Bux

I think it's obscene to describe professional chefs as being sneaky to make their job eaiser, simply because they follow traditions of professional cooking rather than the latest diet fad. The implication that they're trying to fool you by making your food taste good is disrespectful. It's the idea that one should arrive at a restaurant with a built in level of antagonism that offends me the most. Perhaps that's because I really enjoy dining out. If I were a scientist my guess is that I'd be far more offended by the partial information on which the author suggests we make decisions and by the false assumptions. By assumning all far, sugar and starch is poison, the author throws out the baby with the bath water. It's the oil in a salad dressing that enables the body to make use of nutrients in the lettuce. People who read this kind of stuff deserve the food they eat as a result.

Is Walker's Drive-Inn your ex-employer? If so, I see the problem. If you're touting your class as a lessson in how to make their pastries, you're trading on their name and I wouldn't be surprised if they could sue. This is a matter of using their name, not your recipes. If Walker's Drive-Inn was not the ex-employer, disregard this post.

They were made more in my interpretation of what you seemed to be looking for, than in regard to your experience. I'm glad it was taken that way. Any chance you'd consider getting out of town for the night? On a trip that included Gagnaire in Paris, les Magnolias in the suburbs and la Côte St. Jacques in Joigny, the two meals I most remember were in the Loire at a couple of two star restaurants--Hotel du Lion d'Or in Romorantin and Domaine des Hauts de Loire in Onzain. I give the Liion d'Or the edge in food, and the Domaine des Hauts de Loire an edge for it's country wooded grounds and setting, but neither is lacking in comfort or good food. The price of the room would push this to your limit and you've still got to buy breakfast, but food is generally a better buy in the country than it is in Paris and of course you'd still have to get there and back. Lion d'Or also prides itself on its selection of Loire wines. My apologies for thinking out of the box if this is an appealing, but impossible solution.

I have not eaten at either. When we splurge for a high end meal, price is usually not much of a consideration but it's almost always at a chef driven restaurant, that is to say one that is either owned by the chef or that bears his name. Our recent visits to Paris have been brief and as much, or more, social as gastronomic. Few of our meals have been at multistarred restaurants. I guess Arpège, Gagnaire and Ducasse at the Plaza Athenée are our last multistarred meals and probably none of them meet your qualifications, or are what I think you are looking for. I don't think I'd recommend any of these except to someone who already knew something about the styles of the chefs or who had shown a deep interest in very personal high end cuisine. Of these, maybe only Ducasse is guaranteed to offer a memorably pleasing meal to a first time diner. Passard, at Arpège, is a consummate chef, but I believe Jeffrey Steingarten was quoted someplace as saying it took six or seven visits for him to appreciate the food. I think that's a gross exaggeration. I think the first time diner will appreciate it very well. I just don't know that he will appreciate the difference between it and the next level to warrant the price difference. I'd be loathe to suggest my appreciation was better than Jeffrey's either. It's probably outside your budget and too demanding, if you are that interested in food, to take a back seat to your celebration and if you are not that interested in food, it's too great an expense.

I think we need to allow Ruhlman some artistic license. Books are rarely banned, and most libraries don't have a full selection of cookbooks published. So it will be dificult to determine if it'a banned, or just not selected. Junior High School libraries are generally weak on French cookbooks anyway.The more interesting quote in this light is that Tony says "I didn't want food porn, I didn't want a cookbook that would sit on a cocktail table." That says a lot about either what's on his coffee table, or what he thinks is really pornographic in our society--or maybe both?

Some people like that. Some people like that too. Zagat adequately represents what some people like and it does so in a democratic manner that avoids all consideration in regard to their qualification to influence your decision on where to eat. Would you go to Yankee stadium tonight to see a couple of dozen guys from the streets of NY and Boston whose only qualification was an interest in baseball? Would you pay to see them play?

If they had enough reservationists as they needed to answer the phones promptly, you can almost be assured that there would be double bookings as even a computer couldn't handle all the simultaneous entries.

You have two choices. You can assume the public has knowledge of the restaurants and a degree of taste and critical judgment and therefore view each edition as a survey of restaurants, or you can assume you have the required knowledge, taste and critical judgment and view this as a suvey of popular taste. Of course it doesn't accurately reflect the public taste as much as it reflects the taste of those of like to fill out surveys.

While I am hardly a die hard defender of the slow food movement, it seems to me that a good number of chefs and restaurants pride themselves on serving only fresh ingredients and ideally those that can be locally sourced. Seasonality is what these restaurants are about as much as great food. Restaurant today are also more about creativity and process than they have ever been. I understand the concept of signature dishes and of returning to a familiar place just to have a certain favorite dish, but many of today's best restaurants are offering an alternative to that. Thus one might want to see a signature dish and menus that are slow to change, but I no longer think an enlightened diner should expect to see that. Personally, I prefer not to make a value judgment on the issue and just appreciate that there are more options when I choose to dine out. I suspect that if Per Se were to employ the number of people needed to man the phones so that every caller got a live person, you'd see an increase in the price of dinner. Actually, if Per Se were just to raise prices obscenely, it could probably still fill the dining room but reduce the demand to a level one or two receptionists could handle. As Robert suggests, the way they're handling it may well be the most advantageous way for most of us. The problem seems to stem from the intense desire to make reservation to eat there, by those who seem to have a lot to criticize. They must be doing something right.

The current Michelin Guide awards two stars to Pré Catalan. Four crossed forks and spoons in red, indicates a relatively elegant and attractive place. According to Michelin it offers prix fixe menus at 120 & 150 €. Ordering à la carte could run a bit less or a bit more. At your top figure you should be able to enjoy a decent wine, and take a taxi. The option to order a cheap wine that's not good is probably not there anyway. On the other hand, wine prices have no upper limits and I don't know what others consider "decent" when perusing a wine list. Michelin notes that it has an intersting wine list, which is something that's not noted for all restaurants or even all two and three star restaurants. Also in the Bois de Boulogne, is Grande Cascade with one Michelin star, four red forks and spoons and prices that are just a bit higher--prix fixe at 165 € and à la carte at the same or less.

What's the point of going to school if you can't keep what you learn?

The menu last month was simple and slightly creative as fresh_a noted in his opening post. The large bar on the right seemed set up for dining. This seems to be the fashion in Paris following l'Atelier de Joël Robuchon. I'm not sure if it has to do with an interest in spending less time at the table, or in reducing the cost of eating great food and focusing on the product and the cooking, with less emphasis on the attendant service that usualy accompanies fine food. As someone who comes to Paris with all the time to spend at a dining table, hastening the pace of a meal has little appeal, but as someone who loves great food and whose budget is not so great, there is some appeal in keeping cost under control. Unfortunately our meal proceeded at too fast a pace for our pleasure. At those prices and with no plans for the rest of the evening we would have rather had a more liesurely dinner. Not to say that it is super expensive. It wasn't much more expensive that the overpriced Benoit, and we found the food superior. The butterflied and mostly boned pigeon (en crapudine) was spiced lightly with piment d'Espelette. They--we both ordered pigeon--were not only precisely cooked rosé as we requested, but were wonderful specimens with rich flavor. I'm inclined to make yet another comparison between products in Paris and those in NY, but it may not be fair as I paid 34€ for that dish and only $25 for a bird with less flavor in a NY restaurant soon after returning to NY. I enjoyed my carrot soup with langoustines very much, but Mrs. B was less fond of her oeuf mollet. A wonderful egg sat on a mushroom puree which itself had a larger base of rich dark brown meat jelly. Raw and cooked vegetables were scattered on the plate. I found a small taste of the egg, puree and jelly to be quite tasty, but I think it might work better in a small portion as a rich amuse with a quail egg. For about 200€ for a couple of three course meal, 2 half bottles of wine, a bottle of water and 2 coffees--there was even a glass of dessert wine--we should have brought a little bit of liesurely dining with the meal, but it took off two quckly and we never got a chance to slow the pace until the main courses arrived. I tend to examine computerized bills less closely and check only to see that the right dishes and wines were listed. When we got home, I discovered that I had missed the left column and two half bottles of the pouilly fumé were charged rather then the one I had ordered. I suspect the second one was the one requested late in the meal by the table next to us. I believe the overcharge was the result of sloppiness and base it on the rush to get diners in and out rather than intent to kite my check, but it's sloppy service either way. There was a time when a restaurant of this kind at this price wouldn't have been rushing to turn tables. It was an accident and one I could have prevented, but it also seems a sign of the lack of attention to the individual diner.

I do not recall seeing live shrimp in the markets. We've seen lobsters and spiney lobsters, but I don't recall seeing shrimp. I think we've seen langoustines, but I won't swear to that. Some of the freshest stuff we saw in Spain was in the wholesale market Victor took us to.

I think a good review will send new diners scurrying to a restaurant, but then just a notice that it's been reviewed might do the same. I wonder how much difference it makes if it's a two star or four star review. I don't think bad review will cause a restaurant to lose regulars, but it might dissuade some new diners from trying the place and thus have a worse effect on new restaurants than existing onnes.

Probably not reasonably. I'm sure I've had the fluke at Blue Hill, but I don't remember having a dish that in anyway resembled the fluke at Bar Tonno where it was dusted with cayenne, chilli pepper or perhaps more reasonably, with very hot paprika. The peppers are all similar in effect, but I think that much cayenne would have been deadly. The style at Blue Hill is just so much gentler and I don't remember a preparation that was as raw. I could be mistaken but my memory of fluke at Blue Hill was one of rare, not raw and warm, not cold. We could also have had differnet dishes. Describe the one you had. It may stir a memory, or trigger a false one.

I've not had this dish and am in no position to respond directly to your question, or to provide any insight at all regarding the dish, but I am reminded of a thread in the Spain forum on "mushy" vegetables, which are prized in Spain, if done properly. 'Repellently flabby' Spanish asparagus From that thread:

Cleese of course, is and was charming and entertaining. I don't know that the show made more than five or ten minutes worth of points. Or course it's the Food Network and with commercials he didn't have a full hour. I suspect Jancis Robinson could have made the same points in five minutes and drilled them home in another five, leaving her a half hour to say a little more and dispel the notion that if it isn't riesling, sauvignon blanc, chardonnay, pinot blanc, merlot or cabernet sauvignon, it's a minor grape and a minor wine or that California is the epicenter of wine lore and production. A half hour of Robinson and a half hour of Fawlty Towers would have been a better investment of a viewer's time.

I'm not surprised to hear that most of the amaebi sold here has been frozen. Even in NY's Chinatown, live shrimp are only seen seasonally in markets. I'm not sure how often I've seen them in restaurant tanks. Dead shrimp don't keep that long even under refrigeration. Nevertheless, knowing Santi's dedication to fresh seasonal food, I'd be surprised to learn he served frozen shrimp at all, even in his cooked dishes. He's not only opposed to using anything that's not fresh, but he's not a fan of farmed products. If he could, he'd prefer to rely on wild foods. Pedro has spoken to him at length and could probably go further into his. He probably will at some point.

I'm surprised to hear it's not that widely available. I'm trying to remember where I've seen it outside of sushi bars and not that recently. Tonno the new raw fish and wine bar in NYC had raw prawns the other night. They also had lobster, but since we didn't order it, I'm not sure if it was raw. Sweet Raw Shrimp - Amaebi -$6.00, Taki, Des Moines, IA In Des Moines, I might have my doubts too.

At one time I might have expected a more general cross section of the population to be uncomfortable with raw shrimp, but in the post sushi/sashimi era, I'm surprised to hear of that reaction from those who were attracted to this kind of trip focused on food with a fair share of the focus on very creative food.

From the outset, this was a sad story. That it involved chefs made it relevant to eGullet, especially in that it involved some of our best chefs. That it will continue to involve chefs will continue to keep most of us focused on this story, but this thread is close to stepping over the line of discussing subjects inappropriate to eGullet. I don't consider terrorism a political act and I don't consider support of the ETA to be an issue of politics. That is not the concern. There are issues of ethics and morality that while they may be far more important than gastronomy, are also far outside the reason for eGullet to exist. Elsewhere one can argue the merits of endangering someone else to save one's self or of endagering a number of others to save one's family. I don't know that paying others so that no one is killed in your restaurant is a an act with which I can sympathize when the alternative is to close the restaurant, especially when it has to be realized that the money will be used to kill others elsewhere. Nevertheless, I can certainly empathize with those who faced that decision, but this is not the place for us to carry on that discussion. As Victor says, it remains for it to be seen if this is true, but if it is, it will mean that my visits were not necessarily the contribution to the peaceful cultural, economic and gastronomical aspirations of people, but a contribution to terrorism and it will color my memories and influence my future decisions as I'm sure it will have an effect on those of all of us. Let's just keep this focused on restaurants and food, not judge the chefs until all the news is in, and use this thread to keep up on the news.

Not a good sign. If one expects others to take one's opinion as fact, it seems as if it would be good to get one's facts straight. I suppose a three star opinion would be one you'd not have to take with a grain of salt, just as salt shakers rarely appear on the table of a three star restaurant.

I can't recall a specific occasion where this has happened, but somehow it seems that seeing different amuses brought to different tables is a part of my unconscious memory. Consciously I can recall looking for it and thinking other tables were getting different amuses/hors d'oeuvres in a fine restaurant in Spain only to realize we were getting the same, just in different order. I don't think it's unreasonable for the restaurant to serve different things for free to different diners. I can think of a number of reasons why they might. When trimming the lotte into portions, they might find themselves with pieces too small to serve as a course, and why not please a guest with them. As it's the result of chance, there may not be enough to go around. Generally it should be enough for the meal to be worth the price charge and extras to be taken as gifts, but it's human nature to wonder why we get the short end of the straw, even though it might just be chance.Restaurants do run out of things and they do like to use the last of products they've bought. In Paris we ordered a tasting menu in a restaurant only to be told they were changing that menu and hadn't had time to change the carte. It was clear later on as we observed the service from our ideal position on the balcony, that many were having the "old" tasting menu. I suspected that as we were the last to order, apparently they had run out of at least one of the ingredients on the listed menu. Mrs. B said she had her heart set on pigeon having seen it on the old menu, but that the veal would suit her as well when the new menu was recited. Apparently they had two pigeons in the kitchen as we were served the "new" seafood and fish courses and then the pigeon. I've also known some restaurants to be very flexible in making changes in a set menu ofr individuals, while others are not. I don't know how I'd ask for change in my amuse as it's offered as a gift. I've known people who have refused an amuse because of allergies. Generally the restaurant will send something else out, though not always.

Terry, I think you solidify the thrust of your main point point quite well and I trust you understand that even in what I think of as one of the more civil corners of eGullet which itself has made great strides in raising the level of respectable discourse in the culinary arts, many of us take a position that we hope will extend the discussion more than it will disprove or correct what another has said.

Lucy did say the "foreigner's" service, but I wonder if she meant the "stranger's" service as in out of towners rather than Americans. Lucy's husband is French, they live in France and she works in France. I don't know that a waiter would be able to recognize her as a foreigner to France, but possibly as someone who wasn't a local and certainly as a stranger to the restaurant. As unremarkable as the foie gras may have been, it's possible the restaurant thought it was special, or at least thought their transient diners would think it's special. There are plenty of Frenchman who think foie gras is fancy stuff and who are impressed by it just as they are by overcooked monkfish. It's not unusual for an American in France to meet Frenchmen who know and care less about food than we do. There's a great food tradition in France, but it's not really a genetic factor or universally appreciated among the citizens.