JohnL

I think the reason was simple and obvious. In fact most critics agreed and the market agreed. Confusion over the mission. No one (including the owners) seemed able to present a cohesive vision of what this place was trying to be let alone execute it. It is no wonder that the market place was confused. This is restaurant marketing 101.

I think this proves that a restaurant can't be all things to all people. Wine and food need to work together. If you are serving highly complex food with unconventional flavors then the wine list needs to complement that food and should be very carefully chosen. The food must take center stage. If you are compiling a large and varied wine list and featuring flights and tastes as then the wine takes center stage and the food can be top flight but should be simpler and less complicated/complex or exotic. Choices should not be difficult--food should call out for wine not challenge the diner (and the staff) to find something that will work. Deserts should follow suit. Dishes that would encourage one to order a glass of wine to accompany them. Somehow it seems that Varietal was a case of say the three tenors (Hockenberry, Witt and Kahn) all on stage at the same time each singing a different aria. No question re: the talent but a hell of a confusing time for the audience! Look to Veritas! They get it.

I agree somewhat. The classification helped establish brands: Latour, Margaux etc. Branding is one way to market one's products. What is interesting though is the fact that the 1855 brand hierarchy is still operative. That is the first growths still command relatively higher prices--they have been joined by a number of others. Parker or no Parker. It is also arguable that based upon pretty much anyone's judgment, the first growths still represent a high level of quality. No system can really account for the hand of man in the equation and provide a guarantee of quality and fair relative price. So with or without Parker or any critic it is likely that first growths (and the other major Bordeaux brands) will cost more money. This is based upon historical fact. Bordeaux prices have always been set based upon various influences. Today critics and writers have pretty much replaced the brokers and merchants of yesterday. I would argue that this is a desirable improvement. A disinterested third party is more often than not, more reliable than someone who is actually selling the item--the press is for the most part, disinterested. Let's not forget that Parker's impetus to write about wines is grounded in his belief that the influential writers of the day were a number of European's who were actually part of the wine trade--that is they were at least open to suspicion that they were disinterested parties. So the Bordelaise use the critic's assessments both of the overall vintage and the specific wine, as a factor (yes a key factor) in setting initial prices. However, it is not so simple. the over riding influence on how much a wine costs at retail is the market. Desirability is critical. The market must want a wine. Historically, the desirableness of top Bordeaux has been established. Again Lafitte was selling for top dollar long before Parker entered the scene. Also of immense importance is disposable income. If no one can afford a wine regardless of price or quality or a score, etc, then the wine will not sell. Let's put things into perspective. While Parker and other critics and writers (there are more of them today than ever so even the most ardent Parkerite or Parker hater will have to admit that his influence is being diluted) are influential within the industry and outside in the market place, The actual cost of wine is much more influenced by the growth of the marketplace and the disposable income it generates. More likely, those high prices for Bordeaux are driven mainly by the fact that the market is no longer a handful of British (and European) upper class stocking their cellars and a few American Anglophiles. Millions of Asians, Russians, South Americans, Australians, South Africans as well as middle and upper middle class Americans and Europeans among many others are now vying for the fine wines of the world. That bottle of Latour is desired by a huge market willing to pay a lot to have it. Yes, supply and demand. Yes, Parker and other writers play a role but let's not exaggerate that role. There are far too many examples of wines never rated poorly or not at at all by Parker (and others) that command high prices and wines that are often rated highly that do not. If Parker and other writers and critics did not exist , history indicates that that bottle of Latour or Romanee Conti etc would still be in demand and still command high prices. How about "D Yquem? And what of regions beyond Bordeaux? Who is responsible for the astronomical prices for the Monfortino's of Conterno or Grange etc. A writer or a critic can help create interest in wine and initial demand but over time the market will make its own adjustments. Parker's own web site is rife with dissenters from his opinions. It is far too easy to blame Parker (really anyone) for the ills of the wine world. The conventional wisdom is always too simple and neat. So most of the discussion of the 1855 classification is academic in nature. But we should not lose sight of its impact in establishing brands. we should also recognize the power of the market place--for eg Petrus was not ranked at all yet back in the early fifties (Parker was a small child) somehow the market place "discovered" the extraordinary quality and uniqueness of this wine and elevated it. So too for Cheval Blanc and Ausone and others. Time has proven the market correct and time will tell how more recently "discovered" wines will endure (and cost). By the way, I am waiting for the theory implicating Parker in the Phyloxera epidemic! He has always preached the benefits of low yields so......!

I think Don G is making the point that the prestige of the first growths is driving their prices and in turn, their inclusion as first growths. Am I correct John? I still disagree but it is an interesting thought. This is a horse and cart thing. So I would agree that the classification system was "broke" only if the first growths were not deserving of their status because they were not of top quality as generally agreed upon by those who taste them. Over the course of many years I would say that all the current first growths are pretty deserving of their status and price. I would add a few wines to the category and perhaps include a super second tier but overall, the whole classification is amazingly accurate even today.

I would add, based in part, on GordonCook's point: The intent of the note is an important consideration. Wine tasting and evaluation is a skill that can be learned and is, in fact, taught. Writing a tasting note is also a skill and these notes are a very important form of communication. There is room, as I noted earlier, for the sort of subjective impressionism one finds in Larry's writing. I would add that even the esteemed Jim usually posts what are fairly conventional notes and not the florid prose of the prosecco note. Covering color, nose etc He may focus on his impressions a bit more but still he usually covers the bases.

I got ya Eric! I don't disagree either though I don't spend too much time "lamenting." I prefer drinking and a bottle in hand is worth.... The 1855 classification is not "broke." It was based mainly upon the prices that wines were selling for. Latour sold for a lot then and it sells for a lot now. The first growths (with some noteworthy additions) are still wines that stand out in tastings as the pinnacle of what Bordeaux can achieve and they are as such, in demand. Hence they fetch higher prices. The market has evolved--there are many more wine drinkers today (many more people) and many more who have a lot of discretionary income. Therefore the market for these top wines is thriving. How could anyone make the argument that if you can afford a Rolls or a Ferrari you should settle for a Toyota simply because you are not a car afficianado or do not posses a certain level of connoisseurship to "adequately appreciate" your purchase? That's all I am saying. Somehow a lot of wine lovers enjoy playing the snob's game in reverse. I know folks who believe that if you enjoy a glass of Yellowtail or two buck chuck you are a cretin! Conversely, the Yellowtail fans like to point out that those who like Rieslings from obscure producers are snobs and everyone seems to enjoy questioning the motives the wealthy in their wine purchases. I say the wider a range of wines one can enjoy the better and let's let everyone buy and drink (or not drink) whatever they want to! Kind of let's "drink and let drink"

I have never encountered this level of obsessiveness with people's motivations for buying wine with any other product made by man. "Oh how can that guy really appreciate that Picasso he just bought!" "Those people are buying Porsche's just because of the name!" etc. Are people allowed to enjoy wine to what ever degree they want to? Does one need to pass an appreciation test before they buy a first growth? Do they have to start with vin ordinaire and work their way up? If one can afford it, one should be able to buy whatever they want and enjoy it as they see fit. "Excuse me sir--I notice you are wearing a Brioni suit! Do you really appreciate the fine craftsmanship and attention to detail?" And hey, are those John Lobb shoes on your feet!" "The nerve of that guy" Should people be quizzed before they are allowed entry into Per Se or The French Laundry? Should one only be allowed to purchase caviar after they have tried shad roe? Does everyone purchasing Beluga really know the difference from Sevruga? No mainly it is wine that gets some folks going. High prices? Blame it on those mysterious speculators. Hard to find? There they are again! those Wall Street types who order magnums of Opus One! Why is it with wine we spend so much time decrying and discussing people's worthiness to enjoy it? To buy it? It is not as simple as critic's scores or speculation (whatever that is) that determines a wine's price or value. Do you think the people buying up Cros Parantoux are waiting for a Parker score? That Latour is six hundred dollars a bottle because of speculators? And how about that Opus One? One would think that those Wall Street barbarians would have driven the price up to hundreds a bottle (check the current price). Yes people are flipping allocations of Screaming Eagle. Yet lot's of folks are drinking it --witness the myriad tasting notes on the net. It is also very good wine--if it were the quality of two buck Chuck think the demand would drop a bit? The truth is the wine market is much more complex. I also find it snobbish and more than a bit snarky to anticipate how much people appreciate wine and how they will enjoy it once they purchase it? Or even worse, begrudge them based on this. There's so much wine available today that imagining some nefarious conspiracy behind the price or scarcity of any particular wine is more sour grapes than anything. I haven't been able to find (or afford) Romanee Conti since that damn Parker gave it a hundred! There are plenty of available and affordable (for me at least) Red Burgundies around--I am just hoping those Japanese businessmen don't start using it to fill their swimming pools though! (I heard they are using Montrachet in their wine spritzers). No wonder I can't find it at my local wine shop anymore.

Contrary to what a lot of people seem to believe. There is an art and science to tasting and evaluating wine. It can be and is taught. There is also a formal language accepted by tasters. Scoring wines is not some whimsical endeavor. So highly personal or subjective as to be unique to each individual and therefore relative only to that person or someone else who has identical preferences. If there were no agreed upon means of evaluating and communicating a wine's attributes (or lack thereof) then tasting notes are inherently useless. I get the entertainment factor. I get the "impression" part but rather than treat tasting notes as a form of personal expression people should be encouraged to understand and recognize basic factors about wine and the language used (accepted) to describe them. Thus someone describing the effects of sulphur as say "beguiling notes of decay" which in its vagueness conveys any number of things some good and some bad would be communicating much better if he or she noted the presence of sulphur! For me--proof that wine is not "utterly subjective." (sorry Jim) A wine that has turned to vinegar may be "delightful" (a lot of people sip fine balsamic vinegars) to some people but delightful or not the wine is vinegar! Even the poets are precise in their language--there is blue and there is azure or teal! There is plenty of room in tasting notes to provide one's impressions but if these notes and impressions are intended for others to read (vs a diary entry) then there is incumbent upon the writer a responsibility to be readable and more importantly understandable! While the Larry Meehan piece Jim provides is enjoyable to read and nicely conveys an impression, I would argue it provides little or no usable information about the wine--remove the name and price and Larry could be describing any one of thousands of wines white, red, rose, sparkling, non sparkling etc and even any beverage from Gin to ice tea to coolade! In fact, the closest I can come to Meehan's impressionism (this is not a tasting note) is a piece of art whose value lies not in the execution but rather the clever title. as I noted Larry could be writing about anything but hey--add the title "Prosecco" and one can shout out: "Oh I get it!" So, I don't have a problem with personal impressions. I believe that many tasting notes benefit from some flair in the verbiage but the notion that wine is so ethereal as to be completely subjective is silly and does a great injustice to wine and wine making and wine appreciation. (actually, I don't believe Jim and others are really claiming this). If we accept that there is room for subjective observation and that there is a difference between objective assessment and qualitative--that red is really red and a corked wine is really corked vs I like or dislike, then I really don't have a problem with someone writing a pure subjective impression. Poetry is poetry and a tasting note is a tasting note! I think there's room for both.

I highly recommend an episode of Larry David's "Curb Your Enthusiasm" entitled "Porno Gil" Maybe one of the funniest and most prescient considerations of the "dinner party" Ihave ever seen. That said: We have a small group of people who we entertain and who entertain us semi regularly. These are trusted people who we are comfortable with. Most every "evening" we entertain we will add one or two "new" couples (or singles) to the invitees. They may or may not become "regulars." We have also discovered how a weekend home in the country can facilitate entertaining. There is nothing like dinner on the patio (my grill is adjacent) the kitchen is handy and with many of the worries you noted, rendered moot, the affairs are relaxed and much more enjoyable.

IMOP--Buckwheat pancakes are unrivaled. Simple with some good butter and a splash of really good maple syrup!

The truth is, no one knows how much wine is bought for speculation. Also what exactly is "speculation?" There are people who buy say two cases of wine with the intent to drink one and sell the other off to help finance their cellar. I suppose there are some who buy wine with the only intent to sell it off at a higher price at some point in the future. How many and what are they buying? Who knows (really who cares?) The hedge fund thing is interesting--there seems to be a few here and there but if wine was such a viable investment area then the major houses would have gotten involved long ago. If someone wants a wine from a particular vintage (for whatever purpose) and that wine is produced in a limited quantity then it is advisable that that person pay the going price. One can gamble that the same wine will be available at a lower (than its futures price) upon release. it may. It may not be. One may also gamble that subsequent vintages may be better or the same in quality and that this will create better value for these vintages due to supply. On the other hand subsequent vintages may be worse impacting prices the other direction.

"well it's broke" ?????????????? Is it really? As the Oxford entry notes: "it has held up remarkably well." I would also love to know who these "dilettantes" are? Many claim they exist yet I have rarely seen any evidence. As I see it, the market has added a few wines here and there and moved some among the classifications and "created" the super second category. The system does not take into consideration the fact that for periods of time, various wines can be better or worse than their classification indicates due to poor wine making etc. The market usually makes the appropriate adjustment.

The Times here in NYC published a recipe for cold noodles purportedly "authentic" and noted how the Chinese original versions were loaded with sugar! I think that all cuisines have their good and bad sides. (hey in the end we are all human-nobody is perfect)

The Weber is a very good grill at reasonable prices. It is very durable. As for not having adjustable grill levels so heat can be controlled--one simply needs to build different height fires--that is level the charcoal: one area higher (hotter) one area lower (cooler) and have an area with no fire for indirect. Simple. also equally simple-- starting the fire use a chimney --there is no need for any fancy "starters." A chimney is just as quick and easy and shouild cost about twenty bucks for a decent model.

I could swear I read a review of this place recently! I wish I could remember.....

Interesting FG! I agree that terroir must be close to gaining non italicized status based on its usage and general acceptance in English speaking countries. We probably shouldn't italicize it here at eGullet. It has been a long time since I took copy editing in school--I totally forgot about the italics rules.

I agree Doc. It seems that Puck and his organization were "pounded" into submission by a group(s) that go well beyond informing the public about issues. It is one thing when a group distributes leaflets or testifies at congressional hearings or even holds demonstrations or boycotts, it is quite another when the group uses lawsuits, threats and harassment and worse. what is really frightening is that most of these groups believe that the end justifies the means. They are zealots. I also have a problem when these groups decide they will define what constitutes "cruelty" and what constitutes "ethical" treatment. I wonder if Wolfgang came up with that nine point (or whatever) program/plan on his own out of his own desire to do the right thing. A thread here not too long ago contained a link to a Public radio interview of a woman who has been working with the cattle industry (among others) to improve slaughter methods and make them as humane as possible. it is eye opening. These so called activist groups really do not want to work with the food industry to improve life, rather they ultimately seek to radically change life for all of us to fit their vision of utopia. "Animal rights" is a phrase/concept that everyone should seriously consider. It implies that animals and humans are equal. In order for a "right" to be established a "right" must be sacrificed, a delicate balancing act to be sure. Unfortunately, when these people can not find any compelling scientific based information to make a case against foie gras production they resort to smear campaigns and legal threats. To them this isn't about better methods of killing animals for food, it is about "using animals" for any purpose. It's all there on their websites and in their literature--one just needs to read between the lines!

Interesting "question." The term is French and there is no exact equivalent in English. The term has been defined clearly in both French and English. There is no discrepancy-- we know what it means. The confusion and ensuing debate is not over the definition but rather how terroir (with or without quotation marks) impacts a wine's quality and how it manifests itself in wine (if and how we perceive it in a finished wine). This is complicated by the complexity of wine and the process by which grapes grow and are made into wine. As for the quotes, I think some may use them to in the midst of a discussion or debate to indicate they are making a point based upon how a previous poster or someone else has used the term, an attempt to provide some additional context.

If it sounds too good to be.... (caveat emptor)

I think we're focusing on Niman's philosophy (and Chipotle's ability to market that philosophy and make a profit doing so), rather than the flavor of their meat, which is a possible topic for another thread, definitely. The question is, can Puck do something along those same lines? ← I think that is a very real part of the issue. Not that ethical treatment and flavor are neccessarily mutually exclusive but.... Somewhere flavor and quality needs to come into play.

Why Niman? I have not found their products to be all that inspiring flavor wise. Their beef in my experience is mediocre and the pork is ok. I must be missing something.

I wouldn't bet on any of these. One way or the other. The development or aging of wine is so complex and has so many variables that to make any assumptions is a wild guess at best. For eg--it was thought that acidity was key. Yet many lower acidity vintages of Bordeaux have aged beautifully--59, 82, 89 etc. Alcohol? High? Low? Well both Amarone's and German Rieslings seem to age pretty well. Fruit extract? How about those Loire whites? and then there are those fifteen year old Cal cabs like Caymus and... Wine has so many variable components that impact upon and that are, in turn, are impacted by aging that I have never seen any reliable rules of thumb. i have seen lot's of often conflicting theories from credible experts though!

Yes, I think I am! From experience, I know that some stores and buyers will always look down their noses at winemakers and distributor reps . . . I'm used to absorbing condescending comments about Paso wines, and worse. But when I leave these places I think . . . it's Tasting Tuesday, for pity's sake. (Most stores and restaurants meet with wine reps on Tuesday, traditionally a slow day for customers.) If you didn't want to waste your time with us, why didn't you say so on the phone? So clearly, they just want to waste OUR time acting superior. And that lead me to wonder how my customers would be treated, if they came into that store and asked for a Dover Canyon release. So I've been doing some clandestine scouting in our distribution area, and yes, I would have to say that as a woman shopping for wine, I much prefer 1) the small, stuffed warehouse geek places that look unorganized but really aren't, and where the staff wear name-embroidered mechanic's shirts . . . 2) the "friendly market" type wine stores with a young, exuberant staff that will answer YOUR question, not reply with a canned $130 answer . . . 3) newer wine bars with a fun, irreverent attitude and especially the ones with alternative lifestyle staff (they're a hoot, and very effusive hosts). ← I didn't realize there was a bias against wines from Paso Robles! It this a West Coast thing? I think that most wine shops are local businesses that cater to people who live nearby. Unfortunately, a lot of them are run and staffed by people who don't take the time to understand their market. The wine business has for too long tried to sell a complex product by "hiding" behind the complexity and actually confusing already confused consumers even further. This is changing (it has to) as the industry realizes that making wine easier to understand for consumers means it will be easier to sell. So we are finally seeing wines sold in new and interesting ways. I also think that the industry suffers from retail stores trying to operate on lower and lower margins (the internet has really exacerbated this) which translates into low pay and less focus on salespersons. The same industry that wails about scores and critics is the industry that relies on these scores and critics to sell their wine. It is the wine shops that plaster scores all over their shelves and distributors and wineries that post their scores on websites and provide point of purchase materials. These folks then turn around and complain that they can't sell wines that are not scored or are receiving low scores. The real problem is not the scores or the critics, a score and a critic are merely additional pieces of information, just part of the picture not the whole picture. A good sales person can sell wine with them or without them. I have also found that as new approaches to selling wine emerge a lot of the wine snobbery that infects the industry is disappearing. You are correct, I believe, in assuming that shop owners/management who treat you poorly are most likely prone to treating their customers with the same arrogance. I find that wholesalers who understand what an owner/manager is looking for become more helpful--wine shops need to have a dialog with wholesalers and wineries--taking a few minutes to do this reap a lot of benefits to the retailer. A good sales person at retail or wholesale needs to understand their customers! Unfortunately there aren't that many savvy retailers (this seems to be changing though).

Bill Tomatoes do like to be squeezed but only gently and accompanied by kind words in soft lighting conditions with a string quartet in the background!!! Hollywood? I believe that Alec Baldwin is a contributor to Farm Sanctuary. (good actor but...) I rest my case.

I would opt for friendly, knowledgeable sales personnel who understand that the key principle in sales is to first find out what a customer wants and then using one's knowledge of what they sell, providing what the customer is looking for. All the physical stuff-shelving and atmosphere etc is secondary for me!