough to allow one to experience the complexity and savor the dish over a period of time. or Is it preferable to have a wide range of dishes in small portions executed by an equally talented and creative chef wherein the goal is to "dazzle" with creativity and complexity in one or two bites? I would argue that both are preferable--it is a matter of what one is in the mood for. But there are definite trade offs involved in each.

Well, just reading this was a lot of fun! I can only imagine what the actual experience was like. In the end, I think you discovered something that I have (and am still discovering). The whole idea of food and wine is to have fun. There are precious few examples of food and wine pairing perfection. That is where the wine and the food combine to create something greater than the sum of the two components. Most often one finds a "peaceful" coexistance and enjoys the food and enjoys the wine.

I would say that you were pretty thorough here Brad. One 'trick" I came up with years ago that worked pretty well: Most restaurants offer wines by the glass. These wines are usually marked up pretty stiffly. They are usually, however, often decent to good wines that are also available by the bottle--which is usually priced at the low end of the wine list. I would ask the waiter --or sommelier--that I am interested in ordering a bottle of wine but would like to taste or sample the house red (usually they will oblige with a free sample or taste). Once you have tasted the wine: If you like it then you can "safely" order a bottle (which as noted will be fairly inexpensive) or if you do not care for it, you can engage the staff person: You know, this is ok but I would really like something a bit drier or sweeter or fruitier or richer or... for about the same price--what would you recommend?" Now both you and the waitstaff have a reference point--you have established a price point you are comfortable with and conveyed the type of wine you might like. I also found that if the place cares even remotely about wine, they will respond well to being engaged in this manner. also--one can take the initial experiance further either next time in the restaurant: Say last time I had a bottle of........and I really liked it do you have something similar for maybe a few dollars more etc" I have found that any decent restaurant staff enjoys helping someone who is interested in their advice and can engage them in a brief dialog rather than make demands or ask for help without providing any idea of what you want. It's a two way street.

Well said. I believe that anonymity is beneficial and that anyone who is dishonest or fraudulent will likelybe "outed or exposed" by other posters. (in extreme cases I trust management of eGullet to handle things). I can't recall seeing many threads where only one point of view was/is expressed. Or someone was "allowed" to state something egregious without a quick rebiuttal. To the contrary I have seen many innocuous statements lead off into a large scaled debate!

To me, appetizer is just that, something that should stand on its own as a prelude to the main course or courses. I think that at one time traditional Haut cuisine French meal was comprised of appetizer, soup, fish course, palatre cleanser, main course, a salad, cheese course and desert with portion sizes adjusted appropriate to thier place in the whole meal. (Iam sure someone will coreect me here if need be). This was reduced or simplified to three courses: appetizer, main course, desert. Then some restaurants began to offer more main dish courses--cutting down on size. (here in NYC I belive March was one of the first to do this). Some experimented with multiple smaller courses or really a selection of many appetizer with which one could construct a meal (I recall a place Trio which was somewhart short lived). I also believe that the current trend toward tasting menus has an upside and a downside. First-they demand a skillful and creative chef. I think there are many lesser talented chefs who are offering unimaginative tasting menues. I also believe that there probably are highly creative and talented chefs who do not excel at tasting menus. From a diner's perspective, tasting menus can be fun but I think FG noted articulately, the trade offs here: intellectual vs hedonistic etc. I can recall a number of situations with tastings wherein I can not remember much about any specific dish--the evening was a culinary blur, if you will. i remember i had a great time but I can't remember specifically, why. I can also remember many "traditional" three or four course meals that had a very memorable dish or dishes wherein I savored every bite of a dish and that pleasure grew as the complexity of the dish revealed more with each taste. For eg I had sea scallops in a celery broth with chanterelles at Domain Chandon in Napa as a main course for lunch that I can not forget--or a woodcock at one of Nico's iterations in London. I really can not recall many singular dishes at any tasting--I tend to recall the overall experience. so maybe this is the trade off--like a wine tasting where one "samples" many great wines and can be dazzeled by the experience as opposed to a few glasses of a great wine where one can experience the full complexity of the wine and be equally dazzled.

Funny, I seem to remember that years ago Beaujolais more "popular" here in NYC area, then fell out of fashion for awhile. (I selected a cru Beaujolais as one of the wines served at my wedding in summer of '87). I also used to order them in restaurants quite a bit. I would say they fell out of fashion due mainly to two things: one, competition from a variety of other inexpensive wines that became available here and two a bit of snobbery on the part of some press and critics regarding Beaujolais Nouveau. It was viewed as a marketing gimmick, rightly so, but instead of honestly describing the wine as well made, fruity, simple wine that could be enjoyable to drink the "snobs" denegrated it and thus, I believe, tarnished all beaujolias. Brad is right to point you to Chambers Street Wines--I know David Lillie (owner) and he is a smart and honest retailer who is promoting and selling good wines from lesser known places and smaller producers. (they have some great Loire selections as well as a number of fine Beaujolais). As for the "ageworthiness" --a very small handful of these wines will improve with some age, but most are best young--the gamay grape wines are so fruity and delicious, why age them? IMOP the trade off that comes with long ageing is not worth it, but some folks differ. I believe that many do keep well for some years. I also think there is a bit of a resurgance in popularity which is good. And some small winemakers are trying their hand with the grape and producing some nice results. Also good.

Well now, for Texans that just maht be trew. I see a new sales pitch in my future . . . "Do you see this harmless looking egg? And this bottle of fine Dover Canyon old vine zinfandel? This zinfandel has less sulfur (which as you know, is a dangerous chemical) than this itty bitty egg. That's why it's so expensive!" ← I must say, I was stunned and appalled. I kept thinking of "Rudy" the salesman in "Used Cars." There are two significant problems with what is happening here: One-- The customers of Tony's Warehouse are not buying wine they are buying Tony's philosophy. They relate to Tony's not the wine they buy. In today's market there are two avenues for retailers--one is to establish a relationship with consumers who become loyal customers--these retailers usually charge more for their products and offer more "service." The other direction is based on low prices and volume and usually involves little on the "service" side. This is the trade off. It seems to me that the answer to Tony's very shady tactics is for aggressive retailers to compete via truth and lower prices (realistic). Without mentioning Tony's --competitors need to advertise what they offer. Unfortunately, because Tony's customers are more a "cult" --any message that "attacks" Tony's will be ignored. "Who cares about lower prices and the truth--I believe in Tony's." Two: Tony's gets away with this shady stuff (If the appropriate authorities were motivated enough--there is a good chance Tony's could be shut down). because of the sorry state of wine in the world. Consumers have always been bewildered by wine. They have relied upon the trade and the truth is, the wine trade is largely responsible for this confusion. The trade itself has relied on mysticism and argy bargy to sell their wines. Just look at labels--anyone read a European wine label lately? For years the wine press was populated by writers who sold the mysticism of wine--they collaborated with the winemakers in perpetuating the mass confusion. try explaining for eg, why a bottle of wine from, say, Lafitte Rothschild costs two or three times more than a bottle of another Bordeaux maker from the same vintage yet the wine from Lafitte may or may not be "better" than the "lesser" ranked wine. Enough to make a novice's eyes glaze over! Who does one trust? No wonder people will buy into Tony's B.S. He's selling a "counterpoint" to the B.S the trade has been offering. I believe that more and more winemakers and writers and critics are realizing that to survive and sell wine--wine has to be demystified. It is why the EU is seriously rethinking their system of AOC's and labeling laws. It is why New World producers are putting the origin of grapes on their labels. Most importantly the wine press and critics are telling the truth about wines--that is poorly made wines are pointed out, not excused by mumbo jumbo about terror or,flippant statements like--" well if you don't like this wine, it is because you just don't get it." I have seen more and more retailers holding in store tastings and cleaning up their shelves and signage making buying wine easier and maybe even fun. There is also a boom in wine education with tasting groups and courses at all levels. And winemakers are doing much more toward this end. The folks, noted in the article, who are attempting to get restaurants to charge less for their wines are to be commended. In the end, one can see a day when the shifty operators like Tony's are few and far between (I really believe that Tony's is an aberation, maybe the worst of a bad lot--hopefully). And kudos to the Dallas observer and a very good writer/reporter for a well written piece of consumerist journalism!

← Thanks mary, Tom Wark has one of the better blogs out there. he has a sense of humor and a healthy perspective. I still believe that the fact that there are many wine lovers who agonize over these issues indicates that too many of us are self centered and really need some perspective so we can more easily enjoy ourselves. Thanksgiving dinner usually involves more than six people--it is not a dinner that calls for fine and special wines (read costly) and it usually demands several bottles of wine. Too often wine lovers want to turn every opportunity that comes along into a wine tasting event. Thanksgiving is a time to enjoy the company the family and eat! It seems utterly ridiculous to me, for someone to obsess over wine--whether Uncle Fred will appreciate the Gewurtztraminer you brought or Aunt May will really understand what she is drinking. It is also not a time to "educate" the "cretins" in one's family about the joys of wine. Therefore one should bring or serve good quality wines and not worry about who is worthy of them or who will enjoy them. Wine is a compliment to the meal not the focus. One who does not realize this risks becoming at worse, a wine bore. Think of it from Uncle Fred's point of view: "Geez, I love seeing my nephew--but I wish he would stop talking about wine and trying to convice me I need to learn about it--I know what I like!" No one will appreciate your special wine being showcased at the expense of the comraderie and Aunt Mable's Turkey! Same for dinner parties--if you bring wine it is a "house" gift. Your hosts can open it up or stick it in the basement--it is a gift --it is theirs. All you need to dois enjoy the party and whatever wine is opened for it. Finally, no one should bring "special bottles" or serve expensive wines if they are not willing to share them with everyone present at the gathering. The focus of the events is not you and your wines or you and your wine knowledge! Unless you are Bipin Desai or Hardy Rodenstock-- Thanksgiving and Dinner Parties call for wines that are good quality and will work well with the food it is not the time to open that bottle of 1947 Cheval Blanc you spent a weeks salary on twenty years ago--save that one for an intimate dinner with a loved one.

I know this isn't wine, but when thinking about a really good onion soup--one pairing keeps forcing its way into my head--a really fine dark beer or Belgium Ale. I can think of no wine that would, to me, work as well.

← I read the piece cited in Mary's post. I got a chuckle out of it. In talking about the French AOC system there's this from a leader of this new lobbying group: "The system (AOC) was a very good idea from the start, but naturally human beings with their egos and thirst for power and money exploited this text to serve their own personal and commercial interests." Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The problem, is determining the quality of wine is a task best left to consumers--the Europeans should basically have a system that allows winemakers to make the best possible wine and compete on the open market. Labels on wine should indicate the varietal or the blend, alcohol level, where the grapes came from, who made it. and what type of wine is in the bottle (sweet, dry etc). Any other information is superflous (or of lesser import). Given their long existance one could see validity in maintaining Burgundy's Cru's and Bordeaux's classification--but again--these are of lesser importance. What exists today in Europe is the equivalent of the "ministry of silly walks.." It is little wonder why they are in turmoil!

Sauvignon Blanc, Verdejo, and Viura (for those keeping score). And it's a great crowd pleaser under $10. ← Thanks Brad! I too like Remelluri Rioja I have also been enjoying the 2001 Muga Riserva (it is a bit less expensive than the Remelluri). Sparkling is a good recommendation--Cava and also a good Prosecco!

I wouldn't disagree with any of Brad's suggestions. For whites--I would add " Basa" a wine from Spain--Blend of sauvignon Blanc and I believe albarino. I have yet to meet anyone (serious drinker to casual) who hasn't liked this wine. It is crisp and dry good as an aperitif and with enough body and flavor for most foods. best part--It is going for $9-$10/bottle here in NYC currently. Might leave you a bit more for a better quality Red. --maybe that Woodward Canyon Brad mentioned.

Not all of us....... ← No--there are many good writers out there! (you are one-IMOP) For a wine critic--all I ask are tasting notes that convey a good balance of objective observations based upon experience and knowledge with subjective impressions. For a wine writer (journalist) there is need for clear concisely communicated and well supported observations and opinion based upon those observations. Too often today we see pieces like the one in question here and as a result, too often we end up passing around the "conventional wisdom." ps I enjoyed reading your tasting notes on the Priorat wines in linked via another recent thread here at eGullet I really had a good sense of what these wines are. this is more important than whether or not I "agree" with your subjective assessments. A good critic can help inform and educate --there's more to it that just "finding someone with a similar palate."

28 brix will net somewhere around 16 or 17% alcohol on its own (with the right yeast of course), but reverse-osmosis and the addition of 'jesus units' and other wine making tricks can bring that level down to the 14.5%-15.5% range that these wines are bottled at. Winemakers think that super ripe grapes will get them thee top scores from Parker and the Spectator so that's what they are doing. The general trend in California seems to be moving farther away from age worthy wines while focusing on instant gratification. There isn't anything wrong with that, especially with the more heavily allocated wines being sold mostly for on premise consumption rather than to wine shops where they are likely to be consumed less than a year after release. I'd also argue that higher alcohol levels don't prevent a wine from being age worthy, look at the wines that are made in the Rhone during ripe vintages; Janasse, Pegau, Avril, Vieux Telegraphe, etc - all over 14% alcohol, all of their better cuvees need a decade or more of rest in the cellar before they reach their peak. ← Dave, good points re: Rhone wines alcohol and age worthiness. I believe the jury is out on this issue as it relates to California wines. I have always believed that most fine California Cabs etc are best at an earlier age before they start to lose fruit. That fruit is just so damn good--and the secondary aromas via age etc have never --at least to me--delivered what Bordeaux can in that area. what I would be interested to know is who those winemakers are, specifically, who believe that hang time is all--ripe fruit is one thing but over ripe is another. I have tasted a lot of "cult" wines (big scores etc) and generally, have never found them to be overly alcoholic or over ripe on the palate. (Colgin, Screaming Eagle, Harlan, Shaffer Hillside etc) throw in Mondavi and Beringer PR's and Pride as well. These all have ripe fruit and are distinctive but I wouldn't call em over ripe or too big or alcoholic. Of course, a wine can have high alcohol levels but a lot of other componants can mask that (or balance it). I do believe that some Zinfandels and Pinot Noirs are considered "cult" wines do often have loads of alcohol and super ripeness. (some Turley and Martinelli efforts for eg).

I too believe I am suffering the effects of micro-oxygenation! This is a very good idea! However, I am not sure categorizing wine making techniques into global and artisinal categories will work. In essence those categories are too neat--there is a lot of overlapping in this area. I think a good discussion of each technique should include--a description, the history (who, when) what the technique was intended to accomplish, its impact on the wine-- followed by a discussion of the pros and cons noting any controversy. For eg. Oak. Covering vats, small barriques and what impact each has on wine. Noting toast etc. Then also noting alternatives like oak chips etc that are used by large producers. Basically, the arguments for and against should come last. Another thought. would be nice to end each "treatise" with a good comparative example. That is for oak easily obtainable and inexpensive examples of an oaked and unoaked wine. Would allow us to actually taste the topic! Just a thought!

Very true--there is some confusion over terms. Globalization is an economic term involving among many things, free trade (and not so free trade). This is driving a lot of the fear and loathing in the wine world. (not to mention the sugar world and the many other "worlds" in turmoil). As for the "internationalization" of wine. This is a result, in large part, of globalization. It is also, in large part, a myth conceived by growers and wine makers who are in the middle of the free trade whirlwind and promoted by wine writers and critics who have their own axes to grind. It is a classic tempest in a teapot! (or wine barrel). One must make an important distinction between the levels of wine consumption and wine making before embarking upon any discussion. That is, there are wines at the pinnacle of the wine world that are distinctive and of high quality. This category will always thrive regardless of economics (true some wines come into and go out of fashion). Because of their quality and distinction they will feed the demand (which is growing) for fine wines. Then. there is everything else. Most of this consists of "everyday" wines--the wines one has two or three times per week with dinner--or maybe the white one enjoys as a beverage to relax with after a hard day's work. The wines by the glass one orders to be enjoyed by itself in a bar or cafe and the wines one orders with dinner at the local establishment. It is here that one finds the source of the turmoil.This market exists in almost every country--wine producing or not, in the world--this is basically table wine. In those countries that produce wine--table wine is the locally produced wine that is consumed locally, regionally-- domestically. What is happening (and has been for some time) is that as the wine market moves from a local of regional --domestic market to one in which one's domestic wines are expected to compete in foreign markets so too wines from foreign producers now are available locally. Consumers around the world have choice! They can buy and drink local or domestic wines or they can enjoy an imported wine. This means competition. Wines like Yellowtail are "designed" and "marketed" to compete on a large global stage. as with any mass produced and marketed product there is a "sameness" (one might say quality control and broad appeal aspect)--like MacDonald's or Volkswagon or Toyota. Sticking with the car anaolgy. At one time there were few imports available here in the US. Domestically produced cars were, for the most part, made up well over ninety per cent of the cars sold here. Then imports began to make inroads as they became increasingly available--people here preferred the cars built by Toyota to those built by GM, Ford and Chryser etc. One might say that the Toyotas were bland "international" style cars for the mass market. They were percieved by Americans as better buys--better quality cars. The big three suffered--there was much turmoil--doemstic union workers and management were in a panic. What happened? It is still being played out but--today the domestic producers have fewer sales but their quality is at an all time high.--they have been forced to build better cars by the competition--who wins. certainly the consumers. Back to wine. I disagree with one point you make--slightly--Europe is not moribund --IMOP to say they are in a dying state is a bit too strong. I like to think they (and the world at large) are in a state of change (there has always been change but the pace has accelerated over the recent past). Europe, because of their wine laws and subsidies, are at a major disadvantage with the new world at the moment. I believe they will survive--they are still capable of producing very good quality wines at every level. There will be contraction--those who can not compete will cease to exist. In fact--the french have begun to fight--look at Red Bicyclette--basic Rhone whites and reds on the shelves of our shops--labeled with the varietals even--sacre bleu! They need to resolve many Eurocentric issues before they can retrench and revive. One plus for them is that they produce a very large number of top quality wines--it is the lower levels where they are in trouble! It is not fine Rieslings and top varietal wines-- but the oceans of mediocre whites from inferior grapes and blends that Germany produces that must improve or die. Not classified Bordeaux and Burgundy but the vins du table and co-op wines in France. It is not Mondavi Reserves or Colgins or Kistlers or Ken Wrights that are in trouble in America it is the sea of innnocuous whites and reds that are facing stiff competition from yellowtail. In the end consumers will win at all price levels. I am really enjoying things like Italian Aglianico's and Primitivos--just a few years ago they were not even available here. Guess what their cost is similar to Yellowtail and they are more distinctive and interesting. So if Yellowtail can pull in wine drinkers then some really nice inexpensive and more interesting wines are only a few bottles away on the same shelf!--good for us--good for the Italians who make em! So in the end--I prefer to stay out of the silly politics--those will work themselves out. The fear mongering, the agitprop, blaming technology, blaming this consulting enologist of that wine critic--there's too much intersting wine to drink!

Your impressions of the statements and opinions expressed in this article? Is this also true of American vineyard owners who are women? ← This piece is an example of the poor journalism that infects wine writing and reporting these days. It basically takes a bunch of half truths and canards and attempts to make a case. And that case is about twenty years too late. The author, Mr Lyons would do well to at least minimally research his subject--he would undoubtedly, "discover" Becky Wasserman who in 1976 was a real "pioneer." What about May-Eliane de Lencquesaing who has run Chateau Pichon Lalande since the seventies and is nicknamed "le generale" by her peers? These are the real "pioneers." It is a half truth to say the wine industry is "chauvinistic." Perhaps the dearth of women in the winemaking end of things in France was due to the french inheritance laws." He might also be able to provide a bit of supporting evidence instead of compiling a bunch of stereotypes that one time would be insulting, today they are really just sad. "Women...are more perfectionist and accurate in their work than men."--Really! Then there is this: "Some critics say wines made by women have a perceptible suppleness and subtleness about them; in France they talk about a certain finesse." What we have here is a symptom of a disease that seems to have infected wine writers, especially British wine writers. It is a practiced vagueness which when delivered with a certain literary insouciance is intended to convey real knowledge--"I know what I am talking about..." So "some critics say wines made by women..." Really--which critics? "Wines made by women..." What wines? Which women? Here is an example of a statement with no support. One sees this often in this writing. Is the writer really saying that women winemakers make "feminine wines?" How utterly insulting (not just to women but to me a reader). How half baked how rediculously untrue. My evidence? Madame Lalou Bize Leroy who has been making some of the greatest Burgundies for decades. (she was a director of a negocient in 1955) Helen Turley who makes some of the most powerful wines ever seen anywhere or Mia Klein or Heidi Peterson Barrett in California--celebrated winemakers for years--- or Delia Viader who and Ann Colgin or Marimar Torres who own major wineries and vinyards? That is not even scratching the surface! That is just California. I would challenge any taster to make even a feeble case that these women make "feminine wines." So where are those women making feminine wines? Who are they? what are the wines? Wine critics and writers have been hiding behind fuzzy winespeak for far too long. Women may be able to "smell fear." I smell BS!

Mikey I enjoyed reading this post. I gotta say though--most of these issues existed before Robert Parker was born--they certainly exist regardless of him. For example--Parker has at times made a case against fining and filtration but this case was being made by people like Bobby Kacher and Kermit Lynch long ago. In fact many importers have suggested--even dictated to wine makers what techniques should be used or not used to produce wines they (and their customers) would like. For the record--Parker is against the misuse or abuse of fining and filtration. He has scored favorably wines that have been fined and filtered. He notes in his current book that Leoville Las Cases has been doing this for several years and he notices no differences in their wine's quality. As for the oak issues--again it is not the technique but the result that is an issue. One can abuse oak. Jean Marie Guffens said: "never has a wine been over oaked..it has been underwined." The question is how well integrated is the oak. Even new oak can be difficult to detect in many wines that are balanced and have well integrated flavors. Some people like the flavors of oak. Some do not. There are wines for each. Many Spaniards like the taste of oak--they also seem to have a high tolerance for salt IMOP. (I do like their food and wines though) If the "global" trend is toward oaky wines how is it that when I recently dined at a major chain restaurant "Legal Seafoods" their list offered "Oaked" and "unoaked" chardonnays!? As for "Biodynamic" farming. Again--there is no absolute here. There are good and bad wines made from these grapes. Biodynamic is no more a guarantee of quality in wine than it is for vegetables. If this technique is important to you for other reasons --that is fine. reducing yields? This has been long recognized as a major factor in producing fine wines. (or the grapes that make fine wines). In fact, many governments (France for eg) dictate yields to farmers/winemakers for their fine wines. Yet, there are good wines made from high yields. There are far too many generalizatrions about wine. Too many agendas. winemakers are always experimenting with all sorts of things/techniques. It is almost impossible to ascertain what is "tradition" what is not. It seems to depend on the particular axe being ground or ox being gored! with wine there are no absolutes (or few)

Well, one cannot exactly forego racking. Aeration can be avoided, if one wishes, by using gravity racking or gentle air pumps, which leaves the winemaker with the option of burbling the wine a little or not. But racking is absolutely necessary. Micro-oxygenation is useful for brightening wines that are heavily oxidized or have other flaws. ← Gee this is interesting. Actually, I think we are all correct. Micro-oxygenation as originally developed in France was used with wines that were vinified in vats/tanks or large oak casks not barriques. The goal was to soften the harsh tannins of the Tannat grape (Madiran). It can be used at various times during early fermentation as well as after fermantation. or while wines are in barrel. according to Oxford: "Proponants believe its chief attribute is that it mirrors the effects of oxygen on wines treated to barrel maturation." "Micro-oxygenation does not necessarily preclude barrel maturation. Some Bordeaux producers use micro-oxygenation on new wine immediately before pressing as a gentler technique than racking and one which takes up less sulphur dioxide." The upshot is--racking is considered by many winemakers as a harsh technique (certainly for wines in tank) micro-oxygenation presents a gentler technique to introduce oxygen into wine. As always with winemakers--there seems to be a bit of experimentation with this technique in variuous points in the wine making process. There is some debate about this. My original point was that Nossitor was not entirely fair in his use of this "word" to support one side of an argument.