Bux

This is worthy of a thread of it's own. There are few things I like more than a short walk in the fresh air after dinner and few things I like less than getting into a car after a long dinner. If I do have to get into a car, I just hope I don't have to drive it and that the driver has had less to drink than I have. Given the way that Roellinger has acquired property in Cancale and the quality of his meals, I find his shuttle service an excellent compromise. I assume it's still being offered. I understood that at one time they used a vintage automobile, but that has given way to a less romantic minivan.

"Braising" would imply, to me at least, that the meat was browned first. It would also imply that the meat is not necessarily submerged in a liquid. Otherwise we're talking poaching or boiling. Nevertheless, I can't imagine that browning the surface would affect the interior very much and I suspect that braising, stewing, poaching and steaming may all have similar effects, although in different times spans.

Just another plaice on shad roe for all you crabs to complain about.

Fat Guy, you're not suggesting this whole thread is a fluke or that the red gooey stuff is a red herring, are you? Liza, I assure you that if I had any information about this I'd be forthcoming and not clam up and threat this as a joke. I take some solace in just knowing that tommy recognized tuna as a fish and not a component of his stereo sytem.

The 2001 national exhibition of French farm products was enticingly described by Margaret Pilgrim in a previous post. Some of you might want to be reminded in time to make plans for next fall, that this is a yearly fair open to both the trade and visitors. No further information has been published at the moment, but I have the following contacts: Tél: 01 44 06 72 60 Fax: 01 44 06 72 62 E-Mail: paris.fermier@free.com

Cabrales, I thought le Château Richeux, the building that was not in town, was the preferable one. I could be wrong, but it's the latest one to be added to the Roellinger properties. It was the one in which we stayed. Les Rimains is in town, but I didn't think it is right across from his gastronomic restaurant (Maisons de Bricourt). It's a bit confusing. The less formal restaurant (Coquillage) is in le Richeux. There is a navette actually a mini van, to shuttle clients from le Richeux to dinner at Bricourt and back. As we had been advised by our daughter, we choose the extensive tasting menu of about ten or so dishes beginning with courses that are no more than amuses bouches. Things may have changed by now. Looking at some notes from our dinner almost ten years ago, I don't feel they captured the excitement of the meal. Our daughter thought I might be put off by the use of spices as I was not, and still am not, a great fan of what's foisted on us as "fusion" cooking. On the contrary, the food was thoroughly convincing. Roellinger's cooking is Roellinger's cooking the way Kunz' food is his and neither of them strike me as "fusion" precisely because I am unaware of a frission between the seasonings. "Curry" is probably a meaningless term in western cuisine. It is just a blend of powdered spices. I have an "abstract" of the carte at Bricourt from 1997 and nowhere does the term "curry" appear in the description of dishes. There is a veal with cumin et chutney d'autrefois and descriptions such as lamb with épices douces "grande caraane," John Dory retour des Indes, (unspecified as to east or West Indies) and a petite homard aux saveurs de "l'île aux épices." In using a wide variety of spices he feels he is upholding the old tradition of Brittany and the neighboring port of St. Malo, home of the la Compagnie des Indes which traded in spices from the East Indies, Africa and the New World. That rational may be less important than the fact that he has great command of his spices and uses them so effectively. I was impressed and rather regret every two star meal we've had since in Brittany as it did not compare with the one we had at Roellinger's. I am eager to hear how you find it this weekend. By the way, the breakfast at Richeux was excellent.

Nice to know I have a fan club of one, but at least it's the right one. Thank you. I've spent a lot of time thinking about an offhand comment I made to someone last fall about "sending the wrong person to the right restaurant." I'm not sure how you can prevent that as I have friends with whom I love to dine, with whom we cook in their kitchen in France and with whom we seem to share the same taste and yet there comes a restaurant we love and which they hate and vice versa. I don't mean a restaurant we like more than they do, but one I'd make a great detour to visit and they would avoid if was across the street. Or were you referring to my acknowledgement that a taste for really great restaurants was a sort of curse and likely to bring a family to ruin as fast as a gambling addiction.

Thank you, but we have our reservations. Coincidently, they are for the dinner on the Friday before you would have been there.

While I still consider the lastest version of Wells' Food Lover's Guides a must, it should be noted that the guide to Paris has been revised recently, but the one to France has not, to my knowledge, been revised since 1987. It is wonderful for the flavor of the regions and for a list of market days, but restaurants have come and gone, in the meantime. In terms of dining, it's a history book more than a guide book.

Choosing a restaurant is always a subjective decision and we can only offer our own prejudices along with our objectivity. I don't know la Maree and have not eaten at l'Epi Dupin, (but only because I couldn't get in) although I've walked by it and examined the menu. La Regalade is one of my favorite restaurants in Paris, but the food is not on a par with l'Astrance. There is no question in my mind that l'Astrance has the best, in terms of interesting, creative and thoughtful, food and offers the best value in terms of everything that goes into a successful evening in a restaurant unless one needs super luxurious trappings and an expensive wine cellar. La Maree will be more elegant and offer a greater selection of seafood. You should go to l'Astrance with the idea of taking the surprise tasting menu. L'Astrance will offer a nice relaxed and comfortable setting in a simple but very sophisiticated contemporary setting. La Maree may be more comfortable. L'Epi Dupin is more of a neighborhood restaurant and La Regalade will be the noisiest and most casual environment. The food is hearty, rustic, somewhat old fashioned and wonderful, but the atmosphere, although upbeat. is not condusive to lingering. One evening Paris is so frustrating. All of those restaurants will offer at least part of what you are looking for and perhaps anyone of them will satisfy as well as any other in Paris. Once again I fall back on the subjective aspect. L'Astrance, for instance, will also be the most demanding on your palate and while I recommend it the highest, I suspect some people could find it intimidating. The owner/manager/captain/waiter is fond of asking guests to guess the surprise wine or the ingredients in a dish. He's not judging, but it's a game that may appeal to certain diners but make others uncomfortable. La Regalade, a favorite of mine was totally unappreciated when a friend recommended it to diners she thought would appreciate it, as they found it too rustic or coarse. So its difficult to make a recommendation even with some knowledge of the person's knowledge and taste. I know I'll think of that table at la Regalade unhappy with their food, the next time I can't get a reservation there. Recommending the wrong place can end up being a disservice not ony to the asker, but those denied a reservation because the restaurant in full. La Maree seems to be at the high end (maybe $100 including wine, tax and service) of your list and l'Epi Dupin and la Regalade are a third the price. I assume price is not an object at this range. I wouldn't have recommended le Dome, but why not. It may be most typical, or at least traditional, as dining in Paris begins to defy categorization as "typical" these days. I've enjoyed their less expensive bistro and have very much enjoyed sitting on the terasse of the cafe eating oysters in season. We took our daughter there for oysters for a sense of Paris and the neighborhood we knew from our past, when she was in college. A question that always occurs to me is "where do you eat out at home and where would you eat out in NY, San Francisco, Chicago, etc.?" Ducasse is a place that appeals to those who suffer from etreme needs or needs of the extreme. I say that with all due respect to those who have these needs. We are those people. I only wish that sort of need was satisfied by achieving one's goal. What really happens is that the bar of expectation of dining out is raised and one becomes a junkie addicted to fine dining. I'm not sure if I need a smiley or sad face here.

Cabrales, we are in Lyon on the 30th and 31st of this month and again on the 8th and 9th of April. We have reserved Les Loges if only to see what has impressed GaultMillau so much. The purpose of our trip is to dine at Michel Bras. We will spend the better part of a week getting there and back. That will include two nights at Le Vieux Pont in Belcastel, a little place we've loved in the past, and a night at Marcon's Clos des Cimes. There is the Viaduct de Garabit somewhere north of Laguiole that I've tried to see in the past, but has eluded me. This is one of my wild goose chases in France. The best are the ones that get away, if only because these sites inevitably turn out not to be worth the trip. The viaduct is a railway bridge built by Eiffel in the 1880s. It's a 345 foot long arch and the bridge is 412 feet abve the river. It's out of the way, but reachable with the lethargic itinerary we've set. Perhaps I'll find some other way to eat up time while we're in the region. What I like most when I travel is options, not reservations. I am the bane of a travel agent's existence--at least one travel agent anyway--my wife. Needless to say, I recognize that one doesn't chance arriving at Michel Bras without a reservation for a room as well as a table, even in the off season, but it would make me so much happier to be abe to say "we'll be there on Thursday or Friday, save me a place." Knowing I have to be someone place on a certain date is so much less enjoyable when I'm spending a fews ambling through the countryside. C'est la vie.

Cabrales, communication is so rapid these days that little goes unnoticed for long. I suspect tea and chocolate is already a widely explored combination, but I can't recall exactly where I've seen it other than in the wonderful chocolates of Pierre Marcolini, the extraordinary Belgian chocolatier. Marcolini may not be a typical Belgian chocolatier and if I think he's the best if may show my prejudice. Anyway we included a number of tea flavored ganache filled chocolates in the assortments we bought in Brussels. Most of them were quite subtle. His unflavored ganaches identified with a country of origin are quite intense. Have you been to Lyon, or are you going? You should, if you get a chance, try Bernachon's chocolate. I recall his palets d'or as being real sit up and take notice chocolate. Definitely a grown up taste and not for the candy bar trade. And we're going to spend a few days in Lyon at the beginning and end of our trip.

Pizza. I think Shaw is correct that accepted practice, is not the best guide for what goes well with beer. If the criterion is "goes well," we also can't eliminate foods that go well with either beer or wine. So it really makes no difference if they drink beer in Alsace, or if oysters are sold in brasseries, where, by the way, they're more likely to be accompanied by a muscadet or some other bracing white wine than beer. I'd rarely think of ordereing a beer with oysters in Paris, but would in NY. My guess is that more wine is drunk with dinner than beer in Alsace. When in Belgium, I found I was ordering beer with lunch and wine with dinner. It had as much too with the type of restaurant and formality of the meal as well as the actual food. A draft beer was excellent with steamed mussels which they prepare with lots of celery in the broth. In the end, there's no accounting for taste. My wife will tell you that beer is too filling and that wine goes best with all foods as it leaves more room for the food. The counter argument is that beer is both food and drink.

I'm not old enough to remember a time when every neighborhood in NYC with a sizeable Jewish population didn't have a store with a large sign that said "appetizing." That store specialized in fish preserved by smoking and pickling, but might have carried all sorts of other provisions short of meat. Exactly what else it carried may have depended on what else was adjacent or in the immediate area, but it generally sold the things that went with the fish at the table, although many neighborhoods might also have stores specializing in cheese or bagels, for instance. Choosey shoppers might go to the "butter and egg" store to buy the cream cheese. We knew what "appetizing" was just as we knew what "butter and eggs" were. There was no cream cheese store, per se, and we knew that cream cheese was neither butter, eggs, nor appetizing exactly. I suppose it would be very interesting to find evidence of the earliest "Appetizing" sign. Someone had to be the first to open such a store with the sign over it that read "Appetizing." I don't suppose the sign first appeared over a section of the A&P, but we'll get an argument here that it might have. It's the nature of some of our posters. Now this guy with the first sign. My guess is that his ego was no so great that he thought his fish was so much more appetizing that the meat at the butcher or the pastries at the bakery. I'd guess his sign just identified his stock and that people knew they could get what they called "appetizing" at his shop.

I've been told there's a new Michel Bras book in French. I am assuming Bras will have copies for sale when he opens for the season.

I think a lot of people would have said that before they had some form of beef cooked solely in a hot liquid, which may mean that a lot of people still do. Boeuf à la ficelle is not what most people think of when boiled beef is mentioned either and I'm glad to see Sandra Levine's mention of Vienese tafelspitz although a far different dish that the one that promted this thread. A lot of people, myself included, would say that it goes against all reason to produce as good a boeuf à la ficelle, or even "tenderloin without string," by poaching in water vs. a flavorful broth. Intuitively, it seems that there'd be a loss of flavor from the meat to the liquid and it may be that we need to do the controlled experiment to become a believer. Bittman and Schneider seemed to have done it both ways before making the suggestion that it doesn't make a difference worth talking about. I suppose one of the reasons I am hesitant is my experience with poached pork tenderloin. We'd strain and freeze the broth after each use. We started by poaching these just below the boil and using the meat for cold summer salads, but we also noticed that it was excellent when eaten warm from the broth as well. We felt the flavor or the tenderloins improved with each reuse of the broth. Was it only from expectation? In any event, I'm finding this thread quite interesting for the extra insight brought to a published recipe. It's a bit like reading the author's notes. Come to think of it, it's exactly like that in spots. My thanks for that.

I did acknowledge that it read in part as if it was a press release. And if she want's the book that badly, that's probably a sign she thinks it's an important restaurant.

It seemed disrespectful, because I felt he hadn't done his homework on western use of curry for 700 years before he criticized Pacuad for not having read Madhur Jaffrey on curry. It seemed disrespectful in that he spoke of absolutes after emeshing himself in the "mystic" of one side of the issue. It seemed disrespectful, because he used the word cosmetically cosmetically in what struck me as a term of disrespect for Pacaud's command of French technique. Thus it struck me as disrespectful and arrogant when he said: He didn't talk about taste, as I recall, it was all about technique and the audacity of use without reading Jaffrey. Curry can be no more than a flavor to a chef in the west and it's rather absurd to deny that, in my opinion.

I think that I pretty much presented my views as my subjective fellings on the matter in the beginning. Since then I've been attempting to explain why I felt the way I did. What I found is certainly not what others may find.

For what it's worth, who chose the headline In Paris, A Star Is Born? On Jan. 26, 2001 Patricia Wells entitled her review of l'Astrance, In Paris: A Star is Born. It's also worth noting that Regina Schrambling already mentioned Hiramatsu in her The New Paris, Where Chefs Come Out to Play article on Wednesday, February 20th. So this is not the first word to be published in NYC on the restaurant and the news of its star is also not a scoop as the Times had covered the Michelin press release of star changes. It's not news that a journalist would want a scoop. I thought that's the name of the game. Was she over reacting after just one meal? I don't know. In a way it reads more like a press release than a review, but the restaurant is news and the article is less a restaurant review than an article about a new restaurant that's causing a sensation in Paris with Ms. Friedrich merely bringling the news to the readers of the WSJ. This should not be the first mention a sophisticated New Yorker reads. Of course, a sophisticated New Yorker would have read about it here first.

Perhaps Hoffman was ill served by the quote as Gopnik used it. At several junctures along the way, I've noted that Pacaud is not my favorite chef, but I respect his food. I did love that one dish, by the way. Certainly not what I said, although perhaps what you read. I think it was a misreading of what I said. If you feel I cannot evaluate a person's statments fairly, honestly or properly because I had no interest in eating in his restaurant, there's no argument that will change your mind. I can only hope you will develop greater respect for me as you read what I say. But yes, having had the dish and having found it a sublime example of the evolution of the classic style of haute cuisine in France, I am bound to disagree with an assessment that finds the opposite. It would be a whole other thread for me to enumerate the subtle differences between what I read in Gopnik's book and what you wrote as a criticism of your meal at l'Ambroisie. Without reference to anything else you've posted here and just on the words in this "review" I find all the evidence I need to feel you know the subject at hand. I may still disagree with your conclusions, but I understand your points. I also note that they are not presented as a claim that the whole of French cuisine is in decline either. You make a smaller point with a lot of corroborating statements. Gopnik attempts to make a much larger point by presenting an overreaching statement on a much smaller point and I found it a curious statement based on a narrow alien view. Your criticism is based on your understanding of French haute cuisine, while Hoffman's was based on his knowledge and recently gained expertise in a foreign tradition. That alone would make a major difference in how I react even if I didn't feel his recent focus on Indian tradition didn't blind him to an appreciation of western tradition. That I understand you perfectly and that you misinterpret me, doesn't help this a whole lot either.

I've always tried to be clear that I didn't like his opinion of the dish in question, nor his view of curry in French cuisine and that I didn't like the disrespect shown to the chef he used as an example. Once again I will question your use of the word "spinkled" which Hoffman did not use. You quoted him as saying It was such an insular approach, as though nobody understood that curry isn't a powder that you don't apply cosmetically." I don't know what he meant by "cosmetically," but he did not mean visually cosmetic, as there was no trace of curry powder to be seen in the dish or on the plate. I've said this before. The flavor of the spices had been infused in the exquisite sauce which was strained before it was put on the plate. No powder was used to decorate my plate and cabrales noted that there was no powder on her plate, nor any graininess in the sauce when she was there some years later. Sounds trendy. That's enough to keep me away. I am not a fan of "fusion," eclectic or trendy, although I am seduced from time to time by certain aspects of these things. I've eaten too many meals at the hands of American chefs who don't know how to walk, but think they can fly. Perhaps I have too much respect for chefs with professional training and can cook well enough myself not to pay others to create at will. When I am jaded by haute French cuisine, I find relief and interest in traditional rustic cuisine, such as that of Spain. Creativity without the basis of a firm tradition rarely works for me.

You said: I replied: and you posted: and later on you asked: Actually you phrased it as an accusation, not a question and quite obviously, I didn't find a relevant point so I don't know which one I shouldn't have skipped. -- My problem is that the opinion is not presented as an opinion. I don't see the "in my opinion" or "I think that," what I read is "It was such an insular approach, as though nobody understood ..." Nobody understood and not even a second to contemplate that maybe he's the one who's wrong. "Nobody had read Madhur Jaffrey, or really understood that curry isn't just a spice you shake but a whole technique" He's saying they're all wrong and you ask me why it sounds arrogant. A simialr blend of spices has been in use in England for the better part of the last millenium, but truth will only come from the east. I'm sorry after 700 years the west has some knowledge of its own and its own idea of how to use spices and they have a validity. Indian cuisine is an option, but it doesn't negate western cooking where there are similarities. Had he spoken of an option, or an alternate course, I would not have found him arrogant. Had he spoken with some respect for the greatness that is French cuisine I would not have found arrogance. Had he offered more than his tutelage with Madhur Jaffrey to pose as the expert on the use of curry in the west where we have a long tradition of of using the spices that go into every blend we use, I might not have found him arrogant. Here's an interesting web page with information on European curry history going back to the 1300's and with support for the derivation of "curry" being of English origin from contemporary cooking terms of that time. I've never met Peter, nor have I eaten his food, although I live near the restaurant. Not suprisingly, it's not the kind of food that most appeals to me. Or at least I should say that the posted menus were not all that appealing and the reviews didn't inspire us. We often considered that we should try it, but just never got around to it and then I read that article in the New Yorker and my interest waned even further. It's not him, it's what he said in the article and I'd really be surprised if he hasn't softened his views. How recently have you discussed this with him? I have no reason not to believe he's anything but a fine fellow. I've never heard his name used in a negative way, although truthfully, I've not heard it mentioned often. Then again I have a narrow range of friends and acquaintances in the industry. In a way, I've not enjoyed making these posts. I'd much rather support an artist I like than criticize another negatively. I suppose I'll have a hard time convincing you of that in the near future.

I'd say that "pricey" in terms of a wine list for a restaurant such as Bid, would have led me to suspect a higher bottom end for sure.

It remains the dumbest thing I read in the book and possibly the smuggest most infuriating remark I've read on this site. It's a patently insupportable statement that smacks of great arrogance. It was made by a cook who has no problem admitting he's clueless about French cuisine and totally enthralled by what he recently learned about Indian cuisne. He's just wrong. A man of Pacaud's talent can do anything he wants with edible products in the kitchen. That's the nature and way of western art and cooking. This page make a good claim that "there is just as much evidence to suggest the word [curry] was English all along." The page then goes on to say "In the time of Richard I there was a revolution in English cooking . In the better-off kitchens, cooks were regularly using ginger, cinnamon, nutmeg, cloves, galingale, cubebs, coriander, cumin, cardamom and aniseed, resulting in highly spiced cooking very similar to India. They also had a ‘powder fort’, ‘powder douce’ and ‘powder blanch’. Then, in Richard II’s reign (1377-1399) the first real English cookery book was written. Richard employed 200 cooks and they, plus others including philosophers, produced a work with 196 recipes in 1390 called ‘The Forme of Cury’. ‘Cury’ was the Old English word for cooking derived from the French ‘cuire’ - to cook, boil, grill - hence cuisine." I have no sense that Hoffman did any research or investigation in the subject. He, like so many young Americans, just fell under the thrall of an Indian guru and spouted the prejudice of his foreign master. There is no supporting evidence that Hoffman has a clue about Pacaud or French cooking at any time in history but Gopnik allows him to criticize it from an Indian perspective. I'd find that specious journalism even if some reason were given why we should believe Hoffman understood Indian cuisine.