Cole Danehower

A big "Thank you!" to everyone for such great information on the local cocktail culture. It has been very helpful, and I will be checking into many of the places that are recommended. Of course, I need to sample the cocktails themselves, so more than one trip to Vancouver and vicinity is called for (oh, drat . . .). Again, I really appreciate the willingness to help.

Perhaps the eGullet community would be willing to help? I am writing a column for the magazine I co-publish (Northwest Palate, out of Portland but covering BC, WA, OR and ID) on cocktails and spirits. I am looking for recommendations of places in BC that have unusual themed cocktail menus that I might write about. I'm guessing Vancouver would be the center of focus here, but it could be Victoria or anywhere else (Kelowna?). About one third of our editorial is BC-focused, and while I have lots of good cocktail menus to write about in Portland and Seattle, I need to get some more recommendations for BC. Salt is one place that has been suggested to me . . . any others that the local community thinks would be interesting? Thanks for any advice you might offer!

Just some more detail on Cuneo Cellars. Winemaker Gino Cuneo may be located in the cool climate region of the Willamette Valley, but his winery is only 3-4 hours away from great warm climate fruit in the Columbia Valley AVA to the northeast and Southern Oregon AVA to the south. So, he makes the most of his location by using grapes from the Northwest's two great climatic zones. He gets fruit from some of the most well0known vineyards in Washington (Ciel du Cheval and Taptiel in the Red Mountain AVA) and Southern Oregon (Del Rio in the Rogue Valley AVA) and does a very good Bordeaux-style blend in his Two Rivers series. I've always found them to be excellent. He also makes Pinot noir (from more locally-sourced Willamette Valley fruit, naturally), Sangiovese, Nebbiolo, Syrah, and other blends from single vineyard sources. He emphasizes Italian varietals and focuses only on red wines.

In regards to Le Pigeon, a few weekends ago I was lucky enough to sit next to chef Fergus Henderson for brunch at Le Pigeon when he was in town for the Wild About Game event. I recall that he had the maple braised pork belly on a waffle with two eggs. I remember him examining the pork belly with care . . . and then devouring it and commented with obvious enthusiasm that it was extremely good--high praise from the master of "head to tail" cooking! My own duck confit hash was unusually good . . . hearty without being overfilling, and with a wonderful carmelized duck crunchiness. The other attendees, mostly chefs, an out of town media editor, and the owner of Nicky's USA, all had the maple braised pork belly. I really felt left out. Now I have to go back with my wife some Sunday and try it for myself: none of my fellow brunchers at the first visit offered to share their belly!

I second the consideration of the Painted Lady in Newberg. In my one experience the food was very well prepared, of fresh and local ingredients with a (naturally enough) well-informed wine list. Though I'm not sure I found the preparations that innovative myself, I certainly have had very good and enjoyable meals there. The atmosphere is pleasing and the service is very personable. It has certainly become one of the more frequently recommended dining spots among local winemakers. Another winemaker favorite is the Dundee Bistro. I have had some excellent lunches there, but have not had dinner under the current chef, so cannot give an informed opinion, though it is a place to consider. Cuvee is also an excellent choice.

I just found this thread and wanted to respond to an earlier posting about Aviation Gin--not the cocktail called the Aviation but the gin product called Aviation Gin. This is, to my taste, a superbly herby Dutch style gin (genever-reminiscent: juniper, coriander, cardamom, anise, lavender) gin produced in Portland, Oregon by House Spirits. Three like-minded guys have collaborated on its creation: Lee Medoff, Christian Krogstad, and Ryan Magarian. They also produce Medoyeff Vodka and have (or will soon have) a rum, an aquavit, and an Oregon pure malt whiskey. These guys make great stuff!! I find the Aviation Gin makes an extra "spicy" martini. Because of the nature of the drink, it showcases the base alcohol's flavors, and with this gin you get a lot of herby aromatics, which gives the Martini a particular character (that may well not appeal to those who favor vodka-based Martinis). This gin also makes a wonderful Aviation cocktail (after which the product was named, of course). I have been to two diffeerent events where the Aviation Gin was mixed into different cocktails and served as accompaniments to multi-course meals designed to pair with the cocktails . . . what an eye-opening food/drink experience! In fact, this food pairing experience inspired us to start a cocktail column in our magazine)! The Aviation Gin is in the market, but obviously is made in pretty small quantities and likely not available in non-Northwest or West Coast markets. But, it may still be orderable through some kind of liquor store system (local laws and all that may make it dfficult). Their website is at www.medoyeff.com. And no, I have no economic connection with these guys at all. I just like them and their product and would like to see them succeed even more then thay have.

I second all of the above, especially Jim Dixon's and extraMSG's recommendations (and do check out extraMSG's tip sheet). I'd also suggest these other good restaurants (at least, I've have very good meals at them, and repeatedly): Andina (creative Peruvian), Alberta Street Oyster Bar (imaginative menu and fresh ingredients), Alba Osteria (fine Italian without much pretense), Giorgio's (also fine Italian) and Lucy's Table (a mainstream "fine dining" favorite). There is also the brand new 23 Hoyt from a proven restaurant team, though it is perhaps too new to have settled into a groove yet (though my dinner there last week indicated distinct promise).

My wife and I tried to watch Cusak's truffle hunting episode last night. After a few minutes of her absurdly exaggerated and imbicilic facial expressions (making her look like she was imitating an excited third grader on a field trip), combined with her completely daft commentary, we changed the channel. We both felt a) too embarrassed for her to keep watching, and 2) insulted by her inanity. What is she, and/or her producers thinking?!

Northwest Palate magazine has an article on Spokane in the current (September/October) issue that describes some places you might want to check out in the Davenport District of Spokane. Full disclosure #1: I am the co-publisher of Northwest Palate, so I suppose there is a certain amount of promotion involved in my mentioning it. Still, it is a possible source for you. Full disclosure #2: I have not personally been to any of the restaurants mentioned in the article. The restaurants that are described in the story are the following: Bistango Martini Lounge 108 North Post Street Bluefish 830 West Sprague Avenue (the article has a short profile of the chef, who is also the chef at Moxie, below.) Catacombs Pub 110 South Monroe Street Empyrean 154 South Madison Street Moxie 816 West Sprague Street Rock Coffee 920 West First Avenue Wild Sage American Bistro 916 West Second Avenue Hope this helps! -Cole Danehower

Hi Craig: I didn't mean to imply that there is a vast conspiracy to position each vintage as "great." And certainly winemakers describe the issues with each vintage when you talk to them--but I still think there is an unavoidable sense that every vintage is wonderful until proven otherwise (usually a few years later). I well remember being told how great the 2003 vintage was when I barrel tasted through many, many Willamette Valley cellars (and I worked that harvest, and knew about the heat and sugars and everything coming ripe at once). I, myself wrote positively about the vintage, even while still trying to describe its anomolies. I would ask about high alcohols and I would be told, yes they are high, but look at the overall balance, everything is big and luscious! In fact, I was a little taken aback recently when visiting a winemaker during harvest to hear him knock the 2003 vintage . . . the same one he so proudly poured me from his barrels in 2004. The proof of the vintage is in the bottle a minimum of a year after it has been released, I believe. So much that was said positively about 2003 in the barrel (including what I wrote) proved hollow when I tasted the wines in bottle later (and I regret the way I wrote some of my early vintage reports in 2003). Now, all this is certainly understandable. As I think it was JohnL said, these wines are like the winemaker's children, and what parent can be truly objective about their offspring? But there is, IMHO, still a tendancy to want to market every vintage as positive. Before the "easy days" of selling out your Pinot inventory, this was a greater temptation. Winemakers are not being evil or deceptive when they talk positively about their vintages, but I still believe you have to filter their comments through a lense of mild skepticism. Anyway, that's how I see it. -Cole

Just a note for a Sangiovese wine for fans to look out for in the future (I have no idea what the retail price is/will be) . . . Cuneo Cellars in Carlton Oregon has spent a few years developing a true Brunello-clone Sangiovese wine. The vines were planted in 2002 at Ciel du Cheval Vineyard on Washington's Red Mountain. The plant material is known as Sangiovese VCR 6 (Montalcino) and came from Italy by way Cuneo and a California nursery and went through 2 years of UC Davis testing. The first crop was in 2004. I believe it is in bottle right now, but I am not too sure what the label is. Gino Cuneo has said his intention is not to imitate Brunello, but to see what the Brunello clone Sangiovese will produce in the Northwest (Ciel du Cheval is one of the most respected vineyards in the Northwest). I haven't tasted the wine, though I was there when the grapes came in in 2004 and it looked really cool (the color of the juice is amazing . . . I've got a picture or two but I have no idea how to get them posted here). And, no, I have no commercial connection to Cuneo; except that I like the guy and admire the effort. Sangio lovers take note . . . -Cole

JohnL: Right on and well stated. I completely agree with you. I hope I'm all about information and perspective . . . not prescription and polemics (and if I ever tend toward the latter I know there'll be plenty who will point it out!). Thanks for the conversation . . . -Cole

When you talk with winemakers year in and year out there is certainly the sense that they think (or try to position) every vintage as great! I particularly like 2005 Oregon pinots because they tend to be of a style that fits my own preference, wheras I don't particularly like 2003 wines . . . and many people would feel exactly opposite, which is part of why wine is fun. Vintage assesments are definitely dicey. We must keep in mind that they are of necessity broad generalizations. Here in Oregon, vintage variation is quite real and can be dramatic. 2003 and 2004 had significantly different weather, so almost by definition the average wine character (not necessarily quality) will be different. Even so, different sites will produce differently charactered wines (variables include age of vines, altitude, exposure, cropping, trellising, irrigation, soils, etc.). And then, of course, the winemaker will put their stamp on the wine and can alter what the site delivers, or what the average of the vintage is. So what good are vintage summaries? Well, when faced with wine shelves of dozens of unfamiliar bottles, vintage summaries can be one tool or guide to makign a choice. The average 2003 wine will be very different from the average 2005 wine and having some sense of that difference can be helpful. Of course, our own individual taste should really be the guide. For instance, a lot of wine publications touted Oregon's 2002 vintage as one of the best ever. Yet I personally found the wines to be too much alike (not much interesting variation by site or producer), too short, and rather uninteresting (so there you go--take my advice with a big grain of salt). It is certainly true that 2005 was a difficult growing year (whereas 2002 was very easy). Cold snaps in the spring reduced the fruit set significantly. Rain at the end of September caused some problems (some folks picked before, others after, and the fruit balance was different), a long cool spell followed, and disease pressure mounted. Not every site ripened well, or fully. But, in many places the long cool spell meant prolonged flavor development and so there are a lot of balanced and tasty wines (at least many of those that I've tried). There are also plenty of not-so-great wines. Maybe they picked too early, maybe too late. Maybe the young vines didn't develop as fully, maybe the old vines did . . . there are innumerable variables. And there are certainly not-so-good 2005 wines. The trying weather meant that winemakers had to pick carefully, sort thoroughly, and manage their fermenations closely. A lot of folks did that (there's a lot of experienced people making pinot here) and a lot did not (there's also a lot of winemaking newbies making pinot here). I'm not trying to make this sound so all fired complicated . . . but in many cases, it is! I just know that I like leaner, lower alcohol pinots where the fruit is in equilibrium with acidity and tannins, and that's what I'm personally seeing a lot of in 2005 (2004 as well) and didn't see in 2003 or even 2002. But that's just me! I'm not saying I'm "right"! 2005 will not appeal to everyone, by a long shot. I remember one winemaker telling me that a customer just loved his 2003 pinot and bought multiple cases. In 2004 they ordered more, and then called him to say "I've just opened a bottle of your 2004 and it isn't like your 2003 . . . did you add water to it?" Welcome to Oregon pinot noir! I wonder what they'll think of 2005 . . . (ps--sorry about the length . . . I am often guilty of overwriting/explaining . . . got to get a better grip!) -Cole Danehower

Craig may be reticent to speak for more than Anne Amie wines, so I'll chime in on behalf of the 2005 Oregon Pinor noir vintage as a whole: it seems to be pretty awesome! (Let's not forget, either, that there is an entire other, warm climate, wine region in Southern Oregon that grows everything from Albarino to Zinfandel, and my comments here apply only to the Willamette Valley). I've barrel- and now bottle-tasted 2005 Pinots from a variety of better-known Oregon producers and they uniformly have an element that has been somewhat lacking in many recent vintages: elegance. Both 2004 and 2005 produced very small Pinot crops, but with better overall balance certainly than 2003, and I'd argue even the much vaunted 2002 vintage. For my taste, 2005 are the best Pinots here since 1999. To generalize: they have good concentration (more than '04), and more of the signature Willamette Valley structure (as in, acidity), without the high alcohol or harsh tannins of many earlier vintages. The fruit flavors are bright and forward, tend to be red focused (though that does vary somewhat by sub appellation) with supple textures and less lavish alcohol. They lack the jammy qualities of the '03s (and many 0'2s) and may disappoint those who like the high-scoring plumpness of those vintages. 2005 was by no means an easy vintage to deal with, but knowledge and experience seem to have produced some amazing wines. Of course, I believe it is better to follow the producer than the vintage. Good producers will almost always make good wines in bad vintages—great wines in great vintages. So if huge extraction is your favor, find producers who make that style and even in '04 and '05 you'll get bigger wines. But for some of that iron-fist-in-a-velvet-glove quality that the Willamette Valley is capable of producing when the stars align, I'd put my money on the '05s (but get them while you can--supply will be short.) As for 2006, winemakers I've talked to say the fruit resembles 2003, but with better balance and flavors. Heat summation was nearly as high as 2003 in many places, the fruit all came in at once leaving many wineries scrambling for tank space, and yields were much higher than the last two vintages (despite a lot of dropped fruit earlier in the year). The early money says look for high alcohols, low natural acidity (that can be ameliorated), but really good flavors and ripe tannins. Of course, this all very early stuff . . . not much has gone to barrel yet, so we'll have to wait awhile to get a better read! -Cole Danehower