JohnL

Well you have "step one" down! I don't think it is oak per se. It is often too much oak. Or not enough fruit to survive the oak. When I hear people say they don't like chardonnay I ask what kind of chardonnay because--let's face it--some of the greatest white wines are made from it and there are so many styles. I like sauvignon blanc too-- but it rarely -if ever-reaches the pinnacles that chardonnay is capable of. anyway-- it is great that there are so many different wines out there from different grapes etc life may get boring but wine should never be!!!!

I think that regardless of the wine's condition, if you are not happy with it --the restaurant should replace it with something else. Especially given that you only ordered a by the glass. Many wine friendly restaurants will pour you a sip of wine to see if you like it before pouring a full glass. The waiter's conduct in your case was not very good. I would write a note to the management of the restaurant. It could have been one "bad apple" or a problem with the establishment's wine service. I also believe that even when dealing with bottles--the customer is always right. There are exceptions ie. very expensive bottles and/or very old wines--there are many ways to handle problems here. I(f the waiter indicated that the Riesling was a "desert wine" then I would have asked: "well why did you serve it to me now, knowing this is not accompanying desert?" The fact is the waiter had no idea what he was serving (in all liklihood). It is too bad these kinds of things happen anymore. A bad experience with wine can ruin an otherwise nice experience at a restaurant--and wine problems are so easy to avoid!

I gotta say--I recently went to Rutt's Hut with great anticipation. I was very underwhelmed. First-the ambiance was great--a true "dive" you couldn't start from scratch and duplicate it! Second--the service--very nice people-I felt like a regular. Third--the dogs. very mediocre--I just didn't get much flavor from the dog. It was crisp on the outside (great) but rather mushy on the inside. I also should have had the bun toasted! soft mushy bun plus mushy dog equals a not so good eating experience. The relish? I didn't like that --it was sour and of a strange consistancy--i think a dog needs a good counterpoint--something very sharp and clean tasting like a good pickle relish. though on condiments I agree that it should be whatever one likes here. I do like fried dogs (my favorite place is Swanky Frank in Norwalk CT). I will go back to Rutt's and try em again because every good dog deserves.......

For years I had been a fan of March. I haven't been in quite a while (so many restaurants so little time!). Wondering if my impressions are seconded and still valid. I thought the cooking was very very good. Nish's food was always creative but in a conservative way. And always satisfying and engaging. also a high level of consistancy. The atmosphere romantic not a bit overdone--seemingly just right never obtrusive but more conducive to a nice experience. The service top notch very professional and a good balance of formal and informal. I remember the reservations person inquiring as to whether or not my dinner was celebrating a special ocassion and there being flowers presented to my wife on her bitrthday etc. (nice touch). and the wine list and wine service were very good. I had some wonderful and innovative pairings Joe Scalice put together for a number of meals. If I am not mistaken--Nish was one of the first to go to smaller plates and pair wines etc. Also, it seems that March gets lost in the explosion of new restaurants (March has been around for quite a while now). So--I do want to go back to March soon. It was nice to learn here at eGullet recently that Wayne Nish will be ecutive chef at Hudson House in Nyack as well. Just wondering if anyone has been recently and what they thought.

Great news! A while ago--I could not remember the name of this show (how is it possible I forgot!!!). I made an inquiry in the UK board and got some good replies! I loved this show--was well written and well acted--I saw Lenny Henry in a few other things and had trouble accepting him as anyone but the "Chef" he played.

This past weekend I opened up two bottles (on separate days) of Qupe Bien Nacido Chardonnay 2003. It was wonderful--had complexity, lemon, apple, pineapple herbs, minerals--refreshing clean finish. I have experienced and enjoy a number of white varietals and still come back to chardonnay appreciating it more each time. Yes there are a lot of insipid versions out there but when a good maker gets it right-there is little competition. (in the end I'd rather have a mediocre chardonnay than a mediocre sauvignon blanc if I had to). I love chenin blanc: Loire whites are superb. Sauvignon blanc is good too. Riesling can be outstanding. (maybe riesling is -in the end-a match for chardonnay). but Chardonnay--is an amazing grape--it takes on terroir --it can be steely (chablis) or rich and opulent (Montrachet) and everything in between. There is a complexity possible few other whites can achieve. Back to the Qupe: for under twenty bucks a good deal. Now this is not a great wine--it is a very good one --I like what Bob Lindquist does with chardonnay (pretty decent Syrah as well). It is just nice to find a good wine that delivers more than just a pleasant drinking experience.

Ya know--off the top of my head: I'd have to say the classification still holds up fairly well. Yes Pomerol and to a lesser degree St Emilion got short shrift but in terms of overall quality over the years...... Seems most of the errors were of omission.

Parker's use of "garagiste" was originally applied to Bordeaux mostly St Emilion where a number of people were making wines outside the Chateau "system." Some purchased grapes from Chateau estates and other properties and some used grapes from vinyards they owned. yes- a lot of these operations are literally housed in garages. In the end--large estate or maker or small--the proof is in the bottle (or glass)!

Swiss chef--I agree re: tasting/drinking a few wines with friends! If one must taste fifty to a hundred wines in an afternoon --one has to do what one... If one is being paid to review a large number of wines in a short period of time then one should be prudent in terms of any actual intake of the wine. There is evidence (I cited some) that the impact of alcohol is perhaps a bit overstated when one swallows a small amount of wine from each sample. There is also some belief that to properly assess a wine a small amount of each sample should be "swallowed". I am not sure where I stand. In the end--there is no reason for one to become "drunk" --especially at a wine tasting of any sort. I have rarely run across a situation where there were people drunk at a tasting (but my experience is limited here--I hate crowds-sober or otherwise!). In the end I live by those words from a great wine taster: "A man's got to know his limitations!"

One of the finest goat cheeses I have ever had was something called "Suspiro de Cabra" from La Mancha. This was several years ago--I have been unable to find it since. Anyone familiar with this and better--anyone know where to find it?

Thanks! Those tastings are held by Executive Wine Seminars here in NYC. Tasting notes are posted on Robert parker's website. They are really fun and non pretentious events with lot's of good humor thanks to Bob Millman and Howard Kaplan who run them. The wines are interesting --and are tasted in flights of four or less over three hours. Each wine is discussed in depth by the group. Recently Olivier Humbrecht led a tasting of his Riesling Brand and Rangen vinyards over several vintages old and recent. I can say I learned quite a bit! I personally don't like large tastings of the standup variety --too much wine and too little time! As I noted before I usually limit my tasting to several wines--rushing around trying to sample everything is just not much fun for me. If I am tasting say, wines that are not top rank I certainly do spit a lot. I try to whittle it down to two or three I like and taste/drink those. Antacids and lots of water in between are a must for me. I do think that to really get to "know" a fine wine one needs to spend a little more time and contemplate it more than a quick swirl and spit.

I think we are creating a new language out here! (you are articulating things very well!) Tasting, Drinking, Swallowing, Spitting--yeeesh--it's hot I am going to get a glass of chablis and some oysters! say--do you prefer to swallow oysters or chew them briefly and then..... :-)

First-- Trade tastings should not be mixed with general public tastings when possible. Wine tastings should have a purpose (more singular). And be organized accordingly. (I understand they sometimes can not be). Second-- I refer you to Andrew Sharp's book "winetaster's secrets" Sharp deals with the issue of spitting and swallowing. He notes that there is data from several reliable sources (his own organization-InterVin International is one) that indicates The impact of swallowing some of the wine tasted on alcohol blood levels and a taster's judging abilities to be negligable. (his group studied fifty one taster tasting sixty wines.). Mr Sharp goes on to posit that a taster who spits out all of the sample and does not swallow a bit of the wine will not be able to properly judge the wine in question. He/she would miss a number of important stimulations. This is why I am a bit skeptical of anyone who does not swallow some of a wine being able to provide an accurate assessment of that wine. I certainly can not judge a wine's finish properly. I will admit that some tasters are quite remarkable--Parker, Tanzer, Coates, Meadows etc And I will admit that if one is trying to assess professionally one hundred fifty samples of say California Chardonnay a large number of those wines would not require swallowing to provide a thumbs up or down evaluation. I also should say, that I take any tasting notes/evaluations performed under these circumstances with a grain of salt. Also, in closing, let me explain a bit about those tastings I regularly attend. They are of a high level of quality overall. For example the wines of top flight producers are tasted and reviewed rated and discussed. The tastings are often led by guests like Robert Parker or Olivier Humbrecht or Becky Wasserman. In attendance are serious collectors, wine makers, trade professionals (and some just plain folks who like wine). In this context-it is almost imperative that the wines be swallowed (at least some or the sample). If I am at a mass tasting where there are a very large number of wines --I do, in fact, spit a lot more--I try to taste a reasonable number find the two or three most promising wines and taste them "in depth". I also take an antacid and drink a lot of water! Do I have the constitution of a horse? Maybe an old tired nag. (It is soooo tempting to just say: "Naaaaaayyyyy")

ps My "nice lunch" was at the Park Avenue branch! again-- I have eaten there a number of times--always had a good experience!

I had a really nice lunch at Les halles recently. The place was packed and the service was fine--the staff even gave us some places to go and enjoy some cigars! The steak tartare is about as good as it gets --classic version! as for the problems noted in earlier posts: maybe Tony should hire Gordon Ramsey as a consultant and the film the thing!!!! Jeeez that would be something akin to nude chef wrestling!!! Gordon could beat up the staff, Tony could beat up Gordon then they both could beat up the.....

Boris--I have done that --it is a fun and informative evening! I also recommend it! because it puts the wine in the context of how we enjoy it (with food and friends) not in a more contrived atmosphere of a formal tasting. Max-- You noted something I hadn't thought much about. You are right--there is a tendency toward a "knee jerk" reaction against wine snobbery. It is often worse than the snobbery itself! You know--I actually smell the cork in restaurants! The hell with the experts! I got my reasons! lol

You get my point! Don't eat the salad--don't eat there at all! you can eat there once in a while. You have a choice. You have some facts. You can make an informed choice.

According to the story in the paper--the poor guy was assaulted by the super and a psychiatrist who lives in the building! Only in NY kids only... Actually--the building supe or tennants should simply have dealt with the restaurant about the problem. A menu could have been put into mailboxes or a place in the lobby could have been designated for menus. Frankly--I like getting menus--I have found a bunch of places that are good in the neighborhood.--It is part of living in NYC. There is never ever a reason to hit someone over soemthing like this.

first--the story was nice i liked it. moving on-- There are some interesting points you raise. There is hunger in the US (and in many places to numerous to name around the world). Hunger is a result of poverty of which there is much in the world. Unfortunately, a lot of undefined terms and statistics are being thrown around here and elsewhere to support one position or another. Let's not even begin to compare what poverty is in this country to what it is in sub saharan Africa say.--it is bad enough here! We have as a country been spending billions on eradicating poverty government and private funds. The money/programs (not all programs) is obviously not working very efficiently. I am simply not going to get into a discussion of poverty here it is complex and i nor anyone i have encountered here has enough grasp of the real statistics.... So-- getting back to the topic of this thread: The food police--i say no! why because --and here's my point: those representing the point of view that the government should regulate foods deemed unhealthy by them (i am never really sure exactly who they are) are "using" statistics and annecdotal evidence and their own definition of terms to advance their cause. I don't really buy the opposition argument beyond their call for free choice either it is also self serving. However-- makers of fast food will respond to public pressure and make healthier foods --MacDonalds has salads these days and they are looking into better methods of creating fries etc (the last time i ate there was years ago though). However if they are sued or legislated out of business who wins? That's it for me--in a large nutshell!

I don't know if this is the right thread but here goes! I have not been able to find really good tomatoes anywhere for the past few years. New York, Connecticut, New Jersey. Since you all grow your own can I ask: have you found your home grown tomatoes to be better than those available at markets in general over the past few years?

max-- "project a construction?" no i was making a point with some humour! i think it is pretty clear that we are all in agreement here. it is fun and informative to hash these serious issue out once in a while!

well put marco! as for aperitifs--i prefer a glass of white wine-i love something light clean fruity etc. ok once in a while i order a gin and tonic or a scotch--the problem with alcoholoc drinks is not so much a palate deadening but i like to enjoy wine with food and i don't like being drunk! also maybe it's just me --but i find that i can not "absorb" as much alcohool as i once did- is it old age???--lord knows i am much larger than i was!

Oh now were on to obesity. Well define what exactly you mean by "obese" then define what you mean by "poor". actually the medical braintrust is debating what obese is at the moment and how to correlate it to bad health. as for the poor being obese i can say that according to recent data--the fastest growing group in terms of obesity are people making over $60K per year. and i never really thought about one socioeconomic group or other in terms of obesity. in fact--i am less concerned with "groups" and more concerned with treating people as individuals. you should too!

I used to be a fan--i watched a lot. Kerr had a great sense of humor and never took himself or food too seriously. I enjoyed him immensly. Also- I have caught him recently--maybe reruns of his diet conscious show. (I do not know if these were new/recent episodes). One classic story he told was searching out a place for the perfect onion soup in Paris. It was priceless!!!

Why propose only a simple, extreme, and wrong solution for a complex problem? If there's a complex problem, the solution isn't to throw up an extreme, unacceptable "solution" as a straw man but to deal with the problem in a whole series of different ways. One idea that I believe has been tried is subsidies. Someone who's studied the results may be able to comment on whether and to what extent that's helped to encourage businesses to locate in and serve poor neighborhoods. JohnL, there is no doubt that personal responsibility is important for the poor and rich alike, but I'm very uncomfortable with any implication that the only reason that people are poor is because they're irresponsible, not because they were laid off, got sick and were fired, got burned out of their houses, got abandoned by their husbands or boyfriends, had no medical insurance to pay for a sudden health emergency, etc., etc. I don't know if you do mean to imply such things, so this isn't meant to be personal, and I apologize in advance if it comes across that way. But I think it's an issue that needs to be addressed. My viewpoint on this is affected by my experiences as a professor at community colleges in New York. When I was at Bronx Community College, there was one terrific student I had one semester who stopped showing up a couple of weeks before the midterm exam. I ran into her on campus a week or two after the midterm, told her I had been worrying about her, was glad to see her, and asked her how she was. She told me that her boyfriend had left her and her little daughter, she had been laid off from work, and she had been evicted from her apartment, and as a result, she was on campus to withdraw from all her classes. She also told me that she hadn't eaten for two days. I took out my wallet and was going to give her $5 so that she could get the roast chicken special at the local Dominican restaurant, but she told me to put my wallet away and said that there was a shelter downtown that would feed her and her daughter. This woman was doing straight-A work in my class, participated well, and was in every respect a model student. The story does have a happy ending, in that the following semester, she had a new apartment and a new job and was able to register for my course again and earn an A for a final grade. But the point is, even very responsible people can be hit by combinations of disastrous events that leave them homeless, jobless, hungry, and reeling. And as a matter of fact, there but for the grace of God (or whoever/whatever) go all of us. Think about it: The property you own can all be destroyed, the insurance companies could go belly up, the Stock Market could crash, the monetary system could collapse. Do these things sound extreme? They are. But even more extreme things can and have occurred throughout the world. Consider some of the people caught up in the tsunami in the Indian Ocean, for example. How wealthy do you think the formerly rich people in coastal Aceh and Sri Lanka are today? Now, reduce such extreme events to more prosaic individual disasters, and that explains a lot of the poverty in a country like the U.S. ← where is it that i said the "poor were responsible for being poor?" i don' t even think that is part of this thread. "personal responsibility" as used here involves eating habits and choosing what to eat. in fact--my point has always been that there are irresponsible people regardless of income levels. (and responsible people regardless of income levels). just as being wealthy does not necc equate to being smart or hard working neither does being poor equate to being lazy etc. instead of generalizing we should look at individuals--there are eight million stories in the......