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.
Friday, January 29, 2010
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)
