cabrales

I am receptive to any restaurant experience -- I don't have meaningful dislikes, except for water chestnuts and chocolate. It's not a diner's openness, in my mind, to absorbing the Gagnarian experience. It's a question of what there is that is good about that experience. By the way, I will add that Gagnaire does have a strong notion of what he perceives to be best for the client. Once, I was dining with a party of 6+, and we all ordered the tasting menu. However, there were a la carte dishes that I wanted to sample. I asked if we could have the dishes added to (i.e., not substituted for) dishes in the tasting. The dining room team member rather seriously told me that that was inadvisable because it would disrupt the flow of the meal. Frankly, if a restaurant takes that position, it better produce an amazing meal. Of course, the meal was mediocre. As previously mentioned, I have mentioned to this chef that I do not prefer his cooking. I told him I thought it was overly complex, with too many ingredients in a typical dish. If he hadn't asked me, I wouldn't have taken the initiative to tell him.

chop -- That's Huy Fong. You might want to review the linked webpage from my earlier post.

By the way, I dislike the Pourcels' food even more. It's sad that Gagnaire might have "inspired" at least one of them.

I've only had four meals at Gagnaire (including St Etienne) in my life. However, I do not think I can stand going there any more for the next couple of years, unless a friend really wanted to sample the food there or I were otherwise not the decisionmaker with respect to restaurant choice (rarely). Every meal I have had there, including at least two tasting menus, has been poor -- affirmatively poor to very poor for me. I consider it a failure with respect to conception and with respect to the overall approach to cuisine that underlies the process of formulation dishes and approaching the utilization of ingredients. At Gagnaire, one cannot really taste the meaningful ingredients in a dish because there are so many of them, in general. Also, there is a very heavy hand with the utilization of certain ingredients, like argon oil. I noticed this (not for the first time) when I dined at the restaurant last month. A guinea hen or similar small fowl seemed fine when it was brought to us in its cooking container. However, when it reappeared, it was overwhelmed by a large amount of argon oil, which is itself a very aggressive ingredient in my mind. I couldn't finish this dish. During the same meal, a feuillete (or similar item) of summer truffles was so dry and bland and unaromatic. And the desserts are most egregious part of Gagnaire meals. They are brought out with such confidence that it is almost depressing when one samples their tastes. The same for the multi-plate (usually, at least three plates) cheese course.

Miguel -- Yes, we had a similar saucing with a Hawaiin-sourced fish. Interestingly, the carrot bits are noticeable in the dish, but the cardamom infused carrot emulsion did not particularly taste of carrot (although the emulsion was good).

I use Huy Fong, which I first noticed at certain Vietnamese pho places on the West Coast. It comes in a non-squeeze container as well, and is generally available in Chinatown. http://hotsaucecatalog.com/hs1223.html

As mentioned above, the Ivy sometimes has last-minute availability, such that one has some (limited) chance of obtaining a table (e.g., in the bar area) when calling after a performance after having a request declined earlier on in the day. Depending on the price range sought by the diner, The Ivy, while not offering particularly delicious food, might be an option. I remember some sort of lobster dish that was decent, and an unusual (in a neutral way) dessert of frozen berries.

I don't mean to sound discouraging and I am not indicating that GR RHR does not permit children of the age in question. However, I have never seen a child that age at GR RHR, La Tante Claire or The Square. In fact, I have never seen a child (as opposed to a teenager) at GR RHR. I have seen an apparently slightly older child at GR Claridge's, although it was during a lunch meal, and I have also seen families at Waterside Inn during lunch. However, Claridge's is not at the same level as RHR by any stretch. I consider a given child's behavior potentially relevant, but I agree with Tony that bringing a child to RHR or La Tante Claire would be quite out-of-the-ordinary. That being said, if a diner is very interested in sampling RHR and there is no sitter who is trustworthy, perhaps a call to RHR to gently inquire would be the next step. I searched Zagat 2003, London for the special category of "Young Children" and facilities with a rating of 25 or higher, and received only River Cafe and Zafferano. When I was at the River Cafe (which requires taking the subway to the suburb of Hammersmith and then a quick taxi ride) and also does not compare to certain restaurants described above, I did see children during weekend lunch. For Zafferano, note that Locatelli is now at locanda locatelli, which is not necessarily a friendly environment for children of the age of 6. Tony and others -- Do you consider the three restaurants in Ludlow as being potentially more accustomed to children around the age of 6?

It seems like the Zara Phillips story has been covered by certain publications. http://www.hellomagazine.com/2002/10/03/zararichard/

Whatever it is that ADNY is doing better than Blue Hill or Le Bernardin does not show up in the subjective deliciousness and other aspects of the dishes presented, in my assessment.

Nobu affiliate Ubon is rated highly too. In my mind, other over-rated restaurants in the list are: La Trompette (it's good, but not that good); Petrus (at most a 26); Gordon Ramsay Claridge's (again, at most a 26 and a lower rating would be justified); and China Dream (I have never heard of this restaurant).

Wilfrid -- I don't think the food is as well prepared as that at Blue Hill or Le Bernardin, for example, although I don't consider the food at ADNY inappropriately prepared. I don't disagree that ADNY may be one of the ten best restaurants in NY, although that's not subjecting the restaurant to particularly strong competition (relative to restaurants in France in my assessment). I'd like to reiterate I do not consider ADNY's food to be perfect with respect to technique, or even close to that. Yes, I dislike Ducasse's food because there are alternatives.

Bux -- I'm not sure the reason you advance is a persuasive one. Take me as an example, because I can't speak for anybody else. I've eaten at ADNY several times, but that doesn't mean I like the food. People are curious about a "new" restaurant like ADNY (-- perhaps this is an aspect of thinking they might "miss the experience"). That they are curious does not mean they end up liking Ducasse's food or that they made the reservation because they already liked his food. That a diner does not want to miss an experience does not mean he will value it once experienced, or that he respects the restaurants at which he would experience a meal. I go to restaurants I dislike all the time -- for variety, to meet up with friends or other parties, to see if the restaurant has improved or evolved, in response to an increase in rating, etc. I've even been to Gagnaire two times in the last year, and that is a restaurant I really dislike. Even Bocuse, whose food I found very poor on a recent visit, could merit a revisit because I have not sampled his bass in a pastry crust.

The October 2002 edition of Food Arts mentions that E Ripert is consulting for Geisha, a new restaurant that is currently expected to open this fall (!) in NYC. The project involves "a fun and casual concept" and dishes "using French techniques with Asian ingredients". It sounds like Maguy Le Coze is less or not involved. "This involvement provides us the fun and the freedom to create dishes that we cannot necessarily offer at Le Bernardin. . . . (I've never been to Japan, so I studied all the best Japanese cookbooks I could find and tasted a lot in good Japanese restaurants. Then I started to experiment, to create my own interpretations in my own personal style)", Ripert notes. Ripert's cookbook, "A Return to Cooking" is coming up as well.

I believe in that as well. There is a certain kind of diner -- not *all* experienced diners with a high level of taste but a *certain* special kind (with the possibility that there are other special kinds who prefer other cuisiners, I suppose) -- would see with singular clarity the difference between Passard and Ducasse over two or more meals at each. Note seeing the difference between them, in my mind, does not necessarily require preferring one or the other; that depends on the diner's subjective preferences. For example, if one really liked eating beef or lamb, one might prefer Ducasse because he includes such products in his cooking.

The October 2002 edition of Food Arts mentions, as an aside to another topic and following an indication that 1/3 of Trotter's customers order vegetarian menus, "three or four people a night request his all-raw menu of 'living food', none of which has been heated above 118 [degress] F." Trotter's interest in "raw" food, which was among the highlighted topics at the Aspen event this year, was discussed in some edition of Art Culinaire this year. Have members sampled Trotter's "living food" dishes?

Steven -- I'm curious as to which chef(s) who has staged at multiple Michelin three-star restaurants would convey that Ducasse's *brigade* (I'm glad you mentioned at least the brigade and not the cuisine) is the "gold standard". And how many of the applicable chefs have staged in the kitchens of applicable innovators in France? I'm not trying to be difficult, but am trying to ask why these observations are being made. My thoughts for now: (1) If Ducasse is not supervising the production of dishes at many of his establishments, of course he needs a more competent team. Look at how many featured "main assistants" were featured in a recent edition of Thuliers (spelling). Contrast certain innovators who prefer to be in their kitchens, who like to be part of their own brigades. (2) The size of a kitchen team does not say anything about its capabilities, except to handle time-consuming, repeatable tasks like the salad arrangement you describe. A larger kitchen team is better able to handle contingencies, potentially and very generally, because there is more "slack". So I don't necessarily disagree that Ducasse's brigade might be the "gold standard" for handling unexpected developments requested by diners. But what does that say about Ducasse's *cuisine*, other than one of his dishes requires careful arrangement. (3) I'd like to draw a distinction between complexity of execution, and complexity in conception. I'm not saying Ducasse has one or the other. Just that there are many different types of complexity. Consider an example of a dress being complex in execution because it needs to be embroidered, but the underlying embriodered design being fundamentally flawed in conception. If what is being embroidered onto the dress is an ugly pattern, beautiful embroidery technique will not save the gown.

Steven -- You speak as though you hadn't spent time in a Ducasse kitchen as well in connection with your piece on the kitchen equipment at Ducasse (Note I do not believe that time spent in a particular chef's kitchen necessarily impinges upon a person's perception of such chef's cuisine.) Why rely on the authority of somebody else? Why not rely on recent samplings of each chef's cuisine -- the chefs whose cuisine you dislike as well as that of Ducasse --by "you" to support your position?

Steven -- With all respect to cuisiniers who have spent time in Ducasse's kitchens, I'd like to ask whether, as a hypothetical not specific to schaem, participation in one kitchen **without having worked in other applicable kitchenS** is likely to engender "warm and fuzzy" feelings towards the kitchen one has worked at, or the unknown ones? Isn't there some missing information with respect to your statement that Ducasse's dishes are **the most technically demanding** and his cooks **the most skilled**? To make such a statement, wouldn't one also have to know the technical difficulties of innovators' dishes and the skill level of their assisting chefs? And speaking of reliance on the "authority" of others, it must be less than comforting to do so without knowing, with all respect to any stagiaire at ADNY, how long a period of time he spent at ADNY and what his role there was. For example, would it matter to you if one were a beginning commis (to be clear, a role that add a great deal of value, but a different role than, say, chef de partie for a station) or a chef de partie? Would it matter to you if one's first kitchen were ADNY, or if one had been stagiaire in some innovators' kitchens in France? I am not saying A is better than B in these examples, to be clear, just that A or B might be relevant.

schaem -- I'd like to further note that it is not the fault of more innovative chefs in France if, hypothetically as you appear to be suggesting, diners (in the US, if your earlier post is taken into account) are more impressed with less talented, copying chefs than they ideally should be. It's just too bad for any diners in question, in terms of their potential subjective enjoyment, if they are impressed by mediocre food. But then, to the extent the diners consider the food they sample to be good, who is to say that their subjective preferences aren't valid? Returning to NY examples, I cannot subjectively understand why Cello had to close, when many restaurants that I consider to be very flawed are still around. (I appreciate the fish focus, and am not suggesting anything regarding Le Bernardin, which I like)

schaem -- As previously mentioned, if ideas that are wonderful when properly executed, and executed as intended by their creator, are being perverted and mangled by others, who is to blame other than the "copiers" and perhaps a dining public that should be more informed? Many poor restaurants survive (and, indeed, some thrive) for reasons that I no longer seek to explain to myself. Let's step back a bit. When younger chefs are inspired by the innovators who taught them and with whom such younger chefs worked, great results can unfold. Consider Pascal Barbot at L'Astrance. He worked in the kitchen of an innovator and took appropriate elements of technique and excellence with him to incorporate into his own dishes. So, if the younger chefs of whom you speak are talented enough in taking the ideas of innovators and developing them, and/or coming up with new ideas of their own, the new chefs become innovators too. Can it be helped that not every chef is talented (with all do respect to chefs) with respect to cooking? Can it be helped that some of those who are less talented perceive themselves to be more talented than they in fact are? Can it be blamed on the innovative chefs that some of those who are less talented and who have an accurate assessment of themselves decide to cloak weaknesses in the guise of the ideas of innovative chefs? Can it be helped if a chef, who is starting out and generally wants to develop his own cuisine, is initially looking to the ingredients utilized by innovative chefs in an effort to "find his own way"? I don't know why particular copiers copy, but the failures of weak copiers must not be held against those whose artistry prompted such efforts.

schaem -- That less competent chefs (to be clear, with all respect to chefs) are seeking to follow the footsteps of the innovative chefs they admire and/or are otherwise believing that innovation will be noticed by clients is irrelevant to the current dialogue, in my mind. If anything, it shows that the "copying" chefs perceive clients will notice and value innovation, and/or prefer the cuisine of the innovative chefs. If one were a chef intent on copying, wouldn't one at least take into account one's personal preference as one (not necessarily the most important) factor in deciding whom to copy? For example, if one hated the cuisine of a given chef, would one copy that chef's cuisine? Accordingly, the significant copying of innovative chefs, if relevant, supports the appreciation by the "copiers" of those chefs' cuisine. As I noted before, because one doesn't necessarily even know which non-innovative chefs are being attempted to be copied, I am not indicating that innovative chefs are necessarily being copied more. I am merely stating that innovative chefs are copied a great deal. It's like when one looks at the inexpensive knock-offs of designer bags. Do you see the *least demanded* bags being copied on New York streets (using a New York example again), or does one see Louis Vuitton, Prada, Kate Spade, etc. -- the bags that people want! Of course, the bags are not the genuine article. So can one blame Louis Vuitton for the imitators? Of course not! I'm glad you speak of New York restaurants, because restaurants that respond to seasonal produce and high quality produce and that produce delicious food are being valued. Take Colin Alevras' Tasting Room -- that is a restaurant that responds very quickly to seasonal availability and where the chef does a lot of shopping for high quality ingredients. Or, more to my interest, Blue Hill. That restaurant is centered around great produce, like Concord grapes. Blue Hill actually shows that the utilization of great ingredients and chefs' caring about that aspect are 100% consistent with innovative and thoughtful cooking. I also wonder whom schaem was referring to when he/she indicated that "if you don't believe than [spelling] you should eat out in New York more often". Is the generic "you" being referenced, or the you of Steve P or myself, I wonder? I'm also glad schaem mentioned his work in the ADNY kitchen, which may have informed his perceptions. I'd like to end this particular post with my subjective belief that Ducasse's food at Plaza Athenee is far from "perfect" in any sense. Below are my observations from earlier this year. The meal described is, sadly, the best meal I have had with Ducasse. It had obvious flaws, from my perspective. So I'd like to emphasize that Ducasse might or might not be striving for perfection, but in my mind his food is quite far from arriving at any such goal:

When I visited the Zagat website, the left-hand-side column indicated that new survey results for London are "just in" in October. So, I subscribed (agreeing to pay $14.95 unless I cancel within 14 days) and received the following rankings, which I believe to have been revised from those I recall for last year. I am not certain these are 2003 rankings, but the high position of La Trompette, for example, and the rating of Gordon Ramsay Claridge's appear to reflect revised food ratings. Obviously, Zagat ratings are very flawed. However, I thought members might find the below ratings amusing. Food Rating of 28: Deservedly, Gordon Ramsay RHR Food Rating of 27: Le Gavroche La Trompette (#3; query whether the written guide has the same ordering when food ratings are the same) Nobu Le Manoir Aux Quat' Saisons Petrus Gordon Ramsay, Claridge's Food Rating of 26: Chez Bruce Waterside Inn Ubon The Square -- This restaurant should be rated better Richard Corrigan at The Lindsay House Monsieur Max La Tante Claire -- This restaurant should be rated *much* better China Dream (?) -- In Hampstead The Capital Club Gascon Mossimann's

What I think has been missing in this thread so far is the observation that innovation at non-Ducasse places (it's helpful everybody has conceded Ducasse does not meaningfully innovate) is **coupled with**, instead of being at the expense of, perfectionism. It takes discipline and dedication to try and develop, and implement, dishes with innovation. Separately, I strongly disagree with schaem's observation that innovation is easier to copy. It just might appear to be easy to copy poorly, because, if one copied the less innovative cuisine of Ducasse, diners might just think the cuisine were poor and would not necessarily "connect the dots" as to the chef being copied. In other words, if Ducasse's food were copied poorly, one wouldn't even necessarily be able to identify that the attempted copy was of Ducasse (due to the lack of innovation). However, when an innovative chef is copied, the copier will usually combine ingredients in, obviously, a more innovative or distinctive way and copies will be easier to detect. Like Ken Oringer's lobster with yellow wine. It doesn't take much to figure who might have "inspired" him (see Clio thread under New England forum). Yet a chef like Oringer has executed the resulting dish very poorly. Can members imagine the travesty to emanate from copies executed by less capable chefs?

ArynT -- My grape tasting menu resulted from a special request I made regarding Concord grapes to Chef Mike Anthony. It was not included in the printed menu, nor necessarily described by dining room team members. If you are interested in revisiting the restaurant within the season relevant for Concord grapes, you could consider making a special request to the chef as well *at least a day in advance of your meal* to see if the then circumstances in the kitchen permit the preparation of a grape meal (obviously, I assume the specific included dishes might depend on market availability of applicable ingredients). Note I am, of course, not purporting to speak for the restaurant in indicating the availability (or lack thereof) of such a meal. What time were you at the restaurant Friday night (our party's reservations were at 8:30)?