A good secondary use for wine glasses.
1. Yankee Doodle 2. Chester 3. Star-Spangled Banner

Popularity: 3% [?]

Long has there been a stigma against drinking red wine with fish. I doubt this is rooted in a James Bond sort of snobby disdain of an incorrect wine choice, though I have heard many suggest this. It is simply a practical consideration for enjoyment (it's just the cultural elite who regard it as outré). The fact is that a red wine can often make even the freshest fish smell and taste exceedingly "fishy"--a magnification of that decaying smell that should warn you off buying a fish from the market. Most every time I have had this combination, I felt not only did the fish taste awful (if I could even taste it at all), the wine suddenly had a metallic taste: sapped of fruit almost entirely. I would gather that this metallic flavor is a magnification of a wine's iron content. I usually remain sensitive to iron in wine, especially reds, for long periods after such an encounter, as iron (or whatever it is that tastes like it) seems to attach itself to the tannins present in most reds.

This iron-ic transformation happens most obviously with Pinot Noir and Smoked Salmon--this is a dreadful combination, which prompts the most tooth-shocking metallic flavor you would never want to experience. Imagine someone filing madly on your teeth, getting dangerously close to the root, and then deciding to scratch his fingers along a blackboard just for kicks. It's that unpleasant. Actually, pairing Pinot Noir and smoked fish of any kind is usually bad, though lean fish (a speedy swimmer like bluefish) seems to be better.

This same disastrous vinous metamorphosis happens with non-smoked white-fleshed fish and robust red wines, though lighter reds like Pinot Noir can often be just fine. Particularly egregious in this metallic offense are Cabernet Sauvignon, Cabernet Franc (which is usually even worse), Syrah, and Nebbiolo (which can be so bad that one needs no further evidence as to why you might want to avoid the red wine and fish combination). The obvious conclusion is that this means that there is some type of fat that iron latches on to, but I know next to nothing about chemistry, so someone else will have to illuminate this aspect of the issue.

I would imagine that this effect is not so bad in wines with very little iron content, a measure that would vary based on the amount of iron present in the soil on which the vines are planted. However, I have never done (and will probably never do) a study to find out. Sounds like a good idea for a science project--too bad science projects are the province of high school students who are underage.

If you are intent on having red wine with fish (which is just fine with me), go with a wine possessing low tannin: Beaujolais would be ideal. If you are having a more robust red-fleshed fish, by all means, have a red wine. Not that red would naturally be my first choice (it depends upon the situation), but there are many fine combinations here. Tuna, salmon, and brook trout can be quite delicious with Pinot Noir, Beaujolais, and a few less common grape varieties, including one from the heel of the Italian boot, Negroamaro (though it can be quite alcoholic, which can hamper its usefulness), and the famous (if widely considered ignoble) German red Dornfelder (which can actually be a wonderful wine for this purpose, if you can find a good one).

There are exceptions to all of this of course, and I would urge you to experiment with red wine and fish if it intrigues you. I am still intrigued by this to the extent that it happens to come up, but I no longer seek this one out.

If you are seeking good pairings for your fish, there are many, many options listed in the Wine Pairing Search, both white and red wine. As an alternative, you could go do some experimenting as a part of the Wine Pairing Course, and report back your experiences.

Popularity: 15% [?]

I was walking my dog this morning and we walked by a recycling bin containing an empty cardboard box that was once a case of Chianti. I won't name the Chianti, because I can't say anything nice about it, but it did fire my brain on this topic--that this wine (and others like it) bothers me. It is here that people are immediately suspicious of where I'm going with this, and some have even said, "Oh, so it's not good enough?" or "What, you can't imagine someone is actually drinking that?" Um...in truth, there are better choices, but that really doesn't bother me at all. Indeed, it is a necessity, because--while I am annoyed that the wine is from a HUGE production cooperative that masquerades as an estate--it is cheap, potable wine that people buy by the case, and this is one of the principal engines of the wine industry. What bothers me actually has more to do with politics.

The Chianti region is a DOCG (Denominazione di Origine Controllata e Garantita), which is an Italian designation for wine of superiority, modeled after the Appellation d'Origine Contrôlée (AOC) system in France. The rank of Italian delimitations goes, from the humble to elite, DO to DOC to DOCG. The Chianti zone is supposedly in the top class, yet its wines can be so uninteresting! Thanks to political maneuvering, it is the same exalted level as is assigned to the Chianti subregions of Chianti Classico and Chianti Rufina, both of which produce decidedly more captivating and significant wines. In fact, some of Italy's finest wines come from Chianti Classico.

I'm not suggesting that every wine be "significant", because that would be BORING. DOCGs are supposed to stand for a certain level of quality. At least, since the wines have to pass a panel tasting to be approved for the classification, one might reasonably conclude that this is a quality assurance step. There is no evidence that it will assure my enjoyment of a Chianti. At a minimum, it assures that the DOCG designation means LESS than it should. I'd reclassify Chianti as a Denominazione di Origine, because DO is seldom used and is about as noble as the average Chianti. There are certainly some Chianti producers whose wines are superb, but as a class, they are not reliable as anything other than a good steady drink. There's something to be said for that, but that isn't supposed to be the definition of a DOCG.

It's not like the Italians are the only ones guilty of this. In France, all wines submitted for Appellation approval have to be anointed by a tasting panel...except in Burgundy, which is the area that MOST NEEDS TO MEET A STANDARD!!!!! So you could pay $200 for a Grand Cru Burgundy and get a pretty bad wine, because the Burgundy wine establishment pulled the ultimate snow job to get out of having to submit every wine to meet approval. Burgundy is so fragmented, they argued, and estates often have so many wines, that it would be confusing, and someone might be able to slip a second bottle of good wine in the place of a substandard one so both would pass consideration. They also questioned whether there were enough qualified tasters to adjudicate the proceedings, and of course, tasting young wines is such a difficult thing to do. So to keep the governing body (the INAO) that determines these things from being overwhelmed, the growers suggested that they submit only one wine as a representation of an estate's portfolio...and that is how it is. That's BS! If ever there was an entity that was efficient with bureaucracy, it would be the French Government, and here is one sure way to screw the consumer without having to be responsible! "It's not my fault--the INAO gave the wine its approval...."

Based on this, you might wonder "why bother with Burgundy?" Well, once you've tasted a great one, you'd understand without having to be told. Besides, I can report that things are improving in Burgundy, as a new generation of growers take over and strive for quality in a way that their forebears thought economically unfeasible.

For the most part, the systems of regional quality control in France and Italy work well, but political wranglings have weakened them, but the soiled spots are routinely exposed by writers who specialize in the regions, and of course, none of these things can be perfect. In these days of retooling the Health Care system, these things seem rather small, but they are also perhaps an object lesson.

Popularity: 14% [?]

Gourmet Magazine got started in 1941, so no I wasn't a charter subscriber, but when I discovered it was this old (which seemed odd, given the climate of apprehension in the U.S.A. while the world was at war), I spent some time doing a retrospective investigation. The magazine's transformation through the decades has at different times reflected food trends, ignored them altogether, or--when it was at its best--nudged the trends in a new direction. Its departure is a real loss.

I don't have any of the old issues in front of me now, but my recollection is that originally Gourmet was a foodie magazine with a lifestyle splash.  It developed a more elitist feel in the 70's, and later became oriented very directly and obviously toward French food  (nothing wrong with that, and at the time it was a good idea, as it often dwelt on the standard repertoire of technique that one can build within that cuisine). They began to cover other cuisines that were seeping into food lovers' collective consciousness, but they were rather academic about it, such that by the mid-90's I stopped reading it because I was tired of reading (what felt like) the same article over and over again.  This in a food magazine?  The wide, delicious, and emotionally stirring arena of epicurean delight somehow became boring in the pages of this magazine (and others, too...which may explain why Saveur felt like such a reactionary publication when it got started around this time. It has an academic backbone, but the writing, especially in the features, shows a real lust for food).

Gourmet Transformed
So I was walking past a magazine stand on north Michigan Avenue in Chicago in 2001 and a cover of a food magazine grabbed my attention--it was a Gourmet, which I hadn't seen in a few years. Something about it was different--the photo seemed spare, but yet not soulless--there was nothing getting in the way of my mouth salivating over the food...so I bought it and loved it!  I initially thought that I felt this way because I hadn't read a food magazine in a while, but as I continued to read it over the following months, it was clear to me (and I didn't know anything about magazine publishing then) that the editor had changed, and that now the right person was on the job.  It had transformed into a magazine that reached into all sectors of food, with long feature articles, often by well-known food writers (which was expensive, no doubt), and it dealt with both the time deficiencies of modern families, and how one can inexpensively eat very well.  

Realities Take Over...
Well, the economy and perhaps also the internet have exacted too steep a toll on Condé Nast, and it's hard to justify having two magazines (the other being Bon Appétit, which, as a recipe-driven magazine, is surely more cost-efficient to produce) on the same topic--competing with yourself--when revenues are falling.  The magazine with healthier advertising and larger circulation is now the one left standing.

Perhaps it will be resurrected when the economic climate improves.  One can only hope that this is why they didn't sell it, or apparently even try to sell it.  I can't imagine that there would be no one who would want to buy it (though Condé Nast wouldn't be likely to have a fire-sale for Gourmet!).  Perhaps future revenues of a revived magazine mean more than a low sale price on an ailing one.

...But Even the Shareholders Will Eat Less Well, Now
Food magazines on paper are much better than food magazines on the web, though I use both, of course. To my mind, the magazine is important exactly because you don't have to be on a computer. Besides, the computer can't cook your food for you (well, mine can't, anyway).  Food is personal and interpersonal--a joyous, rhapsodic thing to be shared (not sacrificed for the sake of a share price). I am sorry to see that Gourmet, which was a great promoter of this, is the victim of cost-cutting.

Popularity: 4% [?]