Bux

Alberto, I've also heard that France no longer produces enough snails to satisfy domestic consumption and has to import them although I don't think the French eat as many snails as they used to. Then again, I wonder if they ever ate as many as anglophones assumed they did. As a child, I thought the French had a daily diet of snails and frog's legs. Then again I assumed everyone in Italy had meatballs and spaghetti for dinner. We can be quite provincial in America. Prepared food can be divided into may categories, but three of them might be--what's found in an expensive restaurant, what's found in a small inexpensive neighborhood restaurant and what's found in homes. Of course there's a lot of overlap, but many things are commonly found in one of those categories or maybe two. I've eaten in as many neighborhood restaurants as upscale ones, but it's also possible I'd miss things on a menu because of my very limited vocabulary. My wife speaks a bit of Italian, but it's also possible that her vocabulary doesn't have the word for snail in it. As a traveler, if I can read half the menu, I feel that's enough for me to choose from and I'm not going to harass a waiter to translate every item. That's one of the reasons I like to visit markets when I travel in Europe, especially fish markets. I can learn the names of things I can later order in a restaurant.

I believe it is a prerequisite in France as well as Spain. I've always been told that it's a safety precaution. The Larousse Gastronomic says that snails feed on plants that are not harmful to them, but that are poisonous to humans. Thus they must be deprived of food for some time before they are considered edible and according to the Larousse, it's best to eat only those snails which have sealed themselves into the shell to hibernate. I don't know how practical it is to ensure against them having eaten poisonous plants by controlling their environment and I'm curious to know exactly which plants they eat that are poisonous to us. I wonder if Arturo Pardos knew something we didn't, or was unaware of the potential problem. It's quite possible the actual risk is very remote. I've also wondered if the material in the seal produced by the hibernating snails didn't add a desirable unctuous quality to the cooked snail depending on how it was cooked and served.

Even the rather chavinist Larousse Gastronomique credits a Roman by the name of Fluvis Lupinus as the discoverer of the art of fattening snails. I don't know that he found a way of "force-feeding" them, but at least there have been no animal rights activists protesting the fattening of snails to the best of my knowledge. Snails are neither a sympathetic nor appetizing creature to many in the U.S. I don't really recall seeing them on menus in Italy in my rather limited travels. They are, or used to be, very common in France and common enough, at least in some parts of, Spain.

Last year we put together a list of links to regional web sites in France. It's not as complete or detailed as we would have liked it to be and we haven't had time to check it regularly and keep it up to date, but it might be helpful. In fact I've clicked though Burgundy, Cahors (under Aquitaine) and Languedoc-Roussillon to find numerous intersting links to information, tourist office addresses and even links to request brochures by mail. That page is one of the few efforts we've made to keep the WorldTable site useful and it's worth a look. There are some other French web links of use to travelers as well.

There are various preparations of foie gras from mi-cuit entier to pâte de foie gras and I'd say that a good liverwurst may not be so different from some of what's sold as pâte de foie gras and perhaps a better value. A pure foie gras product might be healthier as duck and goose fat is healthy in terms of the lack of saturated fats. In fact replacing pork fat with commerical mayonnaise that may be loaded with trans fats may not be so much of an improvment for those watching cholesterol. Some fat suffers from a bad rap, while others don't deserve the good press they've received over the years.

My gullet screams, "Eureka!!!" Can't wait to bite into one. Sort of everyman's beef wellington. Aptly put, though I'd look for the addition of some mushrooms. That sounds like the way I heard they serve hamburgers at McDonalds in the south-west of France...topped with a sliver of foie gras.... Sigh.... This however sounds like the stuff of urban legend, but who knows.

How marvelous. France doesn't seem as tied to its historical cuisine today as it did forty years ago when I first started to travel seriousy there, but in the sixties, when I was a lot more interested in the art and architecture than I am now, Waverly Root's book was still the most important one in my bags. With it as my Rosetta stone, I dechipered the cooking of France and with that I learned about the people and their history. I used it to interpret the foods in the shop windows, to read the menus and ultimately to absorb the culture into my gut. I foreswore ordering the foods I knew, and knew I would like for those mentioned as local specialties wherever I went and was richly rewarded for it. I don't have too much to say about those particular cities. Montpellier, although I have spent some enjoyable time there, may be the least interesting gastronomically. May I ask how you came to choose those three cities, how you are traveling and how long you intend to spend in each city?

My apologies for quoting Jonathan--"We returned to Allard some 10 years later. It no longer had the same ethereal glow; the shock of the new was gone,"--out of context. I think he was referring to the fact that dining at Allard was a new experience, in fact it seems as if being young, in love and living in Paris was the experience as much as dining in Paris.

Michelin is as perfect as the world around it and probably has too much power, but I've heard contrasting reports about Allard in recent years and I've heard both sides here. We returned to Allard some 10 years later. It no longer had the same ethereal glow; the shock of the new was gone, and I have no doubt that the restaurant declined in performance, as restaurants tend to do. Nonetheless we enjoyed it. Later by another member in the same thread: "n the early 80s, Allard was a 2 star Michelin restaurant, the only true bistro that I know of that ever received this rating. In the Lyonnais mere tradition, the reverse of what one normally sees in France, Fernande was in the kitchen and Andre managed the front of the house. Andre died relatively young and Fernande soldiered on in the kitchen, there was some decline and the restaurant lost a star. The restaurant lost another star and was eventually sold, and although it has always kept its same menu, the quality declined significantly. There have been recent reports that the restaurant has improved and is now quite good, but I haven't been in many years." More criticism from John Whiting here. On the other hand, there's this " The food was simple,classic and of excellent quality." from this spring. Chac'un a son goût.

I've not had snails often in Spain. Earlier this year we had them grilled as an appetizer and in an arroz. In that instance at least. there were probably far more off putting for squeamish eaters as they had maintained a much more unctuous character. In France, they seem less intensely "snail-like" and taste more of the garlic butter in which they're usually served. At Casa Paco, they are served in the shell and appear to be cooked in the shell. The cloaca is still attached, which is never the case with escargots bourguignon, but a meticulous and diner would have little trouble deftly removing it as he removed the snail from the shell. My memory of the escargots au vin evening was that the garnish was mushrooms, bacon lardons and small white onions. The snails were not in their shells of course and it seemed every one thought they were bacon or mushrooms. Once they found out there were snails in the dish, all of our guests ate the onions and picked at the rest although up to the moment they happily ate forkfuls. We had never even thought to wonder if either couple might not want to eat snails. They were wonderful little snails that had been long cooked to the point where they were as tender as mushrooms and we had meticulously removed all trace of cloaca. They were the most denatured neutral snails I could imagine. The real problem for our guests was how to hide their aversion once they had already been caught enjoying them.

I think that was a very thorough and helpful post, at least to me, and I suspect even more so to others. I appreciate the subjective comments as much as the objective ones and I appreciate your attempt to keep them from being confused. I would like to say a few words about confits and their relationship to starred restauants. I would not find it improper to see this in a starred restaurant. I think Benoit specializes in rustic dishes and has a star. The difference between a superbly done confit and one that's poorly done is quite substantial. I'd never want to have the confit I had last year in Chartres again anywhere in the world, but it's a dish I'd order in a starred restaurant or one in which I was assured of getting a good rendition. I am not surprised to hear verification that some of the food in Constant's bistros is prepared in Violon d'Ingres. We were with a member who knew him and were introduced to him as we found him in his cafe cleaning up one night. He seemed like a hell of a nice guy, dedicated to his metier and committed to being hospitable. He opened his bar and brought out drinks for all of us.

Tax and service are generally included in all restaurant prices, but it's not uncommon to leave another 5% additional, although less necessary than a tip in the U.S. Beverages are rarely included. Bottled water, wine and coffee will be extra. The more forks and spoons found next to a restaurant's name in the Guide Michelin, the more you likely to have to spend on wine. A good wine list is one of the things that would be required before a restaurant got a star, so in a way, wine may be considered part of the starred experience. This brings up the question of whether you are interested in the fork and spoon aspect or the star (food) aspect. You will get more food value at a starred restaurant with fewer forks and spoons, and more luxury for your money at a five fork/no star restaurant, in my opinion. I've always kept an eye on the ratio of the number of stars to the cost, but as I mentioned earlier Last year, two people spent 110€ for dinner in Aux Lyonnais. Although it's an archetype of an unstarred restaurant, I thought it was remarkable food value. One could stick to the prix fixe menu, skip coffee and drink even less expensive wine and bring that price down. Violon d'Ingres has a prix fixe menu for 39 euros at lunch according to Michelin's web site. At dinner it will cost 80-110 euros per person plus beverages. I can't really say if the lunch menu is truly representative of why the restaurant has a star, but at 78 euros for food, you're left with 22 euros for wine. Au Trou Gascon has a 36 euro menu at lunch.

I'd like to emphasize that not all Michelin stars are the same. There may be a far greater difference between one star restaurants and two star restaurants than there are between no star and one star. Although a star in Paris is a significant achievement I've had quite a medicore meal in a one star restaurant in Paris. It's of some significance that the restaurant lost its star the next year, I suppose, but you won't know who's going to lose a star next year when you reserve this year. Outside of Paris, the star only means the best restaurant in the area. There are areas in France without competition. I honestly don't know that I could describe the Michelin star experience. Whatever it is, it varies with the price charged. That means it's a different experience in an expensive restaurant than it is in an inexpensive one and it also means it may vary considerably with what you eat and drink in the same restaurant. I had the most expensive menu offered at one two star restaurant and it compared with some three star meals I've had. I returned a few years later and ordered the lunch special at about a third the price and I thought the food experience was worth maybe a star. Maybe there's a three star experience that can be codified, but I don't think that's so at the one star level. They can vary too much in price.

Not only would a great hot dog place with luxury service, a 35,000 bottle celler and appropriate sommeliers be a bit of a travesty but it would also be a one ring circus, even if the pony knows two or three tricks. How does one have an elegant multicourse dinner of hot dogs? The idea of a four star hot dog restaurant may be grist for Woody Allen or even Thomas Pynchon and one could enjoy reading about it, or the idea of it, but it would be a travesty and lovers of four star restaurants and hot dogs would both feel cheated, I suspect by anything attempting to be just that. Four star dining is a total concept and not a synonym for "the best." The result of the research Fat Guy is suggesting would be fascinating. I was thinking earlier that I'd be happy with little things such as a list of all four star reviews--who got them and who gave them. A history of four star restaurants would be interesting too. What was their entry rating for instance as well as any ups and downs. None of it will prove much. It may say as much, or more, about the reviewer as the restaurant. I don't know that there's been consistency between reviewers or that all of the reviewers have been consistent across their tenure. I don't understand why there's all this confusion over what a four star restaurant is, or shoud be. That's a totally different matter than agreeing on any particular restaurant.

That was going to be my question, was this related to "dobos torte," which I've known as a Hungarian cake. It's pronounced sort of like "doboshe." eGullet thread on dobos torte.

That was going to be my question, was this related to "dobos torte," which I've known as a Hungarian cake. It's pronounced sort of like "doboshe." eGullet thread on dobos torte.

I think Danny Meyer has almost made a conscious decision not to have a four star restaurant in the case of Gramercy Tavern. Its tendency towards the informal and the nature of its menu seem to say we've got the best food, but we're not a four star restaurant. I can't argue with Fat Guy's contention that the French haute cuisine domination of the four star category didn't begin until the 80's or so. When did Craig Claiborne become restaurant reviewer for the Times? He became the food editor in 1957 and retired in 1988. * I believe he was also the restaurant reviewer during that period, but maybe not for the whole time. I find it hard to picture him awarding four stars to anything but a luxe French restaurant, but I wasn't aware of him in his earlier days at the Times and in the 60's, I was far more interested in learning how to cook from Julia Child's cookbooks, than I was in reading restaurant reviews for restaurants I couldn't afford. While the only rating that may matter is the one that matters to the person to whom it matters, four star ratings are not hypothetical, they are a matter of record whether or not anyone else agrees with them. Even if they are meaningless, they are a matter of record. To argue otherwise, is no more useful that arguing that we may not really exist, but may only be a product of someon's imagination.

1994 is a banner year in terms of restaurants for us. That was the last year we faced a tuition bill. Our allegiances in the very early 90's went from Bouley to le Bernardin and then to Daniel. Ten years ago, our tastebuds were very much still tied to France. I can't remember when Daniel got his first four star review or when Lespinasse got four. Mimi Sheraton gave it three stars when it opened. It would be interesting to see who first gave four stars to which restaurants.

Here's a link to the English version of the Fast Good web site sent to me by fresh_a. I don't think it's appeared here yet.

I think I never recovered from the intial sense I had after reading "fine" and "serious" and that it was compounded by Suzanne's comment that it was outside the range of tourists. In fact I edited my post with the comment about prices after I went to the web site just before I posted, but the bulk of my comments were made thinking it's a $45 three course dinner, which still isn't expensive for NY.

I'm not sure what people expect of a four star restaurant, but it often seems to me that people want their favorite restaurant to be capable of earning four stars and regard it as unfair that they don't like the food at four star restaurants. I think four star restaurant has always been synonynous with haute cuisine which has always been synonymous with French cuisine of the most luxurious sort. I think the link to haute cuisine will remain, but haute cuisine is changing and certainly it's no longer as French as it used to be. That's true even when it's prepared in Paris. The issue here is one of the complexity of preparation of the food and skills and techniques involved. The issue is not about good and bad food. There is also the issue of luxury and service.

Or when they say I'd like to know whch continent.I don't know what tourists pay for dinner, but if the food is serious, the price is certainly not out of line. At $10 for the appetizer and $25 for the main course (and that's towards the high end quoted) I expect serious food, but not necessarily great food. As I look at the online menu, I see far less expensive options and it looks as if one can graze and get out of there with a tab not much higher than in a diner. I may be over reacting to the post than to the prices, but I probably expect a little better service than they have at the moment. My personal preference is probably towards an emphasis on wine not cocktails, but that's more of a subjective thing and tourists of all ages seem more intent on cocktails than wine in NY. Please don't read a value judgement in that although you're welcome to tell me that tourists over forty drink wine as often as natives. I have no idea if the location is a good one or not, but would it would probably have to be a destination restaurant for me at that location. There are many people who live much closer than I do and plenty of people who work downtown as well as hotels downtown, however.

By the way, the distribution system seems like a good target for a consumer friendly journalist.

But restaurant wine pricing is distressingly high in the United States - you can often find a decent bottle of wine in a European bistro for $10-15, or a half-bottle for $5-8. The unfortunate truth is that domestic wines in the United States are generally not worth what they're sold for, and the multi-tiered import system makes imported wines almost as expensive. I'm finding the bar raised all the time on both sides of the Atlantic. Sometimes I think the cheapest carafe in France simply tastes better because of where I am, but I wonder if it's the bargain it seems to be. In Spain, the prices are far gentler. There are middle class restaurants where the list tops out at $25-30 and it's decent stuff. You can go to a bar and have a glass of wine for a couple of bucks. There are mitigating factors. The glasses are small. There's a vicious circle here. The portion must be big enough to justify the price and the price goes up as the serving gets larger. The other factor is that the retail prices in Spain are so much lower than they are here, or even in France. That $30 bottle of wine in a restaurant goes for $30 a bottle retail in NY. I agree that they distribution system here hardly helps and it's made worse by local laws. We don't have those local bottlings that go from the winemaker, who has no advertising expenses, directly to the bistro. Still I think my point rests on the fact that you won't find a European bistro which will offer you free wine if your first one is corked and that the restaurant owner suffers as much from the distribution system as the diner. I recall a scene from my youth when a friend living in Rome took us to a restaurant. I don't know that he knew a thing about wine, but he rejected the first bottle. It was taken away without a word, only to reappear on the table as we finished dinner. The waiter said something to the effect that since we were paying for the wine, we might as well drink it. Hardly typical, but it doesn't support the idea that the concept proposed would fly anywhere. I might support the argument that wine markups are too high and that wine drinkers subsidize those who don't drink. Guys who drink cocktails get hit just as hard, as do those who order bottled water. Coffee is another good example, especially as it's not often really good. I'd love to see restaurants lower the prices on wine and sell better wine for the price, but is it in their advantage to make less per bottle if the restaurant is always packed? You will see wine specials more often in restaurants that need business. It's supply and demand. One way in which the consumer is his own worst enemy is that most of them compare menu prices when selecting restaurants, but not wine lists. I wonder how many sophisticated diners will say that "restaurant X is about twenty dollars less than Y, but I know we can save at least than much on the wine at Y." I'm not really defending wine pricing. I'm just saying that the Post journalist picked a peculiar and unreasonable way in which to make a case for the consumer. It'll hurt the less knowledgeable consumer and help those intent on scamming the restaurant and it'll raise prices. He can deny that, but he's not made a convincing argument.

Sorry to hear that about Mère Richard. The last time I was in Lyon, every restaurant in town seemed to brag that they got there cheeses there, or at least their St. Marcellin. It may well be that they save their best for restaurants.