JohnL

There are supermarkets near the TW Center WF. DAG on 57th Street and there is a market on Ninth and 58th (the name escapes me at the moment). One benefit is--the local markets have definitely improved the quality, variety and freshness of their offerings. To me WF is a definite level below operations like Citarella (my main problem with WF here is that their prices don't compare well enough and the expertise of the staff is not even close as well as the fact that the WF prepared foods also do not compete well). I believe that one thing WF has going for it to a degree, is it's "scene." The real test will be --will NYers stick with WF over the long haul in the face of "adjustment" of the competition? (interestingly, I belive even Citarella and Zabars and Fairway have made some subtle adjustments --I just can't put my finger on em.

I live in New York City. I would love to know where one can find a good NY style deli--anywhere--there aren't any here!!

Agreed, I think the main issue was the emphasis on Gilt, which will be reviewed in the near future. I believe the article even criticized food (Dover Sole) at Gilt (or am I mixing up columns?). ← You are correct re: the Sole. also--you have hit it on the head. The main issue is the emphasis on Gilt. He opens and ends the piece with some very critical observations about Gilt. A reader can't help come away with the impression that Gilt is not worth the money! This is more suitable for a formal critique or review of the restaurant where Mr Bruni can provide context and perspective. In fact, should Mr Bruni's review warrant more than a mediocre rating (or even an outright pan), readers would be justified in being totally confused as to how much emphasis Bruni places upon price when reviewing restaurants. He is adding to the already large amount of confusion (witness the threads here) over just what the Times' (and Mr Bruni's) standards are? This is not good for a critic. Bruni is his own worst enemy and the Times ain't helping him either!

They left out the finding that we are all incredibly good looking and so erudite! (especially after enjoying a few glasses of wine).

If you look over on the Pennsylvania board, you will probably find a post or two from me that notes that my two "neighborhood" supermarkets are a Super Fresh (A&P family, like Food Emporium) and a Whole Foods, which are located across the street from each other. I've never been disappointed with anything I've bought from Whole Foods, but I do the overwhelming bulk of my shopping at the Super Fresh (and at an Acme about a mile further south), and I can tell you why in one word: Price. The funny thing is, when it comes to regular prices on products both stores carry, WFM is not all that out of line with the competition. However, the regular supermarket runs much better specials on these products. That also applies for natural and organic products--the Super Fresh is running a very good special on Del Monte's new line of organic canned tomatoes this week; I've never seen Muir Glen priced that low at Whole Foods. Yes, it has. That is very evident at the aforementioned Super Fresh, which increased the number of natural food products it carries and grouped most of them together in one section of the store. The Whole Foods on South Street does carry Boston lettuce regularly. That the store near you does not may have something to do with its produce suppliers and where they get their products. WFM does prefer to carry produce grown as close to the store's location as possible whenever possible, which is why you will find lots of Pennsylvania and Maryland grown produce on South Street. (Take a look at the labels in the WFM next door to you and see what states dominate where such information is provided.) This probably should not be an issue with lettuce, as most of the lettuce Americans eat is grown in California. But there are local growers of Romaine, for instance, and Boston lettuce is often grown hydroponically; there is a large hydroponic grower of Boston lettuce in Chester County, IIRC, and it may supply WFM stores in this region. ← I have been disappointed at all prepared foods I bought at Whole Foods and generally awful pre-sliced smoked salmon at a high price both in NY and in Evanston, Ill. As for fish, I don't think WF's compares in freshness to Citarella tho better than most supermarkets. In addition, I have found the help in fish and meat departments sadly lacking in expertise, both in the Time-Warner Center and on 7th Ave & 25th Street in Manhattan. ← I agree--the prepared foods are mediocree at best. They are also IMOP often not reasonably priced. Fish is better at WF than most supermarkets (this is the main complaint I have about supermarkets--fish and to a lesser degree, meats). Citarella does fish very well (thewy are known for this). also at WF the quality of help in most departments is not as good as it should be (especially fish and meats where one really benefits from 'expert" butchers and fishmongers.)

He has had a career as a "journalist." I don't believe that this is the place to debate his (or anyone's journalistic credentials). Also-I don't think anyone is trying to "impugn" Mr Bruni. The real issue is more focused on the editors and management at the Times (not individual writers, reporters, journalists etc). The article in question contains some very pointed criticisms of a restaurant (Gilt) and its pricing strategies for food and wine. If you read the piece you will note that though other places are mentioned the verbage about Gilt are especially critical in tone. I believe this is because Bruni is in the process of dining at Gilt in preparation for his formal review of the place. He also mentions Telepan a recently opened restaurant. In essence, the way Bruni mentions Gilt amounts to a "mini-review" or a "pre review" and is very critical in tone. Hopefully, Bruni will elaborate on the price problem at Gilt when he reviews it fully (this is part of the critic's job). The Gilt mention (focus really) in the piece in question is void of anything that would "balance" the criticisms about pricing that a formal review would carry, That is atmosphere, amuse bouches, service, and most importantly--the quality of the food. In short-the overall dining experience at this restaurant. (it may be that the prices in Mr Bruni's opinion do not warrant a visit to Gilt, it may also be the case that though Mr Bruni doesn't approve of the price issues he believes that Gilt is worth it). The point is we do not know any of this, and if all we have to go on is this week's piece--one would believe that Gilt is being "panned" for high and faulty prices. IMOP not fair to Gilt or more importantly, the readers. His comments about Gilt are without context. So--what to do? If Mr Bruni is going to use some criticisms of a specific restaurant as the basis of an article (especially an important restaurant that is new and not known to readers) then he could easily wait until he has reviewed the place and then use it in his article. I also do not believe that Bruni shouldn't comment about a place he has not reviewed fully, in principle, I am just arguing for more context and fairness.

I just had brunch at Jakes in Manayunk (an upscale restaurant in a Philadelphia suburb). Interestingly the brunch menu listed main items with prices on the right hand side. prices were a tad on the high side (not ridiculous) from $12.50 for a plain omelet with asparagus to a jumbo lump crabcake with greenbeans and fried yams etc. for $17.50. On the left side of the manu were a list of items under: "complimentary tasting course" this included: caesar salad, house made granola, house smoked salmon, soup of the day etc. Diners were instructed to select one of these "complimentary" items. 9they were basically what most places would call first courses or appetizers. Portions of both the courses at Jakes were fair in size/quantity IMOP. I have never seen this tactic. (at least I can' t recall it). In essence the main course and price was ok (again a bit on the high side) but add in the "complimentary tasting course" and the brunch becomes quite reasonable pricewise (value).

I actually liked the story/impetus behind Bruni's piece (a few quibbles aside). As for the supplement issue--we are quibbling here too. The point is how many supplements are "allowable?" I agree that a menu can reach a point where one could use the term "dishonest." I also agree that the wine markup noted by Bruni is "obscene."--a lot of this is personal judgement and perspective. I wish that Bruni had saved his comments about Gilt for his formal review wherein he could provide more detail about the restaurant. If he is doing a piece on pricing tactics in restaurants--which he is here--then the piece should have presented a broader scope not the few examples the piece contains. The focus should not, I believe, be so much on one place--Gilt. I would surmise that Bruni, in the course of preparing his review on Gilt--had a lightbulb go off: "hey there's a storyline here!"--then he writes the piece we are discussing here. In the end--that storyline: overcharging and pricing tactics at restaurants etc--gets short shrift. (this topic should be explored much further). and--his soon to come review of Gilt similarly gets slighted. he in essence--as with Del Posto--offers up a sort of "pre-review." This IMOP is not the best journalism.

You are on to something here. Interestingly, there is a Whole Foods next door to me. I shopped there regularly for a while and now, I find myself going back to the local D'Ag most of the time. (I also "travel" to Citarella as often as I go next door to Wholefoods). Why? I haven't thought about it much (your post is cause for some reflection on my behaviour). I can say that Wholefoods has caused local supermarkets to "adjust" their inventories. (competition?) I can also say that I am not gullible enough to believe that the very term "Whole Foods" as used by the market means anything significant. I also believe that while there is a large selection of items (vertically and horizontally) at Wholefoods there is much mediocrity. I prefer to shop for food in a smaller place where there is a higher percentage of higher quality items rather than "wade through" a massive inventory. There are also curiosities at Wholefoods. The choice of organic and non organic items. (I just want good). Also it seems that Wholefoods (big as it is) doesn't offer some items like Boston lettuce on a regualr basis (local supermarkets do)--it is even more frustrating when a place offers two hundred kinds of lettuces but not the one you want. Anyway--it seems that I can find most everything I want at the D'Ag and the Korean market on the corner, for something special (or rare) I weigh the longer walk to Citarella vs the trip next door to Wholefoods.

The words: Gilt, gelt and guilt keep popping into my head as I read all this. A psychiatrist witha sense of humor can probably devise a clever quip. First--while this is an appropriate subject (restaurant charges) for Bruni I believe that he should avoid comments regarding "major" restaurants he has not yet reviewed (my guess is he is in the process of formulating his review of Gilt). Second--I always believe that anyone can charge anything they want for goods and services. Flawed as it is--the concept of supply and demand usually works. Third--as long as the restaurant clearly states their prices there is nothing "nefarious" at play. A large number of supplements on a menu may be annoying but it is not neccesarily a "trick." Fourth--getting into a debate over what is "fair" or "unfair" as a markup for food or wine rarely gets anywhere. For eg we all know that a plate of simple pasta (no truffles etc) is probably marked up more than a Veal chop. But if I am in the mood for pasta I "suck it up" (the pasta and the realization that I am getting less of a "deal" on my dinner). So too, most wines by the glass are less a "deal" than wine by the bottle as a general rule. So with all this, my thoughts are: Gilt seems to believe that enough people will pay their prices (if not they change or go out of business). I suspect that Bruni my be less than thorough in his comments about Gilt and their wine pricing to make his point--others will add to the story (here at eGullet and elsewhere). A good reporter would certainly ask the restaurant to explain what is going on. We have no perspective in the piece just Bruni's view (again wearing the hats of restaurant critic/reviewer and reporter at the same time requires a big head or more column inches). Obviously Gilt has a fairly substantial overhead and must meet their monthly nut. Many would say it is "nuts" to pay the prices at Gilt and head over to Uncle Nick's where a glass of retsina is "reasonably" priced (the calamari ain't too bad either). Gilt has to offer a total experience-- something it is hard to put a price (wholesale or retail) on. I love Le Bernardin even though the portions are small and their wine list is pretty stiffly marked up. I leave a tad hungry but my soul feels satisfied after I eat there! Given that my soul is a bit thin and my stomach way too large--that is a good thing for me. Anyway--Gilt has set the bar pretty high with their prices and methods and in the end, regardless of reviews, the relatively small number of diners they are going after, will speak with their wallets or their feet.

Good points. I recently viewed an episode of "Colameco" on PBS featuring Ben Benson's. Michael Colameco made the point that Ben Benson's was really an "American restaurant" not just a "steakhouse" and that historically, often the best seafood was to be found at Steakhouses. Makes sense given the attention to cooking time required for both steak and fish.

There is no such thing as "American Champagne" when you speak in a quality context and you only confuse the issue when you insist on using it. All of the producers you like: Ferrer, J, Iron Horse, and Schramsberg refuse to use the name. There is nothing wrong or insulting with the term "sparkling wine'. ← This is my point. Sparkling wine is appropriate (and accurate) additionally the label should indicate the method used in creating the sparkle. Also the blend if any and where the grapes came from and where the wine was actually made. The use of the term Champagne is an attempt to latch on to the marketing mystique of real Champagne (though now the term Champagne has become somewhat generic to indicate: sparkling wine.) In the end--from a consumer standpoint--Champagne needs to be judged on its own as does any sparkling wine. I do disagree that it is "all subjective." There are objective standards for all wines--if there were not, then none of the information about a wine's provenance would be of any importance. Yes it is true that when tasting a wine it is most important that the taster apply his or her likes and dislikes according to the palate when deciding to buy or not as well as one's idea of what value is.

I agree with you re: Lomonoco's venture not being inexpensive. I guess we are talking a restaurant that will be less "exclusive" with a more mainstream menu and appeal than Per Se and Masa. Think the "Windows and Cellar on the World" concept.--the appeal was broad-Jaded New Yorkers could enjoy them as well as the tourist trade. V was too quirky. too eccentric. The fact that it is so difficult to explain/describe what V was in a few words is indicative of why I believe it failed. I doubt it would have worked in any location. I also believe that the TW Center is not quite the "exclusive high end" destination that maybe many people think it is. The shops range from Borders books to Tourneau--both "chains" that are not exclusive at all. (Tourneau is not Bulgari)-- Joe Aboud and Hugo Boss are not the men's department at Bergdorf and Stuart Weitzman is not quite Jimmy Choo--I would say this is a collection of "lower upper echelon (or upper middle) of retail establishments. Toss in Wholefoods and we are looking at what most consider to be a typical upper middle class mall. (or lower upper class). I would venture that very few people who shop there eat there (save for Wholefoods food court). Overall--save for Per Se and Masa this is not a very "exclusive" destination.

There is a great amount of information in this article which I hope you will be able to take the time to read .. and discuss, of course ... ← I have mixed thoughts about this type of article (and this specific piece). First, myths, stereotypes and conventional wisdom regarding anything are often rooted in truths and half truths. Second wine is a very complex substance and subject. Wine has a termendous amount of mystique surrounding it--propegated by wine makers and the wine trade itself as well as many wine writers. Attempts to "demystify" wine are to be applauded--it is at its simplist level a beverage to be enjoyed alone or with food. However, to strip away all mystique is wrong and a disservice to consumers. It is mystique that adds to one's enjoyment. With something so complex it is impossible to apply generalizations which is what many of these articles do. For eg the piece in question. One could make a good case that "expensive does equal good." The problem is--there are many wines that are inexpensive and good. The generalizations, in this case, are as true as they are false. Costly and reserve wines are often "better" however, there are enough examples of the converse to render this generalization half true at best. The example of the $70 wine vs the $15 cabernet is silly. One can make a case that a fifteen grand Toyota is a "better car" than a Two Hundred grand Ferrari as well. A case of oversimplification. As for "experts know what's good for you." well, the irony is, via this piece the author sets himself up as an "expert" telling us what is good for us. The piece even makes a good case for "expert" advice by noting that wine can be expensive and one can't taste before one buys so..... The fact is--experts have a place in providing information and perspective to the equation. Scores and tasting notes are nothing more (or less) than information to be used by a consumer in helping to make a choice. To deny that someone who has tasted thousands of wines and has a broad knowledge of wine has little of nothing to bring to the table or should be ignored is also silly. The piece contradicts itself by telling one to ignore critics but also notes one should pay attention when critics agree! "Store owners know nothing." Again store owners can be immensely helpful or not. However, one reason this article exists is due, in part, to the fact that the trade has done a less than optimal job. There's a good argument that the "experts" have thrived because wine shop owners have done a poor job. What I find troubling about these types of articles is they invariably talk down to consumers and they tend to pander to a kind of anti elitist mentality (establishing a very much elitist position of their own). Sort of: "ya know those people driving those $200K Ferraris --well they really don't know anything about cars because if they did--they would be in $15K Toyotas! So you shoul;dn't feel bad when you are actually a smart consumer!" There are reasons that some wines are very expensive and some not so expensive. Some of the reasons are good some not. With a little reading one can find out why and make one's own decisions. The fact is that a strong argument can be made in support of say, the Screaming Eagle (or Margaux or Leroy Musigny or JJ Prum or....) and its high cost and high demand just as one can make a case for many wines of lesser cost as offering good value. To dismiss the person who buys Screaming Eagle as an "status conscious idiot" who really doesn't know wine is as elitist and narrow minded as the argument itself. So too, it is a mistake to dismiss "experts" --someone had to tell the world that often a Grand Cru Burgundy can be inferior in quality (or less a value) to a premier cru from a more talented producer. One can agree or disagree with critics and writers but one should at the least understand what the critics are saying. and more often than not-most critics provide valuable information and perspective to consumers who do not have the time or inclination to figure out what arcane labels indicate or what red wine will go well with their planned meatloaf dinner. (the trade certainly has not earned any trust here). Finally, to reduce wine to a parlour game--gee "experts" can't even tell a white from a red--is in itself a silly parlour game of "gottcha." It is meaningless. To basically tell consumers that wine is all about money (value) and "only one's individual and unique palate counts." That all one needs do is establish a budget walk into a store and talk to a clerk, buy inexpensive wine and pick one that tastes good (to summarize the article) is condescending to consumers and readers and insulting to wine itself. The glories of a great wine (expensive or not) and the pleasure that can be enhanced by a bit of learning and experimentation are given short shrift. In the end--these "debunking" pieces do more harm than good. Wine appreciation (like appreciation of many things) is not some totally mystical experience that renders knowledge and consensus and a measure of objectivity useless. Yes we all know that "hey its whatever your palate is turned on by so money isn't important." and caviar is just fish eggs and a Ferrari is just a car and......... But really, how simplistic-- how banal!

Yucateco is awesome. Have you tried their new Chipotle? ← I am a huge El Ycateco fan~! I gotta disagree though--the green is much hotter than the brown.--both are great. agree that they have heat and flavor! Chris Schlessinger in his seminal work--"The Thrill of the Grill" notes that Yucateco is one of his favorites. also I don't know if anyone mentioned a website " Americanspice.com" they have a very large range of hot sauces (the descriptions are informative and hilarious).

I fully agree but there are reasons on why she wants to age it. My other half is a winemaker and one of the reasons he like Ch Margaux and Ch Palmer is that he has been fortunate enough to try aged bottles (>20yrs old) of these wine. However, he has told my mother in casual conversation that he has never been able to try these great wines young and would be curious to taste what these wines are like in their youth that enables them to age into such beautiful old wines when other wines that he has tried barely make it to 10 yrs old before tasting tired. I think that it was encredibly generous for my mother to buy him this bottle and if she wants to open it for him in a teaching way with this blind tasting then one can hope it will make my other half a better winemaker for it and we all benefit. Hope that adds some clarification on why she wants to open it. ← I have a wonderful mother in law but...... First, your post raises some very interesting thoughts. Most wine is made to be drunk within a few years of its vintage. My understanding is that the Bordelaise consume their wines at a relatively young age while the British (who have perhaps influenced the Bordeaux wine market more than any) prefer their Bordeaux at very advanced age (relatively).--two ends of the spectrum. Determining when a wine (any wine) is at peak drinking age is a dicey proposition--there are volumes written and endless dabates and even then, one always comes back to the definition of "peak." For eg. I personally enjoy most New World wines on the young side--seven to ten years is more than enough time IMOP. Others enjoy them at ten to fifteen years. I have had older Bordeaux that Brits rhapse poetic over wherein I find them washed out and over the hill. In the end there is a lot of cultural and personal taste at play. On the wine making end of things--there is just as much debate as to what makes a wine age "well." Second, the 2002 is a particularly tannic example of Margaux (the 2001 is actually quite nice right now). It might be quite interesting to "compare" the 2002 Margaux to a 2002 version of a wine that your husband has found historically to be a poor ager. (definitely something cabernet based trying to keep apples to apples). He may be able to discern differences in the two wines at the same age--basically what has the Margaux got that the 2002 whatever not got (or vice verse). In any case--it would be immensely interesting if you (or he) could post the results here!

I would assume that "should the restaurant fail"--his contract would be no longer in effect. also ML has been showing up on "Food Talk" on WOR Radio a lot (the Arthur Schwartz and recently Rocco De Spirito show) possible he could take over as regular host and run a restaurant. As for the steakhouse thing--if one looks at NYC over the last fifty years or so--one constant seems to prevail over all other trends . The longevity and overall success of the steakhouse. From Palm and Ben Benson's to Smith and Wo to Peter Luger's to Post House to Gallagher's to Old Homestead and then on to the new wave of recent openings which includes most every chain there is (Morton's etc) all/most doing very good business. Living next door to the TW center, I can say that what they need is a solid performer that can be successful with New Yorkers and visitors--a crowd pleaser if you will. With Per Se and Masa they have one (two) end of the spectrum covered. These two are small and extremely exclusive and extremely expensive. Cafe Gey fits in nicely somewhere in the middle in terms of luxury and adventurous cuisine and it is larger. TW Center needs traffic--shoppers and diners--Lomonoco is IMOP a very solid chef who has a good feel for American palates (and American cooking). He also has a high visibility name that will appeal to locals as well as visitors as a "personality" chef. I believe that, another restaurant with "experimental" or "cutting edge" cooking epecially in a restaurant run by a "temperamental star chef" is too risky for TW at the moment--Lomonoco strikes me as a really good choice and the steak house theme a solid if safe bet to draw a crowd.

I alkways make sure that my crab mixture is at room temperature (only slightly cool etc) before I put the cakes into a pan or oven. I never follow cooking times exactly from recipes--oven temps vary so much. My suggestion is that you eyeball em and remove from oven or pan when they "look" done.

I didn't know this. Thanks. Actually I have enjoyed the wines at around ten years of age.--if there is such a thing--these are sort of "mid term" agers. I have found old style Barolo in its youth to be impenetrable and totally unyielding but so glorious when mature.

How much longer do you plan to live? ← Ahh the great conundrum! The time to start collecting old style Barolos is when one is in their twenties and early thirties. many of these wines are at their peak after fifteen to twwnty years in cellar. Problem is--how many twenty five year olds have the resources?--a good cellar and lots of money. Perhaps one of the greatest wines I have ever had was the 1970 Conterno Monfortino--at around age twenty five (the wine not me)! Recent vintages of Monfortino go for two hundred bucks a bottle and optimistic as I am --I realistically do not see myself being able to enjoy wine at the age (mine) of ninety five or older! so I am learning to enjoy my old style Barolos with less development (the wine not me) and getting over my "fear of tannins." I am also greatly appreciative of the newer styled wines from barolo as well as barbaresco! If only at twenty five --i knew then what i know now (and had the money).

Marcarini is not "reasonably priced for the quality" - if quality alone set the price they would cost more than Sperss. Manuel Marchetti is to be admired for his commitment to keeping his prices down - especially considering the spectacular quality of his wines. Unfortunately, most never understand how profound these wines are. ← yes, you make a good point re: Marcarini. That is kinda what I meant--for the money they sell for these are veritable bargains and compete well in quality with Barolos that do cost much much more. They are, simply put, outstanding examples of Barolo regardless of price.

There are two issues in play here. First is an accurate description and second the marketing and mystique factor. What we are talking about here is "sparkling wine" that descriptor fits everything from Champagne to Cava to Sekt to....well...sparkling wine! It also tells the consumer what is in the bottle. (along with an indication of dryness or sweetness). Perhaps we should strip "Champagne" of its mystique and look at it as a sparkling wine. I believe that much Champagne will fare quite well-- large and small producers and vintage and non vintage etc. There are Champagnes that offer unique qualities and those that are not so special. Then there are sparkling wines from around the world that should be judged on their own merits. I believe that sweeping generalizations lead us away from looking at what is in the bottle regardless of where it came from. Interestingly, most European wine sales are suffering from the system of labelling that ignores basics like grape varietal etc and focuses instead on place. this leads to promotion of a "mystique" and thus far is working for Champagne. I suspect that as more areas of the world produce sparkling wines of a high quality, some inroads into the large sales volume of Champagne may be inevitable. Sparkling wine from the new world is gradually losing its "inferiority" complex. I am seeing more and more sparkling wine from places other than Champagne on local shelves--that is more choices. I am also seeing more and more Champagne from small heretofore unknown, producers. There is a lot of poor quality "overpriced" Champagne around and more and more very high quality sparkling wine from America (and other countries). There is also some stunning Champagne that is worth the money as well as some awful new world stuff not good at any price. I do believe that to be fair--we should look at the merits of each sparkling wine as well as any value/price judgements rather than making generalizations. Champagne needs to be demystified and new world sparklers given their due--in the end the consumer wins! By the way, I do believe that French Champagne at the very best levels(low to high priced) does offer some fabulous drinking pleasure. I also enjoy well made Cava and Sekt, Prosecco and domestic sparklers. There are some very fine wines out there at all price ranges. I just try to appreciate what each offers rather than lamenting that my glass of Prosecco or Argyle is not the 82 Krug. Or conversely, that my glass of 82 Krug isn't less expensive.

well put Katie! couldn't agree more

my point exactly! Saffron overall, as a commodity, is expensive (for the reasons given re: production etc). However-on a per use basis, saffron goes a long way. and it is absolutely indispensible in many dishes. The flavor is quite pungent and unique so I can understand that some won't like it or find it obtrusive, though in a paella or risotto it is not IMOP --when used properly--overwhelming. Much as I love it in rice dishes--I do not like it in many soups--chicken soup for eg.

A gram of saffron can be used to make 10 meduium to large paellas. at penzey's cost for the best Mogra saffron $10.95 for a gram that's about a buck per use. Saffron is just not that expensive in the long or short run especially considering its impact on a dish. My guess is even folks who eat a lot of risotto and paella etc are not spending much on saffron (it ain't seriously impacting very many HH food budgets IMOP). By focusing on the cost per ounce of saffron vs the cost per ounce of other ingredients is a bit unfair--cost per use and the overall impact of the item is IMOP --more valid. Saffron is used very sparingly in every dish I know of. as noted earlier it is indispensible in a number of dishes. I appreciate the fact that not everyone likes saffron's taste (I don't like caviar--but I appreciate it and its high cost). In the end, most American kitchens just don't use a lot of saffron over the course of a year--we are definitely not talking salt here, or sugar or flour or.....--the pleasure (for those who appreciate and like it) provided by a paella or a risotto Milanese and the other dishes that require saffron makes the cost well worth it. (and as noted--that cost really isn't very high). It is all relative!