Manresa Restaurant, Los Gatos

[tupac17616]

The grass is always greener and all that.

Now I'm jealous that I've never had that uni/coconut milk/crab gratin, snekse!

[snekse]

Wow...that's interesting.  Were you given a reason when you brought it to their attention?  Perhaps they ran out? (just guessing)

←

We were not given a reason, but as I mentioned *way* back up thread, I think our server was new to waiting tables or something because our service was lacking in a lot of ways, though it didn't really take away from our enjoyment of the meal.

The grass is always greener and all that.

Now I'm jealous that I've never had that uni/coconut milk/crab gratin, snekse! 

Don't get me wrong - our meal was great without it - I just wish I would have been able to try it. That said, I'm not sure which dish I would have replaced in it's spot, so it's probably just as well. So I look forward to seeing new pics from Manresa with twisted emotions

[MaxH]

... Definitely the tasting is the way to go.  And if it's your first visit, I'd recommend the grand tasting.  Give Chef Kinch the best chance to blow you away.

Once again, Tupac's advice is thoughtful and experienced.

Just in case it's not obvious, here's a related tip. (This really applies to any restaurant where you want to see what the kitchen is capable of, and it is part of a general principle.*) If at all possible, go there on an uncrowded night. Avoid Friday or Saturday (when everyone eats out in the region if they only eat out one night a week). Call and discuss bookings with a live person, who will be happy to advise you about the less-crowded times. Especially for the "grand tasting" option -- where the kitchen goes all-out and sends out more courses, experimental courses, items in short supply, etc. -- they've been up to literally dozens of courses, up to four to six hours long in my several experiences, and some people have reported them here I think -- for a comparatively modest increment over the regular "tasting menu" price. It's a labor of love by the kitchen, and for all I know they lose money at it. This option is aimed at gastronomes, not picky eaters (and of course needs to be done for the whole table together). Discuss this option with a live person when making reservations because (as of my last information) the kitchen can't do too many GTs in one night, and it's very helpful for them to have a commitment in advance which they'll reciprocate, and (not to belabor this, but) it's really not something to ask for on a night when the place is booked up solid.

FWIW -- Max

* Popularly articulated in US by Jim Quinn a generation ago, in a series of articles culminating in the book But Never Eat Out on a Saturday Night.

[dagordon]

We just got back from our first meal at Manresa, and were extremely dissapointed. I'm not sure I can recall ever having spent so much on a meal and having been so unhappy with it.

We had the tasting, and the "premium" (or something like that) wine pairing, for $160 additional.

Petit fours "red pepper-black olive"

Sweet corn croquettes

Golden beggar's purses

Melon soup confit, almond tofu

Summer squash and foie gras royale

Arpege farm egg

Melon soup was delicious. I expected more of a punch from the beggar's purses (some kind of roe, quail egg); they were surprisingly subdued. The foie gras royale was oustanding. The Arpege egg was about the same as my crude attempts at replicating the Arpege egg before having actually had it; it lacked the elegance and refinement of the real thing, and my yolk was overcooked.

It was also slightly perturbing that it wasn't billed as an "Arpege" egg when it was presented (though it does say this on the menu we got at the end of the meal).

Marinated shellfish with golden raspberries, fragrant green curry oil

I thought the green curry oil overwhelmed the delicate fish.

Horse mackerel with ginger, seaweed ice and lemon flavored herbs

Pumkin veloute "petit rouge", nasturtium ice cream

unremarkable

Info the vegetable garden

Not Arpege. The quality of the vegetables just wasn't there, and the magic of the dish at Arpege was completely lost. It was a mediocre plate of veggies.

Roast monkfish in a young garlic boullion, seaweed persillade

The monkfish itself was a bit tough, and as with most monkfish had virtually no flavor.

Pheasant with morels, braised garden greens and tart morello cherry

Both of our pieces of pheasant had significant parts that were inedible (cartilage perhaps?), and the pheasant itself was fairly tasteless.

Roast beef bavette and garden vegetable roots with horseradish

The beef was borderline offensive; it tasted like a piece of USDA Select sirloin. Tough, no apparent marbling, and not much flavor. I took one bit and left the rest.

Olive oil ice cream with sea sald, carnaroli rice with cherries

Tasty, though Batali's olive oil gelato is way better.

Sheep's milk yogurt mousse with nectarine, coriander

We were confused as to what exactly this was doing as a dessert course, as there really wasn't any sweetness, and there wasn't a particular need for a kind of palate cleanser after the previous dish.

Blackberries and bitter chocolate, caramel popcorn croustillant

This was truly delicious (there was a popcorn milk that was amazing).

The wines were a big disappointment, especially for the price. Part of me wonders whether we were given the non-premium pairing by accident (though we were charged for the premium one), as if this was the premium pairing, I shudder to think what the non-premium one is like...

An unremarkable Albarino, an oak monster CA sauv blanc and semillon blend, an unremarkable white Burgundy, and maybe the single most unimpressive Barolo I've ever tasted (thin, really restrained fruit, truncated finish). Though there was a nice Lucien Boillot 2004 Pommard burgundy.

The pacing of the meal seemed to get slower and slower as the night wore on, which started to take its toll on us.

Even apart from the price this was an uneven but mostly unimpressive meal; but factoring in the price, well, the quality of the food and wine wasn't even in the same ballpark as similarly priced meals we've had elsewhere.

[sygyzy]

I visited SF last weekend for a food tour. Chez Panisse, Manresa, Ubuntu, and Ame.

The focus was of course Manresa. Do you know what it's like when everyone you respect has been pumping up a place and you finally experience it and it costs so much that you don't really want to admit it wasn't the most glorious experience of your life?

Yeah, that was Manresa for me.

The food was good with half good dishes, a third forgettable dishes and the rest I just didn't like. The real problem was the service. It felt completely unpolished.

Some examples:

- We had three people in our party. Myself, my friend, and a (female) friend. For every course, they would put down her plate, then the server would walk away. 10 seconds later two servers came to coordinate putting down my and my male friend's plate. What is this all about? They couldn't find a third server?

- The meal took 4.5 hours. This does not bother me except for the fact that the wait between dishes was extraordinarily long and uneven.

- We were the last ones out and there were literally 3-4 employees just walking around us just hanging out, waiting for us to leave. Some were cleaning the glasses around us. Why is this necessary?

- We were not offered coffee or tea. We had to ask and when we did, they kindly obliged.

- We were not offered or told about the cheese supplement. Again, we had to request it.

- I had the extended and I thought that since it was not a published daily prix fixe, I should take notes. Within 5 seconds, the server rushed to me and told me to stop and that menus would be provided. That's great, saves me time. But it was embarrassing and made the next few minutes awkward.

- Too many different faces. At certain points the maitre'd removed our plates or served our plates. We saw too many different faces. It's like whoever was around would serve.

- The wine recommended was terrible. Though I guess that's personal preference.

- Never asked how any of the dishes were.

I felt like a second class citizen there.

On a positive note, stand out dishes:

- Red pepper-black olive petit fours

- Arpege farm egg

- Foie gras, gently roasted, beignets of picked cherry, licorice

- Potimarron pumpkin soup, nasturtium ice cream

- Abalone in brown butter with braised pig's trotters, avocado

Deserts were very forgettable.

[ulterior epicure]

I visited SF last weekend for a food tour. Chez Panisse, Manresa, Ubuntu, and Ame.

I've been to all but Ubuntu. I'm anxious to hear which one was your favorite. I'm pretty sure that this post allows me to eliminate one of them.

The food was good with half good dishes, a third forgettable dishes and the rest I just didn't like.

I'm sorry to hear that, from a food standpoint, your meal didn't live up to your expectations. Certainly, even I, a big fan of Kinch and his cooking admit that there were some dishes that I preferred over others. Thankfully, I can't claim any that I just simply didn't like. What impressed me the most about Kinch's cooking is that his best dishes (for me) were so phenomenally good that they helped blind me to a lot of others that were just good/so-so. Of course, you and I have only been once each, so there is room for error, and certainly room for personal preference.

The real problem was the service. It felt completely unpolished.

If you find my original post about Manresa, you'll see that service was the weakest part of my Manresa experience. Specifically:

- Too many different faces. At certain points the maitre'd removed our plates or served our plates. We saw too many different faces. It's like whoever was around would serve.

There was also a lot of confusion among the waitstaff as to what was being served. It didn't seem like anyone knew what was on my plate sometimes. If it wasn't a matter of me happening in on "the new crew," I had hoped that they would resolve this.

- I had the extended and I thought that since it was not a published daily prix fixe, I should take notes. Within 5 seconds, the server rushed to me and told me to stop and that menus would be provided. That's great, saves me time. But it was embarrassing and made the next few minutes awkward.

I'm not sure how the server told you to "stop," but this sounds like a perfectly polite and normal thing for a server to offer.

I felt like a second class citizen there.

Second to whom? Did you notice others being better served than you/your party?

[tupac17616]

[...] extremely dissapointed [...] unhappy [...] surprisingly subdued [...] lacked the elegance and refinement of the real thing [...] overcooked [...] perturbing [...] overwhelmed [...] unremarkable [...] Not Arpege [...] mediocre [...] tough [...] virtually no flavor [...] inedible [...] fairly tasteless [...] borderline offensive [...] big disappointment, especially for the price [...] maybe the single most unimpressive Barolo I've ever tasted [...] an uneven but mostly unimpressive meal [...] the quality of the food and wine wasn't even in the same ballpark as similarly priced meals we've had elsewhere.

[...] it costs so much that you don't really want to admit it wasn't the most glorious experience of your life [...] half good dishes, a third forgettable dishes and the rest I just didn't like [...] completely unpolished [...] wait between dishes was extraordinarily long and uneven [...]  embarrassing [...] awkward [...] Too many different faces [...] wine recommended was terrible [...] I felt like a second class citizen there. [...] Desserts were very forgettable.

Yikes. Two pretty bad reports in a row.

I agree with you both and with u.e. that the staff often feels like the "new crew". I've been 6 or 7 times over the past couple of years, which might not be often enough to make any judgments on that being "the usual", so to speak, but I think many of the servers over my visits have seemed just plain uncomfortable. Normally I'm too focused on my plate to pay much attention to that, but it's impossible to ignore completely. Nor should one even have to at a restaurant of this level.

That said, Kinch's food sings to me in a beautiful way. I think he is one of the most talented chefs on the planet, and Manresa is my favorite restaurant, bar none. While Passard is clearly a very heavy influence on Kinch's cooking and indeed his mentor, I don't think Kinch or anyone else involved with the restaurant intends Manresa to be a CA branch of l'Arpege or even "Arpege lite".

Manresa has a sense of place, through and through. Monterey spot prawns, abalone, santa barbara uni, vegetables picked that morning that came from their farm 45 minutes away...

I don't claim to know a whole lot about wine, and I've only had the full pairing with the extended menu (my default choice) once. But while I wasn't blown away by it by any means, I didn't come away as disappointed and unhappy with it as both of you seem to have been. Maybe my ignorance is bliss when it comes to wine.

In any case, I think a short letter/e-mail to either Chef Kinch or general manager Michael Kean, to tell them about your experience would not be a bad idea.

[sygyzy]

Quoting ulterior epicure

I've been to all but Ubuntu. I'm anxious to hear which one was your favorite.  I'm pretty sure that this post allows me to eliminate one of them.

Judging from a viewpoint of a total package, Ubuntu by far was the favorite of this trip. Perfect Napa weather, dining outside in the patio, incredibly friendly and caring waitstaff, a special tasting by Chef Fox. I told my colleagues that it felt he was cooking specifically for us.

I'm sorry to hear that, from a food standpoint, your meal didn't live up to your expectations.  Certainly, even I, a big fan of Kinch and his cooking admit that there were some dishes that I preferred over others.  Thankfully, I can't claim any that I just simply didn't like.  What impressed me the most about Kinch's cooking is that his best dishes (for me) were so phenomenally good that they helped blind me to a lot of others that were just good/so-so.  Of course, you and I have only been once each, so there is room for error, and certainly room for personal preference.

I agree. I should clarify that I certainly didn't think any of the dishes were terrible. All are of course well thought out and refined. I just disliked some. For example, the infamous Parmesan churros were a two biter for me. In other words, I gave up my piece after a few bites. They taste exactly like you'd expect (so nothing mind blowing here), but what you probably won't expect is how salty they are. Also the Courgette sorbet was actually kind of bad, IMO. You're right, the good dishes are really great like the foie gras with a generous amount of plain brown sugar on top. It's so ghetto (the sugar application), but it works and I loved it for it's simplicity.

Deserts were short (only 2 dishes?) and forgettable. I'll definitely return because like you said, we've only each been there once. I've also only been to TFL once and still talk about it all the time. It was really perfect.

I'm not sure how the server told you to "stop," but this sounds like a perfectly polite and normal thing for a server to offer.

The server came to my side and said "if you could do me a favor and stop taking notes. Chef will provide you a menu." I was taken back and then she added "We want to make sure you are having a good time, so sit back and just enjoy the food." Her reason sounded nice enough. I have never heard of anyone being asked to stop taking notes though (ie Chuck Eats, Lizzie). Honestly, this was not a big deal because I was only taking notes for the ingredients but still awkward.

Second to whom?  Did you notice others being better served than you/your party?

Just in general. I couldn't tell how others were being treated. I mean that's a difficult question to answer especially in a fine dining restaurant when people aren't exactly yelling.

Edited August 21, 2008 by sygyzy (log)

[hapacooking]

I live down the street from Manresa and have eaten there 7-8 times in the past few years and the service has always been a consistent problem. On our visit a couple of months ago, our main server was going outside and having a cigarette during our meal. When he returned he stunk like stale cigarettes which made the meal less appetizing. I left a message at the restaurant about this problem but never received a response.

We recently dined there during the René Redzepi of Noma visit and although it was an interesting meal, none of the dishes were outstanding. Service was sketchy at best and at that price, it was not a good value.

Manresa was fantastic when it first opened but has sadly never returned to the greatness it once had.

[Carolyn Tillie]

The server came to my side and said "if you could do me a favor and stop taking notes. Chef will provide you a menu." I was taken back and then she added "We want to make sure you are having a good time, so sit back and just enjoy the food." Her reason sounded nice enough. I have never heard of anyone being asked to stop taking notes though (ie Chuck Eats, Lizzie). Honestly, this was not a big deal because I was only taking notes for the ingredients but still awkward.

←

That's just wrong.... One can enjoy a meal whilst writing, reading, or doing whatever makes a guest happy. I am often a solo diner who prefers the company of a good book with my meal. Or I will go and take a laptop to make notes about *other* things in my life. But if a guest wants to take notes FOR WHATEVER REASON, a server should never imply that a guest is not enjoying a meal. I do not need to "sit back" to just enjoy food. Many times it is an interactive experience for me along with other activities.

[ulterior epicure]

Manresa was fantastic when it first opened but has sadly never returned to the greatness it once had.

←

Say it ain't so!

[MaxH]

Manresa was fantastic when it first opened but has sadly never returned to the greatness it once had.

←

Say it ain't so!

It ain't! Specifically, I for one have dined at various restaurants 50-plus times but never imagined it qualified me to declare (omnisciently, as it were) what a restaurant is "like" or whether it "is great" or used to be. I can (if diligent) describe experiences, keeping to what I actually know; you might pick up a sense of my tastes too, and how those colored my perceptions, if I posted often.

Please understand: my observation isn't limited to Manresa or this thread. It's about the way many restaurant comments go beyond the helpful humble specifics any one diner can faithfully report (even assuming that's their objective). People who know a restaurant very well learn about the commentator rather than the restaurant, when they read what posted comments say, and what they omit. Thus Manresa has been both celebrated and disdained since 2002 by various perspectives and tastes that are not always obvious in postings. Its history is more complex than I'd know from just the summary comment above. I've witnessed diners in many fine restaurants display strange notions, picky tastes, or chips on their shoulders, and I can only guess how useful their posted comments, if any, are to a diner who didn't witness the situation. Thus for example I can't infer too much from the complaint above about taking notes. "Taking notes" per se seems to me a diner's indisputable right. But, and it's no reflection on the poster, I can't claim to truly understand the incident objectively, short of seeing a video. (For instance I've seen people make a big production out of trying to record dishes at meals without a menu, and wished I could print and give them one myself.)

With luck, people will continue reporting their experiences at restaurants, sometimes displaying the nonfiction-writer's ethic that the more specifics and fewer personal judgments appear, the more useful the result will be to other diners with perspectives of their own.

[tupac17616]

People who know a restaurant very well learn about the commentator rather than the restaurant, when they read what posted comments say, and what they omit.

I certainly agree with this, but the sad part is that the inverse is not true. People who do not know a restaurant very well might think they are learning a great deal by reading about it on eGullet. Yet on this board, just as with other public forums, the people who take the time to post are usually those with polar opinions. "Worst" and "best" is often all you get, with no in-between.

Few and far between are the posts with a "nonfiction" point of view. Not that my own posts are always shining examples of it, either. I find it incredibly difficult to strive for objectivity in evaluating an experience -- eating -- that satisfies us so much on such a fundamental level.

People who do not know a restaurant very well don't know what the author has purposefully omitted. Nor do they usually know the tastes of the author, or their biases. Indeed, how is someone unfamiliar with a restaurant to easily judge the validity (or rather the relevance to them personally) of the subjective reviews they come across online? I would say that you simply can't.

I don't know dagordon, and I've spent probably a grand total of about 18 hours in his home city of Philadelphia. I very rarely visit the Pennsylvania forums on eG (well, except to reminisce about Capogiro). And in fact, I'm pretty sure his Manresa invective is the very first post of his that I've ever read.

Likewise I don't know sygyzy. Don't know where he is from, how he came to choose Manresa, or why he has 5 types of artisanal soy sauce in his cupboard.

But I know enough about my own reaction to this particular restaurant that the aforementioned lack of familiarity with the authors is not a problem. Their negative experiences frankly won't have the slightest affect on me personally. That said, if I don't chime in with a rebuttal, I'm not doing my part to champion a restaurant and a chef I believe in.

How is the next person who types "Manresa" into the Google search box going to know that these disappointing experiences at Manresa are not the usual? Or that not everyone agrees that the restaurants is not as great as it used to be? If I keep quiet, and don't wax poetic -- about the tomato and corn dish 2 years ago, or the "Forest floor: hunting for mushrooms..." dish last fall, or the fact that on every single visit Chef Kinch comes up with 20 or 30 ways to put a smile on my face -- then how will others ever have a useful sample set of opinions?

I love Manresa, I love David Kinch's food, and I will continue to visit this restaurant again and again. Every time, my excitement about going back is palpable. You will hear me say it. You can see it on my face. I am always thrilled, gleeful even, and on a deeper level just so friggin' happy to be going back that if you saw me on those days you might think I had won the lottery.

Lucky us to be able to be armchair chefs, evaluating every little nuance of what was and what was not prepared to our taste. Lucky us to be so accustomed to the staff in fine dining restaurants waiting on us hand and foot. Lucky us to be able to make direct comparisons to arguably the priciest 3* restaurants in Paris. Lucky us.

Lucky us?

I would argue that knowing (or more accurately, thinking that one knows) too much is a bad thing. As people develop that "been there, done that" attitude with food, they completely lose the beauty of the fundamental human experience called eating. As soon as dinner becomes merely a business transaction, the joy is sucked right out of it. What a sad, sad situation to put oneself in when to not approach a new restaurant (or an old favorite) with a sense of joy, of excitement, of curiosity, of passion.

Going in with the right frame of mind is, I think, a recipe for success in having good restaurant experiences. But perhaps even more so, I think it's a recipe for happiness.

Lucky us.

[sygyzy]

It's pretty amazing to me how a restaurant review thread can get so philosophical. I think in general, most foodies (that is someone who didn't just end up at a restaurant because they picked it out of the yellow pages) have this strange fear of saying anything bad about a restaurant, lest it somehow comes back around to them. I admittedly suffer from this as well, but probably not as much as some of the folks here. I don't think anything I said was not objective and when it was, I pointed it out (ie the wine). I think, to many, Manresa is the new French Laundry. And by that I mean it's untouchable. Remember when nobody said a bad thing about TFL? Now it's the *cool* thing to do. Now people describe TFL as "too perfect" or "cold, without feeling."

I think bloggers/writers/etc should be able to speak their mind. I also think that we are in a height of culinary quality since restaurant owners and chefs don't just have to please the Jonathan Gold's twice a year but every diner because he/she may have a blog with a small following. And that's how it should be. Restaurants should always be top notch because if they do well, they'll get the recognition and recommendations from friends. I learned about all four restaurants I went to in SF strictly from word of mouth and from bloggers.

I think it's ridiculous to imply I think I "know too much" or I think am too good for a restaurant. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am extremely flexible and even apologetic. I don't ever make demands or request alterations to the food. Restaurant/Chef (Business) serves diners (Customer). When there's confusion to how this arrangement works, we are headed down a sorry path. If people are getting this sensitive over a few posts at eGullet, arguably the most reserved food board, what would they think of Yelp or similar discussion forums?

Edited August 23, 2008 by sygyzy (log)

[ulterior epicure]

I think, to many, Manresa is the new French Laundry. And by that I mean it's untouchable.

I don't think any restaurant is untouchable. I'm fairly certain that if you look back to my post about my experience at Manresa from 2 years ago, I noted service issues. (Here it is, on that "other" Manresa thread.)

On that same trip to California - 2 years ago - I also noted a rather depressing experience at TFL. I'm not sure if that falls before or after your marker for when the people thought it was *cool* to speak negatively about the restaurant. And I don't care. I also had a meal at per se that same year, but a few months prior. I reported on that meal too and found it lackluster.

I don't find it *cool* to do anything other than give an honest report of how I experienced a meal. That is why, despite getting side dishes of grief sent to me, I have been public about disappointing (or, perhaps, fundamental differences I have with?) meals at the hands of many "untouchables," alinea included, as you (sygyzy) probably know. I'm too lazy to pull up those threads, but if you go over to that thread, you'll find reports from two full "Tours" I did - one in 2005 and one in 2006 - that fell far short of thrill. Most recently, I put out a rather unenthusiastic report about L.20, a restaurant that has been praised by many. And if I haven't stated it publicly elsewhere, I'll state it here: David Chang's food at the momofukus is great, but you're not going to find me in that hour-long line to get into ssam bar or noodle bar.

I'm not typing all of the foregoing to give myself a pat on the back for being that edgy blogger who's too hip for whatever.

Do I think it's *cool* to be the minority in a sea of gushing fans? No. Actually, I hate it. I *wish* I could experience those restaurants as their most ardent fans do. Wouldn't it be great to have a knock out meal everywhere you go?

Or, maybe not, because then you wouldn't appreciate the rarity of the truly spectacular.

But I think what *IS* irksome about the reaction of some bloggers/online food writers/members of this and other fora to negative criticism is that they treat the criticism of another's experience as a personal affront to the chef or, worse, to THEMSELVES as third party observers. As if another's negative experience - an event that occurred entirely independently of their (third party's) existence - at a restaurant that they've praised reflects poorly on their sense of judgment or legitimacy as a sensible diner. This is utter nonsense.

(Of course, I don't doubt that, *sometimes,* criticisms are intended as a personal affront to certain personnel at a particular restaurant, be it chef or server, manager of sommelier. But most of the time, I find that people here, and elsewhere, are reasonable about their opinions. When they're not, it's usually quite clear and they're easily ignored.)

There also forum members who, despite paragraphs of praise, will pick out and focus on the ONE negative remark. Here, I will be the first to step up to the plate and admit guilt. Looking back at your report, there was this:

On a positive note, stand out dishes:

- Red pepper-black olive petit fours

- Arpege farm egg

- Foie gras, gently roasted, beignets of picked cherry, licorice

- Potimarron pumpkin soup, nasturtium ice cream

- Abalone in brown butter with braised pig's trotters, avocado

So, I've had Kinch's version of the Arpege egg and the abalone in brown butter and I happy to hear that they're still pleasing diners. Question: was the Potimarron soup cold or hot? How did the ice cream figure into it?

Ultimately, I'll bet that a very high percentage (I'm not going to give a figure, but I'll wager it's over 50% and less than 90%) of the differences voiced on these food fora are a matter of personal preference. I don't care for seared foie; I like mine cool and cured. If I see the words "chocolate" and "warm" in the same sentence, I'm likely to yawn. Others might swoon. We all have our own quirks too, so we view and take service differently. I don't like coddling. Some, clearly, do. I'm much more likely to care that a server is encyclopedic about the menu and ingredients than one who tops off my water at a drop of a hat, others might not give two pennies' worth for what the waiter knows as long as they're at the quick-and-ready. Some like short, quick service. I like something between long and short (and here again, what is "long" and what is "short?"). Some put value on being seated in the center of a dining room; I might prefer a quieter corner.

I think bloggers/writers/etc should be able to speak their mind... Restaurants should always be top notch because if they do well, they'll get the recognition and recommendations from friends.

Right. And as you can see from your experience, that even word of mouth praise from semi-trusted sources/friends doesn't give you a 100% guarantee for success.

In conclusion (yes, my grade school English teacher is cringing out there - Sorry Mrs. Greenbaum) I think tupac17616 put it quite well in the post above:

But I know enough about my own reaction to this particular restaurant that the aforementioned lack of familiarity with the authors is not a problem. Their negative experiences frankly won't have the slightest affect on me personally. That said, if I don't chime in with a rebuttal, I'm not doing my part to champion a restaurant and a chef I believe in.

And, as tupac17616 and (I hope) I have demonstrated, even the most enthusiastic fans of a restaurant will allow, acknowledge, and believe negative reports about that restaurant. I can't speak for others, but personally, when this happens, I'm altruistically disheartened to know that others haven't experienced the joys that I have.

Edited August 23, 2008 by ulterior epicure (log)

[MaxH]

It's pretty amazing to me how a restaurant review thread can get so philosophical.

Spend more time on this and some other local fora, sygyzy -- it won't seem so unusual! (Bay Area in particular has had lively, well-subscribed, public Internet restaurant discussion fora continuously since mid-1980s -- I could show you threads spanning the interval -- such discussions are a tradition.)

If people are getting this sensitive over a few posts at eGullet ...

I read it as this thread surfaced (unintentionally, it's true) important issues lurking behind many restaurant discussions. (Sensitivity can be a re-active reading too -- just as "flame wars" famously arise not from a writer intending a slight, but a reader inferring one.) Or the way our self-consciousness is a reflex when we're put on the spot -- it delays our perception when the putting was reasonable and appropriate. (An issue in US public interactions today.) I might have that problem, if I were missing out on a meal experience to make notes, and a server tried to be helpful about it. Or, maybe it was inappropriate of the server. (Had to be there to know.)

...I find it incredibly difficult to strive for objectivity in evaluating an experience -- eating...

Hey, tupac, I'm not seeking objectivity (used it in different context above) so much as honesty, and humility. By commenting on what I actually know, and trying to distinguish observations from tastes. It's easy. Dined at X place at Y time, circumstances Z. Tried dishes A, B, C. Descriptions, reactions, information. Server insistently misidentified a sauce Hollandaise as a Béarnaise, and it had a milk base too -- tasted like the Knorr-Swiss instant mix. (That sort of thing.)

As opposed to This place rocks, or it's living on past glories and no diner has the courage to admit it, or the desserts are all mediocre. (Omniscient narrative stance.) Or writing as if one visit, or a few, allowed definitive judgment -- predicting the typical experience for everyone. Or not thinking about these issues. (I'm currently in a parallel conversation with a friend, career book editor, including many food books. She contrasts expert evocative food writing -- a rare art -- vs simple description, which is what I'm pursuing here -- vs omniscient statements without backup, which she labels extremely irritating, but credits mostly to writing in a habitual casual style that peole just haven't thought much about.)

[ulterior epicure]

Or writing as if one visit, or a few, allowed definitive judgment -- predicting the typical experience for everyone.  Or not thinking about these issues.

This is key.

[MaxH]

... what *IS* irksome about the reaction of some [online food writers] to negative criticism is that they treat [it] as a personal affront ... As if another's negative experience ... at a restaurant they've praised reflects poorly on their sense of judgment ...

That excellent point, U.E., IMO touches on something deep. Watch different people discuss a restaurant (positively or negatively) and you actually see, sometimes, a clash of worldviews. Person X has internalized an impression of what the restaurant "is like," and Person Y has too, but Y's impression is different. X knows the restaurant as consistently good, say; Y tried it once and had a bad experience, and filed the place under "awful." X is annoyed when Y characterizes the eatery as awful. To X, reality itself (or X's taste, or perception) is under challenge. The exchange is emotional by nature, online or in person. (I witnessed them before there were really any public Internet food fora.*) The situation is hardly limited to restaurants. But it's one of the human factors behind the way clashing reports play out on these fora.

*Extreme trivia buffs will recognize that this translates as before January 1982.

[tupac17616]

I think in general, most foodies (that is someone who didn't just end up at a restaurant because they picked it out of the yellow pages) have this strange fear of saying anything bad about a restaurant, lest it somehow comes back around to them. [...] I think bloggers/writers/etc should be able to speak their mind.

I highly disagree with the first part of this, and agree completely with the second. Does one develop some sort of foodie "street cred" by supporting or bashing a popular chef/restaurant? I personally don't think so (though a quick read through the Momofuku Ssam thread on the NY forum, as u.e. mentioned, is a clear argument against me, as are blog posts like this). Is it somehow cliche to favor a restaurant so many other people happen to favor also? To be the 1,000,000th person to praise Thomas Keller, Alain Ducasse, or Alain Passard? I don't think so.

Indeed, public opinion (and by that I mean, at the most basic level, voting with our dollar) can separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, making good restaurants thrive while bad restaurants (eventually, at least) are more likely to fail. But figuring out which are "good" and which are "bad" is hard to do. And our only mechanism to do so is to either try them ourselves or to read about other people trying it for us. And in that case, we can only hope the blogger/writer has spoken their mind honestly. Nobody benefits from the publication of such articles/blogposts if the opinions represented in them are toned down based on a fear that it will somehow "come back around to them".

I think it's ridiculous to imply I think I "know too much" or I think am too good for a restaurant.

I did not mean to imply anything of you in particular (if anything, it was dagordon's "Not Arpege" comment that I was reacting to), but rather as a general observation of what one might read in blog.

But I think what *IS* irksome about the reaction of some bloggers/online food writers/members of this and other fora to negative criticism is that they treat the criticism of another's experience as a personal affront to the chef or, worse, to THEMSELVES as third party observers.  As if another's negative experience - an event that occurred entirely independently of their (third party's) existence - at a restaurant that they've praised reflects poorly on their sense of judgment or legitimacy as a sensible diner. This is utter nonsense.

You raise a very good point, and I hope my reaction above to the two recent slams of Manresa above doesn't somehow put me in this category. For every restaurant that is able to remain in business -- whether serving dinners that cost $5 or $500 -- I think there it is a good reason for it. I don't always understand it when places I hate thrive or places I love fail, but restaurant success is not random luck. Different diners have different predilections, when it comes to what they want to eat, how much they want to spend, and ultimately, where they want to eat. One set of these predilections, though, is by no means "better" than any other. Like I said above, people can hate Manresa (or any other restaurant I like) all they want.... it won't stop me from going back. I'm not afraid to tell anyone I like it, and I'm not annoyed when somebody tells me they don't.

Question: was the Potimarron soup cold or hot?  How did the ice cream figure into it?

If this dish has not changed since he was serving it last year, the soup is hot, and it's poured tableside into a bowl that has a quenelle of the ice cream in it. (I remember reacting to this course by telling my friend that I felt like standing up to give him a high-five across the table. I thought it was delicious.)

Ultimately, I'll bet that a very high percentage (I'm not going to give a figure, but I'll wager it's over 50% and less than 90%) of the differences voiced on these food fora are a matter of personal preference. [...] even word of mouth praise from semi-trusted sources/friends doesn't give you a 100% guarantee for success.

Certainly. The most difficult part is trying to figure out who those semi-trusted sources are in the first place, and even then, there are no guarantees.

[...] even the most enthusiastic fans of a restaurant will allow, acknowledge, and believe negative reports about that restaurant. I can't speak for others, but personally, when this happens, I'm altruistically disheartened to know that others haven't experienced the joys that I have.

Agreed. Although there are some times, I'll admit, when my usual reaction of "Aw, that's too bad" becomes something more along the lines of "Sucks for you!".

Hey, tupac, I'm not seeking objectivity (used it in different context above) so much as honesty, and humility.  By commenting on what I actually know, and trying to distinguish observations from tastes.  It's easy.  [...] As opposed to This place rocks, or it's living on past glories and no diner has the courage to admit it, or the desserts are all mediocre.  (Omniscient narrative stance.)  Or writing as if one visit, or a few, allowed definitive judgment -- predicting the typical experience for everyone.  Or not thinking about these issues.

Very well explained, Max. I think your observation about a stance that assumes a limited number of visits paints a perfectly clear picture of the "norm", so to speak, is a very astute one. You said it better than any of us could have.

[sygyzy]

Guys, can we all hug now?

[samgiovese]

Guys, can we all hug now?

←

And don't forget a rousing chorus of "Kumbaya"!

[tupac17616]

definitely. I don't know about u guys, but I'm tired of typing

[samgiovese]

Interesting article on Chef Kinch here.

[degusto]

While Passard is clearly a very heavy influence on Kinch's cooking and indeed his mentor

←

I am not sure if it is the modest nature of David Kinch that has given you the impression that Passard is his mentor. Passard seems to see it slightly differently. Passard said in last month’s issue of High Life, British Airways in-flight magazine, that his two favourite restaurants are Manresa and Gunther’s in Singapore. He said, “I identify with chef David Kinch’s philosophy". About David Kinch's food he said, “his dishes are like poetry on a plate, the work of an artist. We are chefs of similar souls”.

[tupac17616]

While Passard is clearly a very heavy influence on Kinch's cooking and indeed his mentor

←

I am not sure if it is the modest nature of David Kinch that has given you the impression that Passard is his mentor. Passard seems to see it slightly differently. Passard said in last month’s issue of High Life, British Airways in-flight magazine, that his two favourite restaurants are Manresa and Gunther’s in Singapore. He said, “I identify with chef David Kinch’s philosophy". About David Kinch's food he said, “his dishes are like poetry on a plate, the work of an artist. We are chefs of similar souls”.

←

Ciao, degusto. If I am correct in assuming you are the "European eating partner-in-crime" whenever David is in the French/Italian riviera that he once referred to in an after-dinner chat, then odds are you know much more of his nature than I do. But I think influence is a two way street, and defining who is the mentor and who is the mentee between these two great chefs can be difficult. I think the "similar souls" comment could have come just as easily out of either chef's mouth. Passard's comments reflect the same sense of humility I've always felt in Kinch. Lucky us that these two great chefs, both technicians and artists at once, feed off of one another's philosophies. I think their close relationship probably makes both restaurants better.