Assessing Restaurants

[Fat Guy]

Or as my philosophy professor and mentor -- a towering and imposing man -- used to say to his students, "Oh, really, then how about I fucking kill you right now?"

[Deacon]

Or as my philosophy professor and mentor -- a towering and imposing man -- used to say to his students, "Oh, really, then how about I fucking kill you right now?"

You can't beat a death threat for a cogent philosophical argument.

Getting back to the word "marginalizing" for a moment, referring back to the idea of a person with an "idiosyncratic" top ten list. Is a person whose taste doesn't agree with the mainstream ("doesn't like French Laundry," for example) marginalizing HIMSELF--or is he BEING marginalized by the "critical community"? Is marginalizing something you do to yourself, or is it imposed upon you from the outside?

[Fat Guy]

Is marginalizing something you do to yourself, or is it imposed upon you from the outside?

Yes.

[Steve Plotnicki]

JD - That was very well said. But there is one other aspect that seems to be roaming around out there which we haven't touched on. Not everyone is up to snuff in being able to taste the difference between great food and not great food. Just like not everyone can understand music or foreign films. But the problem is things like food or music etc, we treat them as egalitarian activities so it's very difficult to have a conversation with people when they don't understand what's going on with the food. It's one thing when food is obviously delicious. But not all good food is obvious and it runs the gamut from being purposely cerebral to needing to acquire a taste for it. Wine is something that always raises this type of issue because I've seen people without the experiences of tasting mature wine think some of the greatest bottles in the world are "decrepit." This inconsistancy in experiences makes it difficult to communicate what a restaurant was like and I think it adds an additional task for a reviewer so he can explain it all properly.

[cabrales]

This inconsistancy in experiences makes it difficult to communicate what a restaurant was like and I think it adds an additional task for a reviewer so he can explain it all properly.

Your quote contains the assumption the reviewer can taste the cuisine sufficiently. Is that consistent with your views with respect to most professional US reviewers? How can they taste well if, as discussed under certain threads in the Food Media and News forum, many US food writers may not have had significant restaurant going experience (including within the US)?

[Jonathan Day]

...there is one other aspect that seems to be roaming around out there which we haven't touched on. Not everyone is up to snuff in being able to taste the difference between great food and not great food. Just like not everyone can understand music or foreign films. But the problem is things like food or music etc, we treat them as egalitarian activities so it's very difficult to have a conversation with people when they don't understand what's going on with the food. It's one thing when food is obviously delicious. But not all good food is obvious and it runs the gamut from being purposely cerebral to needing to acquire a taste for it. Wine is something that always raises this type of issue because I've seen people without the experiences of tasting mature wine think some of the greatest bottles in the world are "decrepit." This inconsistancy in experiences makes it difficult to communicate what a restaurant was like and I think it adds an additional task for a reviewer so he can explain it all properly.

There are a number of themes in this thread and in Steve's comment.

First, it's clear that some people have wider experiences of food and spend more time reflecting on and integrating those experiences than others.

So there is more to this pursuit than individual taste. There is mastery, both in the preparation of and appreciation of food. That mastery can take a long time to achieve. I have been "seriously" cooking and eating for around 30 years. Yet the more I learn about food and cookery the more I realise I have yet to learn. That's one reason it is so interesting.

Yet there are individual tastes, and there is a fine line between differences in taste and differences in knowledge. Some very experienced and discriminating diners use a bit more salt than I do. My wife likes roast meats or steaks fairly well cooked, where I prefer most of them very rare. Some people have an intense dislike for offal. My 9 year old daughter believes that the ultimate sauce for pasta is Heinz ketchup.

Somewhere between the salt and the ketchup we cross a line, but it's hard to see exactly where it is.

Tastes can be educated. A good food writer should be able to challenge her readers to stretch their tastes, to try new things, to appreciate differences that they may have missed. To pay more attention to something that can be perfectly mundane. A reviewer should be a guide not just a critic. This takes both the knowledge and experience (and taste memory) to interpret what's going on in restaurants, and the communication skill to bring it to life for readers.

There are different kinds of readers, of course. I expect more from a review in a specialist food magazine than from one in a popular paper. I will have a different conversation with someone who is not all that interested in food and wine than with someone who is.

The reviewer as guide / educator brings up an issue of pedagogy. In my experience it is very difficult to bring people along by pointing out their ignorance or by telling them that they are "wrong". Food, music, literature: almost everything is assumed to be completely relative these days. Whatever the merits of your case, it is easier to progress by persuading and cajoling than by standing on principle.

Years ago I prepared a leg of lamb for a luncheon party. It was incredible lamb: I had carefully selected it, boned it, trimmed off every shred of fell and fat and sinew, and covered it with fresh garlic and herbs. It was roasted perfectly: crusty on the outside, rare on the inside. I can still taste that lamb as I write this. As I served it, one of the guests asked, "Could I have some mint jelly?"

Back then, I snapped "No, of course not," insulting my guest, irritating my wife and casting a pall over an otherwise pleasant event. Today I wouldn't do that; I would apologise -- though I wouldn't offer mint jelly, even if we had it -- and encourage him to try the lamb as it was.

Some people are afraid of different taste experiences. A relative of mine believes that the best Italian food in the world is served at The Olive Garden, a restaurant chain. She is terrified of some of the dishes I've offered: risotto, pasta with garlic and winter greens, roast rabbit. Especially the latter.

(Incidentally, I believe that one taste experience that is relatively underdeveloped in the broad public is "bitter". I'll bet one reason that many people like the gummy sauces at The Olive Garden is that they are very sweet. John and Karen Hess pointed out this tendency toward oversweetening many years ago in The Taste of America. Some of the most interesting tastes -- truffles, for example -- have bitter overtones. But it takes awhile for most people to get to enjoy them).

If you don't believe that empathy trumps emphasis in educating palates, try raising children. I challenge you to convince a 6 year old that those mushrooms you've just served aren't "yucky".

I remember a French couple living in London who adopted a simple approach: they offered their children adult food and nothing else. If they didn't like it, they went hungry. And because the parents were terrified of their children being culturally assimilated, they prepared very French meals: tripe, brains, cabbage soup, the works.

Their 4 children looked like starving refugees and were perpetually cadging sweets and snacks from neighbours. This "my way or the highway" approach is not one I could adopt with my children, however strong my views on food. I shudder to see my daughter pouring ketchup on her pasta, but I'm not going to forbid it -- though I do take her to restaurants in Italy where ketchup isn't served. Over time she will learn new tastes and perhaps even get interested in food and cooking.

This brings me back to the food writer or restaurant reviewer. Not only does he need an extensive knowledge of food -- both theoretical (history, schools of cooking, science, etc.) and practical (many different restaurants) -- but, unless he is writing for an extremely specialised journal, he also requires the ability to build a bridge to the majority of diners, to tempt a few people out of The Olive Garden and into a more interesting dining room.

[lizziee]

JD,

I think you are absolutely correct that the reviewer is an educator. Unfortunately all reviewers are not created equal. Some reviewer's opinions I trust while others I tend to discount. Maybe, this is a matter of agreeing with those critiques that most mirror my own personal preferences, I hope not. Like you, I have been seriously involved with food and fine dining for over 30 years. I certainly don't consider myself a master or expert, but I do think I can critically assess a restaurant as well as a restaurant review.

What I expect from a good reviewer is to feel as if I had actually eaten there myself. What is the place like, what was the service like, what tastes were particularly enjoyed, what was below par and why, how does the restaurant fit in the culinary world and a host of other answers to help me in my own judgment. I think it is important to remember why we read a review in the first place. For some, it is to experience a restaurant vicariously. However, for me, it is usually to decide whether I want to go there myself. Will a bad review keep me from going? Not necessarily; it depends on the reviewer, how it was reviewed, was I given enough knowledge to make a fair assessment etc.

JD, as for your comments re children see raising food savvy children under general topics http://forums.egullet.org/ibf/index.php?ac...6d982f1eb314ecf. You will find much agreement about forcing kids to eat food that they are not ready to try.

[lizziee]

Steve Klc posted in the New Jersey thread a comment about Karla Cook's review of The Frog and the Peach. I think his comments should be added here as they succinctly put into context what a valuable assessment of a restaurant should include:

"Because the review focused on the hash and not any of the flash--again to use your terms, terms I wouldn't use Nick--I don't see where the content of the review or any of the reviewer's opinions point to any road for improvement or put the reader into any context as to why the "very good" ranking was received. Is she really saying to the Frog & Peach (and to her readers)--I really liked the food but you're not delivering on the total goods given your price point, given what is happening at the other restaurants rated "excellent?" .... Does F&P have the panache or the refinement or deliver the goods of other restaurants at that price point, other destination restaurants?

By avoiding the "flash"--what I view instead as mere essential components of any fine dining review--wine, decor, service sensibility, ambiance, professionalism, pacing of the meal--I have no idea what the experience of taking a meal there would be like, nor how it fares in the context of New Jersey fine dining."

.... I still submit this is simply a poor review on its merits, inherently flawed conceptually and structurally, lacking both the nuance and respect a supposed "destination" restaurant should expect from any fine dining reviewer."

I think Steve has summed up in a nutshell, what we expect from a good review - a sense of the experience of the meal, a knowledgeable value judgment re the experience, specific examples to support that judgment and an assessment of the restaurant in the context of other restaurants at that price point.

[lizziee]

I am selfishly putting this in active posts as I hate to see Steve's remarks go unnoticed.

[jordyn]

It's not that they went unnoticed, it's just that there's nothing to say without making his ego too big.

[Steve Plotnicki]

JD - Sorry to bring this past point up, but I didn't really have time to sink my teeth into it in my last post which was hastily written from the business center of a hotel in Boston. But as I left the hotel, the following dawned on me about your statements regarding the objective/subjective nature of things. The fact of the matter is that unless we are describing things that are objectively measured by scientific means, like the speed of sound or the temperature water boils at, all things are subjective. But even though things like how wide and high a football goal is, or where they put the fence in baseball were all decided subjectively, we use that agreed upon criteria as an objective standard. I hope I explained this correctly because it wasn't easy .

I often wonder how we would discuss food if it was a game like baseball or football. Not that I am suggesting it, but we are so quick to accept the rules of sport yet we aren't willing to accept the rules of how to eat well. Your story about the leg of lamb and the mint jelly is spot on this point. If the person who asked about the mint jelly asked you why a ball that clears the endline outside of the goalposts isn't considered a score, they would readily accept your answer that the objective standard is that it must cross within the posts, not outside. But they would never accept your answer about the mint jelly the same way. Personally I think this is what is wrong with food. A women wouldn't be caught dead wearing shoes and a pocketbag that didn't match, yet she has no problem slathering mint jelly on her Gigot a Sept Heures.

Now getting back to where the conversation is right now, to me the primary issue in assessing a restaurant is what level of technique they apply to the ingredients. In fact I think all the other variables are pretty much the same because they can be bought for money. You can buy the best grade tuna and you can buy the best decor. But what you can't buy is that perfect turn of the wrist a chef applies to those ingredients. I think this is the same in every art or craft. What an artist brings to the mix is his individual take on the technique of his craft. I think it's the same for musicians, painters, sculptures, writers etc.

I think the second most important thing is execution. Perfect execustion of simple concepts can be more rewarding than more complex technique that isn't as well executed. The restaurant Arpege is always a good example to point to as they can execute a single scallop and a few slices of carrots so well that it can be more profound than a more complex dish somewhere else.

I think all other things like quality of ingredients and service flow from the first two points. Obviously restaurants who fit this profile desperately need the top quality ingredients or they can't pull it off. And having perfect food with less than perfect service doesn't do you much good either. Same with decor. So to me, the great restaurants are those who perfectly execute the most demanding technique in the most soulful way. Just like a saxophone player or a violinist.

I think the most important thing a restaurant reviewer can do is to find the soul of a restaurant. What makes it tick. What motivates the chefs to do what they do. To ferret out exactly why it is that the fish soup at Loulou is so damn good. And I know that if we interogated Eric Campo the answer we would find is as follows. He is picky about what fish he puts into the soup, he has some unusual technique he uses to get the soup to come out that way, and his execution is always perfect. And I bet if we went down the road to Bacon, they would be even pickier and the technique would be even more delicate. Rocket science this ain't.

[Fat Guy]

Now getting back to where the conversation is right now, to me the primary issue in assessing a restaurant is what level of technique they apply to the ingredients. In fact I think all the other variables are pretty much the same because they can be bought for money. You can buy the best grade tuna and you can buy the best decor. But what you can't buy is that perfect turn of the wrist a chef applies to those ingredients. I think this is the same in every art or craft. What an artist brings to the mix is his individual take on the technique of his craft. I think it's the same for musicians, painters, sculptures, writers etc.  

I think the second most important thing is execution. Perfect execustion of simple concepts can be more rewarding than more complex technique that isn't as well executed. The restaurant Arpege is always a good example to point to as they can execute a single scallop and a few slices of carrots so well that it can be more profound than a more complex dish somewhere else.

I think all other things like quality of ingredients and service flow from the first two points. Obviously restaurants who fit this profile desperately need the top quality ingredients or they can't pull it off. And having perfect food with less than perfect service doesn't do you much good either. Same with decor. So to me, the great restaurants are those who perfectly execute the most demanding technique in the most soulful way. Just like a saxophone player or a violinist.

Where do you get this stuff from, Plotnicki?

I want you to find a chef you respect and try to convince him to say "the primary issue in assessing a restaurant is what level of technique they apply to the ingredients." Good luck.

I don't see what's so hard about that "perfect turn of the wrist." It's just as easy to buy as anything else. You can hire a consultant to teach the average moron how to perform just about any repetitive cooking task. Go to Las Vegas and you'll find a dozen restaurants where they've accomplished just that. And surely you're aware that the chef's wrist isn't operating on any particular dish coming out of the kitchen at a world-class restaurant. Getting the best ingredients is probably the bigger challenge, and it's not just a question of money. No matter how much you pay for your ingredients, you need someone there in receiving who knows every product and how to judge it. More importantly you need to know which ingredients to go after in the first place, and that's not so easy to figure out. Some are no brainers, but many top chefs spend a considerable amount of time developing custom growing arrangements and such because they can't for love or money find the ingredients they want on the open market.

What I think you're saying when you make the cryptic statement, "What an artist brings to the mix is his individual take on the technique of his craft," is that what you can't buy is creativity. That's certainly true, but creativity takes many forms and is quite unrelated to the question of how demanding a particular technique is. A good chef knows what technique to use in what instance to achieve the desired effect, and this decision should ideally be made without regard for how demanding the technique is. To use demanding technique for the sake of using demanding technique is a surefire way to produce crappy food.

In your latest grudging nod to minimalism you say, "Perfect execustion of simple concepts can be more rewarding than more complex technique that isn't as well executed." But guess what? Flawless execution of a simple concept can also be more rewarding than more complex technique that is well executed. Again a good chef knows when to do which and does no more or less than is necessary to achieve the desired result.

When you say, "to me, the great restaurants are those who perfectly execute the most demanding technique in the most soulful way," in addition to having the reaction that "soulful" in this context is a proxy for "whatever I like" I have to wonder why you cling so fervently to the primacy of demanding technique. I assure you the great chefs of the world don't sit around all day trying to figure out ever more demanding techniques with which to wow their audiences. They sit around trying to figure out how to make food taste better.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Creativity is how one applies technique to a set of variables. Soul is the expression of personal feelings while applying that technique. All you have said is that not every set of variables calls for the application of complex technique. No disagreement from me there. But when assessing a restaurant, those that apply the most complex technique to the most challanging set of variables, and execute the technique perfectly are most likely to be considered the better restaurants. Go through a list of NYC restaurants and you will see what I mean. Look at the list of NY Times 4 star restaurants and you tell me what restaurants who didn't get 4 stars apply the same level of technique as the ones who did.

As for soulful, no it has nothing to do with what I like. It has to do with something being soulful. Michel Troisgros cooks in a soulful way. Alain Passard does not. He cooks in a cerebral way. Just like Otis Redding sang Try a Little Tenderness more soulfully than the guy from Three Dog Night sang it. Daniel cooks soulfully when he is on as does David Bouley. Jean-Georges less so even though he often makes a better meal than the other two. And ADNY is devoid of soul nor does it really stretch the limit of one's imagination so that's why there is no buzz about it in this town.

Nobody is arguing that complicated technique is the end all and be all. Clearly the most valued asset a chef can have is a sense of balance and proportion. Yet like a concerto where we are wowed by the difficult passages, restaurants who conquer their own version of difficult passages are what we value the most. In fact I find that your position on this thread to be in conflict with your position on the Zagat thread. The single most obvious thing wrong with the Zagat Guide is that people overrate restaurants that apply the simplest of techniques. Union Square Cafe is the perfect example. The cooking isn't interesting (because it isn't demanding) yet it gets a zillion points.

[macrosan]

Yet like a concerto where we are wowed by the difficult passages, restaurants who conquer their own version of difficult passages are what we value the most

I think you just need to abandon that plural possessive pronoun, Steve. You are obviously wowed by the difficult passages of a concerto and a restaurant. I and many others, I suspect, are simply not.

Some composers, notably Liszt and Paganini, deliberately wrote complex and technically difficult pieces, because they were also great musicians and wanted to demonstrate their own playing skills. I guess some chefs also want to create highly complex and difficult dishes so that no-one else can replicate them.

I don't admire complex or difficult dishes in restaurants because they are complex and difficult. I admire them only if I like the taste. I don't go into a restaurant to be wowed by the technical skills of the chef, I go in because I want to enjoy a meal.

I think your view is closer to the Benihana idiom, where the knife-handling skill of the chef is primary, and the taste of the food secondary.

[Fat Guy]

Look at the list of NY Times 4 star restaurants and you tell me what restaurants who didn't get 4 stars apply the same level of technique as the ones who did.

I'll go with Union Pacific and Papillon as the most compelling examples, even though there are plenty of places like Cello and Aquavit that also make the point.

The single most obvious thing wrong with the Zagat Guide is that people overrate restaurants that apply the simplest of techniques. Union Square Cafe is the perfect example. The cooking isn't interesting (because it isn't demanding) yet it gets a zillion points.

Union Square Cafe is popular for a lot of reasons, but would no doubt be less popular were the food less crowd-pleasing in nature -- also known as more interesting and/or challenging. But more or less technique doesn't make food more or less interesting. There's plenty of technique in play in the Union Square Cafe kitchen. What makes the food more accessible isn't less technique, but rather the restaurant's emphasis on familiarity, which involves building a menu around non-challenging (to the customer) ingredients, combinations, and presentations.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Fat Guy - You raised the perfect examples. None of the places you raised would I give four stars to except maybe UP and that would be more based on a personal bias. But being objective about it, Union Pacific isn't really a four star experience. It's a two star room, good service but not the type of fawning service you get at a top tier place. And the food doesn't reach the four star level in terms of scope. I eat there quite often and I love the place but it's not Lespinasse. As for Papillon, it's only technique and it isn't really executed that well. But in the scope department Papillon looms large. But I'm not sure Liebrandt can pull it off at the four star level. Atlas was more about scope and technique than it was about execution. Cello to me is a pretender. It has the trappings of a four star restaurant but not the stuffing if you ask me. But that is based on one and a half meals there but I have to say that it didn't make a big impression on me. And my sole experience with Aquavit was a lunch in the cafe a few months ago.

But I disagree with the level of technique applied at USC. It's nowhere at the level of the places mentioned above. In fact I have those cookbooks and there really isn't much to the food. None of the places above have cookbooks but if they did, I would imagine the cuisine to be much more involved than creamy polenta or garlic chips. By the way, in your prior post when you raise the issue of chefs trying to make the food taste better, I think that is subsumed in my definition of execution. Story on this point. Once after having an extremely delicious dish in a curry sauce at UP, I asked them if they would give me the recipe. The waiter came back and said that Rocco was still tinkering with the recipe and he would be glad to give it to me the following week after he got it down perfectly. It is those types of things that set the place apart from other three star restaurants and is why you posed UP as a response to my question. Other three star restaurants are buying curry powder.

I think my feelings about creativity are quite different than yours. There are countless chefs in this city who are creative. But there are very few who are good at it. And I believe it is technique and execution that separates the good ones from the mediocre ones. As I'm reminded whenever I read a menu that looks interesting but find out that the food doesn't taste so good. It's very easy to talk a good slow cooked salmon in curry sauce. But it's quite difficult to do it.

Macrosan - You are describing the way a laymen listens to music and I am describing a professional. But what you are projecting onto my statement is that the presence of technique in itself makes something better and I'm not saying that. But I can tell you that there isn't a saxophone player in the world (exageration but not by much) who doesn't consider Coltrane's Giant Steps to be the test of one's mettle. Descending thirds (or whatever it is) that change chords on every beat played at breakneck speed is the most extreme test for anyone. But what made Coltrane great wasn't that he was able to do it, but that he was able to do it with an amazing amount of soul and feeling while codifying a specific aspect of his genre. And that's what makes Jean-Georges great as well. He invented a style of cooking that is unique to him, and then he codified the technique needed to practice the cuisine. And then he was able to bring a level of refinement (execution) to the cuisine that made it worthy of four stars.

[Fat Guy]

Plotnicki, when you say:

to me the primary issue in assessing a restaurant is what level of technique they apply to the ingredients. In fact I think all the other variables are pretty much the same because they can be bought for money.

and then you say to Macrosan:

But what you are projecting onto my statement is that the presence of technique in itself makes something better and I'm not saying that.

people are naturally going to wonder exactly what it is you are saying.

(I encourage everybody to read the entirety of the posts from which I drew those quotes. They are on this page. This will save us the intermediate step of Plotnicki pleading "out-of-context!")

[macrosan]

You are describing the way a laymen listens to music and I am describing a professional. But what you are projecting onto my statement is that the presence of technique in itself makes something better ...

Steve, what you're now effectively saying is that you want a restaurant review to be relevant only to professionals (.01%) and not to laymen (99.99%). Good luck with your new commercial venture

...and I did not, repeat did not project any such thing. I challenge you to quote the part of my post that even gets within five light-years of implying that. And when you give up, please remember that when you next fall into danger of misrepresenting or misconstruing what I say. :rap-over-knuckles-smiley-just-to-show-Plots-that-I'm-not-that-cross:

[Wilfrid]

Oh, good. A discussion about food.

I think Steve has to take the position he does on complexity for an obvious reason. It's his bet bet for maintaining the "objectivity" of his ranking of French haute cuisine above other kinds of cooking, jazz above pop music, certain kinds of art above other kinds of art. If you want to maintain "objectivity", in Steve's sense, there have to be facts you can point to about the cooking or the sax playing, rather than just saying you like it, and complexity is something which can be observed and quantified.

I think this is the right way for Steve to argue in order to support his belief in the objective nature of quality - and I am not, for once, mocking (it's a much more respectable opinion than some of his historical and economic theses). The difficulty, of course, as Steven Shaw points out in various ways, is that this strategy can't take account of the beauty of simplicity. I am all in favor of complexity in its place, but as I have said before: a Beethoven late quartet is doubtless more complex than a three-minute single by the Ramones - but you won't make the Ramones better by making them more complex. In fact, you'll ruin them.

By analogy, you won't necessarily improve a dish by making it more complex, refined, sophisticated and evolved. In fact, you can evolve a dish to the point of blandness.

Which brings me to a developing sense I have that some restaurants in New York, mentioned in this thread - and which I do like - are in danger of forgetting that there is more to food than softness, smoothness and delicacy. Is it only me that's getting tied of tasting menus which consist of a series of perfectly rectangular filets of meat and fish with a flavor so subtle as to be - yes - ethereal. And ethereal, contrary to popular opinion, means vanishing into thin air.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Wilfrid - Thank you for a fair analysis of my point of view. If I had to add anything to it, it wouldn't be that I have to take that position. That is my position. As I tried to point out to Macrosan, it is more in line with how a professional views the world than the audience. I'm always reminded of the great TV program hosted by Scorcese where he extols the virtues of a famous B movie director (although that is a contradiction in terms isn't it? ) demonstrating how this director applied such amazing technique when making his films. The films were shit, but not to professionals when applying a certain set of objective criteria to them. And to the layman, there was more to learn about film by watching that show than one could learn on their own by watching 100 good films.

You know I think Emeril, in spite of his popularity and the watering down of his cooking, happens to be a pretty good chef. But there's a reason why when he has Daniel Boulud on as a guest he calls him "Chef" with the respect that a stagiere has for his boss. The difference in technical proficiency and ability to execute between the two of them is signifigant. And it is embodied in how he addresses him. And your point (which I believe subsumes Fat Guys point about simplicity) doesn't mean that Emeril can't make a dish that is more delicious than what Boulud will make on a visceral level. But that has nothing to do with an objective measure of technique and execution. And it certainly doesn't discount that simple technique that demands very exacting execution can't be sublime.

Fat Guy - If you noticed I said "primary." I didn't discount any of the other reasons. I just said they can be bought for money. And I also said that execution was another necessary item that couldn't be bought for money. That "turn of the wrist" phrase which you rejected.

Macrosan - Well I personally think that's what many people get out of eGullet. They get to eat with the professionals and semi-professionals so to speak and hopefully everyone (including me) will come away with a greater and different way to appreciate food and wine. To me the greatest thing about eGullet is it brings us mere mortals into a sphere of professionalism as regards to cuisine. We actually have access here to many chefs, writers and good thinkers about food. And it's from the historical (even though hysterical might be more apt these days) to cutting edge. From the most expensive and elaborate presentations to how to make a good chicken soup. When I go to a place like Blue Hill and Dan and Mike come out to speak to the table after dinner, my ability to ask them how they got the cod to come out a certain way allows me to use it as an objective standard when I eat Cod someplace else. Because if it isn't prepared as well I have a basis to ask why that's the case.

[Fat Guy]

If you noticed I said "primary."

In a million years I won't be able to imagine how you think that helps you.

We actually have access here to many chefs, writers and good thinkers about food.

Now all you have to do is listen to some of them.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Fat Guy - If you don't think there is a general correlation between the ranking of restaurants, from any source, and the technical proficiency of the chefs and how they execute, I don't know what to tell you. If it wasn't the case, all restaurants would be as good as Jean-Georges which they're not. So I must be on to something. And to tell me that Jean-Georges is simply more delicious than others doesn't delve into why it's a more interesting restaurant to eat at. Because I can get delicious sauteed foie gras anywhere. But what makes JG unique is the unusual technique he applies to the foie and how well he executes it. If that wasn't the case, I could make the foie at home, which I can't do because I'm not technically proficient and I can't execute as well as he can.

[Fat Guy]

a general correlation between the ranking of restaurants, from any source, and the technical proficiency of the chefs and how they execute

If that's all you meant to say, you should have said it and saved us the trouble of beating it out of you.

[Steve Plotnicki]

But how is what I just said different than what I said originally? Technique is the primary issue to asssess and then execution. The rest can be bought for money. It sounds the same to me.

[Jinmyo]

Hey, I've a crazy idea.

Steve P, how about actually assessing a restaurant? I don't care what standards you use or what technique. Just so long as you do whatcha do so well.