JohnL

Hi- Quite an interesting "mix" of wines. I happen to like retsina--it would certainly fit into the "acquired taste" category--though I liked it the first time I had it. I find that on a hot summer day the "resiny" dryness of this flavored wine is actually quite nice and retsina really goes well with the earthy rustic aspect of Greek cooking. While it is a definite love it or hate it wine--it is more akin to vermouth than it is to basic white wine or rose.

Jim, Kinda like the blind men and the elephant!? anyway-- I do like reading your notes--would love to see more. It is hot as....here and I have a nice bottle (IMOP) of Domaine des Aubusierres Vouvray chilling. --I love this wine (pretty good value too). Cheers!!!

Brad, I used the example of what you cite as "sad" to make a point. We probably should follow Jim's advice and stay away from any mention of "scores." You guys become so overwrought! lol Jim, I actually loved your review of the Prosecco! It is most definitely not a more typical tasting note. I don't know if you can sustain that level of creativity over a large number of wines though. If you can I'd love to be your agent! :-> seriously--I believe that one can be entertaining and informative at the same time. Brad and Jim, we are close to tumbling over the abyss into a subjective vs objective debate. (interestingly this debate rages in the world of music and stereos) believe it or not I stand very firmly in the middle. I see value in both. My point was/is if wine tasting is totally subjective then every wine is potentially a good wine or bad wine it all depends upon who is tasting the wine. This is a bit too loose for me. An example: I was at a tasting recently that focused on the wines of a well known importer of Burgundy--"old school/old style terriorist" The importer led the tasting of a numbewr of wines in the portfolio. First--many of these wines I love and have in my cellar. At the tasting a few of the wines --these were first growth and grand cru wines with some age--were IMOP and others not very good. They were not bad wines they were "lesser" quality wines. Other exaples from the same grower were fine-some excellent. When asked about the "lesser" quality wines the importer dismissed the comments with something to the effect that "Americans" do not understand the French palate." I'm sorry but that does not fly with me. Compared side by side some of the wines were better than others due to different vintages, problems in the vinyard or whatever. There is no argument here-and i have no doubt that there are people who will enjoy the lesser wines--I liked them enough but they were inferior to the other wines from the same grower. Nine out of ten people with reasonably sophisticated palates and some experience with these wines would agree. Not every wine (even from the same source) is equal. They are not all good. This has nothing to do with "like" or "prefer." it has nothing to do with "getting" a certain style or sensibility or a french or American or Tanzanian palate! In 1990 Pichon Lalande a wine that was agreed by almost everyone I know and have read to be of lesser quality than the 82 or 83 or other Bordeaux in 90. The 83 Burgundies are a mixed bag due to hail in a lot of the vinyards--one can taste the rot in a lot of the wines--without making any value judgement there is rot and dilution in many wines from 83. Why0-because if you taste the wines affected by the hail next to the wines not affected and even if you had no point of reference-a taster would come to the conclusion that many of these wines were thinner than usual. Again-no value judgements just a recognizable problem in the wine. How about oak. A good taster will note that a winemaker uses oak as it is present. That is an objective observation. Even a lot of oak or this wine is oaky has an amount of objectivity to it. or how about this one we see often enough --the wine has "gobs" of toasty new oak. Whether or not I like oak or whether or not the critic likes or dislike oak-- this observation is important to me. If I do--I will be encouraged to try the wine--if not I will move on. A critic should be able to identify oak in the flavor of a wine whether he/she likes oak or not. It is either there or it is not. This is not a value judgement. That's all I am saying--I believe there is a lot of room for the magic and subjective reactions-I think there is a difference between what a taster tastes and what those tastes evoke. Jim's Prosecco note is "evocative" (but Jim I still don't know if there was any oak in the prosecco!) lol The best thing that can happen out here is we all inspire each other to think and see different angles perspectives. I am certainly doing that! <S>

Andre! Hi-- I really agree with your approach that it is what's in the glass that counts! I hate to mess with your view but--that is the approach that a lot of the "modernists" would take!--that is--it is not about history or romance or anything else--it is about the wine. I like Mas Daumas Gassac a lot--we certainly agree there--however to put it into perspective--not so long ago it could be considered a "new" modern wine for the Languedoc. That is an "expert" Emil Peynaud recommended that Mr Guibert plant Cabernet Sauvignon and make wine. Cabernet was not at the time a "traditional" grape varietal. Also the Mas Daumas white (I also like it) has chardonnay in the blend--another "international" varietal with Cab. One could make the case that Guibert is a "modernist" making a modern style wine. He and his varietals, are relative newcomers to the region! The key word is "relative" or perspective. Wanna get really confused (along with me)--read the Robert Parker quote re: the 1947 Lafitte in the wine board that Max posted. With wine-I have found that it is never very simple!

Jim, I am not sure we really disagree. Impressions are very important. And we do agree that there are two parts to tasting notes. One which is -- let's say "more" objective. and one that is most certainly subjective. Mr Rogov -I think-presented this-better than I did. For eg. a good taster/critic should be able to apply a lot of point of reference or perspective to his notes. Take a basic area like typicity. The notes should convey if the wine in question is, say, typical in flavor profile to other,say Alsatian Rieslings, does it reflect the characteristics of the vintage, of the Clos St Hune vinyard, of the winemaker, the weight of the wine on the palate, is the finish long or short etc. I would argue these are let's say more objective because most critics would agree on these points. That is why they arew professionals--they have a level of knowledge and experience. If it was all about subjectivity then why provide notes at all? Just give me a score.--If through my experience, I seem to like the wines you like--and I am going to have my own subjective impressions anyway, why should I care about your notes at all? It would be: I seem to like all the wines Jim likes and Jim says this wineA is great (he rates it 100) so I will go and buy/try the wine--odds are I will like it too. Instead --the point of reading your notes would be to gain some knowledge or perspective based upon your knowledge and perspective--some insight as to what the wine you are describing is like.

As an aside--I went to K and L website and had a lot of difficulty determining where they were--state, town, city etc-I have found this with many wine retailer websites--it is a pain in the .... Anyway, if you read their description--their perception (obviously not just that of the salesperson you dealt with) is that this is indeed an "interesting" (read quirky wine), certainly knowing the blend of varietals (zin,cab and merlot) the use of zin in the blend is IMOP "quirky." I think the problem was "a failure to communicate!" Really--you and the salesperson probably needed to have a tad more dialog as to what you believe to be attributes of a "quirky" wine. The salesperson probably should have initiated that dialog--I am sure the salesperson was following the store's belief that this is what constiturtes quirky.--that's what he recommended. One man's quirky is another's.....

Cafe Des Artistes is one of the most romantic spots in New York anywhere for that matter). The food is solid if a bit uninspired and the service is excellent. Picholine-superb food. also you might want to consider Shun Lee West.--the food is very good. and I know it is Italian (Northern) but my wife and I have been longtime fans of Gabriels on 60th Street. This place has been in business for many years and has been consistant in providing really good food and service--the atmosphere is nice as well.

Daniel, I wish more writers/critics had your approach and sensibility. We consumers would be a lot better off! I am now going to seek out your work regularly. thanks!

Andre-- You raise some good points. Unfortunately, there are precious few "pure" and good people in the world. (I haven't heard about a 'dark side" to Mother Theresa or Ghandi yet) The film pretends to explore many very real and complex issues by cleverly appearing to present both sides of the story. However, what Mr Nossitor does is make sure "his" side is presented in one light and the other side in another light. --that is the viewer is treated as a "sucker" who will be "led" and "influenced" to reach the same point of view as the film maker. This is not honest debate nor is it impassioned advocacy it is propaganda. I used Mr Guibert as an example because if one is aware of possible motives for Mr Guibert other than what he states on the film one would be less inclined to be sympathetic. Conversely, one wonders if the Mondavi's are as "evil" as they are depicted. (what are we not being told about them in the film). The motivation behind any point of view is important. Unfortunately, these days, too many people are willing to accept anyone who says the "right things." for eg. Mr Guibert is in reality not that much different from the Mondavi's--he is just presented (or allowed to present himself) in a much more sympathetic light. The fact is--there is a very real issue in the Languedoc --I am not sure that the Mondavi's would not have been a good thing for the region (there is a strong case they would be) in the film you did not get an accurate picture of the debate what you got can be boiled down to: Guibert and his fellow "peasant farmers" noble workers and preservers of the land and tradition and wine and the evil incarnate Mondavi's and their collaborator friends who were out to plunder the environment enslave or "kill" (this was actualy stated in the film) the poor and noble citizens. America as the evil Empire--France as the utopia of art and humanity. Therefore, I as an interested viewer have been cheated--it is bad enough that I did not get good information about this issue but worse, I have been tricked into forming an opinion-- (or at least the film maker tried to form my opinion for me)I am still not sure of where I come out on the issue. If that is not propaganda or at least stacking the deck-I don't know what is. Again, Lawrence Osborne's book "Accidental Connoisseur" IMOP, presents these issues and advocates for Mr Nossitor's POV in a much more intelligent, honest and forthright manner.

In any area of criticism (music, art, literature, wine) there needs to be objective standards--there must be. Otherwise there would be chaos. When evaluating a wine-things like color,acidity, balance, typicity of the varietal, weight etc. should be assessed and conveyed. Most every "scoring" system has "objective evaluation componants. from Davis to Parker.... Also-odors and flavors exist that can be identified-presence of Botrytis, Bret, corked wines, flavors and odors due to unclean barrels winery handling , sulphur. These things are not a matter of personal taste-they are there or they are not there. Tasting notes--should be-a way of communicating information to the reader. There is room for "subjective impressions" but a good taster can convey important information to his/her reader, enabing them to make a decision as to whether or not they try/buy the wine or what they will find when they taste the wine themselves. I believe that wine criticism/tasting often lapses into little more than-"this wine is great-it tastes like oriental saddle leather and blueberries." I also believe that the industry often "hides" behind code words and notes that are vague and imprecise. For eg out of balance, thin and tannic wines are sometimes said to be "austere" and ageworthy or "of an elegant" style or "food wines". It is no wonder that consumers are often confused and "at sea" when it comes to wine appreciation.

Boris, Thanks for the post! a little honest perspecitve is always good. (even if it "complicates" things for us).

I finally watched this. My comments: ---The film covers a lot of issues, most important: globalization of wine, the business of making and selling wine, the politics, terroir, the romance, oak vs no oak...... Unfortunately, the film is so politically skewed that it loses any intellectual honesty--it is a problem that is all too common, today, a case of the ends justifying any means. ---Lot's of irony (certainly unintended by the film maker). For eg. at the beginning of the film we meet one of Mr Nossitor's heroes: Aime Guibert the owner of Mas Daumas Gaussac who waxes poetically about the history of the Languedoc and how the wine and the land are so important--how he almost singlehandedly defeated the evil Mondavis from America in their attempts to buy land and make wine in the Languedoc. How Mr Guibert is protecting the land and the uniqueness of the wines the terroir, if you will, from the horrible globalization movement. How he is a "communist" fighting the evils of capitalism (the Americans). A few facts about mr Guibert and his wine: 1--Mr Guibert bought Mas Daumas in the seventies --- he was a man who made millions selling leather gloves to such "people's commissaries" as Bloomingdales and Saks and chic shops on the rue St Honare in Paris. Before 1978 there was no wine at Gaussac--in fact, were it not for the prodding of enologist Emil Peynaud -Mr Guibert was going to grow CORN on this "sacred" ground. Mas daumas Gaussac (a really fine wine incidently) is made from Cabernet Sauvignon--a grape with little or no history in the Languedoc. In fact for all his praise of communism--one would wonder how well a bourgeois wine maker would fare under commiunist rule--the state would own his winery and land and produce bad table grapes! 2--Mr Guibert speaks about how the winemakers band together with their fellow citizens to drive the Mondavi's out. A little history comes to mind. The Languedoc is in a turmoil because many of the farmers (grape growers) are subsidized by the government--the EEC is becoming fed up with supporting them via taxes etc. Their real fight is not so much with the Mondavi's but rather within their own government and the EEC. One immediately wonders if Mr Guibert is really concerned with competition from the Mondavi's rather than with protecting the "traditions" and "terroir" of the Languedoc. Mr Nossitor also neglects to mention that in the Languedoc especially--the "noble" wine makers have in their history the illegal practice of adding Algerian wine to the "sacred" local wine for sale. Yet these same wine makers now complain about globalization and 'adulteration" of the wines. And this is only the beginning of the film! What could have been an interesting and informative look at many complex issues the wine world faces we are left with a piece of "agitprop." There are good bits and pieces here and there--food for thought--but in the end one can not "trust" Nossitor to provide any real perspective--this is a one sided rant. Instead: I would highly recommend the book-"Accidental Connoisseur" by Lawrence Osborne. The book was inspired by Mr Nossitor, a close friend of the author, and covers much of the same ground. It does so honestly, passionately and artfully.

At this point--I still believe that what would be ideal: --Restaurants charge for the meal: all prices on the menu reflect all the restaurant's costs of doing business plus whatever profit. The restaurant pays its employees. NO TIPPING The bill reflects one cost plus tax. That is what the customer pays! I do undertstand that this would not be as simple to implement given competitive pricing with other restaurants but the Per Se method is a step in the right direction from a consumner standpoint. Again--I must say that as a diner --I really do not care about "pooling" vs not pooling anymore than I care if employees are paind weekly or bi weekly. Am I totally wrong about this???

any connection to Richard Hamilton wines? I recall a very good cabernet a few years ago and am curious.

Football season is coming (pre season is here)! As a long time Jets season ticket holder (please no funny comments-- being a lapsed Catholic I have a need to "suffer" on Sundays) I and my friend often dine in the area of Giant's Stadium/Meadowlands whenever there is a late game on Sunday's or Monday nights. Our current favorite is Mignon in Rutherford. Also like to BYOB. Are there any recommendations?: qualifications are-- open Sunday and/or Monday Nights and within five to ten miles of the stadium--prefer something on the way back to Manhattan--that is near either bridge or tunnel . A few miles west of the stadium is ok too. thanks!!!

Some people saw Eric Clapton as "god" others saw him as a fine guitarist. Anthony Bourdain is a fine writer, TV personality, commentator etc. In my life I read, watch TV etc for entertainment. Mr Bourdain is amusing (sometimes outright funny) and his quirky, perspectives on things culinary and otherwise are entertaining and informative-- IMOP. As long as he continues to be "entertaining" I will watch and read him. It is amazing how many people "project" onto "celebrities."

As a customer-- I do not really want to know the details of how the establishement compensates its employees. And, as a customer, it would be nice to not have to worry about or be concerned with tipping. I simply review the check and pay for my dining experience. I'd love to not have to try to figure out just who is covered by my tip. Captain, waiter, busboy. sommelier etc etc etc. I'd love to not be concerned that I tip enough. I'd also love it if I did not have to fumble for money to tip a coat check person and a parking valet (though many of these folks as I understand it are "independant contractors") and that is my point--I'd just prefer to not have to be concerned with any of it. It is nice when the restaurant " takes care" of everything.--isn't taking care of the customer what this is all about in the end? I also assume that when I get good service--it is the result of happy employees who are well compensated --in the case of a restaurant--I also know that my tip is part of their overall compensation--putting me in the position of 'supplementing" their salary which is determined/established with the fact that I the customer, will be providing the rest of the employee's compensation. I do not know the IRS ramifications of all this or why exactly this system has come to be--it would be intertesting. But I do know that especially with finer restaurants--where prices are high--removing anything that a customer has to "worry" about-can only enhance the overall experience--lest the customer is a "cheapskate" or arrogant SOB who likes to reward and punish service employees. In the end--I want everyone to be happy and well paid!

I think that there should always be incentive to perform as well as rewards for performance. The question is who determines the just what constitutes "performance" and what the incentives are and how they are provided. Currently, the customer has a level of control over this. Keller seems to be saying that he wants to determine what performance he wants from his wait staff and he wants to control the incentives. One goal would be to establish a level of performance that runs consistantly throughout the entire staff. The fact is , as born out by many posts here-there is no perfect situation For an establishment like Per se --it would not be optimum to have inconsistant service delivery to customers, Keller seems to want to execute his vision for dining--to include every aspect of the experience from the point of making the reservation to the time the customer walks out the door. From the decor and atmosphere to the demeanor and professionalism of every employee. I have noted that Keller often speaks of what he wants the customer to experience what he is doing. Would this work in other restaurants? Perhaps for those at the level of Per Se-JGV, Le Bernardin etc. Will Keller find staff to thrive in this environment--probably--and it is up to keller to keep those employees happy and well paid-otherwise this will most definitely not work to the ends keller is hoping to achieve!

I think the issue is not so much about a system per se (pun intended). It is about control. I wasn't sure where I stood as a diner/consumer but after reading through the thread I have learned a bit about the business of the restaurant and my thopughts/opinions have evolved. I think Fat Guy hit on something--the currently accepted system does put waitstaff in the position of being "independant contractors" to a degree. This means there are elements of their performance that are not under the command and control of the management of the restaurant. For eg--there are a number of restaurants I have patronized over the years wherein certain waiters seemed to operate in their own world they seemed to have their own set of customers (my wife and I ask for certain waiters when we make a reservation/show up at the door etc). A good example is the heyday of the Stage deli here in NYC where Max Asnas (a waiter) became "bigger" than the restaurant itself! I now wonder if this is a good thing for the restaurant in the long run. Especially where somkeone like Thomas keller is attempting to to provide diners with "singular" dining experience. I also feel that in many restaurants and for many years a chef was a chef responsible for the kitchen while the front of the restaurant was "handled" by a manager who managed the wait staff and rarely did the twain meet. (both probably worked for management and or an owner). Anyway that is the impression I got/get. With restaurants that represent or reflect a "vision"--the person who has that vision should be in complete control over all aspect of the dining experience--one would think.

I just don't think that diners should be in the position of "supplementing" "augumenting" whatever you want to call it--the salary of any employee of the establishment. You pay the freight for a meal. The restaurant pays the employees. In the end the customer can-reward the restaurant by returning, telling friends about their good experience, etc etc etc. (or giving the person a ten dollar bill --a real tip. Or they can alert management re: bad service, and/or simply not return and/or tell friends about their bad experience. Having to worry about --should I tip the captain (how much) should i tip the waiter (how much) should I tip the sommelier (how much) --what about the busboy? has everyone who served me been covered? what if they share tips? It's just too much bother--especially in a high end establishment. Let's have one price dining no anxiety!!! (the sales of tums will go down!).

I am a 20%. I will add to that for especially helpful service (out of the ordinary--help getting a window table or accomodating a special request-extra this or that--or if my party has presented any difficulties for the restaurant-a late show etc). There is no way that wine service should be tipped at twenty per cent across the board --I will tip 10% of the wine in a fancy place and will add to that if the waiter or sommelier was especially helpful-above and beyond. In a more downscale estrablishment I will tip twenty per cent of the entire bill wine included most of the time. Having said this and having read the above posts--the cost of dining is the cost of dining. A customer pays for a meal and service. A restaurant can "bake" in the cost of the service as a "gratuity" added to the check or increase the cost of the food and pay their staff as they see fit. This reminds me of the car biz--that "free maintenance" --well it ain't free! It is covered in the cost of the car price. You pay for it one way or the other. so It is up to the restaurant to establish how much it costs to eat there and we can pay for it or ---not. It is up to the restaurant to determine how and how much their staff should be paid. I do think that wine service in an upscale restaurant should not be included at twenty per cent--though even here I would assume that a restaurant can adjust their wine prices per bottle up or down as they see fit. A lot of this is psychological--I do enjoy the convenience of my free maintenance--even though i paid for it when I bought the car. (an added benefit is people are more likely to have the maintenance done when it is "free"). I don't know what this has to dso with per se but I do eat in my car a lot (too much).

Did the wine taste of "cat piss?" (sorry!) seriously--Is it possible that Portugese wine sales skyrocketed due to the crock flasks? what about chianti in those wicker covered bottles--did the demise of these bottles lead to the development of the sconce when Italian restaurants could not get enough candle holders for the checkered table cloth covered tables. and how about those snobs at Ch Mouton--trying to differentiate themselves by putting art on their lables! and those copycats at Kenwood! will we ever see child proof safety tops in place of the ever popular screw top?

Daniel, I agree with you. Many people do "move beyond the scores." And tautology aside--there is a lot of "voodoo" if you will involved in wine making. Science has not been totally successful in quantifying what makes wine what it is and the element of "magic" is part of what makes wine so attractive. As for the scores, all the hoo ha has somewhat mystified me. Wine has been "rated" for a long long time. This is not some new phenomena. The 1855 classification of Bordeaux created a rating system--one based upon--consumer taste --sort of a focus group, if you will. That is wines classified, in part, based upon the prices people were willing to pay. A network of "middlemen" importers etc offered "advice" to their customers as to what to buy etc. The trade was firmly in control. Later wine writers emerged who made pronouncements and offered their opinions to customers/the public. The trade influenced many of these writers and indeed, many of these writers were part of the trade. Both offering advice and participating in the promotion and sale of wine to the public. a wine's quality, tasting notes alone are, in essence, the act of rating a wine--indirectly maybe, but still reflecting a wine's perceived quality. The attempt to quanitfy what one tastes and believes and to communicate that to others has led to an attempt to be "scientific" to quantify. Whether it is verbage, stars, the Davis scale or the 100 point scale wine is and has been rated in one way or another forever. I believe that much of the "debate" over critics, writers, rating systems is created and carried on by the wine trade itself. It comes in large part from, from people who fear losing influence, control, if you will, and other petty feuds and silliness among winemakers, exporters, importers, wholesalers, retailers, writers and critics etc. There is a lot of hypocrisy, jealousy and petty sniping. The world of wine (our world in general) has seen a seachange over the last forty years or so and the entire wine business has been wrestling over how to deal with this change. Wine is truely global and it is no wonder that winemakers who produced wine and sold it locally for local consumption are "sweating" over the fact that there are more and more wines from more and more places around the world on local shelves competing for the consumers they had a monopoly on for centuries--it is no wonder there is sniping and character assasination at play. As for the enologix thing. Science has been a big part of this sea change. Peynaud leads to Rolland "gurus" emerge. remember Guy Accad in Burgundy? How about Turley? UC Davis, the "anti UC Davis gurus etc etc. I would ask is "Biodynamics" any more or less voodoo than what enologix deals in? Is it any more or less valid? Look at the whole debate over terroir. In the end though time marches on and progress is what it is. I think this is all fun to watch and this is a great time for all consumers of wine. If some guru's advice results in a fine distinctive wine that's great, if bodynamics results in a delicious Loire Sauvignon Blanc or a Leroy Burgundy--that's great. If we have fewer wines tainted by hail or other weather problems as a result of some biologist or a shaman that's great. If there are fewer weedy cabs and merlots because of UC Davis research indicating where certain varietals should be planted--great! And if enologix' mix of science and who knows what results in better finer wines then that's a good thing. All I can say--from my vantage point is, today is a lot better for a consumer of wine than yesterday!

Thanks for the info! I have seen Hendry wines on some shelves here in the NYC area the past few years or so. I can't say I recall reading about them either. For some reason (so many wines so little time!)-- I hadn't tried one. I think I will pick one (or two) up and try em!

Hi-- Actually Parker started out with a love for French wines. His "formative" drinking wines were French--and his reputation was made largely on his reviews of Bordeaux. I recommend the recently released biography of Parker: The Emporer of Wine , The Rise of Robert parker and the Reign of American taste" by Elin McCoy. (there's a thread about it here at eGullet). The book may not be available in the UK --I would think that it would be soon enough though. Parker seems to write about any area of the world that he finds a lot of (in his opinion) good wines being produced at that point in time. Areas that are "up and coming" etc. For years he was very hard on American wines now he believes California is producing a lot of exciting wines as well as Australia--he has been a big believer in the wines of the Rhone for quite a while and he always seems to be fond of Bordeaux. I find the whole Parker story is more revealing of the wine industry than about him as a person/wine critic/taster etc. My first exposure to wine critics/writers was Hugh Johnson and one of his "Pocket Guides." Back around eighty two there were few places a consumer could go to learn a bit about wine and fewer still where one could get some guidance on what to buy. Unfortunately, many wine shops here did (and still do) a poor job of helping customers. Also we Americans seem to have an inherrent distrust of anyone trying to sell us something. Thus we have become big on third party endorsements. I would think that the way the wine world seems to be going, we consumers, enthusiasts etc will have more choices in the marketplace. I did note that your taxes are quite a bit higher than ours as they are applied to the cost of wine. also--what, if any is the role of the intertent in wine buying in the UK. Here most major (and many smaller) wine shops have web sites where wine can be purchased. We are in the process of revising our somewhat arcane laws about buying and shipping wine from state to state so the internet is emerging as a factor in where and how we can buy wine here.