Steve Plotnicki

Courtesy of my friend Claude Kolm, publisher of the Fine Wine Review, he came across this wonderful Yellow Pages of photos featuring the nine largest cities in Paris. Click on the link. Francophiles will have a field day. Enjoy. Yellow Pages with Photos And some that might be familiar to eGulleters; Benoit La Grille Taillevent Chez Georges

I was just giving you what the price should be from memory. My best recollection is 1990 Echezeaux $250, G. Ech $300, and the rest of the wines are higher. It also depends on the shop. Premier Cru is usually priced in the ballpark.

I am skeptical that Robert B.'s "petite tour de gastronomy" is something that will be appealing to the point that it will make people jump on planes. It's one thing for Robert already starting in Nice, but I will have a hard time convincing Mrs. P to get on a plane to eat all "small meals" of local ingredients. Yes if it was combined with a few larger gastronomic statements that would be one thing, but I can't see that we would find the schlep worth it for just for the food at the scope we are describing. We have said this before on this site, what made three star dining in France desireable was that it conveniently coincided with a trip to France. The level of culture, shopping, sightseeing, wine tasting etc. that you could combine with a few three star meals, and a few bistro and brasserie meals is overwhelming. This is one of the reasons that we are slow to make the switch to Spain. Six days on the Costa Brava just to eat doesn't sound like fun to a lot of people. And that we always struggle and bemoan the decline of French cuisine really says more about how we enjoyed traveling to France then anything else.

Does vintage matter? 1986 is not a good vintage. 1985 DRC G-E is a very good vintage and that will run $500. You don't get another good vintage until 1988 or 1989 which will be more reasonably priced. 1990 which is an excellent vintage should cost about $300. Jayer echezeaux's from good vintages can cost from $1000-$1500 a bottle.

Robert - I agree with you. Where I think we go wrong in this discussion is that we act and think like consumers. If we can all put on our three star chef's hat for a minute, if we owned such an establishment, what would we be trying to say to our customers when we chose our pricepoints. For example, I believe that Vrinat keeps his pricepoints for food and wine at a very reasonable level on purpose. It goes with my story about the tie. In order not to appear to exclusionary, there is this human aspect to the service there. And by keeping the price point reasonable, it also helps them develop new customers. But in contrast, Passard's price point says that you should be willing to pay a large increment for his genius. And I think people are conscious of his statement. In fact I hear te restaurant discussed on those terms all of the time. Another example is Jean-Georges $85 corkage fee. That clearly sends a message to drinkers about who he wants eating there. He wants the guy who is bringing $500+ bottles of wine, not the guy who is brining a perfectly mature, 12 year old Chateauneuf that he originally bought for $15. J-G assumes that the ultimate size of the check will be higher from the person bringing more expensive wine. So to me, the interesting part of the issue regarding the 1994 Cos at 330 euroes is why the hell did they pick that price and what do they think it means to people reading their wine list?

Robert - Are you trying to say that people don't think it's worth it?

I think describing three star restaurants as a loss leader is a misnomer. I don't think any of the chefs you mention operate them at a loss. What you mean to say is that they use them to build up goodwill and then they leverage the goodwill to build a franchise based on their brand name. But they are still profitable. But that only works for chefs in major cities. For chefs in the boonies like Troisgros, Roellinger, etc., they run inns with top quality restaurants. They don't seem to have any trouble making the economics work for them. Considering that the Haeberlin family has owned that property since the year gimel, and that the restaurant and hotel are staffed by the family, I don't see what the big expense is for them to operate the place? In other words, there isn't any economic reasoning you can raise that would justify the pricing of that Cos. Most businesses operate on simple formula markups. They buy an item for X, and they have a standard way of marking it up. And while the multiple can vary with wine, from say twice the purchase price to five times the purchase price, I've never ever seen it be higher then 5X no matter what. Pricing above that can only be one of two things. A mistake, or a ripoff.

The standard rules about storing wine is that it is to be kept in a dark, vibrationless place, with the tempertaure between 52 and 58 degrees and a humidity that is constantly as 70%. What happens to wine if it isn't stored according to that regimen is that it ages more quickly. And sometimes aging more quickly means ruined. For example, if you were to keep your wine at 65 degrees, if it was supposed to be mature at 20 years you might find it mature between 12-15. But if you stored it at 80 degrees, it might be ruined after more then 3 years in storage. The impact of vinration is harder to pin down. I once read a study someone did with some type of high speed spinning mechanism and it had no discernable impact on wine.

Cabby - You are looking at it the wrong way. John is saying that he prefers to eat in an environment where they make choices based on pricipals other then how much money they are going to make which is in essence the same manner that he would does it. He usually finds those places have an additional enjoyability factor for him and his friends. Why not, groups of people who share the same sensibilities are usually comfortable with each other. But I don't think it skews his opinion very much as to how good the food is. But on the other hand, John would probably say, and rightly so, that a restauranteur who is not in it for the money is also likely one to be interested in serving top quality food. So it's the same result, different ways of getting there. Did I get that right J. W.?

I'm confus-ed as they say. If the cost of goods sold to gross reciepts ratio in a restaurant is a standard ratio, how is it any different? Restaurants that expect to gross $4 million expect one return on their investment, and ones that gross $6 million expect a different one. And if I was going to sell you my $6 million a year grossing restaurant, and it threw off a profit of 10%, why wouldn't there be a standard multiple you would pay for the place providing there wasn't something unique about the goodwill I brought to the place when I worked there? I'm failing to see how this is different then any other business,save for the vagueries of it being a restaurant business. And as to your point about how a diner interacts with the restaurant, and decides how much his dinner is worth, how is how much I budget on my three star meals any different then the amount of rent I'm willing to pay on an annual basis? Don't answer . I know you are going to say that wealthy people don't care about the price of tea in China. If they want to drink '61 Petrus every night, so be it. But that isn't how the three star restaurants in France, especially the ones outside of Paris made their mark on the world. They made it by guys like Bux, Robert B. and I, and all the other tourists who were able to fit their three star meals into the budget of their entire vacation. And the higher the cost of those meals, the more people it will exclude. Because indeed people who used to believe that they were worth the price of admission, will stop believing that and they will either stop going, or they will go less. And like my wife said after her nine stars of Paris dining last week, "I don't need to do any of this next time we come to Paris. I'm finished with this, especially at this price. I can be just as happy eating in bistros and having a cous cous." And I doubt she would have felt as strongly if the cost of a meal wasn't in excess of 225 euros per person, let alonw what the meal at Arpege cost which was significantly higher then that.

Jaybee - The dinner with two bottles of wine ran a little less then 900 Euros for four people. Quite reasonable for a meal in that type of place if you ask me. Mlpc - I have eaten at Taillevent about a half dozen times and I have come to expect a meal that is similar to the one they served me two weeks ago. But sometimes the food is on and other times the food can seem boring. Since the meal there is so simple, if the food isn't just right, it can take the joy out of the meal.

Fat Guy - Hang on . All businesses, whether they are real estate properties, intelectual property businesses or restaurants have a limit to what their actual income can be. And every three star restaurant does a projection at the beginning of the year as to what their gross receipts are likely to be. Just like a landlord projects his rental income, or a music publisher projects his income from mechanical and synchronization licenses based on historical earnings. And while the landlord knows what the cost of running his buildings is going to be (unless he has a unique event occur,) his expenses are a fixed percentage of the rental income. And a music publisher, since his biggest expense is royalties to his writers, his biggest expense is fixed as well. How is a restaurant any different? Do you mean that Troisgros has a 20% cost of goods sold for food in year A and a 40% cost of good solds for food in year B? It couldn't possibly happen that way. And if it does, I promise you they would be out of business. I am usually the one who argues that a meal is worth whatever a diner is willing to pay a restauranteur. But there are other definitions of worth too. There is, is it worth it to me, and is it worth it given other items in the market of similar quality at a different price point? I think the last one is at issue here. Because I can't say that the 106 euro veal chop at Taillevent would be worth it in any other place then in Paris. I can't imagine paying that much for a veal chop in the U.S. under any circumstances.

Jin - When I wrote that it made me think of you .

I think you need an oral dipilatory.

I agree with that. But what about people who have better memories then other people? I assume that there is a gustatory version of that as well?

J.W. - I'm not citing any particular reason for her doing it. The fact that she would like to do it, and the fact that she can afford to do it, and the fact that Mondays are slow enough to do it are all discreet facts. Yet they are subsumed within each other upon her reaching a conclusion. If her lease was up and her rent was being raised by a factor of four, she might feel differently about it, or she might be forced to change her policy regardless of her personal desires. I'm just pointing out that it takes more then personal desire to achieve many of these things. The ducks need to line up as well. Fat Guy - You're just saying that worth it should never be defined by anything else then the market value at the time the question is asked. Like Marcus said, that's a simplistic view. There has been a ratio the dow jones average and luxury items like wine for a century. If that ratio changes, asking why is a valid question. For example, right now the stock market is in the crapper but the price of first growth Bordeaux has stayed high, even gone higher and the ratios are off. It's the same with real eatste. And the answer as to why is that people have pulled there money out of the market and invested it in hard goods and real estate. So those prices are inflated compared to the historical ratios. You either want to realize that or you don't. And when Marcus and I use the word "worth," that is what we mean.

Jin - It really doesn't make a difference. Those who are on my side of the issue will read it favorably. And those who are against me will insist on reading it with the wrong inferences attached. And those who don't understand the inference, but who have no personal agenda, will ask what the inference is before they disagree. You can tell who is who by what happens next. Yvonne will draw the wrong inference 100% of the time.

Jay - To be consistent with some of the things I wrote in the snobbery thread and the Arpege thread, the amount of money I am willing to "overpay" for a three star meal is directly proportionate to how big a statement the restaurant is able to make. To me, I find the 300 euro tasting menu price at Arpege at the point of it almost being outrageous. But I think that Passard has a clear and concise point of view that I am interested in hearing. So I don't mind going back to keep experiencing it until I am sated. I use the same approach to other things that hold great personal interest for me like music. I can listen to a CD 200 times in a row until I am at a level of understanding as to why the musicians made many of the choices they made. Or as I described in my review of Taillevent, if I want some pampering and luxury along with my artisanal veal chop then that is a good choice. But I have no tolerance, or desire to pay a large sum of money just for something that purports itself at being a three star meal, but doesn't have the requisite soul or feeling to move me in the way that a place like Arpege moves me. My meal at L'Ambroisie last year was like that, as was my meal at Guy Savoy this past February, although a very good meal, failed to move me to the point where I can say the 250 euro truffle tasting menu is worth the money. It isn't. And in my book, nobody is a bigger culprit of the high price/not intersting food school at the price they charge then Ducasse. They should put him in the overpriced food museum. Fat Guy - You keep trying to characterize our objections to current three star restaurants as if we are making value judgements. We're not. We are just saying that in many ways the meals aren't worth it. With "worth it" being defined as the cost of one of those meals when compared to the cost of meals at lesser places.

Who is a purported arbiter of good taste? I just make claims to be able to offer a fairly expert opinion in those areas I understand and have experience in. You are free to agree or not. I make no claims for my overall abilites, especially in areas I don't know. I just wish others would adopt the same standard as I. We would have a hell of a lot less arguing going on around there.

Well Pierre Gagnaire is next. Do you consider that a good one?

Fat Guy - The issue isn't morality, bias, prejudice or anything else as such. The issue is how the market traditionaly values something versus how it is currently valueing the same item. That real estate is worth approximately 10 times the rent roll is a longheld ratio. That musical copyrights are usually valued between 6-8 times the publisher's net income stream, is long held as well. And my guess is if we were to do the research, there has traditionally been a correlation in price between three star restaurants, and the restaurants in the categories below three star. The issue I have raised is whether that ratio has been changing recently? And there seems to be a number of people who have claimed that it is. When I was in Oxford last February, for our last night there we ate in town. We had time to kill before we were to meet our dinner guests and we walked around the area where we were eating (it's where Le Petit Blanc is so I'm sure someone can fill in the street.) Since we were thinking about eating Indian, we checked out all the Indian restaurants on the street. There were 3 or 4 of them. Not remembering the exact cost, the one at the bottom of the street priced their chicken curry at X. And the next place, which was slightly up the hill from the first place charged 50p more. By the time we got to the top of the hill, the price of chicken curry was something like 2 pounds more expensive then at the bottom of the hill. And the decor of the restaurant went from standard issue Indian to slightly posh. All the space of a block and a half. That is the issue that I raised. And it was really Robert Brown's issue that he raised during the summer. Has something happened at the three star restaurants where they have changed the ratio of where their price point falls among the various choices of eating out? And if they have, for whatever reason, that doesn't sound arbitrary to me, it sounds purposeful. And the issue is, can it be maintained? Or are they redefining who the haute cuisine ritual is for? It's only after they make their motivations clear, that the market will either accept or reject their premise. Exactly the same way that the real estate market sometimes pushes mulitples above 10X. But history has shown that to be a temporary condition and the market ultimately crashes, and then it eventually resets itself back at ten.

And then the Yvonne Johnson ideal could be that gastronomic incompetancy is sufficient. Sorry about that, but if you would like to keep personalizing this and keep ratcheting up the ad hominem attacks I can keep going if you would like .

You guys keep mixing your capitalist metaphors . What let's art collectors off the hook is that a piece of art is a one of a kind. A truffle is not a one of a kind. Even rare bottles of wine usually exist to a greater extent then the one remaining bottle in the world. So they are different degrees of rarity. As for Jay's point about eating being utilitarian, well that's exactly the issue. Who gets to utitilize eating at Auberge d'Ill. I think we are also having difficulty with the semantics here and we need to be careful. "Worth" can always be described as the result of a free market exercise. In that way one could say that Internet stocks were always worth the asking price. Because if someone was willing to pay that price, who's to say it wasn't worth it? But there is a different meaning of worth, and it is calculated on long held ratios of cost to market price, debt to capital etc. And there is no historical ratio that we can apply that says that a bottle of wine that has been marked up 3000% is worth it. I'm sure there is an analagous ratio for food markups as well. I think a proper definition of the word ripoff in this instance is when the price of food and wine is "on the bubble" because of some condition in the marketplace that forces the price into a zone of unreasonableness. For example, someone here mentioned that the restaurant had a large brigade of chefs in the kitchen. But that point assumes that a large brigade of chefs is needed to deliver the cuisine. That logic would say that the wine list underwrites the size of the kitchen staff. Whether that can continue into eternity is simply a function of the inertia of the market. At some point, I suspect the market will lose interest in paying 330 euros for mediocre wine and just like it happens with stocks, the bubble will burst. And if it hasn't been drunk up already, I think you will see the price of the '94 Cos drop. J.W. - I wasn't making a value judgement about a restaurant who has changed their pricing to exclude a traditional part of their customer base. I was just saying that it is valid for someone to point out that there was a change, and what the terms of the change were. For all we know, the Auberge has an extremely well priced list of local wines just for the locals. And set menus as well. Chez Pannise offers their Monday menus at a low price because it's the slowest night of the week. I wonder on a cost versus price markup if the ratio is any different then on a Saturday night, or is it just that the Monday menus feature more pasta dishes etc. so they can keep the price down?

I'd much prefer discerning .

Jay - I have no quarrel with expensive dishes being, well expensive. But at some point I have to start questioning why the extra cost has been imposed. 100 euro salads, even when loaded with truffles are outrageous. Especially when you can buy a truffle that's the size of an apple for 100 euros at the market in Provence. Marcus - Right on.