Wilfrid

Maybe the "VIP" tag should be discarded. Do we have the WSJ to thank for it? What I described in my last post is not a VIP process.

If it's not too much of a digression, what do y'all think about the practice of arranging a special dinner in advance with a restaurant. I have done this many times, for personal special occasions or for clients. Either by phone or, preferably, by calling in at a convenient time, I discuss a menu with the manager or chef, and agree prices, wine and so on. In fact, don't we all do this from time to time? In this process, one might well end up with items not on the regular menu, or which walk-in customers might not know about. This practice is unobjectionable - surely, surely?

Ha, I wish I knew. At least anyone can get into my two examples.

Some of the Berthaud products other than Epoisses should be considered. The "Affedelice au Chablis", which is as good as I've had in France; perhaps even more so the "Soumaintrain". I can't say I've eaten the latter in France, but it's hard to imagine it being much better. They each show up in D&D from time to time.

That is interesting, and I suspect it varies dramatically according to type of restaurant. I suspect Le Cirque and San Domenico, for example, would almost get along fine with only their regular customers.

It's worth taking a step back and considering how other retail business treat customers who are either regulars or establish themselves early on as big spenders, as opposed to first time customers, possible one-time customers (tourists) and those who don't appear to want to spend much money. The extra attention someone gets if they spend a lot of money, especially regularly, may or may not be a matter for regret. But there seems to me no reason to single out the restaurant business and jump all over it. As for first-time VIP treatment, whether one's considering dining out, buying jewellery or antiques, or shopping for clothes, I think the trick in a nutshell - if you actually want to add value to the service you get - is to give the appearance of falling into the potential regular/big spender category. And there are all kinds of ways to do that. Of course, in an ideal world, everyone would get decent service anyway.

Wine Notes Having spent some time unravelling my post-dinner scrawlings and fact checking, I can offer a few, scant notes on some of the wines sampled at the restaurants discussed on this thread. I'm sorry I don't give years, but it's safe to assume that, since I took a number of by-the-glass pairings, the bottles were all quite young. Kable's The unusual Shiraz-Viognier blend, which was new to me, was a Yalumba from the Barossa Valley. I also enjoyed the straight varietal, which I think Balic identified correctly as a Chateau Reynella Basket Pressed Shiraz. Traditional Aussie fruit and chocolate style. Quay The really impressive Shiraz I drank on the trip was suggested by the sommelier at Quay. Although young, it had complicated, old world, vegetable and barnyard notes overlaying the fruit. It was a Jasper Hill Shiraz. Quay lists a '96, "Georgia's Paddock" from Heathcote. I was drinking a much younger wine, but I think it was the same producer. There were only two Shiraz's by the glass on the list. Testuya The wine pairings at Testuya and Claude's relied heavily on the sweeter, flowery styles of white to accompany adventurous, seafood and fish-based "fusion" cooking. At Tetsuya, a Marlborough Sauvignon Blanc was followed by an excellent Crawford River Riesling. I didn't get a note of the next wine up, a Gewurtztraminer, but I did like the Scorpo Riesling from Mornington. Red wines had less chance to shine, but I liked the Torbreck Juveniles blend of Grenache, Mataro and Shiraz which accompanied the Wagyu beef. Claude's Neglecting local bottles, Claude's followed an Alsatian Pinot Gris with an Alsatian Muscat to accompany the soft shell crab and superb Murray River cod dishes. With the quail sausage came a New Zeland Pinot Noir. My notes say "Otago Bay", but I haven't been able to confirm that; a wine from somewhere in the Otago region, anyway. And an unusual dessert wine, a Chandon Cuvee Riche (made in Australia); essentially a sweet, slightly off-white (rather than quite pink) champagne. Beers drunk at various venues included VB's and Toohey's New .

Like the idea of starting with a blank table. As for flowers, my preference would be to have beautiful, fragrant flowers on the table when we're seated, but for them to be whisked away as service starts. Might puzzle some diners, though. Also, the thread reminds me of the delight I've experienced as a solo diner, especially during second seatings, where I've been given a table for four. Especially with a banquette, so I can spread out.

Thanks for the dose of sanity, Steven. Just a footnote on one of Steve Klc's points. I have been aware in the past that a restaurant will hold back a particular dish or portion because they know a regular is coming in who usually orders it. I know this can be irritating if you wanted the dish and you're not the regular, but I take it in my stride as part of the business, a little like holding back certain tables. Liebling has a sweet story about this. A regular at a certain restaurant arrives one evening, set on a light meal of oysters and steak (this is Liebling, remember). He over hears the proprietor say "Look, here comes Monsieur X. Save the last of the cassoulet for him." Unwilling either to compromise his dinner or hurt the proprietor's feelings, he manages to eat both the steak and a couple of portions of the cassoulet. As Liebling observed, the oysters presented no problem, as they offer no bulk.

If we're going to go over all that old ground again, someone needs to bring everyone up-to-date. I thought the server didn't understand the request, not that we know the request to be have been turned down by Batali. On the other hand, we could discuss the WSJ piece. Anyway, I give up.

And, as I said, there is nothing to stop someone enquiring in advance. You can use that plastic thing one normally orders the New York times with.

Me too. Who's doing it? The WSJ? Jerks.

"I don't suppose you realize -- or care -- how insulting you are being to restaurants in general: you seem to be saying that one must push them to get a high(er) level of service -- they won't do it otherwise. And you're talking about the sort of place YOU frequent; think what that says about "lesser" venues...So you're saying that you want to be considered special? And that by indicating that nothing on the menu is good enough for you, you are showing how special you are?"* Listen up, WSJ! *Just to clarify, that's Suzanne F right there.

Presumably not, but I don't know that they acted like jerks either. One has a great sense of freedom, of course, discussing the article without reading it.

Yep, sounds pretty insulting to me too, Ron. Who on earth suggested such a thing? - and I have said half a dozen times that seeking to eat off the menu on one's first visit to a restaurant seems to me misguided. I still don't know why we can't discuss either 1. what the WSJ did, or 2. what a polite, intelligent diner, not looking to boost their own prestige or test the restaurant might do instead of just spinning our wheels in this hypothetical situation about the possible actions of an insulting egomaniac. Martin, thank you, and I accept you weren't being sarcastic. Of your four options, still setting aside dietary/medical motivation, and also - please - setting aside ego-boosting and testing, I don't think "whimsy" is the only option left. I thought, in fact, Steve described another motivation fairly well with his analogy of buying a custom-made suit. Not quite, because I can imagine buying clothes custom-made without having first bought off-the-rack from the same purveyor, and I'd be much less likely to do that with a restaurant. But I think it makes perfect sense, if you're familiar with what a kitchen can do, to seek a meal tailored to your specific requirements. I have frequently done this ahead of time, for special occasions, by calling and consulting with the chef or management. Is that so odd? The WSJ journalists seemed to be doing something quite different and essentially silly, and I take your point, Martin, therefore, that it's not a mode of behavior to be imitated.

But that was only one of my examples. I don't know what it is about this topic that gets everyone so fired up. I agree with Ron - and it was the point I tried to make back on page 1 - that it makes little sense for diners unfamiliar with a restaurant to reject the menu. That's the puzzling thing about the WSJ piece; why go to a restaurant for the first time - even a steak house, for God's sake - and ask for an off menu meal? But I don't know where all the stuff about "entitlement", and being "insulting" to the chef, comes in. If you walk into Peter Luger and order the haddock, then you are doing yourself no favor, but I don't know that you are expressing some sense of "entitlement" to fish or being "insulting" about the steak. It would be interesting to hear from other chefs. Would this kind of request really insult you? I am having trouble imagining Dean Fearing or the executive chefs at Emeril taking this kind of thing personally. In fact, I bet it's low on the list of ways in which customers annoy them. But tell me I'm wrong...

Only if I can get a time share in some of your wristwatches.

Tommy, I'm sorry, you've lost me. Honestly, I have no idea what you're referring to. I withdraw, and will erase, my earlier attempt to figure out what you meant by comments like "those who might be prone to entitlement " and "because people who have money and work hard deserve the best", but [...edited...] I have no idea what you're driving at. Like I said earlier, let's discuss the article and related issues.

Suzanne, I don't recognize much of what you said there in preceding posts by anyone, but the logical inference seems to be that all restaurants should charge exactly the same, giving everyone an equal opportunity to have the same meal in any of them. Now, I am all in favor of uprooting hierarchical social relations, seizing the commanding heights of the economy, and abolishing property, but since I seem to be in a tiny minority I have learned to control my surprise at the fact that, in a market economy, people with more money can buy more expensive things. Are we really talking about anything else? Incidentally, it really is a side issue unless it had been demonstrated that ordering off menu is necessarily and significantly more expensive than ordering from the carte, and I just haven't seen that here.

I can't figure out if Tommy and Martin are being sarcastic, or whether they just didn't read any of Suzanne's posts. With all respect to Suzanne, I just can't share her views on this one. I was consciously discussing a situation different from that artificially set up by the WSJ article in order to illustrate the point that ordering "off menu" is not exactly the same as pushing the menu aside and asking the kitchen to cook some thing nice. Of course, high altitude diners know that tripes a l'armagnac is the Sunday special at Le Cirque, although maybe the kitchen does have the ribs at least in a marinade on the previous day. Edit: deleted because I take Tommy's word for it I was wrong.

There would be nothing to recommend Club Gascon above a number of other good bistros if you weren't very fond of foie gras, which is essentially the specialty of the house in numerous different preparations. If you do like foie gras, certainly follow Cabby's advice and read the appropriate threads here.

I need to double check the prices at Murray's Grand Central. First time I looked at the place, the price of specific cheeses seemed way higher than one would expect. But it's certainly possible I was mistaken. Nina - it looked fairly priced to you?

I am just back from a restaurant at about the opposite end of the ideological scale from Chez Panisse, and have been watching, and participating in, some off menu ordering. Le Cirque was a cinch to get into today, although it was close to two thirds full by two o'clock, something many restaurants would settle for on a Monday in February, snow or no snow. Although Sirio was on his throne, even Le Cirque was trimming its service to the prevailing conditions, with some staff inevitably absent and some ingredients unavailable. They could offer only a limited prix fixe, starring grilled salmon and herb-stuffed chicken. Being familiar with the usual daily specials (although I've not eaten all of them, by any means), I mentioned to my server that braised short ribs were usually available on Monday. "I don't know if the chef made them today, let me check." The chef had, and I gorged on a slab of absurdly tender beef in rich stock, garnished with freshly prepared carrots, parsnips and pearl onions. Other diners might have liked this dish very much, especially on a day like today, but if they didn't know to ask... Similarly, a couple of regulars at a nearby table - sufficiently valued for Sirio to haul his increasing girth across the room and greet them - shared a whole fish, presented and boned tabelside. Wonderful aromas, and certainly not on the prix fixe. Maybe they ordered it in advance; maybe they eat it every Monday. But whichever way you read it, some people eating lunch there today were getting food other diners didn't know about. Is this so terrible? (I did a fantastic impersonation of a fat penguin, slithering along fiftieth street.)

Yes, I'm interested in the article too, and to the extent we could avoid re-hashing the old Blue Hill/Babbo arguments, 'twould be appreciated. Damn, my fingers are cold. Does everyone agree with my starting point that there are some restaurants where this sort of request makes sense and not others? If so, how sensible was the WSJ's list?