macrosan

I would suppose that the number of valid answers to the question is as large as the range of restaurants and chefs which it addresses. I am a proponent of the "emperor's clothes" syndrome. For syntactical simplicity, I will refer to the fictitious restaurant "Bona" and its chef M Petit as being symbolic of a classic, long-established high-end restaurant. In the days when dining at Bona was the sole prerogative of the wealthy and privileged few, to dine there was a mark of status. It was essential that those who did so never broke ranks to criticise the place, since this would render it useless as a symbol of rank. After all, if the food at Bona was bad, then where was the status conferred by eating there ? This situation in turn meant that those who dined at Bona were as likely to be doing so because that was the place to be seen as because they liked the food. And of course many who dined there knew too little about food to make a judgement. To support the mystique surrounding Bona, it became necessary to assign magical abilities to its chef M Petit. Because everyone understood food, indeed the great unwashed actually cooked and ate it at home. So Bona needed to have something about it which those unwashed would accept as making it different and unattainable. So M Petit became a "celebrity chef". Finally, aspirants to status (who had never eaten at Bona) were obliged to admire Bona as an act of deference to their "betters" and as proof of their credentials to assume that status one day. It must be the case that much of the admiration of Bona and Petit was the result of "emperor's clothes" syndrome. If Bona had served dry toast as a starter, many people would have ooohed and aaahed about this brilliant innovation by a visionary and talented wunderkind, about this classic simplicity which epitomised the fundamental values of society, about the unique quality of dryness which Petit imparted to such humble ingredients, and so on. It is interesting to ponder why we believe today that Bona ever served good food. After all, the main critical criteria of those who expressed the judgement back then were money and inaccessibility. If Bona was established in Paris in the late 19th Century (and it probably was) then it had a clear run of over a hundred years, catering to the uncritical few, before the nouveau riche started to dine there. And the nouveau riche started to dine there only because they were the nouveau riche and this was their arriviste display to the world. So again, their interest lay in maintaining the established reputation. But the nouveau riche is a very fast-growing social group. A higher and higher proportion of people are able and willing now to spend the money demanded by Bona. Many who have the means are also less insistent on the social status that their money brings. They care little for "old" reputations, and are more demanding of value for money. There is wider knowledge of what the world of cuisine offers. There are more and more entrepreneurs, and chefs, who have recognised that there is money to be made in the restaurant business. And they are transmitting their message to a larger and larger population, and expanding their market. Where people once knew only of Bona as "the best restaurant in Paris", they are now aware that there are perhaps 50 other restaurants which are being rated by "experts" as being as good or better. Of course only 10 are in Paris, but today Brussels or London or Milan are equally accessible to people who can afford the price at Bona. Maybe more important, suppliers no longer follow slavishly the old concept of high-end/other restaurants. Borders have become blurred. People can now choose to satisfy their priorities as between food/presentation/ambience/service and so on in different restaurants which "major" on each of these different elements. People can now compare Petit as a chef with Gros as a chef in two conceptually different restaurants, so Petit can no longer hide behind the glitz (if indeed that was what he was doing) but has to stand or fall solely on his culinary skill. Bona can no longer charge £400 a head on the basis that this was the only show in town, because people will now go to Gros's restaurant (Quatre) to forego only Bona's comfortable chairs and pay £100. In short, the market has become less arcane, more rational, better understood, and nowadays when the emperor has no clothes, most people know it.

Went to Whitstable last Saturday on an impulse, but I just had time to find and read this thread before we left At 12.45 we went to Wheelers to have lunch Just to help people find it (took us fifteen minutes of guessing) it's in Harbour Street, it's a tiny place called Wheeler's Oyster Bar a couple of doors from Lloyds Bank, and it looks like a shop rather than a restaurant. The place was packed, and we were advised not to wait as they already had several people waiting in the outer area. So now we tried to find the "Oyster Fisheries". We walked to the harbour (signposted) and immediately found the Crab and Winkle there. We were now hungry, the place looked interesting, so I thought I'd check out Peter's opinion. But again, it was packed. I asked some people where the Oyster Fisheries was, but they were all tourists We wandered along a couple of roads, found the beach, and saw a super looking restaurant with a sign outside saying "Custom House ...". Went in, saw nicely laid tables in a spacious two-room restaurant, smiling staff, and asked for a table for two. Although there were at least five empty tables (and it was now 1.20pm) the hostess told me they were fully booked for lunch. As I went our, I saw a sign inside headed W.O.F.C and I suddenly realised this was the Whitstable Oyster Fishery Company So for first-time tourists, I can now tell you that the "Oyster Fishery" is about 100 yards west of the harbour, facing the beach, in a large detached building with a sign saying "Custom House .." something-or-other. It absolutely looked worth a visit. In desperation, we went into a pub directly beside the WOFC called Pearson's Crab and Oyster Bar. They have a restuarant on the first and second floor. They asked us to come back in 20 minutes, which we did, at 1.45. We were seated on the second floor at the best table in the place, a 2-top in a corner window overlooking the sea. Service was charming and friendly, but slow. I had potato wedges as a starter, which were fluffy inside, and perfectly crisp outside, with a mayonnaise/lemon dip. Very enjoyable. My main was grilled dover sole, which at £17.95 (including vegetables) was smallish (I guess about 12 inches long) but the fish was nicely fresh and very well cooked. The salad that came with it was what I would describe as "no nonsense rustic". A few pieces of variegated leafy vegetation, a tomato cut into quarters, six thin slices of cucumber with skin intacto, and the obligatory crown of mustard and cress. No dressing. Mrs Macro ordered grilled plaice which was about twice the size of my fish, and excellent in every way. She had a jacket potato (pronounced good) and vegetables including runner beans and sweetcorn which were overcooked. Her whole dish cost £8.95 (available at lunch only). Their freezer had broken down (well, the temperature was touching 100 degrees so that's bound to happen ) so we couldn't have ice cream Didn't fancy the alternatives. It may be unkind to say that the meal we had was about what I expected. The fish was excellent, everything else was very old-style-pubby. In other words, lacking the niceties, poorly presented with a smile. At £34 for the two of us (which incidentally was about the same as we would have spent at WOFC) it wasn't great value. The plaice at £8.95 was, the dover sole at £17.95 definitely wasn't. Next time I will try to book in advance, and I think WOFC will be my choice.

Having properly arranged to have this thread moved to the New York forum, I can't understand why people aren't responding to the original post about Babbo Everyone seems to want to trade "service stories" FireIsland, there seems to be growing evidence of a steady decline in the quality of service at Babbo. This happens to be one of my favorite restaurants in New York (I'm from the UK, so I don't go often) but even I noticed the poor service at the bar last time I went. I discovered Babbo through eGullet eighteen months ago, and I remember that the reports then were without exception enthusiastic about both the food and the service. Reviews this year have probably been 70/30 complimentary/critical of the food and 50/50 complimentary/critical about the service. That must surely mean that the restaurant has indeed declined. Previous discussions here have suggested that they're trying to get too much throughput, and that the owners have been significantly distracted by their new venture Otto which clearly has encountered problems. Whatever the reasons, I find it sad that Babbo has degraded itself. Your experiences were unacceptable for a business that positions itself in the market as Babbo does, and your experiences are in no way mitigated by the fact that sometimes Babbo gets it right.

Well ?

We were a party of three on my one visit to La Trompette. I arrived second, and was shown to a nice table against the wall in the far left corner of the restaurant, where the first to arrive was seated. The table was discreet and comfortable, and would certainly readily enable quiet converstaion and a relaxed eveing. When the third in our party arrived, he immediately disliked the table and (without reference to us) asked the waitstaff to move us. They moved us to a table slap bang in the middle of the restaurant, which our number three thought was excellent. I found the table noisy and less comfortable, and I felt "on view" to everyone. Two of us agreed that we would have preferred to remain where we were first seated. This maybe proves the point about personal preference On a related issue, I went into my local Italian restaurant on Wednesday, where I have lunch about once a week. For the first time ever, my regular table was occupied and I had to sit at another I actually felt quite aggrieved for a while. Just goes to show what creatures of habit we are, and how readily we accrue to ourselves rights of possession

There are two fundamental questions at issue here, and no-one (including the legislators) has a satisfactory answer to either of them. The first is how great is the negative effect on health of passive smoking in places like bars. It is self-evident that it is likely to have a detrimental effect, but the very limited and inconclusive research that has been carried out suggests to me that it's no more detrimental than working in the streets of New York or an airport (exhaust fumes) or working in a bar in New York (hot, inadequate breaks, cramped space, standing too long, noisy, bad lighting). The second is whether or not it is reasonable to prohibit a perfectly legal activity of a minority group (smokers). The answer to that must be linked to the first question. If the health risk is a clearly proven, significant risk, then I could see that could override normal civil liberties. But I don't believe the risk is well enough proven. I have to admit that on balance I am glad this legislation is going through, but I am also aware that it is unjust. I have great sympathy for smokers, who are being victimized, and who deserve better from their elected officials. It is that victimization that is alienating smokers, who in turn react by the type of behavior criticized earlier by Jaymes and Callypigos. And incidentally, in the same way that customers could choose to use a smoking or non-smoking bar, so equally could people choose to work in a smoking or non-smoking bar.

Here's another one from www.WhyQuit.com Nicotine Fruit Juice August 5, 2003 Nicotine-containing fruit drinks could soon be available as an alternative for people trying to stop smoking, says a Los Angeles-based firm which has received exclusive rights to market nicotine drinks. Platinum Products, set up to develop the nicotine beverages, said today it has acquired the exclusive right to United States patent number 6,268,386, and will start making its first products within the next few weeks.... "In our view, the potential and possibilities for this patent are almost endless," said Platinum founder Robert Moore. BeverageDaily.com I'm now struggling to distinguish between this commercial activity and drug-dealing

I'm just surprized at the need for the prefix co-

This is definitely not the case. The mouth lining absorbs nicotine at a hugely higher rate than any other part of the respiratory system. I don't have the research figures to hand, but I believe that a smoker who doesn't inhale at all will absorb 90% of the nicotine via his mouth that an inhaling smoker will absorb. If I can find the research, I'll post a reference. This link (to a "quit smoking" website) has a discussion of the Nicotini cocktail (in the second post) and also news of an unbelievable new produict --- nicotine water which has finally destroyed what little confidence I ever had in the US FDA

I bet that Majumdar bloke even eats whitebait without filletting them first Hollow eyes and rictus grin indeed

Matthew, please try to remember where you are. There is no place for such misguided pedantry in the UK Forum. Thank you.

No, what you mean is "traditional", not "good". Good food is what tastes good, not necessarily what tastes like what you remember from your childhood, or what your great-grandmother used to cook, or what tens of thousands of other people happen to like.

Well I made it 4,172 words, so I guess that was the full version after all Classic piece of Lxt, I think. A joy to read and savor I didn't even mind the liberty of the imaginary fog shrouding Big Ben at 8pm I thoroughly enjoyed my one visit to the Fat Duck, but having read that review, I just realized I enjoyed it even more than I thouight at the time. Incidentally, I also bridled at being spoonfed that mushy potato thing, which was universally disliked (both the food and the feeding process) by those who went. Maybe it's time Heston had a rethink about that.

we've had a thread or two on this (recently even). if you want a poll of experts, perhaps we should voice our opinions. cursory reading of this thread suggests to me that this particular group of experts thinks that a good website is a good thing, and might even be a part of the decision to visit a restaurant. also, an expert just PM'd me, and another emailed me agreeing with me. so there you have it. i'm right. Indeed you may be right (just this once) Tommy, but that still wouldn't make Amex right You see, you just said "... a good website is a good thing, and might even be a part of the decision to visit a restaurant" whereas Amex said "... a really informative and innovative website would ... prompt them to return more often". See ? Geddit ? I agree that a good website might encourage me to try a place for the first time, but the idea that having actually been there then the website would be more likely to encourage me to return sounds like crass nonsense to me And on the second point, would you be persuaded to "exceed your price range" just because the restaurant had a good website ? Incredible !!! Of course that is an entirely hypothetical question, since we all understand that the restaurant has not yet been opened which exceeds your price range

My general view is that Amex's conclusions were extravagant. Obviously we have no idea how many people they surveyed, nor what kind of people. More importantly, we have no idea what question they asked, nor how they interpreted the answers. My limited experience of Amex suggests they know little or nothing about conducting surveys. I instinctively discount the possibility that one could assign any truth to the results that "Three out of four respondents said a really informative and innovative website would increase their loyalty to a restaurant and would prompt them return more often. One third said a good website would encourage them to book at a restaurant that exceeded their price range." Both such positions seem to me extraordinary, qualitatively and quantitatively. On the wider issue, I do believe that : A high quality website will be of value to a high quality restaurant Lesser restaurants probably shouldn't bother No website is better than a poor one

Thinking about this comment from way back a bit more, it occurs to me that it doesn't really explain the situation. If I ate half of what was on my plate, I'd lose weight. I could cook the same things, eat at the same restaurants, etc., and be fit and trim. The problem is simply that I eat more than I should. You eat more than you "need", meaning simply that within the context of your genetic body size and type you ingest more calories (or some such units) than you burn off through metabolism and activity. Assuming that you haven't changed your eating habits, or your activity levels, why hasn't your weight continued to increase ? As far as I can see, the only reason your weight has stabilized is that third factor --- metabolism. It seems to me that as people gain weight, their metabolism compensates by operating internally to increase calorie burn. There comes a point when the process levels out, weight becomes stable, and the body has adjusted to deal with that weight. I would suppose that this is a natural process, and I have always believed that different people are genetically "designed" by nature to adopt different body weights. Of course there are health problems associated with obesity, but there are also health advantages. And there are health risks associated with thinness. Society is so preoccupied with obesity, that it almost ignores these last two issues. The term obesity has become badly overused and misused by the medical profession, and by the health industry. I do support the concept of educating people on the health risks of obesity, and of bad diet, and of lack of exercise. I disagree with FatGuy when he says that we don't have sufficient facts to carry out such education. I agree we don't know everything we need about what constitutes a "healthy diet", but we do have some general pointers on issues such as variety of diet, vitamin function, protein biology and so on to give people a general (although inconclusive) education; more important, we do know enough about what gross overweight can do to people's health at least to make people aware of the need for them to think about diet and exercise. But I also think the net of "obesity" is being flung far too wide. I understand that Arnold Schwarzenegger is classified as obese by current medical standards, and that's just foolish. In my view, a proper definition of obesity has to take into account the genetic predisposition I talked about earlier. Some people are designed by nature to be "fat" and I think we tamper with nature's intent at our own risk. Some of my best friends are "fat" and their whole personality and character is colored by that fact. That's just another example of "nature's rich variety" and we should cherish it.

OK, now I wanna see a post by Andy, otherwise we will not pay the ransom. ... and no forgeries, it has to be in his own handwriting, and of course in his own entirely inimitable style ...

Oh, he must have just left one at the hotel

There are ? In the UK I mean ? None that I've read about On the substantial issue ...

I just want to dive in here to beg you Noo Joisey folk to take good care of young Andrew, and to ensure you return him in the condition in which he arrives That talk of taking him into Newark filled me with dread

Ciao Alberto Just to clarify, I am only saying that the principle of AOC/DOC is foolish in the context of generic food types and names. It's perfectly sensible for trade names, or for the specific products of individual manufacturers. But the idea that a "Pizza Napoletana" is sufficiently way definable or definitive to come within such a scheme is (in my view) crazy. On the second point, I have had many "unofficial" VPNs in the last few years --- in Taormina, in Sorrento, and even in my local Italian restaurant in West Wickham These are quite verace enough for me, thank you very much Since I live in the UK, I'll have to wait until I get to New York in August before I try a VPN; and if I can find one, I do promise to try it. My expectations aren't high, because I believe the great American pizza (good examples of which I thoroughly enjoy) is fundamentally different from a true Italian pizza. The only place I know of that offers a VPN is Otto (?) and my one pizza experience there was such that I will not be trying it again

The success or otherwise of the AOC concept for pizza will be judged by the market, just as a few people have already commented, because this is nothing other than a marketing mechanism. The concept has no appeal to me, and I can't help but smile wryly when I see it referred to (at Otto for example) but then it does me absolutely no harm. If I had to make a forecast, it would be that the idea will gain force for a year or so, and within five years it will have disappeared. What is wrong is to link the AOC notion to consumer protection or information. Unless all AOC pizzas are made by the same company, merely stipulating generic source of ingredients, approximate recipe, and basic rules for cooking method are absolutely not going to guarantee the consumer he knows exactly what he is going to get ... apart from "a pizza", that is. The variables even when following the regulations being laid down are so huge, including not least the skill of the cook, that the consumer will know no more under the VPN scheme than he already knows from reading the menu, or asking the server, or experience. I also believe that the value of AOC in maintaining for posterity "authentic" methods of food preparation are foolish. As Fresco already said, that's a job for a museum, not a restaurant. Incidentally, I suddenly realize I know Fresco's brother, Al. There positively is no such thing as "the authentic Neapolitan pizza". Alberto has already pointed out that in Naples you can find a dozen different Pizze Napolitane, as different from one another as a Napolitana is different from a Veneziana. And in Sorrento, maybe ten miles away, you'll find another dozen entirely new variations. Authentic is of no value to a person who enjoys food. Delicious is of value, authentic is literally for tourists. If you knew the "authentic" way to make sausages, you'd probably never eat a sausage again. Modern practices of hygiene have made authentic illegal, and rightly so. The "authentic" way to make Pizza Napolitana depends on all the ingredients being produced in Naples. But nowadays, with the ingredients (even under the VPN regime) coming from all over the world, the "authentic" recipe and method of cooking will not produce the same tasting product it "authentically" did, and may well produce a poor-tasting result. It would be sad to see the VPN regime gain too much credence, since this may create a cartel working against the interests of consumers, and could also be used as an invalid excuse for increasing prices. But as long as it remains a marginal entity within the industry, I shall continue to smile wryly and avoid VPNs on the menu.

And the nice thing about being a dictatee is that nobody knows whether or not I'm ignoring your vote

Ahhh, those would be the "Berkshire Tourist Peas" you had. Aboriginal Brits learn at an early age to avoid those "bright green" ones that can cause much gastric and hallucinatory unpleasantness. Hope you're still feeling OK, Holly The best peas, of course, are to be found at St Johns.

If I were you. I'd wait to make sure I got thru immigration first