Steve Plotnicki

Gee what happened to the ignore the thread rule if you are not interested in the topic? There are obviously a few people who think the topic interesting. What about the thread just being there compels you to try and quash the discussion? And Tommy, can you not control yourself from posting innapropriate photos on the thread and making juvenile comments? You can just as easily not click onto the thread.

Schaem - You are looking for a definition that arises from the method of growing or raising the food and I am using the term in a commercial way. "Artisinal" in the way that the industry uses it is a standard of product that is used by certain restaurants to merely say hand-made and of unique qualities. And while you might be correct when you say that a fisherman who takes his boat out on a day trip to cold water isn't an artisan, for the purpose of the food industry his catch is deemed artisinal. But to complete this thought, not everything hand-made is artisinal, as Robert. B. so deftly points out about his wife's herb garden. I think artisinal, if it sticks as a the commercial term a certain segment of the industry consolidates around, is an Anglo term that is similar to the way the French use the term terroir. The point the French make isn't just that a food or wine just comes from a specific terroir, it's that the food or wine will have specific and unique attributes because of the terroir it comes from. As an aside to this, while dining in Arpege last week and speaking with the Maitre d', he described the restaurant as being "artisinal." When he said that to me I knew exactly what he meant. Hand grown, or carefully selected products that meet a certain level of quality for people who are connoisseurs of fine dining. Robert B. - I had some fine meals at La Bonne Auberge in the mid to late 80's. I'm not sure how many stars he had back then. It might still have been three. I know that after the old man died, one of the sons took the place over and he has been hovering at 1 toque 14 points in the Gault Miallau ever since and I have not been back.

Yes but on other nights they are sublime.

Bux - No I'm willing to live with their definition. Artisinal is a word that has commercial relevence.

Bux - As usual, you just want to discuss the meaning of words without being willing to discuss the concepts that make the words tick. You keep saying the words make the concepts tick. That's bass ackwards. The context frames the inference of the word. When I say "artisinal," I'm using it the way the restaurant industry uses it. And when someone asks which beverage to drink with wine, the answer is the same. That you can drink milk or turpentine with your steak frittes has everything to do with personal freedom. But it has zero to do with having good taste when it comes to food and wine. Tony - The only reason you say you can't get a consensus about drinking wine with steak frittes is that so few people are expert in wine. But if you were willing to accept a sample of expert opinions, you would quickly find a consensus. But there's a reason there are so few people who are expert enough to have a valid opinion. Wine is a diverse subject and a costly one as well. So the better question I think (and this is the ultimate in Plotnickiism,) is not what beverage to drink with your steak frittes, but who is qualified to answer the question in the first place? Stellbella - The correlation between inteligence and the ability to know, discern and appreciate food, is about the same as the correlation between inteligence and the ability to make money. There isn't necessarily a correlation. So I don't understand your point.

Wilfrid - Yes it can be artisinal but not terribly good. Look at the heirloom tomato crop this year. In August their were glorious. But once Labor Day weekend came along with those large rainstorms, the tomatoes seemed watery. Still very good, but not the fantastic tomatoes that were around for the last 3 weeks of August. Then again I guess there can be examples of people who farm artisinally but their crops come out poorly. Bux - I haven't defined artisinal, I am using the standard that the food industry uses. My definition is the same one as they use at Daniel, Arpege and Blue Hill etc. And if I use that standard what they serve in Chinatown is not artisinal in the same way. I want to eat top quality ingredients and I don't particularly care if I eat them in a French restaurant, new American, Indian, Japanese, Chinese etc. If I'm interested in eating food that starts with artisinal ingredients, which chefs then apply whatever technique it is to extract the most natural flavor, I can't eat in a Chinese restaurant because I don't know of any that prepare food that way. It has nothing to do with being able to have a great Chinese meal. It has to do with not being able to have a meal that revolves around exceptional ingredients. Not good quality, exceptional.

I wonder why Wilfrid's brilliant post about the topic, where he parsed the issue into objective standards versus subjective preferences, anyone needed to say anthing else including Fat Guy's bit about agreeing to disagree. Because I wonder where the disagreement is here? Taking the steak frittes example, you can probably find a few thousand books about food that pair steak frittes with wine. And I doubt you will find nary a one that says milk is appropriate. But yet Tony says there is no right way. Why Tony is so stingy in allowing the people who do it the right way the use of that word has me befuddled. Because in a different context, he could easily be saying that people in the U.K. who eat that deep-fried slop from bad oil have got it all wrong. He is fickle when applying ths standard. He will apply it to a bad Fish & Chips, but it's not okay to apply it to the beverages you drink with steak frittes. Huh? So the entire dispute comes down to his not willing to budge on allowing me the use of the word "right" because he wants to be able to say that whatever he chooses to drink with steak frittes is "right." And I don't see why he can't see the difference between *right for him* and *right when held up against the standard.* And I think to a person, everyone on this board who holds an opinion similar to mine, would say that we use the word "right" exclusively in regards to the standard.

Now that last post by Stephen T. was an intelligent post.

LML- What a dumbass you are. Tony - Go ask the same question of a hundred top chefs and they will all answer it the same way I did. Now if the question was, *what do you personally like to drink with steak frittes?* instead of *what is the right thing to drink?* you would get completely different answers. Wilfrid - Of course you are completely correct. But the question is when is a person who disagrees with the criteria a fuckwit? As I have been trying to say, it comes down to valid opinions, and opinions worth crap. There are many dissenting opinions that are valid. But to be honest, many of the people who dissent know diddles about food, and as such do not have a valid opinion. You can recognize them because those are the people pushing the "everything is relative" or LML type arguments.

I think that Macrosan misses my point (I mean why should he stop now?) Nowhere will you hear me say that people aren't entitled to hold their own opinion. Regardless of how outragous it is. But that has nothing to do with how things get measured. Things get measured according to standards. And poor quality tomatoes are ones that don't meet a certain standard. It has nothing to do with whether you like them that way or not. To answer LML's fuck off, I don't think this thread has anything to do with social taste. To couch it that way is just a fancy way of saying that taste is subjective. It isn't. Personal taste is subjective. "Taste" is the adoption of a standard and it is objective. As to what wine goes best with steak frittes, well it depends on where the beef was from. If I was eating Bazas beef, I would want a claret. And I prefer Burgundy with my Charolais beef. And Rhone wines with my Sisteron Lamb. Do you do it differently my lord? I think that people try to characterize it as snobbery when someone expresses standards that should be adhered to. It is not snobberry to say something isn't good enough for you. Yet one hears people who know what the finer things in life are and prefer to partake of them used against them all of the time. Just think how silly it is to be called a snob because you don't like to eat pale and mealy tomatoes.

Bux - What you mean to say is that Chinese restaurants do not artisinal ingredients as the term is defined at a place like Arpege or Blue Hill. That's exactly my point. Those type of ingredients are used at places like Nobu or Sugiyama. It's too bad that the Chinese community can't support a high end Chinese restaurant of that sort. This is actually worth a thread of it's own, and I don't even know how to ask the question the right way due to my lack of knowledge of Chinese cooking. Is it a function of cooking technique, in that the style of cooking isn't intended to bring out flavors the same way, or is it a socio-economic issue and the Chinese do not have a class of people willing to pay the large increment in price of better ingredients?

Gee I gave the most simple example and both Jason and LML didn't seem to buy the concept. So let's remove the embellishment from the concept. Let's make this a simple vote. Question 1 -------------- 1. Who believes that pale and mealy, and without any taste tomatoes taste good? 2. Who believes that pale and mealy, and without any taste tomatoes taste better then perfectly ripe heirloom tomatoes? 3. Who believes that anyone who believes that pale and mealy, and without any taste tomatoes, taste better then perfectly ripe heirloom tomatoes has a valid opinion about tomatoes? I can ask 1000 questions of this sort including whether McDonald's hamburgers are better than a fat, juicy burger from the best bar or restaurant in NYC. Who believes that McDonald's makes better hamburgers then places who make them from top quality, fresh meat? For some reason, even though the answers to those questions are obvious, there will be people here who refuse to say that obvious answer is the correct one. In fact they will say there is no correct answer. They will say that food preference is all a matter of taste. And that taste is subjective, therefore there is no *right* answer. Jason best sums up this philosophy by saying the following; Well to me that comes down to saying that heirloom tomatoes are better then pale and mealy, have no taste tomatoes, and burgers as good I can make with meat from Lobel's are better then burgers from McDonald's. But people can't express that by saying their taste in food is better then yours. Bullshit. For people who can't recognize good quality food, I don't like it and I don't understand the way it tastes are statements about one's self. Not about the food they are eating. People who can't recognize great food are like people who can't recognize good music, art, film etc. Their opinions have no validity outside the scope of their own person. They are expressing preference, not valid opinion. Last night I had dinner with Macrosan and he was telling us a story about beautiful looking peaches his wife bought from the grocer. But when biting into them he found that the area around the stone was brown and pappy (I'm learning all my British terms .) Macrosan, tough bargainer that he is, is bringing the peaches back for a refund. But I guarantee you there are people out there who will not only keep those peaches, but will like them. Call me a snob. In fact call me anything you want. But people who accept brown and pappy peaches do not know anything about peaches. It's not a matter of opinion. And not only are there people who know better then they (or have better taste as Jason refuses to admit) but this notion that they are entitled to their opinion is what allows food producers to ship brown and pappy peaches in the first place.

I see that LML has desperately tried to include the notion of a third party opinion to make the case against snobbery. A stupid guise from a usually smart guy. It's the silliest argument the weakeast and lamest of tasters on the wine chat rooms make. And it is the rallying call of people who have no experience in tasting. Good tomatoes taste better than bad tomatoes. There really isn't anything else to say about it. The tomatoes that Toby sells at the Greenmarket in Union Square are great tasing tomatoes. The tomatoes from Holland they normally sell in my local green grocer are typically pale and mealy. Fortunately for me I can tell pale and mealy when I taste it as neither the New York Times, Zagat, Time Out, nor countless others who masquerade as food writers have written about Holland tomatoes. So it has nothing to do with third party opinions. And even if it did it wouldn't matter. Why anyone would care why someone else buys the right thing is a mystery to me. Only the pettiest among us would care to undermine great food by trying to say someone is eating it for the wrong reason. You can't describe the way La Tache tastes by describing the people who drink it. It still tastes good regardless of whomever is drinking it. Spqr - That statement is bullshit. Do you think the chipped beef they served soldiers in the army is/was as good as the Cote de Boeuf that was almost as marbled as Kobe Beef that was served to me last night in Cagnes-sur-Mer? Is that just a matter of opinion? I think we need to note the fact that the way we use "look down on" doesn't mean think less of as a person (and I think Stellabella mean it this way as well.) I might hold a person who eats frozen, mass-produced, full of chemical food in disdain as an eater but I don't think less of them as a person. The same way I hold people who vote for the opposing political party to mine in disdain. But I have many good friends who are fervent supporters of the opposition. But some people here seem to be confusing it with *really look down on.* I see nothing wrong with people who have an expertise finding others who are less expert inferior (in that field of course.) That isn't snobbery, it is the truth. If for example Steve Klc held my opinion of baking in disdain because I made silly statements, he wouldn't be a snob, he would be right.

Bux - Gee I don't have any prejudices. Preconcieved notions maybe but I'm certainly not prejudiced against Chinese restaurants using ingredients that meet the standards of the definition of artisinal as we use it when we talk about places like Blue Hill. There might be others but, Grand Sichuan is the single example I know of a Chinese restaurant going out of their way to tell their customers about a unique ingredient. This summer was the summer of Ruby Red shrimp. I guess restaurants read Fat Guy's post about eating them in Gulf Shores and they were brought up to NYC. A number of restaurants in the Hamptons had them on the menu, and I bought them at Citarella a few times. Tell me which restaurant in Chinatown had a special featuring Ruby Reds? I am the first guy who would love for their to be a Chinese resaurant that uses all the same ingredients that Daniel is using. If you hear about it, let me know. I have a bunch of old Alsatian V.T.'s chilling. As for the definition of artisinal, it has to be defined by the care the grower takes to create his masterpiece. And that includes where he decides to create it. You can't create artisinal tomatoes on land that only can produce mediocre tomatoes. So I can make artisinal wines on Long Isand, but they are still L.I. wines and will not rise to the definition of "artisinal" that apply to artisinal wines of the Loire Valley. So it's product by product, grower by grower. And just because it tastes good doesn't make it artisinal. Or are the tomatoes in my garden artisinal? As for the best Chinese restaurants in NYC being the cheapest ones, well there is a lot to be said for that statement. I am not overhwlmed by high end Chinese dining. It can be good, but I don't see that high end Chinese food is the equivelent of a Japanese kaiseki dinner, just to stay in the same sub-continent . I think if we started to parse what makes something artisinal, it's really the same concept the French use for terroir. It's the microclimate of where the fruit or vegetables are grown. Or the temperature and the water depth of where fish is caught. Or the pastures that animals feed on. Robert B. - My meal at Jerome was good but not overwhelming. We had the market menu and maybe that was a mistake. I had hoped that the food would have been more intensely flavored. By far the best dish was the Sisteron Lamb which was stunning. But I will write it up in my "Week in Review" post coming up hopefully in the morning.

Robert B. - No the "extra fin" were distinctly marked as being from Kenya.

Ah, I just had a lovely lunch at Patog off the Edgeware Road. I think if you look at most of the criticism of Regalade, it is from those who seem fat averse, even though you don't fit that description. And I don't see it as being so modern. Most of the food is tradtional.

LML - Your post doesn't make any sense. If there is a "right way to eat," then surely there are people who *must know the right way.* And then there are those who don't. But I thought the issue was looking down on people who don't know how to eat. Do you think we should or we shouldn't?

I'm trying to figure out why there is a negative connotation that comes with eating fresh over frozen, artisinal versus mass produced, and well versus poorly prepared? You mean people who eat *the right way* are snobs because they think people who eat the wrong way are, eating the uh, wrong way? I have to say that anyone who thinks that Wishbone Vinaigrette Dressing is better then what you can make yourself with the right ingredients just doesn't know anything about food. It has nothing to do with snobbery. There's a right way and a wrong way and the bottled gunk is the wrong way. Of course that doesn't mean there isn't space in the world for bottled gunk. Lord know everyone's in a hurry from time to time. But peopls should know better. And it's a shame that they don't.

Well you don't need to read Broughton's article, you can read Simon Majumder's slam of La Regalade on this site (which a number of people here concurred with) to experience the same type of disdain for what many think is authentic French bistro cuisine. Some people do not seem to have the type of palate that appreciates those types of places. Then there are other people who live to eat that type of food.

Because what they are delivering isn't artisinal. If you want to put it that way, why isn't every delivery man delivering artisinal products? Since when is a Chinese restaurant in Chinatown offering items like Chatham dayboat cod, or Peconic Bay Scallops, Nova Scotia Lobsters from deep water etc., Sole from the Isle d'Yeau? How about shrimp? I've had loads of plates of steamed fresh shrimp in Chinese restaurants. Do they offer Ruby Reds? Just because it's good quality and fresh, doesn't make it artisinal. You know while wandering around the Marche Forville in Cannes yesterday morning, I saw a few displays of the famous haricots verts from Kenya that I ate at Chez Georges on monday night. The haricot vert pricing went the following; normal size - 2.90 per kilo fine - 5.90 per kilo extra fine - 7.90 per kilo Tell me, which Chinese restaurant is it that would use the 7.90 green beans? The one with Chow Fun for a dollar three eighty? Or maybe the place with Wonton Noodle Soup for $3.95 for a large bowl. Or the farm chicken that Passard slow roasted in a pan for two hours that he served. Is that quality chicken available in Pings? Dim Sum GoGo? Japanese restaurants use artisinal ingredients, but I do not know Chinese restaurants to do so. Good quality yes. Artisinal, not to my knowledge.

Marcus - Those are all great wines where none of them are ready to drink. But I agree with you. There are buys to be had at restaurants where the lists aren't picked over. Fortunately I drink Burgundy so those overpriced First Growths don't bother me .

Robert - No that was at Arpege. I had the Raveneau at Taillevent. Lxt - Did you get the name of the restaurant wrong? Van Laer cooks at Ledoyen or one of those newly promoted restaurants doesn't he? Otherwise, I find your frequent potshots at socialism almost as intrusive as John Whiting's constant potshots at capitalism Here is the question that I have for the braintrust here. And that includes all of you. Why is a beet roasted in a salt crust haute cuisine? I'm just picking that one dish that Passard makes as an example. It's a great thing to eat, but where is the haute cuisine there? Or some perfectly cooked spinach with some sesame served with a small portion of carrots flavored with ginger. Delicious yes. Haute cuisine? Or was the veal chop I had at Taillevent last night really haute cuisine? Or my wife's cousin' Bouillon de Legumes avec Pistou, is that haute cuisine? Yes, the Mousee of Avocado and Caviar stuffed with Ossetra that Passard served was glorious haute cuisine. Same with the Saucisson d'Homard at Taillevent, that too. But I can have a similar veal chop with shallots and mushrooms at a number of places for 40% of the price of the one at Taillevent. And I am really questioning whether the price differential is worth paying. It obviosuly is when the food is unique, meaning you can't get it elsewhere. But what to do when you can get it elsewhere? Or if it's not the same, something close enough.

Bux -I think that much to your chagrin, there is a clear line as to what progress is and when it takes place. Heart valve replacement meant real progress. It wasn't in the eye of the beholder. Same with men on the moon. No way to describe it other then progress. Same when Robuchon made his mashed potatoes. But of course you need taste buds to be able to know that one because it isn't as obvious as walking on the moon. But it's progress nonetheless. Is also isn't just relative. There is a difference in the fish you get in Chinatown and what you get at Le Bernadin. Chinese restaurants are not using artisinal ingredients. The issue is how much on an increment are people willing to pay for theat bit of better quality. Marcus - Well France was always the leader for excellence and leadership at the mediocre level as well. I mean Chez Georges is mediocre, but very enjoyable at the same time. Robert B. - Wine list prices aren't bad. We drank 2000 Niellon Chevalier Montrachet for 217 euro which is less then the retail price in the U.S. Last night we drank 1995 Raveneau Chablis Valmur for 88 euros which I thought was a steal. But Bordeaux is typically overpriced here.

Steve Klc - The problem with Passard opening the Ducasse model is that a place like Craft has opened at a much better quality for value price point. Okay, it isn't the same application of culinary technique that goes on at Passard but, I don't think New Yorkers would find what Passard does to be worth 3X the price of a chef's menu at Craft. I think that is the whole issue in a nutshell. If I can go to a place like Craft and Chez Panisse etc. at a $100 price point for the best artisinal ingredients to be had in the states, or I can go to Jean-Georges or Daniel for a $150 price point, what would make me want to spend $300? In France, since I don't live here, it's all part of a fun trip. But if I lived here, how often would I eat like this? I can't quite put my finger on it and I'm not sure if what is driving it is the cost of ingredients, the high cost of labor to make everything perfect all of the time, the cost of service, taxes, etc., I'm not sure. But there seems to be something acutely out of balance with the price/quality ratio here. Robert B. - Well are the standards falling or are we just getting better at it? I had lunch at Jacque Melac today and my Chou Farci was fine. But I could have been eating it anywhere. I know much of the food here has been commercialized, but don't we have better products stateside as well?

"At the top end of the consumer market, which is where we are, novelty is now much more highly valued than familiarity. With this predominant mindset, it's impossible to fix responsibility on any one link in the circular chain." It isn't novelty that is valued, it is forward motion. Progress is what everyone values. People feel the state of cooking has been stagnate and they want to see it move forward. So everything new is dissected and analyzed in a vain, yet hopeful attempt that real progress is being made. Just like it was for the first 80 years of the last century. As for "the final invoice," I find that the food industry, in all of it's silly attempts at mdernizing and creating items fit for a mass market, has done very little to hurt mother earth. Unless of course Viking stoves are felt to harm our ecological resources. The fact of the matter is that what we are discussing affects the middle of the market way more then it does the top. As it is plain to see from the numbers I laid out, the top of the market can alaways adjust by paying a tremendous premiuim. It's the middle that can't adjust because they can't afford to. The wine I had all by myself at Chez Georges is a good case in point. And Landers refers to this in his article. It costs me 80 euros for a village wine. Granted it was Dujac and granted it was 1997, a particluarly good year for Dujac, but the wine should have cost 40 euros. And while they might not be my particular cup of tea, there are pinot noirs from other countries that are made in a more drinker friendly style that cost much less money. Here is where the French are getting killed. Yes New Zealand can't make a wine as good as Bonnes Mares, but they can make a wine that is arguably as good as the lesser bottlings. Those lesser bottlings were the French winemaker's bread and butter because he forced his customers to buy them if they wanted the top stuff. That leverage over the market is fading proportionate to how much New World wines are improving. And I think this example works for most food products.