Steve Plotnicki
-
Posts
5,258 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by Steve Plotnicki
-
-
Robert - You have foisted a burden on Patricia Wells (and Faith Heller Willinger too) that she hasn't personally taken on. Nowhere does she pass heself off as a writer of food prose. And even her food reviews need not stand up to the test of good writing (not taking sides as to whether she does or doesn't.) But what she did accomplish, and should be given much credit for, is to organize the French culinary experience for people who like good food. Faith has sort of done the same for Northern Italian food, although her efforts are somewhat hampered by Italian cuisine not being as interesting as French food is (now there's a statement that is bound to start a bunch of arguments.) But over the years, I rely on the Wells books less and less because I have found that my own personal knowledge of eating in France far exceeds the person her books are directed at. But her IHT columns are still terrific. And if you want to know about new places like Helene Darroze or L'Astrance, she's the best source I know of. And reliable too in terms of palate.
As for her commercial connections to chefs like Robuchon, it never bothered me. First of all, Robuchon was already considered the world's greatest chef at the time she began working with him. Secondly, for whatever diminution in her ability to criticize him the relationship caused, that was more than offset by the upside of Robuchon being able to work with someone with her communicative skills, to bring his genius to more people. Sometimes commerce and art do match up well. As for your Gault Millau book, you can save yours because I have a copy. But while it does a great job at the high end, Wells did the best job at the local end of French eating. At the time the Food Lover's Guide to France was released. it was easy to write about Verge and Outhier, but unusual to write about Tetou and La Tupina in Bordeaux. Her book allowed you to eat at every level place, from wine bar to 3 star restaurant and it was all organized into one coherent chapter. Formidable as they say.
-
Cabrales-While my point doesn't discount that a restaurant can charge what a customer is willing to pay, my response to Giannone was in the context of whether what he is doing is fair. And while he might be able to charge 150 pounds for a bottle that cost him 50 pounds, it is hard to call that fair when he doesn't make anything close to 100 pounds on any other transaction. If one were to take the actual transaction costs of buying a bottle of wine, storing it and serving it, the cost of providing that service is exactly the same regardless of whether it costs 5 pounds or 150 pounds. The only variable that is different is the capital investment. And that is easy to calculate in. And if a restaurant wanted to, they could look at wine as something they should sell for cost plus a small markup for profit. The Francois Clerc bistros work on that prinicpal. Sell wine at cost plus 30% and it turns like you are selling it wholesale. That's a "fairer" approach to wine service. But that doesn't happen that often because most people who like fine wine are willing to pay the markup. But if restaurants took the other approach, they would probably sell more higher quality wine at better prices.
-
You guys have mentioned all of the great books. But you have left out Blue Trout and Black Truffles by Joseph Wechsberg written in 1948. Wechsberg and Liebling are probably the two greatest food prose writers of the 20th century. What makes their books so great is that you can almost smell Paris from the way they write. Liebling about his favorite left bank bistro. And Wechsberg's recounting of being a student and living in a Pigalle flat in a building full of prostitutes is almost like being there. Adam Gopnik is their successor. At least in terms of touch and feel to the writing. But his writings were not predominately about food. Although his New Yorker piece in 1995 about restaurants in Paris is a classic.
Root's books are a little different. What Root did was to codify the French gastronomic experience. I think Richard Olney is sort of similar from a cooks perspective, but not as exhaustive. And I think Patricia Wells is their logical successor. What has made her so great is that she sort of combined those two, and was able to tell the story of French life through a funny combination of restaurant reviews, food shops including open-air markets, recipes and any other gastronomic anecdote or curio that a region might offer. For those who see things through a pair of eyes in their stomachs (that would be me :), she showed us the way, not only in Paris, but in all of France.
What all of those writers have in common, no matter which angle they approach their subject from, is that you are left with a distinct picture of what French life is about. And what I find to be the best thing about France, is that it is about more than eating delicious food, the food is keyed into a way of life. For those who understand it, and can appreciate it, it is quite a comforting experience.
-
Basildog - I think your logic is flawed. The cost of entrees in your restaurant is in a fixed range and what you make as profit doesn't vary much. So for each entree you have an average profit of X. But wine is different because the price per bottle can vary so much. For example, if the average check in your restaurant is 60 GBP for two people and a bottle of wine for 9 GBP is on the tab, or even for 20 GBP your theory works. But once the price of a bottle of wine vastly exceeds the cost of an entree, the scheme is a ripoff. That's why what is ultimately fair in a restaurant is for them to figure out the purchase price of the average bottle of wine sold, and then add a markup that is commensurate to how much profit a bottle of wine should add to the bill.
The same argument applies as to how much a place should charge for BYO. Restaurants who charge high amounts (say like 40 pounds) make the argument that they lose business by allowing BYO. But that argument is sort of hollow because not everyone orders wine. So who gets penalized in both of these examples are people who drink expensive bottles of wine. There is no reason for you to make 200 pounds on me if I bought a bottle that costs you 100 pounds, when you are willing to make 6 pounds at the next table for a bottle that cost 3 pounds. Other than your capital cost for holding onto the inventory, which is just the cost of money multiplied by a number of days and which can be easily added to the sales price, your transactional costs are exactly the same, whether the wine costs 3 or 100 pounds. Why you should make more money from one transaction than the other defies logic. But admittedly is the custom and the practice.
-
Simon-I am in the process of writing up my notes for Club Gascon. But it's quite a complex place. I am trying to find the right balance between old/new France, old/new London and old/new cooking styles and presentations because oddly enough, the place operates on all of those levels. But if you want to know in advance I thought it great. It would be a perfect place for an eGullet dinner. I'm going to be back in May and we should try and organize one for that time. I also know they will alow BYO there if you sort it in advance.
Cabrales - Your questions about the 3 seatings at Regalade is in line with my comment that the neo-bistros try and find some way to cut corners. The entire neo-bistro trend was a result of the recession in France, and the fact that rising chefs couldn't afford to open "haute" places, as well as the French public wanting affordable meals. So someone like Christian Constant might make dinner affordable by limiting portion size, or cutting back on the type and/or quality of ingredients. Regalade has attacked that problem by offering 3 seatings. But my jar of preserved foie gras was stuffed to the gills, even though I might have had a shorter window to eat it. And as far as I know, Regalade is the only place to have 3 seatings.
-
Simon - Not that I'm against button pushing because it is great fun. And I'm certainly one who practices it on occassion. But one has to pick their places for it. In this instance, whatever substance there might have been to your review was lost in the style of the post. A "troll" post, intended to galvanize opinion on a hot button topic works great when it is obvious it is a troll. But the net result of a troll when it is carefully hidden isn't to bring on debate, the net result is to turn the attention away from the topic and towards the writer. And as you see, most of this thread has not been about Regalade, but about you.
Margaret- Thank you for pointing this conversation to the merits.
I've been to Regalade 3 times. The first, also about 5 years ago was quite ordinary. The other two were pretty terrific with the last visit last May really being super. I know one of the problems there is that they have 3 seatings and things get a bit rushed. So last time I ate at the 10:30 seating and dinner was quite relaxing. In fact I dug up the notes from the meal to post here.
"We were having dinner on the latish side, 10:30, a function of the popularity of La Regalade which is a miniscule bistro on the outer edges of the 14th arr. As instructed by Marc at Auge, I walked in and asked the woman behind the bar if she was Madame Camdeborde. After an affirmative response I said “I have been instructed to tell you Mazieres en carafe before I say hello” and then I handed her the card Marc wrote out for us. She laughed, got the Mazieres (we had no idea what it was at the time) and immediately had it decanted. La Regalade is the most nondescript place imaginable. It is so small, it barely can be called a bistro. But the food! The food is worthy of a one star+ restaurant.
I started with the Cochonailles which was assorted pork products. An entire terrine along with some fresh and dried sausages, a nice plate of Bayonne style ham, crocks of cornichons and pickled espilettes (a Basque pepper), along with some grainy mustard. Another appetizer of note was an entire large bowl of Petoncles, baby bay scallops that were superbe. With this we drank,
1999 Domaine Gramenon Viognier- Something they were selling at Auge. Never seen this in the states and according to Marc, they only made 1000 bottles of this unfined and unfiltered wine. Well all you needed to do was to pour it in your glass to see the evidence of non-filtering as it was full of little specks of junk. But despite the buildup, it was too herbal and extremely acidic, to the point where it was nipping at your tongue. Not to my taste but if one were to go hunting and drink viognier, this is the one to drink.
85 points.
My main dish of Haschis Parmentier avec Boudin Noir (Shepherd’s Pie made with blood sausage) was so rich and creamy that it was sinful. Each forkful of those creamy mashed potatoes found a lovely layer of juicy blood sausage that primed each bite. Oh it was so homey and warming. My dessert of Riz au Lait Ancienne (old fashioned rice pudding) was an entire bowl that could have fed at least 6 people and was served with home made confitures. But the most interesting dessert was two thin slices of perfectly aged Brebis cheese served with jam made from espilettes. Outstanding.
Mazieres Vin de Table-This was so odd. A non-vintage wine. The nose kept fooling us. At first we thought syrah but then cabernet. Ultimatly we thought it either syrah or Grenache but if anyone knows what its composed of please jump in. A minty, herbal wine but not to the extent that it was offputting. Awfully nice and ripe fruit. Hmm, this could be a good house wine and sure enough the Auge catalog offers it for 78FF or $11. 89 points"
And I can also say that the rest of the dishes were to a dish great. And the crew I was traveling with wasn't the easy to please type. You should see the review of L'Ambroisie from the night before where it was all thumbs down.
As for outer arrondisement bistros, have you been to Les Allobroges? I ate an extremely good meal there a number of years back with the highlight being a Gateau de Pommes de Terre avec Lard et Foie Gras. It was an entire potato cake and the top was covered with slices of bacon and then there were slices of foie gras on top. Quite sinful. I also ate at Eric Frechon before he went to the Bristol, but didn't enjoy it as much as Allobroges.
In general, I find the neo-bistros to be price driven and I always seem to find it in the food. And at places like Frechon, or Violin D'Ingres, where the scope of the cooking is more ambitious, it always sticks out to me like a sore thumb. Aha, here is where they are saving money to be able to serve you a dish in the style of a 2 star restaurant at a $40 prix fixe. And that is one of the reasons I liked Regalade. Instead of the effort expended into applying fancy technique into smaller portions or not the greatest ingredients, they serve simple cuisine d'pays with a twist and use top notch ingredients. And I know that for a fact because last time I was there I spoke with Yves Camdeborde about it and he was telling us his sources for ingredients. Almost all of the things he uses come from small southwestern farmers that he hand picks and brings up to Paris every week.
As long as I'm giving him a plug, I can recall the best dish I ever ate there, which I have to admit is one of the best dishes I've ever eaten to this day. It was Foie Gras Confit avec Confiture de Prunes. They brought a large glass jar to the table and it was full of slices of preserved 1/4 rounds of foie gras that were preserved to the point where if you held it in your hand and tried to break one it would be firm enough to crumble. I don't know how they got it that way. When I buy a terrine of foie at home, after three days in the fridge it starts turning funky. But these were great. And the jar must have had 30 rounds! Eat as much as you want. Then a crock of home made prune jam and a little dish of coarse salt. It was really fantastic and for me summarized what the neo-bistro can do well. And it's funny because having eaten at Club Gascon last week, it's not at all that different than the foie Camdeborde served me. And just as an aside, my Pork with Prune Cream at La Trouvaille two weeks ago was modern in the same way. But unfortunately I didn't find the level of execution there to be as good as either Club Gascon or Regalade.
-
Andy - I have to take exception to one thing you have said. You said that we now have a detailed first hand account of a bad meal in a "good" restaurant. But if that is all this thread was about, that would be fine and the thrust of the responses would be to say too bad. Better luck next time. And nobody here would ever suggest that even the best place in the world couldn't have an off night or be going downhill. But the conversation has been about something else. It has been about the motivation of the writer(s). And the reason a number of people have drawn a certain inference is because the accusation against the place seems disproportionate to any possible ineptitude they might have shown. I mean my pork at La Trouvaille was overcooked to the point that made it inedible for me. Yet I would never describe that place as piss poor or horrible. On the night we were there, the pork was merely a good idea gone bad.
And I know that a meal at La Regalade, even if not a good one, is full of interesting twists on Southwest French cuisine. Regardless of the level of execution on the evening you dine there, what they are famous for doing, creating an affordable and modernized version of SW French cuisine is not a matter of opinion. And one doesn't even have to taste the food to know that. You can just read the menu. So to write a review of the place that doesn't begin from that vantage point, and then trash the place in a flurry of "it doesn't taste goods," doesn't pass the smell test. And one has to wonder because I know that if Simon was inclined to like a place, he is quite capable of writing a bad review from that vantage point.
Now is Chez Jean actually Chez l'Ami Jean on rue Malar, a little basque bistro with checked tablecloths? If so, an old favorite of my families though I haven't been in a few years.
-
Andy - I have to take exception to one thing you have said. You said that we now have a detailed first hand account of a bad meal in a "good" restaurant. But if that is all this thread was about, that would be fine and the thrust of the responses would be to say too bad. Better luck next time. And nobody here would ever suggest that even the best place in the world couldn't have an off night or be going downhill. But the conversation has been about something else. It has been about the motivation of the writer(s). And the reason a number of people have drawn a certain inference is because the accusation against the place seems disproportionate to any possible ineptitude they might have shown. I mean my pork at La Trouvaille was overcooked to the point that made it inedible for me. Yet I would never describe that place as piss poor or horrible. On the night we were there, the pork was merely a good idea gone bad.
And I know that a meal at La Regalade, even if not a good one, is full of interesting twists on Southwest French cuisine. Regardless of the level of execution on the evening you dine there, what they are famous for doing, creating an affordable and modernized version of SW French cuisine is not a matter of opinion. And one doesn't even have to taste the food to know that. You can just read the menu. So to write a review of the place that doesn't begin from that vantage point, and then trash the place in a flurry of "it doesn't taste goods," doesn't pass the smell test. And one has to wonder because I know that if Simon was inclined to like a place, he is quite capable of writing a review from that vantage point.
Now is Chez Jean actually Chez l'Ami Jean on rue Malar, a little basque bistro with checked tablecloths? If so, an old favorite of my families though I haven't been in a few years.
-
Gee thanks Shaw. Actually I don't mind. But you won't get large attendance at Sripaphai. And they will never have enough banana sticky rice for us. What do you think about GoGo? Is it a place that is good for dinner? I've just been for Dim Sum.
-
Giannone - I have to take exception to your characterization that Christos-Hasapos Taverna makes as good quality steaks as PL's. I don't think they come anywhere close. In fact, over the years I have tried many of the PL copycats and to a steakhouse they all fell flat. From Christos to The Embers to Knickebockers to the long deceased Tiffany's. They serve(d) steaks at no better than 70% of the intensity of the Real McCoy in my most humble (not really) opinion.
And I don't think I'm just making it up. PL's get much better quality of meat than the places I've mentioned. In fact, this board has it's own resident steak expert. Henry Strauss who posts as Hank ran a fancy meat wholesaler in the city for many years. One sunny Saturday afternoon in Hinsdale, Mass, Hank regaled me of the difficulites of trying to sell PL's some Porterhouse, and how they regularly got first choice from all the wholesalers. Maybe when Hank returns from Italy he will spin us a steak tale or two.
-
I just love when my name (and wallet) are mentioned in vain. I have got quite alot of experience with wine offlines. I must have attended at least 25 of them, possibly more. I will tell you that the social experience is far more important than the food or the wine. But in order for the social experience to work, the food (or wine) has to be at a sufficient level of interest to stimulate conversation. I mean it's the reason we all attend in the first place isn't it?
The other thing that is important is that the spirit of the dinner capture the spirit of the board. I mean I find it perculiar that people would recommend a place like Les Halles or Sripaphai (places I like and love,) when those places are hardly ever mentioned by any of the participants in threads. If if we were looking for an ethnic place to go to, how can it not be Dim Sum GoGo? I mean it's only been mentioned here 1000 times.
As for price which is really a discussion about inclusion/exclusion, that's a bit harder to reconcile. All the points made so far are valid, but trying to accomodate everyone all of the time is a pitfall that we shouldn't step into.
If the goal is to make it affordable to everyone, all that will happen is that the experience will end up getting watered down. The type of places that we go to need to reflect the people who use the board, and the type of places that are visited need to be a reflection of their experiences. Considering how many of the discussions here revolve around places like Gramercy, Craft, Ducasse, etc., it's hard to imagine that those places won't be chosen on occassion. But that means that certain people will not be able to attend. But in the end that will balance out because you will find that others will pass on more affordable places like Marichu (not a favorite of mine) and over an entire series of dinners it will even out.
The other thing that is imperative for a dinner is a place that will allow BYO. The entire experience can be seriously upgraded by people bringing bottles from their own cellars, people buying bottles, or chipping in to buy bottles to bring. BYO is a good passive way for each person to contribute according to their economic means. Those who are wine savvy can contribute a $15 bottle of wine that can make as big an impact on a dinner as a $100 bottle.
One more thing that is important is some type of set menu, which really means that the dinner has been organized by someone in advance. It was probably the biggest flaw at the London dinner as the kitchen had a difficult time cooking for a table of 11 while the regular restaurant was busy and would probably have done a better job of it if we were limited to a few choices for each course.
So given all these variables, I suggest that the first meal be at a level that is affordable to everyone who wants to attend. And a place in Chinatown like Dim Sum GoGo, Ping's, etc. could probably accomodate us. But let's not go out to the boroughs. Not that I have anything against them. I grew up there. But let's leave those offlines for the people from that other board. Then the next dinner can be organized for a Craft level place. Overtime, everyone will get to attend enough dinners so as not to feel left out and will get to know and like everyone else. And Mondays and Tuesdays are the best nights to cut deals with places. So
I guess the other solution is to eat in one of those all you can eat places like the people in Jersey did. But then again it's Jersey and this is NYC. We are too sophisticated for that here. I mean did you see that picture of the guy with that big skewer? Please, a little refinement. Seriously Fat Guy, how big is that back room at Lupa? The food costs would be reasonable and we could probably scratch out a good meal. I'm not sure they would allow BYO but it would be worth a shot. I mean you are an important food critic. How could they refuse you?
-
Robert - At the time that GM decided to elevate the rating of the 8 places to 19.5, that extra half point loomed large over the other restaurants that were mired at 19. It was a big half point if you know what I mean. It had far more impact than the difference 18.5 would have had compared to restaurants that rated 18. It was a clear statement by GM that these were the best 8 places in France, deeming Crissier as an appendage of France.
We didn't see Bruno because we cut our trip short by a day. But Guy Sammut was a bit formal at dinner, but was quite pleasant at breakfast time and was smiling away. In fact, he grabbed my bag out of my hand as he saw me carrying it to the car and carried it out himself. Maybe it was the 1989 Sauzet Batard Montrachet and the 1980 Vogue Musigny we ordered the night before
I thought Guy Savoy was a good meal, but not exceptional. I think I would rate it three stars, but not by much. If they gave 5 stars instead of three, I would score it a 4 possibly 4 1/4. I thought the best dish was the artichoke soup with truffles and parmesan cheese. But it was funny because a number of people at the table thought the cheese was unneccesary. To me, it made the whole dish. Especially the gumminess of the cheese because it had somewhat melted in the soup.
As for chefs who are members of the tribe, just look for the one that makes the lightest matzoh balls.
-
Bux - That Camdeborde can run or not run a kitchen outside his own that doesn't live up to standards isn't the point. The point is that he has the ability to run a kitchen whose aspirations are far beyond what they try to accomplish at La Regalade. And that is the reason why the restaurant is so good. The technique they apply is a few notches beyond the food they serve. For years Alain Dutournier did the same thing at Au Trou Gascon. Maybe he still does but I haven't been there for a good 4 years.
What is abrasive about the original post in this thread is the tone. And while I'm not one who shys away from being strident when voicing their opinion, there is tone and there is tone. What I can't assess about the post is how much is real, and how much is calculated to push buttons. But I agree that any post of the "I don't know about it but know what I like variety" is a dead giveaway for some other issue that isn't really related to the merits.
-
Bux - The need for an alternative guide to Michelin is in direct correlation to how interesting cooking in France is at the time of publication. Gault Millau was in its heyday when the little differences between places really mattered. What made their 19.5 point score meaningful was that it catapulted 8 places ahead of the other top restaurants in France and Switzerland. Do you remember what they were? Maybe Robert Brown remembers? All I can remember was Robuchon and Freddy Girardet.
They were also good when it was interesting to see a place rise from a score of 17 to 19. Nowadays, so many places with top scores are resting on their reputations that the top scores are watered down and its somewhat less interesting. So in boring times Michelin wins. Bring back the good old days.
-
I picked up a copy while in Paris on Saturday. It seems to be the norm for GM although the book seems somewhat thicker. At first blush, the only thing that stuck out was Arpege's score of 17/20. That is down from 18/20 in 2001. Then on yesterday's flight back I flipped through the book and found that Gault Millau still does a few things better than Michelin, even though I think they are nowhere as reliable as they used to be.
My experience is they are a good source for places in the lower category, like anywhere between 10/20 and 14/20. There are quite a few places scattered around France that serve great regional cooking, or do simple things like grill up great steaks that GM do a good job pointing out where Michelin does a poor job. Also, the fact that they rate on a 20 point scale allows them to frame a difference between places at the high end. Just the fact that they rate Michelin 3 star equivelents between 16-19 allows for a certain level of discirimination (whether one agrees with them or not,)
that Michelin doesn't have.
So I continue to buy it year after year. But I will be the first to admit that it was a better publication when haute cuisine was at its peak in the 80's and the founders were still there. In fact, the first year they went from 19/20 to 19.5/20 they made quite an exciting statement. But those were the days when haute cuisine was newer and fresher. It's too bad it isn't that way anymore. We ate better then. At least we did in comparison to what we know now.
-
Simon - The immediate issue isn't whether I value your opinion, it is whether what you write about a place is credible so the people who read the board know how to value your opinion. And it is in that light that I evaluate your review of a place like La Regalade. I try and look at it dispassionatelty from my own feelings about the place. Quite often somebody dislikes a place that I like. Cabrales for example doesn't like Pierre Gagniare, a place I like very much. But she puts forth a credible reason, she thinks the dishes feature too many principal ingredients. Now that is a reason I can accept even if I don't agree with it. Intelectually, that's quite a long way away from a place being "piss pauvre." And the next time I go to Gagniare I will take her opinion into consideration. And even if I had never eaten at Regalade myself, based on what I have read and people I have spoken to about the place, I would find your opinion of it to be highly suspect.
I think that it is difficult to be credible while being critical of something when the commonly held opinion is that it is good. And I think that when there are many valued opinions who are in agreement about the merits, it makes the burden of proving the flaws more difficult for a writer. It is simply a matter of pure inertia. But that's not to say that a soft voice fighting back the wind shouldn't be listened to. But one's antennae do go up when the type of negative review you wrote of a place like Regalade gets lumped under the heading of Paris being a bad place.
So while your invitation to take this discussion off the board is a kind one, I can't accept it because it won't allow me to point out something important to the others who are reading this thread. And that is, you are wrong when you say I do not value your opinion. Indeed I do. But the value to me is in being able to calibrate it to be almost the opposite of how you feel about a place that serves French food. I mean you think a quite ordinary place like Trouvaille is good, when you think a place like Regalade, a place where the chef has the ability to probably run a 2 or 3 star place is bad. It's all backwards. And I don't say that in an absolute sense, I say that as someone whose reality is that French food and French cooking are generally superior, a reality by the way that many people share. I mean all you have to do is read this thread for the evidence.
So don't be offended if I point out to those who are inclined to like a place like Regalade that they should weigh your words carefully. I mean the worst thing I can think of is some unsuspecting lurker reads what you and I write and then goes off and has a bad meal because they can't sort out who stands for what principal of fine dining. So I am quite happy to point out which side of the fence your feet are firmly on before a fork is ever lifted. And I'm perfectly happy having the quid pro quo be that they weigh my words in a similar fashion. I mean, isn't that what this board is for?
-
Vivin-I too was on a truffle tear in France last week, but I split my time between the south of France and Paris. In fact I ate the truffle menu at Guy Savoy on Saturday night and the truffled potatoes were a side dish to the veal chop. We also remarked that while the truffles at Savoy were good, the ones we ate in Provence were far superior.
By far the single best potato and truffle dish I know of is the Truffe, Pommes et Mache Salad at Chez Dumonet. While it is not as refined at the one star level Dumonet as it is at Savoy, the execution is fantastic and the amount of truffles is copious. Far more than any of the top restaurants serve. I mean we are talking about large rounds of steamed potatoes, six or eight of them that are completeley covered with truffles. It is still the best place I know of to sample truffles.
-
Robin- I write this admitting ahead of time that I think it is indeed possible that you had a poor meal at Regalade. I mean every kitchen is bound to mess up. But as I said earlier, what they serve there isn't all that complex. How can you screw up a pork terrine that badly? I mean I was there with you guys at La Trouvaille and they screwed up the food pretty badly there. And blind, I would wager that the food is better at Regalade than Trouvaille even if on the night we visited there they brought in substitute chefs. I mean what they start out with raw is better than what they end up with at Trouvaille cooked. So I am having a hard time buying this one.
I think there is a difference between visiting a restaurant and not liking it for personal reasons (too many to elaborate on here) and not liking it because you don't get it. And in fact, many times people write about food and wine and their palates are clearly oriented a certain way and it becomes obvious that one needs to calibrate what they say against one's own personal preferences. However, sometimes, over the long run, the position(s) they take make it obvious that the problem is not one of calibration, but one of either not knowing good from bad or because their palate is oriented in a way that makes their opinions unreliable.
All I can say is that it is too bad because Paris is a place one can love if one knows how to like it. For me it was love at first site. You (as well as Simon) should keep trying. It is well worth the effort.
Bux-I highly doubt that Regalade has declined. I was there last May and it was super, better than the meal we ate at L'Ambroisie the night before. And my main Paris wine dealer who is a big fresser still goes there all the time and claims it the 3rd best place to eat in Paris after Gagniare and Pacaud. I suspect that any decline last week had to do with the fact that French schools were on holiday and many people in France were away skiing etc., and possibly the cook staff at Regalade wasn't at full force. In fact a number of places I wanted to eat in last week were closed for the holidays
-
Simon-Prior to reading this post I thought maybe our difference in opinion about restaurants could be chalked up to having different palates but now I am pretty confdent that it is because you don't know anything about the kind of food they serve at places like La Regalade.
But first, calling Paris grubby lacks credibility. They actually wash all the streets every night. In fact, the French invented special street cleaning devices that wash the streets under parked cars. So I don't understand the comment because it happens to be a clean city. And the place is always glowing. The quality of the light there is better than any other city I know of, save for maybe New York. In fact, as I was walking around the 17th arr. last Tuesday at dusk and I was noticing how low the sky is, and how they were smart enough to make the streets wide, and keep the buildings low enough to allow the natural light to flood most every street. And that is only the daytime. I do not know of any other city that is as well lit as Paris in the evening. One of our more pedantic members should try and find out how many kilowatts they expend lighting up their buildings and bridges compare to a place like NYC that lights nothing up and pretty much depends on office buildings to keep their light in the interior offices on for effect.
So it is clean and well lit. I don't understand how you can argue against it. Unless, you want to call clean dirty by switching the meaning of the words.
As for La Regalade, hey, sometimes I have to chalk up somebody's opinion as they just don't know and all arguments about subjectivity have to be stricken from the possibilities. It would be like you telling me that Van Gogh wasn't a great painter, or Pavarotti doesn't sing well, or that the Empire State Building isn't "really" tall. In order to make those types of criticisms one has to establish that they understand those things to begin with. One has to get it first. And what is even odder (or less credible depending on your point of view,) is that what they do at La Regalade isn't so earth shatteringly different. They just execute it particularly well. I mean what is so odd about serving Shepherd's Pie with Blood Sausage as the meat instead of chopped meat? There is't anything to "hate" about it. And just to show you how far off I think you are, I think La Regalade is 10 times better than La Trouvaille, and I am not exaggerating.
As for the rest of this thread about appreciating Paris, that's a topic worthy of another thread that I will try and post on when I finally get home from Europe.
-
Robert-Although I will post on the dinner we had seperately, we were afraid to ask Monsieur Savoy the question last night althougn Cabrales tried pretty hard to ask it indirectly. So the "jewery" is still out. But my guess from looking at his visage, or punim depending on your slant, is that he's not. But the waiter did tell us that his mother runs a restaurant in the Savoie. So for the tea leaf readers, one can say that his last name is a "stage name." But maybe M. Alain Weill can furnish us with more detail. And it's "fresser," not fesser were I come from.
-
Winot-Jamie Goode has a very good list of wine resources in London on his website, Wine Anorak. I'm not sure of the URL but I'm sure you can get it through a Google search. But off the top of my head, good shops for you are Bibendum in Primrose Hill, La Reserve on Walton Street in South Kensington and La Vignerone on Old Brompton Road in South Kensington.
-
Cookperrync-You sage you. What I find even more mind-boggling about Craft is that although they are serving you pretty basic food there, you can't get a table (read Restaurant reservation thread on General board.) It goes to your point of it being a marketing ploy, which I don't really have a gripe with. If they can figure out a way to explain charred loup de mer to the public and make it sound so interesting that the place is always packed, good for them. I think TC is a nice guy and he should make millions. But let's be real about it. It's stilled charred loup de mer. There isn't any real improvement in technique over other places.
-
Silk City-I ate there once about ten years ago. Back then, you used to be able to get a reservation 120 days in advance and that's what I did. When we were there, we had poor service. It was really slow. We must have waited an hour and a half for our first course to come out. I remember Mario Biaggi was there. The food struck us as nothing special. Classic Neaoplitan cuisine. I'm not sure what the big deal is about but the place, but the private club aspect and the ambiance are cool. Over the years, I've had many friends and acquaintances go there and to a person they all have the same report. Nothing special. Maybe it's special if you eat there every week. I don't know.
As for Neapolitan food, I think Don Pepe's in Ozone Park blows it away. But to be honest, I'd have to eat at Rao's again on a number of occassions to be certain about that. It's funny you brought this up though because it is right in line with my post on restaurant reservations on the genral board. Rao's is in the worst category of place. Can't get in. And it's too bad because I have spoken with Frank Pelligrino at a number of different food shows (pitching his sauce) and he is a sweet man.
-
Macrosan- Hey good try. If you knew a little bit more about wine and how it is currently codified, you would understand what the Parkerphiles are talking about. Let me try and explain it. The French, depending on what region we are discussing codified their various wine regions over the last century and a half. Their system, which they identify as the "terroir" of the land, created a hierarchy amongst the various parcels of land in each important wine region. What they were really trying to label was quality. For example, if a wine came from grapes that were grown in Musigny, a prized vineyard site, no matter how good or bad a bottle of wine was, if it was made from those grapes, they were allowed to put the name Musigny on the label. Prior to the enactment of these laws, people were able to take wine from Yugoslavia and call it Musigny. So it is like a trademark. But it isn't unique to a brand name, it is unique to a special parcel of land where the Burgundians had identified unique qualities that couldn't be found elsewhere.
But as you could imagine, many people bought vineyard sites within the Musigny vineyard and once they were able to put the name Musigny on their label, they had no incentive to make good wine. And it isn't that nobody made good wine. But for example, in Musigny, a large percentage of the vineyard is owned by the Comte de Vogue, something like 60% or more. But between 1973 and 1990 they made pure junk and put it in a bottle. But since it was Musigny, the Come de Vogue sold through their annual production at quite high prices.
So along comes Parker and he starts reviewing Vogue Musigny and he implements a numerical scoring system and he gives them low scores. At the same time, he gives wine from lesser vineyard sites, where the producers are overachieving because they are working hard, higher scores than the vaulted wines from Vogue and Musigny. So what happens? Since 1990 Vogue has been producing at a higher level.
If you take my single example, and multiply it by every winemaker in every important wine growing region of the world, Parker's numerical system combined with the text he wrote gave people a chance to compare wines not only within regions, but across regions. And across countries too. It might not sound like a big accomplishment but, nobody ever did it in such a comprehensive and concise way before. The upshot is it revolutionized the way wine was sold. Before Parker the industry policed itself. And while there were wine reviewers well before Parker, he was the first consumer advocate in the field of wine.
You are indeed correct and this is like a Standard & Poor Ranking. But there is one huge difference. Companies are a compendium of various assets and liabilities that are in constant flux. This is much simpler. Owning a 1/3 acre of the Montrachet vineyard is like owning a few lots of real eatate on Central Park South. And although one could find real estate that is as valuable as a lot on CPS, you could never recreate the unique qualities that come from being on Central Park. And there is a second component which makes it even more special. Things grown on that lot of land have a unique taaste, texture and quality to them that can not be produced anywhere else. For some reason that nobody can explain, sheep that graze in that lot are more tender and have more flavor.
So it is more complicated than does somebody like a bottle of wine or not. Like anything else, there are valid opinions and ones that aren't valid. Whether one likes the view of an apartment that is overlooking Central Park is not at the heart of this debate. It is whether one recognizes the special qualities of that view and holds it to an objective standard. Because ultimately, not liking that view isn't really a valid opinion as a matter of valid criticism, while it's a perfectly fine personal point of view. And that is because there is such a thing as good taste and bad taste.
Mark Up on Restaurant Wine
in United Kingdom & Ireland: Dining
Posted
Cabrales - All you're saying is that the price of wine should be set by supply and demand. And I'm saying it should be set by how much capital cost and the cost of the wine service costs the restaurant. That argument is a draw from what I see. But when you add the component into the mix that not every table orders wine, and those tables bring down the cost of your average check, in reality what has happened to wine drinkers is that they are "picking up the tab" for the tables who don't drink. If I am at Jean-Georges and I order a bottle of mineral water it costs something like $5. But if I BYO there, aside from the fancy stems they give me to drink out of, the cost of their pouring my wine, which is the same amount of work as their pouring my water, is $85. Now their argument is that they are losing money by my not buying off their list. But they lose the same amount of money at a table of tea drinkers. And even if I do not bring my own, there is no guarantee that I will order wine. Maybe I will think there list is crap and overpriced? So there is no logic to their argument if you ask me, other than they can get away with it.