JohnL

I think Jim's suggestion that you serve wines you like is perhaps the best. I think that making the "event" into a wine tasting may be a bit much. However, you know what you would be comfortable with better than we do. Might be an interesting touch if you served wine from one area or region. For eg--you could select Bordeaux: white graves for the first courses then a red you like then a sauternes with desert. Or the Loire: maybe try a vouvray in two styles a dry and an off dry-- open both and see which one goes best with which of the first two courses. (the off dry will have more body/mouthfeel --I agree with Carolyn re: the tune match). This might be a fun start to the meal. Move on to an earthy Chinon for the Lamb and then a sweet Quarts de Chaume with the pudding. The Rhone--whites: Condrieu, plenty of Rousanne options (white Chatauneuf), reds: from a good Cote du Rhone to Cote Rotie's or Chateuneuf's--sweet: Muscat de Beaumes. Italy and Spain can provide really wonderful wines at good prices for all your courses as well. or you can mix and match of course--but might be fun to open with two different whites trying each one with both the Tuna and the soup. (doing this with each course would risk turning dinner into a wine tasting (not a bad thing mind you but this may not be desirable at this time). Another suggestion would be to establish a good relationship with a local wine shop. It is difficult to provide more specific recommendations as your options are limited by what is available in your area. as for books, The Robinson "course" is good. I have also found "Pairing wine and Food by Linda Johnson Bell to be the best on this topic--published in the US by Buford Books and probably available via Amazon in paperback. Incidently, Ms Johnson Bell resides in London according to the jacket info. For tasting I recommend "Winetaster's Secrets" by Andrew Sharp, also in paperback and probably available via Amazon. I have a pretty extensive library of wine related books and these two stick out as particularly good and helpful. Good Luck with your evening! (of course, you must post a recap of your dinner with the wines etc. --I am sure I am not the only one here who is interested in how it goes for you).

I don't disagree. It's a horse and a cart thing--(maybe a chicken and egg thing). What I am saying is Parker isn't driving consumer palates, he is reflecting them. If someone bought a wine Parker reviewed favorably and felt cheated they would not follow Parker's advice again. Parker only reaches a miniscule number of consumers anyway. Most consumers don't know who he is. Consumer palates are what winemakers are trying to please though--naturally if they like the wines they will buy and drink em. So, if you want to say Parker has become sort of a de facto "consultant" to the wine business--I could agree with that. Thus, if a winemaker "followed" Parker and his/her wine did not sell--they's shift gears pretty quickly. (or find another "consultant"). Most people misunderstand Parker anyway-- "When I taste young Bordeaux from cask, I prefer to judge the wine after the final blend or assemblage has been completed. at this stage, the new wine has had only negligible aging in oak casks. For me, it is essential to look at a wine in this infant stage..because then most wines can be judged with only minimal influence of oak, which can mask fruit and impart additional tannin and aromas to the wine. what one sees at this stage is a naked wine that can be evaluated on the basis of its richness and ripeness of fruit, depth, concentration, body, acidity and natural tannin content, unobscured by evidence of oak aging." Parker's own words. Parker came along in the early eighties. I can tell you that at that time, let's look at California, the wines of the sixties and seventies were a mixed bag. The overall quality was questionable. Many Cal cabs were huge tannic monsters. They were hard to drink young, after ten to twenty years age many had lost their fruit and were dry astringent and out of balance. Yes there were some real classics--Mondavi and Heitz etc. Does anyone believe that wine in general-was better in those days? Doesn't it make sense that wines with more integrated tannins and riper fruit (oak or no oak) are more attractive? Are California winemakers still struggling to get the right grapes for the right climate and soil? Yes! The days of thin, weedy merlots are over (well almost) there were scads of these wines years ago. Common sense says that, for the most part, more "modern" style wines are more appealing to more people. Parker reviews simply reflect this--the range of styles of those 90 point wines is pretty broad--more than many want to admit. He loves the old style barolos as well as the new style. He is quick to praise the old Cal cabs when they merited it and loves the new style wines. They all have one thing in common--they are well made, clean, distinctive, wines--some are big and rich some are more elegant, some are oaky (yes he likes oak and admits it) some are not. Again--if consumers tastes did not coincide with Parker's then the wines just wouldn't sell and wine makers would stop following him.

This brought back memories. One of my early wine drinking experiences was a white Zin from "Baldinelli" it was on the list and by the glass at a very fine restaurant in Manhattan --Roxanne. The restaurant is long gone (Gascogne is in its location). I have never seen the Baldinelli anywhere since. I recall the wine as quite nice-dry for a white Zin much like a good Rose' what really is the difference between a Rose' and white Zin? There must be some examples of good white Zin out there.

Max, I recommend you look at the thread in wine forum started by RR: "Burgundian Police Teargas Winemakers" There are linkd to two artivles posted. One posted by Busboy is a NY Times piece and the other posted by yours truely, is a piece by an Australian who looks (with a slightly jaundiced eye) at the current situation in the wine world. Both these are eye opening -to say the least, even startling. I believe they provide a lot of perspective into what is happening with wine and the direction in which things are going. Things are a bit unsettling to say the least. Wine is a big business; much as we prefer to view wine with a romanticist perspective. Most of us here would consider ourselves "connoisseurs"--we are in love with the notion of terroir and small growers/farmers/wine makers who make wine out of love and passion with a sense of history. However noble, that point of view does not reflect absolute reality--those passionate farmers are engaged in a business and they are--in the end--selling a product. Even though ewe may prefer to see them in a much more romantic light--they --I would argue --prefer we see them in that light as they sell us their wine. the problem (for them and us) is that the world is changing rapidly. The global nature of economies (EU, GATT etc etc etc) has opened up a world market. Where once France (to a lesser degree Italy, Spain and Germany) ruled the world--there is now very stiff competition from the US, Australia, South America, New Zealand, South Africa and other countries. The Europeans and their view of wine as a product of place--terroir --are "trapped" from a marketing standopoint. The US wine industry took the "varietal" approach. Thus it is easier for the average consumer (anywhere in the world now) looking for a nice bottle to drink the coming weekend to buy a "Cabernet" or a "Merlot" etc. and have a good sense of what's in the bottle-- the grower, the vinyard, the producer all secondary--simple. The Australians have gone even further--clever easy to remember names:"stump jump", "dead arm" etc.--a "brand" that a consumer remembers--these strategies are capturing world market share. Now look at French (and European) wine: it has taken me years (twenty plus) to have even a sense of what Burgundy or Bordeaux or the Loire is all about and yet there is so much more I do not know. A consumer looking for a nice Burgundy is almost helpless--odds are against their finding anything ready to drink on their own--it is so much easier to pick up/try a California "Pinot Noir" --most consumers don't even know that Burgundy is made from pinot noir. Let's not even look at Germany--we all bemoan the fac thtat good rieslings "have never caught on" --well try explaining the german wine label to someone (better yet--try explaining it yourself). No wonder it is easier to just pick up a Sauvignon Blac from New Zealand as opposed to a Sancerre. (what the hell is a Sancerre anyway?). Many of these wines are easy to drink--one doesn't have to cellar them (how many people have wine cellars anyway?)--this is why the international style has emerged. All of this has happened regardless of Robert parker (or anybody else) Parker and Rolland et al are just scapegoats for what is driven by geopolitics, globalization and just plain business and economics. Having said all this, I believe that there will always be a market (connoisseurs) for small production Burgundies and Italian Barolos in the "old style. and other unique wines from around the world. But even here--there will be competition anew for consumer dollars--do I spend my $100 on a Bordeaux that will require ten years at least-in the cellar--at my age I hope to have my sense of taste intact in ten years--and even then what if the wine is corked or the wine is bad? Or do I spend it on a California Cab at peak drinking now or in a few years? I know these are two different drinking experiences but I have to make a decision! One or the other. All this is what a winemaker,grape grower, importer, retailer is faced with today. When a winemaker is saying he/she is making a "90 point wine" or a "Parker" wine what they are really saying is "I am trying to make a wine that will have a good chance of selling." Parker couldn't possibly be the force behind the global changes taking place--he reaches less than one tenth of one percent of the world's wine drinking population with his newsletter--assuming all the people who subscribe are blind robots who follow Parker exclusively. It doesn't compute. His approach is that the wine's label --it's origin-its producer is less important than the wine in the bottle. This is in agreement with what most of the world's consumers believe not the other way around. That is Parker's (and others) success--the right place at a significant moment of change in the wine world!

This is astonishing to me. Coming from a country where farm subsidies are the norm, I can imagine some answers to this question, but why such astonishing overproduction worldwide? Has this production/consumption gap been this wide for a while, or is it recent? edited to add: Should've clicked on the article link to get more information -- thanks, JohnL. But I'm still wondering if anyone has information about the history and extent of this gap. ← I'm sure some industry professionals can provide better insight. My guess is there has been an expansion and contraction in the consumer base. Also note that the article indicates Australian wine industry is healthy and growing. (the piece is a tad biased as it is really an aussi viewpoint--though the facts presented are facts nonetheless). It may be that after an initial growth explosion--people may be drinking less but drinking better. (this happened in the beer and liquor industries) and also awareness of alcohol related problems etc may be factors. It is clear that the french have beenb caught short-due to their marketing strategies and reliance on reputation and a failure to compete with the new world. as the piece notes--it is the low end of the price quality spectrum that seems to be the problem with over production. thus the EU attempt to raise the overall quality and cut capacity via the "plonk" end of things.

What do you think? ← QWine woes for France and the EU Hope this link works! Anyway--this is really fascinating. Really gets to the bottom of things! A very interesting perspective. also I must say I was quite stunned to learn of these facts and the current wine situation in the world.

Here are some startling facts: world wine production in 2004: 2.87 Billion Litres world wine consumption in 2004: 2.3 Billion Litres. The EU paid France $250 Million to distill 150 million litres of wine into industrial alcohol. (the EU paid Spain the same amount to distill 400 million litres) France (and the world) is producing way too much wine given the total consumption. France unemployment is at around 10% much of their workforce is in the wine industry. The only region in France that is not in crisis is Champagne--the worlwide demand for this "brand" is still high vs production. EU farm commissioner Marrianne Ficsher Boel says she wants to raise the quality of European wine and force growers to move beyond cheap table wines which have suffered worst at the hands of New World competition. Ms Boel also hinted that with the new rules for digging out low quality vines, the days of subsidies could be limited. she recieved howls of dismay 9from the french) who voted non to a EU constitution. already the number of growers in France has fallen dramitically, from around 196,600 in 1994 to around 112,500 in 2003 as thousands opted to take subsidies to pull vines, retire, or abondon the industry. New EU plantings are prohibited until 2010. Meanwhile the EU will spend $158 million on marketing agricultural products of which half will go to wine in Spain, Portugal, France and Germany. No wonder the Farmers are upset!

mary, as I suspected this issue is complex and fascinating! Simply put--French wine industry has represented a large portion of their economy. French farmers are heavily subsidized--that industry has been protected and regulated. In recent years this reliance on the wine industry has left France vulnerable to the increased competition from the rest of the wine producing world which is growing at a rapid rate. In fact, the US , in GATT talks, announced that we would place 200% tariffs on $300 million worth of white Burgundy imports, in part, because the French had been slowest in the EU to remove/reduce subsidies protecting their grape growers. Obviously France is having a difficult time wrestling with their wine industry internally and coming into compliance with the EU as well as competing in the world arena. There is a fascinating review of the French wine industry covering this topic at: www.american.edu/TED/vinewine.htm Site is run by a professor at American University in Wash DC. Sorry--I have been having trouble adding the link here. hope this helps!

This is a complex issue. It involves the emergence of a global wine market and the emergence of wine producers to meet the global demand. It also involves the EU, French farm subsidies and the fact that France must compete on a much larger (and growing) stage. There is a serious glut of wine produced in France. There is also a sea of mediocre (at best) wine--contributing to the glut. France (like the rest of the world) is trying to reconcile their complex system of wine regulations in the face of all this change. interestingly most, if not all countries that produce wine have their own means of classification and quality asssurance laws and regulations. It is a much agreed upon fact (yes there is some minor debate) that high yields most often result in poorer quality wines (more dilute less interesting). The French government has long had control over allowable yields as a means of ensuring quality wines. High yields also result in more wine (good or bad)--which is what France does not need. This has nothing to do with alcohol levels nor over concentration nor critics supposed influences (each of these can be debated separately). The fact is France is trying to compete--at home--within the EU and in the world as a whole. The country produces an ocean of wine as it is--they simply can not sell all this wine at reasonable profit. The USA has also been dealing with a wine glut. I am sure there are some folks out there who are more knowledgeable (maybe someone from the French or European boards) who could provide some perspective!

I agree but I doubt we will ever see the style of the wine on the label. Who would do that--oversee it? I certainly would not trust the winemaker--ever read the occasional description on the back label of a bottle of wine? They all read as if the wine is '47 Cheval Blanc! :-) The government--the EU and/or our BAT are mastrers of confusion as it is now! Well ya know! I think we have finally managed to combine/sum up? all the related threads (Mary--is there any kind of eGullet prize Doc and I can share?) 1--Globalism 2--Mondovino 3--Robert Parker Parker? I think this is where Parker and others (Tanzer, Robinson, Burghound, Rogov, the wine Spectator et al) have a place. Also eGullet etc. There is so much wine from so many places out there and given the ever changing dynamics of the producers and the market place--it is almost impossible to navigate the wine world without enormous sums of disposable income and endless free time. And even then..... We can certainly debate (endlessly) the merits, or lack of, any and all these folks, but it is the press, the critics etc that can provide immense help and guidance. (Toss in the far to rare-knowledgable and helpful retailer/sales person as well) who can play an important role in guiding and educating wine drinkers at all levels. We often get lost in debates over scoring systems, point totals, tasting notes and palate preferences losing sight of the potential benefits these folks offer. For eg--to give Mr Rogov a "plug" he certainly does not need (from me at least) I have recently been interested in learning about and tasting wines from the Middle East--regardless of his personal preferences, scores etc or whether I agree with his assessments or not--his perspective and the information he conveys has enabled me to find my way around --a part of the wine world that has previously been a total mystery to me. I suppose I could have done this on my own but I just don't have the time or money to poke around in the dark --he has at least provided a flashlight if you will. (I have also had a lot of help from a retailer--Eli Hardoff in Tappan NY who carries a lot of Israeli wines and has a passion for the Middle East). In the end--I think that the wine world is constantly moving--so are our palates (I can provide a long list of wines I loved twenty years ago and now find of little interest). The more information we can access, the better off we are! There is one absolute that everyone involved with wine--at all levels-- agrees with: The more one learns about wine, the more one realizes there is so much more to know about it. and no one will ever know everything there is to know!

Even a wine that is vinified to be "fruit driven" should display the characteristics of the grape. That is the wine should taste like the grape it is made from. For example, to stick with the Barolo example I cited earlier, if you look at the wines from Scavino which are in the so called modern fruit driven style--they still are distinctly Barolo and display characteristcs of the nebbiolo and the place--terroir. The wines are more fruit than earth (terroir). As a contrast-there are the barolos of G. Conterno which are "old style" wines wherein the terroir hits you over the head-the fruit is less forward. I enjoy both styles--one of the greatest wines I have ever tasted was the 1970 Monfortino from Conterno and I have had some wonderful wines from Scavino. The problem with the Conterno wines is the fact that they are difficult to drink young and often need twenty years or so to develop and sometimes the fruit loses out to the tar notes and tannin. The problem with the Scavino wines is often the fruit takes center stage at the expense of the earthy flavors one gets in the Conterno. when Scavino gets it right though the terroir is definitely there perhaps 'under the fruit". The upside is the Scavino wines are more enjoyable at an earlier age. In fact, when both these wines are "on" they are superb in their own styles. The truth seems to be that there are pluses and minuses to wines vinified to be fruit driven and those that are vinified to be more terroir driven. In each case there will be elements of fruit and terroir present in the best examples of each style. Having said this, I believe that fruit driven wines posses an important advantage. They are easier to drink at much younger ages. They appeal to a broader audience (or potential audience). It is simply a financial fact of life that a winemaker will benefit from producing these wines than if he (or she) was vinifying wines that required extended cellaring. I believe that good winemakers can produce fruit driven wines that do exhibit plenty of character and will be complex and interesting, but there will be many wines in this style that lose their "sense of place." just as the "old style" winemakers will struggle with getting enough fruit presence in their wines to survive the tannins and ageing. For the time being, the "old style" producers will have a market of connoisseurs--Conterno has few problems selling his wines (at very high prices incidently). The question is, future generations of Conternos. Will they have a market? One hopes so. as more and more wine lovers emerge more people will see the benefits of a modest cellar and will discover and buy different styles of wine. Hence in Mondovino you have the Montille family situation. Will the younger Montille's "give in" to the financial pressures or will they make the wine as their fathermakes it? or, in their case, the best, will they be able to make wines that are a successful compromise--better balancing the fruit and the terroir?

Let's put 'scores" into perspective. A score is a summary of one's tasting notes. A good taster can apply a score to a wine that reflects his or her evaluation of the wine in question. Scores should be based on a system that has objective and subjective elements. Scores also allow a taster to convey information and nuances that notes alone can not. For eg it is hard, if not impossible to taste two similar wines with similar flavor profiles both well made and convey via language that the taster preferred one slightly more vs the other--yes he or she can come right out and say just that but the notes may or may not appear side by side etc. For eg two very similar wines--a taster may prefer wine A slightly more than wine B and express that by giving wine A -say--eighty eight points and wine B ninety points. The point is, a reader interested in the taster's opinion can simply take the notes the score etc and have two pieces of information. Scores also can help provide some perspective--for eg two Bordeaux wines--each receiving a high score yet one is half the price of the other--this would indicate that one wine may be a bargain or a good value. One can certainly disagree with the whole process of scoring wines--as I see it scores are just another piece of information to be used by the consumer along with tasting notes and the price in making a purchase decision. A few observations: Even tasters who do not score wines-that is asssign a number or a star(s) etc are, in fact scoring wines. A score is implied by their words and descriptions. As for pleasing Parker: A lot of people profess to know what Parker likes therefore it would seem to be relatively easy to make a wine that Parker would like. This really isn't happening. One--Parker over the years has "liked" a wide range of types and styles of wine. Anyone who actually reads what Parker writes would see this. For eg--let's take Barolo. Parker states clearly that both the old style/old guard methods of making barolo and the "new" style methods can produce equally stunning wines. the two styles produce radically different wines. His scores reflect this so Scavino and Giacomo Conterno are both "liked" by Parker. what's a winemaker in Barolo to do????? Could it be that the conventional wisdom that Parker only likes new "international" style wines is wrong or at least not completely understood? Could it be that the emergence of these fruitier easier to drink styles (especially young) is due not to Parker but rather because they are more consumer friendly to a rapidly growing wine drinking public that doesn't want to lay down wines for twenty years? I believe that Parker just happened to be in the right place at the right time. He came along at a pivotal moment in the world of wine. he took a consumerist approach to wine just as there was an explosion of wine consumers. He communicated in a manner that they understood and responded to. The universe of growers, wine makers, retailers, importers, wine writers, critics etc was caught a bit off guard to what was happening from the consumer standpoint--they are still struggling to deal with and adapt to the changes. Mondovino, "the Emperor of Wine", The Accidental Conoisseur, all the debate is really more telling of their struggles than it is about Parker (or any one person).

Jim, I couldn't agree more. (with a few reservations though) Your Phelps example is a great one. I think where one gets into trouble with wine is trying to establish absolutes. There are instances where, say, Opus One is a more "interesting wine" than a wine from a specific vinyard--that is Opus One can express plenty of complexity and earthiness where a wine from single sourced grapes can be less complex and more monolithic. I have seen far too many tasting situations where very sophisticated palates can not identify that "place" --for eg. chardonnay tastings where examples from Burgundy were tasted against California chards or Bordeaux vs Cal Cabs and meritage. Speaking of Burgundy--this is where terroir should be easily identified. It isn't. There are too many instances of Village designated wines that are more interesting and expressive of terroir than primier cru and too many primier cru wines that 'speak" of the land and place more loudly than Grand Cru wines. So I believe that terroir is important --it does add to a wine's complexity and interest I also believe that it can be expressed in wines that are not made from grapes grown in one singular piece of land--it is always present in every wine. You are right--all grapes are grown someplace! Wines that display elements of the place(s) where their grapes were grown--soil, minerals, herbs,spices, the sun, etc are more interesting. I just believe that being able to identify (and label) the specific place or places is at best a difficult endeavor and at worst is really not that important to the wine lover beyond adding some lore. In the end--it comes down to what is in the glass.

source of the quoteWill America's attitude toward wine change is the question on the table ... your opinions?? ← I must say that I enjoy the Economist, it is well written and thoughful. I also must say that I often do not agree with its political slant. The quote above re: our "Puritan instincts.." is indicative of how many Europeans do not understand that America is a Republic, hence drinking age is a local issue. I might add that with the pressure from MADD and other groups over responsible drinking and driving the laws are now almost universally 21. (I believe they have a good well intentioned cause--I am not sure I agree with their solutions). The drinking age has nothing to do with the age one can serve in the military. Nor vice versa. One can begin driving at sixteen in most places here. It is interesting that Iraq is specifically mentioned--I doubt the writer had any problems with our military service age and drinking ages in WWII. There are many good arguments for and against the current effort in the Middle East--this is not one of them. So the politics aside (please) let's just deal with the question of our attitudes toward wine. We are so over the prohibition thing--I see no "abiding fear" of alcohol among the general populace--(it is actually France where wine consumption is down--what are they afraid of?). Yes we still have dry counties--but again, we are a Republic. Actually, consumption of hard liquor is declining wine consumption is up in America. we have more choices in wine here than probably anywhere in the world at the moment. There are burgeoning wine bars and wine lists offering many by the glass choices. Our wine industry is healthy (the great collapse many have predicted has not taken place--yet anyway). We also have lots of competition from other countries--Australia, Chile, Argentina etc which is great for the consumer! Our somewhat arcane laws (leftovers from prohibition) re: shipping wine are being struck down. I'd say we are doing just fine. I would like to add that there are alcohol related problems (I mentioned the driving and drinking issue) that still persist (but they are existant to one degree or another everywhere) and need attention. To bring this back to Parker and McCoy's book--Parker has had a positive influence in promoting wine and putting wine in its proper perspective. This reflects his Francophile leanings--we do have a lot to thank the French for! By helping to popularize wine in this country as a beverage to enjoy with food in moderation people like Parker are a plus. also the influence of the Puritans has been diluted by the waves of immigrants from all over the world--it has been a long time since the seventeenth century!

Capaneus--you have made some very good points. However--your premise is a bit faulty. first-as to Parker "championing old school Cahors." I recommend you read his essay on the region in the latest buyer's guide. He covers Cahors quite nicely. read what he says about the wines made from Ugni Blanc, Gros Mensang (not exactly as popular a grape as merlot)--he loves them. Want a tip on an "obscure wine? parker recommends the sweet wines from Domaine Cauhope, Domaine Guirouilh, Clos Urolat and Cru Lamurooux. second--we need a dose of reality. Right now in most major markets in this country, there are more wines from more places in the world available than at any other time ever. Add in the internet-and anyone who is looking for an "obscure" wine should be able to find it--if it isn't available now it will be. There is in New York at the moment a succcessful shop that specializes in wines from the Loire. I can get "old school" Cahors in any number of locations. (not counting the internet). The truth is, even in say, France--the French consumer can find wines from Australia and the US on shelves next to the locally produced stuff. There has never been a better time to be a wine lover --no matter where you live--and it is going to get even better. Finally, we wine nuts often get a bit blinded by our constant search for new and exciting wine experiences. The more obscure the better! We lose sight of the fact that there are large numbers of people who are perfectly happy with a glass of simple chardonnay (maybe a pinot grigio or a sauvignon blanc for a change of pace). These folks will try a new wine if recommended and may become fans of that wine or maybe they will stick with the chardonnay. Well there are more choices for even these people--I am seeing proseco turn up on by the glass lists along with the champaigne--in fact not long ago--there were few choices by the glass anywhere--right now in Manhattan at a popular restaurant Fiamma--one can chose from over a hundred wines from all over Italy all available by the glass or the bottle--most priced around thirty or forty dollars--by the bottle. Most people will come around to new wines--they will just get there after we do. So things are not so bleak. The acopalypse detailed in Mondo Vine-doesn't exist--in reality--only in the minds and fears of short sighted wine makers afraid of competition and progress. --and knowledgeable consumers! Rejoice! The Glass is half FULL!!!!!

Terroir is like pornography. One will have great difficulty defining it but we know it when we see it! Wine is far too complex a drink and when you toss the human element into the mix --both the wine maker and the myriad choices that are made in making wine and then the palate of the drinker and our sense perceptions along with our experiences and knowledge...... No wonder this is a confusing topic. There are two truths here --I think :-) One is that terroir is real it exists -let's use Mr Rogov's Italian experiment in support. and Two-it can be impossible to detect. Let me use the famous (infamous) tasting of 1976 wherein a panel of tasters (mostly French expert tasters) could not differentiate between wine made in California and wine made in Bordeaux and Burgundy. There are hundreds of examples supporting both these truth's. The more knowledge one has about what one is tasting is helpful in differentiating terroir. For example if one is tasting white Burgundy and knows the identity of the wines one can better focus on differences that are "public knowledge" for eg Puligny's tend to be more tightly wound and steely compared to Chassagne's. Or-- Borrdeaux wines from Graves often do have more pronounced "gravelly mineral' notes compared to St Julien's. The problem is there are so many exceptions to the "rules" and these identifiers of terroir are often very subtle --that when you take away the "hints" the knowledge if you will-- and taste totally blind it can be near impossible to ascertain terroir. In most cases terroir, however present in a wine, rarely hits you over the head! That said terroir is always present--it is in every wine. It can not always be identified for the reasons above-but--it is often obscured or manipulated by the way in which the wine was made. it can be obliterated completely by the wine making choices selected by the wine maker. The worst case for terroir is that it is used to market wine and to establish prices. The Bordeaux classification and the Burgundy vinyard designations and crus are perfect examples. Terroir (the identification) is far too unreliable. It is only a factor-sometimes small sometimes larger. If one detects it --it can add to the "interest" a wine may have-- a dimension --if you will to the enjoyment of wine. I remember reading a quote from a winemaker (possibly Rocchioli): to paraphrase, he said that everyone is interested in single vinyard designated wines and will pay more for a wine that is from say--the Hirsch vinyard or the Allen vinyard than one will pay for a wine that just says California Pinot Noir. Even if that "california Pinot Noir" is made from a blend of the two vinyards and is a "better wine."--benefitting from a selection of the best grapes from each vinyard. If we really believe that it all comes down to what is in the glass it is hard to argue.

Hi-- Could you elaborate on "nice masking weight..." I have never seen this in tasting notes and am not quite sure what you mean. also In general I have found that red wine does not go well with cheese or vice versa. The fats in the cheese dull the palate. Before I am labled an insane heretic which is what I thought I was for years--folks with far more attuned and experienced palates than mine agree that red wine and cheese are not a match made in heaven. I would cite Robert Parker and Chef owner of Le Bec Fin, Georges Perrier on the topic.

I agree on both points. The post in question by Mr Forryan was very well written (I enjoyed it). I also agree the point he seemed to be trying to make did not come across well. This topic (international style vs artisinal)as a whole is quite complex. There are no easy conclusions. Therefore, the debate often gets murky and confusing. I have been giving a lot of thought ot this issue and hope to post something soon.

I really like "Kate's" butter (salted and unsalted) available at Wholefoods. Kate's is from Maine and it has a nice fresh cream taste.

I live in NYC but I have been top Philadelphia many many times on business and pleasure. It is one of my favorite cities! If you like to walk--this is a great town. You can pretty much cover most of it on foot--with good weather you will be able to walk to most places. I would definitely see the Art Museum (Rocky steps)a really fine museum but also behind it is a great park where many colleges/ universities have their boat houses for the rowing teams--the Schuylkill river is there. I would also visit the Reading Terminal Market-one of the great food markets anywhere.--It is downtown across from the Marriott. The Liberty bell is located right in Center City as are Independance Hall both must sees. Also a walk around Society Hill is nice-like going back in time. This is on the way from Center City to the Delaware river front--a nice walk! The waterfront is great too. For cheese steaks Pat's and Geno's are the best but if you don't want to travel (twenty minutes by car at least from Center City--you can get a pretty good sandwich at Jim's if it is still open (the locals will probably hit me for this rec). There are good restaurants all over the place-Philly is a great food town.

In a way yes... The government shouldn't dictate personal behavior, but they should monitor and regulate how companies attempt to INFLUENCE personal behavior. I'm sure as hell glad they decided to eliminate "Joe Camel" and how the tobacco industry tries to influence the youth. BTW, Lesfen, when I went to your tubby link I was hit with an add to of all places, MacDonalds ← I can't say I really disagree-but "monitor" and "regulate" are loaded terms. In the end if we could get the facts straight, we could monitor and regulate our own children (and ourselves). that's a better way--I think.

I don't even try to figure out the stars. My thought is Bruni is not a good critic. He does not have a critic's sensibility. He is a reporter who likes to eat! I believe that he envisions himself a junior Johnny Apple and that one day he can "retire" and underwrite his travel and food bill by writing a col for the Times. The difference is Apple is a reporter who can write, loves food and who has a critical sensibility. Bruni does not seem to have the ability to apply context to his work. That is, it seems as though each restaurant is reviewed as if he had eaten nowhere else let alone reviewed other restaurants. There's no context for the reader, no sense of perspective. He dwells on things that have little import and ignores critical areas. For eg--his whole review of Spigolo is focused on the friendly service and dilligent hands on involvement of the owners. To set this up he takes the fact that they live above the restaurant and notes that two other chef owners live above their restaurants (both of whom represent paradigms). OK we get it. This is an awkward analogy--it is not needed and is distracting. If he wanted to make the point about the service approach of the owners of Spigolo he would have been better served if he noted the fact that these people worked (" grew up") at Union Square cafe lending some historical perspective as well. He takes the name Spigolo and notes it means edge or corner then awkwardly tries to work this into notes about the sound levels. He even notes that the owners have "Hired a consultant" do deal with the noise levels--does he inquire of every owner of a restaurant where the noise level is a problem if they are doing anything about it? He seems to be straining to give the Spigolo folks the "benefit of every doubt."--a bit above and beyond for a critic. I am sure that this restaurant is a "solid" neighborhood joint and the owners are dedicated and hands on-but this could apply to literally hundreds of restaurants in Manhattan where's the perspective--one star? What does one star mean to Mr Bruni? It seems if he can establish that then he can work his way up to two, three and then four.

Unfortunately, this is another topic that is sensationized, and politicized to the detriment of consumers. I did read the article and, at least, KOMO provided some perspective instead of just rewriting the press release. This is all too rare with the media these days. I commend them. The group behind the news is a "special interest group" they certainly have a noble stated purpose and their board is comprised of impressively credentialed people. However, I always try to apply a healthy dose of scepticism to these issues. One point is a statement on their website: "Trust for America's health"-- "90 million Americans live with chronic disease..." I would really question that number. What's their definition of chronic disease? The real crux of this issue is what to do? I think most people would agree that obesity is a problem and most people would agree that too many people are obese. But just how many and how bad a problem this is--is open to debate. It seems there is a lot of money in misery. Lawsuits,liability insurance, funding for special interest groups (on all sides of the issue), government grants, etc etc etc. Suddenly, it is "not my fault..." is the mantra behind all this. "Someone must pay!", --"I couldn't help myself they got me addicted!" It really is sad--because real people with real problems get lost in all this. If we could just do a better job of identifying real problems and providing real effective help to people who need it! Then there are basic issues like-should the government have a role in influencing personal behaviour?--if so--then how large a role? How much are we willing to spend? Seems as though we look to government to step in when we can't police or regulate ourselves. We are willing to give up freedoms--choice. anyway--I gotta go and wrestle with trhe dilemma of what to eat for lunch--see I got some ground beef and there's this mad cow thing and....well hey wait a minute! I will skip lunch--I am probably too fat anyway!

I have tried to give Bruni a chance-(benefit of the doubt so to speak). His approach is pretty much established, at this point. That is, he opens his reviews with an attempt to establish what the restaurant in question is all about. The reporter's viewpoint--covering decor, atmosphere, the ownership etc etc etc. Then he moves on to the food--here too he tries to establish a "theme" before he talks about the food. This is fine--we need to know these things but Mr Bruni execution is just bad writing. It is awkward, often too cute, more often just confusing. For eg --a while back he spent an inordinate amount of time trying to tie the decor and food together --in his review of Bar Americain--orange. It was awkward and strained at best. In his review of Spigolo today, he spends an inordinate amount of prose establishing the fact that the restaurants owners live nearby ("above the restaurant") and seem to be in his opinion a really cute and friendly couple. He actually opens the review talking about how JGV and Daniel Boulud live above their restaurants. What this has to do with anything is beyond me. The owners of Spigolo and their restaurant have nothing whatsoever to do with either of these chef/owners and their establishments. Is he making a comment about the current restaurant scene in NYC? Is he trying to show us he is knowledgeable about the current scene--that he is "hip to it?" He actually notes that the owner complimented his dining companion's dress then to show us he is hip to the NY scene he notes: "If she (the owner) didn't really mean it. Cherry Jones better watch out. There's an even better actress in town." All this to say that the staff are friendly to the customers? Why the Cherry Jones reference? To show he (Mr Bruni) is hip to the scene.?" He writes of his "memories" of the meals at Spigolo as if they happened at meals eaten long ago. There's this bit of awkwardness: "...These supporting players (side dishes) are at once pedestals, skirts and side dishes and he doesn't mold them into geometric wonders......" awful awful awful. The Times is now rife with this kind of poor writing. Critic's who are attempting to dazzle us with third rate Dennis Miller riffs. It's rampant in the movie reviews it is present in Sports--where are the editors? Is the Spigolo review a restaurant review-- or is it a puff piece/human interest story on the owners--the darling Frantangelo's. Incidently there is not a word written about their restaurant experience which might be of at least passing interest. One wonders if Mr Bruni is so smitten with the owners how he can possibly be objective in reviewing their restaurant. And here one finds the great flaw in Mr Bruni's review. He has selected an angle--living above one's restaurant--like the reporter he is he is going to force the story to fit the angle. A poster here at eGullet on another thread (Spigolo) noted these owners were from Union Square Cafe. This would help establish the dedication to customer service the effusive greeting etc Mr Bruni finds at Spigolo. wouldn't this have been a better "angle" (if he needs one)? Wouldn't this provide the reader with some information that is actually germain to the review? Could Mr Bruni communicate important (to consumers) details in clear concise writing? Must we endure this strained style--forced metafors--awkward alliteration--confused and convoluted paragraphs? (incidently, in yesterday's Sunday book review there is a small review of Selena Robert's book--she is a sports writer at the Times--the reviewer details (far more eloquently than me)--what is wrong with not only Ms Roberts writing but a lot of the current writing in the Times itself.

Thanks for the recommendation! Actually I have been meaning to try Latour for some time now. It is definitely on my list. As for P&O, I simply feel that, as frequently happens out here, a "bandwagon" developed that did not reflect any perspective. Even Tommy admits that in an earlier thread he "appreciated some of the food there." suddenly he is disavowing those comments with little rationale. Though I haven't eaten at Latour, based on my somewhat limited knowledge of the place, I would say that the two restaurants are world's apart in their pretensions and their approaches. In fact, they are so far apart that it is unfair to compare them. P&O is decidedly "eclectic" it really is a slightly more "sophisticated" diner. The menu is all over the map (something for everyone approach). It is also very inexpensive. There is no comparison with a place like Latour which does have much more focus and considerably higher food prices. I would certainly expect a very different dining (and drinking) experience at a restaurant like Latour from what I would expect from P&O. P&O is simply not a "food destination" or a gourmet's delight in as much as it is a very casual, fun upscale diner with a great wine list. In this it is somewhat unique. I doubt the foodies here would be posting photos of the food and recounting their meals here. It is a place I would consider "dropping into" at the last minute or a place I would consider going to with a large group of people--not, so much, a place I would be planning a visit to long in advance. I also believe that if one is careful and selects simpler dishes (sauce on the side) one can put together a decent meal that will not compete or detract from the truely wonderful wine experience one can have here--P&O is not a place where one looks to "match" wine and food quality in search of that elusive perfect symbiotic w and f pairing. I can think of no place where one can enjoy dinner with wines of this caliber and end up with an uncommonly low check. That's my point, in the end there are trade offs--I can get a more "perfect" overall dining and drinking experience at, say, Veritas (I am sure at Latour as well) I am going to pay a lot more for it and the pretensions of those restaurants are well beyond those of P&O. Again, the differences in what the places are trying to do is so different, I am loathe to comapre them. ps I will let you know how Ilike Latour (soon as I can get there).