marcus

Steve -- Do you know the Brasserie Marty in the 5th. I've never been, but it seems to have the reputation for being just about the only remaining high quality independent brasserie.

I would personally not recommend any restaurant in the Flo group, and I wouldn't be pleased if a concierge pointed me in that direction. Bofinger is nothing at all like it was 20-30 years ago when it was my preferred place for Choucroute. I did, based on Particia Wells recommendation, eat at Alsaco and Cafe Runtz on consecutive evenings when I was in Paris on a business trip about a year or more ago. Overall, I found both disappointing, Cafe Runtz was bland, but acceptable, I found the Choucroute at Alsaco to have an off taste that I couldn't quite put my finger on, but it was too bitter. I did find the service at Alsaco t be kind and pleasant.

Robert -- For this wine, which I haven't tasted, I believe that you really do need to wait another 10 years.

My case has seepage problems as well, but I don't expect it to cause a problem with the wine as long as it's stored properly. Seepage can be a symptom of a variety of different problems, the most serious is overheating. I don't think that is the cause here.

This is a wonderful super opulent wine, the most flamboyant Beaucastel that I'm familiar with, and has been drinking very well for at least the last 3-4 years.

I haven't seen this one mentione, but I've always liked the Goan restaurant, Cafe Spice Nemasti, near the Tower Bridge.

I would not call Lavagna an Italian restaurant, but a pan-Mediterranean restaurant with Italian influences, just like its sister restaurant down the block, Le Tableau, is pan-Mediterranean with French influence. Le Tableau is actually the better restaurant.

Claude -- I think that I made the mistake of thinking that you were intending to make a relevant point about relative values available in the auction market, versus the retail market as enhanced by internet comparison capabilties. The fact that different people pay vastly different prices for the same item, regardless of the market in which it is purchased, is obvious and trivial and something that we all know already.

Claude -- I took a quick look at Butterfield's price list and it is clear that the buyer's commission is included in the price. These prices you listed are all 15% above standard bidding intervals. If you adjust your prices, they will be largely inline with those that I found. Also, for fair comparison, you should only be referencing the least expensive auction price, because if you were also to show the range on wine-searcher, the high end of that range would be humongous. With regard to Pichon Lalande, there was one lot at Sotheby's that sold for $235/btl, but most tended towards $260. Premier Cru's price of $249.95 is good because its in the ballpark of the auction price, its not really better. Also, how many bottles do they really have to sell. The median price among the sellers of this wine on wine-searche is $375 which is well above the auction price.

Claude -- Of course the buyer's premium is included, I should have mentioned that in my post. The hammer price is essentially meaningless. With regard to the number of bottles in a lot, I haven't observed that this makes a significant difference in price. Odd size bottles, which I didn't include in my comparison, typically do sell at a premium because they are rarer. Half bottles of older wines sell at large premiums, and magnums at about a 5-10% premium. My own preference is to buy at least 6 bottles, preferably a case, so one can get to know a wine over time. One problem that I expect one would find is that the retailers on wine-searcher may in fact have only a few bottles, not as many as you might like to buy. If that were in fact the case, it would truly not be comparable. I believe that I could go through this exercise for any year up through about 1996 and get similar results. By its fundamental nature, a liquid auction market will almost always yield average prices significantly lower than a retail market. For vintages later than 1996, there would be the overhang of the original release and the original wholesale pricing would still be a market factor. I chose 1982, without any foreknowledge, because it is the key current benchmark year for Bordeaux and I felt that it would be most representative. I still see these 1982s in local NYC stores.

Claude Kolm stated on the Ledoyen thread -- "Here in San Francisco, for example, and I am sure that it is not just here, buyers frequently pay substantially more for wines at auction than they would pay at stores for the same wines. One would think that wine-searcher.com would end such follies, but it is not the case." As someone who purchases the majority of my wine at auction, I felt that I was essentially being told that I was engaging in folly and didn't know what I was doing. I decided to do my own comparison and the results are below. For this purpose I selected the 1982 first growth Bordeaux with the addition of Cheval Blanc. These are benchmark wines which trade frequently at auction and are widely available through fine retailers and so should best illustrate the dynamics of these two parallel markets. For auction results I looked at Sotheby's New York sales 2002-2003 season only. I looked for the lowest price that I could quickly spot and checked the listing to make sure that there were no wine condition problems. If there were, I excluded the result. I did not check other auction houses or other US locations and I could have undoubtedly shaved the prices if I had done so. For wine-searcher, I picked the lowest retail price providing it did not show a condition problem. A significant number of listings on wine searcher are actually for ongoing auctions where the price listed is the latest bid, and one needs to be careful in order to avoid these. In the case where there is a wide gap between the lowest price on wine searcher and the next lowest, I show both. Cheval Blanc $650 John Hart, Chicago $514 Sothebys 3/8/03 Latour $549 WH Frank, NY $441 Sothebys 11/22/02 Lafite $425 Premier Cru, CA ($499 next low) $367 Sothebys 09/14/02 Mouton $525 John Hart, Chicago $343 Sothebys 3/8/03 Margaux $495 Grapes, NY ($599 next low) $343 Sothebys 09/14/02 Haut Brion $325 Grapes, NY $215 Sothebys 3/8/03 The results speak for themselves. Some additional comments: There is far more provenance and condition information available from the auction houses than through the wine-searcher website. I believe that far more of the high quality older wines trades through the auction market, rather than the small number of retailers that carry them. The auction market is thus more liquid and the prices more real. How many bottles do these retailers actually own in order to meet demand? The spread of prices is much greater in the retail market than the auction market. The median price on wine searcher is much higher than the median auction price in relation to the low price. This implies that the ratio of the median retail price to the median auction price is much greater than the ratio of the low prices. The ratio of medians is probably an even more important indicator of the pricing relationship of these two markets.

I have the 75 Latour and I think that it's a genuinely near great wine. Very impressive. Much better than the 78 which seems to sell for a bit more.

Our point of difference is that I don't believe that this word has a clear objective meaning and can be used objectively.

Steve -- I don't think that these guidebooks measure "interesting" so I don't quite understand your reference. They do attempt to measure food quality, but that is a whole other discussion. Michelin in particular provides essentially no explanation or justification for their ratings.

I think that we need to make our arguments in detail and not try to rely on individual words to carry the freight of our meaning, especially highly subjective words like "interesting". I personally find great home style cooking to be very interesting and I'm interested in understanding the techniques required to achieve it and I'm also just interested in appreciating it in general. I find a soulless dish to be uninteresting regardless of how much complexity and creativity was involved in making it. I am unwilling to concede that there are categorical a priori judgments re attributions of interesting that inherently exists outside of my own view. One could take a poll and then attribute a particular view to a preponderance of that group, and I might well turn out to be in the minority, but in general, I wouldn't assume the result until it was measured. I am unwilling to accept that one individual can reach a personal conclusion on this question and then assert is as general truth.

Claude--I think that you are subject to many of the misconceptions about the auction market that are quite common. Firstly, I don't think that Ducasse's 78 La Chapelle was bogus, and he had the low price, so I don't understand your point here. Secondly, the auction market is a secondary market, and it really doesn't matter what the price history is or what some producer may have charged originally in a particular geography. The auction price represents only what someone is willing to pay today. The retail market, which focuses primarily on recent vintages, no longer exists for these wines in any volume apart from odd bottles. Thirdly, the average auction price at a point in time for essentially all wines, with the possible exception of some Champagnes, is significantly below the prices offered by any of the web discounters, I look at all of them. However, certain anomalies do occur: Individually high runaway prices at auction do occur due to human psychology, and retailers often focus on these to create invalid comparisons. Sokolin is notorious for this. At a time that there is a major release from a chateau, the price may be lower than the prevailing auction price. The auction price represents the market price of the moment and when prices are rising very rapidly auction prices may move up faster than the retail price. But outside of these anomolies, I can show you large numbers of auction prices that are significantly lower than the prices on wine-searcher.com.

Vedat -- I don't know any of the sommeliers at ADPA, but my impression was that the one that took our order was way down on the totem pole. I haven't yet been to the Plaza location and my last ADPA dinner was, I believe, November 2000. I didn't find the wine list particularly overpriced, certainly not by NYC restaurant standards, but I am happy with a wine list if I find a few well priced bottles. In addition to the 89 Chave for 1100 FF and the 78 La Chapelle for 2000, I specifically remember an 86 Pichon Lalande for 1200. There were some additional good choices that I don't remember as specifically. I'm glad that you did start to walk out, because I don't believe that people should feel that they have to mitigate being improperly placed in intolerable situations unless there is some compelling reason, which is certainly not the case with a restaurant meal. I do have my own Ledoyen story, which is not at all as dramatic as yours. It was while Arabian was still there, and I was having great difficulty finding a good red wine at an acceptable price. I was unhappy with the suggestions and then noticed an 86 Domaine de Chevalier which I had never tried, but believed that I had heard something good about. I ordered it, which did generate some grumbling, but it was served without real argument. However, after the first tasting and pour, the sommelier never revisited our table and the wine was poured by the waitstaff. I must admit that the wine was not as good as I has hoped it would be.

Claude -- I agree with most of your points. However, with regard to Rhone pricing, the auction market is a secondary market entirely independent of whatever markup an importer may have taken many years ago. The reason that 1978 La Chapelle is selling for $500 at auction in the US and was under $300 at ADPA including VAT and service charge is in my view the direct result of the influence of Robert Parker.

Claude -- I find wine pricing at restaurants in France to be highly variable. This is not to say that this only results from selective markup application. Restaurants may also be inefficient at keeping their prices current with the market and their are also systematic differences in valuation between France and the US, to some extent due to Robert Parker's enthusiasms. For example, Rhone wines are significantly more expensive in the US, and for whatever reason, so are Champagnes. At the same time, Bordeaux seems to be a bit more expensive in France. As someone who attends auctions and follows wine pricing closely, one of my great pleasures is picking through a wine list looking for bargains that appeal to me. Except for my experience at Ducasse, I have never had a restaurant strongly challenge my selection from their list. In general, they have been happy to serve it to me, and frequently offer congratulations on the selection. For example, at Feniere where I ordered a 1990 La Mouline for 1200 FF, the owner came over to visit and discuss wine and we received considerably more attention. I continue to consider the refusal or even reluctance to sell any wine that is on the presented list to be totally unacceptable. The Gary Danko overpricing approach to displaying show window stock, I find ludicrous but acceptable.

The way that most restaurants handle show window stock is by charging an outrageous price that no one will pay. Gary Danko does this with his grand cru Bordeaux, such as charging $3600 for 1982 Haut Brion, which can still be had at auction for under $300. I don't think that show window stock is the problem. The problem is with the great wines that are also well priced wines.

I once had this problem at Ducasse at the 16th ar location. I ordered a Chave 1989, which was very well priced (1100 FF), and they were very resistant to serve it to me. At the time I believed that it was because it was arguably not ready, but I am no longer so sure. I insisted, and they did serve it grudgingly. I am somewhat surprised that individuals accept this behavior at all. My approach would be to listen to the explanation and if not convinced, I would simply insist. If the restaurant persisted in refusing, I would either order no wine at all or walk out.

Unless there has been a recent change, La Regalade is open for dinner on Saturdays. If you were to switch your dinner there from Friday to Saturday, you would then have a much larger choice of restaurants for Friday dinner.

As much as I love food, I love the Louvre more. Fortunately, no choice is required as one can have them both. I don't see how visiting the Met obviates one's desire to visit other museums any more than having fine restaurants in NYC make it unnecessary to visit restaurants anywhere else. I can only conclude that this attitude underlies a fundamental lack of interest in art, which is depressing. I would like to believe that aesthitic interests, among which I include food, are more broadly based in individuals with such inclinations.

Wilfrid and I have had this debate before, so I will chime in again. I don't think that any of the combinations that Wilfrid recommends work, some are worse than others. I agree that port with blue cheese doesn't work either. I am not convinced by the appeal to traditional practices argument. The French are red wine drinkers, about 90% of wine consumed in France is red. The idea of switching to a white wine, which they reserve largely for raw shellfish, goes against their grain. The vast majority of wine drinking in France has traditionally been red vin ordinaire, in other words, rotgut. Nobody focused on the taste of this wine, it is wet, alcaholic and in the background. In the battle for the taste buds between wine and cheese, its the wine that suffers, not the cheese. If the wine is irrelevant, there's no problem, and that is the major historical perspective. As the drinking of better wines has become more common, the problem of wine and cheese, particularly red wine, has become more obvious. This is reality, not fashion. They just don't go together, and in a big way.

I find the Chinese food in NYC significantly better than SF as well, but don't agree with the cantonese/hong kong vs sichuan/hanan distinction. In fact, the best chines restaurants in NYC are hong knong style and possibly shanghai. The real distinction as I see it is that the SF chinese community is much older and dates back to the mid 19th century and this community has become largely americanized and lost some of its roots, as opposed to the NYC chinese community which is very largely composed of recent immigrants with much closer ties to china. Hence more authentic and better chinese food. The upscale chinese Monterey Park suberb of LA has by far the best chinese restaurants in the US. I don't personally have a basis for comparing it to Vancouver, so I won't claim North America.