Bux

Better? Nonsense. It's far more entertaining in translation, it's just more useful in French. I once tried a Google translation of a page in Spanish as my knowledge of Spanish is even less functional than of French. In translation it was almost entirely incomprehensible, in Spanish I could get a bit of it and at least read the names of the dishes mentioned.

Adam, I love the link appropriately to LePotiron.com, but I'm wondering how many non French speaking members find the Google translations to English (?) useful. For example: "Recommended by LePotiron.com: The opinion of Pumpkin: The old receipts Alsatian are with go of this famous address. The terrace in summer, wedged between two arms of Ill is enchanteresque... Trés good Quality-Price ratio." Later on one reader adds his rec: "Blow of heart: the omble of Orbey to almonds." which I find trés enchanteresque. I'm not at all convinced these search engine translations are not secret messages of some nefarious plot.

Then I don't even know why I discuss food with you.

Regarding challenge, I think Wilfird had made the case for some good old fashioned cooking that is no longer fashionable. Since it's not here, I suppose it would be change to bring it back, but my point is that offering it may hold the same risk as offering El Bulli style food, but the challenge is quite different. The young are typically the biggest consumers of the modern and there is no shortage of young, well-to-do people in this town, but I think well to do people make up a higher percentage of the middle aged population. NY has a very transient young population who settle for a while after college. They socialize a lot, but the majority have middling incomes. Many are paying off college loans. These people often leave town when they get married and have a family and they often leave because it costs too much to live in NY. I know of few people who come to NY and squander their fortunes here. Thus I think there are more wealthy older New Yorkers than younger ones. I could be wrong, but I've told you why I think that way.

What does fine food at Blue Hill's price have to do with innovation at the top? My guess is that the diners most receptive to innovation are not the most well financed. The most well heeled, with great exception to be sure, are generally the older and the more conservative as well as the ones with the most well formed palates. In this sense well formed may also signify set in their ways and less adaptable. It's easier to innovate if the clientele is receptive and if the financial pressures fo the business are less. With each post we solidify the reasons you might not expect risk taking at the top right now. As for the east side downtown, be it the llower east side, east village or whatever, I haven't seen that much risk taking, not have prices necessarily reflected the location. Then again is there "cheap" real estate in NYC? It's worth noting that not everyone in this thread is looking to be challenged. A good part of the criticism is directed at the similarity in menus and food offered. An unwillingness to take risks may be seen here as well. Clayton Christensen's explanation of how businesses work sounds very plausible. I'm certainly not an expert in the field and there are always going to be rogue companies (in the good sense) that break the mold and succeed, but what JD said makes a lot of sense.

A nagging thought has been running in my mind all along. Is this a hotel staff answerable to the union steward and not the chef.

In spite of a certain reluctance, I can and will. My reluctance stems from the fact that non of them are destination restaurants and I fear they may invoke a reaction from too many that I didn't come all the way to Paris just to eat here. If I am not giving away a confidence, C'amelot on the rue Amelot in the 11th was a gem, for what it was. Soup, appetizer, main course and dessert for no more than $30. A small list of generally inexpensive wines and even less expensive wines by the carafe or pichet. Generally there's a set menu with no choice except for perhaps a choice of desset. I eat almost everything and this isn't a problem for me, but it's possible that the only choice is what you had for dinner the night before. Interestingly enough, the night we were there, they offered a choice of two main courses and one was lièvre à la royale which I had the night before. Fortunately, I could opt for the duck. Anyway the limited choice helps keep the price reasonable. We found the GM description apt. We had an interesting wine from beaujolais--or at least the area. It was not an AOC wine and with its fruit, and in spite of its 14.5% alcohol content it was rather a gulping wine. You will need a reservation here. The night before I had my hare at le Dauphin on the rue Royale near the Louvre. This was a repeat visit for us, so that says something, although a word of caution perhaps about an increasingly foreign clientele. It's that I'm a snob, or at least not just that, but the service suffers when the clientele make great demands on the limited staff in a small restaurant. You may not need a reservation here if you arrive early. We had a pleasant lunch snack at Legrand, a sort of wine bar in a wine shop/epicerie. The bar itself is accessed via the gallerie Vivienne. I feel I already mentioned this another post, but a search reveals only that others mentioned the wine shop in a thread on Paris wine shops and yet another thread in which the wine shop was less favorably mentioned. I think the bar is more interesting than the wine shop itself and offers some very fine platters of cheese, charcuterie or salads along with a small selection of wines by the glass. Any bottle in the shop is available for a small upcharge. The who place had more of a tapas bar atmosphere to it than that of a Paris wine bar, or so I thought. They seem to do wine dinners and hold tasting there. There was a large table out in the gallerie. Last, but not least, I'll give away a recommendation by the concierge at our hotel and that's for the bistro Vivienne right at the corner of the gallerie near Legrand. We didn't get there, but he assured us it was favored by locals, which is something rare in that arrondissement if you recall my comments regarding le Dauphin. I was actually quite surprised to find myself staying in the first. It's a great location if you want to see certain things or if you're a first time visitor. I generally prefer the left bank, but a friend and contact of my wife's is a manager at the Hotel du Louvre, which is a very nice hotel and staffed with excellent people as I've found at all Concorde hotels, so we stayed there to check it out. I'd be happy to return. For all my carping about the tourists, it's a very convenient location for walking and for transportation as well as right between the Louvre and the Palais Royale. Another off hour lunch I enjoyed was at the Brasserie Flo where we had some oysters and then a few cheeses. I thought my goat cheese selection at Legrand was better, but then it was the day we arrived. I suppose the Flo brasseries are not what they were, but I think they should be visited for the decor and the history. Vaudeville is another one I like perhaps more than Flo. I recall passing Chez Georges and thinking we should get there, but it wasn't to be this trip.

My wife's first language is Spanish and just from the "endearments" she uses to let me know how I'm doing I've developed a rich vocabularly which I sometimes use with abandon when I'm around people who are immune to their sting. Once in a while I slip as when a cab driver in Puerto Rico cuts me off for instance. Fortunately I'm a good driver and fast when I need to make a getaway.

I always conisder it a luxury to get to a three star restaurant and if the mood strikes and opportunity arises, I will put myself in the chef's hands. Yes it's a risk and ordering a meal in any restaurant, especially an unfamilar one is a gamble. Like most gamblers, I play the odds and a hunch every now and then. I have thought it well "may depend on who the concierge is or what hotel he works for." The same may be said about getting reservations in the first place. Neither all hotels, nor all concierges, are created equal. I don't make extensive use of concierges, but those who do, often go out of their way to cultivate a good relationship with a particular one.

I think businesses that have something to offer and are well run are generally going to do better than those that are not. They should be at least if there were any justice, although I would never count on too much justice. I often wonder about appearances though. It's always hard to tell which restaurants are staying afloat on their business and which are staying afloat on their investors. This begs the real question however, which is what are they offering and what does the paying customer want to buy at the high end in NY?

None of us have been eager to report violations to the authorities either, with but the exception of one dutiful member.

Let's hope you've learned what not to say and stay out of trouble.

Too many good directions to address them all, but I think it supports at least one of Wilfrid's points that all three of Daniel's game dishes list the garnsishes, but make no mention of how the game is cooked. I think we can safely assume they are cooked as Wilfrid describes "sear it on top of the stove then bung it in the oven." I've no doubt however that all of the preparations are delcious, but I don't think that's the issue here. Fixing the blame, if that's what we seek to do, on the chef or the diner is not easy and both chef and diner are influenced by other stimuli. The same conservative pressures that may have the diner seek comfort food will also temper the chef's resolve to be daring. NYC has not, at least in my lifetime, had the kind of dining public that Paris has. At the close of the century there was a euphoric spirit largely fueled by the economy and we saw unprecedented interest in sophisticated dining out. From time to time, Danny Meyer was accused of dumbing down fine dining, but in essence, he raised the middle considerably and in doing so, upped the ante for all restaurants. One of the side effects of all this was to bring new diners to the tables of excellence. These new diners may have had their appreciation of fine food knocked up more than a few notches, but as they became clients of even the finest tables, the average appreciation of food and dining may have dropped a bit at the top. This is just a thought and rather came to me as I was typing. It's worth a moment of consideration of why as Steve Plotnicki says diners "don't want sharp edges". What I had been thinking was to write that we have seen an economic bubble burst and that's a major factor in all this.

I suppose it depends a lot on how one approaches a restaurant in the first place. I happen to love well done tasting menus where I enter the restaurant and make no decsions other than to put myself in the hands of the chef. For me, the ultimate dining luxury is be able to say, I'll have what the boys in the back room are sneding out." It's luxury in two senses. That sort of meal usually costs more and I can't afford to allow myself more than a certain amount of luxury. It's also a luxury to find a restaurant, or a chef, one is willing to trust implicity. "Totalitarian" is a word that makes me thing of living with what I don't want and as restaurants are easier to avoid than governments, it seems a stretch. I seem to rcall a few posts in which you criticized the tasting menu and it's many little courses. Am I correct and does this figure into the definition of totalitarian? Is there any reason you'd consider l'Astrance any more or less totalitarian than El Bulli, where the last time I dined, there was no option except the tasting menu. Would it be any different from any restaurant that featured a tasting menu? Is a restaurant that would make a tuna fish sandwhich or hamburger for a powerful (media, society, political, etc.) diner less totalitarian than one that would refuse? Can we grade restaurants as more or less totalitarian by how they handle requests for "sauce on the side?" There's an unanswered charge that l'Astrance not only discriminates against Americans, but actually cancels their reservations at the last minute. I have almost no evidence to the contrary, if one because the contrary is hard to prove, but we have only circumstantial evidence to support the claim so far.

I hoped not in this case. I thought to offer an honest opinion and balanced view. Perhaps it should be pointed our that I have had some connections with Daniel Boulud. It's something I've mentioned often enough, but if I seemed generous here, perhaps it should be noted again.

Daniel the restaurant, and clearly we're speaking of someone charming enough not to hold a grudge against the chef or he wouldn't have tried db. I wouldn't hold your breath for any confirmation of "handsome."

I seem to recall some very positive posts here when some members first had one. I found it delcious, but would agree with Wilfrid that it's just not the kind of dish that draws me to a restaurant. Curiosity and the need to know, was what made me order one in the first place. I was surprised I enjoyed it as much as I did. It seemed more like a gimmick than a serious creation. After having it, I thought of it as more of a famous chef's folly (not as in foolish thing, but as in an architectural folly sense or an amusement) than gimmick or serious creation. This, from May 1st from a member who's no fan of Daniel, was not atypical of reactions:

Since I've been here last, there's little I need to express disagreement with and much to inspire new thoughts, thank you all. With age and experience, I think we do have a falling of epiphanies. Second meals at Gagnaire and El Bulli were marvelous, but not the same edge of your seat experience as the first. Granted, we can't discount that the later work of any artist is unlikely to have the shock value of the first exposure and at some point you are likely to see refinement rather than genisis. Increased ability in the diners own kitchen has got to play a factor, but twenty years ago, I might have been able to recreate some of the impressive dishes I had in restaurants. Today I am unable to deconstruct them as the ingredients and techniques are no long traditional and classic and I have less familiarity with them. I don't even know where to do the research sometimes. But even that get's boring, or does it remove the food from my experience in a way that I tire of it quicker? One thought occurred to me when Wilfrid referred to pillow of protein, and that was how much I dislike alliteration--whoops that was not my point at all. I mean it made me think of one trend which is to present several forms of meat on the same plate. I'm thinking of braised short ribs along side a rare steak and that sort of thing. At Blue Hill recently a lamb chop and lamb canneloni is an example. Daniel Bouloud does this a lot.

Seems like an ad hominem attack on a building. I mean one could actually criticize a building on its merits, rather than smear it by associating it with a despicable name. Famous people's names often become modifiers of speech. A wagnarian proposal will likely be considered overblown or at least large in scope and I think fairly so. A buidling would have to threaten civilization as we know it and and be guilty of genocide before I'd think of it as hitlarian. There is a fascist style of architecture, but Moussolini is at least as much identified with that as Hitler. Speer's monumentalism works as well for Stalin as Htiler. But we're off topic and I'll let you have the last word, if you want to respond on this.

It's not so different in most places. NY is pretty quiet. We spent New Years Eve in Downtown Marseille one year. I expected everything to be shut down the next morning and it pretty much was, but I wandered out while my wife as sleeping in and found a patisserie/salon du the with excellent coffee and pastries open for breakfast just a block away from the hotel. A few hours later we joined friends at Passedat's two star restaurant for lunch.

I'm not sure there's a single solution that will work all the time. The phone, and then only if you speak French, is the only way I know you are assured of getting a response, but a reservation over the phone is not as comforting as one that's in writing. We've had restaurants not respond to all sorts of inquiries. No response may mean they've entered your name into the books, or it may mean they're fully booked and have no time for you. Smaller hotels and restaurants that don't usually fill up far in advance just assume we understand they will reserve a room or table for us and they sometimes feel no need to respond. Our phone call follow up is often answered something like this, "Of course we got your fax and have reserved a room (table) for you." When we arrive and see they're not sold out, we have a better understanding of their nonchalance, but it doesn't stop us from worrying that it's arrogance, not nonchalance, that is at the root of the no reply next time.

There's a pretty widely acknowledged law in cyberspace discussions that the first person to mention Hitler looses the argument. One mention of Hitler is worth a half dozen ad hominems. One ad hominem is all one needs to have a post considered devoid of reason or meaning. Earlier I mentioned that I say a club restricted to a minority in quite a different light than one that restricted minorities. I think we allow any group a certain right to mingle and offer each other small privileges. The French may at times abuse this privilege, but when we feel a need to take them to task, it should be done rationally and with the understanding that other cultures, usually our own, are far from faultless.

I can take this to private mail, start another thread or drop it entirely if it offends anyone. I am not arguing against manners. I am arguing against perpetuating an illogical set of manners that doesn't serve us well. The least I expect is that you understand I may appear ill mannered to you, but that I behave to another standard and that I have educated my daughter to that same standard which attempts to base itself on thought rather than rules and a concern for not inconveniencing others. To begin, there is no blame for leaving the table and I assume anyone with whom I am dining leaves for good reason. It would be most impolite not to excuse someone from the table or ask if it is necessary. It is also a major service error for the food to be served when someone is not at the table. Lespinasse screwed up and created a problem. Bad things happen and manners are more important when we have to react in less than ideal situations. Were I dining under formal circumstances and another diner were absent from the table, I would probably not eat my food. However, were that person my wife, I would insist that others begin eating immediately and I would lead them. When my wife returned to the table, she would thank everyone for not letting her absence ruin their food. It would honestly please her not to have interfered with anyone's enjoyment and I have to question a set of manners than places a premium on asking for what I consider pointless sacrifice. You may see this as a clash of cultures or manners, or you may see me as a boor.

Perhaps, but if five people have warm food in front of them why is it not rude to expect them to watch their food get cold while the sixth waits for his food to arrive. What purpose do manners serve in society?

My wife's first course several years ago at l'Ambroisie was oeufs de poule mollet, panes, mouillettes truffee -- a soft boiled egg with a yolk was almost red in color. (My wife is convinced that eggs with dark yolks have mroe taste than ones with pale yolks and this was one of her benchmarks.) It had been breaded on the outside and deep fried. It was served standing on a pool of chopped truffles accomanied by fingers sandwiches of white toast with truffles. I would agree that he's a master with eggs. If I found a fault, it might be that he tends gild the lily after he's found perfection. I think Daniel and perhaps the French Laundry are under rated, but in the end, I can't account for personal taste and the subjective appreciation of a restaurant meal. There's not a restaurant in the world from which I've not heard disparate reports. I've been terribly disappointed by meals in restaurants that are highly regarded by everyone I know as well as the experts and I've met people who seem intelligent and discriminating and who have had terrible meals at my favorite restaurants. I found the atmosphere too hushed and reverent when we ate there and the food almost too perfect for words. Lizzee assures us that the mood is much lighter these days and the staff less impersonal if I read her recent account correctly. Maybe it won't suit you, but it's not a place I'd recommend avoiding by any means. No better than Daniel is not a harsh criticism and if the still show less concern and are more aloof than Arzak, that's probably true of other restaurants as well. At any rate let me urge you to do as we'd like another report.