Wilfrid

(my emphasis) FG Plotters Steve P. failing to distinguish between "every" and "some"? I could set my watch by it. Okay, cheese. There are innumerable smaller-production cheeses which cost more per pound than large-scale production cheeses, but there is certainly no consensus that they are all-round better. Chaource is more expensive than even raw milk camembert. Double Gloucester is more expensive than cheddar. And so on. Game. There are game birds which are harder to get than grouse, and cost more (ptarmigan, snipe). But, although I like 'em, grouse remains the best. Fish. Can someone else do fish? There must be plenty of examples of fish that cost more per pound because of scarcity than fish which are actually more desirable to eat. Not just a few exceptions. Plotnickism is baloney. Today's history question French food is generally regarded as having come into its own in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Under which of the following regimes was France the "most liberal society" in Europe: 1. Louis XIV - The Sun King? 2. Louis XV - yes, another abolutist monarch 3. Louis XVI - who we might describe as The Headless 4. The Jacobins - that would be the Reign of Terror 5. The Thermidoreans - or any of the other bloodthirsty faction which paved the way to Bonaparte's dictatorship? I look forward to learning the answer.

Yawn, stretch, sigh... I know. What it would change would be the price.

Darn simultaneous posting. It's to prove to you that if the Mouton Rothschild were produced in the same volume as milk, the price differential would be negligible. The price is not set by an elite, independently of supply and demand.

Tee hee. Only time for telegram-like response. Steve P.: Do not believe this stuff is subjective, never have and never will. You are fighting windmills. Of course most wine is more complex than most beer. You equate complex with "better", which is arbitrary and there are a million counter-examples, from Robert Schonfeld's figs to minimalism in art and music. And make up your mind - either wine and beer are unlike things we can't compare (I agree), or you can go on about their comparative qualities (which you did). Ditto for French/Chinese/Indian cuisines: you flip back and forth on that one like a ping pong ball. You still hold the pure Plotnickist position on pork loin, cashmere, premier cru burgundy, etc, that it's their refinement that sets their cost, not their scarcity in comparison with pork belly, regular wool and vin ordinaire. I suspect you know you're wrong, so I'm bored arguing that one. Must dash - I have an appointment to eat weird, unevolved shit.

Sorry, can't resist hitting Steve P.'s wine example out of the ball park. Of course experts make fine distinctions of quality among wines, just like beef and tomatoes get graded too. And their opinions have an effect on the price. But what pure Plotnickism requires is something much more exotic: Experts-connoisseurs (may I group them for convenience?) use their superior palates to judge that wine is better than beer. And this is the reason - the main reason or initial reason, or maybe both - that wine is more expensive than beer. Fabulous.

Okay, I think my spade is finally turned, meaning I have got to the bottom of Plotnickism, and clarified it to my satisfaction. Steve adds, reasonably enough, a pinnacle of professionals to his peak of connoisseurs. That's fine. I don't need to argue about whether pork belly is a more interesting, complex, multi-textured and delicious food than pork loin. Of course, it requires appropriate cooking - I think we take that for granted, whatever we're discussing. It figures less in haute cuisine than other cuts, for obvious reasons*, but figures prominently in all kinds of other repertoires. Ditto oxtail: fantastic stuff, and it increasingly makes an appearance on very upscale menus (in saucing for strong fish dishes, in ravioli - sometimes with foie gras). But it's cheap as dirt. As is rabbit. As are pig's feet - which are also commonly found on upscale menus. And don't get me started on offal. Plotnickism is plainly false. It's possible to have a reasonable discussion about the comparative quality of two pieces of filet mignon, but a similar discussion about whether filet mignon as such is "better" than oxtail is meaningless, as is a discussion about whether expensive food is "better" than cheap food. It's a case by case thing. And until I see some examples of cost being controlled by professional/connoisseur evaluation of quality, independent of supply and demand factors, I am done. Ta. *Available on application if anyone really needs them.

Kishke = sausage. Derma = the casing of the sausage. Kasha = buckwheat groats. My sausage was bought from a Ukrainian store, and it's like a huge blood pudding incorporating a lot of kasha along with the blood. The myserty for me is how I came to call it kasha kishke, which is Yiddish, because of course it's far from kosher. I swear someone serving me one in a meat market told me that's what it was called. Next time I buy one from the Ukrainian place I'll ask them what they call it. Oh, they also have one with rice instead of kasha. So, it's not you Fireperson, it really is all a bit confusing.

Ooh, I haven't been to Le Perigord in ages. Good idea, Nina.

If only he would. Those two categories make sense. Instead, he's claiming that what tastes better and what costs more are by and large the same thing. Which is why we get the strange arguments about smooth food and chewy food, and why he won't address pig bellies. To maintain his position he either has to dismiss a lot of great cheap food as poor quality, or admit so many exceptions that his position loses explanatory value.

I am concerned, as I think Robert Brown is, that the baby may be thrown out with the bathwater. Example: a wonderful established repertoire of dishes gets consigned to history along with stuffy maitre d's and evening dress. I wish I had time to elaborate, but I am still giving a course in elementary reasoning over on the Expensive/Cheap thread.

No, you can't advance that proposition. It's not consistent with Plotnickism. Kidding about Brian Sewell aside, I do not believe that Plotnickism states that Plotnicki's individual palate is the arbiter of quality. Plotnickism is the view that there is an elite of conoisseurs (of which Plotnicki happens to be a member) who can judge this. In the case of food, it's people with good palates. but you can't possibly say that it's a matter of coincidence, or merely fortunate, that the market by and large (you admit there are exceptions) agrees with the judgment of connoisseurs. That gives up your whole position. You have to say that the market is bound to reflect the judgment of connoisseurs, all things being equal, because cost is explained, not by supply or demand, but by quality. It's baloney, of course, but that's what you have to say. When you have time, please consider explaining why pork belly and oxtail are low quality meats. As a connoisseur.

Thanks for that Gavin. I like to be reminded of Brian Sewell as often as possible.

I think it's blood in that there sausage, and I think it's pig's blood. Which means, I suppose, for all the derma and kishke, that it's unlikely to be Jewish delicacy. Nina?

Absolutely fundamental. I don't know on how many threads I have taken Steve Plotknuckle to task for failing to make the absolutely basic distinction between "all", "some" and "none". That is not a persnickety distinction - it's a distinction without which we are doomed to perpetual misunderstanding. He knows as well as the rest of us that there are numerous examples, from the world of food and elsewhere, where A is better than B, but B costs more than A. It's the "won't admit it" bit that's frustrating. Like Fat Bloke, I tried yesterday to come up with an example of an expensive foodstuff where scarcity was not a determinant factor in the price. Couldn't do it. Steve P: when everyone else in the room appears to you to be whacko, it may be time to take a quick look in the mirror (with affection, of course, of course). However, and here's where I read Plotnickism (for we must have a term for this innovative school of thought) differently from Shaw: I don't think Steve P. is focussing on demand rather than supply in the sense you and I would understand those terms. I don't think he cares about demand in the sense of how much people in general like and are willing to pay for filet mignon. I really think he's rejecting supply and demand as explanatory of cost, and focussing on intrinsic qualities of the product -"betterness" - which exist independently of subjective opinion, and which can be perceived by an elite of connoisseurs. It's an opulent theory, and deserves to be beheld in all its purity. It's consistent, of course, with Plotnickism on art, music, and judgment in general. And I do not hold Steve in contempt for his consistency . Other things: Steve P. plays the Brit card again in attempt to win over the crowd. Statistically insignificant. Yvonne's Scottish, I'm English, and Mr Whiting's a yankee, and we are self-selected participants in this thread because we like debating. And is Fat Bloke an honorary Brit now? And lxt, I think it's worth saying how much I agree with you that the celebration of that which is inexpensive in and of itself is actually reactionary; as I said on another thread, being poor is a bummer, it's not a cool and radical lifestyle choice. Or, "a cheap holiday in other people's misery", as the finest English poet of the twentieth century put it.

Do you think there's just a possible, remote, outside chance that the reason bistros serve leg rather than rack is because it's cheaper, and therefore what their customers can afford? And is there not just a smidgen of a possibility that leg is cheaper than rack because you get however many more servings off a lamb? Is there the ghost of a chance that goose foie gras is pricy not because it's delicious, but because it's quite hard to get hold of? And is there an earthly possibility that pork belly is cheap because it is plentifully available, and not because it's nastier than a slice of loin? Just askin'.

That is a wonderful post, Robert. You allude to a couple of things I have tried, rather ineptly, to bring out from time to time - I have in mind the urge to innovate rather than perfect the existing repertoire, and the emphasis on ingenuity rather than satisfaction in a lot of modern tasting menus. But you said it better than that, and you've said a lot more besides. This deserves further pondering. I share Nina's sentiment, because 1990 was about the time I became able to afford good dining on something like a regular basis.

There's plenty of room for transparent nonsense on this thread, isn't there John? Surely, surely. Seriously, I am kicking myself for not having the Blessed Liebling to hand. Last night, I read his chapter in "Between Meals" on the advantages, to apprentice eaters, of a limited budget. He gives example after example of superior cheaper dishes which those born rich may never come to sample. Maybe I'll quote the odd line tomorrow.

So you do disagree with Shaw? Filet mignon costs more than hamburger because a kitchen can make fancier dishes from it, and people will pay more - not because you can get much less of it from a cow. And leg of lamb is cheaper than rack because you can't make fancy expensive dishes out of it, not because there's much more of it per sheep. What does anyone else think? (I'm not fixated on price. You've said on more than one thread that, all things being equal, there's a correlation between cost and "quality". I think we should get to the bottom of it, and see whether that's true or not.)

Katz's The Malaysia Restaurant El Nuevo Amanecer

Yeah, what happened to cheese omelettes? They used to be all the rage. And aren't egg-white omelettes just HORRIBLE?

Another new twist, I came across Diet Coke with Lemon yesterday. Quite disgusting. I suppose these gimmicks are perceived to sustain market share.

Come on, John. He can hardly be the best food writer if he's not paid the most. That would be inconsistent with what we have been learning on this thread.

No because the expensive cuts are a relatively small percentage of the carcass. Most of the luxury cuts are in the short-loin sub-primal. There are for example only four or so Peter Luger-sized porterhouses in a side of beef, whereas there may a hundred or more pounds of ground-beef-appropriate muscle. Lobel's gets a higher price for filet mignon than for boneless strip, yet the overwhelming majority of steak connoisseurs will tell you that the strip is the more flavorful cut and is superior. I don't know a single steak maven who would order a filet over a strip if given the choice. But there is a perceived luxuriousness to tenderloin among the clueless because it is so tender, and there's simply more strip than tenderloin in a carcass. And since the porterhouse is both strip and filet/tenderloin, and the strip runs longer than the tenderloin, a carcass that is butchered into porterhouses will have pretty much no filet portion available for sale as just filet, so there's almost no USDA Prime tenderloin out there. Some, but hardly any. Therefore the better cut is less expensive and in less demand. Now assuming Plotnicki agrees that strip is superior to tenderloin he might say that of course he knew that but still as between two strips the better strip will fetch a higher price. But while that's most likely true it's clearly not a statement you can extrapolate to broader based food comparisons. You can't even extrapolate it as between cuts of meat from the same animal, and you certainly can't extrapolate it to prove that all food that is better costs more than all food that is worse. Likewise, as I said before a hamburger is more complex than a steak, as is any preparation where lower-quality cuts must be smushed up and reconstituted and perhaps combined with other ingredients in order to make them delicious. It typically requires more skill and training to accomplish that than it does to get a great steak from Lobel's and throw it on the grill. Steve P., I can't believe we're still stuck on this point. I quoted Steve S. again from yesterday. Do you think he's wrong? Just sticking to beef, do you think butchers price the filet higher than the cuts used for grinding based on a perception of "quality" - i.e., smoothness, silkiness, whatever - or based on the considerations Steve mentions. Of course, consumer demand is relevant too. But there does seem to be quite a demand for ground beef, as well as for filet. Or if you prefer, turn to pork. Do you think pork belly is of lower "quality" than pork loin? if not, how come - on your theory - it's priced cheaper?

And I agree. Looks like you came to the right site, Nina.* *I am agreeing with Plotnicki's last post, just to be clear.

You keep going, Bushey! I was lucky, for once, in having fresh dill and some fairly fresh paprika (from Kalusytan's) handy for the salad.