Wilfrid

Hehehehe.

I am all set for that, Thomas. I have a top ten ready to go. Some dives have proved too much even for a man of my robust sensibility. I walked into some kind of refectory off a back street in Barcelona's Barri Xines one day, and a lot of very old, very poor and very DT-ridden faces turned to look at me. I ordered a vino tinto, and some kind of black paintstripper was pulled from a huge barrel into a cloudy tumbler. It cost about 2 cents. I drank that up quick and left. I can list some bars I refused to go into, but hey - someone else must have some tales?

Laser beam thinking. I wonder why German food isn't as complex as Beethoven's late quartets? (C'mon, Steve, I've been agreeing with you too much recently.)

Steve, I'm not sure modesty becomes you. Go for it Serioudly, the restaurants on your trip which appeal most to me right now are Taillevent (where I've been) and Chez Georges. And I am more intrigued by Gagnaire than Passard, although the clutter of dishes on the table must be horrific. Sounds like Craft.

Hmmm, I wonder if that's still there. Here's a couple of Manhattan nominations: The Holland Bar, especially before it's recent "facelift". A hole in the wall off Ninth Avenue, with toothless bartenders and steaming regulars swapping stories about who died last. A lot of shaking hands, and I don't mean being polite. The refurb included taking down the wall decorations - hundreds of used Bud beer mats - and employing people with teeth. Marz Bar, on 2nd in the East Village. Not finally as dirty as the Holland Bar or as smelly as Coyote Ugly. But I found the clientele to be menacingly drunk. And it is pretty dirty.

Time for some beverages. Dirty, dangerous, low life dive stories requested please. Someone want to start the class off? Okay, just a teaser; probably the worst smelling bar I have come across (and I mean the bar area, not the restrooms) - Coyote Ugly, NYC. I walked past one morning, when they had opened the doors to sweep garbage in off the street, and the stench was staggering.

No, forget it, I'm repeating myself.

I am not seeing salt in your wet sauces, guys. I have suffered underseasoning in the past when making ribs. Do you season the meat separately from the sauce? Or after it's cooked? Or what?

All those cute little multi-colored squash. I didn't grow up with this stuff, so I am a bit in the dark. Can you just slice and roast them, as Cathy implies? Don't need to peel them, do you? Drizzle on some oil? Herbs? Any suggestions welcomed. I have cooked big squash before - spaghetti squash for example - but not those cute little suckers.

With a delay of that significance, I would be expecting complimentary drinks or dessert, not just an apology. [Of course, if I don't intend to go back to a restaurant, I not only don't tip, I also stuff as many mints into my pockets as I can, and take toilet rolls from the bathrooms]

Oh dear, oh dear. Steve, you're so tactful: "But you raised another good point. Not only are they provincial as a nation, they are provincial by region. Do they have cars there?" Er, Fiat? Ferrari? Alfa Romeo? And I think that, given the gargantuan menus which typified French cuisine pre-Escoffier - and which were simplified by Escoffier only to a scale which seems rich and heavy to modern eyes - the presence of a pasta course can hardly be significant. One point I didn't see in the preceding posts, and apologies if I overlooked it, is this: I wonder with what frequency Italians dine at restaurants in comparison with the French? And I don't mean just city-dwelling Italians today, but Italians from the city and country, north and south, over the last one hundred and fifty years. I suspect a dramatically smaller market for restaurant food has existed in Italy over that period, both for social (family) and economic reasons. If so, this would seem to be a decisive factor. But of course, I have no data; I am speculating.

Amen to that. Very interesting, Steve. The presentation at Pierre Gagnaire sounds very complex and overfussy. I can understand one course where the main ingredient might be broken out into several dishes, but I had the impression from your post that this happens repeatedly. Sounds kind of annoying. On the other hand, I wonder if I might have liked the menu, as I think you and I have different tastes when it comes to meat, game, offal and the like. The restaurant has a pretty web-site, but annoyingly posts the menus in a way which makes them hard to read. But I think I can make out some pigs ears in there, and some various things de boeuf, so it might have got my juices running.

"I wondered how long it would take someone to characterise those who prefer some dining experiences without women as "anti-women". The moment one starts questioning the presence of women in certain leisure situations there's alwaus someone ready to accuse you of somehow being "against" women. ... However there are clearly some of us who prefer certain dining experiences to be male experiences. -where we can have time out from the world of women and inhabit a totally male world for a few hours. If I'm eating at this kind of restaurant I don't want to be concerned with wives and girlfriends for the few hours I have to enjoy what is an experience which only males can fully appreciate in all its ambition and skill. Since your'e talking about "entitlement", why is this less of an "entitlement"? " Well, it just reminded me of that sort of argument, which I am just about old enough to remember men making. (I think Macrosan has got it just right on this issue.)

Oh, that's a good one, Deacon. I have only spent a few years in the States, but in addition to New York I have eaten "seriously"* in: Louisiana South Carolina Washington California Illinois Minnesota I don't think having a couple of good dinners counts as eating seriously, but if it did, I would add Washington DC, Philadelphia, Kansas, Texas and Georgia. Hmmm, I have a lot of catching up to do.

Rabbit stewed in beer with cherries. This was a good bit of improvisation. I picked up a little tub of dried cherries for no particular reason, then realised I could do a mock-Belgian rabbit stew. Traditionally, I suppose I should have used a Belgian fruit beer - cherry ideally - but I had some Sam Adams at my fingertips. Mixed some broth from poaching the rabbit the previous night (with onions and herbs) with some Sam Adams, and stirred in a very small quantity of flour while liquid still cold. Boiled to cook the flour, then, over a low flame, introduced some rabbit legs and a handful of dried cherries. Also some little bintje potatoes from Union Square. Let it stew slowly for about forty minutes, then added the filet from the saddle, which cooks very quickly, and the liver and kidneys. About five minutes more cooking, checked seasoning, and it was ready. I impressed myself. And I think a cherry beer might have made it too sweet. The dried cherries were nicely softened, and their sharpness reduced, by the stewing process. I think I might inflict some of them on a duck when I get a chance.

Poor Baphie. The question was about whether top London restaurants have age restrictions, not whether everyone could provide advice on whether Baphie junior should be a member of the party or not. What a presumptuous lot you are.

Don't be grouchy, Tony. There are obvious reasons one might want to take a child along to an adult experience - perhaps most obviously, you have to do something with them, and unknown babysitters in a strange city are not every mother's idea of a worthwhile gamble.

Thanks for that. Our two year old is fine for half an hour, then goes crazy. Which rules out lengthier dining experiences right now. We'll think about some of those tricks.

I have been sold on apples in all kinds of braises, since I ate a carbonnade de boeuf in a little restaurant in Brussels, and was shown the whole peeled apple at the bottom of the pot when I asked why it was so delicious.

Yeah, what he said.

What did you do when he was approximately two years old, Baphie? Nail him to the chair? Handcuffs? Knockout drops? Any tips would be appreciated.

I didn't say "only" very good - I was contending that his restaurants at least rise to the level of "very good". But no matter. Your post, Steve, clarified matters a little, although one might have thought that there are chefs around more worthy of disparagement. Cabby, making a direct comparison between Blue Hill, Le Bernardin and ADNY, it seems to me obvious enough that ADNY does a whole lot more things much better than Blue Hill could be expected to do or Le Bernardin does. But since this is a Passard thread, we'd better take that to the New York board, if we need to!

But Cabby, do you actively dislike the food at ADNY? Is it really bad food, the way the food at Sammy's Roumanian is bad. Or are you agreeing that it must be one of the top ten restaurants in New York, but indicating that you personally prefer other approaches? That's what I can't quite understand from reading this thread - do some people actually find Ducasse's food unpalatable or badly prepared?

Bux, you state very well what puzzles me about this thread. I haven't eaten passard's food, but I've eaten Ducasse's. I don't see anywhere that Plotnicki, or anyone else, is saying Ducasse is a lousy chef, or runs poor kitchens, or serves food which is a rip-off. So what is the motivation for the effort expended on denigrating him? As I said pages back, his restaurants surely rise to the level of very good indeed. I can't help feeling there's something behind all this which I'm missing.

Oh yes. And I haven't read that yet, so thanks.