Steve Plotnicki

There is something else to add to this. The times we live in now are very much different then the times that Escoffier lived in. Nowadays chefs are media stars. Their image revolves around their semenal achievements. In order to gain noteriety with the public that is longlasting, the public needs something to grab onto. It is very much a pop culture environment and the "hit singles" that each chef makes are what their noteriety revolves around. That's why chefs like Nobu, Jean-Georges, Douglas Rodriguez, Gray Kunz, Thomas Keller are famous. They changed, altered, or contributed something to the lexicon that is tangeable and accessableto the public. Those contributions ended up as delicious and interesting food on the plate. Their fame would not be at the level it is today is their contribution was cooking steak on the fat side first. That type of technique is not related to aesthetics so it would be of no interest to the public. Nobody remembers who really invented Impressionism, what they want to see are the great Impressionist paintings. Lxt - I feel you are going backwards. "Signature dishes" already meet the requirements you laid out. That's why they are signature dishes to begin with . Try harder.

Fat Guy - If you bother to read my prior posts, I said that "among diners who like to eat at this level," those people hold Passard in higher regard then Ducasse. There are many people who don't like Passard's food. But there is also a very large and strong contingent who think he's a genius and a great chef. I don't know anyone who feels that way about Ducasse other then you and other chefs. There is a paucity of people claiming that Ducasse is a great chef based on how his food tastes. And that is true for Escoffier as well, not only was he famous for the technique he invented, his food was delicious. Again, who is claiming that Ducasse serves delicious food other then you? Bux - I didn't say I thought the langoustines with curry were a contribution to haute cuisine, I said that Pacaud is famous for it. But I like the rest of your post and your comparison to abstract art. Except regardless of whether you like the art or not, artists are remembered for their aesthetic contributions. I'm afraid it's the same for chefs.

Wifrid - 're u looking at 'im? Let me try and say it in a way that makes it clear. A signature dish is just a dish that a chef is famous for. It is his "signature" in the lexicon of fine dining. So Colonal Sander's doesn't apply because he never made a famous version of fried chicken that people went out of their way to eat. He established a brand. And the level of fame is relevent as well. The public has to associate the dish with the chef, but it can also be associated with a place. Fat Guy - Youjr wanting to give credit for dishes that also inspired other chefs to make variations or copies while a good one, is a completely different thread. For example, as far as I know, the entire seared tuna with a pepper crust phenomenon comes from the Spago kitchen. And while chefs all over the country copied it, it isn't a signature dish at Spago although it was on the menu the last time I was there about 6 years ago. Puck's fame does not derive from that dish being influential. But it would if people traveled to L.A. specifically to eat that dish at Spago. But people who are visiting NYC make sure they get to eat the DB Burger. So it's a question of fame. So from the additional suggestion that were made since my last post, here is what I think qualifies and what I think does not. Al Forno - Grilled Pizza Thomas Keller: Oysters and tapioca Taillevent - Lobster Sausage, Chocolate Cake with Pistachio Sauce La Mere Poulard - Omelet Fergus Henderson - Bone Marrow Salad Paul Prudhome - Blackened Catfish Todd English - Mushroom flan with Foie Gras, Fig Pizza Michael Romano - Filet Mignon of Tuna The Palm - Steak ala Stone David Burke - Swordfish Chop and Pastrami Salmon are excellent ones. But because David's restaurant isn't at the top tier, he didn't get the requisite level of fame for inventing them. I have to say that fame is sort of a relative term. Some of the dishes Jon Tseng listed might well be signature dishes. But I'm using whether they are famous enough for me to have heard of them as the standard. Of course I'm not exactly a perfact standard. But I do keep my eyes and ears open about these things. But there are many signature dishes both from chefs and restaurants that we can add to the list.

Maggie - Marc Sibard the owner of Caves Auge is close friends with Yves Candeborde and his wife. In fact last time I was going to eat dinner there, Marc sent me with a little note for them on his card. I'm not sure if he supplies the restaurant, but they certainly seem to carry many of the same wines. Most notably the wines of Domaine Gramenon.

It's funny because I wanted to add to my last post that whatever you do don't drink chardonnay. And then there was the Cakebread post. Oh well. In my experience chardonnay is not acidic enough and is too sweet. But that brings us to Fat Guy's champagne suggestion which is a whole different thing because of the bubbles. Let's just say that I bring champage with me to eat Japanese food all of the time so it has a shot. But red wine is awful. Soy sauce and rice wine go poorly with red wine. Mogsob's albarino suggestion isn't bad, and in the same flavor profile, a condrieu would probably cut it as well. Both broad and flowery on the palate with good acid.

Well okay let's set up the rules here. As I just said in the Arpege thread on the France board, a signature dish just means that the chef is famous for it. His inventing the dish isn't a necessary component. What is important is that he (or she) made the dish famous and that diners traveled to his restaurant to eat it. Like when I went to Troisgros for the first time two years ago. There was no way I was going to leave without eating the salmon. In fact the salmon was in large part the reason I went in the first place. So it doesn't make a difference that there might have been a predecessor to the Jean-George's molton cake, the issue is that when someone would mention J-G, everyone immediately thought of the cake. Same with Nobu and the roast cod. I think that the issue of did the dish influence other chefs and to what extent goes to the extent of the fame and nothing else. That every restaurant under the sun offers a molton chocolate cake is a testament to how important an invention the cake was in the first place. Ajay - The name of the dish I believe is Taylor Bay Scallops with Uni and Mustard Oil. It contains tomato water, but it is not listed in the name of the dish. Cabrales - Thank you for that small but excellent list Robert - Yes the lobster club is a classic Here are a few others; Daniel Boulud - Potato encrusted bass, DB Burger Tom Valenti - Braised lamb shank

Michael - We are talking about two different things. You are talking about how a chefs cooking technique influences other chefs of their generation and future generations. I am talking about how they gain fame with the public. Of course there are instances where a chef's technique is so unusual and is such a big contribution that he becomes famous for it. Adria is a good candidate for that. But innovations like cooking in cryovac or cooking a steak inside out will not be seen as contributions on the level of Adria. They won't even be seen to be as big as Jean-George's flavored oils. Fame is a function of hitting the high notes. Artists and craftsmen are remembered by the semenal works of their careers. Go think how people like Joseph Heller, Whistler, Clapton, and Troisgros would be remembered if they didn't write Catch 22, paint A Portrait in Gray (Whister's Mother) record Layla, and create the Salmon with Sorrel Sauce? That's how fame (with the public) works. There are lots of top chefs who will not be remembered because they have not contributed anything to the lexicon. What will someone like Michel Trama be remembered for? And it seems to me that everything put forward about Ducasse so far has to do with fame within his profession and nothing to do with fame among diners. Charlie Trotter's is the same way. It's fame seems to be a function of the fact that *it is supposed to be a great restaurant.* But about 75% of the people I talk to don't like the place. We in the media business call that hype. The dish you described from Rippert, while possibly a fantastic dish, is not a signature dish. A signature dish means that people went out of their way to eat it because they heard about it. Daniel Boulud's potato encrusted snapper and hamburger are signature dishes because they are famous with discerning diners at large. It's funny but in the middle of my writing this I got an email from someone who has been on a long trip through France and it had their tasting notes from their meal at Arpege. Amazingly similar to my notes. I am reticent to speak of my experience at Gagnaire short of spilling the beans to my review. But the reason his fame seems to have come to a standstill is that he hasn't corraled his cooking style and codified it. I don't buy the improvisational chef theme. A great composition is timeless and if you do not find a way to codify it, and offer it on a permanent basis then your potential for fame will suffer in the long run. Some chefs don't care about this. Passard says that he doesn't have time to write a cookbook. But his signature dishes are both plentiful and legion among diners. In the end, I predict he will have more lasting fame then Gagnaire will because "improvisational" is not something that is tangeable to one's belly ten years after one retires. But Robuchon stopped working almost ten years already and we are still talking him because of his mashed potatoes.

Over on the French board, we were discussing what makes a chef famous. I don't mean famous for the moment, I mean famous forever. So here is a list of signature dishes off the top of my head. Let's see what conclusions we might reach from who is on the list(s) and who has been left off. Off the top of my head; Alain Senderins - Canard Apicius, Lobster au Vanille, Foie Gras steamed in Cabbage Paul Bocuse - Truffle Soup Joel Robuchon - Foie Gras with Lentil Cream, Caviar with Cauliflower Cream, Mashed Potatoes Wolfgang Puck - Smoked Salmon Pizza Thomas Keller - Cauliflower Panna Cotta with Caviar, Smoked Salmon Cornets Jean-Georges - Goat Cheese and Potato Salad, Molton Chocolate Cake Georges Blanc - Bresse Chicken with Morels and Cream Sauce Troisgros - Salmon in Sorrel Sauce Norman Van Aiken - Bourbon French Toast with Foie Gras Larry Forgione - Terrine of three American Fish with their Caviar Alain Passard - Lobster with Yellow Wine, Egg with Maple Syrup, Lobster with Turnips, Caramelized Tomatoes Jean-Pierre Vigato - Foie Gras in a Sweet & Sour Sauce Bernard Pacaud - Lagoustine in Curry Sauce Marc Menau - Cromiquis of Foie Gras Gualtiero Marchesi - Open Ravioli with lobster and gold leaf Rocco DiSpirito - Taylor Bay Scallops with Uni and Mustard Oil Bernard Loisseau - Chicken Andre Dumaine Nobu - Creamy Spicy Crab, Cod marinated in Miso and Roasted Paul Minchelli - Salmon Unilateral Fernand Point - Chicken cooked in a pig's bladder I am sure there are loads more. Even more from the same chefs that I listed but that have slipped my mind. So list away. Plus I can't wait to tell the first person who lists a signature dish that isn't really a signature dish they're wrong!

It's not done yet. And it won't be posted until Monday morning. I'm in the country and I won't be back home (where the Gagnaire review is) until the weekend. But try this link on Escoffier; Escoffier

Well first Ducasse has to create a cuisine before I can appreciate it . As for Escoffier and what he created, who said I'm expert on Escoffier. But as to signature dishes for chefs. I'll start a thread if you'd like me to.

Fat Guy - Your opinion would probably go over big for the Food Arts crowd but it has nothing to do with people who like to eat. Nobody ever became famous for contributing technique to a craft. People become famous for contributing something that is aesthetic in nature. Techniques like cryovac, merging of Italian/French are worthless without any great aesthetics attached to them. The great chefs are all people who changed the way we thought about food. Their food moved us. Ducasse might have been responsible for a rethinking of the kitchen, but as far as I can see he has not moved a single person to think about food differently. On the other hand, Escoffier (who invented Peach Melba by the way which was seemingly the first use of hot and cold so the singer Nellie Melba wouldn't hurt her throat eating only cold desserts) was in demand as a chef. Who is Ducasse in demand with? Ducasse might be a great chef, but as far as I can see he gave it up to be a restauranteur. He runs a high class McDonald's from where I sit, charging extravagent prices for the Ducasse name. That might fool you, but it doesn't fool me. That's because I ate the food and any generic three star restaurant could have served it. I don't care if he is the greatest technician of his time. If you don't make interesting food, your place in history is temporary. History is there to record those who moved mankind. Not those who just served them. But of course if you want to adopt the Food Arts standard and say that we should admire him as a professional in the industry, well that's another thing. But I can't think of a single chef who is famous (unless it's among other chefs) for a reason other then he cooked delicious food. And if his food isn't delicious to the point where it moves me and it doesn't result in my saying "oh yum, this tastes good," I might as well be eating a hamburger. Because for the hamburger to be interesting, not only does it have to made well, it has to taste good. That is an aspect of cooking I would work on more if I was Ducasse. Unless he thinks I will be wowed by the fact that that he knows how to cryovac food. In fact yesterday I got Ducasse's most recent flyer in the mail. He actually has the gawl to push Cepes with Olive Oil. Does he think we are stupid? How about making a f*cking interesting dish for a change?

I think Rieslings work better with foods where the taste is more concentrated, or with a greater degree of fat to it. So a smoked ham, or a roast goose is the perfect foil for a Riesling. Cuts through them like a laser beam. Especially if the wine has good acid. But Gewurz is a less focused wine, sort of flowery in a spicy way and I always found it a better match with foods where the flavor is not as concentrated into a single ingredient. One thing that makes Chinese food a difficult match for wine in general is the soy sauce which is already a significant secondary flavor in many Chinese dishes.

Here's a link to the decision. I find this to be the key part of the decision Dems Win

When I was in Cannes two weekends ago, my wife and I walked past Neat and it was closed. In the window was an unsigned letter in French, with a translated version in English alongside that derided the French public for their lack of taste, their abandonement of fresh food and artisanal ingredients, and it ultimately went on to blame them for Neat's closing. It sounds to me like all of his business ventures were leveraged together, and the failing of one caused the others to crash as well. So I'm not sure there is anything to blame except his being overextended financially.

Riesling is good but an Alsatian Gewurztrminer might be better. It's spicier. "Gewurz" is the German word for spice no?

Fat Guy - In the annals of music, literature, paintings, playwriting, pottery, and god knows how many other disciplines we can mention, the people who are famous are those who have created famous works. There is not a single artisan I can think of that is famous in his field if he can't point to a single contribution (or contributions) that he made that will last permanently. And right now, neither Ducasse or Gagnaire have created any famous works. And if they don't, I predict their fame will wither and they will be seen as temporary fads. But if you know another basis that people attain everlasting fame, please let us know. And you can't use as proof who professionals want to stage. More musicians might have wanted to play in Stan Kenton's band then in Duke Ellington, but Kenton is basically forgotten and Ellington is one of the legends of modern music. That's because what looks good on your resume has nothing to do with what makes great art, or food in this instance. Marty - I hope the above answers your question. I'm not saying that it always tastes good. The issue is adding a dish to the lexicon of cooking. Fame is built on contribution, not just reputation. In the end of the day, people can taste your contribution or they can't. Hearing about it isn't good enough. Isn't Wynton Marsalis in jazz the same as Ducasse is in food? Lots of plaudits but it's all boring shit that pales compared to the masters.

I can see people not liking Arpege. It's a unique and unusual approach to cuisine. But I can't see people not giving it credit for what it does well. It's like the way I feel about Ducasse. It does everything a three star restaurant is supposed to do but in a superficial way. But I don't deprive them of the fact that it has the look and feel of a three star restaurant. It just doesn't have the necessary wow, either on a sensual or cerebral level, to meet the standard I apply for three star restaurants. It doesn't even do a good job of charming people like Taillevent does to change the focus into the dining experience . There is not a single dish that Ducasee has contributed to the lexicon of haute cuisine. By the way, Pierre Gagnaire is the same. Even though one can hardly say it's a boring restaurant, I can't think of a single dish he created that is part of the haute cuisine lexcion. Passard has what three or four dishes? Senderins has a few dishes. Pacaud has his langoustines with curry. Do Lorain have a dish or Roellinger have dishes they have contributed?

Wilfrid - Well I will amend my statement to say that haute cuisine is a certain technique that is applied when cooking food. And the use of that technique precludes many dishes that would tend to be chewy, or have ornery bones etc. What Bux said. Whether haute cuisine is obsessed with the creamy and silky is another issue. And although I will also make that proffer, it's seperate and apart from the first statement. Bux - I didn't say that Robuchon's potato puree is the epitome of haute cuisine, I said I always use it as an example that it is . But if it's not, along with Bocuse's truffle soup. Troisgros salmon with sorrel, Canard Apicius at Lucas-Carton, can you tell me what dishes are the epitome? I mean people went to eat at Robuchon just to sample the mashed potatoes. I don't know of another vegetable dish like that.

We have a disagreement here. To me haute cuisine means that a certain technique is applied in how the food is prepared. Most often, the goal of the technique is to make smooth, creamy, satiny and luxuriously textured dishes. There are other French cooking techniques that do not have the same emphasis but they are usually not considered haute cuisine. It's the same principal for wine. The Grand Crus and First Growths usually have a more luxurious mouthfeel then other wines that might be delicious, but not as refined. In my book, it's diffiucult to be chewy and crunchy and to be refined at the same time. As to my palate comment, it isn't about ethnicity as much as a description of the difference in cooking styles. One cuisine is heartier, features more complex meats and game and doesn't make much of an effort to refine the food. The other cuisine bends over backwards to makes things refined. It takes a pigeon which would ordinarly have chewy meat and it slices the brest very thin in order to make it more elegant and easy to eat. So when I say one palate versus the other, it goes to ths style of cooking, and a palate preference between the styles. It didn't make a value judgement between the styles. Lord knows we have had that conversation too many times already .

Wilfrid - I don't think of haute cuisine as being intensely chewy. In fact I think one of it's goals is to remove coarseness as an aspect of the meal. Yes there are occassional dishes that revolve around chewiness, but I think they are in the vast minority. This is why I always use Robuchon's mashed potatoes as an example. They have transcended into this custard-like substance although they are umistakenly potatoes because you can't completely get rid of the graininess of the potatoes. So "crunch, snap, and chewiness" are normally not integral parts of the cuisine. And if you want to eat that way in France I would head over to a place like Le Petit Marguery. Or you might find certain offerings at the haute cuisine places in game season. But even then, their goal will be to serve game that is as tender as possible. The difference you are describing is exactly what I always identify as the difference between an English palate and a French palate. If you go read my review of my roast beef dinner at the Dorchester last winter, I describe it in those exact terms. It's the difference between home cooking taken to the nth degree and a cuisine that is based on home cooking but which takes the food into a new dimension. Granted there is some overlap, and everyone is free to prefer one over the other, but if your criticism of haute cuisine is that you don't like it, well it almost becomes a non-starter if you know what I mean. It's like saying you read my review of the opera and you are wondering what happened to music with a backbeat? Well if you want a backbeat, don't go to the opera . Fat Guy - As a matter of preference I can't argue with your not liking Arpege. But your comment about mistakes in cooking struck me as odd. The cuisine there is reliant on top quality ingredients being cooked to perfection. And indeed in my two meals there everything was cooked perfectly. Spinach cooked not even a second too short or two long. I wonder if we ate at the same place? Lxt - I'm with you. Experience means you have a reference point. Without a reference point you enjoy it differently. This issue always comes up in blind wine tastings. In the end all it does is it means you memorize flavors and charateristics using a device other then the label. And while not having a label to view might make your senses more acute because in order to codify tastes you have to work harder, you also lose the benefit of what information the label tells you. At some point in time you are going to have to learn that the wine you are tasting that has characteristics of cassis, cedar and smells like a pencil is a Pauilliac. And you are also going to have to learn which wine from Pauilliac it is. I don't know how else you would do that other then to have a refernce point.

I'm not sure why anyone would say that Democratic voters being deprived of a candidate is a bad argument. Especially considering the arbitrary nature of the 51 day law (the legislature could have made it any number of days they wanted to.) Aren't they also going to argue that that law applies if they want to make a switch, as oppossed to when they have to? What is the harm to the Republican candidate if the Dems are allowed to put Lautenberg on the ballot? They might lose an election they otherwise thought they were going to win? That doesn't sound like harm to me. It sounds like the harm to voters is greater then the harm to the Republican candidate. Of course the court can rule in favor of the Republicans as well.

Andy - Sorry I missed your question about the foie. My understanding is that the foie gras season begins in late November and runs through the winter. Why they raise geese and ducks on that schedule is something someone better versed in agriculture then I has to speak to. It's like baby lamb for Easter. Do they do it on purpose or is it something about the breeding cycle and other conditions that make lamb for springtime, or foie for x-mas of better quality?

To add to Fat Guy's explanation about Meo-Camuzet, the legendary Henri Jayer was forced to give up his vineyard holding in the 80's due to French retirement laws and taxes one has to pay on assets. Jean-Claude Meo bought the vineyard and he has been making the wines since then. At the beginning Jayer consulted but that stopped years ago. Meo never gained the expertise to make wines in the style that Jayer made them. The wines he makes are sort of conservative where the Jayer wines are the height of opulence. As for vintages, 1990 is a controversial vintage among Burgundy enthusiasts. Many regard it as one of the best vintages of the century but many people think the wines are too ripe and alcoholic and while good, do not exhibit the typical charcteristics of Burgundy. In fact I know many people who have sold off all of their '90's because they were disapppointed in how they were turning out. Go figure. But regardless, the top tier 1990's are undrinkable and won't be ready for at least another 5 years. The 1989's on the other hand are coming into their prime. And Meo for some reason made some partilcularly good 1989's that are drinking delightfully these days.

Ajay - Good questions. Here are a few shorthand answers. When they make wine, it is usually very fruity and easy to drink when it is in cask. But anywhere between 6 months and 2 years after they bottle the wine, the wine enters a process called "reduction." Reduction is the process that turns wine into mature wines. What it really means is that the small amount of air that is in the bottle of wine evaporates the volatile acidity in the wine. But during the process, the fruit in the wine is completely surpressed to the acid and the wine has no discernable or very little smell or flavor. Depending on the wine, this aging process can take anywhere from 3 years to 50 years. In fact if you open bottles of wine like 1959 Latour, they still haven't finished the process to the extent where collectors would call the wine "fully mature." Now you know what makes wines great wines. So in this particular instance, I guessed that the 1995 had gone through the process to an extent sufficient that I would find it enjoyable to drink. I based my reasoning on the fact that I've had other '95's from the same producer and why should this particluar bottling be any different? But unfortunately wine is an inexact science and there are countless factors why this wine wasn't ready to drink and the wine that comes from the very next plot in the vineyard is. As for the sommelier's obligation to tell someone a wine isn't ready to drink, one of the problems is that almost every wine on a restaurant list isn't ready to drink as they mostly feature newer wines. But in this instance, I think the sommelier did the best he could. The problem with wine is that there is no way to gain the exerience to handle it in the manner I just described other then trial and error. That makes it an expensive exercise. But one that is probably worth it because the results are rewarding if you get it right. Problem is, due to the variable nature of wine, getting it right comes down to getting it right about 2/3 of the time. The Meo-Camuzet is a Burgundy. Vosne-Romanee is one of the major villages in Burgundy. The most famous wines from that village are Romanee-Conti, La Tache and Romanee-Saint-Vivant. The Chaumes is a Premier Cru which means it's in the second tier of quality. But Chaumes is in the top tier regarding quality in its category.

Well if you are going to be in the U.K. first, or they can even send it to your hotel in France so it can be waiting there upon arrival, the largest dealer of DRC anywhere and the people who usually have the best DRC prices are Turville Valley Wines just outside of London. But if the wine is for an occassion as momumental as napkins over heads, you are making a gross error by bringing a less then fully mature wine. A 1990 DRC Grand Echezeaux will be so tannic that it will ruin your palate and you won't be able to taste the little budgies. If you are intent on it being DRC, you need 1978 or older. Good vintages would be 1962, 1964, 1966, 1971, 1987. The best priced wines are the three in the 60's which should sell for about $600 a bottle. The two from the 70's will be more in the $750-$900 range. If you are not wedded to Grands-Echezeaux (and I don't see why you would be since there are better wines,) the best "bargain" bottle of DRC is 1972 La Tache. It is not a heralded vintage but the wine is fantastic and available in the $350-$500 a bottle range. There are a number of European dealers who offer the wine from time to time.