Steve Plotnicki

Hey Stone's learning that young whippersnapper. It's not my opinion that a perfectly cooked peach is better then a plain old natural one, a perfectly prepared peach simply has more complexity then a plain one. It's the same peach for god's sake, but one presentation adds variables that the other one doesn't have. Mathematically or objectively, anyway you want to frame it, one has more to it then the other and when I say better, that is what I mean. Of course someone comes along and says wait a second, I love a perfectly ripe peach and I hate it when someone intervenes. But all that says is that they have different preferences. What does that have to do with measuring quality as a function of complexity? That nebbiolo is a "better" grape then barbera shouldn't be in dispute if we can agree on better as meaning more complex. But there are people who will refuse the analogy and they will trot out the multi-dimensional argument and say that there are occassions where barbera makes a better choice then barolo which can be too big and heavy. That's a non-starter as far as I'm concerned because it is reasonable to use the definition of better that means more complex and of better quality which is pretty much the standard in every industry.

Beaucastel, if I recall what Mike Riijkin told me, is typically 40% grenache and 40% mouvedre with the rest of the blend the other varietals. That is an unusually high percentage of mouvedre but there is something about the Beaucastel terroir (on the outskirts of the appelation) that makes for great mouvedre. And if you taste it from barrel there, it is so plump and juicy that you won't believe you are drinking the same stiff that is hard as nails when it is grown in Bandol. A classic excersice to learn about terroir would be to taste barrel samples from the various vineyards in Cote Rotie. There are dozens of them and unless you buy a single vineyard wine like La Landonne, all Cote Rotie bottlings are blends of the same varietal (syrah) grown in different locations in the same appelation. Some vineyards, like Lancemont, turn out to taste like pure bacon fat while other vineyards make peppery wine. But that's a food example of a place where the listed terroir (Cote Rotie) is really an aggragation of multple terroirs that reside within the appelation.

Of course that's possible. But you pose it as a theoretical and aren't looking at the philosophy of the cuisines. One cuisine (Italian) says we won't interfere in the natural perfection of that peach. Another cuisine (French) says that they will apply sufficient technique to improve it while maintaining the natural perfection. You will taste the terroir and the chef's hand. That they aren't always successful in doing it is a function of their performance but isn't relevent to the scope of their efforts. That's Mill's quality argument isn't it? But in general, how can a perfectly executed recipe not deliver a better peach then just the plain peach? I can see rejecting it based on personal taste but on any other objective scale I don't see it. That's why Jaybee's question sort of comes down to, is it appropriate for people to put a highly objective scale on their dining experience? And why my answer is, well it all depends why people go out to eat.

No you are confusing what I said. I have a general proffer that Americans find eating sandwiches to be a less refined dining experience then if the ingredients were presented decomposed. And in light of that I offer that Moo Shu was sort of fadish. It was hip and trendy for a while but when people realized it was really a sandwich, it fell out favor. It used to be a centerpiece of the meal. Even those lettuce bundles at Canton which were popular for a while fell out of style because what is the purpose of wrapping it and eating it? There is nothing that can't be served outside of its wrapper and almost everything tastes better without it. This of course is different for things like dim sum which perform a lunchtime function.

Well that's exactly the point isn't it? Poetic technique isn't the only technique on display at the opera. There are numerous techniques that are on display that are inticatetly intertwined and that's what makes it interesting to most people. And if one only wanted to experience terrific poetic technique, they would have made a different choice for their evenings entertainment. And it's the same thing with food. A perfect peach on a plate displays the producers technique as well as the chef's abilities to choose perfect peaches. But once he starts to cook that peach, then slice it, and then sauce it, other techniques are now present.

I like eating wrapped things too. But let's face it, moo shu pork is a sandwich and Americans reject sandwiches as dinner food, or maybe even restaurant food. That's why moo shu was a phase. Just like Peking Duck was a phase. You don't see people being served gyro sandwiches in restaurants either. But you do see sliced pita bread with a tomato and yogurt sauce laid atop and then slices of doner kabab served for dinner.

I'm a little confused here. A properly blended wine will allow the taster to realize all the various varietals and terroirs that are present in the wine. That is the goal of proper winemkaing as far as I understand. To make it seemless, yet transparent as to the terroir. So as to Charles original question, when you drink a bottle of Beaucastel, if you had enough tasting experience with the wines, you would be able to parse the varietals and their individual terroirs out of the blend. An easy example of this are people who can taste a cote rotie and tell you what percentage of the blend might be condrieu.

I always thought the original Habib location was overrated to begin with. He got good press there as well.

But I thought I pretty much said the same thing as Mills and Jonathan Day. There are a number of issues at play here. Expectations have to be set by some parameters. In this particular instance, it is the scope of the meal. I would argue, that the French have created a dining experience that is far more reaching in scope then anything the Italians have created. And I would say the same thing about the Chinese and possibly a few other cuisines. But I can also criticize the French (and did recently) because they have not been able to create a Union Square Cafe category of restaurants while the Americans and Brits have (god knows where the Italians are in the exercise.) This dispute really comes down to whether you want to look at things in a linear way or as multi-dimensional. I clearly prefer the former. But even if we were to superimpose multi-dimensionality on it, I would still reconcile the parameters so I could calibrate it according to a linear scale. It's neater that way and it's easier to do. As I often say, hierarchies are created by how difficult the techniques one must apply to a situation are. For example, it isn't very difficult to steam a pot of mussels and then add cream and some curry powder to it. But it is difficult to steam mussel shells to extract their essence and then strain the broth, thicken it etc. so as to turn it into a sauce. And to say that the latter isn't at a higher place in the hierarchy of cooking just because the former can be amazingly delicious is just a fancy version of the relativity argument and that is all the mutli-dimensional argument tries to do. And to bring this back to the original topic and Jaybee's question, no people aren't being hypercritical because that is the reason they are going to eat in the first place. If you want a meal cooked at the highest possible level of culinary technique, a fabulously ripe peach is not really an acceptable dessert. Just the same way that if you went to see the opera and Bob Dylan performed instead, you wouldn't be molified with an answer that says, what's the difference, he's the greates folk song writer of all time? Well the difference is why you went to the opera in the first place. And the reason you go to the opera is because the technique is astounding. And while I am not an opera fan, I can tell you that the technique on display at the opera wipes Bob Dylan off the table. That isn't a matter of opinion, that is a fact and I do not see what about that is multi-dimensional. It is linear in the same way that a perfectly cooked and presented peach is "better" then a plain one. It is perfect plus.

But of course this quote glosses over the fact that not only are they looking for it, but they should find it but they can't and that is a flaw of the cuisine. For example, to say that one should recalibrate their palate when they are in Italy because their cuisine doesn't lend itself to fancy dinners is a matter of properly calibrating your expectations. But expectations and desires are two different things. And in the scheme of things, a perfect 10 at an Italian restaurant for lunch has to be weighted because I desire to eat "dinner cuisine" at least one out of every three nights that I am travelling. So I'm not sure I am being as generous as you are giving me credit for. I'm actually being more stingy in saying that a restaurants score needs to be modified by some denominator that indicates what level restaurant it is. That way I can say that Sostanza in Firenze is a 9 point experience but if I say that a Tuscan steakhouse, the meal ultimately has its limitations that a "real restaurant" doesn't have. That makes everything nice and linear. Capisco?

Because they are all grown at the same location. Beaucastel grows all their varietals on the Beaucastel estate. And Chateau Latour grows their cabernet sauvignon, their merlot and their petite verdot etc. on the Latour estate so all of the varietals experience the same terroir.

The simplest way to understand blending is to go visit a Chateauneuf producer and have him step you through the varietals they use. This is a good exercize at Beaucastel where they will have you taste barrel samples of as many as a half dozen varietals they use in the wine (I believe they use 9 or 10 out of a possible 13 there.) But it's like anything else, certain varietals dominate others in various aspects of the wine. As to whether belnded wines are better/worse then non-blended, it depends doesn't it. Aldo Conterno Gran Bussia is his top wine and sells for 50% more then his single vineyard Barolos. But Sandrone La Vigne which is also a cuvee is slightly cheaper then his single vineyard Canubbi Boschis. And usually once they are released on the market, supply and demand pushes the price of the Canubbi relatively higher then the La Vigne. And blening in Burgundy can ruin a wine. So it depends doesn't it?

Okay I want to say the producers name was Vastelle. But I will call the restaurant if you want me to. They have a very young sommelier who was a sweet kid and who really enjoyed his job. It was made in a lighter style, it sort of reminded me of the older Mascarello wines that were made in cement tanks. We drank a 1964 about 6 months ago and it was one of the lightest wines I have had in both weight and color, but still excellent intensity of fruit. This wine reminded me of that right out of the box. Just by looking at it and smelling it. Not a great wine, but a very good one to drink short term while your Conternos are getting bottle age. Just as an aside, we drank a bottle of 1985 Sandrone Canubbi Boschis at Crispo here in NYC last night. As much as I'd like to criticize Sandrone for making clean wines in a modern style that are too alcolholic, the wine was just killer. Still somewhat tannic, it needs another 5 years IMO, the purity and the intensity of the cherry flavored fruit was like a lazer gun. And we drank a bottle of 1976 Lopez de Heredia Vina Tondonia before it which was also excellent. But when we opened the Sandrone it just blew the Tondonia off the table.

I feel the same way about men's suits.

Would Einstein had been better off if he had appreciation and interest for less complex theories? The fact of the matter is that the actual rating of a restaurant is only relevent subject to expectations. For example, your meal at DiFara's last night might have been a 9 or 10 but it is still a pizza place and as such there are limitations to the meal you had. Had you gone to a restaurant in a trendy location where they had spent lots of money on decor and service and they had served you calzone and you were wearing your new designer suit, I bet you would have thought it less then a 9 or 10. But on the other hand, many of the 6's you refer to would be rated higher if they were served in a more casual location and your expectations were lower. You see all sorts of variations of this argument going happening on eGullet. The persistant conversation about eating in Italy is but one example. There is a chorus of people who say, you have to eat like the locals do and the meals are perfect. But there is another group of people who say, as good as those meals are, they are lacking in other aspects of dining which will always render those meals inferior to the people who are looking for those aspects when they dine. So I don't think it's a matter of suspending anything. I think the important thing to understand is where you are on the continuum when you go out somewhere. And that dining is first and foremost a social experience and that the parameters of your expectations are set by what type of experience you are looking for when you go out for dinner.

Actually I find Lyon to have a number of shortcomings, regardless of the fact that one can eat well and the town can be lively at times. Let's just say that if there wasn't such a strong emphasis on upscale food products there, there wouldn't be much to do there. And I also think the restaurants lag behind the ingredients. Considering how many great shops there are, I don't find that there are an abundance of killer restaurants in which to eat all of that yummy food. But it wouldn't be such a bad place to play house there so you can visit that market a few times a week.

Of course you find it interesting. He knows what he's talking about and you don't.

Dirty sock wine goes with Kimchee. Of course there is a wine that is perfect for every dish. But the question is, why would you want to drink wine with every dish?

Blech. That's like saying Nestle's Quik is as good as Maison du Chocolat's Poudre de Cocoa.

Those wines are too young. They aren't pouring the two Margaux's which are most likely to be drinking which are the 1983 and the 1985. Otherwise 1982, 1986, 1995 and 1996 are wines worth tasting. And that price seems fair considering the list of wines. And you don't hear me say that very often do you?

One would think, that one would post a list like that only if they had a certain type of experience, no?

Great list. Zinfandel has a 9.5 and Nebbiolo isn't even on the list. And it lists Barbera at 8.5. How about 1961 and 1978 Giacomo Conterno Barolo Monfortino? Possibly two of the greatest wines ever made. Or how about 1968 Vega Sicilia Unico or 1958 Marquis de Riscal Rioja Gran Riserva, two wines that are so good that they can take your breath away. But they both come from the Tempranillo grape and you don't even have them on your list. And great is not subjective. Great is a function of quality and quality isn't subjective. But what is subjective is whether people have palates that can can tell quality or not. Okay here is a test. Name one zinfandel that is as good as 1990 Chave Hermitage. 9.5 my ass.

Being wheat sensitive since 1990, one of the things I miss eating is a good brick or coal oven pizza. Just a plain Pizza Napolitana with anchovys will do. Or the white clam pizza at Pepe's in New Haven. I can live without those fancy quatro staggione or formaggi jobs. Just thin dough, a little burnt on the bottom, good sauce and either anchovies or basil and mozzarella. And that spicy olive oil they give you to pour on the pizza. Yummy. Pizza kills pasta which is a poor excuse for food. Pizza is really bread and good bread rocks.

Maybe we can just take self-hating vacations? You know its funny you said that. My wife and I were going to go to Positano for a few days this May to celebrate our 20th anniversary because we went there on our honeymoon. But after hearing about this recent trip to Milano, she has suggested that we go elsewhere because she recalls how frustrating we found Italy when we used to travel there. In fact other then a day here and there, we haven't really been since 1989. She suggested we go to Spain instead and I think we might just do that.

What gives is these wines are made for people with middle class tastes. Now that isn't necessarily a bad thing because there are a number of very good wines, some even great, that fall into that category. But they are not made to last because they are not intended to be great wines, "great" defined as wines that stand the test of time and pick up tertiary flavors with bottle age. For example that '97 Sandrone I wrote about in the Aimo e Nadia thread drank just superbly. But is it a great wine? The style it's made in will probably mean that it is a 25 year old wine at best. And while a 25 year old Barolo is a great thing (especially one made as purely as the Sandrone,) it won't be as great as the '97 Conterno Gran Bussia which will probably last 35-40 years and will develop complexities the Sandrone will never be bale to develop. So how great is great?