Can't get a good steak in France or Italy

Mike_During · January 13, 2014, 6:56pm

Of course you are right. I forgot the steaks I had on my first trip to Italy when whole beasts hung, still able to be butchered on premise, steaks cut to order, wonderful Florentine, each enough to feed two.

David_K_o_l_i_n · January 13, 2014, 6:59pm

I kknow that in reality it really sucked, but one of the greatest steaks I thought I ever had was a gorgeous bistecca alla fiorentina at a small restaurant in Castellina in Chianti about 20 years ago (not directed at you Mike. Just thread placement)

Steve_Plotnicki · January 13, 2014, 7:08pm

I am sure your steak didn’t suck. It’s just that you probably have eaten a lot of steaks since then, which would change the way you formulate an opinion.

Mike_During · January 13, 2014, 7:10pm

I agree with this. If experts are in agreement on something whatever the subject - wine, food, art… you can be pretty certain that your thoughts, not being an expert, on the subject holds no weight.

David_K_o_l_i_n · January 13, 2014, 7:14pm

Not sure I understand your point, Steve. I ate a lot of steaks before then and since (better steaks since, as I’ve been able to access higher quality meat retail). The steak in Castellina was amazing with today’s palate or yesterday’s. Shouldn’t be that hard to believe. I’m not making generalized statements, just that this steak was awesome. (I’ve had a several other top flight steaks in Tuscany since then, as I have here)

Steve_Plotnicki · January 13, 2014, 7:24pm

The point I was trying to make is that I have fond memories of many things I ate a long time ago. But it is not unusual that I am disappointed when I revisit them. I used to think it was the quality that changed. But I realized it had nothing to do with the quality. What had changed was my palate because I had more experience.

David_K_o_l_i_n · January 13, 2014, 7:58pm

Understood. My experience if often it’s because of a different steak.

There is a Baltic restaurant in Sydney that makes my favorite grilled octopus that I’ve had anywhere. Don’t get to visit very often, but each time it’s as good as the first.

doug_johnson · January 13, 2014, 8:42pm

Steve Plotnicki:

On the other thread, someone posted something about pasta and I posted the following:

How many pieces of evidence would you like me to post showing that pasta is at a lower level than whole protein dishes? I mean let’s start out with what a box of pasta costs compared to what even good hamburger meat costs. Then let’s go on to note that while every culture makes flour, and has a water supply, hardly any of them have a mandatory course based around starch. And as you unpeel the onion, you will find that cultures that have a starch course as part of their meal, did so as a matter of need and not preference. I can go on and on. Now of course that isn’t the same as saying that pasta is not delicious. It clearly is. But the issue isn’t whether it tastes good, the issue is, how can a cuisine be considered so great, when the confines of what chefs could create were so limited by cost? The French had no such limitation, and their cuisine reflects it. Same with the Chinese and Japanese. I love Chinese food and I eat it all of the time. But the cuisine doesn’t have the same quest for excellence that you find in Japanese food. The Japanese were far wealthier than the Chinese, did not have the types of population problems that they had in China so there were less mouths to feed, which allowed their cuisine to be shaped by an upper middle class that could afford to demand excellence. I can’t tell you how many top sushi chefs have discussed the various qualities of rice with me, how they polish it themselves etc. Have you ever heard of a single Chinese chef caring about the rice they use? The same level of particularity is just not there. So to me, not only is it not logical to claim that a cuisine with less particularity is superior to one where the chefs have spent countless hours trying to make something more perfect, you can see those differences in the food if you are trained to taste them. I mean isn’t it the same for wine?

Sorry, but are you saying Japanese food is “objectively better” than Chinese food because Japanese food is more refined? And Japanese food is more refined because the Japanese were wealthier than the Chinese?

CFu · January 13, 2014, 8:50pm

doug johnson:

Steve Plotnicki:

On the other thread, someone posted something about pasta and I posted the following:

How many pieces of evidence would you like me to post showing that pasta is at a lower level than whole protein dishes? I mean let’s start out with what a box of pasta costs compared to what even good hamburger meat costs. Then let’s go on to note that while every culture makes flour, and has a water supply, hardly any of them have a mandatory course based around starch. And as you unpeel the onion, you will find that cultures that have a starch course as part of their meal, did so as a matter of need and not preference. I can go on and on. Now of course that isn’t the same as saying that pasta is not delicious. It clearly is. But the issue isn’t whether it tastes good, the issue is, how can a cuisine be considered so great, when the confines of what chefs could create were so limited by cost? The French had no such limitation, and their cuisine reflects it. Same with the Chinese and Japanese. I love Chinese food and I eat it all of the time. But the cuisine doesn’t have the same quest for excellence that you find in Japanese food. The Japanese were far wealthier than the Chinese, did not have the types of population problems that they had in China so there were less mouths to feed, which allowed their cuisine to be shaped by an upper middle class that could afford to demand excellence. I can’t tell you how many top sushi chefs have discussed the various qualities of rice with me, how they polish it themselves etc. Have you ever heard of a single Chinese chef caring about the rice they use? The same level of particularity is just not there. So to me, not only is it not logical to claim that a cuisine with less particularity is superior to one where the chefs have spent countless hours trying to make something more perfect, you can see those differences in the food if you are trained to taste them. I mean isn’t it the same for wine?

Sorry, but are you saying Japanese food is “objectively better” than Chinese food because Japanese food is more refined? And Japanese food is more refined because the Japanese were wealthier than the Chinese?

That’s what I read too. Which seems to run contrary to Asian history. The chinese food culture has remained unchanged for centuries. At the time when china was the dominant force of Asia the food has been the same.

The leaders of the dynasties were fed the chinese food you see today.

Steve_Plotnicki · January 13, 2014, 9:06pm

I am saying that there are objective elements present in Japanese food that you will not find in Chinese food. Those elements are a product of refinement, which is the product of an active marketplace that has a tradition of pursuing excellence through an expression of wealth that was not present in China when their cuisine developed.

Have you ever seen films of what goes on with tuna being auctioned at the Tsukiji fish market in Tokyo? It’s as if they are auctioning off Rembrandts. You won’t find the same type of particularity in Chinese cuisine. When the cuisine developed, people did not have the type of money to demand that type of refinement and the cuisine suffers from that to this day.

So the thesis is as follows: It is illogical to claim that a craft that does not have the same tradition of refinement as a similar craft, can produce results that are superior. Of course anything is possible. But craftsmanship is a very particular thing and it is unusual to find an example that does not conform to that rule. And if you analyze the art of craftsmanship, at its heart is a marketplace that is willing to support their craftsman. There is a reason that Stradavarius was in Italy and not in Bosnia. And it was because Paganini, and other great violinists of the day, were in Italy, not Bosnia.

Bill_Tex_Landreth · January 13, 2014, 9:12pm

I still like Rice a Roni.

Steve_Plotnicki · January 13, 2014, 9:44pm

How about Chef Boyardee?

Bill_Tex_Landreth · January 13, 2014, 9:53pm

I am more of a Progresso man myself.

David_K_o_l_i_n · January 13, 2014, 10:33pm

Sautee and simmer, the flavor can’t be beat

doug_johnson · January 13, 2014, 10:39pm

Steve Plotnicki:

I am saying that there are objective elements present in Japanese food that you will not find in Chinese food. Those elements are a product of refinement, which is the product of an active marketplace that has a tradition of pursuing excellence through an expression of wealth that was not present in China when their cuisine developed.

Have you ever seen films of what goes on with tuna being auctioned at the Tsukiji fish market in Tokyo? It’s as if they are auctioning off Rembrandts. You won’t find the same type of particularity in Chinese cuisine. When the cuisine developed, people did not have the type of money to demand that type of refinement and the cuisine suffers from that to this day.

So the thesis is as follows: It is illogical to claim that a craft that does not have the same tradition of refinement as a similar craft, can produce results that are superior. Of course anything is possible. But craftsmanship is a very particular thing and it is unusual to find an example that does not conform to that rule. And if you analyze the art of craftsmanship, at its heart is a marketplace that is willing to support their craftsman. There is a reason that Stradavarius was in Italy and not in Bosnia. And it was because Paganini, and other great violinists of the day, were in Italy, not Bosnia.

Just 2 points:

I have seen - and with my very own eyes! - the tuna auction at Tsukiji. It is not as if they are auctioning off Rembrandts. It “is as if” they were auctioning off giant frozen fish. They slide 'em around on the concrete with huge steel hooks, pick 'em up with forklifts, and cut 'em up with band saws.
When Chinese cuisine “developed” that society was the richest in the world. Japan, well, not so much. Hello America

Not really sure where you get your facts.

Bill_Tex_Landreth · January 13, 2014, 11:08pm

doug johnson:

Steve Plotnicki:

I am saying that there are objective elements present in Japanese food that you will not find in Chinese food. Those elements are a product of refinement, which is the product of an active marketplace that has a tradition of pursuing excellence through an expression of wealth that was not present in China when their cuisine developed.

Have you ever seen films of what goes on with tuna being auctioned at the Tsukiji fish market in Tokyo? It’s as if they are auctioning off Rembrandts. You won’t find the same type of particularity in Chinese cuisine. When the cuisine developed, people did not have the type of money to demand that type of refinement and the cuisine suffers from that to this day.

So the thesis is as follows: It is illogical to claim that a craft that does not have the same tradition of refinement as a similar craft, can produce results that are superior. Of course anything is possible. But craftsmanship is a very particular thing and it is unusual to find an example that does not conform to that rule. And if you analyze the art of craftsmanship, at its heart is a marketplace that is willing to support their craftsman. There is a reason that Stradavarius was in Italy and not in Bosnia. And it was because Paganini, and other great violinists of the day, were in Italy, not Bosnia.

Just 2 points:

I have seen - and with my very own eyes! - the tuna auction at Tsukiji. It is not as if they are auctioning off Rembrandts. It “is as if” they were auctioning off giant frozen fish. They slide 'em around on the concrete with huge steel hooks, pick 'em up with forklifts, and cut 'em up with band saws.

When Chinese cuisine “developed” that society was the richest in the world. Japan, well, not so much. Hello America

Not really sure where you get your facts.

Bill_Klapp_deactivated · January 13, 2014, 11:21pm

Steve Plotnicki:

Bill none of those things have to do with the craft of cooking. Cooking, at its highest level, is not a function of folklore that has been handed down from one generation to another. It is a highly practiced craft that takes hours to learn, and one can only learn how to do it by attending a cooking school or by working in a top kitchen. Someone who pulls a catfish out of a creek simply does not have the culinary technique to compete with someone who understands cooking both as a craft and a science. As a result, cost matters because when we go to a place like Piazza Duomo for dinner, what we are paying for is the chef’s ability to practice his craft, not his ability to pull fish out of the local river. Anyone can do that. But few chefs can create a dish using a local fish, that revolutionizes cuisine, and that chefs all over the world want to copy.

Steve, your fundamental problem is that you equate great food with craft and culinary hocus-pocus. It is at once narrow-minded, effete and missing the point entirely. First of all, it is utterly foolish to suggest that food treatment at any level is not a hand-me-down from the first caveman who thought to roast his beast over an open fire, so you really should lay off the peasant traditions that you hold in such disdain. And suggesting that one can only learn how to cook by attendng a culinary school or working in a top kitchen flies in the face of both common sense and history. For somebody who eats out as much as you do and then fetishes the experience, how did you miss the number of great chefs over time that have been self-taught? The same is true of great artists, great musicians, great writers, you name it. Your myopic view works for ski schools for those who have never skied, but that is about it.

At some level, you do not really appreciate food, Steve. You are too caught up in the status-seeking aspects of fine dining, and you strive to intellectualize and pigeon-hole something basic, essential, social and extremely pleasurable. There is a place for haut cuisine, to be sure, but it is no more important than great home cooking (probably far less so, actually, since shared meals at home are critical to family cohesion, as well as the larger fabric of society, while restaurants are transient, constantly opening and closing, and completely irrelevant to the maintenance of society), nor more important than a perfectly fresh fish just pulled from the water, pan-fried and doused with a little lemon juice. You do not grasp that one should not want chefs all over the world doing bad impressions of Ferran Adria. The goal of cooking is to maximize the presentation of prime fresh ingredients, to give the ingredients a context for the full expression of their inherent flavors and aromas. You favor a French tradition which evolved from trying to cover rotting foodstuffs with sauces to conceal the rot, and you do not understand that less is more most of the time with the very greatest dishes. No chef can improve on fresh heart-of-the-season asparagus. Hollandaise sauce is tasty and fully complementary, but no better treatment than a little lemon butter or baking the asparagus with a little butter and Parmigiano-Reggiano. There is no chef, no school and no kitchen training that can improve upon the aroma and flavor of a fresh white truffle. You destroy the truffle by cooking it. Add any but the most delicate flavors and you destroy the sensory impact. It is best shaved over scrambled eggs or fresh egg pasta, in each case swimming in butter. Similarly, there is no place for a chef with caviar. Truly great smoked salmon can be ruined by the addition of other ingredients. The list of ingredients for which that would be so is surprisingly long, if you think around it. Combining flavors to create new ones is a crapshoot. It is true that remarkable dishes can sometimes result, but also true that what you get most of the time is muddled flavors and aromas to greater or lesser extent, along with laundry lists of “precious” ingredients masquerading as a menu.

Bill_Klapp_deactivated · January 13, 2014, 11:49pm

Steve Plotnicki:

Gee a lot to respond to. Let see:

Chianina Beef - It isn’t bad, and I haven’t had any in 13 years, but I can tell you it is not at the same level as US beef. It isn’t even as good as Charolais beef used to be before the mad cow crisis. And it is certainly not as good as beef from Gallicia (which is probably the best in Europe), Danish beef or the grass-fed stuff coming out of Ireland these days. If you are a Rioja drinker and you want a good steak in Europe, next time you visit Haro, go to a place outside of Bilbao called Horma Hondo. They have excellent steaks from a single source slaughterhouse in Gallcia. Best I have had in Europe. Goodman in London has very good Irish and British beef aged by the butcher O’Shea’s.

Bill Klapp- Thanks for the shout out but you have described the way I reach a conclusion in the exact opposite way to how I actually do it. I believe that the only correct way to determine quality is by dismissing subjective opinion and evaluating the evidence that is extrinsic to the subject in order to reach a conclusion. So it is best to describe what I believe in as a rejection of subjective belief in favor of applying a more scientific approach to the data before reaching a reasonable conclusion. So for example, if a dozen people who participate in my dining survey write in about La Tupina, and I know that they are all experienced diners who have the experience to assess that specific subject, and 75% of them write of a poor experience, I am fairly certain it is not a good restaurant. Mind you, that does not eliminate room to disagree. But the issue isn’t who is right, the issue is which conclusion is more reasonable, and I have found that in 90%+ of instances, doing it that way will have more value than a single opinion like Bob Parker’s.

Quick-hitter: if you have not had Chianina beef in 13 years, then why do you even have an opinion on it? Maybe production techniques have changed. Maybe the EU has banned it and the word did not reach you yet. Maybe there is a remarkable new producer who supplies Sting and Suckling and simply everyone is raving about it. It seems to me that, since you are making absolutist quality determinations above (which even the relatively few posts earlier in this thread suggests is impossible because beef preferences are highly personal), you owe it to your readers to at least have a recent experience or two with Chianina. At your age, a 13-year-old taste memory may not be entirely reliable…

ekovitch · January 14, 2014, 12:04am

Not the restaurant that I went to, but the best steak I ever had was in Florence as well (T-Bone). I guess that it just depends where you are in Italy. Rome seems to be better for veal, which is not my cup of tea.

George_Hejna · January 14, 2014, 1:26am

Bill,

I truly think you hit the nail on the head. I have had my share of elaborate tasting menus here and in Europe and I think they produce some phenomenal dishes. However they also produce an overwhelming amount of plates, albeit beautiful… with a list of ingredients that would make any chef swoon, that are muddled and have no true focus. My meal at Grace in Chicago was a perfect example of this. I have come to appreciate the simplicity of good Italian food after our trip to Italy this past summer. Plates with maybe 2, 3 or 4 ingredients tops. That were just beautiful. Even the 3 star La Pergola in Rome and their tasting menu was a lesson in simplicity. I have had some phenomenal meals at Alinea or Eleven Madison Park but IMO the evolution of the tasting menu has really done a disservice to haute cuisine whether it be French, Italian, or other. Linking back to the original thread where this all started. It is all about focus.

George