JohnL

Mikey Maybe what would be interesting are people's thoughts on wines "of distinction" that is wines that are so unique and "distinctive" that they simply do not taste like any other wines or at least stand out in some unique way. By the way there are some great books available right now that attempt to do this. One is Parker's "The World's Greatest Wine Estates." Even those that disagree with him or even dislike him would benefit from reading the opening Chapters where he addresses many of the issues of globalization, terroir, wine styles and what he thinks determines a '"great wine" many people would be very suprised by what he writes. also Oz Clark's --"New Classic Wines" and Andrew Jefford's "The New France" both earlier publications.

Brad good point. Do you think that many of these "traditional" wines --those that "never make it to the global consumer market" do not make it--because of "poor quality?" They are obviously consumed locally or regionally. So is the fear also that with wines from elsewhere in the world becoming available in these local markets that these wines will not be able to compete at home either? Thus the "panic." Also--I think that this is not about wines tasting the same but rather basic quality--ripe fruit--good flavors and general pleasantness. (boy is it hard to verbalize here). Thoughts?

I've had one sommelier express the opinion that too much work had gone into creating the wine collection and that putting the complete list up on the site was of more value to the competition than it was to the restaurant. I'm not defending that position, just mentioning one opinion. I'd also note that other restaurants have made a feature of their online wine list. As a diner, I'd find it useful to be able to gain a familiarity with the list prior to arriving at the restaurant in question. ← Thanks Bux. I didn't see things from this perspective. I see the point --I also realize that those who would spend a lot of time poring over a wine list are probably few in number. Anyway--quite a few restaurants do post their lists. I always believe that for every business: "an informed consumer is our best customer." Sy Symms--what a marketer!

Thanks Mary! The fact is -Europe is a confusing mess winewise. This is not my opinion or that of the Australians or the Californians (though we all agree-- ask any student of wine) it is their own view of themselves. Hence the EU wrestling with how to improve things. Wine bsing turned into alcohol, government subsidies being reduiced and removed, vines being ripped up...... It is no wonder there are riots in Burgundy and knee jerk reactions in Germany and gullible people like Nossitor in the US who are all scurrying about like chickens..... I do not think that the top winemakers in Germany (or anywhere else) have anything to worry about. As Brad noted--Germany produces some inceredibly fine and distinctive wines --there is certainly no "glut" of JJ Prum Riesling! also I found a quote from the Decanter piece interesting: from the "official German wine taster" "Given the amount of wine making styles these days, in Germany and abroad...." I thought because of globalization all wines are "the same." ps I tasted some Argentina Malbecs last week that are as stunning and distinctive wines as I have ever tasted. (wish I could afford em). These wines weren't even available here just few years ago.--I love globalization!

Brad First--the racking issue. We are both right. Racking has two objectives--per the Oxford Companion to Wine: "Racking is not only part of the clarification process, it also provides AERATION...." (their caps) The fact is Micro Bullage or micro-oxygenation as developed in Madiran is a "gentler" way to aerate the wines than is racking--which is believed to be harsher--it is also a less expensive alternative to racking. (wonder what the real impetus in it development was?) No doubt, like anything it can be abused. As for your "surprise" re: German winemakers and globalization. I do not believe that the fears expressed in the article apply to most Riesling but rather "globalization" will impact the tafelwein. landwein and QbA levels--most of those wines we do not see here. As I noted earlier I believe this is all in response to a wine "glut" and mostly to the efforts of the EU to either improve the salability in a global market as well as the domestic market of the basic tablewine or reduce its volume. You are right about the piece being "all over the place" and unfocused. The byproducts of hysteria! (I think).

Mikey First, you are to be commended for actually including a specific example--Rayas. It is no coincidence that the example you provide actually runs counter to the conventional wisdom. About both Parker and globalism. You might want to look at the thread re: "Der Spiegle." Globalization is so over hyped and overheated a term it has lost any real meaning. Right now one can go into a local wine shop and find more wines from more places in more different styles than ever before.-- Handcrafted wines, biodynamically produced wines, oaked, non oaked, -- are all these wines made the same way? do all these wines taste the same? If that is "globalization" --then what is wrong with globalization? Also--what exactly does traditional mean? Traditions have been changing and evolving ever since wine was 'invented" or "discovered." A true traditionalist would be someone who would have their wine contained only in a ceramic amphora--none of that new fangled glass bottling for me!!! Or maybe a traditionalist is someone who longs for Burgundy labled Pommard and blended with some nice Algerian wine. If by traditional one means the Bordeaux made in the sixties--where "old methods" could only produce two even decent vintages in the decade vs more recent decades... Or the days when wines were often tainted and unclean........ As for Parker--he is like the elephant who is described by the blind men. That is people "see" what they want to see not what is. If Parker only likes one type of wine I would ask how is it that he rates highly such a wide variety of wines? How is it he has a love for the Rhone, especially CNdP--where "tradition" abounds? Why does he extoll the virtues of wines by Giacomo Conterno and Paolo Scavino two extreme ends of the style spectrum in Barolo? Take Bordeaux--is every wine he rates highly a wine that "tastes the same?" How can he love LeRoy wines so much--she is as "hands off" a winemaker as one can possibly be? The thing is, Parker has been blown up into a near mythical creature with superhuman powers--he is a wine writer and critic--good or bad --that's all. What is true I believe is--rather than "sameness" we have more distinctive wines in more styles, from more places and more terroirs available than ever. Just visit your local wineshop!

So, if I might return to the initial premise of the article, is it actually more important to conform or to preserve tradition? Your opinion of the article in general, whether as a wine connoisseur or as an occasional wine drinker? ← The article is interesting. It is also rife with inaccuracy --a result of the hysteria that the current situation in Europe has promulgated. That situation is a result of "globalization." In a nutshell--European winemakers are faced with the fact that they are unable to compete on the world market for many reasons and are deeply concerned that "free trade" agreements are opening up their domestic markets to wine produced from elsewhere in the world. This is absolutely not a question of "terroir" or "tradition." It is about competition and money. First, the whole situation revolves around Table Wines--that is basic everyday wine-- the vast majority of all wine produced in the world falls into this category. France et al have their own versions of Yellowtail, and Gallo etc. The problem for Europe is twofold-- their table wines don't compete well in the world as exports and as more imports come into their domestic markets they are not doing well at home either.--Not good. According to the EU--much of the table wine currently produced in Europe is of "inferior" quality and is not able to compete at the export level while at the same time, this tablewine will not be able to compete in quality with wine imported into Europe from elsewhere in the world--the New World (Africa, Australia, US, NZ, SA etc etc etc.). Proof of this is the fact that the EU has ordered that millions of gallons of European produced table wine (France, Germany, Spain etc). be destroyed. There is simply, a glut of wine in the world. Much of this "inferior" wine is produced by large co-ops and by growers who are heavily subsidized. The EU has declared that this must end.--they have also ordered a large amount of vines to be ripped out and have declared a moritorium on new planting of grapes. It is no wonder there is upheaval among winemakers in France, Germany etc. Understandable that the hysteria is at fever pitch. See the thread in the Wine Forum--Winemakers in Burgundy Riot.... Second, this is not about the "top" wines. Fine wines produced in all countries are selling well and at record prices. Top Boredeaux, Burgundy, German wine etc --that is the very best wine produced in the world is in demand. Arguably, these wines are expressions of the best terroir and there is certainly no "crisis" here. Again, the 'crises" involves those wines produced on "lesser" terroir. The talk about the horrors of "oak chips" applies, in reality, to table wines not the finest wines. But this brings us to another red herring--technology. The fact is, winemaking has always benefitted from technology--all wine making. Technology can be misused or abused but it has been responsible for much good in wine. It was not long ago that many fine wines suffered from a lack of cleanliness--I am sure many of these winemakers complaining about the horrors of technology--in fact, benefit from using temperature controled fermentation--yes a technological breakthrough. Here's an example of this hysteria: In Mondovino (as representative of the hysteria as one can get) the "evil" Michelle Roland is seen/heard uttering the word "micro-oxygenation" over and over. The implication is clear--this is an evil technology that will destroy terroir will globalize the wines make them taste the same etc etc. Micro-oxygenation, in simple terms, is a means of softening tannins that was developed in France by French Winemakers in Madiran who were faced with hard tannic wines that had difficulty selling. Micro-oxygenation is in fact the same as "racking" which has been used for many many years by winemakers. Why is it that micro-oxygenation is bad and racking is good or not even mentioned? They are basically procedures that achieve the same results? This is an example of the misleading argument by those who are intimidated and fearful of the future. An argument founded on half truths and loaded with red herrings and fallacies.

"Cognoscente" = "Connoisseur." (Webster) I believe that all cognoscente are part of the "general public." A lot of this is about elitism, the smaller "in the know" group often sees itself as "better" than those not in the know. (regardless of what it is they are in the know about). While a certain level of self satisfaction is certainly allowed the "connoisseur" --it is a small step from self satisfaction to snobbism, to elitism. Also, what is "wrong" with making money? I have a hard time accepting that the Food Network is somehow corrupt or less "pure" because they appeal to a large audience (the great unwashed) and are a for profit operation. As I see it, the reason that there is no food channel for "foodies" is there are not enough foodies to support one (there are plenty of media outlets for foodies--PBS cooking shows, magazines, web sites). By the way, mentioning PBS, I wonder how many "foodies" who watch the cooking shows actually support the network with a contribution. (see even the pure and altruistic need to eat). I would also think that foodies would rejoice at the success of the Food Network on the premise that some of those currently not "blessed" with the foodie calling will, in fact, become--foodies! That means more foodies (remember even foodies were once members of the "general public" at one time). Then, maybe, there will be enough foodies to support a Foodie Network--one just for them! Hopefully, though, there will not be too many foodies because then, foodies may not be all that "elite" and a number of current foodies who are really foodies because they feel "special" won't be so "special" and they will leave the foodie world and then there will be fewer true foodies and then the Foodie Network will fail and......well we will be right back where we started --where we are now! I am being a bit sarcastic here. (not that anyone would notice)javascript:emoticon(':wink:') But all this "bashing" of the Food Network and Emeril and Ms Ray and others often goes a bit overboard. To me, being a foodie simply means one who loves food and eating and dining out etc and certain connoisseurship as a result of that love. A passion, if you will. But connoisseurship also means sharing that passion and being happy when the passion "infects" someone else. It also means understanding that not everyone shares that passion or shares it to the same degree. I admit it is fun to "pick on" Ms Ray and others and a lot of this is in good humor, that is fine. But really, enough is enough! It is not as though foodies have nowhere to go--I can't keep up with all the "serious" food media out there--TV, Radio, Magazines, books, web sites as it is. I certainly welcome more people who want to be seriouis about eating--that way there will be more good restaurants and more places to find the food I love. Better for me! (though not too many more people serious about food--it is hard enough finding a good truffle as it is).

One very helpful feature of a web site is the availability of the wine list on line. As an enophile and married person, it irritates my wife when I spend ten minutes perusing a wine list (any good list with a large selection requires some time to "peruse"). It is also bad manners for one to ignore one's guests or fellow diners while "perusing." Therefore--it is wonderful when I can "peruse" on line and have a good idea of what the restaurant has to offer thus cutting down on the at table "perusing."

Please note that Daniel Rogov has provided a link to notes on theses wines including a few for Clos Mogador. Frankly, it is beyond me how people can dismiss thses wines by lumping them together under a derogatory rubric like "fruit bomb" etc. Just reading Rogov's and other's notes on these wines (also Brad's note) would indicate something quite the contrary. As for the "fruit bomb" designation --wine is made from fruit--so I never really know what this term really means? The Priorat wines are often very complex and distinctive and the level of overall quality is high--at least the many that are available here in the US. I have enjoyed many including several vintages of Clos Mogador. (My favorite Spanish wine, unfortunately for me and my bank account, is Vega Sicilia Unico--I believe this to be one of the very greatest wines produced anywhere). It is no wonder that appreciation of Spanish wine (and sales) is rapidly growing here--many fine wines of many different styles.

I have to admit--I have never liked B and J's much. Cute flavors--with cute names. Cute marketing--the whole counter culture philosophy. Cute owners--those lovable counter culture guys. Yeah sure! Very Savvy marketing by two smart capitalists! I applaud them. But their ice cream? well I am a purist here if I want a candy bar I eat a candy bar if I want ice cream (boy do I want ice cream --far too often) I like ice cream--chocolate chips is about as far as I will go. I guess I am just a Chocolate, Strawberry and Vanilla guy (ok Mint Choc chip, coffee, and butter pecan are pretty good) but has anyone looked at an ingerdients label on a B& J's pint? (any flavor) compare their label to that on a pint of Haagen Dasz. The biggest difference for me is the consistancy--B and J's is "gummy" (guar gum? caraganeen?) the same stuff that screws up most other brands IMOP. I admit I am probably in the minority here (maybe my loss) but is there anyone else out here who agrees?

Yes oak is a factor. Or it can be a factor. I don't want to get into an oak vs no oak debate (would be fun in a separate thread though) javascript:emoticon(':rolleyes:') Oak when well integrated is a very good thing. Oak that is overdone is not and certainly not so good--and definitely is a factor in making a good match with food. I think many would agree that a well made Montrachet is a nice accompaniment to any number of foods. Often I like to pair a "buttery" rich chardonnay with food that is also buttery and rich. It is all a matter of personal taste, though I think too many people are a tad "knee jerk" when the subject of oak presents itself. What is important is an understanding of the wine's flavor profile so one is "armed" with enough knowledge to make a good choice. Oak aging is certainly a key factor in that profile--knowledge is good. ps thanks for the book tip.

I wonder why LA and Las Vegas? Not Chicago and San Francisco? Not to diminish the restaurant scenes in La and Vegas but seems to me Chicago and SF would be a bit more "interesting" and "diverse" in terms of their culinary import. L.A certainly has many fine restaurants and deserves to be included but right after NYC? Also Vegas strikes me as the city of clones when it comes to restaurants--would be fun to see if some of these "clones" receive more (or fewer) stars than their originals. My only thought here is Michelin may be more concerned with the status of cities as tourist destinations. In that case, I suppose I answered my own question.

I agree. With food and wine pairing, it is often difficult to generalize based upon the main ingredient. For example chicken can be successfully paired with almost every wine red or white. It all depends upon the preparation and the other ingredients in the dish. pork is one of those items that can work with whites or reds in many styles based upon how the pork is prepared. The other side of the coin is the difficulty in generalizing about wine when pairing it with food. For example cabernet sauvignon and chardonnay are produced in many different styles even within the same geographical area--for eg. even being as specific as to note california chardonnay from the Russian River doesn't help much. I have found it better to focus on the wine's flavor profile than its varietal type and origin. What one is really attempting to do in wine and food pairing is to make a decision based upon the flavor profile of the food and the wine. Whenever I sense a migrane coming on as a result of this process, I often throw all this out and just consider the dish I am going to make/eat and trace the dish to its place of origin then I ask myself : what would the locals drink with this?

There is a thread somewhere in the eGullet archives. I think your questions are answered by you in your post and certainly in other posts in this thread. Basically--P&O is quirky or offbeat in their whole approach to dinning. They have a certain uniqueness in this aspect. There are countless restaurants in the tri state area that adhere to the accepted standards of fine dining. I always thought of P&O as a very good diner with a superb wine list. The menu is all over the map no matter what your craving you probably can find it here with the dishes executed in a range from decent to quite good. (one does not go out of the way for the food here--one goes out of the way for the "broad selection" of food options). One could go out of their way for the wine list--not only its range but more importantly for the wine prices--they are in many cases more than just fair. The wine service is casual (think service in a really good diner) so unpretentious as to be..well..unpretentious. I believe they are "saying" hey we have some great wine let's not worry about fancy stemware let's just have some fun eating and drinking. Good food great wine no stuffiness-- what could be better? Atmosphere--don't worry about it --it's loud, fun (reminds me of the late "America" in Manhattan a few years back or maybe Ernies on the West Side). If you can't let your hair down and relax and join in--then this place is not where you should be. Much as I hate no reservations policies--I see the point here. P&O is a place you don't necc plan to go to for a night of fine dining--it is a place you go to (same as a diner) that same evening-"Hey why don't we go out tonight!" It is the answer to --"gee i am not sure what I am in the mood for but I am starving!" They also have a sort of appeal to the common man (and woman) people who do appreciate good food and wine but don't have the means or don't want to spend the money to dine and drink fine wine in those restaurants where one finds fine wines! If people continue to try to compare P&O to "typical" fine dining establishments (save for the wine list maybe) then people will continue to scratch their heads and wonder--Why is this place so popular?" In short-they have carved out a very unique niche--the concept works (or the non concept). I wouldn't fo there that often but--hey I am gettin hungry (it is lunchtime here and not sure what i am in the mood for--too damn late to get a reservation anywhere good...wouldn't mind a nice bottle of wine................say I think P&O is open for Lunch! )

well done Mary! on item D though--I am not sure we resolved that here. I would say that we all seem to agree that climate is a factor in ripeness and alcohol levels and I guess we would agree that there is a global warming trend. Will it continue until we are all treading water--as an aside--boy was that movie waterworld a stinker! Will it reverse itself? will we all be drinking only icewine?--stay tuned! I guess I would say that global warming "may be a factor among many." How's that for a decisive conclusion?

You have a much more discriminating palate than I do then if you can accurately distinguish a lot of the wines coming to market nowadays. Not only do I find it difficult to distinguish them by origen, many are hard to distinguish between varietals. By the way I did not like the movie Mondovino. I thought it terribly unfair even though I agree with a lot of its premise. Too many wines around the globe are stylistically similar. Call it what you will. ← I agree with both of you! And I also disagree! javascript:emoticon(':wacko:') All wines have terroir--that is they all come from somewhere. Sometimes terroir is very specific--ie identifying a Graves vs a Pauillac. Sometimes it is more general--ie a wine from Mountain grown cabernet (say Howell Mountain) vs a wine from the Rutherford Bench. Terroir is easier to identify when wines from different terroirs are compared---that is a point of reference is available. Sometimes it is difficult to identify--IMOP it can be "masked" too much oak for eg. like Doc-I have encountered wines from two different places that were indistinguishable. Interestingly, terroir is not as easy to "get." as many would have us believe. For eg the 1976 tasting showed something I believe to be almost as important as California wines holding their own against French wines--that is experienced tasters had great difficulty in "recognizing" the provenance of the wines--their terroir! The best example of this difficulty for me was a chance to taste a 1985 Eyrie Reserve against a 1985 Volnay Pousse D' Or-- Clos de 60 Ouvrees, side by side each wine at ten years of age. I could barely tell them apart. conversely, I had a chance to taste several 97 Cabernets on release--including many cult cabs--these wines are often dismissed by critics (mostly British) as "fruit bombs" "over extracted" too big etc etc etc.--Harlan, Colgin, Screaming Eagle, Bryant Family etc. well, it was amazing to me how different they were from each other! It was also an eye opener how many were possessing of individual character and how many of them displayed complex subtlety and flavors and even "elegance" to use a too vague descriptor. I have also had some Cal cabs that were too monolithic and overwhelmed my palate--its a mixed bag--that is good--one can not simply lump all these wines together. So terroir is important--but it is not the be all and end all many of its proponants would have us believe. Try to taste say a Chambertin from several different producers--same vintage--one would have a very hard time discerning which wine was the 'real" or "best" example of the Chambertin vinyard! One would have a much easier time identifying the producer though! As for Doc's concerns--I think they are very valid. I do think that, at the moment, they do not apply so much to the very top wines from around the world. or even the very best producers. Fashion is always a big factor but there are just too many growers and wine makers around the world--for example Cabernet franc from the Loire and Long Island and California--say, a Chinon from Jouget and Cab franc from Schneider and from Pride are all quite individually distinctive. One can still see quite differing styles in Burgundy and Bordeaux and the Rhone and Italy etc etc One hopes this will continue! I believe that if there is too much "sameness" in wine --then, enough of the market (all of us here at eGullet etc) will demand better! I just do not think we will ever get to that point--hopefully! Globalization is both good and bad--good in that winemakers and grape growers all over the world can benefit from shared knowledge and experiences and we wine drinkers can access more wines from more varietals and blends from more places--the downside is that there can be an opportunity for "sameness."--I would hate to see every wine maker vinify in oak barrels as much as I would hate to see them all use no oak at all. And for the market--there will still be a "sameness" or international style in wines meant for mass consumption--that is not necc a bad thing. Take Penfold for eg--they make a lot of "generic" tasting stuff and at the same time they make some very individual and distinctive tasting wine--various Bins for Cabs and Grange etc. Gallo--believe it or not is attempting to enter the higher end of the market with some fairly interesting wines--their Sonoma label for example. What is also true is that things in the wine world are evolving constantly--just look at California over the last thirty years--it is hard to keep up with the changes in the varietals grown--from table grapes to Cabernet to Chardonnay to Pinot Noir--Rhone varietals, Zinfandel, merlot and on and on. Growers are still searching for "terroir" trying to find out which grapes do best where. Same in Oregon and in Washington state--and places like Virginia and Texas are emerging as wine producers. That is just the US! It is becoming more and more difficult to generalize! as for Mondovino--I actually found it entertaining stylistically, but it was so slanted and subversive--it was a piece of agitprop-- that the valid points it tried to make were lost. If one wants to experience the same points presented in a more level headed and thoughtful manner--I would urge them to read "The Accidental Connoisseur" by Lawrence Osborne. Osborne is a friend of Nossitor who made Mondovino and Nossitor inspired Osborne to write the book. It says everything that Mondovino tries to in a very moving and passionate way without being subversive or relying on gimmicks and cheap shots. (I loved the book). I would also urge you to read the opening of Parker's book "The World's greatest Wine Estates"--Parker makes a very level headed and clear case for his view points and "answers" a lot of his critics. Parker has basically laid out his philosophy about and approach to wine in one very readable "essay." One can certainly disagree and disagree with either approach (I find merit in both sides). But both the Parker piece and the Osborne book present two very different approaches to wine today. Is one "right" and the other "wrong?" No--they are just different--one can learn and increase one's enjoyment of wine from each.

I agree with Hank. RE: Smart Buy I often went in to the old Carlo Russo version and found that empty or near empty. Depends upon time of day and what the shopping patterns are for the area.

A good point. Also many of those Burgundies were "fortified" with wine from North Africa or the Rhone. So much for the "traditionalist" arguments. There is also reason to believe that this practice has been ongoing and continues today --to a lesser degree one hopes. It was not long ago that a freighter sank off the coast of France and it was discovered that it was loaded with Italian juice to the chagrin of the French. Basically, winemaking has been evolving for centuries-- trends come and go. There is plenty of room to discuss and debate the merits or lack of merit to alcohol levels(high or low) in wine. There should also be plenty of room for wines with different levels of alcohol to exist. What is tiring are the "absolutists." Folks who declare that "real true Burgundy is......" They seek to define what we should like or not like based upon their criteria. Even global warming needs some perspective--the fact is the earth has gone through periods of warmer and cooler temperatures. So too, wine has gone through periods of higher alcohol levels and lower alcohol levels. I would challenge anyone to make a good case that wine drinkers were better off thirty years ago compared to today. What I do hear is a lot of hysteria about globalization and modernization and a lot of dishonesty. Mondovino is rife with it. I also applaud you for a common sense approach and your honesty. As I said there could be an interesting discussion about alcohol levels in wine if the "agendas" could be put aside (Mr Anderson, Ms Robinson). As for me--I have come to love a wide variety of wine types, oaked, non oaked, high alcohol, low alcohol, wines from cool climes and wines from hot climates. To me there is merit and enjoyment to be found in most every well made wine (and also downside) I haven't found the "perfect wine and truth told I am not sure I want to--the search is too much fun!

I wouldn't take this list (or any other list like it) too seriously. One could not possibly be all inclusive in attempting such a task as identifying the top ten anything in America. The idea is to help sell magazines and inspire debate. (given the size of the discussion here re" Mariani and ethics etc the piece has certainly accomplished that). I do believe Philadelphia has been represented in past lists. If I recall Stripped bass was (when it opened) touted as THE best new restaurant in America. ps I live in Manhattan (I spent summers in Philly with relatives long ago) and I admire the level and diversity of dining experiences in Philadelphia. I often liken it to Boston in comparison with NY as having more "manageable" dining scene. (one can easily be overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of choices here in NYC).

Thanks for the thoughtful post Carswell. The issue is what I suspected it to be. The ongoing argument over "new" wines vs the "old." We are certainly not going to resolve things here. The reason is the issue is far too complex--I haven't the room on my hard drive! Jancis Robinson is a fine and knowledgeable writer I read her often. She is a good representative for one side of the argument. I tried not to bring him up but..yes Robert Parker represents the other side. One (Robinson) takes a "glass is half empty" position. Parker takes a "half full" angle. Incidently for you, or anyone else, who would like to read the "other side" of Ms Robinson's position, I recommend the first sixteen pages of Parker's new book "The World's Greatest Wine Estates." It is a fairly expensive book so a few minutes in a book store should provide enough time to read the opening pages. As for me, I find this whole argument difficult to get one's arms around. The only writer I have found who actually addresses the isues in totality is Parker, though Andrew Jefford in "The New France" does a very good job (I also recommend this book very highly). Jancis Robinson comes close. The problem is both sides are attempting to deal with the fact that the wine world is changing (it always has but the last thirty years the pace has accelerated). I view this latest "alcohol level" argument to be one more attempt by the "old is better" folks to deal with even explain where wine is and is going. This is the problem with their side of things. They often come at the issue by "latching" on to a singular point (alcohol levels) and attempting to get to their main point which really is: "things(read wines) were so much better forty years ago." The other side of this celebrates the belif that the wine world has increased in size--there are more wines from more locations in the world available in more places today. And--overall the quality of these wines has never been greater. The problem is--the older is better crowd has a difficult time presenting and supporting their argument. So they latch on to things like higher alcohol or "the evil empire" (read the Americans) invading france (Mondovino) or "wines are becoming homogenized" or Parker is influencing winemakers and wine buyers. Or wines are being made for the "American" palate. The truth is, there are small elements of truth in all their arguments which they attempt to expand into a "crusade." Mr Anderson's piece is a good example--he takes a sensational headline (a la Mondovino--"America is attempting to rule the world") using "Global Warming." He combines this with some factual truth (yes alcohol levels are rising/have risen in many wines) all to get to his thesis which is: Things (wines) were so much better thirty years ago. So let's just look at the higher alcohol thing. I think a key here is the end of the piece: he notes that since people do not seem to have noticed the high alcohol, winemakers will continue to make these wines. It seems (if one googles the issue) the only people who do "notice" are mostly his fellow "things were better" compatriots. So maybe, just maybe-- for wine drinkers-- the issue is not so important. (I am not saying it is of no importance). Alcohol is a component of wine--it is not the determining factor in a wine's drinkability or quality. There have always been "high alcohol" wines. These tend to come from places where there is a lot of heat and sun impacting the vinyards. For eg the Rhone hotter, warmer than Bordeaux so why is it any suprise that wines from California (Napa) or Australia are relatively higher in alcohol than wines from cooler climes? (there are always exceptions to every generalization about wine). Note I used the word "relatively" that is what we need here--rational perspective. Maybe "most people" haven't "noticed" this horrible disaster of higher alcohol because it is not such a horrible disaster. maybe peole are not so dumb (anyone who subscribes to say, Parker is often deemed a sheep) . Maybe most wine drinkers can choose wines they like to drink regardless of specific knowledge about PH levels etc. They buy what tastes good to them. Winemaking is a balancing act--fruit, ripeness, acidity, sugar, alcohol. If and when alcohol levels are too high--or wines are out of balance--people will turn away from them. I know many people who do not like Turley Zinfandels or Amarones. And while we are on the topic of Amarone's --how is it that Ms Robinson (and Mr Anderson) don't rail against these wines???? They are all high in alcohol. The answer is Amarone's are old world and old world is good only new world is bad. The good old days? I too go back thirty years. Yes Bordeaux and Burgundy produced some fine wines so too did California. But an awful lot of wine was pretty bad. There were far fewer "good" vintages then." It should be noted that many of the greatest wines ever produced in Bordeaux had either relatively high or low alcohol levels (see it ain't just about the alcohol). Many wines produced were tannic and unyielding acid levels were too high (it ain't just about acidity either) the fruit was unripe or over ripe. The cognescenti told us they needed long ageing. These wines were often dried out and charmless after any amount of time in the cellar. Burgundy is even worse--as was California. (I believe I still have some old cabs that after twenty years in my cellar are still "ageing"). I'm sorry but today is a hell of a lot better. The fruit is riper the wines are cleaner there are more good vintages-- not only in France but around the world--we have more diversity! If low alcohol is your criteria--you have plenty of choices. I would point to a recent thread here at eGullet--in Wine regarding Priorat wines (Spain) these are wines that have relatively high alcohol (the alcohol levels in Priorat wines was even higher many years ago) read the tasting notes in the link Daniel Rogov provided. Yes there are many people who do not like these wines (I even find some a bit too much of a good thing) but should we decry the fact that they are relatively higher in alcohol, should we attribute their presence to an international plot hatched by Robert Parker? Remember the Priorat has been making wine for a long time (they have just recently been 'discovered"). Or maybe we should go back to the "old Days" when these wines weren't even available. When most wines available were high in acid low in alcohol--yes "food" wines) high in astringent tannins (remember: "with twenty five years of age...."). When we did not havbe to "suffer" all those Oregon Pinots and Australian syrahs and the "overly extracted" (whatever that means) California cult cabs. To be reasonable (I haven't spent this long balanced on a soap box in quite a while) and in conclusion: I think there is a happy medium. There are (and always will be) many wines that are "old style" If one likes low alcohol high acidity reds then places like the Loire will continue to produce them (the climate dictates this) what is good news is places like the Loire are benefitting from modern winegrowing and making and is producing better wines. I would argue there are more Red wines from the Loire available on shelves today than there were even ten years ago. Pinot Noir in the new world is being produced from climes and locations that are better suited to this varietal. The new world is discovering the importance of terroir. I would also add that the Old World is discovering the importance of ripe fruit (in fact they always understood this --they did promote chaptalization in many wines). As with most things--people often fear or at least are uneasy with change. And with most things people look back at the "good old" days with fondness. (some of which is clouded by the passing of time). Overall I believe things are pretty good. Wine is so complex there will always be room for debate. There will always be wines people love and people hate. people will be passionate about wine--regardless of the alcohol content! Let's celebrate the wines we love from years gone by and enjoy the great bounty of wine we have today.

You have a good wine store right in Teaneck: Queen Anne Wines 247 DeGraw Avenue www.queenannewine.com I have shopped them for years--selection is good and prices are often very competitive. They have an offer on their website to match any internet advertised wine prices in New Jersey. I also loved the "old" Carlo Russo. The new place--Smart Buy is good. You should also take a short ride (from Teaneck) out to the Wine Library near the Short Hills Mall they have IMOP one of the largest and best operations anywhere.

Having read Mr Carswell's recap of Mr Anderson'a piece. I wonder what Mr Anderson is getting at? He does a good job covering the bases then closes by saying that few people seem to have noticed the "trend" thus winemakers will continue making these wines. There still is no indication from Mr Anderson as to specifically what wines he is talking about--there are wines of varying alcohol levels available today. Is he seeing higher levels across the board? and What constitutes a "high" alcohol level in his opinion? He implies that these "high" alcohol levels are a bad thing.? I would doubt that winemakers are "trying" to craft wines that are higher in alcohol. (there are restrictions country to country on alcohol levels). As always winemakers have to work with what is at hand. Is he arguing that winemakers should pick less ripe fruit? I would also note that focusing on just alcohol levels is a bit confusing there is so much more that impacts a wine's flavors.

John, carswell provided a summary of the article above in post #7. A link to the article is not available. ← Thanks! I just read it. It appears that Mr Anderson is covering many more bases. As always, with wine, things just are never so simple. I would still like to see some evidence to support the premise that there is a trend toward "high alcohol" in wines. I suspect the "trend" is ripe fruit which is not really a trend, it has been the goal of every winemaker in history from the Burgundian who added wine from Algeria to his "Pommard" to the Loire wine maker who chaptalizes.

Since you do not provide the original article, I wonder what additional evidence the writer provides in support of what seems to be a simplistic (and possibly erroneous) conclusion. First, the premise. What exactly is meant by the "global rise in high alcohol wines?" Compared to what? What does he mean by "High alcohol" wines? Which wines? If high alcohol in wines is the result of a trend then I would love to see that trend supported with some specific evidence. I agree with you that, on face value, this is pretty rediculous. As for "global warming" I would remind all that thirty to forty years ago the conventional wisdom was "global cooling" the "big freeze" if you will. Getting grapes that are ripe enough to make wine is, in fact, quite difficult, we are dealing with mother nature and weather. It is no small consequence that grapes (especially black/red grapes) that do not achieve optimum ripeness will produce wines that are acidic, thin and possessing of "unripe" flavors. Thus, for centuries winemakers have been battling mother nature when she does not cooperate--ie chaptalization, as well as blending in wine from ripe grapes. It should be pointed out that too warm a climate and over ripe grapes are not so good either. Certain grape varietals "prefer" different climates. Thus, pinot noir planted on the floor of Napa Valley will probably result in lesser quality wine as opposed to pinot from a more moderate clime. It is a fact that regardless of the weather modern wine making and grape growing techniques have progressed to the point that even relatively poor years weatherwise can be overcome and good wine can be produced. So, I am not sure what is being argued here?