One night in Alsace

[jayrayner]

This is a post in two parts. The first is an account of a meal I ate recently at L'auberge de L'Ill in Illhaeursen as part of the research for an article I have written for the newspaper which has the good taste to employ me, the Observer. It leads in turn to a request for help with another article that the experience has intiated. So forgive me if this post is over long.

First the background. The Observer publishes a supplement, so adored and respected by so many on egullet, called Observer Food Monthly or OFM. I write a regular feature called the Observer classic: a piece about a restaurant which is, of its type a classic. THey are not always gastronomic restaurants. But they do have something about them which makes them worthy of note. I try not to make them hagiographies. Many of the places that fit the brief can have clear absurdities, be they price, an overly developed sense of self-importance, or food and service which is more in thrall to its own history than is strictly healthy. Among the ones I have wirtten about so far are: Harry's Bar in Venice, The Algonquin in New York, Bofinger in Paris and The Palace Hotel Gstaad.

I have always intended to get to the Auberge de L'Ill because, well, it represents the gold standard for gastornomic restaurants with so many miles on the clock: a restaurant on that site has been in the Haeberlin family since 1878. It won its first Michelin star in 1954, its second in 1962 and its third in 1967. Only Bocuse has held three for longer, by one year. THe current chef, Marc Haeberlin - son of paul who first won the stars - was happy to co-operate and invited me to be their guest. I happily agreed. It wasn't a review and better, I thought, to let them serve me the essence of the place. Frankly my paper would never have swallowed the bill (which we will come to later); certainly not on top of the air fare, car hire, hotel... enough justification already.

First the basics: the Auebrge is a chunky handsome buidling, modelled on an old Alsatian Farm house, though built after WWII when the first one was bombed to the ground. It now stretches back through a set of glossy extensions along lawns and gardens that look out over the fast flowing river. The place has heft. It is also a truly family affair: Marc's sister and uncle do front of house, his mother was doing the flowers in the dining room, his brother in law runs the newish hotel and Paul, now 79, is still in the kitchen every day kibbitzing over the sauces (though i doubt he speaks yiddish). At one point I found myself sitting in chef's office, at the back of the kitchen complex - and it really is a complex - surrounded by half a dozen Haeberlins discussing the service to come.

And so, to dinner. I was dinning alone but it is a mark of the service that I never felt odd or uncomfortable with it. I did take notes and then... left my notebook back in the office so forgive me if I'm a little rusty on certain points. I had asked chef to decide my menu and said only that it might be helpful if it included a couple of classic Auberge dishes, which it did. I also left the wine in the hands of the Sommelier Serge Dubs, a terrific man with a terrific list.

An aperatif of a muscat was followed by a first amuse of a square of red mullet on a salad of shelled broad beans with the occasional slick of reduced balsamic. It was, I think the lightest dish of the meal and those sweet crunchy beans were possibly the only concession to modernity. The fish had a ripe, fishy end that is not common to mullet. With this came a local 2000 Riesling from one of the smaller houses, which was light with only a hint of the floral end the grape can produce. Next, a second amuse of seared foie gras: not the best piece of searing, I will admit. It was just a little over cooked inside for my liking. The piece that turned up with the next course, the tripe salad with croutons and a fried quails egg, was much better. Apparently the foie gras is not normally there but chef just wanted me to try it that way. The tripe was soft without being flacid, and was dressed with a quite accidic pommery mustard dressing which presented the young riesling with a challenge.

the sommelier then insisted that I try a glass or two of a 1988 Riesling from the greta Hugel et Fils, just so I could see what the grape could do. I'm afraid it was unfair competition: it was huge and dense, sticky with glycerine and the colour of amber. Truly fabulous.

Onwards and the first of the great auberge de l'ill dishes: the salmon souffle. I can see why it is such a classic. The soft souffle casing, the flaky fish, the creamy riesling sauce. It pretty much sums up post war french haute cuisine. And it was at this point that I understood what cabarales meant about the food here lacking modernity. Well yes, it does but I think that's the point. Sure, a lot of it is has been updated (the serving of the souffle is smaller these days) but the essentials are still there. And it is executed wiht such precision thta one can't really object to it being 'old fashioned'. To go with this I was served a big round Mersault (domaine lies in my notebook) which also stood up well to the next course, lobster with sauteed ceps. A truly terrific dish, full of big sweet honeyed, caramelised tones.

Next - and I knew it was coming - the truffle. THis is a truly outragous dish (described to me by one of my foodie friends as the gastronomic equivalent of the deep fried mars bar and I know what she means.) A whole perigord black truffle, wrapped in foie gras, wrapped in pastry and deep fried, and served on a deep meaty sauce, thick with more black truffle. yours for 125 euros a pop. To go with this Serge dubs came up with a Cos D'estournel saint estephe 1994, a huge bordeaux, with big fists (330 euros). It took me ten minutes to consume and the combination was truly sublime, one of those vast sensory experiences that makes you feel both smug and guilty at the same time. THe truffle is truly outragous; not just the distilled flavour of the earth but also the textures of truffle and liver and crumbly pastry. Oy vey. (And i will return to this point in a second).

I believe chef wanted to move me on to a meat course at that point, but I declined. After that there was nowhere else for the meal to go. I asked for the cheese to go with what was left of the wine - and there was a terrific epoisses that turned it into a mellow giant - and then a selection of deserts which were, good but not particularly memorable. perhaps nothing could be after that truffle.

And so to the second part of this post. If I had paid for it, the truffle/cos d'estournel combo would have cost 450euros or £300. That's £30 a minute, 50p a second. Can I justifiy it morally? It's an awful lot of cash for very little time. I am a die hard restaurant goer but even I feel a little repulsed by this. But... but... In this case the thing which makes me less morally repugnant (to myself) is the fact that I was freeloading. My ligging almost redeems me. Or does it? And am I over reacting?

It's an issue we - by which I mean I - am going to be investigating for a piece in the food mag. I want to look at the issue of how much is too much for food and wine. or is it simply that some people prefer to spend their excess income on art and others on food? My parameters for the piece are clear. I'm not really interested in those prepared to spend £100 a head for dinner. there are a relatively large number of people who can do that. It's about the next level. The £300 truffle experience. It's the 260euro poulet de bresse at bernard loiseau, the 94 euro truffle and potato starter at gerard boyer.

SO, is anybody willing to talk about serious high cost meals? ABout the experience and justification, if they felt any was needed. the qualms and the pleasures. And any other examples of hyper expenisve dishes would be appreciated (I'm a little less itnerested in high cost wines, because that is rather more accepted as a fact of the table). Natually I'm looking for people I can quote, either directly by name or anonymously. But I won't do so before firts contacting anybody who ha smade a point here via the message system. If thsi just turns into an interesting discussion from which I can not quote, then that's fine. I can look elsewhere.

That's the pitch and I hope no one is irritated by me making it. People here are so well informed it would be foolish not to try and tap into that resource.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Jay - Have you been reading some of the posts on the French board about prices in France this year? Robert Brown had a good thread going over the summer. And in my recent thread on Arpege, their is an entire aspect of the discussion that deals with whether the extrememly delicious tasting menu they serve you is worth 300 euros per person. Especially since the meal contains no foie gras, no truffles and no meat. And I haven't posted my review of Taillevent yet, but in one of the other threads there is a discussion of the 106 euro veal chop for two that we ate.

To show you the abusrdity of the pricing, I am enclosing a link to the Farr Vintners website. If you surf through the site to the 1994 Bordeaux page, they list the price of 1994 Cos d'Estournel at 27 pounds a bottle. My lord you can get a magnum for 54 euros. It sounds like your bottle at Auberge costs almost 200 euros. That's outrageous.

Farr Vintners

I wish that someone who works (or who recently worked) in France and who knows what the ingredients that are used in places like the Auberge actually cost would chime in here. My kishkes (I'm sure Haeberlin doesn't know that word either) tell me there is a huge markup on that dish. I mean look at the markup on the wine. Assuming they were able to buy it at 40% off 27 pounds, they have marked it up 10 fold, or 1000%.

[jayrayner]

That sound you can hear is my jaw hitting the ground. That bottle was on the list at 330 euros. Gosh. thank god I wasn't paying.

I'll look at the arpege thread. just out of interest was the veal chop 212 for two or 106 for two?

[Steve Plotnicki]

The veal chop was 106 euros for two. I don't think we would have ordered a 212 euro veal chop.

Bordeaux prices in France are absurd. The 1994 vintage, while one I personally like, and which I think is underrated, is at best a middling to middling plus vintage. It's best wines like Latour, Leoville Las Cases and Barton, still should cost 80-100 pounds, and 40-60 pounds respectively. That Cos must have cost the Haeberlins 12 pounds. Do the math. Almost a 3000 percent markup.

[Jon Tseng]

Have a suspicion your quarry fall into two types - Firstly are those to whom the price is an irrelevance. In this case there is no particular motivation; it may as well be 30 euros or 3000 euros

The second type for whom it is a splurge people are clearly spending that much because they believe they are paying for more than just a meal. What makes up the "added value"? Random (as ever) thoughts:

i) Memories - a really great meal you can look back on again and again

ii) One off - not something you'd do everyday but the scarcity value justifies a higher price (need to define this pt. a bit more)

iii) History/particular dish - you're paying for a deep fried truffle or a particular dish. Or you're prepared to extra becos you're dining at a particular establishment. Again the "value-add" comes in the looking back on it, but also the sense of an achievement. Would you pay twenty grand to climb a mountain? No. Would you pay twenty grand to climb Everest? Some would.

iv) Ultimately all boils down to fact people have different value systems. Certain people are prepared to pay for for the above, and other things. Others would rather be down the pub.

thats all for the mo. sure will think of more

j

[Steve Plotnicki]

Jon - That cost moght be an irrelevence to some people has nothing to do with whether the prices they charge are justified. Jay's question assumes that there has to be some sense of proportion to the pricing that is based on what things actually cost. And I think that at the heart of the question he is trying to ask, is the concept that in many ways, pricing at certain three star restaurants has lost a sense of proportion to ordinary dining. True that there was always a large incremental uptick for palaces of haute cuisine, but the issue is, what the uptick is these days, what is driving it, and how it is intended to, and who it does, impact on?

[John Whiting]

For this level of conspicuous restaurant consumption, you have to go back to the 19th century. But then there were only a few such places and relatively few who could afford them; today there are thousands of prosperous show-offs who are prepared to give the maitre-de carte-blanche. And it's the show-offs who make all this possible, not the handful of eGulleteer-types who actually know something about the food and pay attention to it while they're eating it.

The new prices take the humor out of the old joke about the two Texans who see a new Rolls Royce in a showroom window. "I'm going to buy that," says one, reaching for his wallet. "No," says the other, "let me get this. You bought lunch."

[Jon Tseng]

Jon - That cost moght be an irrelevence to some people has nothing to do with whether the prices they charge are justified. Jay's question assumes that there has to be some sense of proportion to the pricing that is based on what things actually cost.

Steve, I was actually addressing the other part of Jay's question ie why some people pay more for food rather than art; what was the experience & justification &tc.

Anyhow, getting onto whether the prices are justified, isn't that just the way the free market works - price is determined not by how much something is worth, but how much people are prepared to pay for it. [similar argument as to why teachers and nurses are paid f**k all - it's not how much they're worth to society, its how much society is prepared to pay for their services). Presumably if somebody is prepared to pay the price, by definition they think it's worth the price.

?

J

PS on the more general "price-inflation" point would be interested in knowing if posh joints are charging more across the board or for select items; does everybody have the two hundred quid truffle dish, or do most opt for the hundred quid prixe fixe. Possibly average spend may not have gone up as much as the few "high profile" examples imply.

PPS Also does anyone know if wine costs have hiked up much in the last few years?

[Fat Guy]

Jay, you may want to take a look at something I wrote about Ducasse's New York restaurant at the time he came under attack for his menu prices. Here's the link:

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1061/3...151/print.jhtml

The most relevant portion is this:

"Luxury exists became people want it, cost what it will, even if that cost seems totally out of proportion to inherent value. Luckily, the necessities of life, at least in the U.S., do not carry such price tags; but for everything else, what is the crime in letting supply and demand set the market? True, there may be diminishing returns--often, the objective difference in quality between the best and the very good is minimal, while the price margin can be vast. But for those who both appreciate and can afford the best, there is no contest."

The other thing I'd add is that even at the prices they charge many of the world's most luxurious and expensive restaurants are barely break-even propositions. Their expenses are massive, especially when it comes to their staffs and facilities -- the ingredients themselves tend to be less than a third of the cost of a dish. So a question you have to ask is: What am I paying for when I go to one of the world's most expensive restaurants? If you mistakenly think you're paying just for food, you're going to be frustrated. But if you understand that you're paying for the whole package, you've got to wonder if anybody could ever provide that experience for less money. Indeed, if it could be done for less, somebody probably would be doing it.

[jayrayner]

Steve - actually I don't think I am too concerned by whether there is a sense of proportion to the difference between the value of the items you buy and the charges made for them on the menu. Naturally that's of interest, but I think it has more to do with Jon and Fat Guy's point about the value of experience or the willingness to place value upon it.

in the dish I describe the truffle is obviously a big bucks item. (No idea how big bucks: what's the going price for a whole black perigord truffle anybody?) But then there a whole bunch of other things: the 25 strong brigade in the kitchen, the exclusivity of it being the haeberlin truffle dish served by a haeberlin; an experience which no one else can replicate because they are not the auberge de l'ille. Involved in the cost is the exclusivity of that place at that table over looking that river. What I'm really interested in, I suppose, is the intellectual cart wheels we will pull in an attempt to justify the experience to ourselves.

Btw - nobody has chimed in yet with any of their big bucks dining experiences and their feelings about them

[Jon Tseng]

will bitch about lucas carton in time... bit snowed under for mo

also would it be worth shifting this to the General board?

j

[John Whiting]

Jay Raynor writes:

Can I justifiy it morally?

I won't attempt to answer that impossible question, except to point out that, as soon as you ask it, you make expensive food ethically inseparable from every other dispensible luxury. Utter extravagance for the sake of personal pleasure is a single issue, not divisible into an ethical hierarchy. (*Producing* luxuries has its own set of ethical questions.)

These observations are not intended to be judgmental; I indulge myself as extravagantly as I can afford.

[Andy Lynes]

I'm not really interested in those prepared to spend £100 a head for dinner. there are a relatively large number of people who can do that.

I think you may have hit a nail (not the nail you were hoping for I don't think so sorry for the slight off topic nature of this response) on the head with this remark. £100 per head is now not out of the ordinary for a 2 or 3 star meal. And what do you get? A pretty ordinary experience by and large. Perhpas you really do need to spend £300 upwards for a truely haute cuisine meal these days.

[Steve Plotnicki]

I think that the entire concept of free market pricing isn't the issue here. Nobody is challenging the restaurant's right to charge whatever they want. Or the right of people to pay however much they think a meal is worth. But, I don't know what that has to do with analyzing whether a meal offers good value and whether it is worth it or not? And under no circumstances can I pronounce a markup of 3000% on a bottle of wine as anything other then a ripoff. And that is besides the fact that if I was in that situation and the sommelier told me it was the perfect choice (and he'd be lying if he did and just selling wine if you ask me) that I might decide to pay that amount. Even if it was good, even if it was the "perfect" wine, it would still be a ripoff. And to say that there are external reasons for the wines markup, like the amount of people it takes to manage the cave, or the size of the kitchen brigade, or the price of the tea in China, has no relevence to there being a reasonable markup.

I can see the argument that you can't analyze the cost on an item by item basis because what is at issue is the overall experience. And I myself invoke that argument all of the time. The issue is where the lines are drawn. It's like the continental breakfasts at top hotels in London and Paris that are priced at the equivelent of $40. Saying that you are getting to eat a $40 breakfast in The Ritz is not responsive to the point that the meal actually cost them $2. Ultimately it comes down to how much will you pay for real estate?

Pricing of food is arbitrary. If a restaurant or hotel prices things in order to make their markup that is one thing. But if a place like Auberge d'Ill places excessive prices on their Bordeaux in order to limit who dines there to wealthy German businessmen who drive the hour and a half from places like Stuttgart etc., rather then Alsatian locals, while they are entitled to do whatever they want, it shouldn't preclude anyone from pointing out that their pricing is geared to excluding a whole host of people. Not as a function of saying they are right or wrong to do it, but to properly disclose their intentions. A ripoff is a ripoff, free market or not.

[jayrayner]

Steve

I agree with you entirely on the wine mark ups and it's one of the reasons I'm rather less interested in the issue of buying big wines in restaurnats than shelling out for expensive dishes. Buying big ticket wine is, all too often, a case of running your finger down the list till you reach an appropriately big enough number. Anybody who was really interested in grand wines is unlikely to buy them in big ticket retsaurants because of the mark ups. (It was one of the issues raised around the bankers who paid £44,000 last year at Petrus; if they'd really given a damn they wouldn't have ordered the '46.) Bottles of wine are objects, to be traded much like any other.

but a dish is, I think, different. Sure, you can have big number ordering for the sake of it: bring me the rarest caviar you have etc.

But, for the most part, it takes rather more, well, taste to show an interest in the more expensive dishes. Or at least I suspect it does.

[marcus]

The French have no monopoly on overpriced wine lists. Look at Gary Danko's online list of Red Bordeaux including 1982 Haut Brion at $3600, a wine costing on average a little less than $300 today at auction.

[jayrayner]

as soon as you ask it, you make expensive food ethically inseparable from every other dispensible luxury. Utter extravagance for the sake of personal pleasure is a single issue, not divisible into an ethical hierarchy.

You are absolutely right, but I don't think the general populace thinks like that. (and, at the risk of rooting this in my day job, I will eventually be writing for a general readership.) THere is an understanding of why the wealthy shell out for art or cars or jewellery. but when it comes to food and wine I think a lot of poeple raise an objection.

It offends them and I think this is why: art is not seen as having a utilitarian analogue. It is ephemeral and therefore whether you decide to pay hundreds or millions for it is less relevant than whether you make the decision to spend your money on it in the first place. food however is a necessity. the starving need it to survive. therefore spending vast sums on it is seen as repugnant. I don't hold this view, but boy do a lot of my readers. I am happy to see a particular level of haute cuisine shift comfortably into the same sphere as art or classic cars or jewellery: a luxury upon which one may chose to spend one's excess income. Whether you do so with taste or not is up to you.

Does this make any sense?

[John Whiting]

SteveP writes

. . .  it shouldn't preclude anyone from pointing out that their pricing is geared to excluding a whole host of people. Not as a function of saying they are right or wrong to do it, but to properly disclose their intentions. A ripoff is a ripoff, free market or not.

A crucial point, I think. Aside from ethical questions, it's sad when a local institution gradually prices itself out of the range of those who once contributed to its success.

I can't help comparing it in my mind with the Walnut Tree, where Franco Taruschio made a point of keeping it a pub in which locals sipped their beer at adjoining tables to the dining tourists. Or Chez Panisse, where Alice Waters still keeps her Monday night prices down for the benefit of those impecunious gourmets who helped to make her a success.

It's not just a question of whether a restaurateur has a *right* to go all the way up market. Cooking and eating are ineluctably social acts, and those elevated establishments that lose sight of this have given up something precious.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Jay - I have no quarrel with expensive dishes being, well expensive. But at some point I have to start questioning why the extra cost has been imposed. 100 euro salads, even when loaded with truffles are outrageous. Especially when you can buy a truffle that's the size of an apple for 100 euros at the market in Provence.

Marcus - Right on.

[John Whiting]

Jay Raynor writes:

art is not seen as having a utilitarian analogue. It is ephemeral and therefore whether you decide to pay hundreds or millions for it is less relevant than whether you make the decision to spend your money on it in the first place.

What lets art collectors off the hook is that we're all capitalists now, even the impoverished. Everyone sees art collectors as knowing investors who buy up unidentified old masters or rising artists on their way towards the Turner prize. We admire their shrewdness. But a 300-quid meal goes straight through the gut and into the toilet, with nothing to show for it except a case of indigestion and a hangover. Your average punter will look at the bill and think, "STUPID!"

[Steve Plotnicki]

You guys keep mixing your capitalist metaphors .

What let's art collectors off the hook is that a piece of art is a one of a kind. A truffle is not a one of a kind. Even rare bottles of wine usually exist to a greater extent then the one remaining bottle in the world. So they are different degrees of rarity. As for Jay's point about eating being utilitarian, well that's exactly the issue. Who gets to utitilize eating at Auberge d'Ill.

I think we are also having difficulty with the semantics here and we need to be careful. "Worth" can always be described as the result of a free market exercise. In that way one could say that Internet stocks were always worth the asking price. Because if someone was willing to pay that price, who's to say it wasn't worth it? But there is a different meaning of worth, and it is calculated on long held ratios of cost to market price, debt to capital etc. And there is no historical ratio that we can apply that says that a bottle of wine that has been marked up 3000% is worth it. I'm sure there is an analagous ratio for food markups as well.

I think a proper definition of the word ripoff in this instance is when the price of food and wine is "on the bubble" because of some condition in the marketplace that forces the price into a zone of unreasonableness. For example, someone here mentioned that the restaurant had a large brigade of chefs in the kitchen. But that point assumes that a large brigade of chefs is needed to deliver the cuisine. That logic would say that the wine list underwrites the size of the kitchen staff. Whether that can continue into eternity is simply a function of the inertia of the market. At some point, I suspect the market will lose interest in paying 330 euros for mediocre wine and just like it happens with stocks, the bubble will burst. And if it hasn't been drunk up already, I think you will see the price of the '94 Cos drop.

J.W. - I wasn't making a value judgement about a restaurant who has changed their pricing to exclude a traditional part of their customer base. I was just saying that it is valid for someone to point out that there was a change, and what the terms of the change were. For all we know, the Auberge has an extremely well priced list of local wines just for the locals. And set menus as well. Chez Pannise offers their Monday menus at a low price because it's the slowest night of the week. I wonder on a cost versus price markup if the ratio is any different then on a Saturday night, or is it just that the Monday menus feature more pasta dishes etc. so they can keep the price down?

[marcus]

Chez Panisse offers one less course on Monday night. The pricing is 3 courses on Monday for $45, 4 courses on Tuesday-Thursday for $65 and five courses on Friday & Saturday for $75. All courses are not equal. Anyhow, much lower pricing than we've been reading about in France.

[Fat Guy]

These line-drawing exercises, where a 150% markup is deemed reasonable but a 3000% markup isn't, strike me as arbitrary, unjustifiable, and purely a function of personal idiosyncrasy and prejudice. I just don't see how a restaurant has a moral obligation to charge less money for food or wine than people are willing to pay. In fact, if Michelin three-star restaurant stocks were publicly traded, the shareholders could sue them for doing something like that.

[jaybee]

To that which has been written about absurdly high restaurant prices on a variety of threads I would add just this--as long as there are a sufficient number of people who are willing to pay these prices, for whatever reasons, they will be charged.

Steve Martin did a bit where he described figuring out the econmomics of renting a hall for his first big appearance. The rent was $10,000 and the hall held 5000 people. So he started figuring that if he charged $5 a ticket, and filled the hall, he would make $15,000 after expenses. Then he had the epiphany that if he charged $20, he would only need to sell half as many tickets to make twice as much money. Then the light bulb went off, and he figured, if he sold four tickets for $25,000 each, he would clear $90,000. Finally, he took his logic to the extreme and told his manager, excitedly, that if they charged

$1 million, they just had to sell one ticket and they'd be rich. Whallah!

We seem to be in an era of extremes, extreme sports, extreme extravagance, 72 home runs, $125 million contracts for ball players, movies that gross $300 million on opening weekend, ordinary road cars that are priced at $350,000, $35 million homes of 25000 square feet and $400 truffle meals.

There must be plenty of Steve Martin think-alikes running these places.

[marcus]

Fat Guy -- Your economic thinking is too simplistic. Most industries, including the restaurant industry, operate on pricing that represents some total cost, including overheads, plus a profit margin. This profit margin varies by industry. If you have a superior product you can charge a premium, but it still bears a relationship to that industry's pricing structure. The fact that an individual business might be able to charge a much higher price for some reason for some period of time, generally called gouging, is not good business practice over the long haul and the stockholder should replace the management in this situation. None of this has anything to do with moral obligation.