Steve Plotnicki

Beachfan - I tasted them when I was there in February. They are similar to the 1998 vintage in style though not as ripe and fat. I didn't buy many of them since I've stocked up on '98's. There is a pretty fair debate among collectors as to what the best vintage of 1998-2000 is and it is split between proponents of '98 and proponents of '99. 1999 is a "classic" vintage that doesn't have the flair '98 or '00 has. The wines are well balanced. But I'm in the '98 camp as I think the ripeness and fullness of the wines makes them special. Sort of like the 1990 vintage which I find to be the best vintage over the last 20 years.

Wow some of this is great stuff. A Caped Chef really knows his Rhones. Maybe he should change his pseudonym to A Corked Chef? I've been out all day and I have stuff to add to what is written so far but I am about to leave for the Island and I will try and post later. Didn't want you to think I was ignoring the question.

JD - Your point about the French classifying things systematically reminds me of something a wine board friend of mine once said. He said that French supremecy in food and wine was due to the fact that they are by nature mathematicians (this person happened to be a statistician.) And that they were quite happy taking on the job of codifying every parcel of land according to its attributes.

Bushey - Some people see a meal being cerebral as being synonymous with enjoyment. So while I certainly can't disagree that delicious goes first, where you will find broad disagreement is definition what delicious is. That's why I think all methods of enjoying something should count. Wilfrid - You know I am not a fan of the wines of Ribero del Duero. And I specifically dislike Pingus. Here I've included notes to a a Rioja tasting I set up at a friends house last year. I think the Pingus appears at the end. Topic: TN: Old Rioja in Greenwich Village Author: Steve Plotnicki Date: Mon Jun 25 06:21:26 2001 I had been acquiring various bottles of vintage Rioja over the past few years and had been looking for the right opportunity to try them. Finally a friend of mine offered to hold a tasting in his home and hired a chef to cook 10 of us a meal to accompany the wines. A stellar cast of New York wine personalities were in attendence including representatives from Sherry-Lehman, The New York Wine Warehouse and Internet Wine Consulting, not to mention the “civilians” present who are merely maniacal when it comes to wine, especially old wine. All of these wines were acquired from Christie’s in London except for the 1942 Ygay which was acquired at Christie’s in New York and the first three wines which were acquired when they were released at retail in New York. 1981 La Rioja Alta Gran Reserva 890 - I’ve had some great bottles of this but it this was somewhat shut down. The usual fragrant nose has abated. It was a touch meatier than I remember it. Let it sit for five years? Will last for a few decades 90 points 1978 La Rioja Alta Gran Reserva 890 - Where’s the fruit? Many at the table hated this. I didn’t think it was without charm although I can see what the complaints were about. Is this just closed or is it really void of fruit? 87 points 1976 Lopez de Heredia Vina Tondonia - Sadly corked 1976 Lopez de Heredia Vina Bosconia - Someone brought this bottle so we actually had a replacement for the Tondonia. I didn’t really pay attention to the bottle but someone said it was the Bosconia. Maybe someone from the Spanish contingent can weigh in with the difference between the two bottlings. Not much too this. Some cherry-cola flavors. Again, a wine that I think was closed and can use a few hours to show it’s stuff 88 points 1968 Marquis de Murrieta Castillo Ygay Gran Reserva- Some tangy fruit here but beneath a sheath of acid which I’ve come to expect from Ygays. Do these wines ever resolve the acid? More on that later. The first really “good” wine of the night but it needs time. At least 10+ years. 91 points 1968 Marquis de Riscal Reserva - A different style than the first three wines. Burgundian in style and much more elegant. Classic tart-cherry flavor with a bit of funk (brett?) American oak present here but it plays up the sweetness. Someone said the wine is on the edge and in their experience you need to drink it up fast after the bottles opened because it’s in danger of dying. I didn’t find that here. In fact, it was improving in the glass and I think it will go for at least five more years maybe more 90 points 1964 Cune Vina Real - The first in a flight of three Cune Vina Reals. As much as the Riscal was Burgundian, this was Bordeaux-like. A huge wine for a rioja. Young, darker berry and meaty flavors, cedar and new oak. Will go for at least fifteen more years, possibly more. Great balance and delicious now but will be even better down the road 92 points 1962 Cune Vina Real - A poor man’s version of the ’64. Lacking the oomph and the focus too. I had this a few months ago and there is not much change from last time. A nice drink but I don’t see this getting much better 90 points 1954 Cune Vina Real - I had been searching for a birth year wine to no avail when Sasha Katsman gave me the lowdown on this beauty. Well he was right and he was there in person for the verification. The first bottle had a loose cork and was completely oxidized. But bottle number two, sheesh, just a giant of a wine. Really Bordeaux like, maybe like a St.Emillion (Angelus?). But as Sasha warned me, this wine is ridiculously young. It wouldn’t surprise me if it could age for another 20 years without missing a beat. This one needs an encore performance so the wine can linger in the glass. My second favorite of the night 94+ points 1959 Marquis de Murrieta Castillo Ygay Gran Reserva- A fine enough wine but not in the class of the three Cunes or even the ’68 Ygay and it certainly suffered by coming after them. This needs to be drunk up before the ’69 and all three Cunes 88 points 1958 Marquis de Riscal Reserva - I’ve had this a few times before and boy I love this wine. It has Rioja magic going for it. It’s balanced just like a good Burgundy which is the style of Rioja I find most appealing. Beautiful sour-cherries mixed with almonds which comes from the new oak. Just lovely on the palate without any coarseness at all. Good weight for a rioja. It’s hit and miss with this one as I’ve had bottles that were completely dead but this one still had a good 5-10 years to go and will keep developing. My wine of the night 96 points 1954 Marquis de Murrieta Ygay Reserva - When a second birth year wine showed up at auction I figured I would give it a try. Sure enough, at the end of the night I polled the table on their favorites and this received the most first place votes. 5 people voted for it and 3 for the ’58 Riscal. I think it was the most complete wine of the night and has hit full maturity. Not quite like the ’58 Riscal but surprisingly more like that than the other Ygays. This wasn’t marked Castillo Ygay, just Ygay. I’m not sure what the difference is. Drink now. 92 points 1942 Marquis de Murrieta Castillo Ygay Gran Reserva - Fifty nine year old wine? It’s not possible. I’ve had wines that didn’t have this much fruit and structure to go with it that were just out of the cask. After having the ’68 earlier in the evening, this bottle made sense. I’m sorry we didn’t serve them together. Will this wine last 50 more years? I’m not sure but I would bet on 25. Still not a lot of secondary flavors (amazing) and I think the score will improve when that happens 92+ points 1942 Lopez de Heredia Vina Bosconia - Everyone is going to have forgive me as I''ve drawn a blank on this one. By this time of the night, a bit of palate fatigue had set in and there aren''t any distinguishing charcateristics that are helping me write notes 5 days later. But that can’t be a good sign as I clearly remember the next 2 wines. I’m going to have to read someone elses notes to refresh my memory. 1920 Lopez de Heredia - No Bosconia or Tondonia here. I guess they didn’t bottle them that way back then. The only markings on the label were “Cosecho 1920” and, excuse me if I get this wrong, “Ripense Partes Todas” which none of use could figure out how to translate. Really interesting. We thought it would be dead but it was quite alive. It still had loads of fruit but a little disjointed. It suffered from being the 14th wine served. It needed a good long airing out in a decanter as well as some time to brood in the glass. I’m sorry it didn’t get the chance to show its stuff as I think it would have been special. 81 year old wine? It can’t possibly be. If you told me it was wine from the 50’s I would believe you 90 points 1996 Pingus - Okay someone snuck this in. There’s always a wise guy in every crowd. This was my first Pingus. It smelled like Rayas to me but mentholated. Okay can I say I hated it? Maybe it was that it was served after 14 “elegant” wines or maybe because it’s such a fruit bomb at this stage? I don’t know. But it kept reminding me of an Aussie Shiraz. I recently experienced the same phenomenon when Fox Creek Reserve was served after wines like ’78 and ’61 La Tache and ’59 Latour. But I have to say the Fox Creek was much worse than this. No rating and I’m trying to be opened minded when I have it again without the clutter of mature wines around it. I thought it a really good night. Some of the tasters were a bit underwhelmed but Rioja is like that. It’s elegant and if you like more powerful wines you might miss the point of it all. Call it an acquired taste. One thing I learned from the tasting is that the house style really varies. The differences were much broader than I expected and wines like the Vina Real were at the opposite end of the spectrum from the Castillo Ygays. It''s hard to get a handle on what one would call the best representation although my gut tells me the Riscal style is on point but maybe I''m biased because that is my favorite. But no matter which style you preferred, nobody could deny that these wines were amazingly young. We were afraid to open them much before serving as we thought they might die quickly but that turned out to be a mistake. My understanding is that most of these wines were re-released by the wineries especially for Christie’s and if that’s true, it would explain their condition. Almost every wine could have used a good one hour decant and some in excess of two hours. I’m looking forward to doing this again in a few years as I have additional bottles of every wine except the 1920 and 1942 Lopez.

Nick - Maybe I can cut through it here by pointing out the following about your response. There is no reason that red pepper lollys should work and lobster with blueberry sauce not. Forget about our starting point on those two food items. Because I am certain that the notion of the lollys would sound awful to us before we tasted them, just as the lobster does now. And I am certain the sole/foie combo sounded awful to people once upon a time as well. But what changes people's perceptions are chefs working their magic. Because I am sure that there is a chef out there who can make the lobster and blueberry sauce be wonderful if he analyzes how to get the flavors to balance right. Last week before I was in the Berkshires, we spent a night in Boston and had dinner at East Coast Grill which was loads of fun. But the ice cream shop Christina's, purpotedly Boston's best is on the same block and we ate dessert there. I had a scoop of subtly delicious Izuki Bean along with a similarly subtle scoop of Banana. At first I was a bit surprised that the banana didn't have more flavor to it, more gusto. But then I looked up at the board of flavors and realized that there were a number of unusual flavors or combinations and that the house style was to keep it subtle across the entire flavor spectrum. That obviously very conscious decision by the ice cream maker allowed him/her not only to make unusual flavors, but to ensure that they didn't clash with any of the othertraditional flavors. This point was perfectly encapsulated the next day when reading in Boston magazine how the owner made Avocado ice cream for a birthday and how delicious it was with the "subtle" taste of avocado. The point I'm trying to make here is diners do not eat in vacuums. We are subject to the nuances and creativity of chefs. Getting avocado ice cream to work, is the result of applying a certain philosophy towards making ice cream. A certain technique if I may. And diners and their prejudices, both ones they currently have and ones they left behind are products of how good chefs are at their jobs. And why it took until 2000 for someone to figure out how to get people to like a red pepper lolly is one of the great mysteries of food. Because as bad as the combination of steak and bananas sounds, it won't sound bad when someone figures out how to do it right. I think there is a gap in the way we talk about food, and the way we are taught to analyze it compared to other disciplines. Because there is an aspect to the red pepper lolly story that is dependant on the education of our palates. Some progression of flavors over time that *sets up* our palate to accept the lollys. It's the same in music. Without being able to tell you exactly what the chord changes are, I can tell you that what struck me as funny about the Nirvana era of rock music (not funny ha ha,) was that the basic chord progressions the bands often relied on were ones that used to be rejected by audiences as not obvious in prior generations. Yet, those same changes were dependant on the changes prior generations relied on. And I think that is analagous to your statement of "inherently delicious." But what I'm trying to add to your point is that inherently delicious is both natural, like a ripe peach, and learned, like the same peach sliced and served atop a filet of grouper. And the likelihood is that well before declaring the combination of peach and grouper delicious, someone will find it interesting, i.e. cerebral, and delicious will follow at a later point in time.

Fat Guy - All you have said is that a democracy can't vote for things that are illegal. I knew that. That's why democracys have constitutions etc., to set out the rules of democracy. It's not a vote in a vacuum. As to the larger point, I agree with you. All of this is personal choice. A diner can ask for his steak done well and the chef even has the right to refuse. And the diner can leave if he wants to and go eat elsewhere. But I'm sorry that Adam framed his question the way he did. Because the real issue here isn't how we can force someone to eat steak that is cooked "correctly," but how it is we can eductate people about it and hope they take to it.

Hope I'm not too late. Hey guys how are you both? I am curious if you can point to any particluar technique that is going to take the U.S. by storm. I'm talking about something like foaming. While you guys were on the cutting edge of American restaurants that integrated foam into a number of dishes, it hasn't exactly caught on in Mid-America yet. But do you think that trend eventually will? Or do you see another trend in cooking technique that is going to be an important part of the American dining scene in the future (that means beyond NYC?)

JD & Cabrales - Well let me just give you a P-ism. There is a difference between eating for pure enjoyment and eating to learn more about cuisine. And if the only reason you ever eat is for pleasure, then of course Cabrales post holds true. It assumes that your palate is fully mature and that your "taste" isn't going to change. But if the reason you eat is to expand your knowledge of cuisine, that's a completely different thing. For years I avoided going to the restaurant Arpege. It seemed antiseptic to me and there was always something around that sounded more delicious. But when Passard banished meat from his menu and began serving meals that were mostly vegetables, it piqued my curiosity. So I went this past January and I have to say that it was far from the most delicious meal I ever had. But it was definitely one of the most interesting meals I ever had if not the most interesting. But if your purpose is sheer deliciousness, I would never recommend that you go there. But if you are the type who wants to think about a meal like it was conceptual art, by all means hurray up and book. The reason to go out and try new restaurants and taste things you wouldn't ordinarily taste is not to necessarily learn how to like them, it's to learn how to be a better taster. So the issue isn't that a diner needs to conform their taste to commonly held notions, it's that a diner needs to understand what the commonly held notions are in order to taste well. You know I consider myself a pretty good taster of wine, but I have friends who wipe the floor with me. Why? Because they have extensive experience tasting the great Bordeaux and Burgundy from the 20's through the 40's and I have hardly any experience with those wines. And when a 1999 Musigny exhibits characteristics that were found in 1949 Musigny's, they have the basis for knowing and I don't. And it has nothing to do with liking the '99 Musigny. It has to do with knowing where it falls on the never ending continuum that is wine. The liking part is the gravy. Hollywood - I wish I could help you but the last vintage I bought Bordeaux in was 1995. And even most of what I bought from that vintage I sold off. But I always thought the best value for classified Bordeaux were wines like Grand Puy Lacoste, Leoville-Barton and Angelus. And even those are not cheap and I have no idea what newer vintages sell for today. But back around 1995 they were selling from about $45-$75 a bottle. But I could give way more info on Rhone wines and they are cheaper too Wilfrid - The two best bottles of Rioja ever made (at least in my opinion and I know it is shared by quite a few people) are the 1958 Marquis de Riscal and 1954 Cune Vina Real. Fortunately I bought up a slug of each wine when they were cheap. '54 is my birth year and most other wine from that year is amazingly crappy so I got lucky there. When it cools down and the weather makes us want to eat things like lamb stew, we'll go have dinner at Marichu one night and I'll bring them along. They are both astonishing and what makes then interesting is that they were made during an era when they tried to make Rioja like French wines. The Cune is cut like a Bordeaux with an attempt at depth and the Marquis is all perfumey and cherryish like a Burgundy. After the 50's, except for a few good wines in 1964 and 1968, Rioja went into the crapper. Then in 1981 and 1985, La Rioja Alta made some great wines. And finally in 1994, the whole revitalization of Rioja started and wines from Artadi, Contino and a few others changed the way the market views Rioja (and the pricepoint too.) As for other region in Spain, I've had many of the wines but never developed an affinity for them. Some of those older Vega-Sicilias are great wines, but I find them more Cabernet-like than Rioja which is more in the style of Burgundy which suits me well.

The Grand Mere with the rare steak had nothing to do with wine. But I'm sure if that instance didn't happen it would have been elsewhere. But the bottles of wines that changed my palate were as follows, 1964 Cheval Blanc 1961 Latour 1990 Chave Hermitage 1983 Guigal La Landonne I used to love drinking 1992 Chateau Montelena until I ran into those wines. In fact that's still a good bottle of wine. But not something I would ever think of opening. then later on it was 1958 Marquis de Riscal Rioja 1985 Ponsot Griotte Chambertain I think Gavin said it best. Wine tasting is a series of benchmarks. All the wines I listed (plus some others I have had but didn't list) set certain parameters about what it meant to be a perfect bottle of wine. All other wine flows from there. It's like a bullseye with the great wines within the black dot and all the rest of them radiating out of the center based on their attributes.

Hollywood - Well of course the first factor in terroir is how long vines have been planted on a certain parcel of land. So France has a huge advantage from the getgo. But I think the issue runs deeper than that as the general thrust of American winemaking is not to try and stress the terroir. So I think the issue is more of the fact that they don't try, then the fact that they aren't able to. As for Domaine Drouhin, why bother if you can afford the uptick to Dujac or Roumier? For my palate, I would rather drink a bottle of Clos Mont Olivet Chateauneif du Pape for $25 than a $40 Oregon Pinot any day. In fact I'd rather drink a $11 Rasteau. Gavin - The classification system in Bordeaux is extremely helpful when learning about wine. In fact the whole AOC system sort of acts like a vinous compass that you can set your palate by. For me, assessing the difference between wines like Gruard Larose and Lynch Bages vs Mouton and Latour taught me more about wine than tasting 50 other bottles where the difference hadn't been neatly codified. I sometimes wonder if one of the allures of Burgundy is how the codification system is like a big jigsaw puzzle that you have to piece together. It can take an entire lifetime. Cabrales - Well don't we bring in specialists to teach us how to do things at work? Why wouldn't one ask someone expert about food if they wanted to learn about it?

"And I suppose you'd relate that back to the judgment of experienced gourmets?" Of course. I would defer to your opinion on whether the Becasse was better than the Pintade because I normally don't eat through the range of chasse so I don't have the expertise to think it thorugh objectively. But that wouldn't stop me from having an opinion about them, i.e., enjoy one over the other on my own simplistic terms. But I bet you if I spent an entire winter in Paris eating at bistros every night, I would get bored of eating the regular fare and I would probably venture into the land of funny meats. And I bet that at the end of that process I would understand the ins and outs of chasse in a conventional way, and have an opinion about it that isn't radically different than the commonly held opinions. Bt of course it would have that special Plotnickiesque flair.

Good as in tastes good. I said it that way because not everything that is good is obvious. Go back to my new world/old world wine example. If I were to go strictly by my sense of taste at the time, I would have stuck with new world wine. But the body of literature extolling the virtues of European wine was too extensive and my intelectual curiosity wouldn't allow me to dismiss them out of hand the way other friends of mine did. So I arranged to attend tastings of European wines and I kept going until I got it. But not everone gets it and there was no guarantee I was going to get it either. But it just so happens I took to it. Same with Cabrales. I bet you there are restaurants she doesn't prefer where if she went to the restaurant with someone experienced she might see it in a different light. All it takes is a single suggestion to get one thinking you know.

Cabrales - I can rewrite your last post into the following question? Does it have to be good for you to enjoy it or appreciate it?

I tried to refrain from weighing in here because I thought what I had to say was redundant. But then I figured that never stopped me in the past . But seriously, I find I can enjoy USC if I treat it as a modern day extension of a place like The Palm. Steaks, chops and a few fancier items served with a fancier version of cottage fries (garlic chips) and creamy polenta instead of creamed spinach. So what if tuna has been substituted for two of the famous meat concepts, Filet mignon and chopped steak. To me the rest of the menu is analagous to The Palm serving veal parmegian. The level of cooking is a few measures more refined, the flowers are beautiful and the servers don't growl at you. What's not to like? But if I go there with higher expectations than what I just described I leave disappointed. What bothers me about the place is that it is a magnet for people from out of town who do not know anything about food and want to eat there because they think of it as "must go to" when they visit NYC. And to me it is more like a neighborhood place. In fact it shows you how poor restaurants are in this town because there isn't any reason that every neighborhood can't have it's version of USC, maybe with the flowers toned down somewhat. But as long as that's the case, people will hold it up to the light and call it the standard. Actually Washington Park is the first place that opened in a while that is intended to serve the same purpose as USC. I just don't think they have the menu concepts down yet so it doesn't lend itself to multiple repeat vivists. The chicken is a start though.

Hollywood - It's not about whether they are good or not. The lack of a codification system doesn't encourage growers to accentuate certain aspects of the vineyards. Pisoni Vineyard is one of the more famous souces for Pinot in Ca. And there are good wines that come from that vineyard. But they do not have the type of delineation that wines from say Chambolle-Musigny have. Or the typical way of saying this is they lack terroir. So because Ca. wines are not terroir driven, they are less interesting. But if you are the type of person who likes lots of ripe fruit, you might prefer Ca. wines to French wines. As for new world wines in general, I used to drink tham all of the time. But I stopped a bunch of years ago and sold all of my inventory off and replaced it with European wines.

Jd - That was very good. But if I had to change one thing it would be the order. I think that, Do you enjoy it?, comes first. Then one needs reasons to go on to the other two questions which are analytical in nature. One might ask if someone understands it after they hedge about their enjoyment. And to me to appreciate something is a cerebral issue so it would be in third position. I think the distinction here is that anyone can enjoy food or wine. But not everyone understands it or appreciates it. Let's take my wife as an example. She gets to drink some really good bottles of wine due to hanging around with me. And she has learned to enjoy them as well. But she isn't interested in any of the specifics. Her famous line when going out to dinner with a friend is, "I ordered the Chateaneuf-du-Pape becuse I recognized the name." And you should know that she has drunk some of the greatest CNdP's ever made. Yet a stunning bottle doesn't inspire her to find out any information about it. But I have noticed that if the wine is lightly off for any reason, she has loads of questions about what it is that makes that bottle less than the perfect experience. I think that most people have a superficial relationsjhip with food and wine, just like my wife. They enjoy it, and maybe they can even notice it when it's special, but most people just aren't interested in what makes it tick. But I think there is a whole cadre of people who are interested. And that is why they come to a place like eGullet. Here we can learn the difference between a steak with a char crust and one that is slow cooked. Just having access to the info makes one think about it differently. And if you are among that group of people who see it from that perspective, I'm not sure if you need to bother with the question of enjoyment. Hollywood - The problem with Ca. pinot noir is that it isn't codified. What is good about Burgundy is they have maximized each sites potential through the AOC system (that is different then whether each grower has maximized the specific potential of their site.) As such, Chambertin tastes completetly different than Musigny. It's the lack of codification that makes Ca. wine less interesting. People who produce wines in Santa Maria are trying to make wines that taste the same as ones made in Paso Robles. That aspect of it alone makes French wine generally (in a significant way)more interesting than Ca. wine.

"But what about when someone learns, studies, and perhaps understands something, only to discover they do not in fact appreciate it? My mother describes this as having no "access." Nina - But you left out the punchline. Why doesn't she like it?

No I've been drinking wine much longer than that. But it is only ten years that I started to decode it's mysteries. I have spent much of that time catching up to where I would be if I had been serious for 20 years instead of 10. Unfortunately that 10 years I missed was costly as wine caught on with a larger percentage of the population in the last 10 years so it's been a more expensive hobby. In fact last night one of the people we were out to dinner with was talking about 1982 Mouton selling for $700 a case at auction in 1987. Today it's $9000 a case. So it was a tough 10 years to miss. As to your story about the two brothers, you are just really describing enculturation (there's that word again) based on location. It even affects me. For example when I'm in a place like the Central Coast of California, I can enjoy a local pinot noir. But it isn't something I would ever dream of drinking when I'm back in NY. And I'm sure that if I lived in Australia I would acquire a taste for Shiraz even though I think the stuff is fairly deadly. But I don't think that has anything to do with an objective view of wine and it's complexities. And when the brother who lived in Britain commented that French wine was "dull and boring," that's like me saying I can't see what people see in the ballet. Because the truth of it is I do not know how to appreciate the ballet so that's why I don't like it. That's completely different than knowing how to appreciate it but still not liking it. I'll go out on a limb here and state the following Plotnickiism. I think there are very few things that people come to understand where they do not learn how to appreciate it as a result of that understanding. Chew that one over for a while.

"Can you have a democracy that has the right to remain ignorant? Which model of democracy is this? I know of at least several dozen. Ignorance is the death of democracy of any model. Oh, I will not burn steaks, just as I will not burn books" Well if you want to describe it in those terms, you are just saying that as long as people are allowed to remain ignorant, things do not change for the better. That is patently untrue. I am sure there are counteless members of this board whose palates have been edcuated to things like how meat should be properly cooked when they grew older. I having grown up in a kosher home, where everything was zapped well done by the domestic version of ray guns from Flash Gordon shorts, didn't start eating my meat rare until I was 30 years old. The occassion was a dinner at Bofinger in Paris where the 75 year old mother of one of the other diners at the next table was waxing rhapsodic about her filet steak that was so raw it could have still been alive. It was there and then my wife and I (also a product of food cooked by lasers) knew that rare was the right way to eat it. And we started to forces ourselves to eat it that way even though it used to repulse us.

"Maybe this is the heart of the matter for me. I can see no positive aspect of ignorance. If somebody has the right to be ignorant, then do I not have the right to educate them?" Not in a democracy. People have the right to remain ignorant. You might have the right to encourage them to educate their palates, but it's something that is voluntary. That point encapsulates both the good part and the bad of a democratic system. People are allowed to vote the wrong candidate into office and people are allowed to eat their steaks overcooked. But telling people how *they have to* eat their steaks is the same as telling people what books they can or can't read. No mind police here please. And no palate police either. You have the right to associate with like palates, which I guess is why you are on eGullet.

Well you have shifted gears from a restaurant where they are paying money to your home where they are your guests. You are just saying that in your home there are certain rules that guests must live by and not mixing Montrachet and lemonade is one of them. But to be honest about it, if you had a guest who was insisting on mixing white wine with lemonade, they wouldn't insist on Montrachet. You could go give them buggers wine and they would be happy. This reminds me of a story my friend Gora told me last night. He had bought two cases of 1983 Guigal La Mouline in Switzerland which a friend stored for him at his house. Unbeknownst to the friend, the wife drank the wine up over time. Even giving away bottles to her friends as gifts. So when Gora shows up to collect the wine, she tells him she drank it all and told him she had bought wine to replace it with which turned out to be Gamay. So that is what's wrong with your example. People who mix wine with lemonade, won't insist on Montrachet. And people who know anything about food would have happily kept the steak in all it's rarities. But people who *want to eat and drink what they like* in spite of all admonitions are entitled to. And you have the choice of not inviting them to your home again.

"Is it correct to mix lemonade with my Montrachet if I wish to?" It isn't correct but you have the right to do it. "Oh, Australians aren't Sly, we are honest salt-of-the-earth types." Did they salt the Fiorentina as well? Your question highlights the bright line between a restaurant being a place that is intended to allow consumers to make their own choices, and a medium for chefs to provide them with better quality cuisine. I'm not sure why it is posed as an either or thing? I'm happy saying to a chef, serve it as you like it. Others aren't. It's the famous story that Calvin Trillin tells in one of his early books when he and Collete Rossant took Paul Bocuse to breakfast at the drugstore lunch counter on 6th Avenue in Greenwich Village. They asked Bocuse how he wanted his eggs and he replied, "as the chef prefers."

What does right mean? If you want right to mean *are they allowed,* of course they are right. But if right means according to finely honed gastronomic standards according to Plotnicki and others, no they were wrong. In otherwords, they were subjectively right and objectively wrong. Is that what you are getting at you sly Australian you?

David - Welcome to eGullet. That was a great post about the 7th. I had given some thought to getting an apartment in that quartier and I spent an afternoon a few years ago looking at a few things with a broker. Then I sort of lost interest and I dropped the idea. But my sons have enjoyed many a baguette from the boulangerie on the corner of St. Dominique and rue Cler. But as to restaurants, do you have an opinion as to Violin d'Ingress? I thought that two Michelin stars was a bit much for a place serving what they serve. And how about the wine bar Sancerre? Any good?

At some point I didn't even drink wine (about 10 years ago.) But I always had a good palate for food. It's easier to have a close relationship with food then it is with wine. Wine is organized in a very confusing manner and that aspect of it always made me hesitant to delve into the topic. But then a friend of mine gave me two bottles one x-mas and that spurred me to try and decode the mysteries of wine. I quickly found that French wine is better organized but more difficult to appreciate because of the subtle complexities. American wine is easier to understand but is void of complexity although overflowing with a multitude of ripe fruit. It makes for an easier launch point for the hobby. But many people I know made the switch to French wines, or Italian wines after a few years.