Steve Plotnicki

That will make two inspectors plus me. Anybody else? I'm also intrigued by this woman who lives north of the Nice airport. Will she come to the upper east side of Manhattan and cook at a dinner party?

Jaymes - You are making all kinds of hypotheticals, and value judgements, based on what you think is moral. And while I happen to agree with you on the morality here, I think we are better off if we looked at the actual harm before we passed judgement on anyone or anything. So as Fat Guy says, if the practices of diners inflicted material harm on the restaurant business, they would change their practice. But since they don't seem to be doing that by implementing a deposit policy for no-shhows, I have to assume that the amount of money they lose from it isn't all that great.

Deacon - You are adding a level of morality to this that the restaurants do not impose on diners. When they offer a free and open system, they have to be assuming that people double book or more. In reality, what happens is that within 48 hours of the reservation the deck gets shuffled. And either the demand was there for the restaurant, or it wasn't. If a restaurant wanted a guarantee of a different outcome, they would implement a different system. The real issue here is when a restaurant loses tables due to no-shows from double booking, or when a diner gets shut out because of it. But I am missing the distinction between no-shows for double booking and people who just don't show for any reason at all? In the end of the day, you are probably talking about a very small segment of the market. So small, that the money lost hasn't made restaurants impose a radically different system.

Fine Italian dining in NYC is possibly at an all time low these days but if you insist, Babbo or Il Mulino are the two choices depending on the style you like. Neither one is Tuscan though. I would consider replacing the Italian with a famous NY steakhouse like Luger's or Spark's etc. Balthazar is fun but better for lunch then dinner. There are much better choices out there.

ChefG - I agree with all of this. But my point goes more to how the cuisine is going to spread, not so much to the actual success factor based on how things taste. There is more to great cuisine then someone creating a recipe. There is bringing the cuisine to a worldwide market. And to do that successfully, one needs to be able to quantify what one ate so they can communicate it to others. If we look at El Bulli, the most famous restaurant in the world when it comes to being creative, they are a phenomenon amongst the trade but virtually unknown amongst the public. There are a number of reasons for this, but probably none greater then people who eat there cannot describe the cuisine adequately outside of the context of describing the chef's technique. This is something new for cuisine as far as I know. As you stated, for the past century, cuisine has somehow or another been derivitive of Escoffier. In reality that means that people have applied techniques derived from Escoffier to regional cuisines. And we can take this approach all the way to Keller being "whimsical" by which I mean, he took some famous American dishes and adapted them to haute cuisine. This is a particulary complicated issue, and do not take my questions or comments to be criticism. In fact, I am more interested in contemporary chefs getting over what might be a hump because it will make for more interesting eating. And currently I think the expansion of modern cuisine in the U.S. is moving at a snails pace. But I am not seeing the point as to why the application of new technique means divorcing regionalism from the cuisine? I might have an old-fashioned way of looking at it but, when I go out to the Heartlands from NYC for the weekend, I want to come home feeling like I tasted the Heartlands. Some of the ways you can do that are to eat cultural constructs like Italian Beef sandwiches. But at the high end, diners are looking to see that amazing technique applied to easily identifiable things like lake trout and Wisconsin chedder. When that happens, it resonates with them in a certain way. Tied to the past and the familiar, but reorganized into and for the future. If you find the El Bulli conversation I was referring to, you will see the conversation ended up in a discussion of the avant garde. And why the avant garde in both classical music and jazz never took hold with the public. I don't think it was discussed there but it occurs to me that unlike art, where museums basically subsidize the exhibition of what we would call the avant garde, music is more of a business. Like a restaurant which is depedant on customers, it is dependant on a certain level of commercial success from the sales of recordings. And some of us wonder, that unless someone applies the new techniques in a way that is consistant with past applications, the "modern and inventive" can end up becoming esoteric in the way that Albert Ayler and Archie Shepp became esoteric (avant garde jazz sax players for those who don't know.) Because there will always be diehards like Ryne, Cabrales and me. But we do not make an audience if you know what I mean. Mind you, we are counting on you to make sure this doesn't happen . I have to also add that all this talk of eating at Trio has made me have the desperate need to go back there in the near future for another extravaganza. If I might ask, which do you suggest, the spring or summer cuisine as the better platform for the ChefG philosophy?

Is Italy in the universe? In fact Italy is the first place I am going to tackle.

Gee I never met anyone who booked five restaurants for the same evening and didn't decide which one to go to until the last minute. That's just mythology. And that person isn't holding your table anyway. That's because you could always have called earlier then they did.

In the universe.

Now how did you guess that I have plans to start a food guide that will be more accurate, not to mention more influential, then Michelin.

Cabby - Lucky for you. Trio is in a hotel!

Well it's more then just cosmetics. "Modern and inventive" only describes the technique. It doesn't describe the food. Since we are used to describing food from the perspective of regionalism, I'm not sure what is going to happen here. The Spanish chefs have a similar problem, which in part is why they aren't better known in the U.S. among diners. They are chefs in Spain who are known for cooking in a very modern and creative style, not for having created a modern version of Spanish cuisine. My feeling is that if they were known for the latter, you would see it being copied more in other countries.

ChefG (and this responds to Ryne as well) - Well what I am talking about is how to describe the cuisine. Regionalism makes it easy to communicate to those who weren't at the meal what it is that you ate. To say that Michel Guerard had a modern take on Southwestern cuisine filled in many blanks for those who wanted to know for their own future reference. But for example, even though my meal this past November at Trio was better then almost any meal I have had in the U.S., I am hard pressed to describe it in a way other then "modern and inventive." And if I had an easier way to describe it, I could convince more people to try it. I think this is a slightly larger problem then people give it credit for being. And it is one of the reasons that "modern and inventive" cuisine hasn't had as much traction in U.S. restaurants as one would have expected. I will agree that the days of putting a slab of protein into a pan are going to end one day, possibly soon by the way we measure time in cuisine. But I am skeptical as to how soon it will be unless someone can describe what the cuisine expresses other then saying it showcases the amazing technique of the chef. That will only take us so far. It has to be part of a greater esthetic expression, whether derived in regionalism or something else. People are used to eating "regionalism." Will that stop because of great technique? By the way, you guys (ChefG, Cabby, Ryne) those are some great posts.

ChefG - I can't tell you the thread it is in, but there is a debate on this board about whether the cooking at El Bulli (and that name is used as a generic example) is going to be lasting, or is it a flash in the pan. And I will pose the question we asked there to you. Granted (excuse the pun) the cooking tools and techniques chefs impose on ingredients will be revolutionary, and granted that it will continue to make dinner exciting for the cook and the guest, but where is the identifiable cuisine that people will speak of? For example, I ate at Trio in November and had a terrific meal. But I am hard pressed to communicate that meal to others unless I go into detailed descriptions of each dish. I never had that problem eating at 3 star restaurants in France. Each one, is identifiable by the region they reside in. Even the ones in Paris, aside from Pierre Gagnaire and Lucas-Carton, are usually heavily influenced by the chef's native region. Even in this country, The French Laundry is described as "whimsical" because the dishes mimic classic American concepts like Coffee and Donuts etc. So how are we going to describe this new cuisine you are talking about other then "modern and inventive?" There is another aspect to this as well. If I wanted to be cynical about it, if the new cooking techniques you describe had such a tremendous positive impact on flavor, why the need for unusual pairings? What about using a paco jet or mister has caused chefs to shuffle the flavor deck? Why isn't just enhancing the flavor you used to get with more traditional cooking methods, plus the improved texture you get from the new cooking technique, enough? To simplify this question, if a new cooking technique makes for a steak that tastes better, why for example does a chef need to pair it with date puree? And to simplify it even more, it seemed that traditionally chefs tried to make combinations that were intended to last. But I don't see that happening as much anymore. Today the modern chefs seem to be in a free-for-all where the main goal is to surprise. Do you really think that dining will be become almost exclusively about what the chef does? And can that genre of cooking style last if a indentifiable cuisine doesn't spring out of it?

Are you saying, that in your opinion, Marco Polo, has the best noodle soup in Chinatown?

Are we talking sichuan style H & S or the old fashioned Cantonese stuff? And I think there is nothing better then a wonton noodle soup with roast duck or hacked spare ribs. Yummy.

Right. The issue with commercial carters isn't whether they do a good job, the issue is how much you have to pay to get the service? They still have to do their job to a certain standard. Because it they weren't picking up your garbage every night, their business would fall apart even if Don Corleone visited every customer by himself.

This is an amazingly complex issue. The public perception of payoffs is that it typically changes standards. When in reality, it usually doesn't change anything and one can argue it enhances standards. And I'm not taking a moral position on this because I personally agree it is wrong. But you have to look at the result to decide how strongly one condemns it. The fact of the matter is that a reviewer for a major daily can't afford to be writing raves about crap restaurants. That's because they will lose their job. So regardless how corrupt the system is or becomes, there is that check and balance on the situation. In fact in my experience, that check and balance is so strong, that the reviewers hands are virtually tied from veering from normal and unbiased criticism.

Unless there is something illegal about doing this, I don't care unless he is giving out the wrong information about the restaurant. I won't pay any attention to appearances of impropriety unless I can tell there is something wrong based on my own analysis.

Stone - My only point (which I have done a poor job explaining) is that many things in our society, beginning with our legal system, reach conclusions based on appearances only. And people should adhere to a higher standard then that.

Stone - My point wasn't to state that she is definately innocent, even though almost every single analyst I hear on TV says she didn't violate anything, but aside from that, I am saying that in the event that it is unclear or ambiguous in any way, she could be convicted based on appearances and perceptions. Many people win and lose cases that way where Judges and jurys cancel out hard evidence for their subjective opinion. And if they are allowed to do it in something as important as the application of the law, why should publications adhere to a different standard?

As a former trial lawyer, you know better then anyone that our court system plays a significant role is shaping public perception. Unfortunately the system allows both judges and jurys to jettison hard evidence and reach conclusions based on the appearance of impropriety. Just take a look at Martha Stewart (I'm using her as an example because I want to keep it on-topic ,) she has been trashed in the media even though almost every attorney I heard speak on the topic say that she is not subject to the insider trading laws. But could they find a jury to convict her based on the appearance of impropriety? Absolutely. And if that is the standard used in our legal system, why should publications adhere to a different, and better standard?

Well it certainly guarantees that the wines that have the ability to will be closed. Which is why that Clos St. Hune was undrinkable.

What if I'm the type who has a hard time making decisions? Seriously though, the good faith/bad faith issue revolves around whether you intend to use the reservations or not and 100 can't possibly be in that category. But I can remember an example where I held 5 reservations on the same night. It was for a dinner where I had various people coming in from out of town and I couldn't convene a conversation among them to decide where everyone wanted to eat. So I had reservations at all the top places. Jean-Georges, Bouley etc. But two weeks beforehand we made a decision and I cancelled the losers. Or here is a typical one among travellers to France. You plan your trip so that when you are in Paris your last night is booked at a temple of gastronomy. But you also know that it is the last night of a 2 week long gastronnomic tour and by the last night you might have food coming out of your ears. So you also reserve a simple bistro for the same night. I mean I've done this myself. I don't see what is wrong with any of this since this is what the restaurants offer. Restaurants need to be dilligent in confirming tables the day of the reservation. Since most of them do not have a system to penalize diners if they don't show, it behooves them to track you down and to confirm. Not that diners don't have the obligation to cancel if they don't intend to show. Not on moral grounds, just simple common courtesy. But if a restaurant wants to guarantee that the table is sold, they should pick up the phone.

I thought it was because she was a Rebbitsen. Of course you are right. Newspapers want to report on scandels and conspicuous consumption. Sensationalism sells papers.

I don't know. I think that as Fat Guy has written, restaurants offer a reservations policy that is so loose that to apply a certain level of specificity to it seems awkward. You are going to have a hard time convincing me that if I book 100 restaurants on the same evening, the 99 I don't eat at suffer a hardship if I notify them in a way that easily allows them to resell the table. I mean that is the system they offer. For diners to impose additional morality to it seems to be taking it too far, unless you are talking about no-shows which is about being rude. I'm not getting the connection that says, multiple bookings increase whether people will be rude or not. Forgetful possibly, but I think being rude is entirely different.