jordyn

Detroit is a particularly interesting city in that there is practically nothing worthwhile in the central city area; restaurants are not the only thing that you have to travel to the 'burbs for.

Tommy: Our winery schedule was not particularly ambitious. We went on a tour at Chateau Montelena, which was nice in that it spent some time out in the vineyards. Tastings at Phelps, Pride Mountain, Caymus were all quite good, with only small crowds and some decent discussion as well. Since we knew very little about the wine-making process, and someone here had mentioned that Beringer was good for a "winemaking 101" sort of perspective, we tried the "Picnic at Beringer". This was nice because it was a small group, and the picnic area was quite lovely, but the wines were bad to mediocre, the food was only average, and the tour not quite as educational as I had hoped. Probably not worth the price. We also stopped in at Domaine Chandon, which had a decent if expensive tasting, but you had to compete with a lot of crowds there. V. Sattui was so crowded that we didn't get anywhere near the wines or the cheese. We just got cheese from Dean and Deluca across the street.

I just went to Napa for the first time earlier this month, and found the advice in this thread simply invaluable. Even without planning particularly well in advance, the few places we did make reservations at on the advice of people here were incomparable experiences to the one or two "tour bus" places that we stopped in at, briefly. Next time, we would probably plan more than four or five days in advance (and with a map handy), but things went quite smoothly largely because we focused on places that did require reservations (keeps down the crowds) and went almost exclusively to places recommended here (keeps up the quality). As a first time visitor to Napa, I certainly wasn't dissatisfied with the visit, although this probably has as much to do with the great food we had as it does to the wineries we visited.

As an added note, although as I mentioned, VoiceStream has large gaps in its coverage outside of cities in the US, I find that coverage within the cities is quite good--I have not encountered major dead spots in any city since moving to VoiceStream in March. (The debates over which carrier has good coverage in which place is a bit of a moving target--the answer now is not likely to be the same six months from now.) Moreover, I think GSM degrades more elegantly than either CDMA or TDMA; generally you can lose quite a bit of voice quality before the audio cuts out completely.

Cabrales: I have essentially the same plan as you mentioned through VoiceStream and have generally been very happy with roaming internationally. Fat Guy raises a good point regarding GSM coverage (just because you've got a signal doesn't mean you've got coverage), but because VoiceStream generally negotiates romaing agreements with multiple carriers, you are often slightly better off than if you were depending on a single domestic carrier's network. Specifically, in my recent trip to France, I was never without coverage despite driving in areas without any major cities or towns nearby. Also, if T-Mobile follows the same type of strategy that Vodaphone has adopted for international roaming, that there may be some cheaper options as long as you stay on a T-Mobile affiliated network. Keep in mind, however, that VoiceStream's coverage in the U.S. is not particularly good outside of major cities. One advantage of having a multi-band GSM phone is that you can take a middle route between Fat Guy's suggestion of acquiring a phone in Europe and using international roaming. It is possible to obtain a pre-paid SIM card from a European carrier. Simply place this in your phone and it will begin acting as a "European" phone, with the European phone number and pricing scheme. This will require a phone that has been SIM-unlocked. VoiceStream will allow you to do this after you have been a paying customer for at least 90 days. Regarding the phones you mentioned, I would prefer the T68M. I am not particularly fond of Motorola phones generally, and actually find the V60 too small to talk into comfortably. The T68M has some amazing features (admittedly, that you are unlikely to use) and the one person I know who owns this phone is very happy with it.

Hey all: I'm also thinking about visiting Seattle in a couple of weeks. If I go, it looks like I'll have three nights to eat (late on Friday, anytime on Saturday, early on Sunday). Unfortunately, I haven't had any luck convincing anyone that they want to go on this trip with me, so if people could comment about any of the places mentioned in this thread (or others) in terms of their appropriateness for dining solo, I'd appreciate it a lot.

Cabrales: I'm not sure "appeal" is the right word, but it did make me think quite a bit more about what I was eating than usual.

Cabrales: Regarding the fugu, our server indicated that the restaurant had to be specifically licensed to cut and serve fugu. I did not get into details of what the licensing or training process entailed. Fortunately, I did not die. I did perhaps notice some slight tingling on the tongue, but the effect was not very pronounced and may have been psychological. The menu was indeed quite whimsical, and the "baby back ribs" of halibut were available, as were several other dishes that made analogies to beef dishes.

Do you have any sense for the prices that they charge?

Triband phones include GSM 900/1800/1900. Dual-band phones available in the US will be GSM 900/1900. Generally speaking, for roaming purposes GSM 1800 is not necessary, especially in Europe. In some places in Europe, it will be used by secondary carriers, but only when GSM 900 carriers are already in place.

I had dinner at the new restaurant Fresh in TriBeCa this evening. The restaurant opened about two weeks ago, and is so new they still do not have a permanent sign, so this is obviously a preliminary look at the place, but I generally felt the meal was quite promising. The chef at Fresh is Martin Burge, formerly the chef de cuisine at Gotham Bar and Grill. Burge is credited as a co-owner on the menu, although wait staff referred to Eric Tevrow as "the owner". Mr. Tevrow apparently also owns Early Morning Seafood, a wholesaler to a number of other high end restaurants. According to the menu, the goal of Fresh is "serving the finest seafood from the most pristine waters of the world." The room at Fresh is modern and clearly intended to evoke the sea. The walls are painted in various tones of blue, and the chairs are a translucent white through which the light shines like water. The right wall curves inwards at the top, like an undersea grotto. According to our waitress, the menu is intended to be "poetic" and is arranged somewhat unusually. Appetizers are divided into four categories, "absence of refinement" (raw dishes), "panacea" (cured), "freshet" (for seafood that lives in waters between the ocean and fresh water), and "new england classics". Main courses are described as being one of "prime cuts", "summer", "classics" or "lobster". Descriptions of several of the mains use language usually reserved for cuts of beef, such as "prime rib" or swordfish and "baby back" halibut ribs. We sampled two appetizers: cod tongue and halibut cheeks with frisee, smoked bacon, figs and onion confit; and vittorio of big eye tuna with cucumber, radish, seaweed and citrus soy vinaigrette. Although both of these dishes were listed in the "absence of refinement" section of the menu, the tongue and cheek appetizer was served fried. This dish was very good--the tongue was slightly salty and had a flavor that reminded me somewhat of lamb, while the cheeks were very soft with a more typical light white fish flavor. The figs that accompanied this dish were small but exceptionally good, and proved a good match to the saltiness of the tongue and the batter. The tuna was an excellent piece of fish, rich and velvety on the palate. Unfortunately, the fish was easily overwhelmed by its accompaniments, which left me feeling that the dish was slightly out of balance. Two mains were sampled as well. From the "prime cuts" section of the menu, grilled tournedo of majestic atlantic salmon and Japanese fugu (yep!) with Asian eggplant and carmelized trevisano. Although we ordered this dish due to the presence of the fugu, each of the components was excellent. The fugu had a slightly burnt flavor, but this appeared to be a characeristic of the fish as opposed to overcooking, as there was no evidence of burning and the texture seemed slightly firm, but yielding in the mouth. Also sampled was the seared bluefin "kobe" toro, with traditional kobe beef accompaniments: grated daikon radish, lemon, bitter greens, and buttered garlic rice. Well, that's what the menu said in any case; it turned out they were out of toro, so this was regular bluefin. Unfortunately, as a result, the fish, while excellent quality, was a bit boring and did not stand up to the rest of the plate. Interestingly, the chef apparently reccomends that the toro be cooked medium to medium-well in order to carmelize some of the marbled fat; my dish was served medium rare. Desserts were credited to Joseph Murphy, also formerly of Gotham Bar and Grill, and also listed as a co-owner. Unfortunately, the two we sampled were unexceptional. The "black and white" creme brulee, apparently Mr. Murphy's standout dessert in his Gotham days, layered tahitian vanilla custard on top of chocolate pudding, did not feature particularly effective contrast between the flavors nor the same depth of creaminess that I prefer in creme brulee. A blueberry financier featured a compote of yuzu that brought out the sweet/acid balance of the fruit, and a refreshingly light thai basil sorbet. However, neither of these seemed like the right counterpoint for the blueberries, which were somewhat limp in comparison. Service was good and fairly knowledgeable despite the recent opening. Appetizers and desserts came out from the kitchen very quickly, but the timing of the main course was more typical of the slightly slower dinner pacing that I would prefer. One service glitch: our meager plate of two mini biscotti and a single small piece of chocolate and hazelnut with sea salt was whisked away, untouched, at the same time as our dessert plates. (On a related note, no amuses were served.) Wine service was only average; I felt that this was the area that our server demonstrated the least familiarity with the restaurant's food, although we did end up with a bottle of 2000 Brander Sauvignon Blanc that accompanied the food well. The wine list is fairly short and predominantly white, probably about 50-70 bottles, and about 10 wines by the glass. Wines are characterized by the environment in which they were grown, such as "coastal" or "hillside". Interestingly, although there were about fifteen dessert wine options by the half bottle, there appeared to be nothing by the glass (although port and grappa were available by the glass). Overall, the fish tend to be of uniformly excellent quality. Some fine-tuning of the menu would probably help to move the fish into the starring role. A promising start, and I'm hoping to return in a while to see how the restaurant develops. If anyone is interested, I have the entire menu and could type it in.

Pre-pay plans are indeed available in Europe and are generally more economical than comparable plans in either the US or Canada. Keep in mind, though, that if you do not use your phone for an extended period of time, its service may be deactivated, and you may lose any minutes that you prepaid but did not use. One other advantage to using a European cell phone (or, if you have a non-SIM-locked GSM 900 cell phone, a European SIM card) is that incoming calls are generally free in Europe. This usually does not apply when roaming with a US carrier. The downside to Fat Guy's approach is that you have to use a different phone number when abroad. Some US carriers may allow you to forward your phone number to the new one, but generally you will pay international long distance for this.

Your options are basically this: 1) VoiceStream (most of the country) or PacBell (California): These carriers use GSM 1900. It is possible to buy dual-band GSM 900/1900 or tri-band GSM 900/1800/1900 phones. MOST GSM 1900 PHONES DO NOT WORK IN EUROPE! Be sure to specify that you need a "WorldPhone" with multi-band capabilities. Once you have such a phone, it is relatively easy to activate a global roaming service. This enables you to use your same phone and same phone number as you roam to other countries. VoiceStream has good romaing arrangements with carriers in many countries, and coverage in France is quite good. 2) Nextel. Nextel uses an iDEN network domestically (iDEN is also used in a few other countries in Asia and Latin America). The Nextel i2000 Plus phone is a dual-band iDEN/GSM 900 phone. THIS IS THE ONLY NEXTEL PHONE THAT WORKS IN EUROPE, although roaming is possible to other countries with iDEN networks with all Nextel phones. Unfortunately, the phone is rather clunky and very large. As with Voicestream, it is straightforward to enable global roaming on this phone; you use your same phone and phone number in GSM countries. Coverage is generally good, although to slightly fewer countries than VoiceStream. 3) AT&T. AT&T uses a TDMA network domestically. As far as I know, the US is the only coutnry with a TDMA network. There are no dual-band TDMA/GSM phones. AT&T does allow you to acquire a SIM card that can be inserted into a GSM phone. This SIM card is programmed to use your existing AT&T wireless phone number, so while you are in Europe you must use a different phone. To the best of my knowledge, all of the options above are extremely expensive when roaming abroad. VoiceStream, which I think has the most reasonable rates, charges approximately $.99 per minute in a few Western European countires, $1.99 in some other "major" countries, and up to $4.99 per minute in more remote places. Sprint and Verizon use CDMA. There is some limited CDMA network availability in Latin America and Asia, and it may be possible to arrange for roaming while travelling to such countries. However, neither of these carriers offers a romain option to Europe. I use VoiceStream and am very happy with the types of phones I can use and my ability to roam internationally.

Oh, I just saw this. Absentminded me. On the trip relating to these questions, I ended up eating at Masa's and Aqua. I found Masa's to be very good, but was disappointed by Aqua. If people are intested in longer write-ups, I think I still have ntoes from both places. More recently, I returned for a trip to the French Laundry. While in Napa, I also ate at Bistro Jeanty, and got a chance to try Gary Danko while passing through San Francisco. My notes on the French Laundry and Gary Danko have already been posted. Incidentally, the one time I went to Boulevard, I was extremely underwhelmed. Not very interesting food, and not even particularly fabulous versions of the dishes that they offer.

Cabrales: Amuses are not counted as courses in the tasting menus that you refer to, although last time I went, only one amuse was provided. I have only attempted the five course tasting menu at Annisa, although I am hoping to return and sample the seven course menu sometime soon. For the five and seven course option, there is no menu to select choices from. However, Anita Lo whips these meals up fairly spontaneously and it is possible to indicate specific preferences prior to the meal. I have found Annisa to be very accomodating in this regard. In addition to the five and seven course tasting menu options, there is also an a la carte menu. I don't specifically recall the number of options, but I would guess eight to ten appetizers and main courses. [Edited to improve clarity.]

This conversation has moved a bit since I last posted, but I wanted to make a few comments before it fades into obscurity. I thought Steve Klc's comments were particularly insightful and racheted this conversation up to another level. First, I think it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that a general consensus of "the best" restaurants could be produced. Obviously, there will be disagreements here or there, but a group of food-loving people could probably produce such a list that everyone was relatively happy with. Such a process inherently accomodates quirky individual preferences, such as Cabrales' dislike for chocolate, basically by ignoring them in terms of devising an overall mutually agreeable list. Further, there are, without a doubt, certain standards and approaches that have been developed for fine dining over a long period of time. These do not cease to be relevant just because someone prefers hamburgers to foie gras. I'm perfectly willing to accept that Fat Guy can tell the difference between good mackrel and bad mackrel, or even that a neophyte such as I can see some interesting and valuable cooking being done at a restaurant that I don't particularly care for. Beyond this, however, some of the lines that people have been drawing between "subjective" and "objective" become fuzzier. Over time, we build on our base of experience, or decide that some of it wasn't that useful in the first place, and make modifications to our approach. For example, how relevant should the Michelin three-star standard be to evaluating fine dining in America? Certainly you see influences, but given that some (much?) of the Michelin evaluation is based on an approach to service as well as to food, and that even the best American restaurants take a considerably different approach to service. (Fat Guy has argued, I believe, that Gramercy Tavern may be the best restaurant in New York; yet I do not believe that there is any chance it could garner a three-star rating from Michelin, based on service elements alone.) To this point, I think that it is telling that the New York restaurants that Steve Klc points at as being part of the "eight best" are some of the most obviously French in the City. More importantly, considered from the perspective of an individual assessment, subjective reactions ought to the taste of food ought to play an integral role in evaluating a particular restaurant. This does not imply that a review should not take a variety of other factors into account, such as technique, quality of ingredients, service, and so on, but it does mean that at the end of the day one of the primary reasons that we go to good restaurants (as opposed to spectales like the Russian Tea Room) is to eat good food. And by good, I mean good-tasting. Clever technique is not developed in a vaccuum, and without any particular insight into the psyche of chefs, that the goal of this fancy cooking is to produce appealing cuisine. Similarly, the best mackrel in the world probably doesn't do a whole lot for anyone if served in a nice motor oil glaze. Going too far in trying to separate out reactions to flavor is to miss much of the point of all of this eating in the first place. Taking this a step further, reviews that do not engage in this sort of reaction to flavor are not as useful as those that do. Fat Guy, you stated that your Tasting Room review was a very good one, while Le Bernadin's was merely average. It is not a huge leap of logic to suggest that one of the reasons the Tasting Room write-up is better than the one on Le Bernadin is that the former engages in a more extensive evaluation of, and reaction to, the taste of the food. As Steve P. pointed out early on in this thread, if a reviewer has particular likes or dislikes, it's important that these aspects of his or her personality comes through in the review, but with such information in hand, the review becomes much more useful if it does contain some of the subjective reactions of the reviewer. Why? Because many of us reading the review will have similar reactions for similar reasons, which is what helps us decide if we're going to like a place. To return to Fat Guy's Supreme Court analogy, technique is like legal maneuvering, quality service may be great oration, but at the end of the day, if you don't have a substantive argument (in this case great tasting food), the Court's still going to vote you down 9-0.

Cheese is not a part of the regular prix fixe menu. It is a $5 supplement and replaces dessert.

I have travelled in France much less extensively than Bux, but I echo his experience of credit cards working without PINs. (In fact, with a US credit card, you should only be providing your PIN if you are making a cash withdrawl. In the case of French cards, the PIN is used to validate the transaction in conjunction with the smart card, so with no smart card there is no need for the PIN.) The SNCF machines in particular work fine with American credit cards, at least for buying new tickets. I was not able to pick up pre-sold tickets from the machines.

While I suppose that it is possible to write about food while remaining fairly neutral on subjective notions of taste, I think that it is a) harder than people generally seem to be indicating is the case here and b) less interesting than food writing that does contain a personal reaction to flavors. I'll start with the second point first. As I indicated earlier, as a consumer of restaurant reviews, I find it extremely helpful to know that the food tastes good or bad to that reviewer. Ultimately, if my palate agress with the reviewer's, I will be able to generally rely on this person to steer me to restaurants I enjoy. This does not mean that some objective discussion of the food is not equally useful, but I feel that it would be a shame if personal reactions were excluded simply because they didn't follow generally accepted norms. To a certain extent, these subjective notions of taste inevitably enter reviews in any case. Fat Guy, I looked at two of your reviews as a sample: Le Bernadin and Tasting Room. Compare how the food is described at Le Bernadin: vs. descriptions of the Tasting Room: The food at the Tasting Room is more vividly described, and there's more discussion of flavor throughout the review. Both restaurants are highly praised, but it is perhaps less obvious why in the case of Le Bernadin. This isn't meant as a criticism--based on your described subjective preferences, it seems that you've done a good job of treating Le Bernadin fairly and describing the reasons for its excellence--but to point out that I think your reactions to the taste of the food at both places is coming through in your reviews despite your intent. It's just not practical to describe food you don't particularly care for in the same way as food you truly enjoy. Your preferences become clear, but the reader is forced to deconstruct the review and look for "what's missing" as opposed to what's actually on the page.

Okay, I did that. Hopefully fairly. Fat Guy: Your recent analogy regarding the Supreme Court got me thinking about how a critic using your paradigm would evaluate an innovative dish. If there is an established canon of good ingredients and appropriate techniques, and this is used to objectively compare various preparations, how does one assess new approaches to traditional ingredients, or good-tasting preparations of non-traditional ingredients?

On the "Brits Eye View of Blue Hill" thread, the topic has been raised of how much one's personal preference for the food at a particular restaurant should affect the assessment of that restaurant. On the one hand, we have Fat Guy, who argues that a relatively objective set of criteria should be used in evaluating a restaurant's performance. Recently he wrote: to support his earlier approach: The other view, advocated by Cabrales and myself, is that specific flavors that we like or don't like do (and ought to) effect our assessment of the restaurant. I have argued: while Cabrales has made the points that: and Okay, now discuss. Edited to add a recap.

Fat Guy: Similarly to Mao, I'm hoping you could elaborate more on the question of how important good tasting food is to your evaluation of a restaurant. It's not clear to me from any of your messages if you think the food is tasty but simply not in your preferred style, or if you actually don't enjoy the taste very much but still recognize the quality of preparation.

Today's the last day to get 15% off.

To a certain extent, if we don't actually like a food, but we say that it's "good" or "the best", isn't there a chance that we risk some sort of mass delusion in which everyone thinks something is "supposed" to be good? Isn't this, to a certain extent, where the Zagat effect comes from? If a reviewer doesn't like the way the food at a restaurant tastes, I'd rather read a statement like "Le Bernadin's food was not to my taste, but the fish was of excellent quality and the technique seemed to be exceptional as well" than "Le Bernadin is one of the best restaurants in the city." For me, the most important characteristic of food is how it tastes. Other factors, such as texture, color, technical wizardry that does not exhibit itself obviously in the flavor, and even Cabrales' humor, can contribute to my enjoyment of a dish, but are not sufficient to make eating it worthwhile. I can objectively report on these other factors, but I can only subjectively report on taste, and this is something that I would hope any person discussing a restaurant would do. Those of us digesting the reviews can learn how closely various reveiwer's pallates match our own and make intelligent dining decisions as a result. Finally, at the best restaurants, I often find myself enjoying food that in other contexts I have not enjoyed the flavor of. For example, foie gras is not something that I usually enjoy, but recently I have had foie gras at various places (Susur, Masa's, Les Loges de L'Aubergade, and Michel Bras stand out in my memory) where I thought it was very good. I usually dislike salmon as well, but salmon at Nobu and at the French Laundry was extremely good. Obviously, even at the best restaurants, individuals are going to encounter foods that they don't subjectively enjoy. At times this is neither the fault of the restaurant or the diner, but the experience is no less valid just because other people may happen to enjoy the same food.

I would have a hard time describing a restaurant with a cuisine that I did not enjoy as one of "the best". This probably reflects some deep selfish tendencies on my part.