cabrales

Steve -- Your "Sweet Caramelized Foie Gras under a sheet of Chocolate" at Club Gascon sounds good. A dessert the restaurant has offered in the past is foie gras in a lavender sauce. The sauce was blue-ish in color, and more interesting than the somewhat artificial lavender taste one can find in certain bottled syrup offered in Southern France.

Wilfrid -- The squirrel's brain was not served; neither was its tail. I didn't even get the crouton with goodies that Simon did. On koala, is it legal to eat them in Australia (or New Zealand)? When I was in Australia a couple of years ago, there were already very few establishments where one can cuddle a koala directly (with many places offering holding of a branch or some other item with the koala more distant, and others allowing pictures next to an animal keeper who was holding the animal). Happily, I got to cuddle 3 different koala, including a baby. That experience wouldn't dissuade me from sampling koala, though, if it were available and legal in the relevant jurisdiction.

Sandra -- Maybe Steve or Marc can add to this, but the oyster itself came through nicely in the dish. I would have to say that the gelee was not as reminiscent of the sea as any of the other dishes of this nature I have had. But those other dishes were of extraordinary quality. For example, Meneau's oyster in gelee dish is my favorite dish from all dishes I have sampled at L'Esperance. Lorain himself appears to like his oyster terrine dish considerably, placing it in the "Les Musts" ("The Musts") section of his menu. Note also that my descriptive style for meals could seem to lack enthusiasm with respect to many meals that I find tasty, if they do not rise to a further level.

The squirrel was as Simon described, and was gamey and satisfying. I had called to reserve the little one shortly after Simon's post; that was most helpful, as all the other squirrels had been served by the time I arrived. The limbs had been quartered, and were displayed realistically as though the animal were sprawled forward. It took a little bit of adjustment to this initial impression, as I still equate rodents with rats (despite Wilfrid's recent corrections) and the presentation added to this association. Given the braised preparation, the meat was surprisingly "intact", permitting a sampling of its smooth texture, and not at all "stringy". The red wine/blood/stock sauce was just right. Included in the sauce were nice touches of softened stewed onion, small bits of smoked bacon and softened, but still flavorful, watercress. The flavors worked. For an unknown reason, the meat had a very slight sweet-ish aftertaste that was unexpected following its gaminess. Alas, there was no crouton. Prior to the squirrel, I took in a refreshing Cockle and Cabbage Salad. Small, clam-like shellfish items were nicely integrated with the crunchiness of coleslaw-sliced raw cabbage. A light olive oil, lemon and chevril (?) mixture bound the items together. The total was around what Simon paid per person, with a 1/2 bottle of Chateauneuf-du-Pape, J. Mestre "Cuvee des Sommeliers" (1994), taken into account (no dessert, aperatif or digestif, though; uncharacteristically, I resisted the Ruinart champagne offered by the glass). Simon -- Thanks for the squirrel lead. The menu has changed yet again (I attempted to order pork cheeks again, but they were neither available nor on the menu). Items that might be of potential interest to you (?) included apppetizers of (1) pig's tongue, bread and green sauce, and (2) rolled pig's spleen. Entrees included tripe and fennel, and guinea fowl, turnip and aioli.

Below are observations on Guy Savoy – Steve P, Marc Cosnard des Closets and I had dinner there Saturday night. What follows is a relatively technical report, which tends to result when I have a good to very good, but uninspired, meal. The meal did not persuade me that it would have been an injustice for G Savoy to have continued along without a third star. Our dining party had a wonderful time discussing all sorts of things. Steve had included two cuisiniers previously affiliated with Lucas-Carton, of whom I posed questions about Canard Apicius (no Asian fish sauce, for example, is actually used at the restaurant). The two of them, and the rest of the party, appeared happy enough with the meal, and I do not see Guy Savoy’s cuisine as being below that of the average three-star restaurant (with average being the operative term). Our amuse-bouches included a delicious small section of squid or calamari clad in a little piece of mushroom and supported by the bitterness of endive. Others were a small piece of sea bass, and carrot soup with anise (which I thought was nothing special). One of my personal highlights of the dinner was the oyster in gelee (Huitre en nage glacee]) included in Guy Savoy’s parade of appetizers. While this version left a lot to be desired relative to similar offerings from Meneau, Lorain and Dotournier, I was gratified to further my comparison of this dish at different restaurants. See “What are vegetarians missing” under “General”, p. 4. The aspic gelee Saturday night was crushed and “mushy”, and did not convey a sense of the darling seawater and juices trapped within oysters. Still, the oyster was nice. The other appetizers served together with the oyster (a beetroot/truffle item and the liver in beef consumme dish Mao and vivin also sampled) were not memorable. See "Mao and Vivin's Paris Trip 6 -- Guy Savoy" in this form. Our next dish of Royale de truffes et navets au jus de truffes was nice, pairing thin, softened turnips with truffles. The turnip provided a relatively “clean” backdrop against which to play with the darkness and intensity of the truffles. The truffled artichoke soup (Soupe d’Artichaut a la Truffe Noire, Brioche Feuilettee aux Champignons et Beurre de Truffe) was hearty, balanced and rich without being weighed down with cream. It offered strong truffle sensations, like a number of the other dishes sampled (including a truffled lentil dish). For me, the addition of parmesan to the “inside” of the soup was unnecessary (I have a similar gripe with Gordon Ramsay's pumpkin soup amuse), but Steve appeared to like the slight elasticity engendered by the small molten cheese bits. The truffles, if not as pristine as those encountered by him at Richerenches market in Southern France (one of which became a hefty souvenir), were of good quality and were deftly and generously utilized in many dishes. The vanilla-sauced sea bass has been discussed in the Mao/Vivin thread. Then a dish of lobster, flanked by vegetables, that was good, but not outstanding. I liked the Mersault Perrieres, Domaine Roulot 1996, Steve had picked with these dishes quite a bit. My veal entree (Cote de Veau Juste Rotie, Puree de Pommes de Terre a la Truffe, Jus de Veau) was a slight disappointment, but that is, sadly, not an uncommon reaction for me at even three star restaurants. While tender, the veal but not brought to life by a run-of-the-mill brown sauce. The accompanying truffled potato puree had a quasi-aligot consistency. Other diners at our table had decent Bresse chicken. Afterwards, the kitchen gifted our table an enormous veal knuckle (Jarret de Veau). Having been served to an adjacent table, this dish spurred our envy because the veal piece appeared perfectly caramelized and included a substantial bone section protruding upward. Speculation had abounded at our table that the bone was chock full of marrow (apparently not the case). The meat turned out to be good, but not more than that, and no marrow was to be had. It was an interesting, and in hindsight appropriate, choice for the kitchen to have served the lentils with black truffles after the entree (Ragout de Lentilles et Truffe Noire). The dish was a bit heavy, but a good showcase for the truffles. Following a so-so cheese course, I thoroughly enjoyed my blood orange dessert. Bitterness and tartness from small orange sections near the top of a cute, round glass serving bowl gave added meaning to the confit (or similar preparation) below. Other diners at our table had a trio of small desserts centering on pear and lemon. The ensuing chocolate truffle dessert was very smooth, rather dense and not particularly to my liking. Guy Savoy and the dining room team members serving the food were helpful and generous. It is heartening to see a team remain eager to please after attaining Michelin’s holy grail (no religious connotations intended!)

Steve -- I appreciate where you're coming from If it's subsidization of non-wine-drinking diners that you consider unfair, however, that's counterbalanced by the reality that every diner could choose not to drink wine, accept wine by the glass or decide to purchase a less expensive bottle. So there's at least procedural fairness, in that every diner has access to the same set of options (including the no-wine option). If a given diner's subjective preferences are such that he experiences a lot of enjoyment from wine, going without wine might be effectively precluded in practice, but it is not actually precluded in fact. Since most diners enjoy wine (?), a diner who goes without wine saves money, but suffers the opportunity costs associated with not drinking the wine. He might be getting subsiized by wine drinkers, but that subsidy comes at a "cost" of its own (and, in my view and likely yours, significant cost).

Adam -- When you have a chance: how educational, and how good an outlet, has reading about food in non-recipe books been for you?

Adam -- How do you choose wine when you have dinner parties at home? Are you able to locate wine that is reasonably priced, and do you try items that you would not be willing to pay for at restaurant mark-ups? As I'm developing a stronger interest in wine, I'm finding that that's another reason (along with so many other reasons) to learn to cook. You also mentioned the social aspects of the dining experience, which interests me because Wilfrid dines alone with some frequency, as do I. At a restaurant, do you find you are better able to enmesh yourself in the social aspects with the dining companions at your table than if you had to be thinking about preparing the food as well? Robert Brown has discussed, I think under "Scarcity Factor" in "General" (?), how diners at adjacent tables or otherwise in a restaurant might matter to him. I found that interesting too, given that diners at other tables do not matter much to me (except when they have access to special dishes I am denied).

Could members provide input on good (to be clear, tasty) restaurants in London and Edinburgh that permit BYO (with indications of corkage, if known without further effort)?

Speaking of cooking at home, what have members' experiences been with "pot luck" dinners? Are reheating and other aspects of dishes brought by guests a problem? Presumably, there might be less satisfaction from planning out the meal, but there would also be less work for the hosting party. Also, what is the maximum number of people other members have cooked for? Discussions on the board today regarding mark-ups on restaurant wine (UK board) reminded me that cooking would be a good way to reduce the need to pay mark-ups, if one is enthusiastic about wine.

Steve -- In referring to "fairness", your post addresses one aspect of fairness -- the costs to the restaurant of providing the wine (i.e., the supplier). But "fairness" could also be considered from the perspective of the diner -- the party on the demand side of the equation. If the fulfillment Diner X in the previous example receives from his bottle of wine is high and would therefore leave Diner X willing to pay $400, why shouldn't Diner X be made to shoulder that amount? For me, a bottle of wine taken at a good restaurant (for the sake of simplicity, without a BYO policy) is not fungible with the same bottle taken at home or anywhere else. That's part of why I don't think it's unfair for bottles of wine to be priced expensively, regardless of pricing methodology. And it's not just a question of how the wine is served and the attentions of the sommelier. One way of looking at things: Part of what a diner pays for, and part of what is reflected in the wine mark-up, is the opportunity to have the wine woven into the textured fabric of the applicable restaurant meal. When a given wine is taken in together with the restaurant's cuisine, that wine has almost become a different product -- it's that wine in the context of the particular meal at the particular restaurant. As such, I would see a certain element of fairness to the restaurant being able to control how its prices a product which is so specific and so personal to it. Consider my dinner last night at Ubon by Nobu. I had, among other things, the black cod with miso, usually good regardless of which Nobu location one visits. I bought Puligny Montrachet. Now, that bottle of Puligny Montrachet is not something I can replicate because (1) I can't cook, (2) even if I could cook, I could probably not cook the black cod as the restaurant did, and (3) other restaurants don't tend to have this particular dish. Thus, Puligny Montrachet became "Puligny Montrachet Taken at A Nobu-Affiliated Establishment", justifying a higher price.

Steve -- It's all a question of supply and demand. There's nothing wrong with applying the same percentage mark-up to higher priced bottles (e.g., $200 on $200 bottles, with $15 on $15 bottles; using a low mark-up % as an example) if that is the wine pricing methodology that the restaurant believes will maximize its profits. Consider an example where Diner X is willing to buy a $400 (200+200) bottle and Diner Y is willing to buy a $30 (15+15) bottle at the same restaurant. Let's say, under your proposed "add a set mark-up per bottle based on average profits" pricing methodology, each bottle would have to have $23 added to it. Well, obviously, X would still buy the bottle he was willing to pay $400 for at $223 and would be happy about the situation. However, depending on Y's resources and preferences, Y may not be willing to pay more than $30 for his bottle and might forego that bottle at $38 (15+23). The restaurant loses out because only one bottle is sold (and at a markedly lower absolute dollar amount of profits), and Y loses out too because he does not get the bottle he wants or does not drink at all. This is just to illustrate that there are pros and cons to different wine pricing methodologies. On the BYO point, I see some validity to the "loss of business" argument. You mention that the argument is hollow because not everybody orders wine. That may be the case, but the people who are going to go to the trouble of BYO may have a greater concentration of people who might otherwise order wine (or who might otherwise order expensive wine). To be clear, I am not arguing that that is the case, just that that is conceivable. Also to be clear, I enter this discussion with significant weakness in my understanding of wine.

Steve -- I have not yet purchased the 2002 Gault-Millau, but the company's website notes the following (roughly translated): "This year, we have also taken on another challenge: we propose a reasoned and reasonable selection of 'small tables' and bistros that one can enjoy without breaking the bank. Restaurants that respond to a specific need; to note them in a local context [uncertain about this part of the translation]. An ambitious project with a simple goal -- to satisfy the reader's current mood, whether festive or practical, . . . classical or baroque, romantic or solitary." The neo-bistro trend you mentioned no doubt contributed to G-M's inclusion of the new information in its 2002 guide. I wonder what the reference to a reader's mood means, with respect to the manner in which bistros are listed in the guide.

Are three sittings within the range of accepted practice at comparable establishments? I wonder how three sittings can be accommodated when some diners might order a greater number of dishes during a meal, arrive late, have digestifs or otherwise take more time.

For members less familiar with London, Giorgio Locatelli used to work at Zafferano: http://london-churchill.interconti.com/dining/di05a.html

Roger -- I raised the issue of caviar because I have chosen to continue to eat that and shark's fin, and, if given the chance at a reliable establishment, would gladly sample whale meat. I appreciate the collective obligation humankind has to not cause the extinction of other species. Even before food-related considerations, humans are encroaching unduly on the habitat of other species through, among other things, commercial development and pollution. However, despite these general principles, I derive enough pleasure from eating Caspian Sea caviar (I also eat Aquitaine caviar, but that is not always available) that I have determined, on a cost-benefit basis (with my selfish pleasures weighed more heavily than the marginal benefit my single-person refusal of caviar would add to the cause of sturgeons), that I will continue to eat caviar. Now, the problem with this weighing is obviously which party receives the direct benefits (me, in the case of taking in caviar) and direct costs (me, in the case of refusing it). I accept that there are indirect and/or longer-term costs that are important. While Acquitaine caviar can be differentiated somewhat within its own category, it does not have the range that sevruga to beluga does. Furthermore, Acquitaine caviar is not usually the caviar used at restaurants (including even most restaurants in France). Thus, if I am to take in caviar dishes at restaurants, I would generally be accepting Caspian Sea caviar. If I were to choose to forego Caspian Sea caviar (likely never), I should not differentiate between that type of caviar bought in the store and the same type of caviar sampled in a dish at a restaurant. After all, one chooses dishes when one is dining a la carte. Therefore, Caspian Sea caviar continues to flow nicely into me!

Wilfrid -- Simon M had squirrel at St John last night. I'll try to make it tonight. See "St John" under "United Kingdom and Ireland".

Simon -- St John had squirrel on the menu last night?! I assume they did not serve the tail? How much more gamey than hare was it? Note Wilfrid and I have been pining after rodents. See "Guinea Pig In Queens" thread under "New York City and State". I'm going to go tonight.

Malawry & Wilfrid -- I appreciated Malawry's recent post in the stellabella bio. I have been thinking about how learning to cooking could further extend and augment the dining experience. Here are excerpts from Malawry's post: "It's not so much that I'm trying to say ... you really have to learn how to cook to appreciate food, or any such thing. ...and there is no "wrong"...where would we be without people to sample our treats, whether we cook professionally or at home? I'm just a little sad for you, that's all." I wonder about a lot of things, but what I miss from not cooking is one of the most consistent things I wonder about. Wilfrid and A Balic discuss the maximum number of people they have cooked for in the "Manners?" thread under "General" (pp. 2, 3). Below are some of my thoughts from that thread: "I sometimes wonder what I'm missing in not being able to cook. It would seem that cooking a meal could be linked to eating it in so many ways that both parts could, in certain situations, become more meaningful." "The reasons are that I have wondered (1) how somebody cooking for more than, say, two people could have the time to appropriately eat each dish while contemplating/preparing the remaining ones, (2) how occupation of the dual role of diner/chef can limit the type of dishes that could be prepared (e.g., dishes that permit a larger proportion of work to be done in advance) (and the extent to which that might have contributed to the prevalence of restaurants), (3) as alluded to an earlier post, whether the preparation of a meal can confer pleasure by becoming an extension of the meal experience (just like evaluating a meal during its progress and afterwards is, for me, part of the meal experience), and (4) how the different number of people typically dining together within different societies (e.g., certain Chinese "family style" dining arrangements) could affect whether the chef can dine alongside."

Wilfrid -- Thank-you; Adam's post makes sense now that I understand rodents include rabbits and kin. On squirrels -- interesting, especially their tail (I wonder how much of it would be fur?). Some game take on a bit of the flavor of what they ingest (e.g., red grouse). It would be amusing to find out if squirrels might be that way too, with respect to nuts.

I don't have my 2001 G-M in front of me, but the composite score out of 20 is too mechnical for me. If I understood the G-M rating procedure correctly (and that's a big "if", as I have never put in real effort in that regard), the guide accords weight to different criteria and then uses a formula to get to the rating out of 20. In my mind, at some places, the cuisine can be so inspired that the food aspects of the composite rating should not be restricted to the formula. Also, I think it's confusing to have 19.5 ratings, when they are likely grouped with the 19 ratings on the Web pages with restaurant listings previously linked in this thread.

Adam -- Note the book seems significantly overpriced on certain US-based Websites. Its price is more normal on Amazon.co.uk (there might be better deals elsewhere on the Web). It is written by people whose other works you appear to be reviewing.

Adam -- Have you prepared rodents before or read about their preparation? (Note I'm not sure which animals would technically be considered rodents really.)

Adam -- But if they're also very thin and/or small, having lots of them is not going to be an efficient way to receive protein unless labor is very cheap and abundant (maybe it is in the relevant geographic area). Can you imagine the work required to de-fur (?), terminate and cleanse them for a small amount of meat per animal? How big can a guinea pig get?

Tony -- Thanks When is the latest that I should let you know, in order for you to plan the number of bottles and other aspects of the tasting? There's less than a 50/50 chance I'll be in London, as that's a weekend and I might be tempted by France! But, if I'm in London, I'd want to join in.