Those stars in full

[Steve Plotnicki]

LML - Do you think Michelin matters to French people who are traveling in the U.K.?

[Lord Michael Lewis]

Sadly, it probably does. However, that doesn't mean it does matter. The UK Michelin guide is a marketing move. British people buy books, Michelin would be churls to ignore this fact. I loath introspection but I have to acknowledge a profound inferiority complex amongst my countrymen and their co-existence with gastronomy. How else does one explain the predominance of a French publication in this nation of Francophobes.

We should also bear in mind that, for visitors, the Red Guide is a useful resource that deals with all aspects of hospitality, not just starred restaurants.

Michelin have been quite open about their problems in recruiting competent inspectors in this sceptered isle. As such Michelin's activities in the UK have to judged apart from their continental endeavours. Stars in the UK are relative only unto themselves.

[Steve Plotnicki]

[How else does one explain the predominance of a French publication in this nation of Francophobes/]?

LML - As Adam Gopnik said in from Paris to the Moon, which was echoed by my friend Marc Cosnard des Closets who now posts on eGullet, the French want to decide. They are quite happy letting others make the best films, as long as they give out the Palme D'Or at Cannes. And that is analogous for how they are about everything cultural. In fact these days, they are willing to forego their hold on claiming superiority of opinion on things that are more working class, in favor of still being the opinion-makers for things "haute." That is why Patricia Wells is now the top authority on bistros.  But in spite of her popularity, the French have reserved the title of "arbiter of high cuisine" for themselves.

I think the main reason the French are good at being the arbiters of gastronomy is they spent the entire last century and a half codifying the food and wine they produce. And while not a foolproof system, AOC products are most often better quality products than non AOC products. Or as the waitress in the new Peter Mayle book says to  Peter and his friend, after they ate some frogs legs and then a chicken in cream sauce, and

answered her question about how they were by telling her the frogs legs were good but the chicken was superior. "That makes sense, the chicken is AOC and the frogs legs, while good, do not have the AOC stamp."

So it's very easy to be comfortable with things gastronomic when the distinctions are clearly labeled by the government.

[Tony Finch]

My point,and I realize I am beginning to labour it now,is that in the world of Michelin it is NOT POSSIBLE for the (non AOC) frogs legs to be as good as,let alone better than,the (AOC) chicken.That kind of culinary dogmatism does not chime with the British,which is why Michelin is largely ignored by restaurant goers in this country.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Tony - But the truth of the matter is that non AOC items are most often, and don't argue that I said always, most often not as good as AOC items. I mean the Grand Cru vineyards are in general markedly better than the Premier Cru. And Bresse and Landes chickens are markedly better than other kinds. And Charolais and Bazas beef, well you get the point.  So I can turn your statement around and say that the reason the restaurant scene was so poor in Britain for so many years (and the U.S. too), was their [lack] of culinary dogmatism. I mean is all Angus beef the same? And is all the clotted cream the same or is there a wedge of pasture somewhere in England where the materials for the best clotted ream comes from? Is all Dover Sole the same, or is it worth the bother to distinguish that your Dover Sole comes from the Ile d'Yeaux (or whatever the name of the island is) like Le Dome in Paris does. Personally, I do not see how anyone would fall on the side of less information being better and to dismiss all of that codification as being dogmatic seems to fly in the face of the fact that the information is extremely helpful.

Spreading information about how to eat well isn't really any different than spreading information about how to accumulate wealth. The French to their credit, viewed food as something cultural, not just a matter of sustenance. So they invented a food labeling system that they could all understand and the result was their upper classes could easily partake on a daily basis, and the lesser classes could easily identify how to enhance their daily lives with "special ingredients" when  the occassion called for it. But the Americans and Brits were stingy with the information, in fact, didn't do it at all. So while the French have been chowing down on the good stuff for a century and a half, we have been left to learn the ropes from TV food personalities and  travel writers and guide books like Michelin, Gault Millau and Patricia Wells, and in more recent years Zagat and last but not least, Robert Parker. And as much as you might not like it, we are stuck with that legacy. And the proof of this, i.e. Michelin's importance, is that someone started a thread just to critique their opinion, a thread that is now three pages long. And the only reason it is important, is that we (Brits and Americans) didn't come up with our own codification system to spread the information among more people. I mean I would love to get off the plane at Heathrow one day and walk into W.H. Smith and pick up the latest English food guide (written by a Brit) that has London restaurants organized properly. But the last I looked, the Evening Standard book of reviews was the best I could find and in order to figure anything out I virtually needed to read every page. Actually the Time Out Guide to London is very useful because it is organzied properly both by type of food and they stick those little red stars next to the ones they like so it makes it easy to choose. It's just that their opinion is somewhat suspsct at the upper middle and top end.

[Tony Finch]

Steve,for every person who sees the French culinary classification systems as a useful and accurate guide,there is another who believes they are outdated,riddled with vested interests,corrupt and designed to prevent progress and experimentation.Your Chateau Lafites and Romanee Contis may still merit their lordly status but at the lower everyday levels there are hundreds of wine that don't have AOC status for some reason or another that has nothing to do with their quality,and which are much better than the annual sea of mediore AOC Bordeaux which is produced.

These codification systems which you admire so much are fast falling into disrepute and their relevance to modern consumer needs are seriously questionable.

[A Balic]

Quote: from Steve Plotnicki on 8:23 pm on Jan. 25, 2002

Simon & Adam - If one isn't willing to accept the premise that there are distinctions between naive art, popular art and high art, it makes it difficult to have a conversation about them. And if that is the case here, I don't have a reply to the argument that says Syrian folk music, or Syrian cuisine is as evolved as either Beethoven or French cuisine. If you truly believe that, aside from my personal opinion that you have gotten it all wrong, it is an unreconcilable argument because you simply believe in different culinary and cultural gods than I believe in.  But it all reminds me of something a very smart wine buddy of mine says whenever the conversation veers off on this tangent (actually she is quoting Tom Stoppard.) She always says Shakespere is better. Why, because it just is. And in that light I will say that Beethoven is just a higher expression of music as an artform than Syrian folk music is. But I guess people who have never left Alleppo, and who have never been exposed to Western culture might feel differently about it. But I feel like I am on the firmest of ground when I say that, the Michelin Guide isn't published with those types of people in mind. It's published for people who are willing to adopt the hierarchy it presents based on a fairly commonly held view of what is "better."

I hesitate to add anything here, as the topic has been so well discussed by some very sophisticated people.

Steve -  I have no problem with the distinctions that you have made, it was just that I was interested that somebody with your experience had such a strong opinion about the place of French food in the food world. I was interested why this was so and I think that I now know this. I should not have made any comment, as I was/am suffering from "Winter Vomiting Virus", so don't have the energy to make any intelligent comments.  

Oh, I bloody hate folk music.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Tony - Two things. One, when you talk about the modern day relevency of the French codification system, you have changed the subject. The conversation isn't whether their system has flaws, the conversation is about having a system versus not having one. And while it's true enough that there are producers who make poor bottlings of Montrachet, most producers who make Montrachet, if they don't make sublime bottlings, certainly make bottlings that feature the unique characteristics of Montrachet's terroir. Like I said, even with it's flaws, I can pretty much tell what the best chardonnay is in France. But I have a hard time knowing who in England raises the best beef. I do not have that problem in France. How that can be viewed as anything other than a plus for the consumers puzzles me. I mean what is the argument against knowing the most detail about what you are going to eat?

Secondly, the slow demise of the AOC system, once again, has more to do with wealth distribution than it has to do with anything else.  In the States as well as Britain, you will find that the quality of food demanded by the middle classses was of better quality as they earned more money. More disposable income and more leisure time is what is really behind better quality ingredients and restaurants in those countries. And it is what is behind all those fancy markets that have sprung up everywhere offering expensive foods. I think in France the better distribution of wealth has had the opposite effect and the populace there wants to express themselves through modern conveniences, i.e. shopping at supermarkets, which Brits and Yanks have been doing for decades. The end result is that these days foodies who live in Hampstead have more in common with foodies who live in the 7th arr. then the people in the 7th have with their own countrymen who live in the 13th. I guess that's what is called Globalization.  

[Steve Plotnicki]

Adam - Sorry about your virus. It doesn't bode well for having a nice Sunday roasted haunch of beef does it? But I'm happy here because Arsenal won and someone has promised me tickets for the next game on the 16th.

Not trying to beat a dead horse here but this part of the conversation reminds me of an argument we were having on one of the wine boards about the definition of the word "better." I had made mention that cashmere was considered "the best" wool. And someone came on who lives in Nova Scotia and said that it certainly isn't so where he lives because the best wool up there is what goes into sweaters that sea captains and sailors need to wear when they are out at sea. Now I tell this tale, possibly being redundant of Wilfrid's point, to show how all too often these chats become about semantical challenges to using terms like "best" and "better in the absolute. And  I will be the first to admit that when discussing something subjective like food, there aren't any absolutes. But on the other hand, it isn't a stretch to say that French cuisine is widely held among food authorities to be the "best" cuisine. And it's certainly fair for someone to use such a widely help opinion as their launch point for discussing restaurants.

[Tony Finch]

As must be tiresomely obvious by now I'm opposed to any rating system which even hints at the fact that it might be anything other than a totally subjective snapshot by one person at a particular time.Most wine and food guides are fine by me.Parker and Michelin,in my opinion assume a level of authority for themselves as gurus which,as I've said before,I consider arrogant and  bogus.Hugh Johnson's pocket wine guide uses stars as a rough guide to quality.But its whole tone is to inform,help and amuse rather than to instruct.

As for information,with the number of publications on food and wine plus all the TV food shows plus the internet it's possible for anyone who's interested enough to find out about fine beef or whatever with very little trouble.You might not be told what is "the best",but then finding that out for yourself could be part of the fun.

[Scottf]

Steve, Arsenal won, do me a favour!  Don't come spouting that pony on our meal!

[A Balic]

Quote: from Tony Finch on 6:53 pm on Jan. 27, 2002

As must be tiresomely obvious by now I'm opposed to any rating system which even hints at the fact that it might be anything other than a totally subjective snapshot by one person at a particular time.Most wine and food guides are fine by me.Parker and Michelin,in my opinion assume a level of authority for themselves as gurus which,as I've said before,I consider arrogant and  bogus.Hugh Johnson's pocket wine guide uses stars as a rough guide to quality.But its whole tone is to inform,help and amuse rather than to instruct.

As for information,with the number of publications on food and wine plus all the TV food shows plus the internet it's possible for anyone who's interested enough to find out about fine beef or whatever with very little trouble.You might not be told what is "the best",but then finding that out for yourself could be part of the fun.

No Roast Beef for me (still I'm not English, so its not such a disappointment). I think that this can be quite a difficult medium to communicate in sometimes. I have largely given up on  trying to determine what people are thinking and are more interested in why they are thinking in a particular way. Unless people are very clear about what they are saying and what the context is, the discussions can get very laboured. We should most likely hire Wilfrid to sort all such conversations out for us. Everything we discuss on this site is by its nature subjective, hence your point with words like "best" and "better" etc. All most any conversation about wine tends to inflammatory, which is interesting no? As Wilfrid indicated, we are not really talking about food or wine here, its more about defining ourselves.

Oh, on the wine/ food rating system thing, I agree that things provide a context for people to to work within, but do you think that after a certain point people should be able to rely on there own experience? As an example, if you were to drink nothing but Montrachet in restaurants, because it is the "best", would you have any personal framework to know why it is a "better" choice than St. Veran? Is the any difference between knowing that that Montrachet is "better" than St. Veran after tasting the two wines yourself or being told this from an outside source?

I think that the best wool would be a sailor in cashmere.

[Tony Finch]

Robert Parker does not "provide a context" for anything.He is TELLING you what is better and what is best.A wine which scores 88 out of 100 is, by obvious definition, better than one which scores 87.A wine which scores 100 would be the best.What possible other  purpose could these "scores" have? The system presupposes that any one wine can be assigned to one of 50 levels and that Parker has some special and unique ability to assign it to its "correct" level.It is HUMBUG and wouldn't matter if everyone ignored it.Unfortunately many seem to need to follow the guru and as a result the man is probably the single most powerful figure in the wine world at the moment.Does this matter.I think so,but maybe the reasons are for another thread.

[Andy Lynes]

Tony, Ive just had a look on the wine board and there isn't a thread with a title about Robert Parker so please feel free to start one there. I don't want to lock this topic as there is still room for debate on the original subject I think.

I look forward to seeing "Robert Parker - Why This Man is a  Complete ****" on the wine board soon.

[Tony Finch]

Okay,Andy,Okay.I get the point.I'm calm awright?

[A Balic]

Tony, sorry I ment to quote Steven's reply to my last post on this thread. So sorry for what must have been a confusing reply to your post!

I'm afraid that I do think these numerical systems to provide context. No wine is good or bad without some level of subjective process involved. While I prefer reading large amounts of text to get my context, I don't think that most people have the time for this. What people want  from wine is a dynamic process, the influence that RP and his system has happens to be the here and now of it. Its interesting to read what people were looking for in wine 50, 100, 150 etc years ago, seems to change all the time. eg. Try telling most modern wine drinkers that a sweet white wine is just as exceptable as a dry red wine.  I do wonder how long his personal preferences will continue to shape the preferences of the wine drinking public after he shuffles off this mortal coil?

[Steve Plotnicki]

Adam - During a different discussion on one of the wine boards we were discussing this issue. A very smart poster came on the board and asked the following question. He wanted to know if human beings like the way meat tastes or have they just been enculturated to the way it tastes? And his implication (not so subtly), was that if there wasn't societal pressure to eat meat, people wouldn't eat it because it really doesn't taste good. Now while that makes a great intelectual argument, it did little to advance the conversation we were having. That's because the conversation we were having needed context and parameters of what tastes good/not. Strip away the context by making an argument that our basis for the argument (we don't REALLY like the way something tastes, even though we are professing to), and the conversation falls apart. It's the "Did God part the Red Sea syndrome?" Well if you believe in God he did. If you don't, it happened as a natural phenomenon. The fact of the matter is that it makes no difference how it happened because the conversation is about [it] happening. Why is just a diversion.

So I can answer your question about Montrachet/St. Veran the same way. Montrachet is simply better, why because it is. Whether you know that from reading about Montrachet and then drinking it, or from drinking all the various terroirs where the chardonnay grape is planted in Burgundy and coming to your own conclusion, or from it being the only white wine you ever tasted, it makes no difference. It will be the greatest chardonnay in the world, providing you accept the commonly held standard of what's great. If you don't, and you think that hard, tannic, acidic wines without much fruit should be the standard, well then you are entitled. But it's like arguing that The Dave Clark Five or Herman's Hermits were better than the Beatles. They just aren't.

That's why I think that Simon's argument that Syrian cuisine is greater than Haute Cuisine is bogus (don't take it personally Simon.) I cannot fathom how someone can taste the two side by side and come to that conclusion? And to say that people are dunderheads, or poutishly waspish in their tastes and admirations, and that is why they think haute is better only serves as evidence that there isn't really any substance to the argument that Syrian is better.  If there was, it would have been displayed through a food example (notice the example switched to Indian, a more complex cuisine than Syrian). So to refer back to Wilfrid's point of view, our resident expert on human conflict, whether Sympathy for the Devil is better then The Rite of Spring has to do with personal prefernce. But I think when anyone here uses the phrase "best" or "better", they really mean most complex. And to try and rebut that statement (as in the cashmere example) with specific examples of utilitarian usage is a non-sequiter. And no matter what your standards, it's hard to call yourself objective and say the Stones are more complex than Stravinsky. And if you happen to stake out that position, that's fine but it needs more backing to it than we are all dunderheads for signing up to the traditional way of thinking about these things. That argument completely dismisses the fact that people would come to the same exact conclusion on their own, without external influences. More on this and wine below.

Tony - But Parker isn't telling you that in the absolute, it's just his opinion. You are free to disagree with him. You just want to posture the argument that way so you have a basis to criticize him. And it would matter if people ignored it. His reviews are the engine that sells wines these days.

Merging this back into Adam's question about Montrachet vs St. Veran, my friend Sasha Katsman, an excellent taster put it better than anyone I ever met did. He said that tasting the great vintages of Cheval Blanc taught him which ฤ cabernet franc wines were the best ones. That it is through examples of greatness we calibrate our palates and truly learn wine appreciation. Although I wish I said that, I realized that he described my experience with wine exactly and that it was the great wines that served as benchmarks for me.  And I can list each seminal experience. '61 Latour, '90 Chave, '85 Ponsot Griottes Chambertin, '90 Cuvee Centenaire, those wines made me think about those regions from a different perspective. And the Chateauneuf du Papes I drink that cost ภ, are in line with the ones that cost 贄. Tying this back into Parker (and sort of Adam's original question), he is extremely good at identifying unique wines that are deserving of exahalted status and creating a hierarchy of wines below it. And while there are onvious flaws in the system, especially at the lower ends of wine because there are so many to consider and they are so much alike, it has little or no affect on his popularity. That's because nobody has been able to come up with a competing point of view and competing scoring system that expresses a point of view that is sufficently differtent than his. And it's the same with Michelin. As flawed as their star system is, or as incomplete as the list of single star restaurants are, nobody can seem to come up with anything better that means enough to people for it to have the requisite commercial impact.

Adam - Actually it is Sailorettes that look best in cashmere jumpers. Just not ones on boats :) Apologies to anyone who might at all be offended.

[Tony Finch]

I've taken me ball and stomped off to the wine board now.

[A Balic]

"Enculturated", like post-modernism, always makes my feel slightly un-easy. Is that it do you think? We like it because we like it? I agree that Montrachet is "better" (until this thread I didn't realise what a great word "better" was) then St. Veran. I guess as a scientist I would like to know the reason why we prefer the complex to the straight forward. But I agree, "Why" is a non-starter. Anyway, it has been a very interesting thread, amazing how many intelligent people use egullet.

[Andy Lynes]

Tony has taken his ball to Adam'>http://www.egullet.com/cgi-bin/topic.cgi?f...topic=59

Adam

- relax,you're on track for page 12 (imagine stupid blue smiley face here).

[A Balic]

Quote: from Andy Lynes on 6:42 pm on Jan. 28, 2002

Adam - relax,you're on track for page 12 (imagine stupid blue smiley face here).

Andy, you have a stupid blue smiley face? I would get something done about that  :).

[Steve Plotnicki]

Adam - You know I do not know how to answer the question of why something asymetrical looks bad because it is poorly designed, and in other instances something asymetrical looks good because it is has been designed perfectly. I suppose there is a way to analyze even the most extreme examples. What I'm trying to say is that there is some human process involved with appreciating aesthetic things that comes naturally. Not for everyone, but for people who have an affinity towards that discipline. Certain things are just naturally good, and it's not an accident that so many people agree about it.  The fact that I can tell that the light in Scotland is unique, is that something learned or something people with a good eye can discern? I mean the natural light there is special, how can one argue against it?

I don't see how the principal of comparing Montrachet against lesser terroirs is at all different. It is the best expression of chardonnay, providing one knows how to understand that. To some people that comes naturally, some people have to learn it. And some people could taste Montrachet and not get it, even after having it excplained to them. And some people will never know that the light in Scotland is special, or will ever learn how to appreciate it, even if they live there  their entire lives. Now if you can tell me why that is, you are a better man than I.

[Andy Lynes]

Quote: from A Balic on 3:46 pm on Jan. 28,

Andy, you have a stupid blue smiley face? I would get something done about that  :).

Adam, I believe you are willfully misunderstanding me for comic effect. Of course my face is not smiley, do you think I'm a grinning idiot? (don't answer that).  

[A Balic]

Quote: from Steve Plotnicki on 6:52 pm on Jan. 28, 2002

Adam - You know I do not know how to answer the question of why something asymetrical looks bad because it is poorly designed, and in other instances something asymetrical looks good because it is has been designed perfectly. I suppose there is a way to analyze even the most extreme examples. What I'm trying to say is that there is some human process involved with appreciating aesthetic things that comes naturally. Not for everyone, but for people who have an affinity towards that discipline. Certain things are just naturally good, and it's not an accident that so many people agree about it.  The fact that I can tell that the light in Scotland is unique, is that something learned or something people with a good eye can discern? I mean the natural light there is special, how can one argue against it?

I don't see how the principal of comparing Montrachet against lesser terroirs is at all different. It is the best expression of chardonnay, providing one knows how to understand that. To some people that comes naturally, some people have to learn it. And some people could taste Montrachet and not get it, even after having it excplained to them. And some people will never know that the light in Scotland is special, or will ever learn how to appreciate it, even if they live there  their entire lives. Now if you can tell me why that is, you are a better man than I.

#### it I know that you are right, the Scottish light example was the clincher. I spent an hour last summer explaining to someone how the twighlight in Scotland was wonderful as it bought out all these blue/purple colours that you don't normally get to see - blank looks in return only.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Andy - I didn't realize you had a blue face! Most Englishmen I know have a red face, fom the pub (rim shot please.)