A restaurant owner writes rules for servers part - 2

Would you give that up for a guy that turns out to be a Scotch (or wine) Philistine? Maybe you would. I didn't. The only time that situation has ever come up, I'm happy to say.

Ok. I don't think of myself as a Philistine but I don't buy Scotch so I can't say I wouldn't act differently than you. I certainly understand your point and as someone who is just starting out with a pretty limited cellar I certainly put some thought into what bottles I open. But I guess it also depends who I am with and I try not to let these other considerations outweigh my human relations. All a balancing act...

72. Do not serve salad on a freezing cold plate; it usually advertises the fact that it has not been freshly prepared.

This one I actually disagree with (in most cases). One of our favorite local steakhouses serves their salads on ice cold plates and even provides a cold fork to go with it. Their house dressing is a vinagrette with blue cheese crumbles. Sometimes I just crave that salad with its iceberg lettuce so cold and crisp.

[Jenise]

Rahsaan, the malt in question cost about $175 a bottle, was from a defunct distillery and impossible to replace and I intend to enjoy it over several years, alone or with other people that really appreciate it. Hard to understand for non-malt fanciers, perhaps. Wine lovers should think of a bottle (their only bottle) of a 1982 Ch. Mouton Rothschild that you have stored for years and opened to share with people you thought were fellow wine fanciers, only to have one of them ask for some ice. Except that its is even more so with malts because they will last for years in bottle and each half ounce can be a separate etherial taste experience. Would you give that up for a guy that turns out to be a Scotch (or wine) Philistine? Maybe you would. I didn't.

I wouldn't have either--there are ways to change plans in mid-flight without being an ungracious host. And I'm sure you weren't that--I've dined at your home and you're a most considerate and generous host.

Rahsaan, the malt in question
[snip IMH]
Maybe you would. I didn't.

I wouldn't have either--there are ways to change plans in mid-flight without being an ungracious host. And I'm sure you weren't that--I've dined at your home and you're a most considerate and generous host.

I can certainly second that. We were made to feel thoroughly welcome.

The reason I quoted Bill, is that (IMO) it's not the cost, or the rarity or the impossibility of replacement. It's because the guy was going to pee into it. I'd not serve even a half way decent wine to someone who made it clear that they were going to mix it with coke for example. We all make errors of judgment about what to serve people occasionally. I've done it and by his own admission Bill did it.

Actually, having read back, I have to say that I share his pain at the antics of people who systematically salt heavily without tasting first. AND I have a horror of having a waiter or waitress hurl pepper all over my food. I'll taste it first and make up my own mind if it needs it and if so how much THANK you very much.

I'm shocked to read what ChefCarey said about salad. When we serve a salad in my house, Jacquie has made the vinaigrette with great care, and I toss the salad with it in front of my guests with equal care. I don't think I've ever eaten in a half way decent restaurant that serves an unseasoned salad, and if they did I most CERTAINLY don't want to have it peppered. Goodness me! AFAIAC a salad is no less important than any other part of the meal and I would expect the head chef to take as much care over it as s/he would over the rest. I could accept it if a salad is served entirely undressed, and I'm given the condiments and invited to make up my own dressing. But even then I don't want somebody else to come and assault my food with a pepper grinder. It's not about pain, it's about respect for me and my taste. Pretentious and silly. GRRRR

One thing I will try and do in the future when a waiter comes over with the pepper mill - is to make a point of tasting the food first, rather than typically saying no (occasionally I'll say yes because I think it might go well). Ok sometimes I'm already tucking in by the time they offer, but it's a good point well made about tasting the food first.

Although I agree with Ian (in france) about pre-salting and peppering, must point out what applies to any upscale restaurant I know about, that the 'head or exec chef' doesn't do the salads and in a busy kitchen isn't able to inspect every salad the sous chef constructs before it's served.
So saying, will repeat what i and others have written in this thread, and for accuracy sake it'll be a paraphrase. That many of us strongly object to any chef who is arrogant enough to believe that he/she knows how a dish is to taste and that the diner/customer should just shut up and eat with no option to add condiments to taste, therefore none are on the table and getting them often involves "attitude".
Don't recall, but if I hadn't stated it previously, I never add salt or pepper before tasting the dish, but do reserve the right to do either or both afterward.

Hi Shel T,

You said:-

many of us strongly object to any chef who is arrogant enough to believe that he/she knows how a dish is to taste and that the diner/customer should just shut up and eat with no option to add condiments to taste

As would I. If I am going to a restaurant, I (or my host) am/is paying. "He who pays the piper calls the tune". When I was working as a professional freelance chef, all I could ever do was to season to my own taste. If I was happy, then I would pass it to table. But I knew perfectly well that my taste is not and should not be identical with that of every other person who eats my food. If I made any money as a chef, it was because enough of my clients had a taste that was sufficiently like mine for them and their guests to enjoy the food and to want me to cook again for them. I'm digressing slightly. I have never been in a restaurant (from "best in the world") down to the greasy spoon round the corner, where I couldn't have salt and pepper to put on the food myself. I don't want a flunky to do it, and I certainly wouldn't accept it if any chef was so imbued with his/her own ability that none of his guests ever needed to season. Mind you, I'm pretty good at saying "can I have" and "no thanks".

Hi Ian, seems like we're saying pretty much the same thing in slightly different fashion. Is this an example of two countries divided by a common language!
Cheers
Shel

I had to cook a dinner that included a couple of nonfoodies once.

The husband was one of those people that immediately grabbed for the salt shaker without even tasting what he was salting. I must admit that I intentionally took a shot at him once by oversalting the heck out of only his dish when serving. Of course he grabbed the salt shaker (we don't usually have one on the table, but he'd ask for it anyway) and loaded his plate up like he was laying codfish in the hold until they got back to port.

When even he choked on what had become a salt lick instead of a dinner, I just said innocently "I knew you liked salt so I made sure your plate was prepared to suit your tastes. I never thought that anyone would season a dish without tasting it first. Too bad there isn't any more of the main course - I suggest that you'll have to scrape some of that off if you want to eat it."

I'm sure it did absolutely nothing to change the practices of the offender, but it sure gave me a secret smile. Since then if anyone asks for salt I tell them they have to taste the food first, and stick to it. No taste, no salt. No likee, no eatee!

I have since seen a friend do the same thing to another diner, only this time with spices. I'm not into really hot stuff, but my friend is and I guess he took it as a personal insult when another repeat guest alwasy grabbed for the hot sauce before tasting. He certainly regretted it that day.

I wonder why people season food as a knee jerk reaction - surely if they really cared about taste they'd at least sample first to gauge how much they'd need, if any.

And you are the Master Food Authority because ... ???

[Jenise]

Not to be argumentative, but isn't everybody the master food authority of the foods they cook? I'm certainly annoyed anytime I see anyone salt or pepper food they haven't tasted yet, which is Bill's point. Why do that?

Not to be argumentative, but isn't everybody the master food authority of the foods they cook? I'm certainly annoyed anytime I see anyone salt or pepper food they haven't tasted yet, which is Bill's point. Why do that?

Hi, Jenise! Because they're not sophisticated and don't know better? But why punish them in advance, especially if they're an invited guest? It's like putting Tabasco on a child's favorite dessert. I never add anything to a dish without tasting it first, but I can be liberal with my additions once I do.

Not to be argumentative, but I agree with Karen. Bill's behavior was just plain hostile.

Here's how I see it: No matter what he does, the man is a guest in your house. If his behavior is really completely unsuitable, then he doesn't get invited back again. Inviting him back and tormenting him is uncivilized.

I agree with Karen, Jeff and Hoke. Despite Bill's efforts to explain away his behavior, I think this was a dead giveaway of his intentions. Besides, I am a firm believer that once you give someone a gift, it is no longer yours -- it's theirs -- to do with as they please. I feel the same way as many of you about ketchup! I am highly offended when someone smears a meal that I have painstakingly prepared with the vile condiment. But, I bite my tongue and remind myself that my goal for every guest in my home is to insure they have had the best experience I am capable of providing. Guess I've watched To Kill a Mockingbird too many times!

[Robin Garr]

I've got to go along with my pal Karen, and with Jeff and Jo Ann and Hoke here. Simply put, and meaning no offense, it strikes me that the way a person treats a visitor in the home gives us a clear measure of that person's character.

Had I related that dinner in other terms:

"I knew he liked a lot of salt in his food, so I took care as a good host to salt his portion to his liking, and then instead of tasting it and finding it as he'd like it, he just grabbed the salt and loaded it on until even he found it to be too much, and ruined the food I had taken such trouble to produce for him"

Would your opinion be different?

In fact there was probably a 50/50 chance that this guy woud taste before salting. had he done so, he'd have been a happy camper and all would have been well. Is the fact that he made the opposite choice that time my fault? Is the fact that I think it served him right reason to damn me? Would I have been as happy if he had tasted it and said "Thanks for salting this just the way I like it" - sure I would. But he didn't, and like I said, I figured maybe a 50/50 chance either way.

Not if you still continued with the snarly bit about 'hope you can scrape it off, bozo'.

One thing to keep in mind is that this is an international board and various cultures are represented here. What we in the U.S. may consider extremely boorish behavior may be perfectly acceptable in Bill’s culture and that is why he acted in such a manner.

it strikes me that the way a person treats a visitor in the home gives us a clear measure of that person's character.

Agreed 100%. Luckily the people I hang around with are gracious hosts and would never dream of humiliating a house guest or intentionally ruining their meal.

it strikes me that the way a person treats a visitor in the home gives us a clear measure of that person's character.

Agreed 100%. Luckily the people I hang around with are gracious hosts and would never dream of humiliating a house guest or intentionally ruining their meal.

Geez, Dave and Jeff and Karen...I'm preachy and pedantic, but you guys are, like, Old Testament Biblical on Bill. Ouch.

Bill, I still don't believe you get the point of what all of us are saying. It's not that you object to knee jerk over-salting of food without tasting by this guy...I think it would be fair to say all of us would object to that, and cringe just a little---but the fact that you responded by trying to punish the guy for not adhering to your rules.

Wouldn't it have been easier to keep the salt/pepper off the table in the first place? Then, at the very least, you could have made your point by responding when asked for the salt shaker, to say "Hey, I know you like your food a certain way, and I tried to fix it that way, so why don't you taste it before adding anything, okay?"

[And as an aside, this guy could have been conditioned by constantly requiring more seasoning from eating what TO HIM is under-seasoned food, to the point that he almost automatically reaches for the salt shaker. My wife and I have seriously different salt levels, and I often reach for the saltshaker...though I am not so stupid as to incur her wrath by always adding salt before tasting. ]

Objecting silently to what a guest in your house does with his food is one thing; rigging things so you know he'll spoil his dinner at your table is quite another. You were trying to "teach him a lesson!" And did you stop to think that you were ---deliberately and consciously--- destroying your dish that you had spent so much time to prepare correctly for everyone else? For that is what you did, defend it or justify it as you will.

As to the Scotch...once offered, it is in poor taste to then obviously diss the guy by withholding what was offered. At that point, you're insulting him,and saying your scotch is more valuable than he is. You should have been more careful than to offer so casually, quite frankly.

Wouldn't it have been easier to keep the salt/pepper off the table in the first place? Then, at the very least, you could have made your point by responding when asked for the salt shaker, to say "Hey, I know you like your food a certain way, and I tried to fix it that way, so why don't you taste it before adding anything, okay?"

Yes, that would have been a valid way to go. I don't recall why I went the way I did (this was 25 years ago or so).

Objecting silently to what a guest in your house does with his food is one thing; rigging things so you know he'll spoil his dinner at your table is quite another. You were trying to "teach him a lesson!" And did you stop to think that you were ---deliberately and consciously--- destroying your dish that you had spent so much time to prepare correctly for everyone else? For that is what you did, defend it or justify it as you will.

Well, I didn't know he would spoil it. I knew that if he decided to salt without tasting, he MIGHT spoil it. If I'd posted that I had taken care to season it as he liked it and he'd ruined it, without adding what I'd had in mind when I did it, the likely reaction would be that he was a twit. It is my intentionally risking that happening that seems to stick in the collective craw.

As to the Scotch...once offered, it is in poor taste to then obviously diss the guy by withholding what was offered. At that point, you're insulting him,and saying your scotch is more valuable than he is. You should have been more careful than to offer so casually, quite frankly.

I agree, and I felt bad about doing it, but I would have felt worse about wasting an irreplaceable dram - it was from an extinct distillery. You might say with some validity that I should have chosen the high road and given him the malt with a Coke chaser. I had asked the people if they would like an after dinner drink (something I seldom do any more) and they allowed as how they were big time single malt appreciators. Two of them were, one was misstating it and obviously was not an experienced malt fan. If he'd just said that he wasn't that familiar with it but would like to try some I'd have gladly offered him a dram of something more modest, but when he clearly indicated that he didn't know malt from Gin, I possibly overreacted and told him he could have anything else, but not single malt, which I normally reserve for aficionados.

Both incidents were a couple of decades ago or more, and I don't know how I'd react today - probably given the Scotch guy a dram of Glenlivet anyway but withheld the mix, and probably have done something very like what you suggest with 'Old Salty', suggesting that he taste it first.

We no longer put salt on the table these days, however I often announce that I tend to cook with little salt and if anyone wants more I can provide it. We sometimes have pepper handy, but not always, as I try to season the way I want it and most guests are usually happy with it that way.

Today, I might just quietly supply inappropriate demands for catsup or hot sauce and mentally delete them from future guest lists. Guess I must have mellowed.

Wouldn't it have been easier to keep the salt/pepper off the table in the first place? Then, at the very least, you could have made your point by responding when asked for the salt shaker, to say "Hey, I know you like your food a certain way, and I tried to fix it that way, so why don't you taste it before adding anything, okay?"

Damn you Hoke I was just about to say that

Also, getting back to chefs - and indeed I'd be interested in their take on this (both amateur and pro). Do you ever think - better to under-salt / under-pepper than risk too much of either? (which then can't be rectified).

Personally I don't enjoy salt ground on top of any food, but on occasions will add some pepper. For me salt is for the kitchen rather than the dining table. Pepper works much better as a condiment IMO (I'll use it in cooking and at the table).

Do those that do add salt have a preference - cooked in, or do they like the effect of salt ground on top of their food? Maybe this might even explain the preference/actions of Bill's guest.

regards

Ian

Also, getting back to chefs - and indeed I'd be interested in their take on this (both amateur and pro). Do you ever think - better to under-salt / under-pepper than risk too much of either? (which then can't be rectified).

I err on the side of less seasoning nowadays, for the reason you give. Anyway, it's de gustibus non disputandum in the end.

Do those that do add salt have a preference - cooked in, or do they like the effect of salt ground on top of their food?

Both are good; it depends on the food. For example, hard-boiled eggs and raw tomatoes both need a bit of salt but I'm hard-pressed to figure out how to get it in there during cooking (or ripening).

A spray of finishing sea salt on a steak... yum.

Crystals floating in the soup... not so much.

Well, I didn't know he would spoil it. I knew that if he decided to salt without tasting, he MIGHT spoil it. If I'd posted that I had taken care to season it as he liked it and he'd ruined it, without adding what I'd had in mind when I did it, the likely reaction would be that he was a twit. It is my intentionally risking that happening that seems to stick in the collective craw.

Oh, puh-leeze!!!!!

Personally I don't enjoy salt ground on top of any food, but on occasions will add some pepper. For me salt is for the kitchen rather than the dining table. Pepper works much better as a condiment IMO (I'll use it in cooking and at the table).

Do those that do add salt have a preference - cooked in, or do they like the effect of salt ground on top of their food? Maybe this might even explain the preference/actions of Bill's guest.

There are a few foods where salt applied at the end is de rigeur. Foie gras is the single best one that comes to mind. Steak - OK, but I prefer to accomplish that by allowing a frozen disc of salted butter with herbs to melt over the meat.

And the guy I spoke of, the 'Old Salt' did it out of habit and because he really didn't seem to care that much what the food he was eating tasted like, rather than any desire for the texture of ground salt.

I used to salt hard boiled eggs, but I don't that much any more, and find I don't miss it. OTOH, freshly ground salt or fleur de sel can be a nice finishing touch on a poached egg, depending what else you are doing to it.