slkinsey

Well... given what Boulud charges for the burger, that could be a legitimate question. There is also a big difference here... It is quite easy to taste a burger and see if a truffle flavor is strongly present. On the other hand, suppose Bouloud said that he got his meat from Jackson Hole and cooked it under a pyramid that used the power of crystals to make the burger taste better -- and for this reason he was charging $27.50 for his "Jackson Hole Magic Pyramid Burger." Now, I can virtually guarantee you that most people who ate Jackson Hole burgers in BD Bistro Moderne would rate those burgers as tasting better than a Jackson Hole burger even though they were 100% identical to the burgers served at Jackson Hole. In this case, it is legitimate to question whether it is the pyramid or perhaps other factors that influence the observed difference in evaluation. I don't think anyone here is saying that using the Wine Clip cannot or does not make some people perceive the wine as tasting better and enhance their wine drinking experience. I would say the same thing about keeping the bottles in a pyramid-shaped container, or even drinking wine that has a fancy label or a famous name. BUT that doesn't mean that the Wine Clip or the pyramid or the fancy label or the famous name actually makes the wine taste better. Now, it is certainly legitimate to ask, as Mr. Clip is asking, whether it makes a difference if these things actually work so long as they enhance the consumer's experience. In the grand scheme of things: no, it doesn't matter. Some people get a lot of satisfaction paying top dollar at retail for All-Clad because they think they are getting the "best cookware made." And, so long as they are happy with their cookware, who cares if it is true or not? These are not the questions we are asking here, however. Some of us are interested in knowing whether or not the Wine Clip really does make a difference and whether or not All-Clad's construction and design really is better than all others.

I'm sure that Alex will have his own, well-informed opinions about this, but this is how I would begin to study the efficacy of the wine clip in a scientifically valid way: Test: Does the wine clip make any difference in freshly poured wine? - 20 subjects/30 comparisons each - The same wine is used for the entire test, and all bottles have been verified to taste "identical" by wine experts immediately prior to use in the test. Bottles not in use are flushed with nitrogen to prevent oxidation. Bottles are clipped immediately prior to pouring. The unclipped bottles are fitted with a nonmagnetic "placebo clip" immediately prior to pouring. The pourer is passed the bottles on a tray labeled to indicare the pouring order. He/She does not know which bottle is clipped and which is not clipped. - Each comparison pair is poured in a separate room and the glasses are placed side-by-side on a tray. In ten of the comparison pairs, the clipped wine is poured first, in ten comparison pairs the clipped wine is poured second. Ten of the comparison pairs have only the unclipped wine. Comparison pairs are poured at the same time (i.e., the pourer does not pour 20 clipped glasses and then 30 unclipped). - Each tray is taken in to the test subjects by a third party who was not in the room when the wine was poured. The test subjects are told that they are doing a test to see if they have a rare genetic abnormality that allows them to taste trace amounts of [some strange sounding chemical] and that it is possible that all their wine comparisons may be the exact same wine with no difference (this to prevent any effects that might result from the test subjects feeling that they "should" be tasting a difference). Test subjects taste the clipped wine first in 10 pairs, and the unclipped wine first in 10 pairs. - Test subjects indicate immediately on a form simply "different" or "same" for each comparison pair. Test subjects spit wine, and appropriate neutral palate refreshers are used. - ANOVA of results for significance. If a significant difference was detected and found to be statistically significant, a similar study could be done using time as a variable (i.e., how long does the wine have to sit in the glass before the "Clip Effect" wears off).

They carry Niman Ranch pork at Oppenheimer Prime Meats (the full service butcher in my 'hood) as well. Chops cut to order, etc.

Thanks for the report, Mark. These are indeed very interesting preliminary results, and do tend to support thewineclip's marketing claims. That said, the fact that the difference was observed to be almost imperceptible after 15 minutes does not bode well for the Wine Clip as a product for practical use. This would depend greatly on whether most tasters would prefer 15-minutes-in-the-glass unclipped wine over freshly poured clipped wine. As Steven said, there are some things that need to be cleared up in terms of experimental design (the control group is particularly important). But this was a very well done first look, and one that merits further investigation. Very interesting indeed.

Anyone who understands experimental psychology knows that certain kinds of perceptual tests are guaranteed to produce certain results. The only kind of test that would truly demonstrate a real effect would be a double blind ABX type test with a statistical My training in psychology, for example, leaves me quite certain that I could conduct taste tests such as you describe using a nonmagnetic Wine Clip and achieve similar results. This does not mean that the Wine Clip doesn't work as you suggest... but it does mean that your "2k taste tests" prove exactly nothing. I appologize, I thought this site was called eGullet not eScience. Gastronomy and cooking are arts and sciences. If you want to produce "tests" as "evidence" of the efficacy of your product, you have to expect that people will apply their appropriate areas of expertise to your evidence. That's the way it works when you make claims. This is not a matter of taste (i.e., whether someone likes the flavor of salted or unsalted butter), it is a matter of science (i.e., either the wine is changed and really tastes different or it isn't and it doesn't). All the tests "prove" is that the "test" produces a certain result. As I said before, I am quite certain I could produce similar results using a nonmagnetic Wine Clip, or a crystal for that matter. I would absolutely dispute this assertion. 1990 of them will not jump higher wearing the Air Jordans. And, I would add, if Nike promoted their product as "making you jump higher" it would be a bogus claim. Now, if Nike did a double blind ABX test where test subjects jumped wearing different shoes, and if that test demonstrated a statistically significant difference between groups with the Nike wearing subjects jumping higher than they did with the other shoes... then it would be a marketing claim with some teeth. This is the difference between a bogus claim and a real claim. It is worthy of note that Nike makes no such claim. Now... if you want to suggest that the Wine Clip might make people enjoy their wine more, I have no problem with that. I am sure it does for some people. I strongly suspect that any such enhancement is due to psychological factors affecting perception and relating to expectations rather than any real, verifiable differences in the flavor. Thus far, according to your own descriptions of the "testing" you have done, you have not demonstrated that there is a real difference between "regular" wine and "clipped" wine. This makes your claims as to an actual change in the flavor of the wine and your explanation of what happens to the wine and why some people might appreciate the Wine Clip unsupported and therefore bogus. If you come onto a web site that is populated my educated, intelligent connoisseurs of food and wine, those people are going to want to know whether or not the flavor of the wine really changes -- not whether or not some people can perceive a change under certain conditions. You have demonstrated the latter. I don't think anyone here disputes that. You have not demonstrated the former. It's as simple as that.

i'm even more smooth after an MRI. if you can believe that. Isn't that a logical impossibility? Like more than infinity?

Oh yea. That stuff is awesome. The liquid form is particularly fast-acting. Trust me, I've eaten Taco Bell at 4:00 AM in the middle of a cross-country road trip. Taco Bell? Oh Sam I'm so dissapointed in you! Burger King is near a line. Taco Bell crosses it, since it has been scientifically proven that you can't eat Taco Bell without contracting something. Dude... I was on Spring Break from college in Wisconsin. My judgment was clearly addled from too much Blatz and Rheinlander Bock. FWIW, I have literally never eaten at one since that unpleasant episode. Believe me, you don't want to find yourself frantically driving around rural Arkansas at 4:00 AM looking for someplace open that sells Immodium.

Indeed there can be argument regarding this claim. I have just spoken to one of the most prominent physical chemists in academia, who assures me that the molecular structure of a liquid is not changed when it passes through a magnetic field (unless that liquid contains a lot of dissolved iron, I suppose). Think about it... how could this possibly be true? If you pass a solution of, say, H2O and sodium chloride through a magnetic field, how could the molecular structure possibly change? If this were true, how could we do MRI scans? After all, the magnetic fields used in an MRI are infinitely more powerful than those produced by something like the Wine Clip, and the human body is mostly liquid. Now, I've had a MRI a time or two. Are you suggesting that my body today is fundamentally different than it was before I was MRI-ed because the magnetic field changed the molecular structure of the liquid in my body? MRI, by the way, works by aligning all the atoms along the same axis, not the molecules. Before you suggest that the science is indisputable and we need to read up on Michael Faraday, I suggest you look for support that is a bit more current than 1840. (By the way, Faraday's findings about the disassociation of molecules in a liquid medium had to do with passing an electrical current through the liquid -- hence the word "electrochemistry.") Anyone who understands experimental psychology knows that certain kinds of perceptual tests are guaranteed to produce certain results. The only kind of test that would truly demonstrate a real effect would be a double blind ABX type test with a statistical analysis for significance if any difference was shown to exist. The reason you see so much skepticism in this thead is due to the fact that many people on these boards have the applicable scientific, psychological, medical and culinary knowledge to doubt the veracity of your claims. My training in psychology, for example, leaves me quite certain that I could conduct taste tests such as you describe using a nonmagnetic Wine Clip and achieve similar results. This does not mean that the Wine Clip doesn't work as you suggest... but it does mean that your "2k taste tests" prove exactly nothing.

One interesting thing I'd like to see is the effect of the Wine Clip versus other treatments like swirling the wine in the glass for 120 seconds. I'd like to see something like: A. Clipped fresh out of the bottle versus B. Non-clipped fresh out of the bottle versus C. Clipped and swirled versus D. Non-clipped and swirled We know there will be a big difference between AB and CD. But, even if there is a clear difference between A and B, if there is no clear difference between C and D there is little value in the device.

I'm curious, what temperature should a burger be when it gets to the table? Depends on whether or not you want it rare, medium rare, medium, etc. Also, if a burger is clearly cooked to the medium stage and yet arrives at a rare temperature, we know that it sitting around cooling off for a while before it came to the table.

Hee! Now, when I saw "picaman" I just assumed you were a really, really tiny man.

"Hi, my name is Anthony Bourdain, and these are my friends Rick Bayless and Bob Villa. We're hanging out here on my patio drinking Coors, eating Burger King's new Santa Fe Fire Grilled Chicken Baguette, and popping Immodium. Later we're going to take out a second mortgage on the house at credit-card interest rates. Because sometimes real people in the real world are just too fucking lazy to do anything but drink Coors and eat Burger King -- they don't want to earn money, cook, or even take a shit. And did you notice we got Glen Frey to write the music for this commercial? Coors, Burger King, Immodium, and second mortgages: a step in the right direction." "This afternoon, Rick and I are going to be whipping up some delicious Immodium daquiries with frozen Coors in a swell Mikita drill-powered blender Bob knocked together with a few pieces of scrap PVC."

Oh yea. That stuff is awesome. The liquid form is particularly fast-acting. Trust me, I've eaten Taco Bell at 4:00 AM in the middle of a cross-country road trip.

Hah! I was thinking something like that too. We could definitely do griddled (i.e., pan fried) and broiled burgers, we could see the difference between different grinds and different meats, we could look at the effects of different griddle temperature settings, we could par-cook one and finish it after it has been sitting around a while (which is something that apparently happens in some places) and we could see what kind of difference it makes grinding the meat immediately before cooking the burger as opposed to, say, 24 hours before. Obviously, we could also set some mutually agreed upon standards and terminology. I have a KA grinder attachment, BTW.

Good, but far from the best I've had in the city. A really good Guiness depends on a lot of things: the nitrogen setup, the condition of the setup, how much Guinness they sell (i.e., how fresh the product is likely to be), etc.

ah, but that acidity plays well against the burger, methinks. i'm a pickle freak. I thought the pickles were good. I wish more places would offer sliced pickles along with the other toppings so I could put them on the burger.

That I seriously doubt. When I peeked in the kitchen what I saw was a fairly standard looking salamander -- albeit with perhaps a bit more height -- with flames on the top. I don't see how flames could possibly have come from the sides given the piece of equipment I saw. Maybe I'm wrong, though. We need to get someone to go in there and watch them do a burger. Tommy's a smooth talker and seems to know the place...

There's probably another way to describe this objection, because of course any medium-rare broiled piece of meat will be cooked significantly more at its edges than in the center. The issue here, I think, was that the exterior 1/8-1/4" of meat was totally overdone and dried out even though the center was rare. Actually, what I found odd about it is that it wasn't exactly an exterior versus interior question. It was more like this: This struck me as a little odd given that they were broiled...

To be clear, the group was against cancer. Breast cancer, specifically. Right... that's why they kept on offering free breast palpations to all the girls. Checking for lumps, you know...

Dude, you could be an awesome salesperson for Immodium. I mean, if anyone knows how great that stuff works it has to be you. I can see it now... "Hi there. I'm Tony Bourdain and I've just spend all day eating God knows what in Kuala Lumpur. I'm pretty sure that the guy who sold me this beef skewer hasn't washed his equipment or his hands... ever! Normally, I'd be spending about 6 hours of quality time in the throne room after a day like this, but I have to catch a 22 hour flight in about 45 minutes. Believe me, if you've ever spend a few hours in one of those pint-sized airplane thunder jugs you know you're lucky if the pins-and-needles in your feet go away by the time the plane is on the ground. "So I'm taking a tablet of Extra Strength Immodium AD. When you eat at the places I've been eating, you know this stuff is your best friend, and with all the lower GI parasites I've caught over the last 18 months, I know what I'm talking about. After I take one, two or fifteen of these little babies, my bowels will be sealed shut like Fort Knox in no time at. That's gonna make my flight a lot easier... and I'd be lying if I didn't admit that it'll probably make the flight easier for everyone else in the plane as well. "So when your bung is running like a crack addicted thief from the LA police, do what I do and reach for Immodium AD. Don't leave the Western Hemisphere without it."

I guess I'm the first to report... It was a great time, with many interesting eGulleters in attendance. SuzanneF was thoughtful enough to provide pencils for all, and also brought along instant-read thermometers and a sensitive electronic scale. The only negative things to say about the venue is that it is extremely dark. We were joined midway through our meal by 30 or so drunken people doing a "pub crawl for cancer" which made conversation a little difficult. The service was prompt, expert and congenial. I thought the burgers were very good. They're broiled under a salamander, which gives them a very nice crust. The main negative for me -- and it really took the quality of the burger down a whole rating -- is that the beef did not appear to have any seasoning whatsoever. Everyone seemed to agree that the burgers needed salt badly. Many of us also found that the beef near the edges of the burger was cooked significnatly more than the beef in the middle. Mine was medium rare (as ordered) around the outer few inches but mushy and rare in the middle. Interestingly, SuzanneF's burger, ordered rare, was exactly the same as mine. Otherwise, the size, texture, greasiness and beefyness were excellent. The buns were acceptable standard burger buns of an appropriate size -- not quite as good as some of the denser brioche-type buns that can absorb more grease, etc. without getting soggy. It was perhaps a bit more than I would want to eat for lunch on a work day, but no one was holding a gun to my head forcing me to finish it. The prices are very reasonable. Excellent onion rings. Batter dipped and clearly cooked a la minute. Our definitive rating will be forthcoming once the scores have been tabulated, no doubt.

Tell that to James Bond. Yeah I've always wondered about that, why Bond always orders his "Shaken, not stirred". I assume because in the original novels it was more of a satire then a serious story. You nailed it with the second sentence. He ordered it "shaken not stirred" because it was déclassé.

I'm thinking low 6 figures. But that's a total guess. As it so happens, I have some friends who are actors and have appeared in many television commercials. When you're talking about a major, nation wide, heavy rotation television advertising campaign, a "no-name" principal actor can expect to make around $100,000 once the initial fee and all the residuals are added up. A major, nation wide, heavy rotation television advertising campaign with a celebrity endorsement typically starts at around 1,000,000 dollars for the celebrity. Bayless might be making a bit less than this, simply because he is not quite up there in "Emeril land" in terms of name recognition... but I can virtually guarantee his compensation was not in the low six figures.

I disagree with the assumption that because Bayless made this deal he will no longer work toward his previously stated goals. Even if one concedes (for sake of this discussion) that his BK ad is both a "sell out" and an act of "self-betrayal" that doesn't necessarily equal a complete abandonment of his mission. It only affects how some people perceive him, not his ability to work toward his goals (and, if he has truly abandonned his goals, then the BK deal is not inconsistent after all). Perhaps Bayless' reputation isn't as important to him as getting his message across is. This deal may have felt like a big pay day and an opportunity in Bayless' mind. The problem with this line of reasoning is that a huge part of Bayless' work towards his previously stated goals is evangelizing and publicity. In this kind of work, his reputation and how people perceive him is of primary concern and directly affects his ability to work towards those goals. If people who might otherwise be receptive to his evangelism are less inclined to listen to him because of his BK endorsement -- and it does not strike me as a reach to suggest that many of the people who might be so inclined aren't exactly admirers of Burger King -- then his ability to influence people towards his philosophies may be seriously inhibited.

Eliot, I think you're missing much of the point and are mingling separate points in this discussion. No one has been saying that people shouldn't endorse Burger King or that it is fundamentally wrong to do so. What they are saying is that it is a hypocritical sell out for Rick Bayless to do so because of his high publicity evangilism for philosophies that are incompatible with BK's business practices. Bayless' endorsement of this sandwich is fundamentally no different from one of the principal members of PETA endorsing a BK burger with 50% less meat because it's a "step in the right direction." You state that he made the commercial with "tongue firmly in cheek" as though it is a fact. This is an assertion I would challenge as I hardly see how this is possible for someone in his position. It bears mentioning, by the way, that Bayless put himself in that position. Bourdain or Ducasse could do a Burger King commercial with "tongue firmly in cheek" because they have not spent years morally decrying the business and culinary practices of Burger King and similar corporations -- it has the effect of undermining everything he has been saying over the years and giving people who have been listening to him reason to doubt his sincerity. At least one of his colleagues and idological comrades appears to share this sentiment, and I have little doubt that he is alone in this regard. Another, separate point is whether it is possible to produce less processed food at a similar price point, with a similar profit margin, with similar consistenty and with similar or better quality. I am not sure it is possible to settle this point definitively in this forum, but the presence of little places like White Manna, chains like In-n-Out and others similar suggest that it is not out of the question. Autogrill in Italy is a shining example of great "fast food" made with high-quality, minimally processed ingredients -- they are found at every "rest stop" on the autostrade. The fact that the fast food places set the bar so ridiculously low in terms of quality makes this seem all the more feasible. As Toliver points out, one may end up with an overcooked chicken breast from time to time, but even this has got to be better than a BK "chicken breast." In closing, I have to add that I don't see how you could possibly think that Bayless' BK advert will "open his message up to a potentially larger audience." People who haven't or wouldn't hear of him won't care, and people who might be predisposed to appreciating his philosophies will likely be disenchanted with his apparent two-faced behavior.