Steve Plotnicki

This is just not true. Collectors played a huge part in contributing to cooked and low ullage wines. Few people had good storage until the last ten years. Many many wine collectors used to keep their wines stored in their "cool" basement in their suburban homes. I am sure there were many days when the temperature got near 70 and people didn't realize it. In fact I have friends who still do that. They won't spring for temperature/humidity control because they claim their passive cellar is good enough. Of course, this doesn't negate the fact that the importers and retailers were slow to adapt to a temperature controlled standard and that many wines were ruined. But this is why I buy my older wines almost exclusively in Europe.

But isn't it just an Indonesian smorgasboard? The dishes aren't Dutch, it's the concept of serving them at the same time that is Dutch isn't it? Or is it typical for restaurants in Indonesia to serve a huge buffet of all of the dishes.

But anytime you have a thread that criticizes people for trying to advance themselves, for your own (and I don't mean you personally) gastronomic pleasure, what else could the conversation really be about? And I'm not trying to make this about me either. But there isn't that big a difference between Nobu and an authentic sushi joint that they should take criticism for that aspect of what they have set out to achieve. Nor Tabla. What else is the purpose of saying that one isn't really Japanese with the inference that people typically give that statement? And I'm not against pointing out the distinction between authentic cuisine, and a more progressive cuisine. save for that negative inference that seems to creep into the tone of responses when people bring up "fusion cuisine," or any other attempt at a progressive version of an ethnic cuisine. And okay you might have a point when you say that I might read that inference in when it isn't there. But that can easily be corrected by whomever if that isn't what they meant. Just look at Suzanne's post. She said; Well people come here to be part of the melting part. What are we to do, say to them they should stay within their own communities for our own culinary pleasure? And I know she doesn't mean it that way. But I think it's important to draw the distinction between criticizing Nobu because the cuisine is not a success (and it's an amazingly successful cuisine so why would anyone do that?) and criticizing them for not being authentic Japanese. I don't see why they have to be authentic Japanese, as long as their cuisine is successful. P.S. I have thousands of private emails that believe I have won this argument over and over. In fact the word got out and I have been approached by publishers about a book on the topic.

I was trying to point out the difference between storing wines at the wrong humidity and what happens, versus loss of wine due to it seeping through corks due to excessive temperatures. I was at a tasting this week with Clive Coates and we were talking about the difference in quality of mature wines that come from British cellars as opposed to U.S. cellars. British wine typically tastes 5 years younger then American imports, even with moderately bad ullage. That's because the wines were always stored at the right temperature and never heated in any way. Most ullage issues in the U.S. are a result of cooking the wines.

Craig - I read those links and I thought they agreed with what I posted . Anyway, I gave my advice based on my own experiences with wines from a friend's cellar. I have a friend who cellars wine in his home in Great Neck and he keeps the temparture at 5 degrees constant. His wines are very slow maturing, and when he opens them they are amazingly fresh tasting. Like they were bought yesterday. I think the real trick, and neither of your links addresses this issue, is that the key issue is what type of wine you are cellaring? All they mean when they say "proper temperature" is that the temperature will allow the wine to mature according to its own physiological timetable. For example, let's say that 2000 Latour is a 20-35 year wine. The goal is to store is at a temperature that will not advance the aging process any, or will not slow it down so it takes longer then 35 years. I promise you that the colder the temperature, the longer the maturation process will take, and your wines will be fresh tasting. As for humidity, all that happens when you don't have the proper humidity is your ullage increases more quickly then it should. I forget how much the ullage increases under even perfect conditions. But I have found that bottles of wine that have been stored under proper temperature conditions but below preferred humidity, and are well below the shoulder as a result, can be fabulous. About 5 years ago I bought a few cases of assorted Bordeaux from the 50's and 60's that came out of an English country cellar. When I got them the fills were horrible. But every single bottle has been fabulous and the wines have matured perfectly.

Well yes. That's because they are Americans and not Indians. I don't understand why people want to keep identifying them as Indians? Which is what is really happening when people insist on drawing this bright line between places like Diwan and Tabla. Or places like Nobu and an authentic sushi place with Japanese people. In fact I ate at Kuramasushi last night. There is nothing they have there that I couldn't get at Nobu aside from that list of fish they fly in fresh fom Japan which to me is non-determinative. The real difference is that Kuramaushi is an ethnic restaurant and Nobu isn't. The purpose of people moving to America is so they can leave their old country behind. And while nobody tells them they have to shed their old customs and traditions, nobody should tell them not to either, or imply it indirectly by taking a shot at the food that the process of assimilation creates. I know people like authentic ethnic cuisine, I do too. But being critical of how cuisines change because of the influence an American lifestyle has on them is a passive type of prejudice in my book, which I know is unintentional. But I can never figure out why so many people, including an amazing number of people who would describe themselves as liberal, have such a vested interest in promoting non-change. I mean let's make sure the Arepa Lady never leaves her spot on the street because she is the authentic thing. What that really comes down to is our saying that a Columbian woman should be a street peddler forever, and that she shouldn't try and figure out a way to Americanize her product so she can live a better life. It's one thing to support authenticity, but it's another thing to be a cultural imperialist thorugh food.

Well you see how easy it is? Jin wrote about the porridge, you wrote about the Yak milk and cheese, and now Monotours wrote about the Momo's. It really isn't all that difficult to find out if a place has good cuisine or not. But I hope they have more then three things on the menu. This is not quite right. Many poor countries have indiginous cuisines that are delicious. Take Mexico. How about Vietnam? How about India? I once had a business partner whose family came from deep in the Campania region of Italy. On a trip to Positano, he and I and the wives took a long drive on a Sunday morning to visit them. We got there to find a town of 800 people and many of them owned small plots of land and they farmed for sustenance and sold off their extra crops so they would have money to buy simple things like shoes. But the food they served was simple, but delicious. No shortage of tomatoes, either fresh or preserved. You see I believe that Wilfrid is right about one thing, to the Dutch, the food in Holland tastes good. Just like the food tastes good to you lot in Britain . But it isn't Protestantism that made the food bad. That is putting the cart before the horse. The food was bad before Protestantism existed. All Protestanism did was give people a rationale about why they shouldn't care about food. It's like kosher meat. Ask any strictly kosher person about the quality of kosher meat and they are brainwashed into believing that kosher meat tastes better. How would they even know? It's just an internalized rationale that religious elders pushed on their congregations to keep them bonded together. I mean there is truth in numbers right? If all the people in your congregation say kosher meat is better, then it becomes true doesn't it? So saying that surfeit and excess for pleasure is wrong, is a wondeful religious philosophy to adopt for countries that have poor agro systems. Do you not think that there was a conspiracy between the Church of England and the British government, that in conjunction with effecting the Enclosure Laws they would preach that deriving pleasure from food is a bad thing? There had to be. That is exactly what religion is used for. Political control. It is too great a coincidence of history that the quality of food declined and the people were taught that they shouldn't care at about the same time. And just look at what happened in Britain when they had some economic breathing room and the people didn't rely on religion any longer to explain everyday phenomena to them, the food in Britain improved twenty fold. You are confusing a food writer with a restaurant reviewer. Two different things. Plus you are using a number of different definitions of the word cuisine rolled into one. But I am going to save that parsing for a different thread.

I have used the Faith Hellinger book. I have even owned it since the first time it was published in that large format soft cover. I think it's a useful book, especially because it actually lists some useful places to stay in that are reasonaby priced, and which are nearby important restaurants. Fred Plotkin has a similar book, and there is a third one I have which I can't quite put my finger on. They all have their pluses and minuses. None are as good as Patricia Wells Food Lover's Guide to France if you ask me because she sifted through the clutter of choices in a region/city and focused in on what the important restaurant meals, and shopping experiences were. You literally could go to a region and stop at almost every one of her suggestions fairly easily. You can't use the other books that way. I'll give you an example. The Willinger book has a listing in Greve a Chianti where someone sells porchetta from a truck on Saturday mornings (I believe that's correct) but you have to read through the section to pick that up. It doesn't go as far as saying, porchetta is a specialty of the region and this is the most famous one..... PW would have had a photo of the truck and nearly filled up a page with the text, and would have changed the dynamic from, should I stop there to I am definitely going to go. The difference between a good guide book, and a great one, is the great one gives you a passive itinerary for how to eat all of the spcialities in a region. If you take the PW chapter on the Alpes-Maritime, if you took every one of her suggestions you would cover all of the regions specialties. None of the other books are as focused. But then this only works for novices and people who are possibly on their second or third visits. edited in- The other book I described is "The Food and Wine Lover's Guide to Tuscany" by Carla Capalbo. She is pretty through on her topic. But I don't find it an easy book to use.

But the church only influenced the content, they didn't muck around with technique. It really makes no difference that The Last Supper is a religious painting, if they had corporations back then they could have called it "Board Meeting Before the Ouster." But when you tell a cook they can't use saltback to flavor a dish, that prevents it from being the best dish possible. The Pope's directions did not prevent Michaelangelo from painting the best Sistine Chapel he could possibly paint. It would just be easier if someone said whether Tibetan food is good or not. So far, Jin is the only person swearing by it because she likes porridge.

But this is really silly. Tibetan cuisine has a reputation that you can research. If you go to a Tibetan restaurant, and the meal is bad, and you want to find out if Tibet is generally held to have good or bad food, there is a way to find out. In fact, here is the Let's Go Guide link to Tibet. Scroll down to the food paragraph; Food in Tibet My favorite part by far is; The word delicious seems to be conspicuously absent. This really isn't rocket scientry. People usually have a tradition of eating well. If Tibetans eat well in Lhasa, it is doubtful they will open crap restaurants in NY or London. Eating well is a hard habit to break. Once you get the hang of it, you know it's like riding a bicycle. This is a version of the absolute truth argument. The issue is what is it fair to say? It is fair to say that the food in Holland is bad, and is of much worse quality then the food their neighbors eat. And it is fair to say that the food in Italy is delicious. That's because the vast majority of people who visit those places agree with those statements.

How about jazz? African and creole rhythms and chord changes from French Impresionistic music. Is it not American? Everything that is American is pretty much reconstituted from other places. So why should Tabla and Nobu be Japanese, why should they not be American? If you want to eat Japanese food, go to Sugiyama or Sushi Yasuda. If you want to eat American food that is derived from Japanese cuisine, go to Nobu or to a place like Bond Street where many Japanes-American people are eating. Same with Diwan and Tabla. Amazing how many Americans who come from Indian ancestry are eating there.

There is loads of great ethnic cuisine in Paris. More then anywhere I know of in the world except the U.S. and London. The U.S. is unique when it comes to ethnic cuisine because there are an abundance of choices from three other continents and central America. London and Paris feature the choices of two continents and in the case of Paris, North Africa. As between Paris and London, it's kind of split 60/40 in Londons favor. London is great beginning with Turkey, going through the Middle East, all the way through the Indian sub-continent. Paris is good in the middle east, and with the exception of Chinese cuisine, is better in Asia east of the sub-continent. But then Paris has great north African cuisine. The thing is, it seems like ethnic restaurants are more prevelent in London. One, there are probably more of them. But more importantly, it plays a bigger role in the daily lives of tourists and possibly the locals. When I spend a week in London, between 3-5 dinners will probably be ethnic. But for a week in Paris, the French food is so good I would probably have only 1or 2 ethnic meals.

While that temperature will not damage your wine, I think it will shorten the time it takes your wines to mature by at least 2 years. And that is for wines that drink at about ten years. For long agers like first and second growth Bordeaux, you are doing yourself a great disservice by keeping those wines stored at that temperature unless you want them to be ready to drink more quickly.

I have had two very good meals at Kinkead's but they were both at least 7-8 years ago. Has the menu/style of cooking changed or are they still serving the same thing and style they were serving seven years ago? When I was in D.C. over the holidays, I walked by and I looked at the menu and it appeared to be a little stuck in time.

Good topic Eddie. I ogle those Canal Street food hawkers all of the time, but I am a bit hesitant to try them. It would be good if someone could post reviews of them and what their specialites are

Yugaraj? Isn't that the name of the Indian place all the guide books write up? I've never been there, but I always notice it. The other ethnic place I always notice but have never gone to is the Greek restaurant Mavromatis.But at least I have stood in front of that place and eyed the menu.

But the point about great creativity is that it reflects the feelings of the creator, whose choices have not been overly compromised. And saying you can't use blue paint, or saying that grubs "should" be included, are both restrictive positions. Creators create, and critics and audiences weigh their creations. Somewhere in between they find a sense of balance.

But that's because every cuisine is based on a theory. And as a general rule, there are no successful aesthetic theories that are not self-limiting, i.e., they exclude other theories. Every single cuisine in the world fits this description. The issue is a lack of diversity. Limitations on any aesthetic, whether self-imposed like religious restrictions, economic restrictions or political restrictions, have historically thwarted creativity. There are dozens of threads on this board that illustrate various cuisines stopping short of their best performance because of some type of restriction that was imposed. Creativity in aesthetics does not happen in a vacuum. It's a competition just like anything else. It is unlikely that a cuisine which can't use a salted or smoked pork product to flavor a dish when that would be the right choice, is going to produce the best overall cuisine. Who knows how much better or farther those various cuisines would have gone if the chefs had the same degree of choice as other chefs? Or how much better cuisine in Spain would have been without the Inquisition? Or Indian food without the caste system? Adherence to rules is a good thing when the purpose of the rule is to keep the aesthetic true to its purpose. But when the rule is to keep the aesthetic loyal to an external purpose, like god, art is compormised. It might be great art, but what I see when I walk around a museum is a hell of lot of religious pictures. And while they are great art, who knows how much greater the art might have been if it wasn't tied to religion in that way. Are bugs on Atkins?

Wilfird - We are going in circles. Every cuisine is compared against the following criteria. How do the restaurants that feature this cuisine stack up against other restaurants? That is the whole thing in a nutshell. Everything else is irrelevent. We are talking about restaurant dining (in this thread) and the restaurant is either good or it isn't good. If you go to a Tibetan restaurant and it stinks, that there might be good cuisine in Tibet doesn't mitigate the fact that the restaurant stinks. And yes Tibetan is compared to all of the other successful ethnic cuisines that are available. So using a narrow standard is a good thing. It seperates the good tasting food from the bad tasting food. And when a new cuisine comes along and it tastes bad in whole or part and there is a good argument that it really tastes good, we rely on our intellect to correct the situation. Many of us couldn't stand sushi at first but learned how to like it. And I believe that very few cuisines that are good, do not come with a custom and culture of how you are suposed to eat them, and why you are supposed to like them. But we are talking about restaurant food, not what some grandma in the Himalayas is cooking. If the food at a Tibetan restaurant is bad, but the food in Tibet is good, it doesn't make the food in that restaurant taste any better. You need better evidence then what you put forth. You need to put forth evidence of good meals in restaurants. Most cuisines have a reputation that is well deserved. For you to convince me their reputation is undeserved is a pretty large obstancle.

But now you see you have taken this too far in the other direction. When Fat Guy says cuisine X is lousy, or when I say the Dutch have poor cuisine, it is a genralized statement that is made to someone whose palate has pretty much been honed in similar ways. Your basic western diner who eats some combination of French/Italian/Chinese/Japanese/Indian/Spanish and Latino/Thai/Middle Eastern etc. (do you like the way I snuck in an order here .) If you eat those cuisines day in and day out (which is what most of us do,) then it is very easy to establish a framework and a standard as to whehther Dutch or Senegalese or Phillipino cuisine is any good or not. Very few of the cuisines I mentioned were offputting on first blush. I mean if you like Pueblan food the first time you ate it, why not Tibetan? It might be the place you ate it at, but it also might be a big clue of a more serious problem.

But there are really to levels of restaurant criticism. One for people who have experience and have acquired a taste or proficiency for what you are writing about, and one for novices. So it depends on who Fat Guy is reviewing Senegalse and Tibetan for. If it was for the Village Voice, then you have to impose a standard of authehticity. And if it is for New York Magazine, well their readers expect something different. When one is confronted with squirrel guts on toast, it is good to have a reviewer who can explain it to both sophisticates and novices. If they can't, I would prefer they say they didn't know how to evaluate it. Then I know how to calibrate my palate with theirs.

You know this part of the thread is reminding me that many years ago, maybe 20, when Mimi Sheraton was the reviewer for the Times, she gave Vienna 79 I believe a four star review. Anyway, the high rating was very controversial. But in the review she wrote about a Filet Mignon in a cheese sauce and I am almost certain that the review said that she normally didn't like cheese with meat but this was an exception. I remember thinking at the time how odd it was because it was so unsual for a reviewer to disclose that type of prejudice. Looking back on it, it was actually a breath of fresh air and there isn't enough of that kind of thing in food writing these days.

I'm not buying this. I think if people cook well in their native land, they cook well in their adopted land. There might be examples of people cooking much better where the food originates, but there is no cuisine I ever heard that is really good where there isn't an acceptable version available in major cities.

But the only thing I am judging is what is on the plate in front of me. What else am I supposed to be judging? How it happened, what is happening, that is anecdotal and only helps to explain why it tastes the way it does. But restaurant reviewing is about how something tastes. I happen to like the Canard Apicius at Lucas-Carton very much. That it tastes good, and that it is a 2000 year old recipe based on the way Apicius prepared duck in ancient Rome, have nothing to do with each other. If that recipe didn't have a pedigree, it would taste just as delicious. Restaurant reviews are definitive judgements, unless you can't make up your mind about a place or cuisine. But they are only judgements for the present tense. They are definitive about the present tense only. That's because cuisine is fluid. Today the cuisine in Holland can be bad and 10 years from now it can be great. And 15 years ago the haute cuisine in France was outstanding and today it's a bit of a gamble. That's how cuisine works. It's organic, both internally as to the ingredients, and externally as to the people who prepare it and eat it. But the only thing I can say when I eat something is whether it tasted good or not, or whether it is interesting or not. It's really a very short menu. That I know. I happen to have a hard time doing it.

Well I know that none of them see it as a problem. And they are all quite clear about it being based on their personal preferences. Yeah but, this was really a matter of racial prejudice. "Garlic eaters" came from southern European countries and were looked down upon. What changed the way people felt about it was that a new cuisine, that used garlic but wasn't loaded with it the way immigrants would use it, was invented for the children and grandchildren of those very same immigrants. In effect, a compormise was reached between the old and the new. That doesn't really get us anywhere because her relationship to food is more casual then yours or mine. She's had Thai food a good half dozen times or more in her life and it doesn't do it for her. Why go eat it when there are so many other things to eat that she likes? Me on the other hand, I would try to find a way to like it because if people think it's good, well then their must be a reason. But most people aren't that way. They eat something and reach a conclusion and swear it off. Fat Guy - This absolutely 100% correct. But what I want to know is how do you know? If I'm with someone else who is expert in mackerel, okay I will rely on their opinion. But how do you say something is good when nobody there knows? I guess this question comes down to, can you tell high quality when you dislike something? I know I could never give a recommendation of something that I disliked without some type of disclaimer. Unless I was really sure I knew how to differentiate between quality outside the context of my bias.