lizziee

In many cases, ignorance is the case. I remember many, many years ago, on our first trip to France, we ordered the Canard Apicius at Lucas Carton. It came in 2 courses and for the first course, the duck was thinly sliced and very rare. Not knowing any better, as I had never eaten rare duck, I set it back to be "cooked." I wish the waiter had done more than just accede to my request. If I had been "enlightened", I would have tried the dish the way it was suppose to be served. Maybe, then, unfamiliarity is another way of saying personal preference.

I think, one of the most under-rated jobs in a restaurant is the Maitre d'hôtel. It is so much more than "meet and greet." His responsibilities are not only essential to the smooth operation of a restaurant, but wide-ranging. The Maitre d'hôtel is responsible for supervising the entire front of the house staff. Bad service inevitably means a poor Maitre d'hôtel. From the web site (http://www.enjoyhospitality.com/careers/TheMaitreDHotel.htm), Donato Colassanto describes it best: "The Maitre D'hôtel is the 'stage manager' for an establishment, setting the scene, inspiring the staff, mechanizing the service, managing the inevitable, resolving the impromptu. He is the Ambassador to every Chefs creation and an international Diplomat for every guest." A good Maitre d'hôtel ensures perfect, correct and smooth service. He trains, motivates, reassures and corrects his staff, from the head waiter to the busser. He has eyes in back of his head and anticipates problems before they happen. When problems do arise, which they inevitably do, he handles them with professionalism, patience, and efficiency. He is the liaison between the kitchen and the front of the house. His job is to allow the creativity of the Chef to shine; enhance the dining experience, rather than detract from it. It has often been said that good service can make a mediocre meal better, but bad service can destroy a good meal. His knowledge of food and wine must be abundant as he is ultimately responsible for "teaching" his staff. Again from Donato Colassanto: "A Maitre D'hôtel has an excellent memory for names and faces, as well as insight to be one step ahead at all times, especially so when it comes to liaison with the guests. The Maitre D'hôtel will remember that customer, what he eats, what he drinks, who is guests were, where he likes to sit as soon as he has steps into the restaurant, and will remember him forever. The Maitre D'hôtel becomes each guest's personal Butler for those few hours using his brigade as his aides. He is humble but at the same time assertive, he always bears a pleasing expression, his attire and self-appearance is impeccable and with his brigade he creates the ambiance and welcoming atmosphere within the Restaurant, so that guests sense the confidence and trust from the staff and feel appreciative and at ease with the environment, with an anticipation of looking forward to a moment well spent." Given the above, the best Maitre d'hôtel I have ever encountered is Jean Marie at Taillevent. Jean Marie does everything right - he is Taillevent's best ambassador. He makes you want to come back even though the food does not measure up to the service. The question, then, becomes would you return to a restaurant where the food is good, not great, but the service is exceptional?

Toby, I echo Cathy's thoughts and will have to think about your question before I reply. But, what a good question!

"(There was some who posted a wonderful assessment of Paris 2 & 3 star restaurants 2-3 months but I've spent 3 days searching for it without luck.)" There are numerous posts on the 3 stars - look under France at paris restaurants (May 15), A week in Paris, L'Ambrosie, Ledoyen, Mao and Vivin's Happy Trip Thru Paris, 2 and 3. I know I said I wouldn't weigh in with a favorite, but so much for promises. The restaurant, for me, that is the most exciting in both "wow" factor, execution, technique, presentation is Pierre Gagnaire. Saying that, this is not a restaurant for everyone. People either love it or hate it --- there doesn't seem to be much middle ground in people's assessment.

In fact my best advice would be to get to a three star restaurant while it's a two star and preferably the year it earns that third star.

I completely agree with Bux that what is great or with the most "wow factor" is completely subjective. I have eaten at all the 3 stars (2 when they were 2 - Ledoyen and Savoy) and I am hesitant to recommend what would be the best for you. I would suggest you search past e-gullet posts and let the descriptions offered be your guide. Many are in depth with menus detailed and specific reactions. The three stars are: Ledoyen, Lucas Carton, Plaza Athenee (Ducasse), Taillevent, L'Ambrosie, Arpege, Grand Vefour, Guy Savoy, Pierre Gagnaire.

In the August issue of Gourmet, there is a blurb on Michel Trama. "You tell him what you want to cook; he'll teach you how to make it. Trama runs custom-designed classes at L'Atelier des Sens, a specially built kitchen just down the street from L'Aubergade.... He's the only chef of his stature in France who will personally give you a cooking lesson.... Here are some suggestions to get the best out of Trama: Think foie gras and ask to see a demonstration of his signature foie gras hamburger; take advantage of his artistry with duck; and, finally, pick a few dishes from the menu.... Trama, by the way, speaks excellent English and has a terrific sense of humor." (011-33-5-53-95-31-46; trama@aubergade.com; fullboard and one-day cooking class, $285, on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday only) I have never done the cooking class, but L'Aubergade is definitely worth a stop.

I am selfishly putting this in active posts as I hate to see Steve's remarks go unnoticed.

As always a great menu. I have been playing a little game with your menu. It seems that some dishes you make "for yourself" and not the clientele. I try to guess which dishes might be overlooked. This week my guesses are the beef carpaccio, the foie gras and the sardines for appetizers. The char, the daurade and maybe the liver for the main. What do you think? By the way, these are dishes I would definitely order!

I apologize John for assuming that the headline I quoted was your latest article on e-gullet. That shows both of us that some assumptions can be wrong.

"I was not asked to write an essay on the essence of eGullet, but to report on a certain sequence of events." The definition of a headline is the printed lines at the top of a newspaper article. giving the TOPIC of the article. From John's web site this is the headline he used for his article on e-gullet: "Get a meal! Hanging Out with the Virtual Foodies. These are the big spenders who discuss in detail the culinary delights they have sampled in their treks to a whole galaxy of Michelin-starred restaurants - the fruits of a Nasa-like expenditure." If you accept Webster's defintion of a headline, how does John's headline refer to a specific sequence of events and not an essay on the essence of e-gullet?

"I dealt facetiously with what is indeed an ongoing debate between those whose primary interest is in simple domestic cuisine and those for whom eating is an opulent adventure." Did you deal with it jokingly? How is calling members "an elite of big spenders" facetious? Quoting Webster's dictionary opulence is defined as "having much wealth" and domestic as "of the home or the family." According to you the on going debate on e-gullet is between those who wish to talk about how they spend their enormous wealth at exclusive restaurants and those who want to discuss home cooking. Your assumption that those of us who enjoy going to and then discussing Michelin 2 and 3 star restaurants have great wealth is a fallacy. Tommy's comment is most relevant; "a lot of us choose to spend a good portion of our disposable income on dining. there is a distinct and important difference here." I also don't understand why both topics are mutually exclusive. If you don't care to discuss a topic, then don't. If there is a topic that you feel should be addressed, then do. There are many threads that I feel I can intelligently contribute to and I do. There are threads where I feel I can't contribute, but enjoy reading, even if I don't post. There are threads where I have little or no interest and I don't read them. I think it is important that e-gullet allows each member to decide for themselves what is relevant and not dismiss those as elite snobs for engaging in their own relevancy. Your reducing the "so-called" debate between 2 extremes - home cooking and opulence is not supported by the actual threads. Neighborhood restaurants, bistros, ethnic restaurants etc. etc. are discussed in depth. You painted a picture of e-gullet that is just not supported by the facts. Rail Paul's comments are also very indicative of how far you strayed from the facts. "Believe me, if a genuine tabloid journalist had taken an interest in this drama, he would have dug out further unsavory details that I chose not to make use of." Are you saying that you are a tabloid journalist? If so, then, that would explain the sensational aspect of your article and the "twisting of the facts" to support your thesis. "There are those who privately agree with me and apologize for not going public, thus subjecting themselves to similar abuse." I am sorry if you see this disagreement as abuse. I see it as an honest discussion of what you wrote and published and now have to "live by those words."

John, I found your article slanted and biased as well as inaccurate. From what I can gather, e-gullet started in August of 2001. Up until this May, the tone was usually gracious, although sometimes contentious. Not until this May was there a major upheaval with a great deal of troll interlopers. Your article seems to suggest since May, it has been downhill ever since. I know you submitted your article in May for July publication, but you were so quick to comment and chastise on a brief period in e-gullet history that you ignored the majority of e-gullet's past and present. Your statements concerning the population mix of e-gullet i. e. "these well-heeled punters tend to share a political and economic philosophy that’s altogether appropriate to their conspicuous consumption" or "an elite of big spenders with an encyclopaedic knowledge of the world’s most expensive restaurants," is just not true. First of all, it is because many of us do NOT have unlimited funds that we want to know if that special 3 star meal is worth blowing the budget on. Secondly, the France board which seems to lend itself to talking about Michelin stars is far from an extensive discussion of the high end exclusively. From July 4th to now the following topics have been discussed: Hotel Restaurants, Le Cerf, L'Ambrosie, Day Trips From Paris, US Cell phones, L'Ecole des Chefs, Best Neighborhoods, Bras, Bernachon, Michelin Price Policy, Auberge de I'll, Staggaire's story, L'Astrance, Dining's Hidden Cost, Roellinger, Where did the Americans go, French Rare Beef Breeds, Lucas Carton and Tetou. There are over 250 very active posters on e-gullet, but you seem to have an agenda with a small number and use that agenda to paint all of us with the same brush. You took an incident that lasted for approximately two weeks and damned the future - "The riding of obsessional hobbyhorses and the rampant personalizing of discussion has cast a mushroom cloud of sectarian fallout over every Board. EGullet threatens to become a gastronomic Big Brother, in which the exchange of useful information is drowned out by raucous games of “Let’s You and Him Fight.” " Finally, Blue Heron is correct. Look at other boards and I think you will find an e-gullet that you completely over-looked.

Steve Klc posted in the New Jersey thread a comment about Karla Cook's review of The Frog and the Peach. I think his comments should be added here as they succinctly put into context what a valuable assessment of a restaurant should include: "Because the review focused on the hash and not any of the flash--again to use your terms, terms I wouldn't use Nick--I don't see where the content of the review or any of the reviewer's opinions point to any road for improvement or put the reader into any context as to why the "very good" ranking was received. Is she really saying to the Frog & Peach (and to her readers)--I really liked the food but you're not delivering on the total goods given your price point, given what is happening at the other restaurants rated "excellent?" .... Does F&P have the panache or the refinement or deliver the goods of other restaurants at that price point, other destination restaurants? By avoiding the "flash"--what I view instead as mere essential components of any fine dining review--wine, decor, service sensibility, ambiance, professionalism, pacing of the meal--I have no idea what the experience of taking a meal there would be like, nor how it fares in the context of New Jersey fine dining." .... I still submit this is simply a poor review on its merits, inherently flawed conceptually and structurally, lacking both the nuance and respect a supposed "destination" restaurant should expect from any fine dining reviewer." I think Steve has summed up in a nutshell, what we expect from a good review - a sense of the experience of the meal, a knowledgeable value judgment re the experience, specific examples to support that judgment and an assessment of the restaurant in the context of other restaurants at that price point.

JD, I think you are absolutely correct that the reviewer is an educator. Unfortunately all reviewers are not created equal. Some reviewer's opinions I trust while others I tend to discount. Maybe, this is a matter of agreeing with those critiques that most mirror my own personal preferences, I hope not. Like you, I have been seriously involved with food and fine dining for over 30 years. I certainly don't consider myself a master or expert, but I do think I can critically assess a restaurant as well as a restaurant review. What I expect from a good reviewer is to feel as if I had actually eaten there myself. What is the place like, what was the service like, what tastes were particularly enjoyed, what was below par and why, how does the restaurant fit in the culinary world and a host of other answers to help me in my own judgment. I think it is important to remember why we read a review in the first place. For some, it is to experience a restaurant vicariously. However, for me, it is usually to decide whether I want to go there myself. Will a bad review keep me from going? Not necessarily; it depends on the reviewer, how it was reviewed, was I given enough knowledge to make a fair assessment etc. JD, as for your comments re children see raising food savvy children under general topics http://forums.egullet.org/ibf/index.php?ac...6d982f1eb314ecf. You will find much agreement about forcing kids to eat food that they are not ready to try.

Wimpy, Buy Patricia Wells's The Food Lover's Guide to Paris. (Make sure it's the latest edition) She not only lists which restaurants are open in August, but will also give you all the resources you need for food markets etc. I have eaten at Chateaux de Gilly, although it was many years ago. The dining room is in a cloister-like room - the ceilings were vaulted and the floor of stone. As I rememeber, we were pleasantly surprised; service was good and the food quite good. At Gilly, they even have "musical evenings"; I don't remember exactly how this works, but there was a brochure at the front desk detailing their special evenings. I can't help with Strasbourg as I have never been - this year will be our first time in that area.

jaybee, According to your analogy, I would be dead too many counts to count.

Bux, I have eaten there for lunch on Saturday as well as dinners on Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday. Our first time there was a Saturday and we sat in that front room so we were with mostly English, American and Japanese. At dinner, the front room was predominately the above mix, while the middle room, which I keep refering to, was French except for us. I should mention that the room is very, very small, maybe a total of 7 tables. The restaurant, itself, is small. It is by far the smallest of the 3 *'s and one of the reasons it is so difficult to get a reservation. There just isn't enough room for the demand. My son, who worked in a 2 star in Paris, did mention to me that weekday lunch tended to be dominated by the French more than at dinner. Also, I have noticed that at lunch in Paris 2 and 3 stars, you see many more tables of "businessmen" dining and we are often one of the few couples in the room. From what I can gather, the French prefer a hearty meal at midday and would rather have a light supper. Cabrales, I honestly found the service to be warm and welcoming, although formal and correct. It is a very formal restaurant, absolutely jacket and ties. However, my experience is much like Bux's; we struggled with the French, but there was no impatience, no rolling of eyes - only a great appreciation that we tried to use our French, albeit bad.

Jordyn, When you have a chance would you post your notes? I would be interested in your assessments.

That is a home-run statement!

lizziee -- When you attended the R&C event, who were the chefs in charge of your table? How does one get wind of R&C events in the US? When Jeanne McManus had her Q&A, she mentioned the described Paris event, but also indicated that particular event was not open to the public. I don't remember which chefs were assigned to us that evening, probably because the meal was so uninspired that I was just as happy to forget about it. In fact, if memory serves me right, we went out for a late snack at the Water Grill next door and had some marvelous oysters and other assorted cold seafood. Sorry, Cabrales, but I also don't recall how we got wind of this particular event. Since we stay at a lot of R & C places, both in the States and in France, it might have been through one of the other properties. However, this is an event that looked good on paper, had a certain "wow" factor feel to it (I remember looking at the chefs cooking and saying to my husband that we had to go) and then not delivering at all.

I find Pacaud's cuisine perfect. Steven's descriptions from Fat Guy are very accurate; Pacaud handles the best ingredients with such care and delicacy. This is anything but overwrought food - you will never see or taste an extraneous flavor. Everything is precisely prepared and every dish is precisely plated. Pacaud rarely comes out of the kitchen; he uses his food to introduce himself to the diner. Bux also used the word perfection; it is hard to think of another adjective to describe Pacaud's food. We have eaten there a number of times over the last few years, but I only have notes on 2 of these meals. Our meal in 2000: First course was oeufs de poule mollets, sabayon a l'oscietre - the eggs were soft-boiled, perfectly peeled to resemble a hard boiled egg enrobed with sabayon sauce and on the side a "quenelle" of caviar and tiny asparagus spears. My notes say the following, "to say my husband died and went to heaven is an understatement .. before the evening was over he was conspiring 1. how to get back to L'Ambrosie for breakfast 2. how to have the eggs delivered by room service 3. how to make L'Ambrosie the first stop directly from the airport in 2001." Second course was darne de turbot rotie aux epices, poelee d'artichaut a cru. The turbot, roasted on the bone, was perfectly seasoned and the artichokes accompanying the dish crunchy and the perfect compliment to the turbot. Next course was compose d'agneau en nougatine d'ail, ragout de fevettes a l'estragon - lamb was served three ways - the chop, the loin, the brains with caramelized garlic for crunch. Absolutely perfectly prepared and presented. Again, I find myself over-using the word perfect, but there is no other way to convey Pacaud's cuisine. The wines we had were a good value - '90 Puligny Montracet Les Pucelles by Leflaive and a '90 Bonnes Mares by Trouqueray. Service was very attentive and good-humored, not at all stuffy. They are not used to seating non-French speakers in the middle room with the tapestry (it seems they like to seat English speakers together and use an English speaking staff to serve), but we had requested this when we made our reservation, saying we would handle French only. Note: there are three rooms at L'Ambrosie - the first as you enter from Place des Vosages, the middle room, and the back room which is normally used for private dinners. Bux described the ambiance well - it is formal - like eating in someone's elegant home. However, we did not feel a hushed reverence, maybe because we got into a lively discussion with the GM, Pierre, who was and is fun, knowledgeable and the best when it comes to front of the house. Madame Pacaud is also always there, but as she speaks little English, she is reticient with English speakers. (One time, when we went with a couple of French chefs, she was animated as well as engaging.) The next year, 2001, we returned and were greeted by Pierre as "old friends." Again, we were seated in the middle room and were the only Americans seated there. One interesting note; the French seem to use L'Ambrosie as a celebration restaurant and are very judicious in their ordering of wines. Two separate tables of French couples ordered 1 bottle of red wine for the entire meal which they nursed throughout the meal, unconcerned that there was absolutely no match whatsoever of wine and food. They normally do not do splits, but we wanted to have more than an entree and a main and they agreed. We again had the mollet eggs - cutting in half the egg, the runny yolk mixes with the sabayon sauce and then you add a little caviar from the side - wonderful. Next we had the frog legs with citronelle sauce and a tempura of vegetables. The frog legs were lightly battered and crunchy and my husband, who is not a veggie person, ate his veggies first. For the main, my husband had the beef coated with black pepper and I had the lacquered pigeon with a mousse of tiny peas. Again, there is only one word to describe these dishes - perfect. We had cheese and dessert both times, but I do not have specific notes on these. What often happens is that after 2 bottles of wine, my note-taking ability suffers. I can only describe L'Ambrosie as a classic Michelin 3 *. It is expensive since there is no tasting menu, but I can honestly say that it is worth it.

Reservations can only be made 2 months in advance. Cabrales, it is the other way around. The front room is for non-French and the back room with the tapestry for the French. Note pirate was seated in the front room.

We have been to one of these R & C events when it was held in LA. The way it works is this way. You are assigned a table and each table has assigned chefs. You are not eating an offal course by every chef, only the one assigned to your table. For example, my table might have the offal course by Lacombe, the shellfish by Joho, the snails by Lorraine etc. I can only say that the meal was horrible - badly conceived and poorly executed. The best part of the evening was prior to the meal, during cocktail hour, when each R & C had a "booth- table" with hand-outs about their property and the owner or chef or manager "working the table" available to answer questions.

and if they tell you in the best Anglo-Saxon tradition to mind your own business?