Interesting take on expensive wines
There a story in the NYT about the wine director from the River Cafe.
How about this for a task?
Mr. DeLissio was able to taste his way through many rare and expensive wines, 10 to 15 bottles a day, he said, for more than a month
Most telling quote
“Quite often, the most expensive, the most allocated, the most highly rated wines were just not worth it,” he said. “I’m tasting these wines I never tasted, and more often than not they are disappointing. There’s an absolute lack of elegance in wines today in most regions today. It’s just more obvious in California.”
I quite happy he is going to keep 10% of the new list below $60. Had a great bottle of an obscure bordeaux a few years back that was just fabulous for < $100. I'm planning on checking them out soon.
I'm not sure there is anything "new" or "novel" about it. It's merely the same thing many other wine directors and buyers, sommeliers and Master Sommeliers across the country have been saying for years.
I suppose the only thing that's new (or interesting) is that it took Mr. DeLissio a hurricane to realize it . . . makes me wonder what took *him* so long . . . .
Shhhh! Not so loud, please.
D'you want all those people who've obediently scooped up fashionable, strictly-allocated, impressively expensive "cult" California cabernets, or wines on the basis of being "highly rated" rather than tasting good or aging well, to start looking around and developing their own palates? They might find they actually prefer the wines you and I like, dammit.
After all, decades ago, Yoxall, in his wry style, warned that the whole annual output of the Côte d'Or (for example) amounted to just five bottles per person in the UK, with none left over for the United States.