JohnL

I am curious about this. I can't imagine good tapas being "taken" out. I can't imagine any restaurant offering tapas as take out food. I guess my question is: why? The great thing about tapas is its immediacy from the kitchen to the bar or table. Reheating small plates would amount to worse than IMOP-- preparing frozen hors d ouvres like cocktail franks or cheese puffs!

I think a mention is fine. Bruni offers a detailed chronological history. Stating "after a rocky start..." or "after a period of turmoil..."and moving on to where the place is today is plenty sufficient. The ending with the ominous policemen entering is a bit much. This reads like a magazine article not a restaurant review.

Say what!!!? I posted this information quite a while ago. Found the info on the web of course! Not on Wikipedia. I am not sure it puts the punt thing to "rest." There is a lot of often conflicting information out there and I have found nothing definitive. As for increasing the strength of the bottle, I believe the depth of the punt may allow for a thicker bottle while maintaining a uniform shape. One only has to compare a puntless bottle--coulee de serrant for eg with a heavily punted bottle--weight and size differences can be striking yet each bottle contains the same measure of wine (liquid). I would say that your theory (as I have maintained throughout this thread) doesn't hold water (or wine)!

I disagree. Detailing the restaurant's woes is of no consequence to where it is now. I would guess that most restaurants in New York have a "history" of difficulties in opening. That's why reviewers usually give a place a chance to get settled in before writing a review. What exactly is the point here? To add some color? Why? I understand the need for some perspective in reviewing places like Le Cirque or The Four seasons but what does all this information bring to the review of a "neighborhood" place?

So your theory appears to be based on the statement: "I think sparkling wine has been around for many years earlier than what has been reported...maybe even thousands of years." Okay--can't argue with the fact that you seem to be in possession of some information that no other person writing about wine has come upon. Well, I think your theory is suspect. You are certainly entitled to it though. Anyway I surrender! Cheers!

DonG: First, i am not mocking your theory. In fact I have spent quite a bit of time pondering it and reading your links. My conclusion is your theory makes no sense and your so called support actually undermines it. Specifically, you note punts appearing as early as the 1400's. Champagne appears in the sixteenth century. The punt was clearly a result of something other than a "breakthrough" to strengthen bottles that were to hold sparkling wine or Champagne. In fact, your link wherein the "breakthrough" made by the British in the 1700's that allows for the use of metals (lead oxide) etc in glass making to make stronger bottles appears to have been the "answer" to the dilemma faced by the Champagne makers. NOT THE PUNT. In Thomas Pellechia's "Wine The 8,000 Year Old Story of the Wine Trade" the author notes that up to 75 per cent of the "new champagne" was often lost to bottle breakage. He goes on to note the British discovered the means of strengthening glass bottles (lead oxide) and further states "after the Monks successfully put that new technology to use at Hautvillers, their wines became more reliable and increasingly popular." If the punt was a breakthrough for allowing sparkling wine to be bottled reliably then it is pretty clear the Monks making Champagne didn't realize it! It is eminently clear, that there is no definitive answer to why the punt exists or even when it first appears. Both wine historians and glass making experts are uncertain. Why as you note would it be used in a glass beaker from the 1400's (by the way sparkling wine is thought to have first appeared in the fifteen hundreds in Limoux) what was its purpose in a beaker? Perhaps to aid in pouring? For stability? It can't possibly be to strengthen the glass! Whatever. So, I am not mocking your theory. I am just taking it seriously. Doing a bit of reading and questioning it. I am reasonably confident that if it is, as you posit, a "breakthrough" to make bottles strong enough to hold sparkling wine, then experts from the Oxford editors or Thom Pellechia (whose book notes over one hundred citations in its bibliography) to Hugh Johnson and on and on, would have made this "discovery" as well.

I have no problem with the lobsters being "free." However, These people should be locked up in padded cells.

This topic is doomed to go on forever with no resolution. If well qualified experts in wine history and glass blowing et al have not reached a definitive conclusion then I doubt that theorizing by amateurs here will result in any real answers. DonG Your original post makes no sense to me. Perhaps you can explain. First you note this rumination all started when you encountered a "five ounce glass" and a "beaker" each with a punt, in a museum. What a glass or a beaker has to do with storing Champagne or sparkling wine is not clear. In fact this would seem to disprove your theory. You provide a link to some wikipedia argy bargy that doesn't even mention a punt. In fact this piece indicates that glass bottles for Champagne storage were made stronger by a method of adding metals to the glass recipe discovered by the British. this also serves to disprove your theory. (I certainly see no way it supports what you are trying to state). I must be missing something in your thesis.

Sick people dining out. Having someone with a hacking cough at the next table.

If as you theorize, the punt was "invented" to strengthen the bottle for holding sparkling wines then why are there still wine bottles with punts? My theory is the punt was invented to snuff out candles after a long evening of imbibing!

Rich You hit it on the head. "flavor profile." A wine's flavor profile is not some subjective impression. (subjective impressions are part of any good tasting note) A wines flavor profile is the basic information about a wine that professional tasters (experienced amateurs too), wine writers, critics, wine makers etc will all pretty much agree upon. For eg noting the presence of oak. this has nothing to do with whether or not the taster likes or dislikes oak in a particular wine it is either there or it is not. as is how the oak --if its there-is integrated at the point which the taster is tasting the wine. It is important information for consumers who may be looking for a wine that has oak flavors or not. The flavor profile is important because it enables a consumer to make a purchase decision based upon what they can reasonably expect the wine to taste like. Of course, someone who can not recognize the presence of oak flavors in wine will have difficulty detecting it but a good note will help a consumer "learn" to recognize it in wine. Too many people get hung up in the subjective aspects of wine notes and tasting. This is blown way out of proportion. in fact I read probably thousands of notes from various critics and writers and one would be suprised at how often these folks agree. They may disagree on the final valuation but rarely is there disagreement on a wine's flavor profile. Critics and tasters can also provide context for a wine. That is having tasted so many wines they have a perspective on how that wine pans out in terms of other vintages or other similar or different wines. Few of us will ever taste verticals of vintages of a wine so a critic who can tell us how a particular wine fits into the history of that wine producer etc. (eg "it is richer and more tannic than the '59 was at the same stage in development") In fact, I often find, more often than not, these critics agree on the more subjective aspects of most wines. people attempting to make some sort of a political case often take the most striking examples of disagreement overlooking all the times the critics being compared actually agreed. For me--it is all about perspective!

Don G. The punt was a result of the glass blowing technique. A pontil or wooden stick was used to secure the bottom of the glass as it was "spun and blown." It has been there since glass was first blown by hand. It appears in still wine bottles before the advent of Champagne.

The "flap" over globalization is nothing more than a flap. Just like the flap over critic's scores. there's a lot of flapping in the wine industry days. So much flapping that with the global warming underway it amounts to a lot of hot air being circulated. There are more wines from more places in more styles on retailer shelves in most places around the world than ever before. That's a fact. This fact flies in the face of the globalization flappers. Enologix is a consulting company. If wine makers who avail themselves of their services and sell more wine then everyone is happy. If its not Enologix then its Michele Rolland or.... whomever. Remember Guy Accad? There have always been consultants and consulting wine makers. As for the critics. The entire wine industry has Parkeritis! A couple of points to consider. It is the wine industry that has elevated Parker and scores. The same industry has blown his influence so out of proportion as to be living in a fantasy world. If Parker is the puppet master pulling the strings on millions of sheep like consumers then who is buying all that wine Parker never even considers? I would bet that more wine never rated by anyone is bought and drunk than wine that is rated. Has anyone looked at the circulation of all the publications and newsletters with scores in relationship to the total number of wine buying consumers in existence? McCloskey is a huckster a great salesman who is tapping into the industry desire to sell their wine. I am not qualified to assess his capabilities as a wine maker/consultant. To answer all your questions: No, No and No. McCloskey is a consultant. He may have a vision but the only one that counts is the vision of the wine maker who hires McCloskey for advice. Again, I point to Guy Accad. he too was a consulting enologist. Only instead of california he was all the rage in Burgundy a while back. Interestingly his critics accused him of many of the same crimes Michel Rolland and McCloskey and any number of other consultants. He was ultimately not successful. What kinds of wines are we talking about? The differences in many so called successful California wines are myriad. Is Harlan Estate the same wine as Mondavi PR? Funny, they both get high scores from the critics. Different styles. Which style should a wine maker emulate? In fact, I would doubt that many (if any at all) are making wines for critics. Funny but importers and merchants like Neal Rosenthal and Mahler Besse et al counseled their wine makers about fining and filtration use of oak and making riper flavorful wines long before the critics. Wine Makers have always been experimenting with techniques, science has always played a role in how wine is made. Anyone still long for the days before temperature controlled vats etc? The industry should stop insulting the intelligence and palates of the wine buying and drinking public. No one is buying wine on someone's (anyone's) recommendation trying it finding it not to their liking and continuing to buy that wine. Conversely, people would stop relying on advice that does not pan out and the critics would be out of business. (this is a salient point because, most people do not buy wine solely on a critic's advice). Millions of bottles of unrated/un reviewed wines being purchased from retailers shelves. How do the industry Chicken Little's explain this? Can we please back away from the relentless terroir issue?! Where were all the globalization freaks when micro oxygenation was invented to soften unpalatable hard wines from SW France? Weren't all those wines simply reflecting the terroir? As for the poor little ole nobel wine maker who only ants to make wines that speak of the earth. Please! You mean the folks who are adding maybe a little more sugar to their wines than the laws allows? By the way given that many many wine makesr in France chaptalize how is this not a violation of the purity of the terroir to begin with!? I suppose globalization began long before anyone realizes around 1800 or so. Again, show me the evidence! What I see are shelves of wines from all over the world made in many many styles and from grapes that were unheard of until recently. Falanghina anyone? Industry folks need to see beyond Parker and Yellowtail and scores and science and get some perspective --a sense of reality.

stay cool handles can work just fine. I have an aluminum saute pan that I bought at a restaurant supply store they had a bunch of silicon handles that one could fit over the aluminum handles for range top saute--when I am going to use the pan in the oven or under a broiler I remove the handle. (I believe the handle is "safe" to 500 degrees though). also I have several German made pans --non stick--I forget the name. They have "plastic" handles that are also good to use up to 500 degrees. I also use towels with my pans that do not have heat proof handles--I love cast iron and probably use these guys more than any other pans from my Wagner stuff to the Le Creuset and others. I just don't see this as a big issue.

I agree. In fact, I believe the whole food and wine pairing issue is overblown. One rarely eats a big bowl of plain asparagus. They usually are a side dish or are part of a singular dish/appetizer/starter such as prepared with a vinaigrette or sauce and/or wrapped in prosciutto or with crumbled bleu cheese etc. finding a wine that will not obliterate or be obliterated by the asparagus dish really isn't that difficult. I also think that the food and wine pairing issue is often forced. There are plenty of foods that simply work better with beer or sake or sherries etc. utilizing one of these beverages is often pleasantly suprising and satisfying. You are correct IMOP-in looking for a white with "acidity." However many wines can have relative high acidity and yet not work because that acidity is balanced by other attributes. I usually note that a white should be "crisp." I disagree that it is difficult to find wines with "good acidity" these days. There are lots of them available from many different varietals and blends.

For most home cooks this is pretty simple. Sauce pans and saute pans with stay cool handles are fine and easy to use. I always have a few pans (especially saute pans that can be placed in a hot oven or under a broiler--I love to pan roast-- I use a towel with these. It is not difficult managing these items--that is which pans need a towel etc. For me this is much ado about nothing. I understand the need for pots and pans in without stay cool handles (of any kind) in restaurant kitchens for most home cooks the conditions are different and stay cool handles can be a plus.

You make a few very good observations. First, at least attempting to learn how to taste wine objectively is very commendable. I think it not only helps one to understand wine but also to understand and appreciate professional tasters and the work they do (also dedicated amateurs). It also enables one to better communicate with others. I agree, it is far easier to just offer one's impressions of a wine without the "work" or concentration required (the objective part). Your "tasting sheets" are a good idea as the more objective evaluative part sort of forces one to actually think about what they are tasting and then to have fun describing it. In fact, a good tasting note provides one's impressions and contains support for those impressions. It also allows someone who does not know you and your personal tastes and experiences to understand what the wine is all about. One can convey that "hey I really like this wine" but if some support is offered for the observation then the recommendation is more likely to be taken seriously. I often wonder what the point of many of these notes posted all over the net is. Who is the real intended target, other wine lovers or the poster him or herself ? (their ego really). But I suppose everyone is a star and expert these days and all opinions are equally valid. This explains the silly notion that professional wine tasters and critics are no more qualified to write about wine than Uncle Joe or one's neighbor; that wine is a purely subjective experience that "it is all good." To me, there's no fun in this nihilistic view, chaos and anarchy may provide some brief moments of pleasure but are not really the way to go over the long haul.

A crisp dry white served at a cooler than normal temperature. for something a bit more offbeat: I would also try a cold sake or maybe a fino sherry.

That's what I thought he meant. Typicity is also similarities--shared attributes or commonalities. If wine were made exactly the same way from the same grapes (blend or single varietal) sourced from two different places then one would have similarities and differences in the resulting wine's flavors. One would think that the farther apart those places were the greater or more easily recognized the differences and possibly the fewer the similarities (beyond the attributes inherent in the varietal (s). The problem is this situation does not exist much in the real world and even if it did, humans and their perceptive faculties are imperfect enough to render any conclusions questionable at best. I always go back to the famous (infamous) tasting of 76. If "experts" can have difficulty discerning wines from grapes grown thousdands of miles apart then where does that leave us mere mortals? Then again, I have tasted the rieslings of Zind Humbrecht from the Brand and Rangen vineyards from the same vintage and tasted differences that are striking!

Actually, I don't believe Wagner is manufacturing "standard" cast iron these days. Wagner was bougnt by World Kitchen, which doesn't seem to even mention it on their site. And the Wagnerware web site appears to be vestigial (I ordered something off that site around 6 months ago, and while they did accept my charge information and appeared to process the order, my card was never charged and I never received any product). I'm not aware of any manufacturer besides Lodge selling traditional cast iron cookware with wide distribution. ← You mean my Wagner stuff may be becoming rare?! I can't wait till Antiques Roadshow comes to town!!!

I am relatively new to the world of espresso (as a connoisseur) I have enjoyed it for some time butt never thought much about it--till now. Recently have been patronizing "Jack's Coffee" near the seaport (an offshoot of the Village establishment. Anyone have an assessment of their offerings? thanks

I think there is some confusion over "style" and labeling laws and terroir. One can make a "Rioja" style wine without using grapes that come from Rioja. Rioja is also defined by the Spanish wine laws as to what it should be or how it must be made. Unfortunately, terroir is easily defined but how it manifests itself in wine, how it "tastes" is often confusing, especially when variables such as viticulture and viniculture are considered. Also the complexity of wine--all the chemical compounds that create the smells and tastes/flavors are deceptive and often not what they seem to be. For eg--tasters often cite "minerality" as an indication of terroir. It is technically a result of terroir but for eg, a high acid, low alcohol wine will taste "tart" or have a "tanginess" not as result of minerals in one's glass. The taste impression is a result of weather and drainage and how the grapes developed (certainly an aspect of terroir) but not a result of actual mineral content of the soil manifesting itself in the glass.

Somehow this seems to make sense to me.

I agree about Cuozzo. I know there will be (or is) a Varietal/Nish thread but I think someone as experienced as he is may be able to take the wine theme and create the food that will work. He is a master of small plates which I believe he was a pioneer at March. (possibly going back to his stint at Quilted..) It should be noted that between the lasyt days of March and the rebirth as Nish he tried his hand at the Hudson House in Rockland County--I think this relationship has ended having modest success. Liz Johnson can probably shed some light on this venture.

I don't think it was the critics. The Bruni review was actually not a bad review. There was a commonality through the reviews though--one of uncertainty about what this restaurant was about. The highly experimental deserts fit in with a WD-50 kind of place where it is easy to comprehend and for an audience to "get." I still believe that the dining experience--food--wine--deserts--atmosphere etc needs to be a cohesive entity. It needs to make sense. There was plenty of talent here but no cohesion --sometimes a great team needs role players as well as a star or two and a manager who can bring it all together.