docsconz

There's another trick I've found useful when there is not a degustation menu - to ask the chef to serve me what he does best and likes that day. This invariably works well because the chef and waiter know you're paying attention. Vmilor's post reminds me that too often Americans are reluctant to deviate from what's printed on the carte or on the "menu" etc. I recounted recently how a Japanese visitor ordered veal liver (which was mentioned in that day's Figaroscope's review of the Cafe des Musees - it wasn't on the carte but they came up with it). Likewise, I came into a hotel late at night in Sicily and was hankering for linguine with clams and it was nowhere to be seen, but again they were most accommodating. ← John, I wholeheartedly enorse your first trick as well. I have had excellent luck doing so. My recent meal at One.Waterfront in Cape Town RSA is an example of that approach working well. I have used the technique of ordering ala carte off the tasting menu quite successfully at WD-50 in NYC. I have not yet really tried the latter approach, however. I think that would be best in a regional restaurant rather than a temple of haute cuisine.

Vedat, what you say makes sense, especially when looking at the whole roasted meats. If I am going to a restaurant for a specific dish I would certainly do that. For example , if I had the opportunity to go to Le Bristol in the near future I would order the Bresse chicken cooked in the porcine bladder. Most of the restuarants in which I have had tasting menus have belied your argument about the lack of adventure, especially those restaurants that are tasting menu only. Perhaps you are right about the experience factor though. For me, even though I consider myself reasonably well traveled and fed, there remains an exceptional amount of food items and styles that I wish to experience and for the most part tasting menus are the most efficient way to fit that bill. As my experience increases and the breadth of my desires narrows, I may find myself following your well written and described wisdom in order to focus on a few very select items more routinely than I currently do.

It is subjective, which is why I think it helps to get to know the style and preferences of the particular critic. Then it might be useful. Informative and entertaining are important also, but those are really different areas. I have never known the Michelin Guides to be particularly informative or entertaining. They have, however, on occassion been useful to me.

Robert, I can certainly ask a lot of questions about a tasting menu as well and often do. However, if I have never experienced a particular chef's cuisine before, I won't really have a good idea of his cooking until I actually try it. As far as Michelin stars and all-tasting menu format, you yourself have acknowledged El Bulli as being a particularly stellar experience. I believe Ferran does tasting menus exclusively. There are no absolutes here. tasting menus can be phenomenal experiences or they can be ways for a kitchen to get rid of all their leftovers (Not likely to be the case at tasting menu only restaurants). Some restaurants are better at it than others. Do it at the restaurants that excel at it and avoid it at those that don't. Execution varies, but that doesn't mean the concept is a bad one or not worthwhile.

A very valid point Doc, I'm not saying that I don't ever put any stock in any type of rating system - for instance I believe something like the Ebay rating system to be a very good one - one in which the consumer gets to rate and comment on the performance of a particular seller - every consumer who buys from said seller has the same opportunity - and I believe that such a rating system among others can be very reliable in their overall, collective assessment. The same is true when you can do as you suggest and "fix a critic to a point", I believe this argument has been made elsewhere - that by guaging the opinion of someone over time you can relatively measure your personal opinions against them - you know their criteria and you know yours so you know if they rate something high - how it is relative. I know I have in several topics, I believe most recently here in the Mariani thread. If it works for you great, if not don't buy it or read. That applies to any guide. There are anumber of people who have found a consistency to the Michelin Guides. If it works for them...it's a wonderful thing. I do think that there are some organizational consistencies that may have bearing here. They are at least starting with a methodology that may or may not be known to most of the general public. Whether it is ultimately consistent or not to a particular person's taste and therefore valuable, i believe is a more personal thing. I wouldn't say it is "worthless" as it may be the first of a subsequent body of work to which to refer and get a sense for consistency and style. I would say that I would take it with a grain of salt.

Here is an interesting link that deals with some of the topics discussed here. Of particular interest: Here is an interesting timeline. It discusses political motivations for and against BGH/BST but little in the analysis of possible impacts. Nevertheless, it is interesting.

That is a pretty good summary of a number of my posts on the matter (thank you) and your statement a fair one. Of course, I must quibble about one point, though While rBGH enhanced milk production may be cheaper in the near term, I am not convinced that it is for the long term given my concerns. As a result I prefer to purchase non-rBGH enhanced milk. I am fortunate enough where I live to be able to buy in our local Hannaford's Supermarket milk from Vermont Family Farms. This milk, though not labeled "organic" and not significantly more expensive than the regular supermarket brands, is promoted as being free of any "artificial hormones" They state on the container, In addition, the package reads: It so happens that this milk is pretty darned good and at least as good as anything else available to us in the supermarket. Is marketing involved with that statement quoted above? Of course. It happens to fill a niche that I like, though. that is supporting smaller scale agriculture close to whom in a way that I feel is responsible to the environment. If there were a similarly labeled product from even closer to my home, I would buy that preferentially. It makes no matter to me whether or not it is labelled "organic". Unfortunately (or fortunately for me and my family), this particular product is not more widely available, although I suspect similar products from other areas may be. I am fortunate that i have the wherewithal to be able to spend a little more on products that i see as potentially having more long term value. As such, I try to put my money where my mouth is. One other word about the "organic" industry and why the label is not so important to me. I like to buy a lot of what my family eats locally if possible. This includes essentially all the pork, lamb, chicken and beefalo that we eat. I do not believe that any of the producers that we buy from and we know them all personally are certified organic. They all, however, practice agriculture using sustainable principles (that is another topic in itself - see Slow Food). In fact a couple of them have been selected by Slow Food for their Terra Madre program. One of the reasons they don't go for the certification is that they do use antibiotics occassionally on their animals. They will treat particular problems in individual animals, but they do not use them for standard prophylaxis. I consider that a rational and responsible approach to animal husbandry, that is technically banned by the "organic" certification process or so I understand.

Any one review taken away from a general context certainly fits into your criticism as one person's taste may not be another's. That is why to me a critic' or organization's body of work is of utmost importance because then it can be calibrated to one's individual tastes. Frank Bruni's tastes are obviously different than many here on eGullet. To me that is ok if he is consistent and writes well about it (which is another question). I recently learned that John Mariani's and my taste regarding avant garde cuisine don't jibe. As a result I will not take his criticism of those restaurants seriously. It is not a question of right or wrong. It is simply what works for you. It is often easier to gauge consistency with written commentary rather than a number based guide, though it is possible for the latter to still be consistent and therefore useful. For all the put-downs of Zagat, it is still relatively useful on that basis. All I ask out of a critic or guide therefore is consistency. I do not have to agree with particular reviews so long as there is some sense of order and predictability based upon that review. That is also why I am not fazed by the issues of comps or anonymity. So long as the reviews and ratings are consistent, they will help me decide if a particular restaurant is likely going to be to my taste. If there is entertaing writing and good photos to go with it so much the better.

Different strokes for different folks. I guess this is one area a number of people are going to have to agree to disagree. To me, ordering a la carte is much less interesting in a new restaurant and sometimes in a tried and true restaurant too. I like to test my limits and try things that on the surface may not appeal to me as much as other dishes. On the other hand, I prefer not to devote a significant portion of a meal to a dish experimental for me that may or may not work out to my satisfaction. With a menu degustacion, I leave it to the chef. Typically there are some dishes that either I have never had orleft to my own devices would not typically order from a menu. More often than not, if the restaurant is a good one, I am glad that I did and also glad that I got to try a number of dishes I might not otherwise have. If I am ordering ala carte I tend to order something more comfortable to me for reasons oulined above. That to me is less interesting. Nevertheless, I can acknowleedge and understand how someone might prefer ordering ala carte. To each one's own. I do believe that there is a reason that tasting menus have become popular. While they may not work for everyone, they certainly do for a sizable number of people interested in fine dining.

Wendy, L'Astrance is a lovely space, though small. I am confidant that you would like it, but then I thought you would like WD-50 It is more adventurous than many other Parisian restaurants. Frankly, if I were going back there right now to do what you are going to do, I would go to L'Astrance for lunch and have the menu surprise, an excellent value, then do The Bristol for the special dinner. Unfortunately, my experience of The Bristol is only vicarious

L'Astrance is more like Arzak than WD-50. That was my best meal in Paris. I haven't been to eiher of the others, but based on Molto E's incredible, but unfortunately now lost photos, I would have to suggest that you consider Le Bristol as one of your possibilities.

I suggest you go back and reread the thread as I am tired of repeating myself.

What do you mean?

It would appear that Jean Georges is considered the least of the three stars as it is the only one to have fewer than 5 couverts black. Where are the pizza places other than Otto? Apparently a restaurant has to request inclusion. This is taken from the the job desxcription of an inspector from the Michelin recruiting ad linked to above:

JohnL, I want to thank you for your well reasoned and written posts. I must say that I agree with every point that you made.

A restaurant is a restaurant wherever it is in the world. Michelin's criteria, as far as they are willing to explain it (and there's actually quite a lot of information available when you look for it) is as valid in New York as it is in London, Paris, Dublin or Rome. ← It should be, although it appears that a different standard might have been applied here. I believe Steven's criticism is a pertinent one.

Thank you kindly for the welcome. Funny you should mention Mariani. When I was chatting in the kitchen with the maitre d' post-meal, I mentioned how I thought the man (Mariani, not the maitre d') was an ass. I offered that, given all the wonderful dishes I had tasted, I couldn't believe Alinea would serve "limp bacon," and was sorry that that course was not included in my menu. We continued to chat, and moments later, the bacon course (pig on a flying trapeze?) was offered right there in the kitchen. The strip I ate was perfectly crisp, thank you very much. --mcz (N.B. Mariani heaped effusive praise on a restaurant here in Portland that has proven itself to be inconsistent at best. The man has zero credibility.) ← Great story. I think it conveys the character of the restaurant perfectly.

Absolutely, which is why I have not been defending the "organic" industry in this topic.

You have a much more discriminating palate than I do then if you can accurately distinguish a lot of the wines coming to market nowadays. Not only do I find it difficult to distinguish them by origen, many are hard to distinguish between varietals. By the way I did not like the movie Mondovino. I thought it terribly unfair even though I agree with a lot of its premise. Too many wines around the globe are stylistically similar. Call it what you will.

One of the problems for the small dairy farmer and small farms in general is that it is difficult for them to afford the "organic" certification. As a result, it still tends to be the larger more industrial farms that get the organic certification. Many of the "organic" milk products sold in supermarkets are from large farms that are often organic in name and by definition, but not in spirit. What I mean by that is though they use "organic" feed, avoid antibiotics and synthetic additives, they remain large industrial operations. This is not necessarily bad, just not the idyllic small family farm.

My goodness, are we starting to agree in this topic?

Nice post, John. The only point I wish to address is the issue of globalization. I feel the same way about enjoying many different kinds, types and styles of wine. Tht is why I am concerned about globalization. Yes, there certainly is more technically proficient wine on the market than ever before. One is certainly less likely than ever to find a "bad" wine. On the other hand, I have had many wines from California, France, Australia, Italy, Spain, South Africa and elsewhere that essentially taste the same. They are good, but ultimately boring.

The largest surprises are probably those omitted entirely--by my count, that includes Alto, Aquavit, Atelier, Blue Hill, Chanterelle, Four Seasons, Karumazushi, Sugiyama, Sushi Yasuda and Tabla as a first cut. That, and the bizarre inclusions like Vong, La Goulue and Spotted Pig (the last of which I personally like a great deal, but come on). Daniel rating a category below Jean-Georges and Le Bernardin is unexpected, as may be Danube's inclusion with the 2-stars. Mario was clearly unhappy that Babbo didn't make ** (see the NYT article), but it doesn't really hang with the restaurants in that category, Danube included. Obviously the 1-star category encompasses a wide range, but to say that Babbo or GT or Cafe Boulud is in the same category with Danube or Bouley doesn't follow. ← On first pass I didn't have too much of a problem with the restaurants that were included. Most of the questionable ones are ones I haven't been to. Looking at your list of exclusions, however, I have to agree, it doesn't really make sense. There appears to be a clear bias against Japanese restaurants in particular. I think they may have just shown that the book cannot really be taken seriously.

They may or may not be connected, though it certainly isn't necessary that they are. I agree that each question should be considered on its own merits and terms, though potential connections are obvious, such as if it causes more problems with bovine infections that require more antibiotics and this results in more widespread antibiotic resistance, etc.

Note that this is good science in a peer reviewed journal finding fault with industrial practices. ← I would very much like to see fish farming be a viable, sustainable alternative. There are a lot of attractive possibilities there. The problem is that there are also a lot of problems and if it is not done well the practice can cause more problems than it solves. Fortunately, there are some aquaculture practices that seem to be working out well, in particular, raising clams, mussels, oysters and such. This topic has been covered extensively elsewhere on this site.