Wilfrid

I didn't know that, Simon. I tend not to hang around Leather Lane after midnight.

My report from last night. Word of mouth has certainly got around about this place. I booked way ahead for a Tuesday night 8.30 table. It was not as packed as we had found it when we looked in one Saturday (and decided not even to stay for a drink), but it was pretty full. The raised dining area is behind the bar, and is very compact and tight. It is decorated in blonde wood - beyond ski chalet, it's like being seated in an Anthony Caro sculpture. Service was pleasant, but slightly harried. Busy joint. Delicious olives served in a bowl of oil to nibble and dip your bread. Appetizers: Moroccan squab, very nicely crusted with a range of spices, cumin being the main note. It was halfway to a b'stilla - just needed to de-bone the meat and put it in pastry. It was served underdone, not as requested. You need to make a fuss, I think, if the kitchen is to pay attention to subtle requests which might get lost in the rush. Lobster PLT (pancetta, not bacon). An open face sandwich, plenty of slightly chewy lobster. Not refined but agreeable, and the pancetta, cooked crisp, was a good idea - very punchy. Short ribs in a red wine sauce were utterly delicious - best version I've had in ages. But guess what? they saw me coming and served them ALMOST COLD. Dammit. But I'd risk it again, and the pureed potato was excellent too. Roast duck. Nothing wrong with it, but lacking in flabour. We shared a dessert involving pineapple, vanilla icre cream, and some nice alcoholically-marinated raisins. Beware sharing desserts: they're small. Outstanding reserve 1995 Rioja (Vina Ardanza - spelling?). Bursting with fresh fruit. I've not been to 71 Clinton, so can't compare, but as a general matter I'd say Industry is over-achieveing for Avenue A/B. Too busy for it's own good, but what can they do about that? I'll go again. Fairly priced as well: $147 for two before the tip, which included a $53 wine. There are plenty of bottles on the list for $25 - $30, so you could get out of here for $60/$70 per head. In Manhattan, anything under three figures is starting to look cheap.

I would love to plunge into these deep waters if I wasn't running for a plane shortly. Very interesting. Just a quick question: do you think the higher level processing - in pure physiological terms - is going to be change when someone stops seeing just a duck and sees a rabbit for the first time - in the same picture of course? If the answer is yes, some of Wittgenstein's premises may be flawed. Boy, I wish I could spend some time on this. But then, like most philosophical problems, it's not as if it's going to go away.

You're right, Gavin. You could re-run Wittgenstein's analysis, substituting "taste" for "see". Raises some interesting questions. Say you are eating a dish, and someone says to you, "Do you taste the garlic?" You reply, "I didn't notice it before, but yes, now I can taste it." And of course, Witter's conundrum is that the physiological part of the taste process doesn't change when you "recognize" the garlic in the dish. Actually, a better analogy would be a rabbit dish - say a stew -which has some duck in it which you don't notice at first. Hmm, duck-rabbit stew. Or pate, maybe. Why not?

Ouch, double post, but the one below is the one to read. For no reason, let me give you a line I read this morning: "Isn't truth an idea which traverses a temperament?" Huneker. And I've no idea what it means, but it's striking.

We now have Peter Ackroyd. Not fancy enough for you? And I think you'll find that a flaneur strictly speaking is one who throws pies. Tati would be a better example than Baudelaire. I think I'll go for a lie down...

The duck-rabbit. Wittgenstein used it to illustrate the point that "seeing" is a complicated concept. He didn't just mean that we sometimes see the picture as a duck, then sometimes as a rabbit. As I suspected, he was after something more elaborate. He takes the example of someone who is familiar with the picture, but has always taken it to be a picture of a rabbit. When shown the picture and asked what they see, they say "I see a picture of a rabbit." If it is pointed out to them that it might be a picture of a duck, they say: "Ah, now I understand. I now see a picture of a duck." Or "I now see a picture of a duck-rabbit." The conundrum is that what they actually see in physiological terms has not changed. It's the same image delivering the same visual sensation. So what does one mean when one uses an expression like, "Ah, now I see..." when the visual sensation actually hasn't changed? Wittgenstein warns that we must at all costs avoid the notion that there is a kind of mental image which is a twin of the visual image, and that our mind is now seeing the mental image in a different way. One of the consistent themes of Wittgenstein's philosophy is to show that philosophical problems are created rather than resolved by positing hypothetical mental content. He goes on to suggest that there are uses of the expression "I see" which have more to do with imagination and interpretation than the physiological experience of sight. Well, there you go. Please address all questions to Lord Quinton at Oxford University, who gets paid for waffling about this stuff.

Hmm. I may well have dumped too many in the pan at once, thus reducing the temperature. I'll have to give it another try. Thanks.

I think Tommy may be able to explain those. Just don't step in them.

Soba, if I may be so informal, when sauteeing bay scallops, do you have a problem with them giving off a lot of liquid? That rather put me off cooking them in that fashion, but maybe I was doing something wrong. Enjoy your crabs!

Man weisst nicht. Or, one doesn't know.

Horns of a dilemma for me: such circumstances mean I want really good, home-prepared food, but also that I don't have the time or energy to do it. I will eat take-away if I;ve been slobbing around bars all evening, but if I've been working I deserve better. While at the French Butched, I pciked up an order of his home-made cassoulet. That sorts tonight out, and it looks like we have cassoulet weather here in NYC too.

I use the Brasserie line of white dishware at Williams and Sonoma. Sturdy too.

Weekend ruined by work, so only had time to cook something quick last night. A thick, dry aged shell steak from the French Butcher. I put a scrape of butter on the surfaces of the meat, then sprinkled cracked black pepper and lots of kosher salt, and pressed it in with my fingers. A dry skillet as hot as I could get it. The steak had a dark, crunchy seasoned crust, but was still bloody inside. Mashed Yukon golds, with some truffle oil and D'Artagnan's truffle butter whipped in. A chiffonade of arugula to decorate the plate. Followed with the last of the stanser roteli cheese from Artisanal. A bottle of Listrac Medoc, described by Hugh Johnson as stalwart rather than glamorous. Well, this was a stalwart dinner, and good too.

White, always white. Except that I have some very nice Spode plates with pictures of game birds. When I get them out, I often use them just as place settings, then serve the food on white plates.

The best place used to be a little sandwich bar on Great Windmill Street, but after decades of service it turned into some bento box joint. I would now commend the Nosherie, a kosher restaurant with sanwiches to go, in the vicinity of Leather Lane market.

Let me weigh in with Wittgenstein's remark about food - this is doubtless all he would have had to say on eGullet: "I don't care what I eat, so long as it is always the same." No, Liza, he wasn't a stoner. Although, come to think of it, he did like to go to the cinema and sit as close to the screen as possible, and he especially liked cartoons. The only other gastronomic fact I can add is that, unlike our own S. Plotnicki, Witters was inordinately fond of pork pies.

Yummy. I have a dinner booked there in early May, and I am getting excited. Thanks for the report, Cabrales.

I am sure the age factor is at work here, rendering our views largely irrational. Nevertheless, more clarification: I certainly do not judge people by what they wear, nor do I think it should influence the way they are treated - although as a factual observation, it very often does. And I am not at all obsessed with the issue. For me, it's about the aesthetics of the overall dining experience. Take Alain Ducasse NY as an example. A very thoughtfully decorated, rich and stately dining room, with some interesting art works on the walls and even the tables. Diners (if they got in) who wore ripped t-shirts, shorts and open-toed sandals would detract from the appearance and hence the atmosphere. I think it is reasonable to expect people to dress in such a way that everyone's experience is enhanced. (Extreme example, I know, but I guess it makes my point). As I say, that's my preference. I'm not insisting on it, and a fat lot of good it would do if I did! :confused:

Lest anyone have nightmares, I should clarify that when I talked about just buttoning the collar of my silk shirt, I meant not wearing a tie. I didn't mean the other buttons were undone. Shudder.

Mark: Chortle! Gavin: Embarrassingly, I now can't remember what point Witters was making with his duck-rabbit. Doutbless something to do with cognition, but I ought to be able to be more specific. And old Witters rarely had "light" moments - but indeed, it's in either the Invesigations or the Blue and Brown Books, and my copies are at my country retreat in the South Bronx. I'll look it up in due course, although I had planned to stay "in town" this weekend. (Oh, remembering Macrosan's advice, I should alert new readers that there is irony in the last paragraph!)

I have read that several times, and can't see a problem with it.

That trout needs to be eaten. I might go that way again this weekend. The Beloved has announced a new diet, and I am not sure what is in and what is out. Baked trout with a squeeze of lemon might be okay. Of course, I'll smother my portion with butter, cream, bacon, etc, etc.

Thanks for the advice everyone. Since I plan to do some things in DC, I think I'll save the Inn and surrounding area for a later trip.

This was discussed on one of the Cafe Boulud threads, but I think the consensus was tht although Daniel indeed encouraged people to approach the Cafe in a relaxed fashion, he was still attracting the moneyed denizens of the Upper east Side in their suits and pearls. I agree with you that jack and tie is not the only way to be elegant. When it's cooler, I would certainly wear suitable kinds of polo/turtleneck shirts with a jacket, and I have been known to wear silk shirts just buttoned at the collar. I have never had a problem with those variations, as I think jacket/tie is in most cases just shorthand for dressing smart. There are places, though, where you will get wrestled to the floor if you try to take the jacket off.