JohnL

That is not Asimov. Though Mr Asimov has written some very fine pieces. The article linked is by the Food Scientist Harold Mc Gee whose seminal work is "On Food and Cooking--The science and lore of the kitchen" He co wrote the piece with Daniel Patterson chef and owner of the restaurant "Coi" in San Francisco who also wrote the book "Aroma" which explores the relationship between food and fragrance.

I am not sure I buy the "impracticality" Determining/estimating the caloric content of a dish seems to require a few minutes and a scale. Most of the dishes at Per Se (or any place) are not concocted for the first time each night. The problem with a lot of restaurants is seemingly "innocent" items are often covered with a rich sauce or are finished with fat unsuspecting consumers should know what they are eating. By the way, how about inclusion of places serving coffee drinks, large and small? people ought to know that those latte's and frappachino's are "silent killers." The problem is, in the real world, people go to McDonald's and Per Se for the same basic reason. They want to eat food that tastes good. For the pleasure of eating. There are plenty of ways consumers can be informed. Information is good, so is education. Most people don't plan meals based on caloric content. In fact, most people do not "plan" meals. They eat primarily for the pleasure. These laws banning this or that and mandating this or that are just plain dopey. Government is always looking for ways of expanding their powers and justifying more and more money for ineffective programs. The enactment of this law which covers fast food places and exempts high end restaurants just like the law telling chefs and businesses what they can cook or cook with is no more than a band aid (if even that). It is easy to pass laws. Easy to ban things. Business or consumers will be forced to pay the freight. And politicians will continue to exempt themselves and anyone with any influence. We have all sorts of laws dictating how vehicles are driven and at what speed, seat belt laws--the governor of NJ just suffered serious injuries in a crash wherein his vehicle was traveling way beyond the "legal" (for all the rest of us I guess) without wearing a seatbelt (I suppose this law was just for us too). Like most people, the accident will probably prompt him to buckle up in the future (then again maybe not). In the end, I would rather see our city government fixing up the schools and instituting good science classes wherein nutrition is taught. Bring back physical education (what about home economics where more nutrition can be taught along with basics like how to balance a checkbook?) and fix up the parks and playgrounds. Silly me, I thought my tax money goers to these kinds of things which IMOP will be more effective in improving society. And less costly in the long run than more laws, mandates, regulations, bans, additional departments, more government employees, inspectors, tax increases to pay for thiem etc etc etc. Hey! I got a great idea. Quick and easy., The answer the solution! CALORIE OFFSETS!!!!!!! That's right. I eat two big Macs (with cheese) and a mochachino frappa calorino and I give the equivalent cost to a skinny acetic dour, health nut or maybe anyone who will pledge that they will skip a meal or eat a low cal meal! Yeah that's it! I feel good cause I am helping make society a better place and I get to stuff my face at the same time. I wanna do my part ya know! Folks we are precariously close to a world where we are governed by the ministry of silly walks!

The article clearly states that the total meal at Per Se amounts to app 2,400 calories. Most people do eat the rolls! This is equivalent to eating four and a half big Macs! or Ten hot dogs at Gray's Papaya. Most people eat nowhere near this amount of at either Mickey D's or Gray's! Let's stop nit picking this. Shouldn't people know that by not eating the dinner roll etc they could reduce the caloric impact of the Per Se meal. They would if Per Se had to list the calories next to each dish!!! That is the point of the article and the reason this law is absurd. If this law is to help consumers make healthy eating choices when they dine out then why apply it to a select segment of the restaurant industry? The reason for the exemption is equally absurd. If Per Se doesn't exercise portion control and careful standardization of ingredients then who does?! This prompts recall of an episode of Top Chef where the contestants were required to design dishes to caloric and health standards. Exempting Per Se and others is political cowardice. Nothing more or less. The law is dumb and discriminatory. The pleasure/food/health police forced the fast food places to provide nutritional information and they did (a good idea IMOP-- by the way). When no one responded to this or the healthier foods the fast food industry offered voluntarily, the police decided to mandate the calories be on the menus. the next logical/illogical step is forcing all of us diners to sign a waiver we read and understood the info when we ordered our food. When that doesn't work the police will determine we do not know what is best for ourselves and healthy foods will be forced on us by removing all the unhealthy choices!

I agree. Though the menu is very limited in choices. I think the optimum would be if Kinch does what Robuchon at L'Atelier does. That is offer a relatively large number of small plates enabling the diner to construct his or her own tasting menu. We must be around the same age! I started to hit the wall after the twelfth dish or so. Maybe if they increased the pace a bit when the amuses are offered. I thought there was a bit too much time to "linger" over these wonderful but very small bites (the amuses). Again, we really enjoyed the area. A lot to see and do around Los Gatos. And we thought Dio Deka was wonderful. There were also a few other very interesting looking restaurants as well.

No it is not "embraced" as snobbery. By me at least. I clearly indicated that finding one enjoys a certain style of wine is not snobbish. What is snobbery is to look down on anyone who happens to like a style of wine in opposition to what you like. Let's not confuse quality and style either. The examples you have cited are the best of the lot. Drouhin and Jadot (and some others) have offered good examples of these simple whites. The truth is the vast majority of them Macon whites (not fit for export) are pretty lousy wines. France is in the middle of an attempt to make their everyday table wines better quality wise so they can compete on the world market. Right now, it is Italy that is doing a much better job in this area. as for California, well we taste the good and the bad. It is easy to stereotype based upon our limited experience. The fact is we do not taste more than a miniscule number of wines from the Macon, they never reach our shores. Making sweeping statements about them based on what we see here is simply inaccurate. Jadot and Drouhin have done a good job sorting things out for us. Oak is not inherently good or bad where wine is concerned. I would also point out that traditionally--or historically--at one time all Macon wines (also all chablis) were kept in barrels and or vinified in wood! That's how wine was stored prior to the emergence of stainless steel tanks. Lucky for me, I enjoy pretty much all styles of wine. All I am saying is well made examples of crisp Macon blancs are wonderful but so are rounder buttery chardonnays (from anywhere). You may prefer one over the other, I like em both.

Thalassa gets a twenty three for food in Zagat's!

Okay here goes: First Los Gatos was a side trip (my wife had a business meeting and we stayed in Monterey). We stayed in Los Gatos two nights at the lovely Hotel Los Gatos. A lot for the reasonable money! The town is also very nice--sort of reminded me of Greenwich CT with better scenery. (had that feel anyway). Upscale good shopping and the Mountains with some interesting vineyards and wineries. Also worth noting is a very fine and exciting restaurant in the hotel: Dio Deka this may one of the finest Greek restaurants in this country (I will post separately about it). As for Manresa. First of all I am not prone to hyperbole and I may be a bit jaded living in New York. I try to put things into perspective. The decor at Manresa is fine, subdued, more handsome than elegant but not requiring any further comment. The service is very good. Professional yet friendly and accommodating (given the youthfulness of the staff this is quite an accomplishment. The kitchen also is flexible--my wife does not like red meat so we were offered two tastings that allowed for this. Especially good because it allowed us to try even more different dishes. I got some meat dishes and she got some seafood executions. The pacing is good (there are 17 or 19 courses!) but overall one could become a bit fatigued by the last desert. The wine list is good there is an option to order wines paired to the dishes but I usually prefer to avoid mixing a food tasting this elaborate with a wine tasting. I ordered wines by the glass of my own choosing. The verdict. I think Kinch is an extremely talented chef. I did not find the food overly inventive or intellectual. I would compare it to what Robuchon does. There is a simplicity about it yet great subtlety. For example Kinch utilized what seemed to me to be flavored bread crumbs to add a crunch to a dish. Simple but effective. I at first thought it was a coarse grained salt but in the absence of any real saltiness I concluded these were bread crumbs. Whatever they were, this is a simple yet very creative touch to add complexity. I do find Robuchon's flavors to be a bit more intense than Kinch's. Vegetables are a strong point. Not only in the incredible quality here but Kinch has an affinity for presenting them in dishes that showcase the flavor and freshness. He also offers some exotic (to me at least) items. Seafood. Another strong point. I was not as impressed with the caviar and sea weed gelee as some here. It is good to be sure but using such good caviar (Iranian osetra I believe) in a dish where the flavors tended to mingle even clash a bit too much is overkill. this dish is a bit too overwhelmingly "fishy" tasting for me. The oyster with uni (an amuse I believe) was a better example--the ingredients combined as if meant for each other in an explosion of briny flavor. The whole clearly greater than the sum of the parts. My wife got a beautiful seafood risotto. The seafood was superlative in quality and the rice perfectly cooked. This was simple but incredibly satisfying--a joy to eat. I also recall a fish dish (I forget the fish) a simple filet perfectly cooked with a mild flavor that was very slightly crusted with salt and pepper I believe. This seasoning was IMOP gave this simple execution an etherial quality. The thing melted in my mouth and left a lingering sensation of the sea, salt and spice. There was an accompanying vanilla foam. I do not like the combination of vanilla and seafood--this is one of the more annoying leftovers of nouvelle cuisine. I must say though, Kinch's version was so light and airy that the seeming hint or impression of vanilla actually worked. The abalone was also very good. I was less thrilled with the meats. Really three dishes. A loin of rabbit a lamb chop and the suckling pig.. There was a terrific boudin noir with the rabbit but the loin was rather tough (overcooked) the lamb was ok--a decent small rib chop but the lamb itself though perfectly cooked was lacking in flavor and the sauce was inconsequential. The suckling pig was really some pork slices with crisped skin. I am a traditionalist here preferring the meat long slow cooked and "falling apart." It is the slow cooking infusing the meat with the fat of the pig that makes this dish. Kinch seems to be sort of "deconstructing" it. A case of the separate parts yielding much less flavor than the traditional "whole." The deserts (three) were very good. The style follows suit with the savory cooking here. Simple yet subtle flavors very good ingredients. All three worked well. So Overall this was a very fine meal. I would gladly go back. I would love to try an all vegetable menu. The seafood is also very well done. I would be willing to give Kinch another chance at the game and meats etc. I must admit I am not normally a big seafood lover but I thoroughly enjoyed the seafood here. $125 for the tasting menu here is a bargain. There are so many truly fine restaurants in America at the moment it is hard to even rank them. I would say that Manresa certainly belongs somewhere in the mix.

You are more typical of most wine drinkers than even the industry would like to think. Your road to discovering what you like or dislike was basically trial and error and you are also proof that typical wine drinkers are not "sheep" that are led around by scores or fads or crazes and worse will drink wines they do not like because of said scores or critics or fads. Chardonnay comes in many styles and use of oak is just one factor in how a chardonnay will taste. A wine's quality is not determined by oak or no oak it is determined by how the wine tastes. In wines where the starting material, the grapes, are not of high quality, oak has been used to mask or to flavor the wine resulting in wines that are not very good but may be pleasant to drink for people who like the flavors the oak imparts. On the other hand, there are numerous examples of wines made from less than decent quality grapes that are vinified in stainless steel or cement or whatever and never stored in oak. These wines are equally bad and are pleasant to drink by people who like thin highly acidic wines. In the real world, people have preferences. There is often no black or white but gradations of gray. There are different levels of quality in oaked and unoaked wines at all price levels. Like you, I believe most people will find what they like with a bit of trial and error and some guidance. By the way, what are some of these chardonnays you do like?

FYI in September the restaurant ceased to be named Joel Robuchon at The Mansion and was renamed simply JOEL ROBUCHON. Still as excellent as ever, however. This is the best French restaurant in the United States. Both this restaurant and the Joel Robuchon restaurant in Tokyo appear on the DininginFrance.com list of the 10 best French restaurants in the world located outside of France. ← The list of ten best French restaurants outside France is a bit curious. I would not categorize Per Se as a "French" restaurant (though there is a French sensibility, this is decidedly American cuisine) and if including a Keller establishment I would certainly select the French Laundry over Per Se (by a hair). Also I believe that Restaurant Daniel which is a "French" restaurant is, if not the best, certainly worthy of inclusion in any list French or American.

the law supposedly covers restaurants that serve "standardized portion size, formulation and ingredients." That sounds like any high (or middle end) restaurant. Per Se, JGV, Grammercy Tavern et al offer all three! The magazine is correct noting that the exception has more to do with politics..... this is one dumb law.

My beef is, what we eat should be a personal decision. We should make the choice based upon what risk reward benefits make sense to us and our families. Not the government, not special interest groups and certainly not unelected bureaucrats like our current health commissioner! These laws often amount to forced compliance on the part of consumers by removing choice from the equation. Not the case specifically here. But over regulated market places ultimately are not good for anyone. This law specifically makes no sense. It is a feel good effort (like warning labels on cigarette packs) that is of little proven value. More insidiously, it is another step in a bad direction leading to greater government meddling in the market place. Again, if this is a good idea it is a good idea across the board and all should be forced to comply! After all there are a lot of "unsuspecting" consumers who do not eat at fast food restaurants and need top know what they are getting at JGV or Per Se. In fact the magazine makes a good case that eating regularly at places other than McDonald's et al is probably more deleterious to one's health! The patrons of Per Se are more at risk!!! This is more than a just a slippery slope, it is logic defying. It makes no sense. What does make sense is to inform people about nutrition and allow them to make their own decisions in a free and open marketplace.

can I ask a dumb question? What is the difference between slow cooking in a pouch and slow cooking in a sealed container like a crock pot? Technically regarding heat transfer (cooking) and in ultimate taste?

The "basis" is simple. As in the original post that started this thread the topic of oak is oversimplified. The "over oaked" chardonnay craze has not gone "bust"--it was never a "craze" to begin with. The wine snob aspect comes into play when certain people lump wines into categories: oaked vs unoaked and make a sweeping value judgment that one is "better" than the other. Most often this is done with the side effect of denigrating those who drink or prefer chardonnay that is oaked. It is interesting to me that few people complain about the sea of unoaked chardonnay that exists. Low end simple and poorly made wines that abound. I recently had a chablis that was so unripe and acidic as to remove the enamel from one's teeth. This wine is no better (or worse) than a poorly made simple oak flavored chardonnay. (though the oak flavored wine is less painful to drink). Not every Macon white is a good wine any more than every California chardonnay is a bad wine. (or vice verse). Riesling and its popularity or lack thereof has little to do with chardonnay. Riesling is an aromatic grape varietal that stands on its own more readily than chardonnay (not aromatic). Hence the use of oak --and let's discriminate between oak aging and fermentation in oak--in chardonnay more so than with Riesling. By the way oak use in Burgundy is prevalent in the Cote d' Or and has grown steadily in Chablis. You were correct about the Macconais but let's remember the Maconnais is staunchly hanging on to their tradition as well as the fact that most of these wines are meant to sell at the low end (oak can be expensive). In chablis the raw materials (the grapes) are often much better in quality and while Stevenson is correct in noting the "authenticity" of the unoaked chablis --there is a bit of snobbery in his selection of the term authentic. As in the case of every wine the use or non use of oak has nothing to do with quality. The "authenticity" thing is also a bit of a stretch. There is authentic and there is tradition. Again a reminder that neither term has anything to do with quality. I would certainly not agree that there is anything "atypical" regarding use of oak for fermentation and/or aging in Burgundy. You note that the Maconnaise "created" the "wave of interest in unoaked chardonnay." There is no evidence to support this. In fact the Maconnaise has struggled to survive in large part because most of the wines are of low or poor quality made by indifferent cooperatives from high yield grapes. One can cull a few producers who are making some very fine wines but for the most part the Macon has played a relatively small role on the international market. In fact, the non use of oak in the Maconnaise has more to do with cost of production etc than with some belief that use of oak in Maconnaise wines would result in lesser quality. Co-ops are less likely to use expensive barrels in wine making. The wave of interest in unoaked wine you cite is arguably not a "wave." It is the result of more choice on the global market. It is a fact that today people simply have more options on the shelves of their local wine shop. In fact, the general consensus would be that the vast majority of those wines red and white deemed the world's finest wines (even by Mr Stevenson) have "seen" some oak. So I would argue that each wine should be taken on its own merits or lack thereof. Oak or no oak.

What is often confused in these "tests" is the difference between preference and evaluation. Untrained consumers are often confused here IMOP. Taste tests are an unnatural environment. People make purchase decisions using a far more complex set of criteria under far more complex circumstances. Consumers do not make decisions based upon quick taste tests under the conditions these tests are executed. Professional tasters are trained to assess a wine (or coffee or tea etc) based upon an agreed set of criteria. They are further trained to communicate their assessments using an agreed upon set of terms/descriptors. This is mainly why I do not bother with the sea of amateur notes found on the internet. It is also why, far too many people believe that wine tasting is a totally subjective endeavor and that notes and scores depend upon a particular tasters preferences (their palates). The notion that one's "palate" is a totally unique and individual entity is basically wrong.

Unfortunately, this is going way beyond "scolding." there's nothing wrong with scolding or making a case but when people don't respond in the manner the scolders would like them to, the next step is laws, bans, taxes, regulations etc. More unfortunately, this results in a loss of freedom or choice and higher costs. The law in question is a good example. The point of the piece linked is that these actions make no sense. If the do gooders behind them believe that it is so important that we have nutritional information about the food we eat in restaurants then it is important that all restaurants be forced to provide this information. They don't dare go after higher end establishments because the political fall out that would result. In short, fast food restaurants are an easy target. In the end, the cost of printing this info on menus etc will be passed along to the consumer who will continue to ignore the info and eat based upon their own criteria. As they have always done.

You know...... Your notes run counter to the conventional wisdom. That all these so called "cult" wines all taste the same. Have no expression of terroir. Are over extracted fruit bombs. Were made just to get high scores from Robert Parker. etc etc etc (really blah blah blah) anyway thanks! (especially for the well written and informative link)

Not silly at all. The point of the piece as I see it is to indicate how these laws --the one mandating restaurants list nutritional information on menus--are idiotic and discriminatory. The fast food industry is being singled out. The fact is, if this is a good thing--adding nutritional information-- then all restaurants should do it. People do not eat the tasting menu at Per Se every day but many people frequent various higher (than McDonald's) end restaurants any number of times each week. There is no reason that these moronic laws should cover only "select" establishments. I have no problem with mandating that every restaurant provide nutritional information if requested. The fact is, fats and calories taste good. Whether we are talking about a Big Mac or haute cuisine. Quality has nothing to do with the issue. Fairs fair--if this is so important that the city is writing a law then that law should cover everyone.

IMOP there is too much obsessing over the source of the meat flavorings and condiments etc. The architecture of the burger is of paramount importance. All one needs is good quality meat with a reasonable fat content --fat is for flavor as well as jucyness. First, the grind of the meat is critical. Too many burgers are made with meat that has been ground to such a fine grade that the result is a grainy almost mealy consistency. Second, handling! Too much fussing and too much pressure packs the meat--pulverizing it, mashing it. A great burger needs air. It should be formed with minimal handling and just loosely enough so it "breathes." Third, size. IMOP anything over 8 ounces is too damn much meat--too big. Not only too difficult to eat but it won't cook properly! Too get a really good sear or char on the outside and the proper degree of doneness on the inside the size matters!!! Too many burgers are either lightly seared steak tartar or are dried out mush due to their size. If one doesn't master the basics of construction then all the rest is moot.

Retsina is a wine that goes back two thousand years or so. It is still popular (though it is nowhere near what it once was in terms of popularity). It is however, much higher quality today than ever before. The Greek government has strict regulations as to how much resin (0.15 to 1%) and other factors such as minimum acidity etc. I admit that retsina is an acquired taste but the best examples are great with food--especially foods that require an assertive wine. Greek wines are on the precipice of becoming much more widely popular as wine making techniques and viticulture are improving rapidly and Greek food is also emerging as it is more and more refined via technique. (it is no coincidence that Spanish wines are taking off around the world as Spanish cuisine is also exploding) There are a large number of native grapes both red and white as well as international varietals (cabernet, merlot etc) used in wine making today and there are some high end "boutique" wines being made. this is probably a very exciting time to travel to Greece there's a lot going on in wine and food!!!! The most comprehensive book available now is "The Wines of Greece" by Lazerakis (Mitchell Beazley--who else?). --- the Oxford Companion has quite a bit of information. Also try some of the many web sites: www.greekwinemakers.com www.allaboutgreekwine.com

The Asimov piece is well done. It is a sane and common sensical approach to what is an overblown and hysterical reaction to the subject. The Clark Smith interview is IMOP not very interesting. Smith engages in a bit of leg pulling, snake oil salesmanship, science and argy bargy. In fact, for most people, I would recommend they skip the Smith interview and most other pieces on this subject and simply read the Asimov piece. It basically tells you all you need to know. Like it or not, the wine world is evolving and science is part of the driving factor. Because of innovation (not vinovation) we have more better and interesting wines available to us today. As always, it is how science and technology are used by humans--wine makers that is most important. Ultimately its what's in the glass that counts, not how it got there!

Max I should have said most grand and premier cru white Burgundy is "oaked." The whole oak issue is annoying to me (as if you couldn't tell). First the "anything but chardonnay" movement was in no small way founded in wine snobbery. What happens is the snobs start by drinking chardonnay then tire of it and "discover" something else--in this case it was sauvignon blanc. great! But the snobs then like to denegrate those who have not yet "discovered" that the chardonnay they drink is passe. The sauvignon blanc thing is now passe and the new buzz wine is--riesling! (there was a brief interlude with Gruner Veltliner) In the red category it is amazing that Merlot may become "hip" again! The oak "thing" is also a snob driven issue for the most part. The fact is oak and chardonnay work extremely well together. Some of the chardonnay wines considered by consensus to be among the greatest in the world see plenty of oak. What we are really talking about is the level of recognizable oak flavors in a wine. Oak can impart many flavors that are a result of interaction with the fruit beyond the basic vanilla/vanillin notes. It is not just a "flavoring." The issue is an individual's taste. Also--there is a tendency to gloss over the nuances of the issue--new oak, old oak combinations etc. Bad chardonnay is bad chardonnay regardless of whether it has seen oak or not. There are any number of lousy under ripe overly simple unoaked wines from the Macconais! The basic truth is there are wonderful examples of both oaked and unoaked chardonnay. Some people have a preference and others who are really lucky appreciate both styles. By the way, the tendency to denegrate the use of oak is interesting. These people usually like to cast their aspersions mostly at the US choosing to ignore Spain (where loads of new oak is a tradition) for eg. Just like the people who look down on higher alcohol levels usually focus on US and Australian wines (they rarely criticize Amarone's). Interestingly there are snobs who like to look down on Americans whose palates they believe prefer overly sweet wines --we were raised on Coke! Mention those kendall Jackson chardonnays that have a bit of residual sugar and they are aghast! Well what about all those Rieslings produced in Germany and Alsace with plenty of residual sugar? what about the fact that we Americans who have these awful preferences for sweet s have not taken to sweet wines like rieslings and dessert wines etc.? Anyway, I am not addressing anyone here specifically but getting back to the oak issue let's remember that as I noted earlier--it's not the oak so much as the quality of the fruit and how the use or non use of oak impacts it. Oak and chardonnay have a very special affinity for each other and when a good wine maker has good materials to work with the resulting wine oaked or unoaked will be something special. Let's also remember that if we are talking about an inexpensive simple wine from simple healthy fruit then it is a matter of taste as to whether that fruit sees oak or stainless steel or concrete/cement or.... One wine oaked is not better or worse that a similar wine unoaked. I happen to like each style (depends on what I am in the mood for).

I love the flavour of grass-fed beef, preferring it far more than the flavour of grain-fed beef. The Spouse is the opposite. I grew up on an island where there wasn't the land available to grow the large amounts of grain needed to raise grain-fed cattle. He grew up on the edge of the prairies where grain (and the land needed to grow it) was plentiful. Flavours aside, there is one very good argument for not letting the market place speak for all, an argument that was tragically highlighted recently with the pet food contaminations. When the market place speaks, cost becomes a higher priority than safety. The safety of our food supply should not be contingent upon a fiscal bottom line. Unfortunately, when one relies on market forces to drive what we eat, then that is exactly what happens. ← First, you and your spouse are the marketplace and since you each have your preferences you can both be satisfied. I do not know what safety has to do with this. Nor the recent pet food situation. People do not want just cheap. They want value. That's why there is $40/lb beef at Lobel's and $4.99 a pound beef at the supermarket. something for everyone. Bureaucrats and so called safety have prevented some great cheese from being available here for eg and frightened mis informed politicians have removed foie gras from our options. I believe we each can decide what is good for opurselves and our families. I am not for removing all regulations and controls--we do need them. I am simply for reasonableness and common sense.

I am convinced that for a "Little Italy" experience Arthur Avenue in the Bronx is the best bet.

I would recommend Gino's on Lexington Avenue around 60th-61st Street in Manhattan. This is a very good Southern Italian that has been around for ages. I believe since the forties. Food is very good the prices are very reasonable and the decor is a throwback and kitchy, the wall paper is a trip. I would also recommend another institution--Patsy's: the one on 56th Street on the West Side of Manhattan. Southern Italian food (good) --this is another institution--you can imagine the rat pack eating here. It is more expensive than Gino's. Little Italy in the Bronx is perhaps more thriving than the one in Manhattan --and less touristy. Lots of dining options. For reasonable old style Southern Italian I recommend Mario's. Again, this is a neighborhood institution. Also Dominick's (family style, no menus). The food is very good and the place is a scene.

Max Very good (and interesting) point. Most people have their own personal "systems" for use in determining what they like and dislike. Since these systems are personal, most folks are somewhat awkward in explaining the results to others or defending their choices. My point was, most professional tasters (of jams, teas, coffee, wine, anything really) are trained to systematically evaluate these items and to be able to explain and defend their conclusions. Scores are summations of the evaluation system that are not reached arbitrarily via some intuitive impression. I once many years ago, tasted a white wine and remarked what an interesting and beguiling nose it had. The elderly gentleman seated next to me tasting the same wine slightly lifted his nose from the glass and remarked:"that's sulfur, it will blow off." It was and it did! in fact the nose was not particularly fine. It is a good thing that I did not run home and post a note on line about what a "lovely" nose the wine had. Many of these on line notes are the equivalent of the five blind men each describing the elephant!