Posted 23 July 2002 - 05:57 PM
Do you think the tasting menu represents your food better than the a la carte menu or is it a question of the diner's mood? Do you find that diners gravitate towards or away from the tasting menu as they become regulars? Are these fair questions?
I know that sometimes, if a restaurant comes highly recommended, I'll choose the tasting menu to get a broader picture of what the kitchen can do, but at other times I might wait to order the, usually more expensive, tasting menu until I've come to respect the kitchen more. So maybe it's not a fair question, but I can ask if you tend to regard the diner who orders the tasting menu in a different light that the one who orders a la carte.
Please feel free to answer as selectively as you wish or just repond to the general subject matter.
Recent WorldTable posts include: comments about reporting on Michelin stars in The NY Times, the NJ proposal to ban foie gras, Michael Ruhlman's comments in blogs about the NJ proposal and Bill Buford's New Yorker article on the Food Network.
My mailbox is full. You may contact me via worldtable.com.
Posted 01 August 2002 - 06:31 AM
As for tasting menus, your assumption is correct. The kitchen, the front of house, everyone save the dishwasher because of the extra work, respects the table that orders the tasting menu. It changes daily. It's a challenge to produce. It makes life here invigorating. And I think it represents the spirit of what we do more than anything else.