macrosan

Glyn, I think you've been away too long ;) I've never heard a Brit pronounce valet with a the t sounded, and I've never heard a Brit pronounce filet mignon with the t sounded. All Brits pronounce fillet with the t sounded (as it should be for a derived word).

John, I loved your post, I think your approach is dead right, and I admire your attitude toward what you do and how you do it :D But you forgot to answer the question :( and now I'm particularly interested in your answer ;)

Absolutely agreed. This has been a big issue for me for years, both because of the smoking problem, and also because of the comfort and privacy issue. My wife detests the smell of smoke, and will not eat in a restaurant that doesn't have a no-smoking section. We recently went to Cyprus where there is no such thing as a no-smoking section, and would only eat outdoors. We will never go to Cyprus again. Similarly, we have always had a problem eating in France where even those restaurants with alleged no-smoking areas are just paying the concept lip service. Last year we ate in a restaurant in Le Touquet and were seated in the no-smoking area. We finished our hors d'oeuvres and the guy at the next table lit a cigarette. I asked him to put it out and he shrugged. I asked the waiter to ask him, and the waiter shrugged. We left the restaurant, I told the maitre d' that I wasn't going to pay for the food we'd had and he shrugged. Very Gallic The issue of comfort and privacy is a more common one in the UK than the smoking issue. I will not go back to any restaurant (of any class) where I felt uncomfortable. For example, I will only go to Rules in London if they guarantee an alcove table (sometimes they will, sometimes they won't). One of the things I really liked about Petrus and Foliage was the spacious setting of the tables. Restaurants set their prices commercially to achieve a profit based on their costs, and in expectation of certain revenue. They can set a higher price and have less tables, or a lower price and more tables, then they let the customers decide whether or not they like the result. That is in no way different from the quality of ingredients, or the staff ratio, or any of the other elements that go to make up the style and quality of a restaurant. I'm the customer, I'll make my choice, and if the restaurant gets the mix wrong it'll go out of business. What I object to is the 'creeping cramp' syndrome where a restaurant little by little squeezes up its tables in the hope that customers won't notice. That happened in a local Italian restaurant I frequent. They used to have about 15 tables for four, and a couple of months ago we went there and I immediately noticed that next to three of those tables they had added a table for two, about 12 inches apart. They asked us to sit at one of those tables, I refused, and we went over the road to another Italian restaurant which is now our new 'regular'place.

Oh boy, I have to wonder at what experience you've had :o whilst (of course) continuing to respect you :) The French and the English (generally) pronounce it mar-kee. How do you pronounce it ?

OK Fat Guy, I'll take the quiz. 1) I think BeachFan has this right. The restaurant price is their statement of what we should expect, and is set relative to the dining market, not the wealth of an individual diner. So actually my expectation of them is a mirror image of their stated expectation of themselves. Therefore, my position on demanding excellence would not change if I was filthy rich. 2) I have had two flawless meals out of two at Babbo. But I think flawless is too high a standard to set in a quiz, because flawless is too rare to provoke a meaningful response. I'd suggest unimpeachable. I've had 100% unimpeachable for more than 3 meals at maybe 5 or 6 high-class restaurants. 3) Again, I'm with BeachFan in saying that the customer can influence the restaurant, provided the waitstaff are good. In other words, by establishing a mutually respectful and constructive contact with the waitstaff, the customer can get better advice on what is good/bad today, better information on whether or not he will like a dish or a wine, the style of service he prefers, and maybe even get the chef to perform better. But to achieve this, the waitstaff really do have to be good ! 4) This is my worst thing. I hate complaining face to face (not my general personality) although I love to write complaining letters. I know I have to get better at it, and I'm trying. But absolutely, a restaurant's response to a complaint (oral or written) is probably more important that their ability to avoid errors in the first place. Despite my earlier comment about aeroplanes, of course I accept that errors can be made, and these are often "cog in the wheel" errors which are not representative of the attitude of the establishment as a whole. The response to a complaint is always representative of the corporate policy. I will almost always forgive and forget a cause for complaint if the reponse is as classy as the number of stars. In this respect, I got a great response from Chez Bruce in London to an indirect criticism of a dish I had there (posted on eGullet) and will definitely return as a result. By contrast, an oral complaint, followed by a letter, to Smith & Wollensky produced a very bad response, so I will never go back. 5) Don't know how many great restaurants there might be anywhere. The word "great" grates on me as a defining adjective, and don't like the pigeon-holing process. 6) Well moved ! What's the prize for coming out top in this quiz?

I don't accept that as a principle, Wingding. The main reason aeroplanes cost a huge amount of money (I believe a 747 runs at about $50million) is that they have to engineer out human error, and that costs a disproportionate amount of money. The first 97% of accuracy level takes up about 40% of the manufacturing cost, the next 1% costs a further 10%, the next 1% a further 20%, and so on. So cost increases exponentially with required level of "error free performance". Same applies to cooking. The actual direct production cost of a meal at a $100 restaurant will be maybe twice that at a $25 restaurant. The other $50 difference then covers artistic excellence and the error-free guarantee. And to save anyone asking, I confirm that I would also not fly again in any aeroplane that failed to fulfil its error-free guarantee.

I guess one of my definitions of a "top restaurant" is one that never makes a mistake. That's one of the things that you pay extravagantly high prices for. A $25 price tag buys a restaurant two more chances, $50 might buy it a second chance, but a $100plus price tag gives them one shot only (that's food price only, folks !!!). And my definition of a mistake in the $100 category is not just a provably bad meal, it's anything less than an excellent meal, or excellent service, or excellent comfort. Incidentally, exactly the same rule would apply if I had been going to the restaurant regularly for years. In the restaurant industry, I believe the customer has finally become King.

On that basis, Tommy could think of it as "Tommy-west" with the "Tommy" silent....... ...oh no, of course he couldn't, there's no such thing as a silent Tommy, silly me ......

Danishly profounded, I hope and Surely you mean literal culturacy,Steven ?!?!? Macdonalds are indeed consistent. So consistent, that I know I never need eat there in the hope of finding acceptable food. In the UK, one chain I do think is good is Pizza Express. The only other that I get food from is KFC, although I get the impression that their control over their franchisees is looser than it once was. My recent experiences (at two different locations) was of lukewarm food, greasy fries and a general unkempt-looking establishment. I have crossed them off my list until further notice. But yes, I did try all their new offerings (like spicy shicken, nuggets and so on) but always returned to the original finger-lickin' chicken.

Tom, I did what the Fat Guy suggested (it definitely pays to do that around here) and read the excerpt from your book on his website. What struck me about it was that I could understand what you said (your explanation of the principles of use of fire and water) and it occurred to me that if I ever take up cooking, that is the kind of explanation of principles that would help me. Is your book aimed at beginners, or experienced cooks, or afficionados ? ...or none of the above ?

Adam and Tony, I think you now have this right. The French are resistant to outside cultures, and particularly British and American (viz. Charles de Gaulle and his banning of English words from the French language). The French need precision and correctness in all things, and particularly protocol and custom (viz. their extensive, almost obsessional, codification of food and wine). I don't say this is wrong, and I actually approve of much of this attitude. But right or wrong, I do recognise that it exists. The British attitude is more relaxed, more tolerant, more flexible, more susceptible to discussion and evolution. Maybe we're more self-confident about our future, maybe less fearful of foreign culture, because we haven't been invaded for a long time. It seems valid to say that the French have a "right and wrong" attitude towards food, wine, and all the ritual that goes with them. It certainly is valid to say that the British don't, except for the Francocentric gastronomes who are bound to follow the French tradition in the field of cuisine. It would maybe be right to describe the British view of cuisine as pragmatically eclectic. We are not afraid to acknowledge that Chinese food, say, tastes as good as British food, and if it happens to be much cheaper (which it was when it was first introduced en masse to Britain) then of course it would significantly supplant British food in terms of restaurant population. And why not???? I would not wish British cuisine to continue to exist as a historical curiosity. I do not need to count British restaurants or British 3-star chefs as a means of boosting national pride. I just happen to prefer Chinese cuisine to British (and French and all other) cuisine, and I just happen to enjoy eating the food I like best. I guess I'm not alone in Britain, or in the USA, judging by the proliferation of Chinese restaurants. One day, perhaps "Lamb cutlets with bean sprouts and soy sauce" will be thought of as British cuisine. But actually I don't care, so long as it tastes good. Edit Disclosure: I edited just to see if that would return this thread to its rightful place at the top of the board. It didn't so I'll have to try direct action instead

I am still struggling to believe that anyone other than Steve would say such a thing :wow:

Never thought I'd live to see the day

Wilfrid, it seems obvious to me that Tutti Frutti is Steve P's alter ego when he's on the road. Surely no two human beings on the planet could share these views :wow:

These sound like what my mother (Litvak) called "bubbelehs" and my wife's mother (Polack) called "latkes".

I guess the reason for this is that for meat to be kosher it must contain no significant blemishes, specially bruises. A bruise contains congealed blood which cannot be removed by salting, which renders the meat non-kosher. I suppose that any trapped animal is likely to be injured in the process.

I guess the bottom line is that the only objective people in the world are Plotnicki and those who agree with him Is that an objective statement ?

OK Fat Guy, I spotted it. Nice job

Hey, did I forget to Copyright that ? C March 2002

When I order a take-out from my (excellent) local Chinese restaurant, I always order a dish of Five Spices Chicken Wings, put it in the fridge, and eat it next day cold. I have had it hot, but it's actually much better cold. The sauce seems to get thicker and tangier, the sea-salt crystallises on the surface, and the texture of the half-fried wings is chunkier.

OK, I'll respond (again) to that statement. It is nonsense to suggest that in France and Italy, the government viewed good food as a social benefit. It may or may not be true that in the UK and in the States it is viewed merely as an industry, but I am inclined to accept this premise. Do the Israelis have great fruit and vegetables because the government made a concerted effort? Absolutely not. Did the Israeli's do it because historically Jews have eaten well? Absolutely

What a great way to absolve oneself from the responsibility of :- a) having to state an argument in clear language ; b) having to respond to debate ; c) having to admit that one has changed one's position in the course of debate.

My private cook (she who must be obeyed) always does the trad Ash thing. We have two married daughters, who learned from their mother, so guess what... they do the trad Ash thing. But a few years ago the whole family went to Israel for Pesach. We stayed at a hotel in Herzlia, and had a private room for a family seder for 34 people. The deal was we got to choose our own menu! The food was Sephardic, and it was fantastic. I can't remember the details, but you'd have been happy to recommend a Michelin star. The (Israeli) wine was also very good. Now that's what I call hardly knowing it was Passover.

Suvir, that's a very profound and thought-provoking post, and I agree entirely with the philosophical foundation. But why do you have to keep introducing the American propensity for self-deprecation ? If there is one thing that regularly infuriates me about the American psyche, it is that diffidence about saying firmly "We say we are right, and we will brook no argument to that thesis". Examples in your post are "We [America] have given the world a lot. Have we shared it the right way? No." "What is shared [by America of its culture] is only PR driven" "While France, India and China and other old nations may not be on the cutting edge, they will certainly have victory over the US in having lasting successes" America's tolerance for innovation is an inherent and essential part of its culture, and its success. Why should America need to ape the 'old world' principles of what is good or bad, of value or worthless ? Why should America feel the need to justify its cultural precepts in the language of the 'old world' ? Come to that, why is it America's responsibility to actively share its culture with others ? I have said earlier in this thread that I believe the influence of French cuisine on the cuisines of the world will last for a thousand years. But so what? Where is the value to humanity in that? Well, there is a value only if people find a value, repetitively, century after century. If people look at the fundamentals of French cuisine and say "That is good, and I wish to take advantage of it", then that is indeed value. But if the reason for longevity is simply that no better alternative is available, or people have become too lazy to seek alternatives, or people are afraid to resist the 'old guard', then the effect is simply stultification. That is true of cuisine, and also of culture. America has 'invented' many new forms of food. The various "fast foods" may not stand the test of time unless someone comes along to improve them. But the variations on the 'old world' ethnic cuisines, such as Chinese and Japanese and Italian and French, which have developed in the USA over decades may well become the haute cuisine of the future. It is interesting that Babbo (my favorite NYC restaurant) is regularly described on this site as an Italian restaurant. As a regular eater in Italian restaurants, in the UK, Italy and USA, I have to say that I would never have described it as such. Of course I detect it's Italian roots, but for me the cuisine is so far, and so innovatively, derived from Italian that I would describe it as an American restaurant. The same principles are true of Gramercy Tavern, which does indeed bill itself as an American restaurant. What I am saying is that I believe America makes a mistake in accepting the language and philosophical precepts of the 'old world' to define itself. America has defined whole new concepts in its own culture and cuisine, and should refuse to argue its case in others' terms. SteveP started this thread by implying that the influence and relevance of French cooking (to the rest of the world) is continuing to wane. I agree with that proposition. That is nothing to bemoan, any more than the death of an old tree in your garden --- PROVIDE THAT you know someone is planting new trees. That someone is most likely to be America.

Hey, Plotty, I cry foul !! First off, Wilfrid speaks for himself and I speak for myself. My posts are copyright to my argument, and may not be used as a counter to any other argument without my express written permission. Second, just because I maintain English bread is superior to French bread (which it is because it is) doesn't mean I believe pre-1980s British food was any good. In fact I made quite clear in an earlier post in this thread that I believe it was crap.