[Robert Parker and the Wine Advocate]

[oh yeah, and bob parker is a poopy-head.]

Tommy - Yeah but does he like poopy in the nose of his wine? And does Chris Cornell like wine?

[weeknight wine]

Bux-The $6-$7 cost gets your wine cleared by all applicable state and federal agencys, pays any taxes or duty, and includes delivery into a warehouse in NYC. It costs slightly more to get it delivered to your home.

[Robert Parker and the Wine Advocate]

Tony-Well you have sort of switched gears here. The issue isn't whether words or numbers are more useful. I personally think the words are a load of bunk. But I don't see what your gripe is with Parker because he uses numbers AND words. Here is what he said about 1986 Cos d'Estournal;

"1986 Cos d'Estournel St Estephe (95) - $45

Tasted 7 Times Since Bottling With Consistent Notes

The 1986 is a highly extracted wine, with a black/ruby color and plenty of toasty, smoky notes in its bouquet that suggest ripe plums and licorice.  Evolving at a glacial pace, it exhibits massive, huge, ripe, extremely concentrated flavors with impressive depth and richness.  It possesses more power, weight, and tannin than the more opulent and currently more charming 1985.  Anticipated maturity: 1996-2010."

Now what is wrong with that review? The numerical score is just a small portion of the review and it has every component that you have asked a review to have. Is it Parker's fault that many readers (like me) don't care about the text and only care about the numbers and as such, the shops just post the scores?

You see the reason people accept Parker's judgement as definitive is because his opinion is correct with sufficient frequency that people are happy relying on him. That's why I keep saying that the way to criticize him is to point out where he is wrong about wines. And although I have pointed out a few areas of disagreement I have with him, you keep talking about his system, but I have yet to hear you state criticism of his palate to the extent that it warrants the type of criticism you have lodged.

[Robert Parker and the Wine Advocate]

Tony-And you know you are right. The world would be a better place if everyone was well read on every topic or had the opportunity to taste wines for themselves. But I'm afraid that isn't the case. People just either don't have the time or don't care about it enough.

I'm sorry you only see the negative side of a shelf talker that says "Robert Parker 90 points," and fail to see how it has benefited consumers. You have conveniently skipped over the fact that until Parker came along and figured out a concise way to convey the quality a consumer would likely find in a bottle, the sales staff in many shops would foist pure garbage on people and tell them it was good. In fact it still happens even with the shelf talkers. The way the wine business works and how wineries, importers and distributors tie the purchase of good wines with the purchase of plonk. The shops have no choice but to foist the plonk on the people who don't know any better. I mean I don't know about the U.K. but, if you're a shop in NYC and you want to buy Cristal, you have to buy something like 10 cases of the basic Roederer Champagne to get 1 case of Cristal. So shops traditionally pushed Roderer on the unsuspecting when there were better quality champagnes to be had in the same price range. That's really what Parker fixed about the industry, and the fact that his numerical system was clear and concise *helped consumers.* And when a shop had a shelf talker above the Veuve-Cliquot that said 90 points, the bogus salesperson had a more difficult time selling you a crappy champagne. I would say that is quite an accomplishment. Wouldn't you?

You see I can twist the entire argument around and tell you that your position is elitest because it doesn't take the common consumer into account. And it appears you would counter by saying that isn't true, in fact you want them to have even more knowledge than they can get from Parker. And although that is noble on your part. It's just not what they want. They want to deal with wine on their terms not yours. And you see, that isn't Parker's fault. He isn't popular because his system is easy, he is popular  because people always wanted an easy system to begin with, and the wine business failed dreadfully at providing them with one.

[weeknight wine]

Bux- $6 to $7 a bottle and that gets it cleared through the 3 tiers. It will also include their picking your wine up from wherever you bought it in the U.K. or France. It really only makes it worth it when you get to the $30 level. Also, you usually need to buy at least 1/2 case quantities because the brokers with the good prices are selling wholesale though sometimes they will sell ones and twos. Sometimes the savings are quite considerable. On a wine like Tignanello which can cost $75 here, that can be bought in Italy for $40 so your perspective as to what level you drink at starts to change. As for legalities, New York I believe is a single souce state and I'm pretty certain that the single source laws apply to people who are reselling wine. Individuals have the right to import for their own personal use. You know you don't even need an importer to clear wine for you. You can have it shipped here and you can clear it yourself through customs as long as the wine is for your own personal use. You do what they call an informal entry (whatever that is,) but it entails filling out all these state forms listing the wines and paying the various excise taxes that the feds and state charge for wine. I've never done it but the cost comes down to something like $20 odd a case.

[weeknight wine]

Bux-I buy most of my wine in Europe and self import them into the U.S. By that I mean I have an importer bring them into the country for me. So I see many prices at source or from European wholesalers or brokers. There are a number of Chateauneufs that can cost around $30 here that will cost you 90ff, or I guess that is $14 at the winery. Some of the wines I wrote up like Gramenon and Aphilannthes can cost between $7 and $14 there, and the same wines can be $15-$30 here. Or I was just at the Marche au Vin in Ampuis 3 weeks ago and Jamet Cote Rotie was $20. It can cost $55 here.

I think that Domaine Cayron is something like $14 or $16 at the winery. It's too bad we are stuck with this 3 tier system.

[Robert Parker and the Wine Advocate]

Tony - Gee now we're getting somewhere. I can see the argument that '86 Cos should be 91 and not 95. I already told you I thought Parker overrates second tier claret. And how would it be proven. Easy. Enough

experienced tasters taste the wine and hash through the issue. I mean I think that '86 Mouton is more than 4 points better than '86 Cos. Why? It has better depth, better complexity, tremendous waves of fruit. And will probably age for 50 years. Will '86 Cos get past 25 or 30?

As for the points you raised against Parker, I do indeed believe they are valid points. But if you examine each one, you will find that you are complaining about the people who rely on Parker and not Parker himself. Let's go through them.

His power in the industry

Now why is that his fault? All he does is write his newsletter and advertise subscribers. Is he to be criticized only because people percieve he does a good job?

As for his 50-100 point system

You can question it's validity, but not in a vacuum. Either it's accurate or it isn't. And if it isn't, it needs to be sufficientlly inaccurate to criticize him. Please show me where he is not accurate to the extent where he should be criticized. Also, your argument that wine should not be expressed numerically, or in the exact terms as he tries to express it is only your subjective point of view. Most people like the numerical scores. In fact, I would prefer hardly any text at all.

Questions about ranking

You know most people have a much more casual connection with wine then we do. They don't have the time to know what's what. They go into a shop, and they want to know how to find a wine that fits their needs. And to make their life more complicated, they ask those questions of shop staff that is in my experience inept, and put up by their shopkeepers and importers and distributers to push plonk on the unsuspecting. To Parker's credit, he fixed alot of that and the way he fixed it was to have a concise and clear scoring system that people could easily recognize. And where he has had the most impact is on the large commercial wineries, who happened to be the biggest plonk pushers going before Parker became prominent. I mean wineries like Bouchard Pere et Fils were selling plonk for years. But now their top wines are great. Same with other commercial wineries like Drouhin and Delas Freres. Even better wineries like Latour and Comte de Vogue were in serious decline and thoughout the 80's were pushing junk on people while hiding behind their fanous labels. Now do you think that Latour would have turned around as quickly if '86 Mouton didn't get a 100 pointsd, let alone '86 Cos getting 96, if their '86 didn't get 89 points? I mean they should have had 100 point wine that year. So how come you can't give him credit for the good stuff he did?

You then asked why it isn't legitmate to ask if we should be looking at matters of taste in terms of hierarchys.

To me this is the nub of your argument. An age old argument on the Internet that never seems to be settled, no matter how hard I try. Here is how the argument goes. One side says that all taste is subjective, and that if someone happens to like well, Syrian food better than French food, than it is indeed better. The other side of the argument says that no, taste might be subjective but quality is not, it is objective. And levels of technique aren't subjective either. Better quality, and greater expenditure of technique make a "better" product.  And indeed, Sisteron and Alpilles lamb, Bazas, Charolais and Angus beef, Bresse and Landes chicken, cream from Devon and cheese made in Normandy are indeed of better quality than other items and as a result, the amount of technique that goes into raising or manufacturing those items is more intensive than lesser quality products. So when we speak of the order that things should be placed in, that is what we are, and Parker is talking about. It's not a list of personal preferrences.

And the ordering of things does not mean that you can't like Syrian food better than French food, or St. Veran better than Montrachet. But in reality, the quality of ingredients that go into French food, and the level of technique applied to its preparation produce an end result that is well beyond the level of any Syrian food I've ever seen or heard of. And the same for Montrachet. The quality of the grapes that come from that patch of land, and ultimately the care given to making wine from those special grapes make a much better, and more refined bottle of wine than anything they could muster out of the patch of land they call St. Veran. So when you say that nobody can measure "taste" the way Parker claims to be able to measure it. You have misrepresented what he is measuring. He is measuring quality, not taste. Remember, he writes a consumer guide. And I will bet you that if we tasted '86 Cos and '86 Latour side by side, we would conclude that the Cos is the better wine, but we would also admit that the Latour has the unqiue characteristics that are exhibited *only* by the First Growths and is indeed of better quality, though ultimately not as enjoyable. Will 100% of the people agree as to what is better quality. Of course not. But I am certain that if there were a group of people who proclaimed that supermarket chickens were better than Bresse, or that St. Veran is a better wine than Montrachet, we would find their experience and expertise when it came to chickens and wine wanting.

So there you are. I have discussed all those matters. But as you see, those matters really have very little to do with what Parker, and they mostly have to do with how people use Parker. And if anyone is deserving of criticism, it is the people who created the environment in the wine industry that allowed Parker to have the impact he has had. When your industry doesn't self police itself to maintain high standards, a consumer advocate is bound to come along and organize things so consumers can figure out what is what. But when you try to criticize him for how he approached the task, it seems unfair considering that all he did was offer people a drink of water in what was an informational desert.

[Robert Parker and the Wine Advocate]

Tony-Jews shouldn't be named Finch, they should be named Plotnicki :). But I am giving up because you have failed to answer any of the questions I put forth. You just keep repeating how his scoring system is bull***t, but you offer no evidence that his palate isn't good enough to operate that system.

If I knew nothing of wine, and I read your arguments, I would think that Parker's opinion must be right as the rain that falls on an overcast day. Because clearly despite all of my requests that you offer some evidence that he doesn't do his job properly, or that his recommendations are off, you have failed to offer any.

[Craft Bar]

Wilfrid-If you don't realize why charcuterie is a 1 star, and not 3 star item, then you'll never understand why Syrian food isn't as good as French food.  :)  :)  :) . Oh, that felt great  :p  :p  :p .

The problem with charcuterie is that technically, Oscar Meyer Bologney is charcuterie. But there is no Oscar Meyer equivelent of Sauteed Foie Gras atop Stewed Lentils. And the difference is, it doesn't take anywhere as much specialized skill to make charcuterie as it does to make the FG lentil dish. And stars are in reality a recognition of the effort that goes into making the food. I mean my Gallician grandmother made some mean rugelach and a light as air sponge cake, but it was peasant food, not chocolate fondant.

Chris-I agree with you about GT. The first time I ate there I hated it. Now I love it, except on the odd occasion when it is off. But I do not know if you can equate the problems GT had on opening with the nits we are picking at Craft. And I am sure that Craft will improve, both as to food and as to service. But I would bet that they dispense with much of the fussy stuff I am complaining about. And when that happens, I am going to make Fat Guy stand on his head for at least one act of La Boheme at the Met. He's going to have to wear tails so he won't be able to see.

[Robert Parker and the Wine Advocate]

"Numbers don't leave any room for opinion. numbers denote facts.When Parker tells you that a wine "is" 89 points (note that "is") he is NOT proffering an opinion.He is TELLING you what number that wine "is"."

Tony- That's a load of bull. You made that up so you would have a basis to criticize him. Where does it say that numbers denote facts? It's just a straw man argument you have created so you can knock it down. All a numerical scoring system does is offer a simple and clear way of communicating information to people. And you know what, most people agree with him and like the system. But even if it is a poor way to communicate, you still haven't shown a connection between using a system that is flawed, and being wrong about how you judge wines? Tell me where the connection is?. And before you say the system couldn't possibly work, that isn't enough evidence for me. Show me HOW the system doesn't work.

You know the proof is on his side. On one hand I see forty thousand people who subscribe to his newsletter and buy into the system. On the other hand there is you (and some others like you), who haven't offered a single example of where he has gone wrong. Just complaints of his power and affect.

If you were looking to criticize Parker, there is plenty of stuff to criticize him about on the merits. I personally think he overrates second and third tier clarets because he like wines from Bordeaux more than other regions. But if you are going to insist on making straw man arguments, making assertions about what he does, or what he means to the public, or what effects he has, just so you can knock them down, that isn't fair criticism. It's just convenient for you to do it that way because you obviously WANT TO criticize him.

[Esca]

I can't tell you if it's worth it. One thing for sure, Mario Batalli is entitled to a premium for his name. so assume it's pricey. But I have a small nit to pick with both Esca and Babbo in that they feel sort of generic to me. Like what they would like to do is great, but for me the edge is off. It's probably because they have to serve too many meals a night. Also, he isn't there every night. I mean is he at Babbo, Lupa, Esca, filming for the food channel, being a celeb elsewhere? I mean his celebrity is fine with me but, I think the food would have a better edge to it if he was stationary as a chef. But other than these nits, you can eat well at any of these places.

I sort of like Lupa the best for some reason. It is sans pretension. And I've been meaning to book the large table they have and make a big shindig there. But they do not allow BYO and that is usually a non-starter for me so I haven't done it. To drink the level wine we would like to drink, one they don't have it on their list and two, the cost would be prohibitive if we had to pay restaurant prices.

I guess now that I'm writing this there's another issue that prevents me from frequenting the places(s). Because of his popularity on the food channel, there is too much competition for space there. If I was willing to make a commitment to eating at say Babbo every week or so, after 2-3 months I would become a regular and I could probably get a table with just a phone call. But I don't think the food is good enough, or unusual enough to make that commitment. And both times I went to Babbo I bought a pretty expensive bottle of wine, usually a sure fire way for the Maitre 'd to come over, chat with you and take note of who you are and put you on the special customer list. But it didn't happen. I say this not to act like I'm entitled, but to point out that the din that those restaurants have created, and which one has to overcome in order to eat there (reserve far in advance,) is disproportionate to the quality and scope of the food. And that is a turnoff to me. Gee this give me an idea for a whole new thread.

[weeknight wine]

Helena - I'm not very good on wines under $10, But between $10-$20 Here are a few that end up on my kitchen table.

Domaine Mordoree Lirac Reine des Bois

Roger Perrin Reserve Speciale

Domaine Aphillanthes

Domaine Gramenon

Aphillanthes and Gramenon also make wines that are a bit more expensive too, like the low-mid 20's depending on where you buy them. But their better wines will age for 7-10 years and offer great value for the money. There are a number of others that are good and can be had right around $20 like Domaine Cayron Gigondas or the Cote de Rhone from Domaine Santa Duc, it's just that I don't drink them that often so hesitate putting them on the A list. But they really deserve to belong there.

It might also be worth investing in some low-mid $20 wines that will age well. 1998 Chateauneuf-du-Papes are excellent and wines like Clos Mont Olivet and Les Cailloux cost $23-$28 and will last 10-15 years. And 1998 and 1999 wines from St. Joseph are lovely. Alain Graillot Crozes Hermitage is terrific in both years and around $20 and will age gracefully. If you bought a few cases of these wines and forgot about them for 10 years, you would be a most happy person when you finally open a bottle

If you want a white wine and you can convince your husband, Domaine Pepiere Muscadet wins hands down. The 2000 vintage is available now and sells for around $11 a bottle. Another white wine that is really nice and elegant is Schiopetto Collio Pinot Bianco. It should go in the high teens.

I don't know if you have one but, it's worth investing in a medium size wine cooler. Especially if you are going to lay wines down for aging.

[Burgundy]

Helena-I peeked at the site and they have two 1999 Roumier wines and I think he is the best producer out there.  Normally I wouldn't recommend Burgundys in that price range. But 1999 is possibly the best vintage in 50 years and every Roumier wine is supossedly stunning. They have a Chambolle-Musigny and a Morey St. Denis Clos de Bussiere which is a Monopole that Roumier owns. Each wine is เ. I think those wines are better buys than blowing money on more expensive Burgs. But that's just my not so humble opinion.  If you can manage a mixed case of those two, or even a half case, you will easily drink the Chambole over the next 5 years and the Morey over the next 7, possibly more.

[Burgundy]

Tommy - That's a tough one. It's hard to a find a burg that is drinking now, let alone one for later. The 1997 vintage is a good bet for you because it is atypical and the wines are forward. A producer who makes wines that drink well young is Serafin. If you can find 1997 Serafin Charmes-Chambertin, it's about. Also, if they have a 1997 Rene Leclerc Griottes-Chambertin that drinks great too and is in the same price range. But it might be easier for you to tell us who the shop is, and we can go online (if they are online) and see what they have.

[Craft Bar]

"but what other non-three star, "bistro"-ish restaurants are serving food of this quality in Manhattan.  Especially the sensational charcuterie?  I want to patronize them! "

Wilfrid - Charcuterie isn't a 3 star item, it's a 1 star item, possibly a 2 star if you have the fanciest of fancy Charcuterie and I don't even know what that is. I mean if we went to Bobosse in Les Halles in Lyon, or what's the other famous one there, Speck? If we took their greatest charcuterie, or we went to Bologna to that famous Salumeria that Mario Batalli goes to, that is most likely better than what they serve at Craft. But even their stuff is at a 1 star level. And you know that's fine with me. I love eating in bistros and tratorrias. But let's keep what they do in perspective to what they serve. And, a charcuterie or mushroom platter is the same whether you list all the items seperately and offer them in individual portions, or the menu says "Mushroom Platter," and you have to ask the waiter what mushroom are in it. Like it wouldn't be obvious anyway.

Anyway I have to go because I'm sending Shaw a copy of "The Upside Down Seargent Pepper."

[Robert Parker and the Wine Advocate]

Ron-Thanks. As I'm sure is the same for you, between Robin's, Mark's and Brad's board, I've seen every single one of these arguments before. I should write a book called "Poor Internet Arguments." But then who would we all have to gang up on? :~). At least Tony's drinking an '86 Cos tonight, even if it is at least 10 years before its time.

[Robert Parker and the Wine Advocate]

Tony-I took the liberty to copy almost all of the accusations you have lodged against Parker and I am going to paste them here. Reading them together is quite telling.

“Parker's 50 point system attempts to foist on us a degree of scientific exactitude in wine scoring  which is as false as it is futile.”

“Parker would have us believe that his expertise is so attuned that he is able to assign any wine to one of 50 levels and make incredibly nuanced judgments regarding one fiftieth variations in quality.Thus a wine scoring 88 is one fiftieth better than a wine scoring 87.Does that REALLY ring true to you?”

“but once pseudo scientific  scores as bestowed by one man become THE overriding indicator of quality we are all lost.”

“I'm sorry but Parker IS wrong.Wrong in his concept that every single wine must and can be judged as better,worse or the same as every other wine”

“His scoring system posits a level of exactitude in judgment that deliberately blurs the distinction between opinion and fact.”

“I would contend that anyone who has had conferred upon them the power to be "devastating" to anyone who makes good wine(although not in his lordship's "style") cannot help BUT be an egomaniac”

“The truth is that Americans love Parker because he reduces wine down to a childlike level of simplicity-this is a 90 point wine,that is an 86 point wine-and so on.Why bother discussing its nuances,its subtleties,its qualities-that's all boring.Just tell me how many points it rates.”

“His system is bogus and his power is dangerous. He is pulling the wool over too many people's eyes and more people need to stand up and say so”

It seems to me that your complaints are all about, either his system of scoring, what he proclaims that he is able to do, or his power in the industry. But what is sorely lacking in every quote, and in the rest of the posts as well, is direct criticism of Parker's ability to judge wines properly. I mean if he does judge them properly, and I'm not saying he does or doesn't, his system wouldn't be bogus. And he would be able to do whatever it is he might be proclaiming, and he wouldn't have too much power either. So I fail to see how your arguments stand when you haven't offered any evidence that Parker's palate isn't qualified to do any and all of those things?

To me, the substance of the argument is everything. A number of years ago, Parker scored 1995 Rostaing Cote Blonde a 95 and it turns out the wine is looking like a stinker. Now that's a reason to be unhappy with him. But when you need to reach into his marketplace effect in order to find a way to criticize him, you just look like one more guy who has an ax to grind because somebody is super-successful at their vocation.

[Craft Bar]

Steve - If Craft served shitake mushrooms in a way that was so new, and so original, and they tasted like nothing you ever had before, they wouldn't have had to come up with the gimmicky mission statement. For the food to match the mission statement, they would have had to break new barriers.  But despite the fact that the food tastes delicious, they haven't.  As with everything else, the taste is the thing (there goes Shakepere again. ) And how they have deconstructed listing the food and ordering your meal is a non-sequiter to the mission statement. As for revelatory, the scallop I had at Arpege was revelatory, the food at Craft is very good, but not revelatory.

You know I am perfectly prepared to say that what they serve there is better than what they serve elsewhere. But it's not. There are other places that serve the exact same thing. Do they have the exact same shitake mushrooms that they get? Maybe not. But I do not see the difference in quality to be material enough for it to make me say it is  better than other places.

[Robert Parker and the Wine Advocate]

Tony-Gee you're a bitter man. There is no reason to characterize Parker as pulling the wool over anyone's eyes. I don't see where you have any evidence that that is what he is trying to do? All he does is strongly voice his opinion. You can either agree with him, or disagree. Why you need to bring in all of these side issues and makes baseless accusations that he costs people their livelihoods, it doesn't make much sense to me. In fact, it never did.

You have trotted out some of the typical straw man arguments about Parker. "I don't like him because of the effect he has had on others or wine in general." It reminds me of someone on a wine board who once said that he "hated" Parker because of what Parker "did to Chateau Ausone." That really confused us because we didn't know Parker worked there.

I'm going to quote our resident board philosopher here, Fatus Guyus Shawus and say, yes, there is a physical order to the world and one of the things that is ordered are wines. And I have to tell you that all Parker did was point out what he thought the order was. And if he is wrong, and the punters don't know it, and he is fooling everyone, don't blame him or the punters. Blame the people who think he is wrong for not doing anything about it and pointing out the proper order. You see the fault lies with you, not in the, oops that's Shakespere not Plotnicki, not with Parker or anybody else.

[Craft Bar]

Steve - First, my opera example was an opera with two thousand people. Sorry but I couldn't resist saying that because that's the kind of dopey answer people give on the Internet all of the time:).

Look, a different way of ordering IS FORM. For it to be substance, it would have to be about how the food is prepared. How it is served could possibly mean something, but only if it has an impact on how the food tastes. Or, and this is your opening, if it enhances the dining experience to the extent that it has a material change in the quality of the dining experience.

Now I understand that it does for you. But as you can see, it doesn't for a number of us. But I take the debate to the next step and I say, let's forget about that point for a moment. Is the food there any different in the way it is prepared or tastes? To me that's the true test.

And if that isn't enough for you, Arpege is better than sushi.

[Craft Bar]

"I confess I might be minorly annoyed if a restaurant said, "Come visit our new and radically different establishment" and then did nothing whatever to distinguish itself from any other restaurant. But come on, Craft has done something. A lot of things. The menu structure is just one thing, the one I'm dwelling on here. But it is also as I have mentioned before a different way of presenting food, a different focus in cooking technique, and a lot of other different stuff. "

Shaw - No you have it wrong. I am not asking Craft to uninvent itself, I'm claiming they haven't invented anything, but act like they do. I don't think they have done any of those things you said in that quote. If you pare away what you describe as new and different, you have the same old food they have everywhere else. I mean where is the revolution you are describing? My seared Loup de Mer atop stewed artichokes and tomatoes was good, but could have been had in hundreds of restaurants. There's not a single signature that I can associate with Craft when it comes to cooking style or technique.

You know if you are someone who promotes opera, and you advertise a new way of performing La Boheme, you would probably attract flies to your honey. But if when you got to the opera house, it turned out that what they meant was that you had to stand on your head during the performence, aside from their needing to dispense Tylenol after the performence, they really haven't come up with a new way of performing it, they have suggested a new way of listening to it.

The difference between the two is not a small distinction. I find that at Craft, they have not developed any new or earthshattering cooking techniques. Nor have they figured out unusual pairings of food, or have they incorporated non-traditional ingredients into the house style. So I don't understand where you come off saying they have done anything new? But what they have done though the way they list the food and then serve it (and charge for it too by the way,) they have changed  the form of the meal. I have no objection to their doing that, if it enhanced the meal in any way and as I've said a million times, I think it detracts from it.

Look I understand why this happened. TC had to come up with a concept that was as good as GT, but radically different. How else could you get 3 stars in the Times? But if what was offered to the public was simply the food, and the stylistic components of menu construction and serving style were stripped away and all you were left with was evaluating the food, and the conclusion was it was a well-done, NY bistro, it would have trouble getting that all important third star. So I get the need for the bells and whistles.

But I have to say I am disheartened by it to some extent. It would be nice for a place to live on their food preperation alone (providing all other services were up to standard,) and it would be great if the NY food press would recognize such an acheivement which they probably wouldn't. But having just come from my meal at Arpege, a place where they have radically changed things, nothing about how they list the meal or serve the meal is involved in how Passard makes his statement. His statement is limited to his craft, what cooking utensils he uses, how he approaches each ingredient and pairs them, and what order he serves the dishes in. In otherwords, the substance of the meal, not the form of it.

[Craft Bar]

CookperryNC-Yo, that was one #### of a post. Thanks for taking the words out of my mouth, rearranging them in restaurant expert speak and placing them on the table.

There is one thing about your post that I find so right, so correct, I do not know how to thank you for posting it. In fact, it conveniently is the ammo I need to kick Fat Guy's butt in the ongoing debate on Craft/Craft Bar :). Because what I realize I can agree with, which is confirmed by your post, is that the food at the two Crafts is delicious. Yet you and I, and some others, leave the place unsatisfied. And Fat Guy might say that's because I'm a no-nothing ignoramus. And my response is, an ignoramus maybe, but a no-nothing? Not.

I think that there is an entire discussion in why we left unsatisfied. I can't quite get my arms around it. From where I sit, I think one of the problems is that the message the place sends differs from what they deliver on the table. And to those with much expertise in fine dining, we are distracted and disappointed. It reminds me of watching some famous movie director teach how to make people laugh. It's funnier when you show the banana peel first and then the guy slips, then if the guy slips and then you show the banana peel. Meaning, knowing it's going to be funny allows oneself to prepare for laughter. Showing the peel after is too much of a surprise. By the time you realize you are supposed to laugh, the moment has passed.  There's something about Craft that is similar to the latter example. At Craft they make me feel like I ate my meal, but missed what they were telling me, all in spite of the fact that it was delicious. And maybe that's my fault. But my gut tells me it isn't.

[Robert Parker and the Wine Advocate]

Tony et al. - I never understand the resentment people show against Parker. I mean all of the things Tony claims he says, or claims he does, I don't think he does any of them. As my very smart friend Robert Helms says, why Parker became successful is because he created a hierarchy of all the wines of the world. And before he was brave enough to score a Ca. cabernet higher than a French Claret, nobody would have considered them to be anything near equals. Now if you can put the fact that you might disagree with how he sorted things aside, from an organizational perspective he did a fantastic job.  And those who disagree with him the most, if they were to sit down and quantify what he is possibly wrong about, his hit/miss ratio is probably 85% or higher, depending on region and varietal. And in some onstances like Bordeaux, he is probably well over 95% accurate in his reviews, if not 100% accurate. Even Tony's gripes, while possibly legitimate, seem to be so trivial compared to what he does have to offer that I don't see it as the basis for total condemnation.

The other issue with Parker is his usefullness. He is far more usefull to people who do not understand wine very well than to people who do understand it well. But that's the same for every field of criticism. I mean there were Roper and Ebert telling me that Momento was the best movie of the year when I thought it was gimmicky. But that doesn't mean they don't do their job well. It just means that we view film differently.

I think many people have problems with Parker when their style of winedrinking doesn't reconcile with what Parker thinks are the "best" wines, and/or, their personal favorites are from regions he doesn't value very highly, like wine from the Loire Valley or mineral intensive wines from Germany. But as I've often said in this debate, so what?  What is the reason for getting hot under the collar. I mean if your palate is honed to the extent that you don't need his recommendations, it would seem to be easy enough to ignore him. But why people who do not need him, or who have different style palates than he does pay any attention to him, and take it further and become bothered or enraged by the guy doesn't make any sense. I always conclude it must be a function of envy or something similar because, who really cares what he thinks? If you don't like him or what he does, ignore him.

I have to add one thing though. I do not know him, although we have a number of mutual acquaintances in common. And I have to tell you that to a person they all say he's a lovely, warm and generous guy. All things I value more highly than if he and I are in disagreement about 1998 Beaucastel and he says it should have gotten a score of 95 and I say it shopuld have gotten 96.

[Gordon Ramsay Royal Hospital Road]

Cabrales- I was really reffering to his ability to make more money in the Claridge's space. I'm not suggesting that the sspace is nicer or more appropriate.

[Gordon Ramsay Royal Hospital Road]

Simon - Depending on the size of the restaurant, and his experience their, I wouldn't be surprised to see Claridge's become the main GR restaurant and the RHR location becoming a more casual satelite. Just a hunch I have. But after being at RHR a few weeks back, it is a lovely space and place, but there's no reason he can't be in someplace a bit grander.

As for The Connaught, it was a lovely place to dine. Along with Taillevent, the most civilized dining experience anywhere. But I can understand why they would want to change tacts as the clientele was a bit staid.