cabrales

To answer the same inquiries: 3) No, I would strongly prefer that people not wait for me. I would not ask of dining companions that which I would not give, had our positions been reversed. If dining companions had waited for me and the food had gotten cold, I would have found that of their own doing (with all respect) and unnecessary. 4) If all seven had been served, it would be rude of the eigth not to insist on the others beginning to eat. If the eigth did not volunteer to do so, I would ask nicely. "X, I hope you won't mind too much if we were to begin on our dishes, given their temperature." At that point, the eighth should of course assent.

Chef Forley -- How long did you remain on average in each place, and were you able to learn within the limited timeframe the overall culinary framework and techniques of some of the restaurants? What were your thoughts on the cuisine of Guerard and others?

Steven -- I agree. That argument is unpersuasive, and I am not addressing it.

Wilfrid -- By "brief absence", do you mean an apparent restroom break? If that's the case, it could generally take a woman perhaps 3-5 minutes (particularly at Lespinasse) to return to her seat. Do you consider 5 minutes brief in the context of the arrival of a dish and a wait of 5 minutes? How long was your dining companion away, roughly?

On any "normal" delays between plating of a dish and presentation at the table to the diner, that is an element that a good cuisinier should take into account in designing and implementing a dish. However, that "normal" delay (with some relatively narrow band for variation) is something the cuisinier can anticipate and perhaps even seek to compensate for (potentially?). Also, to some extent, given the physical spaces that have to be covered by dining room team members, some amount of "normal" delay is inevitable. Obviously, the normal delay depends on physical lay-out of the restaurant (kitchen as well as dining room), the efficacy and number of dining room team members, and other factors. On what happens if dishes for a given table are ready for plating at different times, well the better restaurants should try to avoid that by "firing" dishes requiring different cooking periods at different times and not just "firing" all dishes for a table when ordered. The better kitchens should be able to have plating of dishes for a given table at roughly the same time. That is where Daniel's closed circuit cameras could potentially be useful. The progress of diners on a prior dish can be monitored to better guestimate when ensuing dishes should be "fired". It is also the responsibility of the dining room team to coordinate with the kitchen with any relevant major updates for each table. I see a bit of circularity in Wilfrid's reasoning. People should wait because they are expected to wait. Well, who expects them to wait? If it's the missing diner, that can be addressed through an apology and recognition of the fact that in some cases the good of the many must outweigh the *perceived* benefits to the few. If the expectation is on the part of the diners remaining to wait, they can discuss the issue and choose to not wait. If the expectation is claimed to be on the part of the restaurant that the remaining diners can wait, I note the following: -- First, the restaurant should recognize that it was the restaurant's mistake that led to a perceived dilema on the part of the diners in the first place. In such position, the restaurant should have no ability to claim that etiquette is this or that. -- Second, as I mentioned before, the remaining diners can signal their awareness of the potential argument for waiting by handling the situation in the manner described by my first post in this thread (p1). People can communicate with one another, and the remaining diners can communicate to the restaurant that they wish to proceed despite a potential argument to teh contrary. This will stand the remaining diners in good stead, as it signals awareness of potential etiquette arguments, but achieves the desired outcome of eating. -- There might even be an argument that, by not placing cloches over the dishes of the remaining diners or not offering that option to them, the Lespinasse dining room team was signalling that the restaurant thought remaining dinners should proceed. -- I wish to note particularities with respect to Lespinasse. As members know, the washrooms are not in the restaurant iself. Instead, one has to exit the restaurant, walk to the left and then towards the front of the St Regis hotel. Then, one has to descend a flight of stairs before reaching the restroom. The restaurant should know that this is not the shortest of restaurant routes, and should therefore not mind if diners proceed.

I believe Sketch, Le Gavroche and Escoffier's tenure at the Ritz (?) (not necessarily an opening per se of a facility) have been the most significant openings (with respect to restaurants that we collectively could cover as adults) in the UK to date (not necessarily in that order). Le Gavroche, because of the profound influence of the Roux brothers on their progeny and their indirect "offspring" (incl. Koffman, MPW, Ramsay, Wareing, Blumenthal). Also, their role as almost "pioneers" with respect to certain cuisine. Sketch, because, with all respect to Gordom Ramsay (RHR is one of my preferred restaurants and its opening should be viewed as significant as well), P Gagnaire and others in France are offering fundamentally differentiated cuisine. For me and shifting away from Gagnaire's particular cuisine, the cuisine in France remains unmatched (including by the promising cuisine one can find in Spain). Escoffier's tenure, because it was Escoffier.

I believe Steven is right, even as to the US. My sense is that the US is generally more lax on etiquette (no positive or negative connotations necessarily intended) than at restaurants in France. With all respect, there appears to be reduced alertness to etiquette in the US. Separately, note that, relative to certain peers (e.g., Bouley), Lespinasse does aspire towards, and likely achieves, a more "French" "feel" with respect to service. The lunch maitre d' (or comparable lead of the dining room team) spoke fluent French, and appeared to be French. Several of the commis de salle spoke French, for example.

I'd be interested in learning more about Le Cercle membership. Is any member part of Le Cercle, such that she could consider potentially sponsoring me?

hollywood -- I haven't focused in on polystyrene ones. What do they look like?

The cloches are not a real solution. The dish still loses part of what it had, albeit perhaps at a slower rate. I have also wondered whether the heat traped inside the cloche might continue, to a very limited extent, the heating up or cooking of the shielded contents in a manner that is undesirable (???).

On affiliates of Paris one-stars apart from Cagna's places: -- Helene Darroze has a downstairs tapas bar that offers more moderately priced fare and potentially lighter meals. -- Drouant has a cafe adjacent to the main restaurant.

In addition to Savoy and Loiseau's facilities, in Paris here are some of the siblings of three-star restaurants: L'Angle de Faubourg (one-star) -- Sibling to Vrinat's Taillevent. There is an old thread on this sibilng. 59 Poincare, Aux Lyonnais (the bistro taken over by Ducasse and the owner of L'Ami Louis), "be", Spoon, etc. -- Various affiliates, more tightly or loosely supervised, of Ducasse's restaurant at Plaza Athenee. http://www.alain-ducasse.com/accueil_actualite_us.htm Maison Blanche -- Run by Pourcel twins of Montpellier's Jardin des Sens. M Troisgros is reported to be supervising something in Paris beginning in 2003. There is an old thread on this as well. In addition to Rostang and Dutournier's places, for affiliates of Parisian two-stars, I believe La Tour d'Argent and Apicius might have some sort of affiliate (unclear). I have not eaten at any of the above affiliates, except for L'Angle de Faubourg (see write-up, unlinked). I dislike all of Ducasse's restaurants, and have eaten a more than one Spoon outside of Paris (e.g., London). I dislike the food there. I am interested in visiting Savoy affiliate Cap Vernet for the brand-name-producer oysters.

Speaking of shaking hands, there's a not irrelevant analogy of a passenger on board one of the cruise ships that, on a previous voyage, had had passenger illness problems. There was a NYT article within the past week on a reporter who took a trip on such a ship. The crew was touching elbows with passengers, instead of shaking hands, because of the risks of transmission of disease. I agree with Steven's position, and add the following minor points: -- At some restaurants, temperature *contrasts* are an integral part of certain dishes. This is the case in a number of the high-ranked restaurants in Spain, say. With time, temperature contrasts intended to be conveyed by the chef become distorted. -- Aromas can obviously be lost, in addition to temperature, when a dish is allowed to rest. While a diner can take in the aromas of a dish that is not under a cloche as he awaits the return of a missing diner, aromas are often best enjoyed concurrently with the taste in the mouth of the dish. -- As mentioned before, if the concern is about politeness to the missing person, either the person would understand the early taking in of the dishes or would receive an apology. It would be selfish of the missing person under certain circumstances to insist that an entire table of diners be held up on her account. -- Also, the remaining diners do not know why a person might have left the table with precision. For example, one sometimes exit the main dining room to make phone calls. Thus, there is no assurance that what diners might expect to be a restroom break would not be coupled with a phone call made (including on the person's mobile phone in the restroom, e.g., to check on work voicemail). -- The rationale behind starting together is dubious in the first place. If the idea is that diners would not feel rushed to finish, diners eat at different paces in any event and some might feel rushed to finish regardless of when they started. Obviously, in addition to the pace of eating of different diners, different dishes can tend to slow the eating process down or not. For example, if one has to take time to extract remnants of flesh from shellfish without using one's hands, or one would like to eat frogs' legs without using one's hands, that requires more time. -- If the rationale is that the kitchen can pace the progress of the table as a whole, that rationale is called into question by a person's departure in any event.

What special events/activities (relating to food and other matters) might be available in Paris during X'Mas/New Years? I haven't focused on non-food activities on prior trips around this time of the year. For instance, have members visited the skating rink outside the Hotel de Ville?

Nina -- May I ask how you know your beau will not check the board?

I would say diners could beginning eating in France without appearing impolite (if properly executed), or they could wait. Separately, I wonder whether the gender of the missing diner at Lespinasse had any impact on the decision. Let's say that Wilfrid were the missing diner. Nick: Would you have waited?

I inferred that the item was not sliced (relative to other slices on the plate). The presentation was one or two pieces, and they sounded like a "natural" portion sliced from a lobe, or perhaps a small lobe.

Lack of egalitarianism doesn't bother me, even if I am not the recipient of special treatment. I don't want special treatment at almost all restaurants.

Blame is perhaps a loaded term. Somebody has to accept responsibility for an adverse outcome, or perhaps at least one has to deduce who acted on what over the course of the serving and sampling of the dish and who did not act on what. I got the sense from the Lespinasse thread that negative inferences were drawn about the restaurants based on the cold food. I merely note that the cold food was a result of, among other things, (1) the restaurant having brought the dishes while a diner was away, (2) the restaurant having placed the cloche only on the missing diner's plates, (3) the restaurant having not replaced all plates with hot dishes, AND (4) the remaining diners' choice to await the return of the missing diner.

For me, the bottom line is that diners have to be accountable for their own decisions when they are confronted with a problem (e.g., food having been served despite the absence of a fellow diner). Each potential course of action has its pros and its cons. Having chosen (and I agree it would be best if the restaurant did not place the diners in the position of having to choose in this context), one cannot blame the restaurant for results that were at least in part due to one's choices (one can blame the restaurant for having been forced to choose). In the Lespinasse case, with all empathy to Wilfrid and ngatti, they got the benefits of an appreciative returning missing diner. They suffered the consequences of colder cuisine. I sympathize, but I note there were other potential outcomes.

Robert -- There are two, related issues. One is the issue of two smaller pieces vs. a single lobe. The other is the issue of the aggregated quantity of foie in either case. It's difficult for me to imagine that all customers receive the same quantity of naturally-occurring (even if that includes force-feeding) products. If a restaurant receives two lobsters, one at 1 pounds and one at 1.25, and its dish requires the serving of an entire lobster, those two lobsters are generally charge out at the same price at a French restaurant. Similarly, if there are bigger lobes and smaller lobes, one cannot expect the restaurant to give everybdy the quantity represented by the bigger lobe. So long as everybody receives at least the quantity of the smaller lobes, that might be the standard. Foie lobes come in different sizes, and, with the preparation sampled by Jon, could not be trimmed (for larger lobes), as it would be evident. So perhaps the adjacent diner received an extraordinarily large lobe. So long as Jon's lobes were roughly the quantity offered at the restaurant for that dish, I don't see how there is cause for complaint (aside from the overcooking). Without having seen the serving size for, say, three or five diners during the period in question, it's difficult to attribute inappropriate behavior to the restaurant.

Robert -- Why would you assume that the two-piece foie was served to Jon *because* he is a one-time customer (which he is in fact not) or he is a non-French person? Why could it not have been served to him out of the luck of the draw? Note that L-C has a way to use smaller pieces of foie. In the steamed foie dish, wrapped in cabbage. Note, currently, this dish does not appear on the dinner menu and is only available during lunch. What would you have a restaurant do? If there are smaller pieces of foie and smaller truffles, somebody has to get them. They could still be quality items -- just items that are not as good as other specimens.

I thought to myself when ADNY started that its pricing relative to other restaurants in NY was not among the crucial qualities of the restaurant. It was a restaurant that *promised* (note not delivered, in my book) the type of three-star cuisine, wine and service that one might find in France. It was different from the other restaurants. As Steve P has noted, Sketch promises to be fundamentally different from other restaurants (including on the dimension of price level). The key for me (and I won't be in London any time soon, or I would be sampling it) is whether Sketch delivers on its promise (of being what it purports to be, not necessarily a promise of my satisfaction with its cuisine). If it does, I don't mind paying for that experience. In my mind, however, Gordon Ramsay RHR is a very strong restaurant, and will best Sketch in diners' assessments after diners have satisfied their curiosity with respect to Sketch. I'd prefer to eat at RHR than at Gagnaire, Paris, any day.

Frankly, I believe there is an argument that in many instances it could be the departing diner's partial fault for not having timed her visit to the restroom appropriately. At French two- and three-stars, there's generally likely to be at least a short time gap between the removal of a dish and the arrival of the next dish (even for slow-ish eaters). A diner interested in going to the restroom should immediately leave after a dish is finished, and hurry back. Women diners might want to consider not spending excessive amounts of time on retouching their make-up/hair, etc., or making two short breaks instead of one extended one.

While all diners at a three-star should receive very high quality ingredients and dishes, I do not necessarily agree that all diners should receive the same quality dish for the same price. Speaking generally and not of Jon's L-C experience, why shouldn't diners who have visited a restaurant many times or who exhibit understanding of a chef's cuisine upon an initial visit not receive a bit more caviar or the largest truffles (to the extent there are differences) in a dish containing that ingredient, to the extent that other diners still get a very high quality ingredient? If truffles are inherently of different sizes, some diners would have to get shavings (assume they are the same weight in total shavings) from the larger, more aromatic truffles. Why can't a restaurant allocate those goodies to regulars or people who appear to appreciate cuisine and wine? Also, foie gras pieces come in more or less desirable pieces. It was perhaps the luck of the draw, as John suggested. While a single piece would indeed be the norm at a three-star, it might not be entirely inappropriate to have received two smaller pieces. The overcooking is a separate, though related, issue. However, with all empathy for Jon, I do not believe that too much should be inferred from his having received a two-piece-foie dish relative to an adjacent diner.