Blue Hill (NYC)

[Bux]

Quite a ways back in this thread now, Yvonne said " I agree there is a feeling of some innovation. The "cautious" part hits the nail on the head, as some of the dishes are neither bold enough nor flavorful enough for me." What I find remarkable is that Blue Hill can stun me with a dish that is essentially very subtle. I hope this doesn't imply I am easy to please. I suspect not. For me it's the bold flavors that are too safe a path for young chefs. I'm left feeling that was good but too obvious to draw me in. Once again, different strokes for different folks. That's the inherent problem with the Zagat guides that give you an average score. I'd rather try the restaurant that really excites a few diners in the hope it's my kind of place.

That no one speaks up for the duck won't make it less of a choice for me, although I was glad to see Jaybee enjoyed it too. I think Steve Plotnicki is making a wonderful case for tasting menus in general, but even he must admit that not everyone will be pleased by putting themselves in the chef's hands. Some people have too many favorite foods or dislikes to allow themselves to enjoy whatever the chef feels like cooking and some diners just need the power inherent in ordering. Nevertheless when he says "People who do creative things for a living love catering to those who appreciate their craft. Whether it is a concert hall full of adoring fans, or a restaurant full of people who understand their cuisine, ..." he's on to something. I believe he quotes Robert Brown as calling that something connoissership. I think if one really loves and appreciates something, be it art, music, food, or even some small subset of food such as haute cuisine or hot peppers, one wants to put oneself in the hands of creator and be open for the experience. The chance of the great discovery is far more important that the possibility of a lesser experience as a general rule.

Back to Blue Hill and whether that will get you the better or best meal is still a question and the answer is always going to be partially dependant on what sort of diner you are. I like the flow of the tasting menus. I like the smaller size of each course and the greater number of different courses. I like the pace of the meal that results as well. I won't swear the individual dishes are necessarily better, but there are factors that indicate they might be. We're dealing with special dishes that reflect items that caught the chef's eye at the last minute and with dishes that may well be more creatively interesting to the cooks. It's a reasonable question to ask why aren't all the dishes on the menu special, but the answers are simple and many. It's a business. Restaurants need to have that dish that's going to appeal to the person who got dragged to the restaurant by his three foodie friends. They need to have that dish that return diners insist on seeing even though everyone in the kitchen is fed up with making it. In spite of that, and in spite of the fact that I almost always let Dan and Mike cook for me, I think I'd have no trouble with a random selection of well over half the items I've seen on any menu since I've been eating at Blue Hill.

Finally, when the waiter says Dan would like to cook for you, sometimes I get something special and sometimes I get the tasting menu as printed. As often as not, when I'm dining with friends I don't always know the extent of their interest in dinner and whether they will prefer a tasting menu or not. At one point my wife and I dined there regularly alone, but it's become my favorite place to introduce to friends lately.

[Bux]

... it is the responsibility of the chefs to design a menu that guides all diners toward full appreciation of the chef’s efforts.  In other words, as much responsibility as one can put on the shoulders of a connoisseur to strive for the best available experience, it is also the responsibility of the chefs to provide the best possible menu arrangement to achieve maximum appreciation.

If I was not clear in my previous post, I think the standard menu items on the everyday Blue Hill menu are among the best food served in NY.

No one argues that Blue Hill has potential and may serve an extraordinary meal on occasion or as a result of a special order; however, it has never been explicitly stated previously that all prior praise is irrelevant unless evaluated from a completely different perspective where the quality of the meal depends upon how well you know the chef or how well you can “shift the gears.” That is where the frustration of certain members comes from.

I have to say that my initial meals at Blue Hill were all three course dinners selected from the standard offerings of the day. My initial experiences were superb. Each meal made me eager to return and as a frugal man who doesn't like to spoil himself, (too much) I saw no reason to spend the extra $15 for the tasting menu. at some point, we were seduced by the tasting menus and more often than not enjoy an even better meal today, but there are few restaurants that offer what any of us can get off the menu at that price. You do not need to know anyone to eat well at Blue Hill, nor do you need to know anyone most nights to get what I get when I order the tasting menu. While I believe Steve Plotnicki knows how to get the best meal for himself out of most restaurants, it may not be the best meal for everyone, and if it is, he's happy to share the secret which should not be a secret to any experienced diner.

When I recommend Blue Hill to friends, it's never with a proviso that they make any special order and always with as much confidence as I've ever recommended any restaurant. There is however, no accounting for individual tastes.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Again, it's really simple. And I don't really have much of a point. And in spite of its sheer simplicity, there are doubters who need to go to the extent of bringing things like arrogance and people being super-tasters into the issue. Rubbish.

I've noticed I eat better when I let the chef choose my meal.

That's it in a handbasket. It really isn't a very controversial statement. Why it's the case, whether it's fair it's the case, the fact that you as a diner might not be able to communicate that properly, can everyone get the same treatment as everyone else, is it always better etc., who cares about any of that? I make no statement about political correctness, fairness, business practices or any other issue that is ancillary to the topic. In fact anyone who is more interested in discussing those issues rather then how to get themselves the best meal possible should be posting on eFairness.com instead of here. But if you are interested in improving the quality of your experience in a restaurant, you will either take the advice or you won't. It's no skin off my back if people order off the menu. More good stuff left for the people who obviously care about it more.

Bux - You have raised the not very politically-correct topic (albeit in a much more diplomatic way than I usually raise it ) of the level of experience among diners. Personally I believe that people who have a number of modern French bistro meals under their belt can approach BH in a way that is different than people who haven't had those meals. And it's not an issue of some people being more capable, it's just a matter of having had the meals to lay the foundation. I can taste the connection between the two when I go and to me that's a large part of why I like the place. And I can go to a similar place like a Fleur de Sel or Anissa and have a good meal but not experience that component during the meal. Yvonne also raised the issue of dishes being flavorful and I have to add to this that I try and eat at BH on market days. It's the same for Craft. I always try and go on Mondays or Wednesdays as much of the food will be fresher.

[Tonyfinch]

and some diners just need the power inherent in ordering.

I'm not sure what "power" has to do with it. Surely part of going to a restaurant is the sheer pleasure of dithering over and choosing what to eat. You may or may not get better food by forgoing that pleasure but a pleasure foregone it surely is.

[macrosan]

I find Macro and Tommy just not getting this concept. ... it's a more rewarding experience for them then cooking for a smartass from NJ and a middle aged business man from the U.K.

OK, this needs to be said once, and once only. For the guy who spends half his life on this board complaining about ad hominem attacks, such words are ill-judged. END

Steve, your problem is that you insist on turning every thread away from its author's intent, and often this board's wishes, and you attempt to redesign it for your own purposes. So now why don't you listen, and try to "get it" ?

This is a thread about Blue Hill, the restaurant, not about elitism in dining, or about Steve Plotnicki. The original purpose of this thread was to assist members of eGullet to decide whether or not they might wish to visit Blue Hill. Much of my contribution here is aimed at trying to determine whether Blue Hill (remember, Steve ? That's the subject title of this thread.) is, or is not, a fine dining establishment, and whether or not it serves good food to its customers. Now you Steve, clearly say you're not interested in discussing that question, so I suggest you reserve your patronizing comments about my contribution for another thread where they may (or may not) be relevant. So in this context, I reiterate my view that if SteveP were correct in his assertion that Blue Hill serves significantly inferior food to customers who order off the menu, then Blue Hill would not be a place for many people to try. To be absolutely clear, "inferior" means "below the standard to which the restaurant aspires". I also reiterate that I believe SteveP is wrong in his assertion.

That takes me on to the second point of issue. I have asked Steve twice for objective evidence that he is served significantly better food when he doesn't order off the menu, and he simply declines to do so. That is his prerogative, of course, but if he can't offer any more evidence than "I enjoyed it more" then he simply has no further contribution to make to this part of the debate.

I will therefore, for the time being, hold to my own view. This is that the "betterness" of the food is what some contributors here have referred to as the "total dining experience", in other words it is the knowledge in Steve's mind that he is receiving a privilege and an affirmation of his status as a connoisseur which gives him a warm feeling, and therefore greater enjoyment of his meal. Of course the food itself may be marginally "better" in some respects, such as a novel experiment by the chef, or use of a marginally fresher mushroom. Equally obviously, it might be marginally "worse" because an experiment doesn't work, or just because the chosen mushroom is not to Steve's taste. But at the end of the day, the food at Blue Hill is limited primarily by the skills of the chefs. I entirely accept that a chef can put that little extra magic into a meal when he is motivated by the respect of knowledgeable diners, and of course that may well produce a better meal, but the degree of "betterness" can only be marginal. Nothing wrong with that, and I would happily accept the benefit of that marginal improvement. That margin might even make the difference between and excellent meal and a great meal. But to suggest that it would make the difference between an excellent meal and a poor meal is nonsense, and an insult to a professionally motivated chef and to the restaurant.

The importance of this whole issue in the debate is that Steve is claiming that Blue Hill is a mediocre restaurant if you order off the menu, and an excellent restaurant if you ask the chef to take charge of your meal. (The adjectives may be inexact, but in principle that is what Steve has said). Now if Blue Hill repackaged itself to offer only tasting menus and "Chef's Choice" then that would be absolutely fine, and in fact a fascinating marketing and culinary concept. But right now they don't do that. As someone said earlier, if everyone who knew anyone started asking for Chef's Choice (which is what SteveP is advising everyone at eGullet to do) then pretty soon the whole place would collapse. Therefore I would expect that most people will want to judge Blue Hill on the basis of the food served off its menu, and on that basis Steve considers Blue Hill ordinary at best, so he agrees with me.

Briefly returning to the "overall dining experience", part of what I seek in that experience is what Tony referred to. I enjoy browsing the menu, testing my taste buds to see what kind of food I might like that evening. I also don't want a great chef to waste his superb scallop accompaniments on my dish, because I won't eat scallops. I don't want his fresh cepes if my last three meals had cepes, and I want to try something different. So of course I want some choice in my selection of what I am going to eat, and of course I'll be delighted to have suggestions from the chef or my server.

I will stress yet again that I have no objection to privilege, or resentment of those who obtain it by any ethical means (which does include use of money). I personally do not get a buzz from being treated in such a way, but I quite understand the attraction that some people have for it. What I can't tolerate is when people who are receiving these privileges sneer at those who aren't simply as a means of reinforcing their own status. I also will not be browbeaten into accepting misperceptions of reality in the style of the Emperor's clothes.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Macrosan - The fact is you are a middle aged businesman from the U.K. so I do not see what is ad hominem about that? It's the truth. Where is the attack there? But if you are wondering what the point of that is, it's to say, as opposed to someone who is a discerning diner. When I patronize a restaurant I prefer that they think of me as someone who understands food, rather then Steve the upper middle class guy from the UES of Manhattan throwing money around. Or the businessman on a trip who has to eat somewhere. I end up eating better.

You keep making this an issue of elitism but it is really an issue of expertise and knowledge. To insist that people with more expertise then you and with more knowledge then you have are "elite" is the bane of both the world of chat rooms and in general has done more to debase the quality of food then anything else. That argument is the personification of dumbing down restaurant dining. Everybody wants to eat well. But that means something different to people of different knowledge and expertise.

Whether you believe there are people out there with more expertise then you have, and whether you think I am one of them, is totally up to you. But if you were a clever fellow, you would realize you would eat better if you took my advice, or the advice that some of the others gave which is exactly the same as mine. But it appears you would rather be right then well fed. Well go ahead and be my guest because it is no skin off of my back. And those people who can benefit from my recommendations will.

As for what I have claimed, I will repeat it for the umpteenth time;

I have found that I eat better when I let the chef choose my meal

Otherwise please stop misquoting me on what I said. I haven't said you can't eat well off the menu and I haven't said that Blue Hill is mediocre when you order your own meal there. All I have said is that if you let them choose it's usually better then if you choose yourself. How much better is on a case by case basis.

Now as to your argument in general, it's bullshit on it's face. How can you reach the conclusions you have reached without getting chef's menus when you go out? Let's break it down. You don't order chef's menus, do not believe there is a difference yet you say;

I also will not be browbeaten into accepting misperceptions of reality in the style of the Emperor's clothes.

Well how did you reach that conclusion if you don't practice the art of chef's menu dining?

Edited December 2, 2002 by Steve Plotnicki (log)

[tommy]

Macrosan - The fact is you are a middle aged businesman from the U.K. so I do not see what is ad hominem about that? It's the truth. Where is the attack there?

i was quite hurt when you called me a "wiseass," if i may chime in here you chubby old bastard.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Gee and I thought I was going easy on you .

[snoop]

I have been following this post and I have to be honest. Steve P, you are a pompous ass. I have worked in many 3 and 4 star restaurants and found that on a busy night when somebody orders a special meal, the staff have an attitude of " who does this fuck think he is?!" Oh, the chef will of course have you believe that it is their honor and they will love nothing more than to prepare something special for you , but in the middle of service they look at you like more of a pain in the ass than anything else.

[tommy]

I have been following this post and I have to be honest. Steve P, you are a pompous ass. I have worked in many 3 and 4 star restaurants and found that on a busy night when somebody orders a special meal, the staff have an attitude of " who does this fuck think he is?!"  Oh, the chef will of course have you believe that it is their honor and they will love nothing more than to prepare something special for you , but in the middle of service they look at you like more of a pain in the ass than anything else.

i think plotz is saying that if they choose something from the menu, rather than something necessarily "special," that would be fine as well. it's just that the chef will know what is the best that night, and of course, serve it to plotz if he asks. (the last sentence is a study in fact vs. perception)

Edited December 2, 2002 by tommy (log)

[g.johnson]

I have worked in many 3 and 4 star restaurants and found that on a busy night when somebody orders a special meal, the staff have an attitude of " who does this fuck think he is?!"

Any, ahem, 'special' ingredients added as a result?

[Steve Plotnicki]

Snoop - In your desire to be critical, you are accusing me of doing something that I don't ever do nor have I recommended anyone else do which is order a special meal. All I have said that I do, and have recommended for others to do as well, is to let the kitchen choose the meal. As Tommy said, they might choose something off the printed menu. But they might choose something which isn't listed on the menu. But maybe you are just not paying attention. I guess you're not a very good Snoop are you?

Edited December 2, 2002 by Steve Plotnicki (log)

[Jinmyo]

Hi,

12 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 2 Anonymous Users)

9 Members: Jinmyo (me), Nickn, Steve Plotnicki, Scottf, Bux, Blue Heron, Jason Perlow, Charles Smith, AdamLawrence

I was just hanging around waiting for Steve's reply.

[cabrales]

The dishes on the menu at Blue Hill tend to all utilize quality ingredients. The menu is, sometimes at least, changed daily to reflect availability, and Chefs Barber and Anthony are very vigilant about the quality of their produce.

[Bux]

I have been following this post and I have to be honest. Steve P, you are a pompous ass. I have worked in many 3 and 4 star restaurants and found that on a busy night when somebody orders a special meal, the staff have an attitude of " who does this fuck think he is?!"  Oh, the chef will of course have you believe that it is their honor and they will love nothing more than to prepare something special for you , but in the middle of service they look at you like more of a pain in the ass than anything else.

I know you were not speaking to me and I certainly don't speak for Steve P., but I think it's worth mentioning in context here that when I order a "special" meal it's always at the invitation of the chef. While I don't speak for Steve P., who may come across as "pompass," I suspect "special" and "chef's choice of tasting menu" are being loosely interchanged in this thread. Without going back to verify my impression, it is that Steve suggested the standard tasting menu is the way to go and that if the waiter at Blue Hill says "The chef would like to cook for you," he suggests the diner should accept the offer.

[Bux]

and some diners just need the power inherent in ordering.

I'm not sure what "power" has to do with it. Surely part of going to a restaurant is the sheer pleasure of dithering over and choosing what to eat. You may or may not get better food by forgoing that pleasure but a pleasure foregone it surely is.

I'm not disparaging those who enjoy perusing a menu. I often ask to see the printed "carte" even when I know I'm taking a surprise tasting menu in a restaurant. Nevertheless, for many diners, there is a need to order in the sense of telling someone what to do. The NY Times had an interesting article on this a while back. At one end of the scale are those who just can't relinquish the decision of choosing the dishes. At the other end are those who need to control well beyond asking for sauce on the side and who often return items just for the pleasure of making people jump. At the reasonable end, are many eGullet members who have expressed their interests in choosing their dishes for one reason or another.

[Bux]

Again, it's really simple....

I've noticed I eat better when I let the chef choose my meal.

That's it in a handbasket. It really isn't a very controversial statement ...

and probably one best posted without all the baggage.

Bux - You have raised the not very politically-correct topic (albeit in a much more diplomatic way than I usually raise it  )

I thought that was your job here, to make us look good, or at least diplomatic.

of the level of experience among diners. Personally I believe that people who have a number of modern French bistro meals under their belt can approach BH in a way that is different than people who haven't had those meals. And it's not an issue of some people being more capable, it's just a matter of having had the meals to lay the foundation. I can taste the connection between the two when I go and to me that's a large part of why I like the place. And I can go to a similar place like a Fleur de Sel or Anissa and have a good meal but not experience that component during the meal.  Yvonne also raised the issue of dishes being flavorful and I have to add to this that I try and eat at BH on market days. It's the same for Craft. I always try and go on Mondays or Wednesdays as much of the food will be fresher.

When this is expressed as a "different" foundation rather than as a "better" foundation, I think it may be easier for others to understand and appreciate. In terms of market freshness, although I see both Dan and Mike at Union Square on market days, they also get delivery at the restaurant from some of the same purveyors as well as from their own Blue Hill farm and other select suppliers. The diffference might be that at the Greenmarket, they might run across an unexpected item of unexpected quality and then feature it on the daily tasting menu, but some of the items I've had that were not on the printed tasting menus were probably not sourced at the Greenmarket and were foods that they were testing for potential new recipies. I think most diners would be just as happy not to be served the sort of "special" that was a dish still making test runs. I'm happy to be a guinea pig of that sort and I suspect Dan knows who among his regular clientele can be trusted to give an honest evaluation and not be offended if it doesn't work. I had a great piece of pork belly there once and fortunately arrived in the company of another couple whose range of tastes included that sort of food. I've not seen this dish on the printed menu, and wonder if the restaurant has a broad enough clientele to warrant pork belly being offered.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Without going back to verify my impression, it is that Steve suggested the standard tasting menu is the way to go and that if the waiter at Blue Hill says "The chef would like to cook for you," he suggests the diner should accept the offer.

Actually I suggested something more than that. I suggested that people say they have read about the chef's menu meals on eGullet (meaning ones written about by people like you, me, Cabby etc.) and ask the restaurant if they would be kind enough to prepare them a meal in the same manner. That advice given on my part resulted in a tirade about special treatment, accusations of arrogance, criticism that I am imagining the meals are better then they really are, and half a dozen other remarks that have nothing to do with my suggestion. Me on the other hand, I should only wish that when I am going to a new place, or a place where I've had less then the best experience in the past, someone who knows the ropes gives me good advice about what to do.

Sometimes the nincompoopery around here astounds me.

[cabrales]

Perhaps the discussion could be continued in a separate thread, so as not to conflate any issues members might want to address with the wonderful experiences at Blue Hill described in this thread.

I have confidence in the wonderful and integrity-imbued manner in which BH is run.

Edited December 2, 2002 by cabrales (log)

[marcus]

I am sceptical that Blue Hill really produces such variable levels of quality based on tasting menu versus carte and patrons that are known or appeal to the chef versus those that simply sit down and order. This is rather insulting to a restaurant that I believe is quite serious. I think that the real difference is in the flavor profile that they seek to produce, clear, restrained, low impact, that appeals very differently to different diners. As I've posted elsewhere, I for one, based on a single meal, but as part of a large table with many dishes ordered, did not particularly like Blue Hill with the exception of the poached duck, which to me tasted very much of duck. Overall, I found the food boring. However, I think that it is more productive to analyze this restaurant on its own terms rather than superimposing anecdotal and extraneous considerations.

[Steve Plotnicki]

I am sceptical that Blue Hill really produces such variable levels of quality based on tasting menu versus carte and patrons that are known or appeal to the chef versus those that simply sit down and order.

This is just one more extraneous inference from my original point. I don't think anyone has suggested this. However I must repeat what I did say which was;

I've found that my meals are better when I let the chefs choose

We can all speculate as to the reasons why that might be the case. But it has happened to me enough times that I can rely on that being good advice. And I am saying that as a general statement, not just about BH.

[marcus]

I'm not quite on that point. I believe that Blue Hill more than most restaurants has produced a divergent rather than convergent set of opinions as to the merits of its cuisine. I'm suggesting that it is not because of how the diner may proactively approach a restaurant, which I agree with Lizziee and Steve P can have an effect, although in my view this has been somewhat overstated, but that Blue Hill in particular has a style that particularly provokes a wide variation in response, even from very knowledgeable diners. This goes to personal taste rather than right and wrong.

[cabrales]

marcus -- My general sense from reviewing the reported meal experiences is that they conclude the cuisine at Blue Hill is at least good. The difference in assessment arises in the exact level of deliciousness subjectively experienced by different members, with myself and certain other members placing it at a very high level of attractiveness relative to other NY restaurants.

[g.johnson]

Just anecdotal, but our experience is similar to Plotnicki’s. Of our three meals at Blue Hill, the one where the chef chose for us was markedly better than the other two. Is this because the food is somewhat unusual* leaving your ability to predict what you’re likely to enjoy compromised?

[marcus]

cabrales -- I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "at least good", but I don't think that good is a very high standard. In fact, there have been a number of posts that were less than good. You and Bux are the biggest fans of Blue Hill, and If your posts were removed from this thread it would have a very different orientation, with views all over the place. In a quick review I find that Simon Majumdar, Mao, Macrosan, ajay, Tommy, Yvonne Johnson and myself do not appear to be fans at all. I'm not sure about Wilfrid and La Nina, who are probably a bit more positive or inconclusive. There are certainly others who really like it. My point, however, was that there is an unusually wide variety of opinions, which I still believe. My question was whether this style of cooking particularly led to this wider than normal diversity of opinions.