Steve Plotnicki

John - As Jaybee so astutely points out, Mayle's book was intended to entertain. It was geared at an audience of 300,000, not 3,000. Never anywhere does it pretend to be an exhaustive telling of the people, traditions or food of the region. It's the age old fish out of water story. Big city guy moves to a pond with local fish. There are countless novels based on the same premise which are entertaining. All Mayle did was switch the venue to Provence and use the quirkiness of those particular locals along with the natural beauty of the region as his foils in the story. To try and compare his book(s) with serious accountings of reports of a region or exhaustive explanations of a single food source like Cod or Salt, just tells me that you don't understand Mayle's book in the first place or you resent its success (compared to the lack of commercial succes for the books on your list.) I had read the Stuart Steven's book when it first came out and found it a poor book. But I can't remember exactly why.

Well I wouldn't call Mayle's first book crassly commercial. And second, what does crassly commercial have to do with this topic? This was a nice topic until you injected class warfare into it. Mayles books ahve nothing to do with this topic. The books aren't about food and Mayle doesn't pretend to be a food writer.

Cabrales - If you are in a restaurant and have ordered a surprise menu and you do not prefer to be served choclate for dessert, then you should just say so at the beginning of the meal. 100% of the restaurants in the world will accomodate you. Otherwise, if a restaurant brings you a chocolate dessert when you don't say anything, I don't see how you are entitled ito hold it against them? Most people like chocolate and chocolate desserts are probably the most ordered desserts. How is a restaurant to know that you are chocolate averse if you don't tell them?

"But I can sit in a sushi place and have four pieces of mackerel put in front of me and I can taste them and understand why one is better than the other and I can put them in the same rank order that any experienced sushi eater would." Fat Guy - Then how come you can't do that with hamburger and steak?

G. - Do you not see that I purposely exagerated EACH example in order to make the point? It's an American thing to make sure we communicate the point properly. It works well but is a real flytrap for pedants.

John - I think there are so few good books in this category that when I saw the various lists and additions, I couldn't think of any to add off the top of my head. But then you added the Elizabeth Romer book which I forgot about and is a fantastic book. But I wonder why you needed to take that gratuitous shot at Peter Mayle in your last post since his books have nothing to do with this topic? Can't you just reconcile that his audience was the million dollar villa crowd and the audience for the books you mentioned was the fishing pole with an ugly cod hanging from the end of it crowd? Each one has merit to it. For Peter Mayle told a tale of how to escape the rat race in order to live somewhere beautiful. Not how to catch cod and to salt it.

Steve Klc - Boy you must had hadf a joyful lunch today It would help the Spanish very much if other aesthetic disciplines like clothing and furniture design kicked in. That they put the Guggenheim up in Bilboa seems like such a mistake. Maybe it will work for them long term but, if they put it on the Costa Brava near all those restaurants, they would all be famous already and they would be bulding new hotels to meet the demand.

"Comparing Blue Hill with Japanese restaurants is like comparing pork loin with sea urchin. But then, sea urchin is pricier than pork loin, so it must be better. " Jaybee - I see you've grasped the concept. Now if we can only get Fat Guy to do it. Although they are comparable, it is difficult to compare a place like Blue Hill with a place like Gramercy Tavern. Blue Hill is more easily compared to restaurants that are on the same scale like 71 Clinton, Annisa, Fleur de Sel. Blue Hill scalewise is more like Cafe Boulud than it is Gramercy Tavern or Eleven Madison Park. The main problem with comparing food at these restaurants is that a place like Blue Hill is trying to make a short and concise statement with each dish. Places like Gramercy and Eleven Mad are more expansive. This point is best decribed through a analysis of the types of dishes they serve in each place. And though I haven't sat down and analyzed it in detail, it seems to me that the food at Blue Hill revolves around a small number of ingredients in each dish and the essence of the restaurant is to squeeze flavor from the ingredients using the most modern of techniques. I think Gramercy and Eleven Mad offer a bit more complexity, meaning from the perspective of what goes into each dish, not from the aspect of success which I am saving for later. 71 Clinton when Wylie was there was very similar in approach. That dish of smoked salmon that Wylie served that was wrapprd around mashed avocado that was formed into a ball was a stroke of genius from every perspective. Flavor, texture, creativity, etc. But it was a small statement with two ingredients and a little spicing. Tom or Kerry would never serve such a small statement. It doesn't jibe with the philosphy of the way they cook nor does it express what their restaurants are about. They think restaurant, Dan and Mike think bistro. As for how successful they are, I think Blue Hill is the top of the scale for what they set out to do. If I were to score everything on a curve, and discount the built in factor that the food you get at a restaurant is a step up from what you get at a bistro, I would give Blue Hill a 9/10 or even a 10/10 for certain dishes. I think they nail the whole moden bistro concept perfectly. But rating the place among all restaurants, places like GT have a built in additional level of quality and technique and one needs headroom to rank them. And then of course, if the GT's of the world are scoring 8/10-9/10, where are you going to put Jean-Georges who is in the 9/10-10/10 category? But I think that Blue Hill in the 6/10-7.5/10 range is perfect for them. In Paris there are 15-20 places to eat at that are doing what they try to serve you at Blue Hill. I'm just sorry that there are only 3-4 of those places in NYC. Because who wants to go to Gramercy Tavern every night. Some nights you want a smaller meal.

Bux - When I say "absolutely delicious" I mean the word of mouth is great. The word of mouth about Spanish restaurants isn't at a really high level among Americans who travel to Europe. Among chefs yes. But not the next tier of people who throw in one or two 3 star type experiences when they travel. One of the reasons the three star restuaurants in France became so popular is that many of them were laid out on the France/Nice axis. Or you could head east and stop at Boyer and Auberge d'Ill. But it usually revolved around Paris being the point of entry and/or the point of departure. Spain isn't as well organized as the most logical city to fly to from here (Madrid) doesn't have any of the top places and is not anywhere close to either city that houses the three star restaurants.

"1. Of course that's what would happen with Mouton. But that's not the issue. The question is whether the price would remain the same - because of its inherent "betterness" - if it were the case that it was produced in quantities comparable to an ordinary Kendall Jackson cabernet." Wilfrid - You only want to frame the question in a way that couldn't ever happen and let me explain why. They could make as many cases of Mouton as they make of K-J right now. Instead of Mouton being grown on X hectares, they could add an additional Y hectares at a different location and make one wine out of it. Then you would have your comparison. But then it wouldn't be Mouton. It would be something else. Mouton isn't only a label, it's a sty;e of wine that can't be made anywhere else in the world And if you could make the same amount of Mouton as KJ and keep the quality of Mouton, it would sell for more than KJ. *All things being equal* (which is something I keep saying and you keep conveniently skipping over,) people will pay more money for a wine of better quality. But if they made as many cases of Mouton as they did of KJ, and the wine was *of the same quality*, yes it would sell for the same price as KJ. Your other examples are meaningless because you are just trying to pick examples where *things are not equal* so there is a variance in the pricing of an item. Try and focus on how I am saying it, not on how you want to hear it to win the debate. Hollywood - Well this is exactly like a debate about the 1855 classifications. But that helps make my point. Latour tastes like Latour because of the special qualities of the Latour vineyard. A good vintage just enhances those qualities. But even in an off vintage, the characteristics of why it is a first growth come through. So in that context my quote means that the people who usually argue against that point are the people who can't taste those qualities. And since tasting is this invisible thing, and one can't prove anything other than to say whether they can taste it or not, it makes it an easy thing to argue about.

Wilfrid - Your quite wrong about what would happen with Mouton. The supply side would adjust. The supply side exists to *meet the market.* The market for Mouton is set by how people use it based on a certain quality they can offer. If they needed to make 5 times as much Mouton as they do now, they couldn't keep the requisite quality up so they would have to lower it. Cheaper wine would ulitmately be a lesser quality wine. And if they could only sell 5,000 cases of Mouton instead of 20,000, they would choose the best sites in the vineyard or the best barrels and they would make a bottling that costs twice as much as the current wine does now. This example is going on in one of Robert Brown's French threads about restaurants in Europe taking advantage of the switch to the euro. As for French liberalism, I said the golden era of French culinary expansion was from about 1870-1970. So keep your Jacobins to yourself

Simon - I think you got it pretty right. I might give it another point or point and a half than you but I think you can get that much variance between meals. To me it is easy to describe it as the NYC equivelent of one of those bistros moderne in Paris that garner a single Michelin star. I think the scope is on that level and I think that's intentional. I'm sorry you didn't tell them in advance you were eGulleters and to allow the kitchen to prepare a chef's menu for the table. You would probably have eaten somewhat better for it. But all in all, it sound much better than hotel porn.

JD - Is Martin saying that people are looking to redefine their place in society by allocating funds for capital purchases that make societal distinctions obvious? In otherwords, create hierarchys within elite groups of people? If that's the case, what segment of the population gets to play this game? And what happens to the other segment. McDonald's type of marketing of mass marketed products? One more question about this if it's not too late. Does this mean that people will keep a larger percentage of their net worth in these types of items and not in things like the market? How do you get the money to play this game if you divert capital out of the stock market into these types of purchases?

Bux et al - There's another major issue in haute cuisine restaurants that needs raising. The wine lists have been completely picked over and the cellars have been replaced with new purchases that have been made at current market prices. Going to Guy Savoy and paying $1500 for a first growth from a top year, or $500 from a mediocre year has changed the dining experience. That's why I sense that pricing will go up not down. They need to find clientele who are going to buy wine in that price range and as such are going to have to make the experience more exclusive in feel. As for the been there done that, I think that all the major gastronomes would head to Spain if the reports weren't just that the meals were technically astounding. "Absolutely delicious" is what everyone is waiting to hear and then they will all jump on the plane. In addition, the Spanish restaurants do not seem to be part of hotels and are stand alone concerns and that means you have to stay somewhere else. And the Costa Brava doesn't really have its equivelents of the palaces on the Cote d'Azur. My wife and I were going to plan a few days on the Amalfi Coast in September before we go to Paris for a long weekend. So I pulled that article the Times ran on five seafood restaurants on the coast last summer and while I'm sure they are good, steamed gamberoni in an arugula sauce didn't move me to jump on the plane. So trying to find new places to go that serve "wow" food ain't easy.

Robert B. - My comments on France having bad PR isn't limited to their poor relationship with Jews at the moment. I think the entire Le Pen fiasco did more damage by making them look like a bunch of intolerant racists. The French already had a reputation for being xenphobic and being intolerant to Americans which displayed itself as rudeness. The whole Le Pen thing just tipped it over the edge and it brought certain feelings that people surpressed because France is such a wonderful place to visit to the surface. The Jewish issue was just a specific set of feelings by a defined group of people. But in addition to this, I think that the reputation of Europe as a whole took a turn for the worse with the American public for many reasons including their lukewarm support for our efforts in Afghanistan, and their failure to be clear about objecting to the use of suicide bombing as a diplomatic tool. And the fact that neo-conservatives were getting a large percentage of the vote all over Europe didn't help them at all. Add to that stories about the increases in petty crime and you have an atmosphere that is rifer to make people want to stay away. Plus there is always the been there done that factor as most people have already been to Europe.

Gee I hope that means this thread can now come to an end. We will get back to when Fat Guy is ready to admit I was write.

Don't you think that part of the problem with the prices is that it is becoming harder and harder for a 3 star restaurant to wow us? We have such good access to ingredients on a worldwide basis that what we want when we are sitting in a place like Arpege is something unique and unusual. That goes to Robert's point in another post about fixed menus and reduced choices and the chef being a performer. When sitting at Arpege and being served a Sea Scallop, a few carrot slices and a third vegetable with a dollop of the best Brittany salted butter in the world, would it be any good if you could get the same quality ingredients in NYC? As a result in order to keep the wow factor going the cost of ingredients and the labor to prepare them perfectly must be extremely expensive. I think another aspect to this is that with the stock market boom, even with the recent crash, luxury items are going through a repricing. For example, real estate prices are soaring. And the price of top bottles of wine are up by a large percentage. I sat at Christie's a few months back and watched a case of 1982 Cheval Blanc go for over $10,000 with the vig. It was selling in the $5550-$7000 range about a year ago. I think that what this issues comes down to, is that if a place like Daniel is going to do less covers a night, than they are going to try and appeal to the top end of their customer base. Sell a more refined experience to fewer people for more money. I think their decision to do away with lunch is a step in that direction. What will happen as a result is the same that will happen to '82 Cheval. The super wealthy will still be able to drink it every night. And the less wealthy will drink it less often than they were able to over the last 5 years. And the cost of eating in Arpege will be prohibative in a way that we haven't seen in a decade. Hopefully that will make for better restaurants in the middle but I'm never optomistic when it comes to food customs.

Fat Guy - You are just pointing to exceptions to the rule and you can't come to any conclusions about markets through exceptions other than they happen when markets are inefficient. As to businesses having to release 10 things to have 1 success, it's a result of businesses having to hit a certain percentage of the market. Let's say 30,000 copies for a book. But if you are in a businnes where 5000 copies are an acceptable result, your ratio will be better than 10 to 1 because it is easier to find books that sell 5000 copies than it is to find books that sell 30,000. So I'm not sure that example speaks to the point. Look there is only one way to prove this. You have to come out to eat at a\ lot of places with me so I can show you in person. There isn't any other way to do it.

" That reasoning would mean that every industry has the ability to know ahead of time what will sell." Nina - But they do. Every thing that sells was chosen for the market by experts in that industry. There. I dare you to prove that statement wrong. What you are trying to do is to point to the mistakes they make to say thay don't know how to pick them. But in reality, they have picked every one. It's just not true that every one they pick is successful.

Hey I was waiting for this argument. I didn't say that everyone who ate at Jean-Georges is a connoisseur, I said that the connoisseurs would choose J-G over USC because they serve better quality food there and that's who drives the market and ultimately how price gets set. Something I learned pretty quickly when I started my company is that before I could sell anything to the public I had to convince the industry I was right. They were more expert in analysing the good from the bad and they acted as a huge screening process. I'm just saying the same thing here. Jean-Georges is considered better than USC because expert eaters have made that determination. Is that a exact number of people? No. But is it a more refined group than who votes in Zagat. Absolutely although when Zagat first started their scores reflected a group of people with taste that was more refined than there current batch or reviewers have.

"Even consumer decisions in the high-end restaurant market are driven more by Zagat than by the collective judgment of those who really know their stuff" Fat Guy - When you make that statement, you are including the Union Square Cafes of the world in the definition of high end. And all you are saying is that the median Zagat reader agrees that USC is high end. But if we were to find the Zagat readers who think USC isn't a good restaurant, and limit the results to their ratings, I think you would find that the Manhattan Zagat Guide comes out a completely different way. And I think you will also find that the average price paid for dinner by the person I'm describing is much higher than the amount the average Zagat reviewer pays for dinner. And that is because those people are able to discern the difference in quality between USC and Jean-Georges. It's easy. Better quality = Higher Cost I'm trying to think of a single thing in our lives that it isn't true for. All you are giving me is the example where more people do it and they dilute the result because they don't know. That's my argument. I'm the one who says that people who rate USC as high as Jean-Georges do so because they just can't tell the difference. Has it occured to you that more people go to USC and love it because the quality isn't as good it's cheaper?

Nina - You've switched gears on me. The only people relevent to a market are those who participate in it. That everyone else eats at McDonald's has no relevence on the market that is willing to pay $12.98 a pound for chopped meat at Lobel's. They define that market. The people who buy D.O.C.G. Brunello are not the same market as people who buy Vino de Tavola. So in making a point about top level Brunello, you can't point to the people who drink Rosso. This is the whole point I've been making. Brunello is better quality wine than Rosso and people know it and that is why it costs more. But there are people out there who might actually think that Rosso is better and they can't understand why people pay 10x more for a bottle of Brunello than a bottle of Rosso. That isn't a matter of subjectivity, that's a matter of lack of knowledge. They just don't know.

Nina - I'm sorry I will try and explain it better. When I say that the market doesn't know quality but people do, I'm really saying the same thing you are and that the market doesn't operate in a vaccum. It is driven by people. But the next thing I'm saying (and it is implied in the statement) is that not every person is in the market for "not too long refriferated" chickens. Some people would prefer "long refrigerated" because they want to spend less money and don't care about quality as much as the connoisseurs do. So refined taste belongs to an educated minority and it is they who drive the markets.

"You, however, believe in a notion of inherent quality. This isn't something the market measures. It's not something the market gives two shits about" Fat Guy - The market doesn't care about inherent quality but people do and people can tell the difference. In fact you spend your entire vocational life ferreting out things that are of better quality in relation to other like things. So for you to say the market doesn't reflect that quality doesn't make sense. Chickens "not refrigerated too long" are better than "chickens refrigerated long time." If the market had equal information about the two, it would pay more money for the "not long time" providing that the underlying quality of the chickens were equal. Robert S. - I have understood that about your responses from the beginning. But in fairness to me, that isn't how Fat Guy framed his question. His question is "vs." "Pole vaulting requires more technique than sprinting." G. - Gee I'm not sure that's the case. I think the mechanics of sprinting are pretty demanding. Probably more so than the additional tier of technique needed for pole vaulting. But I'm just guessing. But I will say that the technique needed to make good risotto is more evolved than the one needed to make good congee, and the results prove it out when tasting it.

"What I would say, did say and will say, is that the quality of Italian, Indian, Mexican, Chinese and other food is every bit as good as French, each in its own way." Robert S. - My apologies if I put words in your mouth. At this time of day I'd rather it be some polenta with some extremely fresh ricotta and a little wildflower honey. Maybe a few fragolina on the side with a little sugar. But your quote goes to the heart of the debate here. Tell me how your statement is true when using the level of technique applied to each cuisine as the measure? That has been my point all along and is ultimately what seperates Cheap Eats from Fine dining. For example let's take a hamburger. I think it's an inferior technique of preparing chopped beef when comparing it to a good kofte kebab. Why? They make kofte by hand. And the knife technique the butcher uses minces the meat to a certain texture. This ability of being able to get the meat finely minced but still coarse allows the butcher to mince spices and herbs into the mixture while chopping the meat. But a hamburger is meat put through a grinder. And the texture of that technique doesn't lend itself to spicing. So the thrust of a good hamburger is more like a steak. The beefiest taste wins. But koftes come in all degrees of subtlety and among cultures that eat them, it holds a higher place in their cuisine than chopped steak does in ours. So to say that Tuscan beans are every bit as good and complex as cassoulet, in the context of this question, is sort of like saying that it is as hard to juggle three balls as four balls. And as someone who knows how to juggle three balls but not four, I can tell you that their is additional technique to learn to be able to juggle four.