JohnL

Carmines is good but I love Dominick's in the Bronx!!!! The subway fare has to go up quite a bit to make the trip not worth it!!! also one from left field: Gino's--Lex and 60th street. this place hasn't changed much since the forties (I can vouch for since the sixties!). not really family style--but the cooking is very good (huge menu) and the atmosphere is priceless.

Serena Sutcliffe, Jacqueline Friedrich,Elin McCoy, Lettie Teague, Penelope Casas, Karen MacNeil, Lisa Shara Hall,Pauline Wasserman--just some women wine journalists from my bookshelf. :-> I think wine has been a "guy thing" for a long time. I belong to a tasting group that is compriesed of mostly: lawyers, doctors, industry people, bond traders, entrepreneurs--mostly men. Often wives attend tastings, and there is an increasing number of women who are lawyers, bond traders etc. that show up. My wife has a really good palate she is not interested in mastering wine tasting lingo and thus she is reticent about speaking up and describing the wines being tasted. (she is a surgeon so she is certainly not a shrinking violet by nature). Many women are simply not as agressive in these settings as men are. Believe me many of the guys have no hesitation about letting an inane comment flly (me included) and showing off our lack of knowledge. I do think that often women are more comfortable with other women --they are just not possesing of the goofy agressiveness we men have--women also have a good sense of taste (ok they marry us--baddaboom!) as a stereo nut I know women have a better sense of hearing! So-I think that approaching professional women's groups etc one would have some succes in starting a wine site, tasting group, newsletter etc.

Boy are you correct! This is what amazes me (for one). Basically Parker is a wine critic. One can read his reviews and agree or disagree. So why are the reactions so strong? So visceral? Again I believe these reactions are industry driven for the most part. Not consumer driven. Anyone who can get past the numerical ratings and the reviews and read Parker's writing would have a hard time tossing out "he only likes big wines..." or "Parker doesn't like ..." Ok--read the jbonne piece about Ms McCoy participation on a panel. "she (Elin McCoy) sat on a panel with Pierre Rovani" "...after he (Rovani) audaciously described an Au Bon Climat wine "as not a Rovani wine. She (Ms McCoy) retorted "the one thing we can certainly say is it may not be a Rovani wine but it is a Clendenen wine." (Jim Clendenen was in the audience at the time.) To Ms McCoy's book: "After praising Jim Clendenen's Au Bon Climat wines for years, Parker lowered their scores. Clendenen was devastated..." OK how is it Clendenen "happens" to be in that audience? How is it Rovani is commenting on Clendenen's wines? This is too good-- too juicy a scene to have just "happened to be." and-most important--what is the point of it all? Here's something even more perplexing! From the Wine Advocate (issue 154, closing date 8/31/04): seven Au Bon Climat wines reviewed by Parker himself. results--one wine rated 88plus, one wine rated 88, one 89, two wines rated 90, one wine rated 91 and one wine rated 91 plus. also this from Mr P: "A strong lineup of chardonnays from globe trotting winemaker Jim Clendenen..." AND THE INSANITY CONTINUES!!!!!! (seriously-- is anyone actually reading Parker ?) In the end--one must question just how disfunctional was the wine industry that it could be impacted by to the extent it has been by someone like Parker?

Glad you asked! Gallo has a label:" Gallo--Sonoma" that produces some very nice serious wines: Zinfandel, Cabernet Sauvignons from single vinyards. I haven't tried one lately I remember the 97 vintage as being quite nice. Kendall Jackson is a huge conglomerate. Their Hartford Court label makes some very fine pinot noirs and zins. also some of the Kendall jackson Grand reserves are pretty good--they also have a great estates line of single vinyard wines--the ones I have tasted are also pretty good. I am sure some of the others out here can provide some better information re: these wines.

First--I don't consider myself a "Parker partisan" I have areas of disagreement with him. I subscribe to the Advocate but I also subscribe to a number of other newsletters and read other writers. i do not blindly follow anyone's advice. That said--my contention is that Parker gets a badly misguided rap from detractors. Much of the conventional wisdom re: Parker comes from industry sources many of whom have a "self interested bone to pick." This is not so much Parker's fault (in some cases these 'bones" are well founded mostly -I believe they are not). I have had plenty of exposure to industry folks and I understand their problems with Parker. It should be noted that Parker has a lot of support among industry people as well. Non industry people--we the wine drinking public--have a tendency to pick up on these sources and thus the conventional wisdom is created. I thought McCoy's book was a very good and balanced biography and presents a good picture of not just Parker but the wine scene around him and how they relate or don't. 1--Joe dressner is an incredible salesman--there is no reason to belive he won't be able to sell his wine or that he really does need Parker's help. If that is truew then the industry better take a long look at itself. Everyone will survive with or without Parker. And I have never seen a valid quote from Parker to the effect: "I don't care about ..." (include any wine region etc.) He is "drawn" to areas he finds of interest--wouldn't anyone? And these areas of interest shift over time as I noted. In short he doesn't cover everything all the time. This is far different from "he doesn't like anything he doesn't happen to cover at the moment." in the end--I would recommend what Parker himself writes about the Loire--and stop obsessing over scores or lack thereof. 2--I was not quoting from a "special values issue" anyone who subscribes to Parker's newsletter would know that "inexpensive" wines are reviewed frequently and Parker makes a point of noting good values he finds. He is no different in this regard than he was fifteen years ago. By the way--he is often reviewing the same wines Tanzer and others cover--I see no criticism of them in this regard. 3--I wasn't "sniping." You made a comment that I feel is unsupported. Parker reviewed say Bordeaux in 1985 he reviewed Bordeaux in 2004--he hasn't changed--same wines but yes higher prices. Will he review two buck chuck or yellowtail probably not--most consumers/subscribers can lay out the money and try them without any financial risk. The fact is wines of great interest tend to cost more than simple less interesting wines. Note I say-great interest--not necc interesting. Those "simple" Red Sancerre's brad mentioned--most are at least twenty bucks a bottle. I know cause I like and buy them. As for your comment about Parker being a consumer advocate--a consumer is a consumer rich poor or middle class. I still feel the "class" card is a cheap shot. Playing the wealth/class card if you will. For a "wealthy" man according to Ms McCoy --Parker lives pretty humbly. 4--Again, I am not a parker partisan--(no I am not protesting too much--:->). I just see a lot of overheated rhetoric and knee jerk reaction that is largely unfounded in people's negative reactions to Parker. It should be noted that McCoy's book deals nicely with this. as I have said --a lot of this stuff says more about the detractors than it does about Parker. after all--all Parker did/does is taste wine and say what he thinks about it.--what the world does in response is their issue/problem. In the end--I recommend the McCoy book --it is fun discussing and debating wine and the fact that an entire industry is inj a commotion over one man says more to me about the industry and less about the man.

The confusion here is a mix or what is in McCoy's book and jbonne's piece. In McCoy's book the passage: "Once he (Joe Dressner) he'd regularly shown his wines to the critic, but one of his specialities had become wines from the Loire valley, especially the kind of savory reds with acidity that Parker didn't like." Joe Dressner is an importer of Loire valley wines. (he is also a very funny and astute fellow). In the passage it is not clear if the opinion that Parker doesn't like these reds is from Dressner or McCoy or both. I have never seen anything in Parker's reviews or writings that indicates he does not like these reds. In fact, he has rated soem highly. The Loire section in Parker's last buying guide offers IMOP a very accurate assessment of the Loire and its wines. He has eight pages of discussion dedicated to the Loire-- From Parker's Wine Buyer's Guide (sixth edition): "The wines of the Loire Valley....have the combination of quality and value that merits considerable attention from consumers." "...the Loire's reds can be found in a wide variety of styles, from carbonic maceration (Beaujolais like) wines meant for immediate consumption to ageworthy, austere, yet serious cabernets." So how is it that anyone can state that parker does not appreciate these wines? The problem lies in the fact that Parker does not review Loire wines in depth that often. There are not a lot of "scores" or reviews. There are reasons for this we could speculate about (and debate). Mr Dressner has a vested interest in having Parker taste and score his wines. In McCoy's book he states that "I couldn't grow big time without Parker's benediction." I submit that the fact that Parker does not review a lot of Loire Reds is a prime source of Mr Dressner's opinion that "Parker doesn't like these wines." It also points up my belief that a lot of people take unsupported conventional wisdom and judge Parker--He doesn't like this or that. --Parker is trying to cover an expanding wine world and he can no longer physically devote tasting time and travel to every important wine region. He has taken on help--Mr Rovani etc who provides notes and scores for the Wine Advocate. Ms McCoy makes this clear in her book. The assumption that because Parker no longer reviews in depth certain areas of the world thus he is not "interested" in or does not find the wines "interesting" is a leap I do not find logical. It is true-as Ms McCoy notes--that Parker has a particularly strong interest in the Rhone and california (at the moment) and Bordeaux and Australia etc --this is par for the course. I recall when Parker championed Alsace for eg. Finally, the comments by jbonne that Ms McCoy bleives that Parkers "biggest shortfall" is that his (Parker's) tastes have gravitated toward wines most of us can't afford. and "his (Parker's) consumer advocate soul plays in a rich man's realm coupled with Ms McCoy's statement that Parker makes over a million dollars a year are indicative of the petty vindictiveness a lot of Parker's detractors have. I can not believe that McCoy feels this way--there is nothing in her book to support this belief. And--there is nothing in any of Parker's reviews to support it either. Aside from the fact that high scoring wines may include a lot of expensive wines--First growth Bordeaux, Garnbd Cru Burgundy, Cal boutique wines etc are expensive! I offer from the June issue of The Wine Advocate the following: Recommended New Releases fropm Spain (including nearly 300 sensational bargains for $20 or less) Again--lots of criticism feeding the conventional wisdom--little (or no) factual support.

Some good points Brad, Interestingly, those quotes you provide from the web site could be applied to the Food Newtwork. That is precisely the audience they are targeting. And why not? That description applies to a very large group of people. I remember the howls from people on the Wine Spectator (some are probably still howlin) web site as the publication began to include increasing focus on "lifestyle" pieces (as opposed to just wine). The truth is --there are relatively small numbers of people who are really "into" wine. The rest of the population may like wine but they are just not "into" wine. Those of us who are --often rail that if only the media would be more serious--all these poeple would "come around." Well the media are a lot smarter than us! (lucky for them). I can see the people launching this new venture--doing a focus group and asking people why they aren't into wine and why not. And designing a magazine and website to appeal to those folks. I always try to remember that one man's (or woman's) hobby or vocation is just not that interesting to another. I once had a guy go on and on about model railroads--I like trains--kinda neat--but I am not interested in knowing the details of their history and how they are made etc nor am I going to spand a lot of bucks collecting them. But hey I guess that guy probably didn't want to listen to me go one about malolactic fermentation either!

Hi-- First--a question for you. Are American wines more expensive in the UK due to taxes or tarrifs added or is it just the additional cost of shipping etc? Second--I do not want to be seen as an apologist for Parker though I have subscribed to his newsletter (Wine Advocate) for over twenty years. (I also am a long time subscriber to Coates, Tanzer and others). I just find the reactions to Parker interesting and often misguided. I do not believe that American wines score higher then any other wines per se. If there is any "patriotism" it is subconscious and there is certainly no marketing purpose behind what parker does. It may be difficult for Europeans to understand but there is a strong consumerist element to Parker. He has gone to great lenghths to establish and maintain his integrity. (I do not know if there is an equivalent to our "Consumer Reports" in the UK (I would guess publications like "What Hi Fi etc come closest.) Parker's approach is that he tastes a wine and scores it and describes it as he honestly tastes. One can certainly disagree with the ratings or the notes from a personal standpoint--I do often enough--but Parker is offering his impressions of the wine nothing more or less. In fact I am looking at the June issue of the Wine Advocate and it is loaded with 90 point and higher rated wines from Spain. Recently he has rated many Australian wines very highly. I have noticed over the years that a preponderance of well scored wines does shift among various countries wines. This can have a lot to do with the quality shifting--vintages, wine making techniques and/or Parker's palate changing (mine has certainly evolved over time). Parker has been highly critical of US wines in the past just as he has been critical at one time or another of many region's wines. He has also "championed" wines from around the world when he sees a high level of quality. He would probably say he doesn't care where a wine he is tasting comes from he is simply telling you what he thinks. I do think that one should read and understand what Parker includes on the cover of every issue of his newsletter under: "Tasting Notes and Ratings"--wherein he explains his "raison d etre" if you will and how his rating system works. There is plenty of room to be critical of Mr Parker --sometimes it seems there are as many differing opinions of wine etc as there are wines in the world! Finally, I believe that often the strong reactions to Parker many have are often more telling about their biases and than Parker's (somewhat ironic I suppose). What I would like to see are more thoughtful well reasoned and knowledgeable responses to Parker. There are conventional wisdom's that have developed that folks often toss about re: Parker. Very rarely does one find specific examples provided in support. For eg-"Parker does not like wines with finesse." I feel that people tend to "hide" behind these. Again, I do not believe Parker is some infallible god--I went to Coates because I did not feel Parker was providing insights into Burgundy that were in synch with my palate--on the other hand--I find Coates to be a relatively poor "gauge" of New World Wines. I also see a lot of points in the arguments of views of Jancis Robinson. With Parker, with anyone, with wine--it just ain't that simple!

Good point--I was replying to a quote from jbonne's review-he includes it in his post above. "She (McCoy) lists entire categories of wine that Parker has little interest in: New Zealand Sauvignon Blancs, fresh Loire Reds..." My point (I think) --I do not know what this means. My take on it is Parker is no longer reviewing the huge number of wines he once did and is focusing on areas of his interest at this point in time. Nothing more nothing less.

Well first tell me what exactly is a Robert Parker styled wine. also--I happen to enjoy Red Sancerre but Red Sancerre's are decidedly not the most interesting reds around today. They are very nice enjoyable wines. always have been. My point was simply that Parker--wherever he is at these days --no longer feels he needs to review the entire world of wine and wants to write about what he wants to write about. Also--what exactly was Ms McCoy's point in noting the wines Parker "has little interest in"?

I have to disgree with a lot of what you said here. Though I am viewing this from New York (I don't know what the situation in England is). Right now-there is a huge variety of wine available in NY area and on the internet. Wine from small producers, medium producers and yes, large producers. There are a number of specialty wine shops--for eg-Chambers Street wines focuses on the Loire. We are seeing more wine bars and restaurant wine lists that are featuring small heretofore obscure producers. I think that we are seeing a lot of "international" style wines (sometimes I am not even sure what that is anymore) we are seeing the wrong grapes planted in the wrong sites there is a lot ot criticize but I can say for certain that since I have gotten into wine twenty five years ago or so a lot of very good things have happened. Maybe I am optimistic but ten years ago there were precious few places to go and debate and discuss wine (like eGullet) and only a handful of critics and wine writers. There were even fewer places to go to learn about wine--classes tasting groups etc. even the largest wine shops had little wine from Australia, New Zealand, Spain, Portugal etc etc etc. and bemoan em if you weant--there were few California wines from small producers. Garage and Boutique were not terms associated with wine at all. German wines were considered cult wines-now there are rieslings available in most if not every wine shop. What I can tell you is that there was a lot of lousy Bordeaux and Burgundy around as well as a lot of California cabernet that was overly tannic and just plain awful and wine made in terrible conditions-dirty barrels, tainted with bret etc. I am convinced that this debate over the internationalization of wine is getting a bit overheated and over blown. The glass is half full!

I enjoyed the review. I also enjoyed the McCoy book. I do not think it was biased for or against parker which is a good thing for a bio. I do find it amusing when people constantly harp on Parker's preferences (big wines etc). Rarely do any of Parker's critics offer any specifics. For eg--Parker has recommended hundreds (if not thousands) of wines that are decidedly not "big huge fruit bombs". His "lack of interest" in some areas like New Zealand and Loire Reds etc is probably due to the fact that he is getting older and wants to focus on wines he has a personal taste for. The fact is Parker reviewed many Loire Reds and New Zealand Sauvignon Blancs and turned a lot of people on to those wines. It is also a fact that these wines are not among the most "interesting" wines out there today. (that does not mean they are not good enjoyable etc--it simply means Parker does not have to review them any longer. Far different than the implication that Parker 'does not like them" or views them as inferior.

Ya know--based on what you wrote-I am going to find the wine and try the pasta with it! Thanks!! ps I too have found it pays to be counterintuitive at times.

The fact is--the world has opened up winewise. Previously, Europeans made and drank most of the wine produced. Much of that wine save for Bordeaux and Burgundy major growths was drunk locally. A lot of that wine was plonk (that's a British term?) mediocre at best and not very interesting other than it accompanied the local food. Today--we have access to a huge range of wine from all over the world. Also winemaking methods have advanced (some for the good some not so good). There is more good wine produced because of this--no longer are we at the mercy of the weather/vintages to the degree we were in the past. The fact is--many many people enjoy a glass of simple red or white be it a mass produced wine or not mass produced. ---few people will become connoisseurs few will care much about terroir or acidity--if it works for them--that's all they want. They will have their own preferences they will not spend much time learning about wine--they are not interested. Be it Yellowtail Sutter Home or a vin pays d'oc what really is the difference? I enjoy different things at different levels i have interests in many things other do not share my interests at all or to the degree that i do. I have a friend who is "into" the civil war and he has onjly a passing interest in wine--the reverse holds tru for myself--I find the Civil War opnly moderately of interest. I am not 'into French Antiques either though I appreciate a well made armoire. These wines are not bad wines--there is absolutely nothing wrong with white zinfandel nor the people who enjoy drinking it. If it is cleanly made without flaws etc. The fact is very little wine of all that is produced is of great interest anyway. Those of us who appreciate it and seek it out share the same joys that folks who salivate over rare pipes and pipe tobacco or Greek Revival architecture etc etc etc. ps I think Mondavi has produced a lot of very interesting wine (see even we can disagree!) lol

Some people practice this. Many don't. How many vineyards were ripped up to replant with merlot because it was "popular"? With chardonnay before that? With pinot noir and syrah now? How many vineyards have all of these varieties growing side by side? ← Interesting--Bob Foley noted that a lot of syrah was being planted in less than optimum locations in california. he also talked about cabernet franc and merlot-- and that a grower/winemaker must understand the grape varietal and "know" what soils and climes will bring out the best the varietal can offer and those that will "encourage" the bad traits the grape can show.--hence the "weedy" vegetal merlots and the "stinky" thin acidic cab franc's we often see. He also noted that with cab franc he determines optimum ripeness by "squeezing" the grapes in his fingers and looking at the inside the color etc. he does not care much about brix levels etc. Incidently the two most knowledgeable wine makers I have ever listened to are Foley and Olivier Humbercht (Zind Humbrecht in Alsace). Though very different personalities they both had a deep understanding of the science of farming--growing grapes as well as producing wine. Both emphasized the need to understand the potential a varietal has and how to maximize it from where the grape is planted to how it is vinified. perhaps this is the essence of terroir.

I attended a tasting of Pride wines led by Bob Foley, the winemaker, last week. There was a flight of three syrahs. Two('01,'02) were somewhat "anonymous" wines--good--big rich dense, lots of fruit and much like many Australian (and some Cal) Syrahs. One ('00) was very "Rhone" like funky, bacon fat notes etc. Foley said he could not really explain this difference as all three were vinified identically and were from the same basic grape sources and the weather was not a real factor. With wine there is often a "magical" or "mystical" factor--it's what makes it so damn interesting! As for the terroir thing--I see both sides and wonder if sometimes make too much of this debate. That is it is hard to find absolutes on either side that work. I do prefer wines that reflect the varietal--in otherwords syrah should taste different from cabernet. But then there are extremes looking at say, sauvignon blanc --there are subtle grassy styled bordeaux and sweeter tropical fruit styled NZ versions and various versions in between. All distinguishable as Sauvignon Blanc. Back to Foley--he is a very charming and interesting "character" by the way--it was incredibly educational and entertaining listening to him! He said that for him a very important factor in making wine is planting the right varietal in the right place. I suppose that this is where terroir starts! (and maybe ends).

Let's not forget that both Gallo and Kendall-Jackson are responsible for a number of "induividual" or more interesting wines under various labels in addition to their "mass produced" wines. Also--many of those "individual artisinal" producers have produced a lot of "crappy" wines. The notion that small is good and big is bad just doesn't work. (neither does the reverse). That said--there are more options for wine drinkers than ever before and this is growing every day-- from Yellowtail to small production wines made from heretofore obscure grape varietals. That is good! My concern is that acess to a wide variety of wines via the internet, direct sales and retail shelves be encouraged with little government intervention--laws taxes etc. Finally, We should also accept the fact that many people are perfectly happy with the Gallo or Kendall-Jackson and are not "cutting their teeth". Nor do a lot of people neccesarily want a wine with more "personality." For eg-my wife is perfectly happy eating simple domestic roe--as happy as she is with beluga caviar (I can't stand any of it). Does this mean that neither of us is elegible for "gourmet" status?

My experience has been: 1--predicting a wine's ageing curve is very difficult it is even more so when dealing with a lot of new world wines. (compared to bordeaux and Burgundy, Rhone, Barolo etc there just isn't a track record of how these wines do--even compared to say the "old guarde" Cal wines:Mondavi PR, Diamond Mt, Ridge MB etc. 2--a lot of these wines are made with lots of lush fruit, relatively low acidity, and softer tannins. 3--IMOP--the vast majority of Cal Cabs (and blends) are best at five to ten years at most. I believe they are made to be good on release or shortly thereafter. I have been to a number of ten year tastings--that is -major cabs tasted at ten years of age and have been somewhat disappointed--most seem to have been better at a younger age. This is not to say there are a number of Cabs that do get better with age. Or that many do not have a long plateau of maturity. Even Parker (most critics as well) has stated that if a wine tastes good --drink it! Waiting for some "magic" to happen will result in a lot of disappointment. If I have one major quibble with many critics is how they can assess the ageing curve that many of these wines will go through.--I can't tell you how many times I have been "burned" by these predictions. Anyway--this is fodder for a thread of its own! (I am rushing out to meet my wife and friends at a favorite -inexpensive Italian restaurant here in Manhattan so maybe tomorrow-I will start one!)

You are correct. However-I think the key here is to engage the sommeliere and work out a back up plan should the Lafitte prove wanting. With older wines it is always the customer who accepts the risk but a good restaurant will do much to ensure a customer is satisfied (especially one who orders wine with a meal). It would be fun and interesting to see what the sommelier "thinks" about the 75 Lafitte and how strongly they recommend it. I might take a chance if the sommelier had recently tasted it and could provide some information to support the choice. If I sensed they were not "behind" the wine--I would probably look elsewhere on the list. In the end a good sommelier should relish a situation like this!!!! ie. a wine lover who is curious and willing to be adventurous!!! (also one with some disposable income!!!!)

I might. First I would see what the sommelier said about it. Then if several people were "sharing" the cost and if we were all ok with taking a bit of a risk for the money. and-if we were willing to order another wine should the Lafitte not be good drinking.--why not. could be a bargain or it could be a bust! also possible that the sommelier would help out and if the Lafitte is not at least decent to drink he/she would give you a deal on something else from the list.

Both these wines were very nice on release. I wonder if a lot of people put these in their cellars expecting them to improve even further. The Spectator noted that the 96 would be best between 2000 and 2008 that is a window of eight years. (I wonder how they arrived at this "guess".)Regardless it is clear they are recommending this wine be consumed on the "young" side. (four to twelve years old). Anyway--for a wine that many tasters agreed was "quite nice" on release I wonder why anyone expected it to "improve" with much cellaring--where was it going to go? It clearly had little track record for ageing at the time.

I notice you don't name the restaurant! :-) I agree with you re: the 76 and 78 (I especially enjoyed the 76 (what a nose!). As for the 75. I never tasted the 75 Lafitte but I have tasted a number of other Bordeaux from that vintage with very mixed results. !975 was a very "hot" year in Bordeaux and many of the wines were/are very tannic -some with raisiny or "cooked" flavor notes. There were some very fine wines produced--many very slow to mature and many will remain tannic beasts that will never come around. Robert Parker notes that the 75 Lafitte may have a problem with bottle variation--he's had some very good bottles and some not so good bottles. Anyway--the 1975 is now thirty years old and I would want to know where/how the bottle was stored (how did the restaurant come to own the wine etc). I would think that at $200/bottle the restaurant is trying to "move" the wine. Were there other vintages of Lafitte on the list and what are they priced at? were there other first growth Bordeaux on the list (especially any from 75 and how were they priced? Finally--I would not hesitate to engage the sommelier and ask why he has priced the wine at $200 a bottle. I have found that once a sommelier knows that you enjkoy fine wine and have a little knowledge he/she will be quite forthright about their wine list. I have had a sommelier on more than one occasion, steer me away from a wine (bargain). For eg --I once saw the 90 Pichon Lalande on a list for a "song" since 90 is an excellent vintage for Bordeaux and Pichon is a very consistant performer--I asked about the price and was informed that Pichon made a very mediocre wine that year--hence the low price. If the sommelier can not giver you a good answer as to why the 75 lafitte is priced as it is then I would stay away from it.

A friend of mine who is a Brit (London) and lives here in NYC told me the Noilly Prat he is used to in England is very different and stronger than the version sold here. also I am a bit suprised that no one mentioned Boissiere which is my favorite Vermouth. (it is not quite as available as some other brands but it is around--here in NYC area.)

Oh, we certainly agree here. A person's capabilities don't make them "better" or "worse" than others, in the sense of having more or less value as human beings. But they might have more sensitive taste buds or/and a more sensitive nose. ← yes--for sure! There are people who taste things other do not. I think the issue here is "snobbery" or "elitism" that is when someone looks down upon someone else. I think what a lot of this thread is about is Julie's point (however well or not so well put) that often "foodies" (us?) apply our values to others. This is not necc just to poor folks --it is often other people who do not have the same gustatory values and interest we do. Why we even do it to each other--witness the long threads about hot dog stand A being 'far superior" to hot dog stand B! Devotees of stand B often infer that those who are promoting stand A are "attacking" their good (hot dog) taste and off we go!!! lol That is passion--I suppose and can be a good thing. By the way---I still like supermarket chicken though your comments re: cod liver oil moved me to do a little research--cod liver oil or fish emulsion is a natural product so I am not sure it supports your contention that this is not a 'good thing" to feed chicken. In fact Mother earth magazine includes Cod Liver oil in their recommendation for chicken feed for raising organic free range chickens. All those eggs with Omega three etc is a good thing as far as I can tell. However-actually being able to taste it in chicken is not a good thing (I agree with you there) I will see if I can detect it (you have a sensitive palate because I doubt many people can detect it). Back to the issue at hand: what needs to be noted is: many poor people eat and cook quite well--in fact--based upon census numbers Chinatown is a "poor" neighborhood as is Little Italy in the Bronx (I lived there for several years as --yes a poor person). I would also point out that a lot of my Hispanic friends come from very poor families who were great cooks --witness the varied Hispanic restaurants in Harlem and the Bronx and the Hispanic markets. Also "Soul Food" and the cuisine of the American South is rooted in poverty! Low Country cooking Cajun, Creole. An episode of Mr Bourdain's Cooks Tour featured a visit to a very poor village in mexico where the cooking was quite amazing. Monday Anthony made a point about French "peasant" cooking. In fact, I would posit that if not for the ingenuity and resourcefulness of poor people the world of cuisine and cooking would be very boring (and incredibly expensive). In the end it is a bit dangerous to make sweeping statements--and also to apply a value system on others. Not everyone rich or poor wants to be a gourmet. Yes not everyone has the choice and yes there are too many people who are, in fact, starving. For them, i think Julie is saying, help is anything that will sustain them organic or not. In fact, real help would not be food per se but the means to grow their own food. That is to help themselves.

Ya know--I was stuck on Florida Jim's very interesting post that started the thread so I shoulda addressed him directly--re the Burgundies. As to the post from MAF (and to elaborate on Brad's above): Any 1993 Burgundy will be a bit difficult to find red or white. Auctions are the best place. Prices on first growth should be $80 and up per bottle. also some major retailers may be a good source--for eg Sokolin on LI carries a lot of older Burgundy. The NY Wine Warehouse --there are probably a few good retailers within reasonable distance from you. (wherever you are) and you might want to consider magnums--they age more slowly than reg bottles. In all liklihood (unless you attend an auction where they will let you taste a sample) buying without tasting an older vintage is really dicey! You should have an easier time finding some good 98's. I like Brad's thought re: late harvest wines (though these are whites) you can get some pretty good wines at reasonable prices. what might really be interesting (and safer) is to put together mixed cases of wines from Burgundy, Rhone, Italy, Germany, Spain etc maybe two or thre bottles each etc. That way you can hedge your bets and have some fun seeing/tasting what the world produced in those important (to you ) years! Older Barolo from Italy is (IMOP) probably some of the most age worthy red wine anywhere. Also the Rhone--Hermitage and Cote Roti as well as Spain (older Rioja's are great). Toss in some German sweet whites and with those cases of Bordeaux and Cal you will have a very interesting look at the "world" of wine.