slkinsey
-
Posts
11,151 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by slkinsey
-
-
I'm still interested in the psychology of why people tip, especially large amounts. I gave some possible reasons above. I think its to do with boosting their own egos, or to impress, rather than as reward.
Maybe its somehow its to do with guilt, perhaps at being waited on, or at the sensual pleasure of food...
Well, there are two questions.
First is the question of why people tip. This seems like a simple question: people tip when and where it a cultural expectation. I agree that, in America anyway, tipping is no longer a "reward" but rather part of the social contract.
Second is the question of why people tip large amounts. That is a question that has many answers, depending on who is being asked. I am sure that some people are big tippers for the very reasons you suggest.
I tip a minimum of 20%, which I consider standard. This is because I have many friends in the food business and I know that they depend on this income to support themselves.
-
You are confusing percentages and absolute amounts.
Leaving $2 extra is $2 less for you and $2 more for your server, whatever the percentage.
This is true, in an absolute sense. However, for me there is a difference between leaving $2 more or less as part of a total payment of $150 and leaving $2 more or less as part of a total payment of $15. And, the fact is that with the percentages I'm talking about (3% or less) it's a very small difference to the customer. Even on a very large bill of around $500, we're talking about less than $15. On most bills, it's more like one or two dollars. My feeling is: if I have the means to spend $100 on dinner, spending $102 isn't going to mean much to me. Two dollars is, after all, only two dollars.
Whether that £2 is best spent on your server, or on better ingredients or keeping alive someone in a third world country, is your choice. I would rather there was not a societal compulsion where to spend it.Yes, I think you have made your feelings on this subject abundantly clear -- and they are not unreasonable points that you make. If you would like to start a thread on the inherent problems in the "working for tips system," I invite you to do so. I think it could make an interesting discussion. But this discussion isn't about changing the system, it's about choices people make within the system.
-
I always tip based on the pre-tax total. The tax is not a good or a service that I purchased and someone provided - it's a tarriff that goes directly to the government. It's also worth noting that tax rates for restaurant meals vary wildy in the US from as low as 4% - 5% to as high as 10% - 12%.
As explained by me up here, the difference in total cost to the customer between tipping on the tax and on the pre-tax is around 1.5% assuming a 20% tip and a 10% tax rate. If the tax and tip rate are both 20%, the total difference to the customer is only 3%. This is, I think, an entirely inconsequential difference to the customer.
To the worker, on the other hand, the difference in the size of the tip is equal to the tax rate. If the tax rate is 10%, the difference in the amount of the tip varies by 10% depending on whether you tip on the pre-tax or total amount. A 10% difference in income, I think we will all agree, is not inconsequential to the worker.
If increasing my tab by 1.3% increases my server's income by 8.625% (NY sales tax), I am happy to do it.
In reality, people do this anyway most of the time by rounding up when it comes time to put down cash or write out the credit card receipt. It doesn't take too much rounding up to reach 1.3%.
-
Yes, that probably is a recommendation for people who know what they're doing (i.e., professionals). When I read your first post and you said you were looking at the budget and saw that only two bartenders were scheduled, I also thought you were hiring. Somehow my eye skipped over your later explanation that they are going to be inexperienced volunteers.
I, too, would probably recommend something like eight. My experience in working with volunteer organizations is that at least two of them won't be reliable anyway. One thing that should help is for you to divide the tasks down into components and perhaps rotating those assignments to keep it more interesting for the volunteers. For example, serving the drinks is the easy part. Who is keeping the bar and equipment clean, who is making sure the bar is stocked (fetching new bottles and kegs when needed, opening bottles, tapping kegs, refilling the margarita machine, etc.). You could split the task so that you have essentially two bartenders and one barback per station.
-
I use David Wondrich's measurements:
2 oz London dry gin
1/3 oz (2 tsp) maraschino liqueur
3/4 oz fresh lemon juice
Interesting. I'm looking at Dave's Esquire Drinks and see 2 oz gin, 1/2 oz lemon juice and 1 tsp maraschino.
The whole Aviation question is an interesting one for me. I recently had a fun conversation about it with Marco Dionysos, who was in town from SF for a few days. If you look at the older recipes, there doesn't seem to be a "balanced" recipe for a gin/lemon juice/maraschino cocktail (by balanced, I mean with approximately equal parts of sweet and sour). In the Savoy Cocktail Book, for example, there is the Aviation with 2 oz dry gin (2/3) 1 oz lemon juice (1/3) and 2 dashes maraschino and there is the Allen with 2 oz Plymouth gin (2/3) 1 oz maraschino (1/3) and 1 dash lemon juice. I can't find anything with, say, 2 ounces of gin and a half ounce each of lemon juice and maraschino. To my taste, the Savoy Aviation is fundamentally a sour drink whereas the Savoy Allen is fundamentally a sweet drink.
-
Note to Sam K - check Lombardi's again in a few months. With Mike moving back and taking over the reins in NY, you might see things settle down and quality return.
This is interesting. What was the deal there? Mike used to manage the NY place and moved to Philly when they opened up the branch down there? If so, his moving back to the City to manage the NYC original should be good news indeed. I've always heard that the Philadelphia Lombardi's was excellent, and the NYC one has been mediocre for quite a few years now. It's really too bad, though, that the NYC Lombardi's gain comes due to the loss of the Philadelphia outpost. Do you think they have any plans to try to open in another location down there?
-
A few thoughts here:
First, it's never susprising to me when someone writes a pizza article that mentions the mediocre places in town and fails to mention the standouts. Even the great Peter Reinhardt in his wonderful book American Pie discusses perennial disappointment Lombardi's and yet leaves out NYC's best coal oven place, Patsy's East Harlem.
Second, it's not clear to me that there is a distinct "Philly Style" pizza as such. I'd be interested to hear what makes "Philly Style" distinctly different from other styles. For that matter, I'm not sure there is a "New Haven Style" as distinctly different from "NYC Style" either -- the classic places over there just do the same style at a higher level. These are all, more or less, variations on what Reinhardt calls "Neo-Neapolitan pizza." This style originated in NYC, is most commonly associated with NYC and is most commonly called "NY Style" -- but I'm not sure that means NYC owns the style or that other cities don't also have great traditional pizzeria making pizza in more or less the same style. It's just a name, and "Neo-Neapolitan" is probably a better name. This is to say that I think there are greater differences among individual old school pizzerie within these cities than there are among the aggegrate "city styles" between these cities.
I can be convinced otherwise, of course. I'd be interested to hear what someone who wanted to open a traditional "Philly Style" pizzeria in NYC would do to distinctly differentiate that place from the traditional "NYC Style" places in NYC such that people would be able to walk in and say, "oh yea... this is completely different from the local style" (this is what I assume, for example, people natives do when they visit the Grimaldi's in Phoenix, AZ).
-
We are reliably informed that Chef Shea Gallante of Cru is named one of the Best New Chefs of 2005 in food & Wine Magazine's upcoming issue.
-
I asked the waiter (who I've always felt doubled as the prioprietor, but I could be wrong) whether that wasn't a misspelling and whether it shouldn't be Grigliata Mista. . .
FWIW, you are correct. Lo Zingarelli even uses "grigliata mista" as the example when giving the definition:
grigliata [da griglia; 1980] s. f. - Piatto di carne, pesce o verdure cotti sulla griglia: una g. mista (translation: plate of meat, fish of vegetables cooked on the grill: a mixed grill)grigliato, the masculine "o ending" noun, means a grilled panel or hatch that allows air to pass through.
-
Julia, I'm not aware of any place that offers these statistics for free. If you have around 650 bucks burning a hole in your pocket, you'll be wanting the Adam's Beverage Group's Liquor Handbook. I suppose some libraries might have a copy.
-
Perhaps it might be helpful to sum up the pertinent elements as we understand them:
What did Trotter say? To my mind, there are several important things:
"I just said, 'Enough is enough here. I can't really justify this,'" Trotter said. "What I have seen, it's just inappropriate. There are too many great things to eat out there that I don't believe that any animal would have to go through that for our benefit."Trotter said he stopped including foie gras on his menus about three years ago but only is talking about the decision now.
This is a big public statement in the Chicago Tribune, one of the leading newspapers in the country.
Ahh..this one bothers me. Did Trotter really stop serving foie gras around March 2002? I dug around a bit and I dont see any significant detail in the animal activists against foie gras timeline during that time. Maybe, I am guessing, a couple of weeks/months before July 2003, he stopped serving foie gras.
Given Trotter's apparent disdain for the anti foie gras activists, there is no reason to suspect that his decision to stop serving foie gras at his restaurant was influenced by the anti foie gras activists -- nor to suspect that they would have been aware of this decision on his part.
With all due respect, given a choice between trusting the time period a reporter for the Chicago Tribune says Trotter told him or your supposition -- I'll stick with the Trib. Not that I think it's important anyway. It really doesn't matter whether it was three years, two years or two months ago. The important part is that he says he doesn't serve it now and, to the extent that one cares about the hypocrisy issue, that a reasonable time period for this prohibition would seem to include the date of the event at which we know foie gras was served in his restaurant. I suppose it is even more important that Trotter says it's been around three years than whether it has actually been around three years. But, again, I don't think it's important.
-
The whole "tip on the pre-tax amount or tip on the total" question is not even worth bothering with. Consider this: Let's say that your pre-tax bill is $100. Let's further say that the tax rate is 10% for a total bill of $110. If you tip only on the pre-tax amount, you will leave $130. If you tip on the total, you will leave $132. This is a difference of two dollars, or 1.5%. I'm not going to get worked up about a 1.5% difference.
Hmmm. Depends on who's doing the talking...and the computation. On a $20 tip, a difference of $2 is 10%, not 1.5%. I don't know about you, but I would miss 10% of my income were it to suddenly disappear.
The difference between $130 and $132 is 1.2%. That's the difference to the person leaving the tip. An inconsequential difference.
The difference between $20 and $22 is 10%. That's the difference to the person receiving the tip. A not inconsequential difference.
I hadn't thought of the difference to the person receiving the tip, but you make a good point that it can make a difference to the person on that side of the transaction. All the more reason, in my opinion, to calculate on the total.
-
Perhaps it might be helpful to sum up the pertinent elements as we understand them:
What did Trotter say? To my mind, there are several important things:
"I just said, 'Enough is enough here. I can't really justify this,'" Trotter said. "What I have seen, it's just inappropriate. There are too many great things to eat out there that I don't believe that any animal would have to go through that for our benefit."Trotter said he stopped including foie gras on his menus about three years ago but only is talking about the decision now.
This is a big public statement in the Chicago Tribune, one of the leading newspapers in the country. He's solidly coming out against all foie gras here. There is no way Trotter isn't acutely aware of the fact that different farmers treat their animals differently. He certainly could have said that he refused to buy foie gras from farmers who didn't conform to his expectations as to ethical and humane treatment. Presumably this is what he does when he purchases beef, lamb, chicken, fish, etc. So, by denouncing foie gras in its entirety, he is saying that animal cruelty is an inherrent part of the foie gras production process. If this is not what he is saying, then coming out against foie gras across the board is like saying, "I went to several Tyson locations and several Purdue locations, and I think raising chickens this way is cruel -- so I am no longer going to serve chicken at my restaurants" and ignoring the fact that other people are raising chickens in a different way.
What did Tramonto say?
"It's a little hypocritical because animals are raised to be slaughtered and eaten every day," Tramonto said. "I think certain farms treat animals better than others. Either you eat animals or you don't eat animals."He further explains his point, saying:
"Look how much veal this country goes through with all the Italian restaurants and the scallopinis," Tramonto said. "Yes, there are certain farms that are going to treat those veal better than others, but still at the end of the day it's killing those babies, right?"This makes good sense to me and makes the same point I made above. Certain farms do treat animals better than others. So, unless Trotter is saying that foie gras production is inherrently cruel, in making his blanket statement about foie gras he is ignoring this fact.
Trotter responds:
"Rick Tramonto's not the smartest guy on the block," Trotter retorted. "Yeah, animals are raised to be slaughtered, but are they raised in a way where they need to suffer? He can't be that dumb, is he? It's like an idiot comment. `All animals are raised to be slaughtered.' Oh, OK. Maybe we ought to have Rick's liver for a little treat. It's certainly fat enough."First off, there is no way the argument can be made that these statements aren't ill-advised and unprofessional. You simply don't make ad hominem remarks to a reporter from the Chicago Tribune to the effect that a colleague is "not the smartest guy on the block," "can't be that dumb," has made an "idiot comment" and has a liver that is "certainly fat enough." This is a basic issue of professionalism and, for example, it's something we would probably delete if it were posted in the eG Forums. In a debate you attack your opponent's arguments, not your opponent.
The only argument he makes in this response is that animals that are raised to be slaughtered don't need to be raised in a way that makes them suffer. This is significant for a few reasons. First, it reinforces my earlier observation that he is arguing that foie gras production is inherrently cruel. He could easily (and professionally) have answered Tramonto by saying that some foie gras producers do treat their animals acceptably, or at least that it was hypothetically possible. Second, it raises a question as to the meaning of "suffering." Some people, such as those affiliated with PETA, would argue that the mere act of domesticating animals and raising them to be slaughtered necessarily causes suffering. Other people, needless to say, have different ideas. From what I have been able to understand about gavage, there is nothing about it that I would consider inherrently cruel. Everything else comes down to regular animal management practices, and as far as I have been able to determine, foie gras producers are among the cream of the crop when it comes to non-gavage treatment of their animals. Ladies and gentlemen of good will may be permitted to differ.
Some of Trotter's statements make me wonder what foie gras producers he visited and whether he has been listening to too much anti-foie gras propaganda.
Trotter said foie gras ducks spend two weeks running around as chicks before being "bloated up as quickly as possible.""You're talking about chipped beaks and broken beaks," he said. "You're talking about broken webbed feet and birds that are panting because they're so overweight and kept in a 1-foot-by-2-foot wire penned boxes."
Hudson Valley Foie Gras produces something like 80% of the American product, and this is absolutely not descriptive of their methods, nor of the methods of the other major American foie gras producers.
As to whether it constitutes rank hypocricy to have made this statement so soon after having apparently allowed foie gras to be served at a special event in his restaurant is harder to say. I don't accept for a minute the argument that Trotter was somehow forced by economic, professional or personal considerations into allowing this product into his restaurant. If anything, Trotter's prickley personality demonstrates that he is not one to be forced into anything. If Blumenthal et al. had proposed to serve an animal that was an endangered species, for example, I am quite sure Trotter would have vetoed that without a second thought.
On the other hand, despite his blanket pronouncements, he also had the following to say about anti foie gras legislation:
"I would never go so far as to say we should stop these people from doing it," he said.This suggests to me that, despite his public and at times ill-considered statements, he views the foie gras issue at the moment more as a personal one for him and doesn't seek to tell others what to do or what to serve. This is more congruent with his decision to allow Blumenthal et al. to serve foie gras in his restaurant -- it's his personal choice not to cook it in his kitchen, but he's not to the point of proclaiming that others shouldn't cook it (or produce it). On the other hand, if I thought foie gras was so inherrently cruel that I banned it from my kitchen, I don't think I'd allow anyone else to serve it in my restaurant either.
-
The whole "tip on the pre-tax amount or tip on the total" question is not even worth bothering with. Consider this: Let's say that your pre-tax bill is $100. Let's further say that the tax rate is 10% for a total bill of $110. If you tip only on the pre-tax amount, you will leave $130. If you tip on the total, you will leave $132. This is a difference of two dollars, or 1.5%. I'm not going to get worked up about a 1.5% difference.
It's easier to tip on the total, and it ensures that you don't forget to include the tax in the total amount you leave. Simply multiply the total by 1.2 and that is what you owe. For casual restaurants I use the calculator on my Palm Tungsten, and for high end places I like to take a credit card sized calculator in my pocket. Otherwise, I just add 2 dollars for every 10 dollars in the total.
-
What about Sea Breeze on 9th Avenue around 40th? I've always been very impressed.
-
If someone objects to foie gras, but can only afford Tyson and does not desire to give up on their cheap source of protein, it is not hypocrisy. It is merely a decision based on necessity.
Even if they can afford to buy free range poultry and still insists on picking up plastic wrapped Tyson chicken while still holding a stance against foie gras because it is 'cruel', then it is still a choice.
I don't think this is a realistic situation you have outlined here. No one "can only afford Tyson chicken." There is such a thing as doing without, and I would suggest that it is entirely possible for someone to obtain an equally inexpensive source of protein without eating factory chicken. In no way is cheap chicken a necessity of life. One could easily get protein mostly from things like tofu and rice & beans and, if doing without chicken is unthinkable, eat only the occasional piece of chicken (or beef, etc.) from small family farms. Some people don't want to give up chicken for tofu and rice & beans, etc. -- but some people don't want to give up foie gras. Although chicken is much more commonly consumed, it is fundamentally no more a necessity than foie gras. Both depend on want rather than need. The only difference is that one is more expensive than the other.
I'd suggest to the pro-foie gras band in the US to work with legislation, not with tactics of guilt, name calling etc. There is no law against hypocrisy. There is a law against cruelty against animals. That is why they banned production of foie gras in California.I don't think anyone here is arguing for cruelty to animals. At the same time, no one has sufficiently demonstrated that gavage is inherrently cruel to animals -- or any more inherrently cruel than all the other things that go along with raising animals for slaughter even in the best of circumstances. I still cannot understand why an animal who was presumably being subjected to cruel treatment would run to the person in order to be subjected to that treatment again, as ducks run to the feeder to be gorged. It has often been pointed out that stressing the ducks only leads to a lower quality liver and thus less money for the farmer, so the feeders have a real economic incentive to treat the ducks well -- and money speaks loudest of all.
Regardless, I think we should be able to agree that in all other aspects of life except for gavage, the quality of life is substantially better for ducks raised for foie gras compared to factory chickens. What is clear is that terms like "force feeding," an insufficent understanding of the physiology* and psychology of ducks, anthropomorphism and sensationalism have led people to make certain conclusions that are not fully informed -- good faith and intentions notwithstanding. Whether or not there is a law against the production of foie gras in California has no bearing on whether or not gavage is inherrently cruel to animals (it should be noted that the California law doesn't come into effect until 2012, was likely accepted as a political move by the foie gras producers to reduce immediate pressure, will likely be strongly challenged before it does go into effect).
* For example, most people think that gavage deposits the food into the duck's stomach. This is incorrect. The food is deposited into the craw, from which it is transmitted to the stomach for digestion at the duck's own pace.
-
I said this a long time ago, but I'll say it again. My German Stepgrandpa raised "fat Geese" and "fat Ducks". They were fed noodles cooked with butter every day, separated from the other birds. They certainly were not forced. And hon, they would knock you down if you were between them and the feed gutter.
Therefore I believe that fois can be humanely raised.
The last statement is true only if all the fois(sic) in the world is the same and nothing but the same ones that resided inside the geese and ducks your German Stepgrandpa raised.
Could you clarify this, FaustianBargain? I'm not sure it makes logical sense.
As I read it, Mabelline is saying that she believes the way her German Stepgrandpa raised geese and ducks for foie gras was humane, and that this means it is possible to raise geese and ducks for foie gras humanely. This makes logical sense to me. If we accept that her German Stepgrandpa could do it humanely, then it is possible for anyone to do it humanely.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying but it sounds like you're saying that Mabelline's statement to the effect that it is possible to raise geese and ducks for foie gras humanely is true only with respect to the geese and ducks already raised by her German Stepgrandpa? This doesn't make logical sense to me, but perhaps I am not interpreting your statement correctly.
-
Some questions re "aging"
The ash/oil misxure is rubbed on the outside and the inside of the tagine?
Also, is this somthing that should be stopped once the tagine starts to be used for cooking? Or can you cure it, maybe cook a few dishes and then do a few oil/ash treatments?
It's ready for cooking more or less right after the initial cure, yes?
-
I could be convinced by some of the anti-foie gras arguments, or at least convinved of the non hypocricical motivations of those in the anti camp. But here's the thing: if we're going to talk of "humane treatment" and "quality of life," there is simply no way a duck raised for foie gras doesn't have a much better life than the average factory chicken.
I've said before that if I had to choose between living as a duck faised for foie gras or living as a Tyson chicken, I'd choose to be the duck in a heartbeat. Does this mean that some of the foie gras criticisms don't have merit? Of course not. But it does say to me that many of the anri foie crusaders have their priorities mixed up. You want to crusade to improve the lives of animals raised for slaughter and consumption? good for you. Where do you think you'll affect the greater number of animal lives -- working against foie gras production or working for better conditions in chicken factory farms? I'd say it's around one million to one in favor of the latter, if not more.
Trotter wants to ban foie gras and refuses to use it in his restaurants? Fine. Well, he ought stop serving chicken and beef and lamb in his restaurants as well, unless he can demonstrate that the animals slaughtered for his restaurants have a substantially better quality of life than ducks raised for foie gras. And hey, while we're at it, let's talk about "line caught" fish, which are dragged through the water by a hook piercing the jaw and then "drowned" to death in the air. If Trotter thinks all the animals he served at his restaurants live "suffering free" lives, by his definition, he's sadly mistaken. Does he suppose every piece of beef he serves came from a cow raised as the beloved pet of an Amish family until it was lulled to sleep with a reading of Charlotte's Web and then gently, lovingly killed as it dreamt of sweet clover?
Now, of course, there always comes the question of what is acceptable treatment for any animal raised for slaughter. For this, it helps if one has an understanding of the animal's physiology and, to the extent possible, psychology. The esophagus of a duck, for example, is lined with something very similar to the material our fingernails are made of. And, of course, ducks and geese have a natural gorging instinct. One reads of ducks gathering around the feeder and standing in line to be gorged. Is this unnatural? Yea, to a certain extent. So is feeding grain to cows. Domesticating an animal and raising it for slaughter is inherrently "unnatural." But it's not clear to me that doing any of these "unnatural" things necessarily makes the animal "suffer." Could the gorging method be done in a way that was inhumane? Certainly. But that doesn't mean that the gorging method is inherrently inhumane. So I say it is a flawed premise to declare foie gras production inhumane based simply on the gorging method. This would be inhumane for humans, and probably for most mammals, but not for ducks and geese.
So, I invite everyone who renounces foie gras for reasons of conscience to also renounce any animal that is not raised free foraging on a family farm, including any animals "finished" on grain.
-
So... I took delivery of my Souss tagine from tagines.com yesterday. Soaked it in water for several hours, rubbed with oil and put it in a 250F over overnight. Some observations:
1. It was very interesting how much it smelled like clay. I could smell clay as soon as I opened tbe box, and when I put it in the oven the apartment really smelled like baking clay for a few hours.
2. As Paula has mentioned, you can really see the flakes of mica throughout the clay. Very interesting.
3. I was a little surprised at the geometry of the base. I had been expecting something that was more or less wok shaped -- which is to say, broadly curved all the way to the bottom. That's what this picture of Paula's looks like to me, and as far as I can tell, we ordered the same tagine from the same place. Perhaps it's an illusion in the photograph? The geometry of mine is more like this:
It seems deeper than the other tagine styles, but fundamentally isn't something I'd call "rounded." Is this normal?
-
I think the best way to try Campari for the first time is probably in a weak Campari soda (Campari, sparkling water, ice, maybe a twist of lemon). Straight Campari is too overwhelming for most people on the first try. For similar reasons, I think a dry Martini is a poor choice for the ginophobe who is trying to develop an appreciation for gin.
The bottom line, though, is that for most Americans, Campari is a taste that has to be acquired. American tastes tend mostly toward the sweet side of the spectrum, or to mostly-sweet-with-some-sour. Americans, by and large, do not enjoy or appreciate bitter flavors. Italians, on the other hand, love bitter flavors. Hence the popularity of radicchio and bitter greens, bitter soft drinks like Chinotto, and the whole family of amari both as aperitivo (Campari, Cynar, etc.) and digestivo (Fernet Branca, Averna, etc.).
Here's a thought: try a swig of Fernet Branca before having a Campari soda. Relatively speaking, the Campari soda will seem hardly bitter at all.
It might make an interesting thread to talk about beverages and foods that one makes a conscious effort to acquire despite not being attracted to it, or perhaps even disliking it, on the first try.
-
From THE BEST: Chinese Dumplings:
Other than dumplings, what other items would you recommend I order on my second visit to New Green Bo?Aside from the fried pork dumplings, soup dumplings and boiled pork and leek dumplings, an absolute must-have is the scallion pancake. Best in the city, I think. We also very much like the rice cake dishes and usually get the mushroom rice cake. Last time out I think we had spinach and mushroom Shanghai lo mein, which was very good.
Moderator's note: Two threads were merged starting with the following post.
-
The soup dumplings at NGB are called "Steamed Crab Meat & Pork Tiny Buns" and "Steamed Tiny Buns with Pork." For more NGB recommendations and discussion, see here.
-
In a visit to New Green Bo a few days ago, Fat Guy turned me on to another dumpling there I had never tried before. I'm usually not one for boiled dumplings, but NGB's boiled pork and leek dumplings are outstanding. They have now firmly entered the standard list for the obscene amount of food Fat Guy and I order when we're there. This makes me think of trying their boiled seafood dumplings as well. NGB even makes an acceptably tasty version of steamed vegetable dumplings.
Gotta love the service, though. Nice and surly, just the way I like it.
Is Tipping Big the New Black?
in Restaurant Life
Posted
Exactly. The social contract says that a certain percentage tip is expected if you receive adequate service. This is amply demonstrated by the myriad posts in these forums from members who have been embarassed by friends and/or relatives who are habitual "low tippers." Tipping <15% for adequate service in an American restaurant breaks the social contract. On the other hand, it is entirely within the social contract to tip <15% if the service is substandard. Now, some people may argue that one should have an understanding of what is/is not under the server's control before making the determination to lower the tip. I would be one of those people.
That said, I would also point out that, even for things that are not under the server's control, there are things that can be said/done to improve the diner's disposition. Customers like to feel that the server is on their side. If a dish comes out late and cold, for example, one is always favorably disposed towards a server who apologises profusely, says "this isn't up to our standards" and replaces/comps the dish.