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.

Arpege: dinner and lunch; 2002-2004


Steve Plotnicki
 Share

Recommended Posts

why are the members not setting forth the discussion for others to respond?

to put it in the borg's words, resistance is futile.

it's a lot more fun to watch.

and for the record, i'm the one who used the words "pompous and presumptuous." however, wilfrid took my comment way out of context. clearly i was being supportive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But their explanation or reasoning shouldn't be binding on people assessing the quality of the work.

Flexible P. I’ll remember that the next time the subject comes up. :raz:

There is no one who could better appraise the aesthetic value of the product be it in food, art or music than the professional, the equal to the creator.

This is the intentional fallacy.

Close but no cigar. You are misusing the Intentional Fallacy. I wasn’t arguing that the author’s intention is the final court of appeal. I merely stated that other professionals in the field who are “equal to the creator” in their technical knowledge and expertise when subjecting the author’s work to scrutiny are capable of interpreting and consequently appraising his work on a higher level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why are the members not setting forth the discussion for others to respond?

to put it in the borg's words, resistance is futile.

it's a lot more fun to watch.

and for the record, i'm the one who used the words "pompous and presumptuous." however, wilfrid took my comment way out of context. clearly i was being supportive.

I think the member who said "obnoxious" was basically sympathetic to FG too. :hmmm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steven -- Why have you mentioned twice the PMs you received? Are lurkers PM'ing you, and, if not, why are the members not setting forth the discussion for others to respond?

Cabrales, this is one of those eGullet inside jokes that must have come up on some threads you didn't follow so it seems out of context to you. It's a reference to a technique of argument that Plotnicki sometimes uses -- "I'm right and I've got ten PMs here from users who say I'm right" -- and which Wilfrid, Tommy, and I poke fun at whenever the opportunity presents itself.

Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something is perplexing.

Here is a discussion of three-star restaurants and there is severe disagreement. Yet when a member utters a negative feeling about PL, venomous words fill the board like ants attacking a fallen crumb of Oreo.

Do you people have a vested interest in PL? :unsure::unsure::unsure::unsure::unsure::unsure::unsure::unsure::unsure::unsure::unsure::unsure::unsure::unsure::unsure:

Rich Schulhoff

Opinions are like friends, everyone has some but what matters is how you respect them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I don't have anything negative to say about PL. However, I prefer Charolais beef to PL's beef, and I prefer Charolais sampled at Troisgros. Within Charolais sampled at Troisgros, I prefer the preparation with Fleurie as it stands currently at the restaurant. (This is not a parody. Those are my preferences.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles -- Yes, the dish utilizes a Beaujolais. The dish in question is called Château au vin de Fleurie et à la moelle, pommes de terre à la forézienne ("Fillet with Fleurie wine and marrow, Forézienne potatoes"). It is a dish not created by Michel Troisgros, but by Pierre and/or Jean. It has appeared, I believe, in one of the earlier generation Troisgros' books.

The Troisgros site provides the following discussion: "This classic recipe from the Troisgros brothers' heyday has had many interpretations depending on the cut of beef used: rib of beef, prime steak or choice slices from the heart of a beef fillet. Roanne is located near Charolais, a region which is famous for its race of bovines. For this particular recipe, slices are taken from the fillet of a female more than three years old. When using a rib or sirloin steak, we prefer meat from four-year-old bovines of the Salers or Normande race. To accompany this dish choose a Fleurie, one of the 10 Beaujolais vineyards, a light and fruity wine that is best drunk chilled and young. As an accompaniment we serve the gratin forézien, a variation on gratin dauphinois without cheese." There is also a recipe under the "The News" category on the Troisgros (English version included) website.

Quote: from cabrales on 8:26 am on Dec. 19, 2001

I have not yet sampled beef from the Aubrac and would appreciate receiving updates from members who have. Is it similar to Charoloise in some respects?

Troisgros is a wonderful place to have Charolaise beef, from white-colored cattle raised nearby. The beef was offered in two alternative preparations on the menu: (1) Chateau au vin de Fleurie et a la moelle, pommes de terre a la forezienne (beef with Fleurie beaujolais sauce, marrow and potatoes; reference to "Chateau" or castle unclear -- it was not chateaubriand), and (2) Pave au poivre mignonnette, laque de glace de viande (steak with pepper sauce). The Charolaise beef was prepared beautifully; it was tender and imbued with flavor. Interestingly, unlike Kobe beef, Charolaise does not rely on the effect of fat running through it. The pieces we received were relatively lean (in a good way).

Since I was eating with one other person and wanted to sample Troisgros' Pigonneau du Brionnais roti aux epinards vinaigres "Chef Jean" (roasted pigonneau with spinach and vinegar in the style of J. Troisgros -- wonderful use of acidity), I was debating which beef dish to order. Consistent with the impressive service we had received previously, the waiter offered to split one beef order into the two preparations. (It might have helped that we had ordered a 1990 Echezeaux, H. Jayer from the restaurant's excellent wine list.) The preparation with the Fleurie was intense and satisfying, with a dollop of marrow having been "plomped" quite generously on top. The version with the (black) pepper sauce was also good.

The rest of our yummy meal at Troisgros meal (we chose a la carte) consisted of:

Huitre creuse au Raifort et au cresson (oysters with horseradish and watercress)

L'aubergine en gelee fraiche au citron vert, une pincee de cumin (aubergine gelee with green lemon and a bit of cumin)

Saint-Jacques "Melba" aux langues d'oursins (scallops and sea urchins on a thin melba toast) (Above dishes all taken with champagne)

Troncons d'anguille poches et colores, de la grenade (poached fresh water eel with pomegranate)

[Pigeonneau and beef described above]

Sorbet, citron vert avec vodka, pomme vert avec calvados (green lemon sorbet with vodka, green apple sorbet with calvados)

Romeo y Julieta Cedra No. 3 + (see A. Balic) Armagnac!

A few days later, I ordered Filet de Boeuf de Charolais a la sauce burguignonne at Loiseau's La Cote d'Or. This was nice too, with the sauce being a relatively familiar one. The setting added to the meal. We were looking out onto gardens covered with snow, happily taking in lobster bisque with green cabbage and the frogs' legs with parsley and garlic. I could not resist a half bottle of 1998 Puligny Montrachet, Jadot for less than 500 FF and had had too much to drink the previous evening, so had to order a glass of Loiseau private label red for the beef. The red was not poor.

Upon completing this post, I am wondering if it should have been placed under "France" (?).

Since the above post, I have sampled Aubrac beef a number of times, including at M Bras and at Maison d'Aubrac in Paris. I have also sampled more Salers. I still prefer Charolais, which is the beef utilized at least at most Paris two- and three-stars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I confess. I am Peter Luger.

FG - I always knew you had a secret identity!

Do you change in a phone booth? :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Rich Schulhoff

Opinions are like friends, everyone has some but what matters is how you respect them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no one who could better appraise the aesthetic value of the product be it in food, art or music than the professional, the equal to the creator.

This is the intentional fallacy.

Close but no cigar. You are misusing the Intentional Fallacy.

Sorry, but I'm not. The intentional fallacy is that the author's view of a work carries more weight than the reader's, which is exactly what your quote says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a discussion of three-star restaurants and there is severe disagreement. Yet when a member utters a negative feeling about PL, venomous words fill the board like ants attacking a fallen crumb of Oreo.

That's because Plotter's views on Peter Luger are objective but Fat Guy's views on Ducasse are subjective.

Please try to keep up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because Plotter's views on Peter Luger are objective but Fat Guy's views on Ducasse are subjective.

Please try to keep up.

Is is possible to have a subjective view on objectivity?? :blink::wink:

Rich Schulhoff

Opinions are like friends, everyone has some but what matters is how you respect them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Claiming that an author's (or other kind of "creator"'s) peers are best placed to evaluate a work is not the intentional fallacy.  That's what lxt said.

You are absolutely right. I misread lxt's post. Apologies.

Raise a flag. Someone just courteously admitted they were wrong about something. I guess us Brits are just a little bit special. :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, Plotnicki's contention that the best is the most expensive doesn't apply to Ducasse's dishes in New York?

You are putting words in my mouth. What I say is that the "best quality" items usually end up being the highest priced. The best tomato usually costs the most money and the worst tomato the cheapest. But the best meal doesn't always cost the most money because there are too many other factors involved. As can be evidenced right here because Ducasse is the most expensive but clearly not the best meal. Even though he probably buys the most expensive, and best tomatoes :wink:.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Claiming that an author's (or other kind of "creator"'s) peers are best placed to evaluate a work is not the intentional fallacy.  That's what lxt said.

You are absolutely right. I misread lxt's post. Apologies.

Raise a flag. Someone just courteously admitted they were wrong about something. I guess us Brits are just a little bit special. :cool:

Nah. I was just caught off guard by being wrong. It's the first time it's ever happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, in my assessment, Ducasse has a better chance of stacking up favorably in NY, where his competition is weaker. Also, his attempted service level is supposed to be higher than that of his competitors. So, one should note that Ducasse is expensive when ADNY is stacked up against *New York* restaurants. Ducasse is not as expensive as Veyrat, for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...