The difference between London and Paris

[shilly]

Next year, I finally get to go to Paris for the first time--although we'll only be there from Saturday lunchtime to Sunday evening. I'd really like to go for a great meal when I'm there and I wondered if anyone has advice on where we should consider going for a (posh rather than bistro) meal that will show the difference in approach, style and service between top restaurants in London and top restaurants in Paris. I know that restaurants are individual places, but what I'm wondering is "where should I go for a meal that I couldn't have in London?"

At the moment, I'm tending towards the idea of Lucas Carton, for the setting, for the food-wine matching and for the service. But you may (will?) have other ideas....

Thanks in advance for any ideas

Steve

[Schneier]

What a fastinating question.

Go to the Connaught in London.

Go to Arpege in Paris.

Bring a very big wallet to both.

Bruce

[marcus]

we'll only be there from Saturday lunchtime to Sunday evening.

You actually will have very few choices, most high style restaurants in Paris are open Monday through Friday only. Ambroisie is open Saturday for lunch and dinner and is probably your best shot, dinner reservations can be very difficult, lunch much less so. Pierre Gagnaire is open Sunday for dinner only.

[menton1]

Arpège is closed on weekends; In the top echelon, as Marcus has indicated, your only choices on Sat night are L.Carton, Guy Savoy, or L'Ambroisie. P.Gagnaire is it on Sunday--

I think in this top category, you won't see dramatic differences from Paris to London, especially if you frequent Gordon Ramsay or Le Gavroche. I think the real difference would be on the next tier down, where Paris would literally blow away its counterpart for mid-level great meals.

Edited December 19, 2003 by menton1 (log)

[marcus]

Many would view Lucas Carton as somewhat over the hill. Even some of those who continue to like it, don't view it objectively as one of the best. A stagiere posting on eGullet commented that Senderens only appears in the restaurant once every three or four weeks. Whether GR and Gavroche compare to the best in Paris is the interesting question, and there have differing viewpoints, to my perception, most thinking not.

[Schneier]

I don't think that Le Gavroche is on par with the best Parasene restaurants.

Bruce

[degusto]

There is no restaurant in London that compares with the top three Parisian dining roms in my opinion: Arpege, Ambroisie and Pierre Gaganaire. Admittedly, I have not been to Sketch in London and not to Ledoyen in Paris.

Prices at Arpege are extortionate, together with Veyrat, Passard must have the world record in wine-price mark-ups.

I would go to Ambroisie. Pacaud may be the last great chef actually cooking. He serves the most perfect ingredients available, cooked to perfection, served in a royal setting on the most beautiful square in Paris. The bread sucks and the wine glasses are not what one would like to drink wine in. If you like Burgundies there are real bargains from the 90-vintage to be found at Ambroisie. Just beware, there is no lunch menu at Ambroisie.

As for Gagnaire, I would like to point out what vmilor so rightly said about Gagnaire. It is not about creativity. It is about bledning different styles and tastes like they did during the baroque-era. Think about this if you go there and you may appreciate his cuisine even more.

Edited December 20, 2003 by Jellybean (log)

[Scott]

I don't think that Le Gavroche is on par with the best Parasene restaurants.

Bruce

disagree

[shilly]

Thanks for the advice, everyone. I have now booked a table but am considering changing it. I have booked at Lucas Carton, hoping that:

a) the service would be noticeably different (although not necessarily better) than posh British service -- perhaps more specialisation of roles, more forthright advice?

b) the setting would be quite different from any top British restaurant (Art Noveau, a feeling of old-fashioned luxury, etc etc)

c) the dedication to food and wine pairing would be as interesting and exciting an approach as it appears to be -- although I don't know how much you have to pay to appreciate it properly but I have a feeling it might be more than I can afford.

Hearing that Senderens doesn't often cook there is a bit disappointing, as is hearing that it might be over the hill. I was hoping for something reliably fabulous! The month-to-the-day booking system for L'Ambroisie isn't very appealing, and I can't find a website for it (call me old-fashioned, but I do think a top restaurant should have a decent website to whet the appetite and give fair warning of damage to the bank balance...)

Thanks again

Steve

[Pan]

Is it realistic to expect the Chef to cook your meal at a high-end restaurant? Why don't you trust the people he hired to execute his cuisine? Isn't that what being a chef at that level is all about?

[menton1]

Is it realistic to expect the Chef to cook your meal at a high-end restaurant? Why don't you trust the people he hired to execute his cuisine? Isn't that what being a chef at that level is all about?

Sure-- Alain Ducasse wearing a tocque? Only for a TV interview!!

[Bux]

Hearing that Senderens doesn't often cook there is a bit disappointing, as is hearing that it might be over the hill.

There may be a connection between the two, but it's not necessarily a given that the founding/executive/titular chef has to be there for the food to be as good as it ever gets. Hearing that a restaurant is over the hill is far worse, in my mind, than hearing that the chef is not in the kitchen.

I was hoping for something reliably fabulous! The month-to-the-day booking system for L'Ambroisie isn't very appealing, and I can't find a website for it (call me old-fashioned, but I do think a top restaurant should have a decent website to whet the appetite and give fair warning of damage to the bank balance...)

The old fashioned need for a web site. It's good to see old fashioned ways defended.

Actually, I think not having a web site these days is a failing for any company that deals with a public and it's just as great a pity when a restaurant's web site is not as communicative as it should be. When I see how many restaurant web sites have three year old menus and prices online, I no longer regret others not having a web site at all. In France at least, the Guide Michelin, as well as other guides, will give you a fair idea of the pricing. In many cases, it's the wine list that will offer the shock anyway.

[shilly]

I agree that having the titular chef still cooking doesn't guarantee that the food will be any better than it otherwise would. But I must say that I do feel a bit cheated if a star chef's contribution to a restaurant is no more than a name and a brigade cooking in the appropriate style. If I'm being asked to fork out a lot of money, I like to think that there's a chance that the kitchen, if not the food itself, will that night have received the personal attention of The Great Chef.

I also agree that there's no point in having a poor website. But if a meal will cost me hundreds of pounds, I'd like to be able to get as much as possible out of the experience, which includes being able to find out about the types of food and wine that are served and the relative prices.

For instance, the guides quote prices of about 200 euros per head for dinner at Lucas Carton. But they also warn that wine can make a huge difference -- and wine/food pairing is something that Lucas Carton is known for. I don't want to go if the cost of getting wine that does justice to the food is going to be out of my reach. So I was disappointed not to find indicative prices for food or wine on its website (although there's several menus). Of course, my next option is to contact the restaurant and ask them... but it does seem a leetle bit OTT to do that!

[Pan]

I agree that having the titular chef still cooking doesn't guarantee that the food will be any better than it otherwise would. But I must say that I do feel a bit cheated if a star chef's contribution to a restaurant is no more than a name and a brigade cooking in the appropriate style.

My question would be "Why?" If the chef has picked people who do a superb job and made sure that they do a superb job, why does it matter whether he's there on a particular night or not? Do you mean to tell me that if you had a fabulous meal and then found out the Chef de Cuisine was not there, you'd feel cheated? Frankly, I'd be a lot more concerned if all the line chefs didn't show, which is something that happened one evening when I went to Michel Vignaud in Chablis.

[marcus]

The month-to-the-day booking system for L'Ambroisie isn't very appealing, and I can't find a website for it (call me old-fashioned, but I do think a top restaurant should have a decent website to whet the appetite and give fair warning of damage to the bank balance...)

In my experience, a non-French, not known person without a connection cannot get an advance dinner reservation to Ambroisie. On the other hand, lunch reservations are not difficult at all. Before my recent trip to Paris, I tried them more than a month in advance, was told to call back, a month in advance which I did, all booked, and I then asked about the next day, a month plus a day, this was most telling, all booked as well. Their advice was to call back a day or two before I wanted to go. I don't believe that the restaurant was booked, and I do believe that many people do get in by calling at the last minute, but it is hit or miss.

There is lots of information around, including this site, regarding Ambroisie's carte and pricing, so this shouldn't be a problem. It should be no more expensive than Lucas Carton, even very slightly less, and is reputed to be much better by virtually all of the credible reports that I've seen.

[Louisa Chu]

marcus, well sure you can - I'm going next Saturday with someone who falls into all those categories. Here's the thing with 3-mac French restaurants - there's no conspiracy to keep anyone out - it's just a matter of constantly fluctuating factors. If a restaurant says call back in a month - don't - call back the next day - and the next and the next and the next if necessary.

Pan, just a matter of semantics, but a Chef de Cuisine should always be there - a chef/propriataire or exec chef not necessarily. Do tell - what happened in Chablis!

shilly, is it your belief that a star chef - or even chef de cuisine or even sous-chef for that matter - cooks in the kitchen? Cooks cook - chefs usually cook. But in a three-mac Paris restaurant, one of the chefs will have a look and touch over every single piece of food that goes out of the kitchen - from the butter to the foie gras to the St. Jacques to the Homard de Breton to the Volaille de Bresse - even the toast - everything. As for websites - it's a cultural difference - the cultures being France and the restaurants - websites are new - most of the top cooks I know do not even have email addresses.

Edited January 2, 2004 by loufood (log)

[Pan]

Thanks for the correction, Louisa.

Here's the tale of two meals for you:

Michel Vignaud in Chablis

[Louisa Chu]

Thanks Pan for the link. That's so bizarre. I mean I know some restaurants have a really small staff - but to have no cooks?! Is that like having an orchestra but only the conductor shows up?

[Pan]

More like the conductor, and maybe the concertmaster and assistant concertmaster, but otherwise nobody but ringers in the orchestra, no regulars.

[degusto]

Will it be better if the owner chef is cooking or not? I don’t necessarily think so, but considering the prices at these places it does give a better dining experience knowing that every dish that comes out of the kitchen is looked after and approved by the person who has earned the stars and reached that mythic level.

But is it necessarily better food on that type of restaurant? No I do not think so. But in the case of Ambroisie it is for several reasons. First of all one has to understand that the history of this restaurant and its owner is a very romantic tale. Pacaud has a very different background. He grew up in an orphanage and came to Mere Brazier and must have been one of the last that passed through her kitchens. He was then second at Vivarois during its glory days during the seventies. He always dreamed of opening his own restaurant and has said that all he ever wanted was to have a kitchen and a dining room. So his first restaurant venture was a very small restaurant with a 16 sqm kitchen and very small 20 seat dining room or so. I was never there but I have seen pictures of it and to put it kindly, it looked extremely modest. At this his first restaurant he gained one star the first year and the second star the second year. That is something for all those who say that Michelin is only interested in carpets and the design. He then moved on a few years later to the current premises located on place Vosges in 86/87 and gained the third star almost immediately after. He keeps a very low profile and has always been considered the least known great chef in France. His restaurant is the smallest three star with only thirteen tables or so and it seats less than 40 people most servings. The size of the place plus a fairly large sized customer base of loyal customers explain the difficulties to get a table there.

As loufood correctly point out three star cooking or three-mac cooking (I suppose loufood refers to macarons) is all about details. A few minor flaws in some details will not go unnoticed by a very experienced eater or someone used to the cooking at a certain restaurant. Someone who feels the responsibility and an enormous commitment to perfection, normally the chef de cuisine, must check and cross check everything that comes in as delivery, that is cooked and that it is perfectly presented on clean plates before it leaves the kitchen. It is certainly not necessary that the owner is present at all times or the one who does all this. This has been proven by Ducasse’s restaurants and elsewhere. However, the difference is that at Ambroise it is Pacaud who is the chef de cuisine and he is that because it is his life and all that he ever dreamed of. I know of no place where the margin for error is so low as at Ambroisie. So Pacaud does the quality checks himself and if he is not happy he will call the supplier and tell him something nasty and threaten to change supplier if it happens again. Piege or Cerrutti employeed by Ducasse may do the same but their level of tolerance may for obvious reasons – at least at times - be below, if only just very very slightly, that of Pacaud – who just does what he always dreamed of doing and who owns the place - and the supplier may take them less seriously – if just very very slightly - than when Pacaud calls.

Also, the motivation and margin for error within the team in the kitchen, because the owner/chef is there all the time, must obviously be different than if he is someone that shows up every two weeks or so and just walk around in the kitchen for a few minutes to get a bit of foie gras and truffles. Think about it. Who wouldn’t prefer to be able to work every day with someone like Pacaud that has an almost mythic legendary status and who can transfer his own knowledge and the knowledge from places like Brazier and Peyrot that were legends in their time instead of working for someone who the owner or the executive chef might regard as just a - with some difficulties - replaceable employee regardless how much talent and knowledge they possess.

So the low margin for error at Ambroisie is a result of all those factors. This is one reason why many find this dining experience to be extra. With the royal decor you feel like a king for a few hours.

I think that Ambroisie is perhaps the most consistent top notch dining experience not only in Paris. But of course dining is a very complicated issue. It always depends what one looks for. If you want to feel the adrenalin in the kitchen then one should perhaps go to Gagnaire, but there one may end up being disappointed at least over a few dishes, or if you want ingenious simple yet modern taste combinations then one should maybe go to Arpege, where one may go bankrupt at least if one needs to drink well.

To Loufood: Look at the attention to details at Ambroisie. For instance, try the madeleines. As much as I like the madeleines that are served at Ducasse’s restaurants I think they are well behind those at Ambroisie. They are small, with a very crusty exterior and soft inside with a very nice subtle taste. They are just so obviously perfect. It is things like that that make Ambroisie. Also for dessert you should try the tarte sablée au chocolat. It is quite different to what it sounds to be. It is a very light, not warm, fluffy cake made with a sabayon-like filling that when cooked becomes like a soufflé but without the slightly rubber-like texture that egg whites create.

[Louisa Chu]

Pan, thanks very much for the orchestral clarification!

Jellybean, thank you for the touching history on Pacaud. And yes, trois macs - three macarons - as Michelin awards macarons not stars. I'm not going to get into the comparisons amongst Messieurs Cerrutti and Piege - and now M. Moret - versus M. Pacaud - but chez Ducasse is chez Ducasse - it is very different than any of the other three-stars. And no one - but no one - takes a call from M. Piege as anything but heart-attack serious. As for the mythic, legendary, status stuff - it's just really not that way in the kitchen. We have great respect - and sometimes fear - of the great chefs - but at this level we cooks also bring with us our own sick, obsessive-compulsive, insane, perfectionist, narcissistic tendencies. Madeleines - I have no basis of comparison since we haven't served them this past season. But yes, the details at Ambroisie - trust me, I'm all about the details.

[Bux]

And yes, trois macs - three macarons - as Michelin awards macarons not stars.

The Michelin refers to them as les étoiles although they are popularly referred to as macarons and sometimes even as rosettes. I will assume from Louisa's comments that macarons, now shortened to "macs" is how professionals in Paris refer to them these days. I'd personally be shy about referring to them as "macs" in front of a French chef. With my accent, I'm afraid they may think I was looking for the nearest McDo.

[shilly]

Hi there

Too many replies to discuss them all, but a number of people have picked up on my point about the importance or otherwise of a titular chef's presence to the experience.

I understand that it is arguable that a top-flight kitchen can function at its peak whether or not the head chef is there -- on any given night.

I find it more difficult to understand that the same would be true for a top-flight kitchen where the head chef is never there. I mean, isn't the whole point--in fact the definition--of a great head chef that they can make a difference to the quality of what comes out of the kitchen doors? I cannot see that this is possible if they are never in the kitchen, and the sum total of their contribution to the experience is a name and some ideas.

Perhaps, again, I'm being old fashioned--I think of chefs as being chefs, first and foremost--not menu consultants.