degusto

I had what shall be the last meal at Maximin a few years ago. It was dreadful. Food was disastrous with uninspiring dishes made with poor ingredients, poor execution and reckless platings, service was snotty and as if that was not enough a loud and wine drinking Maximan dining with friends at the nearby table made sure to completely ruin the evening. I forwarded my observations to Michelin and did receive a note back. I know of others who have sent negative notes to Michelin. People in the restaurant trade keep saying that he is a genius but they tend to duck any questions relating to whether they have been there recently. I am surprised that Michelin so stubbornly keeps the 2-star rating of this place.

Vedat has a point, but it is really difficult to explain why the Italian seafood restaurants in general have better seafood than the French, except for a few of the most expensive restaurants on the French side of the border. It is clear that for the local gamberi, langouste, local langoustines, squids and cuttlefish, the Italian markets, fishmongers and fishermen offer better produce. In fact anything even remotely resembling the fantastic San Remo gamberi are nonexistent and Mediterranean langoustines are rare on the French side of the border. On the other hand, the Italian fishmongers have no scallops, wheras just across the border in France they are easy to find fresh and of good quality now when the season has started. The French restaurants that serve the best seafood get a portion of their seafood from the Italian fishmongers mainly in Ventimiglia. But for large sea bass, turbot and some other fish, the Italian seafood restaurants will tell you that they sometimes go to France to get it. It is all a bit confusing. Another reason why it is easier to get good seafood at reasonable prices in Italy may be that Italian restaurants like Carletto, where I had a fantastic meal recently, and Via Romana base their cooking around top class ingredients so they tend to spend as much time and effort as the multi-starred French restaurants like Le Louis XV and Jerome to search out the best seafood, whereas many of the non-starred French restaurants serving seafood depend on deliveries from one or two wholesalers that they give phone orders to. At the seafood stalls in the Ventimiglia market, one will often find Franck Cerrutti, Bruno Cirino and the Italian chefs early in the morning meticulously selecting gamberis, rock red mullets, baby squids e t c, that were fished during the night before but one will never see the chefs from the majority of seafood restaurants that are less quality conscious. Some of these quality conscious chefs also work with the few remaining local fishermen and consequently can get ultra fresh fish that has never been put on ice to offer on their menus. In the end I think it is this selection process that renders consistent results. Every now and then one can of course have a great fish even at places like le Cabanon.

I do not know why you assume that I make this assumption. Most do not operate deeply in the black. A few three stars are goldmines, most are not, many operate in the red. A three star that goes more casual "brasserie de luxe" has a high likelyhood of turning into a cash cow. ← I have seen you write this before. Most do operate in the black. Do you seriously think they would continue operating if that was not the case? As I said the vast majority of three stars are lucrative businesses. I am unsure if there is anyone except for Le Louis XV and one or two of the hotel restos in Paris that operate in the red. LXV is financed by SBM and it is a different story. ← My statements regarding this have been backed up by others in the industry as well. There really is no need to argue about it here. If you have seen me write this before, maybe you missed the part about my saying that top tier places taking longer to start operating in the black. Furthermore my initial point in this thread is that the place would run deeply in the black after the change. ← No I have read you writning that they are in the red, which is not the case. In fact a lot of people keep saying that there are sinking fortunes of the French haute cuisine and well it does not seem to be the case. Maybe this theory is backed up by mouning chefs. But it is not backed up by the cold facts of the figures that these restaurants reports to the authorities. Please use real fact instead of rumours. Check out for yourself on the link I gave you. If Lucas Carton will be more profitable after the change is a question only future will have an answer to. Maybe, maybe not. I am however sure that there is no bistro in France on the surface of l'Ambrosie with the same sales and net profit.

I do not know why you assume that I make this assumption. Most do not operate deeply in the black. A few three stars are goldmines, most are not, many operate in the red. A three star that goes more casual "brasserie de luxe" has a high likelyhood of turning into a cash cow. ← I have seen you write this before. Most do operate in the black. Do you seriously think they would continue operating if that was not the case? As I said the vast majority of three stars are lucrative businesses. I am unsure if there is anyone except for Le Louis XV and one or two of the hotel restos in Paris that operate in the red. LXV is financed by SBM and it is a different story.

I do not know why you assume that all top restaurants operate in the red. It is just not the case. Check out for yourself on Societe.com. The financial figures for Lucas Carton are here. As you can see it has been quite profitable the last four years or so. Many of the three star restaurants are literally gold mines. Michel Bras, l'Arpege, l'Ambroisie to mention a few are exceptionally profitable businesses. In my mind Lucas Carton has been one of the underperforming three stars for years. The last meal I had approx. a year ago was very expensive but only a 15/20 on my rating. The performance was consistent with previous meals during the nineties. I do agree that the chase of the ratings can be a problem, but seriously, most three star chefs would prefer having the three stars because of the revenues and the result on the bottom line.

That truth of that statement depends on two major factors : 1) The mass of the chips you drop into the oil. 2) The mass of the oil into which you drop the chips. If you put a lot of cold chips into enough oil at 190C to just cover them, then yes, the temperature of the oil will drop alarmingly. If you put a modest amount of cold chips into a professional deep fryer (capacity 20 litres), for instance, then it's better able to withstand the chilling effect of the chips, and doesn't lose much heat at all. It's the same principle we use when blanching green beans - a huge cauldron of very salty water on the strongest stockpot burner we have, and the beans blanched a handful at a time; the water, ideally, shouldn't come off the boil. ← Obviously. It would also - which is also quite obvious - depend on exactly how cold the chips are. I was just reporting Hervé This' explaination for the use of double cooking. More interesting perhaps is that indirectly from his statement it would follow that the double oil bath cooking is useless, at least for normally thin chips or pre-cooked chips that are not very cold.

You only poke one hole in every grain?

My belief is that it is old technique for avoiding miscolouring and also to enable freezing of the chips. The cooking time in water is normally very short but chips are usually thinner than Heston’s version, which obviously requires longer cooking time. As for the two oil baths, I seem to remember that Hervé This has explained why it is used. The purpose of the first at 130 C is to heat the chips a little and the second is to actually cook them. If you drop cold chips in oil at 190 C, the temperature of the oil will quickly decrease to a level at which the chips will not be cooked.

I am very interested to hear more on this. Could you please elaborate on how you predict Alinea forever will change the way people perceive restaurants. I am interested in how your perception of restaurants has changed from pre-Alinea to post-Alinea and how general people's perception of restaurants will change.

Ducasse's relation with the current Michelin boss is special since he has worked for Ducasse. This has been widely criticized in France. But sure, there could be many reasons for Delouvrier’s departure, I think it was a decision that was taken very recently though, because the article I mentioned above is damaging to Ducasse in the light of what has happened.

This was exactly my thought when I read this because in the very last issue (came out 1st of May) of the Thuries Gastronomie, which is the food magazine in France for professionals and food lovers, there is a big feature on Delouvrier and Ducasse. Well it is about the cuisine of Ducasse in New York and every dish is literally signed by Delouvrier. If the departure of Delouvrier had been planned for some time, even weeks, I am sure that Ducasse would have stopped this article from being printed. On a completely different remark, I cannot refrain from commenting on the photos of the dishes in this thread. Some of the dishes are incidentally in the magazine feature by the way. I have never eaten at Ducasse in New York, but I have extensive experience from virtually all of his French restaurants and in particular from Le Louis XV. The food on the images does not look like Ducasse’s haute cuisine at all to me. Some of the dishes look surprisingly dull in terms of ingredient composition, preparation and presentation. Many of the courses on the New York menus that have been quoted on this thread sound more like food served in any of his auberges than like food served at Le Louis XV or ADPA. I would not be surprised if that is the input he has gotten from people with eating experience (perhaps Michelin) from his other two top restaurants.

Maybe you have tried it too Andy? ← No, just the twice cooked method. Blumenthal's method sounds painfully complex for the home cook and its really not something I would want to do. ← Well I was wondering if you had done the twice cooking with the frozen chips bought in the super markets. These chips are cooked once or twice before they are frozen. If you have done that, which I have, you would effectively had used a tripple or four times cooking. I agree that for example Heston's idea of pinpricking the chips sounds tedious to say the least. My favourite chips are made with whole mini-ratte potatoes. Depending on how easy they are to peel (matter of season) they are either peeled first or quickly blanched, then peeled, then cooked in water and after cooling and drying, they are fried twice. It is tedious work but they can be frozen after the first cooking step for a week or two. Salted with seas salt, the resulting fried small potato is exceptional.

I think this article is a perfect example of how a chef applies his adjusments or interpretation of a specific technique to obtain the desired result. I have no doubts whatsoever that Heston actually spent years perfecting these chips to obtain a texture just like he wanted from the chips, which are quite large by the way. I never questioned that. I only said that the use of triple cooking as such was not new.

I suspect that many have applied this method on the chips they may have bought frozen at any Tesco or Sainsbury store. Since theses chips are pre-cooked once or twice, it seems reasonable to assume that triple or four times cooking may be widly used by a large number of home chefs. Maybe you have tried it too Andy? I have anyway done it a few times.

It is not in any of his large cook books I have seen it. It is in a small pocket book with cooking tips that I think it is mentioned. But since I do not have it here... As I said I have used triple cooking for more than 20 years. I have no idea where I picked it up. The triple cooking after thorogh washing off the starch is done first in water and then twice in oil.

I am at a remote location right now, but I seem to remember the technique also being mentioned in one of Loiseau's pocket books with cooking tips. I could be wrong on this though.

Yes but that was not the issue. The issue was the use of produce not in season locally.

Heston has talked and written about the trial and error he went through to perfect the final process - boiling the potatoes until they almost fall apart, drying them out in a descicator, blanching them in fat and then a final deep frying - but you are saying that process was already established? Is it documented anywhere as I'd be very interested to read it. ← Triple cooking of chips is nothing new. I have used it for as long as I can remember. I cannot remember when or where I was taught it. I have always taken it for granted and I have seen it mentioned in books. In his cooking series on French television, Robuchon has always described the triple cooking as the best way to get crispy chips. Heston's drying them out in a descicator may as I said be his contribution. I do not question that Heston has spent time perfecting the technique to a certain detailed level he wants the chips at but that is true for most "known" techniques used by chefs. I was just remarking that triple cooking of chips is nothing new.

I have eaten a few times in the ”Bluebird Club” as I believe it used to be casually called before. The food was never particularly inspiring and a good expression for it would perhaps be Comfort Food. I have not been any recently so it may have changed even if it from Matthew’s descriptions sounds similar. I seem to remember though that only after they opened the wine prices were quite reasonable and the wine selection was rather remarkable. Is that still the case? I read in the Tough Cookies book about the triple cooked chips and you no doubt get the impression in that book that the triple cooking is Heston’s discovery. It is not. It is a very old practice. Heston’s more recent use of modern technology to reduce the humidity in the potatoes may be his contribution though, although the need for it may be superfluous in practice with the selection of the best potato variety and considering the relatively little need for keeping the chips crispy indefinitely.

I wrote: “In today’s world were raw material can be quickly ordered and shipped to a far away destination, there is little reason to argue that chefs, except perhaps for chefs exploring the local terroir, should only use local produce in season. On the other hand, it is arguably easier to find the most exceptional ingredients from a selection in season than from the produce imported in off-season from far away” In other words, working with produce that is seasonal far away means much more difficult sourcing since you have no direct contact with the farmers in question. For example, I have yet to see vegetables in an out of season location even remotely close to those in season from Madame Nys, who used to produce vegetables, herbs and flowers to measure to Roger Vergé and Maximin in their heydays. In any case, Heston stretches the seasons for ingredients a bit too much in my opinion which leaves room for improvements and the practice of using for example dried morels is just totally inexcusable. There are still derivate elements evident in Heston's cuisine and particularly in his platings, but he is far from alone with this practice, since this is evident to some extent in most places below the very top and at times even there. Getting rid of such derivative signs is a very long process for a chef but is in my opinion one of the requisites for forming a unique style.

Andy, I may have slightly drifted on the topic, but it was only due to your off topic remarks. I am sorry if the topic drift disturbs any readers of this thread.

Andy, I was in London a couple of days this week. The newspapers were full of articles on Heston with various food journalists touting that the Fat Duck deservedly was selected the best restaurant in the world and treating this extremely laughable list as the new food bible. There have previously been writings by several British journalists holding him as high as it gets. I have not time to give you links to those. For me it is a quite well known fact.

A more thorough review from Vedat can be read here with images. I would like to make a few comments on my own on l'Atelier. First of all, I have no problems with the setting as such, even if the chairs could be slightly more comfortable and the smoke from kitchen could be less sticky than it can be at times, but seriously, I would eat and enjoy great food in miserable conditions even if it was served on plates of cardboard. As Vedat has pointed out, putting courses on the menu with the same name as at Jamin does not in itself make food great or even good. Great food comes from the practising of extreme attention to detail in the sourcing, selection, storing and handling of the ingredients, the extreme attention to detail in the execution of the dish (cooking, seasoning, taste calibration etc etc), the exceptional taste and ingredients marriage and the careful presentation of the dish. Without these components, the conceptual level or its menu description of the dish means little or nothing. From what I have seen during a year and a half (my first visit was in November 2003) on several visits are significant shortcomings in all these components that make food great. And the shortcomings are such that food has not even been good. Most problematic to me have been the low quality level of the ingredients. The langoustines ravioli has on three occasions been a mushy mess just like Vedat describes it and I have come to the conclusion that they use frozen langoustines or langoustines that have been handled poorly. But one could be sarcastic and say it is to the better since on the few occasions they have worked with exceptional ingredients, like their jabugo ham, they have nevertheless shown a complete disrespect to it by cutting it hours if not the day before and placed the slices on a paper sheet and stored it in a fridge until serving it cold on the paper. Of course there are not much flavours left in the ham. Cooking has almost always been flawed to a greater or lesser extent and always noticeable is an inconsistent seasoning. The plates have on every occasion I have been there been quite greasy. The shortcomings are so significant that the food is not even a shadow of what it could be and it certainly does not resemble great or even good food. I just do not see how there can be a “good night” for this place. In my opinion there are such fundamental flaws in their ingredients sourcing and handling chain that even if the chefs have a good night, the raw material will not be there to ensure a good result. It is not strange. They serve hundreds of meals every day. Ensuring quality of raw material and ingredients, from sourcing to quality control and handling, for that type of operation is very labour intensive and requires high skilled people and such costs they obviously think they are better off without. The prices are much too expensive if we weigh in the quality and the quantity of food that is served. I much rather eat at inexpensive bistros. They may have their shortcomings too, but the price/quality ratio ensures me leaving the meal without a bitter aftertaste.

Thank you Andy for your feedback on my review of the Fat Duck. It would of course have been more interesting with some feedback containing some substance rather than just your sarcastic and arrogant claims of arrogance and self-importance. Please note that I do not question your capabilities to be a judge of my capabilities of providing in-depth analysis of food or the level of my food knowledge. Gastroville is partly about being a consumer’s advocate on high end dining but also about promoting the importance of excellence of raw materials and ingredients of all sorts, which is one of the most important building blocs of great cooking and a fundamental heritage of Western cultural-gastronomic tradition. In our opinion there is a need for such a consumer’s advocate. Food journalism, with almost the sole exception of Francois Simon of le Figaro, lacks journalists who can or dare criticise top level dining at least in any deeper sense. This is a significant shortfall for consumers who often are in the dark as to how to best appreciate food and also for professional chefs, who are in the dark with respect to how experienced diners really perceive their food. Most restaurant critics also make the mistake of basing their reviews on solely personal preferences of what works to their palate and what does not. It is a much too limited approach. Most food reviewers lack a methodology or logical standards of the way they rate food. I am not requiring that such a methodology is well defined by each and every food writer, but if they cannot explain some sort of standards of what makes a dish great and do not know how to apply those standards, then why would their views be taken with any authority or even seriousness at all? We have tried to put down logical and clear standards on how we would like to judge and categorise food. These standards are by no means ready and should be seen as a living document and will no doubt be improved and refined as time goes by. There is no self-importance intended with the review on the Fat Duck or any other review and the hard-hitting comments about certain practises or ingredients are there because of their level of disturbance during the meal. The level of detail is intended to be provoking and to serve as constructive criticism. If you read our Mission Statement you will perhaps better get the picture of what our intentions and our drive are with the blog. We do think we have important contributions to make to the readers, both to diners to better understand food and dining and also to chefs to better understand how diners think. Constructive criticism may serve as a better understanding of what observations in this case one diner makes and what he is disturbed by rather than just using the normal sweeping little saying comments so often used, when a particular dish deserves to be criticised for example for the use of less than pristine ingredients or because a dish leaves room for significant improvements. Exceptionally few, if any, top-chefs believe they have reached perfection and cannot improve their cooking or their dishes. The most professional chefs never cease to strive for a perfection they know they will never reach. The same goes for the most experienced and, perhaps some would say, blasé gourmets; the search for perfection that will never be found is the constant motivation to continue that search. What I hope for is that some of the criticism will serve as a kick in the a** to some of the readers that are chefs. It is clear that no top-chef is likely to take any suggestions by the word, as they are all interpreters. As to your remark on who is most capable of criticising top-chefs there is much to say. Understanding food is not easy. It has little in common with wine tasting. Indeed it is so complex that it probably takes a lifetime of concentrated eating, cooking and studying before one can fully grasp the complexity the world of food can offer us. Extensive eating experience means a required large “library of reference” at ones disposal. The ways a chef (as a chef or as a diner) and a diner judge food are far from similar and they are only partly overlapping. I believe that the more perspective the diner can have with respect to the side of the meal that the chef sees and focuses on or has missed to focus on, with respect to understanding the ingredients and with respect to the cuisine's place in the culinary continuum, the better a judgment of the food and the better a report of the food will the diner be able to make. In theory, such high level knowledge also means better appreciation of food, but only so in theory. In practice, a greater level of consciousness of perspectives, increased knowledge of ingredients and cooking techniques will lead to an even more discriminating diner. The review of the Fat Duck contains a number of negative remarks, which I stand by. But the score is nevertheless very high for a chef who is self-taught, which is something I have immense admiration for, and has only been cooking on star level for a little more than a handful of years. Those who believe that Heston is right now on the level of the great masters and are touting this in the British press do a disservice not only to the British restaurant diners but also to Heston. If Heston further improves his cooking, which I have no doubt he is capable of doing, and have the will to carry on that process, I would not be surprised that he actually reaches a position among sophisticated and well-dined gourmets that no English chef, including Marco Pierre White ever had. But realistically, Heston is at least 5 years from delivering food on the level that I have in mind.

Another such place to taste the local seafood treasures is Garbet in Colera outside Rosas. It is an address to take note of by el Bulli travellers. Surprisingly, the place is not mentioned on these forums. A very beautiful setting just by the seafront, although a bit odd in a small camping. Very reasonable prices and lots of great local seafood prepared with care and without fuzz.