macrosan

I think 8 is the Temple of Balic's Fruit, unless I am mistaken, but what are 5, 6 and 7, pray ?

No, Peter, it was Adam who first used the word "rights". No, Peter, the American customer was invoking his customer's rights which are (in any country in the world) to spend his money on what he chooses, and to ask for what he wants to spend that money on. Italian customers do exactly the same thing, by the way. Some of them also eat well-done steak. An American may choose to follow local eating customs in Italy if he wishes, but he may equally choose not to. It is his choice as a customer. You're wrong, Peter. You can get mostly whatever you want if you have the money to pay for it. I don't know about VWs, but you used to be able to get Caddy fins put on Morris Minis, and you could get Lotus engines put in them. Of course women buy blouses and have them dyed to the color they want. Why on earth not? Of course women buy designer clothing and have the designs altered. No, but I did hear the true story of the billionaire who bought an ocean-going ship and insisted on having it moved to the desert. And guess what --- "no problem, sir" I promise I won't touch your glasses

What you're doing, Adam, is to impose your own taste on that of your friend (either way round in your example). You have never in your life tasted Montrachet with lemonade. How do you know it doesn't taste better than Montrachet alone ? Or better than lemonade alone ? Is your problem related to the price of Montrachet, or it's quality, or its inherent esoteric value? Would you put blackcurrant juice into Moet ?

But he didn't have a sign that said "No Crazy People, Please", which obviously would have sufficed exactly as you suggest, Jinnysan. ...have I been wrong all these years, then, in asking for crumbly Camembert?

In that case, the answer is easy. Dishes have no rights. Darwin's Theory has no rights.

Which year, Adam ? (The Montrachet, that is, not the lemonade) Correct isn't the word I'd offer, because it implies conformity to a social norm, and therefore it obviously isn't correct. But proper or acceptable, absolutely yes. In fact this is only another example of pushing out culinary boundaries. I bet putting mint sauce with lamb, or blackcurrant juice in champagne, wasn't considered proper when it was first tried.

LOL, let's have a United Nations Dish's Rights Week Actually, Adam, I think you're talking about the rights of the chef and not the dish. My view is that the proprietor of any business is fully entitled to determine what he will and won't sell to his customers. If the chef is the proprietor, then it's quite proper for the chef to determine what goes on the menu and how he cooks it. For example, he will decide if he puts steak on the menu, he will decide which cuts of steak he will put on the menu, and he will decide which cooking styles he puts on the menu. If the chef gets the menu wrong, he will go out of business. If he gets it right, then makes changes and puts unsuccessful dishes on the menu, he will go out of business. That's capitalism for you. However, here we have a subtly different condition, which has been discussed at eGullet before, which is this. This Italian chef had grilled steak on the menu, and it didn't say on the menu "Cooked rare only". The chef in this case was throwing a chefly tantrum based on his own view of how a grilled steak should be cooked, and determining his own "palate" as being superior to his customer's. This is at the very least bad customer relations, bad service, and probably bad business. He may well go out of business as a result of his attitude. That's capitalism for you. But I don't think it's a matter of "rights". It's all a matter of business. If the chef really believed that by serving a well-done steak he would tarnish his reputation as a chef, then I at least understand his point of view. But I think he would be foolish to think that. Nico Ladenis was one of the infamous London chefs who used to do exactly this sort of thing all the time, in public, often coming out into the restaurant to scream at customers. He went out of business pretty quickly, I think, once all the voyeurs ran out of curiosity.

See, I knew this was going to be interesting Fat Guy, I agree with the point you make that the "analytical" palate is necessary for the chef, and a different "holistic" palate is necessary for the eater. But both of these are "educated" palates, they're just educated in different things. I don't believe the term "educated palate" has any singular or definable meaning. I love what JD said about this. "... the host has really succeeded if it's a bit challenging for the diner to dissect exactly why the experience was so effective" and I think that's absolutely right. It's almost a challenge thrown down by the chef, and the educated (eating) palate can get pleasure out of participating in the challenge. Having dined with Cabrales a few times, I know that she does indeed revel in trying to analyse the ingredients and cooking methods of every dish she is eating. But even when she fails, she can get pleasure from the total taste experience. Oraklet, is this really true, that women have more refined senses of taste and smell than men ? Or is it an old wives' tale ? Incidentally, I think the biological evidence would suggest that smoking does diminish rather than alter sense of taste and smell. Smoking simply coats the membranes of the mouth and nose with chemicals and tar, which will reduce the effectiveness of cells in the membranes. I suppose those chemicals themselves will retain a taste, in which case they would mask some tastes of food, but I suppose an educated palate would be able to distinguish all the primary tastes. When I quit smoking, I noticed no difference in taste but definitely an increased sensitivity to smell.

The best maitre d' I've encountered was a young Frenchman at Foliage. Easy, friendly style of welcome, no pompous ceremony in looking us up in the reservations list (he obviously pre-checks and memorises names of people booked in the half-hour ahead), took us to our table, introduced himself and the waiter, and made us fully comfortable at the table. He acted as sommelier (this was lunch-time, so I don't know if they have a sommelier at dinner) and was knowledgeable and helpful (and dead right!) with our wine choice. Throughout the meal, he came over with the waiters as they served each course. He stayed there until we had taken our first mouthful, then enquired if the dish was OK. I loved that, because often they ask when you've just about finished a dish, by which time it's too late and in any case you no longer feel like eating when they offer to replace something. Apart from all that, he only came to the table once, when I start to look round to get some more water (that took him 0.73 seconds from the time my head started to turn --- I timed him). Finally, he organised getting our coats as we left, asked us whether we had enjoyed our visit (note visit, not meal) and hoped he would see us again. That decsription was just about my definition of a perfect maitre d'.

Fascinating topic, Toby, on which I find it impossible to reach a clear conclusion, but here are some thoughts. When people talk of a palate, they generally are referring to a combination of several elements (pace Steve P who doesn't understand this). First, there is the element of being able to distinguish the individual taste of an ingredient, and to distinguish it from its peers, which is an entirely objective skill. For example, being able to say from taste alone "This is an apple, and it's a Cox's Orange Pippin from Suffolk". This capability is akin to the wine-taster's or tea-taster's palate. I have no idea of the physiology behind the capability to do this, but it is a trainable skill which becomes enhanced with experience. I would guess that there would have to be some fundamental physiology present before one could be adequately trained. The consequence of this skill is the ability to taste a dish and to detect therein all the detailed ingredients. I am not sure whether the issue of determining ingredient quality falls within what I have just described, or into the category below. Then there is the ability to determine whether an ingredient tastes "good". It is self-evident that the word "good" here has a strong cultural connotation. Many eastern cultures enjoy tastes that are unpleasant to western culture, and I assume vice versa. But within the context of a given culture, there exists some form of consensus of palate as to what tastes "good", and innovative chefs need this ability to create new ingredients for inclusion in dishes. Fat Guy's recent comments on another thread about Kiwifruit are an example of this, in that his palate determines that they are "not good" and therefore would not qualify for inclusion in a meal. I believe this element is partly creative, partly developed thru experience. It's this last one that's interesting, because people can readily cross those cultural divides. Until my 30s I assumed I hated Indian food because I knew it was spicy and I had been brought up on non-spicy food. I then tried one Indian meal, immediately loved it, and have developed from that a general preference for spicy foods which are totally alien to the foods of my upbringing. With exposure to foods from a range of cultures, the borderlines between those different palates are blurring. So what is considered to taste "good" is gradually becoming a universal truth. Is this a subjective or objective element ? I guess it must be objective, because there is such wide consensus, so maybe we just don't yet have the scientific means to measure it. My next element is what is often referred to as "acquired taste". This always makes me feel uncomfortable because the concept seems to me to smack of brainwashing. The process goes like this. Person A has never eaten oysters. He eats one, screws his face up in horror and spits it out. All he tastes is a salty, gelatinous, flavorless blob. Person B is a respected gourmet, and he tells A that it's a great oyster, but A's palate is not yet "up to it". A then proceeds to eat a dozen oysters, forcing them down until he can tolerate them, and at the end, as if by magic, he is agreeing with B that they're great. He has "acquired" a palate for oysters because he has trained his brain to believe that they taste good because B has told him they taste good. The first question is do they really "taste good" in any objective consensus sense, or has A been brainwashed ? The second question is does it matter ? The point about this is that we are clearly addressing a highly subjective element of what is meant by palate. Finally, there is the sum of what we mean when we refer to someone having a "fine palate". This is the ability to make a qualitative judgement of all the elements within a meal, and to judge it. The respected chefs and food writers and critics have this. It seems to me that the all the elements of palate have to be present to achieve this. You have to be able to identify and qualify ingredients, measure their quality, assess whether each tastes good, and understand and possess a wide range of acquired tastes. And then you have to have the creativity and experience to formulate a judgement, to answer what is the most important question for most people - "Does this meal taste good, and if so how good?" - in a sense that others will accept.

Steve, what you're now effectively saying is that you want a restaurant review to be relevant only to professionals (.01%) and not to laymen (99.99%). Good luck with your new commercial venture ...and I did not, repeat did not project any such thing. I challenge you to quote the part of my post that even gets within five light-years of implying that. And when you give up, please remember that when you next fall into danger of misrepresenting or misconstruing what I say. :rap-over-knuckles-smiley-just-to-show-Plots-that-I'm-not-that-cross:

I think you just need to abandon that plural possessive pronoun, Steve. You are obviously wowed by the difficult passages of a concerto and a restaurant. I and many others, I suspect, are simply not. Some composers, notably Liszt and Paganini, deliberately wrote complex and technically difficult pieces, because they were also great musicians and wanted to demonstrate their own playing skills. I guess some chefs also want to create highly complex and difficult dishes so that no-one else can replicate them. I don't admire complex or difficult dishes in restaurants because they are complex and difficult. I admire them only if I like the taste. I don't go into a restaurant to be wowed by the technical skills of the chef, I go in because I want to enjoy a meal. I think your view is closer to the Benihana idiom, where the knife-handling skill of the chef is primary, and the taste of the food secondary.

SteveP, you need to leave your accent alone. Glace (meaning ice cream) doesn't have an accent. Glace with an acute accent means "iced" as in fruits glacees. I'm confused by the question, Fat Guy. Gelato just means ice cream. Are you asking whether people prefer Italian ice cream to American ice cream ? There are as many variations of one as the other. The Italians make soft ice cream and hard, they make it with milk or cream, they create coarse and smooth textures. As far as I know, this isn't a regional issue, it's a "manufacturer's choice" issue. I was in Sicily last year, and frankly I was disappointed with most of the ice cream I tried. Many of the old-style gelaterie who traditionally made their own home-made gelati now seem to be buying in mixes. Certainly their products all looked the same, and tasted the same. They've all gone Dayville. I found exactly the same a couple of months ago in Sorrento, and last week in De Panne in Belgium (traditionally a wonderful region for "ijs/glace") I found the same again.

i wasn't aware of this, and it makes a whole lot of sense. i've seen people actually fight over who was picking up the tab on dinners costing well over a grand, presumably so they could get the points. it's easy to see how this doesn't benefit the employer. Cheap

No Wilfrid you do not have that right. Now I'm going to say this again only once, so please pay attention. The food in England is more expensive because it's better OK ? Got it now ? Right, then I'm off for some kidneys and peapods at St Johns.

That's just silly, Rich. It is, I believe, an obvious fact that some eGullet members do indeed have more sophisticated palates than other eGullet members and "average persons". That's not an elitist position, nothing to do with high altitude or attitude, it's just a matter of fact. What is your problem with that ?

One of the problems, Tommy, is that there have been schemes which encourage people on expense accounts to spend higher prices for goods and services than is necessary just in order to attract premium rates of reward points. For example, some hotels in New York used to offer bonus Amex Rewards points and charged higher than standard rates for their rooms if you wanted to take up the offer. One that came to my attention was charging a 'special offer' room rate of $275 a night to all-comers for a 4 month period. During the same period, you could get 250 bonus Rewards points per night (worth maybe $15) if you paid rack rate of $325 per night. Those are the numbers as well as I recall them. This means that anyone taking the bonus points for himself on an expense account was ripping off his own company to the tune of $35 per night. Incidentally, if you think it's cheap for companies to do what Nina said, I know one medium-sized company that is racking up over one million air miles a year from its employees Amex cards. Not my idea of cheap

I always pay the tip in cash, you *never* know where the credit card tip is going to end up. Most of my friends paid their university expenses by waiting tables - some are still supporting their other careers this way. I noticed in Italy and Belgium that they have a different "custom" from England and the USA. The procedure seems to go like this. The waiter brings the bill, I give him my credit card. He brings back the credit card slip for me to sign, I start to write in the tip amount, and he says "Oh no, sorry, I have already posted the transaction and I cannot add the tip". So I give him cash. Actually, I quite like that. Makes the tipping process more direct, and more personal.

Hah, I wouldn't be so sure My experience is that London is little different in price from any major city in the world. My instinct is that Brussels, New York and Chicago are maybe more expensive than London, I feel that Miami, Edinburgh and Dallas are a bit cheaper. Of course second-string towns like Bournemouth, Rockford IL, Taormina and so on are cheaper. That's a combination of overhead costs and market perception at work. When we had our recent mini-eGullevent at St John with Stellabella, we had an excellent meal for £20 per person, and I thought that was very cheap. I can see where ordering a meal just like a simple home-cooked meal would make you more price conscious, and maybe less willing to pay for the cost of a professional chef. That goes back to prior comments on pea-pods.

I think you may be right, John In fact my comments don't actually request a defence from you. And for the avoidance of doubt, you don't need to comment on my comments on your comments

John, I'd be interested to know what you think a reasonable price would have been for the kidneys (that would have cost you £1 at the market).

Well, she may be, but in that case why doesn't she stick to writing about food instead of making it abundantly clear that she knows nothing about running a business, or accounting, or marketing ? I've read the piece with care, and can find no reference of any sort to publicc ignorance or indifference, and certainly nothing to justify the florid phraseologically florid tailpiece of the above quote. Actually, I found the whole piece rather forced, as though she had cribbed bits of it from here and there and cobbled it together, and surprisingly naive.

Glenn, my answer is an absolute no. Even when I had Amex, I always ate (and bought) at the place I wanted irrespective of whether they accepted Amex. Someone made the point that if you're spending your company's money but getting personal rewards on Amex, then that's a big encouragement to use Amex. That's true, of course, but not necessarily ethical. I believe there is some legal precedent in the UK that says that those rewards strictly belong to the company. And the Inland Revenue in the UK may treat rewards as taxable income. If you look at the real value of the rewards, and measure them against your spend, they often amount to less than 2%. My last Visa card gave me 2% as a cash-back. My current Virgin Visa card gives me rewards valued at about 3-4%.

Jaybee, while you're looking that up, could you also look up "Whom the Gods would destroy they first send to read a Plotnicki thread at eGullet" or something similar. I think it's by Apuleius, or Xenophon or one of those guys.

Is that better than the Wilfburger Special, or is it just more expensive?