Stone

Zuni is about as famous as it gets in SF, so many people want to go and I figured it deserved a few more chances. Also, I do really enjoy the atmosphere, although I can't put it into words.

A designer friend of mine was recently hired by Tupperware to "make it cool again." (Again?) They're trying to revitalize the brand, similar to Target. Be on the lookout.

I've now been to Zuni a bunch of times. I really like this place. Perhaps most because of the atmosphere. It's open, boisterous without being loud, dimmed lights without being dark, casual without being sloppy. The food is pretty good also. First, the oysters. I don't eat a lot of oysters, but this is certainly my favorite place for them. They're served in a spartan manner -- oysters, a half lemon, and a small cup of champagne mignonette (champagne, vinegar shallot). No tobasco or horseradish. I have to ask myself why T&H are usual accompanyments to oysters? The oysters flavor is so subtle and delictate that even a small dash of lemon can overpower it. Seems to me that putting tobasco and horseradish on it would defeat the purpose. We had a dozen -- 4 Sweetwater (from Tomales Bay), 4 kumamoto (Humboldt), and 4 St. Anne (East Coast). I believe SF Magazine had listed sweetwater oysters as one of the 125 best things to eat in the bay area. This was the first time I'd been able to sample them. They were terrfic. Mid-sized, meaty, with almost a savory flavor to them. I always love kumamoto's -- small, salty with a hint of citrus. I wasn't a fan of the St. Anne. They had a firmer flesh, almost like a clam. I didn't get much flavor out of them, although they were the largest of the bunch. After that came the caesar salad. What a pleasure to actually have fresh made caesar, instead of the jarred creamy italian concoction that so many restaurants try to pass off as caeser. The dressing should be a light coating on the romaine, not a plotz of mayonaisse with garlic. This was terrific, and the single portion easily shared by two. Finally we had the chicken. A damn fine chicken I must say. I think I can cook a good roast chicken at home, but I never order it out because it's almost always a disappointment. Not this bird. Although the Zuni cookbook says to use a smaller chicken (thereby increasing the skin/fat to meat ratio for better basting), the dish easily serves two people. The skin comes out golden brown and crisp, with hints of herbs and a healthy dose of salt that is unmistakable but in no way overpowering. (I recall that their vaunted burger was also "salty" (I think I read that the meat is "cured" in salt overnight?) I wonder if salt is to Zuni what butter is to French Laundry.) The meat remains moist and juicy and bursting with flavor. The chicken is served cut into 8 pieces, "tossed" with micro greens and served atop "bread salad". For the bread, a stale hearty peasant bread is cut into chunks and tossed in a vinegretter. The chicken is laid on top so its juices soak into the bread, turning it into a wonderful mix of crunchy/chewy bread with acid and fat. The only drawback was the wait time for the chicken. The menu says to expect 50 minutes. It seemed like a longer wait, and, of course, I used that time to fill up on bread. Boo. (dvs -- my comment on the cops at Eastside West was poorly worded frustration at the way the city allocates its police resources. There are parts of SF that desparately need police presence, and the Marina ain't it. My dislike for the location of Eastside West, however, is not because of the cops.)

Are you referring to Bhutanese Red Rice? I've made this once or twice. It does have a great nutty flavor, with some fruit to it. As different from plain white rice as Basmati, but nothing like Basmati. It has an al dente texture similar to brown rice, however, which I don't particularly enjoy. But if you put it on a plate, your guests will coo and caa like you've invented sliced bread. (I don't recall it being particularly expensive.)

Almost as funny as Bagel Beer.

You're a freak. Have you read the synopsis? Didn't have to, I knew who it was about. That's why you're a freak. (I mean that in a good way.)

You're a freak.

Well, duh.

(Sorry, that's not it.) The same thing will happen at NY that happens in SF. Some bars will permit smoking, most wont. There are many bars (usually in the seedier areas, but many in "trendy" areas), that turn a blind eye to smoking cigarettes (as well as grass, but that's another issue -- you can usually smoke pot anywhere in the city -- parks, concert halls, etc., even though most concet halls will ask you to put out cigarettes). I think there was even a list in Citysearch a while back of the top ten bars for smoking.

I ended up not doing it because I wasn't satisfied with the sanitary conditions in the prison kitchen.

FoodTV does a lot of BBQ segments, and they often show folks working large smoking contraptions. The cook keeps opening up the huge lid to baste, turn, poke. Doesn't this let all the heat out? Does it matter?

Are you suggesting that price is determined by something other than the market segment made up of experts who would agree on the objective value of each wine in a blind taste test?

When I was in law school I offered to do a pro bono death penalty appeal if the guy would let me sample his last meal.

Jasmine Tea House listed in this month's SF Magazine's cheap eats (outer mission area). Seems that Bubba ate their twice in a week when he was in town.

I dont' think anyone has argued that it does. Steve P -- I'm obviously not getting my point across, but I can't think of any other way to put it. But a blindfold test is not relevant to the point I'm trying to make.

Why do you think this is? (I'm not disagreeing.) Is it because of ingredients, or atmospherics? I would think that in places like NY and LA, the top restaurants could import whatever is needed.

Stone - No, taste is a physiological reaction to a chemical compound. Food and wine have certain minerals, vitamins, trace substances, sugars, proteins that taste a certain way to the human palate. A 1979 d'Yquem is always supposed to taste the same. Only the tasters change. We're arguing past each other. The "physical" sensation within each person's brain when tasting something is an effect of consciousness that stimulated by, among other things, the chemical reactions on the tongue and in the nose. The brain takes those inputs and creates a sensation -- neurons firing. I'm just saying that other factors go into the sensation -- beyond the chemical compounds in the wine, already present on the tongue, etc. I think that how a person's brain perceives the taste of an object is not simply a factor of the objects physical make-up. On one hand, I think it's probably true that if one person were to sit in a room each night for the purpose of tasting a '79 d'Yquem, and was asked what it tasted like, she'd probably give the same answer each night. On the other hand, I think that when you factor in the full experience of eating food at a restaurant, when the diner is not going into it as part of a test, there are other factors than the chemical makeup of the food (and the wine pairing, etc.) that affect how that person will perceive the taste of the food. Yes, a beautiful setting and perfect plating will probably not make a badly cooked, dry, tasteless piece of fish taste good -- especially not to a seasoned eater who's really paying attention. But for the average joe eating out, I think it will affect how he perceives not just the dining experience, but the taste of the food.

Stone - I don't think this is quite right. I think it needs to be modified to; The original point was that plating and presentation is very important because it affects the perception of taste to diners in the restaurant. It doesn't affect the actual taste at all. The diner is the one being manipulated. Not the food. Taste is perception. If you've modified the diner's perception, you've modified the taste. If a 79 D'yqueem sits breathing in a decanter in the forest, does it have a taste? Or is it only when someone is drinking it. (All right, that one didn't work.) When I started the "Is Wilfrid Right" thread way back when, what I was trying to get at with reference to subjectivity was whether different people had the same subjective "experience" when they tasted the same thing. FG, I think, pointed out that this was irrelevant (and the thread went on and on and on). In many ways, it is. However, what we're discussing here is very similar to what I meant to discuss before. The meaning of "taste" and its relation to perception. Plating, atmospherics, etc., may affect the diner's perception of food. By that, I'm not just talking about "oh it was a beautiful place, we had a great time, and the food was o.k." I think it goes farther. It could be the difference between "the food was great" and "the food was mediocre" -- for the same food. If people are in a classy joint with perfectly prepared food, conscious or not, I think their expectation of better food may skew their purportedly subjection evaluation of what they eat. A self-fulfilling prophecy if you will.

(Again, apologies for jumpin in in media res, but who has time to read all this?) FG -- The blindfold argument is irrelevant to this discussion (or at least my small participation in it). I'm not (and I doubt anyone else is) suggesting that if we told people we were testing whether presentation affects the taste of food, and asked to sample to pieces of pie that they knew were identical but just plated differently, that they would perceive a difference in the taste of the pie. Nor is anyone suggesting that a blindfolded person would taste a difference between a nicely plated piece of pie and a messy piece. If that's the discussion, then I think we're not arguing the same thing. The original point was that plating and presentation is very important because it affects taste to diners in the restaurant. That's not an argument that the plating affects the physical attributes of the food or the diners' palate. It's an observation that people will subjectively appreciate and judge the taste of an item based on factors other than the narrow confines of "taste", and that they are probably not conscious of the fact they are doing this. Perhaps it's akin to subliminal influences. Remember, half the game is 90% mental.

I went for lunch, and I think if I had the choice I would choose lunch again. It's more relaxed. I'm more awake.

You're trying to use one example (a fine one at that) to prove an absolute. There are lots of things that taste better than they look. Many things that look better than they taste. That's irrelevant to the premise that appearance, plating, atmosphere, ambience, etc., is very important with respect to how most people (who are not thinking about the issue) will judge the "taste" of the food they've eaten. You are correct that it doesn't affect the molecules or the taste receptors. But taste, the physical sensation, is one of those odd manifestations of consciousness. It is only the firing of a few billions neurons somewhere in the brain, but it is of course, so much more. And it could easily (and I would say it is) be affected by more than just the molecules that hit the taste buds (or the smell receptors in the nose, etc.) Perhaps this has some relevance here: Tasters Choice coffee employees 10 people to taste their coffee daily for the purpose of ensuring that it always tastes the same. After years of this, one guy says, "I have to admit it -- the coffee tastes different to me. You all say it's the same, and I don't doubt you. The coffee hasn't changed, I taste it differently." Next to him, a lady says, "I have a similar problem, the coffee tastes the same to me, as you all confirm. But I don't like it anymore. I used to love the taste of Tasters Choice. Now I don't." Putting aside physical changes, what is going on? They are talking about the experience of tasting that occurs in their brains. It's not objective, not reducible to fact, not even arguable. It's not a question of whether Wilfrid is right. So you may assert correctly that atmosphere can't affect the taste of food. But you're wrong.

I fail to see how that can be determined, if presentation actually changes the taste of food. I don't think anyone suggests that presentation actually changes the physical taste of the food. It changes the way people react to the food and the experience. Most people don't eat their food blindfolded, and their entire experience, including the way they perceive and will report on the food, will be affected by the entire experience -- including presentation, service, ambience, etc. Perhaps one attempt at an example (although probably not a good one), is the Slanted Door restaurant in Frisco. Although my last meal there was pretty good, I don't think it's close to the best Vietnamese food in the city. Many, many people will say that it is the best Vietnamese restaurant, if not one of the best of any restaurants in the city. I think the fact that Slanted Door has an upscale "Western" look to it will affect the perception many people have about the taste of the food. And they serve stuff in lettuce cups, clay pots and other do-dads that most diners haven't seen before. I think this influences people's opinion as to the taste of the food. Take food from the relatively "unknown" Vietnamese joint down the street and serve it in Slanted Door, and I bet it gets higher ratings than it would get if eaten in it's regular surroundings. By the way -- I've missed much of this discussion, but is it worth remembering that the original post seemed to be recommendations to those serving food to the general populace? Remember, most people eating at restaurants are not as savvy as people posting here. (Or, as it seems that FG said, they're just dumb.)

Cabby, with all love and respect, I believe that for some people, service of the meal in France as opposed to America may be the most important part of the dish. The experience, taste (subjective, though thought to be objective), review and memory will all be skewed by looking out over the Parisian skyline as opposed to Topeka. It's difficult to remove presentation, atmosphere, etc., from perceived taste. Just a thought, having missed the first three pages of the discussion.

If there is a glut of French wine as the article suggests, are the prices going down? Isn't high price (or the uneducated public's perception of higher prices for French wines) pushing the switch towards Australian and others (Chilean, Spanish)? Or perhaps those wines are fuller and spicier and play better to the tastes of the masses?

More on R&G Lounge. The beef was surprisingly good.