julot-les-pinceaux

Host's Note Since long-term memory seems to get better as those nasty, un-needed, short-term Betz cells die off, I'm going to suggest a topic based on old time places, long gone. These chefs and restaurants can be totally gone, caduc, disappeared; succeeded in chefdom or other circumstances; or where a chef reached his pinnacle (in one's opinion). We've touched on the issue in several topics, most recently in Arpege: 2006-present. So I've moved the relevant posts to this topic and we can concentrate on old memories here. The following was Julot's contribution that started it off. Oh, and I forgot -- I am just old enough that I was able to live the last days of Claude Peyrot's Vivarois -- And that was in the top league, no doubt.

I agree about the utility of ranking. Which is I argue that two or three stars are characterisations, not ranking. Two stars means top quality food, three means unique restaurant. How do I chose my restaurants? Like all of us: a lot of reading everywhere, with particular attention to the opinions of some persons. And sometimes I am attracted to a place. I also beware of too unanimous opinions, one way or the other (esp. unanimously bad opinions saying all the same thing, like for Bocuse or Winkler). Never went to Robuchon's Jamin or Girardet's. My best meals were consistently at Lucas Carton and Loiseau, followed by Roellinger, l'Ambroisie, and Guichard's Jamin. What they have in common in an obsessive care and perfectionism that allows their style to express and the food to be truly exceptional. There are people there with an obsession of doing the best possible meal. And the skills to deliver, of course. I don't like places that have industrialised their process and are not taking risks (if you see whom I mean). To me, an exceptional meal must indeed be exceptional -- a way to capture the moment. It can be a roast chicken but it must be made with sensitivity and care, adapting to the singular ingredients and the moment. It's not about price, or novelty. Which are your favorites and why?

Well, As I said, I only went back in 2000, so my memories, even if they were acurate, would not be really relevant to Veyrat today. But the things which, in retrospect, strike me, are: 1- Veyrat never forgets to do really good food, ingredients and preparations are absolutely flawless and always very pleasant to eat (no innovation for innovation's sake) 2- Veyrat's menus are really well composed, with a carefully constructed progression 3- Obviously, he likes to show off. In plates and in person. My specific memories include "legumes oublies au gout de terre", some uncommon vegetables with a truffle sauce, intense. A boudin de lotte (monkfish sausage), just perfect, melty and complex in tastes. A wonderful turbot cooked on some bark which gave it particular flavour. A funny and a bit pointless "soupe de potimarrons au lard virtuel", pumpkin soup with a milk foam, bacon having marinated in the milk. But great soup, light and intense, no butter. There was a genepi sorbet inside a chocolate sphere that looked like the Death Star in Star Wars, and they would pour hot chocolate on the Death Star, and the star yould melt from the top, and reveal the genepi "core" -- and that was good if you liked Genepi and chocolate (I don't). A set of five crèmes brulées flavoured with different local herbs -- more a guessing game than an actual dish. And, even if Passard is worse, that was god damn expensive. All in all, as I said, I think it is simply less good than Loiseau or l'Ambroisie, but this was the best mix I know between crazy innovation and good food. And I like that most of Veyrat's innovations are real innovations: they spread quickly, from Grand restaurants to bistrots everywhere. Veyrat contributed to everyday cooking, and still does. In that sense, the 20/20 of GM is justified because GM cares a lot about innovation and quality and precision of cooking at the same time. But, as you know, I believe that ranking restaurants is crap -- you define a preliminary criteria and then you can rank restaurants according to these criteria. But if you focus on the restaurants as a human, multi-faceted, cultural experience, then the real questions are about what is the singularity of the place, what can you expect, how to enjoy it best, what kind of occasion is it best suited for? And that does not fit in a scale.

That's about your pleasure, and don't get me wrong, it is important to me. But if you share some experience with us, it becomes about something else. Among other things, the pleasure we can have and expect. What you just did, and did not do before, was very effectively and eloquently relating the experience you had at l'Astrance -- while starting a discussion about how food should be enjoyed. Thanks for that.

I would agree -- I even wrote a post a few months ago about why I was opposed to pictures. But the fact is, no one reads you when you have no pictures. Since I started posting pictures on my blog, people suddenly started to tell me that it was well written. I don't believe that pictures are in themselves a good description of food -- sometimes they are. But if you try to express the singularity of a restaurant, well chosen, well taken pictures can help. Sometimes, there is no point in showing food pictures -- but something else that is more revealing of the spirit and singularity of the restaurant. By the way, I was not asking Ptipois for bloody pictures (of fucking potatoes) -- but for impressions of her meal. No one has to talk about their meal, but when knowledgeable, attentive starts, it creates expectations, if not frustration. Isn't it the whole point of this forum to exchange experiences rather than blunt opinions?

But you don't rememer a thing? Even one outstanding dish? Something Christophe or Alexandre told you? To my wife they did the "we have no bathroom but go in the café across the street they know the gig" thing.

Don't miss the chocolate and seaweed thing, it is amazing, with six or seven successfull flavours in the mouth. And let them know what you like, they have the best service I know and they know their food -- so the more upfront you are about your tastes, the more likely you are to get the best possible experience.

Hi Ptipois, lucky eater! Are you gonna review that meal or what? Mine there was disappointing, but with so many L'Astrance enthusiasts out there, I would be ready to have my arm twisted into trying again. In the evening, that's 170 for the menu, 270 with the wine pairing proposed by brilliant Alexandre. And they don't charge you for water then.

Yeah, Arpege is the most expensive one especially when EUR 1 is close to USD 1.4 Veyrat decreases his price into EUR 338 from EUR 385 (for 16-18 courses?) Arpege served 8 courses ... I think ADPA is not cheap either if not more (1 amuse - the famous langoustines caviar, 3 courses, cheese and dessert cost about EUR 320) ← Well, now that it's cheap, I may go back . Actually, you're cheating! I just checked the website and there is a special offer of a 12 course menu for 420. (though they announce ân 18 course one for 338 as you mention). And also the night + meal (including breakfast!) for two persons for only 1445€. Have you been lately, Bu Pun Su? I went twice in 2000 and I thought at the time that it was not better than the good classics like l'Ambroisie or l'Arpège. But now that I know what other "moleculars" do, I have a whole new respect for Marc Veyrat's cooking, which is always good, well composed, and full of ideas that are truly brilliant also because they are easy to replicate.

Well, I have a saturday night reservation at Manresa, and I will keep trying for TFL: I might indeed do both, as crazy as it sounds. You're right, in the end, it's just money. I know, night pictures are not easy (I failed at it miserably myself, as you can see). That's one of the reasons I ususally prefer lunch, in addition with more relaxed staff, easier digestion, better prices. And there's nothing wrong with being drunk in those places, after all. That ususally happens after just a few courses.

L'Arpege and Gagnaire are the most expensive -- it would be difficult to keep your budget there unless you go for lunch (in which case consider Savoy for an amazing lunch experience, with the 100 lunch menu, detailed review on my site). Same for Ledoyen. L'Ambroisie is ca 220 per person + wine so the cost depends a lot on what you would want to drink (assuming no truffle and no caviar, that is). They also offer demi-plats for cheaper, just ask. The food there has orgasmic potential -- more often than not. I talk about it a lot on my blog -- please visit. Thing is, l'Ambroisie is often stupefying, but it is quite disappointing when it is not. I would agree with Ptipois' characterisation of l'Astrance, though I would in the end share John's skepticism -- imo, this is a restaurant for our overfed times. Actually, I share both their skepticism and would personaly consider none of these three restaurant for a wonderful time, especially if you liked le Bristol. But l'Astrance is definitely amazing, admirable, best ingredients and best cooking and seasoning. Worth the 3*. There again, I reviewed it at length. The evening menu is 270 w beverage so I guess this fits. Le Meurice and les Ambassadeurs, mostly le Meurice imo, are great if you expect that kind of show-off and hyper-luxury, as Ptipois says. Better than Ducasse in that style. But they're not food lover, gourmand, places like le Bristol is. Rostang, l'Ambroisie, l'Arpege (all chef-owned restaurants) are. Taillevent would also match your budget, with very good food, world class service, wonderful wine list reasonably price. But foodwise, we mentioned the best already.

Chez l'Ami Jean, rue Malar, 32€, just as good and typical

500 for two, right? What exactly did you like? What do you expect? Les Ambassadeurs (or Le Meurice) are first and foremost gold and marble, 20ft high ceiling, hyper luxury. L'Astrance is kind of the opposite, a very simple restaurant that does not offer much choice (whereas palaces are supposed to be able to respond your every wish). If you liked le Bristol, why not go back?

Veyrat must be mad

Dave, you noticed? RJ, I had read your reviews, they're great (though pictures of TFL show you were clearly drunk ). Thing is, no one told me yet what is unique with TFL. With Manresa, it seems clear that it is the proximity of the garden and the reactivity of the Chef to what's going on in the garden. On the other hand, all FL meals look the same to me, which suggest that maybe the restaurant is not alive anymore. Nothing wrong with that (I love Bocuse), but I can get a very good meal in many European places for cheaper, even considering the level of the Euro. If the singularity of Keller only lies in doing French precision in the kitchen, and having world class service, that's not enough for me. Also, events may well decide for me, as getting a table at Keller's is so hard. That would lead me to an other question: is Per Se less good than TFL? I'll be in NY later this year so that may be an other way of tasting the Keller's way.

What about andouillette? That's a classic and yet special -- kind of the opposite of museau.

That's before you're drunk only.

I am an experienced French foodie and I am heading to Berkeley for Thanksgiving. Love it there. I would like to do one exceptional meal with my Californian friends and am hesitating between the French Laundry and Manresa. Could you tell me which one you would recommend and why? Some background: I know many French 2&3*. My favourites are Roellinger for the subtlety and the way a meal there tells one or many stories; l'Ambroisie and Bernard Loiseau for the most intense food ever; Rostang (2* only) for the generosity. (more on my blog julotlespinceaux.blogspot.com) Re Manresa and TFL, I've been doing quite a lot of research -- I'm aware of Keller's legendary status and of Kinch's garden. I found that I am not particularly attracted, in both cases, by the endless succession of small plates (I am very traditional in that way, like three courses meals). I also find that, on pictures, Manresa is considerably more exciting, but I know that there are things pictures can't convey, such as taste and smells, and sometimes atmosphere. All in all, I am more interested in delicious food and having a wonderful moment with people I love than being amazed or surprised. But I don't mind being surprised AND delighted. I intend to go chez Panisse anyway, as a neighbour. And I promise to report.

John is right. They're here to please you. Do what you want and don't pay if you're not satisfied.

I had a great lunch this summer at Winkler's. I know he's often considered the weakest of German three-stars, and I did not compare. But he has definitely the best restaurant I tried in the Munich area and deserves three-stars, althouhg not for being at the tip of culinary fashion. His style is very light and simple -- Nouvelle cuisine in the original sense, something between the Loiseau and the Guérard style. This is no discovery, but it is also not quite what you would call "classic", in the sense that it is so light and the flavours are so clear and sharp. The only disappointment was that not all courses are seasonal (porcini and scallops in August) but I guess connaisseurs will just stay away from unseasonal dishes. Also, the place is simple for a 3* -- it's a big house in the middle of a village, has no fancy cutlery of China, etc. The food is not expensive with a 130€ tasting menu, but wine prices are crazy (Guigal's cote-roties between 600 and 800€) but it is a cuisine that is fine with water. Desserts are just wonderful -- e.g. simple tarts but with textbook plays of flavours, textures and smells. Pictures and a more detailed review there.

He owns the place

Also: There is an interview of Eric Frechon in Thuries Magazine. He says two things I found noteworthy: 1- He describes his new style of cooking (since the renovation), more oriented towards ingredients, he says. That to me sounds like a novel attemps at the 3* status: you have to give those Michelin guys a reason to upgrade you. Will renovation+new style do the trick? 2- Frechon opened a bistrot in the rue Mademoiselle (15e), called Le Cristal de Sel. Anyone been?

The art of Alain Senderens requires flawless execution. In my opinion and experience, this is what chef Robert used to deliver in the last two years of Lucas-Carton and the first year at Senderens, making it a highly memorable and valuable experience. As far as the following years are concerned, I can only agree on opinions expressed here that the quality of the food was not interesting anymore. But , based on my recent visits, something is fixed in the kitchen. The new chef, coming from l'Ambroisie, may have had a hard time adapting to the number of tables and to the subtle Senderens style, but the cooking is now back on track. So Senderens' genius can be enjoyed again, and I think we food lovers can carefully resume going at Senderens -- still make it clear that your expectations are high and send back bad dishes. They also say that they are gonna do reintroduce a few Lucas-Carton dishes. A feature of the Senderens restaurant that does not work anymore, in my opinion, is the quality of the wines that are served for the proposed wine pairing. While you can do great cooking with less expensive ingredients, I believe nothing replaces great wines, and I would suggest to skip most of the wine pairings proposed. Meanwhile, the wine list is still that of Lucas-Carton, with more reasonable margins. So you do not have to drink water either (though there is nothing wrong with that). Visit my blog for a more detailed review: http://julotlespinceaux.blogspot.com/2007/...and-erotic.html.

Super strong. In particular l'Ami Jean.

The only 3* open for saturday at lunch in Paris is l'Ambroisie (actually there's also le Pré Catelan). Not a bad choice if you like the style (just translated a post about it on my blog). Among the two stars also, few are open saturday for lunch -- there's Senderens and Robuchon, for example, but none of them feels like the kind of place you seem to be looking after (cozy while somewhat special and spectacular). While you're at taking the Eurostar, you may push to Montbard and go to Loiseau in Saulieu?