Wilfrid

Pommeau sounds very like something which used to be - and probably still is - on sale in England under the generic name 'Pommagne'. A sort of slightly sparking apple cocktail, indeed. And then, of course, there's perry and pear brandy (which is different from Poire William, of course), but that really is for another Board.

Okay, Bux, I am with you now. Yvonne, I am glad your husband got the marrow, and you have reminded me I must re-post my question on the Cooking board about how to make large quantities of reduced sauces! Someone must know.

Sorry, Bux. I think you were agreeing with me about the mead, but concentrate as I might I can't see what the cider nomenclature problem is. Unless Cider is a small town in Calvados.

Being a Liebling lover, may I weigh in belatedly with a clarification? I expect you are thinking of Liebling's reflections in "Between Meals", where he asserts that dining in France after the Second World War was in decline when compared with the meals he had eaten there in the 1930s. He certainly seemed to think his early years in France provided stellar eating. I do wonder how reliable such memories are? I enjoyed wonderful meals (at least I thought so) in France in the late 1970s/early 1980s. Recently I have often found myself thinking that little restaurants in Paris and elsewhere are not what they were. Sure, things change. But perhaps we shouldn't overlook the possibility that we change too. It's quite possible that something which thrilled my expectant 18 year old palate would make no impact on my old, jaded tastebuds today. My standards have been inexorably raised by experience, and I just don't think I can make an obective comparison between a meal I ate ten years ago and one I eat today. Sorry to hear about these bare larders and empty refrigerators. I usually have something lurking in the confit jar for a rainy day.

Yvonne, did your husband's steak come topped with a slice of beef marrow? I fell in love with GT on my first visit - when I told them how much I loved the little disk of marrow, they brought out a whole side order of marrow for me to wallow in. Fat city! Venison seems to be a tricky one to get right. The best I've had in a restaurant this year was at San Domenico - tender but also distinctly gamey. As good was some aged French venison I bought from the French Butcher (Monsieur Carre) on 2nd Avenue between 21st and 22nd, which I marinated and cooked myself.

I found the old JoJo's to be solid in both food and service. I wonder if anyone can give a view as to whether the menu has changed much?

Interesting to heare that mead can be had from Harvest Wines. I'd never seen it in the States. Being pedantic, I shouldn't have thought it was right to call mead "a dessert wine", as it doesn't contain any grapes. Essentially, it's a fermented honey drink. And very nice it is too.

One thing I learnt from this thread is that "shepherd's pie" is probably the hardest English dish to spell. I am English, with some Irish family, and have never heard it suggested that shepherd's pie originated in Ireland (although I am sure it's available in the Republic as well as throughout the UK). I do miss English or Scottish black puddings terribly; can't get a really good one in New York. The other great delicacy - if that's the right word! - of British cuisine must be savoury pies. Pork pies, gala pies, steak and kidney pies, chicken and mushroom pies, Cornish pasties, sausage rolls. And don't forget Scotch eggs.

'A Drinking Life' by Pete Hammil. Yes, tommy, I know and love it. I would recommend just about any novel by the alcoholic English author, Patrick Hamilton, but especially The Midnight Bell (first book in the 20,000 Streets Under the Sky trilogy); and Iris Murdoch's Under the Net has a fabulous drinking session/hangover description. Also amusing, if you can find it, is a slim volume by Kingsley Amis called Everyday Drinking. It is a collection of newspaper columns, allegedly written as wine/drink reviews, but revealing at every turn - and often hilariously unwittingly - the chronic alcoholism of their author. Example from memory: "Carlsberg Export is a splendid drink. The only problem is that, after a few, one does tend to fall over. I find you can get a longer run by cutting it half and half with their Pilsener." And so on.

On this point I would disagree, as I think what is intriguing about this thread is the way in which the question is being very thoughtfully analysed; I don't think it really matters who "wins". Otherwise, I am sympathetic to the general theme of your post, and value the multi-ehtnicity of my home town, London, and New York very highly. I had a specific question. I am surprised you find the Indian and Bangla Deshi communities in New York more integrated than those in London. I won't argue the point. But is that the reason Indian/Bangla Deshi/Pakistani food is so disappointing in New York? There must be some reason. I am bewildered by how poor the food is even in those restaurants which are run by and cater for members of these communities. (Oops, maybe I'm getting into a different thread?)

What a concentration of interesting comments! jhlurie: Sure, but the question is how to weight the restaurants in the different price ranges. Someone on another Board suggested you should forget about the top restaurants when you compare cities, and look at what you can eat on an average budget. That approach, at least, seems wrong. And ingredients? Only one part of the jigsaw, surely. The time I remember being knocked out by the freshness and quality of vegetables was on a visit to Istanbul. Restaurant capital? I think not. I would contend that Germany had meat as good as France - in the case of pork, better - but the meat cuisine doesn't compare. As an ex-pat Londoner, I am with Yvonne on the subject of produce: generally, I think the UK has better vegetables than the States; better meat too in some categories (chicken, game); but I don't know where that gets us with the restaurant question. Diversity: New York scores heavily, as does London (anyone else prefer London Chinese restaurants?). But it seems unfair to downgrade French, Italian and Spanish cities, just because their restaurant scene reflects a rich and enduring indigenous tradition. Fascinating that we can probably all agree on broad rankings: Paris better than Hamburg; San Francisco better than Edinburgh; but get into conceptual difficulties with the question itself when it comes to close decisions. The reason, I suspect, is that however you interpret the question, Paris scores higher than Hamburg. But when it comes to New York versus Paris, you have to point out that each is better than the other in certain respects. This may seem an inconclusive solution, but that doesn't make it wrong. (Philosopher hat well and truly on today. Will be exchanging it for lush hat after 6pm).

Have you thought of taking the door off and replacing it with some temporary insulating material - maybe some asbestos sheeting or something? :cheesy:

Service used to be one of the best things at Quo Vadis, so hopefully that will improve. I am shocked that the portions were so small you had to ask for more. My father used to do that occasionally, much to my embarrassment. That's a serious failing on the part of the kitchen. I know I am going to be in that area in the New Year, so I'll probably check it out.

Robert's question is irresistible, but (as I know from painful experience at another message board) it is extremely difficult to reach agreement on what it means. For some, rating a city's restaurants means taking a broad, suitably weighted look at restaurants right across all price ranges. For others, it means comparing the best dining available in the cities. The truly vexing part of the equation comes when the question of value for money is raised. It is enormously hard to make comparisons of value between cities in different regions, let alone countries, because of all the economic factors in play. Without even beginning to address any of those points, my reaction to Robert's question is: "What is the serious competition to New York?" In my ten or so years of experience dining around the United States, I have not discovered a better restaurant city (no, not even San Francisco). London? I was raised there, and am confident that it is not as good as New York: now, maybe Scottf is right, and if you had a run off between Daniel and Gramercy Tavern on the one hand, and Gordon Ramsey and La Tante Claire on the other, London would come out ahead. Maybe. But that's an extraordinarily narrow basis for comparison. What are the other serious contenders for best restaurant city? Nowhere in Spain I know of. Rome? Milan? Sydney has some superb restaurants, but nothing like as many or as varied as New York. I can't speak with confidence of the major asian cities: Hong Kong, for example? I suppose the most obvious competitor is Paris. The big difference, of course, is that Paris's reputation rests almost entirely on French cuisine. New York's reputation is cosmopolitan. No need to consider Lyons, for example, because if New York is better than Paris, it's certainly better than any other French city. In a nutshell, I would say that claiming New York is the world's restaurant capital is "not obviously wrong". Which is quite an endorsement coming from a philosopher.

How thoughtful, Helena. I like novels about alcoholics, and I hadn't heard of this one. I was in a bar last night called 'Under the Volcano' after the Malcolm Lowry novel. Happily, unlike the alcoholic main character in the novel, I did not finish my evening being shot, robbed and thrown in a ditch. Nor have I got a hangover today. So that's alright.

I have the strong impression, from what Margaret says, that she chose a 'blind' tasting menu, in which you only find out how the muse has struck the chef when the dish appears at your table. Which of course raises slightly different issues than the straightforward choice between a tasting menu and the carte when the dishes for both are fully listed. If you haven't eaten in a restaurant before, and don't have a reliable recommendation, eating a 'blind' tasting menu has to be a gamble based on your overall impression of the place. I can remember two occasions on which I've been lucky. One was a menu at the Auberge de Provence in St James's, London. I haven't eaten there in several years, but in the early '90s at least, I think this was about the most overlooked fine dining location in London. The other fond memory is of a restaurant in Bologne, La Liegoise. A friend and I selected it after peering through the windows and reading the carte. A beautifully decorated dining room, in a turn-of-the-century Chinoiserie tradition (think understated Whistler); reassuringly populated by very well fed and very well off members of the local, middle-aged bougeoisie. We took the 'surprise' menu, which turned out to be a perfect example of classic French cooking spread over some seven or eight courses. I have found the card, and see the proprietor and/or chef was one Alain Delpierre. I wonder if the restaurant is still good?

I am assuming it's no longer anything to do with Stephen Bull, right?

You can have some different and not unappealing experiences with cheese by serving it at different temperatures. For example, we are all accustomed to eating a firm blue cheese like Stilton close to (a little below) room temperature, with red wine or a glass of port. Try it fresh from the fridge with a cool white wine. I am not saying it's better that way, but it does open up new horizons - emphasises the chee's creamy butteriness/downplays the mildew. P.S. Frozen candy bars. Ugh.

Yes, Tommy, and don't forget the kidney pains, hyperventilation, vertigo, heavy sweats and profound - if vague - sense of guilt. I am more convinced by your bong than by excedrin.

Thanks for the Ca l'Isidre tip - I have heard of it but never tried it. I also note Vinya del Senyor. I'm going to have to take a look at it before I know if I've been there or not: I have been to a lot of these places in Barcelona!

Oh, I'll try it. What harm can it do?

I don't know. I find the Henckel knives too heavy. The bolster gets in the way, and the rubbery handles create too much friction. Also, they can't decide whether to be too soft or too hard; they're sort of indecisive and annoying.

Remember, some of us aren't American. (Not that there's anything wrong with it.)

Apart from two late breakfasts at the weekend, dinner is the only meal we might be at home for. Typical week breaks down into one or two restaurants (was two or three before 'baby' arrived), four or five meals cooked, and one night scrabbling around not eating properly (delivery/cans/sandwich). I think of cooking as making a meal from scratch, involving at least some fresh ingedients (some ingredients are going to be pre-prepared). Time is the problem. I work in a busy office, and I am now accustomed to eating dinner around ten in the evening. Shopping is the problem rather than cooking. Once I have the ingredients, I can either prepare this evening's dinner quickly enough and/or start a longer dish for tomorrow's dinner. Sunday is a good cooking day, so it may involve preparing dishes likes stews or braises to eat Monday/Tuesday (tasting all the better for that), or putting meat in marinades for later preparation. I cook around 90% of the dinners we eat. My partner has been known to cook, but seems to feel it's morally equivalent to successfully import home-cooked food prepared by her friends and family (since her friends and family are Dominican, they always cook far more than they need and give the rest away).

I find it hard to distinguish degrees of goodness between well-prepared steakhouse steaks (although there obviously are differences in style). I found the Old Homestead to be perfectly adequate but nothing outstanding. I have eaten their sirloin and filet. I recall enjoying Sparks's sirloin a little more - I wonder if they baste their steaks with butter? Much easier to spot bad steaks. I had a terrible, flavorless piece of meat at Gallagher's once (never went back).