Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2007)

[robyn]

I've heard the term "grower Champagne" - but haven't seen it on menus.

Is it "real" Champagne (from the Champagne region of France)? Any particular labels any of you would recommend?

I love champagne - and am looking for a very special bottle this year for my 60th birthday. Was thinking of Churchill Pol Roget (I have tried the lesser Pol Roget bottles before and like them but have never had the Churchill before - and now it's available in Jacksonville!) - but I can be persuaded to do something else.

As for Bruni. I know that Steve Plotnicki is kind of a dirty name around here. And I have had the honor of being kicked off his chat board for disagreeing with him. But he has written an exceptionally good blog piece about Chodorow's public fight with Bruni - and his personal opinions on the fight and newspaper food critics here.

I guess the bottom line is don't believe everything you read in the papers. Even the New York Times. I remember traipsing to at least a half dozen design stores all over Manhattan which were mentioned enthusiastically in the Times over the years as fabulous that were basically nothing holes in the wall which carried a lot of junk. I know more about contemporary design and art than I do about food - and I can tell you that as bad as Bruni may seem to you - the people who write about furniture and architecture and art are worse.

Curiously - I thnk the people who write in these areas for the WSJ today are more impressive than those who write for the NYT. Do any of you read Sokolov's food reviews in the WSJ? He's a lot older than Bruni. He's even older than me - and even older than my husband! But he seems willing to try new stuff - and write about it intelligently. I've laminated his writeup of Alinea in the hope of dragging my husband there .

"Young" may perhaps be overrated these days (I have spent some time recently on AutoAdmit in light of the recent controversies regarding it - and if that is the state of high class law students - then I think we are all in trouble). Robyn

[Sneakeater]

Actually, isn't Raymond Sokolov one of the Good Old NYT Restaurant Reviewers (mid-70s?) that people like me use as a stick to beat Frank Bruni?

(I love Sokolov's stuff in the WSJ myself.)

[rich]

Actually, isn't Raymond Sokolov one of the Good Old NYT Restaurant Reviewers (mid-70s?) that people like me use as a stick to beat Frank Bruni?

(I love Sokolov's stuff in the WSJ myself.)

←

Actually he's one of the people who prove my point about the current state of the Times in general. He wouldn't have a place at the present NYT because he's a journalist and the Times doesn't hire people with his type of credentials anymore.

[Leonard Kim]

Sokolov wrote the New York Times restaurant reviews from 1971-1973. One thing of interest was he actually used the kind of dual rating system that some posters have been wishing: food received 0 to 4 stars and service, atmosphere, and decor received 0 to 4 triangles.

In Garlic and Sapphires, Ruth Reichl portrays herself along with Mimi Sheraton and Raymond Sokolov as embattled kindred spirits against what she perceived as Eurocentric bias in the Bryan Millers of the world as well as the Times reading public at large. She writes, "I had once heard rumors that Raymond Sokolov, who had been the food editor of the Times in the early seventies, had been pushed out because of his excessive fondness for ethnic foods."

Edited March 22, 2007 by Leonard Kim (log)

[Nathan]

I've heard the term "grower Champagne" - but haven't seen it on menus.

Is it "real" Champagne (from the Champagne region of France)?  Any particular labels any of you would recommend?

←

Yes, they're not Cremant.

"grower Champagne" refers to Champagne made from the grapes of a single vineyard. (virtually every standard Champagne, even the most highly regarded V and NV, is blended from the grapes of several vineyards.) grower Champagne is primarily made by small producers. they are very diverse in flavor since they are so expressive of the terroir due to their origin. in contrast, standard Champagnes are specifically designed to reflect the house "feel" year after year.

[mugsy]

I've heard the term "grower Champagne" - but haven't seen it on menus.

Is it "real" Champagne (from the Champagne region of France)?  Any particular labels any of you would recommend?

←

Yes, they're not Cremant.

"grower Champagne" refers to Champagne made from the grapes of a single vineyard. (virtually every standard Champagne, even the most highly regarded V and NV, is blended from the grapes of several vineyards.) grower Champagne is primarily made by small producers. they are very diverse in flavor since they are so expressive of the terroir due to their origin. in contrast, standard Champagnes are specifically designed to reflect the house "feel" year after year.

←

does that make krug "clos de mesnil" a "grower champagne", if so i love "grower champagnes"!....and robyn, raymond sokolov???? i read one of his reviews and thought to myself, "darn, i don't have enough breadcrumbs to find my way home!" the last thing the nyt needs is a tired, old critic, bruni brings life, energy, spirit... i know that his style takes a beating on this thread, but i kind of like it, his writing that is... when i read a review of a restaurant, i don't want it to read like that of a book review or a consumer report of a new car. "he didn't mention that enough" or "he never goes into to much detail about ...", but i say he does, he just leaves to the readers imagination to place themselves in his shoes and have the reader fill in the blanks.

[JohnL]

I've heard the term "grower Champagne" - but haven't seen it on menus.

Is it "real" Champagne (from the Champagne region of France)?  Any particular labels any of you would recommend?

←

Yes, they're not Cremant.

"grower Champagne" refers to Champagne made from the grapes of a single vineyard. (virtually every standard Champagne, even the most highly regarded V and NV, is blended from the grapes of several vineyards.) grower Champagne is primarily made by small producers. they are very diverse in flavor since they are so expressive of the terroir due to their origin. in contrast, standard Champagnes are specifically designed to reflect the house "feel" year after year.

←

Please allow me to correct this.

Also apologies to Mr Bruni.

I reread the review which reads:

"....What servers promote promote at the start of dinner isn't just Champagne. It's "grower Champagne," identified that way on a special card.....

The phrase in fact refers to small producers making wines from their own grapes....."

I would point out that Bruni (or the restaurant) provides the correct definition of "grower Champagnes." Most Champagne is made by seven major houses who buy grapes (or wines) from growers and/or cooperatives. A very small number of growers also make champagne. Single vineyards have little to do with this as most of these growers own different vinyards and often blend their wines. The grower Champagnes do often come from one or more than one contiguous villages so there is a better chance of the wine being "unique" to or expressive of a smaller area or place..

The trade off is the major houses can select grapes/wines from all over Champagne and theoretically make better champagnes.

So called grower Champagnes are no more or less diverse in their flavors than are champagnes from various houses. Voillage to village or house to house! Le difference is le difference.

Grower champagnes can be (and often are) better in quality than the basic NV Champagnes from the major houses. and thus can be better value. prices for the grower Champagnes usually sit somewhere between the big house basic offerings and the prestige cuvees.

There are very few of these grower Champagnes available (few are made) but I would recommend: Egly-Ouriet, Pierre Gimmonnet, Guy Larmandier, J. Lasalle, Vilmart & Cie, Alain Robert among others.

They are certainly worth a try.

As for the review--I believe Bruni was right to use the grower Champagne menu to make his case. This place seems to be teetering on the tightrope of overbearingly pretentiousness. In looking at all the other reviews by various critics, I don't feel Bruni "missed" anything and his overall views are pretty much in line with the consensus. I also, upon re reading Bruni, do not believe this is a bad review (the restaurant probably would like two or three stars).

Clearly, varietal is targeting more adventurous diners. They are certainly all over the latest trends in food and wine and service. I sense they are also bordering on annoying in their reminders of what they are (or how they see themselves). I recall an old anecdote:

A young and still burgeoning actor, Jimmy Stewart was taking some friends to a restaurant in Hollywood. The Captain told the party that they would have to wait a half hour for a table. Mr Stewart's friends urged the actor to, "tell him who you are!" Whereupon Jimmy said, "If you have to tell em who you are....You ain't!"

[Nathan]

ok, I figured my definition wasn't entirely accurate...I was under the impression that grower champagnes were generally single-vineyard.

[Fat Guy]

John, I was sort of with you (I think you fail to give grower Champagnes their due, but I believe your factual statements were accurate) up until you said "I believe Bruni was right to use the grower Champagne menu to make his case." I can show you wine list upon wine list from restaurants all over the world that use that terminology. There's nothing pretentious or weird about it. It's just standard language used to describe these wines. Just a few examples from restaurant wine lists:

grower champagnes

 

These sparkling wines are wines first, bubbles second. The winemakers behind these small labels give us distinctive sparklers that tell the tale of their origins.

t'afia restaurant, Houston, TX, USA

Grower Champagnes ~ Unique, Rare Premium Wines from Terry Theise

The Chef's Table, Newcastle, DE, USA

Individual Grower Champagnes – an experience that displays the individuality, terroir and varietal typicity of Champagne.

Church St Enoteca, Melbourne, Australia

[JohnL]

FG. Allow me to clarify.

I think the "grower Champagnes" are quite good and they offer IMOP, pretty good value (though they are not cheap). In general, I would recommend them over most of the major houses basic NV stuff and I also think some actually compete rather well with some of the various prestige cuvees.

They are definitely worth trying. the problem is they are not widely distributed throughout the US. (we are talking fairly small quantities) though the situation is improving rapidly.

At the moment, I really love the Gimmonnet!

The quotes you provide are IMOP a view that at its most basic level elevates terroir to the primary reason to buy these wines. We can (and have had here at eGullet) endless discussions and debates about terroir.

The quotes you provide read like they are from a salesman's spiel or a brochure.

They are nothing more than

The issue comes down to which is preferable. A wine where the wine maker had grapes from various sources from which to make the best wine that he or she can or a wine that is made from grapes from one single source where the wine maker is restricted in the options. I would argue that sometimes terroir works and sometimes it does not. I would further argue that Champagne already expresses terroir--the terroir of the Champagne region! Most Champagnes taste uniquely Champenois. If that is not enough for some-- If one wants to carry the terroir obsession to its ultimate conclusion to wines made from grapes grown in one specific micro climate within the Champagne region then fine.

At the moment, it is difficult to attribute the quality of the Grower Champagnes to the fact that they come from smaller sites within the region. Conversely, the reason so many lower and mid priced Champagnes from the major houses are somewhat mediocre and bland has little or nothing to do with the fact that they are not from individual or single locations. There are many other factors at play. It is safe to say that the grower Champagnes are, for the most part, very fine Champagnes.

As for my comments about Bruni's comments:

I think his statement about the listing of "Grower Champagnes" needs to be taken in the context of his overall review along with the notes about the listing and citing of ingredients and their origins etc. Yes, many restaurants do these things but I think Bruni was trying to make a point specifically about varietal. basically that the restaurant has some lofty pretensions in how they present themselves to diners and in Bruni's opinion, falter somewhat, in the delivery on those promises.

He does note that in his opinion: "Varietal isn't just a restaurant,. It's an epicurean advanced placement exam, with a dollop of Oscar acceptance speech."

One can agree or disagree with this but I believe Bruni at least provides support for his assessment. I wonder if Bruni, in general, believes that the current trend to exotic ingredients and declaring ingredient's origins (exotic and otherwise) etc to be pretentious and thus a case of varietal getting off to a bad start with him. He does note some not inconsiderable high points though and awards the place a star.

[Sneakeater]

I really read it as, he wasn't familiar with the term "Grower Champagne".

[rich]

I posted this on the Varietal thread, but I guess it also belongs here.

According to Eater and based at least partly on yesterday's NY Times review, Jordan Kahn will resign as the restaurant's pastrty chef in the next day or so.

[JohnL]

I really read it as, he wasn't familiar with the term "Grower Champagne".

←

When Bruni clearly states the correct definition in the review, I can't possibly see where one can draw the conclusion that you come to. Unless, of course, you are applying you pre conceived notion of Bruni's lack of knowledge.

[Sneakeater]

No, because as he explained, the "Grower Champagne" card at Varietal tells you the correct definition.

Edited March 22, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[JohnL]

you still can't take that fact and make the assumption he does not know what "grower Champagnes are."

IMOP-- that is!

( I am willing to admit maybe he doesn't know but I just can't see drawing that conclusion from this review).

I believe that Bruni was noting the card and the list to make a point. ie listing suppliers etc. the fact that Varietal offers up a lot of information via the menu and wine list etc. also that varietal feels all this information is something that customers want or need.

[rich]

So, apart from the GC debate, do people believe the resson for Kahn's departure was the NY Times review or are/were there other factors in play?

Could one be cost? Most critics believed the prices were too high. Is this a cost cutting measure and will we see prices drop?

I'll post this on the Varietal thread as well - not sure where it fits better (Times influence of restaurant business.)

[Sneakeater]

you still can't take that fact and make the assumption he does not know what "grower Champagnes are."

IMOP-- that is!

( I am willing to admit maybe he doesn't know but I just can't see drawing that conclusion from this review).

I believe that Bruni was noting the card and the list to make a point.  ie listing suppliers etc. the fact that Varietal offers up a lot of information via the menu and wine list etc. also that varietal feels all this information is something that customers want or need.

←

Obviously I can't prove this. But the way he wrote it, I got the feeling that he was saying, "Look, as if they already weren't pretentious enough at Varietal, they've come up with this wacky 'Grower Champagne' thing. What won't these guys do here?" As if "Grower Champagne" weren't a widely accepted and respected term/movement.

Edited March 22, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Sneakeater]

I mean, when I went there, I saw the "Grower Champagne" card and thought, "Grower Champagne by the glass. That's pretty exciting! Can't wait to try some."

His response, as written, seemed to be, "'Grower Champagne.' What a funny term. What's it mean? Oh, here it is at the bottom of the card . . . ."

[JohnL]

I mean, when I went there, I saw the "Grower Champagne" card and thought, "Grower Champagne by the glass.  That's pretty exciting!  Can't wait to try some."

His response, as written, seemed to be, "'Grower Champagne.'  What a funny term.  What's it mean?  Oh, here it is at the bottom of the card . . . ."

←

Boy--that's a stretch!

I would argue that "Grower Champagne" is not a widely accepted term.

The fact is these Champagne's are produced in very small quantities and are not widely available. there really are not that many of them around at this point.

Most diners (even fairly serious one's) woul not really know what these are. If they did then Varietal wouldn't need to "explain" what they are. (would they?).

also

I notice that there is a "gottcha" factor here. Any hint that a writer or critic doesn't "know" something or people assume they are ignorant of some finer culinary point--this is immediately seized upon as evidence of said critic's incompetence. (the Cuozzo issue re: varietal).

I would argue that even if Bruni did not know what Grower Chajmpagnes were/are, this would not impact the point he was making that Varietal is really into details and "educating" patrons.

I think he was having a bit of fun at their expense and making an important point.

But, certainly, we can disagree and read into Bruni whatever we want to. I always use the sage advice from a literature course I took long long ago by some long forgotten sage:"trust the tale not the teller!"

Jeez--those sages were sharp!

[Sneakeater]

When you identify yourself as having learned the New Criticism in college, you date yourself. (Believe me: I know this from experience.)

[Fat Guy]

I mean, when I went there, I saw the "Grower Champagne" card and thought, "Grower Champagne by the glass.  That's pretty exciting!  Can't wait to try some."

His response, as written, seemed to be, "'Grower Champagne.'  What a funny term.  What's it mean?  Oh, here it is at the bottom of the card . . . ."

←

Boy--that's a stretch!

To me it's the plain meaning of what Bruni wrote. So, not even remotely a stretch. Whether or not Bruni knew what the term meant, he wrote in such a way as to imply that he didn't. So, as I mentioned above, he's either being disingenuous or he's surprisingly ignorant for someone who dines out ten times a week in New York and is nominally the world's most important dining critic.

I would argue that "Grower Champagne" is not a widely accepted term.

If by "widely accepted" you mean everybody in the English-speaking world knows what it means, of course not. It is, however, a standard term on fine restaurant wine lists, in wine shops and in the media -- mainstream media like Time, not just the professional or niche media.

I would argue that even if Bruni did not know what Grower Chajmpagnes were/are, this would not impact the point he was making that Varietal is really into details and "educating" patrons.

It's not the least bit surprising for restaurant wine lists to contain explanations, annotations and other educational materials. That's a good thing.

To summarize:

1 - Varietal didn't invent the phrase "grower Champagne."

2 - Varietal is not alone in using or explaining the phrase "grower Champagne." It appears on restaurant wine lists from Houston to Melbourne.

3 - The term "grower Champagne" appears in mainstream media ranging from Time Magazine to the Asbury Park Press to the Hartford Courant.

4 - Given all that, it is ridiculous to attack Varietal for using or explaining the term "grower Champagne."

5 - Bruni either knew what "grower Champagne" meant or didn't. (Here we're talking about before he read about it at Varietal; needless to say, he now knows what it means.)

a. If he was already familiar with "grower Champagne," why did he imply that he learned about it at the restaurant?

b. If he didn't know about "grower Champagne," he should have. Or, at least, he should have sought to educate himself and establish the term's usage and relevance before ridiculing it.

c. Again, what he wrote was:

Learn its elevated argot. What servers promote at the start of dinner isn’t just Champagne. It’s “grower Champagne,” identified that way on a special matte card, which conveys the odd impression that sparkling wine is a crop, like soybeans. The phrase in fact refers to small producers making wines from their own grapes, and if you read the text accompanying the selection of a half dozen glasses, you’ll learn that.

d. I suppose it's possible the he was just really sloppy about conveying his reality, however given that his intent was clearly to demean Varietal he should have taken at least some care to be clear and correct.

[JohnL]

Boy you guys (FG, Sneak) are really picking nits with your literal readings/interpretations. Only a talented lawyer IMOP-could take what Bruni wrote and convict him! This is a restaurant review not a Bergman film. Maybe the fact that so many can disagree as to Bruni's intent is evidence of Bruni's problem! He is not clear and concise enough?

We all seem to be unhappy with Bruni in general but disagree as to specifics.

If the term "grower Champagne" was as widely used and known as you assert then it is extremely difficult to believe that Bruni has no idea what it means.

In this case I give him the benefit of the doubt.

GC's are a fairly recent introduction here. I would guess that relatively few restaurants around the country offer them. (we are spoiled here in NYC).

The restaurants (and retailers) that do carry them have to "sell" them because unlike the big names in Champagne these are obscure brands at the moment. Very few people understand the vineyard sourcing of Champagne in general and these small production wines specifically.

I still believe that Bruni's point is that Varietal is not a typical restaurant and has higher pretensions especially in wine offerings. The restaurant obviously believes that patrons need to be "educated" about these wines.

I also wonder if Bruni is acting as a reporter--the "investigative" thing--rather than a food/restaurant critic? Is he representing "everyman" as a critic as opposed to presenting insights based upon his knowledge and experience (as most critics do).

Could this explain his approach which as witnessed here can be confusing? I wonder if Bruni is writing with an audience in mind? (remember the paper thinks of itself as a National publication).

Edited March 22, 2007 by JohnL (log)

[Sneakeater]

I'm not saying you're wrong, but if any arts critic at the Times took that approach, the Times would lose all credibility in the arts world and its influence would dwindle to nothingness.

I was going to say, if he's really a reporter rather than a critic, they should say so. But I guess they did.

Edited March 22, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Fat Guy]

Boy you guys (FG, Sneak) are really picking nits with your literal readings/interpretations.

←

There's a big difference between nitpicking and explaining the obvious.

[Sneakeater]

I mean, this purported approach of, "let's take someone who knows less about a subject than most people who care about it, and have him write reviews of it," is really pretty offensive.