macrosan

Otay to you too, Jinnysan. Great report, Suzanne, and confirms Jean Georges on my "must go" list. I did have breakfast there a couple of times, and was disappointed

But Simon, surely at some stage you must also have owned to an idiosyncratic style. Surely, surely.

OK, I found a better truffle supplier, although theu're a bit pricey at £2.50 a kilo, but back to the topic to hand... Yeah, that was it, POACHED PEARS in huge glass jars, mail order, shipped to my table in 24 hours at a bargain price, including delivery of ... let's say ... £15 a jar of four pears. I'll take two jars a month (or rather, my wife will take two jars a month) and we'll see wehat happens when my friends get tasters And finally, Basildog, you gotta do chopped liver. Jewish Roumanian style, with crispy fried onions and schmaltz. Honestly, they'll go wild for it in Cornwall.

White truffles at £1.75 a kilo ?

That's a typically generous reply, Andy, and I appreciate that. I have never misconstrued your intentions in posting, and I have alawys defended you against what I always believed were occasional false accusations of partiality. Let me also say that I am aware that my own idiosyncratic style also causes annoyance. In fact it is sometimes deliberately designed to do so so I guess I'm expecting more of you than I do of myself. Be assured that I shall continue to be encouraged to post

Andy, I agree with that. However there is a clear and important distinction between the general membership and a Moderator A member has no wider obligation than to write in a way which he enjoys, and has no duty to achieve balance. A Moderator is obliged to write in a way that represents the policy of eGullet, and a duty to encourage the development of a wide range of consenting and contrary views. I'm honestly not making a big issue of this (it was Simon who raised the point) but I think you should accept that you are defensive of professional reputations, and I think that as a Moderator you should not be so. If I say that a dish is badly cooked, then I have no problem with you explaining why I don't understand the dish, or even suggesting that I'm exaggerating, but if you pick fault with the words I use or imply that I must be wrong to say so, then you are likely to suppress future discussion. Just a friendly thought, Andy

On the 18th green, I assume.

OK, so I love the questions Is there any realistic chance he'll get some answers ? The last question, about whether the Zagats actually have any input into the final ratings, is probably unfair. My guess is that if they did, someone inside the organization would have blown the whistle by now. Surely, surely. You can't blame the Zagats for how restaurateurs treat them, they're just a funny bunch (the restaurateurs, I mean).

Oh no, Andy, I quite liked the way you said it (and I agree with you, too) Edit Afterthought: .... which probably means we're both wrong

Interesting point about the menu, which I think works both ways. I went to Capital last Friday, and the menu read beautifully. But the food was awful, and my reaction to the food was made worse by the expectations the menu gave me. On Steve's other point, that he simply doesn't understand why some people rate Chez Bruce so highly, that reinforces my own view that much of what constitutes a good restaurant is subjective. There seem to be experienced and knowledgeable contrary views on just about every restaurant (certainly here at eGullet). Of course this might be explained by "off nights" but I believe that different people simply enjoy, appreciate and respect different types of cooking, and different styles of restaurant.

Nothing provocative about them, Vanessa 1. I have got used to the shellfish amuse problem. I don't complain to the restaurant. They serve me something I don't eat, don't charge me, I don't eat it. It's not a big issue, but I do (as I said) find it irritating. My personal preference would be that restaurants stop serving these iotems, but they seem to enjoy the tradition. 2. Yeah, I too was puzzled by the vegetables. I have truly never tasted anything so extremely mouth-puckering. They were uncomfortable, and after a few, impossible for a normal person to eat, and I have eaten and enjoyed raw chillis and hot curries and raw lemons (not together ). Clearly the vegetables had been specially treated, and that's why I likened my experience to Simon's report of "fierce and intense reductions", because I assume Chavot used the same technique in both cases. There were slices of tiny tomatoes in the couscous, and I tasted one tiny slice on its own and it made my eyes water My point about this is that it seems to me that Chavot intends it to be like this, and that's what I find stupid, ridiculous and insulting. It is absolutely my considered view that the couscous accompaniment was uneatable. Believe me, I am not exaggerating. As far as my overall view of the food is concerned, I paid £44 for two dishes, and ate a delightful piece of lamb plus some very bad food. I think "awful" is a fair description of that. I cannot say if my experience was typical, or likely to be repeated in future, but that's not my job. I record what I find. So go and try Capital, Vanessa. I'll be very interested to read your review. On the general issue, it is true that Andy tends to get defensive about the reputations of cooking professionals. I understand that. But it does start to miss the point of eGullet when people who write reviews are challenged at every opportunity to justify both their detailed comments, and the style of their reviews. I do have a tendency toward hyperbole, but everyone gets to know that. I am not swayed by reputation, nor do I make allowances for error in people whose position does not merit such allowance. But my written opinions will never shatter reputations, nor significantly affect the restaurants of which I write. That's not my job, I don't get paid for it, I'm not a professional critic. I report what I find. I found the food at Capital to be awful and said so. By contrast, you might like to read my review of Comme Chez Soi in Brussels (in Europe, Other Countries) of a few days ago, which is entirely the opposite, or my reviews of Babbo and Gramercy Tavern in New York. I do not indulge in chef-bashing or restaurant-bashing for the sake of it.

Simon, I'm just gobsmacked I know that it once was the case that certain restaurants adopted this attitude (Gay Hussar springs to mind) but that was in the days when they were nearly always full, and maybe there was some justification in that they preferred to prepare in advance for an exact number of covers (? just a guess). I think your response is exactly right. This is gross discourtesy and unbelievable arrogance. I have to admit I've never heard of the place before, but now I have and I know what to do with my knowledge ... and by the way, welcome to eGullet. Now let's find nicer things to talk about

I found it easily enough

I had an awful meal at Capital yesterday evening. The look of the place is exactly as Simon described it, dull, boring, kind of MFI masquerading as elegant gentility. They also have a functional problem, in that some form of crossbar under the table prevented me stretching my legs out, and the chair was terribly uncomfortable (short seat and vertical back). The staff were terrific. Warm, friendly and smiling. Service throughout the meal was excellent, and even one of my typically weak jokes to the waitress serving bread rolls evoked a witty response and a smile. The problem was the food. I found the menu interestingly balanced and the dishes sounded great. They simply did not live up to the description. They served an amuse of scallops and something. I really do get irritated by restaurants serving shellfish amuses, since I don't eat shellfish. When the starters arrived, they looked just splendid. Ebveryone had ordered differently, and each dish looked a creative picture. That was the first, and last, instant at which I thought I'd made a good choice of restaurant. My starter was "Seared duck foie gras with lentils, girolles mushrooms and cooking jus" and it was awful. This was (I assume) a whole duck's liver, and it was stringy and salty as hell. I couldn't taste the foie for the salt. The mushrooms were fine, the lentils were odd (they seemed to have been soaked in a light vinegar, or something else that gave them a sourness) and the jus was also slightly vinegary. If I had been dining with just my wife, I would have sent this dish back. It was either badly conceived, or badly cooked, or both. For the main course, I chose "Canon of lamb with black olive crust, couscous and thyme jus". The lamb was first-class, tender and juicy and well-flavoured. It was served on some kind of soggy pastry crust which was virtually flavourless. The couscous itself was excellent, but it was permeated with the most excrutiatingly bitter-sweet vegetables I have ever tasted in my life. I assume these were onions and cabbage and tomato, but whatever they were they were mouth-tightening, like eating a raw, juicy lime but with added msg. The flavour was so extreme that I grimaced every time I ate one. This mixture was so uncomfortable to eat that I gave up. Now this is not a case of "not getting it" as SteveP might say, this was uneatable food. Stupid, ridiculous, and insulting. I have just read again Simon's review, and I see that he found exactly the same. If this had been many times toned down, it might arguably make an accompaniment for high venison, but with lamb it was pure nonsense. After that, I really wasn't interested in Chavot's desserts, so I ordered coffee and left as soon as I reasonably could. The others in my party of five said they enjoyed their meals greatly, but since they were my guests I don't necessarily rely on that judgement. I truly can't believe that it was only my two dishes that were like that ! The bill was just under £400 for five people, which seems OK for a Michelin 2-crown -- if only their cooking matched the crowns. Never again.

I report back from my visit to Comme Chez Soi. I have just had my finest meal ever My party of four arrived at the pleasantly discreet entrance of the restaurant, and even as we entered the front door there was an immediate air of old-fashioned graciousness about the style of the door and hallway. Through a second brass-furnished door and we were greeted by Laurence Rigolet, daughter of the owners, and escorted immediately to our table. The dining room is amazing, a mixture of art nouveau and art decor, exquisitely stylish. The table was long and narrow, of dimensions I have never seen in a restaurant, but in fact perfectly designed to provide ample width for full place settings, while also allowing us to converse across the table comfortably. The one "issue" was that tables were butted almost against one another, so that the table had to be pulled right out to allow two people to sit on the wall banquette, after which those two were trapped. I was glad we had an end table, and the adjacent one was empty. The service was very correct, if somewhat surly and unsmiling. The head waiter was totally unresponsive to friendly witticism, seemed unwilling to explain some of the complexities of the menus and carte, struggled a little to understand the order (that was not a language problem), and was quite disinclined to provide a wine list until after all the food orders had been taken and despatched to the kitchen (which I found irritating, and also disrupted our conversation later). The waiters were discreet and efficient. So overall, the service was disappointing. But the food and wine ..... We all ordered a la carte. One of the puzzling features was that over half of the main courses were for two people. I understand this for maybe a rack of hare or some beef dishes, but surely not for medallions of venison and gurnard and octopus ? Ah well.... This was a busines lunch, so I can't report on the meals of the other three (except to say they were highly delighted with everything). We were served with a few canapes (pleasant) and an amuse of mussels in a tomato sauce (which I didn't eat). My starter was wood-pigeon mousse, which was a large brown cylindrical object in the centre of a large plate, with a tiny diamond of pear on redcurrant sauce on the side. Frankly, it looked clumsy and unappealing ... until I tasted it. The word I'm looking for is magnificent. The taste was sublime, a subtle flavour of pigeon with the slightest edge of (I think) lemon, and the texture was perfect --- not fluffy or slimy or chunky --- just perfect. When I had finished, the waiter delivered a second helping, spooned from a large bowl. I would have finished the bowl given half a chance. With the starter we drank a Pouilly Fume, Chateau Tracey 2000. This is an old favourite of mine, which I used to buy regularly from a friend who was the sole importer of Tracey into the UK. Lovely crisp, light wine. My main course was "Crispy roundles of venison with dry fruit and a light sauce of juniper, fried wild mushrooms and Brussels sprouts" which I shared with a guest. This is now officially the most perfect single dish I have ever eaten, replacing the lamb chops at Babbo. We were not asked how we wanted the venison cooked (good for them!) and it came rare and bloody. The meat (which was roe-deer) was served as three elliptical roundels about 4 inches long and 2.5 inches wide and 1.5 inches deep. Crispy on the outside, sprinkled with light herbs, and mouth-meltingly tender inside. The flavour was just superb, not a strong gamey flavour. There was a portion of long-grain rice in the dish (not shown on the menu) which was perfectly cooked, the mushrooms (porcini I think) were fabulous, the brussel sprouts (well we werein the right city to get those) were wonderful even though they're not normally a favoured vegetable of mine, and the juniper sauce complemented the venison perfectly. Every single element of this dish was as perfect as it could be, and as a whole dish I can only describe it as (pace Michael Winner) historic. Again, I eagerly accepted the second helping of a couple of additional roundels of meat. The chef, Pierre Wynants (father-in-law of Laurence Rigolet) came into the dining room to enquire if all was well. I was genuinely disappointed that I couldn't do more than utter some fulsome compliments --- I would have loved to talk to him about the dishes, but I was with business guests. Our wine was a St Julien, Chateau Ducru Beaucaillou 1994, which was decanted (at their suggestion) and was absolutely splendid. A lightly woody flavour, smooth and rich. My two guests (both French and both "into" wine) remarked on the excellence of this wine. My dessert was orange pancakes with burnt sugar. That prosaic description does not do it justice. The crepes were perfectly cookerd, neither dry nor soggy, the ornage flavouring neither too strong nor bland, and the edges crisp with burnt sugar, made this a delightful dish. We all ended with espresso coffee. Amazingly, this was the only offering -- no "regular" coffee and no cafetiere. The petits fours (which normally I would not even have noticed) were wonderful, and I gorged on them. Sadly, I intended to ask for a box to bring home, but I forgot. As we left, Therese Wynants wished us adieu. The bill, including the 16% service charge they added on (funny number, but they are Belgian) was 646 euros. Altogether, this was a superb and memorable dining experience, and one I shall definitely repeat at the earliest possible opportunity.

Hey, first time this year that I've been right about something. So if a group of 24 of us goes in there, they'd do better to waive the bill than have us report them to the Trading Standards Ofice ? Wonderful It's Explorer. You see, Microsoft assume that you don't have a mind of your own Great job, Kikujiro. I think you've been appointed UK Board Consumer Affairs Officer now. Congratulations

That is unkind, unfair, ageist, probably racist, certainly istist, and completely unacceptable on this site. Please keep your unwelcome opinions to yourself, Mr Majumdar, and let me know whether or not this means you're cancelling our commission arrangement.

Nice write-up, Scott When I had lunch at Foliage some months ago, they weren't doing the prix fixe menu, and the multiple foie gras dish had four foies That's what happens when you're paying though the nose It amised me that the waiter told us in which sequence I should eat the foies for best effect ... and he was right My understanding is that it's a legal requirement that restaurants display their prices including VAT. Anyone know if that's true ? You're right to be annoyed about that issue. Sounds as though Foliage is still worth a trip, so all I need to do now is to find a client to take there. Indeed, it would be nice just to find a client

Let's be quite clear about this - I find the strangest things interesting, like the shapes you can make out of a portion of mashed potato, and why the water always circulates in the same direction (in each hemisphere) when it runs out of the sink, and who really wrote the Trumpet Voluntary. So I wouldn't want you to think that piquing my interest was any sort of endorsement .... not that I thought that likely

I demand a winner !

That's an interesting and fundamental statement, Steve. As I've said before, my primary consideration and thought when I sit down in a restaurant is that I want to enjoy a good meal. At a secondary level, I might well get interested in the cooking method and ingredients, and somewhere way down the line I might like to know something about the background, culture and intentions of the chef. What that shows is that cuisine can be enjoyed and appreciated in many different ways by a wide variety of people. There's no right or wrong, it's whatever turns you on

Oh

Oh yeah, BD, that's an easy one Margot's is trying to say Be yourself, be comfortable, and have great food while you're at it. Margot's, I think, doesn't have a predefined style of its own, it has many styles. My guess is that if you ask ten different customers what style of restaurant it is, you'd get at least five different answers. People who arrive in jackets and ties will have a quiet, formal experience, a birthday aprty of youngsters will have a buzzy, loud experience, people who want to be entertained will ahve an entertaining experience. I think what you have created is the ultimate egalitarian experience in fine food. Very clever and yes, I do think that baseball cap has a lot to do with it. Did I get it right ?

Aww come on, Simon. How badly can you make a gin and tonic ?

Going to Comme Chez Soi on Tuesday for lunch. I was quite surprised to get a reservation at such short notice ! Any suggestions for particular dishes, or any things worth knowing about in advance ?