JohnL

Thanks Mary! The Thiese piece was fun to read. (i like the Dr Vino site as well). I think this debate can be parsed into the "Romanticists" and the "Pragmatists." Interestingly, I do not think there is a real debate here as the two sides are basically in agreement. It is really a matter of how each side frames things. Also complicating things is the elusive nature of terroir. Even the terroirists/romanticists have trouble identifying it--though they can elaborate on it (Mr Thiese's Indian story). The pragmatists are not anti-terroir (or romance for that matter), they understand its importance but they just have a different perspective on it. That is there are far too many instances where a taster can simply not identify it (correctly anyway) in the glass--one can identify the end results from terroir but not the terroir itself with any specificity (or accuracy). Therefore the pragmatist would say terroir is important--it exists--but it is not as important as how the wine ultimately tastes. I also believe that the romanticists position have been abused. Historically, winemakers, negociants, retailers, etc etc. have used "terroir" or the romance to sell wines of poor quality. "why this wine is from a tiny parcel of grapes on a lush mountainside tended by a blind hermit..." The story and place behind the wine being more important than the fact that the wine is not very good. The pragmatist view has also been co-opted: "why this wine was made by so and so--the greatest winemaker of his/her time." In the end though, I think the terroirists are becoming a tad too frantic. The reason is they perceive the vast number of emerging wine drinkers as "not caring" about terroir. This is natural because in reality, most people are more pragmatic than romantic when it comes to wine--they just want something that tastes good. They don't have the desire to wrestle with vintages and weather and place. I do believe that there will always be a market for wines that do reflect a sense of place--but pragmatically speaking--a good wine is a good wine and a bad wine is a bad wine regardless of where it was made or who made it. Now I also realize that there will always be a debate as to what good and bad are--taste is taste--but the argument over terroir has been, I think, overblown! It shouldn't be a debate--the two sides are not really diametrically opposed, they are probably in agreement on more points than not--rather it should always be a point of discussion.

Some time ago I was responsible for a sales force (the product was not food or wine related). If given the choice of someone who was a passionate advocate for the product or someone who was a great sales person (the two are often not the same). In my experience--I would hire the great sales person. As I see it, the mission of a wholesaler (of anything) is to sell. In an ideal world the passion for the product and the salesmanship would go hand in hand--in reality they usually do not. I know a CFO of one of a major corporation that owns many wineries. She likes wine but is not really very knowledgable about it nor is she an enophile. She is a financial wizzard and is passionate about finance--this is the key to her success, not a love or passion for wine. Having said this, I think the critical element here is the customer of the wholesaler--the restaurant. Customers drive ninety per cent (or more) of the sales process and it is the customer who truely is "king." Therefore, until restaurants put wine and wine service in proper perspective (or any perspective at all), wholesalers and wineries are not going to have much impact. They will be fighting an uphill battle. And guess what will drive restaurants attitudes toward wine? Their customers! The dining public. Sales and sales trends tend to work from the bottom up the chain rather than top down. So, based on consumer attitudes towards wine and wine service, restaurants will respond and demand more from wholesalers who in turn will make demands on wineries.

Unfortunately, the restaurant and wine busines is not much different from many other businesses in how they do business. I always admire restaurants that don't have a sommelier but try to make ordering wine consumer friendly. For eg--some restaurants will offer by the glass suggestions with dishes on their menu. Some will organize their wine lists into Reds or whites and then sub categories based on full bodied, medium bodied and light etc. adding brief descriptions with basic info on the flavor profile is an additional help. I think these things also help the wait staff to deal with wine selection and service. I do think that the food and wine pairing thing can easily become overwrought and over bearing and thus intimidating. Most people are looking for a pleasant experience when they dine out--good food and ,hopefully, nice wine. Restaurants can overdo things--selecting and ordering wine (and enjoying it) should be painless and easy.--it's good business.

You should really stop putting words in carswell's mouth. It doesn't make him look unreasonable. There's hundreds of bottlings of Chinon. Parker found 8 of them to damn with faint praise. Big deal. That doesn't exactly establish him as a fan of the wines. The more you rant against the anti-Parker partisans, the more you establish that your own opinions are those of a fervently partisan Parkerphile. ← LOS, I am not "ranting" nor am I an apologist for Robert Parker (or anyone else). I think we are getting 'lost in the Loire." Parker is a wine critic--he tastes wine and provides his opinion. The ranting, as Ms McCoy's book points out, has been coming mostly from people in the wine industry importers, winemakers, writers,critics retailers etc etc etc. I would ask, what state was the wine business in that when someone like Parker comes along he becomes such a polarizing figure a veritable lightening rod? And as importantly, how is it that Parker became as prominent as he is? I believe, the fact that Parker approaches wine from a consumerist position rather than as an "insider" is part of the reason for both his appeal to consumers--bewildered by the overwhelming enormity of the world of wine and by the "insiders" who resent him for his honest and open opinions. That is, he tastes a wine and tells you what he tastes but also provides a lot of context for those opinions. His writing style is direct and straightforward--basically pedestrian, if you will. He is an unabashed advocate for what he likes and believes. This is in stark contrast to a lot of critics and writers. He was and is --in the right place at the right time--he came along in the early eighties as boomers were approaching critical mass with disposable income. The wine world was already evolving: winemaking styles were changing the marketplace was rapidly expanding. McCoy's book does a decent job in detailing this. Too many writers were vague and vacillating when it came to wines. For eg pg 133 (McCoy) Andrew Barr (a British wine writer--whose book "Wine Snobbery" I recommend)states that Parker's scores were a victory of American pragmatism over French mysticism." Now for the Loire. I think Parker is pretty honest and upfront in his assessments. The fact is, that winemaking in the Loire for many years, left much to be desired. Even Friedrich who is a veritable cheeleader for the region notes this. It is a fact that cabernet franc can taste lean, acidic and vegetal and herbaceous when it does not ripen enough. This is viticulture not Parker. It is also a fact that the Loire is precisely the kind of cool climate that presents a problem for the ripening of grapes in all but the best vintages. It is also a fact that chaptalization (not necc a bad thing) is practised widely throughout the loire due to this problem. As I see it, all Parker is doing is alerting the consumer to the fact that many reds are often problematic. He notes that "many people have no problem with these wines. Fair enough? He also states that these wines can be very fine and provides some guidance to the producers who are making good examples. Friedrich does this also. So what is the big deal. You certainly can disagree with Parker and if you like bell pepper notes and vegetal flavors then you will love all the red wines from the Loire. If not-you will probably like some of the wines--the ones that do not possess these notes/flavors. I can't list the times parker and Rovanni state that Loire Reds can be very fine and present good value. So where is it here that Parker doesn't "get" Loire wines. Does he have to love a wine to provide valid notes and criticism? Does a theatre critic have to love comedies and dramas equally? Does a food critic have to love all cuisines to write about them?

This would probably make an interesting thread of its own but: It seems to me (based on purely my own experience) that: People who are "into" food, dining and eating and cooking are less into wine. People who are "into" wine are more apt to be "into" eating and food and dining. That is many of the blogs and the threads from foodies about wonderful meals in various restaurants out here in internet land go on in great detail about the componants of a a meal yet, often do not mention wine (or any other beverage) and only in passing when they do. Conversely, one often finds food notes accompanying wine tasting notes in equal proportion from the wine geeks. Is this just me? Do foodies love wine as much as wine geeks love food? Is a wine geek more likely to be a foodie than a foodie is likely to be a wine geek. and is there a happy medium? (please excuse the use of terminology--I hate the labels winegeek and foodie as much as anyone--I am not eloquent enough to make my points without them though) I am interested because the future of wine may lie in with the finely tuned palates of adventurous foodies who are responsible for the explosion of vaious cuisines and the diversity of dining choices that seems to be ever expanding. So too will the list of wines (and other beverages) to accompany that food grow. Both food and wine are entering a battle of diversification vs globalization. Fusion food and global wine vs distinct cuisines and distinctive wines.

That's the beginning of the Loire chapter in Hugh Johnson's Modern Encyclopedia of Wine, and it's interesting to note that the words vegetal and herbaceous appear nowhere in the lengthy text that follows.(A final comment. In years of taking part in online wine discussions, this is the only time I've allowed myself to get involved in a discussion of Parker. Personally, I long ago gave up on him, finding his taste in wine not in synch with my own, a state of affairs that renders his comments useless to me. This does not make me a Parker hater. The only resentment I bear toward him is due to the fact that his advocacy is one of the reasons favourite wines like Pichon-Lalande, Chave Hermitage and even Domaine de Trévallon have been priced out of my reach. I also worry about his impact on wine styles — the sweetening of Alsatian whites, the gobbifying of certain Bordeaux, the increasing number of Italian wines that don't taste like Italian wines. On the other hand, his dismissal of Loire reds and regions like the Jura and the Savoie have helped keep their wines affordable. I first posted in this thread because you made a claim that, in my view, was unsupportable. I provided quotes that, I feel, proved my point and I didn't add any comments of my own. Your defensiveness has led me, with this post, to break my No Parker rule. I don't intend to do so again. All of which is to say, I probably won't be continuing this discussion. No offence intended.) ← Well, I think we have really gotten into the crux of the matter. Let's stipulate that the Loire does produce some very fine red wines. Parker and Rovanni say so. I agree. I am sure you do as well. As for the "herbaceous" notes: The oxford companion to Wine (edited by jancis Robinson hardly a Parkerite) notes the problem and any savvy taster will explain that Cabernet Franc often possess this quality. Also of note via the Oxford Companion: "For years Loire Reds suffered from a lack of extraction." and as to the climete issues: it is a fact that Chaptalization is the NORM for Loire wines-- red and white. That is they have problems achieving high enough sugar levels to yield high enough alcohol levels to meet french wine law minimums. Even Kermit Lynch who importa any number of Loire Reds admits that for the most part these are often "light refreshing simple reds best served chilled." Yes there are a handful of truely wonderful reds Parker notes eight of them for Chinon alone. I suggest that you refer to Parker's SIXTH edition of the wine buyers guide where he and Rovanni are much more enthyusiastic about the reds. (could be that the winemaking is improving? that is clearly noted in numerous places in the literature.) You note some books--Friedrich for example--a wonderful book--I have read it several times. But Friedrich is not writing a critical tome--she is romantisizing the region and its wines. She is only offering the best light. Like Dressner and Kermit Lynch they are not turning over the stones and reporting what they find their mission is totally fdifferent (and they all do it well). And most interestingly--Parker and friedrich seem to agree--note how their lists of admired/recommended producers match! Could it be that Parker is simply being accurate and honest in discussing the problems with Loire Reds? You say there are some nice wines from the Loire and so does Parker. You seem to have a problem with his critical comments. So, one has to ask: is your disagreement based on your perception that ALL LOIRE REDS are serious wonderful wines? Really--who is more reasonable here? You who note no flaws or even potential flaws in some/many of the wines or Parker who says there are some fine wines here but.... Parker noted that of the myriad Loire Reds he has tasted at least 50% were not even up to a review. I suggest that he has tasted a far wider range of Loire Reds than you (or most people) and thus has a better perspective on the region. Is it possible that you (and I) are "seeing" only a tiny percentage of the Loire Reds produced on local wine shop shelves? Possibly the best examples? I suggest Parker is reviewing from a much larger universe--tasting wines we simply will not see. "Damned if he does and....." You seem to complain that because of Parker touts a wine (Pichon Lalande) the price goes up and you can't afford it. Thus you are glad that Parker "doesn't like" the Loire Reds. You criticize Parker for ignoring the Loire because he doesn't "get" the wines but are glad he doesn't so they stay cheap. Which is it? This is the same critcism of Parker many make including Joe Dressner in McCoy's book. He says he needs Parker to review his Loire portfolio so he can sell the wines then says Parker doesn't understand the wines when Parker does review them. What you really want (and for slightly different reasons Joe Dressner) is validation. That is you like Loire Reds (Joe Dressner imports them as well) and you want Parker to like them as well. How often do we hear "how could Parker only give this (or that) wine an eighty seven--why I think it is a ninety two!" This missing the point that 87 means Parker likes the wine--he just doesn't like the wine as much as the complainant!--and I am sure parker would agree! (If he doesn't well--you know he just doesn't understand the wine). It is the critical approach that Parker takes you have a problem with. I note that you don't quibble with Parker's "getting" Bordeaux (the Pichon you both like). This is seen in letters to the editors in any car magazine: "How dare you guys not love the Honda I just bought!." or people who buy a Maytag washing machine then are devastated when they see a bad write up in Consumer Reports. The result is--"what do thiose guys know anyway!" Is a lot of the vitriol tossed at Parker well founded or just a case of SOUR GRAPES? I would submit that the reactions to McCoy's book from the critics (the Slate review of the book notes this) as over wrought and pure venom are more revealing about them than they are about Parker. I would say that your post above is well thought out and I do not really think you are being overwrought at all. I do think that you are missing what Parker is really saying about the wines--he is calling it as he sees/tastes it. He has in no way "trashed" these wines but rather has identified some problems that consumers need to watch out for. I would close by saying that one of the finest red wines I have ever tasted was a 2000 "Le Bourg" from Clos Rougeard I am sure Parker would like it as well. (if he doesn't --well you know--he just doesn't understand the wine the way I do) Finally--I really enjoyed this exchange--made me think-a good thing for me at least. cheers

I believe that this debate is much ado about....a little! Most wine is meant to be drunk on release or within a three to five year window. A precious, relatively tiny amount is vinified to "age" for an extended period in bottle. The question really involves looking at the benefits of cork vs the benefits of some (any) other means of sealing a bottle of wine and weighing these benefits against any downside as a long term proposition. As I see it we have identified the downside of corks. And it is a serious downside. We are still struggling with the benefits. Looking at the long term effects of screw caps vs corks will take--time. Until then--I would prefer most wines (those for short term storage-- use screw caps. I still prefer corks in my bottles of first growth Bordeaux--though the thought of even one bottle of old Margaux--resting/lurking "tainted" behind a yet to be pulled cork, in my cellar--raises the little hairs on the back of my neck. As Rebel Rose points out this is in the hands of the scientists--I wish they would hurry up and "discover" something!.

sounds to me like a pretty straightforward guide to what qualities he values in wine, something that is always good to know when you're reading a critic. And though I like Anjou, I have a hard time regarding it as the "Shakespeare" of wine (or even Loire wine) I have always felt there was a great deal of hypocrisy about wine people's reactions to parker (whom i have met on occasion but would not pretend to know). the reason parker became important is that lazy wine shop owners relied on posting his scores as sales tools rather than hand-selling the wines themselves, thereby giving him an imprimatur he may or may not have deserved. In fact, as much as the wine industry howls about him today, more often than not you'll find the little "RP 92" signs liberally sprinkled through every store--and if a winery gets a good review, it certainly tends to show up in their press and point-of-sale materials (including, by the way, the ABC website). most of the other criticism of him seems to be along the lines of "if i were king": if i were parker, i'd praise ....; parker "hates" the wines i love, how dare he! hmmm, funny how the people who make this complaint have no problem bragging about how they hate the wines parker loves. turnabout is not fair play? parker is just one guy with a word processor. his taste is as valid as yours (if you have been tasting wine for the last 30 years, which i know a lot of you have). if his taste moves more merchandise than yours, it's just because more people seem to agree with him. or, in the case of wine store owners, because you've told people they should agree with him, when it suited your purpose. ← Russ, I really agreee. Parker became "important" in part because of the industry situation. It helped that he: has a remarkable palate, a strong passion for wine, a good critical sensability, honesty, and writes in a clear concise and direct style. (Alan Richman notes this in the current GQ). When he "emerged" the state of wine criticism was a mess. It is the industry that is mostly attacking him. I also believe he was in the right place at the right time. I do disagree with the statement that "his taste is as valid as yours." --to a degree. Few people have his palate and few have tasted the enormous number and variety of wines--therefore few have the context he has when evaluating a wine. Having said this--in the end-- one's own palate determines what they like and one can certainly disagree with a Parker assessment. I do find that Parker is one of the few critics that can recommend a wine, tell you why and then state he doesn't personally care for that wine's style and why in the next sentence.

All quotes taken from the 4th edition of Parker's Wine Buying Guide. Anjou: "In particular, Cabernet Franc and Cabernet Sauvignon, while admired by some, are too vegetal for my taste." Bourgeuil: "More popular in France than in America, Bourgueil makes a fruity, raspberry-scented and -flavored wine that should be drunk in the first 5–6 years of life. The problem is that unless the vintage is exceptionally ripe ... these wines are strikingly vegetal." Cabernet d'Anjou: "The name suggests a red wine, but in essence this is a rosé that tends to be herbaceous and sweet. I am not an admirer of these wines." Châteaumeillant: "The only wines I have ever tasted from this backwater were inexpensive, but pathetic, washed-out examples that reminded me of diluted Beuajolais." Chinon: "Made from Cabernet Franc, in exceptionally ripe years such as 1990 it possesses abundant herb-tinged raspberry fruit. In other years, Chinon wines are intensely acidic and vegetal. I am not fond of the wines of Chinon, but that does not stop me from admiring some of the best producers." Côtes d'Auvergne: "This is another red wine VDQS making strawberry- and cherry-flavored, light, insipid wines from Gamay." Haut-Poitou: "The bad news is that the red wines ... are nasty, raw, lip-stinging wines with little flavor, but plenty of acidity and vegetal characteristics." Sancerre: "A small amount of red wine, which I find disappointing, is made from Pinot Noir." Saumur: "... Saumur-Champigny, which many feel produces good fresh red wines — although I do not agree ..." 1990 vintage: "The red wines are also surprisingly good (I have a strong bias against most of them because of their overt vegetal character), but because of the drought and superripeness they are less herbaceous than usual ..." His 1995–1996 buying strategy mentions only whites. The vintage guide discusses reds only in passing and, for several vintages, not at all. ← Let's look at some facts here. The Loire is not known for its reds. It is known for its whites. Why? The climate and soils (the terroir-- if you will) is not conducive to grapes achieving ripeness more vintages than not. This is not me or Parker but an accepted fact. Therefore, there is a reason that not many reds in any but the best (weatherwise) vintages are worth looking at. The reds often have overt herbaceous notes due to the lack of ripeness. This is the single main reason that not many are imported here (or most other wine drinking nations). The Reds from the Loire in the best vintages are pleasant wines with high acidity. I would add that Red Sancerre is also pleasant--I especially like these--but they are nowhere near the level of Burgundy or the cote Challonnaise in complexity or depth of flavor. So to Parker--he has clearly noted these facts and has many times recommended these wines. I can play the quote game here--there are six buying guides! I would challenge anyone to look at the quotes you have pulled out and say that Parker has no appreciation for what these wines are. He is clear when he states his preferences or lack of. He also points out those producers making good Loire reds. "...the red wines are suprisingly good..." then a note about the vegetal character of the wines. Most tasters would agreee these wines are, in fact, vegetal. This is an accepted fact about Cab Franc from the Loire. This is, IMOP, the mark of a a good critic. In fact, I have rarely if ever, seen a wine critic provide this perspective--accurately assesssing a wine for its positive characteristics and then stating a preference or bias. Again, Parker (and Rovanni) have noted many times where Red wines from the Loire are recommendable. (and not) I would argue they are on target more often than not. To say that Parker "doesn't get Loire Reds" is simply not true. By the way--the Slate review is one of the more reasoned and accurate review of McCoy's book.

So, it's pretty clear that to the majority of Americans, travel is not a priority and there are many understandable factors as to why this is so. But jamiemaw's comment struck a chord with me. Europeans, Middle Easterners, Asians, nearly everywhere else in the world they've been dealing with many of these issues for a long time yet it doesn't stop folks from travelling completely. We (in the States) are just getting a taste of what those in Europe having been paying for gas forever! The same with security issues -- from those who lived through WWII to the many terrorist/radical group bombings over the last decades -- they have lived through these types of attacks and don't let it stop them. They continue with their daily routines. I guess the US is still reeling from the shock of 9/11??? It WAS shocking. But it shouldn't stop us from leading the lives we want to lead. It makes me sad to hear some of you say that you think many Americans who might WANT to travel are truly afraid to do so. And perhaps part of it stems from the fact that (and I'm only speaking from my years in school) we do not have a practice of teaching as much world history as do other countries. We do not get as much news on world events on our main networks as they do in some other countries. I suppose this could all be part of it. I hate generalizing about any one group of people but when investigating a query of this sort, I suppose one has to...at least a little! ← I disagree. I would posit that a large number of Europeans travel for the same reasons Americans do. It has little to do with experiencing different cultures. For eg if a German person wants to go to the beach they have to go to another country. If an American wants to go to the beach we go to Florida or any number of places. Many Brits travel to Portugal for sun and sea if Brittain offered a warm sunny climate within its borders you would surely see a decline of the number of Brits travelling abroad. In Europe, the Fat Guy noted, Many countries are within five hours flying time. In five hours flying time in the US one can cover an extroadinary range of climate, terrain and destinations of interest. A lot of this is about two things: geography and motivation. Less about security. As for our knowledge of history, that is debatable. I can say that America has more open channels of free flowing information about the world than anywhere else. Also, I wonder if all that world travel is really all that we seem to be making it out to be. I have found Europeans to be no more or less zenophobic than we Americans are. No more or less Nationalistic either. Looking at just the food and culture I would posit that most travellers do not really experience either to any great degree. For eg most people from anywhere in the world travelling to, say, Italy will see the same sights, eat in "tourist" traps and have little real meaningful contact with real Italians. I can't tell you how many times I have heard a recent returnee claiming: "I had pizza in Naples and the slice you get in Brooklyn is so much better!" I am making the point here that things aren't as bad as some would have you believe. We should travel more, and even a "typical" tourist excursion to another country can be enlightening. I do believe that as we learn more about other peoples and cultures (travel is but one way) we will benefit greatly. Food is a great way to go--again I hope that for all the benefits of globalization--we do not dilute our cultures (and food reflects culture like nothing else).

To apply some common sense here: The average vacation time in the US is 13 days. About 1/3 that of most of Western Europe. The US is a very large country with a very diverse range of climates and terrain. For eg the US land mass is 3.6 million sq miles. Within that land mass are great beaches, mountains, plains,forrests,deserts, etc. Not to mention man made attractions: cities, resorts etc. Many families have vacation homes --here in NYC people have second homes or rent homes on LI, NJ Shore etc in the summer and often own homes or rent in VT, Colorado etc for the winter. a case of so little time so many places nearby. We also have two countries North and South of us which do not require passports and which offer much to see and do. I suspect that many Americans travel abroad to Europe or the Far east: ---when young via college study abroad or on their own. During the sixties and seventies many teens and people under thirty travelled extensively. ---when retired having free time (and money). In both cases there is time and money (the kids don't need it, the retired folks have it). The point is one needs to look beyond the statistics. Also important, most (the vast majority) of people from all over the world who are travelling are not doing so with sampling the local cuisine as the foremost concern. My guess is seeing the sights is number one--up there with 'experiencing" the beaches or mountains. For eg. many Europeans travel to Ibiza--they want to lie on a beach. Food and culture are mere sidelights for most every traveller Us or otherwise. I also suspect that a family of four travelling to Italy is not going primarily for the great food. The fact that the US has such great diversity via immigrants (there definitely is another thread needed) means we can experience other cultures and cuisines within relatively easy distance of where one lives. I know that this is not equal to visiting the actual country but very few, if any, places in the world offer this breadth of experience. I believe that the rapidly growing awareness of various cuisines and greater awareness of food and culture is a good thing and will encourage more people to travel abroad (and domestically) to experience them firsthand. One also hopes that countries and cultures do not become so "globalized" that the travel experience is diluted.

I'd want #1. I'm not a fan of wine with soup. I know, I know. I'm a wine prude. ← Brad, I don't understand your soup "thing." Though I would generally not order a bottle of wine to go with a soup course--I do enjoy a glass of wine with most soups. I like: a crisp sauvignon blanc or a white Rioja or an albarino with gazpacho. a glass of fino sherry with black bean soup (and a splash in the soup) a nice chardonnay or white Burgunday with a Lobster Bisque i also enjoy a good simple red with hearty soups like an Italian vegetable soup/minestrone. often i will finish the wine I had as an aperitiff or first course with the soup though. you really prefer water? I must say I am suprised!

IMOP--I think both those would work well. It is a shame you don't know which Kistler Chardonnay you are working with. Kistler makes many different chards each vintage from various single vinyards as well as some blends. They can each be quite different in flavor notes. They all share the fact that they are very big-bold and distinctive with lots of personality. Usually lots of fruit (tropical notes) and often a yeasty (leesy) note with toasted nuts. (They are not quite Meursault's though in this regard) sometimes a touch of smokiness. There will be oak (though these are not in the Leonetti league) Steve Kistler usually uses 50% new French Oak or less. as for the Pinot--I nver heard of it. would love to know what it is though.

Exactly how I was raised. What wasn't forbidden never did have the cachet that it did for others. And I remember reading statistics somewhere comparing American teen-drunk-driving with those in countries where alcohol is a normal part of everyday life enjoyed in moderation, and Americans came out far worse. ← I agree with your premise. However, the Europe analogy doesn't work. Europe includes many countries that have alcohol abuse problems some more severe than the US. What you are on to--and I agree with--is the tradition of serving alcohol with food at family dinners is conducive to children seeing adults enjoy wine etc in its proper context and acting responsibly. It is no secret that adult behaviour (especially that of parents and relatives and authority figures etc) has a major impact on children and their development. Whether or not, children actually taste or drink alcohol, diluted or not, is secondary at best.

The oxtail dish has some pretty bold flavors. Though my favorite accompaniement to most lamb dishes is a Bordeaux with a bit of age (ok-I am being "classic" here) I do think the lamb dish you note here would work with the Leonetti (and vice versa). Also-Roquefort with red wine (I have a hard time imagining this) may be interesting given it is tempered in a bread pudding. I really like the roast root vegetables --I can taste them with the Leonetti--definitely a winner. Again--what you have with the Leonetti and the Kistler are two very distinct and heavy on the character and personality. The Kistler should have a distinctive yeasty note (similar to a fine champagne). They both can have earthy and spicy notes--they definitely have oak flavors--and if from good vintages, they should have loads of fruit but with plenty of structure. If I were your client (and boy don't I wish I were!) I would definitely have you taste all the wines before you created a menu. I would probably have you over for some simple snacks and we would taste the wines and discuss them so you would get a good idea of what I thought of them and you would be able to have a real nice context for the meal you will plan and execute. Seems to me that would be more conducive to getting the most/fullest benefit of your talents! More of my money's worth if you will.

Is this a play on the Muscovy duck and duck confit references? ← I only wish I was that clever! actually, were I really clever--I would not let my honesty--disrupt my reputation for cleverness!

Here is where I am in total disagreement. I would never consider preparing a fruit-based sauce with a Cabernet. If the Cab is remotely fruit-forward, than you have fruit fighting fruit, usually making the wine and/or the sauce taste bitter and heightening the acids. Better to enhance the fruit in the wine with reducing some port for a base of a darker Sauce Robert or something. With fruit-based sauces, I tend to go towards Cabernet Franc, which shows far more vegetal notes (often why it is used in blending) and can complement a fruit sauce. I often make a dried fruit-stuffed pork roast that pairs well with CabFranc. Same with venison with cherries or duck with orange. Always a CabFranc but never a CabSauv. Just MHO. ← This got me thinking. The world of wine has changed so much (and is rapidly changing now) that when someone says "cabernet sauvignon" or Cab franc there are so many styles of each that it is impossible to follow any conventional wisdom. For eg--many cab franc's historically, have had vegetal notes. They also tended to be "lighter" than cab sauvignon (we are talking California and Wash here). However today one can try a cab franc from ,say, Pride and be tasting a wine that is not "typical" of what we got from cab franc in the past. Thus, many of the canards about food and wine pairings no longer apply. (at least across the board). The wines in question here (Leonetti and Kistler) are not "typical" (or maybe old style is better) cab sauvignon or chardonnay. I guess that as we struggle with the changes and the variety of wine around the world, so too, many of the rules in wine/food pairing need to be revisited.

Generally, I would agree with you. However, I should have been more specific. By fruit based sauce I meant a sauce where the fruit was "tempered" by other flavors, anise, cloves, etc. definitely not too sweet. Or even a red wine based sauce--reduction would work.] Best though would be a glaze with no sauce. The Leonetti wines are intensely fruity but not in a simple manner--there are a lot of complex flavors going on. There are also some very spicy and earthy notes often present. IMOP these wines would "swamp" any attempts at going counterpoint--a sauce with a subtle fruit note often works very well in going "with the grain." By the way--I doubt that winemakers are adding cab franc to a blend for its vegetal notes. I assume you meant "complexity." The truth is--many of these New World wines are so extracted that much of the conventional wisdom re: food and wine pairings can be tossed out. "Never say never"

I like the idea of roasted root veggies! A really wild pairing for the Leonetti would be a big platter of roasted fennel, beets, parsnips, potatoes, carrots, garlic etc etc etc. I am not a vegetarian but.......

I am not quite the oakaphobe as some others here. My view of the Leonetti wines is that they are indeed heavily oaked--Leonetti (Figgins) is upfront about his love of oak flavors. What I have found in most of the Leonetti wines is a lot of really ripe complex fruit that often (when these wines are best) holds its own-- balancing the oak somewhat. So you get a very "glossy" rich wine with a core of fruit-cherries, blackfruits, and some earthy notes as well with spices-cloves etc.---these are often not as "monolithic" as some people believe. They also can have good structure--they are not flabby. Having said this, Brad is on to something--I would pair Leonetti wines with something simple and very bold in flavor very direct, if you will. Grilled preferably. Perhaps something more exotic than beef--maybe elk or buffalo even wild boar or goat. You could even try goose or muscovy duck. A sauce that is fruit based-orange, cherries etc (sweet sour) and simple would work. Even better--a glaze. As for the Kistler--these are big complex chardonnays and I (and others) often find a yeasty note --lot's of flavor and personality in these wines--so again simple straightforward boldly flavored food works best--lobster is good rec. would help if you knew the vintages. also a longshot: mifght be at least interesting to call/email the winery and ask gary figgins what he likes to drink em with.

Wine (and all alcoholic beverages) need to be placed in context. I can say from experience that the major problem with children and alcohol is far too many view alcohol as a means to get high. That is beer is not viewed as a nice accompaniement to a sandwich or wine as a drink to enjoy with dinner. Many kids drink to "get drunk." Having said this, I have found that children in families that enjoy wine and beer with food and dine together in a convivial atmosphere generally see alcohol in a good positive context. Whether children are allowed to have small amounts of alcohol at dinner or not is not as important as their being exposed to alcohol in a specific context. Most alcohol--wine, beer, spitrits are acquired tastes--unless sweetened or disguised in some manner (fruit juices, soda pop etc). Most children will not really enjoy drinking wine or beer or spitrits --so offering a chance to taste these drinks can be a good thing--they see adults enjoying them responsibly and understand that the purpodse is not to get drunk and that the taste is not something they are drawn to initially. Just as kids need positive reinforcement--parents and adults can provide sensible negatives to drinking--that is children need to understand that being drunk or impaired is not a good thing and has consequences. However just providing the negatives will actually drive most kids to try alcohol--taboo is good! Remember prohibition? In the end, most kids will try alcohol--its part of being a kid to try things good and bad. Adults can help most by providing a good context for alcohol by example as opposed to preaching or being a 'cop."

Good points Matt! Webster defines Gourmet as: " a connoisseur in eating and drinking." They define connoisseur as: "a critical judge in matters of art or taste." To me --being a "critical judge" involves not just appreciation or passion but rather education/knowledge and experience. That is the ability to provide context for the subject at hand. Many have a passion and appreciation for fine food, dining, etc. and these people can certainly provide some context based upon their personal experiences which may be considerable, however, having a deeper knowledge of the subject of food involves much more. Just eating at fine restaurants does not mean one is a gourmet or connoisseur. Having an appreciation for what fine restaurants and fine food are is a welcome next step, but again, connoisseurship involves much more. I believe we all have a tendency, to feel we are "a cut above" the average person, that we are more "discerning" and have "taste" --at least we want to see ourselves that way. I refer to the quote below your "signature" by Steven shaw-- perhaps in that quote one can find the basis of what connoisseurship is about.

Good points Bux. I never thought about it but maybe Oysters are the ultimate fast food in some respects. The things a place like Legal Seafoods does best are raw bar items, chowder--easy to make in large amounts and the base is freezable (so are shrimp). The main consideration is freshness-absolutely critical here for raw bar items--and handling. Steak house fare is also conducive to "chains" either the meat is good quality or it isn't and cooking it properly is more a technical skill rather than demanding any great culinary art. Come to think of it--raw bar plus steak equals--a steakhouse! Anyway--my point was that there seems to be a lot of choice out there. Also-chains like MacDonalds are constantly testing new items (a good thing)--they are what they are--and as someone else mentioned here--they are responsive to consumer demands. I believe that we may see a welcome swing back toward family dinners--there is already a stronger focus on fresher items and more variety throughout the country. Also consumers are more aware of food and food related issues and seem to be more interested in general: if they weren't the Food Network would disappear quickly. All for the good! I was struck by Holly's somewhat bleaker view of things--maybe I am just a "cockel-eyed optimist! "

I will forever be indebted to my best friend and his family in the Bronx who "adopted" me (I was living alone while attending my last year of high school). They were working class poor--father worked for the transit authority, mom was a seamstress-- two sons) Mom and dad were second generation Italians. Every night the entire family prepared a meal and dined together. The food ranged from simple to elaborate and was prepared using fresh ingredients. Even the family dog shared the meal--though at one point the vet put him on a strict diet--Veal picata and pasta "fazool" evidently not optimum components of a canine diet. These were not 'gourmets" but rather people who had a great appreciation for good food and the benefits of dining together. Notably, I just heard of a recent study that determined that children who ate at least one meal a day with the family had fewer problems (alcohol, drugs, crime, pregnancy etc)later in life, than those who did not enjoy a family meal. The point is, this is not about economics, or gourmet palates, it is about people who have a love for eating and sharing and passing this along to their children. I also believe that chain restaurants are not the work of the devil. In fact, many of those "mom and pop" establishments were often not quite the places we remember them to be. I have had plenty of awful meals at mom and pop "joints" --small and independantly owned and operated do not guarantee anything. Currently we are seeing "chain" restaurants move upscale in price and quality--a perfect example is Legal Seafoods. Complaints about consistancy aside, I can get a selection of oysters that are fresh and superb quality at numerous locations from Floriday to Maine. Chains like Fudrucker's (I haven't been recently) proved that a good burger could be served in large numbers in many places. Lower end operations like Outback have ventured into high end steak with reasonably good results at their " Flemings" retaurants. Ruth's Chris, the Palm and Morton's are in reality "chain restaurants." Interestingly there are more non chain fast food outlets in NY, NJ and CT than ever before--myriad hot dog stands and burger joints--not to speak of pizza and ethnic foods--grilled chicken places are poping up all over. From Fish taco trucks in San Diego to Barbeque trucks in New York--its getting better all the time. As for ingredients--there has been an explosion of mail order and internet opportunities offering everything from herbs and spices to produce, meats, fish and poultry. I am also seeing high quality and diverse selection at chain supermarkets--Kings in NJ and Stop and Shop in the Northeast are good examples. I would also like to point out that many of the so called "gourmet" markets are often disappointing--I have had many mediocre to plain lousy experiences with prepared foods at these places --not to mention the ridiculous prices as well as out of date cheeses and other items of less than optimum quality and freshness. The point here being--many people who consider themselves discerning gourmets--are being taken to the cleaners! In the end--I am very optimistic about the quality and diversity of dining options in this country from chain restaurants to independantly o and o's. I also believe that there may be a long needed return to family meals and the overall quality of the products available will continue to improve. it is only a matter of time!

I am in a fairly advance course of wine study at the moment and I would say the forty or so students are split pretty evenly between men and women. I have found that women can be just as "geeky" as men when it comes to wine (and some other things). Women are going into teaching wine courses (wine educators) in large numbers as well. Let's not forget that there are a huge number of men who drink wine to get a buzz and prefer Bud Lite. Probably no greater a percentage of the gender than women who drink nothing but cosmos. Thus, stereotypes die hard. I have heard somewhere that men and women are different in psychological makeup. This may explain the fact that men tend to be more overbearing and argumentative over things like wine, stereo equipment, cars etc etc etc. It is also a fact that women are increasingly becoming wine buyers, sommeliers, sales persons in retail shops. If one looks at the wine press: Jancis Robinson, Serena Sutcliffe, Elin McCoy, Mary Ewing Mulligan, Karen MacNeil, Jacqueline Freidrich, Andrea Immer etc etc etc one notes quite a number of women in the profession. I have attended tastings led by Becky Wasserman who has been a major Burgundy Exporter for decades. Her stories about being a "pioneer" in this area are fascinating and engaging. (she pops up in Mondovino). Then there are an awful lot of wine makers of note: (some are eGulleteers!) perhaps the most notable is Helen Turley who has had a huge impact on california wine making. In France Madame Lalou Bize Leroy is arguably one of the greatest winemakers in the world. (also Madame Ghislane Barthod in Burgundy is making wonderful wines). There are winery owners here in the US: Delia Viader, Ann Colgin, etc etc. As for consumers, targeting segments is a tricky endeavor there is a fine line between communicating effectively and pandering. The best way to reach women consumers is on the front lines--at retail! How customers are approached and handled here is critical. Women are no less capable of being wine lovers than men are. Wine is in many ways a passion similar to being a stereophile. A noted owner of a stereo shop here in NY once told me that men come into the store with their egos out front and heavily influenced by one stereo guide/magazine or another--whereas women come in wanting to learn and have much more open minds. he said that it was a nightmare when women who are looking to purchase a stereo bring their significant others with them. the guys take over and dominate the entire sales process even though it is the woman who is buying the steroeo for her listening pleasure. He said that women actually have a more acute sense of hearing and are often more capable of selecting a stereo they enjoy than men as a rule. I believe there is a lesson here about wine, women and song!