Bye bye wine list? Says who?

I inhabit two very different worlds. As a scientist I work with objective facts, and the unbiased interpretation of results of repeated experimentation. Nothing could be farther from the restaurant world, where sometimes the only fact left standing after a heated discussion is that you and I have different opinions. The subjectivity of taste is part of what makes the job so very exciting, and so very subject to trend. Understanding that taste differs not only from person to person but also changes with age, region, upbringing, previous experience and a million other endless variables is essential for success in this business. Therefore, I was quite surprised by Daniel Crespi's article in the latest White Paper, which I normally enjoy reading, titled "Bye bye vinlista" (Bye bye wine-list), where he laments the "laziness" of restaurants serving wine menus instead of "allowing" and encouraging "ignorant and frightened" customers to buy whole bottles of wine. His point is that he has found wine menus to be sub par, with restaurants "charging 250 kr for a glass of fino" and that one somehow gets more "value" and taste for ones hard-earned coins by opting for whole bottles (or half bottles, but how he equates that with better value for money I cannot fathom. Maybe it was a typo).

He starts off the article by stating that he thinks that it might only be himself and a few other wine buffs that appreciate the opportunity to delve into tome-like wine lists, "regardless of which restaurant" he finds himself in. I think, in fact, that he might be completely and utterly alone in that behavior. I've wandered in to many a "better" restaurant with seemingly endless cellar storage capabilities where the wine list might as well be cut from the product catalogues of their suppliers. The extent of the wine list itself adds no particular joy, in my case, to my evening because I don't normally go to a restaurant to spend 45 uncommunicative minutes perusing my "options". In fact, I know no wine buffs who get their kicks from reading restaurant wine menus. A statistically significant proportion of people I have spoken to about this (an unbiased group, including wine collectors, people in the beverage and restaurant business, and people who just eat out every so often) said something along the lines of "ain't that what one uses the internet for?". 

I'm going to take that notion and run with it. People use the internet for several reasons, one being finding facts. Or asking for advice. Not only will you find almost every single wine ever made somewhere on the net, if reading names, dates and prices is what gets you going, but the internet will also tell you what the bottle tastes like, where it came from, how the wine was produced. And, if you're lucky, what other people thought of it. In short, just about all the things you want a sommelier for. The one reason my wine waiter colleagues and myself have not been replaced by an app in actual restaurant locations is that the chef is still a real person too. We also still serve real food, made from actual biological plants and animals. Speaking for Bloom, the produce we serve is non-GMO, so taste, size and appearance may vary. The same goes for the wines - as most are natural, ecologically produced, some are even unfiltered. Although I'm sure some clever engineer somewhere could make a scanning mechanism and an algorithm taking all of this into account - we're still in a job because we're trained in the art of modulating, enhacing, producing and delivering taste. 
Mr Crespi is of the opinion that Swedes do not know a lot about taste, or rather tasting, as he feels that we simply go get what we're told (in this case wine menus) as opposed to in fact ordering what we want, presumably because we're "afraid" of being "wrong". I don't quite know where he's been working for the last couple of years, but my experience is rather the opposite, with highly demanding customers asking for steak in sushi restaurants and meatballs with spaghetti at the local tapas bar. Or, in our case specifically, vegan LCHF afternoon tea with zero dosage champagne to boot. 

Speaking for myself, the reason I don't order a bottle of wine when I go out is that I don't normally drink a whole bottle of wine. With anything. I can't - or, rather, I could, but I'm sure IOGT-NTO would have a thing or two to say about that sort of behavior - and I don't really know anyone that can. Even when I'm dining in company, it's very seldom practically possible to order a whole bottle - the last time I was dining out in a party of eight, only two people managed to agree to drink the same thing - and that was only for one course, and certainly not including the sweet wine for dessert. I almost always (the only real exception being when I'm the designated driver) choose the wine menu option, not only because it's practical, but also because if it's a sommelier worth his or her salt they'll probably know their wines better than what I can surmise from reading names and prices off a list, and thus help me pair my wine with my dinner. In my experience, this does not at all mean that if my preference is for dry white wines that the wine menu can't be adapted. Or that if all I ever drink (for health reasons, obviously...) is first-growth Bordeaux that the wine menu can't incorporate my wishes. In fact, we have kind customers, who in the same way as if they had complicated dietary requirements, call ahead and let us know that they only want Piemonte wines for their birthday dinner. I really suggest that the next time Mr Crespi disappointingly finds that he's been overcharged for a glass of fino as a part of a wine menu, that he asks to have it replaced or speak to the manager. I know I would have - and we certainly make no fuss if we ever have a customer who wants a different wine from what we've served. I wonder what Mr Crespi would have done were we not speaking about wine, but rather an over-done steak? Would he not have sent it back? I suggest he buck up and speak up the next time he's served something sub-standard - the quality of the wine menu from one sloppy restaurant surely should not suggest to anyone that we do away with the concept all together.
Also, I'm very surprised that this is something that, as a restaurateur, Mr Crespi feels is good business policy when it comes to customer service. Sure, we have MUCH higher margins on bottle-purchases. But for me, both as a sommelier with a budget to meet and as a keen restaurant-goer, the ends don't justify the means. I find that customers would much rather purchase another glass of wine off the wine menu (i.e. ask for a refill) if the wine menu was done well than if they've bought a bottle that didn't quite go with the cheese course. Mr Crespi argues that Swedes don't know what wine goes with what, but I would argue that they do - the important part is not knowing labels or vintages, but to know if you liked the taste of the wine you just drank. The way I can tell, you see, as a practicing sommelier, is if the glass is empty by the end of the course. And there are, trust me, a lot of half-full glasses by the end of dessert when a bottle of Brunello was ordered. And that principle, believe it or not, is one of the saving graces of Systembolaget, namely the symbol system which Mr Crespi so casually derides. If Mr Crespi has spoken to foreign wine merchants, especially the British, he would know that the Systembolaget symbol system is Sweden's most lauded contribution to the beverage business. Instead of simply providing the names and prices, there is an instant product accessibility to everyone with the food pairing symbols and the brief tasting note descriptions. I don't know how many years it has been since Mr Crespi actually served wine in a restaurant, but from my own current experience, the most commonly asked questions from customers ordering wine per glass (or even a whole bottle!) is "what does it taste like?" or "will it go with my food?". I know it can be tedious to explain over and over that the Chablis is a dry white wine and is excellent with seafood, Sir, good choice, but that's just part of the job description. If one follows the rest of the job description to a tee, the customer will come back, and possibly ask for the same wine, or maybe another. In case of the latter, I will have to tell the customer about the new wine, perhaps teaching him or her something. In any effect, doing my job and providing good service will result in better accessibility to good wines, customers better educated about food and wine and all around better business. 

This is a very long post, and I've tried to keep it as civil as possible. But you can imagine, if you know me, the kind of anger this kind of upwards-condescention invokes in my sommelier heart. Wine menus are popular because they are functional and versatile, and because they are what the customer wants. Not because the customer is ignorant of wine, but because the customer is dining out, purchasing the dining experience that is the product of the expertise of the sommelier and the chef, and is thereby relying on their knowledge and taste. The extensive list of what a restaurant has in its cellar is not primarily for spur-of-the-moment orders (oh, I feel like an -88 Chateau D'Yquem with dessert, what the hell), but for range of options, for planning purposes and for further inspiration. I suggest that the next time Mr Crespi goes out to dine, he spend less time perusing the wine list and more time speaking to his dining companions. And should he spy a tempting bottle on the menu, why not pipe up and ask for it to be incorporated into his wine menu for the evening. We're a service industry, I'm sure the sommelier would be all too happy to oblige. 

What goes around comes around

I would like to talk a bit about bad food writing. By that I don't mean bad critique, but rather badly written articles about restaurants, food and wine.
First off, it's not just grammar and punctuation that I'm concerned about. I've been reading about food and wine for a long time, and I've never read so much BS (pardon the French) as what has been turned out in the local media lately. Say, a restaurant review that has about two sentences in it about the actual place, the rest being about the critic's choice of skirt for the evening. Quite an impressive feat, considering the one-page spread. I mean, if the restaurant was so mind-numbingly boring that the only positive thing about an evening there is the unlimited amount of time one can spend contemplating one's wardrobe, then maybe the article should have said so. But then, the five-out-of-five stars grade should maybe have been something different (or was that for the outfit? I get confused).

I've thought long and hard about why and how this dumbing down of what was once a reputable job has come about. Maybe I'm going to end up not having done myself a favor here, but I blame blogging and the social media. There is a considerable overlap between a blogger and a journalist. Just look at the definitions of the words:

So a journalist might be someone who keeps a diary, and a blog is an online diary. A blog can certainly reach a mass audience (for instance, Huffington post is a news blog, and is read by more people than, say, Barometern or Sydsvenskan), and there's nothing wrong with posting news on a blog (see yours truly).
However, despite the many similarities there are several quite crucial differences.
Research, for instance. One crucial point left out of the definition of a journalist. The idea that the output of someone that calls themselves a journalist should be factual and unbiased, as opposed to a blogger, who is someone you expect to put out general hearsay and very biased opinions (again, see yours truly). Journalists are in many cases required to cite at least three sources before publishing an article, just to make sure that what you're reading at breakfast is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
So why are we reading so much garbage? Maybe because an increasing number of bloggers are considering themselves to be journalists (blogging about news), and are increasingly relying on social media such as Twitter for sources. Now I don't know about you, but a 140-char tweet doesn't exactly sound like the best and most reliable source of information to me, but sure, it IS a source. ONE. And if it's the only source you've got, then maybe the accuracy of your facts are a bit dodgy. To put it plainly, the reason so much nonsense is floating around on the net is because the sources of blogs are other bloggers, and ctrl+c, ctrl+v is so much quicker than checking your facts. A blog should be the only space where in place of citing a source you can write "I heard from a mate".

So what do we end up with? We end up with that good old saying "What goes around comes around", and in this case it might neither be true or relevant but it's amplified anyway courtesy of the social media. To me, I don't particularly care if a blogger considers himself or herself to be a journalist. I sometimes consider myself to be a part of the cast of Star Trek, but that doesn't make it true. Yes, some bloggers are journalists, and vice-versa. But to me (again, this is a blog) it boils down to accuracy, authenticity and maybe most importantly quality. So if people are thinking that a particular skirt brand are a crucial part of the dining experience at a restaurant near you, you know who to blame for the dumbing down of the local food culture.