Joe Riley

The chef deserves multiple glasses of whatever wine you're enjoying, courtesy of you

How about this? For Friday and Saturday nights and those other special even days (Valentine's Day, Mother's Day, New Year's Eve...) do the things that were suggested above - the call-backs for confirmation, keep a waiting list, etc.. but how about also having a 15 minute "grace" period for losing your table. If you reserved for 8:00 and your asses aren't in the seats by 8:15 then you lose your reservation? I know it's a juggling act for the restaurant staff, because you have people who call to say that they are running late, and parking can be impossible in some areas, but if someone isn't willing to work with the restaurant to ensure that they have the experience that they want, then they ought to be subject to losing out on their neglected promise.

Yikes! Well, I suppose if I were drinking really old Bordeaux I'd be a little more interested in it, but sadly, I'll probably never be in that position. Don, I don't know the circumstances of your Petrus tasting, but is there even the slightest possibility that the bottle you were tasting from had been recorked? I know that Lafite and some other Château have sometimes had re-corking tours. Just a thought.

On the whole cork issue, I prefer that my server place it on the table, but not in front of me, as though it were a medical specimen, but just near me so I can examine it at my leisure. I prefer to look at the wine, smell the wine and take a little taste. That tells me everything that I need to know, but I do examine the cork for the heck of it. When I'm feeling silly, I'll hold the cork up to my ear and exclaim, "The cork is sound - go ahead and serve it!"

I truly don't know how bartenders in busy restaurants manage to keep up with everything. All of the drink orders, the sheer amount of focus that they have to maintain... I couldn't do it.

Of all the blogs that I read, Waiterrant.net is at the top of my list. This guy is a very talented writer and his stories can be very entertaining. This recent entry is too good not to share here: http://waiterrant.net/?p=250#comments I included the link with the comments because the comments are occasionally even MORE entertaining than the blog post.

They have the most wonderful sandwiches, I mean truly destination-worthy sandwiches. If anyone decides to visit them, be sure and budget some time to wait for a sandwich order and buy some other lovely comestibles while you're at it.

Just what we need - more technically-correct yet soulless wine. I'm sure the megalithic wine corporations (Constellation, BRL Hardy, et. al.) are trembling with anticipation. I swear, we need more descriptive adjectives for those sorts of products. How about "The Stepford Wines"?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Male or female, I'm willing to marry you right this second

Dennis Horton is the pride of Virginia winegrowing. The Cab Franc IS a truly compelling red, the Viognier stands with the best that this country has to offer and most of the other wines are at least interesting. Dennis always strives for better and is fearless in his experimentation. I didn't realize that Dennis was playing around with Petite Manseng, but it doesn't surprise me - he is determined to find any grape varietal that might be successfully grown in Virginia. It is a grape found in places like Jurançon, Madiran and Pacherenc du Vic-bilh, France, but also in the Languedoc and other areas. Barboursville usually has decent Cabernet Franc, too, and their dessert wine(s) are fun to drink. Cabernet Franc is nicely suited for the ref clay soil and often harsh winters and always humid summers of Virginia. It has a tougher skin than Cabernet Sauvignon which, if you didn't know it, is the progeny of Cabernet Franc and the Sauvignon grape (like the Europeans, I usually just say "Sauvignon" when referring to that white varietal, as "Sauvignon Blanc" seems redundant. If it actually says that on the label, I'll say it, too) If you really want to try some classy Cabernet Franc, find some nice Loire reds from Saumur, Champigny and Anjou. They can be great fun to drink.

Keep track of the wines that you really like and look for similar ones. At the same time, keep track of ones that you really dislike and always be sure to point that out to that staff when soliciting wines from them. With apologies to Sy Sims, "An educated consumer is our best customer" sometimes. If you worked with me and told me that, say, California Zins just didn't do it for you, or that Argentine Malbec sent you around the moon, then I'd try to build a sales record of what you enjoy. If the store is conscientious, they will work with you. You are a saint for wanting to keep them in business, but they must continue to be WORTHY of your business.

Zora, that is an excellent point. There certainly is a distinction. I guess what annoys me the most IS the "play it safe" notion in wine commerce because it seems to foster more mediocrity. If the wine buying public continues to purchase very average, very inoffensive wines, then it only encourages those producers to change nothing, to never strive to be better. They only wind up trying to make the most "acceptable" product as inexpensively as possible I can cite an example in the liquor industry - for those of you who drink Jack Daniel's Tennesee Whiskey (the Black Label), you might be interested to know that the current proof on that product is 80, down from 86 only a few years ago, and down from either 90 or 92 proof within the last 10 years. Do the Jack Daniel's people believe that this improves their product? No. They decided that the Jack Daniel's drinker, in focus groups, doesn't notice any difference. But by lowering the proof, they save a fortune in alcohol taxes. Jack Daniel's drinkers may enjoy it, but don't believe for one minute that this is the Jack Daniel's whiskey of Frank Sinatra, or your fathers or grandfathers. For anyone who wants to drink more authentic Tennesee whiskey, I recommend the much-less-expensive George Dickel brand, which remains at 92 proof, presumably unchanged in decades. In the California wine industry, an example of this would be wineries adding lots of juice from less expensive varietals up to the legal limit to still allow a wine to be called by the varietal name placed upon the label. A wine labeled, "California Zinfandel" might only be 51% Zin. Now this becomes a minefield depending upon where in California the wine comes from, and many growers associations do strive for quality standards. If a wine is labeled, "Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon", for example, it must contain at LEAST 70% Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon wine (*note - on this particular figure, I might be a little fuzzy, as I believe standards might have strengthened to require that percentage to be even higher, so don't hold me to that number) Zora, you are correct when you imply that wine reviews can be a guide to quality, and at their best, they certainly should be, but as I stated earlier, they are fraught with peril and must be used cautiously. For some people I've encountered, all that they KNOW is wine reviews, not practical personal tasting information. To use an extreme comparison, It would be akin to someone reading dozens of car magazines each month, year after year, but never actually laying eyes upon an automobile or even driving one. Would that person be considered an automobile authority? Sure, they might know what to look for when the time comes to actually experience an automobile ride and drive it for themselves, but I've driven cheap, hard-ride automobiles and I've driven some sport and luxury cars, and I believe that I APPRECIATE the difference so much more because of the experiences I've had with the hard, cheap cars. Do you see what I'm trying to say? There has to be a logic and a balance to these sorts of experiences to gain maximum appreciation for them. I once heard tell of a wine salesman, possibly from Beverly Hills, who received a phone call from Frank Sinatra requesting that he immediately send him a case of the most expensive white wine that he had, or could find. The guy sent Sinatra some Château D'Yquem Sauternes, I believe. Sinatra called the guy some days later after tasting the very sweet Sauternes and blasted him, but the sales guy defended his choice because he was only trying to comply with Sinatra's request. Sinatra complained that the Sauternes was terrible with his lobster dinner! The moral of that story? Well, to me it is twofold: 1) TALK to your wine salesman and let them help you (and likewise, the salesguy should have asked some good questions of Sinatra) and 2) Expense doesn't always buy you what you think it will - Sinatra probably would have been SO much happier with a $5 Muscadet instead, or at least I like to think so. One of my best customers drinks no domestic wine (though he will buy Chilean and Argentine wine) and another of my best customers buys 90%+ California wine. With both customers, I try to recommend wines that I think they will be interested in and have a preference for. I wouldn't dream of fighting them or arguing any points with them, nor do I with my other customers except perhaps in a gentle way to establish a relationship and points of reference. And tastes DO change, sometimes. I know one woman who drinks very, very well but has given up almost entirely on California wines which she used to adore. Incidently, Zora, it seems to me that at this point in your life, you've earned the right to limit your sketchier experiences with wine. I've been posting using some broad generalities and I guess I'm trying to educate the more neophyte among the DR readership. I just abhor blind faith to any commercial publication or professed individual - a healthy dose of skepticism is necessary. I have my own personal heroes, but I also have my own mind. Isn't it wonderful to make an unexpected pleasant discovery with a wine on your own. with fewer or no preconcieved notions, then merely having a wine live up to a review that we've read? That's such great fun to me.

Thank YOU, Barbara, for the feedback. Sounds like you had better luck than most of the folks who go in to buy lottery tickets - ha! The bad news is, this wine is now out of stock until the new vintage, which should be available in January. I'm looking forward to it.

I know that Chef Brendan Cox at Circle Bistro is a big fan of the steak tartar at Bistro Français, and I've enjoyed it as well.

Ahhhh, okay! Sorry, I was confused when you mentioned the words Campbeltown and also had the 21 year designator in there. I thought you were talking about the Campbeltown Loch 21 year old blend. Ummm, I think that I could take that sucker off of your hands if you folks don't drink it. Want to trade it to me for store credit? I'll let you know precisely what it is worth, and I'm sure it's worth a LOT. If your friend doesn't want her bottles, put her in touch with me, I'd be happy to do a little bartering. Goodness knows, I could hook both of you up with some wines that I'd rather sell than have to inventory beginning next week!

Zora and Raisa you both make excellent points. One thing I'm trying to point out is, that any review in the Wine Advocate (or any other publication for that matter) is just one person's opinion, and everyone has their own preferences, agendas and axes to grind. (Don't believe me? One well-known wine reviewer once told me, after I questioned them about how their published experience with a particular white Burgundy vintage was very different from mine, "Oh, Joe, you're a smart guy. I expect you to be able to read between the lines." (?!?!?!) How disingenuous is that? So you are dishonest with your readers? Wow.) An important part of becoming wine educated is tasting wines that you might NOT like, and wines that are unfamiliar to you. How else do you establish a "personal palate paradigm" a framework of reference and allow your palate and other senses to fully appreciate what it is you're tasting? To put it another way, if you never had a bad or even mediocre restaurant meal, how could you fully appreciate a truly magnificent one? Oh sure, you can enjoy it, but doesn't the contrast make the appreciation just exponentially greater? As an aside - Zora, have you ever had a Châteauneuf du Pâpe made from 100% Grenache? They still exist, and that is how most of them were made decades ago. (Beaucastel is the one who created the fiction that, to be a great Châteauneuf, you have to use all 13 grapes allowed by French law into your bottling, because it serves their marketing purposes.) A 100% Grenache Châteauneuf du Pâpe is very different from, say, a Spanish Garnacha. A lot of it has to do with the soil/microclimate, age of the vines, the viticultural techniques employed, etc.. I shouldn't be so critical. I like to trust my own palate and take chances for the same reasons that I prefer to explore different cities on my own. It's all about the life experiences, the good and the bad. If I don't take any chances, I feel that it limits my personal growth. But it's all about personal levels of comfort. I can hear the criticism now, though - "But Joe, you're a professional, you get to taste a LOT of wine, including a lot of bad wine, and it doesn't cost you anything. Us poor consumers want to at least minimize our bad experiences and improve our odds with our wine dollars spent." I can understand and relate to that, but that's where people like me come in. If you buy a wine from me that you are truly unhappy with, I appreciate the opportunity to make things up to you and find you something else to enjoy. I will always try to sell you something good and tailored to your tastes and requests. That's the joy that I get as a merchant, especially when I get a positive report back from my customer. I guess what it comes down to for me is this: To me, wine reviews are the "Cliff's Notes" (or Monarch Notes) of wine education. They are no substitute for doing your own work, just as the aforementioned notes are no substitute for actually reading important literature (just ask any college professor). If all the work is done for you, then the experience is somewhat diminished. If you use wine reviews at all, take them with a certain grain of salt and don't rely upon them as any kind of gospel.

For the life of me, I can't think of one. There are certainly some to be had in our marketplace, but I can't think of any labels. We don't carry one - we simply haven't had any demand for one.

I find this encouraging on several levels: http://www.decanter.com/news/72611.html Any wine reviews can be useful, but they are NO substitute for actual tasting. I recently had a customer complain to me that our store wasn't filled with ratings by the Wine Advocate or the Wine Spectator. I explained, as olitely as I could, that no one in our store subscribes to either publication. He was stunned - "Don't your suppliers give them you?" No, I explained. Before I got into an argument with him about how unimportant those things are to me, he cried, "Well, think of your customers!" and he left. Oh, I am thinking of my customers, with each and every recommendation. How could I not? Retailers who rely heavily upon the reviews of others are incredibly lazy. I was once in a wine shop where I listened to the salesperson on the floor discuss several wines with a customer and it seemed to me that every other word out of their mouth was, "Well, Robert Parker says this" or "the Wine Spectator says that" As the San Fernando Valley sommelier might say, "Gag me with a tastevin". If you want to subjegate your own palate to people you've never met and are unlikely to, go right ahead. It's your wine dollars, after all. If, on the other hand, you truly want to LEARN something about wine, you MUST take chances, and you do yourself the best service by putting yourself into the hands of a reputable merchant who gives a damn. We are not all altruists or selfless, this is a business after all, but consider this: 1) If we're smart, we want your return business. That means dealing with you honestly and honorably, asking you questions so that we might learn your preferences and tastes and respective levels of comfort. 2) I'm not positive about the various Wine Spectator reviewers, but I can tell you that M. Robert Parker has never spent ONE DAY in the retail wine business. He is a consumer and a trained lawyer, which means that he is of an adversarial disposition where we merchants are concerned. Treat us like the enemy, with thinly-veiled hostility and see just how far we bend over backwards for you. Treat us with common courtesy and an ounce of respect and we will work our butts off for you. Here is a scenario that is likely to play itself out, and two possible conclusions to it: You find a wine that you like - for the sake of my argument, let's say it is Rutherford Hill Merlot, a national brand with wide distribution. If you really like, say, the 2002 vintage, and you taste the 2003 and it is not to your tastes, you'd probably want to secure what you can find of the 2002, right? Okay. If you bought that wine at Costco, chances are that you are out of luck, and the 2002 is all gone. There is no staff to ask, and they cannot obtain more for you. If you bought it from a retailer, you might be able to call up your "wine guy" and say, "Hey, I really prefer that 2002 to the 2003 - any more 2002 to be had?" Your retailer might have some stock of it, and might be able to get some more, as some vintages are available concurrently (not usually, because it causes confusion, but still there are exceptions). Sure, you might pay more, because your retailer isn't some national chain that has a paid membership and is giving everything away at 5% above their cost, but you are getting service that the big discounter cannot. It all comes down to what level of service you are willing to pay for. Do you wash your own car, or do you take it to a car wash, or even to a detailer? Do you stay at Holiday Inns and Motel 6's or the Four Seasons and Hilton hotels? They all have clean rooms with bathrooms, right? This is my roundabout way of saying that if you are paying for good retail wine service, you deserve a retailer who thinks for themselves and is discriminating, not blindly following some critic whose tastes might not jibe with your own. Our success as reputable wine merchants depends upon the trust of our customers and their return business and positive word of mouth. As for the scoring system, my friend David Raines, the wine director for the Gordon's chain in Waltham, Mass. put this issue into great perspective recently: The Gordon's Daily Flash: Wednesday December 14, 2005 According to the fine print on the cover of the Wine Advocate: "The numerical rating given is a guide to what I think of the wine vis-à-vis its peer group. Certainly, wines rated above 85 are very good to excellent, and any wine rated 90 or above will be outstanding for its particular type." (emphasis added) But please note: an outstanding tank fermented, unaged coöperative red may be "outstanding for its particular type," but it is NOT necessarily an outstanding wine. It is certainly not going to be a FINE one. We've just finished tasting three wines here today. A 90 point wine, a 92 point wine, and a wine that hasn't been scored yet, but which consistently receives 90 to 91 point scores in the Wine Advocate. Here's the WA note on the 90 pointer: "A custom cuvee assembled by importer Eric Solomon, this blend of 40% Bobal, 20% Merlot, and equal parts Syrah, Grenache, Cabernet Sauvignon, and Tempranillo exhibits a dense ruby/purple color, full-bodied, inky, concentrated, black fruit flavors, wonderful sweetness and purity, and a heady, long finish. A big, stylish red made on the border of Yecla and La Mancha, it is undeniably a fabulous value. Drink it over the next 2-3 years." And here's the 92 pointer: "A custom cuvee for the American importer, the 19,000-case 2003 Mas Donnis Barrica was aged ten months in both American and French oak. Its dense ruby/purple color is followed by sumptuous aromas of blueberries, black currants, cold steel, and minerals. Evocative of a baby Priorat, it possesses an amazing fragrance, considerable nobility as well as complexity, medium to full body, and a long, concentrated, heady finish. Enjoy it over the next 5-7 years." And here are the Daily Flash notes: #1 is an artificially dark wine without structure, texture, layering or anything other than superficially pleasant flavors. Clearly manufacured (I guess that's what 'a custom cuvée' means) it is a clear improvement over similarly priced wines from California or Australia and easily merits a score between 82-84 points. #2 offers a welcome return to a natural ruby color, smoother (i.e. not added) tannins, and flavors that actually seem related to the wine's Spanish origins, all in a clean, well-made, medium to medium-light bodied wine, again without much grip or texture. #3, on the other hand, not only seems like an absolute BLOCKBUSTER in this company, it offers layer after layer of authentic Italian (that is MODERN Italian) flavor, rich, ripe tannins, tremendous intensity and genuine refinement. Clearly the Wine Advocate and I are using different sets of criteria. But assuming that 90 points is the dividing line between fine wine and merely good wine, can't we identify the differences that create that divide? It isn't merely a matter of fruit. Red wines are a whole made up of fruit, tannins, and as many complex reflections of different flavors as the vineyard, the weather, and the producer are capable of capturing. Primary, one dimensional fruit and raw tannins do not make for finesse. Fruit needs to be broadened through blending and elevage (not to mention through proper vineyard practices applied to an appropriate piece of land). And (even more importantly) tannins (which, at a minimum, should be naturally present in a wine) need to be MANAGED, not just left as they are (though if they were added, they probably won't change all that much anyway). Wine #1 CAN NOT POSSIBLY be a 90 point wine. It doesn't have ANY of the elements of a fine wine. It just has pleasant fruit. And to say wine #2 (which is a very well made wine made from reltively modest raw materials) is even CLOSE TO wine #3, much less 2 points better, is like saying Kanye West is better than Brahams because it's easier to dance to his music. There should be a few ABSOLUTES in wine judging, and one of them is that raw little reds (like #1) that will never be any better than they were the moment they were (early) bottled, CAN'T score more than 85 points. (You can actually make a case for a higher score for straightforward whites, but that's a subject for another day.) It should also be a hard, fast rule that a red needs to have some tannic depth before it can be scored a 90. And color shouldn't count at all, except maybe as a negative: today's wine #1 is virtually opaque, but that still doesn't make it anything more than very well made plonk. If the 100 point scale has created any genuine damage, it's in this illusion it's created that we can all go down to the corner and get something as good as Château Latour for less than ten bucks. We can't. But that still doesn't mean wines numbers 1 and 2 aren't good, useful, and even praiseworthy wines. They ARE. All of that. But I'm pretty sure it would be dishonest of me to tell you I'm selling you FINE wine when the wine in question is merely a GOOD one. Good is good. Fine costs more. It would be nice to think it didn't. But it does. Note: I didn't ask David for permission to reprint his newsletter, because he is a friend and he has always acquiesed to my requests in the past, because I always give full credit to him (and why wouldn't I?) Okay, that's enough ranting for one day I hope that this was informative.

Raisa are you sure? Check out the 21-year bottling on Springbank's own site: http://www.springbankdistillers.com/catego...f3e49b562f75033 This is the bottlling that I sell, and it is definitely a 21-year old blend, as stated on the label. As the site indicates, it's 25 pounds on the 'Net (if ordered in the U.K. I suppose) If you still insist that you have a different bottling, well then I'd LOVE to see it! These things are of great interest to me.

Ha! I think they bought that bottle from me. It is properly, "Campbeltown Loch" 21 year-old BLENDED Scotch whisky, made at Springbank distillers, so it is indeed a rarity, but I sell it for under $100 (because I don't want to embarras the person who gave it to you, that's all I'm saying ;-) ) I tried it recently and it is sublime as all get-out. Very pretty whisky. I enjoyed it a lot. If you'd like to return it to me, I can swap you out for something else. It probably came from me because I believe I bought all that my supplier had in stock.

Co-sign. By the way, has anyone tasted the Sonoma-Cutrer Russian river Chardonnay lately? I don't get it, WHY does everyone go bonkers over this stuff? In the late '80's it was compelling California Chardonnay, but now? Average. Where's the beef? Not in the bottle. If they increase production, this will be higher-priced KJ.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Zora, I know that you meant no offense, and believe me I don't take any offense to your statement, but the way you phrased that had me laughing until I was teary-eyed. I LOVE it! Believe me, I hardly think we're a destination, but we try, and I'd like for us to be a place where enthusiastic wine drinkers can go to find interesting selections and not be elbow-to-elbow with a noisy crowd. Thanks for the mention

We've got Bourbons galore. Lots of lovely bottlings at every price range. My all-around favorite is the Labrot & Graham Woodford Reserve, but I've also developed a love for the Corner Creek and the Black Maple Hill, both of whose prices are far from larcenous. Stop on by, I'd love to show them to you.

While you're at it, Terry, could you mention the restaurants in our area that have a good selection of your wines and make a special effort to promote them? Those are restaurants that I would like to give some business to.

No Barbara, I don't think that you're Philistines, I'll bet that Alamos Malbec was good. I've had at least one previous vintage and thought it was okay, but for the same money I much preferred the Altos Las Hormigas Malbec. I think that Alamos does a good job. If you ever want to splurge a little bit, go for their "big brothers" the Catena Malbec and Cabernet. I kinda think that this is how I judge a lot of wines, rightly or wrongly. I find one that to me defines a style or type and it becomes my yardstick by which I measure anything similar. Sure we all do that to an extent, but since I'm involved in commerce I have to decide, "is it better than what I already have?" My store must have 23 diffferent New Zealand Sauvignon Blancs. 23! Do we NEED 23? Probably not. I'm sure that we could easily halve that offering. We have over 20 west coast Pinot Gris wines - again, probably more than any reasonable store ought to have, and if it were left up to me, I'd probably get rid of several. I think that we have over 100 California Chardonnays, which is preposterous. 30 would probably work out fine. I like really good beers with friends, or if I'm out for a pizza dinner at Paradiso on M St. (thanks to Thor for improving the beer selection!) And if I go to R.F.K. I make an effort to get some Foggy Bottom Pils or Red Hook, but otherwise I just don't drink much of it because it goes right to my waist, which needs no help in expanding.