Oceania vs Celebrity Food

[Baybear]

I understand that Costa food has gone way down since Carnival bought them. However, what you described with pasta is not what I meant by quality. I am not talking about taste. I am not looking for finely prepared food. I am not looking for gourmet food. I am not looking for 5* food. To me quality means tender juicy steaks, hearty (not watery) soups, flaky firm fish as opposed to mushy fish, 6 or 8 oz lobster tails as opposed to 2 oz lobster tails, firm shrimp as opposed to soggy shrimp, etc. For the most part, Celebrity failed to provide any of these quality items in the MDR on my last cruise. I understand they are serving 3000 people. That is their problem and they need to have enough people in the kitchen to live up to their advertisements. However, the quality I described above has very little to do with the number of people being served. I am so very tired of hearing that excuse.

 

You say when talking about food quality you're not talking about taste. Food IS taste. With food, if "quality" is not "taste," then you've lost me.

 

Presentation aside (only a visual aspect), food is taste and texture. That's all it is. If a pounded up piece of mutton tastes great when herbs and spices are added, and has a good texture, then it doesn't matter if it's mutton. It's a quality dish. Watery soups that have mild flavor reminiscent of dish-water... are bad quality, I agree, but that has nothing to do with thick or thin. A soup does not have quality because it's thick, or "little quality" because it's thin. Some of the thinnest soups have incredible flavor and would be "of high quality" to many chefs, like an expertly made bouillon or a Thai lemon-grass/coconut thin soup.

 

Mushy fish that's supposed to be just cooked and served, I agree, is "low quality," but then bland, boring sauces are also "low quality"... how could they be otherwise if they taste lousy? Quality and food are more than just the raw ingredients. It's the whole preparation with attention to complexity and seasoning that make for a quality meal. I don't understand why "quality" has nothing to do with "taste."

 

And 6-8oz lobster tails compared to 2oz lobster tails is "quantity," not quality. That's why we have those two words... quality and quantity. Both lobster tails could taste absolutely identical and have the same texture and you'd call the smaller one "low quality??" They would be the same quality, but different quantities. If you told me the lobster tails tasted great but they only gave you 2oz worth, I'd simply ask for three portions (which they would do!), thereby eliminating your "no quality" stamp on that dish. But if you just said they were "low quality" I probably wouldn't even order them thinking they didn't taste good. Your definitions are not very consistent with correct usage.

[Giorgi-one]

You say when talking about food quality you're not talking about taste. Food IS taste. With food, if "quality" is not "taste," then you've lost me.

 

Presentation aside (only a visual aspect), food is taste and texture. That's all it is. If a pounded up piece of mutton tastes great when herbs and spices are added, and has a good texture, then it doesn't matter if it's mutton. It's a quality dish. Watery soups that have mild flavor reminiscent of dish-water... are bad quality, I agree, but that has nothing to do with thick or thin. A soup does not have quality because it's thick, or "little quality" because it's thin. Some of the thinnest soups have incredible flavor and would be "of high quality" to many chefs, like an expertly made bouillon or a Thai lemon-grass/coconut thin soup.

 

Mushy fish that's supposed to be just cooked and served, I agree, is "low quality," but then bland, boring sauces are also "low quality"... how could they be otherwise if they taste lousy? Quality and food are more than just the raw ingredients. It's the whole preparation with attention to complexity and seasoning that make for a quality meal. I don't understand why "quality" has nothing to do with "taste."

 

And 6-8oz lobster tails compared to 2oz lobster tails is "quantity," not quality. That's why we have those two words... quality and quantity. Both lobster tails could taste absolutely identical and have the same texture and you'd call the smaller one "low quality??" They would be the same quality, but different quantities. If you told me the lobster tails tasted great but they only gave you 2oz worth, I'd simply ask for three portions (which they would do!), thereby eliminating your "no quality" stamp on that dish. But if you just said they were "low quality" I probably wouldn't even order them thinking they didn't taste good. Your definitions are not very consistent with correct usage.

 

Thanks you so much for the English lesson. However, I totally disagree with everything you said.