macrosan

Oh no you don't, Winot, because you're obviouslky not going to bother reading this thread

Oh Peter, I can't believe that you order sauce with your steak in the USA Is that Heinz Tomato Ketchup, or what ? I think the Argentine restaurant (which is near Piccadilly) is called El Gaucho or something equally original. It was recommended to me by an Argentine expat living in New York. Notwithstanding your comment, they do import all their steaks from Argentina, and my man tells me their chef is an Argentine and their cooking methods are authentic Argentine.

There's a word for that, and I don't remember what it is. I think the word is "stupid"

LOL Hollywood No Steven, I wouldn't want anyone to wait, and yet I would wait for someone else. Oh boy, I must be crazy

OK, so we're all OK if the missing person is a Japanese who has been on this lady's etiquette course. And ...?

Now now, Tommy Of course not, but a buffet creates a bustling "eat and run" atmosphere, with diners walking to and from the buffet table, and entering and leaving the restaurant at a higher-than-usual frequency. Waiter service also tends to be a little frenetic as staff try to clear tables quickly in preparation for new diners. That doesn't lend itself to creating the more leisurely and relaxed air that an a la carte diner prefers.

If FatGuy is indeed correct (and who could doubt such a thing?) then why do all those upscale restaurants make such a circus of removing all the cloches from all the plates they have put on the table at exactly the same instant ? My assumption is that they believe that etiquette is that all diners start eating at the same time I assume that Fattus is at this very moment compiling in digital form a string of references as long as the Iraqi disclosures.

The lunchtime buffet has become pretty much de rigeur in the UK too. In fact some restaurants just don't offer any other menu at lunchtime. I have always assumed that this is because there is an image of Indian food as being heavy and very spicy, and therefore not the sort of meal people want to have at lunchtime and then return to work. It has to be said that this would indeed be true of some Indian restaurants but absolutely not of a class act like Diwan. If Diwan is offering an optional buffet, I think they would be well advised to confine it to just one section of the restaurant. They have the ideal layout for doing this too I'm absolutely definitely going there on my next visit to NYC, and I might even pluck up the courage to ask Chef Mathur to select a menu for me

Aha !!!! On another infamous thread which I recall included the word "relevant" in its title, I said that I didn't find Babbo to be a particularly Italian restaurant and I was much derided Now surely I have found fame and restitution, because I have the TenaciousP coming round to my way of thinking Steve, you keep doing what you tell other people off for. You correctly identify that Babbo is many people's favorite restaurant in NYC, then you keep saying (as in the quote above) that they find it the best. There is a clear difference between those assessments. I have not yet seen a single eGulleteer naming Babbo as the best. Also, surely you recognize that your experience the other day of bad kitchen preparation and service is far from typical. You know that because of the high proportion of reports here that say you were unlucky. The issue of preference of broad food style is an interesting one, and I think may be very telling here. Not wishing to diverge from the Babboness of this thread it is worth noting that many of the people who reported they weren't crazy about Blue Hill actually said that it just wasn't "their style of food". That's just subjective personal preference at work. Maybe the same is true at Babbo, and even though I don't think Babbo is particularly Italian in style (and not that that matters in any way), I could certainly see that Italophiles would like it more than Francophiles, and vice versa at Blue Hill. Interesting thought

I've had Argentine steak in London at an allegedly "great" steakhouse, and I've had several excellent steaks in Italy, and I've had dozens of excellent steaks in England, but probably my best 20 steaks ever were all in the USA. Peter Luger, The Old Homestead, Ben Benson in New York, Palm in Washington, The Trail Dust in Dallas, Thoroughbreds and New York Prime in Myrtle Beach, and others whose names I forget. In my experience, it's truly difficult to get a bad steak in the USA.

This is a quite disgraceful suggestion, Ajay. I am much nearer than Plotters, therefore I will not burden the EGulletDonors with travelling expenses, and I am quite capable of making my review sound just as if Plotters had written it. Please advise me when you have received sufficient funds, and I will go straight ahead with my reservation.

LOL Steve, why aren't you in bed ? I've only eaten at one Michelin 3* restaurant this year, and that was in Brussels. The cost of a 3-course a la carte lunch with wine including 16% service charge was just under £100 per person. I believe the carte there is the same at dinner and lunch. The Sketch review suggests "dinner for two, excluding wine and service, costs £300" so I guess including wine and service that would be £230 per person, which is more than double what I paid in Brussels. If France is at the Sketch level, does this mean France is exceptionally expensive compared with other European countries at this level of dining ? Steve, my point about the Sketch prices is that they surely can't be dependent on Michelin-3*-ies I just don't think there are enough of them to keep what sounds like a very large restaurant going. Their primary market must be celebs, Winners, Sloanies, et al. The Michelin market will support (or not!) their reputation for fine food, which will encourage the main market to go. On your point about what the Telegraph review should comprise, I would be surprised if the Michelin market made any decision about such a restaurant from any published review. After all, they're not likely to place much credence either in the author (Jan Moir) or in the editorial policy of a national daily newspaper. I would assume that this market will take note of the reputation of Pierre Gagnaire, will talk amongst themselves (maybe even here ) and will then either take a straight risk, or wait for the next Michelin guide to be published. For people like me, this Telegraph review is just fine

I read the Telegraph review and thought it was excellent. It gave me a general "flavour" of the whole setup, including the decor, ambience, style and food. I disagree that it is voyeuristic in any sense. Sure it's critical, but then a review is meant to be critical My personal experience is that my capacity to complain is geometrically proportional to my expectations. So as a restaurant presents itself further and further up the price/quality scale, so my expectations will become higher and higher, and so the likelihoood of my picking fault with minor detail will increase. And that is exactly how I believe it should be. The price level adopted by Sketch is way beyond any normal concept of profit determination. Those prices are not based on cost, they are based on exclusivity. There is a marketplace of people who will not buy what can afforded by most people, they will always be inclined to buy the most expensive of anything that can be obtained. Michael Winner is an example of such a person. Sketch is designed primarily for that market. Now if the product that Sketch delivers is perfect, and the food is genuinely of the quality that one would expect from Gagnaire, then they will also attract a gourmet market, but that market will be secondary to their business plan. Sure, the review pokes some fun at the sheer expensiveness of Sketch, and sure it deliberately pricks the pomposity of the place where the reviewer found pomposity. I'm all in favour of that. But behind what in fact is a tiny amount of such mickey-taking, there is a serious and valid review of the restaurant as a restaurant. Will I go ? Probably, and when I do I shall not be averse to complaining about the tiniest detail which does not live up to their pretensions.

Will Chinese restaurants in NYC generally serve a banquet to one or two walk-in diners only ? Kinda like a tasting menu elsewhere, I suppose. As far as I'm aware, most in London would need a large party, and also a pre-order.

Yes I see that Steve, but what I had in mind was a cuisine that retained the essential character of the Jewish (East European) dishes that I grew up on, but produced them in a finer style. It's not the issue of kashrut that concerns me. I suppose I'm saying that I don't want to reconstitute, I want to refine. Gefilte fish will always be gefilte fish, no matter what size you make the ball, and no matter what you cover it with. But could one use an atypical fish, or mince it differently, or add herbs, or maybe cook it differently, and yet still retain the essence of gefilte fish ? And please don't ask me what the "essence of gefilte fish" is, because I have no idea but I'll know it when I taste it

I certainly hope that it's not true that ordering expensive wine delivers a better quality meal. In fact I get the impression that everyone who has posted feels that way. And I note what FatGuy has said, that in his experience it's not so. Without any knowledge of the behind-the-scenes working of a restaurant, it would seem logically unlikely to be true. There does seem to be some logic that expensive wine might impress servers, and possibly even improve the quality of service. But that would be no different from ordering expensive dishes (like truffles), and I guess servers will also react similarly to diners who look super-rich. But most of us are, I suppose, just guessing. Now much play is made at eGullet of how we attract the industry professionals to our site, and how we should always temper our posts in order to persuade them to stay here. Well, guys, prove to the rest of us that you're out there. Let's have some restaurant staff telling us what really does happen.

I clicked "Mail Order" and my browser window showed "Done" at the bottom. So I assume that my order for 16 large jars of Poached Pears will be delivered in time for Christmas. Seriously, Dog, please get onto this straightaway will you ? There's a good chap

Babbo is my favorite restaurant in New York, but I would never call it the best restaurant in New York. The former is a subjective assessment of the totality of dining experience, including food, atmosphere, service, price and so on. The latter could make no real sense, apart from maybe being a cry for attention

In whuch case, call that 51 because I am coming into town for this one

Jews surely rate food as more important within their culture than any other. And the tradition of Jewish food includes the finest ingredients possible and the highest standards of hygiene. As objective as I can be, I also think that many traditional Jewish recipes are fundamentally interesting and well-conceived. And yet ... And yet the image of Jewish food is that it is fatty, stodgy, bland comfort food. Allowing that there is a huge range of "traditional" (European) Jewish cuisines, do you believe that in a modern, and strong economic, environment such as the USA, there is the possibility for future development of Jewish haute cuisine ? Or (dare I ask) do you think it already exists ?

Hello Ed Thanks for joining us. Your replies here sure are making fascinating reading, even for someone who won't get close to most of the places in the USA you talk about Chinese (and I think most Oriental) meals are generally structured in the form of a mini-buffet, with groups of dishes in the centre of the table and diners taking small portions of two or three dishes at a time into their own bowls to eat. It occurs to me that this creates some interesting restraints, and opportunities for Chinese meals. On the one hand, the balance of dishes becomes quite complex, ensuring an appropriate variety and quantities of vegetables, accompaniments, sauces and meat dishes. On the other hand (do I sound like Jackie Mason ?) this must give a chef exciting opportunities to mix and match components. How is a relatively untrained diner to get the best out of this form of self-service ? Which types of dish, in what sequence, provide the best experience ? Or is it safe to assume that dishes served on the table at one time will all "go together" well ?

Steve, I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Please be my guest, because I'm now intrigued. Or maybe you want to PM me about it first ?

The reason this thread is so long is that the subject matter is very interesting. What is wrong or surprizing about that ? Sure, there was a brief explosion of aggression, brought on by our resident expert, but I was particularly glad to see that disappear after just a few posts. Blue Hill has, I think, created a wider range of opinions than any other restaurant I have seen written up here. There are not "two camps", the likers and the dislikers, it's far more subtle than that. SteveP said many posts ago that this thread should not be black and white, it's a whole range of grays. We have people saying the food itself, from dish to dish, ranges from superb to very disappointing. Others say the dining experience varies from day to day, or depending on whether you order from the menu or at the chef's choice, some who say they love dining there, but would not want to do so too often. A few people have said they don't want to go there again. That is an amazing array of subjective assessment. The cooking methods are described in a variety of ways by members. Some call it subtle, others bland, some interesting and some boring. Some say it's French restaurant based, some say French bistro, and within that category some say modern and some say traditional. Some say it's American and not French. Interestingly, the one thing pretty well everyone seems to agree on is that a great deal of care is taken in the cooking. I must say that I have been fascinated by the discussion, and I firmly resist any attempt to shorten or discourage its continuation. My first post on this thread was one of disappointment at Blue Hill, and I said I wouldn't go again because it's "not my type of food". I am now persuaded otherwise, and I will definitely go again. That's because as I have listened to what others have said, I have concluded that maybe I am missing something of value. Too many people here whose opinions I respect say they have indeed found something in the food that I have not. Maybe Blue Hill food is like so many other things culinary --- you need to persevere with it to appreciate it, and when you do appreciate it it will prove to have been worth the effort. That would make it similar to wine, whisky, art, music ......

I will try this once more Steve, that's an interesting and well reasoned post, and I have a question. If all you want to do is to prove how much more discerning you are than me, or how much more dining experience you have than me, or if you want to read some subtle hidden motive into my question, then please just don't bother to answer But if you feel comfortable, and when you have time, here is the question. Are you effectively saying that one gastronome could like "Blue Hill style" cooking, while another doesn't like it ? Are you saying that Blue Hill has an unusual concept of cooking (what you early called "teasing flavor out of excellent ingredients") which produces subtly flavored food, and that this might simply be not to the taste of someone who just prefers bold flavors ? And that both views are valid ?

OK, I'm going to ignore SteveP's poor attempts at self-parody :laugh: , and address the other people who have been contributing to this thread, providing several different interesting views and insights, and actually attempting to respond to the points that people (including myself) are raising. What is your objective assessment of Blue Hill as a fine dining restaurant for people who order off the menu ? I'm interested to know how you rate purely the food, as against Gramercy Tavern, or Babbo, or Le Bernardin, or wherever. Many members have obviously tried the "Chef's Choice" option, and I'm trying to get a feeling for how much better that food is than the menu option. If anyone is willing to humor my quantitative tendency , I could best understand this if you marked both options out of 10 !!!! But also, it would be fascinating to know if you believe the "chef" option actually moves the whole experience up the scale so far that Blue Hill changes from, let's say "the equal of Gramercy Tavern" to "the equal of ADNY".