Is bigger always better

[brucedelta]

In what I hope to be the last of my flurry of posting for the night I got to thinking of this issue over the weekend and decided here on this board with my foodie friends would be the right place to discuss this.

When the family gets together down the shore we frequently order from the White house for some Subs. I don't want to make this a debate about the virtue's of the White House, but suffice it to say I have a very fond spot in my heart for their Subs. Last time we ordered I agreeded to share a special sandwich and experienced the extra meat (double the meat?) that makes it a special. This visit I insisted upon a regular, and was glad I did. The special is just too much of a glob of meat in the bread to be very good, it throws the whole balance off, while the regular is a taste of bread and all fillings in every bite making it just right in my opinion. I saw the special's ordered this weekend and thought all that meat was silly.

Now most people who have met me know I am a very big guy, and that casues the assumption that I believe bigger is better. I am not sure when in life I learned this not to be the case, but I certainly did learn it. In my teens and early twenties I insisted upon the special when we went to the White House, firmly believeing that if a little was good then more must be better. At some point I realized the balance of the whole is more important and thet the regular was perfection. I find the same to be true of a double stuff oreo, it is just not perfection as the regular is.

I went to Johns Roast Pork last week and for the first time had a cheese steak and felt it was too much meat, as the cheese and onion ratio was just off kilter. I have stated in other threads that I find I like tony luke's roast pork much better than Johns, and I think part of the reason is that there is less meat on the Tony luke sandwich.

I have been to numerous fine restaurants (lacroix, Matyson, Marigold, Gayle) with friends who focus on the small portions as opposed to the deliciousness of the food. I have divided friends up into those who focus on food and enjoy fine dinning and those who focus on portion size and do better at more mass market places. Osterea comes to mind as another place where I would not take a portion loving friend.

I also enjoy going to a lamberti or pepino's where huge portions of nice food are the charm, but I always have leftovers. As a metter of fact these places generally include a soup in the meal and I always make it a point of telling them that I like broth to make sure my bowl is not filled with the main bean or pasta ingredent.

Even in my own cooking I used to think more was better and served a plate swimming with too much sauce, and still too frequently fail to control this aspect of my plating. It is hard to learn that a few dolops can provide a interesting compliment of contrast, and a swimming pool for the entree is just not needed.

I know I came to learn about this balance latter in life and the white house incident clarified it in my mind. What are your thoughts. If you appreciate fine food without the need for monster portions is this a learned trait or just the way you were born?

I have mentioned soem places that have modest portions of very good food and there are places that are known for huge portions but also very good (Palm, Capital Grill). Leban just made a big deal of the monster burger at Rouge, but can it really be enjoyable all that beef. I think a small five guys or a in-n-out single is about the right amount of meat, does this make me the wierdo minoity?

I am just curious on others thoughts on this front.

[Andrew Fenton]

I went to Johns Roast Pork last week and for the first time had a cheese steak and felt it was too much meat, as the cheese and onion ratio was just off kilter.  I have stated in other threads that I find I like tony luke's roast pork much better than Johns, and I think part of the reason is that there is less meat on the Tony luke sandwich.

Interesting, because I've always liked Tony Luke's sandwich better, but for the opposite reason. I thought that John's ratio of cheese to meat was too high. Go figure...

[mrbigjas]

as a relatively small eater, i also appreciate the correct ratios over larger portion sizes. it's the reason why i love the pizza at osteria. the hoagies at carmen's in the terminal are also appropriately portioned rather than large.

however, john's cheesesteak is nearly perfect. AND large.

[MarketStEl]

No, Bruce, I think you are on to something.

Even if Morgan Spurlock hadn't made "Supersize Me!", I think the issue of "How much is too much?" would come to the fore sooner or later.

I had an epiphany of sorts on my recent West Coast swing. A bunch of Seattleite eGers arranged a dinner at one of that city's finest restaurants, Union, for the day I was spending "in town." (My brother lives on the opposite side of Lake Washington.) If you go over to the Pacific Northwest board, you can see photos of (most of) what we ate that night in the topic titled "One Fine Day in Seattle."

None of these dishes were what I would call "generous" portions. In fact, I suspect that people used to typical chain-restaurant portions would find these quite small, maybe disappointingly so. But all of them were just the right size -- big enough for you to be satisfied with the flavors and character of the dish and feel sated after finishing them.

Personally, I don't think the Rouge burger is too big--the beef does not overwhelm the caramelized onions or the Gruyere, and the bun is substantial enough to hold everything in. It may be "too much for one sitting" in terms of total quantity of food (I don't think it is), but it is a balanced composition. Actually, I expect good restaurant burgers to be more substantial (and more complex in some way, such as the Roquefort stuffing in the Good Dog burger) than their fast-food or diner counterparts, and I would probably have been disappointed indeed if I had dropped $15 on a burger as large and as simple as a Five Guys single.

But you are right to identify balance as the key element in determining whether something is the right size or excessive (or, for that matter, too little). One can have too much of a good thing -- and too many of us often do.

[Tim Dolan]

I think that portion size is definitely more of a preferential thing. For instance, I love John's cheesesteak, and it's a monster. But I don't like Mama's, which is just as big. I also love Dalessandro's and that's smaller than both. But really that has more to do with quality than anything else.

So for two items that are closer in quality I would say that the double standard at Standard Tap is just as big as the Rouge burger. I like the ST burger much better. Which would I like more if they had a smaller counterpart? Well, the double standard is simply a larger version of the original, and I normally get the double.

So as to your original question; it certainly doesn't make you a weirdo, it just means you know what you like.

[serpentine]

My usual policy, particularly when dining with fellow food-sharers, is to err on the light side when ordering, with the full acknowledgement that if it turns out that there's not enough food, we'll order something else. I say "particularly when sharing" because this maximizes tasting -- I find that I'm happily overwhelmed and drunk on flavors and textures well before I'm actually full.

Only once, to my recollection, was it decided to order more food, and that was just to order a second plate of something that was particularly delicious but a bit small for everyone to get a taste.

More often, even the skeptics find themselves pleased to be able to order dessert if they wish and still not feel so full as to be uncomfortable for the rest of the evening. One does not need to be stuffed to be sated.

[JasonZ]

When I was young, "bigger was better". Now that I am bigger (and in terms of health, not necessarily better for it), I've come to appreciate that certain cuisines (Chinese with dim sum; Spanish with tapas; eastern Med with mezze) understand that variety of taste and texture, in small packages, can be more exciting to the palate ... and the gourmand/consumer can choose the quantity needed to sate their appetite. Same for saucing or meat/cheese ratios: there is a correct balance and that food is best that achieves that golden balance ...

JasonZ