The etiquette of being served first

[tommy]

The temperature of the food will depend on delay between plating and serving. By insisting on simultaneous serving at least some of the plates will be colder than if they been served as soon as plated.

indeed. from a logical standpoint, the arugment of wanting to "sample the dish at the temperature the chef intented" is a bit flimsy, considering the lag time and btwn removing the food from the heat source and the eventual presentation of the dish, and all of the factors affecting time/temperature therein.

Edited December 10, 2002 by tommy (log)

[Fat Guy]

G.: I fail to see how you can make that leap ("the only reason it's a faux pas for the restaurant is because people are expected to wait for all to be served").

Wilfrid: If you're going to base your argument on an empirical sample, perhaps you will explain to us why an empirical sample matters -- especially when it's clear that this isn't a situation where the majority rules. And I still don't see why you think the quotes I provided don't govern. Have you said why and I just missed it?

[cabrales]

On any "normal" delays between plating of a dish and presentation at the table to the diner, that is an element that a good cuisinier should take into account in designing and implementing a dish. However, that "normal" delay (with some relatively narrow band for variation) is something the cuisinier can anticipate and perhaps even seek to compensate for (potentially?). Also, to some extent, given the physical spaces that have to be covered by dining room team members, some amount of "normal" delay is inevitable. Obviously, the normal delay depends on physical lay-out of the restaurant (kitchen as well as dining room), the efficacy and number of dining room team members, and other factors.

On what happens if dishes for a given table are ready for plating at different times, well the better restaurants should try to avoid that by "firing" dishes requiring different cooking periods at different times and not just "firing" all dishes for a table when ordered. The better kitchens should be able to have plating of dishes for a given table at roughly the same time.

That is where Daniel's closed circuit cameras could potentially be useful. The progress of diners on a prior dish can be monitored to better guestimate when ensuing dishes should be "fired". It is also the responsibility of the dining room team to coordinate with the kitchen with any relevant major updates for each table.

I see a bit of circularity in Wilfrid's reasoning. People should wait because they are expected to wait. Well, who expects them to wait? If it's the missing diner, that can be addressed through an apology and recognition of the fact that in some cases the good of the many must outweigh the *perceived* benefits to the few. If the expectation is on the part of the diners remaining to wait, they can discuss the issue and choose to not wait. If the expectation is claimed to be on the part of the restaurant that the remaining diners can wait, I note the following:

-- First, the restaurant should recognize that it was the restaurant's mistake that led to a perceived dilema on the part of the diners in the first place. In such position, the restaurant should have no ability to claim that etiquette is this or that.

-- Second, as I mentioned before, the remaining diners can signal their awareness of the potential argument for waiting by handling the situation in the manner described by my first post in this thread (p1). People can communicate with one another, and the remaining diners can communicate to the restaurant that they wish to proceed despite a potential argument to teh contrary. This will stand the remaining diners in good stead, as it signals awareness of potential etiquette arguments, but achieves the desired outcome of eating.

-- There might even be an argument that, by not placing cloches over the dishes of the remaining diners or not offering that option to them, the Lespinasse dining room team was signalling that the restaurant thought remaining dinners should proceed.

-- I wish to note particularities with respect to Lespinasse. As members know, the washrooms are not in the restaurant iself. Instead, one has to exit the restaurant, walk to the left and then towards the front of the St Regis hotel. Then, one has to descend a flight of stairs before reaching the restroom. The restaurant should know that this is not the shortest of restaurant routes, and should therefore not mind if diners proceed.

Edited December 10, 2002 by cabrales (log)

[g.johnson]

G.: I fail to see how you can make that leap.

It's easy for a professional: I am trained in explainiing away facts that disprove the pet theory.

If it's acceptable for everyone to start eating as soon as they're served, why would it be wrong for the restaurant to serve each person separately? It would make more sense to serve separately to minimize the delay between plating and serving. Yet every restaurant from diner* on up** makes an effort to serve everyone at the same time. The only conclusion I can reach is that they believe their customers expect to start eating together.

* Serving multiple people at one table simultaneously also minimizes server trips.

** Except Lespinasse.

Edit: Couldn't spell Lespinasse. Clot.

Edited December 10, 2002 by g.johnson (log)

[Wilfrid]

Wilfrid: If you're going to base your argument on an empirical sample, perhaps you will explain to us why an empirical sample matters -- especially when it's clear that this isn't a situation where the majority rules.

I thought it was obvious that a consensus (or a majority if you like) would supply the answer to my question; as I expressed it yesterday:

"My question is really very simple. Does anyone think, that it is generally accepted good manners, in the States (not France) today, to start eating a course while a diner is briefly absent from the table?"

Maybe some people have other questions, but that's my one.

And I still don't see why you think the quotes I provided don't govern. Have you said why and I just missed it?

A couple of times I think: to try again, it looks to me from the quotes you provided that the authors are considering etiquette when a large party is seated but not being served simultaneously, as often happens at banquets. The quotes give me no idea about what the authors would say about the quite different situation where a group of diners are served simultaneously, except that one is briefly absent.

Cabby, the temperature of dishes in New York restaurants at all levels is so haphazard on arrival at the table that I find it hard to get worried about these details.

[cabrales]

Wilfrid -- By "brief absence", do you mean an apparent restroom break? If that's the case, it could generally take a woman perhaps 3-5 minutes (particularly at Lespinasse) to return to her seat. Do you consider 5 minutes brief in the context of the arrival of a dish and a wait of 5 minutes? How long was your dining companion away, roughly?

[Fat Guy]

If it's acceptable for everyone to start eating as soon as they're served, why would it be wrong for the restaurant to serve each person separately?

I really think you're barking up the wrong tree here. Again, you're failing to distinguish between right conduct by the restaurant and the customer.

[cabrales]

Steven -- I agree. That argument is unpersuasive, and I am not addressing it.

Edited December 10, 2002 by cabrales (log)

[Ron Johnson]

If it's acceptable for everyone to start eating as soon as they're served, why would it be wrong for the restaurant to serve each person separately?

Because it is merely acceptable, not preferable to the diners, and the restaurant should strive for what is preferable.

This comports nicely with Fat Guy's position, which is that beginning to eat hot food before all are served is acceptable.

Edited December 10, 2002 by ron johnson (log)

[g.johnson]

If it's acceptable for everyone to start eating as soon as they're served, why would it be wrong for the restaurant to serve each person separately?

I really think you're barking up the wrong tree here. Again, you're failing to distinguish between right conduct by the restaurant and the customer.

No, I'm asking why simultaneous serving has come to be seen as right conduct for the restaurant.

[tommy]

If it's acceptable for everyone to start eating as soon as they're served, why would it be wrong for the restaurant to serve each person separately?

I really think you're barking up the wrong tree here. Again, you're failing to distinguish between right conduct by the restaurant and the customer.

it seems like g is trying to prove what we already know (that it's not acceptable to begin eating before everyone has begun) by pointing out the fact that we all agree on which is restaurants go out of their way to ensure that food arrives at the same time and when everyone is seated.

ediot: typed as g was answering.

Edited December 10, 2002 by tommy (log)

[Fat Guy]

"What we're talking about are accepted good manners among people who bother to focus on issues of etiquette (agreed)."

Wilfrid, what ever happened to this? I thought when you said "(agreed)" you meant you agreed with me. So how is it that just a few posts later we're back to majority rule?

I'm sorry I made you repeat yourself on the distinction between banquet etiquette and restaurant etiquette, but it's only because I'm seeing words but not reasons. I understand that we have different "fact patterns" here, as we'd say in law school. But I fail to see how the difference in those fact patterns justifies a departure from the governing precedent.

Let me ask you a few questions: 1) Within the context of banquets, do you accept the conclusions stated by the authorities I've cited? 2) Do you agree that restaurant etiquette derives from banquet etiquette, as I explained way back. 3) Would you want people to wait for you, were you away from the table when they were served in a restaurant. 4) How do you rule on a hypothetical situation where all eight people at a table are seated but only seven are served and the eighth says, "Please go ahead and eat. Your food is hot." At that point should the seven eat? What if the seven don't eat and the eighth follows up with, "Really, there's no reason for you to eat cold food just because the restaurant has provided poor service. In fact, I'm feeling very self-conscious and uncomfortable on account of your waiting. If you eat, it will make me happy."

[g.johnson]

Thank you, Tommy. Garbled syntax aside, I couldn't have put it better myself. Indeed, I obviously didn't put it better myself.

Edited December 10, 2002 by g.johnson (log)

[Fat Guy]

it seems like g is trying to prove what we already know (that it's not acceptable to begin eating before everyone has begun) by pointing out the fact that we all agree on which is restaurants go out of their way to ensure that food arrives at the same time and when everyone is seated.

Trying is the operative term here, I think. I'm sorry Wilfrid is on the other side here, because surely he could come up with the vocabulary word to explain the flaw in G's argument. Perhaps he'll defect and give me some help on this one, though Ron has said it quite well I think.

[Fat Guy]

Let me try it this way on the G. Johnson theory. Here is the hierarchy of preference:

1. Perfection = Everybody served together, everybody starts together

2. Next best thing = Everybody not served together, those with hot food start

3. Worst case scenario = Everybody not served together, those with hot food make a bad situation worse by engaging in self-punishment at the expense of everybody because they don't have a clue about etiquette.

[tommy]

it might be helpful if we simply illustrated each example, and had people respond with how they'd react.

again, i think we're muddying the waters by bringing banquette style dining, among other factors, into this.

to address fatus's points:

3) Would you want people to wait for you, were you away from the table when they were served in a restaurant.

i would expect they would, unless my absence compromised their meal.

4) How do you rule on a hypothetical situation where all eight people at a table are seated but only seven are served and the eighth says, "Please go ahead and eat. Your food is hot." At that point should the seven eat?

yes.

What if the seven don't eat and the eighth follows up with, "Really, there's no reason for you to eat cold food just because the restaurant has provided poor service. In fact, I'm feeling very self-conscious and uncomfortable on account of your waiting. If you eat, it will make me happy."

i would begin eating.

[Fat Guy]

3) Would you want people to wait for you, were you away from the table when they were served in a restaurant.

i would expect they would, unless my absence compromised their meal.

May I ask some obvious follow-ups?

3a) Why are you using "expect" instead of "want"?

3b) What would count as compromising a meal?

[Fat Guy]

4) How do you rule on a hypothetical situation where all eight people at a table are seated but only seven are served and the eighth says, "Please go ahead and eat. Your food is hot." At that point should the seven eat?

yes.

Is it safe to say we're unanimous on this one?

[Wilfrid]

Sadly I have to bow out due to the pressures of my globetrotting jet set lifestyle.

Steven, I just think if I could get an answer on the actual case I described, I'd be happy. I have no particular beef about your take on banquet etiquette, but I still have the impression you aren't focussed on the example where the food arrives when the diner isn't there. You;re still thinking about the diner being there but their food not showing up: and they say "Go ahead", and no-one, I think, is disputing that.

But as Tommy said, why are we hammering on when we all "know" the answer. Steven, you're a dissenter; maybe Ron is too? But everyone else waits for the other diner to return - unless it is some unexpectedly lengthy delay.

Cabby, I'm really not discussing the specific Lespinasse incident. I am asking more generally what people do in the US. And I begin to weary, because the only reason I am asking a question to which I know the answer, is that Fat Bloke thinks he can show me I'm wrong.

Sorry, chauffeur (or possible chauffeuse) awaits.

[Ron Johnson]

1. Perfection = Everybody served together, everybody starts together

2. Next best thing = Everybody not served together, those with hot food start

3. Worst case scenario = Everybody not served together, those with hot food make a bad situation worse by engaging in self-punishment at the expense of everybody because they don't have a clue about etiquette.

This is correct.

[Fat Guy]

the only reason I am asking a question to which I know the answer, is that Fat Bloke thinks he can show me I'm wrong.

How about I (aided by my faithful sidekick Ron) show everybody else you're wrong, and then when you get back you can catch up?

[tommy]

3a) Why are you using "expect" instead of "want"?

3b) What would count as compromising a meal?

3a) Why are you using "expect" instead of "want"?

because frankly *i* don't care. but they might think that i do, and while taking peoples' feelings into consideration seems to sometimes be a foreign concept, that's how i'd "expect" them to react. i wouldn't "expect it of them," as in, "expect nothing less," as i wouldn't be passing judgment, but rather kinda guessing what they'd do.

3b) What would count as compromising a meal?

if i've been called away from the table for a call, or i've been complaining about stomach pains and excused myself from the table 10 seconds before service, or any other situation where it's pretty clear that i'm not around and won't be for some time. of course, this all comes down to time that the dish sits on the plate, in front of the diners. i wouldn't go as far as to say that "temp" is the only factor here, as foodstuffs' consistency and texture, among other qualities, can change over time regardless of whether it's a hot dish or a room temp dish.

ediot for speeling and clarity.

Edited December 10, 2002 by tommy (log)

[Fat Guy]

I find you irritating in your reasonableness on this point, Tommy.

[Ron Johnson]

I have sided with righteousness, and I cannot be swayed.

[g.johnson]

I’m not trying to defend waiting and I would not be offended if others started while I was away. However, I know that it is considered polite in Britain to wait. Tommy and Nick Gatti both think that this is also true in the US. There may be no logic to it, but that’s often the case with questions of etiquette.