Fine Dining vs. Cheap Eats, Continued

[Steve Plotnicki]

"Most of the time, you have to pay more to get more"

-OR-

"Most of the time, when you pay more you get more"

Jordyn - How nice of you to reduce the quibbling to a few simple statements.

I'm saying neither. What I am saying is that when someone produces something, whether it be raised agriculturally, or in a factory, or caught from the sea or whatever, they segregate those things that are of better quality from those things that are of lesser quality and they charge for them accordingly. And that means that 100% of the time, the item of better quality sells for more money, or is worth more money, or is more valuable. To me that is all semantics because it doesn't speak to the primary concept which is that the better the quality, the higher the cost.

Of course this doesn't speak to market manipulation of any sort. Look at the Bordeaux estates. They only released about 10% of the wine they made in the 2000 vintage and jacked the priced up. But my point isn't to compare the 2000 vintage to the 1999 vintage and ask why the prices have risen 200%?The issue is did pricing stay the same relative to quality within the vintage? And of course the answer to that is yes. The first growths still have the same magical qualities they do year after year, and are priced at the top end of the scale. And that is true in bad vintages as well. Say it anyway you want when comparing wines like Latour and Grand Puy Lacoste but people are willing to pay more for Latour because *it's a better wine.* I don't care if you articluate it as being of better quality, or being worth more, or being more complex. To argue about the semantics is just to try and deny the point without confronting the issue directly. Simply put, Latour is a better wine than Grand Puy Lacoste. I don't know how else to explain it. And to taste them and not know that is to not understand wine.

By the way, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Many people can't make that assessment properly. There are lots of things I can't assess properly because I don't have the experience to do so. I'd have an awfully hard time deciphering why one curry powder is better than another other than the "I like this one better route." But over time and with a bunch of tastings under my belt, I would probably learn how to do it. And if I couldn't, the answer isn't that curry is subjective. The truth is I'm just not the right person to ask about it because I can't tell.

[Wilfrid]

I was amazed at the proprtions this thread had grown to overnight, but once I subtracted Tommy and Nina arguing about diamonds, it wasn't too bad.

I distinctly recall that on another thread, which I couldn't begin to find, I conducted a reality-check that everyone agreed that market value (or cost) was not necessarily correlated with quality. No-one disputed that at the time, and I thought Steve Plotnicki explicitly agreed with the proposition. So a lot of the foregoing puzzles me. And I am really surprised to find that people I perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be free market conservatives think that price is set by something other than the market.

As to preferences between foodstuffs - which I might characterize as the "Is steak better than hamburger debate?" - I think it's unreasonable to exclude the question of personal preferences. If I had to give up either pork fillet or pork belly for the rest of my life, I'm with Jon Tseng - I'll keep the belly, please. Doesn't mean I think the average price of the items should be adjusted - they reflect general demand. Nor do I think I am taking the position that pork belly is "better" than pork fillet. That seems daft - although, I can see how one pork fillet might be better than another. I'm just expressing a preference.

If we could distinguish between market value, expert evaluation of quality (when comparing items it's appropriate to compare), and personal preferences, some light might begin to gleam on this subject. If you try to make those three things "the same", confusion will reign.

[Fat Guy]

And I am really surprised to find that people I perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be free market conservatives think that price is set by something other than the market.

Who said that?

[Wilfrid]

Maybe I dreamt it. Don't make me read the thread again. If no-one said it, fine.

[Jonathan Day]

You recently posted on the fish soup at Loulou and Tetou and you were unhappy with the Tetou version. Guess what, Loulou made a better fish soup than Tetou did. Is that really such a hard concept? And you know what else Loulou's fish soup is better than? The bottled version of fish soup you can get at traiteurs all over Provence. Is there an argument about that? Or are we willing to accept the opinion of someone who prefers the fish soup from the bottle because we believe that quality is subjective?

I am not arguing for relativism ("what's good is whatever you like") but for agreed criteria and rules of engagement. Otherwise we end up with "what's good is what I say is good and if you disagree you are stupid." For the person sitting in Iowa who can't get on a plane to Nice, that bottled fish soup may be better than Loulou's product.

I struggle to imagine how anyone could acquire sufficient experience, historical knowledge, etc., to make one-dimensional relative judgements between world cuisines, any more than I would want to engage in a debate about whether a Vermeer Van Delft was "better" than a Monet or whether the Spring Sonata was "better" than the Musical Offering...not to mention some masterwork of Indian music, or Japanese.

I do think it is very useful to have a conversation of the form "In evaluating a fish soup I look for the following characteristics: ..... and the soup at restaurant X had the following: .... "

[Steve Plotnicki]

I think there is a big confusion here between market cost, something of which I am not commenting on, and the relational value items of the same type have to each other and how they are affected by differences in quality. Pricing for those items are set by their producer/manufactuer. How they set them in relation to the market is a different matter. But it's his realization that things are of different quality that starts the process. But then what I'm saying is that no matter how much the market manipulates a product, the pricing relative to quality doesn't change.

Here's an example. Let's say Honda instead of their being able to manufacture umlimited Accords could only manufacture 10,000 cars a year. And lets say the demand was 15,000 a year. In that instance, supply and demand would push the price up. But that increase has a ceiling because at some point the price starts to approach the car Honda makes at the next level of quality. Why would anyone pay the same amount for an Accord as they would for the next step up? That's right you got it, they wouldn't. If for example an Accord cost $30,000 and the next step up cost $37,500, once the price shot up to around $33,000 people would start asking themselves if they should just punt the other $4500 into the pot and buy THE BETTER CAR.

It's the same for hamburgers. People eat them because they cost $5.99 a pound instead of $15 a pound like steak (Manhattan pricing and that isn't to say people don't like them.) But if there was a shortage of hamburger and the price rose to $10 a pound, it would make people buy steak more often. And I predict that at $15 a pound, sales of chopped meat would plummet. And if anyone doesn't believe this, I'll be the one with a bridge to sell you. And I'll deliver too.

[Wilfrid]

You recently posted on the fish soup at Loulou and Tetou and you were unhappy with the Tetou version. Guess what, Loulou made a better fish soup than Tetou did. Is that really such a hard concept? And you know what else Loulou's fish soup is better than? The bottled version of fish soup you can get at traiteurs all over Provence. Is there an argument about that? Or are we willing to accept the opinion of someone who prefers the fish soup from the bottle because we believe that quality is subjective?

I am not arguing for relativism ("what's good is whatever you like") but for agreed criteria and rules of engagement. Otherwise we end up with "what's good is what I say is good and if you disagree you are stupid." For the person sitting in Iowa who can't get on a plane to Nice, that bottled fish soup may be better than Loulou's product.

I struggle to imagine how anyone could acquire sufficient experience, historical knowledge, etc., to make one-dimensional relative judgements between world cuisines, any more than I would want to engage in a debate about whether a Vermeer Van Delft was "better" than a Monet or whether the Spring Sonata was "better" than the Musical Offering...not to mention some masterwork of Indian music, or Japanese.

I do think it is very useful to have a conversation of the form "In evaluating a fish soup I look for the following characteristics: ..... and the soup at restaurant X had the following: .... "

Very shrewd post, JD. I entirely agree with what you say about criteria, and in addition I remain sceptical that it's practical to develop criteria to apply to all cuisines across the globe, such that broad assertions that - for example - French food is better than Chinese food - could make any sense.

And you are quite right. Claims of the form "This is better. I know it's better, and you should just accept that" are of course an extreme form of subjectivism, even if asserted in the form: "This is objectively better...(etc)." I hate the word "objectivity", but if we must talk in those terms, objectivity is rooted in shared, rational criteria.

[LaNiña]

Yes, it's like giving someone a compliment when you say you think they have good taste. That just means that their taste is similar to yours. Or what you aspire to.

[Steve Plotnicki]

" do think it is very useful to have a conversation of the form "In evaluating a fish soup I look for the following characteristics: ..... and the soup at restaurant X had the following: .... " "

JD - But now you have shifted gears. In your original post about Tetou, you say the fish soup was "disappointing." Now in my book, your opinion about it is only subjective if you don't know how to assess a good fish soup. But in reading your posts I sense that you do know how to assess one. So which is it? Did you just not prefer the soup at Tetou or was it inferior to the soup at Loulou?

[jaybee]

But if there was a shortage of hamburger and the price rose to $10 a pound, it would make people buy steak more often. And I predict that at $15 a pound, sales of chopped meat would plummet.

And lots of them would grind the steak up for hamburgers!

[John Whiting]

Would good quality tripe cost more than lesser quality tripe in Britian? Would an "average" Englishman (excludes Wilfrid and other present company) be able to tell good tripe from bad?

As I posted on the new "most hated food in Britain" topic, it is illegal here to sell unbleached tripe for human consumption. This makes consideration of "quality" totally irrelevant. It's like asking "what is the best steak?" if all steak had to be boiled before it was grilled. If You're British and want even acceptable tripe, go someplace else.

[Fat Guy]

Don't make me read the thread again.

Next time I need to punish you, I'll force you to copy this whole thread onto a chalkboard.

[bushey]

But if there was a shortage of hamburger and the price rose to $10 a pound, it would make people buy steak more often. And I predict that at $15 a pound, sales of chopped meat would plummet.

And lots of them would grind the steak up for hamburgers!

Would it be better hamburger than the $10/lb stuff?

Personally, I find the whole hamburger thing confusing. Many people, including the butchers at my market, say go for chuck, at no more than 80% lean for great tasting burgers. But the ground sirloin, which is usually leaner and more expensive seems like it should make better burgers.

Maybe I should just switch threads and learn how to make my own.

[Wilfrid]

Don't make me read the thread again.

Next time I need to punish you, I'll force you to copy this whole thread onto a chalkboard.

Hey, it's been a while since we had one of our little discipline sessions. Any time.

[yvonne johnson]

100% of the time, the item of better quality sells for more money, or is worth more money, or is more valuable. To me that is all semantics because it doesn't speak to the primary concept which is that the better the quality, the higher the cost.

This is false. I'll add to Wilfrid's point below on the importance of distinguishing between cost and expert evaluation. Steve, You mention the sea: The commercial fishing expert will, as you say, determine the quality of the fish, but that does not always match what people will pay. It is simply wrong to say that, every time, the best sells for more money.

I'll use catfish as an example. The expert has long known that this is a fish with a lot going for it. Until more recently, could it demand a decent price? No. Fishermen couldn't get over shoppers' willingness to pay more for a fish that was of the same or inferior quality relative to the catfish. An example of the public not paying for the quality that the expert saw all along.

And bushey: I agree with you. In my opinion (if only Steve P. could preface most of what he writes, by saying the simple in my opinion many of these arguments wouldn't happen), the better burger is made with meat that has a fair amount of fat content.

[Bux]

I wish that correspondents would stop talking about a "free" market. Everyone who follows economics, whether of the Left or of the Right,  knows that this hasn't existed for decades and becomes ever more distant with every corporate merger.

I always thought a "free" market was one that offered the freedom of manipulation to anyone with enough leverage.

[Wilfrid]

It's the same for hamburgers. People eat them because they cost $5.99 a pound instead of $15 a pound like steak (Manhattan pricing and that isn't to say people don't like them.) But if there was a shortage of hamburger and the price rose to $10 a pound, it would make people buy steak more often. And I predict that at $15 a pound, sales of chopped meat would plummet.

Right up to a point, but what should we infer from it? If hamburger was the same price as good steak, do you think people would stop buying it altogether? I doubt it, because many people prefer hamburger to steak (I have taken people to decent steakhouses and watched them order the chopped steak).

This is like one of those SAT(?) tests you Americans like. Which conclusion(s) follow(s)?:

1. People would buy more steak than hamburger than they do now if the price differential were eliminated.

2. A lot of people would eat more steak than they presently do if it was more affordable.

3. People prefer steak to hamburger, at least some of the time.

4. Premium steak is higher quality than hamburger meat.

5. Steak is better than hamburgers.

6. People dislike hamburger meat in comparison to steak.

I think three of the above are valid inferences, one is not and two remain debatable.

[LaNiña]

I am a steak lover and an experience steak eater. Ditto for hamburgers. Sometimes I want a burger, period. I absolutely do not buy the steak is better argument. A great burger is a great thing. And it's completely different - I don't even understand the need for comparison. I could understand comparing different cuts of steak, or different qualities of beef within a category, but not this. It makes no sense to me. It's like comparing poached salmon to a salmon burger.

[Bux]

Personally, I find the whole hamburger thing confusing. Many people, including the butchers at my market,  say go for chuck, at no more than 80% lean for great tasting burgers. But the ground sirloin, which is usually leaner and more expensive seems like it should make better burgers.

Lemmee 'splain it all clear.

The ground sirloin is more expensive because it's better. That doesn't mean the resultant hamburger is better, it's just the raw meat that's better on an abstract scale irrelevant of its intended use. Now if you could price the ground sirloin hamburger at a higher price than the ground chuck burger, then we'd know it was better.

Capeesh?

[Wilfrid]

Exactly right, Nina. Comes back to the Beethoven or Beatles point I once made on another thread light years ago. Beethoven is not better than the Beatles if you are looking for a catchy pop song. Steak is not better than a burger if you are looking for the particular set of sensory and flavor qualities associated with the latter. If you are looking for a well-aged piece of sirloin, with just the right amount of marbling, you can then have a rational conversation about whether sirloin A is better than sirloin B - according to the criteria you have set. Nothing much else going on, I suspect, than some people trying to correlate their own personal tastes with universal verities.

[Jon Tseng]

oh i think on the ground chuck point it would be cuz you need a certain minimum fat content for the burger to stay moist (cf putting bits of fat into sausages or black pudding)... especially if people cook them well done (a more frequent occurance in the UK than stateside I guess). a burger made from fillet would probably be pretty dry... though i have seen it done (good trick to fold a chunk of butter or foie gras into each patty so it bastes from the inside as it cooks)

cheerio

j

[Steve Plotnicki]

"I'll use catfish as an example. The expert has long known that this is a fish with a lot going for it. Until more recently, could it demand a decent price? No. Fishermen couldn't get over shoppers' willingness to pay more for a fish that was of the same or inferior quality relative to the catfish. An example of the public not paying for the quality that the expert saw all along. "

Yvonne - I keep talking apples to apples and you are talking apples to oranges. Without an intense analysis as to why, I cannot tell you why catfish is so low on the totem pole compared to say swordfish. But what you conveniently leave out, and this THE ONLY POINT I KEEP MAKING, amongst catfish only, people are willing to pay more for better quality catfish than they are for poorer quality catfish.

I'm wondering why this point is so difficult to fathom? Do they not charge less for bruised fruit and veggies? Isn't that because a bruise lowers the quality somewhat? Do they not charge more money for wine made in years where the grapes have matured properly as opposed to years when it rains right before harvest which causes many of the grapes to rot? Why does sweetcorn sell for more money than fieldcorn? Isn't it is because it tastes sweeter, i.e. better? And when I go to Lobel's and they have a dog of a NY strip steak in the case that has a thick vein of gristle running down the middle and instead of it being marbleized evenly throughout it is grouped into little constelations, and none of the customers who shop there are willing to buy it, so they use it in the chopped meat before it spoils where it sells for 1/3 the price, hasn't it sold for less because it was of worse quality and weren't the steaks that sold for full price of better quality?

How many examples do I have to give where people pay more for things that are of better quality? That you can point to inneficiencies in the markets for these things, doesn't negate that generally the market is efficient. And when you point to catfish, that doesn't prove that flounder is overpriced because it costs more than catfish, it proves that catfish hasn't been marketed correctly? Why that is I don't know? Maybe they should change the name of catfish to something like "Tilapino" or "St. Magdalene" fish. I bet you it would sell like hotcakes, oops I mean fishcakes then.

[jordyn]

How many examples do I have to give where people pay more for things that are of better quality? That you can point to inneficiencies in the markets for these things, doesn't negate that generally the market is efficient.

People are often willing to pay more for better quality. The markets are usually fairly efficient.

Neither of these means a $4.99 per pound tomato is necessarily better than a $.99 per pound tomato, which was your original claim.

[Wilfrid]

THE ONLY POINT I KEEP MAKING, amongst catfish only, people are willing to pay more for better quality catfish than they are for poorer quality catfish.

But that's steak/steak, which does make sense. I could have sworn you were also talking steak/hamburger. Or Tuscan beans/cassoulet, now I think of it.

[Steve Plotnicki]

"Right up to a point, but what should we infer from it? If hamburger was the same price as good steak, do you think people would stop buying it altogether?"

Wilfrid - What you should infer from it is that the price is a pretty good indicator of quality. And that the ratio of hamburger meat to steak sold is subject to a price differential which is based on how people view their quality. And if the differential was altered significantly, then consumption of one or the other would rise or fall in some relation to the way the price moved.