Steve Plotnicki

Bushey - I thought you were British for some reason? Must have been a different Bushey . I'm not enamored with crepes though I haven't really had a good one I suspect. I think one needs to go to Brittany and have one made from buckwheat flour. Dosas are really good though. That combo of lentil and rice flour has that nutty thing going on. Sort of like sourdough bread. I'm surprised nobody has worked them into Western cuisine. I've been thinking about how one would do that but they are so fragile that won't hold anything for long.

Jon - It doesn't make a difference what the Chinese valued vs Western palates. We already said yesterday that this discussion is limited to a western view of things. And to say they ground up the meat to suit the cooking technique puts the cart in front of the horse. In Italy they couldn't afford meat so they used a bit of ground meat to flavor their dishes. That's all they could afford. And I'm sure you will find tough meat at the bottom of the kebab culture. But people who could afford better food ate whole lamb chops and didn't grind anything up. And to say that hamburger has a better mouthfeel than filet steak, only someone who doesn't know anything about steak can take that position.

I need to add one more thing re: hamburgers. The process of grinding up the meat eliminates many of the unusual and best qualities that you get from a steak. Granted it creates different types of qualities that are valuable, but those qualities are aesthetically inferior to the ones you get when a steak is served. And that is why a hamburger has become a situational food that is eaten in less formal circumstances than a steak is. It is far more challenging to eat a steak than it is to eat a burger. There is something in this point that speaks to why the French never adopted the hamburger and in large part never constructed a cuisine around ground meat the way other cultures did. Look at the Italian ragu. Or the various kebab cultures that thrive from Croatia clear across to India. Could it be that the ground meat culture came about in places where they couldn't afford quality beef and it was cheap to use ground? Shepherd's Pie is another one like that. And I guess there is the French Hachis Parmentier but the culture in France is really Steak Frittes. Anyone able to add to this? Jon T. - If you think a hamburger tastes as good as a good filet steak, you need to come to NYC and eat both a hamburger and a filet steak.

Except that the same criteria that I use, and which you want to call subjective, happens to be the same criteria the market uses when they are being objective about it . That the market then has a method of turning that objective measure into more and less dollars and cents doesn't negate that they view it objectively from the getgo. It's like the story that Hank told (I've haven't seen him here for awhile) tells about Mrs. Forman from Peter Luger's coming to pick out shells for the restaurant. She picks *the best steaks.* She just doesn't call up and say send me 500 shells. There is such a thing as better quality and worse quality and she knows it. And a smart butcher would charge a customer who cherrypicked the best ones more money per pound because *they are worth more.* It's the same with all food. Better quality brings a higher price. If you and I were to go to the dock in Montauk and watch the fisherman come in with their catch of tuna, the best quality fish would be sold on the spot for the most money. And the reason the best quality fish sells for more money is because it tastes better. Now can they screw around with the price by limiting their catch to run up prices? Sure they can. But Grade A tuna will always sell for more money than Grade B tuna. That's because it tastes better. It's really that simple and nothing at all about it is subjective.

Jaybee - You too aren't focusing on what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that there is value in better quality. How much value is another thing because in translating that quality for a consumer it goes through all sorts of market manipulations. But let's take your Chevy Malibu example. If Mercedes made a 600S that looked like a Chevy Malibu they might not be able to get $135K for it, but it would still be a "better" car than the Chevy. Mercedes just makes better cars than GM does. Especially at that price point. Better quality is simply better quality. How marketers translate that quality doesn't negate the fact that there is a qualitative difference between the items. True the market can distort things to a large degree but, that has nothing to do with a comparison of products at their base level. But this has little to do with comparing hamburgers and steaks. Or a Bresse chicken and Kentucky Fried Chicken. In those instances the qualitative difference is recognized by relative pricing. Not by the amount you pay extra for the real estate at the 21 Club. And if you were to strip all the excesses away (all things being equal) you would find that the chopped meat they use at the 21 Club costs $X a pound and the steak costs $Y because people value the qualities of a steak more than a hamburger (that's because it tastes better but don't tell anyone lest they might get upset.) Robert S. - It depends on how good the banana and formaggio are. It can be simple or complex depending on their quality. But if you add maybe some fresh halved almonds it would add complexity which would probably make it better. I wonder if a Picasso banana peel is worth more than a Richard Widmark grapefruit? Jon T. - Excellent post. But it fails to discuss the difference beween good lamb shanks and bad ones. Things being equal, good lamb shanks WILL ALWAYS be priced higher than bad ones.

JD - Gee eveybody is trying so hard to avoid the obvious. There shouldn't be any need to define what better means in the context we discuss it around here. When somebody here (possibly me) says that Breese chickens are superior (better) does anybody really need an explanation of what I mean? When I say that Charolais beef is better than Angus, do I have to explain what I mean by better? You recently posted on the fish soup at Loulou and Tetou and you were unhappy with the Tetou version. Guess what, Loulou made a better fish soup than Tetou did. Is that really such a hard concept? And you know what else Loulou's fish soup is better than? The bottled version of fish soup you can get at traiteurs all over Provence. Is there an argument about that? Or are we willing to accept the opinion of someone who prefers the fish soup from the bottle because we believe that quality is subjective? Your comments about maximizing cost do not change my general assertion that things of better and lesser quality are priced relative to their level of quality. So if a item is really worth $10 (whatever that means) and someone who is a good marketer can sell it for $15, than the item that is really worth $15 ends up getting sold for $22.50. Of course it's possible to hit a ceiling where the more expensive item might top out at a lower price but, that's the exception to the rule, not the rule. I've found that most items are scaled from the top down, especially when you are talking about luxury items. The cheaper Mercedes are priced in relation to the most expensive ones. That way they can get you to buy through the scale as you get older and make more money.

"Whether one is $26 better than the other is really not part of this debate" Jon - You conveniently skip over that part of my statement. I am not arguing that one is worth $26 more than the other, just that the market has acknowledged the superiority of one over the other. How the market sets the price is subject to supply and demand. But in reality, chopped meat will always cost less because they blend in cheaper cuts to make it. Now why do you think some cuts cost less than others, marketing? edited in after You know I disagree with you that you can get a decent filet steak in the U.K. period. Not that I'm saying you couldn't find one at all, but I'm saying that in my experience what you normally find is crappy and Americans wouldn't find it acceptable. Is that subjective or is it a function of poor quality? And does someone who thinks a U.K. filet steak is acceptable just of a different opinion, or does he just not know his steak? [HOST'S NOTE: This discussion, such as it is, continues here: Fine Dining vs. Cheap Eats, Continued]

"But wait a second, that's not what you're saying, is it? You've defined betterness in terms of cost. You've defined betterness in terms of complexity (well-executed complexity). You've defined it in terms of everything but quality." Fat Guy - You're not paying attention. I went through the entire Roumier example to show that there is a *qualitative* difference between the steps up that drives a difference in cost between each step. Bonnes Mares, however good it might be in certain years will never have the unique qualities that Musigny has, i.e. the complexity that Musigny has. In 1999 for some reason, Amoureuses is Roumier's best wine. I will attest to that myself as I got the pleasure to taste the Musigny and then the Bonnes Mares and Amoureuses side by side at a dinner a few nights later. The Amoureuses in the glass was almost twice as dark as the Bonnes Mares. It was so intensely concentrated. But which one did we pay more for? The Bonnes Mares of course. It cost $20 a bottle more than the Amoureuses because Bonnes Mares is a better quality wine. Now I haven't said better wine, I said better quality wine. Because as good as the Amoureuses is in '99 (and believe me it's fantastic,) it still doesn't have the unique qualities that Bonnes Mares has, even in a year when Bonnes Mares is the lesser of the two. So when you say, "Likewise complexity -- even assuming flawlessly executed complexity -- does not inherently equal quality." Well you are going to have to tell me why that isn't the case. Remember, it isn't quality in and of itself that is worthwhile, it's complexity executed properly. People make bad Musigny that sells for less money than Roumier's does because it isn't anywhere as good. So complexity in and of itself doesn't have consumer value outside of a successful effort. People won't pay more for cashmere if the sweater is lopsided. But that's just a fancy version of "all things being equal." Now okay let's get this simplicity thing out of the way. I think that everyone has been misusing the word simple. What I think you and others mean when you use the word simple isn't really simple, it means complex with the expenditure of less effort. And when you use it in that context, you conveniently leave out the time and the effort it took for someone to be at a level where they make complex things in a simple way. Let's take Robert's Picasso example. I don't think that Picasso saying he is trying to paint like a child is simple at all. It just sounds that way. He's really talking about something complex. He's really saying that he wants to achieve the same level of complexity by employing less technique. Yes he can draw a 4 line stick figure on a piece of paper and make it look simple, but there is 70 years of practice in those lines. That isn't simple. Calling that simple is hype. If it was simple, you and I would be able to do it and we can't. Robert S. can say that he prefers a plate of Tuscan beans to a cassoulet because it is simple really just means that he prefers having a blend of say 5 flavors as opposed to 15. But that doesn't mean the intensity of the 5 flavors, including secondary aspects to each flavor isn't complex. Let me ask you, and this is not to cast any aspersions on Robert, how would we know the difference between someone who preferred less flavors to someone who couldn't understand a dish with 15? This argument comes down to the fact that a hamburger isn't as good as a steak. Given all things being equal like both made from the best quality beef, right ratio of fat etc., ground meat just doesn't have the same complexity as a steak. both in flavor and in texture. And that is why a hamburger sells for $5.99, and a good steak sells for $32. Whether one is $26 better than the other is really not part of this debate. But a strong acknowledment in the selling price that recognizes the qualitative superiority of a steak is.

Jordyn - As I was trying to explain to Fat Guy, who seems to have disappeared, the amount of the price differential isn't as relevent in the first instance as the fact that an increment needs to exist. That's really the issue we seem to be trying to get our arms around. Is there such a thing as better quality that refutes subjective arguments? Nina - Lxt refuted that point earlier today when she said it doesn't make a difference how one comes to know that something is superior, or what motive one has. Things are only superior because *once upon a time somebody figured it out.* "Since Plotnicki assures us that quality will rise and be recognized. I'm not ready to rule out the possibility that American gastronomes will recognize Spanish haute cuisine. " Bux - Thanks for the plug . The thing I can't get my arms around with the new Spanish cuisine is why is it happening? I would be a lot more comfortable pronouncing its future dominance if I knew why it was occuring in the first place. Since I haven't been there, I'm sort of at a loss to understand it. But I'm usually good at assessing food from far away if you know what I mean. But this food is different.

Jaybee - I exclusively use a Weber Performer. Can't beat the electric ignitor. And I exclusively use hardwood from Quebec. I buy a bunch of 10 pound bags at the end of the grilling season and keep them in the garage until the next spring. By the time I use them they light like wooooosh. They make for an amazingly hot, and uniform fire. But one thing I have found that makes a big difference is the heavy metal grate insert that Weber offers. Those tines get to be hot suckers, and the sear it goves your meat from them is terrific. Tommy - Indirect heat for ribs at 150-175 degrees.

Toby - Yes they were grilled and I believe balsamic was drizzled. Quite good and caramelized on the outside. Jordyn - I've drunk my fair share of Screaming Eagle and I can't tell you if it is worth $1300 a bottle, but I can tell you that it has unique qualities (in certain vintages only) that other Ca. cabs don't have. So there is a qualitative basis for the price being aggressive. But clearly the extremely small supply drives price here more than anything else. But if it was made in similar quanitites as Bryant Family and Colgin (things being equal,) it would probably sell for the same price, maybe a hair more because it's unique. The point I'm trying to make is that regardless of whether it is worth the price because they have created a false market, diamonds are beautiful and unique and so is Screaming Eagle. Cubic Zirconia is not beautiful in the same way. Artificial things usually aren't as beautiful as natural ones. If I am sitting in a restaurant and a woman walks in with large diamonds that are of good quality, I notice. That's what drives people to wanting them. How much they will pay is a different matter. Jaybee and Nina - Well the proof is in the pudding as they say. There hasn't been an advancement in jazz since about 1967. That's 35 years. I don't think it's because of an abnormality in the birthrate. Waitiing for "someone to come along" and revitalize it is like waiting for Godot. It ain't going to happen anymore than someone is going to write the logical followup to La Traviata. Jazz, meaning the type of music that was played from 1928 through 1967, as opposed to jazz meaning a strategy of playing music that is applied to different harmonic and rhythymic structures that we wouldn't traditionally define as being jazz, is dead. Just like opera in the style of La Traviata is dead. The reason for it's death is not a failing of the human race. It's a limitation in the harmonic possibilties in the music. There are lots of types of music that aren't written anymore. How about Broadway show tunes like Ooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhklahoma where the wind goes ...... You know why they don't write songs like that anymore? They wrote them all already. I know that sounds funny but it's true.

I just got back from Craftbar where I had some good charcuturie, some excellent prosciutto wrapped fresh figs and a lovely veal stew with some teeny roast potatoes along with a great bottle of 1989 Jamet Cote Rotie. Yummy dinner. "But that's the equivalent of saying that better beef costs more than worse beef. Of course it usually (but not always) does." Fat Guy - But better beef *does* cost more than worse beef. Of course there are external factors that impact cost like location (geography) . But if I am correct, my previous statements qualifies things by saying "all things being equal" meaning, eliminate unique circumstances. If you were to eliminate unique circumstances, I think you would find that price is a pretty good corollary for quality. Lets take my example of Burgundy and Roumier. Roumier makes the following wines; Chambolle-Musigny Chambolle Musigny Les Cras Charmes-Chambertin (which is made by Bonnefond and vinified by Roumier) Chambolle Musigny Amoureuses Bonnes Mares Musigny Starting with the village Chambolle, and stepping up to the Musigny, the price goes up at each step. The point you're focusing on which is how much it goes up, isn't really relevent to my point. My point has to do with Christophe Roumier being able to acknowledge the difference and determine which wine is of better quality than the others. The incremental difference is of no importance. What is important is that a difference has been distinguished by the winermaker and that somehow correlates to price. That Musigny has qualities that are not present in Les Cras is not in dispute. But what the people here seem to be saying is that Les Cras can be better than Musigny because it's all subjective. I say that's nonsense. Anyone who thinks Les Cras is better than Roumier's Musigny *doesn't know anything about wine* and that's really a polite way of saying their palate isn't good enough to know the difference. I think to say that this perspective is acceptable because a pseudo-governmental sanctioning group designated certain wines as better and worse under the A.O.C. system and that doesn't apply to food that isn't sanctioned is a bogus argument. We should be able to tell based on our own palates. To say that if an A.O.C. sanctioning committee would annoint pale supermarket tomatoes at the lowest rating but since that hasn't happened it's a matter of opinion is not the greatest argument in my book. Better is better and worse is worse. Either you can taste the difference or you can't. As for the simple vs complex argument. For some reason people want to say that I have argued that more always means better and that things that have for example, more ingredients are always better than things with less ingredients. I haven't said that. I have said that things with more ingredients are more complex, hence better, *when they are prepared well.* Obviously perfect Tuscan beans are much better to eat than bad cassoulet. But did I really have to state it that way? Don't you think it is implied when I say things of better quality are *better*? Jaybee - Jazz is dead because the harmonic and rhythymic possibilites have been exhausted. Once they went to Avant-Garde or Free-Form jazz, that was the death knell because it was evidence they were exhausted. French cooking is sort of the same. And while I can't say that all the possibilites have been exhausted, it's close. G. - You are going to have to explain the difference between cost and worth. You have me baffled on that one. As to disagreements even amonst the informed, you won't get any argument from me that on that level subjectivity exists. But the issue really is, Who is the informed? From the way people talk about subjectivity here, any opinion is informed. And while there are obviously things that are subjective in nature, subjectivity shouldn't be used as a cover by people who can't tell what is a poor performance or are unable to tell the difference between something that tastes good and something that doesn't. Jin - I'm going to give you a pass on this one. The arguments against British food are already well stated. And everytime you post the picture of that pie they are reinforced.

Fat Guy - Before I run out to dinner. You can't prove the usual by pointing out the unusual. To say that the price of grapefruts after a catastrophic event is indicative of their worth doesn't make any point. Most things that are better cost more *because they are better.* Of course not everything that is good is popular enough to have supply and demand kick in so the market reflects it's quality. Take German wines for example. They are not popular with collectors so there is no real secondary market and the prices aren't driven up by supply in demand. However, that doesn't mean that the producers don't price the wines from the better vineyards at a higher price point. Of course they do. In Burgundy Roumier makes a Musigny, a Bonnes Mares and a Chambolle-Musigny Amoureuses and he charges in that order from best to lesser. But that doesn't mean that in odd vintages like 1999 the Amoureuses might not be the best wine and priced at or higher to the Bonnes Mares. But that doesn't mean that Musigny is not a better quality vineyard than Amoureuses. The ranking isn't subjective, it's objective according to A.O.C. standards. So quality is quality, and rareness in the market is a different factor completely. One really has nothing to do with the other because an assessment of price equaling quality assumes that other factors that would have an impact or price like availability are equal.

Robert - The Ramones always played like children. In fact they never learned how to play like adults. What they played was the best that they could do and to be honest about it, many children could play better than they did. Picasso learned how to paint like an adult. In fact he set the standard for adult painting. You can't compare him to the Ramones. "You can't tell me you use price as a measure of quality" Nina - Come on Nina, better things cost more. Are you really going to argue about that? And before you tell me that a meal at Ali's is better than a fancier meal in some swanky place in Manhattan, it all goes to the definition of better. Not as in preference, but as in an objective assessment of what goes into the food including the ingredients and preparation. You know I went there a few weeks ago and had the soft shell crabs dipped in garlic and turmeric and sauteed. It was delcious. But as I sat their analyzing the dish, I realized that if I was eating the same dish at say Annisa, Anita Lo would have put the vegetables that the crabs were sitting on through the ringer and she would have come up with a more refined way to serve them. In other words, her version, given everything else being equal would have been "better." Ali's version as good as it was had limitations because the technique he applies to making the dish is not as evolved as Anita Lo's would be. There, that's an objective version of "better" that has nothing to do with my preferring something based on taste, but based on how much technique the chef put into making it. The standard Chowhound argument against what I just wrote is to say, why is more refined better? Why isn't Ali's home cooking style the better of the two becaue I like it better? And to have that opinion is to deny that 100 years of cooking technique that is traditionally used to measure how well someone cooks should be thrown out the window for subjectivity. Nisht.

J.D. - The reason that people went to the Silicon Valley is that Stanford University is there. And from what I understand, as opposed to MIT and Harvard, they allowed the professors on staff to keep the patents they developed in the school labs for themselves. So indeed it was a hub. It was a place where people went to get rich. Prior to this policy a major technology hub was in the greater Boston area. Companies like Wang, Digital Equipment etc. But when Stanford implemented that policy and the industry moved west, it almost completely obliterated the high tech industry in Massachusets. "To buy your geographic hub theory you would have to believe that if, say, Spain or Denmark had possessed a local populace enamoured with food, a system of rating and ranking restaurants, a system of rating and rewarding top chefs (Meilleur Ouvrier de France, etc.), and many of the other internal factors that enhance French cuisine and diffuse it across the world, the cuisine of those countries would NOT have spread as the French did, simply because, in crossing Europe (by train? on foot? boat?) people didn't naturally traverse those lands." Well you are discounting the other factors. Not only was France a hub, but they were in the best position to take advantage of the information. The most important factor that none of us have raised so far is in the 20th Century, there are four distinct emanations of French cuisine. There is the Esscoffier stage, the Fernand Point stage, the Paul Bocuse stage and the Joel Robuchon stage. Of course I am leaving certain great chefs out but those names should do. There is no Spanish, Danish, or even Italian equivelent of that sort of evolution in cuisine. You also can't raise caviar as a reply to my point about expense because it is not similar in anyway to a pappardelle with hare sauce. But the ppardelle is similar to a lievre a royale. So when it's apples to apples, it's relevent. Allard in the 6th is still there. Unfortunately the Allard family doesn't own it anymore. It's owned by the Freres Blanc who own a chain of restaurants. Nina - Pale supermarket tomatoes are shitty. That's why they sell for .99 a pound. Beefsteak tomatoes are delicious. That's why they are going for $4.99 a pound. It ain't rocket science.

Oy, you take a shower and look how much there is to respond to. Jordyn - Your most eloquent post is something I was trying to get at earlier. The reason these debates go on endlessly is that the doubters want the standard to be absolute proof. Just look at the way my point about perfume was parsed. "The presence of trace substances in a perfume or wine is an objective fact, and those with the requisite skills can detect those substances. Whether the presence of those substances is a good or bad thing is, however, purely subjective. " This opinion completely ignores that certain trace substances being present is what make perfumes extremely valuable. Or it is to say, that people who know nothing about perfume and don't value those substances have opinions that are just as valid as those who do. As I was going to ask Nina, but since the issue is really raised here I will ask you. Is a beautiful beefsteak or a perfectly formed and ripe roma plum tomato better than a pale supermarket tomato? The best you can say is that "better" is the wrong word to use. But to quibble over the word, which is what we do around here is really useless. Whatever you want to call it, the point is made. Anyone who likes a pale supermarket tomato better than a beefsteak, doesn't know anything about tomatoes and we just shouldn't listen to them. "However, the statement that kidneys taste best when fresh and cooked rare is, again, subjective" G. - I saved this one for you. No a kidney tastes best when it is cooked in a way that maximizes its flavor. Roast beef tastes best rare. But onglet tastes best medium rare. And so on. Of course you might like your roast beef well done. But that has nothing to do with when a hunk of prime rib exudes the most flavor, or has the best texture for chewing. Robert S. - I find that Picasso quote to be a bunch of hype. It was made at a point in his life when he didn't need to be cutting edge anymore. It's a great thing to say when you are selling people plates with stick figures on them at $5,000 a throw. But it's only something one could say after being the most important artist of his era, and who implemented an extremely complex technique that was different than what came before him. In fact it's good that he didn't paint like a child all his life because we would have a bunch of plates and vases instead of masterpieces. Wilfrid - How French cuisine would perform against Chinese etc. is irrelevent. The question of French culinary dominance can only be viewed amongst a peer group that includes Western palates. When anyone here uses the word dominant, they don't mean dominant over Indian per se, they mean dominant over British, German etc. That it might be dominant over Indian is a different issue. There is good reason for French and Indian cuisine to be disparate (geography ). But the reason that the disparity between French and British or German exists is somewhat harder to explain.

Bushey - Are you a Brit Yid? How charming if that's the case. But the blintzes story is charming all by itself. My grandmother used to make fabulous blintzes. She was an Austrian immigrant, but not from the fancy part of Austria. But she never passed the trick of making the leaves on to my mother. So after she went to that big blintz in the sky, it was frozen blintzes for me. Then when I was in my early 20's I had a business partner whose mother made a mean blintz. I always thought the trick was getting the consistancy of the cheese, including the level of sweetness and butteriness just right.

Toby - That succotash sounds great. Now if you were to cook it to that point and then puree it, strain it through some cheese cloth, add a little cream and maybe a hit of something like Mace, and then cook it to a velvety consistancy, you would be able to spoon some on a plate and then you could lay a beautifully little sauteed loin of veal atop. Voila, French food. John Whiting - I think that's a pretty good standard you have there.

Sorry Cabby I was talking to Nina. In fact that's her quote up there. If I understand the rest of your question, it has to do with acknowledging Gagnaire's contribution to cooking, outside of the context of liking the cuisine. I thought I managed to do that in reviewing Arpege as the style of cooking is not one I'm predisposed to liking. Yet, one can only view it through the lens of what Passard is trying to accomplish and to assess whether it's valid, whether he's successful at it, and how does it taste within those parameters. Sure one's own subjective likes and dislikes colors their opinion. But somehow if you want to try and be objective, you have to overcome that bias for the sake of tasting it correctly. Robert S. I completely agree with you. But it's one of the problems when discussing things that are arbitrary in the context of questions that are framed like they aren't. Once someone asks "Why is French food dominant?" In the context of that question to say it's better isn't so far out of line. You should have come to lunch instead of the gym. It tastes better. Toby - I don't think this thread has caused the level of dissension you are picking up. It's actually a rehash of a number of different arguments where Wilfrid doesn't really want to admit that French food is superior. Notice I didn't say he wont admit it. He will. He just doesn't really like to But thanks for caring the way you did. Nina - Well the dress code thing is a moving target. But let me try one on you for size. Is Difara's pizza better than Domino's because of someone's opinion or is it that they use the top quality and freshest ingredients?

Sour cream? Oh gross. Just kidding. Sour cream on egg noodles is a thing, but it doesn't get the sugar and cinnamon topping. At least in the Jewish households I know. You know what Jews used sour cream with? Chopped vegetables. Like you can go to one of the kosher style dairy restaurants that still exist and you can have chopped peppers, cucumbers, etc with sour cream. It was never my thing but my grandmother used to eat it all the time when I was a kid. I trend towards sweet things with sour cream, like berries or blintzes and then sprinkling sugar.

"Food is different than literature, because it involves an individual PHYSICAL response, ie taste buds, sense of smell, interacting with food. I can taste every type of food known to mankind, but I still might not LIKE certain things." But all that says is that you can't view food objectively. But there are people who can. Just like there are people who smell perfume for a living. It isn't based on their preferences, but on their ability to discern subtle differences in the fragrances. Same with wine tasting. It's not about liking it, it's about having the ability to differentiate between terroirs on tasting. Quality isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of meeting objective standards. It has nothing to do with things like liking offal or oysters. Those are just complex tastes that some people might like, and some people might not like. But whether you like veal kidneys is a wholly different question than is this particular one of good quality, and has it been prepared well? Those aren't really measured subjectively. They are measured objectively.

Egg noodles, cottage cheese, sugar and cinnamon.

Nina - I was just about to post something and then I read your last response. Okay, let's take it from the other direction. Is every opinion about food valid? Do you not think that a certain expertise is needed to evaluate good food, or can anyone do it? How about music? Art? Literature? Is it all subjective? Does John Grisham write as well as Steinbeck because I say so?

" Part of the reason that this discussion is problematic is because we're arguing over points that are inherently subjective for each of us." Nina - Well that is the problem isn't it. When I say France has better food, I say it objectively not because I like it more. Others do not seem to be using the same standard and that's why we keep arguing. For example I do not eat raw oysters. But that wouldn't keep me from acknowledging their greatness and the French superiority in cultivating them when evaluating their gastronomy. Better doesn't mean better to me. It means better. Like cassoulet is better than cholent. It has pork. The rendered pork fat is a flavor that cholent can't replicate. So as good as cholent can be, it has its limitations. And ratatouille in the 6-8 hours of cooking needed to prepare it, gets secondary and tertiary flavors out of those vegetables that you just can't get out of a succotash. So it is....... Come on you can do it too. Is DiFara's better just a matter of opinion? Is Sripaphai? Is Ali? Why do you get your kebabs from Ali as opposed to one of those kofte slingers down the block from him. He's better. Isn't that the answer? Is it really a matter of opinion? Not to say that there aren't arguments against those positions, but they don't undermine the original argument, they just present a different perspective on it. And it might be unPC of me to say this but, not every opinion has validity. I haven't been to DiFara's but I bet you that even if I went, I couldn't make a cogent argument against it being good. I might not like it the best but, I would evaluate in the context of *all pizza,* not just what I like (I already admitted to wanting brick oven and anchovy ) .

Okay restaurants in the 7th. In no particular order and from the top of my head. Les Fontaine de Mars Violon D'Ingress Beato La Poule au Pot Chez L'Ami Jean Paul Minchelli Petrossian D'Chez Eux L'Auberge Bressane Le Bourdennaiss Le Divellac L'Affriole There are a bunch more if I picked up my Gaullt Millau. As for the 14th, that's the BCBG arr. and where the yuppies live. I mean it's nice but a true schlep to the heart of the city. In Paris one can live anywhere. People like living in Monmartre but it's not for me. I like it where it gets quiet when the sun goes down. Yet it bustles by day and the population is the right mix of locals and strangers. And it's s short walk/ride to the heart of the city. I'd hate to live in the 5th and 6th because the strangers outnumber the locals to a great extent. Same with the Marais. Arrondisements outside of the ones that ring the center are almost like going to New Jersey or the boroughs