Jump to content
  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create a free account.

3 Most Important Elements of a Plate...


emhahn

Recommended Posts

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?

"I've caught you Richardson, stuffing spit-backs in your vile maw. 'Let tomorrow's omelets go empty,' is that your fucking attitude?" -E. B. Farnum

"Behold, I teach you the ubermunch. The ubermunch is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the ubermunch shall be the meaning of the earth!" -Fritzy N.

"It's okay to like celery more than yogurt, but it's not okay to think that batter is yogurt."

Serving fine and fresh gratuitous comments since Oct 5 2001, 09:53 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Thanks. :smile:

"I've caught you Richardson, stuffing spit-backs in your vile maw. 'Let tomorrow's omelets go empty,' is that your fucking attitude?" -E. B. Farnum

"Behold, I teach you the ubermunch. The ubermunch is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the ubermunch shall be the meaning of the earth!" -Fritzy N.

"It's okay to like celery more than yogurt, but it's not okay to think that batter is yogurt."

Serving fine and fresh gratuitous comments since Oct 5 2001, 09:53 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :cool:.)

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :rolleyes:

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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! :shock: 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'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Steve Plotnicki (log)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Adam Balic (log)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...