JMayer

I have a very important dinner coming up celebrating an engagement. I was wondering what people thought was better for the overall experience (food and service) Avenues or TRU, I will be dining on a Tuesday so Alinea will be closed. Thanks for your input as I am torn between the two. Cheers, Justin

The 2003 Rosenblum Monte Rosso, is great! So is the 2003 Rosenblum Richard Sauret. Cheers, Justin

Hello, Perhaps in order to understand why people like to eat wine with their meals you should do a little field research . I would suggest the ultimate peering (well at least to me) Foie gras and Sauternes!! Or perhaps lamb chops with a Bordeaux. For me there is nothing better then great food and great wine, and I have eaten many great meals with just water and while these meals are still quite enjoyable nothing beats a meal with great wine. However, I do understand where you are coming from, I shared your opinion for many years (mostly because age prohibited me from drinking) but now I have seen the light! Cheers, Justin

Those are some strong words by Chuck Trotter. I wonder if he has personally inspected all the places that he buys meat products from? Furthermore, some of the seafood he serves is not enviornmentally sound (example Blue Fin tuna according to the Monterey Bay Aquarium should be avoided). Justin

I will fully admit I have romantic ideals about chefs and restaurants, but don’t we all have to some extent. Perhaps what I am saying is not inline with the reality of how “real” restaurants are run (utopian ideals?) Moreover, maybe using the word “chef” was wrong in the first place, seeing as how it has been pointed out that the etymology of the word chef has many more connotations then just cooking. Maybe the real issue is why do we not celebrate cooks more? Why is there not more people aspiring to be “head cooks”? Why are there not more threads about cooks on E-Gullet? Would it not be great to go to the “top” restaurant in the world with the expectation that the “head cook” (who is renowned for his culinary genius and vision, and not necessarily a young upstart) would be in the kitchen having an impact on the dishes that were coming out? Perhaps I am guilty of giving the head chef too much prominence in the actual day-to-day, and am not viewing him/her in the proper light and appreciating that. Sincerely, Justin P.S. Thanks to all who have participated so far.

Leave it to Mamet ... what a brilliant line. So, so true in these days where marketing trumps all. Interesting points. However, the fact remains that artists such as Mamet and top chefs are charging a premium price for their product and in turn are making hefty profits (maybe not so much for chefs). As such, they have a certain responsibility to the consumer! Obviously, for each genre of art this responsibilty varies, in Mamet's case it would be to turn out quality movies etc... Justin

Thank you Samuel for a very thoughtful post

Dare I use another analogy? Well here goes nothing! When a person attends Harvard Law School they pay a very hefty sum to attend this institution, as a result they expect certain things. One of the expectations is that renowned professors will teach them. Now within these law classes there will be several teaching assistants who the professor at times relies upon to teach the course, however, if the TA’s are always teaching the classes the students will be disappointed because they expected to be taught by the professor not the TA’s. Moreover, like a kitchen staff the TA’s do most of the “nuts and bolts” of the operation (grade papers and or tests, see students etc…); however, it is the right of the student to see the professor one-on-one and hear him or her lecture. Why is it the right of the student? Because they are paying a large sum of money that is not in proportion to the actual material worth of what they are receiving (leaving aside projected future income etc…). Sure Harvard law students have access to a massive library and almost unlimited resources, but so do students at large state universities. A student is paying for the renown of both the institution and faculty. There is no price you can put on being taught by an individual who has excelled to the very highest level of his or her field. Some people may think students that pay tons of money to be taught by someone is moronic (if I had a dollar for every person who thought I was stupid for spending $400 dollars for a meal I would be rich), but it comes down to what you value as an individual. I am sure my above analogy has several holes in it, but could we please stick to advancing this topic and not picking apart peoples analogies. I merely offer this analogy as a way to bring out why I feel it is realistic for me to believe that the chef should be present in his or her kitchen. A great chef whether he or she likes it is a person of renown and if he or she is going to charge high prices then it is the publics right to have them in the kitchen. What are we actually getting as a consumer at Per Se, unreal service yes, great food prepared in a state of the art kitchen yes, a massive wine list yes, but there comes a point where the actual worth of what your getting comes down to more then just these and other physical components. Why do some people gladly pay millions for art that they could buy a copy of for $50 bucks in Central Park? For some people you cannot put a price on genius. Could we not get a bunch of Harvard MBA’s together and culinary schoolteachers together, buy Thomas Kellers cookbook, and make a restaurant that rivals FL or Per Se (I wonder?)? Where do we as consumers draw the line between the actual material worth of what we are getting and the artistic value? How much would you pay for fabulous meal that is turned out by an assembly line? Food for thought, Justin

I think that it's easy for any one person to cook wonderful and creative meals. What requires the genius is for that person to be able instill his entire food mindset in those who work for him so that it stays with them forever. When Ducasse says, "I am in all of my kitchens all the time," that is exactly my vision of what a great chef should do. That statement should be completely true, because everything you think about food, from the exact degree you like to cook your green beans to what you would combine them with to where on the plate you would put them will be inside every single person who works for you. They don't need you present to replicate your vision. Micromanaging is easy. Not being there is what takes skill. I hope Keller is up to the task. If it is easy to cook a wonderful and creative meal then I have been wasting my money all these years! If I wanted to see great teaching I would go sit in on a Harvard lecture and eat a ham sandwhich. Again this comes down to what you as an indivdual value as a diner, I myself am drawn to a restaurant by a chefs genius, not by how well he can manage and teach in a kitchen. Don't get me wrong, teaching does play an integral role in the kitchen, a chef must show others how to do things and impart his "wisdom" onto others. Moreover, a chef must be able to delegate the tasks involved in creating dishes. However, the fact remains if I am going to drop serious coin at a restaurant I am expecting that the chef will be back there conducting his crew and imparting his or her personal strokes of "genius" (of course chefs get sick and cannot always be present, but for the most part they can be present). Maybe the big issue here is whether a chef should also manage the many affairs of his restaurant? Or should he or she just focus on the food? (Last I checked many renowned musicans dont manage anything, not even when they go to the bathroom (just kidding!). Justin

So here, again, is what amounts to the Frank Sinatra analogy: Frank has to be singing, or it isn't the same product. I mean no condescension, but I wish JMayer would stick to a theory. Either he expects the named chef to personally execute his meal, or he agrees that the chef does not literally do that. If the chef does not literally prepare each dish, then ensuring quality control over a product one doesn't personally touch is a matter of management, not of art. In this sense, it is not the same as Frank Sinatra, who really did have to personally sing his songs. Oakapple sorry if what I said was slightly confusing: The sentence in bold was meant more metaphorically. Of course a chef cannot cook every meal, but he can be present and take an active role in the dishes that the kitchen is putting out. Justin

Well stated BusBoy. Thanks for your input. I am sorry if what I say does not always make sense. But I treat e-gullet as an open dialogue so I am constantly learning new things and bouncing ideas off people. I am sorry if the use of the word "condescend" offended anyone. Sincerely, Justin

Is that the crux of it? OK, so in that case, how would you determine whether he's stretching himself too thin? By tasting the food, right? I hope you don't find this post also to be condescending. For my part, I certainly don't mean to condescend. I think that perhaps up to this point, we haven't understood what your bottom-line complaint or concern is. Perhaps you could try to restate it simply? I would be more then happy to try to state things in more concise and clear manner. Myself as a diner, I feel that meal at the height of its power is about so much more then just a group of highly trained indivduals putting together tasty dishes. A meal is an expression of the person who has created the reciepe and or concept, and as thus only exerts its true character at the hand of the creator (sorry if this sounds over the top and gushy). Bottom line, I would love to see more great chefs giving attention to their dishes by taking more active roles in the kitchens that turn out their dishes. Perhaps, Mr. Keller was the wrong chef to bring up. I hope this helps.

I am getting a little irritated by the condescending nature of some of these posts. I will state this again I understand the Executive Chef does not actually cook my meal, and it does not “comfort” me to think that he is back there searing my tuna. What I have mentionend in previous posts is what I value as a diner (someone who considers himself educated in the Culinary Arts). Morover, OakApple who are you to tell me what is philosophical or not? Did you read my last post carefully? Sincerely, Justin P.S. I am sorry I ever started the analogy game. And as a conversation naturally progresses people discover new truths, and realizes what they said previously may not be completely relevant.

It's not so much a defense. More like: "How can you tell the difference?" Many of the comments here suggests an emotional/visceral reaction that smells more like resentment than analysis. "I'm eating in Thomas Keller's restaurant, therefore I'm being cheated unless he cooks every dish for me personally." Even when he had only one restaurant, it didn't work that way. There is no resentment on my end, just thought it was an interesting topic. I think I am approaching this issue trough a different lens then a lot of you out there in E-Gullet land. I am not talking about the mechanics of cooking, rather the “philosophical” (for the lack of a better word) nature of food. For me food is an art, it is an expression of an individual’s creative force and skill. A perfect dish can be a transcendental experience, a connection between the chef and the diner. The preparation of food at its highest level is about so much more then a bunch of people throwing together ingredients. Again, this all comes to what I value as an individual. Rightly so, many people have different conceptions of what a meal should be. My concern is that a talented chef such as Mr. Keller is stretching himself to thin by having two “marquee” restaurants. When Mr. Keller is in the kitchen mopping the floor (Soul of a Chef) or placing sauce on the plate the food in my opinion is affected (whether we know it or not). To actually taste, food that was impacted by the creator can be an awe-inspiring experience! Maybe I am too idealistic or foolish. Sincerely, Justin Mayer

Sorry you had a less than good meal. Just out of curiosity, did you pay a lot for the meal? As I recall for two it was around $150, but I don't remember the exact figure. Not Per Se figures, but not cheap.