Steve Plotnicki

Those are examples of theater, not of food. Yes I know that they both use food as the vehicle for their theater, but it sort of reminds me of sensaround in the Earthquake movie. You are either in the earthquake or you aren't. The rest is make believe. And I've had the ChefG lobster dish and it's very good. But it didn't make me run home to tell my Bubby that she should serve me a matzoh ball in a small dish, which is sitting in a larger soup bowl, and then to pur intense chicken broth into the soup bowl so everytime I bend over to take a bite of the matzoh ball I am inebriated with the aroma of chicken soup.

I don't think he has argued that at all. I think he has argued that nothing about a tasters externalities changes the physical food. It just changes the taster's perception of the food. I have added to this point that if externalities change the way a taster percieves something, that is a flaw of the taster and that needs to be corrected with a new and different taster. I also think that you are all putting a lot of stock in externalities making a big difference. Show me a scientific study that shows that expert tasters, listeners, viewers or smellers are affected at the same rate as novices? All of your studies are going to be based on non-expert opinions. This statement is one of the great fallacies that people who are outside of the trade, yet possibly very expert on an amateur level, make all of the time. Go on a business trip with my friend Joe the wine importer. Go with him into the cellar of one of his vignerons, who has a 5 hectare parcel of chenin blanc growing in the Loire, and where he segregates the grapes into 10 batches and vinfies each batch individually. Joe, blindfolded, by tasting samples from each barrel, can tell you which site in the vineyard each sample comes from. I must know 50-100 people who can do what I just described. And I'm not talking about professionals. There are countless professionals who can do it. I am talking about serious and commited amateurs. What I want to know is in light of all the people who can do it, and in light on all of the literature written by people who do do this, how can you refute it isn't true? By what lab rats did? Or by what people who normally eat in Red Lobster and McDonald's were affected by? We are talking about food for connoiseurs. And unless you use other connoiseurs as guinea pigs, I think the sciene you offer as evidence is gobbledigook. Because indeed, if you ran the same tests with expert tasters, your results would probably be much different. How exactly was Pavlov's dog trained before he was tortured to death?

Sorry you got this bit wrong. You are describing a flaw of the taster, not the quality of the thing he is tasting. Ingredients have a chemical analysis independant of how they taste to someone. A good taster will not be fooled by the presentation. It will not make his glands salivate. It will be transparant. That is what he is trained to do. Seperate out the wheat from the chaff. If I served you a bowl of berries and cream and then squeezed a fresh lemon over the bowl, it is certain that you would know the lemon juice is in the bowl. But you still might not be able to taste it because you do not have the capacity to. Tasting is about knowing the lemon juice is in there without seeing them squeeze anything. Even in the smallest proportions. Now of course enjoying it is about something else. And in that instance, seeing them squeeze the lemon can heighten expectations and influence how you think it tastes. But the lemon juice is in there whether you see someone put it in or not. And either someone can taste it or they can't.

Sorry Simon you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. I was trying to point out that this condition you described does not matter. Devon cream is what it is whether people can or can't taste it. Those who can't taste it, or need it served on a silver spoon to make it taste good, have less valid opinions then people who can taste it blind and in the process of analyzing it, recite all the various trace substances (something I can't do by the way) which are present. But for some reason, people are loathe to admit that yes indeed there is someone out there can do this. And not only is there, in fact, he can tell you which patch of land the cows graze on just by tasting the cream. I am trying to point out that the way this is almost always refuted is that someone says, well the important thing is how it tastes to me. And to me your statement about the tongue sensors is a variation of that theme. But I'll be happy for you to correct me. But it can't be both things. Either things have a specific taste, or they are fungible and are manipulated by the diner. In fact, it can't even be a combination of both.

Well nobody disagrees with this (I don't think?) But that still doesn't stop people from trying to reformat the question to be about the dining experience, which means their input is necessary because it is a critical evaluation of performance, from the way things taste, which is an analytical assessment of the trace substances present. For me, the latter is fundamental to be able to do the former well. And I think that however we identify those good tasters you asked about two posts ago, that is the technical definition. The goal, for any taster, is to be able to taste what is actually there. That is the only useful information as far as I am concerned. And it isn't until we pass that threshold that we can reformulate the question into part of the overall dining experience. edited in after Simon's response is a good case in point of how diners try and grab this issue. Nothing about anyone's tongue sensors change the special qualities of Devon cream, even though it might taste different to a range of people. In reality what he has said is that an impairment in tasting should be given the same consideration as someone who is a good taster. I'm not buying that.

Completely agreed. You have to find reliable tasters to listen to and; 1. You have to surbordinate your opinion to theirs if a preponderance of evidence disagrees with you or; 2. You have to have a clear, concise and articulate argument of why the preponderance of people are wrong The problem is, the best this gets us are valid opinions and invalid opinions. But I believe, and I was trying to make this point earlier, that if we were willing to reject false statements on their face, we could take the conversation further. Look at how much time has been spent here parsing the taste of food from the experience of eating it. It would seem to be that on it's face, nothing about what mood you are in makes food physically different. You might react differently because of externalities, but I submit that it is physically impossible for my physical condition to change anything about the food. Yet, we can't get people to agree to that concept.

India Girl - This is a false statement. Presentation cannot make food taste better. What it can do is improve the dining experience, and that can influence how you react to the food. But it can't make it taste any better. It can just make you like it more.

Liz - You changed the subject on me again. You are saying that there is a psychological component to dining that makes food seem to taste better when it is presented well, and that chefs are taught to present it in a way that maximizes this aspect of cuisine. I agree. But in actuality, no matter how they present it, it really tastes the same. You just think it tastes different. Taste, meaning the ability to put something in your mouth and analyze the quality is not physically dependant on sight. You can do it with your eyes closed. If that wasn't the case, that would be tantamount to saying that people who are sight impaired can't taste food as well as people who can see. Tony - You are talking to, who I am sure is among the few people who consistantly sends food back in restaurants due to it being served at room temperature. Even at the best places. Yet I think the cause usually isn't elaborate plating. It seems to be more a result of the different dishes at a table done at different times, or waitstaff leaving your food sitting on the counter before serving it. LML - There is a reason actors in plays wear costumes and they don't ask the audience to imagine them dressed a certain way. And like elaborate plating, there is a lot of cost attached to designing, making and maintaining the wardrobe. But if you went to see Phantom and Michael Crawford wasn't in costume, with his face made up that way, would he sing any differently or act differently? Of course not. But the audience would percieve it differently because good costumes are inextricably linked to a performance. Presentation in dining is value added that is inextricably linked, and indispensable, in this same way. When you go to Arpege and have their famous Tomato Gaspacho Soup with the Mustard Ice Cream, they serve you a bowl of soup and then Laurent comes over with that little table and the silver ice cream container, and he rolls a big scoop of mustard ice cream on a large spoon, and then he has a very specific way of getting it into the bowl perfectly, the whole thing seems to appear to be happening in slow motion. That presentation makes for a more enjoyable dining experience. It doesn't make it taste any better. If they brought the soup to the table with a scoop of ice cream bobbing around in it it would taste the same. But it wouldn't be as enjoyable an experience.

No Liz you misunderstand what I've said. Yes I believe that untrained diners can be influenced by presentation. But diners on our level should not be. Our sense of taste should be acute enough to be able to parse those two issues. There are really two different discussions going on here. The effect of good/bad presentation, which I won't deny, and the scoentific fact that it tastes the same regardless of presentation.

I think you guys are all wrong here and Fat Guy has it dead on. The issue isn't whether presentation does make a difference in how something tastes, the issue is whether it should. And to any of you who claim that taste is influenced by the visuals, you need to do a better job of divorcing those two concepts. Yes presentation might make it more enjoyable to eat, yes more attractive and yes more appealing, but not taste better. It is physically impossible

The reason we keep vollying that one back and forth is because we keep weighing all opinions equally when we shouldn't. The truth is, saying you don't like your steak marbled is very much a minority opinion, possibly a fringe one. And it has no value at all to the vast, vast majority of steak eaters. Yet, because you can't absolutely prove that marbled steak is actually better, the person who speaks it demands legitimacy for their opinion, and we more often then not agree to that. That is where we always go wrong.

I have a different view of Eric's original point. I do not think that food, or wine, is quantitative in that way. I think taste is based on a score of 100% and it's either presented well or not. Good presentation makes for a more pleasurable experience. Whenever I read a guide book like Gambero Rosso which publishes a cummulative score for a restaurant based on food, servicem, decor, etc., I find that information less useful then knowing which place scored the highest for their food.

Yes, but it does make you love your mom that much more .

Jackal - I think you last response just shows the type of insistance, to the point of desperation in other instances, that diners try and express in order to keep control of the issue. For example, to not like marbled meat is not a dispute about what the best meat is, it's an admission you don't like good meat. That is what is missing from your explanation, in fact, everyone's explanation which was most exagerrated by Jonathan. At what point is it the diner's fault? You have no contigency for that in your explantion. Fat Guy - Did you mom put pineapple slice smiles on your plate or something when you were a kid? My mom never did that type of stuff. But Mrs. P does it for my kids.

I agree with what Simon said. Artisans work their magic for paying customers. And the final outcome is intended to please them. What I am trying to do is exorcize petty and personal issues like I don't like a lot of salt in my food from the substantive issue of what is the approriate amount of salt to use in a dish.

You might be surprised to hear me agree with LML about haute cuisine and presentation. Except there is one extremely important point to add. In order to be able to plate the food better, or, represent simple food in a better aesthetic, it typically means they have to manipulate the texture of the food to force it into the shapes they want to use. So doing things like having meat perfectly trimmed or sliced, mincing, pureeing, etc., are all part and parcel of the process.

But just because the right answer is a range of 1-2 tsp, dosn't mean the answer is a matter of personal taste. Why have you flipped it from, there is a right answer to there is no right answer just because of a range? Isn't this issue just a battle between diner and chef about who gets to dictate terms? Diners, having grown up in a culture where food is about things like sustenance and personal choice including service, are loath to give up control of the issue, including the language that describes the food. I can think of no other craft, and certainly not any art, where the user gets any say in the final outcome. All of this posturing of "it tastes good to me" or "in this context" is just about control. I think this is most exposed when Fat Guy talks about eating something like a steak. There should be no dispute as to what great meat is. In fact the meat industry has set up objective standards for meat to be measured by. Yet you will still hear diners insist that inferior meat tastes better to them. edited in after Fat Guy's last response It seems to me that all the arguments made so far speak to the fallability of humans. Because FG is right, professionals like sommeliers do this every day. But it is also correct to say that they have off days where they miss. But can't we agree that fluctuations are a human flaw, and not to be blamed on whatever it is we are measuring?

Yes but when is the recipe correct? Isn't that the standard? To say there is no correct recipe cannot possibly be true. That means I can add a half pound of salt to my scrambled eggs and it can be considered a successful dish. And if there can be a wrong recipe, doesn't there mean there has to be a right one?

This is like saying that Beethoven's 3rd Symphony doesn't sound naturally best in E Flat because you have a cold, or you just heard music played in F Sharp so it needs to be played a half step higher in E for this performance. The example of salty soup not tasting salty without a dinner makes the same mistake IMO. Symmetry and harmony, and quality, is something that is unto an item without the need for anyone to declare it. A chair with one leg that is longer is lopsided without anyone sitting down. It can't ever be straight just because someone can declare it so. Same with the salty soup. The imbalance in the recipe exists independant of someone declaring it. All a diner does (if he is capable) is to notice it. Problem is, we are not taught to appreciate food with specificity attached. The culture of food appreciation revolves around preference. And I think there is a tendancy to explain this flaw in how we learn about food by saying there is no objective standard. I think that's wrong. There is such a thing as harmony in food. It can be prepared "in the right key." But I think we try to reject that so we can self-servingly impose a subjective standard because we like the power of it, and it's easier and convenient for us.

Of the ones I sampled (which includes Valentino) it used to be San Domenico when they first opened. And there was probably a stint where Le Madri was very good. But today I think the best Italian restaurant, despite their poor perfomance and inconsistancy, but based on their higher concept is Babbo. It's too bad because when Batalli was at Po, I used to enjoy that more, even though the food was simpler.

I agree with FG on this one. On the various threads where we discussed Diwan and other Indian/Indian style restaurants in the city, my comments weren't intended to criticize the restaurant for their performance. Over four visits, I have found them consistantly good. But there do seem to be many complaints of inconsistancy.

Claude - Someone brought a 1988 Meo-Camuzet Nuit-St.-George Boudots out to dinner a few weeks ago. The wine was mostly closed, but you could really tell it was deep and rich with lots of viscosity, a characteristic I don't find much in '88's as they typically seem thin and acidic. But it was good enough to make me consider buying 3-4 bottles to lay away, which I guess is a big compliment. The other '88 I've had with great success is the Roumier Bonnes Mares. I've bought it at auction in two different parcels, both out of London. One lot came from a cellar that was so dry that the labels on the bottles were quite deteriorated and shriveled up. Great fills though. The other lot had perfect labels and fill. Well a bottle from the lots with the dried up labels was astonishingly good, and a few bottles from the second lot showed a wine that was hard as nails. Completely undrinkable. That last description has been my typical experience with '88s, including a pouring of '88 La Tache a few years back. It was very good, different then the other La Tache's on the table because of the high acidity, but you could see it's going to be a very, very good, maybe excellent wine. I have some other wines in my cellar that I bought, including some Drouhin Musigny. But I'm afraid to crack them open. In fact I think I have a mag of the Drouhin, which will probably wont be ready to drink for 20 years.

Alsaco has the only original tasting choucroute in Paris in my experience. The secret ingredient is cumin. And the saurkraut isn't too briney, more fresh tasting. I haven't been to Bofinger in years, although it used to be a favorite of mine. But my understanding about the Flo Group is that they make the food in a central commmisary and then ship it to the individual restautants. I ate in Le Chop de d"Alsace a number fo years agod and I found it disappointing. How about Cafe Runtz in the second arr? It's like Alsaco,more of a winstub then a brasserie. As for going to Alsaco, I would go without any hesitation despite their politics (which has not been proven the owner partakes in.) I mean I know so many people with what I believe are dreadful politics. Facists, communists, libertarians etc., some of who are friends of mine. And they don't have sausages and cabbage to mitigate their mishegas yet I still talk to them anyway.

Well there's a reason you haven't taken the time you know . Tony - One of the greatest films ever. And I don't think the percentage of the population being Protestant/Catholic is determinative, it's who has political control that is determinative.

Well you have parsed what I said. And first of all, not every ethnic groups sense of family unity is the same. But aside from that, the issue is how it typically manifested itself. With Jews, for some reason, it manifested itself by being merchants. Same with Koreans, as Lissome pointed out. The corner markets in my neighborhood have not been taken over by Polish immigrants, although there is no shortage of Polish people who have immigrated to this country.