Alcibiades

2004 Montes Folly Syrah. $60. Nice surprise.

I've eaten at James twice. While I'm ecstatic for them (because I think they're good people who do what they do quite well), I felt Laban's review was way too superlative. Without getting into every detail (who knows how well they nailed his dinners?) I'll put it this way: if the bell system means anything, to equate the food at James with the food at Gayle is absurd, simply stated. And I mean "equate" in the sense that it's as well-conceived or well-executed. Again, James is doing good things but it doesn't deserve three bells or the five-bell prose it got in its three-bell review. Nonetheless, good luck to James. They're definitely on the right track.

Katie, Did you say "Rob Ray?" Do you mean the Buffalo Sabres enforcer who fought Tie Domi in the back seat of their agent's car when heading to the NHL draft? God, I miss him. Sorry, it's NHL playoff time. Kidding aside, you're absolutely right about the hiring process. Bartending certificates mean nothing to bar managers at better places; in fact, I can recall numerous snickerings about seeing resumes with these things listed. Bars want people with experience--that's why I suggested earlier that the real problem with these schools is that they waste the students' time and money with respect to future employment.

I don't think it's entirely useless to practice the technical proportions of cocktail making with placebos. For one thing, it is expensive to train and retrain with real booze. For another, spirits and the cocktails made from them can't necessarily be drunk ad infinitum--they make you drunk. Absolutely, one should be tasting the gnumenon and then aspire to proportionalize its approximation but using real booze to try and get a manhattan right seems unnecessary if one is making 10, 20 of them in class. With no real disrespect intended to these schools' proprietors, the real problem with these "mixology" schools is that it's a waste of the students' money and time. Bartenders should learn on the job--one barbacks and learns the intangible elements of timing, product priority and service. These are the things a bartender needs that he/she can't read in the bartender's bible but spending one's time and money on the class is to be victimized by what V. describes correctly as the "perfect crime."

As V.'s ringing endorsement indicates, Osteria is terrific and to my sensibilities is not simply Vetri Jr. (in fact it is a very different experience). While it is true that Vetri is more expensive than Osteria, one should not believe Vetri is superior to Osteria for that reason (or any reason, necessarily). While Vetri is an excellent choice if money is no object, so is Osteria. In reducing the choice of restaurants to their merits (since there will be no bill) all are equal in the running and again (as V. points out) Osteria is worth it outside of the context of its relationship to Vetri.

I'm glad to see lfabio on egullet, if for no other reason than to provide a knowledgeable counterpoint to the Grand Pontificator.

They wanted to sharpen the market targeting at the various price points, and expand the drawing power to the non-Premium stores. Not to needle Capaneus, but I've never understood what "price point" means. How is "price point" any different from the word "price?"

Chris, V, you're both right: truth in advertising is important but I guess it doesn't matter much to me in the case of Tinto because I was served good food and treated well and I was in good company. In short, I had a good time. The restaurant world is packaged, marketed and consumed according to "cuisine," with respect to a particular ethnic/national provenance. There are very few restaurants where the theme of the place is not specific to a country or its culinary traditions. Going out for Thai, Japanese, Cajun, French, Italian, Mexican, Chinese, Spanish, Middle Eastern, Cuban, Basque--that's how we package the product we call "Restaurant." Even "fusion" or "Global Tapas" is an inhered reference to the bringing-together of different groups' cuisines. If we can agree that's how these things are done then it only strengthens the point you're both making. For my part, I guess I just don't really need that to be front-and-center in order to enjoy myself. If Jose is pulling a fast one on people by enticing them to come in for Basque food, then caveat emptor. For some that's important (myself included, to some extent) but I won't fail to patronize Tinto again because there wasn't anyone playing Jai Alai.

At Tinto I saw far too few Xs in the name of the dishes, no obvious ETA plotters and shit, even the name isn't Basque. And the kicker: when I looked on the underside of my plate it said "Made in England." I almost walked out. But then I reminded myself that I'm supposed to eat there because it's required of me to follow trends (regardless of whether I'm being regionally-decieved), spend some money while I'm at it, and then report here about what importance the intricacies of dining-out carries in life. I'm glad I persevered because it tasted pretty good.

Had dinner at Tinto last night and it was terrific. The highlights of the meal were: Chiperones with Squid Ink and Crab Bomba Rice Turbot with sauce pastis, baby fennel and citris (sic?) Torchon de Foie Gras Bocadillo de Bonito Pork Belly with Chorizo, Black Beans and Braised Cabbage Fava Beans with Caramelized Pearl Onions and Garroxta Goat's Milk Mousse We made some other choices but I mention these because they were the best things we ate. We failed to order one or two of these dishes and Jose was kind enough to send them out so as to assuage our oversights. I was also thrilled to see the 2005 Domaine Brana Irouleguy Rosado on the list. This is an item that was carried by Moore Bros. a while back until they mysteriously discontinued it. A blend of Cab Franc and Tannat, it makes for a powerful, yet clean and acidic rose. Overpriced, of course, but at $48 it's not going to break the bank (I remember it retailing for around $16). We got out the door with 10 dishes, dessert wine and the bottle of rose for $140. Definitely worth it; will be back soon.

Aye. Warranted or not, the criticism they initially received should give way to a fair discussion without the flippant header.

I introduced myself to this board by compaining about the CS/PLCB not discounting super high-end stuff. I was wrong on at least one count: the 01 Latour Batard-Montrachet is available for $105. '01 was not quite as phenomenal as '02 for the white Burgundies but this remains one of the truly fine white wines. And this is a jaw-dropping price.

Is the Lascombes still available? If so, anything in Center City?

The wild price variations on winesearcher and winezap are enough to inspire or discourage. As I mentioned upthread, I found this wine at vinfolio.com for $68, a price I was happy with. Unfortunately I misrepresented the offering at snackbar. They're selling the '99 which is not quite as good as the '01 but it is drinking well enough right now.

I've had some (though not at snackbar) and it's drinking very nicely. I wasn't aware of Parker's suggestion but I had it in December and it was wonderful. As I noted above, I'm not 100 per cent sure snackbar's carrying the '01 but that's what I remember.

Cap., I believe the vintage is '01. It's priced at $150 (I think), which for a restaurant is fabulous. I bought '01 Pichon Lalande from vinfolio.com at $68 per bottle, the best price I saw anywhere. I don't know what they're paying for it but it's a steal (contextually, of course). And it's a great wine, as well.

I was in snackbar last night and wanted to share just how wonderful a place it is. With the exception of discussing the food (which never fails to amaze me) I wanted to touch on two aspects I think are outstanding. First, I think the careful thought they've put into their beer selection is impressive. This attention is translating nicely into their selections of wine as well: the inclusion of the Pichon Lalande was a suprisingly welcome addition. Secondly, I feel the service is seamless. No, it's not fine dining service but the warmth of the hospitality as well as the general knowledge, friendliness and promptness of the staff is a compliment to the directorial eye of Jon Makar. With each successive visit, I become more and more impressed. The only thing that doesn't change is the thoughtfulness and quality of the food; I say this only to frame it in the context of the impressively-improving elements that accompany it.

I need to retrace my steps a bit: in looking at the upcoming CS wines, there are some amazing deals in the high-end range. No, there's no Cheval Blanc for $5 a bottle, but Ravenswood Pickberry is lower than my brother (a wine wholesale buyer in CT.) can get as well as some really good Super Tuscans.

I know that market-driven pricing isn't happening. I know that restaurants buy-up a lot of these wines. In short, I know all these things are happening and thank all of you for taking the time to provide explanations. As a former professional wine buyer in Philadelphia and a current restaurant GM, I know these reasons as well as all of you. We all know why it is/isn't happening. My point is that it should happen and I know there's no practical firewall preventing it from happening. For one, all the first growth Bordeaux wines are not allocated solely to restaurants. There are plenty of bottles on display in the PLCB stores on Chestnut St. If the state felt they wouldn't sell them to consumers they wouldn't offer them for retail sale. As to the point about storage, this concern is true for all wine buying, regardless of "provenance." The middlemen who ship the wines often times aren't as diligent as they should be. With that said, if the state comes out and admits that they don't have the capacity to guarantee the integrity of the wines they sell (e.g. bottles that are aging-worthy) then that is a procedural flaw that, once recognized, should cause them to withdraw from offering any of these wines for sale. Because you suspect that is the case a.) doesn't make it so and b.) shouldn't prevent them from guaranteeing the quality of the wines they sell by correcting the problem if, in fact, there is one (see winecommune.com if you think this problem doesn't exist in the private sector). I'm not trying to take issue with any of the valid points you've all raised. Nor am I trying to trash the CS system. But to merely say that it's been good and we should be happy with what we have is an attitude that I'm sure none of us would have accepted before the system came in and improved things. Even though the PLCB inhibits the mechanisms of free markets in wine sales doesn't mean that it can't provide a fairly-priced, integrity-based prodcut. That is all. Thank you again for your diligence. And Cap., you're right that the 05 Bordeaux futures are out of hand. Almost as out of control as the 06 futures. Incidentally, you should consider going back to your Leonidas handle. He's getting a lot of press these days. One more thing: for those inclined, Ridge is offering 06 futures on Monte Bello for $80 per bottle, 6 bottle min. Not through PA, of course.

Katie, Thanks again. I'm a long-time viewer of this site and I've always been impressed with your fairness and general stewardship. I know well-enough not to wait for any of these wines to be reasonably priced here in PA. I just wish they were and don't see why they can't be. Jason's informative response is helpful to understanding how the system works but the reality he so accurately describes does not exclude the possiblity of higher-end wines being subject to similar discounting schemes. And when I say "discount" I mean a fair, market-driven price. Yes, we can shoot across the bridge to save on Pavie. But the same rationale applies to wines of this price as it does to the CS ones: I don't want to have to take a trip to purchase wine at a fair price.

Thank you, Katie, for welcoming me. I apologize for what seems to be me having introduced myself in a poorly-received fashion. However, in response to Mr. Pawlak's hyperbolic reaction to my post, I'd like to point out two things that, in spite of the vitriol directed at my reasonable point, seem quite clear to me. One, advocacy for making high-priced wines more accessible is in no way a "flippant, snooty comment from an effete wine snob." Something I believe we can all agree upon is that Chateau Margaux is a better-made wine than Whitehall Lane. The most prohibitive disconnect between the two is price. I'm not suggesting that extremely expensive wine is good because it's extremely expensive but unfortunately the world's finer wines are very pricey. I'm merely acknowledging that, more often than not, wines priced over $75 tend to be better than those priced at $20 (not always true, of course). You can choose to argue that point but, in general it's true. I don't like it any more than you and frankly, my income prevents me from drinking those wines precisely because I can't afford them. To cry snobbery because someone pines for accessibility to first-growth Bordeaux is ridiculous. Do you really mean to suggest wines in this category are undesirable? If price weren't an issue would you take David Bruce over Romanee-Conti? Secondly, my original point was to simply argue for more accessibility to these wines. Yes, there are the super-weathy for whom price is no object. My post was not written for them since price is not an issue for those consumers. My idea was directed at the economics of access: if the state can shave a few bucks off a $20 wine why can't they do the same for a $100 wine? If they did would you scoff at it because your effete radar was ringing too loudly? I fail to see why it's necessary to castigate someone for wishing for something we'd all enjoy. You can throw all the adjectives in the world my way but I'd still argue that you'd rather sit down and drink a Monte Bello with me than a Rosenblum. Well, maybe not with me but with someone else at least.

As a long-time buyer of wine in Pennsylvania I've always taken the Chairman's Selection program with a water softner tablet-sized grain of salt. There are myriad reasons why the program generates conversation but as I see it, two reasons why any real excitement on the part of serious wine drinkers is never generated. Firstly, the values that are added to the purchase of bottles are negligable for most of the people who are purchasing wines priced over $15. I presume that most people who buy wines in the $15-$25 range are (by virtue of their willingness to pay more than $8 a bottle) both interested in drinking better wine and also able to make a purchasing decision that is not entirely dictated solely by a minimal financial commitment. With that said, the ante is upped somewhat in terms of the purchasers' ability to spend a little more on something a little better. And so if my disposable income suppositions are correct then saving $1-$4 on a mediocre bottle of wine sounds like a good deal (and is, on balance, I guess) but really saves the purchasers little in terms of overall spending. I mention this to segue into my second issue with the program, and that is the fact that this enormous purchasing power of the PLCB is never used to discount truly serious and interesting wines, in general the ones priced over $60. If you say to me that the 2004 Ridge Three Valleys is marked down from $23 (an unrealistic price to bear on an open market, as is) to $19 I will agree that is a savings of $4 and my expression will remain neutral. But if you were to report that the 2003 Pichon Lalande is down from $130 to $115 then I would see some incentive for buying it from the State because at the end of the day, that makes the difference not only to provide approachable prices for real wines but also takes the sting out of looking at the price tags on expensive wines that we all know are way above what we'd pay if we lived in another state. The only wine I can remember being incentively-valued was when they ran the 1999 Chapoutier Hermitage, La Sizeranne at $49. I saw that wine this weekend for $90 in New York. If they knocked-down the prices on Chateau Palmer or Cos d'Estrournel then the people who could afford them would stop buying them on auction or out of state and, more importantly, those of us with limited means could (at least) know we weren't getting ripped-off if decide to splurge on real wine. And at the risk of sounding pompous, am I really supposed to get excited about Beringer Reserve at the CS's price when I can pick-up Hoopes Oakville for the same price out of state?