Scott

each to their own, but I find it ludicrous to think that home blending is improving an average bottle. I don't think the issue is the value of the bottle either, surely you are taking something a little dull and making it worse. what next, why not bring a little something to your favourite restaurant, perhaps some saved special sauce off your big mac would really give things that extra kick.

This always assumes that you can find a reputable wine merchant within suitable driving distance and even then he's not necessarily tuned into your tastes or your wallet. One of the joys (and hazards) of wine is that it is almost a living breathing substance so what is raw and tannic today is beautifully balanced tomorrow and just plain dull, if smooth, after that. And that assumes decent storage and presentation throughout. At many a tasting I have found wines at all price points which were fine as they were but would have benefited from a little "something" - fruit, tannin, weight, lightness, wood, whatever. Impromptu blends in the glass can often give a surprisingly good result, but also can ruin two decent wines if you get it wrong. One of the strengths of the old French system was that they did the blending for you, culminating in Chateauneuf which can be a blend of practically everything. The modern trend for varietals means this balance of grapes is often missing and if you find one that is a little one-dimensional then the judicious addition of a wine with complementary properties can improve both. huh ?

Went back for another serving at Tour D'argent last weekend, and ate and rank very well. The food was much better than on any other occasion, the spring lamb historic. Now there were a few of us around the table that really know our beans, and it was quite a shock to see the sommeliers being so confrontationally rude, and then to realise they didn;t know their arse from their elbow. truly gifted. No language issue either our first som was English. Summary of wines: Ravaneau - 1990 Les clos; marginally disappointing, lack some intensity but still fine. The Som decided we were idiots because we wouldn't take his recommendation of the 1991 Valmur. we must have looked at stupid as he turned out to be. 1983 trimbach Clos st Hune, stunning. Always one of the great white wines. We had toyed with the idea of a half of 76 and half of 83. We couldn't do that, because the 76 had aged badly in half and it would be no good apparently. We asked our som for a recommendation for pressed pigeon with foie. he recommended: 1988 Deiss SGN Schoenenburg (sic) riesling. Rubbish wine, a bit flabby, lacking in intensity, and yet still short of generousity. remarkably poor match as the pigeon was basically a savoury dish as it turned out, and we started to really suspect this guy. We tried to order another 1978 Rousseau Gevrey Clos st Jacques; but he wouldn't let us, the wine was rubbish, Rousseau lost control of his acidities and is poor wine. we should have 1976 or 1980. I had mentioned that I had it previously and enjoyed it, he sneered 'if you like that sort of thing'. Foolishly I was forced into some Angerville 1978 Clos des Ducs. Lovely, fresh still, crisp apple fruit, with a wonderful finish. Though maybe a little more warmth in the mid palate would be good? We wanted the 1991 Rousseau Chambertin, more sneering "no the Clos Beze is MUCH better" it's not, historically, anecdotally, critically, and personally (have had both). We ordered the Chambertin, and got the Beze. The Beze is great wine, it's all relative. Broader, with a greater range of flavours, complex soy and chinese herbs, overlaying fine tannins, and ripe fruit. the range of flavours did not compensate fully for less power. it is more accessible, and would certainly appeal to a less sophisticated palate, but qualitatively over time, and multiple bottles, it is clearly the lesser wine to the Chambertin. that said I loved it, but not what I ordered, and curiously more expensive. Som started to flag at our questions... not having any answers he just didn't turn up anymore and we got an even ruder sommelier. More and more of the sneering didn't add up to the knowledge when we enquired. NB. they taste every bottle you order, taking a small sample so their opinion is on the very same bottles you drink. We decided to order the 1976 Clos St Hune and 1978 Clos St jacques to see for ourselves. The half of the hune was lovely, richer, slightly sweeter than the 83, but still fresh and complex. lovely. Clos st Jacques is fully resolved, and and it apogee, but it's flavours and mouthfeel are still superb. we asked Som what he thought of both wines, and the new one stated, 'not much, not interesting wine'. we asked why? he walked away. it gets better... By this stage we thought them 1. very rude 2. of a different opinion to us, though the SGN was troubling. We ordered another half 1982 Sociando Mallet; this would be good we were assured. I have had it before and always enjoyed it, a fine, textured claret with full flavours, and some glycerin in the vintage. Bottle is poor, with a hardness, and a green astringent streak through it. This happens with soem sociando, don't know why, bottle to bottle. We asked if he liked this one, 'yes, very much, is good wine'. huh? it wasn't faulty, nor was it pleasurable. One of the party enquired, if the som found it 'hard' at all (most certainly was), "no, not at all". smelling a rat he enquired how do you find Leoville Barton (a famously hard and tannic claret, that is almost part of the house style) "no, certainly not, is a very famous estate." what? Now, we have realised what we still think to be true, that someone there knows their stuff, and the rest of teh them are spouting the 'party line'. they don't really know much, beyond what they are told is the official view, and flounder beyond that. who cares? I don't really, but to be so rude and dismissive - we were unfaillingly polite throughout, that takes a gift! Almost lastly we ordered: 1990 Tempier Cabassou - great wine. Still so rich and complex, needs another 15 years probably but starting to drink really well. This is the greatest of all Bandol wines, from the most famous estate, in a great year. It is a small section of the best rows of the tourtine vineyard, made from 100% mouvedre. So we somewhat surprised to hear our sommelier tells us "he doesn't like grenache wines". For a senior french sommelier in the restaurant with the largest wine cellar in the world to say that is, well, breathtaking. onto cigars and digestif's - Another compatriot asked for his recommendation on Banyuls, and maury. which one perhaps? "umm, errr, we have some nice moscatel" which turned out to be simple overly syruppy rubbish. So in short some of the greatest wines you would hope for, with incredibly views, surprisingly good food, and sommeliers whose arrogance was sorely misplaced.

Moby, you're kidding right, by the end I would have paid to slap her! Still might, wonder if they can fit me in.

It sounds as if they were trying to push you to claridges.

Nonsense, the man obviously has impeccable taste! As much as I love the Square, I wonder if its the right venue for a 10th Wedding Anniversary. The atmosphere is pretty lively and it can get quite noisey. Whatever you think of the decor, Ramsay is a romantic space and I think the style of service is just right for the occassion. Andy, I was surprised at how intimate it was this time round, it will always have a corporate feel - the space is big, the shape is cold, and there are, well, too many suits. However, it seemed that they appreciated 'real' punters, and the service was truly exceptional. The oxtail soup is sitting atop my list of the finest things I have tasted this year.

Sounds like a wonderful evening, augmented with a lovely wine. isn't it great how things and people can come together with a good bottle.

I had a stunning 7 course degustation at the square last friday night, well worth considering.

only some of this is tongue in cheek, some of it is very, very pointed.

I thought everyone knew that Fat Bastard was French and Old Bastard was Aussie. Someone needs to bottle some Stupid Bastard. I'd drink that! FWIW Mark the original Bastard in OZ, is an Yarra Valley Chardonnay known as Bastard Hill. it's been around for years.

No.5 is the great immutable truth in that list!

For mine, I think the standard of starred restaurants is certainly higher in france than it is in the UK. Of course there are exceptions, but as a general rule... Look at Sketch, I haven't been, but the pricing is not out of line with a 3* parisian meal - and all we can talk about is the price. I think the french still have a greater understanding of the simpatico elements that go into creating the highest ends of culinary achievement - in that environment I don't see how it can easier to receive a higher Michelin rating. human foibles notwithstanding.

Given how good the food has been recently at MJU and East@West, was wondering if anyone had experience with Osia? would appreciate any feedback people have. Answers on the back of a postcard

Allard has a gorgeous 1940's feel to it, a great place to be transported. Not dissimilar to Atelier Maitre Albert in that good roasted meats are a special. The Poulet de Bresse is great. Think lots of white coated waiters, linen table cloths, and somehow not a formal atmosphere. I can't believe anyone would be disappointed there.

I thought the same thing.

Andy, Regalade is amazing. do not miss it!

Scott, sorry if I'm not understanding you, but Bux tried to emphasize that Le Bernardin is NOT a simple seafood place that, as you say, "rings the best wholesaler in town." Further, that list bit trivializes, in my opinion, the task of the chef's developing relationships with fisherman and wholesalers. As far as I know, Esca, for ex, serves very simple seafood, but if you think that all Pasternack is doing is calling a wholesaler and ordering some fish, you are way off. Secondly, I do believe you're experience at Le Bernardin was underwhelming. I don't think anyone is doubting that. But I would recommend returning, despite the expense -- maybe for lunch. The barely cooked salmon at LB, and the bass in peking duck bullion, are dishes I'll remember for a very long time. Jo, You may very well be right. If I am honest, I wouldn't be surprised if there was more to come, as It would be hard pressed to have gained it's reputation on that one night. I probably am trivialising the relationships between restauranteur and supplier, and If so it's because I understand how hard and important it is to do so. I do in turn get snuffy if the suggestion is that this is all that's required. Maybe I have misunderstood the premise here. Neil Perry at Rockpool in sydney is obsessive about his fish sourcing, to the extent a large amount of his fish is sourced of the frozen waters off Japan, where specialist trawlers immediately 'brain spike' the catch to induce rigamortis. It is then flown in to Sydney. I don't know anyone who goes further, but I still find the restaurant itself variable. I think at times, they over-egg the pudding. regardless, I wouldn't go to a seafood restaurant of the highest order to marvel at their produce, that's a given - now elevate it. Given their status I just didn't see enough attempt to elevate the produce at Le Bernadin to something even greater still. Though as I have said I appreciate the imperfect nature of conclusions formed on one visit.

simple well sourced fish, blah, blah, blah. heard it all before, it's not good enough to claim we are letting the fish speak for itself if all you are doing is ringing the best wholesaler in town and providing unimaginative preparations. this does not make you a temple of high gastronomy. there is nothing to misunderstand here, I found the meal underwhelming, and lacking in creativity. I grant you it was a single time, and so it shall remain. Yes, a high end end gastro temple does need to show creativity, technique, and sympathy for the produce. Also Bux you are fundamentally wrong if you state it requires greater talent and technique to present a simply prepared fish. It might to some require greater empathy of produce, but this isn't rocket science - and if you're not providing rocket science do not claim to be NASA. which is my beef, pardon the pun, I did not feel it lived up to it's reputation. I would not accept this meal at Le Divellac and wouldn't be expected to either.

This is much closer ot my experience. I left plenty disappointed. The cooking was not exceptional, and was frankly a little underwhelming. I hated the room, though being in what must have been the worst table in the house couldn't have hurt. my starter is one the worst haute cuisine dishes I have ever been served. It wasn't flawed or actually badly prepared it was just so ill conceived. Foie gras ravioli in foie and black truffle sauce. It was too rich and it was unbalanced. it was just piling on luxury ingredient after luxury ingredient, it was not a 'whole' or complete dish - rather than being artistic it was a finger painting. the ravioli itself was seriously undercooked - nb. not al dente, far from it. I wouldn't have minded but it was virtually assailed upon me by the waiter, i just had to have it. The atlantic bass with orange and ginger asian broth was technically a finely prepared dish but a little bland. the wine list was vastly overpriced. service? we'd have had more luck spotting the lochness monster than our waiter. But what made it worse? it was below freezing outside, with enough windchill to create the original brass monkey, and they refused to order us a cab at the end of the meal. No sorry sir, we can not, suggest you try to hail one in the street. Mild protestation, followed by complete dismissal, I would have made a scene, but I was in shock. thinking back I still am. In no way a bad restaurant, and albeit based on one meal only, in no way an exceptional one either.

Very, Very well said

I think michelin has been very cagey about their words. They often describe the assessment process of a top restaurant being visited up to 20 times, and it sounds like they mean that when it is 'in play' they will assess thoroughly. But after that, they have other fish to fry. very disappointing, and quite disingenous for me.

The tempiers are obviously very good, look for the Migoua single vineyard, it's more perfumed and aromatic, than the Tourtine. The cabassou is pure mouvedre, and is like yeast extract! pure concentration - these live for ever. Lafron Veyrolle also make a fine wine, look for the 'longue garde' - again pure mourvedre. Gros Nore is one of my favourites, very new style wine making, and new estate - first vintage was 1998, and they won the award that the annual bandol wine show with the 1999. Pradeaux is horribly over oaked, generally I think it bad wine. Domaine Begude make a lovely elegant style, from the highest part of the commune, easy, realy drinker. Tardieu Laurent make some good Bandol on occasion also.

FWIW , Colin Kay does not make his wines with RS. Well despite your picky picky response, here is your original contention. Colin does not make his wines with RS. Yet he has let us know that he does. The original point was not how much it was does he at all. I will grant you that those aren't gianormous levels yet nonetheless they are RS. Now on my end I did say some and maybe these levels do not qualify as some, but rather scant. So I too will concede that originally I did not use the proper adjectives to describe Kay Bros wines. Lol , it's not just a Grammatical thing, but your context is a little skewed. your context was in line with the sparky marquis wines, boo hiss, that have overt sweetness as distinct palate and technical feature. mere technical presence is no more edifying in a comparison of PH between 2 wines, where one has had tartaric added. the lower one will still have acidity because all wines of type will, and the higher will reflect a very particular type of wine, made in a specific style following a certain ethos. Colin Kay remains one of the, if not the best, winemaker in the southern vales, utilising as few tricks and modern winemaking alchemy as practicably possible. he is the anti sparky. fwiw sparky marquis, aka beezlebub, leaves wines to hang for as long as possible, creating super levels of potential alcohol. The wines are then often dried, and left to ferment forever, extracting huge amount of solids into the wine, but crucially leaving a high, discernible level of residual sugar in the wine. Then the reverse osmosis machine, micro-oxygenation thingy-me-jig's come out along with the chemistry set, and the trusty recipe is followed. Add in a some good new wood barrels, toasted to within an inch of their lives, lees stirring, half hourly racking , and these frankenstein monstrosities are set to woo wine judges, journalists and buyers for the first 24 months of their life. fast forward another 2 - 3 years, the fruit is utterly dead, and the apologists say that a wine of such concentration is merely closed. yet I have never seen one recover. <i'll just get off my soap box now >

Sheb, I stand corrected, though surely you understand the difference between using RS as a palate feature, and not fermenting a wine bone dry. I would imagine very few red wines, from hot climes are bone dry, though there are those who (at the behest of the devil), would use it a higher levels to disguise faults, and impress wine judges. I might draw you attention to the words: "Yes there is a little residual sugar"

Fi, are you going all Liza on us now?