Dugat G-C '99 w/Roasted Foie Gras, etc.

Peter Creasey

Peter Creasey

Peter Creasey
Claude Dugat Gevrey-Chambertin '99 -- Dark red, smooth/racy scents, pleasing earth, subtle dark fruits, full body, maybe a bit straight laced, solid core of dark fruits, no edges, powerful, medium tannins well buffered, opened nicely in the glass. [E]

Served with Roasted Fresh Foie Gras w/Shallots & Pears, Traditional New Year's Black-eyed Peas...

In the beginning . . . And as coming from the oven...



And as served...



. . . . . Pete
 
Oh, goodness. Why Gevrey with foie gras?

Why roast foie gras? (To the point of sashimi in middle.)

Cruelty to cruelly treated animals, don't you think?
 
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
Oh, goodness. Why Gevrey with foie gras?

Cruelty to cruelly treated animals, don't you think?
Click to expand...

Agreed on the wine choice. Bleh.

Well, at least you can make the choice yourself as to whether you want to eat it or not. Soon enough in California, it will be banned from being served in restaurants. Fucking nanny state making the decision for us.
 
Banning foie gras because it is the product of unreasonable cruelty to animals isn't the act of a nanny state. Making you wear motorcycle helmets or seatbelts is and I'm even in favor of those laws. But only laws that make people protect themselves really qualify. Banning foie gras because it caused nosebleeds or some other health problem would be the act of a nanny state.

And just to be wildly inconsistent, while I agree with the principle behind banning foie gras (one can distinguish between killing and eating animals and torturing them), I still eat it because I like it too much.

But I agree, the wine match-up seems odd.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Banning foie gras because it is the product of unreasonable cruelty to animals isn't the act of a nanny state.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. I found the following definition for 'nanny state': a government that makes decisions for people that they might otherwise make for themselves, esp those relating to private and personal behavior.

That being said, your definition is also correct.
 
I think you guys take Ms. Bowman a bit literally.

Not that such a thing would ever happen around here.
 
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
Oh, goodness. Why Gevrey with foie gras?
Click to expand...

Is this perhaps a nod to Brillat-Savarin? Wasn't there a whole foie gras poached in Le Chambertin in one of his vignettes?
 
I confess to being astonished at the summary judgement against this rendition of roast foie gras and Burgundy.

The Dugat Gevrey-Chambertin is a big and stout wine in a gracious style. After considering various other pairings, including Rhones, the idea of the Dugat G-C jumped out at me.

We thought it was a marvelous match up, perhaps even better than Rhones etal.

I had to campaign a bit to have the black-eyed peas on the plate. It was a very nice (compelling?) match up.

And the dinner altogether was memorable for its excellence.

. . . . . . Pete

P.S.
not only the most inspired description ever written of a boiled dinner, but also a pot-au-feu that dared to include, with the authority of the greatest fictional gastronome who had ever lived, an entire foie gras poached in Chambertin!
Click to expand...
 
originally posted by Larry Stein:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Banning foie gras because it is the product of unreasonable cruelty to animals isn't the act of a nanny state.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. I found the following definition for 'nanny state': a government that makes decisions for people that they might otherwise make for themselves, esp those relating to private and personal behavior.

That being said, your definition is also correct.
Click to expand...

If one thinks that the torture of animals (let's stipulate that force feeding geese and ducks is torture for the sake of argument)is unethical or simply something a society that can avoid doing should avoid doing, then it isn't a decision people make for themselves relating to private and personal behavior except in the sense that so is theft and murder. The state wouldn't be regulating you but protecting the animals. It may be that such treatment of animals doesn't rise to the seriousness of demanding state intervention, or that the ethical stance against torturing animals remains too narrowly shared to be an acceptable basis for state intervention, but these are all different objections than that the state is doing something that is properly your private concern.

And I object to the definition you cite as needlessly watering down the effect of the criticism "nanny state" by extending it where it should not go. But that's an argument I may already have lost.
 
originally posted by Peter Creasey:

I confess to being astonished at the summary judgement against this rendition of roast foie gras and Burgundy.
Click to expand...
It's the irreparable harm that does it.
 
Having and roasting a whole foie gras seems extravagant to the point that one might indeed give some thought to the wine pairing. In such cases I follow two rules that seem to be close to infallible, in no particular order: "MoussaMoussettes : Yessir!", and "Muscadet, naturally." In your case, I would have suggested the former.
 
I've heard other people swear that Burgundy and foie gras make a fine pairing. I'll have to give a try some day.

In general factory farm chickens endure far worse treatment than foie gras geese.
 
What is generally not mentioned in foie gras debates is that as migratory birds, they overfeed and swell their livers seasonally, themselves, on purpose, to build up massive calorie stores for the migration. Their fat swollen livers are back down to normal size, more or less, upon arrival. Instinctively the birds are ready and willing to overfeed.

Foie gras production is just human manipulation of that capability. Time shifting it and preventing their departure. The enactment of the CA law was a triumph of an extreme interest group, exploiting the ignorance of politicians and the public, with essentially purely emotional anthropomorphic (we're appalled by the process, so the birds must feel tortured) pleas.
 
originally posted by Jay Miller: I've heard other people swear that Burgundy and foie gras make a fine pairing. I'll have to give a try some day.
Click to expand...

Jay, My feeling is that a Burgundy (preferably, in my view, a red one) that is more on the powerful side will impress you well when paired with a classic presentation of foie gras.

Something earthy like truffles (or in this case black-eyed peas) along with the foie gras and, say, pears will help the dish and Burgundy be finely complementary.

. . . . . Pete
 
originally posted by Ned Hoey:
What is generally not mentioned in foie gras debates is that as migratory birds, they overfeed and swell their livers seasonally, themselves, on purpose, to build up massive calorie stores for the migration. Their fat swollen livers are back down to normal size, more or less, upon arrival. Instinctively the birds are ready and willing to overfeed.

Foie gras production is just human manipulation of that capability. Time shifting it and preventing their departure. The enactment of the CA law was a triumph of an extreme interest group, exploiting the ignorance of politicians and the public, with essentially purely emotional anthropomorphic (we're appalled by the process, so the birds must feel tortured) pleas.
Click to expand...

Ned,
You echo the argument as put forth by my friends in the Perigord, namely that many who decry the treatment as cruel have never witnessed the actual act, in which the birds are most willing participants and fail to exhibit any signs of suffering. As you note, the swelling of their livers is not entirely alien to their being, yet do-gooders seize upon this as signs of torture, cruelty and other unnameable sins.

Speaking of unnameable sins, most choose to pair white wines with foie gras in my experience, often with some RS, too. I'll reserve my judgment on your pairing, Pete, having not yet tried it (and not being a particular fancier of FG, I likely won't).

Mark Lipton
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
My noodle, if swelling livers are a sign of torture, this is surely an abused company!
Click to expand...

Have you checked yours at all recently? I haven't seen mine in a dog's years, so I have no clue if it's any bigger than it used to be. No protusions that direction, though, lead me to conclude that I'm not a candidate for foie gras-hood, though I readily admit to being less than certain on that front.

Mark Lipton
 
originally posted by MLipton:
originally posted by SFJoe:
My noodle, if swelling livers are a sign of torture, this is surely an abused company!
Click to expand...

Have you checked yours at all recently? I haven't seen mine in a dog's years, so I have no clue if it's any bigger than it used to be. No protusions that direction, though, lead me to conclude that I'm not a candidate for foie gras-hood, though I readily admit to being less than certain on that front.

Mark Lipton
Click to expand...
Well, when I poke that side of the belly, there seems to be more there than there was a few years ago, but it's possible that it's more superficial than hepatic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top