How many chances do you give a top restaurant?

[Beachfan]

Let say you're going to a highly recommended restaurant (by the press, not your personal food guru) for the first time, and the meal is disappointing.  Will you give it a second try?

If the meal is $100/person or more, I usually don't.  Too much competition in NYC and too few resources (money, having to make my original cardiovascular system last) to do that.  

So, while I love Daniel's,  I don't go to Cafe Bouloud.  The average food and bad service memory dominate the raves I continue to hear.

Here in LA, I assume most people don't know enough about good food and high recommendations don't mean much, so I definitiely don't go back.  Valentino's (blew it) and Patina  (I need to be ecstatic to not notice $200) fit that bill.

Are you more forgiving?

[Fat Guy]

When I'm writing reviews and I've got a budget to work with, or if I've decided to do a semi-pro review on my own tab, it's my job to be forgiving and to give the restaurant a couple of chances or more. When I'm paying myself and eating socially and I get to a restaurant and my BS-detector starts going off, I rarely go back. But I will compare notes with other people who know what's what and sometimes I'll relent if a sufficient number of in-the-know people guarantee me I hit the place on an off night. There are some behaviors I find relatively unforgiveable. I think my longest boycott of a top restaurant was about eight years. I'd have to check the dates to be sure. But I did go back eventually. There are a lot of restaurants in New York, but there aren't all that many that are truly fabulous. In the case of a restaurant that has alienated me but is actually good, I may lose more by avoiding them than they lose by not having my business. Also, if I have a crummy meal, I try to be proactive about it. One of my assumed names writes a polite but very detailed and tough letter to the restaurant (I routinely note waiters' names and such) and, more often than not, I get a reply. Sometimes it's an offer of a free meal. Sometimes it's an explanation and an offer to do something nice on a return visit. And, occasionally, it's an obnoxious and defensive reply. The latter represents a strong case for never going back.

[Bux]

I know the chef at both Cafe Boulud and Daniel and eat well at both places. I rarely find more than a minor fault in service in either and have come too like both places for what they are. Neither is inexpensive, but both seem good value at their prices. I'm always surprised to find someone who loves one and won't return to the other. Usually, it seems that Cafe Boulud comes out on top.

I don't think anyone should boycott a restaurant over one meal, and I don't think I have, although there are some places where my last meal was less than successful. The problem is not that I avoid those places as much as there are far more destination restaurants in NYC than I can afford to patronize with any regularlity. Thus my short list is very short to begin with. I will not eat in all the restaurants I'm dying to eat in this year anyway. Thus, there are top restaurants that I am unlikely to call for a reservation, but none that I wouldn't rule out if we were dining with friends who suggested it.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Beachfan-It's on a case by case basis. For example, if I go to a place and find it ordinary, but others are raving about it, I will give the favorable opinion the benefit of the doubt and try it again. What I'm really after is the reason why the opinions are so disparate? It can be anything from an off night, to different types of palates, to people who just don't know. I would say that the last of the three reasons probably occurs 50% of the time. Sometimes I have just ordered poorly and need to get with the program. But sometimes a place is so bad that I just won't have it.

As for Valentino and Patina, I haven't been to either in years but, neither of those places were either fantastic or offensive. With Valentino, if your palate likes a pretty plain rack of lamb cooked in the Italian style, it's fine. But I would probably find that boring, unless the quality of the lamb was superior. As for Patina, it's not interesting enough for what it purports to be.

[Wilfrid]

I think I agree with all the principles expressed on the thread so far.  I have been trying, however, to think of a restaurant I found really bad the first time I tried it, but then actually did give a second chance to.  I am coming up blank.

I do recall being disappointed on first visits to Union Pacific and Veritas, but neither meals were remotely bad.  I concluded that Union Pacific could do better, and I was subsequently proved right; and Veritas, which had just opened, got into such an improbable mess with our order I figured it was a just a teething problem - right again.

[tommy]

it depends on how much i *want* to like the restaurant.

price-point (and with that, who's buyin'), of course, is also a consideration.  my first and only visit to daniel was enough to never go back.  well, at least not until i've been to all of the other restaurants of its calibre that NYC has to offer, which could be a while.

generally speaking, i do not return to a restaurant if i find the food is horrible.  however, i would probably return if the service was substandard, unless the price-point dictates that i should be expecting next-to-flawless or at the very least polite service.  *cough*daniel*cough*

as some have suggested, it comes down to options as well.  knowing there are 20 other restaurants just as good as the last in NYC makes it very easy to forget the one that fell short.

[Beachfan]

Illustrating the point:  Daniel, one of my favorites now, was under an 8 year boycott.  My first time, for lunch, I was given a table practically in the kitchen my first lunch time, and the attitude of "be happy with that" when I requested a change got them on my "life's too short for this treatment" list.  

Also, my brother was victim of their old policy of pushing a table turn in 2 hours even if you hadn't had desert yet.

I've only been twice since, but it was a paragon of gentile and excellent service, including a table change from an ok to a great table.

I wonder if 8 years is a natural maximum on restaurant boycotts (assuming it isn't "forever").

[Wilfrid]

it depends on how much i *want* to like the restaurant.

That's a very shrewd comment, tommy :o  :o

I know I'm sometimes sufficiently excited by what I;ve heard about a restaurant that I will go out of my way to overlook small (and even medium-sized faults).  My dining companion is a useful corrective: she likes good food, but has no interest in the reputations of chefs and restaurants.  If it's rubbish, she says so.

[macrosan]

I guess one of my definitions of a "top restaurant" is one that never makes a mistake. That's one of the things that you pay extravagantly high prices for. A $25 price tag buys a restaurant two more chances, $50 might buy it a second chance, but a $100plus price tag gives them one shot only (that's food price only, folks !!!).

And my definition of a mistake in the $100 category is not just a provably bad meal, it's anything less than an excellent meal, or excellent service, or excellent comfort. Incidentally, exactly the same rule would apply if I had been going to the restaurant regularly for years.

In the restaurant industry, I believe the customer has finally become King.

[wingding]

Restaurants are staffed by humans,who make mistakes just like humans in other professions.However,the price seems to be getting higher and higher,and it's hard to be forgiving,when you're spending $30 and upwards,for mediocrity ,and worse.I too will agree that my forgiveness diminishes as the price goes up.

[macrosan]

Restaurants are staffed by humans,who make mistakes just like humans in other professions

I don't accept that as a principle, Wingding. The main reason aeroplanes cost a huge amount of money (I believe a 747 runs at about $50million) is that they have to engineer out human error, and that costs a disproportionate amount of money. The first 97% of accuracy level takes up about 40% of the manufacturing cost, the next 1% costs a further 10%, the next 1% a further 20%, and so on. So cost increases exponentially with required level of "error free performance".

Same applies to cooking. The actual direct production cost of a meal at a $100 restaurant will be maybe twice that at a $25 restaurant. The other $50 difference then covers artistic excellence and the error-free guarantee.

And to save anyone asking, I confirm that I would also not fly again in any aeroplane that failed to fulfil its error-free guarantee.

[tommy]

an interesting corollary to this question, and one that has peeked out here a bit, might be the following:

what *types* of slip-ups are "forgivable" at top restaurants.  

i would let a slightly underwhelming dish goes without *too* much punishment.  after all, i wouldn't claim to know what everything should taste like and if the product actually met the vision of the chef and if the kitchen performed it faithfully.  

however, the type of human error that comes out in the form of rudeness or snootiness goes heavily punished in my book.  it is simply unforgivable to be obnoxious in any way to a guest.

[Wilfrid]

I have to agree about obnoxiousness, tommy.  Macrosan, I think you place the standard a little higher than I would.  I have had slightly underwhelming dishes and minor service slip-ups at four star restaurants, and have never felt I therefore wouldn't go back.

Examples: had to wave my arms about a bit to get a soup spoon at Le Cirque.  A bit of confusion over whether I'd asked for the check at ADNY.  Pheasant entree not hot enough at Daniel.

I can take those in my stride, despite the cost.  

Macrosan - I take it you'll be turning down Concrode upgrades in future!  ;)

[Fat Guy]

Nobody has yet engineered a flawless restaurant or airplane. I won't dwell on the analogy, but basically everybody has the same expectation of an airplane: It gets you to a place without killing you. Everybody has different expectations of a restaurant, and part and parcel of the restaurant experience is personal and unique interaction with a human waitstaff. Restaurants make more mistakes than they should, but it is a pipe dream to theorize about the ability to remove the human factor from restaurants. Such restaurants are referred to as automats.

Rudeness is a tricky issue because it usually comes from a waiter, who may very well be a rogue. To me, the true measure must be taken in two parts: The screwup, and the way the restaurant handles the screwup. I am willing to forgive if the restaurant is willing to take responsibility, apologize, and compensate reasonably. This in my opinion is all we can ask for.

[cabrales]

Not infrequently, I end up giving top restaurants I initially dislike more than three or four tries over time. The reasons are as follows:

1. Accommodation of Dining Companions' Choices. Even for restaurants about which I have reached negative conclusions, I may give in to close dining companions' desire to visit them -- without really having intended to give the restaurants a second chance. This is particularly the case when out-of-town guests or friends with a comparable level of food interest to mine specify a restaurant they would like to sample.

2. Work-Related Meals. When I participate in recruiting lunches, it may be colleagues who select the venue, including in view of budgetary constraints. We may receive input from recruitees who are non-permanent interns for a limited time, who have not previously lived in the region, and/or who may wish to otherwise sample better-known restaurants.

3. Bouts of Interest In Particular Food Products.  During certain periods, I have experienced an intensified interest in particular food products (e.g., geoduck; wild strawberries; Charolais and Aubrac beef; rare UK pig breeds). If there is a restaurant that I have discounted, but that is known for a dish featuring the ingredient in which I am particularly interested at the time, I would be quite motivated to revisit.

4. Investigation of Cuisine. As Steve P suggested, it may take more than one meal to "feel out" a cuisine and for a diner to be satisfied that the restaurant is not suitable. Subsequent visits may allow a diner to come across dishes more suited to his subjective tastes, or to see commonalities in dishes delineating the style of a chef.  Also, on a first visit, I sometimes see a visually, or apparently intellectually, interesting dish being served to other diners; my curiosity may bring me back to the restaurant even if the food the first time around were unconvincing.

There are practices that border on being unforgiveable, except when undertaken by restaurants with the most lyrical cuisine. I am boycotting Gotham Bar and Grill, the bar area of which used to be a convenient place for eating without reservations. I have boycotted this restaurant for over two years now because, after I made a reservation for Dec 31, 1999 several months in advance and signed a detailed contract with the restaurant guaranteeing my attendance, the restaurant cancelled on me within a few weeks of Millenium eve. Gotham noted it had decided to close for the evening as it had not received sufficient reservations. I was offered a faint apology and a vague reference to the potential for a bottle of wine the next time I visited. I thought at least a comp'd dinner was required. Fortunately, we ended up at Chanterelle, with a quiet, but enjoyable, meal on Dec 31.  ;)  If Gotham's food were compelling, the described history would not in the least deter me from going again. However, I have not yet been tempted back.

[Ruby]

Does anyone remember that fabulous Broadway show "A Chorus Line" Of course you do. There was a song from it called "Dance: Ten; Looks: Three" and that's how I feel about restaurants. The food can be a 10 but if the reservationist, wait staff, host/ess, or bus staff give me Agita, then that restaurant becomes a 3. I don't care how wonderful the food is: if I'm treated shabbily I can't enjoy the food. If I'm relegated to a rotten table or made to wait at the bar for an inordinate amount of time; if the wait staff is condescending, inattentive or bitchy, I won't go back - anyway, not on my dime.

This is really a shame because the chef can be terrific, the ambiance wonderful where thousands of dollars have gone into the decor and the staff can ruin it. If it's a continuing pattern, then it's not the chef but management that has to be overhauled.

I guess that's why Danny Meyer's restaurants are so well-liked. The pampering of diners goes a long way in cementing a relationship with a restaurant. What's that saying? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

[Pan]

i would let a slightly underwhelming dish goes without *too* much punishment.  after all, i wouldn't claim to know what everything should taste like and if the product actually met the vision of the chef and if the kitchen performed it faithfully.  

however, the type of human error that comes out in the form of rudeness or snootiness goes heavily punished in my book.  it is simply unforgivable to be obnoxious in any way to a guest.

If a restaurant is expensive and the food is mediocre or worse, I will probably _never_ go back because I've found that restaurants that get 4 stars in the Times have sometimes had a tendency not to provide great food to people they don't know and don't think are big deals, and I _will not_ tolerate that. So if I believe that's happening somewhere, even a change in chef won't cause me to want to return, though a change in management might. Otherwise, supercilious or egregiously unresponsive service and things like sand in spinach are absolutely unacceptable.

If a restaurant is supposedly 3-4 stars, I expect professional, helpful service from people who behave like my equals - not grovelling peons, as the wait staff at Le Bernardin behaved when I was there, and not supercilious snobs, which was the way a waiter treated me and my family years ago after Lutece had gotten 4 stars in the Times (and the Soupe de Pistou had sand on the bottom) - and I expect food that is not only made from impeccable ingredients but is truly special. Otherwise, I'm unlikely to return because my money is valuable to me.

However, I do believe I'm a reasonable person, and I don't require absolute perfection. If there's a backup in the kitchen and my waiter comes to apologize for that, I am seldom upset to wait longer - within reason, of course - but glad for the consideration. And one time, I ate at a very good restaurant whose name I've forgotten (on a side street in the 50s, I think; it was a number of years ago). The waiter brought a dish different from the one I had ordered, but I was perfectly happy with it and said he should please let me keep it. The chef yelled at the poor waiter, who insisted against my objections that the waiter also bring out the dish I had originally ordered. Of course, I took it home because it was too much food to eat. And the reason I didn't want to go back to that restaurant was that scene the chef made - it made me feel guilty for patronizing a place where the workers were subjected to such abuse.

[Mao]

For me, as shallow as it sounds, my willingness to cut a restaurant slack really depends upon word of mouth and reputation.  If enough people (whom I respect) are willing to proffer praise, I will give a joint multiple tries.  There are few places that despite repeated attempts at a good meal that I will give up on.  So far, there is really only one. In 3 visits, I have yet to have a very good meal at Jean Georges, and frankly, I think 3 times is enough sample size if you are doing the tasting menu.  I have heard very good things about the man from people who work in the industry.  I have heard praise from many corners, but I have yet to have a good meal there.  There is no doubt that the ingredients are cleverly put together, and that the lobster has never been more brilliantly treated in my experience, but what age are the ingredients, and everything else besides lobster has been truly disappointing.  Others, say the Four Seasons, one visit was enough o know that enough is enough.

[Fat Guy]

I'm finding this thread unusually interesting, I mean above the already high interestingness level of most of the topics on the site. It illustrates much about people's fundamental dining assumptions. So much of it gets back to money: How much you have, and what your attitude is about what you have. Let me throw out a few hypothetical questions:

-- If you had infinite money, would you care more, less, or the same as you do now about imperfections in an expensive restaurant meal?

-- Have you ever had a restaurant meal you considered flawless in every regard? If so, has that experience ever been repeated consistently over time at a single establishment?

-- Do you think the customer has the power, within the range of the restaurant's capabilities, to influence the outcome of a meal experience?

-- If a restaurant messes up, do you complain? Do you forgive if your complaint is addressed to your satisfaction?

-- How many truly great restaurants do you think there are in any given city, even in New York or Paris?

-- Why is this topic on the New York board? Should we move it to General?

[Beachfan]

Great questions F-G.  I was hoping someone would add some more intellectual gasoline while the fire was still strong.

To your questions:

1) If I had infinite money for long enough, I might be very tolerant. But it's not only my personal finances. High prices are a statement of the proprieters belief in  excellence.  Or at least creating the appearance of that.

I have a very different take as a businessman - I would unabashedly sell tofu dogs at $400/pop in some fancy package at some swanky address if I thought I would have a successful run.  Capitalism rules.  

But as a consumer, my epicurean ideals creep in.  And I become bothered, just as if I was a naive newbee to costly chow, when the goods don't live up to the billing.  

A double standard - perhaps.

2) Flawless meals - yes!

Original Bouley for lunch 5 out of 6 times flawless

Lespinasse with Grey Kunz (lunch) 3 out of 3 times flawless

Fleur de Lys in San Francisco (dinner) 2 out of 3 times flawless

3) Does the customer have the power to influence - yes, in many cases as your writings on sitting at the sushi bar illustrate.

4) Excellent question on complaints.  I usually complain if there is a problem.  I found that when I didn't, I replayed the meal in my mind for days.  If I complained, then I could let go no matter what (unless the offense was truly major).

And how they deal with the problem is a mark of greatness.  I remember being kept waiting for 20 minutes for lunch at Lespinasse (not so bad) for a table my first visit and getting a half bottle of Arnoux Les Suchots as a gesture without me even acting bothered.  

On less grand notes, how they handle overcooked fish (correcting it gracefully with no questions asked vs. wondering aloud if you can spell poisson) is a sign of a fine establishment.

In short, I sometimes do more than forgive; it may endear them to me.

5) Truly great - that's hard.  I'd say a dozen in NYC.  But not if you use consistently flawless as a standard.  I would use consistently ecstatic, as measured by your orgone levels when the bill comes.  If you leave out the "truly" part, maybe another dozen.

I can't help but observe that you can't be great without offending someone.  The ire expressed at GT, which I always thought was the "nicest guy" among the truly great, proves that point.

6) Why is this on the NY board.  Sad to say, I do most of my posting on the NY board, because that's where I'm drawn to - my home board (California) is such a lonely room.  I even sneak comments about LA restaurants on this board because I get far better responses then in the California board.

By all means, move it to the General Board if that's where it belongs.

[Fat Guy]

I think I have just enough steam left in me to address one of those issues tonight, before I go fight the bulldog for space in the bed.

I think being wealthy puts people into a very different mindset. Of course there are wealthy people who are cheapskates and can't escape the Depression mentality, and there are people of limited means who sort of think and act like rich people as much as they can, but for the most part there seems to be a wealth effect. When Lespinasse becomes your regular place for casual meals (yes, there are people for whom that's the case), you're in a completely different category of dining psychology.

In other words, if money isn't an issue for you, you may still object to a substandard meal at a very expensive restaurant on principle. But you are only objecting on principle. You're not objecting on the grounds that you just lost half a week's pay.

I've never been rich, but I've lived the dining lifestyle of a semi-rich person for many years, first as a lawyer on expense account and then as a food writer or whatever it is I am now (I still find it hard to explain to people what I do, which I guess is surf the Web all day and sometimes write stuff.) In that kind of situation, you develop a certain familiarity and comfort level with fine dining. And it demystifies the whole thing. You know that a restaurant, no matter how expensive, is just a restaurant.

That's my two cents as a middle class person who has had a glimpse of the lifestyles of the rich and famous -- though of course not a complete one.

Moving from New York to General now.

[macrosan]

OK Fat Guy, I'll take the quiz.

1) I think BeachFan has this right. The restaurant price is their statement of what we should expect, and is set relative to the dining market, not the wealth of an individual diner. So actually my expectation of them is a  mirror image of their stated expectation of themselves. Therefore, my position on demanding excellence would not change if I was filthy rich.

2) I have had two flawless meals out of two at Babbo. But I think flawless is too high a standard to set in a quiz, because flawless is too rare to provoke a meaningful response. I'd suggest unimpeachable. I've had 100% unimpeachable for more than 3 meals at maybe 5 or 6 high-class restaurants.

3) Again, I'm with BeachFan in saying that the customer can influence the restaurant, provided the waitstaff are good. In other words, by establishing a mutually respectful and constructive contact with the waitstaff, the customer can get better advice on what is good/bad today, better information on whether or not he will like a dish or a wine, the style of service he prefers, and maybe even get the chef to perform better. But to achieve this, the waitstaff really do have to be good !

4) This is my worst thing. I hate complaining face to face (not my general personality) although I love to write complaining letters. I know I have to get better at it, and I'm trying. But absolutely, a restaurant's response to a complaint (oral or written) is probably more important that their ability to avoid errors in the first place. Despite my earlier comment about aeroplanes, of course I accept that errors can be made, and these are often "cog in the wheel" errors which are not representative of the attitude of the establishment as a whole. The response to a complaint is always representative of the corporate policy. I will almost always forgive and forget a cause for complaint if the reponse is as classy as the number of stars. In this respect, I got a great response from Chez Bruce in London to an indirect criticism of a dish I had there (posted on eGullet) and will definitely return as a result. By contrast, an oral complaint, followed by a letter, to Smith & Wollensky produced a very bad response, so I will never go back.

5) Don't know how many great restaurants there might be anywhere. The word "great" grates on me as a defining adjective, and don't like the pigeon-holing process.

6) Well moved !

What's the prize for coming out top in this quiz?

[cabrales]

[1] If you had infinite money, would you care more, less, or the same as you do now about imperfections in an expensive restaurant meal?

[2] Have you ever had a restaurant meal you considered flawless in every regard? If so, has that experience ever been repeated consistently over time at a single establishment?

[3] Do you think the customer has the power, within the range of the restaurant's capabilities, to influence the outcome of a meal experience?

[4] If a restaurant messes up, do you complain? Do you forgive if your complaint is addressed to your satisfaction?

[5] How many truly great restaurants do you think there are in any given city, even in New York or Paris?

Below are my responses to Steven's questions:

[1] If I had infinite financial resources, I would care approximately the same about imperfections in the cuisine offered during an expensive restaurant meal. But I should caveat that by saying I see meaningful imperfections in most restaurant experiences, particularly with respect to the cuisine. Such imperfections generally do not ruin a meal for me; I expect them, and frequently find them.

I might be less careful (not care less, necessarily) in selecting wine at a restaurant (splurging on Montrachets and really old champagnes more). I would augment my already generous tipping at restaurants that are compelling to signal my appreciation.  :p

If I had fewer than my current level of resources, I would just limit my restaurant experiences to the extremely few restaurants I have identified as compelling. Now, that begs the question as to how, had I always had very limited resources, I would have ever been able to identify such restaurants in the first place. But, if I had the knowledge I have today, I would rather eat many meals modestly and a few exceptionally (at the "Chef of the Century" art level).  I hope the "decrease" scenario is a hypothetical one ;)  

[2] I have had many flawless restaurant meals, and all at the same restaurant. The experience has generally been repeated consistently, although not without a very few exceptions.  As I discussed in "Chef of the Century", for me, what is flawless is inherently a subjective question of match between a diner and a restaurant.

[3] A diner has considerable power to influence the outcome of a meal experience. For example, he can: (1) choose with whom to dine or to dine alone, (2) familiarize himself with the restaurant's specialty dishes so that he can give them special consideration, (3) choose dishes wisely (e.g., a la carte vs. tasting menu, precise dishes in the a la carte case), including with respect to the combination of dishes, (4) think about the meal both during and after it, drawing on other dining experiences to find meaning, humor, contrast, etc., and (5) choose how to interact with the restaurant's personnel.

[4] I generally do not complain to restaurants about poor cuisine, but I do factor the problematic situation into my overall assessment, over time, of the restaurant and make future dining decisions accordingly.

However, I do complain when (1) wine pouring has been slow after a glass has been depleted (how else would one obtain more wine to intake?), (2) a napkin has not been replaced (a necessary item), (3) an ingredient in a dish is clearly spoiled (I would return the dish and order an alternative), (4) I have had to wait more than 15 minutes from my reservation time to be seated (typically not a problem at a three-star restaurant, as there is only one service), (5) there is extreme overcooking (e.g., medium rare ordered and medium well delivered), or (6) amuse-bouches or pre-desserts available to all other diners have been forgotten (this occured at one of my visits to Georges Blanc). That the list of situations in which I would complain is much longer than indicated above probably means I am not a push-over, although it takes quite a lot for me to complain about the quality of food.  

Addressing a complaint to my satisfaction does not result in forgiveness; it results in avoidance of further docking of points for the alternative of not having addressed the complaint.

[5] For me, there are subjectively three compelling restaurants in the world and only one of them rises to the highest level of being devastatingly lyrical. I may well not locate even one more subjectively compelling restaurant in my lifetime. I am very happy with the current situation. (To be clear: compelling = "Chef of the Century" art experiences.)

Again subjectively, in New York, London or Yontville, there are very good restaurants (incl. Bouley, if he has regained his prior Duane Street form, Union Pacific and Gordon Ramsay), but there are no restaurants I would consider compelling.

[John Whiting]

I'm in the fortunate position of being a food writer, semi-retired, with no obligation to review a restaurant I don't want to. I'm also blessed with a palate which enjoys every kind of food there is (within reason), so long as it's properly prepared. And so when I go into a strange restaurant of which I expect good things I might show the waiter my press card and tell him to ask the chef what he would serve that night if he were going to be eating it himself. And I would make it very clear that I did not expect a free meal.

"Aha!" you say, "you've stacked the cards in your favor!" Yes indeed. But how much difference does that make? Merely revealing your identity will not transform a bad chef into a good one. And in asking him to choose the menu, you are challenging not only his competance but his taste. If I get a bad meal under such conditions, it can't be because I ordered the wrong dishes -- how can a chef not know what he does best? Sometimes the challenge might move a chef into ostentatious vulgarity; well, if he's that kind of a chef -- of a human being, in fact -- I want to know it. His restaurant is not for me. As for the service, if I am treated with fauning subservience and note that neighboring tables are being neglected, that's another revealing detail.

Shaun Hill has expressed much the same sentiments. He tells me that anonymity isn't important and that if he recognized a reviewer or inspector he would tell the senior staff but not the juniors -- they might very well get flustered and make a mess of things. As for himself, he'd just get on with it and pay attention.

Finally, one of the things I liked most about l'Astrance was that I was discreetly treated as though I were someone important -- and they were treating everyone else the same way!

[cabrales]

Finally, one of the things I liked most about l'Astrance was that I was discreetly treated as though I were someone important -- and they were treating everyone else the same way!

John Whiting -- I agree wholeheartedly on L'Astrance.  :p