Sneakeater

I too always find myself thinking of the ways in which eatmywords's girlfriend is like my mother. (To give this post some substance, I should add that one of the things I like about Perry Street is the assertive seasoning. I've certainly dragged people there -- none of whom I can think about in the same thought as my mother without smoke starting to come out of my ears -- who opined that they go overboard with the spices. Some of these non-maternal people have learned that the kitchen is willing to moderate -- or even leave things out -- if you ask them.) (WIMPS.)

You guys are nuts. When Bryan turns 21, he should buy US drinks.

You see, this is where you lose me. Because underage people from New Jersey out on a bender drink themselves comatose in megaclubs and then find themselves raped, murdered and dumped in a garbage can, the police or inspectors are going to start keeping close watch on people eating with their parents in quiet, not to say somnolent, restaurants? Seems to me that the police and inspectors are going to start paying a lot of attention to megaclubs. Why would they divert their resources to an area that has nothing to do with the problems they're trying to solve? (In any event, all this speculation -- on my part as much as yours -- is worthless. I think your post about the warning is kind of the point here. If anyone gets a warning like that, then of course things will change. But if not . . . .)

You realize that this actually supports "my" side, right? I mean, I couldn't agree with this more.

Of course, I agree with you. But, of course, that's NOT what I'm saying.

I'm not sure many places are too happy about your bringing and eating your own food, Daniel.

YES!!!!!!!!! Exactly.

Do you not know how many spoiled-rotten rich underage kids abuse their parents's wealth to get themselves served alcohol (including intimidating bars and restaurants to look the other way at their fake id) and then go out and kill people with their cars, or commit other foolish acts? I'm still hoping somebody answers my theoretical pot quesion above... ← Answered above. The "Do you know how many" paragraph, is, IMO, insulting. Do you actually GO to "fine dining" restaurants in New York? We're not talking about dissolute rich kids intimidating restaurants into serving them alcohol. We're talking about restaurants that use their judgment as to who to serve wine to as part of the meals they serve.

Your whole post was really kind-natured, and we need that here. But I don't think that that was the focal point of the thread, or where it really took off. I think it was this comment by Bryan that's sparking all the debate and disagreement... An interesting theoretical question for Bryan would be (I think), if he were in a fine-dining Chinese restaurant (e.g. Shun Lee Palace) before the smoking ban took effect in NYC, would he think that the management should look the other way if a well-dressed person about to indulge in a very expensive Chinese feast were to smoke a joint at the table? I mean, this is New York City after all and the cops generally look the other way because they have more important things to do than bust people for smoking pot, (because although pot's technically illegal, nobody enforces the law on a person with one joint's worth for his own use) - let alone when they're paying top dollar for an upscale Chinese meal (and it's an accepted fact that pot probably does more to ehnance that meal than an alcoholic accompaniment). Any takers? ← That's easy, mark. There has never been a practice of permitting consumption of marijuana in fine-dining restaurants in New York. Ever. There has never been any reason for management to expect that whatever laws are in place against permitting marijuana use in a commercial establishment (and I have no idea what they are) wouldn't be enforced against them if they permitted smoking in a public area. This is completely irrelevant. Don't you see? We're not talking about hypotheticals. We're talking about an actual practice that's actually been in place for as long as any of us can remember. We're not talking about what you should be able to expect; we're talking about what you can expect.

While I'm venting, what I also can't understand is some of the hostility toward Bryan. People are actually saying things like, "I've got your number buddy. You just want to get buzzed." What a bunch of bullshit. How many of you (other than u.e.) would generally consider having a "fine" meal without wine? Is it because you want to get "buzzed", or because you think wine is an integral part of haute cusine?* If you've ever read Bryan's posts, you can see he's at least as knowledgeable and passionate about cuisine as anyone else here. Why should his motives be impugned because he's "only" 20? This is beating a dead horse, I know, but I'm also struck by the bogus "parade of horribles" reasoning that some people have advanced. "Start serving wine to minors at fine-dining restaurants, and they'll get overrun by minors using them to get drunk." Well, since the restaurants have been in fact doing that as long as anyone can remember, and they haven't yet become overrun with drunk teenagers, I don't see that as a very valid concern. I mean, I can just see the word spreading around NYU: "Hey gang, get this! There's this place called Per Se, where all you have to do is redial repeatedly the morning of the day exactly two months before you want to go there, and then, if you're lucky, you can get seated at either 6 p.m. or 11 p.m., and you have to wear a jacket, and buy a $250 nine-course menu, but they'll serve you wine with it. Let's go and get a buzz on!" Really. __________________________________________________________ * There are people here who've argued that a restaurant shouldn't even be eligible for more than a single NYT star if it doesn't have wine service, because wine is so integral to any fine-dining experience.

And I don't think anyone here really cares to have the law revised. That's really the point. Laws sometimes can't be drafted with the precision of a scalpel. But they can be sensibly enforced. What I don't understand is all the outrage at the idea that this might be (and, more to the point, has been) done.

Yeah, what he said. But I for one haven't seen any documentation that this really happens, other than from two posters who said that they'd been served alcohol in upscale NYC restaurants when underage, and that's statistically insignificant. Everybody else has just said that 'of course, we all know it happens all the time', but I don't accept that. ← Accept it or not; my NYC underage dining experiences where wine was included are easily over 100, which is a perfectly decent n-value for this sort of thing. (Incidentally, "statistically significant" isn't what you're looking for; you're concerned with sample size, which is a bit different.) Add in the experiences of my friends (most of whom grew up in NYC in the '80s-'90s) and I'd say there's a pretty decent basis for assuming that high-end restaurants in NY really don't card in typical dining circumstances.To be honest, I still cringe when I get asked for my ID when ordering a glass of wine or a beer at a restaurant (something that NEVER happens to me in NYC; here I get carded at the door, at music venues, at bars that have a strong college quotient and have recently been leaned on by the NYPD, and nowhere else, really. Maybe I lack Daniel's baby-face?) That said, and notwithstanding the experience of many, many diners who grew up in NY sampling alcoholic beverages at their parents' behest rather than the strict drinking age, the law does not contain "grey areas." By the wording of the relevant statute, Per Se is just as liable for pouring an underage diner a glass of Sauternes as a dive bar is for handing an underage drinker a beer. The law itself is vastly different both from the way it is enforced and from the desired social norm of people who enjoy beer or wine with food. Our food culture is basically all imported; our haute cuisine culture is primarily imported from France, where the drinking age is certainly *not* 21 and wine is consumed in the home and at restaurants at a much younger age than that. Most other countries, in fact, do not enforce their drinking age laws at all, assuming they have them (over 130 countries do not have any regulations or statutes governing the consumption of alcohol by minors). However, just because we may want to go to Ducasse and have the same dining experience that an 18-year-old can have in Paris doesn't mean the law condones it. Personally, in the case of the experience that started it all, I'll bet that it was the result of an inexperienced server and not a manifestation of some sort of extreme consciousness about the drinking age on the part of the EMP management. I doubt the situation will change; restos in NYC, and not just the high level, are very unlikely to ever ask for ID unless they are enforcement targets (unlikely in the case of the haute cuisine establishments). emily: You may be struck by Bryan's attitude, but rest assured the situation was pretty unusual for NY. As I mentioned above, almost NO restaurant in Manhattan asks for ID unless the situation itself is odd. Establishments just don't card here the way they do in the rest of the country. As someone who does most of my eating out either in NY or abroad, I have to say that it's infinitely more civilized not to feel like you're getting pulled over by the highway patrol while sitting at a nice dinner. "Shocked and disturbed" goes a little beyond my reaction; "piqued" would probably be it. Again, I think the issue is cultural. EMP is fundamentally a haute cuisine restaurant; the idea of wine with one's food is therefore sort of integral to the experience. EMP's analogues in the UK, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, Belgium, etc. etc. have drinking ages of 18 at the highest, and enforcement is nonexistent, with none of the penalties even on the books that most US restaurants have to deal with (serious fines, suspension of license... although I have a *very* hard time believing the latter ever happens in NY). Not having wine with one's food at a restaurant of that level and type can be a pretty serious letdown, and it certainly is an unfortunate reminder of how our liquor laws and their supporting regulations can be at odds with educating younger people about gastronomy. (Compare, for example, with the French tradition of offering students a week of discount haute cuisine meals complete with excellent wines!) ← This says everything I've ever tried to say in this thread. Thanks. Now, if have the disclipline, I can shut up.

Sorry to be unclear. I've been speaking declaratively (although it helps that I agree with the status quo). That's really the point: "my" side isn't advocating a change. We're advocating a continuation of the status quo.

In response to moosnsqrl, the one explanation that I've heard from restauranteurs is that it fits in with the "modern concept of grazing/informal dining" and that "young people like it". And, I hate to say it, but anecdotal evidence gleaned from looking at other tables suggests that "young people" do like it. (Idiots.) ← I wonder if maybe this isn't a reaction by "young people" to the instantaneous service at fast food restaurants they commonly patronize? In other words, the disjointed, grazing style of presentation is actually a perceived hallmark of an upscale dining experience. SB ← Actually, if I had to psychoanalyze the "young people", I'd guess that they want to abjure all the traditional indicia of "upscale" dining (while, at least for some of them, maintaining food quality). What I'm trying to say is that, perhaps, to them, traditional service seems too, well, when I was a VERY young person, they'd have called it "square".

Sam said it better yesterday: markk, I don't think anyone is suggesting that, in the purely legal sense, the restaurant is not assuming some legal risk. Arguments are being made and examples given for why people believe it is a small risk in the context of NYC fine dining. I also don't think anyone is "giving rationalizations for why it's okay to declare a grey area around this law." The fact is that this grey area does exist. Fine dining restaurants in NYC have been doing it, and will continue to do it for the forseeable future. It is a de facto grey area. ←

This right here shows what the basic misunderstanding is between "your" side and "mine". We are not "advocating" a waiver of enforcement. We are pointing to a circumstance that actually exists and has existed for as long as any of us can remember. (Also, BTW, with reference to a prior post, we're not arguing "statutory interpretation". We're arguing that this is the way the statute has been applied by those charged with enforcing it. It sure doesn't read that way: I think we all agree about that.)

Hard liquor: different Beer: not different

Uh-oh.

Never happen. They wouldn't admit to anything like that for publication even with the promise of anonymity. They'd be foolish to do so.

I still cleaned my plate, though.

FG will undoubtedly say beginning/end. But I've got to say that my first meal at Atelier Robuchon, when I had the tasting menu, I thought the foie gras/quail (the last savory) came too late in the meal. I had already eaten too much to appreciate something that rich.

There were 11 of us. Oh ok. I thought it was split between you, John, and Sneakeater! DAYAM that would have been a lot of food! ← We coulda done that.

Adrienne's is good. Dressler seems OK (never been). I may be in a minority, but I think the food at the Spotted Pig is reasonably good. Freeman's is good for what it is.

Not saying I endorce this, but it seemed worth posting: http://www.gridskipper.com/travel/new-york...s-on-226273.php

In response to moosnsqrl, the one explanation that I've heard from restauranteurs is that it fits in with the "modern concept of grazing/informal dining" and that "young people like it". And, I hate to say it, but anecdotal evidence gleaned from looking at other tables suggests that "young people" do like it. (Idiots.)