Steve Plotnicki

I was fortunate to be able to spend a few hours on Saturday morning at the Marche au Vin in Ampuis. I had heard the 2001 vintage was in the same style as the 1991 vintage so I was looking forward to tasting them. Fortunately a number of producers were pouring them (which I have to say I found surprising.) The highlights were Henri Gallet's absolutely scrumptious 2001 which he was selling for 16 euros. That's right 16 euros! And then Jean-Michel Stephan's delicious 2001, which was a larger and brawnier wine then the Gallet. That weighed in at 22 euros. Formidable. I found the 2001 Ogier a little disappointing. Slightly bretty, I found it more in the style of their '88 then their classic 2001. Others we tasted was a barrel sample of the 2001 Clusel-Roch which went on my to-buy list and the Pierre Gaiilard 'normale" was pretty tasty as well (plus I got to place an order for a 1/2 case of 2001 Rose Pourpre.) But by far the best wine we drank was the 2001 Ogier Belle Helene. Absolutely monumental and IMO the best Belle Helene since they began that bottling. Disappointments were the 2000 Jamet Cote Rotie. Since 1988, I can't recall a vintage of Jamet I didn't like other then 1990 and 1994. Another disappointment was the 2000 Marcel Voge Cornas Vielles Fontaines which I thought was a major step down from the regal 1999. And despite so many different people telling me how good the Domaine de Tunnel Cornas was, it didn't do it for me.

Even as far away as Nice there is a local pizza style. It has onions and Niciose olives and no tomato sauce. And the dough is thicker. And in Apulia they make the dough out of potato flour.

Yes but the inference from the way the word sounds is as if the seller is trying to get the buyer to buy something he doesn't need or knows that he wants. I don't believe that accurately describes what the sommelier is doing when he recommends a glass of $25 sauternes to go with my Foie gras if the pairing is indeed perfect. On the other hand, if he suggests the $25 sauternes instead of a $15 glass that goes just as well, just so the restaurant can make an extra $10, then that would be "upselling" to me.

Is it upselling if the server's suggestions will improve the diner's meal?

SFJoe - Well those are all easy points to make when one spends a good deal of their time tasting wine, and then more time hanging around with other people who almost only taste wine and do nothing else, and then also spend time with people who are in the wine industry including importers. In fact they are all great points for people who do not need to read Parker in order to know what to buy. But for people who do not know what to buy, wine is very linear so Parker is a good tool. But otherwise I agree with you . As for food and wine, I don't find Parker's argument compelling. I just think it is difficult to pair food and wine properly. And it isn't ricket scientry to realize that the more complexity in a dish or a wine, the more difficult it is to make a proper pairing.

Just as an aside, this months issue of Gault Millau magazine does a taste test of various canned and jarred Foie gras. The winner, by a large marging if I am recalling correctly, is a brand named Laffite.

Well what do you mean by look down on?

Well for example, I've been called a snob because I refuse to eat frozen food. Is that elitist?

I would do it even though '67 is a dreadful vintage. I was once having dinner at Clementine and the people at the next table were celebrating their anniversary. They had a bottle of '67 Lafite which is a real dog. But they poured us some and the wine was terrific. So you never know with old Bordeaux. Lots of terrible wines have something charming about them. And at $45, it isn't that big a risk.

This conversation always comes down to the same issue for me. If wine B is better then wine A, and I think the opposite, and the pronouncement has been made by someone more knowledgable then I, I want to know why it is the case. In my experince, when that happens, it is likely that I will learn something from the explanation and that might very well result in my adopting a different view. In my experience, "better" is almost always measured objectively. If you accept that premise, it is hard to say that knowledgable people are "elitists." Because they don't practice their hobby to the exclusion of people who are inferior, they practice their hobby so that it includes people like themselves. But their hobby is open to anyone who has the desire and the affinity to learn about it. I do not think this is a small point. But quite often people who have no interest flip that around and accuse people who have the affinity of being elitist. No better example was the thread on the Wine Spectator Top 100 Wines thread where I and others were called "wine snobs" because we had the ability to taste the wine of the year and pronounce it junk.

Mogsob is correct.I am really describing a category of dining which doesn;t really exist in France. Whether fresh fruit etc. can be part of it is debatable but really specific to the sitution.

I mean let's flip this topic upside dpwn. How would you describe a person who believes that Cadubury'sFruit and Nuts is as good as the best choclatetruffe from the chocolatier of your dreams? Or that margerine tastes better then butter?

it already was. I was so much older then I'm younger then that now.. At least I think those re the lyrics.

Young people eat shite because they don;t know any better. All fast food restaurants are is a place where they have consolidated the shite eaters into a single market. But I have to say that as I grow older, I have less tolerance towards many of the foods I ate when I was younger/ Especially things with a high grease factor.

Macrosan - You are just plain wrong. People who eat TV dinners eat worse then people who eat fresh food. Food isn;t any more relative then bad literature, bad art or bad ideology (see NaziGermany.) There is sucha thing as good and bad in theworld even though sometimes it is hard to define or to see an obvious place to draw the line. And most often, you see people who have less exoertise calling peoplewho have it elite as a way make themselves feel better. It is just reerse snobbery. Because yes the world needs standards and those standards are important.

Again this isn;t my assertion. But would you go to a 3 star restaurant that serves fresh oysters, a nice salad with dressing. a grilled steak and fresh fruit?

Once 15 years ago is not a rousing recommendation you know.

Sometimes I wonder why statements I make are taken as if they happen 100% of the time? Because in no way am I saying it is impossible for, or that a 3 star restaurant ever served raw fruit because I am sure they have. But then again, if what they were about was serving raw fruit they wouldn't have pastry chefs. And I find the serving of that pineapple to be more about the service (peeling) then anything else. And I'm not discounting the fact that a chef might include a raw fruit course as a dessert course. But in my vernacular, if all a restaurant did was serve fresh fruit for dessert, or even ice cream, I would refer to them as not really offering dessert. And I feel the same way as Bux does regarding the raw oysters. It's not that I wouldn't ever think to order them, it's just not the reason that I go to those types of places. In fact I am having a hard time seeing why anyone would pay those prices for fruit at a restaurant. Actually, I don't think that not serving fresh fruit is a failure of haute cuisine. Do you?

I think this is, and has been for a very long time, the most overrated restaurant in Paris. In fact I can't remember the last time I knewsomeone who had a good meal there. And in fact based on my one visit many years ago, I always doubted whether anyone ever really had a good meal there.

Look I just don't find the serving of fresh fruit a legitimate dessert for a restaurant. That isn't the reason I go out to eat. My grandmother can serve me a bowl of perfect cherries No reason to go to Bolognese and pay a premium. Of course this doesn't detract from the fact that a bowl of cherries is a great thing. But let's not let semantics get in the way of the definition of dessert in the way it is being used in this thread. Stef - To add to my last post. There are many works of art that are great ideas that are crap art. If only ideas alone could do it.

It's not a dessert. But it can be served for dessert. The distinction isn't a small one.

I think that anything that appears to be something any person can do, like the ability to taste the quality of food, it's prime to be considered an elitist activity as soon as a more expert group of people come along and act in a way that results in people being excluded. This wouldn't be the case with say, stamp collecting or opera singing. With those types of hobbys, people are willing to concede that others are more expert. But when it comes to food, or seeing a movie or knowing what the best CD is, everyone is an expert. I think the whole notion of food as an elitist activity has to start with the fact that not everyone has enough to eat in the world. I mean if we were to be viewing and talking about art, or literature, etc. well nobody needs to have those things in order to survive. But there are people who do not have enough to eat. ? I'm also sort of curious as to why the "elite" has such a negative connotation.

I think that it's 60% London upswing and 40 % 9/11. But I think the London upswing is more than temporary. I just think that London is more of an international city then NYC is at this point and that is the main driver. The big foreign money seems to be landing in London and I think that as much as people hate to admit it, strong capital markets are the first peg in having an interesting city in the way we're speaking. It also helps to have a government that is interested in modernizing things and creating a certain hipness. No way Giuliiani did that for NYC. Johnson - I knew you'd come around.

Stef - No I agree with you but you are doing a much better job of expressing it then I did/could. Bux - Yeah waht she said.

I haven't read through this thread but I thought I'd give it a shot anyway. I think that NYC used to win over London hands down. But over the last five years, London has become an exciting place. And I think that especially sinece 9/11, NYC has been more then a bit of a drag. Sure it has great stuff going on but it has lost its edge when it comes to energy and intensity. To me, London could be a more interesting place to live right now, especially if it isn't permanent. And I don't think this has to do with any one thing like restaurants, parks etc. I think the general vibe in London is good and the general vibe in NYC is a bit lagging.