Daniel Rogov

I hate to throw cold water on those South African wineries (especially because it is the dead of winter there), but it was the Rhone Valley's Chapoutier who introduced the first labels in Braille and he did that in 1995.

For a vaguely upset stomach - a glass of Coke. It's not the soda that settles the stomach but the coke syrup. Many hospitals in Europe will give patients a spoonful or two of the syrup to settle their stomachs, some will actually give them a glass of Coke. And that from a man who has a devoted antipathy towards Coke, Pepsi and other cola drinks!!!

Returning to your original question of what defines the true expert – no problem at all. The true expert in the culinary realm is the person who has a deep and broad knowledge of and is aware of the inter-relatedness of the human sciences of philosophy, psychology, sociology, anthropology, history and economics; has a thorough working knowledge of the workings of physics, chemistry, agronomy, weather and geography; and knows how each of those relates to each of the human sciences listed above. Ah, but this is only the beginning, for in addition to all of the above they must have a full understanding of the transformation of raw materials into edible delicacies (e.g. "the magical transformation of an egg into a soufflé), a deep knowledge of the tools available to cooks at all levels (from the home cook to the chef who presides over the kitchens of a magnificent restaurant). They must also have vast experience in both eating and dining (one day I will go into the differences between those). And more – they must develop a deep knowledge of the various and sometimes shifting sets of standards by which culinary creations are judged. And of course, they must have discriminating palates. My guess is that the last one on the planet to have truly and fully qualified was Curnonsky. And, to paraphrase an old joke, as much as I admire Curnonsky, I'm not sure he really "made it all the way".

Melissa, Hi... You asked: "About what percentage of the students at the College de France do respond to that final question at the lectures?" Interestingly, many students do rise with questions, challenges and objections and that is the true beauty of the system. Think of the intellectually honest professor (literally one who professes) or think of the critic. Anyone can agree with you and tell you how wise you are but if you, as one who professes or criticizes (or both), want to continue your own development, those who disagree intelligently are far more important to you. A good question makes you aware that you forgot to include something in your lecture or your review; a challenge indicates that you may not have explained your point well enough and have to find a better way to do that; and an objection well placed may even show that you were wrong in whole or in part in your hypotheses or theories. And nothing (!!) is better for the honest intellectual than being proven wrong for that opens a whole new world, one of exploring how you went wrong, of perhaps finding ways that are more accurate, more appropriate. Being agreed with or thought to be right all the time might make you a guru. It will not, however, force you to continue yourself to develop! And with regard to both those who profess and those who criticize, let us realize once again that no-one should be more open to criticism. That may sound somewhat idealistic. I make no apology for that.

Paula, Hello.... With apologies I have not encountered this dish. To add a perhaps humorous note, however, I did have a dining experience many years ago when riding in the caboose (the last car on a fright train) en route from western New York State to New York City, that involving hero sandwiches of such gigantic proportions that even with huge quantities of beer to wash them down there was simply no way for any ordinary mortal to finish them off even during the ten hour train trip. As to the hero sandwiches, on what Americans call "Italian bread", each about 40 cm. in length, 12 cm. wide and packed with unbelievable amounts of sliced ham, Gruyere cheese, tomatoes, lettuce, pickled cucumbers, mayonnaise on one side of the bread, mustard on the other. A delicious experience. Good luck on your hunt for the other khabousse.

Pam, Hi..... First of all, let's keep in mind that no matter how much you adore food, its preparation, its serving and even your clients, catering is a business and not a non-profit charity. Move away from catering for a moment and think of a restaurant. Say a couple enters and orders a family-sized pizza and then decides that they only want to eat half of it. As a restaurateur you would not, no matter how gentle a spirit you might be, even dream of billing them only half-price. You might, of course suggest wrapping the left-overs so that they could take them home. Sorry but no question really on this one. Food has been prepared, trucking arrangements have been made, glasses and plates have been packed, etc. Your labor costs drop not one cent, nor do your food costs. They ordered it, they pay for it. That you would offer the remaining food well packed and ready for either long or short-term storage is, of course part of the game, but a discount - no way! And that from a critic who writes about such things and would consider such a caterer a very bad business person indeed if they discounted after all of the preparations have been made.

The last time in human history that it was possible for any person have full control of all of human knowledge was in the 16th century. Since that time expertise, however defined, has become increasingly limited to specific sub-areas of knowledge. That is to say, as no-one can know all there is about mathematics (perhaps specializing in a limited realm within a sub-axiom of chaos theory) neither can one know all there is to know about food or wine. Expertise, like intelligence itself must in some way be demonstrated, so even within given sub-areas of knowledge we have to seek out those people who in one way or another have something to say or write that demonstrates their expertise. The silent genius is the fool on the hill, only the one who speaks up can be an expert even in a small area. I think in food for example of Claudia Roden's expertise in Middle-Eastern and Mediterranean cuisine; of Bugialli's expertise in Italian cuisine; of Serena Suthcliffe's vast expertise in the realm of Bordeaux wines..... The one and only thing I can guarantee in this is that any person who declares him/herself to be an expert is assuredly not an expert! The wise writer, speaker, chef, winemaker can indeed be proud of what he/she does but that does not make them polymaths. That is one of the reasons I so like the way that all lectures at the College de France are closed- the speaker asking "are there any questions, problems or objections?" They really mean that! In a phrase, like the attainment of Nirvana, one is always on the way to being an expert. The person with the least bit of wisdom truly hopes that he/she will never, never think they have reached that point. The moment you think you have, you have lost it completely.

A long thread and I will comment on only several aspects. 1. First, as to scores, as all of us know a score is nothing more than two digits (rarely three) at the end of a wine review. People who read only the scores and buy on the basis of them are, for lack of a polite term, fools. 2. Scores are simply one person's means of "summing up" the overall qualities of a wine. The score itself says nothing about the nature of a wine and whether the reader will enjoy or not enjoy it. It speaks only to its quality. 3. As there are no infallible wine critics, neither are their infallible methods of scoring. The French like 20 point scales because that is what their school grades are based on and it is something they have been used to since childhood. In the same way, Americans like the 100 point scale. Truth is it makes no difference whether a given critic uses this, that or another system....the only thing that is important is whether you can calibrate your own tastes to those of one or more critics. When you find those critics, those are the ones to follow. 4. Following does not mean idolizing or buying blindly. It means that these are people, like trusted friends who give you good hints about what you may or may not enjoy 5. Robert Parker did not invent scores. That happened during the days of the ancient Egyptians and later the Romans when amphorae were marked with anywhere from 1 - 10 strokes to symbolize the quality of the wine therein. It is true that Parker popularized scores. And that is not something for which to blame him. The populization came about when readers began to demand scores and editors of various newspapers and magazines went along with that demand. 6. As to whether people make wines to suit Parker or not. Well, call me a dirty name if you like, but that's something akin to saying that General Motors produces cars to please the taste of Donald Trump. Or, if you prefer Woody Allen. In a word - nonsense! Yes, some wineries will produce wines with the hope of gaining high scores because high scores sell wines. They don't do it for Parker. As popular as Parker is, he is far from the only critic around and far from the one with the largest single audience. 7. Concerning the issue of whether Parker's influence is waning: The mere fact that that movies are being made that use him as a central focus, that books are being written about him from both the positive and negative point of view, and that he is the most often discussed of all wine critics amply demonstrates that Parker has never been more in the public eye. And that (as the 1920's editor might have said) dear reader, is the goal of any critic. Whenever you meet or hear of a critic about whom only good things are said you know you are involved with a critic of no worth and equally no interest. 8. As to non-critics, that is to say, the wine-drinking public commenting on wine, well.....just take a look at this forum, my own forum, Parker's forum and fifty other popular forums. An increasing number of people have an increasing amount of what to say about the wines they taste and/or consume. No intelligent critic tries or wants to impose his/her will on the public. That is entirely up to readers. Them that wants McDonalds will eat at McDonalds; them that wants a fine burger at a restaurant will go to Smith and Wollensky or Peter Luger; and them that wants will make their burgers at home. And that, at 1:58 in the morning Tel Aviv time is about that.

Pam, Hi... When I was a young man (many long moons ago), one of the great joys of being young in New York City was a trip to the lower East Side, to streets such as Delancey, there to feast on just the nuclear style knishes to which I refer. Now those were knishes were for "real" men and women and, of course at their best when the dense potato filling was peppery enough to make you catch your breath. And for the true cognoscenti of course, at their ultimately best when spread generously with deli mustard. Oh yes...ideally preceded or followed by two or three frankfurters from Isaac Gellis' delicatessen (hold the sauerkraut but plenty of mustard please) You ask for proof. None required. As the best egg creams came from Brooklyn, as the best hot dogs came from Nathan's Famous (Coney Island of course), as the best french fries were spread with mustard (and not heaven forbid, ketchup), the best knishes might well have been thought of as "the Jewish atom bombs". All, of course, a matter of absolute fact and not open to the least hint of debate!!! And all, equally obviously, in good fun.

Nah!!!!!! A borek or burrekas is light and fluffy, melts in the mouth, slides gently down. A true knish......well....that's another story, so dense that it takes an act of courage to chew it and so heavy that when it hits the stomach it either bounces like a tennis ball or makes a sound similar to a stone dropped from 15 meters of height as it hits the grass. Love them both, but I do remember when Paul Bocuse was first introduced to a knish (was it at Yone Schimel's in New York?) and commented: "Its delicious but tell me, is it meant to be eaten or to be thrown at an enemy?"

As might be said in part of the United States, "no way"! The first shwarma stands opened in pre-state Israel as long ago as the 1920s, and without exception those were opened by the already long-established Arab community of both Moslems and Christians in Haifa. With the arrival of immigrants from Greece (mostly Thessoliniki) and Turkey, shwarma stands opened in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and even Beef Sheba, eventually becing nearly as popular as felafel (and that, of course did not originate in Israel either). Agreed that among the various USSR states there are many offerings similar to shwarma but those are not the ones that made their way to Israel.

There is a possiblity that the cheese in question is chalumi. Although many believe that the cheese originates in Cyprus, the truth is that this delightful cheese (one of the few cheeses meant to be cooked before eaten) originated with the Bedouins of the Arabian Penninsula and Syria. Generally made from sheeps' or goats' milk, thecheese is now as popular in Greece, Turkey, Jordan, Irael and Lebanon as it is in Cyprus. It is also a favorite in Australia. At its best, chalumi is just salty enough, has a fat content of between 24 - 30% and is considered ideal for slicing and frying or for grilling in slices, or for cooking on skewers over hot charcoals. My own favorite method of preparing chalumi is to place olive oil in a frying pan, heating the oil until it is very hot, adding slices of cheese and then sprinkling the cheese generously with sesame seeds. Cypriots and Greeks also use this method, the Cypriots cooking the cheese until it is dark brown and crisp on both sides, the Greeks cooking it just until it begins to brown. The cheese can also be used to fill burrekas (boreks or whatever other spelling you like) and when baked does tend to be a bit stringy as you describe. Worth trying! ‏‏‏‏‏‏‏

Bill, Hi.... Following are a few of my tasting notes based on advance tastings of 2001 Barolo wines. Beni de Batasiolo, Barolo, Piemonte, 2001 (Advance Tasting): Deep garnet towards royal purple, full bodied, with generous firm tannins that need time to settle down and integrate but already showing fine balance and structure. On the nose and palate generous ripe plums and appealing hints of what will develop into smoked meat and raisins. Best starting 2008 and then cellaring comfortably until 2015-2018. Score 91. (Tasted 16 Apr 2005) Marchesi di Barolo, Barolo, Piemonte, 2001 (Advance Tasting): Full-bodied, with generous tannins and wood but those well balanced with smoked bacon, white pepper, plums and a hint of red licorice that comes in on the long finish. Best 2006-2012. Score 90. (Tasted 16 Apr 2005) Pira, Barolo, Piemonte, 2001 (Advance Tasting): Dark royal purple in color, full-bodied, with generous near-sweet tannins already integrating nicely and overlays of black pepper and minerals on a background of ripe plums. Needs time to show its elegance. Best only starting in 2007-2008. Score 92. (Tasted 16 Apr 2005)

We are in full agreement. The setting, the atmosphere, the service, the mood, the company, one's psychological and physiological conditions.... each and all in combination impact no less on the anticipation and enjoyment of a dish than do the qualities of the dish itself. One note, however - for here we do have to consider the differences between the individual who comes to dine as a "normal" client and the one who comes as a critic, for one of the chores of the critic is separating these factors out, one from the other, in order to come up with an appropriate and accurate evaluation and analysis of each factor, only later summing up what we might think of as "the total" dining experience.

As for me, I can admire enormously the creation of a dish and that regardless of who prepares it, but the test and the "rush" come first in the anticipation and then in the the dining. Think of all of those ridiculous competitions in which judgements are rendered entirely on the basis of preparation methods, timing and physical appearance but in which no-one actually tastes the dishes in question. No rush there, none whatever, but indeed no less a rush for me on anticipating the flavors, sight and aromas of the dish that is about to be set before me and then, if it meets my standards, the enormous pleasure of appreciating that dish. True, unlike nearly all other art forms, the appreciation of fine cuisine depends on the destruction (that is to say, the eating) of the finished work. No less rush there for me than in viewing a magnificent sunset, a well loved musical composition, the sight and texture (and perhaps even taste) of a sculpted work, a magnificent painting, a superbly performed opera. Speaking entirely on a personal level, if there was no "rush", I would have begun to ignore all of those art forms years ago. Imagine if you will hearing a Debussy prelude once and once only. It will move you for years afterwards, perhaps for the rest of your life. The same for the dish of well prepared lobster quenelles in sauce Nantua!

Thanks for the link to a really intgelligent article. I appreciate both Markowsky and Livio but as a formally acknowledged curmudgeon I reserve the right to disagree with them. And after all, is it not disagreement and not agreement that plants the seeds of new thoughts.....

Karen: A question (rhetorical perhaps but a question nevertheless - "Is there any standard accepted as universal other than mathematics? Esvoboda: Careme identified the underlying logic of the aesthetics of food as based on architecture; Escoffier relied heavily in his thinking on the rules of geometry and Alain Ducasse and Guy Savoy are both enamored of chaos theory - all forms and/or expressions of or relying on mathematics. If anyone is now tempted to think that I moved from my accustomed role as curmudgeon to that of "Devil's advocate", not true. I am indeed not saying that good taste in food is based on mathematics. What I am saying is that there is no universal in defining good taste when it comes to matters in the culinary realm.

Karen, Hi..... Well, I warned people with that link about having "a mathematical bent". As close as I can come in words is the following definition: A golden rectangle is a rectangle with dimensions which are of the Golden Ratio, 1 : φ (i.e., 1.6180339887498948...). It yields another rectangle with sides of the same proportions when sectioned in a particular manner. That is, sectioned into two shapes: firstly a square with one side being one of the lesser sides of the surrounding golden rectangle; and secondly a rectangle composed of the remainder. The new, smaller rectangle is thus a golden rectangle itself. Wasn't saying that good taste can be defined mathematically, only that the only concept that seems to triggers aesthetic satisfaction across history and cultures (including in research done on children as young as three years old) is that of the golden rectangle. As to Oscar Wilde - indeed he had a way with words. After all, anyone who "dies as I lived ....beyond my means" can't be all bad. With regard to cocks' combs...should you truly be in the market, try nearly any good poultry shop in France or Italy. With further regard to those classic sauces and garnishes from Larousse.....agreed that these are dated and difficult. Doesn't stop them from being delicious. For nearly five years between 1990-1995 I had a regular weekly column in which some of those classics were presented, together with historical/mythological anecdotes as recipes. Truth is I never dreamed anyone would prepare the dishes and no one was more surprised than me (well, perhaps my editor) when clubs formed in various cities of people who would prepare one of those recipes every week.

A bit of consideration and what the heck, I find that I am indeed ready to post about what I find the one universal in determining "good taste".......and that is the Golden Rectangle. Holds true throughout all of history and prehistory, all cultures and even all pre-cultures..... Beyond that, I suspect we'll find not a single "universal". If anyone is curious and of a slightly mathematical bent see http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoldenRectangle.html

I will not be foolish (or egotistical) enough to venture into defining the universals that make up "good taste" but I am egotistical enough to give two quotations from and thus associate myself with Oscar Wilde... "Good taste is the excuse I've always given for leading such a bad life" "I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the best"

The practice not only of splitting but of individual glasses with each course has been traditional in many restaurants in Europe for many years, this giving not only the chef but the sommelier the opportunity to show of his/her talents as well. In fact, so well known is the concept that it has even caught on in tiny little Israel. In my own experience, pours are generous and in better restaurants appropriately shaped and quality wine glasses are used. I think you will also find this practice picking up in an increasing number of American restaurants that offer a degustation style menu.

I'm not sure precisely how to hone in on the focus of this thread........Mentioned to this point has been made of Roman food, Nouvelle Cuisine, defining of "foodies", food/chefdom as art, and issues of hunger versus appreciation...... Considering that Carme described Roman dining as "sumptuous and, magnificent but fundamentally barbarous"; that Bocuse (mistakenly identified as the father of nouvelle cuisine instead of Fernand Point) admitted that his own interpretation of "nouvelle cuisine" was little more than a bad joke; and that El Bulli with some of the perhaps for the moment interesting but certainly outrageous dishes has made it to nearly everyone's list of the best restaurants in the world, is it possible that what we are talking about is nothing more than historical hiccups in the definition of what makes up fine dining? There is nothing whatever new about the degustation menu (it was offered by Beauvilliers in his restaurant, Le Grande Taverne de Londres in 1782) and surely nothing new about the concept of fusion cuisine (Marco Polo reported on the "marriage" between East and Western culinary influences). As to defining "foodies" (A term I dislike even though I adore the book by Ann Barr and Paul Levy), I prefer to think of those who perceive food as I do as "gourmets" and while true that hunger is rarely the issue with such people, these are indeed a distinct species of people who give priority in all human affairs to the discriminate enjoyment of food. Fads, changes, shifting scenes?...... Indeed yes, but that is true in all affairs of the heart and the mind.... until, of course, we return to the one critical issue, and that issue relates to one thing and one thing only - the measure of good taste. Let's put it this way - I refuse to worry about the culinary scene so long as there remain people to whom margarine remains largely abhorent, who cry when a sauce curdles, to whom a fine steak badly prepared is aesthetically offensive, to whom the use of a Bearnaise sauce that comes in a jar sounds like a bad joke, and who are revolted by the thought of dining on a frozen dinner that comes in a compartmentalized aluminim tray seems disgusting. There will be "next scenes" in both what we eat at home and on what we dine on at restaurants. I'm quite sure Esquire, the New Yorker, the New York Times and others will be delighted to supply us with such lists. I will even read them. I will not, however, be either shocked or interested in them. Nor will I allow myself (except in my role of critic) to follow them. But then again, you can bet your bottom dollar that I will indeed be there in my role as critic.

See Josh London's article in the weekend edition of the Washington Examiner. The article can be viewed it as a pdf online at http://ee.dcexaminer.com/dc/?haspdf=1 and then click on the 13th of August, 2005, Weekend Edition issue, and go to page 10.

Sorry to report but this is not the first case of a woman in charge of the presidential kitchens. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt all had women in charge of their kitchens for at least part of their tenure as president of the United States.

The launch party for Michael Karam's book Wines of Lebanon was held in Beirut on Wednesday. Lebanese wines are no strangers to many wine lovers in the UK, USA and even Israel where, even though it is illegal to import it, many make their way here for tastings. Michael is a respected colleague, writing regularly about Lebanese wines and with me one of the contributors to Tom Stevenson's Wine Report . My only regret with Michael is that even though we live so close one to the other meeting for morning coffees is impossible, not due to our own desires but to the general insanities of our region. The book can be ordered through Amazon and one can find further information and order the book through them at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books It shouild go without saying that I have no interest in the book other than respecting Michael as a colleague and thinking that this may be a fascinating read for many wine lovers.