I always could count on futures
That things would look up, and they look up
Why is it so hard to find balance
Between living decent and the cold and real
-Jimmy Eat World, Futures
The next sliced bread is here. It is 2009 Bordeaux. Go elsewhere for your colloquial descriptors. There is no denying this is going to be a good one. The big boys in the industry are playing with the fates of all of the latest Cabs and Merlots sitting in barrels along the banks of the Gironde. Now is the time for the talk of futures wherein your investment in the best wines now could theoretically pay dividends when the wines actually arrive in consumer's hands in two years. Of course, there are risks to any investment, and this one has its fair share of naysayers. However, ten years ago there was a vintage considered equally as riveting, exciting, and legendary as many that had passed. Those who decided to invest in their 2000 Bordeaux futures have reaped returns many, many times greater than if they would have tossed their money at the stock market. The top fourteen wines have returned 300% on investment in the last ten years (source: Wine Spectator). So, why not buy futures in a great vintage?
Perspective, Materialism, Greed
Similar to other consumer products, wine has a release date and everything before it cannot quench your thirst while the anticipation builds. But unlike the last volume of 'Harry Potter' or the next iPhone, once you get your hands on it, you cannot enjoy it until an uncertain and undefined time wherein the bottle is ready. I remember anticipating the 2004 Brunellos with desire, and after I got my hands on them and laid them down, I pass by bottles of them without thinking twice. In this, wine is a particularly materialistic thing; having it for the sake of having it.
Mortality and Ageism
I heard someone muse that buying futures is only for the excessively wealthy and the foolish young. The former has the assets to amass purchases by the case without having to think twice, and the later does not have the experience of failed investments and reputable vintages to know any better. Of course, the foolishly young also have the opportunity to age alongside of the wines and experience their maturity.
Capital
Wine is expensive. The most expensive wines are even more expensive. Takes money to make money. Sure, the top fourteen wines of 2000 have appreciated immensely, but I would guess that one would have to have at least $50,000 to throw around to be able to pick up all of those wines in case quantities.
The Next Great Vintage
Every year brings it's all-star vintage somewhere in the world. Sure, there may not be extreme highs and lows to compliment every calendar year, but the sun usually shines the right way on someone. Phenomenal to legendary vintages have landed upon worldwide regions throughout the last decade. Bordeaux itself has produced refined and great collectible wines from 2000, 2001, 2003, 2005, and soon 2009.
What of the Last Great Vintage?
Many will argue that while people throw money at the 2009's, people who are still holding onto the 2005's and 2000's will bleed them into the market at phenomenal prices. This leaves the prudent and patient wine drinker lapping up these more ready-to-drink vintages while people are saving money to pay for wines that they pretty much have to lay down for another decade or so.
Remember the Overhead
Do not forget what it costs to store and sell wine properly for investment: energy for constant temperature control, facilities for storage, shipping costs, moving expenses, and the commission or premium that the eventual buyer absorbs. This is usually not deeply considered when trying to realize the potential of any investment gain on wine.
Good vs. Great
A wonderfully generous man celebrating his 80th birthday with his fine old Bordeaux told me that buying some of the best wines on off-vintages allowed him to not have to spend all the money in the world to drink fine, mature wine throughout his life. While everyone focuses on the 2000's, 2005's, and 2009's, some of the best wines from good-not-great vintages ('01, '03, '08) will last with great quality and durability at much more reasonable prices.
Currency Flux
The economic pressures are the strongest opponent of investing in fine wine. If the economy suffers between your orders today and their arrival in two years, the wines could be released at better prices, similar prices, or become more available in the long run.
But Is This Right for ME?
If you were to tell me to pile fine wine in my cellar and ask me to walk by it every day for a few years and not taste it, I would not be entirely convinced that I could do so. I may pick up a few bottles of 2009 futures on the hope that I can get some delicious wines at prices that will not be available when the wines are released. However, asking me to mature wines for the enjoyment of someone else is not my M.O. If it is yours, there may be some money in it for you.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Bang Bang (aka Two Steps Back)
Checking in on WineSpectator.com, I ran across an unfortunate event that happened recently that may profoundly change wine shipping laws and the wine industry in general. And I'm pissed.
Give it a browse: http://www.winespectator.com/webfeature/show?id=42526
Also as a primer, see my article on wine shipping practices
Apparently, the National Beer Wholesalers Association prodded congress to consider legislation that will help strengthen the three tier system that prevents direct wine shipment into many states. This direction is aimed not only to set a standard for wine shipping practices, but it is also designed to set a precedent in which to squash much of the progress being made to loosen wine shipping laws. Many of the changes and challenges to the system are based upon lawsuits and court cases which would have to abide by these new standards.
So knowing that it may be a bit colloquial for any argument against legislation, I am going to start by saying there are many better things to sink our time and money into. For all of the hazardous items that one can have access to, fine wine should be the least of our concerns. In a nation where getting a gun shipped to you is easier than a bottle of Cabernet*, we need to look to where our focus and money may be better spent. This is not a political thing, left or right, it is just a simple statement that there are ways to protect the consumers' rights and there are more important and basic things that our lawmakers should be spending their time on.
*7-10 days and about $500 will get me an AK-47 shipped to my local gun dealer (http://www.thegunsource.com/Content.aspx?cKey=Buy_Guns_Online). But for all of the money in the world, I can not get wine from Hightower Cellars, a lovely husband an wife winemaking team from Washington State because they are not brought in by my local wholesaler.
Then again, one could argue that the damage done by firearms does not match up with the destruction done by alcohol. While I'm not going to look up the stats on that one, I'm also not going to deny it by any means. That being said, I really believe that fine wine is not necessarily the largest danger in that equation. Winery direct shipments probably include responsible drinkers more than any other method of acquiring booze. Shipping alcohol does not mean indiscriminate selling. Done right, it should be as particular as walking to your local package store. We have the technology to verify legal recipients and the immense responsibility to ensure legal sales by the seller; the system should be developing strengths instead of being torn down.
But the main focus here is protecting the wholesalers of the world. If wineries and wine stores cannot ship between states, the wholesaler has near absolute price control. When some people realize that they could pay less, consumers would try to shop in other markets. But given this knowledge, an enormous component of the market still accepts their prices because the trouble to price shop across state lines is immensely inconvenient and costly in itself. And a smaller percentage of fine wine buyers either do not care because they have the money for the luxury or use alternate auction markets anyways. This bill puts the screws to the casual wine enthusiast who wants to spend their money on their favourite things. If the wholesaler is not capable of providing this to them, what right do they have to prevent it from happening? Well, apparently they are in the midst of creating that very right.
Whatever your interests, this is overall an anti-competitive move to solidify the bubble that state lines enforce to control liquor, wine, and beer pricing. It is a very pointed and backhanded move by the industry leaders and it will have its casualties. I understand that Massachusetts and its antiquated notions of liquor laws would restrict shipping. But to overhaul the entire nations' wine market would a punch to the gut for wine lovers everywhere.
If I try to go much further I will start to get political and mean. But instead, I'll leave you with the idea that wine need not be a scary and unfortunate commodity. Wine should be bought and enjoyed casually, with friends and food. The information age has created more knowledgeable consumers who want to buy delicious wine. The more transparency that there is in the industry will provide for a better product to be enjoyed by more people, more often.
Give it a browse: http://www.winespectator.com/webfeature/show?id=42526
Also as a primer, see my article on wine shipping practices
Apparently, the National Beer Wholesalers Association prodded congress to consider legislation that will help strengthen the three tier system that prevents direct wine shipment into many states. This direction is aimed not only to set a standard for wine shipping practices, but it is also designed to set a precedent in which to squash much of the progress being made to loosen wine shipping laws. Many of the changes and challenges to the system are based upon lawsuits and court cases which would have to abide by these new standards.
So knowing that it may be a bit colloquial for any argument against legislation, I am going to start by saying there are many better things to sink our time and money into. For all of the hazardous items that one can have access to, fine wine should be the least of our concerns. In a nation where getting a gun shipped to you is easier than a bottle of Cabernet*, we need to look to where our focus and money may be better spent. This is not a political thing, left or right, it is just a simple statement that there are ways to protect the consumers' rights and there are more important and basic things that our lawmakers should be spending their time on.
*7-10 days and about $500 will get me an AK-47 shipped to my local gun dealer (http://www.thegunsource.com/Content.aspx?cKey=Buy_Guns_Online). But for all of the money in the world, I can not get wine from Hightower Cellars, a lovely husband an wife winemaking team from Washington State because they are not brought in by my local wholesaler.
Then again, one could argue that the damage done by firearms does not match up with the destruction done by alcohol. While I'm not going to look up the stats on that one, I'm also not going to deny it by any means. That being said, I really believe that fine wine is not necessarily the largest danger in that equation. Winery direct shipments probably include responsible drinkers more than any other method of acquiring booze. Shipping alcohol does not mean indiscriminate selling. Done right, it should be as particular as walking to your local package store. We have the technology to verify legal recipients and the immense responsibility to ensure legal sales by the seller; the system should be developing strengths instead of being torn down.
But the main focus here is protecting the wholesalers of the world. If wineries and wine stores cannot ship between states, the wholesaler has near absolute price control. When some people realize that they could pay less, consumers would try to shop in other markets. But given this knowledge, an enormous component of the market still accepts their prices because the trouble to price shop across state lines is immensely inconvenient and costly in itself. And a smaller percentage of fine wine buyers either do not care because they have the money for the luxury or use alternate auction markets anyways. This bill puts the screws to the casual wine enthusiast who wants to spend their money on their favourite things. If the wholesaler is not capable of providing this to them, what right do they have to prevent it from happening? Well, apparently they are in the midst of creating that very right.
Whatever your interests, this is overall an anti-competitive move to solidify the bubble that state lines enforce to control liquor, wine, and beer pricing. It is a very pointed and backhanded move by the industry leaders and it will have its casualties. I understand that Massachusetts and its antiquated notions of liquor laws would restrict shipping. But to overhaul the entire nations' wine market would a punch to the gut for wine lovers everywhere.
If I try to go much further I will start to get political and mean. But instead, I'll leave you with the idea that wine need not be a scary and unfortunate commodity. Wine should be bought and enjoyed casually, with friends and food. The information age has created more knowledgeable consumers who want to buy delicious wine. The more transparency that there is in the industry will provide for a better product to be enjoyed by more people, more often.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
A Wine that Appreciates with Youth
You do not have to like old wines better than young wines. There, I said it. Drink up!
One of the most ingrained wine truths is that old wines are better. Age does incredible things to wine, refining and changing the flavors in an ethereal process that happens uncontrollably at a minute pace. For this, older bottles appreciate and become valuable investments or keepsakes. There is an auction market that gathers the wealthy and obsessed and wrings them of dollars that could otherwise be well spent. Alongside of this is a general understanding of wine that accumulates with the drinkers' age as many people do not have the income or interest in fine wine until they have the resources later on in life. Therefore, many old wines enjoyed are not relics of patience, but are instead purchases that attach a premium to allow for the experience.
But aside from the money and the investment involved in aged wine, there is the juice itself. Nothing evolves quite like a French Bordeaux. There is really no track record that supports any other wine to match the heritage or recognition that an old bottle of Cabernet or Merlot from France can achieve. Sure, there may be more singular and unique wines in the world (see: Romanee Conti) or wines that do not provide so much satisfaction for the first few decades (see: Vintage Port), but let us take Bordeaux as a standard and basic example.
Firstly, it is interesting to note, while searching through Wine Spectator's reviews of legendary vintages (1945, 1959, 1961, 1982, 1986) there is only one 100-point wine (1961 Latour). These wines are up around 1000% from their original release prices. That being said, there are many, many 100-pointers from the 2005 vintage (nine!). All things equal, does this mean that these wines right now are better than their older counterparts?
Sure, this stat is easy to throw out with the development of modern winemaking techniques, the change in reviewers over the years, the increasing access to information, and the fact that this is one source that many will say rewards more a certain type of wine while failing to appreciate another. Still, there is something to say about the dynamically different reaction to these young wines than those of the ages.
Wine can be considered in three aromatic stages: primary, secondary, and tertiary. The primary characteristics of a wine refer to the basic varietal aspects of a grape, i.e. Nebbiolo usually reveals flavors of red fruit and violets. Secondary aspects of a wine are revealed through fermentation, barrel aging, and bottling. These are seen as the winemaker's hand in the flavor and are what is represented when the bottles leave the warehouse. Tertiary flavours are those imparted by aging gracefully throughout the years. These tertiary aromas and tastes are what people are paying the top dollar for.
Mostly, it is worth it. Only if I were so lucky to be experiencing aged wines with an endless finish that transcends description. However, these tertiary flavours do not necessarily satisfy everyone, wine enthusiast or not, to the same degree. If an incredibly delicious and complex wine is astounding in its youth, it will not necessarily communicate the same nuances for all the years to come. Sure, it allows for good odds to evolve wonderfully, but it does not mean that it will taste better to you as it expresses itself.
Again, this conversation is not arguing that younger wines are better than older wines or vis-a-versa, but more so that you can determine by your experiences and taste buds which wines you adore and what stage they are at when you do so. With the generosity of some friends, I have tried some aged Hermitage. This is a small Northern Rhone appelation known for making the best and most expensive Syrah. Although these wines carried with them the aged complexity and nuiance that one would expect from this caliber of wine, I did not like them. There is a cured meat, manure smell that is an incredible expression of grape juice, but the off-putting notes left me wishing for more of the black and blue fruit of this wine's youth.
When somebody told me they went to a dinner and did not like the 1986 Haut Brion they tried among other great younger wines, I was initially (and snobbishly) jealous and disappointed that that glass was not used instead on someone who would have understood it. But before even thinking, I replied that it there is nothing saying you have to like old wine better than the young stuff. Looking back, I'm glad that he had that glass, because it is probably a revelatory experience for this gentleman. That, in itself, is worth every drop from that bottle.
My addage stands that there is something to appreciate about any wine, and then you have to decide whether or not you like it. Aged wine is a great thing, and can often be the best of things. But there is nothing saying that you have to think it is better than a young wine. Except, of course, of all of those auction markets, cellars, reviews, articles, and mystique...
One of the most ingrained wine truths is that old wines are better. Age does incredible things to wine, refining and changing the flavors in an ethereal process that happens uncontrollably at a minute pace. For this, older bottles appreciate and become valuable investments or keepsakes. There is an auction market that gathers the wealthy and obsessed and wrings them of dollars that could otherwise be well spent. Alongside of this is a general understanding of wine that accumulates with the drinkers' age as many people do not have the income or interest in fine wine until they have the resources later on in life. Therefore, many old wines enjoyed are not relics of patience, but are instead purchases that attach a premium to allow for the experience.
But aside from the money and the investment involved in aged wine, there is the juice itself. Nothing evolves quite like a French Bordeaux. There is really no track record that supports any other wine to match the heritage or recognition that an old bottle of Cabernet or Merlot from France can achieve. Sure, there may be more singular and unique wines in the world (see: Romanee Conti) or wines that do not provide so much satisfaction for the first few decades (see: Vintage Port), but let us take Bordeaux as a standard and basic example.
Firstly, it is interesting to note, while searching through Wine Spectator's reviews of legendary vintages (1945, 1959, 1961, 1982, 1986) there is only one 100-point wine (1961 Latour). These wines are up around 1000% from their original release prices. That being said, there are many, many 100-pointers from the 2005 vintage (nine!). All things equal, does this mean that these wines right now are better than their older counterparts?
Sure, this stat is easy to throw out with the development of modern winemaking techniques, the change in reviewers over the years, the increasing access to information, and the fact that this is one source that many will say rewards more a certain type of wine while failing to appreciate another. Still, there is something to say about the dynamically different reaction to these young wines than those of the ages.
Wine can be considered in three aromatic stages: primary, secondary, and tertiary. The primary characteristics of a wine refer to the basic varietal aspects of a grape, i.e. Nebbiolo usually reveals flavors of red fruit and violets. Secondary aspects of a wine are revealed through fermentation, barrel aging, and bottling. These are seen as the winemaker's hand in the flavor and are what is represented when the bottles leave the warehouse. Tertiary flavours are those imparted by aging gracefully throughout the years. These tertiary aromas and tastes are what people are paying the top dollar for.
Mostly, it is worth it. Only if I were so lucky to be experiencing aged wines with an endless finish that transcends description. However, these tertiary flavours do not necessarily satisfy everyone, wine enthusiast or not, to the same degree. If an incredibly delicious and complex wine is astounding in its youth, it will not necessarily communicate the same nuances for all the years to come. Sure, it allows for good odds to evolve wonderfully, but it does not mean that it will taste better to you as it expresses itself.
Again, this conversation is not arguing that younger wines are better than older wines or vis-a-versa, but more so that you can determine by your experiences and taste buds which wines you adore and what stage they are at when you do so. With the generosity of some friends, I have tried some aged Hermitage. This is a small Northern Rhone appelation known for making the best and most expensive Syrah. Although these wines carried with them the aged complexity and nuiance that one would expect from this caliber of wine, I did not like them. There is a cured meat, manure smell that is an incredible expression of grape juice, but the off-putting notes left me wishing for more of the black and blue fruit of this wine's youth.
When somebody told me they went to a dinner and did not like the 1986 Haut Brion they tried among other great younger wines, I was initially (and snobbishly) jealous and disappointed that that glass was not used instead on someone who would have understood it. But before even thinking, I replied that it there is nothing saying you have to like old wine better than the young stuff. Looking back, I'm glad that he had that glass, because it is probably a revelatory experience for this gentleman. That, in itself, is worth every drop from that bottle.
My addage stands that there is something to appreciate about any wine, and then you have to decide whether or not you like it. Aged wine is a great thing, and can often be the best of things. But there is nothing saying that you have to think it is better than a young wine. Except, of course, of all of those auction markets, cellars, reviews, articles, and mystique...
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Wine...making...
I had the fortune of talking recently with a renowned winemaker who impressed on me how slow the wine making process is. He said, "Imagine that you make wine from when you're 25 until you are 70 years old. That is forty-five chances to get it right. And you do not have control over all of the variables either."
Add that to the fact that when you prune vines for the next harvest, the process is not done until bottles arrive in customer's hands around three years later. Sure, you're keeping busy during that time, but the satisfaction of a job well done is a long ways away. And if you make a wine that is not to a drinker's liking, for whatever reason, that was three years of your most diligent efforts that have fallen short. This is a very crucial thought to wrap your mind about next time you decide to harshly criticize a wine.
Although I would never entirely deprive anybody of their right to honestly evaluate and criticize any particular wine, it leads me to question how fairly or accurately one can comment on a wine when they have never experienced the wine making process.
During this same conversation, when I asked the winemaker how I could possibly prepare myself for an experience as tumultuous as making wine, he said that it is definitely not found in a book. "Sure, there are particulars about what one does every month, or at every step, but knowing what happens does not compare to doing it." He also mentioned that the best way to get ready to make wine was to learn how to use a forklift and have some conversational Spanish.
It is a similar dichotomy in most industries where the act of doing can be intensely revealing compared to the relative study of the process. Unfortunately, the study and experience of wine in its many forms (tasting, reading, collecting) does not communicate what winemaking is actually like.
Just like any luxurious craft, the handiwork is not a pretty or easy process. It is a detailed journey of slow and meticulous parts that one hopes are appreciated when the project is complete. And like other pieces of craftsmanship, the product that one puts their intense focus and attention towards is released once complete. In the buyer's hands, it is then scrutinized at will.
Hopefully, one who knows what it takes to make such things will see the details that others will not. I envy those who have amassed the experience that makes all wines as transparent as if they were making them. Additionally, those who can separate preference from analysis achieve a crucial and difficult goal when assessing wines. And even though it is not necessary to partake in the production side of the industry to fully enjoy wine, I will still continue to feel humbled and under-qualified concerning my knowledge of the details of wine until I can say that I have made it myself.
I hope someday you'll raise a glass of my wine. Just be kind when you do. And be patient, because it will take a long while...
Add that to the fact that when you prune vines for the next harvest, the process is not done until bottles arrive in customer's hands around three years later. Sure, you're keeping busy during that time, but the satisfaction of a job well done is a long ways away. And if you make a wine that is not to a drinker's liking, for whatever reason, that was three years of your most diligent efforts that have fallen short. This is a very crucial thought to wrap your mind about next time you decide to harshly criticize a wine.
Although I would never entirely deprive anybody of their right to honestly evaluate and criticize any particular wine, it leads me to question how fairly or accurately one can comment on a wine when they have never experienced the wine making process.
During this same conversation, when I asked the winemaker how I could possibly prepare myself for an experience as tumultuous as making wine, he said that it is definitely not found in a book. "Sure, there are particulars about what one does every month, or at every step, but knowing what happens does not compare to doing it." He also mentioned that the best way to get ready to make wine was to learn how to use a forklift and have some conversational Spanish.
It is a similar dichotomy in most industries where the act of doing can be intensely revealing compared to the relative study of the process. Unfortunately, the study and experience of wine in its many forms (tasting, reading, collecting) does not communicate what winemaking is actually like.
Just like any luxurious craft, the handiwork is not a pretty or easy process. It is a detailed journey of slow and meticulous parts that one hopes are appreciated when the project is complete. And like other pieces of craftsmanship, the product that one puts their intense focus and attention towards is released once complete. In the buyer's hands, it is then scrutinized at will.
Hopefully, one who knows what it takes to make such things will see the details that others will not. I envy those who have amassed the experience that makes all wines as transparent as if they were making them. Additionally, those who can separate preference from analysis achieve a crucial and difficult goal when assessing wines. And even though it is not necessary to partake in the production side of the industry to fully enjoy wine, I will still continue to feel humbled and under-qualified concerning my knowledge of the details of wine until I can say that I have made it myself.
I hope someday you'll raise a glass of my wine. Just be kind when you do. And be patient, because it will take a long while...
Monday, March 8, 2010
Wine Snobism
I have often joked with friends, family, and strangers that my wine geekdom spills over into snobbishness. Being a 'wine snob' has become a friendly colloquial term for someone who knows a lot about wine in a world where the converse is usually the norm. It is also a hobby or profession that involves excess and luxury, therefore allowing for the correlation between basic knowledge and elitism. Therefore, while the playful term 'wine snob' is thrown around, there is a deeper seeded understanding and resentment of the culture of wine that does not attract the average consumer to become involved in wine.
Like knowing what kind of private jet or stretch limo is your favorite to ride in, having a sweet spot for aged Bordeaux or vintage Champagne is not exactly a casual relationship. There is a serious financial investment required to have these things be a regular part of your life as opposed to a once in a lifetime experience. But it is not just expensive, it is an expense that is auxiliary to other finer things. It is very difficult for the casual or limited wine drinker to reconcile this reality.
However, desire is a spice of life and it keeps many of us spending a bit more on the next bottle than the last, drooling over the unobtainable wines of which some have the privilege to amass collections. Wine lovers all over the world find their sweet spot, from picking out one bottle a week to piling up cases of Grand Crus. So where do you reconcile your place in the wine world and converse with all of the other wine drinkers and their interpretation of the beverage?
In my experience, it comes down to being honest with what you are passionate about while being completely grounded in what it feels like to not know anything about wine. For the former, it is never wrong to really embrace any style of winemaking. While some may say that over-oaked California chardonnays or high-alcohol Southern Hemisphere reds can never really match the finest wines in the world, they also cannot tell you that you do not enjoy them. And for the later, the most vital part of any enthusiast should be knowing how to describe a wine in the simplest terms to communicate their passion to anybody.
The finest wines in the world are so because they have a history of producing the greatest product, year after year. However, they may not be a part of some wine lovers' reality when the cost is so extravagant. And if they are not worth the cost, how great are they really? My guess is that they are great for a small few, and not relevant to the thirsty many.
All of that being said, I find myself in a precarious position. I often drink good wine, probably nicer stuff than most people will ever taste in their lives. No, I do not spend extraordinary sums on piles of wine that I will never touch, but I will collect fine wines that most people will not consider. And we are not talking Grand Crus or First Growths, but really nice wines that age well and fall in the $30-$100 range. So how do I reconcile my fine wine passion with staying grounded in the world of wine snobs?
Firstly, I aspire to fine something to appreciate about any wine that I taste. From boxed wine to two buck chuck, I try to reconcile the product with the market, and put myself in a mindset that allows me to find the good or appeal in any bottle. I do not have to like everything, but I try to understand it.
Second, I never discount the ability of any region or winery to produce a world-class wine. When people look down their noses at certain winemakers or styles of wine, they are selling short the producers' effort and creating a hierarchy on the acceptable realm of wine. Having favorites is completely understandable, but rejecting the quality and techniques of a region as a whole is a complete prejudice that can be insulting to others' preferences.
And lastly, if there are only certain types of good wine, then the individual's ability to have a unique experience is stripped. Wine is, after all, an undeniable individual sensory episode and is only relative to a singular person at a specific moment. In other words, there is nobody who can tell you what you taste; it is a irrefutable flavor that connects with you however you decide it does.
Wine can easily be intimidating. Unfortunately there is a culture that propagates this. I am happy to dub myself a 'wine snob' because I hope I can be humble and grounded enough to use this as an opening to begin a informative or fun conversation on the topic. However, it is very hard to get deep into wine and reconcile that excitement with the average wine drinker. This is the key to a conversation that will help everybody find the bottle that leads them to discover the next great thing about wine. I hope that I can help as many people as possible make this step, and that my fellow professionals will have the same candid goal.
Like knowing what kind of private jet or stretch limo is your favorite to ride in, having a sweet spot for aged Bordeaux or vintage Champagne is not exactly a casual relationship. There is a serious financial investment required to have these things be a regular part of your life as opposed to a once in a lifetime experience. But it is not just expensive, it is an expense that is auxiliary to other finer things. It is very difficult for the casual or limited wine drinker to reconcile this reality.
However, desire is a spice of life and it keeps many of us spending a bit more on the next bottle than the last, drooling over the unobtainable wines of which some have the privilege to amass collections. Wine lovers all over the world find their sweet spot, from picking out one bottle a week to piling up cases of Grand Crus. So where do you reconcile your place in the wine world and converse with all of the other wine drinkers and their interpretation of the beverage?
In my experience, it comes down to being honest with what you are passionate about while being completely grounded in what it feels like to not know anything about wine. For the former, it is never wrong to really embrace any style of winemaking. While some may say that over-oaked California chardonnays or high-alcohol Southern Hemisphere reds can never really match the finest wines in the world, they also cannot tell you that you do not enjoy them. And for the later, the most vital part of any enthusiast should be knowing how to describe a wine in the simplest terms to communicate their passion to anybody.
The finest wines in the world are so because they have a history of producing the greatest product, year after year. However, they may not be a part of some wine lovers' reality when the cost is so extravagant. And if they are not worth the cost, how great are they really? My guess is that they are great for a small few, and not relevant to the thirsty many.
All of that being said, I find myself in a precarious position. I often drink good wine, probably nicer stuff than most people will ever taste in their lives. No, I do not spend extraordinary sums on piles of wine that I will never touch, but I will collect fine wines that most people will not consider. And we are not talking Grand Crus or First Growths, but really nice wines that age well and fall in the $30-$100 range. So how do I reconcile my fine wine passion with staying grounded in the world of wine snobs?
Firstly, I aspire to fine something to appreciate about any wine that I taste. From boxed wine to two buck chuck, I try to reconcile the product with the market, and put myself in a mindset that allows me to find the good or appeal in any bottle. I do not have to like everything, but I try to understand it.
Second, I never discount the ability of any region or winery to produce a world-class wine. When people look down their noses at certain winemakers or styles of wine, they are selling short the producers' effort and creating a hierarchy on the acceptable realm of wine. Having favorites is completely understandable, but rejecting the quality and techniques of a region as a whole is a complete prejudice that can be insulting to others' preferences.
And lastly, if there are only certain types of good wine, then the individual's ability to have a unique experience is stripped. Wine is, after all, an undeniable individual sensory episode and is only relative to a singular person at a specific moment. In other words, there is nobody who can tell you what you taste; it is a irrefutable flavor that connects with you however you decide it does.
Wine can easily be intimidating. Unfortunately there is a culture that propagates this. I am happy to dub myself a 'wine snob' because I hope I can be humble and grounded enough to use this as an opening to begin a informative or fun conversation on the topic. However, it is very hard to get deep into wine and reconcile that excitement with the average wine drinker. This is the key to a conversation that will help everybody find the bottle that leads them to discover the next great thing about wine. I hope that I can help as many people as possible make this step, and that my fellow professionals will have the same candid goal.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Breaking Laws, Shipping Wine
"I love my fed-ex guy cause he's a drug dealer and he doesn't even know it...and he's always on time." -Mitch Hedberg
Of all of the things that are sent through the mail, it is hard to get a clear understanding of why I cannot get wine shipped to me legally in Massachusetts. It seems like it could be an antiquated notion that is used to protect an outlet for underage drinking. However, a UPS driver can check an ID as well as a bartender. So what else could be the biggest threat of me ordering my wine online? Unfortunately, the laws are put in place to protect the high prices of a three tier supply chain in the disguise of promoting local wineries. Here are the basic facts:
-A winery cannot directly ship to Massachusetts if their production is over 30,000-gallons. This is around 12,000 cases, eliminating most wineries. Fortunately, this is above what any Massachusetts winery produces. Unfortunately, there are very few inspiring wineries in the state.
-Furthermore, if any winery is represented in Massachusetts by a distributor within the last six months, they are not allowed to ship directly. This leaves the distributor with almost complete price control because it isolates the consumer.
-FedEx and UPS have to acquire special licenses to carry alcohol and they do not pursue it. Recent laws have been passed to turn the tides, but there still is no carrier that will accept this responsibility.
-Massachusetts has a limit of wine that can be bought by any particular individual. The burden of keeping track of this is put on the winery. Therefore, each winery has to track how much wine any person has bought from not only them, but any other winery.
It is in the interest of the industry to uphold these laws. While as a consumer I am not looking to get wine from a winery direct, I am looking to get wine that I cannot find easily here or wine that is priced too high to justify it. Therefore, if I followed the laws, I would have to pay Massachusetts prices or not have the wine at all. Screw that.
I have built a collection of wine here in Massachusetts at prices that are well under, sometimes half of the price, as I find them locally. I even have had the ability to buy wholesale and not paid prices that are as good as these web-based stores can offer. And no, these are not sketchy, back-alley websites or second hand screwballs. These are direct importers, industry professionals who have developed relationships with the wineries, and sellers who can work with serious volume and move product. They are accessible, organized warehouses-turned-websites that set a high standard for service and value. (I will mention here that wine.com does indeed ship within the state because they have local warehouses. They also have Massachusetts prices.)
I will not name any of these websites; because although many thanks are due, my stories would offer more damage than it is worth. I have purchased Italian collectibles at $60 less than they are put on the shelf for, and some '05 Bordeaux that is about $50 more on the wholesale book. Sure, I am a ruthless bargain hunter, but my resistance has definitely been rewarding. Even tack on shipping and the prices locally are still not reasonable.
Here are some experiences and tips that have allowed me to receive wine from out of state:
-My first online wine purchase got bounced back to the seller as soon as it his state lines. I got in touch with the company and asked what happened. He told me not to worry about it and that I would have my wine in two days. Sure enough, two days later there was a package on my doorstep labeled "Fragile Artwork."
-Call the store you are looking to purchase from. Often they have worked with customers in your state and will work with you to find a method to get the product to you. Very often, their desire to take care of their customers will be motive enough for them to ship, one way or another.
-If you know somebody that works at or owns a restaurant, often they can receive wine easier because of their liquor license. This seems to ease the burden on FedEx and UPS, although it is technically still wrapped in the same issues as delivering to a home.
-Have a relative that lives across state lines.
-Set up a shipping account with UPS or FedEx so that you are taking more of the legal burden than the store who is sending it.
These laws and the methods to circumvent them are an unfortunate arrangement. Consider this: I have had a friend order three bottles of absinthe from Denmark and have UPS leave the package on their doorstep. While lawmakers are spending our money fighting this battle and consumers are spending their money overpaying, little Johnny can hop on his computer and get international booze shipped without any questions.
It seems like the most rational thing to do would be refining the shipping and receiving policies so that alcohol is delivered in a safe manner and is taxed in a proper way. This would be a big victory for the consumer, but it would be a big loss for the wholesalers. The distribution companies have been protected for a long time and have been naming their own prices. This has become transparent with our new era of instant information. I think it is time to let me buy my wine. Or move.
Of all of the things that are sent through the mail, it is hard to get a clear understanding of why I cannot get wine shipped to me legally in Massachusetts. It seems like it could be an antiquated notion that is used to protect an outlet for underage drinking. However, a UPS driver can check an ID as well as a bartender. So what else could be the biggest threat of me ordering my wine online? Unfortunately, the laws are put in place to protect the high prices of a three tier supply chain in the disguise of promoting local wineries. Here are the basic facts:
-A winery cannot directly ship to Massachusetts if their production is over 30,000-gallons. This is around 12,000 cases, eliminating most wineries. Fortunately, this is above what any Massachusetts winery produces. Unfortunately, there are very few inspiring wineries in the state.
-Furthermore, if any winery is represented in Massachusetts by a distributor within the last six months, they are not allowed to ship directly. This leaves the distributor with almost complete price control because it isolates the consumer.
-FedEx and UPS have to acquire special licenses to carry alcohol and they do not pursue it. Recent laws have been passed to turn the tides, but there still is no carrier that will accept this responsibility.
-Massachusetts has a limit of wine that can be bought by any particular individual. The burden of keeping track of this is put on the winery. Therefore, each winery has to track how much wine any person has bought from not only them, but any other winery.
It is in the interest of the industry to uphold these laws. While as a consumer I am not looking to get wine from a winery direct, I am looking to get wine that I cannot find easily here or wine that is priced too high to justify it. Therefore, if I followed the laws, I would have to pay Massachusetts prices or not have the wine at all. Screw that.
I have built a collection of wine here in Massachusetts at prices that are well under, sometimes half of the price, as I find them locally. I even have had the ability to buy wholesale and not paid prices that are as good as these web-based stores can offer. And no, these are not sketchy, back-alley websites or second hand screwballs. These are direct importers, industry professionals who have developed relationships with the wineries, and sellers who can work with serious volume and move product. They are accessible, organized warehouses-turned-websites that set a high standard for service and value. (I will mention here that wine.com does indeed ship within the state because they have local warehouses. They also have Massachusetts prices.)
I will not name any of these websites; because although many thanks are due, my stories would offer more damage than it is worth. I have purchased Italian collectibles at $60 less than they are put on the shelf for, and some '05 Bordeaux that is about $50 more on the wholesale book. Sure, I am a ruthless bargain hunter, but my resistance has definitely been rewarding. Even tack on shipping and the prices locally are still not reasonable.
Here are some experiences and tips that have allowed me to receive wine from out of state:
-My first online wine purchase got bounced back to the seller as soon as it his state lines. I got in touch with the company and asked what happened. He told me not to worry about it and that I would have my wine in two days. Sure enough, two days later there was a package on my doorstep labeled "Fragile Artwork."
-Call the store you are looking to purchase from. Often they have worked with customers in your state and will work with you to find a method to get the product to you. Very often, their desire to take care of their customers will be motive enough for them to ship, one way or another.
-If you know somebody that works at or owns a restaurant, often they can receive wine easier because of their liquor license. This seems to ease the burden on FedEx and UPS, although it is technically still wrapped in the same issues as delivering to a home.
-Have a relative that lives across state lines.
-Set up a shipping account with UPS or FedEx so that you are taking more of the legal burden than the store who is sending it.
These laws and the methods to circumvent them are an unfortunate arrangement. Consider this: I have had a friend order three bottles of absinthe from Denmark and have UPS leave the package on their doorstep. While lawmakers are spending our money fighting this battle and consumers are spending their money overpaying, little Johnny can hop on his computer and get international booze shipped without any questions.
It seems like the most rational thing to do would be refining the shipping and receiving policies so that alcohol is delivered in a safe manner and is taxed in a proper way. This would be a big victory for the consumer, but it would be a big loss for the wholesalers. The distribution companies have been protected for a long time and have been naming their own prices. This has become transparent with our new era of instant information. I think it is time to let me buy my wine. Or move.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Cup of Flaws
I like caffeine. It is an integral part of my day. Given the choice, I will try to find myself in front of a two-shot, 5-oz traditional cappuccino every day. And often wash it down with a single espresso. This is partially a luxury culinary experience while it is also an energy boost to kick off the day. However, lacking a $5000 professional grade espresso machine and the $1500 grinder to make it work at home, I have few options to get my fix.
Around Boston, I would argue that there are five shops that can pull a good espresso. Five! And no, none are in the North End. Stylistically, the shops are pulling different expressions of espresso from a variety of roasters. Also, as a trend and not a necessity, all of these shops happen to focus on coffee with every else being auxiliary. Furthermore, there are only one and a half of these shops can texture milk well. Among the hundreds of capable espresso machines that are weighing down counters all over the city, five are using them well.
This is one of the top ten metropolitan cities; and maybe not boasting the biggest population, Boston is still crowded as hell. As egocentric as Bostonians can often feel, they are consistently playing catch-up in the finer points of the beverage industry. Some that are humble enough to admit it are really taking strides to do something new and innovative. On the other side are trendy, big money hot-spots that make the same mistakes but dress them up with a team of publicists and, I don't know, let's say cupcakes.
A big, fat example of this is that the 'Best of Boston' Coffee Shop serves espresso in the wrong cup and loads pre-ground coffee into the grinder. Wrong cup I can handle, but even the most novice of coffee drinker will have an inkling that grinding coffee freshly makes all the difference in the world. Espresso is built to show intense flavours but also expose flaws. For a sample of this, go to Starbucks and get an espresso for a demitasse cup full of flaws: over-roasted, bitter, smoky, dry, over-extracted, hot, dirty espresso like liquids. They do, however, know well enough to grind the coffee right before brewing it.
Some people are calling the new prevalence of sweet, delicious espresso part of the Third Wave of Coffee. This is in the perspective that the first wave is the Folger's generation, and the next being the Starbucks mall coffee. Folger's represented anonymous coffee of similar poor quality that went unchallenged. The second wave of Mall Coffee begin to focus on milk drinks ordered by the unit (size, milk, flavour shots, type) as well as a small presence of specialty coffee. Although this made coffee better, there was a lack of focus on flavour and origin that you get with, oh, let's say wine.
The Third Wave of Coffee is a focus that has developed in the last few years on a concentration of the greater culinary aspects of coffee including flavour, origin, and respect and reverence for those who produce the best quality product (now that 'quality' is part of the language). It is being supported with the appropriate technology to produce the premium expression of the bean. Only in the last twenty or less years have baristas really understood all of the intricate factors and effects that go into the perfect shot of espresso.
This developing knowledge and language has produced a new momentum for a spectacular coffee culture. Imagine perspective altering shots of espresso being the norm or bitter coffee being shunned. However, asking for something this good and precise to be commonplace is probably as foolish as going to McDonalds and ordering Foie Gras. Sorry to be so cynical, but this is the country that tries to absorb the best of everything around the world, bastardize it for convenience, and use that mutation as the standard.
There is a great and small voice promoting the best coffee and espresso in the world. However, it is specialty, and by nature that means that it will have to continue to be scarce. Following this reasoning, I guess I should consider myself fortunate to be within driving distance of five dedicated coffee shops. Otherwise I will do what any other passionate consumer with a cause does: I will strive to educate, provide a language and a forum to develop a perspective, respect the alternative, and use my choices to exemplify my focus.
Around Boston, I would argue that there are five shops that can pull a good espresso. Five! And no, none are in the North End. Stylistically, the shops are pulling different expressions of espresso from a variety of roasters. Also, as a trend and not a necessity, all of these shops happen to focus on coffee with every else being auxiliary. Furthermore, there are only one and a half of these shops can texture milk well. Among the hundreds of capable espresso machines that are weighing down counters all over the city, five are using them well.
This is one of the top ten metropolitan cities; and maybe not boasting the biggest population, Boston is still crowded as hell. As egocentric as Bostonians can often feel, they are consistently playing catch-up in the finer points of the beverage industry. Some that are humble enough to admit it are really taking strides to do something new and innovative. On the other side are trendy, big money hot-spots that make the same mistakes but dress them up with a team of publicists and, I don't know, let's say cupcakes.
A big, fat example of this is that the 'Best of Boston' Coffee Shop serves espresso in the wrong cup and loads pre-ground coffee into the grinder. Wrong cup I can handle, but even the most novice of coffee drinker will have an inkling that grinding coffee freshly makes all the difference in the world. Espresso is built to show intense flavours but also expose flaws. For a sample of this, go to Starbucks and get an espresso for a demitasse cup full of flaws: over-roasted, bitter, smoky, dry, over-extracted, hot, dirty espresso like liquids. They do, however, know well enough to grind the coffee right before brewing it.
Some people are calling the new prevalence of sweet, delicious espresso part of the Third Wave of Coffee. This is in the perspective that the first wave is the Folger's generation, and the next being the Starbucks mall coffee. Folger's represented anonymous coffee of similar poor quality that went unchallenged. The second wave of Mall Coffee begin to focus on milk drinks ordered by the unit (size, milk, flavour shots, type) as well as a small presence of specialty coffee. Although this made coffee better, there was a lack of focus on flavour and origin that you get with, oh, let's say wine.
The Third Wave of Coffee is a focus that has developed in the last few years on a concentration of the greater culinary aspects of coffee including flavour, origin, and respect and reverence for those who produce the best quality product (now that 'quality' is part of the language). It is being supported with the appropriate technology to produce the premium expression of the bean. Only in the last twenty or less years have baristas really understood all of the intricate factors and effects that go into the perfect shot of espresso.
This developing knowledge and language has produced a new momentum for a spectacular coffee culture. Imagine perspective altering shots of espresso being the norm or bitter coffee being shunned. However, asking for something this good and precise to be commonplace is probably as foolish as going to McDonalds and ordering Foie Gras. Sorry to be so cynical, but this is the country that tries to absorb the best of everything around the world, bastardize it for convenience, and use that mutation as the standard.
There is a great and small voice promoting the best coffee and espresso in the world. However, it is specialty, and by nature that means that it will have to continue to be scarce. Following this reasoning, I guess I should consider myself fortunate to be within driving distance of five dedicated coffee shops. Otherwise I will do what any other passionate consumer with a cause does: I will strive to educate, provide a language and a forum to develop a perspective, respect the alternative, and use my choices to exemplify my focus.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Best Money You'll Ever Spend
There is a multitude of wine drinkers imbibing every night. Or afternoon or morning, if you please. Either way, while a few lucky aficionados are drinking the 'crus' of the world, the rest are out there picking up something that is stacked at the end of the aisle at Trader Joe's. Whether you are into fancy wine or not, the cheapest wine sells in big quantities and that is the dominating chunk of volume of juice drank in any wine culture.
And for every person that is going to buy the rotgut that is marketed their way, I will have another ask how to break out of the slump of choosing the prettiest bottle over the best tasting one. In the world of overwhelming selections, a plethora of deals, and a sales clerk that has no idea what you like, there is a bottle for you. It will take some experimenting, some good wines and bad, but you will come out better for it in the end. Or at least quenched.
For those of you out there who never know what to spend to enjoy a bottle of wine let me stress this: the best money you will ever spend on wine will be when you decide to move from the $10 range to the $15 range. This five dollars is the biggest consistent increase in easily discernible quality.
For anybody who finds wine intimidating or can never really vocalize what makes one wine good and the other bad, this rule is for you. The casual wine drinker will probably not care too much about the flavor profile being more subtle or developed between the $15 and $30 bottle of wine. However, when you find yourself lost in the process of picking something off of the shelf, the simple descriptors between the $10 and $15 bottle will be what is important. It will taste better. It will be smoother. And, seeing as wine is a social thing at its core, it will impress more friends or loved ones.
From a wine geek perspective, I probably will stick to beer when I see the '2 for $12' sticker on the bottle that is being passed around a cocktail party. But at the same time, my casual everyday drinking wines, or the wines I try in tasting groups, or the wines I have picked for wine lists often fall in the $15 range. I'll be there to help you open the bottle and make sure the first few glasses taste right.
Furthermore, let's examine a wine that is 50% more expensive at any other range. Granted, the top price point of any comparison should have the ability to prove a better wine in a variety of attributes. For example, a $30 bottle of wine could be a killer collectible bottle at the low end of the threshold for serious wines. However, its $20 counterpart could be found preferential in many cases. Same goes with the $40 wine sitting next to the $60. Only when you start approaching extremes around $80 for the base wine does a wine purely sell for that much more because of prestige, history, or critical acclaim; all of which do not speak for your tastebuds.
After that, I'll let you decide for yourself what those most a bottle of wine could every be worth to you. A decently regarded White Burgundy usually starts at $150. First growth Bordeaux is going to sting you for at least $750. Screaming Eagle may set you back $3000. That's $4 a milliliter. And it's immediately consumable, unlike most anything else you would spend that kind of money on. One and done. But of course, that's why it is there. Wine is an extreme luxury.
Instead, transcend the luxury and get what you really want. For five dollars more, buy yourself a wine that tastes good.
And for every person that is going to buy the rotgut that is marketed their way, I will have another ask how to break out of the slump of choosing the prettiest bottle over the best tasting one. In the world of overwhelming selections, a plethora of deals, and a sales clerk that has no idea what you like, there is a bottle for you. It will take some experimenting, some good wines and bad, but you will come out better for it in the end. Or at least quenched.
For those of you out there who never know what to spend to enjoy a bottle of wine let me stress this: the best money you will ever spend on wine will be when you decide to move from the $10 range to the $15 range. This five dollars is the biggest consistent increase in easily discernible quality.
For anybody who finds wine intimidating or can never really vocalize what makes one wine good and the other bad, this rule is for you. The casual wine drinker will probably not care too much about the flavor profile being more subtle or developed between the $15 and $30 bottle of wine. However, when you find yourself lost in the process of picking something off of the shelf, the simple descriptors between the $10 and $15 bottle will be what is important. It will taste better. It will be smoother. And, seeing as wine is a social thing at its core, it will impress more friends or loved ones.
From a wine geek perspective, I probably will stick to beer when I see the '2 for $12' sticker on the bottle that is being passed around a cocktail party. But at the same time, my casual everyday drinking wines, or the wines I try in tasting groups, or the wines I have picked for wine lists often fall in the $15 range. I'll be there to help you open the bottle and make sure the first few glasses taste right.
Furthermore, let's examine a wine that is 50% more expensive at any other range. Granted, the top price point of any comparison should have the ability to prove a better wine in a variety of attributes. For example, a $30 bottle of wine could be a killer collectible bottle at the low end of the threshold for serious wines. However, its $20 counterpart could be found preferential in many cases. Same goes with the $40 wine sitting next to the $60. Only when you start approaching extremes around $80 for the base wine does a wine purely sell for that much more because of prestige, history, or critical acclaim; all of which do not speak for your tastebuds.
After that, I'll let you decide for yourself what those most a bottle of wine could every be worth to you. A decently regarded White Burgundy usually starts at $150. First growth Bordeaux is going to sting you for at least $750. Screaming Eagle may set you back $3000. That's $4 a milliliter. And it's immediately consumable, unlike most anything else you would spend that kind of money on. One and done. But of course, that's why it is there. Wine is an extreme luxury.
Instead, transcend the luxury and get what you really want. For five dollars more, buy yourself a wine that tastes good.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Everybody Reviews!
Who am I to review anything? Is it a base of credentials or a lack thereof? Possibly writing talent and an audience is all it takes. Or anonymity. And then there's the desire to wield that kind of power.
Everybody reviews restaurants now. Whether it is a blog, newspaper, water cooler conversation or message board (yelp, chowhound, etc) the media in which to express an opinion has tripled in the last decade. This also decreases the impact of every one of those reviews by sheer volume that they are produced. This is not the Times make-or-break era; instead there are throngs of know-it-all foodies with the outlet to sway the next hungry person.
Unfortunately one of the biggest motivations for reviewers is anger. Right behind that is support. And next would be convenience. And often these polarizing reviews are the only thing that motivates the person to write. The one-and-done authors most often want to make their displeasure as known as possible; sometimes posting the same negative words in as many forums as possible. After all, it is most cathartic to get it out that way.
My critique on many of these reviews concerns experience (what you have been through), understanding (how you are taking in what is happening), and intent (why are you doing this). The first two are partly related in that experience supports understanding but they are not always corollary.
Insofar as experience, you do not need any to share an opinion, but it goes a long way to helping validate strong beliefs and critiques. Being on the receiving side of many bad reviews, it is much more constructive when the source is one that has been in your shoes and therefore has a base of reference to clearly explain what is running afoul. Furthermore, this is an understanding that helps form a language to which the effort, however misplaced, can be digested when considering what needs to be said.
Conversely, there are no excuses that allow for bad service because it is difficult, or sloppy plates because things are busy. That being said, for all of the millions of people who have spent time serving tables or cooking food there are that many more people willing to be friendly and honest through difficult times. It also a lens that allows to see things for what they are; setting expectations however high or low and seeing how they are met in those established standards.
Whether or not a restaurant meets your criteria for a great dining experience, the next step is figuring out how (or if) you want to communicate it. Let us say, for example, that you just had rude service and bland food for a tidy $150. When you write a review on ChowHound, what is the intent? Are you looking to maliciously sink the restaurant for wasting your money? Or do you want to communicate with the people who created that experience and help them become better? Why, with so many people putting their life on the line opening a restaurant, would you ever have such a negative experience that creates such an extreme reaction? Or is it just gratifying to consider having that kind of voice?
Some of the worst reviews that I have gotten make me think that I slapped the guest in the face and poisoned their food all while yelling at their children. In actuality, they did not like the location of their table or the water was a bit too lukewarm. So many diners walk in the door and look for wrong, sometimes while ignoring the company they brought. I am also fine if you had a bad day and want to take it out on your server, but at least use that as your therapy and get all the negative out of your system.
We all learn so much from the good and the bad. Lessons come from mistakes and successes. Bad reviews are necessary and will always persist. I, however, am fortunate enough to know nobody that has worked as hard as restaurant people do that are willing to debase an establishment on the little things.
Just as you can never be an expert on baseball if you never swing a bat, eating everywhere does not give you the perspective to critique as well as the people who have had those dining experiences and created them as well. The comparison between the two opinions is not even close. And if I ever speak poorly about any restaurant, I will at least have the decency to identify the effort, intention, and solution to whatever problem there may have been.
Then again, they probably have to slap me and poison me to get such a reaction.
Everybody reviews restaurants now. Whether it is a blog, newspaper, water cooler conversation or message board (yelp, chowhound, etc) the media in which to express an opinion has tripled in the last decade. This also decreases the impact of every one of those reviews by sheer volume that they are produced. This is not the Times make-or-break era; instead there are throngs of know-it-all foodies with the outlet to sway the next hungry person.
Unfortunately one of the biggest motivations for reviewers is anger. Right behind that is support. And next would be convenience. And often these polarizing reviews are the only thing that motivates the person to write. The one-and-done authors most often want to make their displeasure as known as possible; sometimes posting the same negative words in as many forums as possible. After all, it is most cathartic to get it out that way.
My critique on many of these reviews concerns experience (what you have been through), understanding (how you are taking in what is happening), and intent (why are you doing this). The first two are partly related in that experience supports understanding but they are not always corollary.
Insofar as experience, you do not need any to share an opinion, but it goes a long way to helping validate strong beliefs and critiques. Being on the receiving side of many bad reviews, it is much more constructive when the source is one that has been in your shoes and therefore has a base of reference to clearly explain what is running afoul. Furthermore, this is an understanding that helps form a language to which the effort, however misplaced, can be digested when considering what needs to be said.
Conversely, there are no excuses that allow for bad service because it is difficult, or sloppy plates because things are busy. That being said, for all of the millions of people who have spent time serving tables or cooking food there are that many more people willing to be friendly and honest through difficult times. It also a lens that allows to see things for what they are; setting expectations however high or low and seeing how they are met in those established standards.
Whether or not a restaurant meets your criteria for a great dining experience, the next step is figuring out how (or if) you want to communicate it. Let us say, for example, that you just had rude service and bland food for a tidy $150. When you write a review on ChowHound, what is the intent? Are you looking to maliciously sink the restaurant for wasting your money? Or do you want to communicate with the people who created that experience and help them become better? Why, with so many people putting their life on the line opening a restaurant, would you ever have such a negative experience that creates such an extreme reaction? Or is it just gratifying to consider having that kind of voice?
Some of the worst reviews that I have gotten make me think that I slapped the guest in the face and poisoned their food all while yelling at their children. In actuality, they did not like the location of their table or the water was a bit too lukewarm. So many diners walk in the door and look for wrong, sometimes while ignoring the company they brought. I am also fine if you had a bad day and want to take it out on your server, but at least use that as your therapy and get all the negative out of your system.
We all learn so much from the good and the bad. Lessons come from mistakes and successes. Bad reviews are necessary and will always persist. I, however, am fortunate enough to know nobody that has worked as hard as restaurant people do that are willing to debase an establishment on the little things.
Just as you can never be an expert on baseball if you never swing a bat, eating everywhere does not give you the perspective to critique as well as the people who have had those dining experiences and created them as well. The comparison between the two opinions is not even close. And if I ever speak poorly about any restaurant, I will at least have the decency to identify the effort, intention, and solution to whatever problem there may have been.
Then again, they probably have to slap me and poison me to get such a reaction.
Friday, January 22, 2010
All I Want Is...
"I'd like a dry martini, Mr. Quoc, a very dry martini. A very dry, arid, barren, desiccated, veritable dust-bowl of a martini. I want a martini that could be declared a disaster area. Mix me just such a martini." -- 'Hawkeye' Pierce
Sometimes it is just so hard to get what you want. From a service perspective, I would argue that sometimes it is even more difficult to understand what you're asking for.
There are so many bastardized permutations of traditionally great culinary items that it has become difficult to plainly identify what something actually is. Go to different places and ask for a martini, gimlet, cappuccino, espresso, or even a Caesar salad and see how many different iterations you experience.
Now, there is a difference between interpretive license and the ability to have something represented the correct way. I would wholly support someone claiming their creation as an individual take on a classic concept. But the language that is used to describe the original intention has become so hazed that the various misunderstandings of truly great concepts have become standard.
Fortunately, there is a definite gravitation towards reclaiming the classics, whether it be the new wave of espresso culture or the revival of classic cocktails. Rebounding to generations before the classics got diluted and forgotten, bitters are not just Angostura anymore and there are flavours in coffee that are not artificially added.
Wanting something a certain way is by no means a sin either. A gentleman who once frequented a restaurant I worked at would always carry a card in his wallet with his exact specifications for a martini the way he wanted it. I admired that he backed his strong preferences by clearly and distinctly expressing exactly what he wanted. He probably was also influenced to take such measures after struggling to receive a decent martini.
Nowadays, ordering a drink is like the phone game. Because of the loose interpretation of a martini, there are a plethora of addenda that need to travel from the guests to the server to the computer to the bartender. The progression of which also happens amid normal restaurant chaos. You are probably lucky if a half clear, alcoholic beverage makes it to the table.
Another regular customer once asked for a certain gin in his martini. He wanted no vermouth and he wanted it extra cold. If we could not accomplish this then he would get something completely different. Easy, right? I preceded to knock the bartender out of the way and concoct the drink myself to ensure precise accuracy. Running the bartender over again while rushing back to the table with the immaculate martini, I placed it down with a smile and walked away. Inevitably, the diner waved me over two minutes later to refuse his drink, challenging me to make it right this time, if I dare.
I passed the test when I remade his drink the same way. I had a feeling that although his taste buds were sharp, there was also a level of distrust that flavoured the drink. The fact is that the more time a drink spends out in creation, the more ways there are to prefer it. These variations result in obscuring the original and, furthermore, create a new and vague language that allows for unedited interpretive license.
The most common example that I ran into at bars and restaurants is the order for a dry martini with no vermouth. Actually, that is not a martini at all. But it is not semantics that I am concerned with. Instead, another way to get the same thing ordering a liquor "up," producing a chilled spirit in a martini glass. The difference between the two is the later will be served the precise way that person wants every time.
My mission is to try to spread understanding about what it means to be a martini or a cappuccino or a manhattan. I am not trying to say that modern interpretations are inherently better or worse. Rather, a greater understanding of the original allows for preferences to be expressed clearly. In other words, I would be happy to butcher a martini, but show me that you know how it is supposed to be cut.
Sometimes it is just so hard to get what you want. From a service perspective, I would argue that sometimes it is even more difficult to understand what you're asking for.
There are so many bastardized permutations of traditionally great culinary items that it has become difficult to plainly identify what something actually is. Go to different places and ask for a martini, gimlet, cappuccino, espresso, or even a Caesar salad and see how many different iterations you experience.
Now, there is a difference between interpretive license and the ability to have something represented the correct way. I would wholly support someone claiming their creation as an individual take on a classic concept. But the language that is used to describe the original intention has become so hazed that the various misunderstandings of truly great concepts have become standard.
Fortunately, there is a definite gravitation towards reclaiming the classics, whether it be the new wave of espresso culture or the revival of classic cocktails. Rebounding to generations before the classics got diluted and forgotten, bitters are not just Angostura anymore and there are flavours in coffee that are not artificially added.
Wanting something a certain way is by no means a sin either. A gentleman who once frequented a restaurant I worked at would always carry a card in his wallet with his exact specifications for a martini the way he wanted it. I admired that he backed his strong preferences by clearly and distinctly expressing exactly what he wanted. He probably was also influenced to take such measures after struggling to receive a decent martini.
Nowadays, ordering a drink is like the phone game. Because of the loose interpretation of a martini, there are a plethora of addenda that need to travel from the guests to the server to the computer to the bartender. The progression of which also happens amid normal restaurant chaos. You are probably lucky if a half clear, alcoholic beverage makes it to the table.
Another regular customer once asked for a certain gin in his martini. He wanted no vermouth and he wanted it extra cold. If we could not accomplish this then he would get something completely different. Easy, right? I preceded to knock the bartender out of the way and concoct the drink myself to ensure precise accuracy. Running the bartender over again while rushing back to the table with the immaculate martini, I placed it down with a smile and walked away. Inevitably, the diner waved me over two minutes later to refuse his drink, challenging me to make it right this time, if I dare.
I passed the test when I remade his drink the same way. I had a feeling that although his taste buds were sharp, there was also a level of distrust that flavoured the drink. The fact is that the more time a drink spends out in creation, the more ways there are to prefer it. These variations result in obscuring the original and, furthermore, create a new and vague language that allows for unedited interpretive license.
The most common example that I ran into at bars and restaurants is the order for a dry martini with no vermouth. Actually, that is not a martini at all. But it is not semantics that I am concerned with. Instead, another way to get the same thing ordering a liquor "up," producing a chilled spirit in a martini glass. The difference between the two is the later will be served the precise way that person wants every time.
My mission is to try to spread understanding about what it means to be a martini or a cappuccino or a manhattan. I am not trying to say that modern interpretations are inherently better or worse. Rather, a greater understanding of the original allows for preferences to be expressed clearly. In other words, I would be happy to butcher a martini, but show me that you know how it is supposed to be cut.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Restaurant Wine Lists
Go out to any decent restaurant. Pull out the wine list and tell me what you see. For a wine person such as myself, I have trouble just looking at them anymore.
Just as a little background, I have written almost as many wine lists as blogs I've posted so far. I'm no expert, but I do have a multitude of experience with this medium. Unfortunately, having put so much time, effort, and passion into these lists creates an insider's dynamic that leaves me biased against most wine programs.
My issues lie in not only pricing, but variety, character, accuracy, accessibility, and originality. The cost of a bottle of wine does play a big role however. Wine lists are expensive because they have to be. For example, the most reasonably priced list that I ever wrote still often got critiqued for the markup; sometimes just out of frustration for restaurant markups in general. For every comment I received in this context, I wish I could have also impressed on that person that no matter how hard we were working and no matter what they bought, the restaurant would still be losing money.
This was my eternal compromise as a wine list author. If 95% of the people who order from my wine list are not sensitive to the quality they can find on my list relative to other restaurants, then why should I not increase the prices? Am I cheating the profitability of the restaurant by trying too hard to allow for really good, inexpensive wines? Are those other 5% really connecting with my ideals as much as I hoped?
And on the other side, I will go into a popular downtown restaurant and see a wine that was $43 on my list and is $64 on theirs. But the place is bustling and more people are paying the price than thinking twice. This is offensive to me because I know what it costs ($16). Maybe just the knowledge is damning and I need to better understand their financial pressures (or relax my expectations).
My overall evaluation of a wine list is whether or not it is accessible. I would define this as a wine list that offers a variety of wine from $30 and up that is interesting, creative, and provides various options at many price points. I'm not saying the $30 wine has to be the best, but it should be well selected and rewarding for those who order it. The variety should include expensive wines for those who want them; the most expensive wines being well kept, unique, memorable, and special wines. Additionally, if your clientele spend $40-$60 on average, those wines better be abundant and rockstars.
Inaccessible Wine List Example #1: Offensive Downtown List
I am a fancy downtown restaurant. You're lucky to be here. I am trendy. My wines are marked up 400% because we pay an unfathomable rent. There are forty selections for red wine, and forty selections for white. However, there is an introductory wine at $48, which costs us $9. The next least expensive wine is $75. And it is just not that good. My clients want to spend $60 on a great bottle of wine, but I want nothing to do with that. I'm hoping that they will be forced to spend over $100 to get a good bottle.
Inaccessible Wine List Example #2: Bipolar List
I am a neighborhood restaurant. We're in a wealthy area and may or may not have an ethnic theme. I have a great variety of brand name, everyday wines that everybody sees stacked in their liquor stores. These wines are pretty cheap, as they are largely between $25 and $35. If you're familiar with these wines, then you will have no idea what these expensive wines are all about. That's why our $65 to $100 selections are all from off-vintages of second and third tier producers. And, if none of that suits you, we have one wine at $45.
Inaccessible Wine List Example #3: Sparse Obscurity
I am a French restaurant. Our food is really good. The service is cordial and professional. You will never know whether or not the wine list is expensive because you will never hear of these wines again. We're not talking about only low production, but grapes that are extinct since they were pressed for this bottling. The sommelier tried so hard to be eccentric that there are five selections, and they all taste like earth and barnyard. You might as well just pick the wine by the price you want to spend.
Inaccessible Wine List Example #4: We're Out of That
I am a nice, small, charming restaurant. You love my menu. The table is cozy and romantic. The wine list has one really carefully selected, exemplary wine at every price point. You're going to discover a new wine that you love, and it will be priced well. Only one problem. We're out of that. But the wine $12 more expensive is good as well.
The other thing that always gets me with restaurant wine pricing is what people will relatively spend. For example, the people that will spend $30 on a bottle of wine at a restaurant will often never spend $30 on a bottle of wine at retail. Of course, you don't get the food, service, or atmosphere at home that you would get at the restaurant. But it is still provocative to me that it would be unreasonable to value experiencing a wine at home that would be inaccessible at a restaurant.
Perhaps, just like working at a restaurant never allows me to see it in the same way ever again, writing wine lists probably has doomed me to over-analyze every wine program and convinced me that I need to stay at home to find a good bottle of wine. Fortunately, I can't make food like those restaurants, so I keep coming back for more.
Here are the basics about wine lists and prices:
Just as a little background, I have written almost as many wine lists as blogs I've posted so far. I'm no expert, but I do have a multitude of experience with this medium. Unfortunately, having put so much time, effort, and passion into these lists creates an insider's dynamic that leaves me biased against most wine programs.
My issues lie in not only pricing, but variety, character, accuracy, accessibility, and originality. The cost of a bottle of wine does play a big role however. Wine lists are expensive because they have to be. For example, the most reasonably priced list that I ever wrote still often got critiqued for the markup; sometimes just out of frustration for restaurant markups in general. For every comment I received in this context, I wish I could have also impressed on that person that no matter how hard we were working and no matter what they bought, the restaurant would still be losing money.
This was my eternal compromise as a wine list author. If 95% of the people who order from my wine list are not sensitive to the quality they can find on my list relative to other restaurants, then why should I not increase the prices? Am I cheating the profitability of the restaurant by trying too hard to allow for really good, inexpensive wines? Are those other 5% really connecting with my ideals as much as I hoped?
And on the other side, I will go into a popular downtown restaurant and see a wine that was $43 on my list and is $64 on theirs. But the place is bustling and more people are paying the price than thinking twice. This is offensive to me because I know what it costs ($16). Maybe just the knowledge is damning and I need to better understand their financial pressures (or relax my expectations).
My overall evaluation of a wine list is whether or not it is accessible. I would define this as a wine list that offers a variety of wine from $30 and up that is interesting, creative, and provides various options at many price points. I'm not saying the $30 wine has to be the best, but it should be well selected and rewarding for those who order it. The variety should include expensive wines for those who want them; the most expensive wines being well kept, unique, memorable, and special wines. Additionally, if your clientele spend $40-$60 on average, those wines better be abundant and rockstars.
Inaccessible Wine List Example #1: Offensive Downtown List
I am a fancy downtown restaurant. You're lucky to be here. I am trendy. My wines are marked up 400% because we pay an unfathomable rent. There are forty selections for red wine, and forty selections for white. However, there is an introductory wine at $48, which costs us $9. The next least expensive wine is $75. And it is just not that good. My clients want to spend $60 on a great bottle of wine, but I want nothing to do with that. I'm hoping that they will be forced to spend over $100 to get a good bottle.
Inaccessible Wine List Example #2: Bipolar List
I am a neighborhood restaurant. We're in a wealthy area and may or may not have an ethnic theme. I have a great variety of brand name, everyday wines that everybody sees stacked in their liquor stores. These wines are pretty cheap, as they are largely between $25 and $35. If you're familiar with these wines, then you will have no idea what these expensive wines are all about. That's why our $65 to $100 selections are all from off-vintages of second and third tier producers. And, if none of that suits you, we have one wine at $45.
Inaccessible Wine List Example #3: Sparse Obscurity
I am a French restaurant. Our food is really good. The service is cordial and professional. You will never know whether or not the wine list is expensive because you will never hear of these wines again. We're not talking about only low production, but grapes that are extinct since they were pressed for this bottling. The sommelier tried so hard to be eccentric that there are five selections, and they all taste like earth and barnyard. You might as well just pick the wine by the price you want to spend.
Inaccessible Wine List Example #4: We're Out of That
I am a nice, small, charming restaurant. You love my menu. The table is cozy and romantic. The wine list has one really carefully selected, exemplary wine at every price point. You're going to discover a new wine that you love, and it will be priced well. Only one problem. We're out of that. But the wine $12 more expensive is good as well.
The other thing that always gets me with restaurant wine pricing is what people will relatively spend. For example, the people that will spend $30 on a bottle of wine at a restaurant will often never spend $30 on a bottle of wine at retail. Of course, you don't get the food, service, or atmosphere at home that you would get at the restaurant. But it is still provocative to me that it would be unreasonable to value experiencing a wine at home that would be inaccessible at a restaurant.
Perhaps, just like working at a restaurant never allows me to see it in the same way ever again, writing wine lists probably has doomed me to over-analyze every wine program and convinced me that I need to stay at home to find a good bottle of wine. Fortunately, I can't make food like those restaurants, so I keep coming back for more.
Here are the basics about wine lists and prices:
- A glass of wine will normally be the cost that a restaurant pays for the entire bottle
- Ideal is to get 4 to 4.5 glasses per bottle
- That's around 5 to 6 ounces per glass
- There is waste in the form of spillage, tasting samples, and spoilage
- A bottle of wine is marked up normally around three times the price
- That should be somewhere around double retail prices (150%)
- More expensive wines are generally marked up at a lesser percentage
- Inexpensive wines are marked up at a greater percentage
- Neighborhood restaurants may offer less of a markup (250%)
- Downtown restaurants may be in the 350% to 400% range.
- These markups are for recently purchased wine, cellared wines are valued differently
- Most suppliers will provide replacements or credit to restaurants for corked bottles or customer refusals.
- Do not feel like you're putting a burden on the restaurant by sending back a wine
- If you do feel like you're causing trouble, then maybe you need to think twice about that restaurant
- When a bottle is sent back and is still in good condition, the restaurant may sell the remainder of the bottle, glass by glass, and in certain circumstances still get the credit/replacement
- The only gray area in this case is very expensive wine, which is an unfortunate exception and I will discuss it in a later blog
- Restaurants only get wine deliveries during the weekdays
- Orders are placed the day before
- Runs on certain product on a Friday or Saturday can only be fixed by reprinting the list
- Vintage changes are rarely reported by distributors
- Order minimums force restocking decisions
- Most buyers work with around a dozen different distributors
- Prices are higher in some places than they are in other parts of the country
- Some retail stores in California sell items at the price that they are sold at wholesale in Massachusetts
- Shipping laws, transportation costs, and taxes help maintain this inequity
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Swill
Time to play everybody's favourite game: Swill or Not Swill. The rules are simple; we will discuss a prominent beverage that is commonly considered disgusting or not palatable and reveal whether or not it is swill. Hide your taste buds because here we go!
K-Cups
For those of you out there who have not had the pleasure of single serve coffee, Keurig has taken the market and will eventually find you if you don't find it first. It is pod (K-Cup) based coffee.
Pros: Simple. Good variety available. Can taste good sometimes. Always freshly brewed.
Cons: Whether it is a small, medium, or large serving you use the same amount of coffee. Some pods taste great and others don't. Pre-ground coffee is never a good thing.
Verdict: Overall incredibly variable and not a great coffee standard, but not disgusting. NOT SWILL.
Boxed Wine
Modern winemaking and creative marketing is now providing a greater quality of boxed wines than your mother's Franzia. Traditionalists are being challenged to bring something new to the table and rethink containers and closures.
Pros: You get four f-ing bottles per box! Also, the spout releases wine but does not allow for air to get in so there is no spoilage.
Cons: Overall quality is geared towards people who don't really care about overall quality. Mass produced, machine harvested, one-dimensional wines.
Verdict: The average boxed wine is becoming more and more palatable. We will see more and more impressive wines coming in boxes as the advantageous closures will prove too convenient to ignore. Although there is some disgusting stuff out there, we are in a new boxed wine generation that is NOT SWILL.
Instant Coffee
Folgers, eat your heart out. Starbucks is in the market and has a fancy Italian-sounding name for their instant coffee. If it's your coffee on the go, make sure you always carry scalding hot water around with you.
Pros: Comes in real coffee-like flavours.
Cons: What they don't tell you is that ANY coffee with hot water is instant coffee. Hmm...
Verdict: I'm glad that Starbucks has provided an alternative to their terrible coffee. SWILL.
Frappuccino
This coffee-like beverage is cream, ice, sugar, and coffee, all blended together in a milkshake like process and capped off with whipped cream and chocolate. Just like getting a giant soda at your local fast food joint, they give you a huge straw so you can get fat faster.
Pros: Spell check did not even question frappuccino. Yummy dessert. Comes in many different flavours. Dome lid allows you to eek out more sugar and cream.
Cons: Has the option of being served 'light' without any real food-like ingredients.
Verdict: Just like you don't consider coffee ice cream as a comparison to a cup of coffee, a frappuccino cannot be considered coffee either. Given that lens, it is NOT SWILL.
Store Label Liquor
I don't know how they found it, but this bottle of gin has the same name as my local liquor store!
Pros: Gets you drunk, and how! It's cheap. It must be good because the guy standing outside the store who asks you for change likes it.
Cons: Gets you hungover. It is made so cheaply that there is extra money to spare customizing the label. When you ripped off the label there is another one behind it that says rubbing alcohol.
Verdict: The cheaper the liquor and wine, the more impurities there are in the alcohol. You will feel it for the next day and forget how to do math. SWILL.
Sangria
This classic drink is made by taking low quality red, white, or pink wine and infusing it with a plethora of fruit, sugar, and brandy. The recipes vary, but it is often served in a larger glass with the wine soaked fruit.
Pros: You get to mix hard alcohol with wine and no one thinks twice. Great for an aperitif, summer day, suburban housewife, or gay friend. You get drunken fruit as a byproduct. Also, if you want to drink something by the pitcher, then this is your thing.
Cons: Often made with terrible wine, which is hard to hide, even with brandy. Also, blamed more for insane behaviour and hallucinations than absinthe.
Verdict: Sangria has a bad reputation but is super trendy. You also get big respect for taking it seriously. Try ordering one at a crowded bar and see how many get made in the next five minutes. Sangria is delicious and NOT SWILL.
Back Country Moonshine
Your cousin Jed and his buddy General Duke are hitchin' up their overalls and using the finest tree bark and pigs feet to jar you a fine lot of drinkin' juice.
Pros: The good kind of blindness. Ain't a funner time to be had on this side of the Mississippi. The jar can be used to spur an instant hootenanny.
Cons: Crap! It's the Cops!! Run for it!!!
Verdict: All of our finer liquors started out this way. At least, that's what I'd like to think. Unfortunately, aside from the rich tradition of hooch brewing, there are few redeeming qualities. You are not drinking this for the taste, therefore it has to be SWILL.
Sweet Wine
This ain't your grandma's Riesling. Sweet wine has been pigeonholed as being terrible or unnecessary but there are so many transcendent and remarkable sweet wines of various styles that they must be tried to understand.
Pros: Great with blue cheese. Or any cheese. Mmm...cheese.
Cons: Sweetness is also associated with a variety of wine-like beverages in wine-shaped bottles with wine-sounding names. Also, sugar in wine is linked to worse hangovers.
Verdict: The greatest wines in the world do not have to be dry, nor do they have to be full of alcohol. Just take a chunk of cheese, a bottle of Sauternes, and call me in the morning. NOT SWILL.
Gas Station Coffee
If you choose to drive across the country in three days, I defy you not to do so without stopping by a Flying J or Mobil station and grabbing a cup of three-day-old coffee.
Pros: Keeps you awake. Comes in many flavours. Self serve. Powdered creamers are free.
Cons: Should come with a bathroom, but doesn't. Smells like bowling alley to me, which is probably a combination of grease and smoke.
Verdict: A necessary evil of the road. Unavoidable and entirely SWILL.
Two Buck Chuck
Literally Franzia in a bottle, as it is owned and produced by the infamous boxed wine producer.
Pros: Why buy a bottle of wine when you can buy a case for the same price? Also, it is made from grapes. Or so we're told.
Cons: Transportation costs turn it into three to four buck chuck.
Verdict: Two Buck Chuck has gained great acclaim for being barely acceptable as wine. If what we eat is barely acceptable as food, then this is the pairing for it. SWILL.
Wedding Wine
As a wine guy, people ask me often what I think of the wine that is served at weddings. My answer is that I stick to liquor and beer. Also, be wary of that champagne toast because it is usually a sugared up glass of soda water and grain alcohol.
Pros: The bartender can serve quickly out of those larger bottles. Suddenly, you can dance. The quality of wine matches perfectly with your rubbery steak and instant potatoes.
Cons: Uncle Joe is passed out in the bathroom. Impromptu speeches by the bachelor party. You're hitting on someone that you find out later is related to you.
Verdict: It is criminal what those caterers and event halls get away with. If you love your family and friends, don't do that to them. SWILL.
Dunkin Donuts Coffee
Here, we're not only talking about the quality of coffee, but the tradition of dressing the coffee with cream and sugar. For those of you who are uninitiated to the New England cafe traditions, go into a Dunkin Donuts and ask for a touch of cream and a bit of sugar. Watch anxiously as they add a mere three ounces of heavy cream and four tablespoons of sugar.
Pros: You don't have to taste the coffee.
Cons: Diabetes.
Verdict: You can ask for the coffee black but it tastes like cigarettes and cardboard. SWILL if you do, SWILL if you don't.
Pink Wine
Interestingly enough, I have heard that in certain cultures white wine is considered feminine so the gentlemen drink pink wine instead. Rose is serious winemaking. Rose Champagne is usually a step up from the normal Brut. And all red grapes can make rose so there are an incredible variety of styles. The alternative is wine that has to use a color to excuse or explain it's pinkness, e.g. White Zinfandel or Red Chardonnay.
Pros: It is good wine and more often than not it is cheap. Perfect for simple enjoyment but you can plan a meal around it.
Cons: Someone just poured red wine into your white wine glass.
Verdict: Embrace pink wine and you will be rewarded more often than not. NOT SWILL.
Wine Not Colored Red, White, or Pink
Be wary. Wine may be a loose term in this case.
Pros: Blue tastes good.
Cons: Colors your tongue. And intestines.
Leave the rainbow to cocktails, Judy Garland, and skittles. SWILL.
Frat Party Punchbowl
A community cocktail served in an inflatible pool never sounded so good. With enough overproof rum and roofies, you know it's inevitable that someone ends up swimming in it by the end of the night.
Cons: You can't remember anything that happened last night.
Pros: It's probably best that you can't remember anything that happened last night.
Verdict: Incredibly dangerous, but there's so much Hawaiian Punch and Country Time Lemonade that you can barely taste the alcohol. NOT SWILL.
K-Cups
For those of you out there who have not had the pleasure of single serve coffee, Keurig has taken the market and will eventually find you if you don't find it first. It is pod (K-Cup) based coffee.
Pros: Simple. Good variety available. Can taste good sometimes. Always freshly brewed.
Cons: Whether it is a small, medium, or large serving you use the same amount of coffee. Some pods taste great and others don't. Pre-ground coffee is never a good thing.
Verdict: Overall incredibly variable and not a great coffee standard, but not disgusting. NOT SWILL.
Boxed Wine
Modern winemaking and creative marketing is now providing a greater quality of boxed wines than your mother's Franzia. Traditionalists are being challenged to bring something new to the table and rethink containers and closures.
Pros: You get four f-ing bottles per box! Also, the spout releases wine but does not allow for air to get in so there is no spoilage.
Cons: Overall quality is geared towards people who don't really care about overall quality. Mass produced, machine harvested, one-dimensional wines.
Verdict: The average boxed wine is becoming more and more palatable. We will see more and more impressive wines coming in boxes as the advantageous closures will prove too convenient to ignore. Although there is some disgusting stuff out there, we are in a new boxed wine generation that is NOT SWILL.
Instant Coffee
Folgers, eat your heart out. Starbucks is in the market and has a fancy Italian-sounding name for their instant coffee. If it's your coffee on the go, make sure you always carry scalding hot water around with you.
Pros: Comes in real coffee-like flavours.
Cons: What they don't tell you is that ANY coffee with hot water is instant coffee. Hmm...
Verdict: I'm glad that Starbucks has provided an alternative to their terrible coffee. SWILL.
Frappuccino
This coffee-like beverage is cream, ice, sugar, and coffee, all blended together in a milkshake like process and capped off with whipped cream and chocolate. Just like getting a giant soda at your local fast food joint, they give you a huge straw so you can get fat faster.
Pros: Spell check did not even question frappuccino. Yummy dessert. Comes in many different flavours. Dome lid allows you to eek out more sugar and cream.
Cons: Has the option of being served 'light' without any real food-like ingredients.
Verdict: Just like you don't consider coffee ice cream as a comparison to a cup of coffee, a frappuccino cannot be considered coffee either. Given that lens, it is NOT SWILL.
Store Label Liquor
I don't know how they found it, but this bottle of gin has the same name as my local liquor store!
Pros: Gets you drunk, and how! It's cheap. It must be good because the guy standing outside the store who asks you for change likes it.
Cons: Gets you hungover. It is made so cheaply that there is extra money to spare customizing the label. When you ripped off the label there is another one behind it that says rubbing alcohol.
Verdict: The cheaper the liquor and wine, the more impurities there are in the alcohol. You will feel it for the next day and forget how to do math. SWILL.
Sangria
This classic drink is made by taking low quality red, white, or pink wine and infusing it with a plethora of fruit, sugar, and brandy. The recipes vary, but it is often served in a larger glass with the wine soaked fruit.
Pros: You get to mix hard alcohol with wine and no one thinks twice. Great for an aperitif, summer day, suburban housewife, or gay friend. You get drunken fruit as a byproduct. Also, if you want to drink something by the pitcher, then this is your thing.
Cons: Often made with terrible wine, which is hard to hide, even with brandy. Also, blamed more for insane behaviour and hallucinations than absinthe.
Verdict: Sangria has a bad reputation but is super trendy. You also get big respect for taking it seriously. Try ordering one at a crowded bar and see how many get made in the next five minutes. Sangria is delicious and NOT SWILL.
Back Country Moonshine
Your cousin Jed and his buddy General Duke are hitchin' up their overalls and using the finest tree bark and pigs feet to jar you a fine lot of drinkin' juice.
Pros: The good kind of blindness. Ain't a funner time to be had on this side of the Mississippi. The jar can be used to spur an instant hootenanny.
Cons: Crap! It's the Cops!! Run for it!!!
Verdict: All of our finer liquors started out this way. At least, that's what I'd like to think. Unfortunately, aside from the rich tradition of hooch brewing, there are few redeeming qualities. You are not drinking this for the taste, therefore it has to be SWILL.
Sweet Wine
This ain't your grandma's Riesling. Sweet wine has been pigeonholed as being terrible or unnecessary but there are so many transcendent and remarkable sweet wines of various styles that they must be tried to understand.
Pros: Great with blue cheese. Or any cheese. Mmm...cheese.
Cons: Sweetness is also associated with a variety of wine-like beverages in wine-shaped bottles with wine-sounding names. Also, sugar in wine is linked to worse hangovers.
Verdict: The greatest wines in the world do not have to be dry, nor do they have to be full of alcohol. Just take a chunk of cheese, a bottle of Sauternes, and call me in the morning. NOT SWILL.
Gas Station Coffee
If you choose to drive across the country in three days, I defy you not to do so without stopping by a Flying J or Mobil station and grabbing a cup of three-day-old coffee.
Pros: Keeps you awake. Comes in many flavours. Self serve. Powdered creamers are free.
Cons: Should come with a bathroom, but doesn't. Smells like bowling alley to me, which is probably a combination of grease and smoke.
Verdict: A necessary evil of the road. Unavoidable and entirely SWILL.
Two Buck Chuck
Literally Franzia in a bottle, as it is owned and produced by the infamous boxed wine producer.
Pros: Why buy a bottle of wine when you can buy a case for the same price? Also, it is made from grapes. Or so we're told.
Cons: Transportation costs turn it into three to four buck chuck.
Verdict: Two Buck Chuck has gained great acclaim for being barely acceptable as wine. If what we eat is barely acceptable as food, then this is the pairing for it. SWILL.
Wedding Wine
As a wine guy, people ask me often what I think of the wine that is served at weddings. My answer is that I stick to liquor and beer. Also, be wary of that champagne toast because it is usually a sugared up glass of soda water and grain alcohol.
Pros: The bartender can serve quickly out of those larger bottles. Suddenly, you can dance. The quality of wine matches perfectly with your rubbery steak and instant potatoes.
Cons: Uncle Joe is passed out in the bathroom. Impromptu speeches by the bachelor party. You're hitting on someone that you find out later is related to you.
Verdict: It is criminal what those caterers and event halls get away with. If you love your family and friends, don't do that to them. SWILL.
Dunkin Donuts Coffee
Here, we're not only talking about the quality of coffee, but the tradition of dressing the coffee with cream and sugar. For those of you who are uninitiated to the New England cafe traditions, go into a Dunkin Donuts and ask for a touch of cream and a bit of sugar. Watch anxiously as they add a mere three ounces of heavy cream and four tablespoons of sugar.
Pros: You don't have to taste the coffee.
Cons: Diabetes.
Verdict: You can ask for the coffee black but it tastes like cigarettes and cardboard. SWILL if you do, SWILL if you don't.
Pink Wine
Interestingly enough, I have heard that in certain cultures white wine is considered feminine so the gentlemen drink pink wine instead. Rose is serious winemaking. Rose Champagne is usually a step up from the normal Brut. And all red grapes can make rose so there are an incredible variety of styles. The alternative is wine that has to use a color to excuse or explain it's pinkness, e.g. White Zinfandel or Red Chardonnay.
Pros: It is good wine and more often than not it is cheap. Perfect for simple enjoyment but you can plan a meal around it.
Cons: Someone just poured red wine into your white wine glass.
Verdict: Embrace pink wine and you will be rewarded more often than not. NOT SWILL.
Wine Not Colored Red, White, or Pink
Be wary. Wine may be a loose term in this case.
Pros: Blue tastes good.
Cons: Colors your tongue. And intestines.
Leave the rainbow to cocktails, Judy Garland, and skittles. SWILL.
Frat Party Punchbowl
A community cocktail served in an inflatible pool never sounded so good. With enough overproof rum and roofies, you know it's inevitable that someone ends up swimming in it by the end of the night.
Cons: You can't remember anything that happened last night.
Pros: It's probably best that you can't remember anything that happened last night.
Verdict: Incredibly dangerous, but there's so much Hawaiian Punch and Country Time Lemonade that you can barely taste the alcohol. NOT SWILL.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Perfect Wine?
CellarTracker.com, which is an open community of wine lovers and reviewers, contains over a million reviews of wines from thousands of users. One of the best parts of letting anybody review a wine? Here are some snippets from perfect scoring, 100-point wine reviews and the wine that garnered such a response:
- "Like I was hovering in the air somewhere staring at myself" (1947 Cheval Blanc)
- "The most delicious thing I have ever put in my mouth" (2000 Yquem)
- "Enjoyed over 4 hours with my wife. She had at least a glass and a half. Why did I bring her???" (1990 La Tache)
- "If you can't love this wine, you should switch to milk" (1990 Yquem)
- "This is more of an emotional than a intellectual experience" (1999 Gigual La Mouline)
- "Oh sh*t!" (1982 Margaux)
- "Start beeping and back up the horse baby" (1990 Montrose)
- "90 second soprano-belted high note that seems like it SHOULD break the glass" (1961 Hospices de Beaune)
- "If you are a true terroirist, you might downgrade this for not tasting as much like a classic grand cru" (1990 Leroy Richebourg)
- "This kind of bottle simply makes you a better person" (2002 Quilceda Creek)
- "Picture a Transformer roasting on a spit!" (1988 Knoll Gruner)
- "This wine, together with the breathtaking scenery and abundantly diverse wildlife, was one additional proof of God's existence" (2002 Pride Cab Reserve)
- "Rating this wine is bullsh*t" (1989 Petrus)
- "Bury me with a bottle of this stuff!" (1990 Krug Brut)
- "Oh let me die now if it will happen any time soon!" (1982 Pichon Comtesse)
- "To those who question a 100pt rating, show me yours" (2007 Saxum JB)
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Rate Me, My Friend
RP95. WS88. BH91. IWC91-94(?).
Almost every wine that is made is rated. Hundreds of critics dole judgments on the quality of thousands of wines at a daily rate. There are professionals and amateurs, the biased and naive. Wine becomes increasingly unobtainable with high ratings, and seldom gets cheaper when it falls short. And as ratings try to capture the overall intent of the wine, they will seldom correlate to your personal experience. So why does the wine world revolve around the 100 point scale?
I like ratings. There, I said it. Maybe I'm too young to have turned jaded against the industry. And yes, this admission probably knocks me down a peg or two with the truest wine geeks and expert tasters. What does that say about me? Well, firstly, I know what I like. That is one of the greatest challenges to anybody trying to get into wine. The next hurdle is being comfortable about your preferences around the purists, egos, modernists, and antagonists in the business. A necessary step to stand among the professionals is to take a stand in the first place. And if I respect the taster or critic, then I want to know what they think. At the core of the entire rating system, 100-points or scrawled notes on a napkin, is my personal connection and corollary experience with any given taster.
To break it down, let me draw together two of the most influential Italian Wine critics, Mr. Antonio Galloni (Robert Parker's Wine Advocate) and Mr. James Suckling (Wine Spectator). The common argument against Wine Spectator and for Wine Advocate is that the former is a commercial publication and therefore is more easily influenced (wink, wink) than the latter. Knowing that, and taking all my grains of salt, I have had more great tasting experiences that have been from purchases based on ratings issued by Mr. Suckling of Wine Spectator. Therefore, the Italian wine ratings from Wine Spectator, while Mr. Suckling is on the beat, are the most valuable reference for me when I have not tried a wine. The ratings are not the best, just the best for me right now.
So, if we know how to value ratings, then what are they used for? Generating excitement and jacking up prices, for one thing. However, if you consider a wine enthusiast who knows how to judge base quality of a wine by pedigree of producer, vintage, and location, then that person has either to find a reference on any given wine or taste it. And in a world of limited supply, you seldom have the chance to wait to taste a wine and be passive because it will run out. Therefore, consider it insurance on investments on wine that you have to buy on spec.
The other thing that ratings are good for is consensus. Every once in a while there are critics from many different publications that end up agreeing. I see this as a basic level of quality that can be largely trusted.
But again, it is all about the overall experience of a wine that can be different from bottle to bottle, day to day, and evolve with every minute. Drink a wine too fast and it is a 91. Let it decant for 6 hours and it is a 94. Spend a day with the wine and it can squeak out a 97. Or possibly it all goes downhill once the cork comes out. Find it corked or oxidized and there was no reason for it to have a rating attached to it at all.
Regardless, while gaining a general evaluation of a wine is a good place to start, finding out what you like is much better. It is incredibly valuable to a novice or expert to use some system to track their wine experiences. Anywhere from a notebook to a journal (or perhaps, a blog) works well. A great resource that I've found is CellarTracker.com where you can find millions of amateur posts, usually at least dozens on almost any individual wine. This sample size helps hone in so many experiences of so many bottles in so many environments from so many people of so many backgrounds. That, to me, is the toughest and best critic of them all.
P.S. If you'd like to check out a few of my ratings and reviews on CellarTracker, you can find them here.
Almost every wine that is made is rated. Hundreds of critics dole judgments on the quality of thousands of wines at a daily rate. There are professionals and amateurs, the biased and naive. Wine becomes increasingly unobtainable with high ratings, and seldom gets cheaper when it falls short. And as ratings try to capture the overall intent of the wine, they will seldom correlate to your personal experience. So why does the wine world revolve around the 100 point scale?
I like ratings. There, I said it. Maybe I'm too young to have turned jaded against the industry. And yes, this admission probably knocks me down a peg or two with the truest wine geeks and expert tasters. What does that say about me? Well, firstly, I know what I like. That is one of the greatest challenges to anybody trying to get into wine. The next hurdle is being comfortable about your preferences around the purists, egos, modernists, and antagonists in the business. A necessary step to stand among the professionals is to take a stand in the first place. And if I respect the taster or critic, then I want to know what they think. At the core of the entire rating system, 100-points or scrawled notes on a napkin, is my personal connection and corollary experience with any given taster.
To break it down, let me draw together two of the most influential Italian Wine critics, Mr. Antonio Galloni (Robert Parker's Wine Advocate) and Mr. James Suckling (Wine Spectator). The common argument against Wine Spectator and for Wine Advocate is that the former is a commercial publication and therefore is more easily influenced (wink, wink) than the latter. Knowing that, and taking all my grains of salt, I have had more great tasting experiences that have been from purchases based on ratings issued by Mr. Suckling of Wine Spectator. Therefore, the Italian wine ratings from Wine Spectator, while Mr. Suckling is on the beat, are the most valuable reference for me when I have not tried a wine. The ratings are not the best, just the best for me right now.
So, if we know how to value ratings, then what are they used for? Generating excitement and jacking up prices, for one thing. However, if you consider a wine enthusiast who knows how to judge base quality of a wine by pedigree of producer, vintage, and location, then that person has either to find a reference on any given wine or taste it. And in a world of limited supply, you seldom have the chance to wait to taste a wine and be passive because it will run out. Therefore, consider it insurance on investments on wine that you have to buy on spec.
The other thing that ratings are good for is consensus. Every once in a while there are critics from many different publications that end up agreeing. I see this as a basic level of quality that can be largely trusted.
But again, it is all about the overall experience of a wine that can be different from bottle to bottle, day to day, and evolve with every minute. Drink a wine too fast and it is a 91. Let it decant for 6 hours and it is a 94. Spend a day with the wine and it can squeak out a 97. Or possibly it all goes downhill once the cork comes out. Find it corked or oxidized and there was no reason for it to have a rating attached to it at all.
Regardless, while gaining a general evaluation of a wine is a good place to start, finding out what you like is much better. It is incredibly valuable to a novice or expert to use some system to track their wine experiences. Anywhere from a notebook to a journal (or perhaps, a blog) works well. A great resource that I've found is CellarTracker.com where you can find millions of amateur posts, usually at least dozens on almost any individual wine. This sample size helps hone in so many experiences of so many bottles in so many environments from so many people of so many backgrounds. That, to me, is the toughest and best critic of them all.
P.S. If you'd like to check out a few of my ratings and reviews on CellarTracker, you can find them here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
