Steve Plotnicki

Sorry to be late in chiming in here. I though Macrosan's recounting of the service is spot on. But it didn't offend me as much as it did him. I'm also with Scott on the food. It didn't offend me, but it was unexceptional. And I second his comments about the rice pudding which was really first class. I think the worst comment I can make about the place is that it was more a throwback to the type of French bistro/restaurant that I used to find in London pre the food revolution occuring there, then the type of place I've come to expect. It's sort of symbolic that Racine is just a few doors down from Brasserie St. Quentin. And if I wanted to eat "faux" French food we could have gone there. At least they would have done a professional job of it and the sevice and food mishaps would have been averted. But one must give credit where credit is due and I have to say that the wine list at Racine was both well thought out, and priced well. We enjoyed a 1999 Bernard Morey Chassagne-Montrachet Morgeot which was still a bit tight and oaky, but showed some breeding. And then we followed that with a 1978 Lynch-Bages which was very well priced for a 24 year old wine. When they presented the bottle, I could hardly believe it as it looked like the label was adhered the day before. The only sign that the wine was it's age was the amount of ullage in the neck of the bottle. And as it looked, the wine was fresh, tasting at least 10 years younger. Nice wine, which grew in the glass with air. It will be more pleasurable in 7-10 years. Where it falls short, which is not atypical for the vintage is the wine was somewhat dilute. A hair or two more concentrated and it would have been a real winner. But something I would never reject a glass of if offered. I must say that despite the choice of restaurant, the company was exemplary. Macrosan and I put on a show for Scott and Sam about how two Jewish men, one almost middle age, and one already elderly can bicker in a friendly manner. And clearly one of the evenings more enjoyable moments was when everyone was trying to describe the characteristics of the Lynch-Bages (self-inspired I might add.) It restores one's faith in humanity when one is having dinner with people who identify the characteristics of wood and other flavors, and when told that the classic traits of a Pauillac are cedar and lead pencil say "that's it, lead pencil."

Aged strip steaks noses out top quality tomatoes

But you made that part up so you can use the word arrogant. Nobody is looking to foist their opinions on others. It's a free world and you have the right to eat drivel if you so choose. But those who know better have the right to tell you it is drivel. Because indeed, it's a free world for speech as well as drivel. And the tactic of calling the person who recognizes drivel or pap for what it is, arrogant or a snob, is intended to surpress that concept from coming into the marketplace of ideas. Like I said. Vanity over quality. Thanks for proving the point . Tony - I find your last sentence to be at odds with the first one. If there is a standard, as you have agreed there is in your first sentence, then why aren't people "wrong" when they are measured against the standard? And again, not wrong on a personal basis, just against the standard? And I have to add, I quite like when there is mustard in my mash. Especially that grainy French mustard.

John - How about Le Chardenoux? It's right around the corner from A Souseyrac in the 11th if you know where that is. I haven't been there in years, but the taxi I was in drove past it last week and it looked inviting. About 5-6 years ago, I had a mighty fine pan sauteed veal chop with a huge pile of morels in a creamy mushroom sauce there. Another place we always liked that we thought was reasonably priced given what they served is Sud-Ouest Monceau in the 17th arr. It's a restaurant attached to a traiteur who specializes in delicacies from the Sud-Ouest. They serve a myriad of different foie gras dishes, both hot and cold, and each table is equiped with it's own toaster so you can get it just the way you like it. They also serve a great platter of pates and sausages, have a wine list that has reasonable choices of Cahors, and offer all the typical mains that come from the region. Their magret avec sauce miel might be right up your alley given your diet. It's sort of a local place as well, not many Americans. But everytime I've been there the place is full and bustling.

I guess that someone who couldn't tell under or over salting when tasting food might feel that way about it.

Tony - The sum total of all of your posts is that you refuse to acknowledge there is a standard when the item in discussion is not typical. That goes for mustard mash as well as wine. But when the item is typical, like salt in potatoes, you agree that a consensus can be reached. But what you refuse to see, and I'm not sure why this is the case, is that the consensus is made up of the people actually doing it. Less people like mustard inflected mased potatoes but there are enough of them, and it has been going on long enough, for a consensus to have been reached. But having said all of that, there are people out there who do not need the consensus to know right from wrong. They can do it by tasting. Exactly the same way that a person with a good sense of pitch can tell when a piano is out of tune just by listening to it being played. He doesn't need a tuning device to reach that conclusion. And what I find amusing about all this, is that I know you, and many others here who argue against the concept of standards and the notion of there being a right and wrong, have good enough palates to do exactly what I am describing. Except when we get into an area where people have less experience as tasters, they all of a sudden revert to saying everything is subjective. Bollocks I say. I think that nothing debases the quality of food more then the fallacy of saying that good taste is subjective. Countless numbers of growers, producers, wholesalers, restauranteurs etc., take advantage of the fact that people who do not know good from bad insist that that they are entitled to call the pap they are eating or drinking delicious. We can take the worst rot served on an airline flight and I gurantee they will produce someone who enjoyed his meal and feels entitled to say it was "good." You might be willing to live by those standards but I choose not to. And for anyone to call me a snob because I want to raise the standards to a high level, they should know that the choice they have made is vanity over quality. Because what has raised the quality of the food we eat over the last 30 years is that the public has demanded it. And those who don't know or can't tell, are not in a position to demand an improvement in anything. John W. - I think what you just wrote redounds to the fact that there is no "perfect" when it comes to tuning pianos and indeed what is considered perfect is just a range of acceptable relationships between notes. That is futher complicated by unique conditions of the way a piano is constructed, humidity, etc. So for the purpose of my original point, please understand that my example subsumes these conditions you have identified, and others which haven't yet been identified.

"Issue 1 seems to the the real hot-button issue in the thread. I guess I fall into the camp that it is impossible to be wrong on issues of taste. I mean, a person can objectively sing on or off key. But you can't really challenge my personal belief that, for whatever reason (maybe I am tone deaf or have an ear problem), I prefer to hear an off key sound." I think that is silly. The notes of the scale on a piano are prescribed in advance. There is a mathematical equation that makes a note a middle C, and one a D a full step above it. And while there is a margin of error in how a piano can be tuned, at some point a piano is out of tune. If a piano is out of tune and your ear can't detect it, you have bad ears. And the people who can discern even the slightest bit of dissonence have good ears. It's not a matter of opinion it's a fact. How much salt to add to a dish, even though the standard applied is not as rigorous as the piano example, so the range of what is acceptable might be wider, works on the same principal. People with good palates can detect that too much or too little has been added. People with bad palates can't tell. Let's take mashed potatoes since I do so well with that topic. Over the years, there must be at least 50,000 cookbooks published with recipes for mashed potatoes. And I will guess that if you laid out all the recipes side by side and analyzed how much salt they added, we would come up with a commonly held standard of what is an appropriate amount to add. Some people have good enough palates so they can tell when someone varies from the standard. Others do not. That is what the hot button issue is around here. People who can't tell do not want to be told they are wrong about it. They say that taste is completely subjective. I say nonsense. There is a standard as to what the right amount to add is and there are people with palates that are good enough to detect when someone has varied from the standard. And I would bet you that the people who won't admit that a standard exists, and who insist it's all a matter of personal taste, 99.9999% of them would identify mashed potatoes that didn't conform to the standard as too salty, or not salty enough.

Loufood - Do you live in that neighborhood?

Zeb - Hey that was a good post. I'm sure Ralph is a fine person but that isn't the issue. The issue is that he has an inferior palate. Just like some people can't sing on key, don't have an eye to dress well, or are bad at math. In the world according to Steve P., telling someone the truth about their opinion shouldn't make you a snob.

"To follow up on Mike Lewis' pedantry, don't you mean the economic system of capitalism, rather than the political system of democracy" Don't you think that democracy extemds beyond the political system? Isn't it the ability to have the same rights as everyone else regardless of your circumstances? Same access to the economic system, same access to the justice system, same ability to pray for the god of your choice, or not at all, same rights to free speech etc. Aren't those rights plus many more, part and parcel with the right to cast your vote for the candidate of your choice?

I like Caves Pettrisans even though I think the food is very simple. The gimmick with the wine store is good as well. Not only do they have an extensive list of wine printed on the menu, but you can order anything from the shops carte for additional $20 euros I think. If you want fat for a meal, go to that ham shop on rue Cler. I forget the name. It's like a picnic waiting to go with every single sausage and ham presliced. You can buy one or two slices of a dozen odd sausages and hams. And Anee-Marie Cantin is around the corner, and Poujerain not too far away. Talk about fat.

I think the place really sucks. It was one of the worst meals I had in the summer of 2001. How the Times gave it three stars beats me. I wouldn't even give it a star. And the environment feels like you could be in Toledo and not NYC.

Suzanne - That's not the Chicago school, that's how democracy works and what it is regardless of what school you come from. It isn't that everybody is equal (economically that is,) it's that everyone has equal access to the economic system. You can walk out of your house today and do mutlitple things to make yourself a millionaire (assuming you aren't already one .) No one and nobody is stopping you from doing it. People do it all the time without having much money to begin with. What about that isn't fair or is undemocratic? If you have a different definition of democracy other then it being the same chance to particpate in system with rules that are derived democraticly, please let me know what it is. Tony - You are confusing two things. When the foie gras producers say that Sauternes goes best with foie gras, it subsumes the "right" answer that sweet wine is what goes best with foie gras. That they are trying to sell their own sweet wine is another thing. But if you went to a region where some of the producers make both dry wines and sweet wines like in the Northern Rhone, if you asked someone like Chave which wine to drink with foie, he would say Vin de Paille and not Hermitage. And that's because Vin de Paille is the right match, and Hermitage isn't. It has nothing to do with selling or marketing. It has to do with right and wrong. John - I'm not talking about reheating the coffee. The coffee is already warm. I'm talking about it not being hot enough in the first place when it is freshly dripped. It's then and only then that I nuke the wine into an acceptable temparature. But I agree with you that old coffee is vile.

" A "free market" is about as exclusionary as it gets, because only those who have money or something considered valuable enough to barter may participate." Suzanne - You never get as far as that statement. You can't have a *free* market unless everyone is free to be participate in it. That's the democratic part. And indeed everyone particpates in the free market. They just do not particpate equally because depending on the currency used, which can be monetary, hard goods, services, or inteligence, not everyone has the same things or amount to offer. But the system is available to everyone and therefore democratic. In fact the system is so open to everyone that people who have no money, but can offer their services like singers or chefs, can trade those services for money. And the sky is the limit as to how much they can trade their services for. And someone who used to be a provider of services, like a chef who worked for a restauranteur, can be entrepreneurial and decide to become a service provider instead by opening up their own business. That sounds pretty democratic to me

I use the microwave to heat up my coffee every morning. Those drip babies never make hot enough coffee for me. Otherwise the thing is useless other then reheating takeout food deliveries and making popcorn.

Actually a free market is democratic to the people who decide to, or can afford to particpate in that market. If you take that theory and narrow it, you eventually get to the concept of experts driving that market. That's why the market for steak frites is large, but who is driving the commonly held standard that wine is the "right" thing to drink are really a small group of people in the food industry with expert opinions. Death doesn't sound democratic to me. It sounds exclusionary .

How about this definition in the context we are using it in, Artisanal - Top quality products with unique attributes that are made, produced or caught by hand. And where the producers interface with the prodoct has raised the level of quality to be the very best available.

I think Lord Michael has lost the argument completely when he says that taste is democratic. It's not. Taste is democratic among the peer group involved in the area in question. Like Wilfrid says, cricket fans can't decide who the best baseball player is. You need to be expert in the field of baseball to have an opinion that has any meaning.

"I've lost count of the number of times my palate has been viewed with condescension on this board." Well let me try and ask you this in a benign way. And I'm only giving you an example because this isn't my opinion of you. How would one go about telling you that you don't knew beans about food without you feeling that it is condescending? Where is the difference between criticism (of one's taste,) and condescension? You see I think that raising the spector of snobbery is a coy way of diverting the conversation into one that is about people, and not about food. Wilfrid said it earlier when he said that this topic is interesting if we stick to the merits, i.e., how food tastes or even how food should taste. But that raises the sticky of question of how do you include people in a conversation that don't understand food without their feeling bad? Aren't people who hold themselves to a higher standard allowed to say so? This is the Catch 22 I always complain about with food. If I announced that the only scallops I eat are Peconic Bay, and that those frozen scallops aren't good enough for me, someone here might call me a snob. But in reality I should be praised for having good taste and high standards. But then if Peconic Bay scallops all of a sudden became the standard for everyone to eat, I would then be considered smart for having figured it out first. And if I am a smart person for figuring it out, what shall we say about (the opinion) of the person who can't see it or who refuses to admit what everyone else knows? Wilfrid - Well that was an even better dissertation of personal prefernce being different then commonly held standards. What the "right" thing to drink with steak frittes (right meaning commonly held) and what the "right" thing to drink with steak frittes (right meaning preferable for that person) are just two different definitions of the word right that are both applicable. So the speaker of the question has to distinguish which right he is asking about. .

"but we need to stop back defining artisanal as that which can only be found in the most exclusive restaurants." But nobody has said that the definition is the ingredients that can only be found at Daniel etc. I just said that those places use artisanal ingredients. I didn't say artisanal was exclusive to those places. Marcus - Of course artisinal used commercially has one connotation, and when describing the vegetables and fish used at Arpege it has a more limited connotation. Context frames everything. There are artisanal bakers all over France, and then there is Poillane and Poujerain who are true artisans.

Are you telling me you think less of people who put matzoh in a sandwich? How about those sandwiches in France where they put chips on top of a merguez sausage inside the bread?

Robert - I'm pretty sure the place had at least two stars when I went there and didn't drop to a single star until the old man passed away. It's too bad as the restaurant is one of the more beautiful spaces on the coast. It's on a dreary strip though.

Tony - Your entire response is completely about preference. It has nothing to do with making a good sandwich. As Wilfrid pointed out earlier, there is room for disagreement within a range of acceptable choices. I just have a more stringent approach to what is the "correct" thing to eat with steak frittes. But using your sandwich analogy, if you made a sandwich of the following ingredients; Old overcooked and gray roast beef Apple sauce Jalapeno peppers Limburger cheese that's been left out in the sun Fresh mint Matzoh You would be entitled to think that tasted good. But that's about it. Because if you thought it tasted good you would know as Wilfrid says, fuckwit about food. But you can have as many of those sandwiches as your heart desired because it is legal to eat anything you want. And then you can come on eGullet and act like you know about food and proffer that sandwich as an example of your "fine sense of taste." Again as Wilfrid points out, "taste" is a standard that is commonly held among people. And how food is produced, prepared, and eaten, all have standards attached to them. Fortunately for us, we live in a free world and we can choose whether to adhere to the standards or not. And fortunately for us the standards have give built into them, and they change through the discourse that goes on through the daily preparation and eating of food. And it is one thing to say I don't care about the standards. I like having a nice can of Coca Cola with my terrine of foie gras. God bless you because you can eat it anyway you want. But that has nothing to do with the standards of what is the "right" thing to drink when eating foie gras. That standard exists whether you want to recognize it or not.

"There is no answer to the question: "what should one drink with steak frites" Tony - Again, it's a function of drawing inferences. I don't see how on a food web site, one can draw an inference that takes exception to the commonly held standard. Unless of course one is making a valid argument about why the standard should be varied etc. But the question of what to eat with steak frittes is not all that much different than the question of what is the appropriate amount of salt for a chef to add to a dish. If a chef wants that dish to adhere to the commonly held standards of what gourmets annoint as good, the answer to the question can't be as much salt as he wants to add. Because while he has the freedom to use as much as he likes, too little or too much dost a sucky dish make. And while there is a range of what is acceptable, I think when comparing the acceptable range to the available range, what is considered an acceptable range is really quite small.

I'm with Gordoncooks on this one. It's a great "wow" gift for those who don't know much, and who would like to know more about wine. But you could have done much better if you were buying a bottle to drink yourself.