Daniel Rogov

Craig, Hi.... According to latest rumors about myself, I was born in 1895. I do rather like that for at that age, I look just fine. I do of course recall the 20 point scale, always more popular in Europe and the UK than in North America because both the 100 point and 20 point scales are based on grades given in school and thus relatively easy references. I also recall of course the five point scale, the five star system, the three star system (Gambero-Rosso), all of which are still in use. As to which is more accurate and at which point one becomes pretentious and the other not... an open debate and much a choice of chacun a son gout. I'll stay with the 100 point scale because it gives me the feeling of being more expressive. That is to say, although the three point difference between 85-88 may not be dramatic, the one point difference between 89-90 is, placing the wine in a different category of quality.

For a list of fine kosher wines produced in Israel, see my post at http://stratsplace.zeroforum.com/zerothread?id=15987 Keep in mind that not all Israeli wines are kosher. Those on the list that are kosher are noted with the letter "K" For a list of fine kosher wines produced outside of Israel, see my post at http://stratsplace.zeroforum.com/zerothread?id=15988 My suggestion – print out the lists and visit any of the fine wine stores in New Jersey or Queens itself and you'll do just fine.

I have used a 100 point system for rating wines for more years than most of the people reading this thread are old. For many years those scores were entirely for my own purpose but when my editors in the USA, Israel and France said that readers insisted on scores I started publishing them. I have always said and will continue to say that scores are nothing more than 2 digits (and on rare occasions, 3 digits) at the end of a wine review. Although the score may summarize the quality in which the reviewer holds that particular wine it says nothing whatsoever as to whether the reader will enjoy that wine or not! That is the purpose of the review itself. Even that is not enough. Consumers should follow one, two, three or more critics until they find those few with whom they can calibrate their own palate - that is to say the critic/s that give directions similar to those of oneself. One does not have to agree with a critic but one has to know how that critic's palate and judgements meet with his/her own. In short, those who buy entirely on the basis of schools are either snobbish fools or just plain fools.

With apologies, for I do not recall who first said it, but the best words of advice to anyone new in the kitchen are: 1. Learn to say "Yes, Chef" 2. Buy two good pairs of comfortable shoes (so when the first get soaked though you'll still have dry shoes) 3. Realize that although the customer is not always right, he/she is always the customer. Good luck

In addition to the links given above try http://stratsplace.zeroforum.com/zerothread?id=14803 Also, when in Israel pick up the Friday English language edition of The International Tribune/HaAretz. In the magazine section you will find a fully updated list. Enjoy your stay in Israel.

Before responding - do the restaurants have to be kosher?

Any man or woman who has ever served in the military forces of their country and has done their service in climates prone to snow is well aware of the adage: Don't eat yellow snow".* Since the time of Apicius it has been known among most chefs that a prime rule is not to serve blue or purple food. For reasons better explained by neurologists than I, the colors blue and purple on plates tend to raise a mild feeling of nausea in human beings. Sounds like a fairly sound rule to me.

Olive oil is pressed from uncured olives and is most surely not poisonous. Do, however, be wary of how many peach pits you eat!

If that had happened to me in my role of restaurant critic, you can well believe that would have been the opening paragraph of my review. If it had happened to me entirely in the role of a private customer, I would send a quite civil but detailed letter (I'm a major believer in registered mail - return receipt required) to the restaurant management. If the response was satisfactory, I'd give the place another try on the hope that the problem has been eliminated If the response was not satisfactory, that would be a restaurant I would not visit again.

There is a well known (and probably apocryphal) tale of how one night when Lucullus was dining alone at home a servant brought him a meal of simpe gruel. Lucullus was outraged and said: "But you should know that tonight Lucullus is dining with his most honored guest. Tonight Lucullus is dining with Lucullus" Like that noble gastronome, I have no problem whatever when dining alone.

Tell me if I'm wrong: "Eating out" is a convenience, rarely taken seriously by either the place to which you go to dine or by yourself. Like all other animals, we eat to survive. If the food and experience turns out to be pleasant, that's fine. If not, no big deal. "Dining out" should always be a special experience. We dine not merely to satisfy our hunger and thirst but in order to celebrate our senses and our sensuality.

A short while before the onset of the millennium I did major series of articles about the great chefs, winemakers, restaurant critics and wine critics of the 20th century. Of the 92 people on the various lists 78 smoked and most of those smoked more than 20 cigarettes daily. That did not stop them from being great chefs, winemakers or critics!

Pielle, Hello... We are not all as uninitiated as you might think. At no time did I suggest that any of these things would be "bad for us" or that they should "frighten" us. What I did ask is precisely why we want some of these ingredients in our system when their sum total winds up as a second-rate imitation of the real thing.

I truly do not mean to be argumentative but there are huge (I am tempted to use the word humongous) differences between things that are found in nature and those that are produced in the laboratory. Ethanol is, of course, grain alcohol which is found in most alcoholic beverages but when taken in too high portions can be poisonous. I sincerely doubt that any truffle ever found on this planet or any other had a 27% alcohol content. If so that might explain why truffle-snuffers (primarily pigs and beagles) so love snuffling for truffles. As to acetone - also known as dimethyl formaldehyde, the main uses are in nail polishy remover and in the preservation of parts of dead bodies - that too is a quite deadly poison and would make either snuffling for or dining on truffles a rather dangerous experience. As to what we "can" do and what we "want" to do with regard to foods that enter and become parts of our bodies may I respectfully suggest a glance at my little artice at http://www.stratsplace.com/rogov/gastronomes_nightmare.html

Why do I have the distinct feeling that I would much rather find most of those "ingredients" in the motor of my car and not in my digestive system?

Which would you rather own - a Vermeer painting or one of Elmy de Hory's excellent forgeries? Those forgeries fooled some of the world's great art critics and museum curators. The forgeries go for about $15,000 each these days. The originals are worth millions. Returning to the issue of imitation truffle oil - we also have imitation butter, imitation whipped cream, imitation caviar and imitation crab meat. I can promise you that real butter, real whipped cream, real caviar and real crab meat taste a heckuva lot better. There is an old adage, common I believe to nearly every philosophical point of view on earth: "If it is like an egg, it is not as good as an egg"

Using extracts to make truffle oil has something distinctly akin to using gasoline instead of after-shave lotion. To make true truffle oil is the simplest thing in the world - buy one firm white or black truffle, clean it (leaving the residue for making stock or sauces) and drop the truffle (wth reverence into a bottle of extra virgin olive oil (depending on your taste either a spicy or mild), seal well to keep air from entering (if you use a wine bottle you can vacu-vin the bottle). Let stand for two weeks in a cool but not cold place and out of the sun and poof - truffle oil. The more finely grated the truffle the more intense will be the flavor of the oil but do not hesitate to use a whole truffle for after the oil is finished (and you can replenish the oil 5 - 6 times) the truffle can be used as it usually would. My personal favorites for such oil-soaked truffles - grated over scrambled eggs, grated over potato gnocchi om a bitter-gar;oc sauce; in thin slices,coated and fried tempura style or, if you are a true hedomist, whole, wrapped in flaky pastry and deep fried.

Forgive me, but I cannot resist: I will eat lobster Thermidor at least once a month I will make a promise not to eat more than a eighteen oysters at a single sitting I will find or try to find the world's best chocolate truffle I will learn or try to learn how to make beignets as good as those one finds at the street-side stands on Paris' Rue de la Huchette I will teach to all who listen that the best wine in the world is the wine you like the best I will read, in addition to all else, and as I do now, one chapter of Escoffier every night

I wonder if it might not be more accurate to say that "if it's in a cookbook or magazine, its probably under copyright" and thus protected from commercial use. And even if that is not true, would it not be common courtesy to give credit? Going a step further, with regard to the comment "Yes, I thought it up myself", how would you feel if one of the diners at the table had seen the article or book in question and knew you were a liar? A rose by any other name may smell as sweet but a lie by any other name remains a lie.

I respectfully disagree with the point of view that you're "overthinking it". Indeed, giving credit for recipes or plating suggestions is much to the credit of a chef and not giving credit implies something quite different. If you've done place-setting menus, no problem at all in nothing "adapted from ....." and if not, when coming out for your bows to give verbal credit.

Considering that my favorite bars have been in place such as New York's Plaza Hotel, St. Moritz' Badrutt Palace, and the Hotel de Paris in Monte Carlo, I suppose I'm fair-to-square a traditionalist. Despite all of which, I would probably not go to any bar that had rule such as these. By god, if I want to talk about my last meal with Princess Caroline, to bring in six friends to take a table, or to have my martini with a grape in it, ain't nobody gonna tell me otherwise!!! All of which leads me to call out: "Curmudgeons of the world, Unite"

Once a Marine, always a Marine. I still suffer from anxiety when my shirt or trousers wind up with a sauce or wine stain. After all, the Inspector General might show up a any minute.

Do as nearly all French and Italian chefs do - let your jacket get as dirty as necessary and have to completely fresh and well starched jackets within quick reach so that you can switch when you walk from kitchen to front. As to cleaning those that have become stained, simply through the wash. Whatever stains remain will be "clean" and should be worn as badges of honor.

Nothing really wrong with the word "supper" when used correctly. Throughout Europe and at least since the days of Queen Victoria dinner refers to the main meal of the day, no matter at what time it is held and supper to a lighter meal, always served after dinner and often quite late in the evening. As to "din-din", "goopy" and the such (and with no apologies for snobbery) - those are terms used only by those who have no concept at all that dining is a social-cultural and gastronomic set of events.

I try hard to be a gentleman in my crits but sometimes it gets difficult. I recall once reviewing a wine so bad that I suggested it be renamed "A Night In A Paris Sewer"