Assessing Restaurants

[hollywood]

I shudder at my temerity in putting new words into StevePs mouth, but I assumed he meant "enjoyment" rather than "appreciation".

Maybe, maybe not. At times it seems that such hard won understanding eliminates all enjoyment.

[Jonathan Day]

We could also ask the 3 questions relative to Plotnickiism: do you understand it? Do you appreciate it? Do you enjoy it?

[hollywood]

We could also ask the 3 questions relative to Plotnickiism: do you understand it? Do you appreciate it? Do you enjoy it?

Wasn't it Immanuel Kant who said there's no virtue in being readily comprehensible at the loss of all basic insight? The question here is: What's the damned insight?

[Steve Plotnicki]

Jd - That was very good. But if I had to change one thing it would be the order. I think that, Do you enjoy it?, comes first. Then one needs reasons to go on to the other two questions which are analytical in nature. One might ask if someone understands it after they hedge about their enjoyment. And to me to appreciate something is a cerebral issue so it would be in third position. I think the distinction here is that anyone can enjoy food or wine. But not everyone understands it or appreciates it.

Let's take my wife as an example. She gets to drink some really good bottles of wine due to hanging around with me. And she has learned to enjoy them as well. But she isn't interested in any of the specifics. Her famous line when going out to dinner with a friend is, "I ordered the Chateaneuf-du-Pape becuse I recognized the name." And you should know that she has drunk some of the greatest CNdP's ever made. Yet a stunning bottle doesn't inspire her to find out any information about it. But I have noticed that if the wine is lightly off for any reason, she has loads of questions about what it is that makes that bottle less than the perfect experience.

I think that most people have a superficial relationsjhip with food and wine, just like my wife. They enjoy it, and maybe they can even notice it when it's special, but most people just aren't interested in what makes it tick. But I think there is a whole cadre of people who are interested. And that is why they come to a place like eGullet. Here we can learn the difference between a steak with a char crust and one that is slow cooked. Just having access to the info makes one think about it differently. And if you are among that group of people who see it from that perspective, I'm not sure if you need to bother with the question of enjoyment.

Hollywood - The problem with Ca. pinot noir is that it isn't codified. What is good about Burgundy is they have maximized each sites potential through the AOC system (that is different then whether each grower has maximized the specific potential of their site.) As such, Chambertin tastes completetly different than Musigny. It's the lack of codification that makes Ca. wine less interesting. People who produce wines in Santa Maria are trying to make wines that taste the same as ones made in Paso Robles. That aspect of it alone makes French wine generally (in a significant way)more interesting than Ca. wine.

[bushey]

We could also ask the 3 questions relative to Plotnickiism: do you understand it? Do you appreciate it? Do you enjoy it?

1) no. I'd be scared if I did.

2) how could I? refer to answer 1 above.

3) well, I always enjoy the brouhaha that inevitably ensues

[hollywood]

Hollywood - The problem with Ca. pinot noir is that it isn't codified. What is good about Burgundy is they have maximized each sites potential through the AOC system (that is different then whether each grower has maximized the specific potential of their site.) As such, Chambertin tastes completetly different than Musigny. It's the lack of codification that makes Ca. wine less interesting. People who produce wines in Santa Maria are trying to make wines that taste the same as ones made in Paso Robles. That aspect of it alone makes French wine generally (in a significant way)more interesting than Ca. wine.

So the pinot noir you would not dream of drinking in New York (?) is Central Coast stuff? Or, all California pinot noir? Or, all California, Oregon and Washington? And just because it's not codified? How about if it tastes good? I would think lack of codification could lead to more pleasant surprises, no?

[Steve Plotnicki]

Hollywood - It's not about whether they are good or not. The lack of a codification system doesn't encourage growers to accentuate certain aspects of the vineyards. Pisoni Vineyard is one of the more famous souces for Pinot in Ca. And there are good wines that come from that vineyard. But they do not have the type of delineation that wines from say Chambolle-Musigny have. Or the typical way of saying this is they lack terroir. So because Ca. wines are not terroir driven, they are less interesting. But if you are the type of person who likes lots of ripe fruit, you might prefer Ca. wines to French wines.

As for new world wines in general, I used to drink tham all of the time. But I stopped a bunch of years ago and sold all of my inventory off and replaced it with European wines.

[Wilfrid]

"A good food writer should be able to challenge her readers to stretch their tastes, to try new things..."

Like Fat Bloke turning me on to Halal Chinese, right?

Seriously, good post, JD, and nicely makes the distinction between educating people and informing them that they are wrong.

[cabrales]

Have members considered why a diner needs tastes that conform to commonly understood notions of what might be enjoyable or amenable to appreication by the diner? Wouldn't it be sufficient if a diner, through experimentation with different restaurants and other cuisine opportunities (including cooking at home), came to intimately understand what pleased her (whether in the esense of enjoyment or appreciation) and knew how to identify and continue to secure things that could do so? Shouldn't there be more potential focus on self-awareness -- associated with conviction in one's own preferences and the ability to match those preferences to restaurants and other sources of cuisine.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Cabrales - I can rewrite your last post into the following question?

Does it have to be good for you to enjoy it or appreciate it?

[LaNiña]

Define "good."

Oy.

[Gavin Jones]

Something is good if SteveP. appreciates it.

Some things SteveP. enjoys but they mightn't be good.

Or you can calculate using your own version of Cabrales' hedonic calculus.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Good as in tastes good. I said it that way because not everything that is good is obvious. Go back to my new world/old world wine example. If I were to go strictly by my sense of taste at the time, I would have stuck with new world wine. But the body of literature extolling the virtues of European wine was too extensive and my intelectual curiosity wouldn't allow me to dismiss them out of hand the way other friends of mine did. So I arranged to attend tastings of European wines and I kept going until I got it. But not everone gets it and there was no guarantee I was going to get it either. But it just so happens I took to it.

Same with Cabrales. I bet you there are restaurants she doesn't prefer where if she went to the restaurant with someone experienced she might see it in a different light. All it takes is a single suggestion to get one thinking you know.

[Wilfrid]

I think there are some pie tasting courses you might register for.

Or more seriously, I recall that you don't much like game. I assume you mean the stronger varieties in particular. Yet I assume - correct me if I'm wrong - that you don't dismiss it out of hand. If you had the curiosity to learn about it and practice tasting it, you might come to like it. Also, you might not. We all have things we don't like, no matter how hard we try. So it's possible that some things which Plotnicki (or Wilfrid) cannot acquire an appreciation for, nevertheless still "taste good". And I suppose you'd relate that back to the judgment of experienced gourmets?

[Gavin Jones]

Odd though this may sound, SteveP's wine experience accords with my own.

I had drunk a variet of wines and some were red or white, some nice some nasty. Some tasted of fruit & some of paint stripper.

But for a brief period I drank some good wine (bordeaux meauxstly).

This did two things:

1. I noticed how the various structural features (fruit/tannin/oak/body...) interacted as a unified whole. In other words how the wine articulated itself to me.

2. I was able to apply these insights to less fancy wines & gained an insight into what those wines aspire to be.

The consequence is that I have a structure within which to understand wine and make judgements about it whereas despite previously having drunk a fair amount of wine I had no such structure.

It is of course a vile accident that this structuring of my palate was performed by the French - if only the world's palate had been cask onditioned.

[hollywood]

Hollywood - It's not about whether they are good or not. The lack of a codification system doesn't encourage growers to accentuate certain aspects of the vineyards. Pisoni Vineyard is one of the more famous souces for Pinot in Ca. And there are good wines that come from that vineyard. But they do not have the type of delineation that wines from say Chambolle-Musigny have. Or the typical way of saying this is they lack terroir. So because Ca. wines are not terroir driven, they are less interesting. But if you are the type of person who likes lots of ripe fruit, you might prefer Ca. wines to French wines.

As for new world wines in general, I used to drink tham all of the time. But I stopped a bunch of years ago and sold all of my inventory off and replaced it with European wines.

So, forget "new world" pinots? I think Domaine Drouhin (Oregon) would be surprised to hear that it's wines don't respect the terroir. Guess you haven't tried Louise or Laurene? If by not having "the type of delineation" you mean they haven't been around that long, you win.

[Steve Plotnicki]

"And I suppose you'd relate that back to the judgment of experienced gourmets?"

Of course. I would defer to your opinion on whether the Becasse was better than the Pintade because I normally don't eat through the range of chasse so I don't have the expertise to think it thorugh objectively. But that wouldn't stop me from having an opinion about them, i.e., enjoy one over the other on my own simplistic terms. But I bet you if I spent an entire winter in Paris eating at bistros every night, I would get bored of eating the regular fare and I would probably venture into the land of funny meats. And I bet that at the end of that process I would understand the ins and outs of chasse in a conventional way, and have an opinion about it that isn't radically different than the commonly held opinions. Bt of course it would have that special Plotnickiesque flair.

[cabrales]

Steve P -- Have you pursued subjects other than food and wine in the manner described (e.g., work-related matters)?

[Wilfrid]

...and have an opinion about it that isn't radically different than the commonly held opinions. But of course it would have that special Plotnickiesque flair.

You mean it would be based, in part, on a factual misunderstanding of some kind?

[Steve Plotnicki]

Hollywood - Well of course the first factor in terroir is how long vines have been planted on a certain parcel of land. So France has a huge advantage from the getgo. But I think the issue runs deeper than that as the general thrust of American winemaking is not to try and stress the terroir. So I think the issue is more of the fact that they don't try, then the fact that they aren't able to. As for Domaine Drouhin, why bother if you can afford the uptick to Dujac or Roumier? For my palate, I would rather drink a bottle of Clos Mont Olivet Chateauneif du Pape for $25 than a $40 Oregon Pinot any day. In fact I'd rather drink a $11 Rasteau.

Gavin - The classification system in Bordeaux is extremely helpful when learning about wine. In fact the whole AOC system sort of acts like a vinous compass that you can set your palate by. For me, assessing the difference between wines like Gruard Larose and Lynch Bages vs Mouton and Latour taught me more about wine than tasting 50 other bottles where the difference hadn't been neatly codified. I sometimes wonder if one of the allures of Burgundy is how the codification system is like a big jigsaw puzzle that you have to piece together. It can take an entire lifetime.

Cabrales - Well don't we bring in specialists to teach us how to do things at work? Why wouldn't one ask someone expert about food if they wanted to learn about it?

[hollywood]

If the mother at Bofinger had not ordered her steak rare, would you still be drinking domestic wines, or as you prefer to call them, new world?

[Steve Plotnicki]

The Grand Mere with the rare steak had nothing to do with wine. But I'm sure if that instance didn't happen it would have been elsewhere. But the bottles of wines that changed my palate were as follows,

1964 Cheval Blanc

1961 Latour

1990 Chave Hermitage

1983 Guigal La Landonne

I used to love drinking 1992 Chateau Montelena until I ran into those wines. In fact that's still a good bottle of wine. But not something I would ever think of opening.

then later on it was

1958 Marquis de Riscal Rioja

1985 Ponsot Griotte Chambertain

I think Gavin said it best. Wine tasting is a series of benchmarks. All the wines I listed (plus some others I have had but didn't list) set certain parameters about what it meant to be a perfect bottle of wine. All other wine flows from there. It's like a bullseye with the great wines within the black dot and all the rest of them radiating out of the center based on their attributes.

[hollywood]

Steve,

If your palette is as sophisticated as it would seem, perhaps you could offer some views on second and third growths of vineyards you appreciate. This might be more meaningful (and affordable) than lengthy threads about (debatable) first principles of things epicurean.

[Wilfrid]

Without wishing to stray into a wine board discussion, I was intrigued, Steve, by your listing of a 1958 Rioja, from a good producer. Quite a few years ago, I tasted some red Rioja's which must have had around ten to twenty years bottle age (between 1975 and 1985). They had what one might describe, in short-hand, as vintage qualities in abundance. At first I was startled, but then enchanted by the pungent, smelly old farmyard things going on. And, as you describe so well, they gave me a benchmark for what I should look for, albeit in a less pronounced fashion, in more recent and affordable Riojas. I imagine the experience with the '58 was even more dramatic. Did it teach you lessons for wines outside Rioja too?

[Jonathan Day]

Have members considered why a diner needs tastes that conform to commonly understood notions of what might be enjoyable or amenable to appreication by the diner? Wouldn't it be sufficient if a diner, through experimentation with different restaurants and other cuisine opportunities (including cooking at home), came to intimately understand what pleased her (whether in the esense of enjoyment or appreciation) and knew how to identify and continue to secure things that could do so?  Shouldn't there be more potential focus on self-awareness -- associated with conviction in one's own preferences and the ability to match those preferences to restaurants and other sources of cuisine.

Cabrales, I agree wholeheartedly with this, as far as it goes.

Most of us have "special foods" or "comfort foods", things we particularly like to eat. I happen to have a special love for salty, fishy things: bottarga, dried tuna, anchovies. I could make a dinner out of anchovy-stuffed olives, especially if they were of high quality.

Children have strong convictions about their preferences. I've posted elsewhere about my daughter's love for pasta alla ketchup.

HOWEVER, this world of solitary comfort foods presumes a solitary diner. There comes a point for some of us where we want to expand our horizons and learn from others' experiences. That's where culinary traditions come in, and classification systems and food writers.

Perhaps the best way of all is to master the tradition and then to come back to the foods you really enjoy -- which you can then place into the bigger context of the tradition.

I know a lot of adults who feel they should like this or that dish -- after all, it's very "gourmet" and perhaps Jamie or Delia or Nigella has recommended it on television. Often they try the things they feel they "should" like. Often these things are served in pretentious but poor quality restaurants. Then the grown-ups feel guilty that they aren't entranced by these "gourmet" dishes. They are worse off than if they had stuck with their comfort dishes.

I would never say to someone: "You should like this" or "you would like it if your palate were as developed as mine." But I might say "you could try this and see if you don't learn to enjoy it."

Or, with apologies to Dr Seuss:

Do you dream of the best sauce to serve with red mullet?

Do you spend every waking hour reading eGullet?

Do you search every town for that one special place?

Do you squabble on food 'till you're blue in the face?

These things are all fun, and these things are all good.

If you aren't doing all of these things, then you should.

(The last line is something of a P-ism but it wouldn't have rhymed otherwise.)