Bux

I'd add, or sum up, a few things. Those looking for a practical reason will easily find one or more rationales. I'd hazard a guess it became a standard simply because it made the food look more as if it was prepared by a professional. To the chef it offered pride of accomplishment and to the diner it offered the sense that those in the kitchen had mastered the techniques. The thing about these standards is that they take on a self propagating role. They're taught by the chefs who have come to expect this as a given in a professional kitchen and who can turn a carrot or mushroom in their sleep. In turn they demand this of a cuisinier if he wants to work in the kitchen. Turned vegetables just become a accepted and expected convention. Why seven sides? I suspect it just appeared to be a good number. It avoided the appearance of symetry which may have been seen as too difficult to perfect, or maybe symetry seemed too mechanical. It may just have been a comfortable number for Escoffier. The thing about standards is that once set, they're hard to overturn until they're seen as unsupportably old fashioned. Edit: Apparently I cross posted with Chefzadi who said "Not superstition or Feng Shui. When you quarter a round potato to start the tourne there are three edges that have to smoothed, rounded out. Four more turns and you a have a symmetrical vegetable." I knew I should have left that part for a professional. Anyone who's observed people over as long a period as I have, comes to eventually understand our fickle nature. We take the turned vegetables for granted until someone says "why bother," and another says "I am instantly filled with a heavy dose of sad, sleepy boredom. They don't even look nice to me. They look regularized." There are always chefs with new ideas and everynow and then they meet up with those who question the old standards and the new ideas start appearing with greater regularity. In time, they may become a standard. Among the alternatives to turned vegetables, I see baby vegetables. Those tiny carrots and turnips with a bit of edible stalk attached are not suitable to turning. They are an esthetic joy in their natural form and well suited to modern garnishes, or perhaps modern garnishes are dependent on the arrival of those tiny vegetables on the market. Creative competition for the turned vegetable comes with vegetable ribbons and "spaghetti." Juliennes were always an alternative as well dice and purees. Some will still see beauty in the turned turnip while others will find ennui. Adrià will simple make them disappear into thin "air."

I'm not sure what you mean by "concept" exceptions and one has to define "restaurant." Cuisine de Bar next to the boulangerie serves only tartines, salads and simple desserts, but I also believe it's not open for dinner. It's less than a restaurant and perhaps less than a cafe.

We had an exceptional lunch at l'Astrance in September of last year. Compared to the dinner of several years back, the dishes seemed almost conservative. I remember a monkfish dish because I though it was the least successful of the courses we were served in spite of the fact that the cooking of the fish itself was near perfection. That was memorable because only a few days before, I had monkfish that didn't please me on any account. I noted my objections to the captain and the chef came out to explain that the texture was the desired on and resulted from marinating the monkfish in red wine. It's probably not a good idea to soak monkfish in such a liquid is all I can say. At l'Astrance however, I felt the dish needed something more than the minimalism is was shown -- a touch of sauce perhaps. Nevertheless, what struck me most was the relative lack of the overt innovation we found in the previous meal there. It's interesting that you speak of the influence of Mugaritz. I didn't not look for that when I was there, and don't know Mugaritz that well after only one meal, but I can understand the reference. Between the time he worked for Passard and the time he returned to Paris to open l'Astrance, I believe Barbot worked in New Zealand, or is it Australia.

Aspic in mushrooms. Delightfully backwards.

For those who play these guessing games, Pedro is our official representative at the JEREZ/ALTA COCINA/SHERRY course on the subject of the relationship between Jerez wines (Sherry) and Alta Cocina (haute cuisine) at The University of Granada. Highly prominent on the list of participants are a couple of eGullet members and a number of chefs whose restaurants get mentioned in these forums. I believe only one of them has a restaurant in La Mancha.

Quite printable. I'd describe it as indignant, with a wink. A kind of "who do you take me for" and "I know what you're up against." I think her actual words were only to say she hoped the kitchen did a good job in preparing them. We were at the end of a banquette. I didn't get the accent of the couple next to us, maybe Dutch, maybe Swedish, but he spoke to us in English and ordered choucroute. Next to them was a table of very American looking tourists enjoying lamb chops and roast chicken. Both were garnished with a couple of vegetables. I'll bet they were pretty good. The two couples seemed to enjoy their meal and their evening. I suppose I've ordered both chicken and lamb chops at some time in Paris, but to me, it seemed ordinary and represented a missed opportunity. I'm sure there are those who feel that way when I pass on the chance to go skydiving. In all honesty, I'm not a great fan of pig's feet unless they're prepared off the bone, but Mrs. B will devour them with relish. At a wedding buffet in Brittany, she went back for seconds of the pigs feet in jelly. It was an ice breaker and obviously destroyed preconceptions held by the locals. One of the Bretons at our table said it was something his grandfather would eat. Maybe the tables have turned. Now you can spot the gastrotourists eating all that old fashioned food. The French are eating chicken and lamb chops. It's all a matter of taste -- personal taste, not necessarily good taste or bad taste. As for our encouter with the waiter, one never seriously insults or argues with one's waiter, at least not before you've eaten all your food. We proceded to have excellent service that night with the waiter making wisecracks and seemlingly enjoying his job serving us. The pig's feet, I'm sorry to say, were mediocre at best, according to my wife. My andouillette was excellent.

I don't know how it works either, and maybe it's just that some two stars concetrate on solid food that tastes good, but in spite of my interest in creative food, many of my most successful and memorable meals in France have been at two star restaurants. Frequenly it's were the vaue is greatest as well.

I learned of tartine buerre early in my travels in France. Except for the years we traveled with our daughter and I felt the need to rise early as a good example, it's not unusual to sleep in and miss breakfast or to arrive at cafes after the last croissant has been sold. At that time it was only and always a baguette split the long way and buttered.

This is very useful information. I'd assume the the trains might run less frequently in the hours after dinner. That would be good to know as would the availability of a taxi at the station. For a visitor, the ride might be more pleasant in the afternoon for lunch, not that I recall the drive being very scenic. It's certainly a meal that one might devote the better part of a day to enjoying. Whether it's "the most interesting, personal and talent-laden place in Madrid" is a question I can't answer for lackof experience. I've eaten in some of the best places in the city and I haven't had a meal quite as interesting or successful in that vein and I've eaten in some of the best, or at least most reknown restaurants in the city. The natural comparisons we made were to the two and three star restaurants we've experienced all over Spain, as well as to the one star restaurants that have two or three soles or more aptly to those we felt offered us a multistarred dining experience regardless of anyone's rating. It would however seem to me that meal there without the exceptional cochinillo is like the fine French meal without a cheese course.

Let's use positive and negative. A bad review might well be one that rated the restaurant highly but was poorly written as you suggest. What I meant when I said "a postive review is always more meaningful to me than a negative one" is what I went on to say, but perhaps I can explain it more carefully. If someone finds some value in having eaten in a restaurant, there's a chance I will also find some value. True, some people have apalling taste and there's no guarantee, but a rave review offers hope of finding excellence. A negative review is less of an indication that there's nothing to like. It's all too possible that it just didn't appeal stylistically to the diner. Given the choice of two restaurants, one that's gotten two middling reviews and another that was given a rave review and a horrible pan, I'd opt for the second. It just seems more interesting, offers greater hope of excellence. Granted that hope must be weighed against the chance it will be a disaster of a meal, but I'm willing to take the risk. I fear missing the great meal more than I fear getting the awful one. There are, of course, many other variables that come into play. Abstracting this one point makes for a more theoretical situation than we're likely to encounter in real life.

You have been misreading the guide, although I suspect you may not have been reading it, but reading about it as it's clearly explained in the front. The stars refer to the quality of the cuisine. Typically, two and three star ratings are absolute ratings while one star is generally acknowledged to be good in its category or area. The forks and spoons (there are no knives depicted) are strictly a reference to the luxury of the setting and, service and to the comfort. The stars are an indication of the the quality cuisine I might expect. The number of forks might suggest whether I wear a jacket and tie for instance. Nevertheless that third star does imply that everything will be faultless, not just the food. Still you will find restaurants with two stars that are more elegant and more expensive than others with three stars. Presumably the food is better at the three star restaurant however.

I recall seeing what I know of as mâche, in a market in Madrid. I seem to recall them package in a small box or tray with a label indicating they were grown in France.

Judith, I am hearing you and I think there are only nuances of difference between what we're saying. It's not at all that I'm countering what you're saying as it is that I'm trying to make sure third parties who read here capture it all. It's clear to me that RGS's high marks go to places worth investigating. It's just that a low mark at a traditional restaurant is not something I'd worry about. His opinion of Dufresne is very telling. I do not consider Wylie the best cook in NY, but I do think he's worthy of attention and he's doing a certain kind of food better than anyone else in NY. I hear your recommendation of Can Jubany with mixed feelings. We're planning on spending a couple of weeks in Spain in May. Barcelona, Catalunya and probably Madrid will be on our itinerary although it's clear that two weeks is not enough and our problem is not where to eat, but which restaurants to eliminate from this trip. The pleasure of the province outside Barcelona have in the past never left us enough time and appetite to fully appreciate Barcelona's restaurants without yet another destination, but I do thank you for the recommendation. I see it already has two soles from Campsa, or did last year.

I've no news on the matter, but you say "flagship" which would assume he had a fleet of restaurants. I'm not aware of any but the two restaurants, each of which operates in season. There's no news on his web site to indicate he's closed la ferme.

From France Magazine Summer 2003 Quick Fixes by Alexandre Lazareff: ". . . no list of snacking venues would be complete without mentioning Cuisine de Bar, founded by the late and much missed Lionel Poilâne. Poilâne bought the shop next to his legendary bakery as a place to experiment with bar food: The place would have no cook or oven, he proclaimed, just a barman and a toaster. The bread—excellent of course—comes from next door and the delicious open-faced sandwiches are house recipes. Gourmets favor the Saint-Marcellin cheese, country ham and marjoram-scented ham combination, as well as the duck combo (mousse de canard and smoked magret de canard). Other excellent choices are the tomato, mozzarella and basil tartine and the prawn guacamole.. . . "

Cuisine de Bar 8, rue du Cherche-Midi 75006 Paris This is what I wrote back in July or 2001. "We had a quick and light lunch at a little spot we know and like around the corner from the Lutétia. Cuisine de Bar a small place that serves excellent tartines, or open faced sandwiches, on grilled pain Poilâne, as well as salads and desserts. This is a good location for a quick and tasty bite at lunch." It's next door to Poilâne. In fact, I've heard there is a connection to the boulangerie whose bread they use. At that time, it had been there for a number of years. It was a place we remembered from a previous trip. It was, for an American whose first trip to Paris was over forty years ago, a most unFrench establishment, but of course it was quite French, just up to date. My sole complaint was that I found the salad dressing sweet. Now that was decidedly unFrench to me. There were more ladies than gentlemen having lunch, but enough other men so I never felt out of place. The tartines I've had at bars have always been the top or bottom of a baguette. At Cuisine de Bar, they were open sandwiches on sliced bread. The selection was quite varied and included tinned items as well as fresh ones. I recall ordering canned monk fish liver pate once just for the curiosity. It was a product of Denmark and neither as good as foie gras pate or the monk fish liver I get at my local sushi bar in NY. The better choices are quite excellent and depending on which you chose, you might well feel you were snacking in Florence or San Francisco rather than Paris.

There's the rub. No meal is authentically French for me unless it includes at least a half bottle of wine and it's getting hard to find a drinkable bottle for less than $30 these days. I haven't been to l'Ecole in years, but I seem to recall it's low end of the wine list was neither inviting nor all that low and ate up a bit of the value I perceived from the food. There's some inherent unfairness in this. I'm sure that when I was eating inexpensive meals with carafes of wine in France in the 60's, I was far more tolerant of of inferior wine than I am now.

Analogies will always get me in trouble. It's also likely that although being a chef is akin to being a composer, the chef may be more like a performing artist. That's especially true where his finest skills may elude the casual diner/listener but impress his peers. As I've also been a great fan of minimalism in the arts, we're not going to find much common ground in analogies of cuisine to music or art. I suppose it gets back to the nature of the "problem" and whether that's a personal fault or universal criticism. My problem with great restaurants is that they're expensive. Nevertheless, my problem doesn't in any way speak to the question of whether they are over rated or not. In fact, whether a restaurant appeals to me or not, may have little to do with how it should be rated, just as how it is rated may not have much to do with whether the restaurant satisfies me. I will admit to a curiosity about any highly rated restaurant and have been known to pay a high price to eat in a restaurant that I suspect will not please me. I would not argue with anyone who called my hobby a vice. On the other hand, the risk is quite saner than say, skydiving, at least in my mind. I do remember times when a disappointing meal at any price was bitterly frustrating. At that stage in my life, I suppose it would have been a real vice to have had an obsession with fine restaurants. I may have gone without a new TV or furniture, but I never bet the baby's milk money on an expensive meal. My point here is just to say that taste is very subjective. No restaurant is over rated to the person doing the rating and all restaurants are going to be over rated to someone. Zagat is living proof that my taste is not a popular one, and I've seen the restaurants I most admire and respect, trashed in this thread and restaurants I think of as second tier at best, highly touted. The value of the posts in this thread may be limited to getting a better grasp of whose comments will be most meaningful to me in the future. Otherwise, a postive review is always more meaningful to me than a negative one. While I know few people share my tastes, I also know that if someone finds something worthwhile in a restaurant, I should be able to appreciate it for that much myself.

I don't know of any fancy restaurant that pours anything near 5 ounces of vodka into a martini, there is very little vermouth. I think that would wipe out their customers, before they even start their meals. It would contain the alcohol equivalent of two thirds of a bottle of wine. The total volume of a martini, I don't know how large it is, contains some ice melt. I think that even 2.5 ounces of vodka plus vermouth would be generous. I'm sure that some of our bartenders could clarify this further. I do think that the economics will work out just fine. ← As I read Sam, and admittedly it's not entirely clear in my mind, he's figuring the "liquor cost" as the cost of gin + "the glass, the napkin, the bartender and barbacks, the glass washer, the ice machine, etc." He's saying the cost is everything that can be applied to the cost of selling the booze and eliminating the cost of general overhead such as rent, lighting, etc. So we get a price to the consumer of three times cost to the restaurant. At the same time, when we're talking about wine, we're talking cost of purchase. What happens when you add on the ancillary costs you add on for a cocktail. Wine glasses are usually more fragile than bar glasses in any given restaurant. Wines are often stored for a much longer time than gin and need far more care and special conditions. We start to head back to one the original concerns. These ancillary costs run far more in the luxury restaurants with sommelier(s), temperature and humidty controlled storage, superfine glasses, etc. There's a reason to accept a higher markup from one restaurant than from another, if your profiting from those extra costs incurred by the restaurant.

I have a problem with that, Bux. At those prices, if I go once and am not impressed, there's no way I'm going back seven more times -- unless someone pays me to do that. But though I love bold flavors, I also loved my lunch at Craft, a restaurant that's been called subtle (even overly so) by some. I notice that it's appeared on some people's "overrated" lists, and I have a hard time understanding that after the meal I had there. ← You're not Jeffrey Steingarten, nor am I, but what is the problem you have with a chef who prepares food whose pleasures are not immediately accessible to everyone? Should no one compose music that's "difficult?" Tell me your favorite composers and I'll bet that if we go out on the street with a CD player and ask a few people to listen to recordings, we're going to get a few people to say they don't understand why anyone would listen to that shit. Lots of people don't like some kinds of music the first time they listen to it, but if they give it a chance, they find it's a source of pleasure. That some of us can't afford the time or money to learn to like some food, doesn't necessarily make a great restaurant over rated.

I don't know why he quoted you - but I think his point was simply - if you think it's overpriced - don't buy it. No one's breaking your arm. I'm not quite sure of how to respond to that. Of course I don't buy wine I think is overpriced, although I frequently don't know what a particular bottle is worth before I try it. I don't carry a retail catalogue in my mind and I do try wines I haven't had before. If you're talking about not buying wine at all in a restaurant, my response might be to ask why would I bother to dine out at all. Wine increases the pleasure of most of my meals and most restaurants couldn't get away with charging the menu prices, if they didn't serve wine to my wife and myself. By the same token, cocktails do nothing to improve my dining experience. I find them invariably a poor value in that regard, although I suspect the percentage markup over retail is even higher with hard liquor than with wine. If wine drinkers subsidize the non drinkers, cocktail drinkers subsidize my wine drinking. Note that I don't drink much wine in triple digits and with cocktails running $15 in a restaurant, I'd say a bottle of booze brings a higher return to a restaurant than a bottle of wine that retails at the same price. I find there's very little corelation between what tastes good to any particular individual and what's a fair price for wine. If that kind of value is a consideration, one must know what one likes and what one orders. You can't depend on getting that kind of value by drinking to the sommelier's taste. It's very easy to find a bargain that's not to your taste, or to overpay and still be pleased by the wine. Many fine wines are not to a neophyte's taste. I love lamb. Many diners find it too flavorful. I love pigeon and would prefer wild game birds. Many are put off by gamey meats and won't see the value in a woodcock offered for the same price as chicken.

I'm also suspicious of those who focus on negative aspects, especially with the need to prove they're out of step with presumably expert opinion. A lot of people, eGullet Society members included, often feel a restaurant is over rated if the food doesn't make them say "wow." The quality of some top food is not always immediately self evident. In many cases, you have to bring some history and understanding of food and cooking to appreciate the food. If I recall correctly, Jeffrey Steingarten said he had to visit Arpège, in Paris, something like seven or eight times to fully understand the food. What I've noticed is that many people favor food that's immediately appealing, or that arrives with bold flavor, over cuisine that's more subtle. I find some popularly accessible restaurants to be over rated. The restaurants that are considered the top restaurants by those who haven't had the chance to eat at better restaurants are the ones I find over rated. Zagat's serves to confuse popularity with quality, in my opinion. The problem with those whose opinions disgree with mine in the culinary arts, is that unlike those whose opinions on art and architecture differ from mine, I can't get away with telling them their taste is in their mouth.

RGS has an extreme prejudice for creative cooking. My understanding is that his reviews are dependable in that genre, but he tends to dismiss traditional chefs. He considers Wylie Dufresne as the best chef in the US.

Mache has become fairly common in the US. Well at least in NY. It's familiarly known as lamb's tongue or lamb's leaf. I believe it's also known as corn salad.

One member was unhappy, to say the least, with Arola in the Hotel Arts in Barcelona. Comments here. I assume you've researched the forum, especially the recent topic on El Celler de Can Roca.