Pan

Hey, Hansel und Gretel ain't half bad.

That's a fairly short list, Yvonne. Well, maybe not short, but I noticed some important omissions - Madras Cafe isn't on the list, for example. Do you have any idea how the restaurants that are on that list got on it?

Sounds like a very uncomfortable situation, Jaybee. Overall, it sounds like it was more uncomfortable for the woman than for you, though. Would you agree with that?

Yeah, probably. The Malaysian friend I was thinking of lives in Astoria, but I don't know how many Malaysian places in Queens she's been to. After all, she can always cook the food herself. Anyway, when I get over this damned cold, I'll call her.

This is terrific writing! I do think you mean "belied" rather than "betrayed," however. I used to watch the Galloping Gourmet when I was in 1st grade in 1970-71! I didn't remember that it was still on TV as recently as 15 years ago or so, but that's probably because I was seldom watching TV at lunchtime during that period of my life.

That's a great idea, Steve, but I will be in France until June 27, so July would work better for me. I will call a Malaysian friend and ask her for recommendations, too.

Thanks, Bux. You made very good points, and I have taken them to heart.

I had a great meal and a good meal at Singapore Cafe shortly after it opened. Singaporeans have complained that it is just another Malaysian restaurant, and not Singaporean in any way, shape, or form, but I don't care about that. My problem with the place is that the amount of fat they use is just totally excessive. I've had many good meals at Sentosa but I was dissatisfied by how hard the noodles were in their Asam Laksa last time I went. I still think it's probably one of your better bets for good and authentic Malaysian cuisine in Manhattan. (Why is authentic important? Because my experience is that restaurants that water it down or otherwise adulterate it for non-Asians' tastes suck.)

Thanks for the info, Bux. I'm starting to wonder whether it will really be worth it to go to Astrance for 90 bucks a person. I guess I'm naive, but that sounds like a splurge for a Michelin 1-star. Do any of you know whether the surprise menu there costs the same amount every day (perhaps it's MORE on weekends?)

I could certainly do the research myself, but in case anyone knows the names of the chefs at Grand Vefour and Arpege, who are they? And is the title Chef de la Cuisine?

Thanks, Jordyn. That thread was really helpful. I shall try to get a reservation then, but it seems like it may prove impossible.

I do have time to mail a letter, but I might not get a reply in time. We leave on June 5. Also, do you think I should direct the letters to the attention of the chefs?

Thank, Jaybee and Bux. Your posts are informative and reassuring. My father is blessed with good teeth, thank God. By the way, I'm thinking of emailing a (detailed) request for a special menu for my father to the 3-stars I reserved for lunch, le Grand Vefour and Arpege. Do you think that emailing is a complete waste of time, or is it worth trying? I ask because I'm not set up to fax, though I can receive faxes (the machine is busted for outgoing and has been for a long time). I figure, too, that emailing is free and easy to do, though I certainly won't shrink from faxing if it's necessary.

"I think we should say quite clearly that, assuming one exercises reasonable judgment, the more money one has the better one can eat." I quite agree, though it sometimes helps to "be someone" or to seem like you are someone. I often think that the NY Times reviewers get better food because they're recognized. Yes, I _do_ think that it's possible for restaurants to be slipshod when they think their customers are "nobodies." "Having said that, I do find it useful when people on eGullet post tips and recommendations on cheap restaurants. As with upscale restaurants, Zagat borders on the useless; personally, I don't read all the restaurant critics slavishly; and a thoughtful comment on eGullet gives me something to go on other than luck. I hope discussion of fine dining and its role in our social fabric, which I love of course, does not dissuade people from telling us which restaurants in Chinatown are worth trying, where the good Puerto Rican lunch counters are, and which are the better hotdogs." I'm glad you feel that way, Wilfred. I'd hate to feel like my posts about places that charge less than $50+ for dinner are off-topic here.

You're probably right, Steve, but the difference is that you wouldn't be out an astronomical sum of money. I went to both Lutece and Chanterelle shortly after they were given 4 stars by the New York Times, and both places provided me and my family with supercilious service and mediocre food. Though the desserts at Lutece were spectacular, they were the only thing that was, and there was sand in the bottom of my soupe de pistou! Chanterelle served something with duck that tasted like mediocre, watered-down Mexican food, and my brother commented that he could get something much better at most any taqueria in the Mission District in San Francisco. He complained about it and was met with a surly and somewhat indignant reaction, if I remember correctly. (Both of these experiences were a bunch of years ago.) I have to say that having had experiences like that in high-end places, I am suspicious of the idea that there is an extremely high correlation between spending lots of money and having a good experience. Surely, a large percentage of expensive restaurants are less than consistently wonderful, too. And another point: Some of the most memorable meals of my life have been at higher-end places like the old Jo Jo, a place in San Mateo called Viognier that I hear has since ceased to be special, and an amazing restaurant between Tarquinia and Tarquinia Scalo that specializes in seafood (sorry, I don't remember the name, but ask the cab driver), but some have been at places like a restaurant up a rickety staircase from the central square in Srinagar, Kashmir, where we were served amazing wedding food, and the "2nd-best" Chinese restaurant in Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia, which served incredible chili jumbo shrimp (udang galah - lobster-sized shrimp which I hear no longer exist in Malaysian waters). Those last two places were cheap and informal but had wonderful, fresh ingredients and brilliant cooks. We knew the owner of the restaurant in Kuala Terengganu well (her husband was the chef), and we asked her once what kind of food she cooked (e.g. Hakka, Hokkien). She said modestly that it was just "home cooking." You know what? For "home cooking" like that, and without the attitude, a round-trip flight to KT could be a worthwhile investment, if the place is still there and still as good as it was.

I've found out just how hard it is to make reservations to Astrance. Yesterday afternoon, they told me they were full through June 15, and today I found out that I can't try to reserve for June 26 until a month before. So obviously, what happened yesterday is that by the evening, everything for a month to come had already been gobbled up. Therefore, it's clear that the only way to guarantee a spot on June 26 is to call as early as possible on May 26, whereupon my question: When do they open on Sundays?

I coudn't agree more! I think there must be a lot of people in New York who think that tamarind is a very sweet fruit, when it's actually quite sour! When I lived in Malaysia, one of the things that was outside the kitchen area was a tamarind tree, and tamarind juice was regularly used to add nice sourness to eggplant curries and other dishes. In fact, the juice of the and kaffir and especially the wonderful, aromatic thin limes (limau nipis - I don't know an English name) was sweeter than tamarind juice, if I remember correctly. I do not like sweet tamarind chutney, and I think that making tamarind chutney cloyingly sweet defeats the whole purpose of using a genuinely sour and interesting-tasting fruit (if tamarind is indeed a fruit because, though juicy, it comes in pods and is related to beans!)

Do you think an Auvergne-style restaurant will have anything reasonably low-fat for my father, or is that a total lost cause? [smiling despite myself]

Measured thus narrowly, I can accept your usage of "merit" and withdraw my objections, on that basis. Then, the only issues would be the degree to which there really is free competition in today's economy, and such a discussion, though already touched on, would take us much further afield than I'd like. I'm happy to (at least provisionally) conclude this on an amicable note.

I got reservations for dinner at Ambassade d'Auvergne, which is right near the Centre Pompidou. It's a Michelin 1-star listed as a good value. Here's the description: Address 22 r. Grenier St-Lazare - Paris 03 Description . 25.92 and menu 35 to 40. True ambassadors of a province rich in flavours and traditions : Auvergne-style furniture and surroundings offering produce, dishes and wines of the region. Anyone been? Anyone have any comments about cuisine from the Auvergne?

mikemkie: I'm glad you posted again, but I don't see any substance to your post, just more ad-hominem attacks. Since you feel you know much more than Suvir about Indian cuisine, it would be nice if you shared your knowledge with us. Also, what Indian restaurants in the 5 boroughs do you like, other than Tamarind? Do you have an opinion about Banjara, for example? What about restaurants in Jackson Heights? Any favorite South Indian places? I do hope you'll answer.

OK, I understand where you're coming from. I figure I'm not quite part of the "cheap eats crowd," then because I _do_ value high-quality ingredients. I actually was not blown away by Le Bernardin when I went there a few years ago (though my reaction had little if anything to do with the quality of their ingredients), but I thought the scallops I had at the River Cafe were probably the best scallops I had ever had, and perfectly prepared. Even though it was a Restaurant Week meal (and therefore significantly less expensive than their usual menu), the fact that the River Cafe is a high-class establishment helped assure the high quality of their ingredients. I guess where we differ is that, in judging the quality of a meal (the food quality, not the ambience, service, etc.), I think deliciousness is the most important thing. Quality ingredients are part of the deliciousness, but only if they're prepared deliciously. So I guess I would summarize by saying that it's undoubtedly easier to make great food if money is no object, but high-end places can be mediocre and low-end places can be delicious. It does seem like we agree on that last point.

Steve, I really didn't mean to seem to personally attack anyone. I just think the whole question of "merit" is irrelevant. The capitalist system is not a moral one, in the sense that it is based on greed, but it is a very effective system, as long as it is tempered by some controls a representative government imposes or/and should impose on excesses, for two basic reasons: (1) In order to prevent monopolization and other anti-competitive behavior that defeats the whole purpose of capitalism as free and efficient competition. (2) In order to prevent society from allowing the "losers" to simply starve to death, as they did during the laissez-faire days of Dickensian England. As far as whether wealthy people "deserve" their money: Some do, some don't. The reason why certain people have a lot of possessions and others don't is not because the wealthy or the poor are generally of higher moral character; each individual is unique, and there are people of good and bad character at all income levels. If you or anyone else felt that I meant to imply either that anyone involved in this discussion acquired wealth dishonestly or immorally or that anyone involved in this discussion should feel "guilty" about his/her wealth, I certainly regret that. If my call to give a thought to the lettuce-pickers causes anyone to react with guilt, that's their lookout. It's just that I resent the claim that wealth inherently equals merit, and its implicit corrolary relating to poverty (poor people or otherwise economically unsuccesful people lack merit). I guess what it amounts to is not that I see the acquisition of wealth as immoral, but as amoral, but while I think that the suggestion that wealth=merit is absurd, but my opinion does not imply the opposite: That wealth automatically equals theft or dishonestly or immorality. So that's why I come down to suggesting that the participants in this discussion cease trying to use moral or mock-moral principles to explain why they are wealthier than equally or more hardworking people who lack their assets or opportunities through no fault of their own, and simply enjoy the wealth that I feel sure all of you earned (or, for that matter, inherited) honestly and legally. As for solutions using my money, don't go there. It should be clear enough to you without my spelling it out in round figures that there is no way for me to pay down the national debt, shall we say. Though I will say that, even though I need my tax refunds to pay bills, I would be willing to pay more in taxes to help fund a national or state health insurance plan for all. People's lives and health shouldn't depend on their income, and if that concept makes people feel guilty, I think that's fine as long as it motivates them to support a decent system for those of us who can't pay $800+ a quarter for health insurance (I'm getting ready to read the response that those people don't "merit" life-saving health care). Guilt is a useless emotion if it does nothing other than make people feel bad, and I don't want any of you to lead unhappy lives. So enjoy yourselves and be happy! But don't pretend that your income level is a reflection of your superior moral character, though superior moral character you may have, as individuals.

Suvir: So far, nobody seems to be responding to your question. I've been to the Jackson Diner once and had takeout from there once. I found the food delicious. I especially like the chicken appetizer cooked in batter with shredded coconut and mango chutney. Their curries are spicy and very tasty, too. I have yet to find better Indian food in the 5 boroughs, which is why I wish someone would post about other options. For example, does anyone have any comments on the Bangladeshi place Sietsema reviewed in his "100 best/cheapest" list, Grameen?

I sometimes feel I'm out of my socio-economic stratum here. OK, yes, some of you have told me you save money on other things so that you can spend more on eating out. But never mind that for now. The fact is that many people eat cheaply out of necessity. A $10 or $15 or $20 meal at Congee Village may not be as good as a $200 meal at Le Bernardin in various ways (though, comparing apples and apples, it may or may not be comparable to a meal at Shun Lee Palace [which serves great and probably superior food], but will probably be significantly better than a meal at Shun Lee West), but a lot of people would consider it a better value - especially if $200 is 1/3 of their monthly rent and their yearly income is, say, $20,000 or less. And there are certain other things about cheap meals: You don't have to be very concerned with your appearance, and things are generally more informal. A lot of people like that environment most of the time. And whereas I see arguments here that chowhound.com is biased toward cheaper restaurants (which I think is a questionable assertion, by the way), I think it would be hard to argue that the New York board here discusses high-end places much more than low-end places. Just as there is room for both $400 dresses and some comfortable, cheap t-shirts, there is room for both Alain Ducasse and Bo Ky, and someone should be letting people know which cheap restaurants are good values. Having said that, I agree that both Sietsema's terms and choices are open to a lot of question, but I also think it's strange that the New York Times just about refuses to consider restaurants in their "under-$25" category for any stars. I think this is money-driven, not quality-driven. To paraphrase Steve, what does price have to do with quality? My answer is that, while he's right that certain ingredients simply cost more, we all know that's not the only thing that's important about a restaurant. Henry's Evergreen costs a lot more than Congee Village, but Congee Village and numerous other inexpensive Chinatown places beat Henry's Evergreen by a country mile in terms of food quality.