Fine Dining vs. Cheap Eats, Continued

[Wilfrid]

Thanks for that Gavin. I like to be reminded of Brian Sewell as often as possible.

[macrosan]

We would save a lot of time in these discussions if people who didn't accept a key premise in the discussion would just announce it early on.

I tried to report this post to a moderator, but my PC instantly crashed, so I'll post it here instead. SteveP, this is quite unacceptable. You are trying to shake the very foundations of eGullet in even mentioning the words "save a lot of time". We at eGullet do not wish to save time. If we did, we would go to Chowhound.

That isn't a very persuasive argument and from here on in, let it be known as *the resentful argument.* That will be the eGullet code when someone tries to prove relative food quality through class warfare

OK, I like the principle, but that's an awfully weak piece of code. Doesn't remotely rival "I like pie" or "Of course, of course" or any of the other creative codes in force at this time. What about "Pass the cucumber sandwiches, darling" or "Fucking headless aristo" or something else with a little more panache.

It makes me wonder if that is what supporters of the lute said about Segovia

I believe it was actually "How many cats did it take to make that mother-fucker?"

It has also occured to me that the people with the dogs in this fight that are against my position are predominantly British, or live in Britain. I haven't seen anyone French disagree with me. Make what you want of that statistic

That is not a statistic, it is simply an unwarranted and inaccurate observation made in the heat of verbal battle.

... but, I will gladly offer free lessons to anyone of British descent on how to assess the quality of food. Just queue up over here on the left

Thank you very much. Name the date and exact location of the queue, and I shall appear therein. I take it you're paying.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Fat Guy - Something that operates in a market system is prone to the ebb and flow of the market. In markets, there is no such things as *always* unless pricing is fixed because it is established by law. Did I really have to explain that? Quite often in these discussions we end up with arguments where people try and disprove the theory that markets revolve on by pointing to the inefficiencies of the market. This focus on "always or mostly" is just a variation of that argument.

In the same way, you can't disprove theories the supply side works on (creating a hierarchy based on quality) by pointing out the imperfections in the demand side. Our government could decide to fix prices based on quality. Meaning, that the government could frustrate price fluctuations based on demand (like a communist country.) But that wouldn't eliminate the reasons why people would choose to use certain cuts for certain situations. And if they didn't allow the market to release its energy through a fluctuating price, they would have to do it some other way. Like limit the access to strip steaks to a certain segment of the population that makes the greatest contrbution to the state (like athletes) and tell them they can eat strip steak on Tuesdays and Saturdays. But as I think I have demonstrated, eliminating the demand side does not negate the need or the ability to discern what makes filet steak or strip steak special. Their special qualities are intrinsic as to how we consume them and even if we eliminate the market, we would still allocate them for *special occassions* based on the *special qualities* that people who have good palates can discern about them.

As for explaining why things like filet steaks have qualities that are valued more than things like strip steaks, I would have the same difficulty probably more if I had to explain to you why the qualities of cashmere are more valued than those of lambs wool. Or why $50 an ounce perfume is of better quality than $25 an ounce perfume. That I can't explain these things as well as a professional doesn't mean that the price differential placed on items at the point of manufacturer is not an accurate measure of quality.

Steve Klc - Thank you so much. It's my little mission in life to try and keep moral relativism out of a discussion about who makes the best mashed potatoes.

Wilfrid - Well done and well argued . But it still doesn't get you past the issue of whether people who can't taste the difference have a valid opinion. And now I see that Gavin has made the same point you have made. But where you are both wrong is you are trying to say my conclusion is based on my opinion. That's wrong. My conclusion is based on my assessment of what the market has chosen. That my own personal opinion happens to in large part agree with the market is fortunate for me, but not relevant to my point. That I might not agree with Clive Coates's palate has nothing to do with the fact that he's a better taster than I. And that he can tell you if a wine is showing the true characteristics of a Bonnes Mares better than I can, and why those characteristics are *better* than the characteristics of a Chambolle-Charmes. As my wife would say, what a coinkidink that most people with good palates agree with him when he concludes that Bonnes Mares is a *better quality wine* than Chambolle-Charmes.

Macrosan - It would be a pleasure to take you anywhere and for any purpose. And of course I would gladly pay.

[Miss J]

... but, I will gladly offer free lessons to anyone of British descent on how to assess the quality of food. Just queue up over here on the left

Fantastic! How long ago does the British decent have to be? I'm seeing a big market for this...

Miss J

[LaNiña]

If I think Yiddish but dress Brittish, can I come too?

[Wilfrid]

Wilfrid - Well done and well argued  . But it still doesn't get you past the issue of whether people who can't taste the difference have a valid opinion. And now I see that Gavin has made the same point you have made. But where you are both wrong is you are trying to say my conclusion is based on my opinion. That's wrong. My conclusion is based on my assessment of what the market has chosen. That my own personal opinion happens to in large part agree with the market is fortunate for me, but not relevant to my point.

No, you can't advance that proposition. It's not consistent with Plotnickism. Kidding about Brian Sewell aside, I do not believe that Plotnickism states that Plotnicki's individual palate is the arbiter of quality. Plotnickism is the view that there is an elite of conoisseurs (of which Plotnicki happens to be a member) who can judge this. In the case of food, it's people with good palates.

but you can't possibly say that it's a matter of coincidence, or merely fortunate, that the market by and large (you admit there are exceptions) agrees with the judgment of connoisseurs. That gives up your whole position. You have to say that the market is bound to reflect the judgment of connoisseurs, all things being equal, because cost is explained, not by supply or demand, but by quality.

It's baloney, of course, but that's what you have to say.

When you have time, please consider explaining why pork belly and oxtail are low quality meats. As a connoisseur.

[lxt]

Yvonne Johnson:

lxt: Didn't I meet you the other day at USC, when you appeared to be quite sane?  (Sorry, lapse in the non-use of the smilie, but unless your post is a spoof, I can't agree with your arguments).

Yes, Yvonne. I had the pleasure of being introduced to you at USC and must assure you that my sanity is in no doubt (of course on a relative scale of those whose lives revolve around eG. )

In comparison to men's clothing of similar price range, the clothes sold to women are of inferior quality. They do not last as long, stitching is poor etc. Yet, women's clothes tend to be more expensive than men's. This is an example of price being out of whack with quality.

You are starting with a false premise. In the schema described, the “clothes for women” is a different animal from the “clothes for men;” therefore evaluation of the clothes for women should stay within its own category. In your case, the analogy may be drawn in comparing plums and pears or apples and oranges.

Your last paragraph puzzles me. I can see that your argument may apply to the genuis. But what of training of the middle of the road person in the street?

Not to the genius, but to a professional in this area. Would you rather enjoy a performance of a 5th grade elementary music school student or a professional musician? No one denies people the opportunity to learn to play piano; however, it is up to them to rise to a certain professional level. Analogously, when an amateur will start giving me advice on how to interpret Scriabin, forgive me, but I may disregard his opinion. Nevertheless, I am sure that someone else with training and experience similar to this person’s would appreciate his comments.

[Fat Guy]

Quite often in these discussions we end up with arguments where people try and disprove the theory that markets revolve on by pointing to the inefficiencies of the market. This focus on "always or mostly" is just a variation of that argument.

There's no inefficiency in the market. The market measures what it measures with the greatest efficiency of any system imaginable. But it doesn't measure what tastes better. It measures what people like better. Now you can side with the people, or you can side with what tastes better. It doesn't matter to me.

[jordyn]

It measures what people like better.

It measures what people prefer to buy. There may be a difference.

[LaNiña]

Quite often in these discussions we end up with arguments where people try and disprove the theory that markets revolve on by pointing to the inefficiencies of the market. This focus on "always or mostly" is just a variation of that argument.

There's no inefficiency in the market. The market measures what it measures with the greatest efficiency of any system imaginable. But it doesn't measure what tastes better. It measures what people like better. Now you can side with the people, or you can side with what tastes better. It doesn't matter to me.

I'm not sure it necessarily measures what people *like* better. It measures what people spend money on.

[Wilfrid]

Now you can side with the people, or you can side with what tastes better. It doesn't matter to me.

If only he would. Those two categories make sense. Instead, he's claiming that what tastes better and what costs more are by and large the same thing. Which is why we get the strange arguments about smooth food and chewy food, and why he won't address pig bellies. To maintain his position he either has to dismiss a lot of great cheap food as poor quality, or admit so many exceptions that his position loses explanatory value.

[Fat Guy]

Which is why we get the strange arguments about smooth food and chewy food, and why he won't address pig bellies.

I can just imagine this going on in Parliament.

"I implore you again, sir, to address the issue of pig bellies. If you have a shred of decency, and for the sake of all the swine, address it at once. I shall not relinquish the floor untill the issue of pig bellies has been addressed."

[LaNiña]

Set it to music and we'll have our own G&S operetta.

Ha! That would be hilarious - the egullet G&S operetta. Jaybee, start writing

(note: anybody familiar with Anna Russell?)

[Fat Guy]

(Plotnicki is friends with an MP, you know)

[LaNiña]

Plotnicki's a friend of MPs, la la

It helps him to do as he please, la la

Okay, okay, I saw "Iolanthe" at the Savoy in March. I'm still laughing.

[Steve Plotnicki]

"You have to say that the market is bound to reflect the judgment of connoisseurs, all things being equal, because cost is explained, not by supply or demand, but by quality."

Okay I will agree with that one but you have to insert the word "initially" (or always) before the word explained. I can't vouch for what happens on the demand side other than to say that *most of the time* there is a correlation between cost and quality especially when there have been objective benchmarks set by an industry like my example of the Chambolle-Musigny vineyard or of Hondas. But otherwise, I'm just trying to find out why you don't agree with that other than not having the ability to see it (meaning taste it) from the connoissuer's perspective? Mind you, I'm not saying there aren't valid arguments from a different perspective. In fact, Robert S. makes one. But that's just replacing one type of connoisseur with another. But what's the argument that says that people who don't have the requisite expertise to discern the difference have a valid opinion as to the topic? In otherwords, if I flip your logic around, show me a group of people who dispute my theory by having more in common than the fact that they disagree with my theory.

Show me a set of connoisseurs who believe that pork belly is a better quality item than a rack of lamb is. The answer to your quastion about pork belly/oxtail lies within. It's really not my burden to show you why pork belly is underutilized, or underappreciated. It's your burden to show me why pork belly should fit into our general cuisine more often than it does now and has the requisite qualities that would allow it to do so. Then you would be arguing the point on the same terms I am raising. But I will do a little work for you. Isn't it the case that something as fatty as pork belly is harder to cook with because of all the fat it renders when cooking? So it's harder to combine in a dish where flavors and textures are blended subtly? And while those qualities would make a slab of it a good addition to a stewlike dish, it would make it a poor choice to be used in haute cuisine. Not that it could never be used in haute cuisine but, the key is somebody mastering a technique which brings out the qualities that would make it apllicable for that type of use.

So I have now raised an additional factor here which you have yet to acknowledge, and which John Whiting tried to cut off at the pass but did such a poor job at. Connoisseurship begins with professionals, not professional eaters. By the time I as a big fresser get to say something about it, a purveyor has concluded what things are of the best quality and how they should be applied, and a chef has tinkered with those things and has tried to match it to the right occassion and at the right price. It is only at that point that the level of connoirsseurship you are describing kicks in. That's why I think your argument is a slam dunk loser. It has nothing to do with the subjective taste of the market, even as it is driven by connoirsseurs. It is a function of the objective abilities of all levels of connoirsseurship including the professionals who decipher the code that makes things tick.

Ultimately where your argument leads is that Christophe Roumier doesn't know how to distinguish good quality wine from bad quality wine. That's bass ackwards. He does know how. And once he establishes how to segregate things based on quality, the market takes it from there. And if he is a reliable producer that knows what he's doing and he has a good track record, the chances that a free market will override his decision are as close to slim and none as you could find the because the totality of connoirsseurs in the world wouldn't be able to muster up a strong enough argument to defeat Roumier's assessment. And that's why Bonnes Mares cost more than Amoureuses. It's objectively better.

[Fat Guy]

Supply-Side Gastronomics.

[hollywood]

Show me a set of connoisseurs who believe that pork belly is a better quality item than a rack of lamb is.

In the midst of all this rhetorical flash, I sometimes find it useful to sit back and ponder: W.W.C.T.S.? What would Calvin Trillin say?

[jaybee]

In the midst of all this rhetorical flash, I sometimes find it useful to sit back and ponder: W.W.C.T.S.? What would Calvin Trillin say?

You read Hertzberg too?

[Steve Plotnicki]

"In the midst of all this rhetorical flash, I sometimes find it useful to sit back and ponder: W.W.C.T.S.? What would Calvin Trillin say?"

Aside from the fact that I am a huge fan of Trillin, and think his general contribution to the study of good eatin' is profound, it reminds me of a conversation I had many years ago with one of my oldest friends about an article where Trillin raved about some place. I had been to the place as well(but my friend hadn't) and I thought it was pretty awful. I asked my friend, why the discrepency in our opinions and he said "C'mon, Trillin doesn't have a good palate." I had never thought of it that way until he said it. But once he did say it I realized he was right. And if anybody ever ate Arthur Bryant BBQ, or went to Mosca's or to any of the places he wrote about, they were cool places and the food wan't bad and often very good but it was more about the folklore than it was about their being great.

[hollywood]

In the midst of all this rhetorical flash, I sometimes find it useful to sit back and ponder: W.W.C.T.S.? What would Calvin Trillin say?

You read Hertzberg too?

Bien sur.

[Bux]

As for explaining why things like filet steaks have qualities that are valued more than things like strip steaks, I would have the same difficulty probably more if I had to explain to you why the qualities of cashmere are more valued than those of lambs wool. Or why $50 an ounce perfume is of better quality than $25 an ounce perfume. That I can't explain these things as well as a professional doesn't mean that the price differential placed on items at the point of manufacturer is not an accurate measure of quality.

I'd be happy to believe this if I wasn't at all familiar with a well know brand of cosmetics that was selling, or more accurately not selling, at popular (lower middle economic level) prices. In a desparate move, the company revamped its image with new packaging, new advertising and a new image. It is now a successful company selling the same goods a upscale prices. Or perhaps I finally understand how they managed to improve the quality by raising the price. Maybe I've never really grasped this cause and effect thing.

Than again maybe it's well understood by people smarter than I am, that inherently the quality of a perfume is really the quality of the packaging, just as we understand that the quality of the meat is really the market price it can command

There are few of us here who don't admire a scrappy contender, and I'm impressed by how far you can carry this even if it requires a bit of shuffling, but every once in a while I get an inkling that you believe all this and I find that scary.

[SobaAddict70]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh!!!!!!

My eyes have glazed over just reading the last few pages....

Calgon, take me away.....!

Maybe we should hold a tasting demo at the next pot luck --

In one corner, chicken consomme with vegetables, made as they would at Lespinasse: chicken stock made in the traditional French manner, and clarified to death; baby vegetables cooked separately and combined at the last minute, and served with a scattering of fresh herb. I still am shocked, four years later, that they would charge $35 for a bowl of chicken soup. $35!!!!! And it doesn't even have truffles in it. I doubt that Alain Ducasse would even go there -- or maybe he does... (if you don't believe me, see the review by Ruth Reichl on the NYTimes website/archive).

In the other corner: chicken soup with pasta, fava beans and mint or chicken soup with chunks of chicken, tender vegetables and dumplings. Of course this version wouldn't be made in the traditional French manner, but probably in the traditional Jewish grandmother style, you know -- the one that's legendary when it comes to curing colds. And it still tastes great!

Then we could invite a bunch of egulleteers and let the tasting games begin.

But that will never happen. Oh well, it was nice while I thought about it. (g)

I'd add that at the Lespinasse level, mistakes shouldn't happen, and there's less room for error. At the family or cheap eats level, you expect mistakes but they don't seem glaringly obvious, or maybe its because we usually overlook them.

Or maybe I'm babbling.

SA

[Fat Guy]

I thought she was picking on the soup with the truffles in it, but it was long ago and my memory is foggy. Do you have the relevant quote to share with us?

[jordyn]

I don't remember whether or not the soup had truffles in it, but she did say that it was awfully good.