marcus

Sensual pleasures, the appreciation of food, music and art, are right brain experiences. Over intellectualization, which moves these experiences from the right to the left brain pervert the essence of these experiences and tend to make them irrelevent to the population at large. Modern classical music is probably the best example. It exists largely within universities and other government subsidized areas and has virtually no impact on popular music or the population at large. Within a very small subculture it is certainly an active topic and generates long and well reasoned threads, but I don't believe that we would like to see fine dining relegated to that position. We need to differentiate between over-intellectualization and newness. Matisse and Charlie Parker were new, but still well within the parameters of emotional impact that make for great music and art. My own love of fine dining was developed at places like Bocuse and Guerard, also Garin in Paris and Vanel in Toulouse among others, with Troisgros not far behind. Ducasse in his Paris restaurant carries on this tradition. These restaurants take the essence of what we love about satisfying home cooking and enhance it with superior ingredients perfectly prepared, and complementary flavors that we can appreciate as a unified whole, very much like a Beethoven symphony. I recall a meal of about 10 years ago at Guy Savoy, I haven't been back since and don't know what he's doing today, in which my reaction was that the flavors were very interesting, but that I didn't have the sense of having eaten food, it was another experience and ultimately not quite satisfying. Adria has evidently gone miles beyond. My thought is that there is no academic or government infrastructure that will support fine dining, that it can only succeed with a genuine paying public of its own. I further would assert that an intellectualized approach, and there is no approach more intellectualized that deconstruction, cannot be successful if it defies our basic genetic programming as to what constitutes food which has evolved over the ages. So I agree that we're at a transition point and these new ideas will either fold back into and contribute to more traditional approaches or will disappear.

Ron Johnson's comments are largely anecdotal and based on personal impressions. I can't quote specific studies, but there has been active discussion in the wine press on this subject. Corking is not an instantaneous process, it happens over time and gets worse over time, but it requires more than splashing the wine against the cork a few times. Today all wines are initially shipped on their sides, so all wines are in contact with the cork for a substantial period of time. If the process of shipping wines were changed such that they were shipped upright, there would be essentially no corked wines. The question then arises, what about oxidation. It would probably increase, but by how much and over what time, if ever, is not known as no study has ever been conducted. Certainly a large number of very old wines, 50+ years, are oxidized no matter how well they have been stored. This is because wine corks are imperfect, and many will admit air no matter how carefully they have been manufactured. It would take a controlled study over a long period of time to prove a difference between the normal level of oxidation over time for wines stored on their side versus upright. People who have tried this in informal studies over a few years have not been able to show a difference to my knowledge. Since corked wines are a very significant problem with a known high incidence of 3-7%, there is a real tradeoff. Another answer is plastic corks, but that's a whole nother subject. On a previous point, Southern Girl raised the question of returning a corked bottle of wine to Sherry Lehman and her view that they did the right thing in taking it back. I'm not sure, as corked wine can be viewed as an act of god which is outside of the control of the retailer no matter how much due dilligence and best practices are employed. This then creates a question of warranty (insurance) which is ultimately paid for by the consumer. Auction houses in fact will not take back corked bottles, but will take back entire lots which can be shown to have been sold in poor condition. Restaurants will always take back a bottle, as that environment demands it, and the wines are priced accordingly. There are however, stories of the old 21 Club where old wines that the restaurant wanted to finish off were offered to favored customers for $100 with the customer accepting all risks, a very good deal. The retailer occupies a middle position and I'm not sure what the right answer is here. A high service, high markup, store such as SL will want to satisfy a customer in most cases, right or wrong. However, their prices are very high (Zachy's are even higher) and one can find the same wines, particularly grand cru Bordeaux for much lower prices. I would personally take on the risk of corkage to get the lower price. I would expect any retailer to take back a bottle if the problem were oxidation as that is their fault either in sourcing or storage.

Fat Guy is correct. TCA leaches out of the cork and the corked taste gets worse over time. If the wine is stored upright, it may never happen. Common wisdom is that wines should be stored on their sides to keep the cork moist and avoid oxidation. This makes sense, but I believe in fact has never been prooven.

I wonder whether Steve Plotnicki is being intentionally ingenuous or whether this may be a deadpan joke. Obviously the role of a major newspaper restaurant reviewer is to cover more than the handful of best restaurants. The reviewer's job is to cover the restaurant scene. Certainly there are more than 52, probably there are a couple of hundred restaurants in Manhatan worthy of a major review. Readers are not always looking for worldclass, they may care about location, price, ethnicity, style or someplace new that they haven't tried before. We need to have some humility. The world at large doesn't exist just to satisfy our personal desires and we need to keep that in mind in addressing questions of public import.

I don't buy it. A reviewer reviews what's there. If the reviewer interferes with the creation process such that what's there is now different, then the review is inherently less relevant. The best way not to interfere with the creation process is to be anonymous. All of fat guy's comments about the current low state of reviewing, the need to educate the public, to influence chefs and restaurants to be better, advocating excellence, are entirely valid. But the way this is done by reviewers. including art and film critics is through the review itself. The review itself is of course not anonymous, and the quality of these reviews will determine a reviewers influence.

Fat Guy, I absolutely agree with your point that Michelin only works for French restaurants in France. Even in Italy it's totally worthless. However, I do believe that they are successfully including cutting edge French restaurants such as Michel Bras and Pierre Gagnaire into their system, although it has taken them awhile. Whether the Michelin system could be extended to a diverse place like NYC is an interesting question, but I believe that it might be possible. Michelin did consider doing a NYC red guide about 15 years ago, but decided against it. The reason that I recall reading was that they couldn't tolerate the level of inconsistency. I was trying to make a point relating the comments of posters regarding restaurant reviewers and Michelin ratings. In general, Michelin at least in France has gotten very largely favorable comments on these boards. This has far exceeded the favorability quotient of any individual reviewer. My point was that the issue isn't bias or suchlike, but objectivity versus subjectivity.

The issue really is objectivity versus subjectivity. Michelin is so good because they aim at objectivity. They have developed a scoring sheet, which I believe is a trade secret, and they train their inspectors to score the same way. The restaurant is then visited by multiple inspectors. There may be individual biases and differences in competency, but overall you have highly trained professional inspectors judging by objective criteria. Gault Millau is, I believe similar, but not as rigorous, fewer inspectors, probably less trained. What makes it interesting, in addition to the written reviews, is a different scoring sheet which provides higher weighting to innovation and cutting edge cuisine. That's why many of the no star 16 and 17 restaurants can often be so disappointing. My understanding is that Michelin inspectors do introduce themselves after the meal in order to inspect the kitchen. Zagat is also objective, but the quality of the inspectors is obviously very low. There is also no statistically valid comparability between the scores of any two restaurants, a point that I made on the Zagat thread which didn't seem to get any traction. This lack of comparability significantly reduces the meaningfulness of the results. I personally do not like the food at Roellinger and would be disappointed to see it get three stars. The basic foodstuffs are very well prepared, but his application of Asian fusian spicing to me was close to unpleasant. This has been my general impression in France, but I expected better here, but it was not to be.

Wilfrid, I'd like to be sure that we're not just having a semantic difference. When I referred to sugar I didn't just mean granulated sugar, or sugar syrup, but any substance containing sugar. I never assumed that they were using artificial sweetners. Is there anything else that you would refer to as sweet.

In my one visit to UP, I was struck by what appeared to be the overwhelming use of sugar in all the dishes that I ordered. The end result verged on unpleasant and I would be very reluctant to try it again.

Fat Guy, I'm missing your point on Pizzeria and Italian. I just came back from Naples where almost every restaurant, including many upscale ones, has the word Pizzeria if not always in the name of the restaurant, on the facade. And they all serve Pizza. I remeber a Sunday dinner at a moderately upscale fish restaurant, Don Stefano, where at least a third of the diners ordered Pizza as their main dish.

The Grand Monarch hotel in Chartres has a very decent bourgeois restaurant that gets 14 from the Gault Millau. It is well worth this 14, but probably no more. With the right mind set, its a very satisfying meal. Most outstanding however is their wine list, very extensive and one of the least expensive in France. I made numerous special trips there when they were serving 1978 La Chapelle for about $65 (including tax and service), a wine that sells at auction in NY for more than $500. The 78 was gone last December, but they did have the 89 for under $60 which has been selling here for about $140. There are many other bargains to be picked, as well as one of the very best lists of Loire wines.

I remeber the Red Tulip. Best of a middling lot of traditional Hungarian restaurants on the edge of Yorkville. I don't think that any of them exist any longer, must be at least 15 years.

Haggis -- Thank you for your entirely convincing explanations and clarifications. I will definitely try Dimple. I have never liked the Gujarati dishes at Madras Mahal and over time I stopped ordering them and they no longer exist in my view of the restaurant. I had also tried Vatan, another Gujarati restaurant and not liked it at all and had, undoubtedly erroneously, lost a view of that food as interesting. You have definitely renewed my interest. Suvir -- I am personally convinced that MM is significantly better than Pongal and Mavalli. MM and Pongal have essentially identical menus and a couple of years ago I went with some friends to both restaurants on the same night and ordered the same dishes. I don't remember all, but it included a Dosai and a chickpea curry. In every case, all agreed that MM was substantially better on every dish. However, Pongal does have better decor and service. Mavalli is a restaurant that has been around for a very long time and seems to be in decline. The last time I went there less than a year ago, I said this is the last time. I particularly remember the Iddly which at MM is light and fragrent and at Mavalli was heavy and without taste.

Any view as to how Dimple compares to Madras Mahal which has been my favorite, much better than Pongal and Mavalli, of these Indian Vegetarian types?

I also can't stand her. I find her to be a self-promoter without core values. I recall her recently acting as a flak for some newly arrived socially prominent English television food personality on the E network. Her well remembered critique of Emeril a few years ago started off with negative comments about the show, probably well taken, and then proceeded to snide remarks about his career as a chef, selection as executive chef at Commanders Palace and his restaurant in New Orleans. It was clear that she had no personal knowledge and was just passing on the agneda driven opinions of others. My view is that Emeril is a great chef and that I've had some of my best meals in this country in his restaurant, and its a shame that he's squandering his talent.

Definitely not La Tour D'Argent which is way, way over the hill, not even worth one star in my opinion. We went back there for old time's sake last December and also because I was curious about their wine list. Arrived at 9:30 and was the last table seated and next to the last table to leave at 11:30. In my first visit in 1967 they didn't even let you into the restaurant until after 9 and many diners were still on their main courses at midnight. The service was correct but perfunctory and hurried and there was no feeling of any buzz or dynamic tension that one feels in a happening restaurant. We started with the quenelles which were no better than any bistro in Lyon and far short of Greuze. Then had the famous pressed duck which was OK, but totally lacked the depth and flavor intensity that I remembered. The only dish that remained great was the black and white souffle (Valtesse) which they now serve with a glass of desert wine, a harmless affectation, but I don't believe that it adds to the desert experience, although it doesn't necessarily detract, viz our discussion of garnishes and cheese. The wine list remains very great, although the older vintages were heavily picked over. I personally have an extensive knowledge of New York auction prices and their prices were all over the place, which is actually the situation that I prefer. I found a bottle of 1989 Clinet for 226 euros, which was just under $200 at the time. Subtracting tax and tip, this is about $150 versus a NY auction average of about $250+. The wine was outstanding, especially for a Pomerol, and I've added it to my purchase list. I don't mean to impugn Pomerols, but do prefer cabernet sauvignon based wines to merlots.

My problem with Zagat is that there is no comparability between scores. Each restaurant is scored by a different set of people. This is most evident between different cities as noted, but I would assert that even the customers at La Grenouille are systematically different than Le Bernardin and althought there is overlap, there is also plenty of non-overlap. Comparing scores of restaurants scored by different self-selected groups is essentially meaningless. By the way -- Isn't Le Cirque 2000 also still on the NYT 4 star list?

Certainly there are many dishes that incorporate cheese including pizza, cheeseburger and cheesecake. A cheese tart, which I assume was cooked is another. If its not too sweet, it can certainly be served as the cheese course. But I think that the question under discussion was not the cheese course, in general, but the cheese trolley which is the usual cheese course in most restaurants in France. This course is typically not served with garnishes and the debate is whether garnishes add or detract.

Cabrales, for a restaurant to send out extras for special customers is probably acceptable. To say that the same dish is prepared to a different standard in the kitchen, based on which customer it is intended for, is terribly damning. I would personally boycott such a restaurant if I really knew this to be true. How sure are you with respect to Bouley? General inconsistency can lead to apparent patterns which are actually random phenomena. What is your view as to the overal consistency or inconsistency of NYC restaurants?

At what point does the extreme inconsistency at high end NYC restaurants, as at Bouley, become unacceptable? Does hope always spring eternal? Is my perception that New York is much worse in this regard than the major European food destinations correct?

Simon, my experience is similar as to the mediocrity of American cheese offerings including GT. Steven's post, however, does make me think that Picholine may have reached a higher level since my last visit although I still don't believe that I could tolerate the service. I do feel strongly that for my taste cheese should not be garnished. Fine cheese has strong and complex flavors that stand alone and adding dried fruits and nuts and such like detracts. There also appears to be a consensus developing that cheese is one of those foods that doesn't go well with wine, although Robert Parker tries to make the case that although it doesn't go with red wine it does with white. I personally don't agree, and I for one usually have only the most minimal interest in matching wine and food, being much more interested just finding the wine that I reallly want to drink.

My favorite cheese in the world is the St. Marcellin at Marie Richard's stand in the Halle de Lyon. She also supplies many of the local restaurants including Paul Bocuse.

It's been awhile since I've been to Picholine, I didn't particularly like the restaurant, but I particularly didn't like the cheese service which I found oppressive and self aggrandizing. The cheeses themselves are fine, generally superior for NYC, but not outstanding when compared to France. I believe that the department of agriculture still prohibits the importation of many raw milk cheeses that don't meet their criteria, and its hard to duplicate the regional orientation that makes many provincial french cheese trays so interesting. What I don't like at Picholine is to be told in advance what a wonderful service they have, be put on a long queue to await the arrival of the trolley, then to have to listen to a long dissertation on each cheese, and then be restricted to 3 or 4 small slices or else have to pay extra. After ordering, the guy (I have a vague recollection that his name was Max) goes off for 5 minutes to put an elaborate plate together along with dried fruits and other add-ons of which I have no interest. In France, the trolley arrives promptly, you ask questions if you have any, you point to what you want, get as many pieces as you want (typically 5-6) and if you have nerve, you can even indicate how big a slice you want. The whole transaction takes 30 seconds. In some bistros they still put the cheese tray on the table and let you serve yourself which is ideal.

You have to look at this in the context that Molyvos was an existing NYT 3 star restaurant, based on an inflated review by Ruth Reichel a number of years ago. Asimov is trying to walk a fine line by correcting the previous review, but attributing the downgrade to changes, thus not insulting the previous reviewer or calling into question the validity of NYT reviews in general. For this reason there are probably a few more negative comments than one would find in a typical 2 star review. Molyvos probably does merit, and never merited any more than, a weak 2 stars in the NYT scheme of things.

Jaybee, at least 3 meals on separate trips. I've now given up. I also read the articles stating that it was just as good as ever. The restaurant has also disappeared from the Gault Millau where it used to receive a 13 which at the time I viewed as too low. I haven't kept notes, but specifically I recall the celeri remoulade which was a favorite and now tastes primarily of mayonaise and the venison which was too chewy and the sauce too astringent. To my taste, none of the food any longer shows brilliance. Were the experiences that you mention from the original ownership or the new?