Lake Geneva, any recommendations?

[Gary Marshall]

I'm going to stay with a friend who has just moved to vevey in switzerland and will then spend probably a week working my way back to reims.

i thought lake annecy looked a decent place to spend a few days, anyone got any thoughts as to where exactly to go, i don't know this area of france so am open to suggestions. Also any thoughts for the geneva/montreux/vevey area would be of interest.

cheers

Gary

[CathyL]

Vevey is one of my favorite places. There's a market in the town square on Saturdays, worth cruising for cheese, bread and charcuterie. The hills above the lake are dotted with lots of excellent little restaurants; my last visit was 4-5 years ago, so my recommendations may be worthless, but I especially liked Le Petit in (I think) St. Legier.

I had several excellent meals at Le Raisin in Cully (halfway between Vevey and Lausanne) - the property is also an inn, which means the restaurant is open on Sundays and takes credit cards.

Non-food recreation: A footpath along the lake runs all the way to Montreux - a beautiful walk. The Chateau de Chillon (12th century fortress that inspired Lord Byron's poem) is touristy but cool. Ditto the Olympic Museum in Lausanne. And paddle-boating on the lake is fun.

[peterpumkino]

Lucky you.

Actually I had one of the best meals in my life in Crissier (just outside of Lausanne) at a place called 'Giradet'. Fredy Girardetwas considered, with Bocuse, one of the 2 fathers of Nouville Cuisine and the meal was absoutely amazing. When the father of Nouville Cuisine comes out and asks you if you enjoyed the meal you really want to tell him that it wasn't spicy enough and needs more fennel! He is now retired but I understand the restaurant is still there. If you go let me know how it was.

Lake Annecy is very, very pretty. Don't know any places off-hand but I've never been dissapointed there.

Another great restaurant is in Entreves (near Courmayer) at the 'Maison De Fillipo (+39 (165) 869797) and now that the Mt Blanc tunnel is open again it's very, very accessible but phone first as they are closed off-season. They also have a very nice mountain hotel. Excpect to eat a lot!

[Gavin Convery]

Fredy Girardetwas considered, with Bocuse, one of the 2 fathers of Nouville Cuisine and the meal was absoutely amazing.

This is probably nitpicking but I don't think Bocuse was ever considered the father of 'La Cuisine Nouvelle' - the likely candidates are Michel Guerard at Eugenie-Les-Bains and Gualtiero Marchesi in Italy. However, Girardet was certainly considered at one time the best chef of the world...so lucky you!

[peterpumkino]

I suppose it's one of these things Gavin (depends who you read or talk to) but one thing for sure is that Girardet was considered by many the best chef in the World and I feel good about having eaten there.

I don't like Marchesi, too pretentious for an Italian, but that's a personal opinion as I really DO love my Italian food - incidentally, just down the road from Marchesi's place at Erbusco is a great Italian in a very small village called Chiari. The restauant is called Il Vecchio Portico (+39 030713295). Chiari is 25 kms from Brescia going on the state road to Milano. WARNING this place is definately not Michelin-style, VERY local, but it's a 'find'.

[Bux]

definately not Michelin-style

Could someone explain "Michelin-style" to me. I don't get it. What would make a restaurant definitely Michelin-style? I might have some picture in mind from the use of a phrase such as "Michelin 3 star style," from which I would infer some high end service as well as very sophisticated food. Is there some belief that Michelin is only useful, or even most useful, at the high end or that the Michelin guide is only a list of fancy restaurants? Has no one used the guide to find the inexpensive meals it highlights as well as the moderate tables it chooses to list?

Do diners have a perception of a Michelin style that's different from a GaultMillau style or a Bottin Guide style? I suppose the use and reliability of the various guides is a whole other thread, but I think it's been discussed and for the most part we seem to end up with people talking mostly about Michelin and GaultMillau. The latter has become corporate with both Gault and Millau out of the picture. I wonder if anyone has ever tried to compare a guide to the restaurants of France with one to restaurants in the US. I'm thinking of the Mobil Guides and that sort. I remember reading an article about the Mobil five diamond restaurants in New York and wondering how much effect the guide had on the choice of diners visiting New York.

[marcus]

Michelin and Gault Millau undoubtedly provide different scoring sheets to their inspectors which can yield different results. I would not call this a difference in style, but a difference in values. Michelin appears to emphasize execution as primary, and Gault Millau emphasizes the conception of the dish and gives more credit to creativity. You can look at the restaurants that are 3 star 18 (Alain Ducasse, Jardin de Sens, etc.) and 2 star 19 (Auberge Bretonne, Auberges des Cimes, Roellinger (I know that this one generates some heat, but I personally agree with Michelin)). Of course, 3 star 19 is the best recommendation of all.

The other key difference is that Gault Millau provides food ratings for all the restaurants that it includes which is very useful, while Michelin does not. However, by excluding 85% of restaurants from the rating system, Michelin is able to rate the remaining restaurants in a largely coherent fashion with which people can generally agree. Rating every restaurant inevitably leads to inconsistencies and anomalies and resulting audience dissatisfactions.

[Bux]

To be sure that I understand you, I gather you mean Michelin doesn't offer a ranking for 85% of the restaurants it lists--or more accurately it has four categories with the major portion of the restaurants in the lowest category and a distinction between the top 15%. I'll accept your percentage as the actual number is unimportant. GaultMillau ranks all of its lisitings on a 1-10 basis (actually 10-19). GM also uses the toque rating again as a star rating, with one, two, three and four toques. If you count the two three and four toque classifications as the equivalent of Michelin's stars, I wonder if we'd find GM and more or less consistent than Michelin. I know there are those who disagree, but in spite of the fact that Michelin gets the heaviest respect as the ultimate judge, I think there are lot of subjective decisions that have to be made along the way.

[marcus]

You can't directly compare the GM toques to Michelin stars because they cover a much broader range of quality levels. My point was that you can be much more consistent if you relegate the large majority of the restaurants to no stars and focus on differentiating only among the very best. Although there is a lot of individual variation, their are Michelin one star restaurants that score as low as 13 in GM, I think that you will find that in general there is comparability as to numbers between 3 star 19, 2 star 18 and one star 17, with significant, maybe 35% of one star restaurants getting 16 or lower. Of course, there are also no star 17 restaurants, but this just represents variation in judgment. The bottom line is that in general Michelin starred restaurants receive 3 or 4 toques, so that 1 or 2 toques are in a different category and are not comparable.

[robert brown]

I believe that Bocuse was, if not the father, then at least the chef that people identified most with the early days of La Nouvelle Cuisine. The widely-used expression "La Bande a Bocuse" comprised the early so-called modern chefs ca. 1970. Those included were Pierre and Jean Troisgros, Roger Verge, MIchel Guerard, and Alain Chapel, although one may choose to argue that Bocuse, Troisgros brothers, and Verge were the first wave and Chapel and Guerard came along shortly after (maybe with Alain Senderens as well, not to mention a few two-star chefs such as Jacques Maniere, Jean Delavayne, and Claude Peyrot who some considered part of the movement).

Giradet was like a Second Futurist; one who made an deep impact after the Nouvelle Cuisine was well-established; a transitional figure between the above and Joel Robuchon.

As for the Michelin/Gault-Millau discussion, I am not sure it is really significant there days what the differences are. Many years ago it did because Gault and Millau represented a cause that was a factor in their spotting young chefs with enormous talents that in the end became the next generation of Michelin three-star chefs, sometimes, in individual cases, several years later. It is insighful how Marcus states the difference between the two guides in terms of dishes. I would have thought the differences would have been simply because a different group of raters works for each publication. I think that Michelin is trying to become more lithe in recognizing and rewarding younger chefs through granting the additional star.

[Gary Marshall]

i use michelin at all levels, i find it especially usefull for the cheaper establishments as often you can be confronted with a row of very similar looking places and michelin is usually pretty good at pointing you in the right direction, in fact i'd go as far to say i've not been disappointed with any choice of restaurant picked from the guide.

As to 'michelin style' to me it implies a certain formality and tradition, proper napery, glasses, table settings and a general correctness in service. The grandeur depends on the level from 1 knife and fork to 3 star.