Bux

I suspect you really mean that he has had no formal school education, but that he's been educated on the job. I see that as distinctly different from self educated. It's not uncommon for a chef to learn on the job, although probably getting less common both here and in France. The apprentice system in France may not be quite what it once was when a young man almost became an indentured servant as a start to his career. I believe Loiseau, in Saulieu, had no schooling and was not considered a promising talent when he staged at Troisgros. Daniel Boulud doesn't list any formal chooling on his CV.

I'm not sure where the decline has been greatest in France, but there's also been a precipitous drop in the middle. I think jaybee's post is interesting in that I believe thirty or forty years ago there would have been less need for a guide to bistros since there were so many dependable ones. Of course many people tell me I'm ignoring the fact that my own taste has changed and maybe we're all guilty of just not accepting that our own interests naturally change as we grow older and get jaded by what we already know. It's possible that a person who spent twenty years eating in bistros and who could now afford multistarred restaurants would now be excited to move on just as much as others who have done that, now find delight in traditional food in bistros and that the status of the food in the various levels of restaurants might only play a small part. Maybe all this is another thread, but Jay Rayner couldn't have expected more than a two percent on target response after all the time he's spend here. Sorry about that Jay, I'd like to run a tight ship, but it would make for boring threads and alienate the best posters.

That's really for Robert Brown to answer, but I'd guess it would be an alternate way to tour for any diner interested in food. Part of this discussion revolves around the concept that three star dining may be pricing itself out of business. Of course there have always been those who love to eat, but couldn't affored three star restaurants. It's just that now that number may be growing and there may be more diners who decide that sort of food is irrelevant. We already have talented chefs who have turned their back on that program and who have opened bistros. Look at Robuchon's proposed new restaurant. He was one who several years ago said haute cuisine was becoming too costly to maintain.

Marcus, Europe is less agricultural than it used to be and everyone's life style is changing. The "new cooking," whether you say it in French, Italian, Spanish or English, is more and mor international. If "nuova cucina is really French based," if appears that nouvelle cuisine is less and less based on French tradition. From what I read, top chefs in France seem to have come lately to balsamic vinegar and are stuck there as Americans diners have begun to find it boring at home. When we ate at the French laundry, I was mistaken for someone else, I am sure, when the wine steward said he wouldn't dream of suggesting a chardonnay to me, but I can't see an American showing up at a three star restaurant in the French provinces and being pleased at finding balsamic vinegar repeated in the meal.

Robert, I think we've also had a few threads here, in which you're participated that suggest alternatives to the grand gourmet tour. One of my distractions from gastronomic touring in France is to do the same in Northern Spain. One of the benefits is that the tabs are much lower for food and the wine markups are lower as well. The food is newer to me as well so there's ample opportunity for discovery although that can be offset by a lack of appreciation for the finesse or individuality involved, as well as the mistakes I make in choosing restaurants and ordering a foreign cuisine in a foreign lagnuage. I may not be conversant in French, but I speak "restaurant French" fairly fluently. Juan Roca, in Girona, offers a menú degustació of five savory courses plus a chocolate dessert and a fruit dessert for 48.10 euros and a menú sopresa for 57.10 with a few more courses. It's just a two star restaurant and on par with better two stars in France and thus shouldn't be compared with Arpege or Gagnaire in Paris. It's also worth noting that the starred restaurants in Spain are not as numerous and are clustered in Catalonia and around San Sebastian with two three star restaurants in each area and maybe none elsewhere in the country. That could be a hardship for those who are not content with one three star restaurant and variety of one, two and interesting local unstarred restaurants or tapas bars in one week.

After seeing my name used used in vain, I think I have to say I've never been comfortable with "budget' as a concept, although I've generally managed to live with my means. Nevertheless, "budget" applies too much rational thinking. I see my visits to extraordinary restaurants as being paid for with Monopoly money or perhaps gambling chips. I expect a certain amount of the money I have that's over and above what I need to survive in NYC, will be spent on great food. Play money or gambling chips is not a bad metaphor as I view gambling as a waste of one's resources, yet others will tell me that the money they've lost, brought them a fair return on that money in terms of the time they were entertained. I don't know of another way to entertain myself as well for the sheer pleasure, excitement and satisfaction per dollar spent, than eating at a great restaurant. The opera won't do it, neither will a championship sporting event in which my favorite wins. Yet some poor slob will pay more money for a good seat at the superbowl than I might for an incredible restaurant experience. Jay, I was going to start to answer your question later, but perhaps this was the kind of thing you want to read. Yes, of course. At some point we get priced out of doing what we love. Even the gambling addict whose life is in shambles because of his vice, may be rehabilitated. Gastronomic dining offers not just pleasure but discovery. I am quite prepared for the day when I say "I don't need to do any of this next time we come to Paris. I'm finished with this." And yes, I will look at the price and say, but I could do something else with that money, but it may also have something to do with the novelty wearing off. I have a fair amount of sympathy for John Whiting's approach, although it leaves me a need to fulfill. Should I exhaust that need, my approach will change.

After my meal there last month, I actually told the chef I did not prefer his food and I believed it was too complex. I may believe it is too complex and may not like what I eat the next time I am there, but it I had five reports of gastronomes who loved a restaurant and five who hated it, I would find that restaurant as compelling to visit, for the first time, as one which garnered eight raves and no negative reports. In fact the controversy might make it more compelling. It would certainly be more compelling that a restaurant elicited pretty good recations and no negative reactions from twenty diners.

Thanks again. I am eagerly awaiting the report on Gagnaire, not the least because I think we had our most fantastic meal in Paris, in Gagnaire when it was two stars. Of all the restaurants in Paris, Gagnaire has been the one too which we most want to return and to which we have plans to return. There is more than a bit of trepidation that I will not find the subsequent increases in price justified or worse yet, that the food has become so creatively tortured that Gagnaire will lose our interest, but it he hasn't earned a return visit on the basis of our first visit, no one will.

There's a skepticism of the outsider here in this wager--which of course eGullet does not condone. One side knows what he can do from experience and the other just doesn't believe it can be done. That latter view is the product of a lack of experience or Deacon has a number of ringers up his sleeve. I think Plotnicki could produce a number of examples of California wines that mimic Burgundies farily well and some French wines that have emulated new world tastes in the chase for international sales. If he doesn't, he knows who to ask. The claim as, John Whiting notes, is modest in terms of blind tasting assuming both sides settle on a reasonable percentage of misses. I wish I could remember Deacon's posts in other threads for I sense a limited experience in what food and wine has to offer. I do not sense a dull palate or a man unappreciative of what he's tasted to date. The truth is that many connoisseurs of the sort that Plotnicki represents on this board, will choose a red wine with some body when enjoying a heavily seasoned seafood dish. The French will often choose red wine with even simpler fish dishes. You'd be surprised at the red wine lists in Parisian restaurant that serve only fish and seafood. Red wine with seafood is far from a rule breaker. I sense a defensiveness in these posts that may come from a sense of not knowing the rules as much as a distrust of rules and rule makers."White wine with fish and red with meat" may be the basic rule for those who know nothing about wine and food, but it's worthless advice for most of us. It's too often a bad rule and the differences between white wines can be greater than the difference between a certain white and a particular red. A good education is to read an article where a bunch of certified experts match wine with a specified dish. If each is asked to specify five wines in order of preference, you'd be surprised at how often there will be both while and red among the five choices and how rarely will even the first choices match up along the lines. Even a good sommelier has to read his client in a restaurant. The sommelier has to minimize the effect of his own taste quite often when asked to recommend a bottle to a knowledgeable diner.

My question would be, is it possible to fully enjoy and savor the cuisine of Passard (or Gagnaire, or Bras, or Adria) if you don't already come to the table with an understanding of his intentions? I suupose the questions with tough answers are the interesting ones. I think you can learn an awful lot quickly as you eat, especially if the meal is long enough, at any of those chef's tables. The question I have to ask myself is how much of a lack of understanding can one have. I feel as if a arrived at each of those tables with an incomplete understanding of the chef's intentions and even after a meal or two, I'm still learning by reading what others say, but I will admit that I didn't arrive straight from a diet of Applebee's and Olive Garden meals, nor did I chose the restaurants in question by driving by and thinking the place looked good from the outside. Having eaten in what I feel are the reprequisite restaurants over the years and having read at least something about the chef's along the way, I was not exactly unprepared. I think there are levels that are immediately appreciated and others that unfold as you begin to understand. As in any art or craft, the more you know the history, the greater you can "fully" appreciate the innovation and development, but this might even be said for those who are not great innovators. It might be interesting to explore the various aspects that can be appreciated on different levels. On a thead about Adria, I mentioned earlier meeting a group of hikers on an "upscale outdoorsy" tour who were dining at a large table at El Bulli. After coffee members of our table of six engaged some of the other group. What was interesting was how much they enjoyed the experience of lunch and yet, none of these people had any interest in the Michelin guide and its star system. They were not foodies, just enthusiastic and at least moderately well to do and physically fit travlelers. Of course they loved the lunch, but I can't swear they appreciated it--not can I swear I didn't miss anything.

I have noticed a trend towards the elimination of potatoes, rice, starches of all kinds in some restaurants. Carbs perhaps in a fruit or root vegetable, but no cereal or potato. Offhand, I can't remember a starch in a Blue Hill meal until dessert.

Yes. I laid out the original desgn, but the revisions and updates have been handled in house for some time.

From the Daniel dinner menu web page:

I used to like lunch very much. It always seemed more relaxed than dinner and reservations were far easier to get. That was true on 76th Street as well as on 65th Street. This is not to say I don't like dinner, but I miss lunch.

Was it delicious? I'm asking that in relation to a thread on Adria and El Bulli, but without sarcasm. Arpege may offer, but doesn't focus on the great meat, game, etc. dishes with intense reductions of sauces and meat jus that many diners, gastronomes included, especially revel in, but I sense it is still delicious food, although there may be a falling off in the number of people who will find it delicious. There's a danger that we begin to speak of an audience of more refined taste and that it will smack of snobbism or elitism, but that's irrelevant. There does seem to be a sense of intellectualism about the deliciousness of all this. Is there a component of delicious that can be enhanced by the intellectual aspects of the food. Can you (editorial "you"--can one) salivate over the intellectual aspects of a meal as well as the primal feeding aspects?

That's just perfectly silly--and I get to make that rule because I know what's silly. I am quite surprised that no one has, as yet, cracked under duress and confessed to being a snob just because this is too much to endure. I think I'd enjoy the privilege of buying LML a drink down at the pub. He stands his ground, with a certain sense of style. I beg to disagree. Plotnicki is not dangerous. I'm not sure this is relevant, but it seems to me that what the (American) people want, is to be led by someone who is certifiably not smarter than they are. We are in fact almost birds of a feather, so to speak. Allow me one more off topic political comment. Democracy, in my humble opinion, is less about one man one vote, which often leads to the tyranny of the majority over the minority, than about letting dissent be heard and considered. Hmm, maybe it's not completely off topic. This is what guides such as Michelin really do--give you a place to start. Three stars should not mean "the best possible restaurant," but for someone new to the area, it's a sign that a bunch of experts agree that this is a place that's worth making a special trip to discover. If you travel frequently in France, but not frequently to keep up with all of its restaurants, you will eventually discover how well your taste aligns with that of the Michelin panel. I doubt a professional would have a single answer for you. Many of this groups problems result from the attempt to argue there is a single answer to certain questions. I have noticed that ability. It also appears obvious that as you narrow the relative conditions under which we choose, you prove the point that it's all relative and dependant upon context. Gee I hope you're not saying it's entirely possible Plotnicki doesn't understand how he's voting, or worse yet, what he's saying. Nah, that's just the inner trouble making devil in my ear. One step beyond is "I've been to the French Laundry and you cant get a reservation" Worse yet, as I just said, s/he will gloat over your inability to go there.My apologies for any missing smilies.

I don't know if my wife and I have agreed on more than one other thing in addition to food and raising our daughter. Admittely, there was some early cross education in the food department. It took me a few years to really appreciate the really unctuous things like tripe and my appreciation for pigs feet and that sort of thing is more intellectual than gustatory today. On the other hand, she's content to let me hog all the andouillette. We will argue about whether to take a taxi to the restaurant or walk. The issue is not so much whether I could have lived so long with someone who didn't love food as would I have developed my own appreciation of food had I loved someone else. Interestingly enough, we have a good relationship with our daughter and it often revolves around food as well. She married a chef. This morning we ran into the two of them in the Washington Square greenmarket and then met three other chefs we all know and like. For me that's a full and rewarding morning, although I also like the greenmarket on Wednesdays, when it's not so crowded and I can stop and kibbitz with Toby at her stand. My wife and I are not so kind to picky eaters, although quite attentive to guest's allergies. Mention that you didn't like spinach and when we used to entertain a lot, the likelihood was that you'd be served spinach the next time you were a guest. It wasn't really a matter of being perverse, it was the belief that most of the people had never had the item in question prepared well.

In the last paragraph of the prologue to the 1976 American edition of Michel Guerard's Cuisine Minceur, Guerard says: Did he ever create that new art? His extensive use of "artificial sweeteners in the desserts of this book went a long way towards making me believe cuisine minceur was diet cooking rather than a revolutionary approach to cooking. I'm not even sure this food was ever served in his main restaurant.

I think mlpc increased the intellectual value of this thread and I hope I can respond to some of the things he and Plotnicki are discussing, but first I'll like to tackle the question loufod raised--"... would you enjoy the food itself as much without the same setting and service?" I think Plotnicki's analogy was off base just as loufood noted in his response. I think we can separate, to a large degree, the enjoyment of a the food and the overall enjoyment of the dinner. To a certain extent however, the food is dependant on the service. Mlpc "had the feeling that not a single bone had been removed, resulting in a fierce battle with my Laguiole, [the knife I assume, and not the cheese ] trying to get at all the good stuff. Fine, but labor intensive," he said. Dining in a high priced restaurant we expect the labor intensive work to be done in the kitchen, or by staff in the dining room and not by the diner. This is one area where you can't separate the food and service in terms of the enjoyment of that particular food. Context can be decisive. The ambience of a the dining room can raise the level of the overall experience without changing the food, but I think loufood understands this by his analogies to different sorts of swimming holes. There's more to apreciate than clean water. Most of my interest in food, is in the food. I find the service pointless unless the food warrants such attention. I might never have eaten in a "fine" restaurant had not my curiosity been for the food. Once I moved up and tried that haute cuisine, not only did I appreciate the food, but I began to appreciate the service and all that went into that sort of dining. You should know however, that Arpege is a very simple room of almost miimal design, or at least it was when I was there some years ago.

Laura, is there sugar in that recipe. Steve, I don't think sugar is an ingredient in a trypical French mustard. The label on Maille - Dijon Originale - Traditional Dijon Mustard lists Water, mustard seeds, vinegar, salt, citric acid and sulphur dioxide, but no sugar. I won't vouch for American mustards. My understanding is that sugar affects the texture of ice creams, although I assume it's not the only way to get a smooth product. I have had several savory ice creams and sorbets. Most have not tasted sweet, although good ripe tomatoes are somewhat sweet and even a savory tomato sorbet or salad is relatively sweet. I did have an overly sweet tomato sorbet with a crab salad in a small bistro on the edge of the 5th arrondissement. It was sweet in a way that Blumenthal's mustard ice cream and Berasategui's savory ice creams were not. That said, a new sweetness via caramels and maple syrup is creeping into the savory course in fine restaurants and it's bound to slowly change our tastes. Although the mustard ice cream was fine, I found some courses at the Fat Duck bordered on too sweet. Ditto for El Bulli.

Those are really interesting points and I think they only prove the reverse of what you intended to prove. I'm particularly happy that you included the fashion industry here. This is exactly what "taste" is all about--fashion. Good taste and bad taste change with the years. Perhaps the decades in art and architecture and the seasons in the fashion world. There are many hideous painting s that were once considered tasteful and plenty of archtiectural monstrosities that were once fashionably tasteful. It would be possible to say that since they are not currenly admired, time has proven that universally timeless good taste exists. They truth is that many of these things will return and be admired anew in the future. I submit bell bottoms as exhibit "A." I think others have long ago pointed out that accepted preferences in food tastes, inluding which wine goes with which food, have changed over the years and are likely to change again.

This is your moderator speaking to remind you to keep your lewd remarks in check. Seriously, once again, I thought that was beautiful--not just what appears to be a well deserved paean to Passard's genius, but the questions you raise as well. Passard has come a long way from the two star restaurant I visited in the early ninties. He was considered a chef's chef then. Clearly he's continuing to think about food as much as cook and a full appreciation of his food demands thinking on the diner's part, or I think you're missing part of the food. That's an editorial "you." You do a fine job of making me think about your meal, Passard and the state of haute cuisine, without even being there. Thanks, I think this is eGullet at it's best. I agree that it's hard to figure the value of a the cost of meal of this sort. Especially when, and I agree with you on this too, one is likely to understand and enjoy the next meal more than the last one. For many of us, a single meal breaks the budget, and yet the more we go, the better value we may get. It also helps to eat at this level elsewhere. The food is unique and yet part of a greater movement. The gazpacho with mustard ice cream reminds me of Heston's cabbage soup with mustard ice cream and I'd love to read of a comparison--or better yet have the opportunity to compare the two myself. It won't be on my next trip. We've decided to hit a three star, a one star and a variety of bistros and neighborhood restaurants. Paris many not have a "terrior," but a succession of three star restaurants doesn't leave me feeling as if I've been in Paris. I've been wondering if I've been focusing more on the multistarred meals and famous chefs because of my involvement here, or less in reaction to an overdose of names and influences.

Always a reasonable idea. If not traveling first class it's almost esential, although on recent flights I've found myself just bearing through the trip because I was too disorganized prior to leaving for the airport.

I can't speak for the UK at all, but traditionally, at least for the last half of the 20th century, I think the French have done far better with vegetables than the Americans and, up until recently, I've enjoyed eating vegetables in France more than the US in spite of a tendency to over cook some things. On the other hand, vegetarianism has not been strong in France and perhaps one of the reasons I've enjyed vegetables there has been the use of veal stock to cook or finish off the vegetables. Thus the all vegetable meal I might enjoy may not classify as "vegetarian."

My recollection is that a bottle is $65 at Cafe Boulud. That's just a bit more than twice the retail price. Probably not out of line and maybe lower than the two and a half to three times retail I sometimes find. My impression is that a restaurant tries to sell four glasses for the price of a bottle although they usually pour at least five from it, but there may be waste. Champange may get six flutes (or more?) from a bottle, but maybe more lost wine. The mark up on wine is high and there's usually a premium in ordering by the glass. I don't generally like ordering by the glass because the markup seems most noticeable. In fact 50% of retail bottle price is often what a glass of wine costs in a top restaurant--or am I mistaken? How does this relate to the WSJ article about it being cheaper to eat out than cook at home. Let's see, I had a glass of champagne at the restaurant, that would have cost twice as much at home.