Steve Plotnicki

Tony-Your last post makes no sense. The French have embraced North African cuisine the way Americans have embraced Chinese food. It's just that the French had immigration from countries that were different than the U.S. and Britain. Most people ended up with Chinese communities because the Chinese were brought over to build the railroads. But that isn't true forthe European railroad system I don't think. But Britain ended up with Chinese immigrants because of Honk Kong. Indian restaurants because India was a colony. Middle Eastern restaurants because they controlled the Middle East for awhile. Where is there similar cause for immigration to France, Spain, Italy, etc.? But that only defeats part of your answer. The most important part is that Britain's cuisine, nor the U.S.'s, was good enough (tasting that is or complexity if you like) to withstand the incursion of new ingredients and technques. So Britain's welcoming of the Tikka Masala isn't an act of benevolence. It's more like the act of somebody with sore feet that has been standing for centuries and finally has been given the opportunity to sit down.

LML-I actually took private lessons a number of years ago but lost interest after about a month. Those French have more conjugations than recipes . But my restaurant French these days is quite excellent and I have left many a Captain with their jaw hanging (as well as Madame Gagniare) while they listen to me translate the menu. I guess one day if I ever buy an apartment there I would try and learn conversational French. Right now I am limited to discussing the weather with taxi drivers. "En New York, neige comme ca."

Steve-I don't have one but I will ask my friend Dwight. He was the one who put on the old Italian tasting I went to. In fact here are my notes from the night. "The subject line of the message in my inbox on Wednesday afternoon said "Highly impromptu Piemonte wine tasting at my house tomorrow evening." That certainly piqued my interest. When I began to read the body it went on to say "Piedmonte wines from the 70''s. Most of the wines are in hand so no need to worry about finding anything." Now how could anyone refuse that offer? The invitation went on to say that invitees could bring starter or dessert wines or food to eat. So on Thursday evening in a lovely recently renovated 1840 Federal House in the West Village, ten truly fortunate people were treated to nineteen bottles of wine, many that I''ve never seen before and some that I probably will never see again. Before I get on to the notes, I have to disclose that I am not the biggest Piemonte wine fanatic around (one might even go as far as saying I don''t care for the stuff) but I have had a number of outstanding bottles of Barolo in my time. So my notes should be taken with at least one grain of salt. Secondly, these bottles were in mint condition. 1989 Krug from magnum (actually my contribution since I didn''t have time to bring food)started things out. Beautiful light golden color. Much better than the ''85 I had on New Years Weekend. But it was the type of delicious that had everyone pouring themselves another glass and we blew through the mag in no time. Less opulent than the ''82 I had in London in November but more opulent than the ''85 and had a bit of toastiness to it (I love that quality in champagne). EXCELLENT I have to admit that when we finished the champagne, two starter wines were passed around, a Barolo and a Barbera, both of which I skipped because of the impending deluge about to occur. So forgive me if I can''t post those notes. 1971 Tenuta Montanello Barolo Montanello-A little gem. People often try to describe smaller wines as "elegant" and too often it is an attempt to gloss over a wines failings. But this was elegant in the best sense. VERY GOOD PLUS 1978 Vignetti Roggiero e Boglietti Barolo Brunate- Madeirized but still pleasant. Like drinking light port. It was still good enough that I finished my glass. GOOD 1978 Paolo Scavino Baroco Bric del Fiasc- Also madeirized but the result made it taste hot. It seemed out of balance. Someone thought it had cork (as in imperfect not corked) problems. FAIR Manzoni Barolo- I found this oddly musty. I asked if it was corked and the mavens at the table said no after a number of stabs at it. It was a nice wine otherwise but that musty, sappy thing never left it. GOOD 1961 Gaja Barbaresco-Terrific, amazingly young, it kept expanding with time in glass. Not the biggest wine I''ve ever had (nor the best bottle of this) but it remains hands down the most elegant and subtle wine I''ve ever had. EXCELLENT and perfect bottles would merit Outstanding. 1979 Gaja Barbaresco Costa Russi-Paired with the ''61 it seemed slightly abrassive. But it was drinking well and a good wine from an underrated vintage. It wasn''t enough to turn my head amd make me seek this wine out but probably a steal for Barbaresco drinkers. GOOD PLUS 1982 Gaja Barbaresco Sori Tilden-Oh what a beautiful nose. One of those "you can sit there and smell it forever" wines. Palate considerably closed compared to nose. Still tannic. This wine will be great and will compare to the ''61 if not surpass it IMHO. Exellent weight and body but not overbearing and you can see the elegance of the ''61 peeking through. I savored this in my glass throughout the entire evening. OUTSTANDING 1978 Giacosa Barbaresco-I found this out of balance and without much to it. A pass for me. FAIR 1969 Giacosa Barbaresco Santa Stefano di Nieve-Now that''s more like it. A bit of smoky red meat on the nose. Perfectly ready to drink. Deep, deep cassis fruit. Not as large as the ''82 Gaja but delightful. EXCELLENT PLUS 1982 Giacosa Barbaresco Santa Stefano di Nieve was a fine bottle but not in the same league as the ''82 Sori Tiden. Needs lots of time and I can''t say it will be as good as the ''69. So for now, VERY GOOD PLUS, PLUS, but not quite excellent. After all of these wines a mini-vertical of Giacomo Conterno was served; 1971 G. Conterno Barolo Monfortino Reserva-Nice crisp acid. Coffee tones. In fact like an espresso with some orange peel. Amazingly still tannic, needs 5 more years. EXCELLENT 1974 G. Conterno Barolo Monfortino Reserva-More mature than the ''71. Somewhat minty. Not my favorite. GOOD 1978 G. Conterno Barolo Monfortino Reserva - Okay this was it. Wine of the night by far IMO. The nose was like walking through a field of violets. Just fantastic. Still tannic and still not ready but could be drunk. Pure magic in the glass and I can''t imagine how good it will be 10, possibly 20, possibly 30 years from now. This is the wine people should try and taste if they want to learn about the nuances of mature barolo. OUTSTANDING PLUS PLUS PLUS AND three YUMS from Plotnicki. 1982 G. Conterno Barolo Monfortino Reserva - A tannic monster. One taste and your tongue was coated with tannins. It actually took a few minutes to recover to the point where you could taste other wines. In fact all of the Conternos were tannic. Our host said, "these Conternos are the best wines I ever had that you couldn''t drink!" I will give this VERY GOOD but have to admit I''m just guessing. And to top things off; 1990 Avignonesi Vin Santo-Is a wine that Parker got it right on. Thick and voluptuous. Slightly tangy and a sip made me smack my lips and want more. Hey Pass the biscotti!! OUTSTANDING These were all consumed with some proscuitto, a bunch of fine cheeses including some good tete du moines, nice foie gras mousse pate and some excellent bbq flavored potato chips amongst other nosh. Someone then grilled up some wonderfully rare marinated flank steak and there were side dishes of cous cous with a bit of lemon peel, pea and artichoke salad, etc. After dinner a wheel of aged parmegian got a shaving and was served with the Conternos. It was quite a great night. I need more invitations like this. Anybody? Anybody?"

Bux-My similar story is on our second trip to France in 1984, my wife and I decided to take the slow train to Chartres on a Sunday afternoon. It was one of those lazy September days and we got there in the afternoon and toured the cathedral. Afterwards we spent a good hour just sitting on a bench across the street and just staring at it being hypnotized by the afternoon light bouncing off it. At about 5:30 we decided we were hungry and I had a place in mind to eat at called Henry V or something like that. The chef was a famous old chef, Charles something, must have been in his 70's at the time and I believe he had a Michelin star. His wife was the hostess. One of those perfect French women. Not a hair out of place and impeccably dressed. So being dumb Americans and being used to places that served food all day, we show up at 5:30 and I ask her if she has a "table pour due s'il vous plait." At first she is a bit taken aback because of the hour, but she quickly regained her composure, cocked her head back and grabbed two menus and motioned for us to follow her. We were the only two people there. She sat us, presented the menu and left us to stew. She came back a few minutes later and started speaking to us in French. "Parlez-vous Anglais" I asked her? "Non Monsieur." And then she began stepping us through an entire meal in French, speaking very slowly and purposely and ennunciating things so we could understand what she was trying to tell us. "VOUS PREFFEREZ LE POULET OU L'AGNEAU? The entire meal was like that and even though at the time my French menuspeak was limited, she got us to understand everything she was saying and she insisted that we experience the meal in a certain way. Order the food in a specific order etc. If she said something we didn't understand, she would repeat it even more slowly until we grasped the concept. And in one instance I remember that she went to the kitchen and brought back the ingredient to the table so we would understand. Well the food was only fair. A cuisine of days past and prepared by someone who had probably cooked at least one too many gigots. But the experience was a great one, all because she was so forceful in the way she insisted we experience the meal. That meal taught us more about how to eat in a French restuarant than any other we had eaten at the time. After we left and were on the train back to Paris, we wondered how many times she did that for people who came from every country imagineable.

Fat Guy-1978 Monfortino is one of the best bottles of wine I ever drank. It was from a friend's cellar. Then this past year I bought some at auction but the first bottle I tried was great for 15 seconds and then died of old age. I have another bottle sitting right here in my wine cave waiting for an occassion. It isn't unusual for me to buy an auction parcel where certain bottles are dead and the next bottle of the same wine is fantastic. It's the irregularity of the corks that usually does it. But I also have a '61 here waiting for an even more special occassion. Tony-1961 Gaja Barbaresco was sublime, but pretty much shot at this stage. But at the same tasting I had the '78 Monfortino at, the next best wine was '82 Gaja Barbaresco Sori Tilden. Fantastic stuff. But I'm surprised to hear you say Z-H? Not that I think they are bad wines. But they are so much in the Parker style and he rates them so highly. Christopher-Ou est George Breur? Bonneau je connai tres bien.

"you expressed my thoughts exactly and much more perceptively." Steve-That's why we're both named Steve Which Cote de Rhone was it? I never heard of a place that gave you a wine refill. It's like IHOP. The only other place I heard of with a cool wine scheme was Chez Louis. They would bring the bottle to your table and charge you by how much you drank. Tommy-I heard you put your face directly into the burger.

Sure. The West Side stinks. Aside from Ouest which is a fish out of water, the food sucks there (exluding brunch places of which good choices abound.) And the people are whack too. Those lox-slicers at Zabar's set the example for everyone. Everytime I go there, after 2 hours I get the West Side heebie jeebies and have to leave. The East Side is much better. The food sucks there also, but the people are much more civilized. I mean Steve Shaw and I live there. And the 4,5 and 6 trains are much better than the 1,2, or 3. Do any of those trains go to Yankee Stadium? I can make a list of ways the east side is better than the west side that is wider than the Island of Manhattan. But no need to bother because everyone already knows it. And it pains me to say that this wasn't always true. Before its gentrification, the west side was a wonderful place, full of lots of neighborhood type restaurants and shops. Dommage. Now give me Greenwich Village, Little Italy or the Lower East Side. Now those are neighborhoods.

"Genuine equality" John-Agreed if I could figure out what genuine equality means? I mean you are good in math and I am poor. I have a good palate for wines and you don't. Women flock to you for your animalistic charisma and nobody talks to me. I can think of thousands of these. We just happen to have agreed (agreed is the operative word here) to live within an economic system that is based on exploiting those types of inequalities. The difference between a 2 star and 3 star review in Michelin is exploited for millions of euros additional business. Is it proportionate? Everybody has an equal choice as to how they are going to participate. Granted, those choices are limited by how wealth and knowledge has been accumulated throughout history. But the Bill Gates's of the world have proven that not an insurmountable object and have accumulated greater sums of wealth in the past two decades than the industrialists of the late 1800's accumulated including the natural growth of their wealth over the last century. Maybe one day both wealth and knowledge will be distributed equally and indeed the world will be a better place to live in. But for all knowledge to be distributed equally that means I get to pilot the Concorde

Steve Klc-You have put your finger on what is so great about that burger which is in spite of the fireworks in the middle of the burger, is still a burger. The epitomy of lunch food. That's the genius of Boulud, and I might add as you so adroitly noted when describing the pasta, the genius of the French way. In spite of the inclusion of luxury ingredients which are not usually part of the New York weekday lunch diet, Boulud was able to realize the dish as casual lunch food. An amazing accomplishment that is in line with the French way of constructing/deconstructing foods to meet a social and gastronomic purpose.

Whiting-How about a self-service 3 star restaurant then? They would have the sauteed foie gras in a chaffing dish waiting for you to serve yourself. Or maybe eliminating the servers isn't a big enough nod to equality. How about you have to cook your own food too? Everyone gets to go back to the kitchen to cook the Arpege tomato dish with 12 flavors. And how about cleaning up? Let's all wash our own dishes. I mean aren't all of those people serving us? This game is fun. Let's keep peeling this onion back until I am flying the Concorde to London myself. I'm not trying to lecture anyone by saying this but, I used to think that the notion of equality was that everyone was equal. But it really means that everyone has an equal right as to the types of choices they make. If you would prefer to be an Astro-Physicist rather than a waiter, you can choose that providing you meet the rest of the criteria. And vice-versa I might add. Some AP's might be clumsy waiters and be forced to go to grad school. Slaves were forced to be servants. People wait tables by choice. Therein lies the diginity of what they do.

I had posted this on a few wine boards and it got a good response so I thought I'd run it up this flagpole. So here goes. One red and one white please. My choices would be Red-Dujac White-Niellon I almost said Roumier but there is something I find in the Dujac wines that is more casual than the Roumier wines and taking every day drinking into consideration I thought Dujac worked better across the board. And for the same reasons, I almost said Coche-Dury for whites but I like the simpler Niellon bottlings than the basic Coche Meursaults. But again, life woudn't suck if I only drank Roumier and Coche And I have disqualified DRC because they only make wine at the top end, and offer nothing for everyday drinking. If I eliminated Burgundy, and I was asked to pick just one Bordeaux to drink, I would say Latour. To me Bordeaux doesn't ever approximate a good everyday drink. It's either power or p*ss as far as I'm concerned. And in the Rhone, in the North I would say Jamet, and in the south I would say Les Cailloux. But I think it's harder to pick a single grower there because the terroir isn't codified into little bits like Burgundy is. In Burgundy, you can pick a producer and drink across the terroir. But in the Rhone, you have to find an average bottling that will be representative of the entire region. Anyone else?

Jaybee-Your story is great. But instead of making believe that you didn't order the omelet, they should have warned you off it when you were ordering. I find it hard to believe that a restaurant of that caliber would try and slip one by you. My French friends always leave a small amount of change extra on top of the bill. Like it used to be anywhere between 20-100 Francs depending on, well I never quite worked that one out. I guess it goes into the waiters pocket as a real tip. A few of them just leave the amount of the bill. I must say, I much prefer the service to be included. This way if I do decide to leave anything extra it is truly a reward for good service. Even if it's a small amount to let them know they did a good job. But in places where tipping is the custom, it galls me to have to leave the requisite amount when the service is poor and I'm often angry with myself for not having more courage to leave a small tip, or no tip at all. But in the waitstaff's defense, they also get the brunt of my negative feelings about the kitchen performing poorly. Can I stiff the restaurant? As for Whiting's assertion about tips and slavery, hmmm. What does race have to do with it? But I still think that in a world where people are supposed to be equal, the relationshion between served/server sort of flies in the face of the concept and it is awkward on some level. And to me tipping sort of highlights that conflict in a way that isn't called for. But next time I see Barenboim I'll throw a C Note at him and see what he does with it. I say he pockets it . As for drinks before dinner, I find that most of the better places have champagne carts with a selection of champagnes to order or to make kir-like drinks with. Many restaurants have house champagnes bottled for them in Eperney and they make lots of money selling the house bottling by the glass. And I always order Badoit if they offer it. But in places where they take you into a bar in order to present the menus and take your order (Troisgros is like that, Boyer as well,) having a real drink (Campari and Soda for me) seems more appropriate. But alcoholic drinks seem a bit out of place at one of those beautifully set tables./

Tony-I'd like to say well done but you know those aren't exactly new rhymes you have there?

How about lunch next Friday. It's the only day I'm in town next week. I'm going to post a new thread.

John-You have brought up an additional good point which is when a country has an indiginous cuisine that is weak, it is easily overcome by the cuisines of immigrants that move there if those cuisines are more interesting. It is true in the U.S. Whatever there was of traditional American cuisine has very much fallen by the wayside to things like pizza, bagels, pastrami, spare ribs, sushi etc.(that is in big cities with immigration.) And it's the same for England with tikka masala. And in Germany, kofte kebab has become the national dish. Notice how in France, Spain and Italy ethnic food has become popular but not to the extent that it overshadows the native cooking. As for cassoulet, I'm a big believer of the "it happened that way because they needed it to" school and I find your explanation of the housewives using up the leftover rascasse as most plausible. That's why I think dishes like cassoulet, gratins, etc. have more to do with access to community baking facilties (access to fire) than to culinary tradition. The tradition grew (not the invention of the dish mind you)because they had access to a certain type of fire for a certain time period. Then they honed the ingredients over time to make it taste better. I can't remember who wrote the story of a local baker who cooked people's gratins for them in his big wood fired oven for a small fee.

Wilfrid-You haven't spent any time trying to clarify my theory and you have spent all your energy trying to pick away at my concepts. And now, when that has been pointed out to you, you have decided to "sit back" instead of contributing to the core of the thread like John Whiting has done. You actually have a lot to contribute to this thread but you have been holding back because you were committed to proving me wrong instead of actually fleshing out what happened and why. And that is why you were called a knucklehead. Because time and time again in spite of the many times I asked you to stop making the conversation about me you insisted on it.

Jinmyo-I wouldn't consider tutti-frutti's posts as trolls. Droll might be more like it . He justs writes in a style that expresses disbelief that some writers who normally have their wits about what tastes good and what tastes bad seem to have lost their sense of balance when discussing this topic. Did I get that right tutti-frutti? I have to admit, I am amazed myself. We Americans are quick to admit the failings of our culinary history yet the Brits are slow at it despite the fact that we share the same culinary tradition. Neither of us has a Brillat-Savarin or Artusi to point to. It's not a matter of sheer coincidence. But for some reason I can admit to that and the Brits keep trying to deny it. I really don't know why.

Wilfrid-Here is your twisted logic at work. You quoted me as saying, "By the way, you conceded way back that the "decision" by the British moneyed class may not have been conscious and that they did not necessarily foresee the results," Did you see the word "may" in that sentence? Does that leave the possibility open that they *might have*? So exactly what concession have I made? You keep avoiding the obvious question. Food is more than a nutritional item. Good quality food is a social benefit, and certain countries ended up with a system that for all intensive purposes treated it that way. Whether it happened on purpose or by accident is of no importance to this question. But that isn't what happened in England. And obviously, the population's willingness to treat food the way they did impacted the quality they ended up with. And if at the time the Brits demanded better quality food, someone would have created the supply to meet the demand. And that's because there is as much money selling food as there in selling widgets. So none of this happened by accident. There are loads of reasons, all socio-economic as to why it happened. And maybe you just don't like the way I framed the question (why did they take it?) But if you spent as much time trying to help frame it properly we might have nailed down the answer by now. But instead, you have been spending the time queerying why I haven't framed it correctly which is tiring. So if you want to raise the level of debate, stick to the topic. And the topic isn't did Steve P get the theory right. If that's what you want to keep discussing it can only be about your attempt to establish some type of superiority. A debate I'm not interested in having under the guise of British food.

Jinmyo-No I'm not tutti-frutti but good try. I never disguise my participation. And I always announce a troll as such either in the header or first few sentences of the post itself.

Wilfrid-Gee you finally got around to my question of why did they take it? Drew Smith (from memory) seemed to be saying that the French peasantry revolted when the aristocracy tried to hunt the game in what were then public forests. At the heart of this question is a completely social issue. The moneyed classes in Britain made a conscious decision to do this and they had to know what the results would be. And in France, not as a matter of benevolency but as a matter of coming to terms between the classes, the French were smart enough to know that allowing the peasants to maintain the land was a great social benefit for everyone. For them as well. And it kept them (the peasants) off their backs about wages. I have a friend who was an Italian TV personality and he always used to say that as long as they give the Italian population a reasonable place to live, delicious and affordable food and football on the weekend there isn't going to be a revolution. Somehow (and this is intended to take a swipe at the moneyed classes in Britain,) they calculated they could get away with it, had the gumption to try it, and somehow they sold it to the people and it worked. I have such curiosity as to that issue because in a democracy it would appear to defy logic that it could happen. And maybe the democracy in Britain at the time wasn't a "true" democracy and not everyone's needs were well represented, or maybe not represented at all. I'm sure there is an answer because it is a function of continuity that people like Brillat-Savarin and Artuse were able to codify the various cooking techniques that had evolved in their respective countries as a direct result of that continuity.

John Whiting-That was an excellent post. And the reason it was excellent was that it started with the premise of British culinary tradition not being up to what it could have been for nearyly 300 years and it avoided the ongoing argument of whether it happened or not. And all the diversionary arguments about it not happening until the 20th Century. Rubbish. And I'm not talking about the food. But there are a few things I would like to probe. The concept of "cuisine terroir" is a marketing concept. But fortunately it is based on hundreds of years of knowledge as to what can be grown in each different parcel of land. So it is an outgrowth of the continuity you speak of. I mean how else would one find where espelettes grow the best unless one is attempting to grow them? So I don't think that people are offbase when they have romantic notions about how French food got that way. That is because the romance isn't really about the food, but about a way of life that created a superior product. But these days, that product has been substantially altered and homogonized by many things but quite often E.C. Union rules which in effect have had a similar effect as the enclosure laws did. Like the eliminiation of artisinal cheesemakers in France because cheese has to conform to the rules. The other thing you say that I believe incorrect is your description of "scraps" being used in the cassoulet. The origin of a Cassole, or Pot au Feu or the Jewish Cholent (Dafina for Sephardic Jews) was that it was difficult to make a fire and a pot was kept over a lit fire at all times. This was especially important in Jewish households where religious law prevents you from making a fire after sundown on the Sabbath. But you can add logs to an existing fire to keep it going. So a pot full of cholent (similar to cassoulet but using lentils instead of beans as well as no pork parts) was put on the fire on Friday afternoon before sunset and would cook all night until it was served for lunch after synangogue on Saturday afternoon. So the concept of the dish isn't based on scraps, it is based on using meat that will withstand the cooking time and will not get overcooked. And different cuts of meat get added depending on needed cooking times. Cassoulet isn't any different. It arises out of the "one pot cooks all" concept where houswives in French villages could bring their own cassoles filled with whatever to a community oven for baking that was lit on certain hours and on certain days. Bread was made in this manner too, and still is in certain parts of Burgundy I understand whre they still have community ovens. But your comment about Slow Food and what they have shown is spot on. But that brings us back to the heart of the question as to why different countries made different choices and why given that they started out sort of the same, it became so disparate from one country to another.

Wilfrid-I guess when you are a philosopher "current" can be describing eons. But fortunately I use the common version of the word which means *today.* And I didn't say *I* had trouble finding an English restaurant. I said this Chairman did. And I didn't say many of those restaurants didn't exist 12 years ago. In fact I didn't criticize the list at all. There once was a man named Wilfrid He ate pies after tasting he still did All your words he does parse A big pain in the arse Is he really a woman named Mildrid I apologize to all the women reading this but there are a severe shortage of words that rhyme with Wilfrid . But I know Tony and Andy are laughing right now.

Fat Guy-I was there for lunch on Tuesday. Is that when you were there? Also, my expertise on butchered meat lives and dies with the kosher cuts. And porterhouse is traif. But I can say with reasonable confidence that they buy the porterhouse and ribs seperately. They aren't buying whole sides of beef. Those cuts demand so much more money than the surrounding areas of the cow that the wholesalers butcher them to be sold seperately and they sell off the other parts. The chop meat must come from the trimmings ofwhole ribs and loins that have been aged and then butchered into steaks and/or tied into roast beefs. I mean how many burgers could they sell a day 20 or 30? For the amount of steaks they sell their each day, you should be able to get that much chopped meat easily from the butchered scraps. And of course we're not counting rejects. Meat they age which they decide won't cut it as steak for some reason so they grind it. So which is the best bacon you've had? An eGullet lunch at Lugar is a great idea (in fact lucnh anywhere is a great idea.) I don't know about tomorrow (today) though.

Gee I don't know. I had dinner there on Saturday night and we thought it was fine (but I didn't check the floor for crumbs.) They still offer dishes that were out of the box for what you usually get in Indian restaurants in town and indeed we had a good lobster dish in a spicy tomato sauce. Whether it has declined, I can't say. I think it was good but never earthshattering in the first place. But then again, I'm far from an expert on Indian food.

Steve-I ordered it medium rare and it came medium well. I almost sent it back but the flavor and the aroma of that aged beef was so intoxicating that the plate became glued to the table. As for the bacon, I thought it was a fine rasher. But speaking of bacons, have you ever had any of the Grateful Palate's specialty bacons? If not, mosy on over to their website and check it out. Or maybe you will want to join their Bacon of the Month Club. And if you want to buy anything, Call Dan Fredman there and tell him Plotnicki sent you. But I am intending to lunch there again within the next few weeks and I will check the bacon out a second time. Have you tried the Chopped Steak yet? The guy eating next to us had it with those groovy looking sauteed onions on top. It looked great. How about the Prime Rib? Could they possibly serve prime rib that is aged like the Porterhouse?