Steve Plotnicki

Fat Guy - I'm not complaining about the article and I don't want to start a new thread just about John Whiting. Besides, it's just like any other article that is written from a slanted point of view. John and the FWG are entitled to their editorial slant. But I do think that John and his editor understand what the ethics of reporting are all about and I feel the lack of disclosure is purposeful. I don't know of a writer in the land who would not disclose their intent. And I don't know of an editor who would publish something knowing there wasn't full disclosure. The disclosure to you isn't sufficient. Disclosure means full disclosure. Many things in the article might have come out differently had their been full disclosure. For example, John makes a point that he waited until Suvir returned to write the piece. Well had he fully disclosed his intent, maybe I would have come forward with what I know about Suvir from management. And maybe I would have offered the private messages and emails I have from various posters stating their feelings about Suvir. What he would have found is that people who thought Suvir was either anti-Semitic and mentally unstable shared no single religion or economic class. They were just appaled at his inappropriate behavior. Which I must add he apologized for which is another thing John's article conveniently overlooks as it doesn't attempt to ferret out why he apologized. Fat Guy I know you want this thread to die but it really shouldn't until everybody understands that John Whiting, someone who holds himself out as morally superior to everyone else on the board (except Suvir) commited what I see as a serious ethical breach. Furthermore, I don't think it's fair for the people here to be in discussions with him if he isn't making full disclosure as to his intentions. In the future, the site should make a policy that any writer who comes onto the site and intends to write an article about their participation has to disclose it. It's only fair to the people participating. It is clearly a major conflict for any member to be wearing both hats and it is grossly unfair to anyone speaking to that member not to know about it. In fact disclosure would give people the chance not to participate with a member who is using the board for their own selfish purposes, and not for the general enlightenment of the other members who participate in earnest. I'm quite happy participating here for the benefit of the other members. But I haven't agreed to particpate for the benefit of the Guild of Food Writers. One would think if that organization had any integrity at all, they would notify us about our pending participation in that publication before it happened. After all, that is the standard any other publication would adhere to. To ask them to adhere to it, and to ask John to act with the same level of integrity that a reporter from a daily or monthly would have isn't really asking too much. I also must add that I am adhereing to the ignore a troll policy in terms of Spice Girl. But I couldn't help but notice that John seems to have good relationships with the various trolls that frequent the board from time to time. In fact at this point, he might be setting the Internet befriend a troll record! I suspect the PM's he is describing contain quite a few supportive messages from various trolls. Fortunately my inbox is troll free.

I agree that the Time Out Guide to London is very good and I've been using it for years. I've found some of my favorite places because of it like Patog which is something that Zagat would pobably never include. But their guide to NYC isn't nearly as good, nor is their guide to Paris. But I still don't understand the Zagat bashing. Their reviews are easily correctable by figuring a +/- factor of 2 points. Fat Guy's example of the 4 star restaurants in the city and what is missing doesn't really change anything and his example of Ducasse doesn't really set out a strong argument against Zagat. I can see giving Ducasse a score that is as low as 25. But in spite of the obvious flaws, I still find the guides useful if you adjust for their particular bias. Every reviewer has a bias that one needs to adjust for. What's the difference if that bias is created by one person or several thousand? Zagat is still an important resource because it contains a large list of restaurants that are ranked in a reasonable order. This is true especially in smaller cities. Because even though the scores might be inflated, the hiearchy of restaurants is usually accurate.

Actually I have something to raise here that has nothing to do with the article but has something to do with John's participation on eGullet and what I see as an ethical cloud over his head. I don't know of a single writer or reporter who when working on an article where he is speaking directly with the people who are going to be written about or quoted, when the writer didn't disclose their intention. Yet here we have had two instances where John participated in conversations, and even played a major part in helping shape the the tone and direction of those conversation where he intended on writing about them and yet he didn't disclose it in either instance. In my 20+ years of being in the media busines, I can't think of an occassion where I was interacting with someone who was writing an article where they didn't disclose it to me. My gut tells me there is something wrong with someone participating on the board if he intends to use the conversations for his own fodder and is not participating in earnest. When I post here, I do so for the benefit of the board. I do not participate for John's self-aggrandisement because he likes to fancy himself a food writer. Then there is the issue of the integrity of the article. Had certain people been asked to respond to the various allegations the article makes, we could have put forth facts that might have changed it in material ways. But of course when one looks at it that way, one can see the motivation not to disclose. In fact, the *facts* can be a real impediment in getting the story out the way you want it to be told.

As Holly implies, the problem with the Zagat Guide is you don't know how reliable their reviewer base is. Back in the old days when they first started, one could be certain that only hard core foodies bothered to send in reviews. But now it could be anyone. I'm much happier with a defined elite of reviewers. It's more relaible for my palate. But I guess mainstream is mainstream and considering the number of copies they want to sell, they need to reach a less diiscriminating audience than moi. God bless them as I still find reading it useful.

I find articles like these terribly boring. It is the ultimate comparison of apples and oranges and in the end it is nothing but sensationalism about the money aspect of dining. I always think of restaurants as working in reverse of this article. Somebody wants to open a restaurant and they decide they want it to appeal to diners who are willing to spend $100 a head on dinner and then they figure out what they have to do to get there. Laymen always like to talk about these things in reverse. But if they were to evaluate them the way restauranteurs and businessmen do, they would have to write articles for business journals and not the Guardian. Fact of the matter is that when Philip Howard opens The Square, he calculates how much per dinner served he can charge. It's the most important calculation he can make because he wants his restaurant full, but of the right people. Posh West End businessman do not want to be eating their meals next to punters from the boonies at the next table. And everything about the place is calculated towards meeting that goal. From the decor to the price of an entree to what is on the wine list and how it is marked up. But by contrast, he has created a completetly different envirnoment at La Trompette because the clientele has switched from international businessmen to more of a local clientele. And in a place that serves pretty much the same food as The Square, albeit a simplified version, the average dinner bill will be significantly less. To compare a meal at a top place in greater London to Asti is ludicrous. It's like saying that a 5 million pound home on Cadogan Gardens would cost 500,000 pounds in Asti. That would be a great deal other than the fact that every morning when you woke up you would be in Asti. So from here on in, the answer to why restaurants are so expensive these days is that people are willing to pay for an experience that offers a sense of exclusivity. As for why restaurants do such a poor job? Well that's another thing and I wish people didn't always co-mingle money and performence. Expensive restaurants do not have an exclusive on mediocrity. The fact of the matter is that medocrity exists at all levels and it ensues because people put up with it. But then again, I just told you that most people eat out for the experience and not because of the food so why shouldn't that be the case?

Isn't this just a troll post that we're supposed to ignore?

JD - That was very well said. But there is one other aspect that seems to be roaming around out there which we haven't touched on. Not everyone is up to snuff in being able to taste the difference between great food and not great food. Just like not everyone can understand music or foreign films. But the problem is things like food or music etc, we treat them as egalitarian activities so it's very difficult to have a conversation with people when they don't understand what's going on with the food. It's one thing when food is obviously delicious. But not all good food is obvious and it runs the gamut from being purposely cerebral to needing to acquire a taste for it. Wine is something that always raises this type of issue because I've seen people without the experiences of tasting mature wine think some of the greatest bottles in the world are "decrepit." This inconsistancy in experiences makes it difficult to communicate what a restaurant was like and I think it adds an additional task for a reviewer so he can explain it all properly.

The director Curtis Hansen is a huge fan of hers and always wanted to make a movie based on her life story.

I used to enjoy taking Sunday lunch at the Balzar. Not that many places for Sunday lunch in Paris. It was very pleasant. Not too busy on Sundays and one could gaze out into the street for long periods of time. My wife would always order the roast chicken and I would usually order the choucroute. But that was before "le scandel" and I'm sure that they serve the same food prepared in the Flo commissary that all the other Flo restaurants serve. Les Fontaines is in that neighborhood and it used to be a good place for steaks. But Moulin au Vent, Chez Henri is about a 15 minute walk and that's an excellent place. And l'Atlas on Blvd. St. Germaine is one of Paris's best Moroccans. And directly opposite is Chez Rene where they make a mean Boeuf Bourgignon.

Is it not related to Peter Tosh? And for certain Wilfrid will be an expert on utter tosh. I heard that once upon a time while walking through a market in Scotland, he confused a haggis for utter tosh. Both before AND after he tasted it.

Cabrales - Well the issue isn't whether it is perfect for you, the issue is whether your palate is complete in it's understanding of haute cuisine. I'm going to have to eat in both Arpege and Gagnaire 3-4 times each in a short period of time and do an in-depth analysis of each place. Liziee - To me you just said that Gagniare is good and Ducasse is......

Jaybee - I thought utter tosh came from the udder of the cow? Isn't single malt whiskey was the thing to drink with it?

Mlpc - Bernachon is off the charts. Those Palet's d'Ors are unbelievable. But you have to go to Lyon to get them. They do ship all over the world though. But if you go to Lyon and it's in winter, make sure you go to Les Halles where they have these fat, juicy, saucisson that are studded with black truffles. Also arguably the best St. Marcelin in France at Renee Richard. Alll in all, quite a nice shopping jaunt.

Double post

Jaybee - I thought that all Scottish food was utter tosh.

Quickly before I run out to the theater, when I say a natural hierarchy would emerge, what I mean is that when we had the results plotted down on a sheet of paper the pecking order would be plainly obvious to us in most inatsnces. I think the most difficult struggles are on Craft type restaurants because you pretty much have to weigh the French approach against the Italian approach of cooking theory. But I think that issue boils down to how many bonus points you get for cooking perfect ingredients perfectly in lieu of wow me technique. As for Cabrales, I'll take care of her. I need to take her to dinner at Gagnaire and explain it to her .

Lesley C - Does St. John do lunch? A bit heavy anyway. Let me add Moro to Andy's list as a light tapas luch could be in order.

Aside from the issue of whether Blue Hill is in the top 8 or the top 12 or the top 20 which is sort of a red herring question, I think you can go through each restaurant in the city and create a ranking based on their cooking technique. I think you will find that the restaurants in the top tier expend more technique than the restaurants below them and that is the single most distinguishing feature about them. For example, there is much more technique applied at Daniel than at Cafe Boulud. And more at CB than at DB. And I think that everything else, decor, ingredients, service, quality of wine list etc. follow proficiency. It's this "complete package" that makes a good dining experience unique. That's why one can go to Le Bernadin, (and I'm only using them as an example because I haven't been there in a while, although I'm going in a few weeks,) and say that given the environment, service etc., the execution falls short so it is a so-so experience. But if you were to serve some of the same dishes at a place like Fleur de Sel where your expectations are for a smaller statement by the chef, one might very well be pleased more than they would having the same thing at LB. That's why a place like Blue Hill is one I can appreciate. In a very small way, they are trying to apply the technique that one would find in places like Arpege, L'Astrance or El Bulli. That type of effort motivates me to eat there. And while I can also enjoy a meal at a place like Eleven Madison Park or Gotham, they will be less inventive as far as cooking technique so the elimination of that cerebral component puts an additional burden on the kitchen to make it interesting in a different way. Unfortunately, most of the times they fall short. But even at a place like Craft where the emphasis is on ingredients and not wow me technique, the last meal I had there the kitchen prepared a very sparse meal. Some raw fish, a little charcuterie, a thick chunk of Alaskan King Salmon per person and a thick chunk of loin of lamb per person. The lack of the usual clutter that often happens there because everyone goes crazy ordering ala carte was removed and it was my most cerebral meal there. But getting back to the original point, I think a group of people could sit down and analyze what makes each restaurant in the city tick. And I think a natural hiearchy would emerge. And I think if we pursued that exercize, I think we would find a good many objective reasons to put Blue Hill high on the list. Maybe not top 10 but easily top 25.

Are you saying it's better or worse? I'm not saying either. I'm saying that if I walked into a "bistro moderne" in Paris and they served me exactly what they serve at Blue Hill I wouldn't be surprised at all. Of course you have to accomodate American ingredients etc. But overall, I think their mission at Blue Hill is the same as what they would like to accomplish at a place like Les Allobroges in Paris.

John - Gee if you think Mayle set out to write a book on the "authors' coming to terms with an unfamiliar environment," in a "complex and sympathetic manner," you need to get out more. Maybe you should join a book discussion group? Mayle's book is intended to be lighthearted and entertaining, and the others intended to be "complex" and exhaustive on their topic. I thought this topic was "Great Writers about Food," have I missed something? What does Peter Mayle have to do with that other than to point out that things you think are crass and commercial sell and things you think are of quality don't?

Gee I don't keep up with my Michelin stars but do places like l'Epi Dupin, La Regalade. L'os Moelle etc. get a Michelin star? That is what I was referring to because Blue Hill is in the same category (both cooking and environment) as those places.

Lesley C - It's about a mile and a half walk to Butler's Wharf where on a sunny day there are a number of Conran operated restaurants to go to. Pont de la Tour and the Butler's Wharf Chophouse being two of them. It might be easier to walk across the river on the footbridge but I have no idea where you end up and if it is near any good restaurants.

My perspective is more like Yvonne's than anyone elses. When I am reading a restaurant review, what is most important to me is the reviewer's personality. That he might not like egg whites, or like chocolate is something I can deal with if properly disclosed. I can learn a lot more from a reviewer if when they are reviewing Le Bernadin they say they usually don't like that type of place. And if they then try to be objective about it and say that's what they are trying to do, I can calibrate the review to my palate taking the disclaimer into consideration. Obviously, I wouldn't value Fat Guy's review of a place like Blue Hill if he says somewhere in the review that it isn't his type of place or the cooking isn't the style he normally likes. But then again I can assess that his review of the hamburger at Peter Luger had a great chance of agreeing with my palate as much as it did with his. To me those distinctions are the essence of what makes a reviewer good at his job.

Hollywood - That's a good post, and a funny one two. I'm saying something completely different (I think.) I'm saying the supply side of the market prices things according to quality. But I'm also saying that even though the prices then vary somewhat because of demand (and that includes shortage of supply,) it won't exceed the boundaries set by the supply side. Why should it? Who would pay more for lamb's wool than cashmere? At some point the price of lamb's wool reaches the price of cashmere and people say, you know, for the same money..... But of course Fat Guy and Wilfrid want to trot out an example that says, if there was only one lamb's wool sweater in the whole world, and it was in demand, wouldn't the price go higher than a cashemere sweater? And while the answer to that is yes, as someone else here said it, maybe J.D., that would mean people are paying for scarcity which is an additional attribute besides the quality. A simple example of that is the additional markup on magnums of wine. It should cost less because it's one bottle instead of two and one bottling. But there is a 10-20% premiuim because of few of them are made. This gets trickier when one tries to compare apples and oranges. Maybe a simple example is how much people will pay for dinner at a place like Blue Hill and a place like Daniel. At a place like Blue Hill (bistro) the amount they can charge per person for dinner is limited. Someone told me recently that at Daniel the average dinner is $135 a person. I'm not sure what it is at Blue Hill but let's say it's $75. Don't you think that as you get closer to $135 more and more people would go to Daniel instead? At some point people would say it's not worth it. So let me ask the question that way. When you say that something isn't worth it, what does that mean? Doesn't that mean you can get something of better quality for the same or less money? How could something not be worth it if quality is fungeable? Well it's not. Both you and I know that the greatest (arguably) Cabernet Sauvignon wine in the world comes from the Latour Vineyard and that quality is not something that is fungeable. And no matter what happens to the price of CS wines, eventually Latour will end up being the highest priced wine in its category.

Fat Guy - Sally's better than Pepe's? I haven't eaten pizza in 13 years so I have no dog in that fight but, I used to love that white clam pizza at Pepe's. I even drove from NYC to New Haven for dinner a few times just to eat it.