jamiemaw

Not in the least. I should think that one of the most overlooked challenges in modern restaurauteuring is how to clothe your waitstaff. Which is probably why one sees so very much black, which, while likely describing a lack of imagination, probably also hides other hazards, such as paté-flack, soup tsunami (can we say that yet?) and much worse. I mean, have you ever tried to get dried risotto off a pair of Mark's Work Warehouse trousers? My point exactly. I, for one, look forward to the return of hefty tweed dirndls, as evidenced at The Naam, replete with Birkenstocks and ankle tufts. Thank goodness for Lululemon.

Aquamarine? Jamie, darling...how 2002 of you. ← No, Blumarine. Aquamarine was more 1997, azurro.

Waiterblog starts updating his resume.... I understand Conoir to be very slimming. I can squeeze into just about anything. I hope to be there, Arne. ← Very bad idea, Andrew. Surely something in an Empire waist with a modest decolletage would be more becoming, no? I'm thinking some tasty Blumarine here, by Anna Molinari. Or perhaps, to send this back to bar talk--a little Stella? ← Dear Mr. Maw, Nein. I would prefer to see Mr. Andrew in more of a longshoreman look. Sincerely, etc., Lars

This just in: Something under the GPS for St. Valentine's Day. I've long been a fan of the Epicurean Cafe in Kits, even after Christian, the son of the proprietor, somehow fumbled the contract with that baristress. Bikers, of all ilks, came from miles around to complement the usual crowd of cashmered Italian smoothies. They've recently taken over the upstairs space above their boite and are serving a home-cooked Italian meal on Monday evening as a launch of their new space. That's all I know, but enquiries can be made to Christian or Dario at 604/731-5370. Address: 1898 West First Ave at Cypress.

Welcome aboard Pretzels. Peggy should be much admired for attempting the Paris-Breat. Civilians unwilling to do this at home may care to know that it's sometimes available at La Regalade in West Vancouver. And as for chicken pot pie, well, is there anything better to put paid to a walk through cool February shade?

Waiterblog starts updating his resume.... I understand Conoir to be very slimming. I can squeeze into just about anything. I hope to be there, Arne. ← Very bad idea, Andrew. Surely something in an Empire waist with a modest decolletage would be more becoming, no? I'm thinking some tasty Blumarine here, by Anna Molinari. Or perhaps, to send this back to bar talk--a little Stella?

Because of the way our liquor legislation evolved, the hotels still have a vestigial lock-hold on freestyle drinking. In the case of Bacchus, that's a good thing--I think it combines all of the elements for . . . hmm, how can I put this . . . getting someone to do something they don't necessarily want to do. By that I mean seduction of course, whether that be configured in entreaties of the heart or merely matters of commerce. First, the drinks are well made, as you might expect, from cocktails through a smart-by-the-glass wine list with reasonable mark-ups. The glassware itself is excellent, the ice hard and the linens soft. The crowd is convivial and attractive. Next, there is live music and a fireplace that heighten the mood, as does the odd celebrity sighting, "Say isn't that Keith Talent over there in the corner with Goldie and Kurt?" Then there's Lee Parson's food to consider: a piece of 45-minute poached-in-oil salmon perhaps or his white bean soup heightened with truffle oil--amongst the very best bowls in the city. Or take a smoked salmon pizza before a show. Additionally, I like staying on for dinner Wednesday nights when there's an inexpensive bistro menu and a classic such as coq au vin in rotation. On Sundays there's always the roast chicken dinner to consider. The service, orchestrated by Philip Meyer, Bradlie and Farouk, is very thoughtful indeed, from the moment one alights at the valet stand to the moment one is discretely placed back in a Yellow at the end of the night. And last, but far from least, there is a real energy in the room that seems to defy having a bad shift. The last is no doubt heightened by the attractive new Jacqueline Conoir uniforms that now bless the female servers. Full report please, Arne. And some swizzle stix. J.

Yes, Arne, and it's appropriately called The Tilting Room. ← Worthwhile to visit for a tilt? A. ← Absolutely, although they removed some of the character when they performed an extensive makeover a decade ago. Nice view too. Bring me a swizzle stick.

Yes, Arne, and it's appropriately called The Tilting Room.

Perhaps Purdy's? Although they seemingly gave up on orange peel chocolates a couple of years back. Jamie

you don't mean that. if anyone were self indulgent in comparison to durack it would trigger cold fusion. ← Like the meal I had at Bibendum? ← ? ← The meal I had there was not exactly piping hot. Mind you it wasn't exactly fusion either.

I legged it up to the local newstand to find out exactly when the March issue of Saveur will arrive, Jay. Alas, it won't be with us until mid-February as it comes by canoe to the lakehead, then pony express. At least the delay affords the chance to save up the lordly sum of Cdn $6.95 or precisely £3, plus tax, or approximately 1.5 cleansing ales in the local currency. We wait with bad breath, etc., Jamie

I'm sure that changes from restaurant to restaurant. A proportion of front of house staff aren't going to have a clue who a lot of the critics are. Fay Maschler mentions from time to time that she has been spotted and notes that she has been given preferential treatment in the body of the review. Other times it obvious that she has gone unnoticed and has been given a bad table and suffers clueless service. When people in the trade find out that I have met Marina O'Loughlin, they always want to know what she looks like as she has been very successful in hiding her identity (I always tell them, "Imagine Jay Rayner in a dress and you've got it.") so there's no chance of preferential treatment there. ← One English reviewer seems to have an in-built bias against restaurants that do not allow smoking at the table--perhaps he should be dispatched to Dublin--while another seems to have an in-built bias against restaurants that will not allow him in the door. Must be his winning ways, i.e appalling ignorance. So even if anonymity can be a little over-rated at times, (a decent reviewer can 'read' a room and adjacent tables quickly), it does raise some questions. And yes, I know from firsthand experience that even the most obviously sardonic statements can be taken as literal gospel sometimes. We have the equivalent of a restraining order on one Greek chef--he's not allowed within 50 feet of several Vancouver food writers, Maw aussi. And as for the mountain of mail that an unfavourable review can trigger, especially from a certain Italian restaurauteur with an impressively sized extended family, each of whom wrote variations of the same letter, right down to the same spelling mistakes . . .

Its certainly true that someone like Jay Rayner who writes articles and features about chefs and restaurants is going to have a very hard time remaining anonymous. For example, Ramsay has a couple of places opening up soon, and there was a recent interview by Rayner with Ramsay in Hollywood. He's hardly likely to be able to slip into Maze undetected is he? Its equally unlikely that he's not going to review such a major opening, so what's he to do? ← I hear the AA Gill disguise kit is going cheap. Besides, that way Jay would be virtually assured of picking up the coveted Best Dressed Food Critic award as well. I'm not lending him my Blonde though--she's busy here.

you don't mean that. if anyone were self indulgent in comparison to durack it would trigger cold fusion. ← Like the meal I had at Bibendum?

That much is agreed, basildog. I have never in my life seen so much bowing and scraping as when I dine with Andy, or for that matter, walk down the street with him. Although I'm well aware that he is the most famour international food writer currently living in Brighton, England, it all seems a bit much. Why, at Bibendum, they even tried to influence his opinion by offering us double the regular number of olives.

By telling the reader exactly that. They deserve to be informed, and the average of 6 to 8 reviewed dishes may not necessarily get them there. In saying this though basildog, only rarely does a restaurant go from somnolent to fantastic over several visits. But the difference between lunch and dinner can mean different chefs and staff, and the difference between dishes can ellicit different reactions as well. This whole 'critic as average punter' thing (especially as so many British critics are hardly anonymous--just look for The Blonde or the very tall, jowly Aussie) seems a little New Labour anyway, especially in light of the long British tradition of balanced journalism--in certain precincts at least.

Also completely impractical for someone like Jay who covers the whole country, and does mainstream journalism as well (quite apart from writing novels of course. Say, isn't his last one due out in paperback around about now?) ← Are you suggesting that the editorial philosophy/methodology/budget (of time and money) dooms the enterprise to something less than full, plain and true disclosure?

Yes, you are. I believe the arguement is that the review will reflect the experience of the average diner who may only visit a restaurant once, or that it will at least reflect the experience of a customers first visit to that restaurant. The critic takes his chances just like any other mug punter and reports what he finds. I have no real problem with that, its just a different approach from the New York Times, whose reviews read more like feature articles about the restaruants that reviews as such. I think its entirely reasonable to judge a restaurant on a single visit. I think I can tell if a place is worth a punt just by looking at it, let alone reading its menu or stepping through its doors. A single visit is the icing on the cake! I have read reviews by Fay Maschler in the Evening Standard and Jan Moir in The Telegraph where they mention that they have had lunch and then gone back for dinner. Maschler now has a column where she re-reviews restaurants she has visited in the past so its not always just a one off. I think its a given that restaurants can be inconsistant. They're run by humans after all (well, some of them are). I'm not sure how useful or surprising it is to learn that some nights are better than others, some dishes more appealing than the rest, some members of staff a bit crap and others wonderful. If you intend to make that restaurant a regular haunt, then you'll find all that out over time yourself. Unless the chef or ownership of a restaurant changes, things won't be that much different night after night, and a single visit for the purposes of a review is adequate in my view. ← Thanks for answering the question. If I had written a review of our luncheon at Bibendum, after our two hour visit, I might have gotten most of it right: the haughty receptionist; the laconic, ill-kempt, sleep-walking sommelier with dandruff issues; the service disconnects regarding 1.) no olives, 2.) too many olives, 3.) just the right number of olives; and the lazy cooking and product management. I would have rated the overall experience at 11 out of 20. But I would have owed it to myself, and certainly to readers, to revisit, taste more of the menu, and deliver a more balanced picture. Anything less is just bad reporting, no?

Let the critics speak for themselves. You might recall AA Gill's infamous review of 66 in Manhattan, published in Vanity Fair: “How clever are shrimp-and-foie gras dumplings with grapefruit dipping sauce?What if we called them fishy liver-filled condoms,” he continued. “They were properly vile, with a savor that lingered like a lovelorn drunk and tasted as if your mouth had been used as the swab bin in an animal hospital.” Mr. Gill was eviscerating 66, a new TriBeCa restaurant owned by celebrity chef Jean-Georges Vongerichten. As it turned out though, he was just warming up. In the next 1,000 words, Gill found absolutely nothing redeeming about the new restaurant. The vitriolic review caused a furor in the food media—a tempest in a stock pot—with vituperative remarks like“vendetta” and “assassination” levelled at Gill. Later, in an interview in the New York Times, Mr. Gill, who frequently waits until the last few paragraphs to mention the food, simply said, “My job is to sell newspapers.” And Gill—a dyslexic dipsomaniac (to which we can now safely add dyspeptic)—sells a lot of newspapers. Enter your quintessential celebrity restaurant critic, whose powerful voice can fill or kill a dining room. Critics do have a commercial influence. And, in addition to selling newspapers they sell restaurant seats. A poor review can hold a restaurant's head under water, and as most reviews are written early in the life of a restaurant, sometimes the opening notices can be devastating. I applaud Ms. Maschler's revisits and updates.

Not at all. I certainly wasn't referring as much to the risk to the consumer (although at London prices you could add dinner to your investment portfolio) as I was referring to the risk to the business owner. Many are the British reviews I've read that slag the restaurant based on a three hour cruise, Gilligan. And many British 'critics' seem self-indulgent (i.e. 'simplify then exaggerate'), to the point of caring little about the effect of their misdirected and perhaps ill-researched influence.

In addition to service questions (see 'A Glass Half Full?'), The Box Tree thread also prompted me to ask you about British restaurant reviewers and their seeming propensity to review a restaurant after a single visit. It seems that the reviews of The Box Tree were written after a single visit, or at least that's the impression I got. Am I correct in this assumption? If so, is it because the budgets of even the national newspapers/magazines don't allow for multiple visits given the horrific expense, especially in London? As it takes greater effort (and perhaps knowledge) to qualify for a driver's license than the postion of large-circulation restaurant reviewer, I was wondering if it asks on the job application: Are you (check one) (a.) not very, (b.) quite, or (c.) very clairvoyant? Because as any critic worth their salt might allow, restaurants can and do change from night to night, as well as over longer periods of time; a decent critic can tell you if chef fought or made love with his girlfriend that afternoon. That change and lack of consistency is especially true of new restaurants still gaining traction; ironically that is the stage in a restaurant's life when most reviews take place. Perhaps even more ironic however, is the fact that the financial editors of the same periodicals would never consider reviewing other businesses (and forecasting their future prospects) after a mere two hour visit--much more due diligence would be required of the reporter. Why does this seemingly not hold true in the UK for restaurant businesses? So, for the most part are they one-shot wonders? Or do critics of conscience revisit (as in the methodology of The New York Times) until they're sure that they have gotten the full measure of the establishment, especially in tasting most of the menu? I ask this realizing that there are some cartoonish characters such as the oxymoronically named Michael Winner and AA Gill who could as easily be writing about The Norfolk Small Animal Auction as food and no doubt should. But for the most part, what's the deal--and the rationale?

Needle dips to minus eight Icey pickers drop the grape Nectar flows

I've used my Russell Hobbs corded model at least once a day for almost 20 years. There is little sign of wear, its exterior is still spotless when given a quick buff and it's very fast, qualities also enjoyed by my fiancee. Jamie

I just want a definition of DOV. Can't find squat on Google and am truly mystified. ← Dine Out Vancouver. It's a promotional vehicle underwritten by Tourism Vancouver and 125 participating restaurants, with three course prix fixe menus at $15, $15 and $35 price points. There is ample discussion of DOV in the Vancouver sub-forum.