The Passionate Foodie

Wine lovers are excited when they have the opportunity to BYOB (bring your own bottle) to a restaurant. They can bring exactly the wine they want to drink with dinner, a wine that might not be available at their local restaurant. Maybe they have a special wine that isn't even available locally, or an older wine they have been storing away for years. If they bring their own wine, it can also very much cheaper, even considering any corkage fee, than buying a wine at the restaurant, where the wines may be marked up 3-4 times the retail cost. BYOB offers many advantages to wine lovers.

BYOB is currently illegal in Boston but a couple city councilors would like to change that, or at least they want to introduce BYOB to certain neighborhoods in Boston, those which currently lack a vibrant restaurant scene. However, they have already encountered skepticism and resistance from their fellow councilors. Should Boston allow BYOB, and if so, what rules and restrictions should be in place to regulate BYOB?

City Councilors Michelle Wu and Stephen Murphy have co-sponsored the BYOB proposal. To pass, there will need to be a public hearing and then a positive vote from the City Council. Then, Mayor Walsh will need to sign off on it. If the proposal ever passed, the Boston Licensing Board would then create rules to regulate BYOB, such as the amount of any corkage fee.

Initial feedback from some of the other Councilors has not been positive. Councilor Ayanna Pressley and City Council President Bill Lineham have been skeptical of the proposal, offering a litany of objections. Even Mayor Walsh has been skeptical though he is willing to listen. At this time, the proposal has been referred to the Government Operations Committee  and will eventually be brought to a public hearing.

BYOB is available in numerous cities and towns across the country, from some Boston suburbs to areas in major cities like Chicago and Philadelphia. In fact, Councilors Wu and Murphy have touted the success of BYOB in Philadelphia, hoping to emulate that success in Boston. The objective in Boston isn't to bring BYOB to the entire city, but only certain neighborhoods, where there are few liquor licenses. Thus,areas with lots of liquor licenses, such as the North End and the Seaport, would not face competition from BYOB spots. Areas such as Dorchester and Mattapan would be permitted BYOB, so their existing restaurants with liquor licenses would face some competition. Can licensed restaurants and BYOB restaurant successfully co-exist?

In suburbs such as Stoneham, Wakefield and Woburn, BYOB of wine and beer is permitted in non-licensed restaurants, and there are no corkage fees. The licensed restaurants though seem to be doing well, and selling plenty of alcohol. I have yet to hear of any licensed restaurant closing because they couldn't compete with BYOB spots. And the availability of BYOB hasn't stopped new restaurants from seeking liquor licenses. One of my favorite BYOB spots used to be Kyotoya, a Japanese restaurant in Stoneham, but when the restaurant was sold, the new owners changed it to Shabu Sai, and chose to obtain a liquor license rather than continue with BYOB.

BYOB can enhance a neighborhood's dining scene, giving people an added reason to dine out. Purchasing wine and beer at a restaurant, with high mark-ups, can be expensive, so being able to BYOB can make dining out less expensive. That can lead to people dining out even more, making up for lost revenue from BYOB. However, a BYOB restaurant still needs to have good cuisine as the BYOB aspect alone won't draw in enough people if the food isn't that tasty.

We also need to remember that BYOB is generally only for wine and beer, and not spirits. Licensed restaurants, which can sell spirits, thus have an advantage over BYOB spots, and the popularity of spirits, especially for restaurants with bars, cannot be underestimated. And in the current arguments over BYOB in Boston, there has been little discussion of the advantage of being able to sell spirits in licensed restaurants. This is also why neighborhoods with lots of liquor licenses shouldn't fear BYOB, as their ability to sell spirits still gives them an edge.

Boston needs to give serious consideration to allowing BYOB.

With the holiday season approaching, many people will stock up on wine to serve their guests at various holiday parties and celebrations. Often, because they are buying bottles in bulk, their primary concern is price. They generally want to purchase wine that costs $10 per bottle or less. That may mean they end up stocking up on brands like Yellow Tail and Estrella. I see a similar thing with people who bring a bottle of wine to a holiday party. They don't want to spend too much money and thus often bring those same brands.

Though those might be drinkable, they are not likely to impress your guests. Guests will drink them but no one will remember them after the party. I certainly would rather not drink them at a holiday party. My objection is not because of their price but rather that they are uninspiring.

Your guests want to drink better, more interesting, wines than these. When I attend my holiday parties, plenty of the guests seek me out specifically to find out what wines I brought. They know that I am likely to bring something delicious and compelling. My wines will be the first ones they drink and the Yellow Tail and Estrella is what they will drink once my wines are gone. What all these guests may not realize, is that many of the wines I bring are great value wines.    

Wouldn't you prefer to purchase inexpensive wine that will also impress your family, friends and other guests? That is definitely possible and is not too difficult to do. You have two primary options to locate such wines.

First, seek out one of the better discount wine stores. These places often carry a good selection of wines costing $10 or under, much more than you will find at a regular wine store. You can find plenty of variety in these inexpensive wines, whites and reds, domestic and imported. You will find wines comparable in price to Yellow Tail but which offer much more character, complexity and taste. They offer a much better value, and still at a low price point.

As one example, I would highly recommend Bin Ends in Braintree. On my last trip there, I bought over 20 different wines, all costing $10 or less. It was an excellent and diverse selection and I have yet to drink one of those wines which was not pleasing. Another example is the Wine Connextion in North Andover, where I attended an event last night. Roughly one-third of their wines cost under $10 and though that includes some major brands, there are plenty of much more interesting wines too.

Second, if you shop at a regular wine store, you still have options though it probably would be best to ask a wine store employee to help you find their value wines that cost $10 or less. They can identify those wines which will be more interesting and delicious than the usual Yellow Tail and Estrella wines. You should also remember that most wine stores offer a discount for bulk purchases, sometimes as few as 6 wines, which is another way to save money on your purchases.

But if for some reason you can't ask a store employee for some recommendations, then my best advice for selecting a good wine that is $10 or under, is to buy a Portuguese wine. At this time, I think some of the greatest value wines are coming out of Portugal, especially at the price point. Chances are that if you purchase a Portuguese wine costing $10 or less, you will find a delicious and interesting wine. And there are plenty of Portuguese wines available in that price range. There is no other wine region where you can find as many good wines at that price point. At the Beacon Hill Wine & Gourmet in Melrose, the wine store where I work part time, I often recommend Portuguese wines to people seeking great values.

So this holiday season, don't buy the same old cheap wines. It won't take much effort to select some better choices, and still very inexpensively. In the end, you will impress your guests and make your holiday party more memorable.

At the Beacon Hill Wine & Gourmet in Melrose, a large portion of customers purchase beer and I hear some of their comments on beer prices. Plus, I have spoken to a number of friends and others about beer prices. Based on their comments, it seems to me that beer drinkers may be cheaper than wine drinkers. I am very curious as to why this might be the case.

In a usual six-pack of beer, each bottle is about 12 ounces and thus a six-pack is the rough equivalent of three bottles of wine. Many six-packs cost under $10, and even most of the higher end bottles cost less than $20. That would mean the six-packs are equivalent in cost to wines that run from $2-$7 per bottle, quite a low figure. Yet a fair number of people complain about these prices, which are comparatively very low.

There are some single 750ml bottles of beer which often cost between $10-$15, yet those are not the norm and are often seen as quite expensive. Yet many wine drinkers don't see any problem buying a bottle of wine that costs $10-$15. There are few beers that cost over $15 per bottle, yet you will find plenty of wines that cost more than $15. Why are there so few beers over that price point? Are most beer drinkers just too cheap to pay more than that for a brew?

There are a few exceptionally priced beers, such as the Samuel Adams Utopia, which can cost about $150 per bottle. This seems to be very popular and they seem to have little problem selling this product. But who is buying it? Is it only a tiny segment of beer drinkers, and maybe those who also enjoy wine? What would make beer drinkers, who generally seem to prefer low cost beers, be willing to pay so much for a beer?

Are the price variations between beer and wine due to the different costs of production? That might contribute a bit to the price, but we also know that reputation inflates the price of a number of wines far above the actual costs of production. Does reputation count so much less for beer producers? Is beer just less complex than wine, and thus not often worth as much as wine?

I am not a beer drinker, because I dislike the taste of most beer, so maybe I am missing something. Can anyone enlighten me?  Are beer drinkers cheap, or am I missing something?

I am back again with a new edition of Thursday Sips & Nibbles, my regular column where I briefly highlight some interesting wine and food items that I have encountered recently. **********************************************************
1)  Celebrate National Cheese Month in October. In celebration of this month and 45 years of successful retailing, The Cheese Shop of Concord will offer more than a dozen custom-cut cheeses at 1967 prices on Saturday, October 6 from 12pm-5pm.

--In 1967, there were not 1,000-plus cheeses being exported to the United States. In fact, domestic cheese was produced in just a handful of states (NY, Wisconsin, Vermont, CA).
--In 1967, most Americans’ cheese consumption was limited to processed cheese, or to mass-produced cheddars and Colby Longhorn.
--In 1967, “fancy” imported cheeses were Jarlsberg, Havarti, Danish Blue, Provolone and Brie, although a few others began arriving in the 70s.
--In 1967, these cheeses were available at specialty cheese shops only, not supermarkets. Savvy epicures who could find them, purchased these imported cheeses for an exorbitant $2 to $5/lb., although authentic Parmigiano-Reggiano sold for as much as to $10/lb. even then.
--In 1967, The Cheese Shop of Concord was considered a culinary pioneer when it opened in this historic suburb 10 miles northwest of Boston.

On Saturday, October 6, the shop will be selling Brie and Jarlsberg for $2.49/lb., along with other 1967-era favorites, all sold at 1967 prices on this day, i.e. St Andre, Stilton, Danish Blue, Locatelli Romano, plain and flavored Havarti, Chaumes and Roquefort. Also, a selection of wines will be sold at the unheard-of price of $3 to $3.50 per bottle. I am sure it is going to get crowded there very quickly with those prices.

2) At Grill 23 & Bar, Wine Director Brahm Callahan is giving you 23 reasons to come in and experience Grill 23 with his '23 under $23' Wine List. Callahan has chosen a wide ranging selection of sparkling, white and red options for diners to experience new wines or revisit old favorites. This special, and surprising, list is available in both the bar and the dining room on Sunday and Monday evenings.

Callahan explains why he is offering these 23 wines at $23/bottle, "This gives us an opportunity to feature some obscure wines as well as some mainstream wines at a great price. I hope our guests will select a wine that they might not normally try. It is also a way for us to feature wines that people might not necessarily associate with a steakhouse like Picpoul de Pinet or Primativo. These are varietals that are absolutely stunning when done well and they really complement our cuisine. In addition, it changes more frequently than the normal list so it is fresh and new for our Sunday and Monday guests who come regularly."

For only $23, sounds like there could be some excellent value wines available.

3)  Bergamot, my Overall Favorite Restaurant of 2011, used to offer a Blackboard Special each evening, three courses for only $39. That is being eliminated, yet the replacement is even better. Instead of a single daily special, you will be able to create your own Three Course Prix Fixe Menu for $39 at any time. You get to choose any appetizer, entrée and dessert from their entire menu. That sounds like a fantastic deal and I highly recommend you take advantage of it.

Buying wine at most restaurants can be expensive, and you might pay as much as three or four times the retail price. As those restaurants are not even paying retail, then the actual markup is even higher. Though there are many rationales to try to explain the huge markup, it is clear not all restaurants find this to be a necessity. There are restaurants that maintain far more reasonably priced lists, and those restaurants should be commended for their efforts in this regard. It is those restaurants which wine lovers should support and patronize. Our support helps keep those restaurants in business, and allows them to continue to offer reasonable prices on their wines.

It is interesting though that many people seem to complain far more about high food prices than wine prices. They might bitch about paying $40 for a steak, yet pay $100 for a bottle of wine without a quibble, despite the fact that same wine could be bought at a wine shop for $30. For some restaurants, the higher food prices enable them to keep their wines at a more reasonable level. Other restaurants keep their food costs low by increasing the prices of their wines, yet you will probably pay more for your entire dinner if the wine prices, rather than the food, is high.

Troquet is one of those restaurants where people sometimes complain about the prices of their food. Their appetizers roughly average about $18 and entrees about $38 so it is not an inexpensive place. But their prices are also lower than a number of other high end restaurants and their wine prices are often very reasonable. So when you add in wine into your dinner cost, you will probably end up paying less at Troquet than you will at many other comparable places. Plus, you can't forget that the quality of the food is very good, which also makes such prices more palatable.

Another compelling aspect of Troquet is their annual Wine Cellar Clear Out Sale. Each night during the summer, they offer a fair-sized collection of vintage wines at killer prices. Many of these older wines would cost a small fortune at other restaurants. Many people also rarely get the opportunity to taste such older wines. It is a grand opportunity for wine lovers and it is the type of event which warrants support of the restaurant.  

Last week, I had a superb dinner at Troquet with four good friends and wine lovers, including Adam, Marco, Dale and David. We took advantage of their clear out sale, drinking some excellent older wines. For example, we purchased the 1970 Croft Port for $50. According to Wine Searcher, the retail price roughly ranges from $100-$150, so most other restaurants would probably charge at least $200, and maybe up to $300 or more. Thus Troquet offered a huge bargain on this wine. We also enjoyed a 1966 Chateau Lynch-Bages for $75, when its retail price roughly ranges from $200-$300, and restaurants would usually charge at least $400 for it. So we scored another great deal, and those are only two examples of the wines we drank. (Correction: My friends informed me the Lynch-Bages was only $50, an even greater value.)

Their Wine Cellar Clear Out will continue through August so you really should check it out. We need to support those restaurants which offer reasonable priced wines. Too many restaurants charge far too much for their wine and there seems little incentive for them to change. We need to show them that there is another way, that those huge markups are not necessary for a successful business. If other restaurants can succeed with reasonable wine prices, then they should be able to do so too. If customers keep paying outrageous prices, then the cycle will never stop.

Break the cycle, get restaurants to stop charging outrageous markups on wine.

We often hear complaints about the outrageous prices of wine sold at many restaurants. Some places charge three, four or even fives times the usual retail price of a wine. Who wants to pay $30-$50 for a wine at a restaurant that they can buy at a local store for $10? I have heard all of the arguments put forth by these restaurants, and though I would agree to the validity of a certain markup, some markups are absolutely unnecessary, bordering on larceny.

Sake prices at restaurants can be equally as appalling. I have seen a 300ml bottle, which retails for $8, sold for $32 at a local Japanese restaurant. That is a four times markup from retail, and we all know that the restaurant is paying wholesale for it, so the true markup is even higher. What possible justification exists for such a drastic markup? I have seen plenty of restaurants where the sake markup is three times the retail. And it is often the least expensive sakes that have the greatest markup. That seems to make such little sense.

Interestingly, you will often see wine writers advise you to choose the less common wines on a restaurant wine list, as they can often be good deals. As such wines are not popular, or as well known, the restaurant may not mark them up as high, in order to get more people to take a chance on them. That makes logical sense, and can help people broaden their wine horizons. So why don't these restaurants apply the same logic to sake?

Sake is still a very niche beverage, unfamiliar to many, and needs much more promotion. The average consumer knows very little about sake, and what they do know may even be incorrect. So, they are much less likely to order it at a restaurant, especially if it is expensive. If they are going to try something new, they are far more likely to do so if they are offered an apparent bargain. So, restaurants should have a much lower markup on their less expensive sakes, in order to entice people to take a chance, to try to garner new sake drinkers. And despite the lower price, the increased amount of sales should provide even more profit than far fewer sales at a higher price.

Existing sake lovers will often know the retail prices of the sakes on a restaurant list. They are very unlikely to order a sake where the price is outrageously overpriced, and such prices will give those sake lovers a more negative view of the restaurant. If the sakes were more reasonably priced, then sake lovers would be more conducive to ordering a bottle or two. They would also be more likely to refer their friends and others to a restaurant with a more reasonably priced sake list.

So there are multiple reasons why restaurants should have a more reasonable markup for sake, to encourage new sake drinkers as well as to please existing sake lovers. So will any restaurant actually listen? Is any restaurant willing to step forward and agree to lower their sake prices? If you are willing to do so, please tell me and I will help spread the word.

It is very difficult to find a good bottle of Champagne for less than about $30, especially in comparison to equally priced sparkling wines, such as Cava and Prosecco from other regions around the world.  We cannot forget either the good values you can find in American sparkling wines, from California to Arizona to Massachusetts. 

As such, Champagne is more of a wine you drink only on special occasions, and not an everyday beverage.  Few can, or are willing, to pay $30+ every day for a bottle of wine.  So it is more of an elitist wine, and some of the marketing for Champagne only enhances that elite image.  If the Champagne region were to drop their prices, to produce more reasonably priced, quality wines, then more people would be likely to purchase it.  It could become more of a mainstream product, and not something revered more by the well-to-do.

Sure, the Champagne region is relatively small, consisting of about 33,500 hectares of vineyards. Compare that to the Bordeaux which is almost four times larger with over 120,000 hectares.  France is trying to address this matter, through proposed plans to add more territories to the Champagne AOC but that will not happen, if at all, until at least 2016.  So, the extra Champagne, approximately 50 million bottles, would not start being available until about 2021. 

Obtaining statistics on Champagne production and exportation is not always easy to find, and usually seems to run a bit behind.  In 2008, France produced about 322,453,852 bottles of Champagne (less than 27 million cases), approximately 5% less than in 2007.  France consumed about 181,209,546 of those bottles (more than half of the production) and exported about 141,244,306, a more than 6% decrease from 2007.  Champagne exports had hit a high in 2007, but that was primarily due to wealthy consumers in Asia and Russia. Interestingly, the only market in 2007 which decreased was the U.S.market. 

In 2007, the U.S. imported about 21,722,220 bottles of Champagne (less than 2 million cases), more than 6% less than the year before. 2008 saw another decrease, over 20%, down to 17,193,526 bottles.  It is also interesting to compare U.S. consumption of other sparkling wines as compared to Champagne.  In 2008, Americans consumed 98,736,000 bottles of domestic sparkling wine, over five times as much as Champagne.  Plus, they consumed over 45,000,000 bottles of sparkling wine from other countries.  So, Champagne constitited less than 12% of the sparkling wine consumed in the U.S.

2009 saw little relief for the Champagne region.  Exports dropped by about 30% as compared to 2008, and this did lead to a drop in Champagne prices, as the industry tried to rebound.  The harsh economic times have struck hard at Champagne, with many people seeking less expensive options.  It is the wealthy in Asia, Russia and elsewhere which have still been able to continue purchasing their Champagne, continuing the elitist image of Champagne.

With Champagne, much of the price is due to factors above and beyond the cost of producing it. Heavy marketing costs, its elite reputation, and likely plain greed.  It has been priced out of the range of the every day consumer, except for special occasions. This means that in economic downturns, Champagne is going to have significant problems with substantial decreases in consumption.  Such luxury items always take a hit. 

Champagne certainly could make more affordable Champagnes if they so desired. By not doing so, they do lose the opportunity to compete in the market at the under $30 level. Just consider that in the U.S., almost 9 out of 10 sparkling wines consumed are NOT Champagne.  But, it does not seem likely that the Champagne region will do anything to reduce pricing, except when absolutely necessary during economic downturns. So, Champagne will retain its elitist image and the average person will buy many other sparkling wines, saving Champagne for a handful of occasions each year.

"90% of Saké is fairly priced."

Is that true? If so, why? It also raises another question: What percentage of wine is fairly priced?

At the recent Saké Professional Course, the instructor, John Gauntner, made the above statement about Saké prices. It immediately brought to my mind a comparison with wine, as I felt that the percentage is certainly much lower for wine. But am I correct? And if I am, then why is it so?

In general, John meant that the cost of making Saké is directly relevant to the price of that Saké. The more it costs to produce, then the higher the price will ultimately be. The cost is affected by matters such as the type of rice, the amount the rice is polished, and how much hands-on, artisan brewing is conducted. It is very rare for a cheaply made Saké to be given a high price. When you pay a higher price, you can generally expect the Saké cost comparatively more to produce. And the quality should be higher as well.

In the U.S., you might not find many premium Sakés for under $10, but the limit at the high end is much lower than wine. You will probably only find a handful of Sakés that cost over $150, though you can find plenty of wines over that limit. So why are so few Sakés priced over $150?

Before answering that, let me first address wine prices. Though the cost of making wine is a consideration in its price, it is much less connected to the price than it is with Saké. In the past, I have heard anecdotally that the more expensive wines really only cost a small fraction more to produce than much cheaper wines. There are numerous other factors involved which can increase the price of wine, from the vanity of the wine maker to the influence of wine critics such as Robert Parker.

Such factors are far less important, and often inconsequential, when considering the price of Saké. In Japan, there is no Saké critic who has even close to a fraction of the power of Parker. There are reviewers, but no scores and thus reviews do not commonly raise the price of Saké like they do with wine. That may be the most significant difference from wine prices. That helps to keep Saké prices at a more reasonable level, tied more closely to the actual cost. So you won't see many priced at over $150, in a higher realm usually tied to some critic's score or a wine maker's ego.

Though some American critics, such as Stephen Tanzer, provide scores in their Saké reviews, such scores seem to have little effect on pricing in the U.S. Let us hope that remains the same always. I would much rather have people judge Saké by its taste and flavor profile rather than some number.

I have attended plenty of wine tastings, and found numerous wines that I felt were over priced, which did not deliver on the quality I expected at their price range. There will always be people who feel that a $500 wine might be priced fairly, due to various factors, but probably more people might feel differently. Their reasons for considering the price to be fair though, won't likely be tied to the cost of the wine. Even the most expensive wines generally cost a mere fraction of their price to produce.

I would roughly guess that less than 50% of wines are priced fairly, and I think I might even be overly generous in my estimate. Reputation and scores have a strong impact on pricing, and we would all benefit if that were not the case. There are plenty of high-end wines that the average consumer will never get to experience because of their astronomical prices.

My friend Adam actually posted his thoughts on this issue yesterday on his blog Wine Zag, and you should read the article. He too is not too pleased by how wine prices are dictated by far more than the cost of making the wine.

What percentage of wine do you think is fairly priced? Weigh in on this issue.

In a previous post, I mentioned how Legal Sea Foods had revamped their wine program and lowered their wine prices. You can now read more about their program over at Boston Wine Buzz where Ken interviews Kara Kukull, the Sommelier at the Legal Sea Foods in Park Square. It is an interesting interview and you find out more of the wine bargains over at their restaurant. Check it out!

While reading the Spring 2007 issue of Quarterly Review of Wines, I read a short article about Legal Sea Foods and their new policy on wine. In essence, if you order a bottle of wine, they "guarantee" you won't find it for a lower price in any other restaurant. This policy is not listed on their website and the article does not state if anything happens if you do find a cheaper wine elsewhere. The article listed several wines found at Legal that were at a low markup, including even a couple that were at the same price as retail.

I have not yet been to Legal Seafoods to check on their wine prices but I plan to do so soon. And if it is accurate, I hope that other restaurants decide to follow their lead. We all know that wine prices at restaurants can be quite excessive, two to three times the usual retail. And sometimes even more. Do they need these excessive mark-ups? Definitely not! First, restaurants are generally not paying retail for their wine. So the markup on their cost is even higher than you think. Second, sure there are costs for wine storage and such, but not sufficient for the mark-ups. Restaurants could sell much more wine if they were more reasonable priced.

If you know the retail prices of some common wines, you can gauge how much a restaurant marks up their wines. This can help you identify restaurants that are trying to gouge you, and others who are far more reasonable.