Wilfrid

First thing in the morning, and so much to correct already: 1. Steve, you're completely out of touch with Le Cirque. I have eaten Boulud's food and Portay's food, and Le Cirque is not producing food like that these days. The range of techniques and variety of ingredients employed in the average dish at Blue Hill is more "involved", to use your term. But as I said, it really doesn't matter whether I've picked the best example: my proffer is that restaurant A being more expensive than restaurant B does not mean that restaurant A is better than restaurant B. Let's see you deny that, and we'll know where we stand. 2. You're right about profitability - the more you gross the better and the larger the average check the better. And this is why restaurants at the top level can be less profitable than restaurants with lower menu prices but a much larger volume of business. Of course, the prestige of running a top level restaurant can be the springboard for success in running lower cost line extensions (dB Bistro Moderne was full from day one because of Restaurant Daniel's reputation), as well as getting book and TV deals, etc. Why are these two points relevant? First, because you think the absence of an Indian restaurant at the absolute top level of dining out in New York or London indicates a deficiency in the cuisine. Second, you appear to think it indicates that there isn't an Indian food industry. For example: Well, you can say the Taj Mahal doesn't exist until you are blue in the face, but the global Indian restaurant business exists as much as the global Chinese restaurant business. Its volumes and profits are vast. Your inability to discover an Indian restaurant with a $100 tasting menu, or an Indian cookbook written by a restaurant chef, is utterly irrelevant to that fact. So the industry does exist, just not at the four star (Michelin three star) celebrity chef level. You admit there may be "socio-cultural" reasons for this. Of course there are. There are also plenty of good, hard business reasons why it doesn't exist at that level in American cities. I think we all agree about that. But you want to say that there is something specifically about the cuisine which - unlike other cuisines - makes that step impossible. As far as I can see, nobody - and that includes people who know quite a bit about Indian food - believes you.

Thanks for the link Lizziee. I saw Pan stated on that thread the "intention" point very strongly - so strongly that I spotted the logical error. He talked about "reserving tables in places where you do not intend to eat ". No: that implies either "I am holding reservations at X and Y but do not intend to eat at X" or "I am holding reservations at X and Y but do not intend to eat at Y". Now, if either of those statements were true, I'd have cancelled that reservation and wouldn't be holding two. I do intend to eat at X or Y, I just don't know which, and it's clear from this analysis that that is not logically equivalent to not intending to dine at either X or Y. Anyway, I don't mean to go over old ground again. I was just trying to get a feel for a situation other than no-shows or cancelling late or holding numerous reservations through indecisiveness.

Oh, I think we can agree as a starting point that I'm bad. But indeed: I get the impression people don't feel too strongly about this. From a purely selfish point of view, I balance the possibility that the restaurant will not re-sell the table against the possibility I will have nowhere to go for dinner, and guess where that comes out? I emphasize, I am not talking about last-minute cancellations - I don't see that it's worse for the restaurant I cancel than me having to cancel for another reason anyway (and what with baby sitters and all, that does happen) - does it matter to that restaurant that I have a reservation at another restaurant?

You're shameless. I like Le Cirque, because I liked old-style food in cushy surroundings, but the cuisine there is simpler and less elaborate than that at Blue Hill. But the example doesn't matter, Steve, the point matters. If restaurants with higher price points are superior, then Aureole and La Grenouille are better than Blue Hill too; Cafe Des Artistes is better than Picholine; and the Four Seasons is one of the best restaurants in town. Thank god your stomach doesn't pay any attention to your theories. Of course, your move is to substitute "serves a higher form of cuisine" for "serves better food". Okay, deal: top French restaurants serve a "higher form of cuisine" than any Indian restaurant. Not necessarily better food. And all this talk of price points, let me repeat a question you avoided: - Do you believe that - even as a general rule - the higher the price point the more profitable the restaurant? (Go ahead, I have more :laugh:'s all lined up.)

No and no. I know where you want to come out, but you can't do it in the face of the facts. A restaurant which costs $100 a head cannot be warranted better than one which costs $80 a head. If only. I mean, you don't think Le Cirque is better than Blue Hill, do you? It's certainly more expensive. Moving from individual restaurants to cuisines, other than at the very top end, the price of Indian, French, Italian, Japanese, etc, cuisines is comparable. That's been demonstrated by repeated examples here. Representation in that handful of restaurants at the top of the price range is a function of history and consumer expectations.

Because it doesn't cost that much. Seriously. Or do you really think that the fact a Saudi Arabian businessman, for example, will pay $80 for mezze, but $100 for Gordon Ramsey's cooking, is a fine gauge of his preference for French food? Doesn't that strike you as even slightly silly? Why doesn't it cost that much? I can think of all kinds of possible reasons: market expectations - clearly important - labor costs, ingredient costs. I hope you're not thinking that there is more money, as a matter of course, to be made from running a $100 a head restaurant than a $70 a head restaurant. Please tell me you don't think that.

That's what I tell all the girls.

And if I choose wrong, my pudding's in trouble, right?

What's "half and half?", asked the dumb Brit.

Hundred and forty three quid is around $220 today. Several New York-based eGulleters left a Manhattan restaurant on Saturday night, having paid $150 a head, remarking how inexpensive the evening had been. There are several restaurants here where it is easy to pay more than $200 a head (and one, ADNY, where it's practically obligatory). My goodness, London's cheap.

They are selling it. It's hugely popular. Watch my lips. It's an enormous business in the UK. It's big in a number of countries. Not in the States. Where's the data. I haven't seen it. We have stipulated that there are no such restaurants in New York. And if you think a $100 a head restaurant is more profitable than a $50 a head restaurant, go and ask David Waltuck why he opened Zinc. New York is not ready for such a restaurant, and it's nothing to do with the cuisine. As for the rest of the world, what makes you think there are no Indian restaurants operating at that level? You can spend more than forty five pounds per head on food at the top level of London Indian restaurants - Salloos, Veeraswamy, Chutney Mary, and so on - and the comparison between London and New York prices makes some sense because of economic conditions; I wouldn't expect to pay as much for a comparable meal in, say, Singapore or Durban. So, where's this "data"?

I think there's universal agreement here about one thing, at least. If you can't fulfil a reservation, you should call the restaurant and cancel as soon as possible. Whatever your legal obligations, this is the decent thing to do. Secondly, I have noticed a consensus that it's not fair to make a bunch of advance reservations so that you can decide where you want to go at the last minute - even if you then cancel the others. The more widespread this practice, the harder it is for restaurants to fill their tables. But is it always unethical to hold multiple reservations? I don't think I ever hold more than two, but that happens not infrequently. It's not done out of fickleness, or a self-indulgent need to put off decision-making to the last minute. It's usually because there's some uncertainty about the exact make-up of the dinner party, the number of guests and their identity. Who is coming might make a difference for restaurant preferences, and the number might make a difference to which restaurant can accommodate the party. Am I being bad, or is this just normal? Indignant tirades welcomed and encouraged. (admin edit note: this is the first post from a thread that was merged into the preexisting discussion of this issue)

But that is exactly my point. One can draw an inference that it isn't on their "to-do list" because they do not have anything to offer that will interest enough people, i.e., it isn't unique, original, creative enough to compete in a worldwide dining marketplace. If it was going to be more lucrative for them, it might very well be on their to do list. For the twentieth time, Indian food has been massively successful in quite a number of countries. Not in your neighborhood is all.

I know, but you are not necessarily talking about the right thing. I was pointing out your non sequitur: "Indian cuisine is for Indians. Period. There is no coordinated effort by the Indian government, both on a national and regional level, to lure foriegners to India just to dine there. Or to export the cuisine." Indian cuisine has been very successfully exported to a number of countries where there has been significant Indian immigration; in Europe, South East Asia, parts of Africa and the Caribbean, for example. Government promotion is a side issue. You are suggesting a way in which Governments of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh might make Indian cuisine accessible to you personally, without you having to venture far afield. That may not be high on their to-do list.

Many governments do promote local industries, including food and hospitality, abroad. That is not, however, the way cuisine travels. Italian cuisine arrived in the United States in a big way well over a hundred years ago. That had nothing to do with Government marketing. I'd be interested to hear of any other cuisine which became established in another country as the result of a conscious marketing/promotional project rather than population movement. The curious thing about French cuisine, as we have seen, is that it was primarily the chefs who moved out of France, for historical reasons. In other cases, it has been a more general migration.

Lucky bastards. I should be in London right now, and reserving my portion of squirrel.

I advise you to get some crispy pig's tails on the menu too.

As we have seen on other threads, cuisines don't travel in that way anyway. With the exception of French cuisine, which is a special case, cuisines generally travel with populations. This is why, contrary to Steve's statement, Indian cuisine is well-established in a number of countries around the world with large immigrant populations from India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. The United States is not one of these countries.

Steve, since this is about Babbo, why not pose the general point elsewhere? I could respond, but it would take us far afield. Liza, I agree. It was my shorthand way of demonstrating that it's perfectly possible to get from downmarket Swedish smorgasbord food to a concept like Aquavit, and there's no reason it couldn't be refined further. I suspect Steve would have found the notion unthinkable before Aquavit opened. And I have no idea why he denies that the same could happen for Italian (!) and Indian food. If that's what he's saying.

Thanks. That's exactly the passage which had bewitched me, and I'd just lost track of it.

Hey, a brick wall, let me run at it head first. In New York restaurants. No argument about that. Members have explained to you that it is prepared at that level elsewhere, and you can believe or disbelieve as you wish; you can't disprove. Well, of course. I'm sure they could too. Who knew people would pay three star prices for herrings and potatoes until Aquavit came along. Absolutely. Indeed. No question about it. Most Indian restaurants in NYC are lousy (in my experience), and none attempt to offer a three/four star experience. We all know that. Me too. I'd rather pay a little more for a Batali restaurant which took more time over what it's doing. And I'm sure such a restaurant is feasible and would be a success. I'd rather he went that way than the pizzeria way. Steve, what is your point?

I'm looking forward to the next episode, where Kim shows up at the restaurant and they refuse to let her see the menu as the prices are too high. (Just kidding.)

Yes, investigation suggests that I was thinking about the "slinger", which appears to be some sort of cooked breakfast with an order of chilli dumped on top. I can't find a very precise description. Can anyone be more specific? Not idle curiosity: I have long wanted to make a trip to the birthplace of T.S. Eliot and William Burroughs and consume this delicacy in their honor.

Salient to what argument? It supports the uncontested conclusion that there are no Indian restaurants among the most expensive restaurants in New York. It might also support the conclusion that there's little demand for a four star Indian restaurant in New York. It doesn't demonstrate that Indian cuisine cannot be prepared at that level. . There you go again. Can we also stipulate that three star downtown restaurants are less expensive than four star uptown restaurants? I mean, you win on that point everytime. And you yourself have pointed out how far Babbo is from offering a four star experience. What I did was compare Babbo with Montrachet, another downtown three star, and four star Bouley. The really odd thing is how cheap Bouley is. And he's not cooking Italian, either, let alone curries.

I remember once reading about an eccentric local fast food specialty, which sounded like several junkitems combined into one: it was along the lines of a pizza with a hamburger thrown on top. Or was it a hot dog inside a cheese and bacon melt? As you can see, I can't recall the details - I think it was something Michael and Jane Stern had an orgasm over. Has anyone got the faintest idea what I'm talking about?