JohnL

Thanks for the info Phil! I always wondered about that Clos Robert! Do you know who is producing "Purple Mountain"? Seems that these wines do well for a while and then either the price rises as they gain some success (Purple Mt was a ten dollar chardonnay now it is approaching the fifteen dollar mark) or the quality drops off (could be the consistancy problems in grape sourcing?).

FYI Paella is all about the rice. The Spaniards have a long history of growing rice (they invented paella after all). Spanish rice is short grain. The best book/source (IMOP) on paella (and Spanish cooking in general) is Penelope Casas. She strongly urges the use of Spanish rice like Bomba in paella and notes that Italian Arborio can be used as a last resort. We tend to view paella in terms of its ingredients (seafood, chicken etc) rather than a rice dish where the rice is the key element. The Spanish focus on the rice. In this regard it is like risotto. If you don't get the rice right the rest of the dish really doesn't matter. I have found that paella is very easy to make (I especially love it made over a wood fire--on the grill). It also has lots of room for personal taste-and experimentation. I also have found that when learning to make it -it is best to keep it simple--focus on the rice and keep the other ingredients to a minimum. Once you get the rice down--the rest is pretty easy! It is also a lot of fun!

This "marketing" works both ways! I remember when Biondi Santi released their Brunello at $100/bottle. This was the first wine to cross that threshold (I believe). Got lots of hoo ha in the press and sold out quickly. These two buck this and four buck thats are in essence jug wines. (not that there's anything wrong with that!) Mass produced from grapes of only slightly more than anonymous locations. Often these appear with catchy labels --I remember a wine "Clos Robert" that was carried by a prestigious store (Morells) here in NY. It was pretty good and cost around ten bucks. It was good for a couple of years then the price rose and the quality fell off. (looking back--I wonder if this was produced by Mondavi given the name "Robert".) Currently, Purple Mountain has emerged as a lower mid priced wine that is pretty decent--the marketing hype is that it is made by a large prestigious winery who must remain a secret. Charles Shaw and Fred Franzia are taking another tack: the anti snob wine at an anti snob price that appeals to folks who find that appealing! In the end--this stuff has been around forever but the marketing changes--they gotta stay ahead of us to survive!!! Remember--white Zinfandel--can you say "rose"! In the end it always comes down to what's in the glass! (by the way--just what grape varietals are used in Gallo Hardy Burgundy?)

I am currently reading the biography of Robert Parker by Elin McCoy. There are a number of interesting similarities between Mr Parker and Mr Shaw. From both being lawyers influenced by their fathers (though Mr P's dad was not into wine specifically) to the way in which they discovered their passion and followed it and have achieved a measure of success professionally but even more, how this has translated into a level of personal satisfaction. Ultimately, this passion can impact an industry because these folks impact many of us who share the passion and influence us in our approach to food and wine as consumers. There are some important keys: integrity and honesty and hard work, that is, it is not that difficult to write about a subjecty one finds interesting but it is quite another to actively explore all aspects of that subject and become "informed"--Parker has these traits (I sense Mr Shaw has them). They are, I believe the reasons why these "critics" become influential--their writing carries a level of gravitas that sets it apart.--by the way both these guys (Parker and Shaw) are weighty in girth--I suspect the usual combination of genes and a very corrupting career choice. Maybe we have discovered the "problem" with Frank Bruni here (but I digress). anyway-- I am enjoying the Parker book and I look froward to the Shaw tome with great anticipation--my favorite restaurants will be going on summer schedules and it is too hot to drink my favorite red wines so it is a great time to at least read about my passions! (what the hell--I have shifted over into barbeque and beer mode so things aren't that bad).

I know it's too late now but...... I would have gone another way with this dish. With wine and food pairings you can go against the grain or with the grain. For a rich cream sauce I usually like a big rich wine. A nice buttery chardonnay --in this case. IMOP a rich sauce with cream usually overwhelms most wines so i like to complement the dish not counter it. anyway-- it is often a lot of fun to take two wines with contrasting styles and open em up with dinner and see which one works best. The other wine can go back in the fridge for later.

oops! Gabriels is closed Sundays. (also it may be a bit pricey)--I still heartily recommend it though. How about Shun Lee West--should be great for a Sunday afternoon.

An excellent (and often overlooked) restaurant is GABRIELS--60th street between Ninth and Columbus Circle. (11 west 60th) Across from the TW Center. Food is Italian (Northern mostly) and very very good. The ambience is nice-high energy--good for pre theatre--. Nice bar nice wine list. This place has been there for years under same owner (Gabe Aiello) who is always on premise.

I like the Landmark wines quite a bit. Though oak is used these wines do not seem overly oaky to me. Maybe this is the point. Dominique Laurent is a proponant of oak (he uses "double oak") yet most of his Grand cru and primier cru wines do not taste "oaky" --yes there is oak present but the wines are certainly not out of balance and loads of fruit and terroir come through. In the end-I believe it is the winemaker and his or her selections/choices that are most important. ie: oak or no oak, how much oak, new or old barrels, toast or no toast, what kind of oak etc. It comes down to (and always will): what's in the glass. I believe that because oak is one of the more easily identified "flavors" in wine that people often "taste" it and tend to declare it: "this wine is oaky!" When in fact, the wine in question is not "oaky". I would also say that the tendancy toward "sweet" wines (Kendal Jackson) has little or nothing to do with oak and often results in cloying, out of balance and clumsy wines--this can happen to any varietal not just chardonnay and is the result of choices by the wine maker to appeal to people who like this type of wine (therer are obviously many). Recently I have found that the first refuge from chardonnay (the ABC crowd "discovered") Sauvignon blanc has become the "new chardonnay" and many of these wines are also sweet and out of balance and cloying. May just be that these characteristics appeal to a lot of people.

I would recommend the "Spanish Table: www.spanishtable.com I believe they are located in Seattle and you can get Spanish products via their website--including Bomba rice-around $8 for two kilos! (cheaper than my local Whole Foods). also they have a great selection of cookware (paella pans etc). Their service has been good in my experience. Hope this helps!

Ya know-- In the end that's really what it all comes down to! only problem is: how do we limit the times that the answer to the question you pose is no!

Max--some really good points! You can throw in those infernal "top ten" lists!! It is probably insecurity coupled with competetiveness! We should realize though that Parker sees himself as a Naderite styled critic who is attempting to demystify wine for American consumers. The Europeans are much more tentative about their assessments. Thus the populace is less reliant upon scores. Also wine drinking today is no longer segmented by class as in Europe (the titled drink fine old Bordeaux first growths and the masses the local plonk). We don't have a heritage of local wine production and drinking habits to match--that is--we drink what is produced nearby-- --we have access to everything! Sometimes I think that the more precise critics try to be-- the more confusing and less precise the resultant scores. Also --I think there is a distinction between wine tasting/reviewing and wine writing. In the end--wine is a magical beverage because it is so mysterious--not very easy to get a handle on and yet it can provide so much pleasure--and frustration! Just what the hell is oriental saddle leather supposed to taste like?--yet we are talking about what a wine evokes and that is amazing! I have never actually tasted road tar but I have "sensed it" in a glass of wine!

I was mulling over my past (this seems to happen more and more with the onset of age fifty!). I recalled some of my favorite restaurants over the years that are no longer ( I wish I had kept a diary!) in hopes that I would manage to refresh my memory (who knows how many places i ate at that I have no recollection of). Anyway--memories and experiences are always synched up with various points in one's history so from the seventies and through the eighties I thought I'd list a few that I do miss, wondering if any contemporaries share the pangs of loss I do--and can add their own!!! (and realizing full well, that they may not have been as good as I remember!) Lespinasse This one is easy as it was where, not long ago, I enjoyed some of my finest meals anywhere. I know Mr Kunz is still cookin but Lespinasse was a special place-four stars all the way--I remember a dish of frog's legs in a lemmongrass scented broth--the food here was subtle, suprising and so artfully conceived. I also recall sitting a table away from Julia Child not too long before her passing. Rakel Before the celebrity chef craze--I did not know mush about Mr Keller then--this was a teriffic spot. The food was well thought out and satisfying. Less precious, refined and detailed than his cooking is today but superb overall. I remember loving the fois gras! Good wine list-- and the decor! I loved the huge paintings over the bar flanking a white screen on which scenes from the surrounding Manhattan neighborhood shot in real time from a live camera inside the restaurant were shown. One shot of the Empire State Building bathed in fading light as we dined remains with me today--the whiter piano and palm fronds at the entrance, the wonderful bar--this was a very cool place (unfortunately in a very uncool--or maybe too cool location). Jams 79th Street just East of Madison I believe. Jonathan Waxman brought california cuisine to NY. this place was hot-where the in crowd ate before hitting the discos! Great chicken and fries and food that was fresh, with bright flavors. Caravelle Ok another recent memory --but over the years I had some wonderful meals from a parade of chefs. Maybe not the very top, but always rewarding and very civilized. Vienna 79 East 79th street of course. (I do remember vaguely a similar spot in midtown-the fifties). This was the best Viennese food I have had antywhere in the US. A couple of seafood places: John Clancy In the West Village--later they opened a second spot uptown--this was where I discovered seafood! The swordfish Brochettes were superb, great raw bar. Wilkinson's On the upper East side (York Avenue I believe). A tuna Provincale style sticks with me--this was a really fine seafood establishement. Two really fine Chinese Restaurants: Flower Drum Second Avenue--I always liked this best of the uptown Chinese spots. The family who ran it were special people. Hunan At the vanguard of the spicy food explosion uptown--second Avenue in the forties-cool greys in the interior--ultra modern at the time--and the food was spiced big time! There are a whole bunch of "street food" establishments: remember Goldberg's Pizza? (the only attempt to establish Chicago style pies in NYC that I know of). The Baby Back movement: Bobby Rubinos, Carsons (the place for ribs also Chicago based), Wylies. Anyway-I really wish I had kept a more detailed journal over the years --hope some others remember these places with more details than I do and add some of their own.

Gee wine made according to a survey! I can't wait. I had the pleasure of attending a tasting led by Olivier Humbrecht of Zind Humbrecht producer of some of the world's finest white wines. The issue of "hang time" came up--ZH produces Riesling so picking times are critical. (Mr Humbrecht has a degree in enology and a master of wine certification as well as a long family history). He replied that the best time to harvest the grapes "was when the birds begin to eat them!"

Thanks Rebel Rose! This stuff is really interesting. (I should have been a farmer!) I bet somewhere at davis there are color maps! Your post points out that "terroir" is not just about soil. Weather is really important--maybe most important!

I try to keep all this in some sort of perspective. WHAT'S THE SCORE!?: We are often fixated on scores in the form of stars, toques, points (100 point scale or twenty point scale), thumbs up or thumbs down--for everything from movies, books, restaurants, wine whatever--if it is purchased it is "rated" somewhere! Most critics will practically beg one to read the review or tasting notes and put the final score in perspective. It is in the notes that one finds the information about a wine that is or can be useful-for eg a ninety point wine means nothing other than the critic liked it within whatever criteria that critic establishes for his or her system of rating.--it says nothing more nothing less. While scores may disagree--as they are based upon predjudices etc notes most often do not--tyhye will noter if the wine is tannic, big, rich, delicate, --all the information that really counts--thus the critic's notes will often agree while their scores may not! I would bet that an awful lot of people who like to "criticize the critics" could not recount how the critic's rating system works and conversely, I would venture that many fans and long time subscribers of certain critics could not do the same. WINE IS AN EVOLVING SUBSTANCE (the mystery and the history) The Mystery The "spat" RP had (or is still having) with Ms Robinson over a "score" ---"underscores" my point about...well....scores. When, where and how a wine is tasted impacts the wine's impressions upon the taster. Every critic (and wine lover I know) will attest to this. Thus, those "scores" are very tenuous at best. So that wine Parker rates 90 at lunch was just that--in his estimation a 90 point wine and it was a 95 when he tasted it earlier. I have cases of wines that tasted differently depending upon when and where I opened a bottle. Parker was most likely miffed at the "gotcha" tone of Ms Robinson's piece. It should be noted that Robinson shows a certain respect for Parker (though she has disagreements with his methods etc) as illustrated in her book: "Tasting Pleasure." The History I recommend Robinson's chapter on parker and critics and wine writing in general. One needs to be aware of Parker's raison d' etre before criticizing him. He sees himself as a Nader styled critic of a confusing and mildly corrupt European system/history of wine reviewing. He certainly casued a stir in the wine world when he began! (Robinson does a very good job of describing this). In the end though--we do focus too much on scores--wine retailers are also very guilty of not doing a better job of selling the wine they have in their shops! Thus they are at fault as much as the rating systems they often complain about. How many times have we seen the little scores posted on racks--Parker, WS, etc. How many times are the notes missing? The only information that would help us choose a wine for the Roast Beef we are having for dinner that night!!! How often are the scores for the wrong vintage of wine on the shelf! ENOUGH ALREADY! But even worse--how often does the staff in the shop know nothing about the wine they sell!? as for us--the consumers, the geeks, the great unwashed: I agree with FL Jim that wine is most often drunk with food (I don't like mass tastings). And in its proper perspective wine is enjoyed by the bottle (or two!) with food or a cigar or good conversation or with a sunset , alone or with a friend or lover or all of the above! Having said this and also agreeing with Jim that one should always have a goal of total reliance on one's own palate, I must say that critics can be very helpful. For eg-I simply do not have the time or means to taste a wide range of wines as they are released. Various newsletters and critics can help point one in the right direction. I have "discovered" many many wines I enjoy today as a result of a review that caught my eye/sparked my interest. Critics also provide valuable information as to trends in the wine world and helpp introduce us to new winemakers, new areas of production and growers as well as proividing perspective on vintages and historical references for wines. How one uses these folks is often up to one's reliance on our own palates---even Jancis robinson admits to much self doubt when reviewing wine and (I sense) begrudgingly respects Parker's self confidence. (she also questions it). In fact Robinson raises a good point here--can one be totally sure of one's own palate given the subjectivity and mysterious nature of wine? I do enjoy tasting a wine then comparing my notes to those of the "experts" it is fun and informative. I do wish that more retailers did a better job of selling their wine. We are often victim to our own insecurities--I know few people will not pay ten dollars to see a movie without reading a review--at the very least to find out if the subject matter is of interest and yes--maybe even to see if someone they respect had anything good or bad to say about it. (we don't have the time or the money). Imagine we are faced with a fifty dollar bottle of wine. Do we have the time or money to "take a flyer?" So critics can be a good thing, so can, wine retailers, sommeliers and knowledgeable friends. There's room for all! it is just a matter of perspective.

I agree--it would be interesting. I am sure Cal Davis has the info! I will poke around though I am sure one of the grape growers out here will have access!!!

Your "theory" does make a lot of sense. I think that a number of California and Oregon and Washington wine makers are starting to hit on "regimes" that work better for their raw material instead of "mimic-ing" French techniques. There are a number of more "interesting" wines coming from these producers. I also see a movement to plant grapes in more temperate micro climes and to "stress" the vines more. Hence a growth of coastal vinyards in California vs those on the valley floor in Napa for eg. In the end, hopefully, we will get wines that are more interesting to drink that reflect more character and individuality.

I have subscribed to a number of journals/tasting reports over the years: Parker, Tanzer, Coates, Meadows (Burghound), Spectator etc etc etc. I have also attended tastings led by Parker, Coates, Tanzer etc. There are a lot of misperceptions about what the critics like and dislike ie "Parker only likes big over extracted wines" or "Parker doesn't like subtle wines with finesse." Both these statements are patently false. Critic's do have "approaches" to wine styles and tend to have strong and weak points. The only way to get a "feel" for a critic is the same whether we are discussing wine critics, restaurant critics or music critics. They are after all, human. First--scoring systems: We tend to place far too much emphasis on what a critic has "scored" a wine. The real key is to read the notes! This is where the critic is describing what he or she (or they in the case of group scoring a la the Spectator). A score no matter what system (Davis 20 point, or 100 point scale) is a summation the real proof is in what the taster tastes. The notes are the reason for the score the explanation, if you will, or the "justification". That said one should be able to recognize what standards the critic uses for his or her scoring system. For eg, Tanzer is a "harder" grader than Parker for the most part. He is usually a few points lower than Parker. There are areas of expertise and likes and dislikes: for eg Coates (he is semi retired now) was stronger on Burgundy than new world wines. Why? Because he simply did not taste new world wines as extensively as say Parker. Parker, on the other hand, has, for the most part, stopped reviewing Burgundy to concentrate on other areas. (Rovanni handles Burgundy for the newsletter). We can get into all sorts of discussions here. "petty feuds", "Davis scale vs the 100 point scales", " Personal likes and dislikes", "group or panel tasting vs individual tasting" and on and on. I would say, that it is important to "trust the tale, not the teller! (I think this is Shakespeare). That is take the scores with a grain of salt and read the notes! This is the only way to explain why Tanzer gives the wine in question a 94 and the Spectator an 84. One should also remember tasting notes (and scores) are as parker says: "a snapshot " of where that wine is at the moment in time it is tasted." And as we all know--wine is very fickle stuff. Interestingly enough, I have not found that many instances of "wide swings" among notes and even scores, as one would expect. (the 2001 Laurel Glen cab is my current issue (Parker vs Tanzer or 85 vs 93). A professional taster should be able to identify flavor profiles and general quality of a wine and reflect that in the notes. In the end--one has to trust one's own palate--it is fun to go back to the critic's notes and see where you and he or she agree or differ.

I also like the kim crawford wines. I guess my point is one can apply that formula: too much oak, tropical fruits, too sweet etc to a lot of Sauvignon Blancs lately! The fact is--when a grape becomes popular there is over production and a lot of mediocre wine. That goes for Cabernet, Merlot etc--though I am not a fanatic about terroir--there is no question that a lot of new world grapes are not planted in optimum soils. For eg there is a lot of Cabernet Sauvignon planted in very hot dry areas that would better suit Rhone varietals etc. The reason the French seem to get it right with a greater degree of success is their history (lots of time for trial and error) and insistance on the right varietal in the right place! Winemaking plays a big part as well--I agree that too many wine makers are producing wines to a formula for success--lots of oak lots of tropical fruits etc.

I'd recommend Neyers Chardonnays (Napa I believe) also Rick Foreman makes some wonderful "balanced" chardonnays. Also--Kistler (though these need age and can be a tad overblown--also expensive). Mt Eden is good-- and I haven't had one recently but Hanzell has made some great chards in the past. For a while Ch St Michelle cold creek chardonnay's from Wash State were good (though there is definite oak here). remember--a lot of Burgundies also can be very oaky (many need age). I think the keys are: location (a lot of chardonnay is planted in hot climes in Cal) this seems to be improving as more vinyards are located closer to the coast etc. winemakers who allow terroir to shine--use of native yeasts and good clonal selections etc etc. I actually think there is a lot of very good chardonnay being made in california now--and yes there is still a lot of mediocre wine as well.

I agree! is the fourteenth ammendment to the constitution (I hope I got this right) that gives the states the right to regulate alcohol needed anymore-I know it ended prohibition but is it serving any purpose other than promulgating the current mess of laws etc that are really anti consumer? (maybe someone with a better legal background can help here). If you sell wine you should be able to sell it to whomever and wherever conversely if you want to buy it........

anyone been to John Ash lately? also Ralph's Bistro in Healdsburg?

Brad, I agree! Oak has gotten a bad rap. So has chardonnay. The Qupe I noted earlier has some oak but it is in balance with the other flavors the wine has. There are a number of fine chardonnays from California that are balanced and interesting: Foreman, Flowers, Mt Eden, Qupe to name a few. I believe that what can make chardonnay so interesting is the same attribute that can give it a bad name. That is-it is a grape that readily reflects the terroir and the skills or non skills of the winemaker. That you can have chablis (oaked or unoaked) and Montrachet as well as lean earthy chards from Cal or the Northwest and big buttery oaky chards from the same places is amazing. All are strikingly different!

Thanks for the tip! I will definitely go back. and i will try the chili!!!!

Phil! That's a great wine--wish I was there to enjoy it with you (we'd have to open another half though!) I have been thinking that it might be a nice tasting to feature the '99 vintage in Oregon and look at the Shea vinyard particularly.