julot-les-pinceaux

I entirely agree with your last sentence. But I all the more disagree with your idea that top restaurants are unaffordable to 99%. They are scarily expensive indeed, but most upper middle class persons can totally afford one on special occasions, more often if it is a priority for them (as far as I am concerned, I much rather have almonds, rice and fruits as only food for weeks if I can keep beautiful restaurants in my life here and there). People spend tens of thousands of euros on cars that lose 20% of their value the minute they cross the door of the car dealer with their new machine. They -- we-- spend thousands of euros on trips or holidays that can be disappointing as often as top restaurants are. See the price of theater, opera -- and since I agree with you that these are experiences of comparable nature, comparing their prices is not absurd. Furthermore, for some of the more well-off people that I know it could be a casual experience but they have the wisdom to keep it something special.

In general I think we can't trust a bad review unless it is based on facts -- say faulty cooking, ingredient or service. Moreover, I think that the one who enjoys a place is always more right than the one who does not.

there are menus at 120 and 160, à la carte seems like ca 150. I don't know about the wines, all the more since there's a huge range in Germany.

I think we're talking days if the news if confirmed. But in my experience, last chance dinner are already too late.

BPS: As I wrote somewhere else, les Elysées was my favourite 2* restaurant, until now, as I think that chef Briffard is comparable to Pacaud or Passard. I don't believe that close comparisons are a factor of objectivity. I think that, on the opposite, they are a source of distortion. A big part of the pleasure in a top restaurant, like with any cultural activity, needs to be processed over time. Often I don't really know what an experience was worth until a few days later. Of course I can judge some facts immediately -- was that fish fresh, overcooked, etc. But when it comes to the overall experience, I think that some memory and some distance are needed to consolidate it, that it make you closer to the truth.

I think that there's something more than quality to Michelin stars. Actually, I think that one, two, three stars is not linear scale, but a qualitative approach. One star is a very good restaurant, two is a top restaurant, three is a unique restaurant. Three stars are not necessarily "better" than two stars, in terms of quality, less again in terms of preferences, which of course are personal. No one would say that there is quality control at Gagnaire better than, say, le Cinq. But you can have a very comparable experience to the one at le Cinq in many places, not a Gagnaire experience. Same with Bocuse, if you ask me: it is unique -- with top quality in my experience. I agree with Robyn that experience is needed, though maybe not as much as she suggests. But I disagree that there is enough text out there to give people who don't know restaurants an idea of whether they would like it, how to best enjoy it, and what to expect. Maybe for a few restaurants in the spotlight. Even then most of the stuff you can find is unexplained ratings, superficial opinions and bad photos. Where in the world can you make yourself your own idea of such a major restaurant as Guérard without going? This is why I think that we food reviewers of all sorts have a big job to do in making really useful information available about restaurants. Why would it be impossible to properly enjoy the best restaurants on the planet before you've tried them all? People go to one 3* and they like it, then they go to another one the next year and they are disappointed because they expected the same. We more experienced diners should be able to share our experience in a way that is useful to food lovers that are less experienced. And indeed the question is not only whether we like it, which is our problem, but why we liked, how we liked it, and what we liked there.

Sethd, you're right. They're so close he could run both restaurants at the same time. Julian, I'd love to play insiders like some do. But while I did have a few fascinating talks with chef Briffard because we share a passion for food (and a dedication to his restaurant), my source is the website of le Bottin Gourmand and those big chefs guys just don't call me when they make big choices. I don't know why that is. Based on Internet forums as well, it seems that the news is actually subject not only to confirmation, but to chef Briffard accepting. When I talked with him last month about this kind of opportunity, he highlighted the need to find a balance between your freedom and the means you have, and that he bewared of too glowy offers. At les Elysées, he has little means, but at the same time it is a small team, he only deals with the restaurant, which is only open mon night thru fri night. At Le Cinq, he will never be short on staff or means (never a tarp on the roof again, like in les Elysées these days), but he will have to deal with an 80 persons brigade, oversee room service, banquets and private dining rooms, as well as the bar and gallerie, not to mention a 365/7 top restaurant. So I'm not surprised that he would hesitate and negotiate, as focusing on top dining is his life, not running a luxury factory. Hell, I don't know what I wish he chooses -- if he goes to le Cinq, having his food will cost twice as much as it does now.

You know the gods listen to me. The website of Le Bottin Gourmand is just announcing that Chef Briffard would be taking over le Cinq. That would be a great news for that man, who was on the verge of getting his third star when he was ousted from the Plaza in 2000 just to make room for el maestro. Few chefs are as talented as Briffard and he knows will -- would have -- the means he deserves to express his talent. This is subject to confirmation, but my bottom line would be this: yipppee!!!!

You know it is at the top of its game... for people who like it (I sure do). But I have no idea how appealing or enjoyable it can be for non-French. To me it feels like an extraordinary party, with tons of infinitely familiar yet excellent food. People are nice and generous, you feel looked after and taken care of. There something grandmother-ish about the place, with its huge common dish of Gratin Dauphinois for all tables, of which you ask as many refills as you want/can. In terms of culinary style, this is pre-Bocuse. It makes you understand why/how Bocuse was nouvelle cuisine, with lightened preparations and clearer tastes. But it is delicious. The plates look more or less modern, but the repertoire is ancient. And dishes rotate quite often as Rostang reacts to the markets and try to make the best of it. Ingredients are top-notch, cooking is traditional (meaning more cooked than we care to) but precise. Big specialties include the Lobster, the quenelle de brochet (yum), the canard au sang. The place is way too expensive for me at dinner. I would totally go with friends if I could. But I can't afford it. The lunch menu is great value and is by no way a subpar experience, so I really think this is the way to go. I reviewed Rostang here You should not expect a dazzling experience at Rostang -- but a warm, very generous, very homey yet fine dining one.

You know that is not the worst thing from time to time... ... but this is. I'm to focus on one room. Me.

Well, that souds like a bad experience -- never heard such a report before.

I think that Dave has a point that exceptional meals should stay special and that there is a law of decreasing returns (if that is indeed his point). Of course I am very sympathetic to travellers trying to maximise the use they make of their short sojourn. But at the same time, in my experience, having two top meals too close to one another generally means I won't be able to fully enjoy both. As I'm writing that, I'm thinking of counterexamples in my experience and maybe I should raise the number to three. Or definitely endorse the no more than one a day rule (ah, the magic of sleep...) . But there are decreasing returns. Now as John suggests (or does he?), there are physiological issues and diversity involved, and beyond that, I make it a rule to never disqualify anybody's pleasure or tell them what they should feel. So, good for you, anmeiden, ajgnet. But most top meals, at least traditional ones are conceived as feasts, as exceptional parties. As we are a ridiculously abundant society (in general and in e Gullet in particular), we and others have come to have a more casual approach to exceptional meals and exceptional food. Again, I don't want to go after anybody's pleasure. But at the same time, I believe that some restaurants' success is precisely due to the fact that they address overfed, blasé clients and mostly critiques. Places like Gagnaire or l'Astrance are actually designed for frequent top-restaurant goers -- the former because it is guaranteed to take you out ouf the boredom of excellent food every day, the latter because it is so light and subtle. Some address blasé brains, some tired stomachs. Both are ever changing. Barbot the other day told me he hates to make the same dish twice, and surely Gagnaire would agree. Conversely (and that's a bigger deal for me), I think exceptional traditional places like Rostang or Bocuse tend to be overlooked because of our food habits --- old style food is better enjoyed when one is actually hungry. When was the last time that happened already?

No offense, but judging from your writing, I don't think that's is what it is. I think that it is a matter of preference and expectations. Definitely what you just wrote showed how the very concept of this restaurant today is the opposite of your expectations, esp. as far as the setting and service and attendance are concerned. Those are elements that you could have known without going. Lucas-Carton also had its detractors. Senderens has a very special style, and if you are not receptive to it, you aren't. In that case it all feels like a bad joke and that's exactly what bad Lucas-Carton reviews were about already. I've read as many bad reports about Lucas-Carton as I am reading those days about Senderens. As I wrote, I have no pleasure or interest eating at Gagnaire or l'Astrance, which I find in the end vain and self-centered. I don't think it is related either to my memories or to their lack of talent or interest. That's also why in the end I don't think that reviewing is about rating, it's about setting expectations right, finding what's good for you and helping you enjoy it. As far as the setting is concerned, I agree that it is uncommon, esp. at night and with its red light. It already was before they did the Star Trek/Space Odissey thing, but it sure became even more... surprising. Service is definitely casual. And as I wrote in a nearby thread, the restaurant needs a user manual. And its very concept is unstable, because Senderens' style requires flawless execution which is made difficult by the conditions in which this kitchen runs. I would not recommend Senderens without all these precautions. Should not have been recommended to you, obviously, because it could have been clear from the beginning that you would not like it and that was nothing like what you are looking for. It remains the only place where that unique style can be tasted and enjoyed, furthermore at cheap cost (not when you pay in dollars but that's not Senderens' fault -- and it remains half the cost of l'Astrance, one third of Gagnaire's).

La Fontaine de Mars, le Gourmet des Ternes have stuff like poireaux vinaigrette. Chaumette rue Gros has suprising version of oeufs mayo stuffed with mushrooms and parsley. Chez George le jeu du mail, chez Adrienne are places for traditional entrées (French sense). L'Auberge Bressane does poulet aux morilles and crepes suzette. Thanks John for daring and giving me the strength.

Well that's very unfair -- No one in the World offers what Bocuse offers. There's no doubt that his food is not up to date, but it is made by four MOFs and has the best ingredients. Plus, it is remarkably affordable compared to the competition, and to the quantity and quality of food served. Of course it is too much, but still, calling it a disgrace sounds very unfair to me. I'm not saying anyone has to like it, of course. But in all objectivity, it is a unique place, and thorouhly enjoyable to many, many people.

Sticking to Paris, I'd say great: l'Ambroisie and l'Arpège. Bad: Alain Ducasse. I am also a big supporter of Paul Bocuse, which I'd have in the good category. Outside of Paris but staying in France, great would include Roellinger, Guérard and l'Arnsbourg (this last one based on people I trust as I haven't been). Outside of France my experience is limited but I would put Winkler forward, another one that common knowledge likes to consider not worth his three stars. Also a word about Senderens: he is one of the greatest chefs alive. His new restaurant allows to taste that, but it needs an instruction manual, and it is anyhow not as great as Lucas-Carton used to be. And definitely it is a casual (and strange) place. Btw, I am organising a Lucas-Carton meal for nostalgics (at Senderens). Those who are interested can PM me. Taillevent on the other hand never had three star food but always was a great, an exceptional restaurant.

they don't have an answering machine and they only answer the phone tu-fri, 10-1 and 6.30-8.

Sounds like two typical Gagnaire meals. He is a genius but it's a place for people who go to three stars every week. If you have Lucas-Carton experience, you might be disappointed at Senderens, which is considerably less luxurious. That includes the food. Senderens is a genius (a reliable one) and the new restaurant definitely makes you taste what a genius he is, relying on high quality but non luxurious ingredients. Food is great, but it is casual compared to the usual top restaurants, somewhere between bistrot and gastro, more on the gastro side. Personally, I'd much rather have a meal at Senderens than Gagnaire or l'Astrance, that said. Another thing about Senderens is that, as he decided to lower prices, he still has great, simpler food but the wine pairing he offers just is of insufficient quality. It is still great pairing but not exceptional wines. My advice is to buy good bottles from the wine list. There is a page of 79euros bottles that has only great wines (see here for pics from last week), especially that Riesling Kabinett which is a great match with the langoustines among other things. I reviewed Senderens here.

Gordon Ramsay at the Trianon

I only heard the BS rumour. Which one is the Robuchon?

So who's game for trying?

Latest rumors are that Legendre actually left the Four Seasons escorted by the police and handcuffed. They're just rumors but they say something about the bad climate going on backstage for years.

Don't tell anyone, but quality at Guy Savoy (inventivity, precision of cooking in particular) never recovered from their third star/new setting. It used to be a real top table, back in the days when they had two stars and nobody knew why not the third. Then there was a fortunate fire that burnt the restaurant in late June so that it was entirely renovated by late August and got the third star in February.

I have a rule about that: never trust a review whose content you can guess in advance. I also have lots of respect for Ramsay, and I really appreciate the human dimension of his shows as well as how serious he is about food (and I don't mind bad language, at all). Francois Simon keeps saying that this is Savoy in the 90s, but Savoy in the 90s was damn good and impressive (much more so than today).

Here's our six-yearly update! I just went for a very perfect lunch from another time. The 56 euros is great value, all the more since you can turn it into a "formule" (meaning no dessert or no first course -- see photos of the menu) and it gets even cheaper. It is by no mean a subpar menu. One thing that is very remarkable is that it takes some guts, methinks, to offer a simple omelette in a restaurant of that class. And it was indeed great omelette, with a great depth of tastes of the mushrooms and truffles, and a very onctuous texture inside the omelette, the outside a bit dry. Another great great thing is that this guy is one of the few in town that know how to get good truffle. The ones there were clearly the best this season. Next year, but Besson on the list next to Rostang, Pacaud or Savoy if you are a truffle lover. The style of cooking is close to Bocuse, I believe: it is anchored in the tradition, classic alliances, etc, but tastes are clear and ingredients are at the forefront. It is more modern than Rostang but that's about it. That such a restaurant still exists in Paris is a major and very good surprise. Also if my co-dinner wants to talk about it, her dish of quenelles that you'll see in the pics was really really nice. It's one of those foods that is delicious when you're hungry, less interesting once you're full (and that happens in the course of meal). I would not call that a flaw -- it's real great food. Pics here and more detail later: http://picasaweb.google.fr/jultort/GRardBesson I can't believe I have been wanting to try this place all these years and only did it now.