3 Most Important Elements of a Plate...

[Jinmyo]

Has waiter presentation come into this one yet? A waiter serves the same dish to two people. When placing the dish before diner number one, he smiles warmly and proudly, and explains, "This is an extra course from the chef - his signature poached snipe in an ortolan/truffle coulis. With our compliments".

When placing the dish before diner number two, the waiter just puts the dish in front of the diner without explaining it, and walks off.

Would not the two diners perceive the dishes differently?

What about if the waiter has squeaky shoes, frayed cuffs, and leers? Would this cancel out anything in diner one's tasting of the snipe that was brought to it by the server's comment? Would it then be equivalent to diner two's if the waiter did not have squeaky shoes or frayed cuffs or a leer?

[Adam Balic]

One million to one is still more valid then 'I think it is so, so it must be so'.

Don't drink the Pertus, it looks to 'new money' now all those bankers are swilling it down. Maybe ask the wine chap to decant it into a empty bottle of Chinon or something, after all the presentation will have no bearing on the taste.

[Adam Balic]

Has waiter presentation come into this one yet? A waiter serves the same dish to two people. When placing the dish before diner number one, he smiles warmly and proudly, and explains, "This is an extra course from the chef - his signature poached snipe in an ortolan/truffle coulis. With our compliments".

When placing the dish before diner number two, the waiter just puts the dish in front of the diner without explaining it, and walks off.

Would not the two diners perceive the dishes differently?

What about if the waiter has squeaky shoes, frayed cuffs, and leers? Would this cancel out anything in diner one's tasting of the snipe that was brought to it by the server's comment? Would it then be equivalent to diner two's if the waiter did not have squeaky shoes or frayed cuffs or a leer?

Hee hehe. Welcome to 'complication' city.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Don't drink the Pertus, it looks to 'new money' now all those bankers are swilling it down. Maybe ask the wine chap to decant it into a empty bottle of Chinon or something, after all the presentation will have no bearing on the taste.

I had '75 Petrus last week. Chinon doesn't hold a candle to it.

[Jinmyo]

So the '75 Petrus makes a better candle-holder. I'll jot that down for future reference. Just in case.

Thanks.

[Wilfrid]

We are arguing about different things, Steve. I am arguing about the assertions made early in the thread that taste cannot be affected by anything other than the actual food and drink, and that therefore presentation cannot affect it. The premise there has nothing to do with dining, and there is no reason to confine it to those terms. And if the premise is false, which you agree it is, the conclusion does not follow. You (not you personally - whoever) need a different argument to support that conclusion.

No Wilfrid you are wrong. This is a food board and all statements are made within the context of the dining experience. To misappropriate those statements into the context of a science experiment, or to test the exactness of the language in the context of linguistics, is where we always go wrong (well not me, but the scientists and the pedants .)

Wilfrid is right, however. Look at what I said again. You can put it in the "dining experience", you can put it in a sandwich, you can put it in a baby's bottle. I am not talking about scientific experiments, I am talking about the same bit of food tasting different, depending on circumstances. Either what I say is true or it isn't. And it seems so indubitable, I don't know why we can't move on to more interesting questions.

[Adam Balic]

Exactly.

But, this thread is about the 'dining experience', if you drank it at Daniels out of a cheap-arse-my-aren't-we-the-south-of-france-water-tumbler would you have enjoyed it more? Proberly, not. If you drank it out of a tumbler and then drank the Chinon out of fine stemware, which would you enjoy the more? The Petrus correct? So is the '75 Petrus in a tumbler compared to the Pertus in good stemware 'better' then the '75 Petrus in a tumbler compared to the Chinon in decent stemware?

[Adam Balic]

So the '75 Petrus makes a better candle-holder. I'll jot that down for future reference. Just in case.

Thanks. 

Petrus candleholders make a place look like a Dot.com millionaires lounge room. Try Ch. Le Pin for candleholders that say 'I can splash it around and yet not look vulgar, I hip am I?'.

[Steve Plotnicki]

If you drank it out of a tumbler and then drank the Chinon out of fine stemware, which would you enjoy the more?

Well you see you keep shifting the pea like this. It isn't a matter of enjoyment, it's a matter of the way the wine tastes to an uncompromised palate. Compromised palates might, or might not enjoy it. And anything can cause the compromise including glass size.

As for Dot.com millionaires, don't you wish you were one? Some of my friends who became Dot.com millionaires have unbelieveable cellars.

[Steve Plotnicki]

One million to one is still more valid then 'I think it is so, so it must be so'.

You know on thinking about it further, I realized that this point is what is wrong with this thread. In fact, it's the underlying theme of where we go wrong on all of these debates. The fact of the matter is that when eating, better opinions are worth a million times more then esoteric scientific facts. That's because eating is not a science, it is a craft like cooking is. It starts out with the premise that there is nothing that is perfect, but there are more and less perfect expressions of things. That is the standard we need to impose when discussing food. How blue food dye makes us think red food tastes doesn't have much of a concequence to a discussion about dining.

[Adam Balic]

It isn't a matter of enjoyment, it's a matter of the way the wine tastes to an uncompromised palate. Compromised palates might, or might not enjoy it. And anything can cause the compromise including glass size.

The palate is in the mind Steve. You comprimise the Mind, you can comprimise the palate. The trick is to do all that clever stuff Fatguy spoke about and to block out the fluffy yellow chicks.

Some of my friends who became Dot.com millionaires have unbelieveable cellars.

Well there are only so many first edition comics in the world.

Seriously, I would like to be a millionaire. I would be very good at it.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Seriously, I would like to be a millionaire. I would be very good at it.

I've been trying to teach you but you're resisiting.

[Adam Balic]

One million to one is still more valid then 'I think it is so, so it must be so'.

You know on thinking about it further, I realized that this point is what is wrong with this thread. In fact, it's the underlying theme of where we go wrong on all of these debates. The fact of the matter is that when eating, better opinions are worth a million times more then esoteric scientific facts. That's because eating is not a science, it is a craft like cooking is. It starts out with the premise that there is nothing that is perfect, but there are more and less perfect expressions of things. That is the standard we need to impose when discussing food. How blue food dye makes us think red food tastes doesn't have much of a concequence to a discussion about dining.

Cripes Steve, now you sound like Pumpkino! Any you have the cheek to talk to me about moving peas. No pea is safe around you.

Empirical evidence is always very good. Information based on empirical evidence is very good. Opinion on subject X, based on experience of subject Y, is just silly. Even if you call it a 'better opinion'.

[Adam Balic]

Seriously, I would like to be a millionaire. I would be very good at it.

I've been trying to teach you but you're resisiting.

Well you didn't come through with the seed-corn cash for my Ortolan farm project.

[Wilfrid]

Adam, if you are comfortable, (oh never mind...)

[Adam Balic]

Adam, if you are comfortable, (oh never mind...)

[g.johnson]

Besides, much of the empirical evidence is based on 'real world' tests on experts. Like this one.

57 experts tasted the same average bottle of Bordeaux wine on two occasions. The first time it was labelled as a high-prestige grand cru, and the second time it was labelled as a cheap vin de table. When they thought it was a grand cru, the experts described it as agreeable, woody, complex, balanced and rounded. When they thought it was a vin de table, they said it was weak, short, light, flat, faulty and with a sting. Forty said the wine was good when they thought it was expensive, but only 12 when it was cheap.

[Adam Balic]

Didn't we discredit this experiment some time ago? I think is was 'Well they couldn't have been experts in the first place' and 'Yes. Steve'.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Empirical evidence is always very good. Information based on empirical evidence is very good. Opinion on subject X, based on experience of subject Y, is just silly. Even if you call it a 'better opinion'.

No, dining is about better opinions remember? There is no absolute truth. It's like evaluating art, movies, etc. It's all about opinions.

Unless you are prepared to admit there is an absolute truth to it and things either taste good or they don't? I don't see how you can have it both ways.

Edited April 9, 2003 by Steve Plotnicki (log)

[Wilfrid]

The last paragraph of that is particularly intriguing. I wonder if it's true. (I meant the link GJ posted.)

Edited April 9, 2003 by Wilfrid (log)

[Adam Balic]

He has studied the brain activity of wine tasters and found that those sections handling information relating to colour and knowledge operate alongside those which deal with flavour and smell. What we perceive is a mixture of thought, vision and taste.

Prof. any truth in this? Could put Plontnicki on the ropes.

[Adam Balic]

Empirical evidence is always very good. Information based on empirical evidence is very good. Opinion on subject X, based on experience of subject Y, is just silly. Even if you call it a 'better opinion'.

No, dining is about better opinions remember? There is no absolute truth. It's like evaluating art, movies, etc. It's all about opinions.

Unless you are prepared to admit there is an absolute truth to it and things either taste good or they don't? I don't see how you can have it both ways.

Obviously there are better opinions. The best ones are based on empirical evidence.

[Wilfrid]

No, dining is about better opinions remember? There is no absolute truth. It's like evaluating art, movies, etc. It's all about opinions.

This is the kernel of many misunderstandings here, both among those who think there is absolute truth in these matters, and those who think there is only opinion. Those are not the only alternatives on the table. Which is just as well, since the first is demonstrably nonsense, and nobody really believes the second (although people will spend a lot of time telling us they do).

[Steve Plotnicki]

Obviously there are better opinions. The best ones are based on empirical evidence.

That gives me the opportunity to whip out textbook Plotnickiism on you. Only people who do not taste well would believe this. Because the entire food industry revolves around the inexact measurement of personal taste and the ability of good tasters to communicate what they taste to the rest of the dining community. Empirical evidence never enters the fray.

Now you might use empirical evidence to show that tomatoes that ripen to a residual sugar level of x% are preferred by diners in 3 star restaurants, but you could never calculate what the right residual sugar percentage is in a vaccum. You need expert tasters decideing what the levels should be, and then a preponderance of customers agreeing. Because of that, empirical evidence is only a way to analyze what humans like already, not something to manipulate what they will like and dislike.

[Adam Balic]

edit: me dumb-ass. I though it was Wilfrid making a joke. But it is real.

Steve - Yes Steve, the problem is when experts with 'better opinions' take their fancy tomato tasting learning and then decide what the correct level of sugar in a rabbit is. This is obviously, crazy talk.

Edited April 9, 2003 by Adam Balic (log)