Bux

Judith, welcome to eGullet. I hope we get more input on those trips of yours and I hope you enjoy the discussions here. Can Fabes is one of our all time great meals. I'm glad to hear Santamaria is evolving. We enjoyed the rustic ambience when we were there and look forward to seeing the new dining room. I assume the redesign was part of the contruction of the hotel/inn. As a long time gastro-visitor to France, I've found it remarkable how many of Spain's great rural restaurants are not part of an inn with overnight accommodations and how many of the urban restaurants are nowhere near the urban center and often well into suburbia. As for two and three star ratings in Spain, well, I've had my share of disagreement with Michelin on that score in France. In Spain they seem less reliable. A conservatism may be to blame, but it's beyond just delaying a change in status. This forum has become one of the best places I know to find the names of restaurants in Spain that are worth seeking out.

I was thinking about ratings a propos this thread and the relationship of these to the fact that there is standard. I am also aware that education in this arena is a matter of becoming aware of the standards and understanding them. I am also aware that progress in any society is often made by the replacement of old worn standards by new ones. Fat Guy mentioned "standards used by virtually all those who are learned, experienced, and knowledgeable about cuisine." I think it's fairly easy to move back and forth between Zagat numbers and NY Times stars. Four stars would probably be a 28 and 29 rating or maybe even a 27, 28 and 29. The exact pairing does really matter for what I am going to add to this thread and that is, I've heard professional chefs speak of other chefs' yet to be openned restaurants in terms of NY Times' stars. I've heard them ask if someone thought the new restaurant is going to be a three or four star restaurant. Clearly they had no knowledge of how good the food would be. What they were asking about was the proposed style of the restaurant and the type of food it was going to serve. The question was not so much about the ultimate rating as to the intent of the chef. Did he intend to operate a three or four star restaurant at the location. I'm sure Daniel Boulud would be thrilled to get four stars at Cafe Boulud, but he doesn't expect that. It's understood to be aiming at being a perfect three star restaurant and capturing the Daniel audience when it wants a three star experience. This is a standard that works, or works in the presence of a trained readership and critic. It works because it communicates to that audience. Star systems can also have a bit of flexibility built in to them. The Michelin two and three star restaurants are meant to be destination places. One goes out of the way to eat there. The one star designation is something else. It means a good restaurant in the area, but not one that's worth a detour. Grocery strikes me as that kind of place and those places are usually two stars in the Times. I'm not so much defending a status quo as I am a system that works on many levels. What I don't see in the alternative is a system that communicates information about a restaurant as well.

One night when we were staying in the first arrondissement, we went there thinking it might be a place to get a light bite on a moment's notice. I have no idea if the food is any good, because the place was packed. Not a table to be had and no place at the bar which was packed three deep evidently with people waiting for a table. So plenty of people must eat there and apparently it's a good idea to reserve. I highly recommend Legrand Filles et Fils in the Gallerie Vivienne for a light bite at lunch time along with a few glasses of wine. I recall nice charcuterie, cheese and smoked fish plates.

I think it takes tremendous creativity to claim I said, implied or think anything of the sort. I also think it takes balls, clouds the issues and sabotages the discussion. Fat Guy just said "What's important is communication." He said it in relation to communicating information about restaurants using a set of ratings, but I'll also adress the issue in regard to putting words in other people's mouths. Doing so reduces the strength of any argument you put forth regarding communication and that's what the ratings are all about. What does a rating of 28 say about a restaurant and its food? Fresh start then. It's not an argument, it's your opinion that low food deserves the rating of high food. It's my opinion that high food deserves a higher rating and my argument is that this is for the sole purpose of communicating the fact that it's high food. Thus I understand that you believe ratings should not be used to separate the good from the better. Perhaps it's just too elitist to have a method of rewarding excellence. So you're using this particular time and place to make a political point unrelated to Grocery or Grimes' article. I think that's dishonest. Fine, that's your opinion, but I note that within your acceptance of education, there immediately springs forth a reverse snobbism that need to mock haute cuisine. It's unnecessary and self defeating. I don't know that I know anything better than you do, although today, I'm not impressed with your communication skills. All that my education (I'll call it experience, if I might) has done is allow me to know more than I used to know. Forty years ago I might not have valued the difference between Grocery and Le Bernardin. Today I do and can express that sort of difference on a rating scale. Perhaps, perhaps not. But once more I see an agenda that's driving your posts and not a response to Grimes' article or what we might have said. You're arguing about what you suppose we'd do in another situation. That's not fair to Grimes and not fair to the readers here. It's not the path to a fresh start I agreed to take with you.

Hmm, is it proper to identify non-members? Should I have gotten a release before posting the photograph? From left to right by ID only. Lou's roommate, Loufood, Delights' mother, Delights, David Bizer, the reason David has such a big smile, yours truly, Mrs. B.

I can't imagine anyone trying to sneak a case of wine, especially still wine, through customs. The taxes are far too low to make it worthwhile. In fact the import duty on a case of wine is so low that it really isn't worth the time invovled in filling out the forms and most inspectors will wave it through knowing it's going to cost the government more money to process the forms than you will pay. On the other had, it's really hard to carry much wine if you have any luggage at all. A case is rather heavy to carry on and rather fragile to send with the luggage. We once returned from California with a case of wine split in two six bottle cartons. It was rather rare wine and the buyer and seller didn't want to go through the hassle and expense of making a special order through normal channels. The wine went in the over head bins and go hand carried all alond the way. French wines are often available at prices not much different than retail prices in France. Of course that's dependent on living and shopping in a state without state controlled prices and a lot of competition. It's also dependent on the wine and the channels of distribution in both places.

The no show at dinner who arrived just in time to play host for the after dinner session. It was a small group and not all stayed around for the post dinner party but I think we all enjoyed the food and company. It was good to see an old face and great to meet those with whom I've only had electronic contact before, although we had already managed to meet several of the new faces earlier in the week and the evening had the sense of being with old friends. There are plenty of places to eat in Paris, and there is both better food to be found and less expensive restaurants, but I think Louisa did a great job in picking l'Auvergne Gourmande. There was a limited prixe fixe menu with wine included at a most reasonable accord of quality to price and the restaurant was most accommodating and friendly. There's a table that seats ten in the front and one that seats five in the rear of the little restaurant. Tables are high and diners sit on stools. If you're a small party, you will share the table with others. The food is honest and enjoyable. As I recall dinner was something around 30 euros for three courses of simple, but sophisticated cooking. Mineral water is included and we were given two bottles of red wine for the eight of us. Both the St. Pourcian and Irouleguy were rustic, but enjoyable and served chilled. My first course was a very satisfying velvety soup that incorporated fourme d'Ambert, one of my favorite blue cheeses. There were a few salads among the first courses. The one I recall the best was centered on an oeuf en gelée--a wonderful soft cooked egg set in aspic on a bed of greens. Mrs. B had a salad of three cold raviloli on a bed of greens. Her complaint was that the greens needed dressing. I think I also lucked out with a cassolette of snails in red wine sauce. Mrs. B had a stew with mashed potatoes. The restaurant was not brightly lit and the flash washed out closeups of the food and I was just getting used to the camera, but here's a shot of the crème brulée dessert.

Did Grimes call anyone, or any group of people a moron or morons? I don't recall that and just checked to see that he didn't. By exaggerating his statements I think the argument falls as flat as Grimes' analogies. Admittedly most analogies work better if one accepts the premise they're supposed to prove. In fact they're generally unhelpful and I think a good case has been made that Grimes could have had a stronger article had he not referred to music and musicians. We can debate Grimes' style, his poor use of an analogy that didn't work very well, or what he had to say about the restaurant and the rating. I think Mamster did a good job in separating the issues. He also coincidently made an interesting point about steak houses. Interesting to me because I have just been looking at (I'd say reading, if my fluency in French were better) an article in the current Nouveua GaultMillau--a French magazine devoted to restaurants, food and wine. There's an article on the thrity best steaks in France--or the names and addresses of the thrity best restaurants in which to get a good steak. The GaultMillau guide to restaurants rates restaurants on a scale of 11 to 20. None of these "best" restaurants gets more than a 15/20 overall, and there is at least one restaurant that scores 11/20, but it's still one of the thirty most recommended places for a steak. When a restaurant that is not trying to compete with the top restaurants, even in the classification of food, it shouldn't be rated as one because it does what it's trying to so so well. It demeans the system. Anyway, the rating is meaningless unless it comes from those who have eaten at Grocery and either Jean Georges, Daniel, Le Bernardin or Alain Ducasse. A major weakness of Zagat is that their contributors all have a different standard to awarding a three, the highest mark.

Of course simple things can be as impressive as complicated things. What strikes me as wrongheaded is the idea that easy to do things done well are as impressive as things that are difficult to do and done expertly. There's an expertise that is required at Jean Georges, or Alain Ducasse that is not required at Grocery and the chef at Grocery understands that well. What I don't understand is why others don't understand that. I also don't understand why anyone would expect me to pay any attention to a reviewer who didn't understand that. I have no problem with anyone who picks fault with Grimes' analogies. Analogies will usually get people in trouble. I know, I use them all the time. I though there was some validity in his diving analogy, though. I think it's not so much a matter of Grimes' snobbishness--if you follow his his reviews you'll see he's anything but that--as it is a matter or reverse snobbishness that insists there's no difference between the product of a neighborhood kitchen and that of a world class disciplined haute cuisine kitchen. The fact is that there's no difference between any two things that can be compared unless one is able to appreciate the difference and anyone defending a lack of difference is announcing that he doesn't see the difference. The two possiblities are that he's got a clearer head and recognizes a truth or that he's less of a connoisseur. Nothing that even the chef at Grocery is surprised by his rating, I'm going to believe his loyal customers are not connoisseurs--or that they're playing favorites and voting for the home town boy.

I think the project has been public knowledge for some time and I suspect it may well have been mentioned, but given how much work is involved in this project, I think Mike and Dan were reluctant to make too much about it in public. Has anyone yet mentioned a targeted opening date?

Let me differ with you here. I didn't get to Robuchon's but from my reading and hearing about it, I'd have to say the influence of Spain must be on the magnitude of eight or nine times greater than any American influence. Both the US and France, or at least both NY and Paris have been influenced by the Spanish tapas bar. On the plus side for NY as a world food center is that they picked up grazing before the French did, but the Spanish still do it better and they're just beginning to get creative about it themselves. I also think you're offering too strong a foreigner's outdated view of opportunities to eat in Paris. When I asked Dorie Greenspan for a list of new places that might be below the international radar, most of them were for places in which we could graze and at least two of them seemed to feature Spanish hams and products. I've long been a fan of a place next to Poilane that specializes in open sandwiches. While the concept of the meal as a minimum of three course was de rigeur for lunch and dinner when I first visited Paris, the option of the "formule" in many small places offers the choice of two courses from the three course menu art a reduced price and cafes and Brasserie have always offered sandwiches and plats du jour. I don't know when saladier places snuck into Paris, but it's always been possible to graze or snack in Paris. However, as I've already posted, I strongly agree that within the past decade the flow of ideas and knowledge is not longer a one way stream. That and ease of transportation may only make the original question in this thread less meaningful in that there's less centralization and less reason for it to exist. Great restaurant cities may be less dependent on great chefs or great local produce, than they are on a clientele willing to support the great restaurants. That's not just referring to the multi-starred destination restaurants, it's also about having the foreign population to support "authentic" "ethnic" restaurants as a local population with the curiosity to add to the that clientele.

Old story, I've told it before on eGullet, but it fits here I think. I meet a young French cook working in NY in the mid nineties. I ask him why he came here and he replies to improve his rather rudimentry English. (He's already worked in London.) I ask how his position at one of NY's top four star places will look on is resume when he returns to France. He replies that it will be no different than if he took the time off from cooking altogether. Fast forward about five or so years and I talk to him after he's returned from a trip to France with his girl friend. He talks about the way he's treated wherever he went. As a sous chef at a top four star French restaurant in NY, I get VIP treatment whenever I eat at a two or three star restaurant. They all know my restaurant, it's famous and revered in France. Another story about a young chef from Bordeaux. Out of cooking school in France, he comes to the same NY French restaurant to stage. He returns to France and opens a restaurant in the Pays Basque. We visit him and eat at his restaurant. The food is fresh and so much different from the rest of the places serving tourists in St. Jean de Luz. He tells us that he never saw such quality produce as when he came to work at that restaurant in NY. He tells us he makes his own desserts. It's something he learned from working in NY and we realize that maybe all the other restaurants in St. Jean de Luz buy their desserts premade. His customers want to know where he gets his desserts. He's not a two star restaurant (he's not even listed in Michelin). They don't believe he makes his own deserts.

Service in France is also an art that requires the diner to know his place in the ritual or his part in the dance. In Paris, at the high end, you still find a more informed and appreciative diner to be the norm and that's not the case anywhere in the states.

Check out what Sullivan Street Bakery has on tap at lunch time on weekdays. They usually have one or two very interesting and exceedingly thin crusted pizzas that are rather creative and rustic. I wish they made them at dinner time and delivered. In fact they are a small production item and you may have to wait for the next one to come out and the facilites for eating a slice are no more than a counter in the corner.

This doesn't surprise me a bit. According to my source, although it's his nature not to put trust in anyone he's not sure can handle the job, he's most likely to oversee a new restaurant quite closely. For someone who comes across as a corporate executive, you'd be surprised at how highly respected he is as a chef's chef. I'm just surprised at how much attention Grimes gets as an impartial observer of a business he stays far enough away from to remain unknowledgeable about, but then both he and the Times may know their audience.

I've not talked to, or even met, Ducasse, but my guess is that he has as much passion for food and puts as much love into his restaurants as that mythical arepa lady on the corner in Queens. And the reason she's there is to earn a living the best way she knows how. She didn't give up a career as an investment banker or rock star to sell food on a street corner.

I would be hard put to defend any statement that even hints that Zagat "tries to bring some measure of objectivity to the review process," but that's another story, or at least another thread and one already started. That's a more interesting question. Traditionally it has. I believe it was Craig Clairborne who brought so much influence to the NY Times reviews. Perhaps it would have happened anyway as New Yorkers became more restaurant conscious. Other reviewers seem to have inherited the respect Clairborne brought to the position. To varying degrees they've maintained it, but even that may have as much to do with inertia and people's need to have some authority to look towards, that the quality of the revews. With Grimes, the Times has introduced a reviewer who's come from outside the food world to a great extent. In fact he's gone on record denigrating chefs and indicating he finds eating out a chore. He's the first reviewer who honestly came to writing restaurant reviews with no enthusiasm for dining out. I've found so much fault with his approach that I don't read his reviews as religiously as one might expect a restaurant obsessed New Yorker to do and when I read them, I take them with a grain of salt, knowing they're not written for me.

Nanuq, could you elaborate on the differences between the two duck dishes?

Bercy Park is a delightful park, and Paris to its credit had done well in making modern parks withing the city limits. The allée along the Viaduc des Arts, also in the 12th arr. and the Park Citroën in the 15th are two other good examples. The Cour St.-Emilion is a delighful place, but like the South Street Seaport in NY, and all those Rouse developments in the states, it strikes me as the type of place that will draw tourist restaurants, rather than destination restaurants or neighborhood restauarants and eating there seems fraught with the same problems I have just with the idea of eating in shopping malls and theme parks. The photograph on your link is of the cour and it's a charming place to stop for coffee or a beer, but no place looked inviting for lunch, let alone dinner. Nevertheless, it's a well done job architecturally and worth a visit for the tourist who's seem most all of historical Paris. The phrase "the hippest and trendiest neighborhoods of Paris" immediately reminds me that the hippest and trendiest restaurants in NY and Paris, are quite often not the ones with the best food. Often they are the ones where food is an after thought.

I'm with Mike on that. Well at least as far as recommending Pierre Gagnaire if you like El Bulli and Blumenthal although he's quite different from those two, who are also different enough from each other. L'Astrance may be one of the hardest reservations in Paris to get. I suspect that's a sign it's fashionable, for whatever that means. I ate there some time ago. I'd like to go back and see how the food has progressed. It was a fascinating meal then. I ate at Les Magnolias on the same trip during which I had my second meal at Gagnaire and felt the need to compare the two. I was less impressed with Les Magnolias than most other posters here so far. All of the dishes were interesting, but I didn't feel they gelled successfully. It's out of town in the suburbs, but quite near a commuter train. This could be a hotter place in the future, if you want to try something a little ahead of the fashion curve.

The kind of service and attention you received seems in line with Christian Constant's generosity when we were introduced to him after the eGullet dinner in Paris earlier this month. I only regretted that we hadn't eaten at his cafe, but up the street at l'Auvergne Gourmande which was just better suited to handle our table of eight.

I'd rather pay for the talent in the kitchen than for expensive ingredients, but I understand what you mean. Over a period of some years, I've had the most and least expensive menus at Carré de Feulliants and thought the most expensive one was the better value. While the Grand Véfour prefixe lunch seems to be a genuine bargain and opportunity, from what's been said about it, it's not going to be the best Grand Véfour has to offer. It should be compared to other meals at its price level. It also represents an opportunity for some who balk at paying the full price, to enjoy the service and the ambience.

Bear in my mind that these caves are open to the public in hope of selling some wine. I'm not so sure they will welcome droves of overseas tourists who, unlike their French, Belgian, Swiss, Brittish, etc. counterparts, are not likely to tuck a case of a wine they like in the trunk of their car. Many of these little guys are quite pleased to entertain a visitor from overseas from time to time, but be judicious in accepting their hospitality, they're not there as a public service, they're running a business. Also be aware the French are getting quite tough in enforcing DUI laws. My guess is that the cheese is there not to get a better sense of their wines, but to make the wines taste better. Of course if you're going to drink the wine with food, maybe it just another way of looking at it.

I don't think any chef could have been more flattering to the taste-buds of this city than Ducasse was at the time. I suspect you will find references to his flattering comments in old threads about the opening of AD/NY. Understand that Ducasse ran two three star restaurants in Monte Carlo and Paris where much of his clientele was American. Ducasse is French, not arrogant. To some Americans there's no difference. Ducasse didn't come in wearing a cloak of arrogance, it was hung on him by some journalists playing to a audience who would never spend that kind of money on any food or care about that kind of food. My only criticism of AD/NY was of the choices of knives and pens offered the diners. I found that pretentious and last night my view was challenged by a French chef here in NY who defended those gestures by saying he thought Ducasse thought NY was such an important market that he had to create something new and different and better for us. I'm afraid most of us have learned the wrong lesson from The Emperor's New Clothes. We just tend to be suspicious of the foreign and the new.