Wilfrid

I am beginning to worry too. I think we all know what charcuterie is. Why is it one star? The terrines and sausages coming out of the Craft and Craftbar kitchens are amazing demonstrations of skill and good taste. And we´re still waiting to hear where else we should go for cooking of this standard... ???

If the many nights you spent there occurred between 1987 and 1997, Yvonne, there is a chance we know each other - at least by sight. I would like to tell some Norman Balon anecdotes, but someone would then switch the language-censor machine on. He called his "autobiography" "You´re Barred You Bastards2 - I never ever heard him call anyone something as nice as "you bastard". Er, yes, New York. Bux, I envy your memories. The Landmark Tavern is nice, but well out of the way (over on Tenth, right?). Sounds like we might have a regional e-Gullet liquid dinner in the making. (Edited by Wilfrid at 2:21 pm on Feb. 8, 2002)

I have completely got the opposing Shaw and Plotnicki views on Craft, and I have agreed from the first time I went that they should drop a lot of the gimmicks. What continues to puzzle me is the view that the food is pretty much average and what you could get in a load of other restaurants? I am not looking for a long list, but what other non-three star, "bistro"-ish restaurants are serving food of this quality in Manhattan. Especially the sensational charcuterie? I want to patronize them!

Look at the Barcelona thread in Elsewhere in Europe, Bux, and all will be revealed. I am venturing out in to the night...

Sounds like a plan!

Are French sausages about the most difficult thing to find in New York in the culinary line. I have asked here and on other boards about andouille, and hunted high and low with no luck. I´ll be amazed if morteau is available.

I´ll soon find out how the area around Ca´LÍsidre is at night, because I am typing this in a small internet cafe just around the corner, and I am about to go and have a look at the menu! I have now lost the address for Comerç 24. Hey, this keyboard let´s me do Spanish accents!

Totally agree with Steve Plotnicki about the gimmicks. Am still wracking my brains for "bistros" as such where the food is as good. Sorry about the repeat postings - my PC was giving me weird signals everytime I tried to post something on Wednesday. May have happened on other threads too.

A subject after my own heart, Yvonne. I won´t list the bars I´ve tried in New York, or we´ll be up to fourteen pages before you know it. General comment: My biggest beef when I first started looking for good pubs here was the lighting. Generally there isn´t any. It may be that Americans are historically ashamed of drinking! Sure, there are dark pubs in Britain, but also many which either have decent sized windows or don´t mind paying the electricity bill. The darkness of many bars makes it hard to just drop in, pick up a newspaper, or read a few pages of a book over a quiet drink. There´s really not much to do except hunker down over your glass and start chugging. Loud music doesn´t help the relaxing and socialising, but pubs in Britain are not innocent there either. Also, why do men have to shout when they´re in bars? I understand there need to be bars for students, but there are too many bars full of men who haven´t been students for years, re-living their college days at full volume. Specifics: There are some old New York bars which have an ambience similar to a pub, but you have clearly tried the best of them. The Old Town Bar is at least long enough to give you a fighting chance of getting a bar-stool. The only way to approach McSorley´s is to go at off-peak hours, like morning or mid-afternoon; it is a bar of profound interest (indeed with a funny smell) but no longer useable most of the time because of the crowds. If I ran it, I would ban everyone under my age! Cedar Tavern - zero atmosphere I agree - but have you tried another Village bar with tenuous and indirect connections to its Bohemian past? For years it was called the Lion´s Head, and it´s a walk-down on Christopher Place. Last time I looked, it had become the Monkey´s Paw - maybe the name has changed again - but it wasn´t a lot different inside. DBA is about the best I have seen, both for beer and for a wide range of spirits - but it´s basically just another crowded bar apart from that. For an interesting choice of beers, try The Room on Sullivan (or is it Thompson?). Not a pub - it´s a small bar with dark lounge attached, but the beer/cider list is good. They don´t have a spirit license. I would never suggest anyone eat in Sardi´s, but there are two bars with some quirky charm, the "snug" as we Brits would call it, downstairs and to the left as you enter, and a larger bar upstairs. Most of the barmen have been working there for decades and have a good knowledge of theater trivia. Try not to go just before or after curtain time. There are some very interesting relics of Broadway to be found drinking there: also, huge bowls of free salted peanuts. Finally, the best bar in Manhattan, and a place I often think of as home: Jimmy´s Corner on 44th between 6th and 7th. No frills. Bar narrower than a subway car leading to a few tables at the back. Boxing photos everywhere. Last year´s Christmas decorations. Big-hearted owners and sweet staff. Smoky and beery. Closest I´ve thing I´ve found to the Coach and Horses in Soho, London - except the people running it don´t hate you. I hope we get some input from native New Yorkers.

Maybe the menu is subject to change. I have been having lousy problems with eyesight and new eyeglasses recently, but don't recall having problems with that menu, as I am sure I would have done if it had been as you described. Anyway, I agree: let's have legible, non-patronising menus. Yeah, generally I agree about the gimmickiness of the Craft empire - it should rest its reputation on the food, which I think is very good. I would be interested in hearing about some New York bistros which de-bone fish at tableside!

Maybe the menu is subject to change. I have been having lousy problems with eyesight and new eyeglasses recently, but don't recall having problems with that menu, as I am sure I would have done if it had been as you described. Anyway, I agree: let's have legible, non-patronising menus. Yeah, generally I agree about the gimmickiness of the Craft empire - it should rest its reputation on the food, which I think is very good. I would be interested in hearing about some New York bistros which de-bone fish at tableside!

Maybe the menu is subject to change. I have been having lousy problems with eyesight and new eyeglasses recently, but don't recall having problems with that menu, as I am sure I would have done if it had been as you described. Anyway, I agree: let's have legible, non-patronising menus. Yeah, generally I agree about the gimmickiness of the Craft empire - it should rest its reputation on the food, which I think is very good. I would be interested in hearing about some New York bistros which de-bone fish at tableside!

Apologies for the brevity of this, but real life beckons: Steven Shaw, I will concede the points you make about animal behavior; that certainly is not my area. If anyone thought I was denying generally that education takes place, I was failing again to make myself clear. Of course humans (and doubtless animals) get educated about all kinds of stuff. Nor am I denying that we humans have similar physiological make-ups and find ourselves surrounded by "nature". I really do concede all that obvious stuff. And similarly, if someone has suffered brain damage which affects their olfactory/taste responses, I do not consider them a qualified judge in those areas. And yes, Steve Plotnicki, we agree about all kinds of stuff, especially those of us from similar cultures. Sweeping all that aside, I hope, what I was trying to get at was this. The "Plotnicki position" seemed to be that on many - maybe all - questions of taste/critical judgment, there is a position which is correct. And it is correct independently of the admittedly contingent critical criteria which some cultural community might develop. What I have been asking for is a plausible account, under this theory, of disagreements between competent judges, who are not brain damaged, but who perhaps share different sets of critical criteria. How do we know that one side is right and the other wrong, and how do we tell which is which? The "naturalist" position got advanced, but seems to be getting withdrawn in favor of education. I still think my Moby-Dick example is neat, because there you have wildly divergent opinions from groups of intelligent people, from a similar culutre, separated only by time. And I do not find it self-evident that one view or the other is enduringly and absolutely correct. And finally, I wish I'd quoted Steven Shaw's assertion about the relativist position boiling down to "Nothing". I would need more time to attempt a clearer explanation of how I try to avoid relativism, but I have exactly the same sense about "absolutist" positions. Many people sincerely and strongly feel that some of the judgments they make are absolutely and inctrovertibly correct - as a matter of fact about the university, not as a contingent effect of human beliefs - and yet when you ask them what this is based on - and you can take your pick of Platonic Ideas, the self-understanding of The Spirit in history, Husserial self-evidence, or indeed a kind of psychologism or naturalism - a convincing answer is not forthcoming.

Let me too confess, in that case: I couldn't figure out the fresh herb; the overall effect was so unusual (although delicious) I thought at first it was dill. Tarragon, apparently. And thank you for the suggestion; I do like things wrapped in caul fat.

Another quick cheer for Bid. It was pretty quiet on Saturday night, but hopefully that had something to do with the near-impossibility of getting around the East side of town rather than a falling-off of interest. I ate a la carte for the first time. Lobster and sea urchin ragout - lobster fractionally underdone for my taste, but lashings of rich sea urchin. Then a roast guinea fowl which compared well with the excellent version I ate at Craft. The breast here is wrapped in pancetta; an extra delight was the leg meat, braised and sort of pulled (like BBQ, but not that flavor), dripping with a rich stock and accented with fresh tarragon. Completely over the top sticky brioche thing for dessert. Good indeed, and worthy of support.

I just caught this post before actually leaving for Barcelona, so thanks for the list. I am afraid the examples I gave are from '90s tourist guides - admittedly English, which might be the problem.

Lovely snack. When I was at university in Bristol back in the '80s, one of the local pub snacks was a slice of cold blood pudding served on a crusty roll with raw onion. Food which knows it's own mind, as Liebling would have said. I commend my pre-cooking practice as a way to guard against the disintegration of too-moist sausages. I think I used to eat the skins, but now tend to peel them off carefully before the frying stage.

Well, nice to catch up, but I do agree the thread is starting to go in circles. I thought the issue about what Michelin are doing had been clarified and resolved way back: they are indeed using criteria derived from French cuisine as the basis for their judgments of restaurants, and if anyone can think of a practicable alternative to using one clear-cut set of criteria, which would improve the guide - it would be interesting to hear it. Messrs Plotnicki and Shaw are not, I contend, living up to the obligation to explain the thinking behind their views. Mr P did advance a "naturalist" explanation of the basis of taste (or critical judgment if you prefer). I indicated first that this approach had come under attack in the past because, if anything, it threatened to lead to radical relativism - truth of judgments being subject to facts about physiology - and second because it can't account for disagreements over matters of taste. The first response was that there's actually a lot of agreement over, for example, whether roses are prett or whether to drink white wine with fish. Sure, but the challenge is to account for the disagreements which are legion (This goes for the Shaw example of Montrachet v St Veran; it's easy to account for agreements on the "absolutist" view, it's disagreements you need to explain). But in more recent posts, I detect a change of tack. The 'bug eaters' or 'rice eaters' out there are going to need some education before they come to agree with more enlightened value judgments. Well, I would absolutely agree that they would need to come to share the relevant criteria if they are to appreciate judgments made in cultural contexts of which they were previously unaware (I take out the assumption that we are teaching something better rather than just something different). But - whoops - there goes the "naturalist" foundation for the Plotnicki position. If the "correct" judgments of taste come to us naturally, what has education to do with it? Bux put his finger on this, and the Shaw response -which is that some natural things are, in a way, taught - misses the point. Maybe wolf cubs need to be taught how to hunt, but it's not like they have a range of different views on the best way to go about it. When we are talking about judgments of taste in cooking, in art (or indeed moral judgments), and see a wide range of different opinions, I don't think the issue is clarified by the example of animals teaching their young pretty much instinctive behavior, which doesn't really vary significantly in peformance. Finally, I'd like to meet the "averager philosopher" to whom Steven Shaw alludes! Philosophers don't agree on these things, and relativism is not all that popular as a philosophical view. As I mentioned, you've got Plato, Hegel, Husserl, and a host of others on your side. And I thought I explained above that I certainly do not think that every judgment - moral or aesthetic - is equally valid. I have been trying to give an account, which doesn't have obvious gaping holes in it, of how such judgments derive validity at all.

I regret never having got to Meigas, which was definitely on my to-do list. I would certainly have gone back to Virot - I had one pretty good meal there before it closed, but wasn't entirely sure about the decor and setting. I had got to the point with Peacock Alley that I would go there if I was on my own and wanted an expensive but interesting gastronomic experience. The atmosphere was so utterly flat that I hesitated to take anyone who was looking for more out of a restaurant experience than analysing what was on the plate. Personally, I miss Wild Blue. It had romantic memories which will now always be tinged with sadness; and I first went there shortly after it opened specifically to eat the Tuesday suckling pig, which was excellent, and which followed some splendid beef cheeks which my partner stole. (No, I'm not a vegetarian).

I ate rabbit braised in cider with celery, carrots, parsnips and onions. No sense missing a good dinner for a football game.

This all reminds me of the great battered burger served in British fish 'n' chip shops. It's not usually much like a regular beefburger - it's usually more a rather pasty-looking kind of patty - close to Spam - but the important thing is that it is deep fried in the same kind of batter as the fish. Needs plenty of salt. Hellishly greasy. You can get a British-style breakfast sausage fried the same way. I used to eat this stuff when I couldn't afford the fish.

Just read the above, Bux. Interesting comments about Dom's, and I too noticed a palpable lack of enthusiasm last time I was ther (a few months ago) and haven't been back. I had bought cotechino there in the past, and when I asked for it at the butcher's counter, all they could think of was that I meant cappucino and I should go to the coffee counter. Bizarre. They also claimed that they couldn't serve slices of osso bucco, only the whole veal shin! Question: did your boudin come out of the frying pan sufficiently firm? I have had repeated experiences in New York with mushy boudins turning to porridge in the pan. My approach now, which I followed with the French Butcher's product, is to cook it in the oven for about forty minutes, then refrigerate it overnight. In the morning, it is firm enough for slicing and frying. And I agree, they need more pepper. All his stuff his expensive, but these were the only fairly authentic saucisses seches I had found in New York.

And whither Loubet? I followed him from Bistrot Bruno on Frith Street, where I had some extraordinary meals in its early days, to L'Odeon, where I agree the food was initially excellent. Last I heard, he was doing something or other with Moroccan food? But I lost track. Anyone know?

Mention of Le Gavroche in the Neat thread reminded me that I have still never been. When Albert Roux was in the kitchen, I couldn't afford it. I presume his son is still chef? Has anyone been recently enough to comment on whether it's worth a visit - assuming of course that I want an expensive French meal?

Yes, that's a good sign, isn't it. At dB Bistro Moderne, I was offered an amuse bouche and a heap of bread, even though I was eating in a busy bar and had ordered only an entree. Nice touches.