Wilfrid

That sounds like a very sensible approach, Mark. By the way, I did think about putting this topic on the General board, as the issues are clearly not confined to New York. In the end I put it here because I was selfishly interesting in finding out which other places in this town only love me and my money if we're accompanied.

I have nothing significant against the chap, but would like to ask him how he felt having the Nolan Sisters sing "You're simply the best" to him on camera after he'd served them dinner. I found it so embarrassing I had to hide behind the armchair until it was over.

You're right Bux. I have been known to canoodle over a fine Burgundy myself.

As long as you keep using that qualifier "historically" Steve, I think there's some truth in what you say. I think differences have become much less marked over the last twenty or so years.

I know there was a discussion of monkfish liver somewhere on the Borad and suggestions of where to buy it. Now, if only the search engine worked...

Mao, you make me wonder whether these policies are consistently applied: I have dined alone at March at least twice. I have no problem eating at the bar if I am a casual walk-in. I prefer a table mainly because dinner can take a long time, and it's more comfortable. Usually, it gives you more space. I am also terribly unfriendly and hate talking to strangers I also agree that I can easily outspend some canoodling couple who order salad and cheap wine and then share a dessert.

Do you undersell it a little, Jeff? I recall that it is a very grand building indeed, with large, attractively decorated salons. It's like dining in the eighteenth century. I last ate there under the former chef, and your comments encourage me to go back and try Muller's cooking. There's some history and a couple of pics right here.

I'm sure your right lxt, but your point undermines the fanciful picture that anyone in America can obtain four star dining by displaying merit. More important is inherited wealth and the inherited, and thus not necessarily merited, opportunities it brings. And I don't see any big difference, on those grounds, between the States, on the one hand, and the UK, France and Spain on the other.

It was disgusting? I would say delicious, and I would place the flavor curiously between foie gras and shad roe. Mmmmm!

Oh boy, Steve, I think we're still agreeing. Let me throw out a really broad gesture before signing off for the evening: I agree that money should be distributed according to merit, so long as merit has the opportunity to be displayed.

I managed to catch up on La Trompette. It is indeed in a Chiswick backstreet, but it's a good step up from the run of London neighborhood bistros. Quite swish in fact, and the clientele are all ages but fairly posh. It was busy and smoky (they encourage smokers to ask the adjacent table if they mind; no-one seemed to mind). The bread selection, home baked I believe, was similar to that offered at the far more expensive 1837, but it was better. I started with a curious appetizer, a kind of take on raclette - Raclette Savoyarde. I am not sure I can do it justice, but it was like a couple of turrets of cheesy potato, layered with onion and parma ham and garnished with truffle cream. Sort of rib-sticking, and not strong in flavor, but appealing. Clever nursery food? I went on to the plate of veal and lamb sweetbreads. I like sweetbreads, but I wonder if I was in the mood. I found a plateful of them, with a sticky reduction, to be very rich. But I think the cooking was fine, I had just overestimated my greed. Nevertheless, I see I took some cheese. With a glass of riesling and a thirty pounds half bottle of Vosne Romanee, the bill was on the brink of ninety quid. You could take off fifteen pounds by choosing a modest wine, but you are still topping seventy pounds a head. That's expensive for Chiswick, I would say. I don't know if I would recommend heading out to Chiswick for La Trompette, but it's certainly a good standard. Aperitifs may be taken in a little wine bar a couple of doors down the street - I pass that on because attractive pubs seemed scarce

Like a good eGulleter I did, and here's the chap: Henschke Keyneton Estate Memorably good.

Robert, I have always done well at the other end of the evening; hitting a restaurant when the second sitting is underway means they will usually give up whatever's left. This is why I suspected, correctly, that there'd be a niche for me at Fleur de Sel on Saturday night. Conceivably, dB has a very high frequency of walk-in couples in comparison with Cafe Boulud - that's the only reason I can think of for a difference in policy.

Your description is flawless, Bux, and I have eaten at the dB "bar" which is not a bar - as a walk-in. And you are right; reviewing what I was told I find they were offering the "bar" on a first come-first served basis. In any case, my grouch is not being able to reserve a table. I have nothing against communal tables in principle, although - common to popular perception - I am far too grumpy and ill-natured to sit at one myself What I am kicking up a fuss about is the notion that, as a solo diner, there are no circumstances in which I can reserve a normal table, whether one is open or not.

I mentioned a while back that Ilo have an express policy of never accepting table reservations for solo diners. Go sit at the bar, you loser, is the message. Last week, it was brought to my attention that dB Bistro Moderne have the same approach. This surprised me, as Cafe Boulud certainly do not seem to have such a policy (I have never tried to dine alone at Daniel). I am happy to accept that many busy restaurants, when juggling their reservations, will hold back on giving tables to solo diners when they still think they might be able to seat two (or more). Of course that happens, and it's quite understandable. What I resent - and I am concerned we may be seeing the beginning of a trend - is a policy, which tells you, in effect, that whether they have tables open or not you are never going to be seated on your own. Economics? I guess, on average, two customers will spend more than one. It's not inevitable by any means. Solo diners have little to do except stuff themselves silly, and many solo diners are travelling on business with someone else picking up the check. In any case, an empty table doesn't spend anything. And then there is the simple question of goodwill and hospitality. I wouldn't rule out eating at Ilo or dB again - I like the food - but they now each have a black mark in my book. I have not yet come across this policy at upscale restaurants: Jean-Georges, Le Cirque, Gramercy Tavern, Craft, March, Cello - they'll give up a table for one if they have the space; I'm not suggesting it's first come, first served, but at least it's doable. I find this trend insidious, and I'd be pleased to see other offenders named here!

In the interest of helping the thread veer off in new directions: Steve, I think you paint a rosy picture of the clientele at upscale New York restaurants. I must say, whenever I have surveyed the faces gathered at such elegant troughs as Le Cirque, Cafe Boulud, Cello, Jean-Georges, Chanterelle and so on, I have not been struck by the likelihood that they were recently descended from peasants and the lower orders. Nor did I think what an arbitrary mixture of diners they were. A number of ethnic groups, for example, tend to be significantly under-represented (at the tables, I mean, not in the kitchen). Still, it's an appealing myth.

The tasting menu. When I dined at UP last year (October I believe), I asked where the tasting menu had gone. I was told then that they had suspended it as they were having trouble sourcing all the necessary ingredients. Guess Rocco didn't feel the need to bring it back. However, I was then encouraged to create my own degustation from the carte, and offered whatever dishes I chose in tasting menu portions. I chose a selection of dishes, and then decided to have them full-size. Rocco came out afterwards to compliment me on my choice, although doubtless the phrase "greedy guts" was not far from his lips. Actually, I think the staff at UP are a bunch of sweeties, and I am glad to hear the restaurant is doing well.

I think I'll take that and frame it.

Oh, yes! I know it's not to your taste, B., but that first large morel looked like it needed stuffing with foie gras. And I saw on Saturday that the fiddleheads have shown up at last.

Wise suggestion, John. I sometimes simply joint the bird up, get the legs and wings cooking slow in a baking tray, and just add the breast meat to the same tray much later in the process. I often find myself doing the same sort of thing with various meats, not just poultry, as my partner likes her meat much more thoroughly cooked than I do.

Well, I had to go back and read this one from the beginning in an attempt to figure out what happened to the thread. Not sure I've succeeded, although it's clear that mention of "art" anywhere on egullet causes a stampede. Although I am not clear on what precise issues are at stake, I can't resist making several assertions: 1. Whether an artist's views on his or her work are valuable or not very much depends on what those views are. And the same goes for the views of critics. I don't know why you need to decide on an a priori basis whether artists in general are authorities on what they create. Some are, some aren't. I read some short essays by Stuart Davis on his paintings at the weekend, and they were brilliant, hilarious and enlightening. It isn't always that way. 2. The intentionalist fallacy should be regarded, I suggest, as the fallacy that the artist is an unimpeachable authority on his or her intentions, and that his or her views, therefore, are an essential basis for understanding the art work. It is a fallacy, because no-one is an unimpeachable authority on his or her own intentions. 3. There are at least two different kinds of symbolism in art. There is that which draws on the historic symbolism of a culture, and there is that which draws on personal symbols from the artist's own life. Many artists, of course, use both. Anyone - the artist, a critic, a historian or a layperson - might provide a fair interpretation of the former. Understanding the latter will require, if not the artist's own views, then at least some knowledge of the artist's life. 4. I can't understand the claim that Warhol is "contentless". Pick the bones out of that lot!

Yvonne, Le Poussin had a complicated but comprehensive set of packages allowing you to eat relatively simple meals including the cost in your accommodation, or pay supplements to get into the more expensive carte or tasting menus. If it's not all there on the web-site and you are interested, let me know. I picked up various brochures. My feeling was that the food was very good value but that the room prices were steep.

Mmm, now I think of it, that little Welsh rabbit probably used brioche toast. Also, another woeful memory lapse. One of the things that triggered my breakdown over the lamb at 1837 was that, with the wine making a slow appearance, the dish got sent back as stone cold. Not uncommon in Wilfrid's universe.

Halibut, chicken and bison, oh my!

Yes, we ran into Alex wandering the halls in his whites, and he seemed a very affable chap. Hope he makes a go of the project, which is certainly quite ambitious.