julot-les-pinceaux

"Middle-aged" is meant as an euphemism. But that's the thing: they can be charming. They may even be witty -- see for instance the excellent report of Chazallet on his blog (www.chazallet.com). So then again: why?

There are two sorts of risk taking: the cerebral one, where you try recipes, associations, techniques that are unusual or uncommon. Winkler does not take any of that kind of risks indeed. As I wrote, his style of cooking is frozen in 1989, 19.5/20 in GM (they abandoned that rating since). And there is the cooking risk taking: serving a dish that is only interesting when it is perfectly executed: a perfect fish or fowl or calf cooking, a really balanced, subtle and light sauce, an apple tart which is just an apple tart but really is better than the others. Winkler takes that kind of risk with every plate and succeeds most of the time. Haas at Tantris does not take any chance with the executiuon, with a very industrialized process, resulting in a high quality produce with no major disappointment -- see for instance his microwaved "soufflé": not bad, you can't miss it, unlike an actual soufflé which requires skills and adaptation to the singular ingredients, room temperature, etc... As a result, there is no emotion, no chef's touch in the execution of Haas cuisine. That maybe a very rational choice, and I am by no mean arguing that Tantris is not a good restaurant. I would, however, question whether it is an exceptional one. As to why everybody can't reach the standard, there are a number of reasons, but the most compelling response is that many (not most) cooks could reach that standard if they had the means. Fine dining is expensive and not particularly profitable.

I celebrated my birthday recently at Roellinger and I am proud to confirm that this is probably my favorite restaurant. Everything is absolutely perfect while at the same time innovative, interesting and smart. The whole meal is delicious, from one end to the other, and offers consistency unlike many tasting menus I know. There's plenty of food yet not too much. What's more, prices at the restaurant are extremly reasonable (but staying for the night is the cost of several meals). The only precaution, as I often wrote, is to come relaxed, stay in the area at least one day in advance, get some rest and a sense of what the area feels like. People jumping off the plane to the train to the car to the restaurant usually find it pointless. Another point is that wines are not important in the experience, while there are indeed good and not überexpensive (and also well advised by the brother of Bras' sommelier). Click here for more detailed review and pics.

Actually, München never changes. ;-)

Those pictures confirm my impression of Tantris, cooking wise. It is what we could these days call classic, well balanced and flawless. But there's no risk-taking, and all in all it even seems a bit easy, if fine tuned. To be honest, my most lasting impressions of Tantris were some exceptional wines by the glass (old Dom Perignon, Chateau Latour) and the spaceship/timetravel setting and ambiance. See here for my detailed review and some pictures of the place All in all, after one and half year in Munich, I think the best restaurants I have been to in the city were unpretentious trattorias like Il Ruscello (Plantzelplatz, Perlach). In terms of fine dining, I found that only Königshof was vaguely impressive but I had much better and more exciting meals outside of Munich at Christian (click for review) and at Winkler (review here).

It is very odd but I must say that this is not the first report of very obnoxious behaviours from l'Ambroisie. I find it hard to believe every time but they seem to be numerous, and they are not inconsistent with some of my own experiences there, where I felt more tolerated than taken care of. It seems that the restaurant, more and more, is playing behind close curtains for a group of wealthy regulars, whose habits and tastes the team knows well. In that sense, the restaurant is indeed probably booked "pour toujours". They just don't need clients they don't know. God is not a regular. This guy is. To be quite honest, and based on reports, there seems to be both young people and foreigner discrimination. It is not only inacceptable, it makes me ashamed for my country. All the more so since I still believe that Pacaud is one of the three or four best chefs on earth and that good experiences at l'Ambroisie are positively orgasmic, life-defining, simply making most other restaurants not worth it (and indeed, the panini is the right alternative then). The middle-aged lady was very probably Mme Pacaud. It is a tragedy. It is revolting. Why, God, why would the best restaurant also be the most despicable?

It seems like a terrible season for truffle this year. Prices are particularly crazy (some markets at 9000eur/kilo). Mushrooms have already been very disappointing. If black truffle season does not save the day (which is unlikely with the dry soils we've had), we will save some money this year by skipping truffles altogether and hoping that next year will be better. At least that's my advice.

For places that are no more, and sticking to Paris, I would say Tante Jeanne and Guichard's Jamin. Also a little Sud Ouest bistrot on the avenue des Ternes which made the best confit ever. For the last meal, I stick with l'Ambroisie, all the more since it is an almost religious experience. I would have to find (pick?) the twelve others, though ;-)

Speaking of Lievre a La Royale, as announced, I tasted the double version offered by Patrick Betron at the Relais Bernard Loiseau in Saulieu. It is standard-setting, perfectly cooked, incredibly intense, with that strong taste of... well, death is what it is. The Ali-Bab version, to my surprise, is less intense than the Senateux Couteaux. But both are incredible: the texture, the clarity of taste, the simple complexity. This is textbook in the best sense. As I argue in my review on my blog (which I have only written in French now, but I promise to give an English version soon), it is also very representative of Bertron's style and how it differentiates from the original Loiseau by being much more knowledgeabe and technical, while sharing the same basics of mind-blowing ingredients and simplified but labour-intensive preparations. On the side also is a puree which is the alternative to the butter sauce which Robuchon calls that. You can't feel its taste when you eat the Lievre, but by itself, it is a delicious dish, much lighter than the Robuchon thing, but no less intense and standard-setting, no less moving, and with something more frank and less sophisticated about it.

Munich, where I live, is more a big village than a big city. You feel it for instance from the sociological point of view, as you literaly know your neighbours here (the sociological definition of a big city could be that you don't know the people who live next door). Also, German cities have virtually no suburb, which makes number misleading. Paris has less than 2 millions inhabitants, but over 10 million people live in the Paris region. There is a provincial feel to the whole of Germany and there is definitely no city that feels like Rome, Paris, London, NY, etc. in terms of cosmopolitism. I am not saying it is a bad thing, but it definitely is a major difference of lifestyle.

Agreed. And when they don't, clients do and talk to them about it (it happened to me with l'Astrance for example.

L'Ambroisie would have to be my pick. I would prepare the meal carefully, explain them the situation and build the personal relationship, all to make sure that I have the best possible l'Ambroisie experience. Disappointments there are major letdowns not because they are tragic (like they can be at Gagnaire), but because it is orgasmic when it works, and merely excellent when it doesn't (sometimes good is worse than bad). In my dreams, I would have l'Ambroisie's food with Savoy's or le Meurice's service and warmth. But short of it, Pacaud rules. Only Passard does as good a food as him, and I find his place offsetting. If, on top of having to leave Paris, I was on a budget (and then I would really say poor me), then I would go to Luna Rosso in Romainville.

Germany has no real large city -- save Berlin, which does not even have a two-stars. But most of those restaurants are close to a city -- Baiersbronn is by Baden Baden, Bergisch-Gladbach is by Köln, Langen near Frankfurt, Saarbrücken is not small. All in all, this is an illustration of how non centralised Germany is. This is the opposite in France, very centralised -- 8 3* in Paris only. The others are outside of big cities, some very far from any big city (e.g. Bras).

Thanks for the info. It is funny to see how Germany is so underestimated and actually ignored in terms of fine dining. I definitely will keep going with my series on those now nine German 3*, with two little towns that have two 3* each. But which one will be next, this is a really difficult question.

Here are some pictures and more comments on Winkler.

Macarons: my strictly personal taste is the best are Gregory's Renard. But in any case, I recommend to taste them while you are in Paris. See http://www.julotlespinceaux.com/2007/09/di...-macaroons.html for more detail.

It really is not. Gagnaire is one of the few most important chefs in the World, a major genius of today's cooking. If you are interested by the style you mention, it is a no brainer.

Did last June. Found it technically impressive, fun, intellectually exciting, but on the whole more busy pleasing themselves than me (and Pascal Barbot discussed this view of mine in the last issue of Trois Etoiles). Here is my report.

and he is open on sunday night

That really does not sound exciting and you do not sound excited either-- Not a surprise actually, as the three stars of LGV is one of the deepest mysteries of Paris.

All your two stars are three stars waiting to happen, except le Meurice which is a three star period and Mirazur which only has one but everyone knowledgeable about food and who went there says it is a must go. Les ambassadeurs officially is said to be an "espoir" by Michelin and has a reputation of being one of the few players of the "best ingredients" league, with l'Ambroisie, l'Arpege, Gagnaire and maybe Le Doyen. There are tons of review on line so you can make up your mind (see for instance gastroville or chuckeats). Le Bristol is one of the favourites of this forum with reason. It has been waiting for its third star for a long long time and chef Frechon restyling and the room renovation may provide Michelin with an excuse to finally do so. It is very food oriented, very luxurious; but less spectacular than Meurice or Les Ambassadeurs. It is also more for food-lover, maybe less sophisticated but very ingredient and traditional recipes oriented. It is totally modern nevertheless, but hardly disorienting like say Gagnaire could be. Among your 3-stars, the last two clearly are the least interesting foodwise. (still Savoy is a master showman and le Pre Catelan has that incredible setting in the Bois de Boulogne) Gagnaire and Bras are the popes of today's cuisine, they are unique. Gagnaire is more generous, surprising, rhapsodic, and risky. Bras is more regular and offers the charm of its outer space hotel and clear view. You can order DVD "l'invention de la cuisine" (w english subtitles) about both. No first-hand knowledge of the Spanish but I know that Barbot (from l'Astrance) adores Mugaritz, can't stop talking about it. L'Astrance is interesting because it is unlike other Parisian three stars, a small dining room run by young men, without menu and with the best ingredients of the day each day. It is neither ell bulliesque nor classic, very simple recipes very masterly executed. As far as romantic is concerned, I would vote for Gagnaire and le Bristol; both cozy, magical places, Gagnaire on the contemporary side and Le Bristol more 19th century. Finally, a word outside your list to say that Roellinger is my favourite restaurant in the World -- see his website tu judge how modern and romantic he is. But don't forget to go relaxed, not jump out of the car into the dining room, or you will find it boring and ridiculous.

Let me be one to mention to classics here: Le Duc and Le Divellec have the best fish in town, hyper fresh, very simply prepared (more so at Le Duc). They still are basic Paris addresses for me.

You convinced me. I'll try the Louis XV.. next time I have a chance.

Le relais Bernard Loiseau serves not the lievre à la royale but the lievreS a la royale, since Patrick Bertron decided to offer the Senateur Couteaux (=the stew) recipe as an amuse and the Ali-Bab recipe (the reconstituted hare stuffed with foie gras -- like the one at le Bristol) as a main. Some pictures on their blog.

As I wrote, I believe that bad reviews of Senderens are yesterday's news. The new chef has had a difficult first year, but on my last two visits, things were back at top level (with what I believe is a consequence, that waiting time is a tad longer). Not the Lucas-Carton with Frédéric Robert level but still one of the ten best in Paris, to my knowledge. Plus an exceptional location and a very sensual ambiance. I am sorry to say that, in my opinion and by comparison, le Violon d'Ingres is a joke foodwise. It is a very pleasant place but, save their exceptional vanilla soufflé, no course here deserves the one star it still has. Your other options were, imo, more interesting.