Wilfrid

I think people have said it "can't" modify the taste. In the face of numerous counter-examples, both anecodtal and scientific, they have been unable to provide an argument for this, other than the claim that the taste just is the scientific structure of the food - an argument I showed was spurious. If you're saying presentation sometimes affects taste and sometimes doesn't, then I don't think there's a dispute. If you're saying it can't, you'd better have some reasons.

If members have time and feel comfortable discussing it, perhaps they could suggest ways in which death row cuisine might be sampled by an interested diner. I am assuming that committing a capital offence in order to be sentenced to death would involve some morally dubbious action , and one would be concerned about the possible impact on one's personal life, not to say career. Are there other ways in which members have been able to take in these meals? For example, would there be any objection to posing as a padre, assuming that the appropriate costume could be sourced? It might then be possible at least to taste any dishes not wanted by the main recipient of the meal (one would prefer not to take in "leftovers" for hygiene reasons).

Fancy some Tuna Helper? Additionally: I think most experts would agree that draft Guinness is a more interesting and complex product than the regular bottled, which is not as distinct from other stouts. But people who prefer and are accustomed to a fizzy beer will like the bottled Guinness better. The misguided perception that there is some logical inconsistency between those two claims explains why eGullet needs a big server.

It's nothing to do with how the restaurant calibrates itself. Ironically, presentation is much more important at the kinds of restaurants you like than at those which you view as not calibrated for experts.

I don't find the draft Guinness served in New York to be much different from that served in London. The difference between draft (which the cartridges try to replicate) and the regular bottled is one of mouthfeel. The regular bottled is fizzier and has a rougher, more bubbly head. I strongly suspect that this is a function of bubble size. The draft, while frothy, is very smooth - not really fizzy at all.

Two distinct claims: 1. Presentation can affect someone's evaluation of the taste of a dish. 2. Some people have sufficient expertise to be able consistently to distinguish between taste and presentation. 2. may be true, but does not falsify 1.

I don't mind mildly pointless debates, but this is completely pointless. That certain guide books find home-cooking uninteresting does not imply that no-one is interested in it. That someone is interested in it does not imply that anyone else should be. There is not a right answer to whether anything is interesting or not. The word "interesting" just doesn't work like that in the English language.

I would be if I was responsible for modal logic. I just paid attention some of the time.

You have got the essential point, Jin. And we didn't even have the bread soup.

Some of the arguments being advanced here are fallacious because they are based on a logical error. Lord Michael pretty much spotted it. When it is claimed that since presentation doesn't affect the physical and chemical properties of the food on the plate (arguable, but let it go), and that therefore presentation does not affect taste, the implicit (and sometimes explicit) premise is that the physical and chemical properties of the food (or some sub-set of them) are identical to the food's taste. Without that premise, the conclusion wouldn't follow. A logical rule: Identity statements, if true, are necessarily true.* Call the relevant physical-chemical properties of a dish "A". Call the taste of the dish "B". If A is identical to B, then necessarily A is identical to B (by the logical rule above). It follows, trivially, that it is not possibly the case that A is not identical to B. In other words, that those physical-chemical properties will ever produce a different taste. Since this is clearly false - it is possible to have A and not B (and it doesn't matter whether taste varies through impairment, aberration, strange birth signs, or magic), A is not identical to B. And if that premise is false, the argument that since presentation does not affect A, it cannot affect B is simply invalid. QED. *No time to teach why. See Kripke, S.A. Naming and Necessity.

Could he say "I find it interesting"?

I didn't find one bar at the weekend not observing the law. And I took a fairly healthy sample.

The Lil' Frankie's guys are behind the new Mermaid Inn, right? Anyone been there? Edit: Okay, I see the thread.

Quoting my January 28 post above: "Sparing you a blow by blow account, the only poor dish was the lobster, which was well-flavored but too chewy." Still is. What's the big deal about cooking lobster? As has been said, the other dish which didn't work was a slightly overcooked John Dory with a fruit sauce; apart from the concept and execution, it was fine ). We were offered the option of selecting from the menu or having the chef cook for us. We chose a middle course, requesting two of the signature dishes (the quail praline and the squab and foie gras croustillante), otherwise leaving the chef to improvise. It was an enormous meal, equivalent in length to the chef's Tasting Menu, but with some alternative dishes. Having enjoyed the squab pie more than once, I asked if I could take the oxtail stuffed with wild mushrooms. This was a mound of velvety meat, with the kind of rich reduction GJ would have liked for his pie, accompanied by a rich, creamy parsnip puree. More support for my argument that Atelier is offering food of a robustness which New York four stars generally avoid. Suits me. The unexpected crayfish, morel and porcini casserole was also superb, and completely made the argument that pastry can be a highlight even in an upscale meal; light, puffy, imbued with fragrances from the dish. I also enjoyed the asparagus salad with black sea bass and cockles, which I'd not tried before. I'm sorry we didn't get to the cheese trolley, but I can't really pretend I had any room for it. The sommelier provided the wine pairings, and I hope someone kept notes. Ignoring imnprecations against chardonnay, he successfully paired it with the crayfish casserole. Also, in accordance with our expressed preferences, he dared pair some reds with the fish dishes. Details? Given that the rack rate for the Chef's Tasting is $128, the price of the meal was very fair indeed.

Spatchcocked quail, some marinated in oyster sauce, soy sauce, chopped garlic and ginger, some au naturel. Grilled. Served with morels fricasseed in butter and red wine and roast cauliflower. Penfold's Koonunga Hill Shiraz-Cab.

Yes, it does need to be well seasoned and flavored.

So, are we going to do this virtual tasting, or what?

Oh, much nicer than fresh fruit. Steep 'em in booze, as wingding says. Prunes in armagnac or cognac will then make a nice stuffing for a veal or pork roast (omit the sugar). The sharper characters, like dried cherries or cranberries will spike up a red wine sauce for duck or turkey. All are good with nuts and a pint or so of port.

Fat Bloke can do it by blindfolding you. I think the question is what the results of the experiment would be, and whether it would be different among different groups. If the latter, that would be interesting.

I myself have spent little time drinking with sailors.

Disruptive influence. Ahem, yes. Juniper berries can be found in the spice rack at the supermarket. Little black-ish purple suckers. You can throw a few into the sauerkraut, as raspoutine (a religious Russian-Canadian cheese dish?) observed. They also show up in quite a few recipes featuring strongly flavored game, especially of the four legged red meat kind. Jugged hare, civet of boar, venison stew, or in a marinade for such meats. Should be used sparingly: they are powerful. Personally, I don't like crunching on them - just as I don't much life the flavor of gin - so I try to fish them out of dishes just like I fish out bayleaves, for example.

Chicken Savoy? Did he used to be in movies?

A more interesting experiment would be to serve people essentially the same food presented in different ways, and have them score it - score it for taste, quality whatever, not for presentation. You'd probably need several dishes and a few "placebos" as it were to make it interesting. I don't think I'd bet my house that the same food would get the same score however it was presented.

Sexy bachelor Tommy = Holy Roman Empire (neither holy nor roman nor...oh, I suppose his name is Tommy).

Reads like my idea for a tripe restaurant. Maybe I should sue.