Babbo (First 6 Years)

[yvonne johnson]

Speaking of inferences and reasons for not having dessert Steve writes:

"That's because as the missus said, 'nothing looks good'"

This gives the impression that the desserts were not good. If they were not sampled I think it unfair to give that impression.

(By the way, I happen to like the desserts at Babbo.) Nothing against Mrs P. or anything.

On another note, I happen to agree with you, Steve. Some of the dishes at Babbo are over-flavorful. The mint love letters are too minty, and I've noticed an over-abundance of herbs in other dishes.

[Craig Camp]

I didn't know that eGullet had alternative rules of language. I will realize in the future you are only inferring never stating your opinon.

So-

Even at America's greatest Italian restaurant, Babbo

actually means-

Even at what is considered America's greatest Italian restaurant

Do I have it right now?

...and how was the Costa Russi 82? The vineyard was quite young in those days and didn't have the stuffing it has now.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Wilfrid - You have failed to get the point. The reason that Indian restaurants do not strive for $93 checks is that people won't pay that much money for Indian food. And the reason that people won't pay it is because nobody has offered a version that is good enough so that people feel that it is worth paying that amount for. I am sure that Italian, Indian, Greek, and any other restauranteur would love to get a $93 check instead of a $50 or $70 one. But they can't because people do not feel the food is worth it. Personally, I happen to agree with those price points and I think they are properly calibrated to what each cuisine has to offer.

I am not sure why this simple explanation of free market economics escapes everyone. People pay more for German cars (at the high end) then French cars because they are better cars. And people pay more for French cuisine then Italian cuisine (at the high end) because it is better cuisine. And I am certain, just like the way you would analyze what goes into a Mercedes, if you analyzed the materials and the effort that goes into preparing each cuisine you would find out why they cost different prices, as well as finding out that diners are savvy and they can taste the extra effort and more valuable ingredients on their plates.

It all comes down to the fact that people are willing to pay more money for things of better quality. When I make a recording with an orchestra, if I record it in Abbey Road, it costs a fortune, but it sounds better then if I record it in Joe's Studio. And when I release the CD, numerous people comment on how great it sounds. And I'm not talking about experts either. Untrained ears. People aren't stupid. They usually almost always know better quality when they see it, hear it, feel it and taste it. And some extremely large percentage of the time, like 95+%, price correlates to quality. And the reason people won't pay more then $50 for an Indian meal is that the quality isn't there. Believe me I wish it was. Same for Italian. But if you are being brutally honest about whether it is worth paying $93 for a high end Italian or Indian meal (the way Zagat measures it,) it isn't worth it. This is why for special occassion meals, when people are willing to spend more then their usual budget they have set aside for dining, they typically choose French.

But of course I have not offered an exact science. Just what typically happens and how people generally feel about each cuisine. Not everyone feels that way, and for sure there are individual examples of restaurants and meals you can have that are irregular. But if you averaged them out, I think the proportionality of what I put forth would pretty much stay the same. In fact, I believe that if you were to investigate what the meals really cost, the spread between French and Japanese and the rest of them increase.

Yvonne - Well I meant nothing looked interesting enough to waste the calories. Another one of Mrs. P's unique ways of measuring things. In reality, and to be fair to the restaurant, we had just returned from a seven day eating binge of South Florida. So it would have taken a pretty interesting list of desserts to order anything.

Craig - It was pretty stuffed. I was surprised. The '82 Sori Tilden is such an elegant wine, if a bit modern. This was an alcoholic powerhouse but not woody, and not overextracted.

[rozrapp]

Speaking of inferences and reasons for not having dessert Steve writes:

"That's because as the missus said, 'nothing looks good'"

This gives the impression that the desserts were not good.  If they were not sampled I think it unfair to give that impression.

(By the way, I happen to like the desserts at Babbo.)  Nothing against Mrs P. or anything.

I think I understand what Mrs. P. was getting at with her response here. But, perhaps, she might have phrased it differently. Although I generally look forward to having dessert when dining out, sometimes I will look over a restaurant's dessert choices and come to the conclusion that "nothing appeals," that is, to me. Thus, it is not a disparagement of the desserts themselves.

[Don't ask me why I am seeming to defend Mrs. P. here since I don't know her from (Mrs.) Adam, aka Eve. ]

[Suzanne F]

. . .

But let's look at some of the juicy information the market does have to offer.  For example, here are a few restaurants and what Zagat lists as the price of a meal;

[some unrealistic Zagat blah blah blah]

You see a pattern there Fat Guy? I sure do. The Italian restaurants are all in the $60-$70 range. The French restaurants are all between $85-$100, save for Caravelle and Ducasse. Now do you think that this list shows that people might value French cuisine differently then they value Italian cuisine?

How about if I list some Indian restaurants;

[more Zagat blah blah bah]

Tell me, that people aren't prepared to spend more than around $50 for a traditional Indian restaurant, do you think that is a meaningful piece of information?

How about Japanese;

[a final set of Zagat blah blah]

Do those numbers have any impact on you? And you know as well as I do, the Jewel Bako and Yasuda numbers are way low.  . . .

So I will stick to my proffer. But I make no representations that price within a category is indicative of anything. It might be and it might not be. But it is pretty much determinative between cuisines and categories.

. . .

Well, Steve, you may know how to make money off of popular "culture" but I wish you would not try to apply your "standards" to a business you obviously know nothing about.

Perhaps the Italian restaurateurs know better than the French how to run a business, and therefore can maintain a lower pricepoint. And maybe (although I recognize that this is really pushing it ) the South Asians are more business-savvy still.

Restaurants do not base their prices exclusively on what the market will bear. Yes, the target customers' perception of worth comes into play to some extent. A place like Jean Georges is thought to be one of the best in the city. But that alone cannot justify his prices. Of course the price of a meal at Jean Georges is high; the guy roasts off perfect specimens of chickens just to make a sauce, and then tosses the birds. Sure, the sauce is wonderful. BUT HE'S THROWING AWAY MONEY. He MUST charge higher prices than a place that uses its inputs more efficiently.

I'll bet Phil Suarez makes a bigger profit (as a percentage of sales) off Gigino than he could ever make off Jean Georges.

[tommy]

The reason that Indian restaurants do not strive for $93 checks is that people won't pay that much money for Indian food. And the reason that people won't pay it is because nobody has offered a version that is good enough so that people feel that it is worth paying that amount for. I am sure that Italian, Indian, Greek, and any other restauranteur would love to get a $93 check instead of a $50 or $70 one. But they can't because people do not feel the food is worth it.

apparently people think a burger is worth 50 dollars. ask boulud.

i'm guessing those same would pay 9 for indian.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Suzanne - Your rersponse doesn't address the point I have made. I am not commenting on profitability, I am commenting on how diners percieve the value of various cuisines and the types of restaurants that serve them. The only information I have put forth is that people are willing to pay more for French food then Italian food. The inference I draw from that is because they think it is worth more, i.e. they think it is better.

When you think about it, it really isn't a very controversial statement. Because in reality, that is pretty much what we all do isn't it? We pay more money to eat at Bouley and Daniel, or at Sugiyama or Sushi Yasuda, then we would typically be willing to spend at an Italian or Indian restaurant. And you know, I believe that people have come to the right conclusion. Remarkably, the way the food tastes to me pretty much reconciles with how people have value the various cuisines.

[Wilfrid]

We devoted some time and energy several months ago to explaining to Steve that price was not correlate with quality because of other factors which one might think a marketer would not overlook, such as supply. Not planning to go through that again.

Wilfrid - You have failed to get the point. The reason that Indian restaurants do not strive for $93 checks is that people won't pay that much money for Indian food. And the reason that people won't pay it is because nobody has offered a version that is good enough so that people feel that it is worth paying that amount for.

No, it's you who have it the wrong way around. The phrase in bold begs the question, of course; we've established elsewhere that you don't know whether excellent versions of Indian food are available outside of your limited experience of the cuisine. Sticking to local parts, I agree there's a limited demand for upscale Indian cooking in New York. Overall, there's not much demand for Indian food at all. That's why no-one has invested millions of dollars to launch an Indian restaurant which would compete at the three star or even four star level. It would be a very speculative investment. Now, there's some instruction in market economics for you.

[Craig Camp]

The inference I draw from that is because they think it is worth more, i.e. they think it is better.

There are many things people pay more money for that are only expensive because of some perceived prestige that people are trying to attach to themselves. Price in itself is not a valid measure of quality, only perceived quality.

[Wilfrid]

The only information I have put forth is that people are willing to pay more for French food then Italian food. The inference I draw from that is because they think it is worth more, i.e. they think it is better.

Since this is demonstrably untrue, you might want to stop putting it forth. This is typical of the sort of prices diners pay for food in a mid-level French restaurant in New York. Go compare that with prices at Dawat or Diwan or Shaan*, and remember to order rice or bread and a vegetable with your curry.

*Or similar Italian restaurants. We are having the same discussion on two threads simultaneously, which is confusing.

Edited March 24, 2003 by Wilfrid (log)

[Wilfrid]

I may as well insert a question here. Say Mario opened an expensively decorated restaurant on 55th Street, about seventy or so covers, tables spaced wide apart. Formal service, flowers everywhere, and the restaurant is branded as the formal flagship of the Mario chain. Anyone think New Yorkers would balk at paying prices comparable to La Caravelle or La Grenouille because the food's Italian not French?

Edited March 24, 2003 by Wilfrid (log)

[Suzanne F]

Steve, the "point you made" is fallacious. When you say

The only information I have put forth is that people are willing to pay more for French food then Italian food.

you are not putting forthinformation, you are merely citing YOUR opinion. A restaurant customer does not generally bargain for his or her meal. One pays the listed prices for the food one has chosen to order. When I marvel at what a "good value" a restaurant is, it means I would be willing to pay more, if they asked me to. How often have you heard that applied to your beloved French restaurants, other than with respect to their much lower-priced lunch deals?

Your reasoning of:

- I go to a restaurant because I want to eat the food that restaurant serves, which I prefer to the food other restaurants serve.

- The restaurant charges a fixed amount for the food I order, which is higher than other restaurants charge for the food they serve.

- I pay the amount the restaurant charges.

- Therefore, the restaurant I have eaten at is worth more in the greater scheme of things than those I bypassed.

has so many holes I could drain pasta in it.

When will you realize that we do not live in a world of perfect supply-and-demand?

edited to correct a spelling error, which I wish Plotnicki would do more often. Has it ever occurred to him that by using such poor spelling and grammar, he cheapens his arguments?

Edited March 24, 2003 by Suzanne F (log)

[Steve Plotnicki]

The phrase in bold begs the question, of course; we've established elsewhere that you don't know whether excellent versions of Indian food are available outside of your limited experience of the cuisine. Sticking to local parts, I agree there's a limited demand for upscale Indian cooking in New York. Overall, there's not much demand for Indian food at all. That's why no-one has invested millions of dollars to launch an Indian restaurant which would compete at the three star or even four star level. It would be a very speculative investment.

Wilfrid - Thanks for making my point exactly. If people opened places like Tamarind, Diwan, Ada and Babbo, and they caused a dining sensation, which they haven't, compared to say the sensation that Jo Jo created when it opened, then someone would invest millions of dollars in a better quality place, providing there was a chef who had invented a cuisine worthy of bankrolling. You keep missing the part that something creative has to happen that the public ratifies through the price they are willing to pay.

You really have the formula backwards which now shows me why you have had trouble with this concept. The market doesn't manufacture creativity, creativity is something that happens exlucisive of the market. And if an Indian chef came along who people believed had invented a cuisine that was on par with Robuchon, someone would back the concept. The cheap Indian restaurants on 6th Street wouldn't stop them because they would be able to taste the value in the cuisine. But that hasn't happened, not because a chef can't find backing, it hasn't happened because the chef and the cuisine do not exist. As a result, people are only willing to pay $50 for an Indian meal. That's the best they can do given the current quality of the cuisine available to them.

This is how all creative businesses work. I am at the mercy of recording artists actually being able to write good songs and perform them well. Without that, I have nothing to invest my money in. It's the same with restaurants. Creativity drives and expands the market, not vice-versa. In music, an industry where prices are fixed, that plays itself out by selling multiple copies. But in restaurants where prices vary, one of the ways it manifests itself in pricepoint.

For some reason you also want to compare Diwan and Rene Pujol. That has nothing to do with my point. My point only goes to how people in NYC feel about the best Indian cuisine available, and the best French cuisine available. And diners seem to feel it's worth almost twice as much to eat the best French meal then the best Indian meal. And if you ask me, they are right because it is more then twice as good.

Craig - A premiuim for exclusivity is built into to the price of everything. Italian designer clothing might be overpriced, but if you removed the extra vig they charge for their name, you are still generally dealing with goods of a higher quality then other clothing.

[Ron Johnson]

When I lived in Memphis, the most expensive restaurant in town was Raji's. It was Indian food. My dinner there always cost more than Chez Phillipe. That was French food.

[Wilfrid]

And diners seem to feel it's worth almost twice as much to eat the best French meal then the best Indian meal. And if you ask me, they are right because it is more then twice as good.

Painfully obvious. Can we just stipulate that expensive restaurants cost more than cheap restaurants? If that's your point, you're welcome to it. We could discuss why there aren't expensive Indian restaurants in New York on the appropriate thread...

Back to Italian, there is a price differential, but it's small. The tasting menu at Babbo seems to be about ten bucks cheaper than at comparable downtown French restaurants like Montrachet and Bouley. I wonder why (and I don't believe it's the result of a fine distinction in the merit of the cuisine). I should have thought Babbo would still be full with a $75 price tag rather than $65.

[Craig Camp]

A premiuim for exclusivity is built into to the price of everything. Italian designer clothing might be overpriced, but if you removed the extra vig they charge for their name, you are still generally dealing with goods of a higher quality then other clothing.

I don't deny they make good clothing. Just that they are overpriced - bad value. There are things of the same quality that sell for less. Same for French restaurants. There are cuisines of the same quality that sell for less. The reason people pay more is that they are insecure and want to be seen as sophisticated. So they buy a little public sophistication.

I once had a sommelier tell me he had stopped trying to convince people not to order Dom Perignon, even though he knew he had Champagne for the same or lower price that were superior. “They don’t want to drink it, he told me. They want to be seen with it.”

[tommy]

The inference I draw from that is because they think it is worth more, i.e. they think it is better.

people spend 50 dollars at lunch on a burger at db bistro moderne. 50 dollars is more than lunch at lutece. therefore, people think burgers are better than french food. therefore, it is an absolute truth.

[Wilfrid]

I just want to set a little brainteaser before I go off and do other stuff.

Pasta is a relatively cheap foodstuff because:

1. People don't like it much and therefore won't pay a lot for it.

2. It's not French.

3. It's not interesting to eat.

4. It's made from readily available, inexpensive ingredients.

I know some is going to flunk this.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Well lets see. Maybe Raji's food was better then any French food in town? Or maybe her food was particularly good? Or maybe Memphisites do not particularly like French cuisine? Or maybe it was the fact that Raji cooked French/Indian cuisine? It could be a lot of things Ron. I don't see how that one example rebuts the statistics. But otherwise, where is it that I say that French cuisine has to win? It doesn't. If you can show me that there are other cuisines that people value as much, or more, be my guest. But what you will find is that people are willing to pay a lot of money for high quality food. It has nothing to do with ethnicity, only quality.

To the credit of the French, they often cook at a very high level of quality. Indeed, they created the standards as to what high quality means in many instances if not most. But the concept of high quality is not exclusive to them. Anyone can do it. It's just that in my opinion, most cuisines are built on concepts where they top out at some point. But they don't have to. It's all a function of how creative the chefs can be.

Wilfrid - Well no that's not it. It is a salient fact that most of the expensive restaurants are French and Japanese. As for how Zagat calculates their prices, I think they are quite conservative. The tasting menu at Jean-Georges and Daniel is $125 I believe. Way more then it is at Babbo.

I think your point about how much people would pay to eat at Babbo is at the heart of Plotnickiism. . What we would love to separate is how much of their popularity is based on the low pricepoint. Because if it cost $125 for a meal at Babbo, I don't think they would be turning the tables three times an evening. And one other thing, now that I have laid this out on paper, I believe that if I studied it, the main bone I have to pick with restaurants is that at the pricepoint they want to offer themselves at, I will not be happy with the food they produce. $66 for dinner gets you a meal that os too mass-produced for what I am looking for. But I bet you if dinner there cost $100, and the place was somewhat less popular and the kitchen could be more careful about the food they produce, I would enjoy it more. As for your brain-teaser, you missed one. The reason that people do not pay a lot for pasta is that it doesn't take much expertise to make it. And I think that price is somewhat of a correlary with the level of expertise the chefs need to have. Like I said, you are really paying for time and materials, just like a Mercedes.

Craig - In spite of the fact that people will overpay for better quality clothing because of rareness and exclusivity, 8 ply cashmere is a better quality wool then 4 ply. There is no disputing it. You can't measure how much better the quality is on a straight line because the market overvalues small increments in quality. Look at Barbarescos? Gajas cost 3 times as much as everyone elses. Are they three times as good? Who knows. But there is something unique about wines from the Sori Tilden vineyard and the market price reflects that, even if they have overvalued it. But even with that irregularity in the market, you could take Gaja, Giacosa, Spinetta and come up with some way to measure how the market values Barbaresco as oposed to say, Langhe Rosso. And even after you removed the extra vig the market pays for the word Barbaresco, it's still reflective of the fact that it's a better wine them Langhe Rosso is.

[Ron Johnson]

I think it was due to the fact that Raji cooked the best food in Memphis. Therefore, there was a high demand for seats in her restaurant. However, the number of seats (supply) was limited. The high demand and low supply resulted in a rise in prices. Ultimately, her prices were higher than all others.

[jeunefilleparis]

when i was living in paris, i ate at a trendy , now closed restaurant called Korova. I enjoyed the food and the Clock work orange theme, but the service and staff was disgusting.

after fighting with the hostess,, who told us that we had to be back on time, we were having drinks at Man Ray, she actually yelled at us when we returned 2 minutes late to a 1/4 filled restaurant.

the water actually told us that we could not have tap water because there were no empty caraffes for it. i demanded to have the bottled water removed from the bill, and when they refused, we left no tip

needless to say, I was very pleased that it had closed.

[Steve Plotnicki]

think it was due to the fact that Raji cooked the best food in Memphis. Therefore, there was a high demand for seats in her restaurant. However, the number of seats (supply) was limited. The high demand and low supply resulted in a rise in prices. Ultimately, her prices were higher than all others.

You mean the food was so good that people were still willing to pay the price as it went up beyond other cuisines?

[Wilfrid]

It is a salient fact that most of the expensive restaurants are French and Japanese.

Salient to what argument? It supports the uncontested conclusion that there are no Indian restaurants among the most expensive restaurants in New York. It might also support the conclusion that there's little demand for a four star Indian restaurant in New York. It doesn't demonstrate that Indian cuisine cannot be prepared at that level.

The tasting menu at Jean-Georges and Daniel is $125 I believe. Way more then it is at Babbo.

.

There you go again. Can we also stipulate that three star downtown restaurants are less expensive than four star uptown restaurants? I mean, you win on that point everytime. And you yourself have pointed out how far Babbo is from offering a four star experience. What I did was compare Babbo with Montrachet, another downtown three star, and four star Bouley. The really odd thing is how cheap Bouley is. And he's not cooking Italian, either, let alone curries.

Edited March 24, 2003 by Wilfrid (log)

[Steve Plotnicki]

Salient to what argument? It supports the uncontested conclusion that there are no Indian restaurants among the most expensive restaurants in New York.

It isn't a hypothetical that states that Indian cuisine can't be prepared at that level, it's just a statistic that shows that it isn't. You want to draw an inference that it isn't because there is no demand. I draw a completely difference inference because I realize there is no capability for a supply. And there can't be a demand if the supply doesn't exist.

The assumption is that any cuisine can be sold for the same high price point as any other cuisine. That was the case with Ron's example about Raji. Someone can open an Indian restaurant that shoots for the same check per diner as Daniel. But what stops them is that you can't sell tandoori and stews for $125 a person. It isn't good enough cuisine. Diners would balk at that price. At $125 a person, you need a more refined cuisine then what Indian restaurants (in the west) offer. But if someone was to figure out what that is, then I am sure they could sell it for that price. Look at Tabla. They have found a way to increase the average check size over other Indian restaurants (which is where Zagat lists them) by about $12 a diner. Among other things that $12 can get you is a major upgrade in the quality of the ingredients they use to prepare your food. Think of what it gets you if you increase the check per diner by $30.

As someone who worked at both ADNY and Daniel told me, one of the differences between the two places is if you are working at ADNY and you are butchering a chicken and you make a small mistake, they throw it away and you have to start over. At Daniel, the chef comes over and makes a suggestion for how to save the chicken. This is a main reason one place costs $193 a person and the other $93. This is what people pay for because they can taste the perfection that is brought to preparing their dish. And I submit, no Indian restaurant in NYC offers this type of particularity or care in preparing their cuisine. And that gets reflected in the price people are willing to pay for it.

I mean what do you think people pay for when they go out to eat, name value? Isn't the name valued attached to a certain level of quality and expertise? If the quality and expertise that is promised is delivered, people are willing to pay alot for it. But if it isn't delivered people won't pay it. Look at my disappointment with Babbo. I would prefer to pay 50% more for a place that executes the cuisine at a higher level then they do. For the same exact food. But I hesitate spending the $66 ot costs to eat there because their execution leaves a lot to be desired.

[Wilfrid]

Hey, a brick wall, let me run at it head first.

It isn't a hypothetical that states that Indian cuisine can't be prepared at that level, it's just a statistic that shows that it isn't.

In New York restaurants. No argument about that. Members have explained to you that it is prepared at that level elsewhere, and you can believe or disbelieve as you wish; you can't disprove.

Someone can open an Indian restaurant that shoots for the same check per diner as Daniel. But what stops them is that you can't sell tandoori and stews for $125 a person. It isn't good enough cuisine. Diners would balk at that price. At $125 a person, you need a more refined cuisine then what Indian restaurants (in the west) offer. But if someone was to figure out what that is, then I am sure they could sell it for that price.

Well, of course. I'm sure they could too. Who knew people would pay three star prices for herrings and potatoes until Aquavit came along.

Think of what it gets you if you increase the check per diner by $30.

Absolutely.

This is what people pay for because they can taste the perfection that is brought to preparing their dish. And I submit, no Indian restaurant in NYC offers this type of particularity or care in preparing their cuisine. And that gets reflected in the price people are willing to pay for it.

Indeed. No question about it. Most Indian restaurants in NYC are lousy (in my experience), and none attempt to offer a three/four star experience. We all know that.

Look at my disappointment with Babbo. I would prefer to pay 50% more for a place that executes the cuisine at a higher level then they do. For the same exact food. But I hesitate spending the $66 ot costs to eat there because their execution leaves a lot to be desired.

Me too. I'd rather pay a little more for a Batali restaurant which took more time over what it's doing. And I'm sure such a restaurant is feasible and would be a success. I'd rather he went that way than the pizzeria way.

Steve, what is your point?

Edited March 24, 2003 by Wilfrid (log)