There is an interesting article in The Village Voice on foie gras: in nutshell, animal rights activists told the author if she visited the Hudson Valley farm, she would find all kinds of terrible things, they wouldn’t let her visit certain areas, etc. The opposite turned out to be true. If you’ve been concerned about the ethics of eating foie gras, this is an excellent article.
Why are activists so devoted to this issue? Most of the organizations against foie gras also advocate vegetarianism or veganism. If you generally oppose the manipulation of animals for food, you’re going to oppose foie gras all the more, because the production does manipulate the animal more than usual. Manipulation does not necessarily equal abuse, though. But it’s manipulation of a different sort that is at work in the videos I watched before my Hudson Valley visit. Those images are not representative of the reality at the nation’s largest foie gras farm.
The fact that foie gras is delicious is nice, but it is also besides the point. If hanging puppies by their ears and cutting off their paws produced the most fantastic meat imaginable, I wouldn’t eat it and neither would you. Just because we eat animals doesn’t mean that we don’t draw lines about the welfare of the animals we’re going to eat. I support humanely raised (not penned) veal, and I buy cage-free eggs. I don’t think it’s OK to cut the fin off a shark and throw it back into the water. Personally, I would avoid foie gras from the producers in France and Canada that use individual cages. The fact that some industrial farms elsewhere are making foie gras in inhumane ways doesn’t mean that all foie gras production is inhumane. You can buy humanely raised chicken, or you can buy chicken that’s had a nasty, brutal life. The same goes for foie gras.
If I had seen with my own eyes that Hudson Valley produced foie gras by abusing ducks, this article would have turned out very differently. But that just wasn’t the case.
I’ve never understood why people are so concerned about foie when a regular slaughterhouse is so much worse. I love animals as much as most people, but the animal rights people are alienating folks by going after the easy boutique targets, rather than deal with the big ones all around us.
extramsg says
Yes, I thought Matt’s comments were very telling, too, telling of Matt’s biases and preconceptions going in:
http://www.portlandfood.org/index.php?s=&showtopic=7897&view=findpost&p=114454
LadyConcierge says
I don’t think Matt Davis “savaged” Ping at all. At least not in the “The Oregonian Savages Lucier with a C- Rating” kind of way. And the text messaging thing seems to have been short-lived, as people in the comments have noted.
The food is great. Maybe a little overpriced on the shortribs, though. We’ve (2 people) been once, spent $90 on food and 2 drinks each, had good service and really enjoyed the food. Can’t wait to go back.
Mobie says
Several restaurants are offering a 3 for $25 deal…clarklewis, Bluehour, 23Hoyt, and Saucebox.
polloelastico says
I agree with LC’s sentiments. It just opened. There’s some interesting dishes. As far as doctored up instant ramen is concerned, that’s akin to a happy ending in my household.
MrDonutsu says
For those that aren’t FB friends with Morgan Brownlow, any more details on the new venture?
This address is within baby-monitor range of my house, so I’m pretty excited.
Paul
Court says
Downtown Portland retailers are working on a “Delectable Dining Deal, where some of Portland’s premier restaurants will offer a 3-course prix-fixe selection for the tantalizing and timely price of $20.09. Details to follow like a fine scotch chases a crème brule.”
Further details will be listed next week on http://www.downtownportland.org, under the “Deals” section.
ElGordo says
What, Genoa’s not converting to a soup kitchen? The group of down-on-their-luck folks camped out in the building’s doorway led me to believe otherwise…
SouperIan says
Yeah i’ve noticed those guys too. All one needs to do to confirm the rumor is go to portlandmaps.com . It will show……
Pdxmo says
Speaking of Cork, Darryl seems like a nice guy but he managed to “create” a rather unsatisfied erstwhile customer in myself. First it was the fact that he tried to tell me that a corked bottle (rather delicious irony there) he sold me could not be returned except in the first few weeks of purchase. I told him I’d be glad to stop returning corked wine if he stopped selling it to me. Then, the coup de grace, during one of several wine tasting events I attended I bought an entire case of wine we had tried that evening. He happily charged me for the case and the wine tasting fee, justifying it as payment for “the food and stuff.” Newsflash: tasting are meant to promote your product, and as such by definition should not be considered a source of profit. I know margins are thin in the wine business but so then stop offering all the high end meats. If tasting (and selling wine) is the point all one needs is a little water and perhaps some bread His “creativity” in this regard caused this to be the last wine I ever bought from him. Anyway, like I said, he seems a decent fellow but should check out his much more “creative” competition at Vinideus, Burdigala, Blackbird, Vino, etc. who wouldn’t dream of charging you a tasting fee if you bought twelve bottles on the spot. Unlike Cork, these establishments are actually interested in showcasing wine to sell.
Good Food For Me says
Charging a tasting fee when you buy a case of wine is gouging people – plain and simple. Even wineries wave the fee if you buy a bottle only, not even a case. Just don’t go back – that is stupidity on their part and really short sighted. Some restaurants will waive the corkage anyway if you bring a unique wine or send a splash to the kitchen. It would be nice to see someone do a list of corkage fees for all the restaurants – I would love to see that. Some are so high like Roots over in Couttieville (a.k.a. Vancouver) $20 a bottle and then some are just $5. Food Dude start a list? It would be a good thing to include in the menu guides or just a quick cheat sheet listing. Pdxmo is right on this one – by a long shot! I will remember that in the future. Rip-off ville!
FoodRebel says
“Charging a tasting fee when you buy a case of wine is gouging people – plain and simple. Even wineries wave the fee if you buy a bottle only, not even a case”
Hello…wineries profit margins are a little different…
I’m so tired of people who want free stuff all the time. GFFM & PDXMO: what do you do for a living? What can I get free from you? Let me know where and when and I’ll get in line.
I wonder if I could get a free shoe sample in a shoe store? And the last time I asked for a sample of “Regular Unleaded”, the guy laughed at me…
If you want free samples, go to Trader Joe’s.
mostly_running says
FoodRebel-
I think the tasting fee is closer to being able to try on a pair of shoes before purchasing them than it is to wanting to drink gasoline, though it does depend on the wine. I don’t think it should be a rule, but from what I can tell it is the standard to waive tasting fees with the purchase of a set amount of wine.
Steve Wino says
No, it’s not “standard” to waive tasting fees. Shops that offer higher end tastings, like Great Wine Buys, Liner & Elsen, and Mt. Tabor, do not waive fees in my experience. I don’t expect them to when I pay an appropriate fee for decent pours of five wines in the retail price range $20-50. I don’t feel an expectation to purchase wine under those circumstances and don’t consider it a “promotion.” It is an opportunity to try wines with no expectation of purchase, wines that I might otherwise not try or buy. Some shops have a different approach, lower or no tasting fees and a refund. To each their own. My issue with Cork is very small pours and staff that seems cold and indifferent to a new customer. I’ve been in five times or so and staff has never seem interested in engaging in any kind of talk. I don’t want friends but I would like to know who I am dealing with, what their level of knowledge is, how their palate compares to mine, and whether I walk away with something more than a bottle of wine, which I can buy at a number of other shops.
Pdxmo says
Fair play, Wino, if that is understood going in. I guess I should have checked beforehand. And I should note that I bought a case of the very wine we had been tasting, not some two buck chuck. For hearty pours and a congenial staff I’d have to recommend Vinideus (Beaumont store, NOT the Pearl) and Burdigala in Sellwood. Didier at Burdigala used to be a negociant in Bordeaux, so knows a tremendous amount about wines and the French industry in general. They import their own label as well. Tastings are usually $10 and up to six wines (usually priced from $20 to $50). And it’s best if you don’t drive there ;) Bruce at Vino (Sellwood) also has a nice tasting on Fridays, though it’s a little crowded for my taste, but with much good cheer. His Saturday tastings are free, I believe.
Steve Wino says
PDXmo – I am with you on Didier and Burdigala. He makes everyone feel welcome when you walk in his shop. On the free side of things, Michael at Storyteller offers good free tastings and a small but interesting selection of wines, sometimes with some real deals.
Pdxmo says
Thanks, Wino, for the tip about Storyteller. Didn’t even know about this place. Btw, or some reason I couldn’t reply to your last comment. Perhaps I’ve been cut off? ;)
[Note from FD: For formatting reason, there is a limit to nested replies. I think it is set at 5.]
Good Food For Me says
The reason that wineries – still some – retail stores and others demo or sample for free is to educate and hopefully win a customer over by direct contact. If someone just said this is $240 dollars for the case or $650 or whatever the price is and no one had ever tried it – you wouldn’t be moving much wine. Unfortunately it is a product that demands demoing and sampling just like all those demos you see at food stores and elsewhere. If you feel that people just want something for free at a wine tasting then I’m under the impression you don’t consider this marketing for the wines you sell and strictly a retail situation or you’re attracting all the wrong people who only want free things and thus would likely never buy a case – right? If someone wants a .20 cent sample and the possibility they can become a long time customer this it is the cheapest advertising out there – seems cheaper than pissing away 2 – 5,000 on an ad in a magazine and look – not one person actually in your location. All I am saying is that if I could give something away that cost me .20 cents or even make it ten dollars and they made a large purchase it is just good customer service to waive that fee. Creating good will is a big part of retaining customers. Believe me I know that a lot of wineries give additional bottles for sampling to retail stores and/or will credit them if they sample and promote their wines. Anyway, this is just marketing costs – it’s not as if you expect to pay nothing to get customers in the door. I’m still with Pdxmo on this one because I see it more as marketing costs and not one hundred percent retail income. If you charge for tasting fees you’re likely making at least $120 per case profit (yes you have overhead – who doesn’t) – seems like that $10 is money will spent to waive that fee and make a return customer happy and telling everyone else how great your location is. Just my thoughts on this as a very serious wine buyer. It might be good to just let people know that the fee is not waived because it is generally expected if you then purchase the product.
grapedog says
Domain Drouhin, one of my fav Oregon Pinot producers, does not waive the tasting fee when you buy their spendy bottles. The explanation, as some have mentioned, is that the tasting fee pays for the glasses, washing, food, etc.
Sure, I’d *prefer* that the tasting fee is applied toward a bottle purchase. But, at the same time, I don’t want Cork or DD to go out of business.
CMM says
Pdxmo–I am absolutely in your corner with regard to the corked wine issue. I won’t buy wine at any place that makes it a hassle to return corked wine. By my unofficial tally, about one in ten bottles I buy has some degree of TCA taint. I’m just not willing to pay good money for spoiled wine. I wonder if Darryl has posted his vague, “no returns after the first few weeks” policy somewhere in the store.
I can’t agree with you on the free tasting issue. I don’t know how much you were charged for the tasting or which wines you tasted and bought, but unless you were told in advance that the tasting fee would be comped upon purchase of a case, then you’ve got absolutely no gripe. I’ve rarely seen such a policy, and when I have, it’s always announced up-front. By the way, you did get a “case discount”, didn’t you?
darryl says
our return policy on corked bottles is 6 months from time of purchase. it says this on the bottom of every receipt. we are of course more lenient if the wine is still in stock and we can exchange it for the same wine with our suppliers. thanks for all of your comments, always interested to hear feedback from customers.
darryl @ cork
CMM says
Darryl, thank you for your reply. I apologize for assuming (based solely on Pdxmo’s post) that your return policy is “vague” and/or unpublished. Although I don’t love your policy, I recognize your right to establish whatever policy you wish and I applaud you for trying to make your customers aware of it.
I guess I don’t understand the merits of your time limit on corked wine returns, assuming I can prove I bought the bottle from you. Although most wine you sell is probably consumed within a few months (or even days) purchase, I assume that a fair number (particularly your Barolos, Brunellos, etc.) are bought with the intention of aging them for a year or two before drinking; in fact, I would imagine that you even recommend that your customers not drink these wines straight away. So if I buy a $45 Barolo from you, open it a year later and find that it is hideously corked, why would you not, at a minimum, give me a store credit for the purchase price (even if the wine is no longer in stock)? That the distributor may no longer carry the wine is not the customer’s fault, is it? Should your customers then bear the risk of your selling them corked wines? In general, what are the policies of your distributors with regard to corked wine returns?
Food Dude says
What about the huge amount of customers that don’t store wine properly. Should the wine shop be responsible for a wine that the customer has left sitting in the living room window for a year?
Steve Wino says
A “corked” wine is a corked wine and storage conditions won’t induce the TCA taint. Now, if you are talking about a wine that’s been cooked from heat, that’s a different story and perhaps a reason to have a different policy for a wine being returned for that problem. I hope that the owner and staff of any store selling good wine knows the differences between these and other flaws. As a practical matter, most people buying wines to lay down know how to store them so that is unlikely to be a big issue.
pdx_yogi says
In the law is something called the General Warranty of Merchantability, saying that the product must be fit for the purpose for which it was sold. You are saying that you are unilaterally voiding this at 6 months? I’m not even sure you have that right, especially if you recommend a customer hold a year before opening.
CMM says
I agree.
Pdxmo says
My apologies for the slight hyperbole. At the time (this was at least two years ago) I was not aware of a written policy (though I could have missed it, I suppose). I only recall that it took me by surprise. I do think wine merchants should stand by their merchandise, without reservation. Being upfront about it (I would advise verbally clarifying it) is second best.
JandJ says
Well, then I regret to say that your store would be completely off our list of places to purchase wine. I cellar a lot of what I buy, and the likelihood that I’ll consume a bottle within 6 months is pretty small. I would not knowingly buy a wine for that purpose if the seller has a policy of not replacing TCA tainted bottles with either the same or an equivalent wine.
Pdxmo says
Whoa there, FoodRebel, how about arguing the point, not the person? And what’s free about a case of wine? And what, exactly, is the difference between Cork and Trader Joe’s? Both are retailers trying to sell a product. Product promotions are a time-honored tradition to do so, but charging for your promotional goods is decidedly less so. But regardless of one’s personal feelings about this, what really matters, if I may, is what your competitors are doing. Most of Cork’s competitors actually offer free tasting regardless of what you buy. It’s how they build customer loyalty. They recover the cost of promotions in the prices they charge (and Cork’s were not exactly cheap to begin with). And that’s good business, whether you agree with it or not. And that is also, incidentally, to the point I thought FoodDude was making (albeit to a rather different conclusion). As I said I liked Darryl, I just didn’t like the way he did (does?) business.
Dinah Davis says
Regarding food photography–fast food or otherwise—well, anyone who has EVER done a food photo shoot knows just how much labor goes into making the article of food look as tasty as possible. Even a gourmet restaurant isn’t going to have great food photography without a certain amount of expertise going into the preparation and arrangement of the dish. Lighting, elapsed time, choice of lens, background, other items in the composition–all of these play a crucial role in a good food photo.
Frankly, I’m surprised the candid shots of the fast food looked as good as they did!
muncielovesfood says
I stopped in Cork last week and noticed that at least with respect to a couple of Pinot Noirs, the retail price (as opposed to the Club price) was higher than the published price charged by the vineyards. I wouldn’t shop there.
reflexblue says
Today I learned that when cheese melts, it becomes a lot less photogenic.
Also, after some off-the-wall bottle recommendations, like “If you like Naia Verdejo, try this reisling” I’ve pretty much given up on Cork. I don’t think their “club” idea works well in my neighborhood, where people think they are in the no-club club.
sabernar says
I like Cork for their beer selection. They have a number of interesting beers that other places don’t have, and the salespeople I’ve talked to about beer there were pretty knowledgeable. For wine, I prefer going over to Blackbird. Andy has never steered me wrong with his suggestions.
wineguy says
We ate at Ping lat week, and as I wrote on my blog had a very inconsistent experience food wise. Contrary to what Matt Davis wrote in his whiney blog post, I thought the service was great and not too much info. Sounds like he should have become the motherf*cker on table four at The Republic. Gee, hate to think of the rathole that has been our Chinatown/Old Town area getting better. Let’s see, parking lot or Uwajimaya? Hmmm….does that even need to be discussed Matt?
MrDonutsu says
Cork schmork, what about Brownlow’s restaurant??
From the outside, I’d say the space is more than a couple weeks out.
Some rather old rumours had him planning a charcuterie shop. If true, with Viande also coming to the hood, Kerns is suddenly looking like a destination for world-class meat-lovers.
Hmm…
OneTart says
A friend showed me this site last week. I believe it rivals the above link…
http://thisiswhyyourefat.com/
sabernar says
One thing that I’ve been disappointed about Portland about (I’ve been here about a year – I moved from Atlanta) is the poor vegetarian choices at restaurants. Before moving here the one thing I heard about Portland (besides the bike scene) was the fantastic restaurant scene. Well, I’ve been here a year and I’ve found that lots of restaurants have a very very poor vegetarian section. One pasta dish? Sandwich stores with one, maybe two, vegetarian selections? Sheesh. I know we’re in the minority, but I thought that of all places, Portland would be more sensitive to vegetarian diets. Why do I go to a fancy restaurant and have a choice of one pasta dish or nothing except appetizers? Believe it or not, I think that Atlanta (intown Atlanta, not the suburbs) were more accommodating to vegetarians. I love Portland, don’t get me wrong, but this has to be my biggest disappointment.
Dave J. says
I totally agree with this. I’m not a vegetarian, but my wife is, and I’m astounded at the really poor selection put before her at a lot of great places in town. As you say, one pasta dish, or occasionally some sort of mixed veggies thing which more than anything feels like the chef took a look at the extra vegetables lying around the kitchen, doused them in olive oil, and sauteed them for 10 minutes. It feels downright Midwestern sometimes, i.e., why would you even order a meal if it didn’t have meat in it? But I think part of the problem is that vegetable dishes get pigeonholed into the “vegetarian” category. I’m a big meat eater, but there are plenty of times that I feel like a light vegetable dish, you know?
sabernar says
Yep. And if you’re only going to have one or two dishes, for godsake, don’t do pasta with a basil marinara sauce. Come ON! Be a little original, at least. Gnocchi? Veggie tart? Use a little imagination. Believe it or not, chefs, vegetarians like to feel a little full at the end of a meal. A handful of veggies doesn’t cut it.
mczlaw says
Fergodsake, the air of self-entitlement is thick in here. . .
If you make the decision to limit what you eat, better get used to the consequences when you go out. Restaurants have no obligation to cater to special diets–especially those that are a matter of preference.
Beyond that, the assertion that “a lot of great places in town” can’t satisfy our vegetarian friends is of dubious merit. How many is “a lot”? Based on my experience, I would suggest the two disappointed posters need to try some other PDX “great places.”
–mcz
sabernar says
mczlaw: you’re right, no restaurant is required to serve anything other than what they want. They don’t *HAVE* to serve food that a vegetarian could eat. My point was that I was surprised when I moved from Atlanta to Portland that Atlanta restaurants seemed to cater to vegetarians to a higher degree than Portland restaurants. Chalk some of it up to my newness to Portland, but I’ve checked out a number of restaurants’ menus here in Portland, and, like I’ll repeat again, I am surprised at the lack of vegetarian friendly choices. I’ve only checked out a fraction of places so far, and I’ll continue to do so. After a year (and this is probably best for another thread), so far I haven’t found a better sandwich shop, pizza place, Italian restaurant, pub (including food). I don’t get out as much as I would like, but overall, I’ve been a little disappointed.
mczlaw says
Seriously, keep trying. Read a lot of the reviews here and over on pf.org. Review copies of the 08 WW and Oregonian resto guides. You will be happy. I promise.
–mcz
sabernar says
mcz: Well, that’s why I’m here. I frequent this site to get ideas for restaurants. I then check out their menus and then have to comb through them to find a place that has more than a vegetarian dish or two. One very vegetarian place I found is Andina – they even have their own vegetarian menu.
FoodRebel says
Sabernar,
When I go to a vegetarian restaurant, their “meat options” are usually more limited than the Vegetarian options in a “Meat oriented” place…
This said, the main reason is that those “vegetarian” options don’t sell in a “meat oriented” restaurant. Lots of care is put into it, and it just sit on the menu, hence creating waste…
sabernar says
So, are vegetarians supposed to frequent a restaurant that has very limited choices for their chosen diet? I know as a vegetarian I prefer restaurant that have several solid choices. If a restaurant wants to offer one menu item that has lots of care put into it, well, does it matter? Vegetarians aren’t going to frequent that establishment due to a lack of choice. Of course, these places might just not care much about attracting vegetarians, since they are a relatively small percentage of diners. Then again, how do so many good restaurants in Atlanta manage it? I would think that there were fewer vegetarians there than in Portland, yet I had more choices in more restaurants. How does that work?
pdx_flexatarian says
“How does that work?”
not only is there a distinct absence of vegetarian items on menus but i have experienced out-right hostility on many occasions. the food scene in this town is very much about being a carnivore.
i recommend nostrana and ken’s — their vegan pies and wood-fire grilled veggies are terrific. scholl’s is also an option but is not particularly vegan friendly. toro bravo and navarre have good, if sometimes starchy, vegetarian tapas. lovely hula hands and caprial’s often have inventive vegetarian dishes that are not an “afterthought”. rocket is also known to whip up vegetarian dishes “off menu” on request (the man has a way with shrooms and braised veggies). and the most under-rated vegetarian place in town is planfield’s mayur.
pdx_yogi says
Rocket closed months ago.
Of course, Thai, Indian, African, and Middle Eastern have lovely vegan options. I love the veg combo plate at Blue Nile.
pdx_flexatarian says
Meant noble rot not rocket.
salmonfly65 says
I’ve been sitting on the sidelines on the debate about wine tasting fees and corked wine.
I don’t understand why anyone objects to paying a tasting fee to sample wine – frankly, this is the least expensive way to determine whether the wine you’re sampling is something that you’d enjoy drinking at some point in the future. It’s certainly cheaper than purchasing a bottle (at least in most cases). And is it really a deal breaker if your tasting fee is not backed out of a purchase? To me, that’s very myopic. If you can afford to buy a case of wine, who cares about getting ten bucks back. And, more times than not, the wine offered at these tastings are on sale anyway.
As for corked wine, this has absolutely nothing to do with provenance. It is solely related to the cork used by the winery. Some, but not all, wineries will substitute a truly corked bottle, but I don’t think the merchant should do anything other than replace the bottle (if they can). The complaint should be with the winery and their choice of closures. I’ve found that most, but not all, wineries like to know about these issues and would prefer to “test” for the presence of TCA. It’s just not right to complain to a wine shop when they have zero control over whether a wine is corked.
Cheers!
PS – for those looking for a “less expensive” wine tasting opportunity, look no further than the Hollywood District Grocery Outlet. They placed an ad in WW this week offering a “complimentary wine tasting” today from 4 to 7 pm. But, as in most situations, you get what you pay for. I don’t go to wine tastings to drink. Rather, I taste wine to see if it fits within a profile of wine I’d like in my cellar.
Pdxmo says
SalmonFly – you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I might point out, however, that when many, many places do wave the tasting fee, you are at a competitive disadvantage to not do so. I’ll wager most consumers would opt for a place that does. And as I pointed out there is absolutely no dearth of good, FREE wine tastings out there. Moreover, for the sake of one’s reputation, knowing that this tendency is out there, being explicit about is essential customer service, in my opinion. And I couldn’t disagree with you more about the assumption that buying a case of wine means you don’t care about saving money. Buying by the case is in fact cheaper (per bottle) and, for those of us who are even more cost cautious than usual, an essential budgeting tool. Now, regarding corked bottles, I would merely point out that I do not (usually) buy from the winery, I buy from a merchant. In my view this means if there is a problem with the wine, the merchant will be the one to make me whole. If that becomes a problem, the merchant should discontinue purchasing that wine from the winery.
pdx_yogi says
Agree totally with Pdxmo.
SalmonFly: from a legal AND customer service standpoint, the retail merchant is liable and accountable for the fitness of their product (see my above reference to the General Warranty of Merchantability). Legally I don’t need to, nor should I (as a loyal customer) have to take my complaint to the winery.
And just because I can afford to buy a case, does that means I should throw away my hard-earned money on tasting too? No. I’m still careful and no fool about my money. I’ll go to the plentiful competition who will give free tastings or waive the fee if I buy a case. Hell, some wineries even waive it if I buy only three bottles! Free market competition will take care of this.
On the other hand, I tend to like tasting fees at wineries. That way, if I hate the wine I feel no moral obligation to buy anything.
One Swell Foop says
I don’t expect free tastings, particularly of expensive bottles, but I will say that the one store where I’ve bought more $100+ bottles than any other place (really the only place I’ve bought $100+ bottles) offered free tastings. This was back in Birmingham, Al. The owner would work with distributors and producers and they would provide the bottles for free or split the cost of the bottles offered for tasting. The owner had a large and overall wealthy client base that would jump on cases of highly allocated wine to store for the future.
The distributors and producers understood that comping a few bottles in order to sell a few hundred, or at least a few cases, made sense. Most importantly, I never felt as if the owner was nickle and dime-ing her customers. As someone that doesn’t have a great deal discretionary funds to spend on wine (because beer or liquor will often taste good and get you where you’re going for substantially less, honestly), I feel that generosity begets generosity.
My only issue with corked is the “corked club”. $100…to get a discount, and with each price tag in front of you waving in your face that unless you spend $100 to be a part of the club, you must pay the higher price. If you can make that business model work, good for you, but honestly, it’s insulting. In doing this, you immediately create two classes of customer. The times I have been in there I felt consistently under-valued. The staff has never ignored me or been impolite, but when I asked about the club and got the details, I was also told that club members got first access to higher allocation bottles and the like.
Forgive me, because I’ve never been a wine rep or sales person in a retail wine store, but this seems to me another case of enforcing two classes of customer. I honestly feel that my payment for access to bottles of wine it eh price of the bottle or case. If you are only getting a case of something, privately call you valued customers that you know prefer this maker, sub-appellation, or that you know would LOVE this bottle. Sell the case, and no one else need know that they weren’t good enough to be offered this.
I may go back to corked, it’s on my way to and from work, but each time I go back, I won’t feel good about being there. I won’t feel good about paying a higher price because I haven’t purchased access to being “special” to the store.
salmonfly65 says
Pdxmo and pdx_yogi –
Appreciate your thoughtful analyses. I’m fairly certain that Oregon, since the 1950’s, has recognized the “sealed container doctrine.” In essence, it provides that if a plaintiff (meaning you) receives a defective product in a container that was sealed by the manufacturer (meaning a winery), then that seal is evidence that the defective product (meaning corked wine) was the result of the manufacturer’s negligence. This doctrine applies to distributors and vendors (meaning wine shops). There are also issues regarding privity. But, I think, the plain language found in ORS 72.8010(1) and (7) and 72.8040 probably puts the issue to rest.
Cheers!
CMM says
You might (or might not) be right about the “sealed container doctrine” but there is nothing in the “plain language” of those statutes that “puts the issue to rest.” At any rate, if I buy a can of beans at New Seasons or Fred Meyer or any other grocer, and when I open the can I find out that the beans have rotted, I can assure you they will refund my money, no questions asked, “sealed container” or no. The fact is, I won’t buy wine from a store that makes it difficult or impossible for me to return corked bottles, regardless of when I discover the problem.
salmonfly65 says
From a legal standpoint, as suggested above, the issue is put to rest. The case cite is Keller v. Coca Cola Bottling Company, 214 Or 654 (1958). Further, both soft goods and consumable goods are excluded from the implied warranty of merchantability of consumer goods per the plain language referenced above.
Whether a store (or wine merchant) voluntarily agrees to replace a bottle, possibly at their expense, is called goodwill. It happens all the time, but the law does not require they do so. In a free market, you (and everyone else) gets to choose where to purchase goods. But, instead of demanding your money back or another bottle, is it unreasonable to first ask the consumer to contact the winery to see if the issue can be resolved? I don’t know if there are any good or correct answers but it seems like consumers should sometimes “work” with merchants.
CMM says
Well, contacting the winery only works if the wine happens to be from Oregon, and even then, I doubt a consumer would get anywhere. The vast majority of the wine I drink is from France or Italy, so contacting the winery is not a viable option, especially since the wine has been sold at least three times since it left the winery (importer to distributor, distributor to retailer, retailer to me). Some retailers figure it’s not their problem; others stand behind what they sell, regardless whether the law requires them to do so. Those are the ones I choose to do business with.
mczlaw says
Hope you are billing a client for this important legal research ;-)
–mcz
salmonfly65 says
MCZ –
As you might imagine, this is strictly “pro bono.” Thanks for all of your good work, published and otherwise.
And CMM – two year’s ago I opened a bottle of ’99 Vieux Chateau Certan for an anniversary dinner. It was, sadly, corked. I sent an e-mail to to the chateau. I received a prompt reply from Alexandre Thienpont with an apology and an offer to replace the corked bottle and another from “the wings” of his cellar. I sent him my corked bottle and a nice Oregon Pinot Noir. So, in reality, it is a viable option, but it does require tact and good manners.
One Swell Foop says
It also requires shipping to France…
JandJ says
Viable? Umm, true if you don’t mind spending as much for shipping as you might have for the original bottle. We can toss around the legal arguments until the cows come home… this is about doing the right thing. As I said in an earlier post, a retailer who won’t stand by their product (whether they manufacture it or not) gets crossed off my list.
quo vadis says
I think a lot of people who move to Oregon from other places don’t realise that unlike many (or most) other states it is illegal for a distributor to gift or even discount wines for a restaurant or package store to taste out to guests. Nor do restaurants or package stores get volume discounts from their whoelsalers as they do just about everywhere else.
When you are at a wine tasting every bottle that is being tasted out was purchased at full cost. When you buy a case and get a case discount that case was not discounted for the store.
What makes financial sense for one place (comping tastings) could prove fatal for another as everyone has different overhead to take into consideration. It comes down to this- many places decide what kind of clientelle they need and behave accordingly. Some feel they need to be over the top accomodating to survive and some have a “we aren’t for everyone and that’s ok” mentality. I guess it is easy for someone to take it a little personally when you fall into the “people to whom the place does not cater” category. But putting it into perspective what other industry do people expect SO MUCH free stuff from? Do they comp popcorn ‘coz you’re watching a movie? Does the auto parts store give you a free hammer and nails when you buy some timber? On and on. Just sayin’.
Rather than hating on the store owners hate on the OLCC which does everything in its power to harm the businesses that serve alcohol.
snowyaker says
I love this quoting statute while debating the corked wine issue. If you don’t like how Cork does business, don’t shop there. I’m guessing they’re willing to lose you as a customer rather than face a lawsuit over something as ambiguous as spoiled wine. Really, if you’re speaking in a legal sense, there is no way to prove the wine was spoiled when you open it. It’s not like you can put the cork back in it and have a judge taste it and say “See I told you.” So argue all you want counselors and keep shouting into the wind.
To say nothing of the fact that plenty of people have more money than sense when it comes to buying wine. Imagine how many bottles come back to Cork during his 6-month period that were left in hot cars or sunlight or not stored properly. I’m sure he’s taken many a fine bottle of wine back for no good reasons.
As for the vegan guy, TS, man. Sorry, Portland isn’t working out you. You could move back to Atlanta if you’re that distraught. Personally, I love eating out in Portland foie gras and all. I’m betting if restaurants were selling a lot of their vegan dishes they’d add more. I’d also bet they know their market better than you do after a whole year in Portland. There’s vegan places out there – keep looking and you’ll find them. Stay away from Urban Farmer and Ringside though – they’ll only strengthen your resolve.
I’m eagerly awaiting Ping, but I also know, like the Dude, it’s best to give restaurants a chance to break in and let the crowds die down.