Nikolaus

Let me suggest the following as a starter: Take very fresh and firm whole Zucchini flowers, clean them and stuff them with a possibly big and fleshy (major fin de claires or blue point, belons turned out to be less suitable), fresh raw oyster, without damaging the flower. It has to remain firm and elastic, so that it closes up on the stuffing. Then drop the stuffed flowers into very hot olive oil for a very short time (1 minute or so proves to be enough), and take them out when it is still firm. Dry it very shortly and without squeezing, on linen or oven paper. As a result, the flowers should remain firm and crunchy, hot outside and with the Oyster still cold and living inside. It is a delighting contrast. To take away the last exceeding fat of the oil, I serve them on a thin bed of boiled, finely smashed potatoes, shortly roasted with an anchovy and seasoned with Muscat and white pepper. I use to serve like two flowers per person and garnish the plate with fresh onion herbs.

Fiumicino Airport is out of the city and connected to Rome only by highway. The absolutely only hotel on site, within airport grounds and with direct access to terminals, is the five star Hilton. As far as I know, it is outrageously expensive and of course conpletely anonimous. On the way to the airport, just off the highway to the latter and at about half way, there is also the Sheraton Golf Rome, as expensive and modern, but at least set within a Golf course. Otherwise, You would have to aim at Fiumicino village, a 5-10 min. ride form the airport and on the sea. The hotels there are fairly modest and in 2-3 star range. Two names I recall are "Mach2" and "Roma". In this case I advise You to have a dinner at "Bastianelli al Molo", Via Torre Clementina, the best restaurant in town, good seafood with nice terraces and settings and seaview.

Bux, You'll certainly agree that this shouldn't make any difference and could not be a justification. First, because if it is enough that the boss is out once to make it a bad evening, I would strongly question the plce's overall reliability and standard. Second, because if I travelled hundreds or thousands of miles only to be there on that particular evening, I don't care about who's there or not, third, because at that level no faults are admitted.

Gagnaire is on my list for next november, I am still missing it. But my experiences at Guy Savoy have all been outstanding, always and with no exception. The environment is warm and very personalized, service is attentive and professional (every table has an own Maitre d', or at least this is the impression, and they even ask You want language You want the service in, thereby not confining themselves to English of French). As to teh menu: the degustation is marvellous and rich, with all available signature dishes and many more; the list provides other wonderful things. And, finally, there always are several specials of the day, not on the list, and surprizing and amazing (last time I had astonishing sea urchins with chestnuts and aromatic butterfoam). Besides, in addition to Your choices, they interrupt You more than once with little portions of side creations, pre desserts, amuses, etc...(I ordered one dessert, I got four). So far, I like Savoy best among all three stars in Paris, and at this moment I am missing only two, Grand Vefour and Gagnaire. What I can tell about Savoy is that the place and the dishes have, as I love to say, heart and character, apart form skilled execution.

Yes tighe, I apologize and You are right: in the Ciragan it was one of the other restaurants, with an annoying "mediterranean" influence. I had casually lunch there when visiting a friend who was staying at the hotel and invited me; I even did not know about the main one You mentioned. As to the Four Seasons, this was the point: I felt it was a "Hotel restaurant", accurate but continental, and therefore boring, since I was on a trip for something more authentic. But I had a dinner there the first evening when arriving and staying there. I was just not in mood to go around one hour after stepping down the plane.

It appears I'm the one who inspired this new Forum Topic. So let's see what I can make of it. I have been to the Moulin maybe 20 times since 1993. This is, in average, not very much, since it results in 2 times per year. Yet, I believe it covers a decently long period of time in which one can make comparisons and thoughts as to the place's development and tendencies. What I do not want to discuss, at least not in the first instance, is all the topics about Vergé's other restaurants and undertakings, Vergé's (former) globetrotting, his relations with the local community, the highway extension through the Moulin, etc.. In spite of what one can think I don't feel they are directly related to the immediate quality and features of the Moulin as such. Let me immediately say one thing: the very first time I went, my heart did indeed not warm up for one reason: every element not related to food, from service to timing, very much gave the impression of a luxury chainwork: cold and soulless calculation and perfection. In short, too professional and too littel human. It made You somehow feel like an object of the scene and the mechanism. (But already the very first amuse bouche sent me to heaven: a delicate terrine made by differently worked layers of salmon and hergs, with a Champagne sauce, which alone showed the effort of a regular dish - memory from 1993!). A second thing which may confirm this: Despite the (by the way positive and rare) fact that the staff (at least the core) are always the same people since ten years, and I always reserve with the same name and via telefax, I never got recognized by anyone, I was always just one of the many, "one serving". And this even if I went there twice in few days. The second thing is still bothering me (not because I want to be someone, but simply because I love direct human relations; however, I won't go there wth a plate "It's me!" on my waist ), it is certainly due to the high turnover of non repeating clientele which very busy people have to face. While, the first thing, in the end, is just the natural result of the high school and the extremely trained professionalism: simply, by never loosing a point or a gesture, they loose human warmth. This is a pity, but caused by a routined skillfulness which in the end is appreciable, and by the way to be found only in France. On the other hand, there are also positive remarks on this side: I once went there for my birthday. They found out and offered birthday cake and Champagne for the whole table. One of the times Vergé himself was in (often, lately, despite age and career) and came to our table, we showed the usual appreciation, especially for the signature courgette flower we were having in that moment. Well, after he left our table, and we had finished our plates, before the next course suddendly each of us was faced with another plate of that signature dish, offered by the Chef and with a peculiarity: it was more than double the dimension of the one within the menu, and the Maitre declared that Mr Vergé had especially chosen the flowers and the truffles for us. But let's come to the heart of the discussion, the reason why I wanted to start it. It is certainly true that the place dropped from three stars it used to have, down to one all of a sudden, and many felt that even that star was too much and kept more for "political reasons". Well, even should this be true, why does nobody question certain clearly undeserved three stars kept for identical political reasons. This is to say that, once acquainted that Michelin stars may be related to politics and not just to cookery, they become a less trustworthy judging standard, be they none, one or three. But set apart this, I rather feel that all this talking about the place coming down etc. seems by now to be a common phrase, a kind of "fashion": people say so because everyone says so, therefore it will be right; and so it goes from mouth to mouth, becoming a dogma: but often there is no effective and concrete background to this affirmation. I won't of course ever question anyone competent who is saying that his latest dinner or his last five dinners there have been a disaster, with valid reasons for this. This can, and did, certainly happen from time to time (although it never did to me, but maybe I am not competent enough ). But more and more, I get the impression that saying "The Moulin went down" is just a must, part of the game and necessary to be in it, but without any real personal experience, background or explanation. This feeling becomes particularly strong when the phrase is used in comparison to other places, especially when I realize that the comparison is done (a) with completely different and not comparable places (e.g. I wouldn't compare it to L'Oasis), or (b) with the new "cutting edge" creative tendency (anything from Bras to Veyrat), or simpler, © with places where the chef is a former pupil to Vergé (e.g. Ducasse). But what I would like to reply to everyone, is the following three very simple things: 1) We should consider that Roger Vergé has been the master and teacher for an enormous number of chefs in France and in the world, many of whom are now star cooks. In fact, almost all famous and recently celebrated chefs in the Provence Cote d'Azur area come out of his kitchen. This means he eventually contributed and still contributes to the creation of knowledge and to culinary culture. If most of the three stars (not to talk of many others) learned cooking from him, and therefore many kitchens still owe him skills and success, why should we turn down the teacher? He certainly did not forget about his skills. 2) I realize the above may (and hopefully will) give raise to discussions. Therefore, a more simple argument: I have been visiting all kinds of upscale places (confining to these makes it easier), of course being conscious of the many possible styles and differences, and appreciating everyone and everything, from Adrià or Veyrat to Bocuse or Vrinat, for its peculiarities. BUT my simple way of judging a restaurant, forgetting about all technicalities and know-how, is: DO I REMEMBER WHAT I HAD IN MY PLATE(S)? It may be because of originality or because of perfect execution or because of a particular soul in the plate: a place is "good" if I had "unforgettable" food, and be it only one dish: something I can identify the place for. Of course, "unforgettable" has different levels, it can last from a week (which would identify rather "remarkable") to a lifetime. But I must confess that, in ten years and twenty meals, with few exceptions I do remember every single dish I had at the Moulin, its flavours, its texture, its presentation. This is true of course for its signature dishes such as the well known courgette flower with mushrooms and truffles. But also (and especially) for simple things such as a simple roasted Carré d'Agneau with potato purée and red peppers and its own truffled sauce, rose, juicy, intense, almost homecooking: a plate with CHARACTER and HEART. Also, the signature homard au vin de Sauternes may not fit everyone's taste due to its very traditional creamy preparation, but no one can deny that technique and execution are perfect and the result is usually remembered for years. Among the desserts, everyone of which sparkled for its beautiful presentation, I can mention examples from Verveine Créme Brulée with red fruits and rose soup, to many excellent variations of Chocolate mousses, green lemon soufflé with peach cream, mango carpaccio with passion fruit sauce... I could add concrete examples for the opposite: Confining to France, I remember I had excellent meals at nearby L'Oasis, but do not ask me about the single dishes which I do not remember if not for too many spices, after years. The same applies e.g. to Le Jardin des Sens in Montpellier and also (as a whole, and set a part some simpler dishes) to Louis XV by Alain Ducasse (or rather Franck Cerutti) in Monaco, which seems to bother inspectors too, since it is loosing and gaining its star with amazing velocity... In very few words: I feel the Moulin is an outstanding restaurant because it provided me many unforgettable and technically skilled dishes for years, from the most simple to the most original one, all with character and with soul, and eventually deserving a three star rating at least for quality and constance. While in many other high rated places, including the ones I really love and I count among my favourites, I more than often would have problems in telling what I had ten days ago, even if at the moment I extremely liked it. GOOD CUISINE IS (ALSO) MEMORY!!! By the way, here is another nice argument for a general food forum topic: WHAT IS THE MEANING OF A "SIGNATURE DISH" NOWADAYS? Do they still exixt and are they still so "memorable"? And, if yes, what would their average life expectation be? (I come to this question if I compare a first level with things like Vergé's courgette flower, Loiseau's frog legs with garlic and parsley sauce, Bocuse's truffle soup, with a second level made by Ducasse's asparagus and morilles, Passard's candy tomato with 12 spices, Savoy's artichoke and truffle soup with a third level in today's evolution: is it still about the same thing?) 3) My third argument is techinque and execution. In the Moulin, they know how to cook, and they do it with character. And, here, there may exactly lay one reason for the turndown by critics and society: Vergé invented a cooking style, performed and spread it, teached it to others, and today still sticks to it firmly without concessions to modernity. Of course, it is a style with signs of the time it was invented: it features traditional elements, the use of cream and butter besides the oh-so-fashionable olive oil, classical ingredients, a limited (although not absent) creativity... but it has an identity, and it means culture, to which it contributed. It should be recognized, appreciated and honoured for this. Now, here lays a point: in my opinion, The Moulin was turned down first by Michelin and then by public opinion (or was it the other way around, who knows...), not because technique or quality of the food went worse, but simply because over time he did not evolve nor innovate. Simply, someone started to think that it was no longer "new" and eating always the same food made in the same style was getting boring. In culinary society where over the years the mission appeared to be first "innovate", then "impress", and finally "astonish", this was and is of course an immense tort! But, once again, good cuisine is memory, NOT surprise! Aso if I appreciate a dish by Adrià (Let's talk i.e. of jelly-tagliatelle Carbonara...), this is not because I was (only) surprised by it, but because I (also) REMEMBER it over time. I would rather draw attention to the following: as mentioned before, the core staff of the place is the same since decades, this makes a "team" and a place to be identified and entrusted. It also enhances professionality, the true one. Second, it is certainly curious that all those who are now greatly celebrated (starting with Ducasse) learnt their job from Vergé, while their teacher is discredited: it can't be true he is no longer able to cook...!!! Third, in the same regard, all those who Vergé teached to cook did of course well in evolving, since what they learned was not their identity, which they had to search and develop, and has then be indeed appreciated if it deserved so. But, Vergé himself, who invented the style, who made it a legend: why should he evolve, thereby loosing his identity and soul? He was right in sticking (not even to the fullest extent, by the way) to his tradition and preserving the soul of his cuisine and his restaurant. The Moulin does not want, nor does it need, to impress. It is not cutting edge. It is solid. Furthermore: It is certainly true that, after loosing the stars, a period of decadence occured. This was unavoidable, since the loss of stars usually implies a dramatic income and turnover fall, which had to be coped with in some way. This may also have brought about some excesses in marketing and merchandise. But then, the place became self-consistent and stable, until to recent days. And then one more thing happened: Vergé, a 70 years old self made man who at this point could certainly and quietly enjoy the left star and rest on his success, earning his life without any effort through an still prestigeous and always full restaurant and group meals, DID NOT rest on royalties and tourist-coaches: At his age and at the "end" of a lifetime career, he is now making efforts to requalify: he sold the inflationated Amandier and concentrated on the Moulin; he took over again in the kitchen from his second Serge Chollet and is now almost always present; he modernized the menu, lightening it but preserving its identity (thereby rising prices very slightly, and for the first time in ten years!!! - the menu has been 750 FF form 1993 to the euro, and last time it was 119 e - You all know certain other outrageous standards...), he refurbished the whole place... and, finally, despite the tourist coaches knocking at his doors (should he send them away, or are upscale places expected to hang out a plate forbidding access to them?) he won a second star back! In my personal opinion, there are all elements for aiming even at a third star again, but this is probably too much expected... What I can say is that I realized the effort for requalification during all the past years, so I know it has been carefully built up, and is not the casual result of a single and sudden inspiration by an inspector. All in all and as a conclusion: if there is a place which contributed to culinary history and culture, if this was the school and benchmark for most of today's Chefs, if it preserves its tradition, if it makes efforts for a deserved requalification in spite of ending its days in an obvious way, is it enough to remember the by-gone days and to talk about incoming coaches, to turn that place down? And is this useful for our culinary culture? I guess I wrote enough for today, and I bless whoever made it until to the end...! PS: I am not paid nor otherwise linked to the Moulin (wish i was, i'd eat for free!!! )

Moreover, I confined myself to "Champagne". If it is more general about sparkling wines, of course there is a lot of 10-30$ which are outstanding!

Well, Tina, it pretty much depends on how You define a "best buy". In my humble opinion, it means a good price/quality relationship, the better the relationship, the better the buy. What basically allows a 100$ bottle to be a best buy if it is comparable to one which is double that price, and on the other hand features very bad buys if a 10$ bottle is undrinkable. Of course, if You just translate it into "cheap", than You may be right. May I then advise You a Martini Riesling which is less than 10$ and excellent.

Korfez is very nice, but I think it is better for lunch. This for two reasons: On one side, the car trip to the place takes a long time, about 50 minutes from the centre (They have a private boat, too, but as far as I experienced, it does not reach the heart of the town); second, the terrace right on the bosphorus and the view are nice with daylight, while the interior is somewhat dated and not very interesting. Mixed entrees and fish in salt crust as main dish, I had a very good experience in a sunny day. Pandeli is very trtaditional and also good for lunch, especially if embedded in a tour to the Galata harbour and the Spice market (it's actually on top of the latter). Finally, I would try to avoid eating in Hotels, it is almost always boring if not disappointing (it actually was in all three hotels I have stayed at: Four Seasons, Ciragan, Sultanahmet Palace). The best idea is indeed to make it "spontaneous"

Wiener, I can understand this: if considered an "upscale" restaurant, Maffei may be disappointing because then it appears to be pretentious, especially for the "elaborated" dishes. But if You distillate the soul and atmosphere of the place and consider it rather a cosy hideaway, where to taste simple and local dishes, then You'll be surprised. On the other hand, I agree with You on the overall impression Taormina may rise. But, well, this is in its tradition: in fact it was discovered by german "tourists" more than 150 years ago, so germans and nordic culture are part of history and local feeling. This makes the place very different and more tollerant than any other place in Sicily.

Of course it depends on where You are travelling in Sicily. As to my expereinces, the following are selected personal opinions: In Taormina, Il Dito e la Luna has the most beautiful panoramic setting, but the cooking is rather "cold" and internationally oriented. The same is to be said of the also elegant and panoramic "La Giara" in the best Night Club in town, which You can choose if it shall be a dancing and show-off evening, rather than a gastronomic one. Casa Grugno is the latest "elegant" restaurant, I feel the dishes are too much elaborated out of their tipicality, so again it becomes soulless. In addition, the interior is quite cold and standardized, only the outside terrace is nice. However, I could never tell "do not go", because quality and athmosphere are certainly pleasant. My favourite is "Maffei's", just off the main corso, at about the half of it. It is elegant but not artificial, and has a beautiful garden. The Chef lived in Germany for a while, and is very concerned in satisfying every kind of customer. For this reason, there are also internationally looking dishes on the list, but they are not worth the try. While, if You choose the simplest things, like raw sea ourchins and pasta with the same if available, roasted baby octopus, and simply prepared fish, You will be more than delighted, becuase this is how the guy started, and what he does best, maybe better than anyone else in a rather touristic place. Second, try "L'Arco dei Cappuccini": the locals indicate this as the best in town in this moment. Another one worth a visit is "Il Duomo" on the square in the middle of the main corso. Try to sit on the nice outside terrace overlooking the square. They have very nice home cooking and excellent and varied starters. Finally, two simple places without frills where the locals go: "Il Tiramisù" and "Franco", both at the Northern end of the centre, the first has great Pasta and desserts, the second great seafood and Pizza. Letojanni (on the coast towards Messina): Nino, on the seashore, has excellent fresh fish and seafood, sell prepared. Catania: Osteria Tre Bicchieri, half way between restaurant and wine bar, with an interesting cellar and a simple but creative cooking. Also, there is a very talented young Chef called Carmelo Chiaramonte who makes refined cooking from local ingredients. He used to have a small restaurant in the middle of the centre, in Palazzo Biscari, but I don't remember it's name. Also, I understand he recently moved to direct the restaurant of a new Hotel called Katané Palace, still in Catania. Palermo: try Bye Bye Blues in Mondello, where You better skip the overrated and famous Charleston. Around the town, there is "Il Mulinazzo" in Villafrati, probably the best restaurant in all Sicily. In the city centre, any simple and genuine Trattoria will provide You a wonderful experience of typical home food at very low prices. Favignana island (one of the most beautiful): The Hotel and restaurant "Egadi" is the best address in the place.

Let me give an European point of view: White Star, which seems to be quite common in the US, it is hardly on the market in Europe. The comparable standard is the Brut Imperial, more or lest the cheapest among the decent NV bottles. At that expense level, I much better like: Billecart Salmon Brut (normal one, white etiquette, my favourite and standard NV); Ruinart Brut; Nicolas Feuillatte. Cristal is in my opinion a little bit overrated, as most of the Dom Perignon vintages. At that level, I prefer the strong taste of Krug. But once in this price category, I prefer to have millesimées, vintage bottles: apart from the better known, already mentioned, DP and Cristal, it goes up towards Taittinger Comtes de Champagne, Perrier Jouet Cuvèe Belle Epoque (two relatively "common" bottles), Billecart Cuvée Nicolas Billecart, Joel Morizet Millesimée, Dom Ruinart... At the top: Krug Clos du Mesnil and Jacques Selosse. This latter is my favourite, the last I had was 2000. However, in Europe the NV is hard to find outside France, while the vintage is around 250 - 300 euros a bottle, more or less the most expensive hampagne at all. Finally, may I suggest two alternatives, coming out from the Italian Franciacorta region. I imagine they will be hard to find in the US, but they equal the absolutely best Champagnes and cost about five times less, at least in Europe: "Cà del Bosco Cuvée Anna Maria Clementi" 1990 or 1993; "Franciacorta Uberti Magnificentia", last is 2000, but 1999 was great. Maybe, a "Franciacorta Cavalleri Brut" is easier to find, and as good as any NV Champagne and some more commercial vintages.

Please forgive, but White Star is very low level. In Europe, it is hardly on the market. The comparable standard is the Brut Imperial, more or lest the cheapest among the decent bottles. At that expense level, You will better enjoy: Billecart Salmon Brut (normal one, white etiquette); Ruinart Brut; Nicolas Feuillatte; Louis Roederer (not the Cristal). At Cristal level (still quite commercial, but here it's about price): Krug. But once You're in this price category, better switch to the millesimées (made by wines from one year only, which then is reported on the bottle): from the best known Dom Perignon, it goes up towards Taittinger Comtes de Champagne, Perrier Jouet Cuvèe Belle Epoque, Billecart Cuvée Nicolas Billecart, Joel Morizet Millesimée, Dom Ruinart... At the top, but alas much more expensive, and not at all easy to find: Krug Clos du Mesnil and Jacques Selosse. But this is perfection.

Try these: Rocket salad, with roasted red peppers, anchovies, and dried tomatoes. Over it, a simple vinaigrette made of olive oil and balsamic vinegar, with sea salt and ground black pepper. It's very light and yet has extremely intense flavours. Or: raw spinach leaves, roasted bacon, parmesan petals, with the same vinaigrette as above. Finally, based on a traditional recipe from Sicily: sliced oranges and chopped fennel, olive oil and vinegar. Eventually, black olives to be added, but not necessarily.

I absolutely do not share this all-too-common opinion on Vergé's decline, and this for several reasons. Maybe this is an issue that deserves an own forum topic?

I would actually like to spend some words on this supposed "decline" of Vergé's Moulin de Mougins, an idea I definitely do not share. Who thinks this deserves a new forum topic? I'd be glad to start.

To hangli: Yes, please, do share Your experience with me: I am expected to be in Rotterdam from August 21 to August 23, and this could be a place to cheer me up in my loneliness!

To Craig: of course it could be. But this would cause me serious doubts concerning both palate AND intelligence of the Italian inspectors. ALso because such a globalization does not ocur, e.g., in France. And it can't be just a matter of restauration culture. To pp: I did not quite get the difference between Pter R.'s list and the main?

95 - Gambero Rosso, San Vincenzo (Livorno): YES, this is fish! 93 - Ambasciata, Quistello (Mantua): YES, this is a family and an ambience! 93 - La Pergola dell'Hotel Cavalieri Hilton, Roma: YES, definitely 92 - Vissani, fraz. Civitella del Lago, Baschi (Terni) YES, this is culture and technique! Of course, one has to know what it is about and who the guy is. But it is hard to find more soul and inventiveness in a kitchen, with no concessions at all to economies. 92 - Dal Pescatore, Canneto sull'Oglio (Mantua), yes this is high tradition and accuracy! The proof that cutting edge creativity is not necessary if one sticks to tradition with perfection 91 - Da Guido (closed): what an immense pity! 91 - Don Alfonso 1890, Massa Lubrense (Napoli): yes, although to a certain extent criticized. But this is because it is a very "human" place, and humans cannot be perfect 91 - Paolo Teverini, Bagno di Romagna (Forli Cesena): never been 91 - La Stua de Michil, Corvara in Badia (Bolzano): never been 90 - Antica Osteria del Teatro, Piacenza: never been, but some say it is cold and overrated 90 - La Madonnina, Senigallia (Ancona): YES, innovating and courageous, a young chef with lots of constructive ideas 90 - Enoteca Pinchiorri, Firenze: NO, cold, stiff, posh, touristic, overpriced and overrated (is of course a completely personal opinion) 90 - La Tenda Rossa, San Casciano in Val di Pesa, (Firenze): NO, it does just not fit into Tuscany and is a little bit too elaborated and complicated 90 - La Siriolo de l'Hotel Ciasa Salares, Badia (Bolzano): YES, but not really the top; if there, go also for "St Hubertus" in the Rosa Alpina Hotel in San Cassiano, steps away. This is a great one indeed! 90 - Il Desco, Verona: NO, to a certain extent cold and inconsistent, not unforgettable (again, personal opinion) 90 - Da Caino, Manciano (Grosetto): YES, although it recently made to many concessions to international preparations and presentation, thereby shifting away from their marvellous territory cooking and recipes, what made them famous (and this was deserved indeed!). The problem with Italian top cuisine is that, with few exceptions which keep an own character (Ambasciata mentioned above is a master example), the places start to resemble too much one to each other, and this as to setting, decor, potteries, and even cooking style. Places as Caino (mentioned above) or Agata e Romeo in Rome, become famous for local and regional recipes made to perfection (and, why not, with a certain degree of fantasy and originality), are on their way to become "just creative" in order to please the growing international crowd which represents their main clientele. This is a pity. Once I saw the exactly same dish in two restaurants, hundreds of miles distant from each other! And I find it useless to have even the best French Foie gras with Peaches in the middle of Tuscany. All this, together with uniform and soulless bright decors, is something that makes me feel really sad. Anyone an opinion on this?

I live in Italy and I take very much to Don Alfonso. The decor is indeed a little bit frilly and pretentious. But the service and the attention You get is warm and nice. The food is to be understood, but of absolute quality. Some dishes may appear too delicate or too elaborate, and therefore give the impression they are lacking soul. But, on one side, it is to be considered there is much (sometimes too much) study and elaboration behind. On the other side, the best thing to do to get satisfaction is: stick to the simplest dishes on the list, i.e. their fish and seafood stew, or the simple and local pastas. You will get a lot out ot this! Better avoid the tasting menu. Don Alfonso is a place stemming out of local tradition and expereince, and the tasting menu dishes are somehow more internationally flavoured, what is disturbing the typical and local ingredients used. Anyhow, I am quite sure that, as hoeneymoon highlight, You made the right choice. More hints in the area: Taverna del Capitano and Quattro Passi (on the summer terrace, the interior is quite modern and unappealing), both in Massa Lubrense - Marina del Cantone; La Caravella in Amalfi. And, more towards Naples: Torre del Saracino in Vico Equense: a young, talented, passionated and emerging chef, in a developing place at its (excellent) beginning.

I just did the same trip in June, and visited all the famous five. I must say I almost completely agree with "Sumac". Should I skip one, this would with no doubt be Zuberoa, where I do not remember one single dish I had. Beautiful summer terrace, but no emotions at all. On the other hand, I felt Akelaré was absolutely the best, and indeed does deserve three stars. And yes, it's much better for lunch because of the view (ask for tables at the end of the room). Service there was professional, attentive, kind and multilingual (what is not that common as one could expect, around there, see Arzak). The ideas in the tasting menu were breathtaking, a perfect match of delicacy, taste and inventiveness, with a profound knowledge not only of technical, but also of chemical effects. Among many, I remember a carrot ice which sounded fizzy and sparkling even in your mouth, but in fact was not! Or a "foie gras sandwich where what looked like bread to cover the foie, turned ot to be a light and tasty green apple and ginger mousse. And 'salads' served in liquid (!) and fried (!) preparations without loosing anything of the traditional and real taste of a...salad! Every dish is accompanied by small joinings where always a challenging idea is to be found. The wine list is complete and at excellent prices. In any case, I was so pleased of that experience that I was already back for lunch the very next day, and tried the second of the two tasting menus. Mugaritz is a tricky subject. This is, I guess, a Berasategui pupil. The setting is very ample and large, with lots of wood and modern design, and great tables, but yet rustic. It may turn out a bit cool, if empty at night. I would have preferred it at daylight, maybe (also because it is right in the countryside)... The cooking is technically advanced and balanced, yet not always appealing. But since it promises great improvements, it's certainly worth a try. One good thing: they have also some traditional dishes on the list. Their sommelier is the best of all I met in the area, and very kind. Berasategui needs few comments: everything there was absolutely perfect. The tasting menu is build up by signature dishes, with the year of creation besides each. The eel-foie gras millefeuille is unforgettable. But still, I lacked that tiny little bit of "emotion" which I found only at Akelaré. maybe because at MB they are indeed quite aware of their level, and handle it very "professionally". Only one lady was speaking english. Finally, Arzak. I must admit I am confused on this one. maybe because it was the very first dinner of the trip, only few hours from stepping out of the plane, and with too much wine to concentrate on the food. However, the very first impact is somewhat curious: the car valet was wearing a sweater you would not wear at home on weekends. Once inside, waiters sitting at the bar, minutes before you are noticed, and then informally spoken at by first name; and: NO ENGLISH at all, from anyone (except Arzak's very kind and professional daughter, who is in the kitchen too), a quite essential list, machine written and with very poor descriptions. BUT: this is exactly the peculiarity and the plus of the place: it is NOT a stiff formal eating museum just because it has three stars: locals are the main clients, and go there as if it was the place in the neighbourhood, down Your block. Service and ambience are warm, familiar, relaxed. It is just "different". So in the end it turns to be a positive and charming experience. As to the dishes: imagination, idea, execution, presentation are perfect. If an objection can be made, it is that sometimes You have to "think over" a lot on some dishes. They are not only to be tasted, but also to be understood. And this can make it just a little bit less emotional. But what You realize in every moment is that he is indeed the benchmark, the point of reference, for all other chefs, be they better or not. So, all in all, It is a place I would need to visit once more, and with more concentration. Finally, tapas: I had quite few, since I was concentrating more on these restaurants. But as far as I remember, the best places are not in the old quarter, but on the newer one on the right side of the river.

Reasonably priced has quite a different significance in that area, I am afraid... Years ago, there used to be a nice place right off Place de Lices (Main square), called La Maison de Marie, in a cosy garden. That could be a hint. 'La Table du Marché' is nice too. The same chef has also 'Les Moulins' within minutes driving, in the direction of the beaches. But I think there prices raised dramatically during the last three years. A last tip could be Le Girelier on the port, and La Cave on the road leaving behind the fishmarket. Both not really inexpensive, but less touristic and more a kind of bargain in a touristically spoiled and overwhelmed area.

I have been there once, last year. Food and everything quite correct, but I found it without soul, and all quite stiff and formal. Seems to be in town rather than on the shore. And Yes: it seems overpriced to me, where justification lies all in ambience, and less in the plate. If You want something less formal but still accurate in the area, try La Mere Germaine in Villefranche; otherwise, go for La Chevre d'Or in Eze, also two stars, where the view competes with the dishes.

I am a new member of this site and am not that confident with its tools yet . I actually wnated to add a reply but I guess it turned out to be an email. Anyhow, my advice for paris is: Guy Savoy, Rue troyon. Beautiful setting, at same time modern and warm, great food, attentive service. Otherwise, Alain Senderens - lucas Carton, or Arpege - Alain Passard

It may be too late...but if You don not make it to Taillevent, try Guy Savoy (Rue Troyon) in the 17th, they use to have some space, at least for lunch, despite their (fully deserved) three stars. I use to have lunche there without reservation). Great and reasonable wine list and competent sommelier. And the carte is marvellous! n.