Personal Taste

[Blue Heron]

As for people who detest cantaloupe for instance...I had a roommate who said she could not eat it because it upset her stomach and gave her a bad case of the belches.  I guess that would be good enough reason to avoid it.

A bad experience with a food or ingredient makes sense that one would want to avoid it.  I had a traumatic experience with mayo once, and could not eat it for years.  I got over it, though, in time.

Wilfrid, I'm sorry to hear about your aversion to kirsch.  Are you talking about a shot of kirsch, or can you not enjoy it in a fondue, either, for instance?

My dislike of chutney is a taste thing...I've never had a bad experience with it, per se.  It's more like the combinations of flavors not working for me.  I try it every once in awhile to see if my taste buds have changed, as I would like to like it.

[tommy]

Tony, it is I who dislikes fresh tarragon.  

that's just crazy talk.  end of discussion. :wow:

[mamster]

At the mention of white coats, the biologist's ears prick up.  However, for once I have no special knowledge on this issue.  Aren't you glad I posted?

I will say this:  pH does refer to the concentration of hydrogen ions in water, but all "solid" food is loaded with water.  I served potstickers on a bed of green mango last night, and despite its solid appearance and crunchy mouthfeel, green mango is quite acidic.  I can't think offhand of which foods might be basic, though, and searching for "alkaline foods" got me a bunch of health-nut pages.

Wait, here we go:

http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/lacf-phs.html

Conch is basic?  Who knew?

[tommy]

nice job on the research mamster.

it seems that a lot of foods are acidic, and very few are basic.  if we assume that this list is a good representation of the world of food.

[bushey]

it seems that a lot of foods are acidic, and very few are basic

Does that mean the whole concept of basic food groups is out the window?

Aversive: as in having an aversion to?

[Lady T]

Webster's advises us:

AVERSIVE:  ..."tending to avoid or causing avoidance of a noxious or punishing stimulus."

[macrosan]

Well thank you, Lady T. Wilfrid is here only for the purpose of teaching us something new every day. And generally he succeeds.

[Wilfrid]

Don't mention it.  

And thanks too to Mamster for that intriguing link.  I had always thought milk was basic - apparently not.  If only I could remember what the issue was.  Oh well, re-read entire thread again, I suppose.  

[Adam Balic]

Whilst, in Florence recently I observed an American family (this isn't an American bash, the people in question just happened to be Americans) ordering a Bistecca (Large English cut T-bone). It came to the table in all its juicy glory on a large platter. When the family tucked in they were very distressed as it had been cooked raw, so they sent it back to be cooked well done. They then complained that it was tough, tasteless and dry. Later they mentioned to another American couple that they had this problem a few times and at the last resturant the chef came out and told them to never order this dish again.

Now my personal opinion is that they ruined the dish and that to enjoy it you have to have if fairly rare (this is immaterial, so no "I prefer my steak cooked "X" comments). But, were that family "right" in ordering the dish the way they prefered it, even if it mean destroying what they chef felt was the entire point of the dish? Do the rights of the individual out-weight the rights of the dish?

[Steve Plotnicki]

What does right mean?

If you want right to mean *are they allowed,* of course they are right. But if right means according to finely honed gastronomic standards according to Plotnicki and others, no they were wrong. In otherwords, they were subjectively right and objectively wrong. Is that what you are getting at you sly Australian you?

[macrosan]

Do the rights of the individual out-weight the rights of the dish?

LOL, let's have a United Nations Dish's Rights Week Actually, Adam, I think you're talking about the rights of the chef and not the dish.

My view is that the proprietor of any business is fully entitled to determine what he will and won't sell to his customers. If the chef is the proprietor, then it's quite proper for the chef to determine what goes on the menu and how he cooks it. For example, he will decide if he puts steak on the menu, he will decide which cuts of steak he will put on the menu, and he will decide which cooking styles he puts on the menu.

If the chef gets the menu wrong, he will go out of business. If he gets it right, then makes changes and puts unsuccessful dishes on the menu, he will go out of business. That's capitalism for you.

However, here we have a subtly different condition, which has been discussed at eGullet before, which is this. This Italian chef had grilled steak on the menu, and it didn't say on the menu "Cooked rare only". The chef in this case was throwing a chefly tantrum based on his own view of how a grilled steak should be cooked, and determining his own "palate" as being superior to his customer's. This is at the very least bad customer relations, bad service, and probably bad business. He may well go out of business as a result of his attitude. That's capitalism for you.

But I don't think it's a matter of "rights". It's all a matter of business. If the chef really believed that by serving a well-done steak he would tarnish his reputation as a chef, then I at least understand his point of view. But I think he would be foolish to think that.

Nico Ladenis was one of the infamous London chefs who used to do exactly this sort of thing all the time, in public, often coming out into the restaurant to scream at customers. He went out of business pretty quickly, I think, once all the voyeurs ran out of curiosity.

[Adam Balic]

In my humble opinion certain dishes can be prepared in such a way as to be ultimately detrimental to the final success of the dish and therefore, resulting in a diaspointing experience to the diner. Be that as it may, is it the right of the individual to insist on a faulty preperation? Is it correct to mix lemonade with my Montrachet if I wish to?

Oh, Australians aren't Sly, we are honest salt-of-the-earth types.

[Adam Balic]

Do the rights of the individual out-weight the rights of the dish?

LOL, let's have a United Nations Dish's Rights Week Actually, Adam, I think you're talking about the rights of the chef and not the dish.

No, no my good sir you misunderstand! Definately the "Dish", not the "Chef". Just because Darwin went all pro-creationist on his death bed, this doesn't mean that his original ideas had any less merit. The Chef may be the creator, but they are not the creation, which is the important bit.

[macrosan]

Is it correct to mix lemonade with my Montrachet if I wish to?

Which year, Adam ? (The Montrachet, that is, not the lemonade)

Correct isn't the word I'd offer, because it implies conformity to a social norm, and therefore it obviously isn't correct. But proper or acceptable, absolutely yes. In fact this is only another example of pushing out culinary boundaries. I bet putting mint sauce with lamb, or blackcurrant juice in champagne, wasn't considered proper when it was first tried.

[grillboy]

In the last restaurant I ran (in Guatemala) we served black angus meats (NY Strip and Ribeye). If a guest ordered the NY strip well done, the waiters were trained to offer the ribeye as the flavor and tenderness held up much better than the NY Strip. This training helped our waiters avoid embarassing moments with the guests and often most guests took the advice of the waiters and switched to the ribeye. If a guest insisted on the NY strip well done a member of manangement spoke with the guest (very nice and politlely) regarding the drop in quality of the meat being cooked well done. The guests that wound up ordering a NY strip well done wound up enjoying it their way. As management, we may not have agreed with them but in the end our guest left happy and that was our goal.

[Jinmyo]

This Italian chef had grilled steak on the menu, and it didn't say on the menu "Cooked rare only".

Of course not. Who would expect someone to order bistecca medium let alone well-done? It's like asking for the camembert to be crumbly like Wensleydale. Objectively, this is clearly insane. Perhaps a sign: "No Crazy People, Please."

[Steve Plotnicki]

"Is it correct to mix lemonade with my Montrachet if I wish to?"

It isn't correct but you have the right to do it.

"Oh, Australians aren't Sly, we are honest salt-of-the-earth types."

Did they salt the Fiorentina as well?

Your question highlights the bright line between a restaurant being a place that is intended to allow consumers to make their own choices, and a medium for chefs to provide them with better quality cuisine. I'm not sure why it is posed as an either or thing? I'm happy saying to a chef, serve it as you like it. Others aren't. It's the famous story that Calvin Trillin tells in one of his early books when he and Collete Rossant took Paul Bocuse to breakfast at the drugstore lunch counter on 6th Avenue in Greenwich Village. They asked Bocuse how he wanted his eggs and he replied, "as the chef prefers."

[macrosan]

No, no my good sir you misunderstand! Definately the "Dish", not the "Chef".

In that case, the answer is easy. Dishes have no rights. Darwin's Theory has no rights.

[macrosan]

Who would expect someone to order bistecca medium let alone well-done? It's like asking for the camembert to be crumbly like Wensleydale. Objectively, this is clearly insane. Perhaps a sign: "No Crazy People, Please."    

But he didn't have a sign that said "No Crazy People, Please", which obviously would have sufficed exactly as you suggest, Jinnysan.

...have I been wrong all these years, then, in asking for crumbly Camembert?

[Gavin Jones]

Clearly the dish is right in this case.

Though the family thought they were ordering a capitalist steak ('how would you like to be done') actually they were ordering an Italian meal.

In that case the bistecca comes as it should be.

Of course people who like insisting can insist away.

[Adam Balic]

"Is it correct to mix lemonade with my Montrachet if I wish to?"

It isn't correct but you have the right to do it.

Why? If I was giving a dinner party and somebody did this then I would not offer them the Montrachet again (would you). Ego, I don't think they have the right to do this. This is not simply a case of them being in my home, if I bought the Montrachet to their home and they added lemonade, then I would make sure they didn't get a second glass (I would give them St. Veran instead).

Is this wrong? Is it more terrible to be rude then ignorant?

[LaNiña]

I once opened a treasured bottle of my favorite Vieux Pineau des Charentes that I lugged back from France, only to have a friend mix it with ginger ale without my noticing as he opened my fridge. I flipped my lid. We had a huge argument about it. How dare I, and if he likes it why do I care, etc. He still gives me a hard time about it. Needless to say, I no longer open anything precious when he's around.

[macrosan]

What you're doing, Adam, is to impose your own taste on that of your friend (either way round in your example). You have never in your life tasted Montrachet with lemonade. How do you know it doesn't taste better than Montrachet alone ? Or better than lemonade alone ? Is your problem related to the price of Montrachet, or it's quality, or its inherent esoteric value?

Would you put blackcurrant juice into Moet ?

[Jinmyo]

The needs of the dish outway the needs of the many, or the one.

Surely, surely.

[Adam Balic]

Would you put blackcurrant juice into Moet ?

No I would not, unless for a childrens drink. I would use decent Cassis instead, as Moet is by and large pretty dull stuff.