Jump to content
  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create a free account.

Food Snobbery


stellabella

Recommended Posts

Just like the rules of jazz were made by the people who knew what sounded good. And the rules of fashion were made by the people who knew what looked good.
That's just perfectly silly--and I get to make that rule because I know what's silly.
the pain of going on is just too much to endure.
I am quite surprised that no one has, as yet, cracked under duress and confessed to being a snob just because this is too much to endure.

Plotinki, you are a dangerously insane fascist.

I think I'd enjoy the privilege of buying LML a drink down at the pub. He stands his ground, with a certain sense of style.

I beg to disagree. Plotnicki is not dangerous. :biggrin:
Plotnicki's argument is the same old "some are born to follow, some (we) are born to lead," used by every Tory, Republican, Whig, etc. etc. who ever lived: "The people" cannot be trusted to run the government,
I'm not sure this is relevant, but it seems to me that what the (American) people want, is to be led by someone who is certifiably not smarter than they are.
Bux: That's it exactly, put with more of a sense of style than I could muster: "good taste" = "fashionable."
We are in fact almost birds of a feather, so to speak. :biggrin:
The food fascist argument is really: more people think that X is good, so it is, and the minority who disagree are wrong, because we are more numerous than they.
Allow me one more off topic political comment. Democracy, in my humble opinion, is less about one man one vote, which often leads to the tyranny of the majority over the minority, than about letting dissent be heard and considered. Hmm, maybe it's not completely off topic.
It gives you a place to start, nothing more. The responsibility for developing your own personal sense of taste is always up to you. (You can't fairly judge a place that you've never been to.)
This is what guides such as Michelin really do--give you a place to start. Three stars should not mean "the best possible restaurant," but for someone new to the area, it's a sign that a bunch of experts agree that this is a place that's worth making a special trip to discover. If you travel frequently in France, but not frequently to keep up with all of its restaurants, you will eventually discover how well your taste aligns with that of the Michelin panel.
So let's take an example. Suppose I went to my mother and I went to Daniel Boulud and I asked them what is the right amount of a certain ingredient to add to a dish.  My mother's answer would be appropriate for a home cook and Daniel would look at the question through the lens of haute cuisine and his answer would be appropriate to that.
I doubt a professional would have a single answer for you. Many of this groups problems result from the attempt to argue there is a single answer to certain questions.
Bux -  your proffer that things change with time only says that the standards have flexibility to them. That doesn't respond to the point that the issue is what the standards are at the time the question is asked. If I asked you who the best chef is, the implication of my question is based on existing criteria. To say that because the criteria can change with time makes the question unaswerable is a non-starter. It just an attempt to prevent me from using of the word "best." Because I can keep narrowing the question until there is a "right" and "wrong" answer.
I have noticed that ability. :biggrin:

It also appears obvious that as you narrow the relative conditions under which we choose, you prove the point that it's all relative and dependant upon context.

Plotnicki, I'm not trying to categorize your politics across the board, BTW, just your politics of food. I think it's entirely possible to be politically liberal and also gastronomically conservative.
Gee I hope you're not saying it's entirely possible Plotnicki doesn't understand how he's voting, or worse yet, what he's saying. Nah, that's just the inner trouble making devil in my ear. :biggrin:
Finally, perhaps it's a question of presentation. "Try the French Laundry--I've been there and I enjoyed it, and I think you might as well" goes a lot further than "I've been to the French Laundry and anyone who doesn't like it is a boorish Philistine with no taste."
One step beyond is "I've been to the French Laundry and you cant get a reservation" :biggrin:
However the true snob is into the exclusivity of his elite. S/he doesn't want people enjoying The French Laundry because it ceases to be exclusive and s/he will have to move on somewhere else. This is a bore, so the snob will try to discourage not encourage the great unwashed from going there.
Worse yet, as I just said, s/he will gloat over your inability to go there.

My apologies for any missing smilies.

Robert Buxbaum

WorldTable

Recent WorldTable posts include: comments about reporting on Michelin stars in The NY Times, the NJ proposal to ban foie gras, Michael Ruhlman's comments in blogs about the NJ proposal and Bill Buford's New Yorker article on the Food Network.

My mailbox is full. You may contact me via worldtable.com.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bux writes

. . . it's a sign that a bunch of experts agree that this is a place that's worth making a special trip to discover.
That's it in a nutshell. They tell you how far it is, how good they think it is, and how much it costs. It's then up to you to decide whether you can afford it and if it's worth the wager. Not unlike travelling out of your way for a major concert.

John Whiting, London

Whitings Writings

Top Google/MSN hit for Paris Bistros

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm scratching my head because steak is the same as a can of blue paint. A steak tastes good or it tastes bad. It's a function of quality. If you think a sirloin from Sizzler tastes better then a steak from Lobel's, you don't have a good sense of taste. It's not a matter of opinion. It's the same with Farmhouse cheddar versus Kraft slices of American cheese. If you think the Kraft slices are the better cheese, you don't know anything about cheese. I really don't see much controversy with any of those statements. But I'm sure you will find a way to disagree with them. That's because in order to reserve the argument that taste is subjective, you will say that there is no definitive proof that Lobel's sells better steaks then Sizzler does. But at the same time, when you are in the mood for a top qualioty steak, you won't go to Sizzler, but you would visit Lobel's.

Gknl - You have switched the pea. Saying something tastes like drivel is not the same as saying someone's taste is drivel. I have only said the former, I have no desire to say the latter. Where the latter comes out is when someone offers their taste as proof.

Bux - I'm trying to understand why you don't think that people who know about jazz get to decide what is acceptable jazz and what isn't? Who decides what is acceptable theater? And who decides what is acceptable painting or sculpture? Who decides anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what guides such as Michelin really do--give you a place to start. Three stars should not mean "the best possible restaurant," but for someone new to the area, it's a sign that a bunch of experts agree that this is a place that's worth making a special trip to discover. If you travel frequently in France, but not frequently to keep up with all of its restaurants, you will eventually discover how well your taste aligns with that of the Michelin panel.

Aldous Huxley wrote in his essay "Guide Books" that the only really useful guide book is the one you write yourself. Of course, to do that, you have to have already gone to all the recommended places. The first time through, you pretty much have to put yourself in the hands of Michelin. (Or I guess in Huxley's day it was Baedekker [sp?])

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who decides what is acceptable theater? And who decides what is acceptable painting or sculpture? Who decides anything?

I thought it was you. :wink:

We'll just have to call ol' Plotters's bluff sometime. One of you who knows him personally can set up a blind tasting, and then we'll see if he knows good from bad without the label on.

Of course, whether he can or can't, the results will be duly noted here. . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aldous Huxley wrote in his essay "Guide Books" that the only really useful guide book is the one you write yourself. Of course, to do that, you have to have already gone to all the recommended places.

Although he was probably tripping at the time, he had a good point. A similar concept might apply to taste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deacon - Believe me I welcome the opportunity. Would you like to do it with food or wine? Or both perhaps? Can we bet on it as well? But it has to be an area I have expertise in. No zinfandels. The stuff tastes like toothpaste to me. And no California cabs or new world wines other than Harlan Estate. But Rhones, Burgs, first growth Bordeaux, better Barolos and Barabarescos, bring 'em on.

I have a friend who is a wine importer. You can take him into a cellar where wine is being stored in barrel. And you can give him tastes from various barrels and he can tell you the vineyard the wine comes from, and even from what section in the vineyard it comes from. And I have other friends with similar skills. Knowing those people, the argument that taste is subjective is mind boggling to me. Taste, as Mr. Johnson so aptly put it in a different thread, is about discerning trace substances. And in food and wine, it's the ability to follow the trace substances through the vinification or cooking process where they get manipulated and combined with other trace substances. I don't understand the argument that people who can't discern those substances can have good taste? Please explain.

Sandra - Ah I wish it was me. I wish I knew enough about theater to be able to have a more complex discussion about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a friend who is a wine importer. You can take him into a cellar where wine is being stored in barrel. And you can give him tastes from various barrels and he can tell you the vineyard the wine comes from, and even from what section in the vineyard it comes from. And I have other friends with similar skills. Knowing those people, the argument that taste is subjective is mind boggling to me. Taste, as Mr. Johnson so aptly put it in a different thread, is about discerning trace substances. And in food and wine, it's the ability to follow the trace substances through the vinification or cooking process where they get manipulated and combined with other trace substances. I don't understand the argument that people who can't discern those substances can have good taste? Please explain.

Deacon,

Plotinki is correct, there are people, plenty of people, who have educated their taste organs to this canine level. I don't doubt that you or I could do the same with enough time and effort. And, indeed, Plotinki is correct that the identification of flavour and odour by the taste organs is objective. How could it not be? Apples taste like apples and not anchovies.

The problem is that Plotinki stubbornly insists that, a) 'good' taste (i.e. a comprehensive set of superior preferences) exists, and b) that the trained palate constitutes 'good' taste rather than a pre-condition of 'good' taste (were it to exist at all). The difficulty I have with all this, although I may share many preferences with Plotinki, is that I can't say I, or he, has 'good' taste. We don't. Like everyone else we have our own idiosyncratic taste, because taste is the value system one employs when pleasing oneself. Should this value system be subordinated to the preferences of others it is no longer be 'taste' as personal preference, but rather a form of communication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gknl - You have switched the pea. Saying something tastes like drivel is not the same as saying someone's taste is drivel. I have only said the former, I have no desire to say the latter. Where the latter comes out is when someone offers their taste as proof. ?

Did you or did you not write: "But those who know better have the right to tell you it is drivel?" And that's one of the less offensive things you've written.

In this thread you've written about how tastes have changed from the past. Doesn't that suggest that taste is mutable, transitory, perhaps even historically contingent regarding certain things? Or do you believe we've reached the zenith of human achievement in regards to taste, that we've cracked the code, solved the proof, unlocked the olfactory mystery of Good Taste for now and forever? What happens if the standards change and a new consensus emerges though? Is the old taste suddenly wrong? Do the old experts become the new fuckwits?

And finally, is it possible for you to discuss something without resorting to a straw man false dichotomy? Accepting that differences in quality between two extremes exists is hardly proof that "good taste" exists in some objective, Platonic ideal form that only some group of experts can define.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like everyone else we have our own idiosyncratic taste, because taste is the value system one employs when pleasing oneself.

And I may concur with the above hypothesis on the grounds of the “pursuit of happiness” as described by America's founding fathers. Could one be truly happy being fully aware of his own incompetence and realization of the pleasures he did, does or will miss? To be or not to be that is the question one must ask himself entering a boulevard of unknown matters whether in food or in life. The comfort of ignorance is effortless, unproblematic and cushioning for achieving the highest level of self-esteem and therefore confidence in life’s endeavors and overall happiness. Why would anyone want to step on the road of misery of budgetary restraints, complicated learning curve, effort and discipline? Not many. Therefore, I proclaim “subjective taste” to be a foundation of ignorance and happiness. I’d say wine snobbery, for instance, is rather puzzling. Since most people are unable to differentiate between the contents of a $10 bottle and a $100 bottle without reasonably expensive training, those who submit themselves to such schooling are paying only to become dissatisfied with otherwise “perfectly acceptable and much cheaper goods.” Let’s vote for mankind’s relief from the burdens of mind, language, taste and standards, to return to its original state of ignorance and bliss.

Hence, it is not about “class warfare” as Steve P. suggested; it is, apparently, about salvaging happiness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deacon - Believe me I welcome the opportunity. Would you like to do it with food or wine? Or both perhaps? Can we bet on it as well? But it has to be an area I have expertise in. No zinfandels. The stuff tastes like toothpaste to me. And no California cabs or new world wines other than Harlan Estate. But Rhones, Burgs, first growth Bordeaux, better Barolos and Barabarescos, bring 'em on.

All these qualifications sound like David Blaine saying he can read your mind, if the wind is right, if it's Tuesday, and if there's a cold front coming in over New Jersey, then he can tell you how many quarters you have in your pocket. But OK.

But it won't be done by me personally. I think it may very well be done one evening, in a good-natured spirit, by one of your friends in a restaurant. And I am not trying to see anyone humiliated. But you did invoke your own name as a person qualified to speak about what is "good" and "bad" for everybody. As I say, I'm not trying to humiliate anyone, merely demonstrate the limitations of the hobby. Woe to you, Plotnicki, if you find yourself in Babbo, and somebody brings out a "ringer" plate secreted from the nearest Olive Garden. Okay, that would be too easy. Maybe Carrabba's. Or anything from a Cheesecake Factory. Won't your face be red. Or vice versa: imagine Plotnicki in a chain restaurant, genteelly railing against the quality of the food, when somebody reveals it's actually from (I don't know) Veritas? Ho, ho, ho, what fun.

Wine would be even more difficult. Perhaps you're a wine professional, in which case I certainly concede knowledge and experience. But for the average talented mortal with no superpowers, yes I will say he'll get either white or red correctly blindfolded. But Plotnicki, I predict, will be doing well to get the country of origin, let alone the region, let alone the vineyard. But I may be wrong. We shall see.

No prize for getting color. Credit for getting country of origin. Beyond that--fuggeddabouddit. No chance.

This will be interesting. Keep us informed. But consider this a challenge. If you're not fooled by either wine or food, I will publicly. . . well, you come up with an appropriate debasement. But if you lose . . . well, does anybody have any ideas?

And speaking of my subjective sense of taste, last month I had very strongly seasoned seafood gumbo, with a glass of zinfandel. Red wine with seafood? But it was delicious, and that's what matters. I'd have the combination again in a minute. But I'm just a peasant with no taste, what do I know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lxt writes:

Let’s vote for mankind’s relief from the burdens of mind, language, taste and standards, to return to its original state of ignorance and bliss.
There's something to be said for that. Or, as the sentiment is negatively expressed in a re-writing of Kipling's "If":

If you can keep your head while those about you

Are losing theirs . . .

Maybe you don't understand the situation.

John Whiting, London

Whitings Writings

Top Google/MSN hit for Paris Bistros

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gknl - Yes, that certain things taste like drivel. Just like your opinion can be drivel, or mine can be drivel too when either of us get it wrong. I don't know what you do for a living, or for a hobby, but I am sure that whatever they are there are people in those fields who are far more expert then you. Do you disagree with that?

In this thread you've written about how tastes have changed from the past. Doesn't that suggest that taste is mutable, transitory, perhaps even historically contingent regarding certain things?

I will repeat this for the third time. Nobody has offered a proffer that says that what passes for good taste today will permanently be considered good taste. What I have said is that things are right and wrong depending on the context of the question asked. If you don't accept the context the question is framed in, then we can't have an agreement on what is right and what is wrong.

That is what drives this debate. It is pedantry of the highest order masquerading as relativism. Using the beverage with steak example, if I take the original question of what should one drink with steak, the answer to that question depends on the inference drawn. I will immediately draw the book inference which is wine. Somebody else might see the question as asking what is enjoyable to them and say milk or prune juice. And because we interpert the question differently, an argument ensues. But if the question was framed differently, and asked this way, "what do experts in the food industry suggest you drink with steak?" There will be only two answers, wine or beer.

That's why this conversation keeps going around in circles. It's an argument about what inference we are each entitled to draw from questions that are less then specific in what they ask. What I can tell you is that those of us who have been eating top level cuisine for the last 20-40 years pretty much draw the same inferences and would answer the question the same way. We would answer objectively and state personal preference as an aside. In fact go read Tommy's wine/beverage poll and that is exactly how I respond. I say red wine but I also announce I drink Sprite on nights I don't want to drink wine. But unless the question is asked with a degree of specificity where people cannot superimpose their personal preferences onto the question, they argue they are allowed to answer the question anyway they like. That's a non-starter and why we argue this point so often and for so long. For some extremely stubborn reason, people do not want to admit there is an objective way to answer the question, and a subjective way to answer it.

Deacon - You are making a very large mistake and I would not place a large wager on this if I were you. And I can't imagine you have read some of my restaurant reviews on this site (or my wine writing on certain other sites) and are still confident to make some of the statements you made in your last post. Not only will you see me get the countries of origin right, I will differentiate between regions and varietals, and pick out which producer made the wine providing I have experience with the producer. And I'm not a professional in the industry either. I'm just an "amateur" as the French would say. But most producers have a house style. Fortunately for me, I have tasted through the range of the last 50 years of vintages of most every region and of most of the top producers.

Lxt - Okay you have redeemed yourself in my eyes from some of those onorous statements you made in that other thread. Ahem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can keep your head while those about you

Are loosing theirs . . .

Maybe you don't understand the situation.

Nor can I bear to hear the truth I've spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools.

Lxt - Okay you have redeemed yourself in my eyes from some of those onorous statements you made in that other thread. Ahem.

Everything is dark when your eyes are closed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deacon - You are making a very large mistake and I would not place a large wager on this if I were you. And I can't imagine you have read some of my restaurant reviews on this site (or my wine writing on certain other sites) and are still confident to make some of the statements you made in your last post. Not only will you see me get the countries of origin right, I will differentiate between regions and varietals, and pick out which producer made the wine providing I have experience with the producer. And I'm not a professional in the industry either. I'm just an "amateur" as the French would say. But most producers have a house style. Fortunately for me, I have tasted through the range of the last 50 years of vintages of most every region and of most of the top producers.

Plotnicki, let's try to keep the wager a civil one. Since most of us can't be there to see this thing happen personally, the eGullet readership will have to learn the results secondhand. But that's no different from any other report of a restaurant experience. When it does happen, you and any friends from eGullet you may be with are honor-bound to report your results here fairly and accurately. Since there's no other way to get the results, I trust you to own up honestly if you get fooled, that's all.

We could even make it an actual wager, but collecting the stakes, win or lose, is the problem. I'd like nothing more than betting the full cost of, say, dinner at The French Laundry on it, but it would be difficult to collect--and even more difficult to get into The French Laundry :biggrin: or Rao's, which is also impossible to get into. But I'd have to be in the area to collect, that's the problem.

How about the cost of one dinner at your choice of restaurant, anywhere in the mainland US or Canada, against the same thing for me, my choice anywhere in mainland US or Canada. (For you, I imagine NYC; for me, wherever I happen to be travelling at the time, which might also be NYC.) I'd shake on it, but you're not here, so we'll have to keep it a gentleman's bet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's all fine with me but we have to determine what the object is. Are you saying that I won't be able to tell say a rioja from a cabernet sauvignon? Or a white Burgundy from a California chardonnay?

I'm telling you it's easy for anyone with experience tasting wine as long as they have experience with the producer and the vintage chosen isn't atypical. It's also easier to do with mature wine because the unique characteristics of the producer's vineyard sites and style of winemaking have had time to develop in the bottle.

Go read my taste memory thread. If you have enough experience tasting wine, you can memorize the tastes the same way you can memorize the difference in taste between a Big Mac and a Whopper. It's just a matter of practice.

As for where and when, wait until you are going to be in NYC. I will organize a wine tasting dinner where the people there will identify the wines with such amazing specificity that it will change your mind forever on this subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for where and when, wait until you are going to be in NYC.

That may be a long wait.

As far as the wine part of the challenge is concerned, I'm suggesting that in a blind sampling a series of progressively more and more specific questions be asked. I am sure that color will be no problem. If you are a wine enthusiast with wide experience, I'm sure varietal will not be any challenge either. And varietal puts you part of the way toward country of origin. But I advise you not to boast unless you can back up your claims. Country of origin is enough of a challenge. If you get region, let alone the vintner, I will be surprised and impressed.

If you miss, however, game's over. Although I suppose you could be tested with more than one to give you more than one chance to get it. Are you claiming to be able to specify a particular vintner blindfolded?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fisrt of all, I am not going to get 100% of them right. But I will get a good percentage of them right. And yes there are a number of vintners I will be able to know just based on how the wine smells. Of course, if you have been reading the memory of taste thread, the conditions have to be perfect. With less then perfect conditions I can get 100% of them wrong. But if the conditions are right and the trace characterstics are showing, I should be able to get at least half right just based on smelling the wines.

You seem to be amazed at this but I know so many people who can do this that I don't find it unusual. What is it that you think wine collectors do? They collect these scents and these flavors in their memories. And it isn't really very hard to do. But like anything else you have to practice at it. This past summer my wife and I went to dinner with another couple. I brought a 1989 Batard-Montrachet and a 1990 Puligny-Montrachet les Combettes, both from the same producer with me. Because I thought we were going to switch to red wine for our second course, we drank the Batard first. Stunning. But everyone ordered fish so instead of switching to red we opened the Combettes. My wife, who is in no way expert, along with the other couple immediately pronounced the wine as less good then the Batard. And if it wasn't served right after the Batard I am certain they would have said the wine was great. Because that's what they think of it when it is served by itself which is something I serve them all of the time.

If 100 people had this wine service poured for them everyday, most people would be able to identify the wines blindfolded after a certain period of time. Some people would only need a day or two. And some people might need 60 days. But I predict that at least half of the people get it right somewhere between 7-14 days. Like anything else, it's only a matter of practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must confirm that Steve's claim is one of the more modest ones he has made. I have no such ability, but I know enough wine writers and buyers to have learned that such a skill is no more remarkable among professionals and dedicated amateurs than the ability to get a basketball through the hoop time after time in X number of attempts. Anyone who challenges Steve's ability to identify familiar vintages is betting against the house.

John Whiting, London

Whitings Writings

Top Google/MSN hit for Paris Bistros

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must confirm that Steve's claim is one of the more modest ones he has made. ... Anyone who challenges Steve's ability to identify familiar vintages is betting against the house.

There's a skepticism of the outsider here in this wager--which of course eGullet does not condone. One side knows what he can do from experience and the other just doesn't believe it can be done. That latter view is the product of a lack of experience or Deacon has a number of ringers up his sleeve. I think Plotnicki could produce a number of examples of California wines that mimic Burgundies farily well and some French wines that have emulated new world tastes in the chase for international sales. If he doesn't, he knows who to ask. The claim as, John Whiting notes, is modest in terms of blind tasting assuming both sides settle on a reasonable percentage of misses. I wish I could remember Deacon's posts in other threads for I sense a limited experience in what food and wine has to offer. I do not sense a dull palate or a man unappreciative of what he's tasted to date.

And speaking of my subjective sense of taste, last month I had very strongly seasoned seafood gumbo, with a glass of zinfandel. Red wine with seafood? But it was delicious, and that's what matters. I'd have the combination again in a minute. But I'm just a peasant with no taste, what do I know?
The truth is that many connoisseurs of the sort that Plotnicki represents on this board, will choose a red wine with some body when enjoying a heavily seasoned seafood dish. The French will often choose red wine with even simpler fish dishes. You'd be surprised at the red wine lists in Parisian restaurant that serve only fish and seafood. Red wine with seafood is far from a rule breaker. I sense a defensiveness in these posts that may come from a sense of not knowing the rules as much as a distrust of rules and rule makers.

"White wine with fish and red with meat" may be the basic rule for those who know nothing about wine and food, but it's worthless advice for most of us. It's too often a bad rule and the differences between white wines can be greater than the difference between a certain white and a particular red. A good education is to read an article where a bunch of certified experts match wine with a specified dish. If each is asked to specify five wines in order of preference, you'd be surprised at how often there will be both while and red among the five choices and how rarely will even the first choices match up along the lines. Even a good sommelier has to read his client in a restaurant. The sommelier has to minimize the effect of his own taste quite often when asked to recommend a bottle to a knowledgeable diner.

Robert Buxbaum

WorldTable

Recent WorldTable posts include: comments about reporting on Michelin stars in The NY Times, the NJ proposal to ban foie gras, Michael Ruhlman's comments in blogs about the NJ proposal and Bill Buford's New Yorker article on the Food Network.

My mailbox is full. You may contact me via worldtable.com.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, whether I can pass the blind taste test or not, it is irrelevent to the concept of there being people with superior tasting experience who can do it. And that goes for food and wine. People who have an encyclopedia of flavors and scents in their mind have a much better vantage point in analyzing food and wine then people who don't. And I think this is true across the range of food and wine. I bet you that guy on this site John, the one who is the hot dog expert. I bet you he can tell which hot dog he is eating blind. I'm trying to find the right analogy to explain it and the closest I can think of is being able to discern someone's writing style from having a passage read out loud. Or the ability to describe a certain instrumental soloist by hearing a certain sequence of notes that reflects their style. How about Pinter or Mamet dialogue? Completely unique. Why do people think food and wine is any different? It's just a matter of codifying the tastes in your mind.

Bux - California pinots do not mimic Burgundy at all in my experience. They are just too ripe. I wish they made ones that did. It would save us all a lot of money. As for red wine with fish, I drink red wine with fish all of the time. It doesn't pair so well with a white flaky flesh like sole as well as it goes with a meaty fish like monkfish. Saucing is important as well. A very buttery preparation like meuniere screams for a white wine. But pinot noir goes with salmon regardless of the prepration. And red wine, specifically a very acidic one goes great with tuna.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...