Fine Dining vs. Cheap Eats, Continued

[Steve Plotnicki]

Strip steak of course. What are you crazy?

There's another reason that strip steaks are dominant which is that it is best eaten all by itself. It needs no sauce, no peppercorns, no nothing but salt and pepper. I would say that I buy strip steaks about 70% of the time with the other 20% split between filetm rib steak and skirt steak. I used to buy porterhouse but I stopped for some reason. If you are feeling particularly flush one day, go into Lobel's and buy yourself an entire rib from a prime rib and tell him not to trim it. Salt and Pepper it and put it in your oven at 500 degrees until whenever. It's remarkable.

edited in after

I forgot to add one thing that is pretty important. It is rare, if not impossible to see a strip steak at a 3 star establishment. The texture of a strip does not lend itself well to that style of cuisine. It doesn't take well to saucing (but dunking a slice in Bearnaise ain't bad) because the meat is too coarse. Filet fits the bill for what a 3 star chef needs to do much better than any other cut does. Hence its place in the pecking order.

[g.johnson]

Or open a bottle of Chateau d"yqueem from a good vintage. It's like having Quaker State Motor Oil on your tongue.

I have to bow to your greater experience in this matter.

[Fat Guy]

The last beef dish I remember eating at a three-star restaurant was a porterhouse at Ambroisie. Ducasse isn't serving any beef in Paris as far as I know, though in New York he's serving rib eye. Taillevent definitely does the traditional filet, and I bet Bocuse does too. I'm sure Cabrales could give us a rundown of what's available where.

[Jinmyo]

Any steak that is not made with or is not served with frites is categorically not a "steak".

How do we know this?

Because steak and frites are better than steak with some non-steak-derived sauce like a simple jus and some kind of weak mashed stuff.

How do we know this?

Because it is better, better being necessarily and obviously defined as steak frites.

Would there be a term such as "steak-frites" if "steak" and "frites" were not mutually defining? Of course not. History and geography and music all tell us this. Q.E.D., man. Q.E. and D.

Ipso facto, the fact is: no frites, no steak.

As my lawyer Seymour will tell you, "The party of the first part without the party of the second part ain't got no party. It might be your party and you can cry if you want to, but no frites, no steak."

This pseudo-trollish message brought to you by The Steak-Frites Consortium For Epistemological Certainty, a not-for-profit charitable organiztion.

[TheMan,TheMyth]

I don't think one is better than the other (fine dining vs. cheap eats).

I agree with a previous poster that one can be more analytical when discussing fine dining, but a number of times I have been engaged in spirited debates about burger and pizza joints which were just as philosophical and animated as debates dealing with a 5-star gourmet restaurant. I do find that people who talk about a chain or cheaper establishment are chastised for not possessing a certain degree of class. I disagree with these people. Food should be fun and some people need to lighten up and not take the topic so serious.

The Man, The Myth

TapItorScrapIt.com

[cakewalk]

Any steak that is not made with or is not served with frites is categorically not a "steak".

How do we know this?

Because steak and frites are better than steak with some non-steak-derived sauce like a simple jus and some kind of weak mashed stuff.

How do we know this?

Because it is better, better being necessarily and obviously defined as steak frites.

Would there be a term such as "steak-frites" if "steak" and "frites" were not mutually defining? Of course not. History and geography and music all tell us this. Q.E.D., man. Q.E. and D.

Ipso facto, the fact is: no frites, no steak.

Now that is reasoning on an absolutely Talmudic level.

[Fat Guy]

Aren't you really talking about ontology, rather than epistemology?

[lizziee]

What I find extraordinary is that for 15 pages you have discussed what is fine dining vs cheap eats and in the process have not seen Robert Brown's and Bux's excellent post on Adria.

[jaybee]

Food should be fun and some people need to lighten up and not take the topic so serious.

Ah, but Man and Myth, taking the topic so seriously is fun for some. You mustn't take their seriousity so seriously, especially if you wear a bowl of pasta for a hat.

[John Whiting]

... The Steak-Frites Consortium For Epistemological Certainty, a not-for-profit charitable organiztion.

I can see why!

Aren't you really talking about ontology ...

Don't bug him, he's busy recapitulating phylogeny.

[Jinmyo]

And morphology.

[Jinmyo]

seriousity

An excellent term for this kind of "heated" discussion.

[Wilfrid]

Funny how people can get absolutely contradictory impressions from reading the same discussion. At the end of yesterday, I thought it was pretty clear that the expense of food items was determined primarily by scarcity of supply. See Steven Shaw's comments on how much prime steak can be derived from a cow in comparison to the less expensive cuts. I should have thought the same was obviously true of foie gras, caviar, and other luxury items.

But someone else reads (I guess) the same posts, and concludes that suppliers can charge high prices for some items because they are prized by consumers for their smoothness, or possibly their chewiness. Aren't we just taking a big step backward here?

[Fat Guy]

Wilfrid, to oversimplify for the purposes of resolving what you seem to perceive as a contradiction: Scarcity is a supply issue. What consumers like is a demand issue. Both can operate to influence prices.

[hollywood]

Strange that there are only 2 choices: the fine and the cheap. What about the mediocre? Here you will see the opportunity for a good wordsmith to shine. He can go on a rant about how awful everything is, or he can look for some diamond in the rough. Or, there's the if only angle. Let's face it due to its ubiquity, mediocrity is what we are all most familar with. Perhaps it "deserves" more attention?

[Fat Guy]

I find myself most interested in what's happening at the extremes.

[LaNiña]

Ah, FG, you're one of those, are you?

[jaybee]

Strange that there are only 2 choices: the fine and the cheap. What about the mediocre? Here you will see the opportunity for a good wordsmith to shine. He can go on a rant about how awful everything is, or he can look for some diamond in the rough. Or, there's the if only angle. Let's face it due to its ubiquity, mediocrity is what we are all most familar with. Perhaps it "deserves" more attention?

I prefer haute-mediocre myself. Why settle for anything less? (or more).

[Wilfrid]

Wilfrid, to oversimplify for the purposes of resolving what you seem to perceive as a contradiction: Scarcity is a supply issue. What consumers like is a demand issue. Both can operate to influence prices.

Of course, of course. It's the attempt to explain everything by reference to the latter only which founders against obvious examples like pork belly. Delicious, complex and dirt cheap.

And I agree with you about extremes. Jean Georges, or pig's intestines in a South Bronx parking lot. No compromise.

[hollywood]

I find myself most interested in what's happening at the extremes.

Extremism in the defense of the alimentary is no vice? Yeah, but sooner or later, it all goes to your middle.

[bushey]

sooner or later, it all goes to your middle.

Regression to the mean?

[Holly Moore]

As stated elsewhere, 16 page strings intimidate me. I read the first two pages of this topic and then surrendered and clicked on "reply" to add my two bits. I apologize in advance if I am simply repeating what was astutely put forth by others on pages three through 15.

I see fine dining and cheap eats as anything but divergent concepts. Price of a meal has little to do with fine dining.

Fine dining can be a seven course menu at Daniel. It can just as well be a shovelful of roast oysters at Bowen's Island, a lobster in the rough at Waterman's Lobster, a bag full of cheeseburgers from White Manna, a pint of clams from Woodman's of Essex, a plate of 'cue with a side of "hash" at Sweatman's, or a cheesesteak with extra wiz at Steve's Prince of steaks.

Much of what goes into what is generally regarded as the "fine dining" experience is fluff that has nothing to do with the cuisine, itself. The multi-million dollar decor, the imported china, the finest of linens, the elegant floral arrangements. Fluff. The emperor's new clothes. Any cuisine must speak for itself and not depend on pompous gilt and glitter to validate the meal or suplement/enhance the "fine dining experience".

They say that only the finest of ingredients are selected by "fine dining" chefs. That's nice. But the same can be said for a Waterman's lobster, a Bowen's Island oyster or a Sweatman's smoked pork shoulder. Fresh, locally procured, top quality.

Complexity of preparation. Got me there. But I'm not sure the complexity of a three star entree is any more worthy of respect that the pure simplicity of a plate of barbecued ribs, a side of smoked, baked beans and a couple of ears of fresh Jersey corn.

The skill of the preparer. I have great respect for a fine chef. But, like Studds Terkel, I have equal respect for the skill of the guy who gathers and roasts the oysters at Bowen's or who runs the pits at Sweatman's. Each excels at what he does. Each takes tremendous pride in his product. Each has committed years of hard work to perfecting his craft.

My goal for fine dining is to eat very well and do so comfortably with minimum pomp and ceremony. Any time I can "fine dine" without suffering a starched shirt, menus in foreign languages and legions of upward facing, gratuity grabbing palms, I figure I'm way, way, way ahead of the game.

[Wilfrid]

That post made me take another look at your home page, Holly, and you certainly set out the manifesto there, greasy shirt and all! I remain a sucker for silver service, leather-bound menus, fawning and flattery. And my bank balance proves it.

[Steve Plotnicki]

"Complexity of preparation. Got me there. But I'm not sure the complexity of a three star entree is any more worthy of respect that the pure simplicity of a plate of barbecued ribs, a side of smoked, baked beans and a couple of ears of fresh Jersey corn."

Holly - I don't think anyone here would disagree with any of your assessments. Who doesn't like to sit on a pier and eat a bunch of clams or oysters that have just come ashore? It's great. But when you get to complexity of preparation, well you are right. That's an aspect that doesn't exist in cheap eats that does in fine dining. But it's not a matter of whether it's more worthy of discussion, it's a matter of there simply being all that additional technique to talk about that doesn't exist when a guy is just shucking clams or oysters on the pier. But take those oysters and add a little champagne to them and then throw them in the oven for a few minutes, that just makes there be more to talk about. One can discuss whether the additional technique improved the oysters, and if so to what extent. But neither of those discussions precludes a conversation about how good the oysters were in the first place. But in terms of what people like to cook, it's obvious that people would prefer to talk about food that is at a level of technique they could master over a discussion about shucking.

[jordyn]

Holly's post has got me wondering why there is such a strong correlation between high end food and high end service. Almost invariably, the complex, high quality food that many of us so enjoy is accompanied by expensive decor and fawning service. Often, this is nice. For special occasion meals, a lot of people probably want the pomp.

But what if I want to eat really amazing food every night? Do I need to put myself through a formal multi hour eating ritual?

I know that there are good quality bistros and the like, but the food in these places is generally simpler as well. Why aren't there places with fancy food but not fancy digs?