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.

Fine Dining vs. Cheap Eats


Recommended Posts

"But wait a second, that's not what you're saying, is it? You've defined betterness in terms of cost. You've defined betterness in terms of complexity (well-executed complexity). You've defined it in terms of everything but quality."

Fat Guy - You're not paying attention. I went through the entire Roumier example to show that there is a *qualitative* difference between the steps up that drives a difference in cost between each step. Bonnes Mares, however good it might be in certain years will never have the unique qualities that Musigny has, i.e. the complexity that Musigny has.

In 1999 for some reason, Amoureuses is Roumier's best wine. I will attest to that myself as I got the pleasure to taste the Musigny and then the Bonnes Mares and Amoureuses side by side at a dinner a few nights later. The Amoureuses in the glass was almost twice as dark as the Bonnes Mares. It was so intensely concentrated. But which one did we pay more for? The Bonnes Mares of course. It cost $20 a bottle more than the Amoureuses because Bonnes Mares is a better quality wine. Now I haven't said better wine, I said better quality wine. Because as good as the Amoureuses is in '99 (and believe me it's fantastic,) it still doesn't have the unique qualities that Bonnes Mares has, even in a year when Bonnes Mares is the lesser of the two.

So when you say,

"Likewise complexity -- even assuming flawlessly executed complexity -- does not inherently equal quality."

Well you are going to have to tell me why that isn't the case. Remember, it isn't quality in and of itself that is worthwhile, it's complexity executed properly. People make bad Musigny that sells for less money than Roumier's does because it isn't anywhere as good. So complexity in and of itself doesn't have consumer value outside of a successful effort. People won't pay more for cashmere if the sweater is lopsided. But that's just a fancy version of "all things being equal."

Now okay let's get this simplicity thing out of the way. I think that everyone has been misusing the word simple. What I think you and others mean when you use the word simple isn't really simple, it means complex with the expenditure of less effort. And when you use it in that context, you conveniently leave out the time and the effort it took for someone to be at a level where they make complex things in a simple way. Let's take Robert's Picasso example. I don't think that Picasso saying he is trying to paint like a child is simple at all. It just sounds that way. He's really talking about something complex. He's really saying that he wants to achieve the same level of complexity by employing less technique. Yes he can draw a 4 line stick figure on a piece of paper and make it look simple, but there is 70 years of practice in those lines. That isn't simple. Calling that simple is hype. If it was simple, you and I would be able to do it and we can't.

Robert S. can say that he prefers a plate of Tuscan beans to a cassoulet because it is simple really just means that he prefers having a blend of say 5 flavors as opposed to 15. But that doesn't mean the intensity of the 5 flavors, including secondary aspects to each flavor isn't complex. Let me ask you, and this is not to cast any aspersions on Robert, how would we know the difference between someone who preferred less flavors to someone who couldn't understand a dish with 15?

This argument comes down to the fact that a hamburger isn't as good as a steak. Given all things being equal like both made from the best quality beef, right ratio of fat etc., ground meat just doesn't have the same complexity as a steak. both in flavor and in texture. And that is why a hamburger sells for $5.99, and a good steak sells for $32. Whether one is $26 better than the other is really not part of this debate. But a strong acknowledment in the selling price that recognizes the qualitative superiority of a steak is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>This argument comes down to the fact that a hamburger isn't as good as >a steak. Given all things being equal like both made from the best quality >beef, right ratio of fat etc., ground meat just doesn't have the same

>complexity as a steak. both in flavor and in texture. And that is why a

>hamburger sells for $5.99, and a good steak sells for $32. Whether one is

>$26 better than the other is really not part of this debate. But a strong >acknowledment in the selling price that recognizes the >qualitative .superiority of a steak is.

Mate... this is the "is it good because its expensive or is it expensive because its good" argument again.

The only thing you learn from a $32 steak is that the market is prepared to pay $32 for a steak. This is because the market's assessment of value is assessed on factors //other// than quality ie supply, demand, sentiment &tc

I suspect you know the examples... Nasdaq 2000 Vintage, Dutch tulips 1624 curvee, South Sea Company Stock 1720 Special Reserve...

For example, I can get a decent fillet steak anytime in the UK, so I'd only pay, say $5.99 for one. However supply constraints mean I canna get a real juicy medium-rare NY cheesebuger. So I'd be prepared to pay... oooh.... $32 if someone would truck it across from Manhattan.

Again, doesn't mean the hamburger's any better than the steak. Or vice versa.

cheerio

J

More Cookbooks than Sense - my new Cookbook blog!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Whether one is $26 better than the other is really not part of this debate"

Jon - You conveniently skip over that part of my statement. I am not arguing that one is worth $26 more than the other, just that the market has acknowledged the superiority of one over the other. How the market sets the price is subject to supply and demand. But in reality, chopped meat will always cost less because they blend in cheaper cuts to make it. Now why do you think some cuts cost less than others, marketing?

edited in after

You know I disagree with you that you can get a decent filet steak in the U.K. period. Not that I'm saying you couldn't find one at all, but I'm saying that in my experience what you normally find is crappy and Americans wouldn't find it acceptable. Is that subjective or is it a function of poor quality? And does someone who thinks a U.K. filet steak is acceptable just of a different opinion, or does he just not know his steak?

 

[HOST'S NOTE: This discussion, such as it is, continues here: Fine Dining vs. Cheap Eats, Continued]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...