macrosan

I don't think you need anyone's thoughts on their service Stan You already got that. I would have thought that if this was the highest rated place in the world and they were charging $5 a head, you still wouldn't want to go. There are just so many great places to go to in New York, I can't think why you would want to give this place a second chance. Sure that may be tough on what could be a good business with one lousy member of staff, but hey ... life is tough in the service industry.

I don't believe that's right in the context we're discussing. After all, this is eGullet and not a discussion group on holiday destinations or bungee jumping Why do you "think we must" equate taste with perception of flavour ? Surely the interest we all share is in a much more intellectually disciplined equation. Suppose you review a meal and say "I perceived that the truffles tasted of oysters, but that may be because I had just eaten a dish of oysters, or maybe because I had a heavy night drinking yesterday, or because I'm suffering from sinus problems, or I've never eaten truffles before and I didn't know what they were supposed to taste of and my companion said they tasted like oysters and my friend is very persuasive". Now that review may be a perfectly valid description of your perception of flavour but I don't think it would be worthwhile posting at eGullet as a descriptive review. I'm not saying that you would be somehow "wrong" to have perceived the flavour in that way. I'm simply saying that the concept of "equating taste with perception of flavour" is a non-discussion in this forum. You might just as well equate taste with whether or not you like it, or whether or not you happened to be in a good mood when you ate the food. That may be an optional definition of taste, but I don't find that definition to have any merit. Going back to my "identical chicken" example, what you are saying is that your taste is influenced by considerations outside flavour. You are saying that simple visual stimuli actually affects your perception of the flavour of food. Presumably, therefore, you would also say that sound affects your perception of flavour (the dish tastes better because the restaurant has soothing music being played?) and that the general aromas in the restaurant affect your perception of flavour, and so on. This means that your perception of the flavour of food is not solely, and perhaps not even primarily, related to the flavour of the food. The question then is whether the flavour of the food itself is a constant. In other words, can we ever describe the flavour of a food ? Since how you perceive that flavour varies significantly according to a range of external factors, it is clear that you cannot consistently describe your perception of flavour. So do you disqualify yourself from describing the flavour itself ? Do you believe that a lemon has a sour flavour, and if so why ? I like your alteration to my experiment, and I would really love to conduct it I am applying for an eGullet grant, and my two great pleasures will be firstly selecting the participants, and secondly proving your conclusion wrong I think the mistake you're making is to suggest that a "gourmet" would simply give a single score for the dish. He would actually, probably without any prompting even on the nature or objectives of the experiment, deliver a score for taste and a separate score for presentation. That's what I see here at eGullet in huge numbers of critiques. People instinctively say things like "The food was excellent but the presentation didn't do it justice" or "The presentation was unusual and certainly added to my enjoyment of the meal". What I simply cannot believe is that people with a real interest in food would actually include the influence of presentation on their evaluation of taste. Now my PM box is going to fill up with applications from 100 eGullet members to participate in this experiment

in my many trips to the US, i've never seen this type of situation. generally (always), you give them the card, they run it, and you get a slip to sign with room for the tip. They musta seen me comin'

Disdain is far too mild a word. It infuriates me !!!! I agree it's widespread, and I've commented on it before, but I honestly don't think it's at all ethnically related. In the US almost no restaurants add a service charge to the bill in the first place. I have sometimes been embarrased in the US by getting a bill, giving them my credit card, getting the credit card slip and finding there was nowhere to add a tip and the card had been processed and closed ! So I was forced to leave a cash tip. I assume that in some places you have to tell them how much you want to tip before they process your credit card. I remember remarking in my review of QC in Holborn how pleasantly surprised I was that when they brought the bill, the waitress said "The service charge is included".

problem with this way of stating it is, people mostly go to a restaurant for enjoyment etc. But no, Oraklet, that's not a problem at all. People don't mostly go to a restaurant for enjoyment. People go for a combination of reasons, but in general I would guess that the number one reason for most people is the taste of the food. When I describe a restaurant experience, I have no hesitation in making the taste of the food the primary discriminator, followed by quality of service, and then ambience, and so on. Other people would place those in a different sequence of priority, and indeed my own priorities change from time to time. But for most of the people, most of the time, I think taste is the top priority. And I think that is especially true of members of eGullet. Well before reading some of the comments on this thread, I thought I knew the answer, but now I'm not at all sure. That's why I asked the question

Well thank goodness for that. I have been living in terror of meeting you and finding out that you really do look like that I should be going to Torrevieja in the summer, so I will certainly be seeking some recs in the area.

This thread is going to hell in a handbasket, so there's nothing new there I suggest we abandon the regurgitated discussion about analytical tasting, which has nothing to do with the case, tra-la. And I'd like to re-state what I think we started to discuss because I think it's an interesting, and still undiscussed, issue relating in particular to rational assessment of restaurant food. Chef cooks a roast Bresse chicken He presents you with one secateured quarter of the chicken on a plain white plate He presents you with a second quarter of the same chicken, sliced in a staggered pile, on a fancy bone china plate, with a lacy drizzle of red and green around the rim of the plate, a few strands of palm frond looped around a sprig of parsley, and a tiny, beautifully sculpted ice statue of a chicken at the side. Does the chicken taste the same in both cases ? Assume you don't eat the drizzle or any of the other decorations on the plate If you were writing a review of the restaurant, how would you compare the two dishes in terms of their taste ? I emphasise in terms of taste so let's please ignore words like enjoyment, pleasure, dining experience and so on. If you think the second dish "tastes better" then suggest the maximum order of magnitude that could hypothetically be achieved for the difference, like maybe 1% better or 50% better. Now suppose the first dish was cooked using Bresse chicken, and the second dish used a $6 frozen chicken from a supermarket. Do you think that it could be hypothetically possible for the fancified frozen chicken to "taste as good" as the simple Bresse chicken ?

Doug, you can now buy a spray-can of Baccaire, a new product which enables you to spray your clothes with the fine, pungent aroma of tobacco. It was launched in the USA early last week, and it comes in two distinctive aromas "Cool Carolina" or "Classic Virginia". The manufacturers are Atlanta Flavors Inc, and their Marketing VP Avril Primo has announced that they have plans for a range of cigar aromas including "Havana Heaven" and if the new product proves successful then they will launch in Europe in the summer. Maybe Atlanta Flavors have interests in the dry-cleaning business

Oh that's much better, PP, almost as good as your avatar In fact, I do very much enjoy many elements of "Spanish cuisine". My problem is that I've never found a really good restaurant there. I took a few business trips to Barcelona several years ago, but that was pre-eGullet and I had no recommendations for good restaurants; so I ate in a few typically business-style "smart" restaurants and they weren't great. I have had holidays in plenty of resorts, and eaten out on a classic holidaymakers "this looks like a nice place let's try it" basis, and almost always been disappointed. I have found that my best meals have been lunches where I've eaten tapas only. It's interesting that I have found the same in Greek and Moroccan restaurants --- the best dishes I have sampled are the starters. I have been to many Moroccan restaurants where I just tell them to keep bringing a variety of starters until I tell them to stop. Anyway, my problem with Spain has not been the style of cuisine, it has been the quality of the restaurants I've been to. Let me repeat that it's clear to me that there must be good restaurants in Spain, it's just that I haven't found them, and that is partly because I haven't sought them out. I have friends who have a villa in Torrevieja (20 miles from Valencia on the coast) and I've stayed there four times. When we go, they always take us out to the "best restaurants in town" and the best of them has been what I described as "kind of OK". An equivalent town in Italy would (in my experience) have many more "best restaurants in town" and they would all, be of a clearly higher standard than Torrevieja. I accept that's a very subjective comparison of one Spanish town with Italian "equivalents" but it's the best I can do

Thank you for giving me a mention, Indiagirl oh no. macro-san. oh dear. if i had emoticons they would be: embarassed tentative smile :? may i please please go back and rephrase that? ... most of the research in how saliva stimulation retards taste mechanisms is done on senior citizens with saliva generating deficiencies related to illness and drug side effects. still friends? :) Gave me my best laugh in the whole thread, Indiagirl Thank you for that, and no, you can't go back and change a word

Peter, please put at least one smiley in when you're joking. Otherwise it's so hard to tell (see? I've had some very good food in Holland. One of my top 20 meals ever was at Die Boerderij in Amsterdam, I've had several other excellent meals in Amsterdam and The Hague, many highly acceptable mid-range meals in those two cities and Scheveningen and in the countryside. I do like Indonesian food, which helps, of course, but I have also found traditional Dutch food to be of good quality. My guess is that if you go to any country as a tourist and (over several years) spend maybe 50 days there and eat 80-100 meals, you're likely to get a skewed opinion of the "national cuisine". You can be lucky or unlucky. I have spent more than that number of days in Spain, and have never had better than a "kind of OK" meal. But I know that's not a reasonable basis for judgement, because I've always tende to look out somewhere conveniently close to my hotel, or the place I just happen to be passing when I'm hungry, or whatever. So I would never say "the food in Spain is poor" because I just don't know enough to make the comment.

Thank you for giving me a mention, Indiagirl

As the guy who decries appallingly inaccurate decalarations by others on the subject of eating in Italy, I think you've got some cheek saying that, PP. Shame on you And incidentally, you're talking at least as much rubbish as those you have previously decried. It certainly wasn't worth the three cents.

I think you're right, Scott. I'm delighted to say that I haven't reached an adversarial stage with GR (or any other restaurant) where I might test the theory And I hope not to do so. I'm happy with the principle of what they're doing, I just wasn't overly impressed with the way they put it across. ... and yes, I did believe I was entering into a 'contract' by which I was content to be bound and I thoroughly enjoyed the results thereof.

Indiagirl All that scientific research is mildly interesting, but I repeat simply not relevant to the issue at hand. It's like saying that partially deaf people hear things differently from people with "perfect" hearing. We know that. We don't need scientists to prove it to us. So it's self-evident that Beethoven's 9th will sound different to a person with faulty hearing. But to go on from there and say that Beethoven's 9th sounds different if the choir is dressed in black rather than jeans is daft. People with "faulty" tasting mechanisms will obviously taste food differently from others. But let's take one of your faulty salivators as an example. We give that person a simply presented dish of foie gras, and she tastes it. Now we give that same person the same foie gras, but on a $50 plate decorated with yellow chicks, and a sprig of parsley, and a piece of a bonsai tree lying at the side, and a drizzle of coulis round the outside, and whatever else you want to do to present the dish. Now does the foie gras TASTE any different to that person? Well only if the person is easily influenced As far as appearance initiating a salivatory response, well again that's self-evident. In fact, it doesn't even need appearance to do that. If you just say "lemon" to some people, they will start to salivate But either that's a constant (in other words it always works the same way for an individual) in which case the "presenter" of the food would need to know how an individual responded to visual stimuli before deciding how to present a dish to that person, or else it's a random response, in which case the presenter could not predict how best to present the dish to that person So the whole issue of salivation is just another of those general variables in how people taste. It's like the air-conditioning system, a person's mood, what metal the cutlery is made from, whether you have a cold ..... If you're going to postulate a relationship between presentation and taste, you first have to remove all those variables.

I like the Prof's findings, although I don't know how he finds time to search for these when he should be doing other more important things (see threads passim); the emphasized paragraph is indicative of. However, we would need to know who the testees were, what questions they were asked to "identify" flavor, and so on before we could determine whether the study is relevant to what we're talking about. The study seems to be talking about "intensity of flavor" which is unimportant to our discussion. We are (I believe) concerned with what an ingredient tastes of, not how strongly it tastes of it. And presentation is not (only) to do with matching colors to flavors, it is very much wider than and different from that. And lizzie, no-one has argued that presentation is unimportant to a dish. The argument is over whether good presentation actually improves the taste. Both your quotes support the view that it doesn't, but that it is supportive of the enjoyment of the dish. I agree with that.

I remember my review of Comme Chez Soi in Brussels where I commented on my appetizer, a pigeon mousse, that when it arrived on the plate it looked dingy and unappealing, a dirty brown cylinder (and absolutely nothing else) on a large white plate. I honestly didn't want to eat it. But when I took the first taste, it was sheer magic. Presentation zero, taste a million. I had the reverse experience at Le Gavroche in London with an apricot mousse dessert. Presentation 8 out of 10, taste 2 (maybe). I have to admit that I'm struggling to understand how culinary professionals and apparently experienced amateurs, get this notion that presentation affects taste, or influences tasters to taste differently. I don't even want to enter the boringly repetitive semantic and lexicographical discussion about what taste is, or what people take it to mean. Under any of those definitions, food tastes to any one person how it tastes to that person. The very idea that if Blue Hill removed their chicken-endowed egg-cup from the meal they presented to Cabrales, then she would have altered her rating of its taste from 10 out of 10 to 9 out of 10 is either risible or distinctly frightening I would say that anyone who values presentation so highly that it influences their judgement of the taste of the food is someone whose opinion on food I would not value. Which is not to say that presentation is unimportant, but simply to say that it is an addendum to taste, not a substitute or a modifier. So to return to Eric's original point, I think he has it badly wrong. My proportions would be : Taste 85% Presentation 10% Temperature 4% ... leaving 1% for novelty factors like eggcups and exploding napkin holders

LOL I'd almost forgotten about that while Tony was busy being Finchy The most amazing thing was what her words were something very close to "You have until 2pm today to cancel ..." noting that I was talking to her at about 1.15) "... and then we will probably charge about £200 if you cancel after that". Now I am speaking from memory (which at my time of life I should really try to avoid) but that was certainly the gist of it. The "probaby" and the "about" were certainly said, and I just find that terribly gauche --- a bit like the design of the knoves After all, they clearly have a policy on cancellations, and I think that's reasonable in principle. If I book a restaurant and don't turn up, they're entitled to charge me. I feel exactly the same about airline tickets, by the way. But as I said in my original post, they need to present this clearly and unequivocally and reasonably on the phone when booking, and those adjectives cannot incorporate words like "probably" and "about". I agree with Paul that in principle a charge of £100 per person might be viewed as unreasonable, and if so would doubtless be overturned if one took the trouble to complain. But again, that needs to be clarified by Ramsay when formulating the policy, and then explained. It shouldn't be necessary for a customer to enter into negotiation.

Hmmm.... there is something about this I find hard to buy. It would be OK if it worked and everybody turned up exactly at their allotted time. But it doesn't happen that way,does it. People are early or late for all sorts of reasons all the time. What do they do,refuse to serve early comers and serve latecomers first because their allotted time was earlier? Or are latecomers punished by being made to wait while earlycomers are served first despite having a later booking? Besides you weren't allowed to eat when you wanted to eat-at 1.15pm. Why not? Were they fully booked for that time? Well on the phone, as I reported, the receptionist had to check (presumably with the manager) whether a later arrival would be OK. She ended up saying they would "make allowances for us being a bit late" which was somewhat vague As it happens, I then checked with my guest who said he could indeed make it earlier, so it turned out to be not a problem. The clear impression I was given on the phone, Tony, was that if we turned up after 1pm we might indeed not get our table. My best guess is that if you turn up too early or too late at Ramsay, you won't get your table. Personally, I have no particular wish to test my own theory When we arrived just after 12.30, we were the second or third table in the restaurant. There was clearly a regular stream of arrivals after that, and although I wasn't actually clock-watching, I would guess that by 1.15 there must have been six to eight tables occupied. Two tables were occupied after 2.30, and the restaurant was indeed full at that time. Incidentally, I had tried to book at Locanda Locatelli. They offered me a table for 12.30 or 2pm, from which I deduced they were turning tables. They were absolutely unwilling to budge, so I didn't book there. I have absolutely no problem with Ramsay's apparent policy. It makes sense to me, and I really don't find it hard to work to. It seems no different to me if they're refusing a table for a particular time because that is how they think they can produce their best results, or because they're full. The only difference is how they define "fully booked". Just suppose they have some key staff on holiday in a particular week. Should they "close down" a couple of tables and refuse to book them, or should they fill up all their tables and give everyone degraded service ? Naturally, I am making assumptions about why they do what they do. Having experienced the supremely high quality service I received there, I am willing to believe they are making policy for the right reasons, and not just to be bloody-minded.

Oh Wilfrid, I don't think this post mortem (actually I think that should be post cenam) is all about your review I think you just prompted a continuing discussion. I will absolutely support your view that I found your review to be fair and balanced, and I can't believe that anyone is saying otherwise. I was myself laudatory about the banquet, although I still found cause top criticize a couple of the dishes. I repeat my growing perception (which I posted a few days ago here) that subsequent visits by eGulletarians to Diwan are consistently producing reports suggesting inconsistency Your review sits nicely within that growing context.

I think you misunderstood, Bapi. The arrival time they offered me was not so they could turn the table. (In fact we stayed on till after 3pm and had a hell of a job getting them to give us the bill!). What they told me on the phone was that they want to stagger diners' arrival times so they can stagger the order-taking, cooking and serving process. That seems a sensible idea to me, because it raises the quality of the experience for me, and takes some of the pressure off the staff. Well of course I paid for my meal at Le Gavroche whereas the taxman paid for 40% of the meal at RHR You're right that the meal at RHR was on a higher level. The service was hugely better, the food just better. It's interesting that the gap in the food served on the plate wasn't vast. It was more in the subtle elements than anything substantial. For example, the Bresse Pigeon I had at Gavroche was as good quality a piece of cooked meat as the venison at Ramsay, but the creamy Savoy cabbage at Gavroche wasn't quite right, and the other "trimmings" were pretty innocuous. By contrast, the cabbage at Ramsay was spot on, and the gnocchi were unusual and excellent. The fruit dessert at Ramsay was again innovative and superbly executed, whereas the souffle at Gavroche was weak. Comparing the two meals, I have to say that Ramsay was clearly better value overall, even allowing for the additional (and rather large) digestifs we had at Gavroche That is assuming that the carte prices at Ramsay are the same in the evening as at lunch. I would still go back to Gavroche for a more informal "evening out" experience, but on a purely culinary basis I would now choose Ramsay every time.

That's the trouble with writing, rather than talking, Wilfrid. Now if I'd said "gauche knoves" in the course of conversation, you would immediately have understood that I meant "gauchely designed knoves" n'est ce pas ? And thank you for the offer of remedial tuition

Three fifty knickers? Gauch knoves? Doesn't sound like philosophical talk to me. Sounds like English drivel....

Today was one of life's truly enjoyable dining experiences at RHR I booked a table for two only yesterday. The conversation was very polite, but firm. They wanted me there at 12.30 because they need to stagger service, and 12.30 was the slot they had available. I explained had arranged 1.15 with my guest, and the nice Australian lady had to go and check with someone She returned to the phone and said she would book me for 12.30 but make allowance for the possibility that we might be a bit late She was very nice about it, and remained nice when she asked for my credit card number, told me I could cancel any time up to 2pm today (this was at 12.15 !!) and if I didn't turn up they would charge "oh, probably about £200" to my credit card I think they could do with some professional advice on this script, because although I had no problem with the principle or the content, it came across rather badly. We arrived in a taxi at 12.34 and I was immediately struck by the unprepossessing exterior. Very unobtrusive, very samll-looking, almost dowdy exterior. We went into a glas-lined corridor, then into the dining room, which is bright, airy, modern, fresh and stylish. I almost did a double take at the number of staff, who at that time definitely outnumbered the diners. All the staff smiled unpretentiously, greeted us warmly, and seemed to be French. The staff throughout our three hour plus stay were friendly and efficient (except when we wanted the bill, which they seemed not in a hurry to produce), and the only problem was understanding their often heavily accented English. But we managed We had a good-sized table at the side, both seats facing into the centre of the restaurant. I started with a roasted fillet of wild salmon served with wild mushrooms. Perfectly cooked and presented, and quite a sizeable portion. The skin was crunchy, the fish moist and flaky. Great balance. My guest had lobster tail which he pronounced the best lobster he had ever eaten. With the hors d'oeuvres we drank a 1999 Pouilly Fuisse "Vieilles Vignes" Chateau Fuisse which was superb -- light and crisp and a terrific "follow-on" flavour. Then on to roast venison, served with savoy cabbage, beetroot and herb-filled gnocchi. The venison was cooked fairly rare and just totally melt-in-the-mouth wonderful. It was not very gamy, but an excellent and distinctive flavour, and it came with a light jus which complemented it perfectly. The gnocchi were terrific, very small and browned on the outside, with a good texture and flavour. Altogether a first-class dish. My guest had Duck Challandaise, three pieces each cooked differently, which he was very enthusiastic about. The wine was a 193 St Julien Chateau Gruaud Larose which was smooth and easy to drink, maybe slightly more "woody" than I expected but very enjoyable. For dessert I had a mixed fruit dish whose details I can't remember except that the fruits were wrapped in a wafer-thin slice of pineapple, and there were raspberries and strawberries plus a little dish of mint sorbet. I am not a big dessert fan, but I loved this. We finished with coffee, truffles, and a 1977 port. Total bill including service (but excluding the port which my guest paid for) was £350. The whole experience was superb. Great setting, comfortable and pleasing, terrific service and absolutely brilliant food. The one complaint I had was the extraordinarily gauche design of the knoves, which simply would not "rest" on the plate but kept slipping into the food They provided special metal rests for them, but there seemed to us to be something wrong with placing a used knife on the rest Gordon Ramsay made a couple of appearances in the restaurant, to talk to some friends. He looked immaculate in perfectly clean (short-sleeved) kitchen whites, so either he wasn't actually cooking, or else he was changin to come out into the restaurant. I wish I had caught his eye and chatted to him. I rate RHR very very close behind Comme Chez Soi as my best meal ever. When my piggy-bank fills up again, I shall indeed return.

Now that is an unreasonable postulate if ever I heard one. Suzanne, life is always entirely fair, it's people who are unfair. Wilfrid, please dismount your hobby-horse immediately. Unrepresentative in this thread means "not representative of the general experience of people posting on this thread" and you know that perfectly well You found your meal at Diwan "average" whereas most (shall we say 64.7% ?) found their meal at Diwan very good or better. Actually, why that is so is of relatively little importance. Perhaps your palate is better attuned to top-quality Indian meals than others, perhaps your palate enjoys spices less, perhaps you are less easily pleased, or perhaps you were served an inferior meal. Or all of the above. I do not quarrel with your assessment, nor deny that you may be "right" and the others "wrong" because none of that is of value to me. I have noted your comments, and take them into account in making the one important decision I may take in response to this thread --- "Should I go to Diwan next time I'm in New York?" The rest is just puff