Steve Plotnicki

August 1, 2002

There's no perfect answer to this one. It's a balancing act. Who suffers more harm from it not being included the restaurant or the readers. First of all, I don't think the harm to Shopsin's from being included has been properly stated. Shopsin's is a neighborhood restaurant with some international reknown due to Trillin. Most of what Trillin writes about are the restaurant's eccentricities. Even when he talks about the food, it's in the context of how unusual and eccentric it is, even when it's good. But if you have been to Shopsin's you know the reason it works is that the family can manage running the place on its own quirky terms. They have no desire to, nor could they handle having the lines that a place like Sarabeth's has. To do something that would put them in a situation where it could jeopardize their business (not that the inclusion in this guidebook would guarantee that) has its own unusual morality in my opinion. And to me that is the threshold issue in evaluating their request.

On the other hand, the publishers of this guide have the right to publish anything they want. There is no restrictions on printing the address and telephone numbers of a public business along with a description of the services you might find inside. That's a free speech issue. And in addition, the public has the *right to know* which so many people here have already done a good job of expressing.

If it was my decision, I would give deference to the restaurant's request. Maybe it's because I know how hard it is to start a successful business and how hard it is to keep that delicate balance going for so many years. Also in this instance, having been to Shopsin's many times and observing the Shopsin family at length and in detail, I would conclude the harm is going to be much greater to them from their inability to handle the excess business due to the publicity than it is going to be to diners who literally have thousands of other choices of where to eat. In fact I can see the Shopsin's shutting their business in frustration at being forced to live a lifestyle they have purposely chosen not to live. But I can understand all the other arguments that everyone has made and I can see including it. But I still see coming down in favor of a specific harm to a generalized harm to the publisher/public. Where in spite of all the great arguments made here, I can't really get my arms around what their real harm is. Not including it in the book won't stop a single person from buying that book, nor finding it useful.

August 1, 2002

Sure it is. Both tables do not order wine.

August 1, 2002

Fat Guy - You model assumes that if a restaurant doesn't give the table to someone who BYOs then they are going to sell an expensive bottle of wine. What if it's a table of tea drinkers? And anyway, it is already calculated in the margin of the wine program that X tables drink tea. Why doesn't a restaurant just say that BYO is the same as tea? In fact it's better because at least they pay the corkage.

As for restaurants needing me vs me needing them, well I went to Lespinasse for my birthday in May. I bought a bottle of 1999 Meo-Camuzet Clos Vougeot for $270. I own a case of the wine (but never tasted it) and I paid $90 a bottle for it. They probably paid $60 for the bottle. That sounds like a 450% markup to me. Quite a ripoff. As for the rest of the Lespinasse list, to be honest I have many of the same bottles. But even if I didn't, I would never pay $1900 for 1982 Mouton, especially when I can buy 100 cases at $750 a bottle at auction. And that is on the worst day. But the thing is, the place didn't get more than 3/4 full. So I guess they do need me. But I'm not rushing back because I don't want to spend that kind of money on wine.

July 31, 2002

This issue comes down to who needs who more? Does the restaurant need the BYO business more than I need to eat at a place that doesn't allow it? I can tell you right now, they need me more than I need them. Especially since they have a large percentage of tables each night that drink iced tea or water. So all this business of is it a privilage? Do they have the right to say no? Who has the moral high ground? All non-issues. This is a business deal. You allow it at a fair price or I take my business elsewhere. I think I laid out why they are better off calculating a fair price and letting me do it. But if they don't see it that way, c'est la vie. I'm perfectly happy taking my business elsewhere and I will just eat there less or not at all. I used to go to J-G all the time but I haven't returned since they made the corkage $75. And I didn't go to Lespinasse between the time Kunz left and this past May because they don't allow it. And there are empty tables at Lespinasse every night.

July 31, 2002

"And at the same time they want to eat at the restaurant, which can't exist without the expensive program. This is why I place it in the category of free-rider problems"

I disagree wholeheartedly with this. The cost of a wine program is just a capital line item on a balance sheet. The amount of the item is based on a projection of how much and what type of wine a restaurant is going to sell. If BYO eats into the program because it reduces projected sales of wine, all you have to do is lower your investment. That's what a restaurant does when it doesn't sell wine for any other reason, why not this one? If business is bad and the average bottle of wine sold goes down in value because people aren't spending the same amount of money on wine or aren't drinking it at all, a restaurant reduces their investment. This isn't any different, although, here the restaurant can make $25-$50 a bottle for the wine *they do not sell.*

I might be simplyfying this but, the issue seems to come down to the fact that restaurants have the ability to make a large capital investment in wine and they try to turn that investment on some reasonable basis to make profit. But nobody forces them to make the investment. Not every restaurant has a killer wine list. In fact many of the top restaurants in town have inferior lists. So it isn't really a matter of have to, it's that they want to. And like I said earlier, why does it matter if they make the extra profit from selling wine or for offering extra services? In fact it's more profitable to offer extra services because there is no investment needed to keep a large celllar of wine.

We have also forgot to mention that BYO customers spend more money on the whole than your average customer. Quite often the "savings" they get on wine goes into things like tasting menus and dishes with more luxurious ingredients.

July 31, 2002

I think the notion that allowing BYO will bring and end to a restaurants wine program is silly. As we have demonstrated, the BYO person is a unique animal. And you know what, if 50% of the people who wanted to eat at Daniel were to BYO, let them charge a special BYO price for the food to make up their lost profit. We are willing to pay to get it *the way we want it.*

Just remember that I started by saying this is a service issue. Certainly there is a price that every restaurant in the country would offer this service for. I simply do not understand any rationale that says they shouldn't. And to be honest, I don't see bringing your own food to be any different. If I walked into a place with my own Wagyu beef and said "here make this for me," why not? If the chef is up to it, and I am willing to pay the price for the service why should they care? It's like when Cabrales brought those awful, sperm smelling ostrich eggs to the eGullet dinner in London. They figured out a price to charge us to do it. Why can't any inconsistancy from a restaurant's normal operating procedures be reduced to money here?

July 31, 2002

1. Liberal meaning a larger segment of the French population had access to good food and good preprartion of that food than their English counterparts. "Liberalization means" better distribution of wealth and information and to a larger percentage of the population. Okay that will be an easy one.

2. I feel like that question is a joke. Since 1870 French gastronomy completely ruled the world, if not earlier than that date. Look at all the famous chefs France produced and all the dishes they created? Whether it is 1870, 1880, 1890 or 1920, French gastronomy improved and the others didn't. What's to prove? It's like telling me to prove than an orange is an orange.

July 31, 2002

Okay let's frame the question.

Was there a disparity between British and French household and how well they ate (both in and out of the home) in the period between 1870-1914?

I suspect there was, in large part because of the restriction laws. But if it is the case, what were the factors behind it? Maybe Wilfrid will come up with every thing being ducky and maybe he won't. And maybe my gut is wrong and the general French populace didn't really start to eat well until after the wars. But central to my theory, is that what drove French cuisine to the heights it achieved was that a larger percentage of the French population had access to a bountiful table and that is what really drove French culinary expansion. Because along with how dishes the Escoffiers of the world were transplanted into other countries, I think the real question, as it was originally raised was, how did cassoulet get in to homes all over the world? For hard core eaters of course. But let's see what Wilfrid comes up with. He might prove my "gut" theory wrong. Or you can add or reframe the question if you like.

July 31, 2002

Adam - I haven't said the English ate worse during that period. I've only asked Wilfrid to do the research. But the restriction laws must have had some negative effect on how the general populace dined don't you think?

Britain is suffering from them to this day. Surely they were sufferng from theim in 1870-1914. In fact isn't that why pie became popular in the first place?

July 31, 2002

Well that's what I want Wilfrid to research. The argument that a more liberalized political system caused the populace in France to eat better than their British counterparts (this is 1870 onwards) is one of the cornerstones of the discussion. Or another way of putting it, was it just the wars that caused Britain's food troubles or did they have them 50 years earlier.

July 31, 2002

Adam - Nope. Even the great Wilfrid himself said he didn't research that era. In fcat he asked my it was important? Showing that aristocracies ate well is one thing, but showing why *everybody in France ate well* as compared to other countries is at the heart of P-ism .

July 31, 2002

"In that aftermath, French cuisine became decidedly more egalitarian, chefs became restaurateurs, and commoners emerged as customers. In this democratization of the table, the old reigning culinary paradigm 'service a la francaise' - in which a four to eight round series of numerous dishes were set mid-table and diners could pick and choose according to their whim - gave way to 'service a la russe."

An ode to Plotnickiism .

Wilfrid - Okay from 1914 onward, dining in England went into the crapper. But what about before that. How did the common British person eat during the Victorian era. To me that is the period analagous with "French culinary expansion."

July 31, 2002

Fat Guy - Of course it's beating the system but the reason why the BYOers want to is that the system is screwy. I can go to Daniel tonight and drink 1982 Latour. That might be on their list for $900. But it happens to be their last bottle. So the next time I go there again about 4 months later, the 1982 Latour is now $1500 because they had to go into the auction market and their cost was $700 a bottle. There is no equivelent of that with steaks. The price change in what a steak costs between one day amd what it costs four months later can only be described as incremental.

July 31, 2002

Margaret - Chez Henri "Moulin au Vent" is in the 5th on rue des Fosse St. Bernard which is at the very end of Blvd. St. Germain. It is on the same block as Moissonier if you know where that is and it is just across the street from the French Science University and down the block from the Mondo Arabie (one of the great buildings in Paris.) Chez Henri is sometimes called the "left bank l'Ami Louis." It's a steak and potatoes place with all the typical bistro starters. They make a hell of a chateaubriand with souffle potatoes. No frittes though but the souffle guys are a wonder. It's an honest old fashioned kind of meal if you know what I mean. Les Gourmet des Ternes off the Place de Terne in the 8th is similar. Hunks of meat with all the French fixin's.

July 31, 2002

I don't like to list them.

July 31, 2002

I love Patria. I've been eating Douglas Rodriguez's food since he was at Yuca in Coral Gables, Florida. It must be well over 10 years ago. And although he isn't there anymore, the kitchen still practices the cuisine he invented. "Invented," that's the key to Patria for me because there aren't many restaurants in town where they have invented a cuisine. My last meal there during the winter, although not at the level of refinment the cuisine had when Douglas was cooking, was still terrific. It's a little bit dated by now but it is, and will always be a classic. Just the sweet arepas alone are worth the price of admission.

July 31, 2002

Look the best an owner of a restaurant should try for is to replace the lost alcohol bill at a table less the cost of goods sold. In a topline place like Aureole where they charge something like $45 a bottle, if I'm a table for 4 with two bottles and I pay $90 for the night, I can't imagine that is far off of what they would have made using that formula. To me the argument that they have a lot of money invested in wine is a red herring. If 2% of the diners BYO, all they have to do is lower their capital investment by 2% and presto.

As for Fat Guys argument about bringing your own cheese, well I'm not buying that argument either. Cheese doesn't have an astronomical cost attached to it. A wheel of the best Camembert is $12. But the average bottle of wine could cost more than $100, or even more than a thousand. Same with other food costs. Nobody brings their own steak because restaurants already have the best steak at a price you are willing to pay. And most of the time they do not have the wine I bring, and if they do, the price is usually astronomical. This recently happened to me at Pipa where I brought an 1985 La Rioja Alta that cost me $70 and the restaurant had it on their list for $200. Now that's exactly why I BYO.

July 30, 2002

"I accept what you say about BYO being a special breed - I think that's likely true. But I am still surprised more people don't do it, just in reaction to restaurant mark-ups."

Wilfrid - My wife, who has access to more bottles of wine than the hairs you have on your head (I resisted that one, you should too) is still uncomfortable bringing wine to a restaurant. In fact we fight about it Sometimes I know she's having dinner with a friend and I offer to pick a bottle for her but she refuses, only to buy some third rate Rhone wine at 400% markup. Sheesh.

July 30, 2002

I have been involved in countless debates on this topic on various wine chat rooms so I have been able to hone my position into a definitive one .

1. BYO is a service issue. The BYO customer is a rare breed that is in a different class than other customers. His/her goal is to maximize the experience while minimizing the cost. You have to think of it like a special order customer. For me, the issue is making a dinner that would cost $500 a person at a place like Jean-Georges cost $200 because the wines are from my own cellar and I bought them on release.

2. For those of you who are gasping at my arrogance, the reason why I feel entitled to adopt my position is that most or many tables do not drink wine. So there is kind of a huge discrepency in treatment. The restaurant is willing to make zero for alcoholic beverages on the table next to me but at my table they have to make their 350% markup if I want to drink wine and they aren't happy with a reasonable corkage fee. Sorry but that doesn't compute.

3. The fee for corkage is relative to the amount of service a restaurant gives. If they offer you beautiful Riedel or Spieglass stemware (including the proper glasses based on the grape you are drinking,) decant the wine properly and do a generally good job of wine service all evening, then they should charge you what it costs them (including a profit of course) to provide you with that service. I can't imagine that the entire ritual costs a restaurant very much to offer what I just described. But I usually find $25 a bottle to be reasonable.

The thing about BYO customers is that if a place doesn't allow it, we just don't go there very often. I very much enjoy Daniel but I haven't been in two years because they don't allow it (I'm going for my anniversary next month.) But if they did allow it I would go all the time. So restaurants that don't allow it are losing customers. And since the customer who gets the table instead of me might only drink coca cola, the logic never made any sense to me. But of course it is the restaurants perogative to offer BYO. If they don't want to, c'est la vie. But I really think it's silly if they don't. They are better off with my corkage than having someone drink coca cola

July 30, 2002

"One thing struck me when I was doing some research. There was an earlier influx of French immigrants into London - the Huguenots - but while they left some marks on London culture, I haven't found any reference to them introducing French food."

Well that's an easy one. The Hugenots are Protestants and everybody knows that Protestants eat pie .

As for the Brits and the wars, are you saying that oyster eating in Britain died, almost to the point of extermination because of the wars? They are so cheap. How could that be?

July 30, 2002

Wilfrid - I was asking when the ritual of fine dining in France filtered down from the aristocracy/bourgoise to the common folk. If you only look at haute cuisine, of course you will find that the aristocrats and monied classes all over the world exported it. But how about the general population of France and their eating habits? Because not only is French cuisine dominent because they developed culinary genius like Escoffier, but their peasant food triumphed over the peasant food of other cultures as well. And in the context of the original question posed about why we are inclined to speak about French cooking technique and restaurants, much of what we discuss occured because of plainfolk, and not because of what Escoffier did at the Ritz in London. And this point dovetails with your comment about the Brits and oysters. Why did the culinary fortunes of the French populace soar so high in the 20th century when the fortunes of the Brits went into the crapper?

July 30, 2002

Why the folding then, neater? Change the texture when chewing because you cut slices from two pieces of steak?

July 30, 2002

Tommy - Let's put it this way, on Thanksgiving, I don't eat the turkey at all. I don't even eat the leftovers the next day. I'm just making a general comment about turkey which I get to taste occasionaly when Mrs. P and I bring in kosher style deli. She usually orders the turkey and I take a nibble or two.

July 30, 2002

Fat Guy - As much as I think turkey is bland and boring, the outrageously priced Lobel's turkey could change your mind just a wee bit. But it stiil tastes like turkey, even when it's moist and juicy. That is why we also serve some other type of roast, usually prime rib but sometimes veal or pork, for Thanksgiving dinner. I think turkey tastes better cold the next day anyway. Especially with souffle mustard and Gus's pickles. And I agree withy you about hamburger/turkey. But in general, I think red meat is better than poultry.

July 30, 2002

Macrosan - I think that when a chef calls his restaurants "Italian," among other things, he means that the general cooking strategy he practices is Italian in nature. For example, to gently saute a loin of lamb so it creates a small amount of gravy would be an Italian cooking strategy. To roast it and then to deglaze the pan over a hot flame with some type of stock, butter and wine would be a French strategy. Or, a ragu of veal and vegetables served atop some pappardele or polenta might be Italian. But a veal stew with some noodles on the side might be French. I'm just making these simple and very generalized examples but, there is more to making a meal Italian than putting parmegian cheese on top of meat. And when I go to Babbo, I recognize the approach as Italian and not French.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Store

Help Articles

Posts posted by Steve Plotnicki