The question is, conditional on offering expensive wine, which ones are on the lists at which restaurants. And, how similar/different are those offerings across restaurants.
Those are interesting because one of the big open questions is what the globalization of recent decades means for cultural consumption. Many angles to that broad question, but one is about the extent to which we should expect convergence and/or homogenization, as she mentions in her article. Although, she is unable to address convergence over time with her one-shot cross-section of lists. And, I would expect that Michelin lists are more diverse in the regions/names than they were in the 80s. Still, even accounting for a broader range of regions, it is interesting to see how much agreement/disagreement there is on which producers/wines to list.
And, on the other side, there is also lots of evidence of ‘artisanal’ localization, which takes many forms, including the chef-as-auteur trend in fine dining.
I think wine/restaurant lists are an excellent lens for understanding these ever-evolving cultural trends. But obviously her article was not deep analysis.
I think you’re wrong about that. There is definitely a consumer segment that wants ‘curated’ experiences, as annoying as that sounds.
But we’re probably talking at cross purposes here, because what I find interesting about her article is not how it relates to the behavior of any individual consumer/Berserker.
We’re talking about people who dine at Michelin star restaurants, so really this article primarily pertains to people who regularly eat at Michelin starred restaurants. There are many people here including myself who regularly eat at those restaurants and the lists could be better tailored to their clientele, but the issue is, as I said, primarily cost, not selection. There is a lot of commentary about this on social media, both on instagram and the various Reddit fine dining forums and that’s the general message. I’ve actually never ever seen someone say I wish the wine list was more varied.
Again, this is not about critiquing/defending restaurants for the composition of their lists (even if the author tries to critique, in her ham-fisted way).
As I’ve said, the more interesting question (to me) is what these lists reveal about cultural consumption trends. (Whether there is a disconnect between restaurant offerings and consumer preferences is a separate question). And yes, consumers are also a key part of those consumption trends.
One could also go into more detail on the consumers, how their profile have evolved over time in some ways, yet how tastes converge/diverge (which also taps into lots of interesting psychological/economics questions about herding, etc).
Clearly you’re not as interested in these questions, but this is the type of stuff I research as an academic, so there’s lots of overlap for me!
did you ever eat at agern in grand central? it was a nordic inspired spot that had only domestic wines that also heavily featured producers from ny state.
hisa franko, 3 star in slovenia, probably is the best (and perhaps only at its level) example of this kind of obscur, hyper local focused list:
they also feature plenty of consensus driven benchmarks found on other ‘ambitious’ lists. i would be curious how many people actually order a bottle they have never heard of there tho…
my guess is this type of curation has been an outlier even historically.
I would rather drink the same wines I like with most cuisine, which seems like the general trend as most Michelin stars restaurants feature the same wines (burgundy, bdx, champagne)
There’s another factor at play here. When you are selecting wine for a vast list, the stock turn rate is very low, so a history of cellaring is imperative, not to mention a high retention of value.
The keyboard (piano) professor that used to assist in our collaborative cello/piano trios would love to say, when anyone gets all braggy…‘well SMMMEELLLLLLL YOUUUUUU!!!’
