Food and Wine Classic in Aspen Also Features Prime Spirits and Beer

food and fine classsic aspen 2009Samuel Adams Chocolate Bock (750 ml, $15) lives up to its name but is balanced and flavorful. Two good values in Sherry, the medium intensity Dry Sack ($15) and Dry Sack 15 ($26), a complex, rich Oloroso. Grand Duque de Alba “Solera Gran Reserva” ($46), a smooth, rich Spanish brandy sporting deep aromas and flavors of nuts, caramel, butterscotch and brown spices. Lovers of cream liqueurs should skip the Baileys and seek out Crema de Alba ($25). Remy Martin 1989 Vintage Cognac is truly special and rare with rich, complex aromas and flavors and “only” $300 a bottle! You think that’s expensive? The amazingly concentrated and complex The Macallan 55 Year Old Single Malt Scotch is bottled in Lalique crystal and rings in at $12,000, which, come to think of it, makes the little splash I had worth about $240!food and wine classic aspen 2008

For more information, check out: http://www.foodandwine.com/promo/classic/

Riesling’s Much Deserved Comeback.

Share your thoughts here about this unique and complex wine.

Riesling (pronounced reez-ling) has a long and noble history, particularly in Germany, Austria, and France. It also has enjoyed popularity in the U.S. but fell out of favor as Chardonnay became the white wine of choice. There is a general perception of Riesling as a sweet wine. And, of course, such mass-market wines as Blue Nun tend to be sweet. But there always has been good dry and off-dry (meaning just a hint of sugar) Riesling and it is these drier styles that seem to be gaining fans. The acid in Riesling is what makes it naturally food-friendly, especially with fish, seafood, Asian foods, poultry, and cheese. For me, German Riesling still is the benchmark. So, my next column will be devoted solely to Germany. This column highlights fine Rieslings from elsewhere around the world.

In Alsace, dry Riesling always has dominated. The wines in my tasting, including three good introductory wines, showed the mineral character that is the hallmark of great Riesling.
• 2005 Hugel (very dry, $20)
• 2005 Marc Kreydenweiss “Au dessus de la loi Andlau” ($27)
• 2005 Schlumberger “Les Prices Abbes” ($17)
• Two biodynamically farmed wines from Marc Kreydenweiss, 2005 “La Dame Wiebelsberg” ($44) and 2005 “La Chateau Kastelberg” ($77), demonstrated the added aromatics, concentration and complexity that can come from Grand Cru vineyards.

Australia has shown a real affinity for Riesling.
• 2006 McWilliams “Hanwood Estate” South East Australia ($12)
• 2007 Penfolds “Thomas Hyland” Adelaide ($15)
• 2006 Wakefield Clare Valley ($17)
• 2006 Lalla Gully Tasmania ($22)

You may be surprised to read that Riesling was one of the first varieties grown in Washington and still is one of the state’s favorite wines.
• 2006 Stonecap Columbia Valley ($11)
• 2006 Pacific Rim Dry ($11)
• 2006 Milbrandt “Traditions” ($13)
• 2005 St. Laurent Columbia Valley ($15)
• 2006 Tsillan Cellars Columbia Valley Estate ($22)

Even California has a history of success with Riesling. Now, production is making a comeback statewide.
• 2006 Beaulieu Vineyard Coastal Estates (California, $9)
• 2006 Kendall-Jackson Vintner’s Reserve (Monterey, $11)
• 2006 Gainey (Santa Ynez Valley, $13)
• 2007 Chateau St. Jean (Sonoma, $18)
• 2006 Trefethen Dry (Napa, $20)

Finally, you can even find good Riesling from unlikely places. Two surprising hits were a 2007 Cusino-Macul “Dona Isadora” ($15) from Chile and 2003 Chateau Bela ($15) from Slovakia (although, this was less a surprise when I realized it was made by famed German winemaker Egon Muller). Even places like Canada, Idaho and Oregon also produce worthy Rieslings. And don’t forget Colorado. I would argue that Riesling is the state’s best white wine, and one of the finest is made by the Winery at Holy Cross Abbey.

Riesling’s Much Deserved Comeback.

Share your thoughts here about this unique and complex wine.

Riesling (pronounced reez-ling) has a long and noble history, particularly in Germany, Austria, and France. It also has enjoyed popularity in the U.S. but fell out of favor as Chardonnay became the white wine of choice. There is a general perception of Riesling as a sweet wine. And, of course, such mass-market wines as Blue Nun tend to be sweet. But there always has been good dry and off-dry (meaning just a hint of sugar) Riesling and it is these drier styles that seem to be gaining fans. The acid in Riesling is what makes it naturally food-friendly, especially with fish, seafood, Asian foods, poultry, and cheese. For me, German Riesling still is the benchmark. So, my next column will be devoted solely to Germany. This column highlights fine Rieslings from elsewhere around the world.

In Alsace, dry Riesling always has dominated. The wines in my tasting, including three good introductory wines, showed the mineral character that is the hallmark of great Riesling.
• 2005 Hugel (very dry, $20)
• 2005 Marc Kreydenweiss “Au dessus de la loi Andlau” ($27)
• 2005 Schlumberger “Les Prices Abbes” ($17)
• Two biodynamically farmed wines from Marc Kreydenweiss, 2005 “La Dame Wiebelsberg” ($44) and 2005 “La Chateau Kastelberg” ($77), demonstrated the added aromatics, concentration and complexity that can come from Grand Cru vineyards.

Australia has shown a real affinity for Riesling.
• 2006 McWilliams “Hanwood Estate” South East Australia ($12)
• 2007 Penfolds “Thomas Hyland” Adelaide ($15)
• 2006 Wakefield Clare Valley ($17)
• 2006 Lalla Gully Tasmania ($22)

You may be surprised to read that Riesling was one of the first varieties grown in Washington and still is one of the state’s favorite wines.
• 2006 Stonecap Columbia Valley ($11)
• 2006 Pacific Rim Dry ($11)
• 2006 Milbrandt “Traditions” ($13)
• 2005 St. Laurent Columbia Valley ($15)
• 2006 Tsillan Cellars Columbia Valley Estate ($22)

Even California has a history of success with Riesling. Now, production is making a comeback statewide.
• 2006 Beaulieu Vineyard Coastal Estates (California, $9)
• 2006 Kendall-Jackson Vintner’s Reserve (Monterey, $11)
• 2006 Gainey (Santa Ynez Valley, $13)
• 2007 Chateau St. Jean (Sonoma, $18)
• 2006 Trefethen Dry (Napa, $20)

Finally, you can even find good Riesling from unlikely places. Two surprising hits were a 2007 Cusino-Macul “Dona Isadora” ($15) from Chile and 2003 Chateau Bela ($15) from Slovakia (although, this was less a surprise when I realized it was made by famed German winemaker Egon Muller). Even places like Canada, Idaho and Oregon also produce worthy Rieslings. And don’t forget Colorado. I would argue that Riesling is the state’s best white wine, and one of the finest is made by the Winery at Holy Cross Abbey.

Wine Tasting Enhance Knowledge and Enjoyment

rich mauro people's palateI could be wrong about this but I cannot think of any other single food product or any single commercial product for that matter that engenders such widespread passion for its distinctive pleasures than wine. One bit of evidence I see for this is the phenomenal interest in wine tastings. Whether you are a serious taster or a more casual wine drinker, one of the attractions and benefits of a wine tasting (whether formal or informal) is the opportunity to compare a variety of wines and thereby increase both your knowledge and your enjoyment of wine. Of course, every time you drink a glass of wine technically you are conducting a mini-tasting. But I think the value of wine tastings is artfully described in “The World Atlas of Wine” by Hugh Johnson and Jancis Robinson: “There is little meaning in an isolated sensation, though it may be very pleasant. Where the real pleasures of wine tasting lie are in the cross references, the stirring of memories, the comparisons between similar and yet subtly different products of the same or neighboring ground.”

Another good reason, as pointed out by Peter Forrestal in “The Global Encyclopedia of Wine,” is that “Attending a formal tasting allows you to compare a number of wines at one sitting, which would otherwise be prohibitively expensive for most of us.” There are even different kinds of tastings. Wine publications describe essentially four types of tastings. Basically, the descriptions boil down to these:

comparative tasting – same type or style of wine, different producers, different vintages
horizontal tasting – same type or style of wine, different producers, same vintage
vertical tasting – same wine, same producer, different vintages
blind tasting – each of the other three can be organized as a blind tasting, in which the identity of the wines is unknown to minimize the influence of bias
Most of the tastings I conduct for my columns are blind comparative tastings. For instance, California Zinfandel from various producers and different vintages. Though, in most cases, most of the wines are of the same vintage, making it almost a horizontal tasting. I find vertical tastings especially enlightening, though, unfortunately I don’t have many such opportunities. I was fortunate about seven years ago to attend a tasting of every vintage of Beringer Private Reserve from its creation in 1978 to the 1999 vintage. It was a marathon but instructive as the winemakers described the influence of the weather, replantings, variations in the blend, and so on.

I did recently organize three small vertical tastings of my own. All were Chardonnay from Robert Talbott Vineyards. Founded in 1983, Talbott has become one of California’s premier Chardonnay producers. Robert Talbott (who still runs a successful designer tie business) recognized the promise of the cool climate (thanks to Pacific breezes) and the glacial alluvial soils of the Santa Lucia Highlands in Monterey County long before the area became coveted for great Chardonnay and Pinot Noir. His Sleepy Hollow Vineyard, located thirteen miles south of Monterey Bay, in the northern part of the Santa Lucia Highlands, is even cooler than normal for the area, which makes for more acidic structure and age worthy wines. The sparse gravelly loam soils allow the roots to dig deep to draw nutrients that show up as minerality in the wines. Each of the three Sleepy Hollow wines I tasted shared a flavor profile that included focused acidity and concentrated citrus fruit. The 2002 ($39) also showed creamy, nutty qualities. The 2003 ($42) had more finesse, possibly due to the long, cool growing season that year. My favorite was the 2004 ($42). From a slightly warmer vintage, it seemed riper, with intense tropical fruit.

I also tasted two vintages of “Cuvee Cynthia,” a special blend of 25 of the best barrels form the Sleepy Hollow Vineyard. Both wines were even more intense and opulent. The 2002 ($55) emphasized the opulence and the 2003 ($60) went more for intensity. Talbott’s Diamond T Estate is a special higher elevation site located about eight miles east of Carmel that produces Talbott’s flagship wine. The chalky shale soil originated in the Pacific Ocean and now yields a stingy one ton of grapes per acre (five tons or more is common). These attributes combine to yield wines of uncommon concentration and structure marked by noticeable mineral character. The 2002 ($65), from a warmer vintage, was very ripe and suggested various green fruits, while the 2003 ($65) was luxurious, showing intriguing fig and spicy notes.

I see these vertical tastings as just one example of how a wine tasting can be informative and enjoyable. They were educational in showing the differences between the vintages but were even more instructive for showing the similarity between the wines, attributes presumably related the vineyard and Talbott’s winemaking style. If you can pull it off, try a vertical tasting. You might need to do some homework to learn the particulars of the vineyards where the wines are produced. But if you’re hungry to learn more about wine, you’ll be rewarded by the experience.

Consumer Information on Wine Labels on Tap for 2008

I expect one of the hottest issues for the alcohol beverage industry (including wine, beer and spirits) in 2008 to be whether producers should be required to include consumer information on their labels. The fact that there is controversy over this is in the industry is puzzling to me, especially when it comes to wine.

Since wine connoisseurs and aficionados, not to mention advocates, spectators and enthusiasts, regularly insist that wine is not merely a drink but actually food, why shouldn’t its packaging provide consumers with similar information to that required of other food products? This was the question that came to mind when I read (according to The Wine Spectator and WineBusiness.com) that some in the wine industry are opposing three labeling proposals for alcoholic beverages issued by the federal Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.

One rule would require all alcoholic beverages sold in the United States to carry serving facts information, such as alcohol and calorie content, carbohydrates, fats and proteins. Another would require a listing of ingredients, including products used in the winemaking process like grapes, yeast and preservatives. A third would require warnings as to whether the product was made using any of a list of allergens, such as milk, egg or fish products (which are commonly used as fining, or clarifying, agents).

As you might expect, the proposals are generating quite a bit of controversy. Notable supporters of the serving facts and ingredients proposals include the National Consumers League, the Center for Science in the Public interest, and Diageo, the eighth largest drinks company in the world.On the other hand, industry groups such as The Wine Institute and WineAmerica, reportedly are opposed. From the reading I’ve done, the most often stated concern of opponents is that the regulations would be a financial burden, especially on small producers.

With the allergen regulation, they also contend there is no proof of any allergen remaining in finished wine. Concerns also have been raised that the regulations actually could result in inaccurate labeling. This is because producers often decide whether to fine (clarify) a wine and which fining agents to use shortly before bottling, while labels are ordered much sooner. The timing disconnect could present a dilemma for winemakers, leading to labels that list an allergen when none was used. Understandably, that is not good enough for allergy sufferers who aren’t willing to
take that chance, even if cause and effect cannot be established beyond doubt. With some allergies resulting in serious reactions, even death, allergy sufferers insist that warnings are necessary to make informed decisions to protect their health.

At least one winery isn’t waiting for all this to play out. According to reports in The Wine Spectator and EnoBytes.com, Bonny Doon Vineyard (of Santa Cruz, California) has announced that it will include a list of ingredients on its new releases this year. Bonny Doon is believed to be the first major U.S. brand to display such information. Bonny Doon owner Randall Grahm probably isn’t going to make many friends over this move. But this isn’t the first time Grahm has surprised the industry with his foresight. He raised eyebrows when he switched 100% of his production to screwcaps several years ago, the first to do so in the U.S. I believe. A Bonny Doon representative has been quoted as saying they hope other winemakers will feel responsible for acknowledging their own additions and interventions and that full disclosure will encourage winemakers to be more hands-off and less interventionist.

The move also displays a commitment to transparency that can only generate goodwill with consumers. By opposing the proposed labeling rules, other producers risk a breach of faith with consumer that will be difficult to restore. Just about every winery – from the smallest family-owned farm to the largest multinational conglomerate-owned operation – now markets their wines as the product of a natural process and a commitment to translating the authentic nature of the site where the grapes were grown into the bottle. In my opinion, by opposing these rules, producers just look hypocritical. Why not use these requirements as an educational opportunity? Consumers will reward the producer who gives them more information about the foods and beverages they choose.

Consumer Information on Wine Labels on Tap for 2008

I expect one of the hottest issues for the alcohol beverage industry (including wine, beer and spirits) in 2008 to be whether producers should be required to include consumer information on their labels. The fact that there is controversy over this is in the industry is puzzling to me, especially when it comes to wine.

Since wine connoisseurs and aficionados, not to mention advocates, spectators and enthusiasts, regularly insist that wine is not merely a drink but actually food, why shouldn’t its packaging provide consumers with similar information to that required of other food products? This was the question that came to mind when I read (according to The Wine Spectator and WineBusiness.com) that some in the wine industry are opposing three labeling proposals for alcoholic beverages issued by the federal Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.

One rule would require all alcoholic beverages sold in the United States to carry serving facts information, such as alcohol and calorie content, carbohydrates, fats and proteins. Another would require a listing of ingredients, including products used in the winemaking process like grapes, yeast and preservatives. A third would require warnings as to whether the product was made using any of a list of allergens, such as milk, egg or fish products (which are commonly used as fining, or clarifying, agents).

As you might expect, the proposals are generating quite a bit of controversy. Notable supporters of the serving facts and ingredients proposals include the National Consumers League, the Center for Science in the Public interest, and Diageo, the eighth largest drinks company in the world.On the other hand, industry groups such as The Wine Institute and WineAmerica, reportedly are opposed. From the reading I’ve done, the most often stated concern of opponents is that the regulations would be a financial burden, especially on small producers.

With the allergen regulation, they also contend there is no proof of any allergen remaining in finished wine. Concerns also have been raised that the regulations actually could result in inaccurate labeling. This is because producers often decide whether to fine (clarify) a wine and which fining agents to use shortly before bottling, while labels are ordered much sooner. The timing disconnect could present a dilemma for winemakers, leading to labels that list an allergen when none was used. Understandably, that is not good enough for allergy sufferers who aren’t willing to
take that chance, even if cause and effect cannot be established beyond doubt. With some allergies resulting in serious reactions, even death, allergy sufferers insist that warnings are necessary to make informed decisions to protect their health.

At least one winery isn’t waiting for all this to play out. According to reports in The Wine Spectator and EnoBytes.com, Bonny Doon Vineyard (of Santa Cruz, California) has announced that it will include a list of ingredients on its new releases this year. Bonny Doon is believed to be the first major U.S. brand to display such information. Bonny Doon owner Randall Grahm probably isn’t going to make many friends over this move. But this isn’t the first time Grahm has surprised the industry with his foresight. He raised eyebrows when he switched 100% of his production to screwcaps several years ago, the first to do so in the U.S. I believe. A Bonny Doon representative has been quoted as saying they hope other winemakers will feel responsible for acknowledging their own additions and interventions and that full disclosure will encourage winemakers to be more hands-off and less interventionist.

The move also displays a commitment to transparency that can only generate goodwill with consumers. By opposing the proposed labeling rules, other producers risk a breach of faith with consumer that will be difficult to restore. Just about every winery – from the smallest family-owned farm to the largest multinational conglomerate-owned operation – now markets their wines as the product of a natural process and a commitment to translating the authentic nature of the site where the grapes were grown into the bottle. In my opinion, by opposing these rules, producers just look hypocritical. Why not use these requirements as an educational opportunity? Consumers will reward the producer who gives them more information about the foods and beverages they choose.

Sam Adams Promotes Food and Beer Pairing and “Extreme Beer”

I know the subtitle to this website is “ Wine, Food, Travel” but even wine journalists don’t live by wine alone. I, for one, love beer, too. And I even like to write about it whenever I can. Hence, this month’s posting is all about beer.

Food and Beer Pairing
It’s become arguably the biggest trend in beer (at least craft beer) to promote serious beer and food matching – and I don’t mean wings and burgers. Food and beer matching ideas are cropping up all over the craft beer industry, with the most notable example being the Great American Beer Festival (GABF) in Denver this past October. There were pairing demos in the Beer & Food Pavilion and they even had available a beer and food matching chart that list 28 styles of beer along with suggested foods. For more info, check out www.beertown.org.

But the Boston Beer Company, maker of Sam Adams, and specifically Jim Koch, the company’s founder, has been in the forefront of this movement. This shouldn’t be a surprise, as Koch and Sam Adams have been beer innovators since the company’s founding in 1984.now Koch and his company are pushing for beer lovers and would be beer lovers to think about beer (at least some of the time) the way wine drinkers think about wine – as a natural accompaniment to food.

Koch even has promoted this idea in the heart of wine drinker territory – the Food & Wine Magazine Classic at Aspen. In recent years, Koch has hosted lunches at the Classic with food prepared by culinary luminaries, such as chefs Todd English and David Burke.

Sam Adams also has promoted beer and food pairing at the GABF this year. At a dinner at Rioja restaurant in Denver’s Larimer Square drove the point home. How about appetizers including apple beignet, foie gras Napoleon, cinnamon range gastrique and seared duck breast washed down with Sam Adams Winter Lager? Or an entrée of beef filet, seared scallops and caramelized onion with Sam Adams Boston Lager? Dessert, a hazelnut brown butter tart, was accompanied by Sam Adams Cram Stout.

Even for a wine journalist like me, the beer and food pairings seemed every bit as natural as they were revealing.

Extreme Beer?
That’s what Jim Koch calls it. I mentioned above that he and his company are beer innovators. Beginning with Triple Bock in 1994, Koch has really pushed the envelope of complexity and alcohol. The Triple Bock came in at 17.5% alcohol. In 2000, Sam Adams released Millennium Ale at 21%. Then came Utopias MMII in 2002 at 25%. In 2003, and again in 2005 Utopias was released at 25% alcohol. Now the just released 2007 edition of Utopias weighs in at 27% alcohol!

What is amazing about this brew, though, even more that the alcohol itself, is that the alcoholic heat virtually disappears behind the seamlessness of its rich texture and complex flavors of caramel, maple syrup and butter pecan. At $120 a bottle, Utopias certainly is the most expensive beer ever but this brew also can take its place among the finest after dinner drinks, whether Cognac, Sherry or Port.

Meadowood

rich mauro the peoples palate

In the Napa Valley, It Doesn’t Get Any Better Than Meadowood. I have had the pleasure of staying at the Meadowood resort in the Napa Valley twice now, first in March of 2006 and again in July 2007. Nestled in a valley, a crease really, in the eastern foothills of the Napa Valley (roughly as far north as St. Helena), Meadowood is an amazing property. There is a refreshingly rustic feel to being surrounded by forest as you rest in your cottage. But make no mistake; Meadowood is a refined and eminently civilized place. Once inside your cottage, you feel as if you are in an elegant hotel.The civility is reinforced by the availability of golf, tennis and croquet. And a nightly wine reception offers a white and red Napa Valley wine to enjoy and an opportunity for conversation with fellow visitors.A notable offering is an extensive wine education program directed by Master Sommelier Gilles Chambure. Guests can (for an additional charge) avail themselves of a wide array of wine tasting sessions, winery tours and other wine-related services.And now The Restaurant at Meadowood has become a jewel of the resort. I left our meal there in July convinced that this is one of the best restaurants in the Napa Valley. Chef Joseph Humphrey prepares impeccable contemporary cuisine using fresh, local, seasonal ingredients (some even from the Meadowood’s own organic garden).There are three-course ($65), four-course ($80) and five-course ($95) Prix Fixe menus, as well as a Chef’s Tasting Menu ($120). Of course, the wine list is heavy on Napa Valley wines but there is also an impressive selection of wines from around the world.It is no surprise to me that Esquire recently named The Restaurant one of the best new restaurants in America and the Michelin Guide just gave it two stars (three is the most they give).Granted, both the resort and the restaurant are very expensive. But the next time you are looking for a splurge, you can do no better than Meadowood.

For more information, check out: http://www.meadowood.com/winecuisine/the-restaurant/

Are Restaurant Prices Too High? Need I Ask?

A little over three years ago I wrote a series of columns about restaurant wine pricing for the Colorado Springs Gazette that generated the most interest and responses than all the columns I have written in the 12 years I have been a freelance writer.

It all started with a column summarizing the results of Wine & Spirits magazine’s15th Annual Restaurant Poll (published in its April 2004 issue) tracking the popularity and prices of wines in what the magazine described as “high-end American restaurants” in 2003. The poll was sent to the Zagat Survey’s “Most Popular Restaurants” listings on the not unreasonable assumption that these restaurants “reflect the range of dining in America.”

Here is what I wrote in the first column, edited to bring the data up-to-date.

According to the magazine’s publisher and editor, Joshua Greene, the survey results revealed a “sea change” in wine consumption trends, assuming the 350 responding restaurants are representative of fine dining in the U.S. The results showed an increasing diversity of regions and varieties on wine lists. The restaurants reported that diners have responded well to this growing diversity by becoming more adventurous than ever, experimenting with wines from southern Italy, Australia and other lesser-known regions over more familiar choices.

The poll (as well as the most recent poll in April 2007) also confirmed that red wine remains the wine of choice in American restaurants, at 60 percent of the most popular wines  (up to 64 percent in 2007) compared with only 46 percent ten years ago.

There are a variety of other interesting findings in these polls but most interesting to me was the price consciousness of consumers, a finding the magazine described as  “underscoring the consumer’s interest in identifying wines that present the greatest value in each category.

Yet, the polls reveal that prices remain high and mostly are even increasing. In the 2004 poll, nearly 40 percent of the restaurants reported an increase in wine prices. In the 2007 poll, over 60 percent said they have increased their prices.

I for one continue to be concerned about high wine prices at restaurants. Although, wine sales increased as a percentage of the responding restaurants’ total sales in both polls, restaurants may be missing an important opportunity to educate and excite consumers about wine and especially new types of wine. I suspect that lower prices (or at least a wider range of prices) would lead to increased consumption and higher sales.

High prices and unimaginative selections keep consumers from experimenting. Treating wine as a cash cow may be understandable from the point of view of a restaurant trying to make up for a narrow margin on the food. But high prices contribute to the mystification of wine and the perpetuation of the false notion of wine as elitist.

I am encouraged that consumers seem to be seeking good values more than ever before. Whether that trend is because of the economic squeeze or because diners are wine savvy (it’s probably both), hopefully restaurants will get the message. If more restaurants treated wine more as an integral part of the meal and priced it accordingly, both the diners and the restaurants would benefit.

I concluded the column asking readers (diners, restaurant owners and restaurant staff) what they thought.

The next column featured the readers’ responses.

“Boy, did your column today strike a nerve!!”

This statement pretty well sums up the readers’ reactions as they wrote to vent their frustrations about the prices of wine in restaurants. Interestingly, two themes were consistent throughout the responses:

Consumers take value seriously.

Consumers will seek alternatives when the perceived value is not adequate.

As for value, virtually everyone said they often feel bottle and especially by-the-glass prices are not justified by the quality, especially when they know the cost of the same wine in retail stores. Some even made rather precise price/quality calculations. Consider these representative quotes.

“What I object to most is the prices that ordinary, moderately priced restaurants are charging.”

“It would be lovely to have a glass of wine with dinner but I refuse to pay more for the glass than I would for the entire bottle at (a liquor store).”

“Why would we want to pay $80 to $90 for a bottle of wine that is way too young, probably not stored properly, and served in cheap wine glasses when we can enjoy that bottle at home for about $30?”

“It kills me to pay $6-7 for an approximately 4 oz. glass of wine when I know I could buy the whole bottle for $12.”

When faced with such challenges, consumers invariably look for alternatives. It seems many simply will stay home. Others will give preference to restaurants with better prices. Most trade down, buying a glass instead of a bottle or a lower priced wine than the one they really want. Again the readers state their positions eloquently.

“Good wine values are exactly what we look for, though increasingly it is becoming a challenge. In the meantime we’ll save that special ‘expensive’ bottle for home and the restaurant’s can continue without us.”

“I can tell you that a lot of times, if we’re going out to a nice dinner, we’ll have a good glass of wine here at home before we go out because the restaurants are charging so much for their wine.”

“We have changed our dining out patterns considerably…We visit restaurants less often nowadays because to spend so much money for wine that is just average is not worth it to us…We often bring our own wine (home) and get food from restaurants as carryout.”

“My girlfriend and I are so fed up with high prices, poor quality and selection, and un-knowledgeable staff, that we drink a glass before we go to dinner and then finish off the bottle when we get home after dinner.”

“In response (to the outrageous markup), I have selected less ‘high end’ destinations simply because I feel the difference in the food quality does not justify the difference in the price of the wine.”

“I think restaurants count on the fact that people like us will order regardless of the price. However, we will be more selective where we dine when we know the wine is going to cost the price of two or three entrees …”

“My wife and I eat out ‘up scale’ ….In each of theses places I find about two ‘by the glass’ choices that I would accept and have to pass on one of the full bottles.”

“Restaurant wine prices of twice (or three times) the retail price is ridiculous. We therefore forego trying the better wines at restaurants.”

“The bottom line is that if restaurants had a reasonable profit margin on wines, we would be willing to be more adventurous and try more premium wines.”

“We are tired of the high wine prices in restaurants. We do tend to feel forced to purchase ‘House Wines’ regularly even though we know they are mediocre.”

Finally, the readers had a few other interesting comments and suggestions. There was a lot of interest in a wider variety of choices – both in the types of wine and the range of prices. Readers also expressed concerns about wine service and the staff’s lack of knowledge about the restaurant’s wines. Several people reserved special contempt for the chains on these issues.

Certainly, these responses do not constitute a scientific survey of consumer opinions but the unanimity and emotion cannot be denied. Restaurants, are you listening?

I finished the series giving the restaurants their chance to speak and ending with my two cents on the subject.

I interviewed members of the Colorado Springs Independent Restaurant Collective – Jeff Mervis of La Petite Maison, Brent Beavers and Kristin Schaeffer of Sencha, Chip Johnson of the Briarhurst Manor, and James Africano of The Warehouse – and came away convinced these are some of the “good guys” in the restaurant community. Unlike national chains, these independents are more concerned with providing quality wine and food than simply maximizing the return on their investment. They emphasize fresh, local foods and are more community oriented, donating to fundraisers, farmers markets and so on.

Their wine lists also typically have much more variety of wines from different countries, grapes and styles on their lists than do the chains.  They said they try to have a range of prices and provide good quality at all levels.

They said they too are appalled at the prices some restaurants charge, especially for wines by the glass. They don’t like being lumped in with those restaurants. And they don’t appreciate comparisons with liquor stores, claiming higher costs and less pricing flexibility. They point out that they are selling a total experience and environment for the diner.

But this isn’t the whole story. There is another model that deserves everyone’s attention. No discussion of restaurant wine pricing is complete without an acknowledgment of the pioneering approach of San Francisco’s PlumpJack Café.

When Gavin Newsom and his partners opened PlumpJack in 1994 they surprised the wine and fine dining worlds by selling their wine at only slightly above retail prices. Mr. Newsom couldn’t believe the mark ups in other restaurants and insisted that people ultimately will spend more if they get better value.

The result, according to Rob Goldberg (CEO) and Rose Gibson (General Manger), has been to cultivate a clientele that not only appreciates wine but also is very loyal. Newsom once told The Wine Spectator “PlumpJack makes money by selling higher volume and creating repeat customers.”

Gibson says, “Gavin was very clear from the beginning that we would make enough money; we don’t need to make tons of money.” Goldberg adds they “may have given up some profit for higher sales.”

Their plan seems to be working. PlumpJack is till around and busy every night, while many restaurants have come and gone since and the company now owns five other restaurants. And Gavin Newsom is San Francisco’s mayor, though I can’t prove his wine pricing policy is the reason.

“If customers look at the total check and feel they got a good value, they are likely to come back more often – we put money in the bank, not margin,” says Goldberg.I can’t help but see PlumJack’s approach as a model for other restaurants. I wish restaurants would do the following:

Offer bottle and half bottle prices close to retail

Provide a knowledgeable staff

Use high quality glasses

Offer a taste before purchase

Pour at least 6 oz. by the glass

Offer1/2 glass options

Offer flights

Offer wine and food pairings

Offer occasional bottle discounts

Pass on any cost savings to the customer

Then there is Fred Franzia. You may not have heard of him but he is responsible for possibly the biggest phenomenon in the wine industry in recent years  – “Two Buck Chuck,”  $2 Charles Shaw wines sold in Trader Joes stores.

Now he is stumping for a $10 bottle of wine in restaurants. He told The Wine Enthusiast, “Trader Joe’s became a destination retailer by providing this opportunity. You’d think restaurants would want to become frequent destinations for their patrons.”

Franzia’s crusade also struck a nerve with former New York Times wine columnist, Frank Prial. He once wrote about a bottle of wine he paid $18 for in a restaurant and then saw the same wine in a liquor store for $6. He concluded the restaurant could have sold the wine for $10 and still made three time more than they paid. Still Prial isn’t convinced the $10 wine will ever take hold. His solution is for restaurants to start offering carafes.

But consumers need to do their part, too. Prial asserts “In some ways, the high cost of wine is a problem we have made for ourselves: we take wine too seriously.” He goes on to say that it is fine to be serious about wine under certain circumstances but it is unnecessary for everyday drinking.

We diners need to be reasonable. We should appreciate that high quality and unique wines are likely to cost more than cheap, mass-produced wine. We also need to stop thinking inexpensive wine is always cheap quality.

Somehow I don’t think we’ve heard the last on this issue. For my part, I continue to seek restaurants that provide consumers with good quality at a fair price. For the rest, I’ll drink a glass of water before I will overpay for wine.

Hank’s is a Great Choice for Seafood in Washington D.C.

I just had to report on a great restaurant I discovered while I was in Washington, DC recently. Whenever I am in DC I consider it a must to visit the area around Dupont Circle. With some of the city’s best bookstores (like Kramerbooks) and museums (most notably the Phillips Collection) and arguably the liveliest street life in the city, rich maurothis area draws me much more that traditional tourist favorites like Georgetown.

Actually, the main attraction for me is the wealth of cafes and neighborhood restaurants. And on a recent visit I was invited to sample the fare at a recent addition to the neighborhood, Hank’s Oyster Bar. The restaurant is located just a few blocks from Dupont Circle in the heart of the diverse neighborhood around 17th and Q streets. In case you didn’t know, the Dupont Circle area also has long been one of DC’s most gay friendly neighborhoods. And Hank’s is run by Jamie Leeds, a skilled chef and restaurateur who just happens to be a lesbian. After spending years laboring in other DC restaurants, she opened her own place in May 2005. Jamie has modeled the restaurant after the popular oyster bars and seafood hangouts in Boston, New York and San Francisco. Hank’s also is a tribute to chef Leeds’s late father who was a fisherman.

Being a neighborhood restaurant, it is moderately sized, with seating for about 65 people inside and around 20 outside. The menu changes daily, offering several inviting specials but also many seafood classics. We immediately felt welcome, and not because they knew I was going to write a review. The place just felt welcoming and we could sense the pleasure of the diners, and see it on their faces. Naturally, we started with a look at the blackboard for the daily oyster and clam selection ($2 each), which also listed sake oyster shooters, jumbo shrimp cocktail and seafood ceviche. Then some excellent sourdough bread bridged the gap until our small plates ($6 to $13) arrived. We enjoyed lobster bisque and fried oysters but the popcorn shrimp and calamari, Caesar salad, and crab cakes looked just as good. The night we were there they also offered special small plates of steamed Penn Cove mussels, chilled Old Bay peel & eat shrimp, and shad roe with bacon. When it came to sampling the large plates ($11 to $22), we opted for the daily fish specials. Sable fish, mahi mahi and Arctic char all were fresh and expertly prepared.

The regular menu offered an oyster Po’ Boy, fried oysters, Ipswitch clams, a lobster and roll seared scallops. Believe me, it was a difficult choice. For those not in the mood for fish, there is a daily-changing “Meat & Two” menu (plus two sides). This included offerings such as short ribs, chicken schnitzel, pork chop, Flat Iron steak, Hangar steak and Beef Brisket. Hank’s also offers a market veggie plate. Sides ($4 each) are much more than the typical Cole Slaw, French Fries, and onion rings, although they have those, too. We adventured out of our comfort zone to order French green lentils, sesame snow peas and collard greens and were not disappointed. The one drawback is that Hank’s does not serve dessert (the kitchen’s too small) but they try to make up for it by bringing some excellent dark chocolate along with the bill.

Although some in our group still were disappointed, I just looked at it as a convenient excuse to move on to one of the great cafes in the area. And the wine list? Well, since this is a wine column I must tell you that the list is a really good match for the food and accessibly priced. Among the whites, we could choose sauvignon blanc from France or South Africa and chardonnay from France or California. But there also were more interesting choices, like French Muscadet, Austrian Gruner Veltliner, and Alsatian Pinot Gris. The red wines also were well chosen. A prime choice for fish, there was pinot noir from France, California and Oregon. But it was also nice to see alternatives, such as tempranillo from Spain, shiraz from Australia and malbec from Argentina. Once I got back to Denver, I wanted to see if I was alone in my favorable impression and found just the opposite. A few examples: Troy Petenbrink in The Washington Blade wrote, “Hank’s Oyster Bar is an excellent and much needed addition to the 17th Street dining scene.” Tom Sietsema of the Washington Post concluded, “Though the atmosphere is casual, this fish is first-rate.” And the Washingtonian magazine recently ranked Hank’s as one of the city’s top 100 restaurants.

Bottom line, Hank’s is a great neighborhood restaurant, a casual place where the food is anything but casual. And, in true neighborly fashion, the prices (including the wines) are more reasonable than other D.C. restaurants of comparable quality. If only Denver had a place like this.

VITAL STATISTICS: 1624 Q Street, NW, between 16th and 17th Streets. (202-462-4265). Hours: Sun-Tue 5:30pm-10pm; Wed- Sat 5:30pm-11pm; Sat-Sun Brunch 11am-3pm. Website: www.hanksdc.com