pumpkinstrokemarrow

An example over the past few days of how the cost of one's meal confected and  consumed at home is only weakly correlated with its quality. I observe in passing that confected at home reduces the tendency to equate price with quality. Something that I do in the case of supermarket wine: if I pay £10 a bottle I tend to like the stuff, while if I pay £5 a bottle I tend to dislike it. A tendency which is much weaker if I am buying ingredients rather than finished product. And a tendency which is said to be strong in the case of luxury goods like chocolate and perfume. One wants to spend out on stuff of this sort, a want which reminds me of a chap who used to have himself rowed out into the middle of a lake where he would tear up lots of paper money and throw it in, returning home content & satisfied with the world. And consumed at home reduces the tendency to delight in conspicuous consumption. One can be conspicuous in private, but it is more fun with an audience. Something not quite right about glorying in the expense of a meal all by oneself. So we have eliminated two factors which tend to equate cost with quality.

On the other hand, I have had good reports of the Marks & Spencer dining out at home range. Good food and wine for two for not much at all. But they manage to make it sound and taste quite posh. Quite different psychic forces must be at work here.

So, getting back to business, on the first day we had some line caught loin of cod originating from the north east Atlantic but actually bought from Waitrose. We had it baked and served with mashed potato and crinkly cabbage. Very nice it was too, but the fish cost around £15, out of which we got the one meal for the three of us.

Whereas on the second day we had a giant chicken, also from Waitrose as it happened. So far we have had three hot meals out of it and will probably get six more: three cold and three as some kind of stew or soup, this last possibly involving red lentils. But the chicken cost a mere £5, so without bothering with the modest cost of labour, fuel and vegetables, the chicken costs one ninth as much per portion as the cod. But I find it very hard to say that the cod was worth the extra. It made a change as we have not had it for a while, and I do prefer it to the rather cheaper salmon, but I would not want to go much further than that.

Odd that salmon has become a cheap fish again. I believe that in the first half of the 20th century, particularly during the depression in North America, salmon was dirt cheap. The huge salmon runs on the west coast were still up and running, so much so that poor people got thoroughly fed up with the stuff. They coveted tinned tuna. Maybe even tinned pilchards. Anything but salmon again. Then during the second half of the 20th century, salmon was a luxury item in western Europe. Salmon equalled posh. An equation which has not quite been blown away by the cheap farmed stuff.

I now get on to the sky sights of the post title. It was raining for most of the chicken day, but we did get out to inspect the declining water tower late afternoon and found it to be down to the last third. As expected, the drill seems to have been to remove all the insides, knock the bricks of the main curtain wall down the middle, dragging them out through a hole at the bottom and up onto the waiting wagon. All very neat and tidy.

On the way back treated to two spectacular skyscapes by the setting sun. Tremendous effects of light through the various banks of cloud. The first was brilliant blues, yellows and greys. The second more orange centric. Sadly transient; these thing only lasting a few minutes each.