Bux

When tendon is not properly tenderized is it the thing that I had suspected was kneecap?

Sorry, "Barron's" just rang the worng bell for a moment, but Larousse was on the same side. Wilfrid, I was just quoting an old referrence. I'm inclined to agree that words change meaning quickly and conservatives and purists are fighting a lost cause. You can pull out all the references you want, but when 80% of the food world uses a word to mean something new, no scholarly effort is going to move the language back.

Steve, I'd probably accept "most" as long as we stay away from the universal "all." I won't pretend to know many critics who try to be objective, just ones who pretend to be objective. We'll agree that's not the same thing. Shaw, are you making a living from your reviews these days or can I adapt a universal attidue towards reviewers making a living? Anyway, hard hitting and opinionated reviews can be the interesting. They could also be useful if we know the prejudices of the reviewer.

Confit and confiture, for all their similarity and obvious shared derivation, are not the same thing. Nevertheless, Fat Guy is on shakey ground going to a dictionary rather than a food book, in my opinion, in this situation. However, my old worn American edition of the Larousse Gastronomique would have also supported him by listing only confits of meat under the heading "confit." My edition was printed in 1961.

One of my favorite restaurants in NY has recently put up a site. I feel good about listing it as I like the chef and the restaurant as well as because I think it's a logically conceived site with pertinent information. I didn't design the site, although I had offered my servcies to Dan Barber. My one complaint about the design is that it's almost entirely graphic. This allows almost the same layout control as in print media, but it can slow down page loading. It also makes test revision a more complicated process. Speed and bandwidth become less critical as users move towards faster connections and servers offer more storage, this may no longer be the problem I saw it as a few years ago. http://bluehillnyc.com

Push me to the wall hard enough and I could remember grapefruit, not lemon. ;)

To my mind, fruity is apart from dry or sweet, although most people tend to think of fruity as less dry. We had an interesting champagne a few weeks ago. It was one I did not recall seeing before and don't know how widely available it is. It was Gaston Chiquet Tradition Brut Carte Verte NV. We found it very citrusy, lemony really, but dry.

I think I understand what you mean, but I wonder if it wouldn't be best for food critics to admit their prejudices so we could better understand them when they try to be objective. It would be a whole lot better than having to read them for a year to try and learn their prejudices. Some people have a wider range of tastes than others and some people are able to appreciate things outside their preferred range of tastes, but we all have our preferences and blind spots.

The "soup" dumplings at Shanghai Joe's in Chinatown started to vary in quality and the lines to get in remained constant. Can anyone report on the recent food?

So much of what you say is based on personal taste and preference. My opinion of a restaurant is often different than Michelin's. While I recognize that their inspector has eaten more meals in that restaurant then I have, I also recognize the fact that in the end, my taste is my taste and it may never agree with anyone else's. This is why no one should accept a single guide as the bible. That said, I find Michelin will lead me astray less often than a less conservative guide or critic. Michelin's biggest fault is the lack of any substantial text. Michelin lists a few special dishes for each multistarred restaurant. I find that valuable. More often than not, the first time diner should consider ordering those dishes if they're on the menu. GaultMillau has lots of text, but it is far lass inclusive at the ordinary level and I often wonder if Michelin's listing of the ordinary places is not one of it's strongest services. Sometimes I just want a reliable meal close to where I happen to be. Other travelers may care even less about starred food than I do, but still want a good ordinary meal. Much has been said and written about how much value Michelin places on the environment. All that I've seen or heard, has been focused on whether or not Michelin withholds a third star from those chefs whose food is extraordinary, but whose restaurant and service is less than elegant. I hear of chefs and owners who think they can get a third star by improving their environment. Your's is the first opinion I've heard that a restaurant "earned" it's star on its environment. It doesn't make your claim invalid, just not one that seems to have many subscribers. That Michelin will be as slow to remove a star as to award one, is rather widely acknowledged. Many critics believe a legendary restaurant may drop precipitously before Michelin takes away a star. Let's take La Pyramid in Vienne as an example since you brought it up. It's been a two star restaurant for some time. Lately I've been hearing great press about Henriroux who's the current chef/owner. GaultMillau, a guide far less conservative than Michelin had it at 18/20 a few years and this year it's a 19/20. Although I haven't eaten there since Mme. Point ran the show, to me this indicates a restaurant on the way up, not one resting on it's laurels. There are gastronomic temples and Michelin may be guilty of preserving them, but I've seen no evidence that they take part in the restoration. It was a real fight for Loiseau to get three stars at La Cote d'Or in Saulieu after the restaurant went into decline. As for the sinlge star category, I think that's already been explained. Michelin awards these in relation to a restaurant's local competition. One star is not worth going out of your way to visit. It's merely the best place nearby and a particularly good value for the price. A one star in Paris is going to be far better than one in the boondocks. Michelin does not pretend otherwise.

I disagree in that I don't think you can have a three star experience without three star food. I'll go so far as to say I believe that's Michelin's philosophy as well. While each and everyone of us may dispute the ratings on a subjective level, we should understand that when Michelin awards three stars, they're saying that the food meets their standards for three stars.The very definition of three stars is "Exceptional cuisine, worth a special jouney." Two stars indicates "Excellent cooking, worth a detour." Fine wines, faultless service and elegant surroundings are only mentioned in the subtitle. Never is it implied that a three star restaurant made it inspite of the food.

Steve Plotnicki, I'd like to get back and discuss some of your first contentions, but Michelin is conservative. GaultMillau is much quicker to recognize creativity and new talent. It also rewards creativity to a much greater degree than Michelin. I still think that's a strength at least as much of a weakness in Michelin. As excited as new ideas are, I'd hate to see a time when a three star restaurant had to be on the cutting edge of creativity. When restaurants that are trying to chage the standards become the standard, we may have chaos. I'm not at all sure I haven't seen the signs of this in younger chefs who ape Adria's public image far more than they care to undergo his training or aspire to his expertise. There's a level of finesse in some of what you appear to call "plain cooking" that's far harder to achieve, and perhaps much less obvious to the diner, than what I see in lesser creative cooks who are willing to bypass this finesse. I know what you mean about l'Ambroisie, but I'd be hard pressed to say it didn't deserve three stars. Any complaints I'd have about the food along these lines would probably apply to Robuchon and Ducasse as well. I suppose I place a different line between predictable and exquisitely well done than you do. No doubt, three stars is not enough information for a real food lover to go on when trying to select one resturant. I don't know about you, but I may never get to eat at every three star restaurant and have to narrow my choice further based on more detailed reports. My own personal rating system may also place a few two star restaurants above some three star restaurants. I assume that's going to be true of anyone who seriously considers what he has eaten as well as where he will eat. Our discussion will have little meaning to those who feel the need to eat at three star restaurants beause others have rated them as such. Which is not to say that my curiosity is not sufficiently aroused as well. I may eat in a restaurant I know I won't like just to see what impresses, amuses or inspires others.

Steve, (Klc) it seems to be that Michelin has always been conservative, e.g. slow to acknowledge change. That's always been it's strength and it's weakness. Spain is also a very particular case in point. Its food and wines have been evolving at such a rate that it may be seen more as revolution than evolution, except for the fact that no one seems interested in upsetting the applecart. I don't mean to overlook the chefs in Paris or the French provinces, but the geographic center of cutting edge food may lie in the Pyrenees halfway between Catlalunya and the Basque coast, unless what I've heard about points further west in the north pull it in that direction. At the same time, regional cuisine is Spain seems far less changed than it does in France and as sophisticated as the Adrias' and Berasategui's cooking may be, the "people" seem to be eating as they have for generations. Although there's been some hit and miss, I've had to adjust my palate and I've been dependent on personal recommendations far more than in France, I've been enjoying recent travels in Spain and finding unexpected gastronomic pleasure at many levels. It looks as if our next trip to France will probably take us into Spain once more which leads me to ask about those three less than two star restaurants. Where are they and who are they? I'll take asnwers here, in the Europe-other board, or by message as you see fit to post. I'd certainly like to drum up some interest in a public discussion of modern Spanish cooking beyond El Bulli on eGullet.

We ate at Arzak several years ago. The setting may have been less elegant than I expect at three star restaurants, but with the full knowledge that I was eating at a three star restaurant practically a stone's throw from France, the food did not disappoint. Nor did the service, although it was also simple and somewhat homespun in style. The food was also simple, but in an extracted or reduced style rather than "country simple." It should be noted that I use "simple" to describe Ducasse's food as well. What I've read about Arzak and the way he uses his kitchen as a laboratory to study food as well as his insistence on top quality provisions, (his squid are line caught, not netted) he is among the more serious and talented chefs in Europe. It may be that his daughter has now taken over the ktchens entirely. She's certainly well trained both at his heels and at some of the finest kitchens in France and Italy from what I understand. Of course you can imagine that she would have no problem getting into the kitchens of her father's friends. I cannot say if the quality has been maintained. Santamaria's food may have been even more impressive, but it's hard to compare. The two meals were years apart and we spend more time at El Raco de Can Fabes, as well as more money on a longer menu. The Adria brothers may well be in a class by themselves. It's rather hard to compare a meal at El Bulli to that of most other places.

While the instructions are unclear, the impression I have is that it's total points not average points per vote. Thus everyvote counts to increase a site's points. I was at Martha's site once. It was very clearly organized as I recall and deserves a point for that alone.

I haven't seen sizzling rice dishes on menus in a while. Some forty years ago when I was first introduced to Chinatown there was a restaurant in the basement on Doyers Street that featured sizzling rice. It's long been gone.

Vichyssoise is a cold cream of potato and leek soup, invented by the legendary French chef Louis Diat, while he was working at the Ritz-Carlton in New York long before I was born. I believe Vichy was his mother's birthplace and this was all long before the Second World War. Really good potatoes command a good price at the green market, but I suspect the surcharge is for the caviar not the potatoes. An educated(?) guess is that the rouennaise sauce is made with the blood of a duck, or at least its juices. I'm pulling this out of a hat, but making a connection to the days of duck presses. I don't see my Larousse Gastronomic handy. I'm sure there's a definitive clue in it. I'd suppose the lobster would be the dominant flavor of that dish and that it would be very delicately flavored. I mentioned somewhere that the sauce with the lamb was pungent with raw garlic. Was that a feature or a fault? I'm not sure if my venison was less than the most flavorful or just overshadowed by the incredible vegetables, but I don't remember it being very gamy. The trick of the chef is play up the best of the food he's cooked, but the diner's attitude is important. Look for fault and you will find it. Focus on the greatness.

I had lunch. As I recall we had a tasting menu and it seemed well priced in relationship to ordering a la carte. One can only hope, in retrospect, that I didn't have the bargain menu. I think the price structure has evolved over time, although my first visit has been my only visit. Ducasse is a great stretch of my budget as well. I really liked the light. I also enjoy lunch. It always seems so much more like cheating to spend the afternoon eating. I've enjoyed lunch at Daniel when they served lunch and I've enjoyed lunch at Lespinasse and Le Bernardin, although the last is the only one where you can see daylight. The regular menu was about 2% less expensive than at dinner, but was the way to go at Daniel in my opinion. Ducasse seemed to have a better offering of less expensive wines in NY than in Paris, but I'm not sure of that. My opinion about subjective things is likely to differ from Fat Guy's, but his information is on the nose.

Wilfrid, it may well be that in common parlance, the eaux-de-vie that are aged in wood and brown in color are called brandies and the white ones called eaux-de-vie. It does seem that many terms are bandied about without much thought to communication.

If I might stay off topic for a moment, how does pear brandy differ from poire william (eau-de-vie de poire)? Calvados is just eau-de-vie de pomme made within a delimited area and within certin restrictions. I don't believe it even has to be aged as I'm sure we've had clear Calvados years ago in Normandy.

The quality of food should not be marred by service, but the enjoyment of that quality can be marred, if not ruined. In the end, that's what counts. I can overcome less than perfect ervice and many minor flaws, but there comes a point when the experience is unplesant and the food can't help enough.

Calvados is best bought repeatedly. ;)Oddly enough you've come to the American Pommeau expert. It was the toast before Champagne at my daughter's wedding. My son-in-law is a Breton. Calvados is an AOC apple brandy (eau-de-vie). The bottle of Pommeau I have is "Pommeau de Bretagne" appellation d'origine contrôlée (I assume Pommeau itself is not protected or controlled unless with a place name.) It's an aperatif made from apple juice and "apple brandy." In the case of my bottle, it's 17% alcohol and made from jus de la pomme et eau-de-vie de cidre de Bretagne. It's like a sweetened fortified wine or sweet cocktail. It's an acquired taste. It's not as sweet as the kirs I've had in Brittany--half and half, white wine (or apple cider) and crème de cassis.

You want to be careful then. ;)

It would be easy to list the two and three star restaurants or GualtMillau's top list, but hard to say which one might have an open table. Are you staying at a hotel in Paris? Top concierges often have a bit of pull at one place or another. Restaurants often keep a table open for last minute VIPs and a request from one of their favorite concierges might get the table for you. At least that's how I assume it works. If you have pull with a French resturant in New York or London, they might be able to help as well. Finally, You could call Rostang and, after telling them about the fabulous dinner on your honeymoon, say you had to be in Paris unexepctedly on your first anniversary and would love to repeat the experience. The French are not without some sympathy in these matters. I'm not sure any of these would work. I think my first suggestion is tried and true, the other two I've pulled out of thin air. Good luck although I think I read your message more with envy than sympathy. ;) We were in Paris a month aga and able to get tables at good small restaurants on a moment's notice. We didn't try that at the top places and I don't recall an empty table at either Ducasse or Petrossian. American tourism is down however and if restaurants are not hurting, they may not be reserved as far in advance.

La France Profonde is a bit like the Twilight Zone. It tends to sneak up on you like a ghost rather than existing as a destination. Maybe I don't see it coming because I still expect to exist ony in the black and white of old films and photographs. One day we were staying with friends and went to the butcher in Pezenas. I think we bought a chicken to make coq au vin and some boudin noir. It was not much like shopping in the states. First the butcher's wife behind the counter needed to know what we were doing with the chicken. Then she held up some pork belly and said we needed this for lardons. "How much did we want?" One might have expected the customers behind us to get antsy as we carried on in our halting French, but no, they all had suggestions as to how we should prepare our chicken and when it came to boudin noir, everyone had an opinion on how to best prepare and serve them. Forty years of travel in France, always looking for La France Profonde and here I was with truly nothing to see, but I felt like a guy who had seen a leprachaun or unicorn. Le Vieux Pont was good enough to warrant a return visit a couple of years later and I'd like to return again soon. It's run by two sisters. One is the chef, the other takes care of the front of the house. The food is simple. I've used the same adjective to describe Ducasse's food and Bach's music. I understand the chef is self taught and a devotee of Michel Bras. The advantage of our first visit was that it was off season and there were few tourists. The camping site almost adjacent to the restaurant was closed. The disadvantage was that the hotel was not finished. The bed in a simple place in the adjacent town sagged. The new hotel met my exact standards. It was clean, bright, interestingly designed and minimally decorated. A simple two story stone box was gutted and inside the old shell the architect used a curved wall and a few angled walls to create spaces of some interest without hitting guests over the head with his cleverness. The camping site is small enough so that even in midsummer it's more pastoral and less trailer park. The food is still at least half the draw. Our daughter has had a much earlier start on haute cuisine than we did. If I thought there was reason to apologize for eating at three star restaurants in one's teens, I would not have taken her to those places. It was just not what my parents did, nor what I expected to do when I first traveled in France. Indeed, my daughter spent a term in Paris and eventually went to cooking school there. She ate very well when we visited and when her uncle visited. We did not travel from about 1972-1985 and thus only read about much of the beginnings of nouvelle cuisine. We dismissed most of it partially out of natural inclination and perhaps some buried resentment of not traveling. We cooked at home in a very old fashioned French style. Much of the early nouvelle cuisine seemed odd and forced. By the time we started to travel again, a contemporary and more interesting cuisine with fewer faults had bcome well instituted and it became obvious to us how tired much of the old cuisine had become.