Wilfrid

I just want to set a little brainteaser before I go off and do other stuff. Pasta is a relatively cheap foodstuff because: 1. People don't like it much and therefore won't pay a lot for it. 2. It's not French. 3. It's not interesting to eat. 4. It's made from readily available, inexpensive ingredients. I know some is going to flunk this.

Painfully obvious. Can we just stipulate that expensive restaurants cost more than cheap restaurants? If that's your point, you're welcome to it. We could discuss why there aren't expensive Indian restaurants in New York on the appropriate thread... Back to Italian, there is a price differential, but it's small. The tasting menu at Babbo seems to be about ten bucks cheaper than at comparable downtown French restaurants like Montrachet and Bouley. I wonder why (and I don't believe it's the result of a fine distinction in the merit of the cuisine). I should have thought Babbo would still be full with a $75 price tag rather than $65.

The beans don't get boiled first? I always boil the beans, then simmer them for quite a while before assembling the dish with the meats. Otherwise, I should think the duck, in particular, would have disintegrated before the beans were done. Personally, I wouldn't use a mix of sausages like that in a cassoulet. I understand one might need to resort to Italian sausage if Toulouse sausage is unavailable, but the Eastern European varieties strike me as wrong. Not that it wouldn't be tasty, just a long way from cassoulet. I also advocate adding some chunks of saucisse seche, the very hard, dry French 'salami' - it softens during the cooking, and imparts a distinctly Gallic flavor.

I may as well insert a question here. Say Mario opened an expensively decorated restaurant on 55th Street, about seventy or so covers, tables spaced wide apart. Formal service, flowers everywhere, and the restaurant is branded as the formal flagship of the Mario chain. Anyone think New Yorkers would balk at paying prices comparable to La Caravelle or La Grenouille because the food's Italian not French?

Since this is demonstrably untrue, you might want to stop putting it forth. This is typical of the sort of prices diners pay for food in a mid-level French restaurant in New York. Go compare that with prices at Dawat or Diwan or Shaan*, and remember to order rice or bread and a vegetable with your curry. *Or similar Italian restaurants. We are having the same discussion on two threads simultaneously, which is confusing.

We devoted some time and energy several months ago to explaining to Steve that price was not correlate with quality because of other factors which one might think a marketer would not overlook, such as supply. Not planning to go through that again. No, it's you who have it the wrong way around. The phrase in bold begs the question, of course; we've established elsewhere that you don't know whether excellent versions of Indian food are available outside of your limited experience of the cuisine. Sticking to local parts, I agree there's a limited demand for upscale Indian cooking in New York. Overall, there's not much demand for Indian food at all. That's why no-one has invested millions of dollars to launch an Indian restaurant which would compete at the three star or even four star level. It would be a very speculative investment. Now, there's some instruction in market economics for you.

Thanks. I suppose a crate of maraschino might be a little cloying, right?

You are correct about France, Balex. I may as well answer here the question I raised on the Babbo thread. Why are there no Indian restaurants in New York operating at a high three star/four star (NYT) level; and relatively few in London? The reasons are primarily sociological rather than gastronomic. In New York, diners have had very little exposure to good Indian food at more modest levels. Most Indian restaurants in New York are truly terrible. Indian food is not sought after or valued in the United States outside of a relatively small circle of aficionadoes. There is not tradition of eating Indian food here. It is hardly surprising that no-one has invested the millions of dollars which would be needed to launch an Indian Nobu or 66. That will only ever happen if the cuisine takes hold of the market at lower levels. In the UK, the situation is different. Indian cuisine is enormously popular throughout the country. And, indeed, there are a number of Indian restaurants - not many - operating at what in New York would be considered a three star level. One thing holding back that segment is that many people do associate Indian food with a cheap night out (and French food with an expensive night out). The reasons for this are to be found in primarily in history and society, and indeed in politics, rather than in the kitchen. As Tony's post suggests, one struggles to see any purely culinary reason that expensive, upscale Indian restaurants are a contradiction.

Now I'm having trouble finding maraschino in New York. Any hints would be very welcome.

I think it depends how one frames the question. If travelling just for food means that one doesn't intend to do anything on the trip other than eat, then I (just about) never travel for food. On the other hand, if food plays a key role in deciding where to go, then perhaps I do. Would I go to France if it didn't have the cuisine? Yes, for a number of reasons, but certainly not as frequently. Ditto New Orleans, for example. But food is always one of the things I take into account when deciding where to travel (for leisure, of course; one has eaten very well on business trips, but that's just good fortune). I think there are some pure gastrotourists out there, who languish in their hotel room between meals, poring over menus and restaurant guides. They are missing a great deal.

At least we are reminded not to trust Zagat. Some of those estimates strike me as very low. Which is not to point out a flaw in Steve's argument. I'll do that now. As on the spice thread, he is not comparing like with like. Why does dinner cost half as much at Chola or Dawat than it does at Daniel or Jean-Georges? Because the former two restaurants do not even think of striving to provide a four star dining experience. That is not their proffer. Now, if Steve were to list - as he should - the French restaurants which offer the same level of dining experience as Chola and Dawat (Capsouto Freres, or Rene Pujol, say) he'd find the prices comparable. But he doesn't; he lists four star French restaurants, then pads the list out with midtown dinosaurs which cater to a moneyed crowd who still miss Le Pavillon. In fact, New York diners will pay similar prices for comparable levels of French and Indian cuisine. Similarly, restaurants like San Domenico and Il Mulino are comfortably as expensive as truly comparable French restaurants - Montrachet, JoJo, L'Absinthe, etc. Just to make the invalidity of his argument absolutely clear, consider the following: it costs more to purchase a suit from Versace than it does to purchase a suit from Gap; therefore, people are prepared to pay more for Italian clothes than for American clothes. Simply an invalid inference. Just to help matters along - although this is the wrong thread - the question Steve should be asking is why there don't happen to be more expensive Indian restaurants in New York. I have answers, if anyone cares to pose the question in an appropriate spot.

First, a few additions. Another meat entree was sampled - the suckling pig. Several cuts, including a tiny chop, neatly presented; no crackling, no offal or sausage. Sauced with a demi-glace that bordered on gluey. I enjoy a good tour around a pig, but this dish was significantly less interesting and tasty than a (non-suckling) pig recently sampled at JUdson Grill. A bit anti-climactic for someone who was looking forward to meat. The sundae GJ mentioned offered layers of banana cream, coffee and ice cream; the coffee element was strongly flavored, and pleasantly gritty. It was my favorite dessert. There was also an alternative to the miniature chocolate souffle - namely an orange tart, again with various icy things. As it was the third chilly dessert in a row, my tastebuds had given up. Worth mentioning the good bread; crisp sourdough rolls, and then many slices of walnut bread. The red wine was a young Chinon, and I thought it was everything one could expect from such; light, flinty, quaffable. The mood of the table was against a heavier red. I noticed quite a lot of bottles priced under $60, although the list of cabernets was weighted towards the $300 mark. In any case, our modest wine choices led to excellent value for the evening overall. Pre-dinner glasses of wine were obtained from the Furious Man in the bar; his temper perhaps not improved by our firm rejection of the house's only champagne by the glass. Duc de Sacy? I don't know it, but it was sweet and soapy. The decor has radically changed since the Bouley Bakery days. With the interestingly curved ceiling, rich red furnishings and curtains, and ersatz candelabras, we have a creditable imitation of the kind of eighteenth century chateau-style decor found in regional French restaurants; a copy of a copy, as it were, but I thought it was appealing. There wasn't space for an extra toothpick on the table for six, though. From memory, I thought the dishes had more components than equivalent dishes at the Bakery, but I may be wrong. We took the tasting menu, which at $75 worked out less expensive than ordering a la carte (as I have observed before, it is a myth that ordering a tasting menu automatically identifies you as a big spender; it depends). The main drawback for me was that I found it unbalanced. Three fairly light savory courses followed by three quite substantial desserts (two being unlisted pre-desserts) may suit some palates, but not mine. Since the meat dish was of limited appeal, this wasn't the best meal for me. I found the rouget pleasant, rather than jaw-dropping, but thought the sea bass bland. I completely missed any scallop element; it was a soft rectangle of white fish, with no assertive flavoring. I would go again, but I would order from the carte. I might even request no pre-desserts. Was there any cheese, I wonder?

Oh yeah totally, but in a very mild sort of way. I wondered what it was. Avocado, for me, is probably the worst offender, but a lot of the more common fresh fruits do it too. The inside of my mouth gets slightly sore and tingly, and I get little swellings, including sometimes on my lips. It's not severe enough to stop me eating stuff, and it passes quite quickly. I am not aware of any other allergies, except in adulthood I have become slightly sensitive to pollen. Cool. I got an allergy. Edit: Oddly, I've noticed that tropical fruits are harmless. The more costly the better, apparently.

No, we're still stuck Steve. You're comparing two star (maybe one star and no star) Indian restaurants, where apparently you choose to eat bad food with bold, innovative modern cuisine at the four star level. You might as well compare a tricolor-bedecked bistro on Restaurant Row with Daniel. In fact, that would make more sense. What a waste of time. If you're saying anything meaningful, it's that no Indian restaurants exist above that level. We've told you that's wrong. You're response is, well I've never eaten in them. Indeed not. What can we do for you further?

But capable of spelling the word, Adam, capable of spelling the word.

cdh, you have at least saved me looking. I had it on my list. Not even in New York???

I'm finding all of these at the site I linked to above. Haven't tried the Aviation - I had trouble finding Maraschino last time I went shopping for ingredients, but must have been unlucky. The Floridita sounds like it might need a little practice. I also enjoy the Rob Roy occasionally, which is essentially a Manhattan made with Scotch instead of Bourbon or Rye.

Congratulations to India on sweeping Kenya aside. How did they get that far? I think I shall root for the team which I regard marginally as the underdogs. Also, I am genetically conditioned to root for Australia in sporting events only when the alternative is rooting for Germany.

A Bronx last night, from the same source. Think of a gin martini, made me sweet rather than dry vermouth, but then add orange juice equal to the gin. You may want to vary the proportions if it's too sweet for you.

Thank you for making my point in a less pompous and verbose way. That is exactly why this discussion is stuck in a rut.

I have enjoyed not only eating in your restaurants, but also cooking from your excellent "Nose to Tail" book (out of print?) - I love the tripe terrine and the crispy fried pig tails. I have seen many attempts to characterize your cuisine, but none seem to get it quite right. As someone who grew up in London, I resist the theory that you are recapturing or re-creating a lost British cuisine of the past. Certainly, such ingredients as marrrow bones, tripe and oxtails appeared more frequently on the home dining table thirty years ago than they do today. But your very direct approach to the ingredients; the stark (in a strikingly good way) manner of presenting the food; and your incorporation of elements foreign to British cooking, like snails, slated pigs liver, and so on, make me think of your cuisine as forward-looking. In my view, you offer not traditional British food, but an intriguing deconstruction of a certain concept of traditional British cooking. Am I just talking pretensious nonsense, or do you recognize some truth in this? Looking forward to the squirrel season!

I remember first eating your food in the little dining room above Soho's legendary French House pub. I'd be fascinated to know more about that experience: How did you come to open in such an unlikely space? Was that the first time you served a menu reflecting your distinctive take on British food? How did you find cooking for the somewhat eccentric clientele?

1. Wrong. New York, maybe. In "the west", no. 2. Nothing fits that description, then, other than the avant garde of French haute cuisine, right? 3. I don't know what "globalized" dining is if it's not just dining everywhere - in which case you are indeed wrong, as highly spiced cuisines are hugely popular. Is it the kind of homogenous dining one finds at four and five star hotels around the world? You're probably right there, but it's a depressingly banal yardstick.

Good point. I had long ago forgotten we were in the Media forum discussing an article!

After drinking Manhattans all winter, I just went back to working through untried recipes from Paul Harrington and Laure Moorhead's excellent book. The recipes work, and the historical accounts of each drink's development are interesting. It was one of the books Dale Groff recommended in his Q&A here. I particularly liked the Petit Zinc and the Nicky Finn, which I've been imbibing recently. I despaired of discussing them here, because giving the recipes would infringe copyright, but I had nothing to suggest in the way of changes or criticism. Happily , I see Harrington has a web-site which has the recipes (and full editorial content) from the cocktail book for these drinks and - as far as I can see - a lot of the others too. Just put the names in the search engine. When it comes to the Nicky Finn, make sure you add only a faint splash of Pernod (or Ricard), as if you were adding the vermouth to a very dry martini - otherwise its pungence will take over the drink. Enjoy.