• 1996 Joseph Phelps Insignia – USA, California, Napa Valley (11/7/2009)
  Huge pine forest nose… like walking on to a Christmas tree lot. Flavors of fresh bing cherry, baking spices, cedar, espresso, leather, and a zippy acidity that belies its 13 years of age. Very long finish with a smooth, rich mouthfeel. I didn’t love this wine to the extent some recent tasters did, but all-in-all, an excellent bottle. Probably the one thing holding this wine back from stratospheric scoring with me was that cedar nose… it was almost too much. I wish I had this bottle a couple of years ago. (93 pts.)

Posted from CellarTracker

Garibaldis Restaurant in Oakland has been around for years. In the past, each time we’d go there, we’d ask ourselves why we don’t go there more often. It’s usually very good. Recently the restaurant made a big change. They remodeled, dividing their space into two restaurants. One part remained Garibaldis and the other space became Marzano, their pizza / small plate concept. On Saturday, we went to Garibaldis for the first time since the remodel. The space is beautiful.
Service was friendly and sincere, but spotty in the results. The overly-busy staff did not seem ready for the task though I suspect a lot of the difficulty had to do with the big party next to us. Wine service for our BYOB Phelps Insignia was good with the server bringing us excellent stemware without being asked.
Most of the food was good to excellent. My dinner companions liked their salads and hamachi crudo appetizers. My son and I loved our steak tartar. A couple of us were not that hungry and the kitchen and server cheerfully and generously split a delicious salmon entree which was grilled to perfection and served with a yummy pomegranate sauce. The disappointing entree was my own: the potato gnocchi were salty and mushy.
Garibaldis has always been loud and this hasn’t changed. The copper ceiling, while beautiful, doesn’t lend itself to sound dampening. The noise level on our visit wasn’t helped by the neighboring table of about 20 twenty-somethings. They were at least tipsy and for some reason, their table could never be full. Two would leave the table just as two more would return. The constant traffic did take away from our experience.
So, with more hits than misses, we’ll again return to Garibaldis someday, but as usual, a few inconsistencies keep it from being at the top of our list.

According to research cited in the Canadian newspaper Globe and Mail recently, it does. Study participants were given 3-5 identical — though they didn’t know it — glasses of wine to taste and then asked to indicate which glass they thought was the best wine.
It’s commonly accepted, and supported by past research, that the attitude “first is best” is prevalent. This again proved to be the case: When subjects were given only 3 glasses, they preferred the first glass.
Heck, it could be for other reasons. I almost always think the appetizer was the best part of a meal.
I know anecdotally from pouring our two wines that approximately 3/4 of folks prefer Butterdragon over Baconbrook. This isn’t because Butterdragon is better, but it is more approachable young — and all our wines are still young — plus it has more mass appeal than the brawny mountain fruit of Baconbrook. However, in side-by-side “horizontal” tastings, if I lead off with the Baconbrook, that 3/4 preference for Butterdragon goes down. It doesn’t work out that the first poured wine is always the favorite, but the crowd-pleasing popularity advantage of Butterdragon is minimized. My experiences seem to mimic the study results.
Back to the study cited in the Globe and Mail article.
When the the number of wine samples went up, and particularly as the wine experience level of the test subjects went up, the preference started to be towards the last sample glass. Researchers had a theory about why this order preference changed:

“Wine geeks thrive on discovering new and ever-better drinking experiences, so they’re more likely to give subsequent options a chance… [T]hey will keep looking and they will give themselves even more of an opportunity for something later in the sequence to beat the current favourite.”

Here’s where my experience seems to be different than the study. When I am pouring multiple vintages of both of our wines, no matter what serving order I pour, tasters usually gravitate towards the wine that is currently drinking the best and the 3/4 Butterdragon preference holds true. One thing to also note is that tasters in this setting with me, like in the study, are usually fairly experienced in wine. Without a public tasting room, my vertical tastings are with my customers accustomed to buying $60+ bottles of Cabernet.
According to the article, “The results have an obvious implication for the wine industry.” If trying to sell an overstock or high-profit wine, serve it first. If trying to impress a sophisticated buyer, save the best for last. At your own dinner party, they also recommend saving the best for last as the first wine will shine anyway. Really? At least according to my experiences, it’s not so “obvious.” While I can see the advantages of organizing a tasting so that it builds to a crescendo, I don’t think sophisticated palates are so easily swayed. One also runs the danger of your tasters suffering from palate fatigue before they ever get to the wine you really want to shine. Just because a study using identical glasses of wine shows an order preference doesn’t mean that it will translate to real-world enjoyment of wine.
I’d like to see a bit more information about this study. The article does not say how the subjects indicated their preference. Did they try each wine and in the end just say which they liked best? Or did they write notes — and perhaps even score — the wines as they went along and use those notes and scores to determine the preferred wine? I think the results could be different.

Camino Restaurant was opened a year or two ago by Russell Moore who prior to that spent 13 years as produce buyer and in the kitchen at Chez Panisse. That background under Alice Waters served him well. Camino is a simple concept and one that seems sustainable — and probably profitable — in these tough economic times: Have a daily changing menu of just a few items made from locally available ingredients and do it extremely well. A small menu is easier to plan, execute, and manage inventory. But hey, that is just me being my analytical self. One can go to Camino and not even think about business stuff. Just enjoy the delicious, fairly priced fare. Last night there were 6 appetizers and 3 entrees (one vegetarian) on the menu. I’m the kind of guy who ultimately likes trying new and interesting foods but I am often initially intimidated by descriptions of dishes that use ingredients not part of my usual diet. (Sardines come to mind and some Camino dishes use sardines.) But, even with so few choices that often don’t read like I would want them, I have never been disappointed by a dish at my many visits to Camino. The food from their simple, open kitchen and wood burning oven just works.
Our choices:
Sheepsmilk ricotta grilled in a fig leaf with herb salad and almonds $10
Fresh shellbean, beet and greens salads $9.50
Chicken soup with wild nettles and rice $10
Grilled and braised duck with spätzle, cabbage, red wine and duck cracklings $24
Everything was fantastic.
The bar and wine list work the same way. They stock the bar with only the items necessary to make their own, ever-changing offerings of clever cocktails. The wine list is affordable and well chosen. We had a deliciously aromatic 2007 François Chidaine Vouvray Sec “Les Argiles”, Loire ($11.50 glass) with our startest and a rich 2007 Combier Crozes-Hermitage, Rhône ($12 glass) with the duck.
Camino Restaurant
3917 Grand Avenue
Oakland, CA 94610
(510) 547-5035

• 2002 Kistler Chardonnay Vine Hill Vineyard – USA, California, Sonoma County, Russian River Valley (10/24/2009)
  Wonderfully mature but still vibrant. Golden color. Perfect for the season because it is like biting into a caramel apple without anything getting stuck to your teeth. Touch of lemon pudding, tropical fruit bowl, and mineral notes too. This wine is like a classic book… I feel like each time I would revisit the glass, new complexities would emerge. Drink now, the time is right. It’s really rare for me to score a wine this high, but this is incredible. (95 pts.)

Posted from CellarTracker

• 1999 Castello del Terriccio Tassinaia Maremma Toscana IGT – Italy, Tuscany, Maremma, Maremma Toscana IGT (10/22/2009)
  Dark and brooding with a wonderful nose of freshly turned earth, ripe plums, and cedar. The wine is refined and tannins smoothly integrated. The fruit, however, seems to be a little too delicate and I wonder if it will last in this wine. I think they’re fading too quickly. Finish is very dry and dusty. I’d drink up. (88 pts.)

Posted from CellarTracker

• 2006 Louis Jadot Corton-Charlemagne – France, Burgundy, Côte de Beaune, Corton-Charlemagne Grand Cru (10/22/2009)
  Not hugely expressive at this time, with aroma of cloves and subtle flavors of lemon peel, green apple, river rock, and roasted nuts. Nicely balanced and delicate now but I suspect a few years in the cellar would be the right call with this wine. Excellent but I wish I had paid retail rather than wine list prices for this wine. (91 pts.)

Posted from CellarTracker

• 2006 Vina Pargua Pargua II – Chile, Central Valley, Maipo Valley (10/19/2009)
  Overripe plum with woodsmoke and green herb offer some promise but the finishing tannins turn bitter and disjointed. A few years in the cellar should help. I didn’t hate this wine, but it’s hard to think of when one might use it right now. At almost $20 retail at a LWS, it’s possibly a bit pricey to serve passed at a party or host bar. Right now, I’d put it with a rustic, hearty meal. (79 pts.)
  

Posted from CellarTracker

Ouch. Sometimes a wine is just not good and you don’t know why.

• 2000 Château Pavie Macquin – France, Bordeaux, Libournais, St. Émilion Grand Cru (10/16/2009)
  Nice cassis aromas but very thin, muted flavors and mouthfeel, short finish. It seemed tired which should not be the case. I could not identify any specific defect but judging by others’ tasting notes, I suspect something was wrong. I’ll withhold a rating for now.
  

Posted from CellarTracker

• 2006 Milat Merlot Estate Bottled – USA, California, Napa Valley, St. Helena (10/15/2009)
  It’s easy to miss Milat as you whiz by on Highway 29 south of St Helena. It’s a very small winery and tasting room and often is going to be staffed by a member of the family. But their wines are good and reasonably priced. When folks ask me for a recommendation of where to taste that doesn’t require an appointment, this is one I mention. I like their wines with their Chenin Blanc being my favorite. This Merlot isn’t big or especially complex, but it is charming with sour strawberry pie flavors that make you pucker until the meal starts but then go very nicely with food. Nice value too at about $20. (86 pts.)

Posted from CellarTracker