Fine Dining vs. Cheap Eats, Continued

[Steve Plotnicki]

Hollywood - The problem with using food as the example all the time, and it really is the underlying issue around here, is that it is invisible and so difficult to rest your case on when the argument being put forth by the opposition is that taste is subjective. So that gives rise to the need of putting forth examples you can see with your eyes as opposed to ones that arise out of your mouth. But as to wall-to-wall, it isn't that people don't use it, people use it in bedrooms all of the time. It's just that they used to use it in the more public rooms. But to me, that they used it for a time and then went to the better design means the market was eventually efficient.

I think if someone said that there is often an element of fashion that people are willing to pay for and that skews prices, there would be no argument from me. But I am saying that even though the price of wall-to-wall must have been at a premiuim during the 70's when it was popular, it still stayed cheaper relative to what a good area rug costs. You know why? Because if people were paying astronomical prices for wall-to-wall and the prices started to rise to the price of nice rugs, the rug salesman would go out to get their share of the pie. As for shagetti, I'll stay clear of that one.

[cabrales]

At Steve P's request, I include the below post from the "Chinese Food vs. French" thread:

Below is an excerpt from "Saveur Cooks Authentic French" (1999, by the magazine's editors, i.e., the US version):

"French cuisine is far more than just a collection of recipes. It's a philosophy, an aesthetic, an attitude towards life. It is a way of preparing food -- which is to say, a way of approaching (and assimilating) the natural world -- based on an immensely complex and sophisticated system of complementary, interlocking bases, part chemical, part mathematical, part artistic. French cooking . . . at its best, it acknowledges and respects an old and surprisingly coherent canon, even when it sometimes deviates from it in pursuit of creativity. (French chefs are trained draftsmen even when they're painting abstract canvases, and it shows.) It is also a remarkably accommodating cuisine, capable of borrowing from other kitchens without compromising its own identity. Why is French cuisine ultimately greater than thatt of, say, China? Because it can adopt ingredients and techniques from the Chinese and remain true to iself, while the converse is not true."

[Robert Schonfeld]

Robert S. would say that the reason for that is the quality of the food is so good, they don't have to prepare it any better than they do now.

Just for the record, I would not, did not, will not say this. If anyone wants to know what I said, read back. What I would say, did say and will say, is that the quality of Italian, Indian, Mexican, Chinese and other food is every bit as good as French, each in its own way. For the extremely small group of people who concern themselves with notions of cuisine and the even smaller group who concern themselves with the "advancement" of cuisine, and the condition of the food and restaurant business in the western world, French food, French cusiniers, French restaurants are dominant and are the arena in which such a discussion holds interests for its participants. I like French food. I'm interested in such discussions. But it's a big world out there with, as Carl Sagan might have said, billions and billions of people who just don't give a damn. To drag other paradigms into the French circle is wrong.

Writing is hard for me. Please don't make me do this again by putting words in my mouth.

Thank you and good morning.

[Jinmyo]

Robert, why is writing hard for you? You do it so well. Or did you just mean writing this kind of clarification is difficult on you?

[Steve Plotnicki]

"What I would say, did say and will say, is that the quality of Italian, Indian, Mexican, Chinese and other food is every bit as good as French, each in its own way."

Robert S. - My apologies if I put words in your mouth. At this time of day I'd rather it be some polenta with some extremely fresh ricotta and a little wildflower honey. Maybe a few fragolina on the side with a little sugar.

But your quote goes to the heart of the debate here. Tell me how your statement is true when using the level of technique applied to each cuisine as the measure? That has been my point all along and is ultimately what seperates Cheap Eats from Fine dining. For example let's take a hamburger. I think it's an inferior technique of preparing chopped beef when comparing it to a good kofte kebab. Why? They make kofte by hand. And the knife technique the butcher uses minces the meat to a certain texture. This ability of being able to get the meat finely minced but still coarse allows the butcher to mince spices and herbs into the mixture while chopping the meat. But a hamburger is meat put through a grinder. And the texture of that technique doesn't lend itself to spicing. So the thrust of a good hamburger is more like a steak. The beefiest taste wins. But koftes come in all degrees of subtlety and among cultures that eat them, it holds a higher place in their cuisine than chopped steak does in ours.

So to say that Tuscan beans are every bit as good and complex as cassoulet, in the context of this question, is sort of like saying that it is as hard to juggle three balls as four balls. And as someone who knows how to juggle three balls but not four, I can tell you that their is additional technique to learn to be able to juggle four.

[Fat Guy]

But to me, that they used it for a time and then went to the better design means the market was eventually efficient.

Eventually efficient? That's what we call an oxymoron on my home planet. The market is either efficient or it isn't. And it is efficient, but you refuse to understand what the market is efficient at. The market is the most efficient tool in the history of the universe for measuring buyers' preferences and matching those preferences up with availability. That's it. The market measures nothing beyond that. It's not supposed to, it can't, and you wouldn't want it to.

You, however, believe in a notion of inherent quality. This isn't something the market measures. It's not something the market gives two shits about.

You will never be able to reconcile your two positions unless you embrace popular taste as the arbiter of good taste, which you don't. And in any instance where, within the relevant market, popular taste and good taste diverge, there will be bargains for those who can recognize good taste.

[Robert Schonfeld]

Jin, Thank you. It's not this kind of clarification, but all writing that is hard for me. I once read an interview with Woody Allen where he said that he didn't find writing especially difficult. Were it not for the sin of it, I would envy the man this. For me to write anything sustained, I need isolation and absolute quiet. I've done it from time to time, and I'm sure I'll force myself to do it again, just for the discipline, but nothing about it is fun or easy.

Steve, one of the points imbedded (apparently too deeply) in my example of pasta with butter and sage is that the technique for making the noodles by hand, not with a machine, is very demanding. Even most Italians have abandoned handmade egg noodles in favor of the machine-extruded variety. But the nonnas who wear black still do it. The reason these noodles are superior to extruded ones is that they are stretched, rather than pressed, resulting in a texture that will marry better with the sauce or dressing.

On the beans vs. cassoulet issue, there is none. Again, I never said Tuscan beans are more complex than cassoulet. That's an insupportable position. I did say that they are equally good, which is to say equally enjoyable, to a substantial group of consumers. This to me is as obvious as the absence of the issue of greater complexity.

The concept of quality, to which I have devoted my entire professional life and more than forty years of vocational preoccupation (as a photographer), is yet another discussion of 20+ pages. What I've tried to get across here is that quality plays in many different arenas which have little or nothing to do with each other, and that talking about a mole vs. a sauce brun is interesting, but will not, and should not, result in an absolute qualitative winner. It is a comparative discussion, not a competitive one.

Fresh polenta in the morning is a positively decadent idea. The cook would have to care an awful lot about those who would be eating it. I like the rest of the recipe.

[g.johnson]

Tell me how your statement is true when using the level of technique applied to each cuisine as the measure? That has been my point all along and is ultimately what seperates Cheap Eats from Fine dining.

Pole vaulting requires more technique than sprinting. Therefore poll vaulting is superior and only plebs follow the sprints.

But don't mind me, I'm a communist.

[Jinmyo]

Robert, then thank you for enduring.

[Steve Plotnicki]

"You, however, believe in a notion of inherent quality. This isn't something the market measures. It's not something the market gives two shits about"

Fat Guy - The market doesn't care about inherent quality but people do and people can tell the difference. In fact you spend your entire vocational life ferreting out things that are of better quality in relation to other like things. So for you to say the market doesn't reflect that quality doesn't make sense. Chickens "not refrigerated too long" are better than "chickens refrigerated long time." If the market had equal information about the two, it would pay more money for the "not long time" providing that the underlying quality of the chickens were equal.

Robert S. - I have understood that about your responses from the beginning. But in fairness to me, that isn't how Fat Guy framed his question. His question is "vs."

"Pole vaulting requires more technique than sprinting."

G. - Gee I'm not sure that's the case. I think the mechanics of sprinting are pretty demanding. Probably more so than the additional tier of technique needed for pole vaulting. But I'm just guessing. But I will say that the technique needed to make good risotto is more evolved than the one needed to make good congee, and the results prove it out when tasting it.

[LaNiña]

That makes no sense. You can't say on the one hand that the market doesn't know quality but people do. First of all, the market IS the people - it's the people voting their choices with their dollars. Second, you can't say that only conoisseurs and people of taste care about quality and then claim that "the people" care about quality. Either refined taste is ubiquitous, or it belongs to an experienced, educated minority. You can't have it both ways.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Nina - I'm sorry I will try and explain it better. When I say that the market doesn't know quality but people do, I'm really saying the same thing you are and that the market doesn't operate in a vaccum. It is driven by people. But the next thing I'm saying (and it is implied in the statement) is that not every person is in the market for "not too long refriferated" chickens. Some people would prefer "long refrigerated" because they want to spend less money and don't care about quality as much as the connoisseurs do. So refined taste belongs to an educated minority and it is they who drive the markets.

[LaNiña]

Oh it is not. The vast majority of the buying public has no idea of the level of taste and discernment you speak of. They buy for value. And price, at least where food is concerned, is influenced by all kinds of t hings other than quality - weather, scarcity, availability, overproduction, fuel prices, etc., etc.

[Robert Schonfeld]

that isn't how Fat Guy framed his question. His question is "vs."

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that "vs" invites comparison as well as competition. It isn't always the "rumble in the jungle", to cite one historic example of competition.

[Jinmyo]

So refined taste belongs to an educated minority and it is they who drive the markets.

Wow! Really?

[mamster]

And as someone who knows how to juggle three balls but not four, I can tell you that their is additional technique to learn to be able to juggle four.

Well, here's a good, random, and basically OT place to jump in.

I can juggle three balls. I can also juggle four balls. It is definitely harder to learn to juggle four than three. However, if I am showing off my (rather meager) juggling skills, whether to novices or experienced jugglers, I'll stick with three balls 99% of the time. Why? Because juggling four looks easier than juggling three, and it's not as good a basis for doing tricks (shower vs cascade, for those playing along at home). Similarly, it's hard to learn to juggle three in a circular pattern--much harder than juggling four, IMO--but again, it's not an impressive trick.

Now, you folks can figure out the culinary parallels. For me, this argument comes down to toilet paper. I can afford the best quality toilet paper, and I always buy the best quality. I have no cultural relativism when it comes to toilet paper. People may argue over which is the best, but nobody argues that it's 3M sandpaper. But food ain't toilet paper: those who can afford to eat and enjoy eating at fine restaurants every day never do, because those restaurants can't slake their cravings for pizza, falafel, phad thai, and all the other great and interesting foods that are not part of fine dining.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Nina - You've switched gears on me. The only people relevent to a market are those who participate in it. That everyone else eats at McDonald's has no relevence on the market that is willing to pay $12.98 a pound for chopped meat at Lobel's. They define that market. The people who buy D.O.C.G. Brunello are not the same market as people who buy Vino de Tavola. So in making a point about top level Brunello, you can't point to the people who drink Rosso.

This is the whole point I've been making. Brunello is better quality wine than Rosso and people know it and that is why it costs more. But there are people out there who might actually think that Rosso is better and they can't understand why people pay 10x more for a bottle of Brunello than a bottle of Rosso. That isn't a matter of subjectivity, that's a matter of lack of knowledge. They just don't know.

[Fat Guy]

Plotnicki, everybody is already assuming the relevant market. It does nothing to resolve your contradiction. The market still measures what it measures, and connoisseurs still know more than the market when it comes to judging inherent quality. You cannot possibly define a market segment where everybody in it is a connoisseur of equal discernment. As for connoisseurs driving the market, if you believe that I'm surprised at your naivete. Even consumer decisions in the high-end restaurant market are driven more by Zagat than by the collective judgment of those who really know their stuff.

[Steve Plotnicki]

"Even consumer decisions in the high-end restaurant market are driven more by Zagat than by the collective judgment of those who really know their stuff"

Fat Guy - When you make that statement, you are including the Union Square Cafes of the world in the definition of high end. And all you are saying is that the median Zagat reader agrees that USC is high end. But if we were to find the Zagat readers who think USC isn't a good restaurant, and limit the results to their ratings, I think you would find that the Manhattan Zagat Guide comes out a completely different way. And I think you will also find that the average price paid for dinner by the person I'm describing is much higher than the amount the average Zagat reviewer pays for dinner. And that is because those people are able to discern the difference in quality between USC and Jean-Georges.

It's easy.

Better quality = Higher Cost

I'm trying to think of a single thing in our lives that it isn't true for. All you are giving me is the example where more people do it and they dilute the result because they don't know. That's my argument. I'm the one who says that people who rate USC as high as Jean-Georges do so because they just can't tell the difference. Has it occured to you that more people go to USC and love it because the quality isn't as good it's cheaper?

[Fat Guy]

Okay, so if we take every restaurant in New York and rank them by price that will give us the quality ranking too? You just made my job a whole lot easier. Thanks!

Your argument would make a little more sense (though not much) if the only people eating at Jean Georges were those who knew their stuff. But I'd have to guess that on any given night in the Jean Georges dining room only a very small percentage of the clientele consists of those who know what they're talking about -- and the rest aren't there because they're following those who know better; they're there because of Zagat. You can fantasize all you want about a better-run Zagat survey, one that surveys only the connoisseurs, but here on the plane of reality it is the Zagat survey as currently constituted that exists.

Better quality = Higher Cost

There you go backsliding again. I thought we had gotten as far as "better quality usually but not always equals higher cost." Do we need to start all over again?

[Steve Plotnicki]

Hey I was waiting for this argument. I didn't say that everyone who ate at Jean-Georges is a connoisseur, I said that the connoisseurs would choose J-G over USC because they serve better quality food there and that's who drives the market and ultimately how price gets set.

Something I learned pretty quickly when I started my company is that before I could sell anything to the public I had to convince the industry I was right. They were more expert in analysing the good from the bad and they acted as a huge screening process. I'm just saying the same thing here. Jean-Georges is considered better than USC because expert eaters have made that determination. Is that a exact number of people? No. But is it a more refined group than who votes in Zagat. Absolutely although when Zagat first started their scores reflected a group of people with taste that was more refined than there current batch or reviewers have.

[LaNiña]

That reasoning would mean that every industry has the ability to know ahead of time what will sell. If only...

[Sandra Levine]

Maybe Steve should offer his serivces as a consultant.

He certainly knows what sells.

[Fat Guy]

Hey I was waiting for this argument. I didn't say that everyone who ate at Jean-Georges is a connoisseur, I said that the connoisseurs would choose J-G over USC because they serve better quality food there and that's who drives the market and ultimately how price gets set.

They do not drive the market. We've already gone over and over again what it is that drives the market. Which part didn't you understand? You are still totally hogtied in a contradiction of your own creation and while you are providing a great quantity of entertainment you are not making any progress.

[Steve Plotnicki]

" That reasoning would mean that every industry has the ability to know ahead of time what will sell."

Nina - But they do. Every thing that sells was chosen for the market by experts in that industry. There. I dare you to prove that statement wrong. What you are trying to do is to point to the mistakes they make to say thay don't know how to pick them. But in reality, they have picked every one. It's just not true that every one they pick is successful.