253 replies to this topic

[Fat Guy]

Just speaking from general experience -- and I'd be surprised were this not the general experience of every experienced diner in the world -- any given restaurant, on any given night, can totally suck. It can suck so bad that one is virtually forced to conclude, "This sucks way worse than an off night can explain." This happens to people at Taillevent, in fact it happened to me at Taillevent. It happens at Daniel, indeed more than once to me. This happens to people at Ducasse New York, Paris, and Monaco, though it hasn't happened to me. It happens at Pierre Gagnaire, though again not to me, and I'm sure it happens at El Bulli, though hopefully not when I eventually get there. Even at Gramercy Tavern, where the entire business strategy of the restaurant is obsessively focused on not letting this sort of thing happen (some would say at the expense of some inspiration/creativity), it happens. The only place it doesn't happen is at McDonald's, where the human factor has been beaten out of the system and everything has been automated. But a real restaurant is a delicate machine with numerous interlocking parts. When it starts to spin out of control, and the spin control mechanisms are for some reason not operating, a disastrous evening can ensue. The potential variation is much greater than with a Broadway show or an opera, because the nature of the specific interactions (in the kitchen and in the dining room) is so much less predictable. And it's entirely possible that, the very next day, things can be right back on track.

A related phenomenon: it's tremendously difficult to overcome one's first experience at a restaurant, especially if it's a bad experience, but also to some extent even if it's a good one.

None of which is to make any judgment at all with respect to the specific facts of this case. I'm just saying that, accepting all of Robert Brown's factual observations, which I'm sure are correct and probably even conservatively stated, there is still the possiblity that it was nothing more than an off night. Perhaps not the most likely possibility, but a possibility nonetheless.

There's a lesson for restaurants here, though, especially for "destination restaurants": most people will give you only one chance, and they're coming to you with high expectations. Those people will judge you on one visit, and they have a right to do so because they've paid a ton of money to get to you and to eat at your place. And those customers have friends, and some have even larger audiences.

[Jonathan Day]

There are different kinds of breakdown in a service operation.

One is the "one night disaster" that Steven describes. I've seen these happen in top restaurants but also in other finely tuned service enterprises like law offices and advertising firms. One of the chefs could have been suddenly taken ill, or a vital piece of equipment could have broken down. Since everything in a restaurant operation is connected to everything else, the effects of a problem like this can spread until the whole thing stops working.

Another is a more long-term systemic problem, a breakdown that occurs over a long time, as the operation either loses sight of what it is really trying to do, or something goes wrong with morale, training, quality, incentives, etc. Again, a decline of this nature usually affects many aspects of the place: reservations taken in a slovenly way, chilly greeting as guests arrive, mistaken orders, badly cooked food and the like.

The link between the two problem types is that a well run service operation (and I don't mean a roboticised place like a McDonald's or a factory law firm) needs enough redundancy to compensate for unexpected disasters. An operation in decline will often cut staff or skimp on maintenance in order to conserve cash, only to find that they have no resources to continue through a crisis.

My reading of Robert's report is that he was pointing to the second kind of breakdown, the systemic breakdown that can take months to fix. He cited

the immovable aspects of restaurants -- the overall taste level from the decor to the graphic design; the attitude and commitment of the dining room staff; and how one is generally treated

as an indicator of how well a restaurant was really doing. And in the case of Restaurante Martin Berasategui, he pointed to the design, the welcome as guests arrived, and the table settings as evidence.

I saw something like this with the Moulin de Mougins. It has improved somewhat since it lost two of its three stars -- it is now back to two, though our lunch there this summer merited one star at best. But when we dined at the nadir of its performance, a few years ago, there was a generally lost and down-at-heel character to the place, in welcome, setting, service -- and in the food. This was clearly not a one night problem, but a systemic decline that took place over a long time.

I would contrast this with the meal that we had at el Bulli earier this year, also reported in TDG. Here there was a bit of a "one night breakdown", resulting in unacceptably slow service and a meal that started at 8 pm and didn't finish until 1 am. And sure enough, Adria admitted that he was having trouble with some of his new staff that evening. But everything else, the food in particular, was very positive.

[pedro]

I'd like to make some comments on what's been said about Martin's restaurant. We visited Donostia a couple of weeks ago, visiting Arzak on Friday night, and Martin to lunch on Sunday. We always try to pay a visit to the area once a year at least, a nice tradition that began five years ago. In total, we've been to Arzak and Berasategui five times to each of them. Strictly speaking of food, we always have liked better Martin than Arzak, except last year, when we found more enjoyable the menu offered by Arzak.

This last visit, I found more interesting and perhaps more challenging, the dishes prepared by Martin. I'd also argue that the number of creations introduced every year in Martin's menu are larger than in Arzak's place.

My exposure to this type of restaurants outside Spain is none to zero. So I can't comment about the welcoming uses there, but I haven't noticed anything special in Martin that sets him apart from the rest of restaurants here. Could it be possible that people from the States are used to other service standards?.

The setting and view you get in Martin, with a large crystal wall to the country side, is to me the second in the area just after Akelare. The reason you have only the water glass on the table, is because they use the Riedel series to serve wine, and match the grape variety and the type of glass once you order wine.

What does offend you about the logo?. Did you find El Bulli decor better than Martin's (leaving aside the kitchen)?.

On service, the only area where I could point as a minor issue had to do with wine. Ignacio, their former sommelier, has recently left the place, to embrace a career as wine-maker. Now they only have a sumiller, and the second they need won't join them till next year. We were served the apperitives around ten minutes after we sat down, and the pace of the coming dishes was dictated by our rythm eating them. However, probably due to a higher level of attrition (I'd say there's only a waitress whom we knew from previous visits), Martin's service is not as well oiled as the one you get in Arzak or Zuberoa. Specially in Arzak, everything related to service flows naturally.

[Fat Guy]

There are different kinds of breakdown in a service operation.

Absolutely. But it is impossible to conclude, based on one data point, that you are witnessing the second. Yet it is overwhelmingly likely that almost every single observer of a one-night disaster will, if the disaster is quite complete, conclude that he has just dined at a restaurant in decline. The cognitive dissonance otherwise is just too great.

[Bux]

Just speaking from general experience -- and I'd be surprised were this not the general experience of every experienced diner in the world -- any given restaurant, on any given night, can totally suck. It can suck so bad that one is virtually forced to conclude, "This sucks way worse than an off night can explain."
...

There's a lesson for restaurants here, though, especially for "destination restaurants": most people will give you only one chance, and they're coming to you with high expectations. Those people will judge you on one visit, and they have a right to do so because they've paid a ton of money to get to you and to eat at your place. And those customers have friends, and some have even larger audiences.

I'll agree that even the best restaurants can suck, at least in some aspect on any given night and that sometimes all it takes is one detail to ruin a diner's entire dining experience and color the rest of the meal. I like to cite my experience at Roellinger because the restaurant redeemed itself and it shows how adaptive and generous a person I am. The truth is that there are restaurants that never got a second chance to prove themselves to me and that I carry a negative image of some very highly respected restaurants because they're just too inconvenient to revisit or they're in a location that has so much competition for my business. Life can be unfair.

I think most people however, will argue vehemently that a Michelin 3 star, or NY Times 4 star, rating should mean absolute consistency. In theory I'd join that argument, but it's unrealistic. Restaurants are dynamic. Staff come and go. Enthusiasm wanes and revives. Michelin notes that you will always eat extremely well and sometimes superbly at a three star restaurant. For some diners, extremely well is so high an expectation that superbly is irrelevant, but Michelin understands that not every dish, or every night is equal to every other. Still, consistency should be a hall mark of a fine restaurant.

Jonathan quotes Robert's "the immovable aspects of restaurants -- the overall taste level from the decor to the graphic design; the attitude and commitment of the dining room staff; and how one is generally treated" and notes himself that "as an indicator of how well a restaurant was really doing. And in the case of Restaurante Martin Berasategui, he [Robert] pointed to the design, the welcome as guests arrived, and the table settings as evidence." If I might focus on the design, it's probably one thing that is consistent in most restaurants. They may grow shabby or dowdy over time, but it's unlikely the design is swell one night and then unacceptable another. There's more likely a difference in the outlook of the diner, although I'll admit that the dining room seemed rather "gray" when we passed through it. We ate on a terrace with a great view of greenery that seemed to deny the suburban character of the neighborhood as we drove up to Berasategui. To what extent the decor or the restaurant contributed to the disappointment of the meal and to what extent the service or rest of the meal led to the dissatisfaction of the design can't be clear. These things snowball. If a diner is engaged with his dinner, he's less likely to pay as much attention to the background. If the food is not engrossing, or if he's bored waiting for the next course, it becomes very easy to notice flaws that might otherwise be unnoticed.

[robert brown]

I have always subscribed to the notion, as Marina and Bux say in different ways, that restaurants have a personality of their own; that they are the end result of people's labor, talent, and sensibilities. In my upper-echelon dining experience, which I try to be modest about, but let's say is lengthy and intensive, there are restaurants that have had the rare quality of embracing me. Almost always these restaurants come close to perfection in every aspect. On our Donostia excursion, Arzak did that to me. In fact as we were about to leave, I said to me wife (with the four other restaurant visits still to come), "We're not going to find any restaurant better than this." As far as I was concerned, I was right. My wife, however, was most taken by Mugaritz, showing that exciting, innovative cuisine can minimze the negatives of bad service. Mugartiz, however Spartan the room and lacking the pizzazz and accoutrements of its higher-rated two and three star restaurants in the area, was not the least bit offensive in the way Berasategui was.

As with Bux, I have been in several restaurants where the visit gets off to a bad start (Mugartiz was an example of a restaurant that committed the cardinal sin of leaving the client hanging in abandonment for many minutes after having been seated), but in the end the service staff redeems itself. At Berasategui, however, the damage was so heavy in the first 30 minutes and the ensuing service so dispassionate (and to be fair, the courses were well-timed once the meal got rolling) and the cuisine so unexciting that we never felt the restaurant had vindicated itself. To the two of us, we easily reached the inescapable conclusion that Berasategui was a restaurant experiencing structural difficulties, which is a feeling different than what we get when a restaurant is having a bad night.

Pedro, thank you for your heartfelt post. Certainly this year with his retrospective menu, Berasategui can't be making more new dishes than Elena Arzak. Even so, how does it matter? The people at the next table also received their apertifs in short order, but with nothing to eat with them. As for Martin's logo, it is a case study for design students on how to make a trite, hackneyed, maladroit, and cornball one. The only person I can think of who is suitable for a logo of a spoon laid across someone's head is Uri Geller.

Bux raises a point that gets right to the heart of "mind over palate", which is that if a diner is engaged with his dinner, he or she is less apt to notice what's going on in the background. Being restaurant junkies, my wife and I dining alone together tend to spend the entire meal commenting on all that is unfolding in our field of vision and range of hearing. I find that once we are dining with other people (who invariably don't care aboout the phenomenon of restaurants as much as we do), we obviously become oblivious or less attentive to the activity beyond us. On the other hand, I can be a sometimes-annoying group dining companion by reminding everone how long we have been waiting, pointing out some mistake or flaw, or questioning a server or a sommelier.

[pedro]

The only person I can think of who is suitable for a logo of a spoon laid across someone's head is Uri Geller.

Ok, now I'm seriously considering to let Martin know about this point. I'm almost sure he would agree.

Certainly this year with his retrospective menu, Berasategui can't be making more new dishes than Elena Arzak. Even so, how does it matter?

Perhaps we had different menus. Having been to Arzak and Martin in 2002, and just two weeks ago, is just plain simple that Martin outnumbered Elena in terms of new dishes introduced in the menu. I would agree with you that this wouldn't matter, wouldn't it be because I found Elena's new dishes less complete than Martin's ones. Take for example the "Eliptic egg" or the "Sopa de cerebro de carabinero".

I wasn't trying to make a comparison between Arzak and Martin, although my limited english skills are not good enough to produce sophisticated arguments. I believe there are cycles in restaurants, and maybe last year we experienced Arzak in one of its peaks and Martin going to a valley (all of this remembering that we're speaking of top level restaurants, and a valley in here could take another chef life to get there), and this year the other way around.

Nevertheless, I recognize that the staff stability achieved by Arzak is a major plus, and makes you feel more at ease during your visit.

And last but not least, let me finish this post the way the previous one should have started. Congratulations for your excellent article!.

PS: I'll try to post my recent experiences in the area, giving more weight to the places where you haven't been, namely Casa Nicolás in Tolosa, Ramón Roteta in Fuenterrabía (a.k.a. Hondarribia) and Rekondo in Donostia. We also tried to go to Kaia in Guetaria, and found it closed, but not being americans, we weren't able to secure a reservation to ElKano . Going to Casa Nicolás was a more than excellent substitute.

[vserna]

It's always tough, when a couple of things go wrong, to right the course and keep a good memory of a dining experience. I remember the first time I went to Mugaritz (no Michelin stars yet at the time, but already 'the great white hope' of the Spanish culinary press), I was sitting with my friend and colleague who reviews restaurants for Spain's largest newspaper, and we mentioned to Andoni Luis Aduriz a detail that didn't convince us in one of his dishes. He reacted haughtily, basically replying that we were a couple of old fogeys with no notion of his culinary style, and that we hadn't understood a thing. There we were, the restaurant critics for this country's two biggest dailies, being chastised by a cocky young cook (who, in addition, wasn't even right - I think we were!). I was really, really irked at first - but I still recognized Aduriz's great talent. To this day, though, I have remained convinced that this kid's arrogance sometimes gets the best of him. He's a Berasategui protégé, BTW, and shares many traits of character with Martín...

[Steve Klc]

Interesting. I heard immediate grumblings and rumblings from insiders when it was announced Berasategui got his third Michelin star--was that 2001?--that now the pressure was really on and that we'd see if he could deliver the goods a la Adria and Arzak and Santi Santamaria.

As an outsider looking in--I'm more fascinated by and envious of what's happening here--in Spain--but also what energy is happening within this eGullet forum--all the new voices we have here and others on the "Help in Donostia" thread. Victor, pedro, two stagiaires working there joined by Gerry Dawes, Bux, Robert Brown, LML and a lot of others whose names escape me at the moment. Thank you all for some vicarious joy--your efforts are appreciated.

[Bux]

One thing I have to add is that after re-reading that "Help in Donostia" thread, I realize how much divergency there is in people's opinions of their meals. I'm still not sure whether this is a reflection of the subjectivity of the various diners' tastes or a matter of inconsistency. I'd have thought the first, but I see reason to suspect the second. Perhaps this is to be expected in an area where creativity becomes a competitive sport.

I'm also not sure if this should add to the excitement of my trip next month, or make me apprehensive.

[Fat Guy]

Subjectivity and inconsistency are both inescapable realities of writing about restaurants. At the same time, both can be minimized and kept at least partially in check by the writer. The problem is that to minimize the inconsistency element, you have to visit a restaurant several times, and the reality of food-travel writing is that you go to restaurants once and you still have to write about them. So you do your best and you do it with the knowledge that you may go back to the restaurant the following year and get to write, "I said it sucks; I was wrong." A respectable writer doesn't mind saying that at all. I'll say it again: you can develop theories, you can have a strong suspicion, and you can witness some pretty damning behavior, but you simply cannot draw firm conclusions about the state of a restaurant based on one visit. I don't care if the garde-manger cook comes out, sticks a shotgun in your face, and says "finish your salad or I'll kill you," and then you complain to the Maitre d' and he says, "He should have killed you." It can still be a one-time crash rather than anything systemic. Of course, it's more likely than not that any restaurant that allows its line cooks to keep shotguns at their stations is suffering from systemic problems. But you can't be sure until you go back a few times. Alternately, you can look at data points from other customers you trust. If you have a lame experience at a restaurant, and then it turns out that several people you trust found the restaurant underwhelming for the same reasons, you can feel a little more confident about developing a one-visit opinion.

[Bux]

I don't care if the garde-manger cook comes out, sticks a shotgun in your face, and says "finish your salad or I'll kill you," and then you complain to the Maitre d' and he says, "He should have killed you."

You've gotten on the wrong side of a couple of cooks in your day, I gather.

[Jonathan Day]

I'll say it again: you can develop theories, you can have a strong suspicion, and you can witness some pretty damning behavior, but you simply cannot draw firm conclusions about the state of a restaurant based on one visit. ...  Of course, it's more likely than not that any restaurant that allows its line cooks to keep shotguns at their stations is suffering from systemic problems. But you can't be sure until you go back a few times.

Steven, can you give an example from your own reviewing of a case where a restaurant had all the signs of systemic decline, yet you subsequently discovered that, as it were, the shotguns were just in the kitchen for that one dinner service?

[Fat Guy]

You betcha. First time I ever dined at Daniel, we were kicked out. We had a large party at a 6pm reservation, they slammed the meal at a breakneck pace, and they asked us to give up the table at 8pm -- without warning -- while we were still only part way into coffee. And that was just the centerpiece of an evening that was relatively disastrous in many respects (not to mention I thought the decor sucked and the tables were cramped; this was at the old place -- now I think the tables are spacious and the decor sucks). Not only that, but there was complete non-responsiveness by the restuarant when I subsequently wrote to complain. This was one of those situations where I concluded that "there's a hell of a lot more wrong with this restaurant than an off night can explain." But I've been back enough times to Daniel (in both locations) to know, in retrospect, that I was experiencing the restaurant on one of its worst days, and that in fact on most days it has a very good day -- that Daniel Boulud guy, he's no joke. Was it our Robert Schonfeld who said, "There are no four-star restaurants; only four-star meals" (four stars being how we do it in NYC via the NY Times)? Or was he quoting someone else who said that? Either way, it's a true statement.

[robert brown]

Then Blind Lemon Higgins and I must have been dining in the same place on the same night.

[Fat Guy]

Two data points are better than one, certainly. That's why I was saying, "If you have a lame experience at a restaurant, and then it turns out that several people you trust found the restaurant underwhelming for the same reasons, you can feel a little more confident about developing a one-visit opinion." When I had a bad experience at Arpege, and two key people I trusted who had eaten there around the same time reported back with very similar observations, I became a lot more confident in my complaints about Arpege. Nonetheless, most people happily called me crazy for taking an anti-Arpege position, and I couldn't possibly have taken a particularly convincing stance on the issue just based on "I had a terrible time there and so did two of my friends." Several return visits are the necessary prerequisites to being able to take a credible absolutist position against a restaurant, especially one of that caliber and reputation.

[Lord Michael Lewis]

Martin Bertasategui has gone downhill. Amongst people who've eaten there regularly, it's a fact rather than a suspicion. So I don't understand why people who have never eaten there begrudge this position. What is being said here -- that we have to wait until one of the board's 'professionals' has eaten there to give credibility to our opinions?

Everyone is aware of the danger of absolute statements; this is not something that's just been discovered. Nevertheless, life is short, Martin Berasategui is expensive, and the US/UK is a long way away. So, in order that no one wastes their time and cash unnecessarily, I think we can dispense with such guarded language. Indeed, if what is being recommended is that every write up of disappointing meal is tempered with -- but it was probably an off night, and we wouldn't want to put anyone off, etc., then we might as well not bother.

[Fat Guy]

Martin Bertasategui has gone downhill. Amongst people who've eaten there regularly, it's a fact rather than a suspicion.

One assumes the Michelin inspectors have eaten there regularly. One assumes the four people on this thread (Victor, Bux, Pedro, Marina) who have posted favorably about the restaurant have eaten there, if not regularly, then at least occasionally or once. It doesn't seem to be a fact to them.

if what is being recommended is that every write up of disappointing meal is tempered with -- but it was probably an off night, and we wouldn't want to put anyone off, etc., then we might as well not bother.

I'm simply discussing how I think a one-meal account should be interpreted. If the author draws general conclusions about the state of a restaurant based on the information gathered on one visit, it's worth pointing out that those conclusions are inductive and not based on a full set of data.

[Lord Michael Lewis]

One assumes the Michelin inspectors have eaten there regularly. One assumes the four people on this thread (Victor, Bux, Pedro, Marina) who have posted favorably about the restaurant have eaten there, if not regularly, then at least occasionally or once. It doesn't seem to be a fact to them.

No. You assume this.

Lunch after lunch, dinner after dinner Martin Berasategui is serving 'diners'. Not writers not moderators not 'destination restaurant' seekers.

These are the people that keep a restaurant in business, and just because they don't post or have their own 'webzine', it doesn't follow, and I think even you will have to agree here, that their opinion is any the less valid.

I think you're overestimating the authoritative value of your own website, which at best represents a tiny, and randomly informed, fraction of the dining public.

Regarding the Michelin guide -- try speaking to a three-star chef next time you're in Europe -- it may be the hardest star to achieve, but is also the hardest to lose.

[Fat Guy]

One assumes the Michelin inspectors have eaten there regularly. One assumes the four people on this thread (Victor, Bux, Pedro, Marina) who have posted favorably about the restaurant have eaten there, if not regularly, then at least occasionally or once. It doesn't seem to be a fact to them.

No. You assume this.

So the Michelin inspectors haven't made many recent visits to the restaurant? How long ago do you think it received its third star? 1950? Or are you saying you think Victor, Bux, Pedro, and Marina haven't visited and that their opinions are not valid? In the above list of assumptions, what am I assuming that every rational person in the world shouldn't agree with as a matter of the obvious?

I think you're overestimating the authoritative value of your own website, which at best represents a tiny, and randomly informed, fraction of the dining public.

I think you're imagining a conversation in which nobody is participating but you. Might you be surprised to realize that I am in opposition to one of our Webzine's writers on this issue?

[Bux]

[The third star] may be the hardest star to achieve, but is also the hardest to lose.

I think that's true and it's been expressed numerous times on eGullet. I've said the best time to eat at any restaurant is the year before it get's it's third star and the worst time is the year it loses its thrid star. The stars at best reflect last year's performance and the loss of a star may lag even more than the award of one.

In the meantime, it's important to note that I dined at Martin three years ago. A lot has happened since then. His empire has grown and the competition and attention has become more fierce. I have little doubt that there are things in play that will affect his focus.

I don't think Fat Guy is overestimating the authoritative value of his website when he's picked Robert, a moderator here, to report on Donostia and then noted that there are conflicting opinions and that most of them come from people who have had one shot to eat and write. It would appear that what Fat Guy is doing is warning readers not to take any one opinion here as authoritative. I will offer an opinion when I eat there next month, but it will not be an authoritative opinion as two points are hardly enough to determine a curve. If my opinion is negative, it will probably have more weight than if it is positive. I am more disturbed by off eGullet reports that Mugaritz is inconsistent than that Berasategui is on the skids.

[Lord Michael Lewis]

One assumes the Michelin inspectors have eaten there regularly. One assumes the four people on this thread (Victor, Bux, Pedro, Marina) who have posted favorably about the restaurant have eaten there, if not regularly, then at least occasionally or once. It doesn't seem to be a fact to them.

No. You assume this.

So the Michelin inspectors haven't made many recent visits to the restaurant? How long ago do you think it received its third star? 1950? Or are you saying you think Victor, Bux, Pedro, and Marina haven't visited and that their opinions are not valid? In the above list of assumptions, what am I assuming that every rational person in the world shouldn't agree with as a matter of the obvious?

I think you're overestimating the authoritative value of your own website, which at best represents a tiny, and randomly informed, fraction of the dining public.

I think you're imagining a conversation in which nobody is participating but you. Might you be surprised to realize that I am in opposition to one of our Webzine's writers on this issue?

It is probably pointless to even post this, but:

First of all I've had some exceptional meals at M.B., but not recently.

Secondly, I don't see Victor coming out in favour of M.B.

Thirdly, whether or not M.B. is capable of producing sublime food seems irrelevant when discussing whether or not he is currently doing so.

This discussion is bound to the present state of M.B., which is declension. Although your argument is clear, I fail to understand why you take this position with respect to a restaurant you're not familiar with. Why do feel that you must re-present the various opinions in your own image? Aren't readers able to come to their own conclusions?

[Fat Guy]

First of all I've had some exceptional meals at M.B., but not recently.

How many meals have you had there recently, and will you share your comments on them? Or will this be yet another instance of you taking nasty little potshots from the sidelines while refusing to contribute actual content to the site? If the latter, please take your business elsewhere. I won't have you poisoning yet another thread on eGullet.

Secondly, I don't see Victor coming out in favour of M.B.

He said he though Robert Brown's experience indicated "a particularly bad day." Beyond that, let's ask him what he thinks. Victor?

Thirdly, whether or not M.B. is capable of producing sublime food seems irrelevant when discussing whether or not he is currently doing so.

That is correct. However, Pedro was there two weeks ago and appears to disagree completely with the assessment that MB is in decline.

I fail to understand why you take this position with respect to a restaurant you're not familiar with.

I'm not taking a position with respect to MB. I'm taking a position with respect to restaurant reporting and criticism in general, and that position is apropos of this specific discussion of MB.

[robert brown]

Michael's voice or posts are what helps give eGullet the special distinction it has. Taking pot shots is hardly unusual and of no significance if the person taking them now and then also contributes wisdom and erudition, which Michael does in spades. There are other members who specialize in little else but pot-shots and one-liners, but not Michael. His rigorous mind and keen intellect are something I look forward to being shared on eGullet. Michael, please don't go.

I must add that Michael doesn't need to elaborate. His palate is very trustworthy and indeed his advice prior to my trip was right on the money: that Berasategui was "off the boil" and Aduriz at Mugaritz was making exciting cuisine. His advice and opinions in the Spain & Portugal Forum are second to none.

[Jon Tseng]

Two data points are better than one, certainly. That's why I was saying, "If you have a lame experience at a restaurant, and then it turns out that several people you trust found the restaurant underwhelming for the same reasons, you can feel a little more confident about developing a one-visit opinion." When I had a bad experience at Arpege, and two key people I trusted who had eaten there around the same time reported back with very similar observations, I became a lot more confident in my complaints about Arpege. Nonetheless, most people happily called me crazy for taking an anti-Arpege position, and I couldn't possibly have taken a particularly convincing stance on the issue just based on "I had a terrible time there and so did two of my friends." Several return visits are the necessary prerequisites to being able to take a credible absolutist position against a restaurant, especially one of that caliber and reputation.

Not this old chestnut again!

Bear in mind
1) People can go to the same restaurant on different nights and have different opinions
2) People can go to the same restaurant on the same night and have different opinions
3) People can go to the same restaurant on the same night and have the same dish and have different opnions

(if you doubt 3) look at restaurant reviews of new openings where packs of slavering restaurant reviewers turn up at the same restaurant on the same night, have the same dish and write different opinions in there reviews. Plus manage to spel the chef's name wrong.)

Therefore
One-meal accounts from different people can be different
Two-meal accounts from different people can be different
Three-meal accounts from different people can be different
&tc

Therefore
Several return visits do not allow you to take a credible absolutist position against a restaurant, because there is no such things as a credible absolutist opinion... (post-modernism! wahey!)

cheerio

J

PS Possible counter arguments: Preponderance of evidence from multiple visits; cultural/societal norms enabling an absolutist opinion within the context of a particular society; chef was having a bad fish day

Edit: Or bad fish week in case of multiple visits

Edited by Jon Tseng, 22 September 2003 - 01:21 PM.

[robert brown]

You can walk away from a forgettable experience at a restaurant wondering if you were a victim of the luck of the draw, asking yourself if you took proper measure of the establishment. This, I imagine, is what happened to Fat Guy at Arpege. However, when your opinion is the result of quantifiable, observable events such as waiting 30 minutes for even a morsel of food; of interacting with a service staff that doesn't smile, make any attempt to engage the customer, or offer any advice or comments; and running the risk of choosing two comparable desserts from a limited selection, then you can be confident in saying that you have patronized a restaurant that is off its form.

I was confident in my assessment and, indeed, saw it bolstered by reports of some turmoil in the kitchen and a report of an experience contemporaneous with mine that mimicked many of the same aspects and events of my visit. (On the other hand, Pedro seems to have had better luck, though his comments were more of a defense of Berasategui.) Regardless, those who had been previously and enjoyed it may have been there during happier, more stable times at the restaurant. And it is possible that I and Blind Lemon Higgins, by going public with our opinions, which may be taken to heart by management, may help elicit positive comment from those who visit the restaurant in the future. This is why I always say that the major positive of complainers is their affecting change for the betterment of consumers at a later time.

[Fat Guy]

when your opinion is the result of quantifiable, observable events such as waiting 30 minutes for even a morsel of food; of interacting with a service staff that doesn't smile, make any attempt to engage the customer, or offer any advice or comments; and running the risk of choosing two comparable desserts from a limited selection, then you can be confident in saying that you have patronized a restaurant that is off its form

Based on occurrences like that, you can be confident in saying that you may have patronized a restaurant that is off its form. Perhaps you can even be confident in saying that you have probably patronized a restaurant that is off its form. But I've experienced significantly worse evenings than what you've described, and I've concluded confidently that I've experienced a level of badness that can't be explained by an off-night, and I've later come to realize that, bad as it was -- and it was really bad -- it was indeed just an off night. And that has happened to me more than once, such that as a matter of logic I simply can't accept that a single occurrence of waiting 30 minutes for even a morsel of food; interacting with a service staff that doesn't smile, make any attempt to engage the customer, or offer any advice or comments; and running the risk of choosing two comparable desserts from a limited selection is sufficient proof to conclude that a restaurant is off its form. You are a far, far more experienced diner than I, so surely you've had worse experiences that have subsequently turned out to be one-time system crashes rather than episodes in a restaurant's decline.

[pedro]

Geez, one is offline for a few hours, and misses such a hot debate. Well, let me recap my experience and what's being said about Martin here in Spain by some colleagues:

a) I've been to Arzak and Martin once a year for the last 5 years. Last time, Sept. 4 at Arzak's, and Sept. the 7th at M.B. (1 time to Akelare, 3 to Zuberoa, for precision's sake. Will easily return to Zuberoa, I'll let pass some time to give a second chance to Akelare). On every of these visits, I had the tasting menu.

b) Would I run a particular competition between Arzak and M.B., the score would be M.B. 4, Arzak 1 (2002). And I must emphasize that my meals in Arzak rank among the best I had in Spain, El Bulli, Can Fabes, La Broche, Can Roca, Hispania, Gaig, Racò d'en Feixa, Zalacaín, Cenador de Salvador and many others included (Peter Luger too ).

c) On these five times, I've just experience two "issues" at Martin's. The minor and latest one, to find a sumiller less communicative, and perhaps less knowledgeable (lots of guessing here) than I was used to in Martin. The other one, last year, when I requested to move to a table near to the crystal wall with the view of the countryside, and was turned down because the table in question was reserved. No one finally showed up, and no explanation was given. Would had this some kind of influence on ranking that year higher Arzak than M.B.?. Could be.

d) I can easily understand how people could be affected by other aspects beyond the pure food being served. I must admit that I can certainly have a higher tolerance regarding decoration, silverware, etc. But I wouldn't include service in that category. Besides food, I'm much pickier with wine glasses, temperature, wine list, wine prices, ... Smoke and perfume can also make me lose my temper.

And now, the "rumours":

e) Martin spends little time in his flagship. Could be, although I've seen him each and every time I've been there. Certainly, I'd agree with anyone who claims that 5 points is far from being representative. Perhaps girlcook and ginger chef can add something to this. Related to this point, comes the collorary that he's spending a lot of time and effort creating an empire. Would that be the case, he's not the first, and won't be the last. And at least, his tentacles are quite well confined to a small geographic area.

b) Martin "exploits" his staff. Delicate topic, to say the least. Working in the IT industry, I feel sympathetic to those experiencing long working timetables, close to slavery (amazing to see how more than a century of union fight can be lost in no time). I've said in a previous message that the degree of attrition Martin experiences in his staff, surely deprives him from having the kind of atmosphere you enjoy in Arzak or other places. But if this has had any influence on the food going out the kitchen, it has escaped to me.

I'm sure that I've stated the following thoughts elsewhere, but here they go again. Why am I so fond of Martin´s cooking?. Well, beyond the quality I believe his dishes have, I perceive that in Spanish contemporary gastronomic scene, and this is a more than subjective statement, there's somewhat of a polarization between two opposite trends. Once is represented, as you have correctly guessed, by Ferran Adria, which I believe trascends Spain/Europe's culinary traditions and puts product in the same level as technique, textures and temperatures, and the other trend is championed by Santamaria (Can Fabes), where tradition and having a central ingredient are key elements.The scale of this particular battle is well inclined to the side of Ferran. Nevertheless, there are components that are very valuable on both currents, and I think Martin has captured them. Tradition and product are vital to him, but he doesn't give up to apply vanguardist techniques. I believe this way can produce much more positive results than just trying to be the next Adria, pushing the envelope further (after air, I'm sure will come vacuum ), or becoming a tradition taliban. EMHO, some of the hottest places in Spain, are following this trend. Namely, El Bohío in a town between Toledo and Madrid, or Tragabuches in Ronda (Málaga).

If any of you have read so far, please let me know. Perhaps I should consider to buy you a dinner (you choose the place ).

PS: No, Peter Luger hasn't opened a joint in Spain.

[pedro]

On the other hand, Pedro seems to have had better luck, though his comments were more of a defense of Berasategui

This is too subtle for me. At which point does a report about good experiences transform into a defense instead of a simple report?. I wouldn't qualify your report as an attack to Martin, and except some parts of my previous messages, I wouldn't say I was defending Martin, I simply was stating that I had difference experiences than you have had.

Regards,
Pedro

[marcus]

You betcha. First time I ever dined at Daniel, we were kicked out. We had a large party at a 6pm reservation, they slammed the meal at a breakneck pace, and they asked us to give up the table at 8pm -- without warning -- while we were still only part way into coffee. And that was just the centerpiece of an evening that was relatively disastrous in many respects ..... Not only that, but there was complete non-responsiveness by the restuarant when I subsequently wrote to complain.

I personally would not have gone back, and I wouldn't interpret this as just a bad day either. I think that you learned something fundamental and enduring about the restaurant, which is their attitude towards unknown diners when they have considerations that they consider more important that they have to deal with. It may never occur again, especially now that you're better known, but it exhibits an attitude on the part of the restaurant that can manifest itself in many different ways. I think that minimizing problems by categorizing them as bad days can also be a way of excusing and avoiding serious systemic issues.