Wilson

Of the steakhouses in Boston, I'd say Grill 23 is the most generic of the bunch. If that's what you want, I'd recommend either the Oak Room or Locke-Ober. In the case of Locke-Ober, the place isn't a steakhouse but they have a wonderful chateaubriand for 2 on the menu. My favorites in Boston are Locke-Ober, L'Espalier and Le Soir. - Locke-Ober. Ancient institution. Was fading badly before being rescued by Lydia Shire, a noted local restauranteur. She kept what needed to be kept and changed what needed to be changed, and now it sparkles again. Besides the chateaubriand, I recommend the beef stroganoff and JFK's lobster stew. - L'Espalier. French haute cuisine in the Back Bay. Get the tasting menu with the wine accompaniment. Perfectly paired, and the service is just outstanding. - Le Soir is in the nearby (10 miles) suburb of Newton. Reachable by the Mass Pike (I-90) or the Green Line (Newton Highlands stop and a three-block walk). French bistro with wonderful food, warm and personal service. The only negative is that the room is noisier than I'd like. But that's common in Boston. I'm not high on Radius. It's a love it or hate it kind of place, and I'm afraid I'm more in the hate-it crowd. The food's never done much for me, and the attitude is a bit much. The space is uninspiring. I'd also avoid Rialto, a vastly over-praised place in the Charles Hotel in Cambridge. They have a celebrity chef of some sort, hence a bunch of fawning reviews. I thought it was pedestrian. Special favorites, more moderately priced: - Stellina's, an Italian bistro in Watertown, a nearby suburb (8 miles) reachable via the Mass Pike. One of the best Italian restaurants I've been to outside of Italy. Authenic cuisine, and a warm tomato salad to die for. - Evoo, a New American bistro on the Cambridge-Somerville border. Good food, great value. "Evoo" stands for "extra virgin olive oil." Very Cambridge. I haven't been to #9 Park. Hamerley's Bistro is a good, solid New American sort of place. Varies from very good to excellent, depending on the evening.

Rogue makes an Imperial Pilsner, and I just finished a bottle yesterday. It's extremely malty and 8% alcohol. I didn't much care for it. I don't know what it is about the brewers in the Pacific Northwest. They seem to be deathly afraid to make a balanced brew.

I lived in Boston until late 2003 and know the restaurants there and elsewhere in Massachusetts quite well. Before I take the time to give you recommendations, I have some questions for you: 1. What kind of food do you like? Do you have particular preferences or dislikes? 2. How much money are you willing to spend for meals and accommodations? Give numbers, not adjectives we can drive a truck through. 3. Will you be drinking wine at dinner? This vitally affects how much your meal will cost. 4. Where on Cape Cod will you be going, and how will you be getting around once you are there?

tighe, I suppose I was defending one of the sacred cows, and I suppose I am doing it in something of a continuing reaction to the cheap-eats mentality that pervades Seattle along with a certain level of irrational envy and resentment directed at an "establishment" institution that makes no apologies for an old-guard social clientele. I really do think I bring a fresh set of eyes, ears and tastebuds to the place, and if it hadn't been up to snuff I'd have had absolutely no hesitation to say so. If you look at my comments about Pacific Northwest ale on the beer board, could you doubt that I have enough of a contrarian streak to be capable of ripping Canlis a new one if I thought they deserved it? The place reminds me in a certain way of Locke-Ober, a Boston dining institution that had slowly declined before being rescued and renovated by Lydia Shire, a noted restauranteur back there. I had really loved the place but had stopped going there as it declined. Then Shire stepped in and kept what needed to be kept, changed what needed to be changed and now the place just sparkles again. Not that Canlis had ever declined -- I wouldn't know -- but rather in the sense of a dining institution now being just as good as it ever was said to be. There are plenty of Bostonian foodies who look askance at Locke-Ober in the way that plenty of Seattle foodies seem to think Canlis is hopelessly retrograde, but Locke-Ober was the last place ate before leaving Boston for Seattle. I bid Boston a fond farewell over scallops and a bowl of JFK's lobster stew. I don't care what anyone says, but JFK's lobster stew is the best lobster stew on the East Coast which means it's the best anywhere. Like the new Locke-Ober, the Canlis I visited was absolutely not resting on any laurels. It's an excellent restaurant and they clearly work very hard to make it that way. They charge full price for this, and they deserve to. It's a good thing when a place can last this long and still be this good. So I lift a toast to Canlis, and will be back, even at the risk of being considered a stick in the mud reactionary.

I do understand (and sympathize with) people not wanting to spend huge amounts of money on meals. It all depends on your budget and your preferences, doesn't it? But that doesn't mean a high price is a poor value. "Value" is a hard concept to apply to restaurants, given that it's relative and non-linear concept. A $200 plate isn't required to be twice as good as a $100 plate, which need not be four times as good as a $25 plate. That's not how it works, so people who say they stay away from the top places on that basis aren't telling the truth, either to themselves, to others or both. Anita, don't you think that $390 is a ways away from $190? While there isn't a linear relationship between price and quality at the top end, if you pay twice as much there really ought to be a difference, wouldn't you think? Last time I looked, Canlis wasn't hyped as another French Laundry. By the way, was that a lunch or a dinner? If it was dinner, you got off pretty good. I paid $400 for lunch for two at Lucas Carton, and for that price we got a meal that opened some new vistas. Same deal with the $510 dinner at Mistral. And agnolo, just for the record there was nothing so-so about dinner at Canlis. And I haven't protrayed it as anything but expensive. In fact, if you'll look back in this thread you will see that this is exactly the word I used for Canlis. But it's also true that it is not way out there in the stratosphere by premium restaurant standards. I agree that Canlis's prices are near the top end of the range for Seattle, but not they aren't at the same level as some others in town. Dinner at Canlis last night was outstanding -- there was nothing "so-so" about it. Their food was quite interesting enough for me if not for others here. It's not Mistral -- but it's not priced or pitched that way, either. If you don't want to pay $100 a plate for a so-so experience, the place to shy away from is Cafe Juanita out in Kirkland. Judging by last night at Canlis, pay $100 a plate and you definitely get your money's worth. In fact, it was also better than our last meal at Campagne, which I frankly think has slipped a bit since the late-'90s.

You don't go to Canlis for cutting-edge food. Schielke, you nailed it when you said Canlis is a fantastic restaurant for a safe bet. Most of the time, I go for safe bets. The cutting edge wouldn't be the cutting edge if you did it all the time. seacrotty, I don't quite get your comment that their prices are so stratospheric that the place must absolutely be "perfect" every time. It was a $100 plate. Sure, it's expensive but it's hardly outlandish by today's standards. I've been at places with $200 to $350 plates that weren't "perfect," yet I was still quite satisfied. A good example is Mistral, where we paid $510 for two. Why should Canlis have to be "perfect" at $100 a plate? Isn't that setting the bar a bit too high? By the way, we went to that Italian place in Kirkland a month ago that seems to get such rave reviews -- Cafe Juanita. We we paid $190 for a dinner that wasn't as good as the one we had last night, with service not in the same league and an atmosphere not even in the same universe. Both of us agreed that it was good but that we wouldn't take the trouble to go back.

Two of us went to Canlis in Seattle tonight and had an outstanding meal. We started with an amusee (sp?), a tiny cup of five-onion soup that was just delicious. I had dungeoness crab legs for an appetizer and my dining partner had a Canlis salad, which is a lot like a Caesar salad. The crab legs were very tasty and came with a nice mustard sauce for dipping. My entree was a large piece of Alaskan halibut that was fresh and perfectly prepared. My compansion had hazelnut chicken. I had a little bit of it and the sauce was just delicious. We shared an "apple bowl" dessert with some ice cream on top, and that was excellent too. (Sorry for the blunt superlatives; a newspaper restaurant critic's job isn't in my future.) The service just couldn't possibly have been better. We were greeted at the door by Chris Canlis, who thanked us for coming. I told him we hadn't been there for seven years and he came over to the table and we chatted a bit about how we'd moved from Boston, and the weather in the respective places. A very gracious, polished and sophisticated host. It's not often that you're greeted by the guy whose name is on the place, let alone be greeted with such grace and warmth. It really meant a lot. I really appreciated the selection of wines by the glass. We usually get a bottle of wine at dinner, but lately my dining partner hasn't been drinking much wine so I was getting glasses. They had an outstanding Sancerre, and a chardonnay from Arcadian winery in California, which I happen to buy cases from directly. It was nice to see that Canlis doesn't do what too many restaurants do, which is to offer very pedestrian wines by the glass to effectively force people to buy by the bottle. The ambiance was magnificent. The restaurant is an architectural gem, an example of late '60s/early '70s architecture, with a magnificent view. We were seated right near the piano player, and while it was on the loud side it wasn't deafening by any stretch. Generally speaking, the combination of service and ambiance led me to believe that this is an establishment where regular customers are well known but where newcomers (which we really are) are graciously welcomed. I've read some comments on-line to the effect that the formality of Canlis, and the relative affluence of the regular customers, is offputting. I didn't feel that way in the least. There was nothing stuffy about it, certainly not in comparison to the stiff service you'll find in Boston where we came from. I didn't feel intimidated in the least; quite the contrary, it felt as if we had been going there for years. After tonight's experience I really wonder if the critics of this place have actually ever been there, because the Canlis I experienced has utterly nothing in common with the Canlis described by some of its detractors. The check for two, including Seattle's 9.2% sales tax and a 20% tip, came to $198. It was well worth it. We'll absolutely be back. Canlis is an instant favorite.

Went over to Bottleworks today. Great store, by the way. Among other things, the bottle of Czechvar had a February 2004 expiration date as opposed to the one I got at Magnolia Thriftway with an expiration date of June 2003. Someone there gives a rat's ass. Now I know where to buy my beer. I talked with a knowledgeable young guy who told me that I'm right about PacNW being pretty barren country for bottled pilsners or other beers that aren't uber-bitter. I bought a six-pack of LaConner pilsner, one of which is sitting next to me as I type this. It's o.k., but all they really did was tone down the hops a little bit without toning up the malt. It's quite a far cry from Blue Paddle, Gartenbrau, Anchor Steam or Gordon Biersch Marzen, not to mention Budvar/Czechvar or Pilsner Urquell. At least I feel as if I have given it a fair shot. On those occasions when I'm in taverns (far and few between, quite honestly) or in the mood for a beer in a higher-level restaurant (even farther and fewer between) I'll continue looking for balanced beers from the PacNW but I basically don't think they really exist here. I really think that's too bad, not so much for me because there are plenty of more than acceptable out-of-region brews, but for the PacNW brewers who are almost completely ignoring what is by far the biggest beer market. But, hey, I'm sure they can be comfortable running stagnant small businesses without my money!

Is it bottled or is it another one that's only on tap and therefore I have to feel like a lowly idiot because I don't hang out in taverns?

Got a six-pack of Alaskan Amber today, and am not too high on it. Better than a macrobrew, but then what isn't? I would agree that it's not bitter, but there's a sourness to it that I don't really enjoy. I still have five bottles to go, so I'll have some more opportunities to put my finger on it.

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll give those places a try.

If we consider AK to be part of the Pacific Northwest then so is Northern California, right? Same overall climatological profile from Juneau to San Francisco. Anyway, I have to re-load on beer today so I'll get some and let you know what I think. I've looked for the "Big Time" brand that someone suggested and found it unavailable at two grocery stores (Larry's on Queen Anne and Thriftway in Magnolia) that tend to have a really wide selection. Can anyone suggest a place with better selections of bottled beer?

You're right about that, Lew, and this has occurred to me. But the PacNW is where gourmet coffee started. You'd expect the region to have a higher market share for specialty beverages. I don't think 5% is anything to be proud of. They should being doing a whole lot better. Corrrect me if I'm wrong, but am I correct in thinking that the craft brew market share has been stagnant for quite a few years in the PacNW as well as elsewhere?

My comments about the PacNW's inferiority complex, etc etc., came fairly far into the discussion and were meant as cheeky asides. If people want to get all weirded out about it, well, fine. As for the bitter brew here vs. a more balanced Eastern style, I think there's merit to that but my recollection is that the Eastern craft brewers made the really bitter stuff too. A wider variety of craft brew styles there than here -- that's my point. I guess I should also say that I don't see myself as a "traditionalist" in beer or much of anything else. For example, I prefer the California brandies to cognacs because cognac is too constrained in the varieties they can distill. I generally think California chardonnay is preferable to white burgundy, and I welcome New Zealand's screw-top wine bottles. And where I grew up -- Milwaukee -- craft beer was an oddity until only a few years ago but I've been drinking it for more than a decade. But I don't go for the non-traditional for its own sake. For example, I think Asian fusion cuisine is a conspiracy to jack up the price of a won-ton. So sue me. I do know a few brewers, and to a man they will agree that the unbalanced, hop-heavy style characteristic of the PacNW hides a lot of brewing sins. I don't know enough about the mechanics or techniques to agree or disagree, and I'll be the first to note that my brewer friends prefer a different and more balanced style so their bias could easily be steering their judgment. Hey, all I do is drink the stuff. But I find it interesting that many experts in the field have their own reasons to agree with my viewpoint. That's not to say that my taste is the "right" taste. Part of me celebrates the idiosyncratic signature PacNW beer flavor, even if it does tend to make me wonder if I'm drinking a mixture of battery acid and grain alcohol. But even at least it's different and not homogenized. Gotta hand it to the region for sticking with a style that people here enjoy. I guess I'd be a little more convinced of that if the craft brewers here weren't struggling as much, or if they had more of the market.

Why is a "fact based discussion" preferable when the underlying subject is purely a matter of opinion? Leave out the non-beer comments of mine. My basic point has concerned my -- dare I say it, oh the horror!! -- opinion that PacNW beers are monotonous and highly bitter. The IBU number, if we could get it, is totally beside the point. Anyone who lives here and drinks beer knows that the PacNW is chock full of similar, highly bitter ales. Even those who disagree with my taste opinion acknowledge the prevalence of heavily hopped ales in the PacNW. Their answer is that this is the regional taste, or that a true pilsner is hoppier than I think it is, or that I'm just one of those outlanders. I am genrally a fact-based kind of guy, but not when facts aren't really germance to the discussion. Your line of inquiry here is absurd on its face; it's like asking Joe Friday for the best restaaurant in Los Angeles. In any case, no pun intended, I continue to look for PacNW beer that isn't bitter ale. I continue to be bitterly disappointed. Which is frankly no big deal, because the stores also sell brew from outside the region. They're my dollars, and if I have to send them somewhere else that's what I'll do.