Steve Plotnicki
-
Posts
5,258 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by Steve Plotnicki
-
-
Cabrales - Well rather than categorize them by cost (okay they were mostly expensive), let me say that they were all high quality :). But I've brought great ษ bottles of wine to GT and have sent back a glass for the chef only to have him appear at my table to find out what it is and have the exchange cause them to get the wine for the list.
BYO is an odd duck. Many restaurants allow it but they all treat it differently. My experience with the Danny Meyer restaurants is that they teach the waitstaff to show great respect for a good bottle of wine. And if you walk in with a nice bottle, they look at it as if you paid them a compliment. So it isn't unusual to have the chef come by and thank you because he likes the idea of his food being served with a great wine (giving him glass of wine doesn't hurt either.)
And you can have the exact opposite experience somewhere else where they look at you as a pariah who is keeping them from making their requisite markup per table, even though they are charging you for corkage. Jean-Georges allows corkage but his staff is pretty indifferent about it. Once we brought an esoteric ( but inexpensive) Alsatian dessert wine and sent a glass back to the kitchen for him. About five minutes later he showed up at our table asking all sorts of questions about it and chatted with us for a minute or two. It's a shame he runs such a large and busy operation and he doesn't have much time to interact with his customers that way because he seems to enjoy it when he does. But it's a good example of what bringing a good bottle of wine can do for you.
-
Macrosan - I didn't say that places in the U.S. are inflexible. Quite often they try and accomodate you if you bother to ask. My wife orders almost everything with sauce on the side. Nobody ever refuses. But that is different than what I percieve as the European custom which is that they are prepared to take any ingredient on the menu (or off) and prepare it for you in any way that they can. While there are restaurants here who will do that, it isn't anywhere as common or nearly as obvious if it is.
I think that where this issue rises and falls is how knowledgable the waitstaff is. I can recall six of us at dinner at Le Palme d'Or in Cannes on a beautiful September evening where the Maitre d' was taking our order. He saw we were struggling a bit with our main dishes and he started reciting all the ingredients they had in the kitchen that wern't on the menu. When he got to the Veal Filet, and he saw a few of us raise an eyebrow, he offered us the veal topped with black truffles from Umbria. The end result was one of the most memorable dishes I've had in my life. Not only that. Our choice made him review the prior courses and he tinkered with them and we changed things around to have a "proper" meal.
Now I think that story is fairly typical for high end dining in Europe. But I think the chances of that happening at a place like Gotham or Eleven Madison Park are near zero. They are cooking for too many people in those places and as such, nobody has a job similar to my pal at Le Palme d'Or.
In this city, I used to get that type of service from Dominique at Bouley Bakery who would come to my table and say "what are you in the mood for?" And Collichio is more than happy to show up tableside and help you plan an appropriate meal. And you see Daniel visiting a table for menu planning on occassion. But in this country I think it's the exception and not the rule. And I think that is because the economics of restaurants here are different than they are in Europe and they have to feed too many people here.
As an aside here, wine service is another thing where they can be really helpful or just take your order. I'm fairly expert in wine but I like when the sommelier checks my choice against the menu I have ordered. Quite often they have a useful comment that leads to a different choice. Once again, I think that is more of a common practice in Europe than it is here.
As for my status as a regular displacing someone else's reservation, I've never seen that happen and I've never had it happen to me at places where I'm not known. Who does that?
-
Cabrales - Sur Commande seems to be more of a European concept than an American one. I can think of places in France that offer dishes that need to be ordered up to 48 hours in advance but I can't think of any here. And the tradition of preparing the food the way a diner wants it seems to have spilled over into French restaurants in NYC. It used to be at Le Cirque (and it might still be) that you could order any type of meat or fish and they would cook it for you any way you like. La Cote Basque would do that to. Do you think you could do that at Gotham or Chanterelle? The only American I can think of at the moment where they do that is Aqua Grill.
As for creating special menus, it's not unusual for some famous French chef to show up tableside to discuss the menu with you before you order. Few American chefs do that. Tom Collichio os one who will. I've had dinner there on a few occassions where 6-8 people brought a bottle of wine per course with them and he came to the table both times to discuss constructing an approriate tasting menu. And I've had Jean-Georges do that with me as well. It also happens to be the best way to get food that isn't on the menu as the chef will try and think of what he has in the kitchen that might not be listed on the menu or propose a preparation that isn't on the menu.
As for hard to get into restaurants because they are filled with regulars, I don't mind them providing it isn't impossible to get a table. Macrosan brought up The Ivy and that's a place that can be difficult but I've always found you can get a table there. I have favored status at number of places around town and deservedly so, I eat in those places often enough to deserve it.
-
Mike - That sounds like a great experience. Jean- Luc is the greatest. Except when you have to bid against him at wine auctions. He has "Le Grand Budget." I always find the service at all of Daniel's restaurants to be top notch. But my best experience was the following.
Four of us were having dinner there for a birthday celebration and on the tasting menu was a Loin of Veal that was served atop a puree of some green vegetable. We couldn't tell what the vegetable was but it was absolutely delicious. So I asked our captain if we could have the recipe. About ten minutes later he approached our table and said "can you please follow me" He proceeded to march the four of us right into the kitchen. All of a sudden we were standing at the head of the line shaking hands with Daniel. People and plates of food were flying all around us. We asked him about the puree and it turned out to be nothing more than Fava Beans mixed with olive oil and mashed to that consistancy. One more story where simple is better. But it was an amazing experience and certainly a great way to make your customers feel special.
-
Great NYC Mexican street food is available weekdays on E97th Street just west of Second Avenue. There's a woman there with a taco cart who makes great food. Since I don't live too far away, I usually walk over once a week for lunch. She makes a #### of a gordita, and her tacos of carnitas and pork enchilada are terrific. For years she used to be on Eighth Avenue between 38th & 39th Street because a number of sweat shops in the area employed many Mexican workers. So she would feed the same lunch crowd that would go to Los Dos Rancheros. But the businesses that employed her clientele closed and she moved to this location. It is right across the street from Metropolitan Hospital which is one of the hospitals the Mexican community in NYC.
uses.
As for authentic Mexican restaurants and the various places that have sprung up everwhere, there are ones that are better and ones that are worse but I haven't been able to find the definitive one that stands head and shoulders above the rest. I mean the food from the woman with the taco cart is as good or bettr than anything I can find. But when it comes to upscale places, I like La Palapa on St. Marks Place the best, better than Maya or Rosa Mexicana (I was never a fan of Zarella though her cookbooks are great.) They have a good balance of traditional and modern cooking there and it's the place in NYC that most closely resembles Frontera Grill in Chicago althought the cooking is not quite as refined. And it's a fun place too.
-
Rosie-Is his working in New Jersey a plus? Just kidding. Considering how close it is (I live in Manhattan), I NEVER eat in New Jersey. But something about how Michael described it made it sound like it could be good. So I thought it might be worth taking a road trip, even if it's Jersey :~).
-
Okay according to Michael Schlow, chef at Radius, arguably Boston's best restaurant, the Ryland Inn is the "best" restaurant in the NY metropolitan area. Michael thinks the chef is "better" than David Bouley. Anybody been there? Is it worth the schlep from Manhattan?
-
Bux - You know critics that try to be objective? You're a better man than I. Most (okay many) think their review is the end all and be all and that "true" criticism has to be hard hitting and opinionated. I never understand that. I have certain biases that I am more than happy to disclose when I write about a place. I'm not sure why people who do it for a living refuse to acknowledge
there is a different point of view.
-
Ajay-Sugiyama is on 55th Street between Broadway and 8th Avenue. I do not find it that difficult to get a reservation there except on Friday and Saturday nights.
I find eating at the Omakase Bar to be a better experience than being at a table but it's limited to two people. The 10 course meal is 贄. But if you ask for the best quality there is an upcharge. With a good bottle of sake, tip and tax, dinner can easily be 贶-赨 a person.
Sugiyama is an ingredient intensive place. You have to hit it lucky. Some days they have kobe quality beef, and some days they have top quality kobe beef. It's just a matter of picking the right day, or knowing them well enough so they will call you when the top ingredients come in. Same with some of those funny Japanese mushrooms they serve. Some days they have them, some days they don't. I think the food is better in the winter for some reason. Maybe because more unusual ingredients are available.
Some favorite dishes are, Lobster in Garlic Sauce with Monkfish Liver (it's like Foie Gras), Crispy Fried Soft Shell Crabs, and when they have top quality kobe beef it's mindblowing. Of course the Black Cod roasted in Miso is fantastic. If I understood Chef Naos correctly, he used to be the Omakase chef at Matshuisha (the original Nobu) in L.A. and the black cod is a Chef Naos invention.
I've taken many people to dinner there and some people flip out and some don't see the big deal. Vivan got it right when he said its a spritual experience. Nobu is much more flashy. Sugiyama is much simpler and is more about creating a flurry of textures and flavors. And more importantly, Chef Naos is a Met fan :~).
-
Vivin-Glad to see you like Sugiyama. I'm a big fan. I go 3-4 times a year and know them well. On the occassional Sunday, you can find Chef Naos sitting in my box at Shea rooting for Shinjo. I know Nobu less well, though I've eaten there twice and in London once. I've had some thrilling dishes at Nobu, but I couldn't ever seem to get an entire meal that was thrilling. But I have never tried ordering the Omakase there. Your post convinced me to go back and give it a try. But Nobu always struck me as a little gimmicky. I'm not sure why. Maybe it's just too much of a scene for a gastronomic temple.
-
Holly-I thought about your post for a while but the definitive hot dog didn't come to me. In the old days, Nathan's was my favorite but I can't vouch for current quality. But it's December and the tradition in my house is to make Choucroute for x-mas. And the dogs that I like the best, by far, are the "Wieners" at Schaller & Weber. They are a German butcher on 2nd Avenue bet 85th & 86th Street (a block from Papaya King.) I'm not sure if you can get a cooked one there for lunch. But you can certainly take some back to Philly and throw 'em in some boiling water.
I'm not sure where they are made, although it wouldn't surprise me if they made them onsite. But what I like best about them is how packed they are. For some reason, they are filled in a way so that when they are boiled, they have just the right texture for me. Give them a try.
-
Bux- I agree with you. For Michelin to award 3 stars the cuisine has to be at a certain level. But what I have found is that while a restaurant might qualify as to their technical ability and presentation, the food doesn’t necessarily merit 3 stars if we were gauging it by how delicious it is. You know it’s like a perfectly played violin concerto without soul. It doesn’t cut it. And I think there are a number of 3 star Michelin restaurants where if they served you the same food in a different environment, you would never think of it as 3 star food, and Michelin wouldn't give them 3 stars either. And the opposite is true too. Until Ducasse in Monte Carlo, Michelin would not give a hotel restaurant 3 stars. Maximin never got his 3rd star when he was at Chantecler because it was in the Negresco Hotel. And Maximin was cooking 4 star food at the time.
Sometimes a place with really solid food like Taillevent, but which doesn't offer food with the requisite flair I usually associate with a 3 star restaurant, has other qualities that make them deserving. But I've been in places like Auberge d'Ill and have been served what is really two star food, delicious two star food, but still deserving of that ranking nonetheless. And I was at La Pyramide this past May and we found the food basically inedible. If that chef were cooking in a place other than a gastronomic temple he definitely wouldn't have more than 2 stars. And he might only have one!
Chefs are like baseball teams. They go through good years and bad years, or at least good patches and bad ones, but the guides don't really reflect that. For years I attended a business convention in Cannes every January and ate dinner at La Palme d'Or in the Martinez Hotel (2 star I believe.) Some years the food would be fantastic and some years it would be sort of ordinary. I didn’t even have to eat the meal to know. I could read the menu outside the entrance on the street and if it was interesting, it always turned out to be a great meal. And if it looked boring it always turned that way. But, and it's a really big but, the Michelin rating *never* changed. This problem isn't unqiue to Michelin although by far they are the worst culprit.
It’s this aspect of Michelin, their conservatism and stodginess that makes their single star category virtually useless unless you are a)looking for chefs who are on the way up and will eventually be promoted to 2 or 3 stars and b) trying to spend less on a traditional meal. Their standard for awarding an unusual place like Nobu one star is far too rigid. But they are much quicker to award a star to a place like Roussilon, and indeed they have. They've got that backwards if you ask me.
-
Bux - But there's a difference between three star cooking, and an entire experience that adds up to three stars. So while I'd agree that l'Ambroisie offers a 3 star experience, I think it's more about the entire experince than just about the cooking. The problem is, the Michelin guide doesn't differentiate between places like l'Ambroisie and places where they are cooking at the highest level of creativity.
This flaw in their rating system has little impact while restaurants are on their way up. So what if it takes them longer than it should to promote a place like Gagniere to three stars. But many people make a pilgrimage to a place like Bocuse or Auberge d'Ill only to be disappointed by the ordinariness of it all.
I find your comment about three star restaurants always being on the cutting edge somewhat telling. That's because up until the last 5 years or so, they *were* always on the cutting edge. So I can't imagine you would have made that comment 15 years ago, when it looked like there was an unlimited number of new and original ways to approach food. And as much on the cutting edge as the Spanish guys are, and I say this as someone who has observed their technique but hasn't experienced it, most of what you hear about it is a recount of the technique along with a description of the experience. I never hear anyone talk about it being as delicious as the way we used to talk about the top rated places in France from the 70's-90's.
-
Bux-The food friends that I trust tell me that Zubaroa is better than either Adria or Santamaria. No personal experience there. As for Arzak, the highlight of my trip was a bottle of 1958 Marquis de Riscal Reserva for ุ. Ethereal stuff. But as for the cooking, I think it's limited. I didn't find any revelations on the menu. If you want a very refined version of Clams and Hake in Green Sauce, Arzak is a good choice for you. But there certainly weren't any cutting edge dishes on the menu.
I think there is a split here between restaurants that are taking chances, and restaurants that pretty much cook a refined version of the local cuisine. There is the l'Ambroisie school of best ingredients, perfectly prepared (I'm not a fan, boring) and the more ambitious chefs. I am hard pressed to say a place with plain cooking really deserves three stars.
I think the 3 star marker changes all of the time, depending on where cooking is at. Michelin is all too slow to remove a 3rd star from a place like Auberge d'Ill or Moulin de Mougins when they become somewhat predictable. Not that they are bad places, Auberge is great and you can still eat a good Provencal meal at the Moulin on the best night. But Chibois, Willer and others cook better than Verge does these days. Problem is, Michelin has a difficult time of it drawing that distinction. And when they try to, they move too slowly.
-
Helena-I'm not speaking about any book in particular. And although I collect cookbooks, I don't buy the Spanish ones as I don't speak Spanish or Catalan. But I do know that Santamaria has a brand new book out as I have flipped throught the pages.
-
Steve-You are right about Michelin and Spain. But what seperates Spain from Italy are the cooking techniques developed and practiced there. The Italian chefs never developed their technique to the extent the Spanish ones did. For Michelin not to notice they would appear idiotic.
Of the four 3 star restaurants in Spain, Arzak is the only one I've been to. And to me they really serve two star
food there. But I can see from looking at the cookbooks written by Santamaria and Adria that they are serious places.
-
Sorry for being late to this thread. This question is more one of context than it is solely about food. England and Belgium are great examples of French food, often superbly prepared, that does not rise to the same heights French food rises to when one is eating it in France. I only have to point out what should be the obvious. Restaurants like Comme Chez Soi and Le Gavroche are trying to replicate the French experience. I don't know about you but I like to have the French experience in France. Having it outside of France always seems a bit off to me. Like being at Paris in Disneyworld instead of really being in Paris. Okay that's a crass example but it makes my point.
I think this same problem exists, albeit to a lesser extent from region to region in France. In my experience, a 3 star restaurant is dependant on the classic dishes of their region. A place like Auberge d'Ill, while being a great place, suffers from being in an "Alsatian box." Troisgros suffers less from this syndrome because the food of the Loire is not as idiosyncratic as food from Alsace . Same with all the three stars (and top quality 2 stars) that are sprinkled around the autoroutes from Paris to Valence. Burgundian, Lyonaisse or food from the Rhone-Alpes isn't as uniquely regional in style as food from the Alsace , Sud-Ouest. or food from Normandy is. That's why I can see people having a hard time understanding why a place like Roellinger gets a third star (I've never been, I'm just using it as an example.) It's like a place on the Maine Coast being worthy of 3 stars. The problem is, there is no foundation for it. The cuisine in Brittany is generally not worth of having a member of that club. It can only be that he has created such a refined approach to Lobster, Oysters and Lamb that has been raised on the salt marshes that it springboards him to that rating.
I think evaluating whether restaurants in countries like Italy, where they do not mimic French culinary technique, are worthy of three star status is even harder. In my book they don't even come close. In fact, I have eaten at Al Sorriso and while I think it is worthy of 2 stars in scope, I didn't think the food is worth more than a star. And while I haven't eaten at most of the highly touted Italian restaurants, I would bet a meal at San Vicenzo that I would be hard pressed to find one that I thought deserved more than 2 stars.
Face it, the star system in Michelin is really based on stock based cooking techniques. When you are in a country like the Netherlands and culinary technique is not based on the use of stocks, Michelin loses their point of reference as to how to gague things. In France, Michelin will sometime award the occassional casual restauranta single star because they offer a definitive version of the local cuisine. I'm speaking of places like Benoit, La Beaugraviere or La Tupina. But you will not find them giving a star to the German equivelent, one that has serves exquisite asparagus every spring. That's not really in their playbook.
California vs. some of the others
in Wine
Posted
Robert - No Astor Place Wines. But my office was on the corner of Astor Place and Broadway for 14 years. Hence the email name.
When I first got into wine I used to drink California wines almost exclusively. Then I attended a 14 vintage Latour tasting and a 14 vintage Cheval Blanc tasting and they changed my life. So I sold off my Ca. wines in favor of Bordeaux. Sure enough, I ran into a bottle of 1990 Chave and a bottle of 1985 Ponsot Griottes Chambertin and I then proceeded to sell off all of my Bordeaux (except the top stuff from the best vintages) in favor of Burgundys and Rhone wines. I always had a palate for white Burgundys. Recently, I have acquired a taste for older Barolo and Barbaresco due to a bottle of 1978 Giacomo Conterno Monfortino. The only Ca. wines I still drink is Harlan (which is like the Latour of Ca.), Araujo and Shafer Hillside Select. I like Dominus in certain vintages (1990 being my favorite) and I have a whole stash of 1987 Mondavi Cab Reserve because I have twin boys born that year.
I currently drink about 40% Burgundy (both white and red) 40% Rhone wines (north and south) and the other 20% a mix of Italian, Alsatian, some whites from the Loire etc. Maybe I drink Ca. wines on the occassion of 3-4 times a year. For me they aren't complex enough, too ripe, and usually too alcoholic. Some of them like Harlan are better balanced. But although they can be delicious, they don't express my sensibilities about wine the way a Roumier Bonnes Mares can.
I used to like drinking Peter Michael chardonnays. They are different than say Marcassin or Kistler because they blend 3 different vineyards together to make a cuvee. But they are no comparison to the wines from Niellon, Ramonet or Leflaive.
I think Ca. wines are good but they are too much the same from producer to producer. They seem to taste generic to me now. Maybe the vines just have to get older.