Paris Restaurants' In/Consistency

[John Talbott]

I am of the same mind as Felice about Le Châteaubriand: it is a risky place. But it is also a place that is worth taking risks, and very few restaurants can claim this particularity. When it is good, it is amazing. When it is bad, it is terrible. But even in spite of my bad experiences there, I still recommend the place.

I would like to take the opportunity Pti has given us to start a new thread on the topic of how much slack do we give a place. The reference here had to do with Le Chateaubriand where Felice and Pti are willing to go back, despite its inconsistencies. I disagree, I ate there once – admittedly at lunch – and said “phooey” or something like that.

As a sometime academic, let me test our members thusly:

Yes/No

A. I’m willing to go back to a restaurant that has served me one bad meal after I’ve had a half dozen good ones?

B. I’m willing to go back to a restaurant where the three others had a good meal and mine was awful?

C. I’m willing to go back to a restaurant where two of the three of us eating had awful dishes on each of three courses (so each of us had 1/3 a good meal)?

D. I’m not willing to go back to a place that served me one bad meal, despite rave reviews from everybody else on the planet.

E. I’m not willing to go back to a place where I had a great meal alone the first week/month it opened but when I took my charming wife and discerning friends back was not good – and I agreed.

F. Everyone deserves a second break.

Answers: up to you

But in my case

A.= Les Fables de la Fontaine and I did and I’m glad.

B.= Amogenes and it was an error.

C.= Auguste .330 is a great batting average but a lousy culinary one.

D.= Le Chateaubriand

E.= La Famille, Le Comptoir + l’Astrance

F.= Le Repaire de Cartouche, Thierry Burlot + Villaret.