ajay

Fat Guy, I thought of some more questions. How much can one expect a dinner at Sandor's to set them back? Are we talkin' J-Georges or Daniel prices? Was your meal indicative of a normal tasting menu experience, or are most experiences a bit smaller in terms of number of courses and/or portions? Does Sandor have any thoughts and accomodations for vegetarian diners? Finally, does Momo ever get gourmet leftovers?

R Washburn, Your point is well taken. I have always appreciated the relative affordability of Bouley Bakery and the new Bouley. I am prepared to make some compromises (especially on the level of ultra luxe ingredients) at this price level--which is roughly equivalent to Grammercy Tavern, where I never recall feeling rushed, or having to wait for a table. But 1.5 hours+ wait for a table is unacceptable for any restaurant that takes reservations--regardless of price. Perhaps Bouley needs to reduce their seatings or engage in the practice of offering to buy those lingering over coffee a drink at the bar. Either way, I continue to maintain that such long waits are unacceptable.

Steve (Plotnicki), Let me begin by saying I have the utmost respect for you, and your opinion of food and wine. I have learned a lot by reading your posts on various boards. It's just that I feel a bit uncomfortable using people's first names, especially when they are most likely both older and wiser than myself. Since you stated your preference, I shall honor it hereafter. As to the tone and tenor of my posts, I do apologize--heartily. I mean no hostility toward you personally, or your point of view. I believe it would be absurd to take offense at someone's views as a result of their (or my) economic means, and it certainley not what I was intending to convey. In fact, I believe in the John Stuart Millesque paean to free speech that permeates your first post on this thread. In short, I hope to learn much from my continued interactions with you on these various boards, and do apologize again for any implied slight or offense. Steve, I believe you have made a strong case for your point of view that a restaurant reviewer should strive to report on the perfect aesthetic and nothing else is worthwhile. However, I don't believe I can accept this limited conception of a restaurant critic's job. I, like John Witing, am less sanguine about actually encoutering a perfect aesthetic. When I select a restaurant, I do not go expecting a mediocre experience--I too would not be prepared to shell out big bucks for one. I expect excellence, and do not like to settle for less. So, naturally, I'm interested in the best dishes that will be served TO ME. Perhaps you are charming enough, or your hair style is attractive enough to convince the kitchen to serve you the Kobe beef topped with blowfish, toro, and beluga caviar ;wink; , but I have often been told that such dishes 'are not available.' I probably couldn't afford them even if they were. Moreover, I do not think that not having the wherewithal to roder the kobe beef should condemn me to a diet of pastrami sandwiches If I am less likely to acheive a perfect aesthetic, I am most interested in the aesthetic that I am likely to encounter when I dine out. Perhaps the kobe beef restaurant's competitor delivers better treatment to the average diner, it would probably be in my interest to go there. I do not mean to imply that I am disinterested in kobe beef and blowfish. If nothing else, I would enjoy such a column for its literary value. But I maintain that such stories are generally without utility to me. I think you may have convinced me that after several anonymous visits, perhaps a critic should announce him/herself and allow the kitchen to pull out all of the stops. I suppose that I may be tempted to ask for some of the dishes said critic encounters, but I would be unlikely to do so in the great majority of my restaurant experiences. I would agree that you and I read the times in a different way. I have not been to all of the New York Times three starred restaurants, and nor do I plan to visit them all. So, in deciding where to go, I am going to do more than look at number of stars, style and recommended dishes. I thik I'd go even further: even unlimited resources would not be a reason enough for me to check out places where a critic gave a restaurant three stars but also offered a large body of criticism. A perfect case in point: Chanterelle. Mr. Grimes left the place with three stars, but also some fairly hostile comments. I also seem to recall you found the place less than perfect (though with some memorable dishes) in one of your (much missed) dining reports. I would judge such an uneven place not worth my patronage. But I may also visit a less than three star establishment. For example, in today's restaurant review, Mr. Grimes did not think highly of the Cafe's savory courses but positively gushed over the desserts. IF I am ever near 86th and 5th, I will probably stop in for an apple strudel. On an entirely different note, may I ask you to recount your salmon experience at Daniel? This story sounds instructive and perhaps entertaining. I'm also curious: have you ever sent back a dish you were less than satisfied with at a Michelin three star restaurat? If so, I would really appreciate the story.

Fat Guy, Kudos on the excellent report, it made my mouth water. Just one question: white truffles in April? Where/how does Sandor get white truffles at this time of year? Were they preserved? Did preservation affect the flavor of the soup? I would also like to request that pictures of Momo continue to be posted

PaulaJ, I'm curious... when did you begin to complain about the wait? I begin to get antsy after ten minutes, and would have left after 1/2 an hour... This seems like the perfect time and place for the ordering pizza stunt that one reads about in newspapers. Have you written to the restaurant about this experience? I note that on another thread, a letter to le ecole des chefs yielded satisfactory results. Perhaps a letter to Bouley would yield the same? If not, the lack of customer care and graciousness would certainley be welcome knowledge--to you and to the egullet community. Do report back on your expereince the next time around. BTW, how was the food once you were actually seated? Did you feel hurried? Was the kitchen still performig at that late hour?

Macrosan, I've been dealing with so many issues that I fear I've been less than clear. I believe that I've disposed of the by right criticism, and I believe someone else (Mebutter, I think) has already (quite eloquently in my view) dismissed the difference between relying on an automobile review and a restaurant review. Naturally, I agree that taste is a subjective sense. However on things such as freshness and quality of ingredients taste is not an issue. It is true that if a certain critic likes sweatbreads they may be more likely to give the nod to a dish of sweatbreads than I don't know, a venison preparation. I accept this, as every consumer of a review must. However, I do expect the critic to situate both the venison and the sweatbreads in a relative context. That is to say, if he was more impressed by the sweatbreads (or venison) elsewhere, he should say so. Perhaps the critic is more forgiving of high levels of sweatness in his savory dishes (a pet peave of mine). He and I will likely not prefer to dine at the same restaurants. however, even here, I would expect the critic to note the difference between sweatness that is done well and materially enhances a dish, and an attempt to sugar up a dish needlessly. Moreover, if I can't tell that the restaurant uses high levels of sugar in some of its savory courses, the critic has failed. His responsibility is descriptive as well as critical. Surely this trend should be mentioned in his review. So, I'm prepared to concede that taste is subjective, but for the purposes of reading a review, I believe it should not matter. I also agree that "all a reviewer can acheive is to give a general sense of level of quality, style menu cost and ambience of a restaurant in one snapshot in time." However, when the critic receives treatment that will never be accorded to me (i.e. by not being anonymous), s/he has failed to provide me with an accurate snapshot. I believe that quality, menu, service and ambienece can all be significantly enhanced for a reviewer, or any particular diner on one evening. Sure, if all of the stocks are subpar, the jig is up. But suppose only one stock is bad on a particular night. the restaurant would simply not serve that dish to a known critic. The same thing goes with the quality of ingredients. We've heard from countless post on egullet that meats emerge not cooked to order. Moreover, Wilfrid's food seems to always be served to him after it has cooled. I doubt that either of these things would happen to known critic. Finally, as others have already noted, the ambience of a place is remarkably affected by your table, the service you recieve, and a series of other intangible factors. Surely, the restaurant can improve this for a known critic. Someone spoke of ensuring all of the tables around the critic receive excellent service as a tactic some restaurants employ. So, while you and I essentially agree on what a critic should provide to us, I believe we part ways over the critic's methodology.

Mr. Plotnicki, What would you have done if a reviewer complained that s/he expereinced surly service at l'Ambroisie (or le cirque, for that matter)? Would that cause you to reconsider your choice to patronize the establsihment? Perhaps, if you felt you had the resources to do so, you might check on the veracity of the reviewer's assertion. For my part, with the number of excellent restaurants to choose from, I would probably avoid a restaurant that receives such comments. If, however, a reviewer cannot comment accuratley on the level of serivce, or food that I AM likely to recieve, the review has little value TO ME. Indeed, in my view that is the critic's mission: to describe and evaluate the expereince a literate and involved diner is likely to receive. I believe that a critic must be anonymous to get a feel for these issues. Sometimes, the fact that a reviewer is known doesn't detract from the fact that the restaurant provides a great meal with superlative service. I remember the fat guy's first review of Lespinasse, where he supposedly took "phony trips to the bathroom" to verify the fact that he was in fact receiving the same courses as the other diners. It's that kind of diligence I expect from a restaurant critic. Secondly, Mr. Plotnicki, I was gratified to hear that I am not the only one who feels he has left a restaurant a substandard experience. But if you grant that one can have a bad expereince even though a better one was 'asked' for, I utterly fail to grasp your point. Unfortunatley, I will not have the opportunity to give L'Arpege another chance in the near future. In fact, my experience there makes me disinclined to bother, given all of the other excellent restaurants in Paris. Mr. Plotnicki, I am curious as to how you "improve" your experineces in a restaurant mid-meal. I suppose that if you're displeased with the wine the sommelier reccomended, and you aceded to his recommendation, you could order another bottle. If the food you served was less than stellar, you could send it back and perhaps order more. But one can only do these things if one is prepared to pay for the new dishes or wine as well as the unacceptable ones already presented. Moreover, in my case, I'm not sure what kind of results this would have had at Arpege. I'm not sure what would happen if one sent a dish back in a three star restaurant. Of the many things, I doubt that I would have been taken seriously, but who knows. In any case, i am very interested to hear your strategies. Since you fail to see any connection between what happens to either of us at a restaurant and a critic, could you restate for me what exactly your view of a critc's job is. I've always been quite fond of my hair style, but who knows... perhaps i shouldn't comb it?

Mr. Plotnicki, As it happens, I did read your review before I went to Arpege. I did my best to engage the captain in a meaningful conversation about Mr. Passard's style of cooking. He, however, was more interested in being obsequious to the adjoining table of Frenchmen. I made eye contact, said merci, and did everything I could to convey my interest in and love of food. However, my experience was extremeley disappointing. I do not understand how I could have 'asked' for a better expereince. Are you saying that everyone who ever receives bad treatment in a restaurant does so because he doesn't 'ask' for something better? Even without Mr. Plotnicki's review, I would have thought the restaurant is capable of better. Certainley, one shouldn't have to 'ask' a restaurant to use excellent ingredients! I simply don't understand how knowing Mssrs. Ducasse and Elena CAN produce a meal that drives Mr. Grimes to new hieghts of culinary transendence will help me 'ask' for a better experience. All that I can do is convey to the captain my desires, likes and dislikes, listen to to his advice, listen to the views I've gathered, including those of Mr. Grimes, and then hope that the kithcen delivers. I can only 'ask' that the kitchen do its best. I can do more. this is what I did at L'Arpege, but what I received was substandard. A critic reporting on such an experience is much more important to me than knowing the heights a restaurant can take him/her to. Note this is especially true since I can't probably can't afford to let the chef take me to new heights. Mr. Plotnicki also seems to suggest that critics provide informaiton that allow an 'average' customer to maximize thier experience. However, aside from brief discussions of reccomended dishes in their reviews, critics do not offer advice on how to maximize one's experience at a given restaurant. [N.B. Mr. Shaw is a welcome departure from this school of criticism]. Perhaps Mr. Plotnicki reads better reviews than I do. Macrosan, I am a consumer of restaurant reviews. I don't expect anything of them by right, but I believe I have a legitimate expectations that they provide me the service that I pay for. I agree that a critic necessarily provides only a "snapshot" of a restaurant experience. But a restaurant reviewed by a legitimate reviewer is usually visited often enough to give an anonymous critic a sense of a restaurant's ragne of consistency. I believe that in the case of most publications this is three to four visits. I also assume that more visits are used if they are deemed necessary. Profesisonal critics, please correct me if i am laboring under mistaken assumptions. What I expect of a critc's snapshot is a description, and evaluation of the experience that I, as an AVERAGE diner, am likely to receive, assuming I 'ask' for the best experience.

One of the things that irks me about Bouley is their lack of half-bottles, and their meager selection of wines available by the glass. Not having a cellar the size and depth of Beachfans, and often dining with companions who can't be counted on for more than a glass, I feel that Bouley's wine list is a straight jacket. THe most i can consume is a bottle plus a glass. Two half bottles or a bottle and a half-bottles are not feasible. Moreover, I'm not thrilled by their particular choices available by the glass, so I'm not tempted to pair a glass to every dish when having the tasting menu.

To clarify Beachfan's point, the reincarnation of Bouley is taking place in the (partially refurbished) space of the old Bouley Bakery.

Let me begin by saying that this is my first expereicne using the quote function, so I apologize in advance if it didn't turn out the way i had hoped. I am one of those diner who demands anonymity from critics. I don't have the wherewithal to ever become a "friend of the restaurant," or a regular. But, I have a great fondness for and a deep interest in fine dining. It is an incontrevertible fact that not only critics but also friends of the restaurant and 'regulars' receive better treatment in terms of service, and often certain items that not on the menu. I don't think that it is a difficult or far-fetched assumption that these are the areas where the kitchen really shines, or else that the ingredients used are particularly interesting/unusual. Moreover, one of the problems all restaurants face is consistency. The many boards and threads of egullet testify to the fact that restaurants offer divergent experiences on different days. I demand anonymity on the part of the critc so that I may understand the range of a particular restaurant's consistency. That is, how low can the experience get for the average diner in terms of food and service, but also, what is the best that an average diner can expect. take the case of Arpege. Mr. Plotnicki wrote an extremeley articulate and impassioned review of a meal he consumed with a regular there. His dishes sound excellent and perfectly prepared, hence his wonderful review. The experiences of many, including the fat guy, and regrettably myself seem like they occured at an entirely different restaurant. The food I ate at Arpege did not seem carefully prepared, the service was surly, and in the case of a couple of dishes, i was convinced the ingredients were less than first rate. Of these three criticisms, I believe that a critic would have the opportunity to speak only to the third--maybe. I would not be surprised if a non-anonymous critic had a dish with less than first rate ingredients substiuted for a different, better one. Some of this behaviour cannot be avoided, but I still want the critic to comment on the experience as I am likely to find it, not the experience the restaurant is capable of. What I'm trying to say is that it doens't particularly matter to me what culinary heights Dider Elena and Alain Ducasse can take Mr. Grimes to in the chef's dining room. If they can provide Mr. Grimes the greatst meal of his life back there great. What I'm interested in as a connsumer of reviews is what kind of experience they are likely to provide ME. As an ancilliary point (and I think egullet, rather than a review is an excellent source of this info) is what can I do to ensure I have the best possible experience at a given restaurant. Mr. Plotnicki's confusion confuses me. He states that he "wants to know how to get them [the restaurant] to perfom for me AT THEIR MAXIMUM LEVEL." However, it has been my distinct impression that no restaurant has performed for me at its maximum level. Many times, I have been satisfied, witht he level the restaurant performs at. In some cases, notably at Troisgros, I've been impressed at the level of the restaurant's performance. However, at no time has a restaurant ever produced a meal that I believe reflects its maximum level. Thus, I am not particularly interested in what that level is. I am interested in the level I am likely to expereince, and for that reason, to help me decide how to allocate my limiting dinning resources, I would like critics to focus on this level as well. Moreover, I don't know of many critics, aside from the fat guy, who devote any amount of their columns to addressing the question of how to get the restaurant to perfom at its maximum level Take the example of Le Cirque. Ruth Reichel demoted the place because she felt such a disparity in the treatment of special guests and the rest of the diners. WHen such information is ignored in a review, and i go to a restaurant in ignorance of said information, I feel that I have been done a disservice. As to the question of feeling like I'm being served "sludge," while other diners were served the good stuff, I've often felt acutley aware of this. Recently, at Arpege, the table next to us received about three additional courses that were not on the menu. One of the dishes they ordered was the same as mine, and I noticed that it had been garnished more extensively. Being an American in France, I expected that locals may well receive special treatment. I am not sure that there is anything particularly wrong with this. However, what irked me was that my meal reached an unacceptably low level. Mr. Plotnicki's solution is essentially "vote with your feet;" if you disagree with a review, simply stop trusting the reviewer. I think this puts too great an affirmative obligation on me, while not demanding enough of the reviewer. The reason I turn to reviews in the first place is that I cannot afford to try every establishment or bottle 3-4 times and reach my own conclusions. So, I have to trust the reviewer to steer me to a location that in his/her objective judgement will produce an excellent expereince for ME. Moreover, in many cases, there is such a paucity of intelligent, knowledgeble that one's options really boil down to biased reviewers, or none at all. neither option is particularly attractive. thus, I believe reviewers should change their style. Let me add that I don't believe my expectations to be unreasonable, or demand a close relationship with the chef. As far as I know, most reviewers visit a restaurant more than once, usually three to four times. I always assumed that this number is sufficient. I agree with Mebutter's assertion that any necesarry research can be done without meeting a chef. I'm sure that there many levels people can disagree with me, but i believie my position is sound and defensible. I concede that there is no such thing as complete objectivity in any beat of journalism. That does not mean, however, that reviewers should have complete liscence to ignore the experience that an average diner is likely to have. The fact that a reviewer may be recognized does not mean that anonymity is impossible, or indeed undesirable. Nor do i believe disclosure is the antidote to any review, though I certainly prefer that disclosure be made as applicable. In short, I agree witht he proposition that there are compromised food critics, and I would like to see standards of professional ethics imposed on them. ajay

This may warrant a separate board, but I wonder, do chefs who are in the kitchen 'tour' the dinning room? I am told that Ducasse does not--no matter what kitchen he is in. When were at l'arpege, we were told chef passard does not tour the kitchen. At Gagnaire, chef Gagnaire was there, but when we left at half past midnight he hadn't begun a tour, but came to send us off. I appreciated the gesture but it didn't really allow for any prolonged discussion of his cuisine or his culinary influences. At Troisgros, chef Michel was at the door to greet all diners with a 'good evening' and later schmoozed with a couple of tables only. I think I was most dissappointed that we were unable to chat with him, because the meal was so excellent, he speaks very good english, and we had many questions for him, and the uses of spices in his cuisine. So what is ithe general consensus? Do chefs tour? Is the expereince useful/worthwhile? Anyone care to share some insights they have taken away from these chats?

Most Gujus that I know--including all of my family except me don't eat meat, especially at 'good' occasions like weddings...is this to be a vegetarian only suggestion? Second, majmudar sounds like a bengali name, are you thinking of taking a bengali dish or do you have expereince cooking cuisines from different regions of India? I can name many gujrati dishes, but I would think that your host would produce these...with some more guidance, i might be able to assist...

Pacaud is the chef at l'ambroise, right?

I've always realized that I'm a bit difficult to please, and fine diners are by definition a diffiuclt and choosey lot. But Christopher, I think your anecdote suggests that being in the restaurant business is more hassel than it's worth; you all seem to get pounced on even when you do something nice and decent. Frankly, despite my love of food, I still don't quite 'get' what motivates obviously gifted and talented people like Christopher or Mr. Meyer to enter this business--profit margines aren't great, especially at the upper level (I understand Lespinasse for example would go bankrupt but for the St. regis hotel)... surely there are less stressful and difficult ways to make more money than one can make in this field. I hate to put you on the spot here, Christopher (and any others who would care to share), but I'd be really interested to hear what aspects of your job you like best, what motivates you to deal with all of the rude and cynical customers, as well as those simply out to see and be seen.

The address I have is 509 East 6th st. between A and B. As I said earlier this part of town might as well be in a foreign country, so I hope this helps clarify the issue. I'm told the owner is Alex Freij and the phone number is 777 5920.

Lizziee, Welcome. Thanks for posting on egullet; your knowledge will be an asset to us all. :p I'm curious about your experiences at Bras and El Buili. I haven't had a chance to try either one, but they're both on my list of must dos. Robert, I'm digging through my notes, when I find them, I'll post on my expereiences at Troisgros. Thanks for that eloquent and informative post. this is what egullet is all about. But your post leaves me feeling a bit dispondent. It seems to me that many of the great lights in French cuisine have passed on, and few others (at least judging from your experience) have come forward to carry the torch. (Though, here I must say that food-wise I can't imagine much more than Troisgros). This feeling adds a bit of urgency to my desire to try Bras Buili and possibly Veryat.

Robert, I'm curious of your experiences at Troisgros. How were they in an absolute sense, and how would you stack it up against some of the other places you've been (Chapel for instance when he was still behind the stoves)?

Out of curiosity, are restaurant de la pyramdie and Pic three star places?? By the way, I've heard similar rumblings about Bocuse in Lyon... It's a shame Roanne lies slighlty outside your proposed route as Troisgros provided me with one of the best dining experiences of my life. Robert, I stand corrected, I did not notice the provincial focus of the board.

Robert, I feel very hestitant to take issue with your itinerary on the account of my having very limited experience in France, but I shall do so anyway for the simple reason that it does not inlcude Paris. Many have argued that the quality of dinning experiences in Paris has declined recently especially at the middle to low end of the spectrum. My limited experience confirms this assertion though I think l'astrance is a sign of all that is possible in the higher portion of the moderate cost expereince. That said, I believe that Paris is still a culinary mecca and I find it difficult to believe a traveling gastronome's trip (or understanding of French haute cuisine) can truly be completed without experiencing Paris at all. It seems to me your itinerary or that of Mr. Mrs. Bux is one that is best tried after one is thoroughly familiar with haute cuisine and the French three star experience.

Yes, I think sixth st. between A and B is correct now that I look at a map of the area...as you can probably tell, I rarely get into the neighborhood.

A captain that i've dined with many times in the past has reccomended Industry restaurant on 6th Ave between A and B. I'm curious to learn about this place and especially any experiences that the egullet community may have had. I believe the owner is Alex Freis if the name rings a bell. So, Wilfrid, have you formed an opion on the esablishments you have found in the neighborhood?

Glenn, Thank you for the detailed reply. Kerala is a region (actually a province in India). I would assume that the words in parenthesis are the names of the dishes in Malayalaam, the regional dialect of Kerala--but I can't say for sure as i have only slight knowledge of South India.

Glenn, Forgive me for prying, but i'd like some more details of your visit. Did you leave Tabla feeling full/sated? I remember my very first visit we decided to order a la carte and all three of us left feeling hungry. Was a 7 course menu offered? A recent examination of the maind dining room menu yielded the discovery that chef cardoz offeres(d) a 7 course suprise menu that seemed to be a bit more 'Indian'. I would be much obliged if you could provide a bit more information of the dishes you enjoyed...the duck curry for example, was it in a gravy or simply dry spices many people think should be included in a curry? Also, I'm interesed in what dessert you had...you seem to have enjoyed it. HOwever, I've often felt that the indian ingredient metaphor probably shouldn't extend to the dessert. (the only dessert i've ever liked has been renditions of the vanilla bean kulfi). So I'm wondering if your dessert felt heavily Indian influenced or more straightforwardly western. I'm glad you enjoyed your experience.

There seems to be some agreement that tippinng in Michelin starred restaurants is called for. How much is considered appropriate? Do the French use a percentage system? Some more specific guidance on this front would be appreciated.