Les Jardins des Sens (Montpellier)

[et alors]

The Jardin des Sens in itself didn't deserve to lose this star.

←

I'm not sure that was true: I expect from a 3 star no missed steps; both the lobster and the scallop dishes showed disrespect to their ingrediants by using contrasting tastes to heavy to show them off, and ended up masking instead. And the strawberries and raspberries though gorgeous were slightly out of season and too tart. But of course, I may be a bit californian in my attitude toward the raw materials of art.

To those who plan to dine there, this should not discourage you. Still a worthy meal, no question.

[Ptipois]

I had those dishes too (not the strawberries though). I did not find the contrasts disturbing. It is a style. Laurent Pourcel's cooking is rich in assertive tastes, definitely more assertive than other more "international" chefs', and his research on textures is, I believe, remarkable but not to everybody's liking. You didn't like some dishes, but I don't think they should be called "missed steps". However, let's go back to the point. How did you like it as a two-star meal?

Personally, I've known the Jardin des Sens almost since the beginning, and I've seen this cuisine go up and down, then up again. It had dropped for some periods between 1997 and now. I sensed a definite progression upwards since 3 years ago or so. The irony is that the place lost one star at the moment when I, and some others, felt Laurent's cooking had never been so perfect.

[chefzadi]

I had those dishes too (not the strawberries though). I did not find the contrasts disturbing. It is a style. Laurent Pourcel's cooking is rich in assertive tastes, definitely more assertive than other more "international" chefs', and his research on textures is, I believe, remarkable but not to everybody's liking.

Excellent points all around Ptipois, especially...

You didn't like some dishes, but I don't think they should be called "missed steps". However, let's go back to the point. How did you like it as a two-star meal?

I'm interested in the star/hair splitting reviews I've read. Most of them seem to focus on levels of expectations for one star, two star or three star paralleled by threads that conjecture (not without confusion) about how Michelin rates restaurants.

[touaregsand]

I'm not sure that was true: I expect from a 3 star no missed steps; both the lobster and the scallop dishes showed disrespect to their ingrediants by using contrasting tastes to heavy to show them off, and ended up masking instead. And the strawberries and raspberries though gorgeous were slightly out of season and too tart. But of course, I may be a bit californian in my attitude toward the raw materials of art.

Californian here. Maybe I should duck and run as soon as say this or even before I say this.

A Californian attitude towards the raw materials of the art doesn't strike me as being more rigorous than the a French attitude towards the materials of the art. If I recall my culinary history correctly the Californian attitude was inspired by someone who had spent some formative time in France.

I've never tried Alice Waters fruit dessert of a whole peach (or whatever fruit it is) served with a knife, but even she can't control the seasons. I wonder what she does between seasons? Add a mint leaf?

I don't agree that using "contrasting tastes too heavy to show them off" shows disrespect for the ingredients. Perhaps the components didn't marry well on your palate or fit your philosophy of respect.

Isn't dining at this level about enjoying something that is contrary to common denominator thinking? Of course it's your perogative to disagree with the chef's approach, but is the chef making mistakes by having a different approach?

I don't mean to nitpick with you in particular, although it does seem I split a few hairs here. By the way I did enjoy your review and the photos. It alwasy amazes me how much time egullers take to share their dining experiences. I'd be too busy eating to photograph the dishes.

[et alors]

I'm sorry if I was unclear-- I could not taste any scallop or any lobster. You are right in that could be considered a matter of taste-- I think of the main ingrediant listed on the menu to be the theme of the dish and all other flavors listed after to be about complementing the flavors, either through contrast or through complement. In both cases I mention the secondary ingrediants smothered the first and there was no taste of the "star". The lobster however, did maintain a lovely proper lobster texture which I did appreciate, but lobster tasts nice and it was sad (IMO) to hide it completely.

The point of Alice is, of course, don't serve a peach when it isn't nice. That works in california where every season has something; in michigan or france I imagine it is not such a practical approach. However it is montpellier where the seasons are pretty gentle...

Again, it was a really terrific meal. I ate a rising two star Auberge du Vieux Puits last year and I think the food was quite close to Jardin De Sens. There was one dish that I couldn't eat there because I found it repulsive, but I don't think there was anything wrong with the dish, just me. Some fishes I don't like.

Critcism is, of course, intensly personal and contextual... maybe I can compare a high two-star with a low three-star, but maybe not a two and a three. I know there are things I don't like and take that into account (avoid sea urchins! although to jardin's credit, theirs was very tasty) More tricky is talking about an aesthetic... it's possible my aesthtic which is around the soul of the ingrediant is not the chefs. So be it. I ate well.

BTW I want to continue to make it completely clear I loved my meal even if I do think a couple choices were unfortunate -- and being my first three star (second two star?) meal, it made me wonder what makes a three star meal a three star meal.

[touaregsand]

The lobster however, did maintain a lovely proper lobster texture which I did appreciate, but lobster tasts nice and it was sad (IMO) to hide it completely.

I'm really enjoying this discussion. I do agree with you that lobster tastes better when it's not hidden, of course that's my opinion. Which seems to be a common opinion when it comes to lobster.

[Bux]

Chez Pim of egullet reknown posted the lastest info on this years Michelin meanderings and it confirms as reported in many forums that the Pourcel twins have lost thier 3 star status. This has been speculated on since they have allowed their focus to broaden with the other restaurants in which they have become involved.

http://chezpim.typepad.com/blogs/files/GuideMichelin2005.pdf

←

I don't how or where Chez Pim got that press release, but it's full of inaccuracies. The firs thing I noticed were that some two star restaurant in which we've eaten some time ago were shown with the

"N" for new (nouveau). I just checked the 2004 Michelin and find that many of those "Ns" are misplaced.

Meurin in Béthune was already a two star last year. As were Jeffroy in Carantec, Centenaire in Les Eyzies-de-Tayac, Cheval Blanc in Lembach, L'Oasis in La Napoule, Hauts Loire in Onzain and others. There are too many minor errors to assume this list is correct. We need to listen to those who have seen the new Guide.

[chefzadi]

I'm sorry if I was unclear-- I could not taste any scallop or any lobster. You are right in that could be considered a matter of taste-- I think of the main ingrediant listed on the menu to be the theme of the dish and all other flavors listed after to be about complementing the flavors, either through contrast or through complement. In both cases I mention the secondary ingrediants smothered the first and there was no taste of the "star". The lobster however, did maintain a lovely proper lobster texture which I did appreciate, but lobster tasts nice and it was sad (IMO) to hide it completely.

I prefer my lobster simple, unadorned with drawn butter.

Anyway, interesting how the expectations are different in a French restaurant when it comes to seafood. Japanese sushi/sashimi is revered, considered quite upscale, worthy of high tabs. I hate wasabi, makes me gag, it's like a gasoline fire in my head, for me even a tiny amount is too much. I find soy sauce to be too strong too, I only like it in meat marinades and that took me 4 years to get used to. But to dip a piece of expensive raw fish into it is something I would never do. I'm probably in the minority here on egullet in my attitudes towards sushi and sashimi. But can anyone argue that soy sauce and wasabi are not strong flavors? So part of the pleasure here is extreme contrast. Even the master sushi chef's seem to have quite bit going on with flavors, textures, vegetables, sauces, etc... in some of their presentations.

The Lobster and the scallop dishes look Asian influenced. The salmon in the Chinese soup spoons is amusing. I hate those paper doilies and spoons. I can't even imagine that the other flavors in those dishes could be as strong as soy/wasabi. But you are in a French restaurant, no matter how "International" the dishes may seem. So you have certain expectations about how the primary ingredient should/will be treated.

I wonder if the strawberries and raspberries aren't just in the dessert as a new way to use an old fashioned garnish for chocolate desserts? In which case deep consideration might not have occured for it's consumption. Of course nowadays the prevailing philosophy is that all garnishes shoud be edible and inform the central ingredient.

I don't mean to ramble or argue, I hope I'm not coming off that way. I usually avoid discussions like this, but I feel et alors is very open to such discussions.

[pim]

I don't how or where Chez Pim got that press release, but it's full of inaccuracies.

←

I made it up, that press release, I made the entire thing up. Yes, busted, or, Buxed, shall I say.

The firs thing I noticed were that some two star restaurant in which we've eaten some time ago were shown with the

"N" for new (nouveau). I just checked the 2004 Michelin and find that many of those "Ns" are misplaced. ...

There are too many minor errors to assume this list is correct. We need to listen to those who have seen the new Guide.

←

Actually, the press release was what Michelin sent out to, yes, the press. Perhaps there were indeed inaccuracies, but I couldn't be arsed to look through the entire guide, especially since at the time of that post on the blog, February 23, 2005, the guide itself had not been officially released yet. I may be many things, but clairvoyant I certainly am not.

My apology if I misled anyone, I merely assumed, as one does, that a press release out of Michelin about Michelin's own guide would be accurate.

[Ore]

Pim,

What you did is totally fair. I remember reading it and being thankful!

As for Michelin and them being inacurate...that doesn't seem like something new.

Back to the point though...Et Alors, was this your first French Michelin starred experience? If so, maybe you should give others a try, if you can.

Here in Italy, I tried Enoteca Pinchiorri as my first 3 star experience, and then the week after had another 3 star experience, and they were both very very different. This may lead to some balancing effects but een then, the diner must try and let go...almost like when you have a recipe for something you know works well, but your chef has a recioe for the same thing, you use his/hers. I try to eat with an open mind...but there are always some things that shouldn't be done that way...it happens...its our life.

Ore

[Bux]

Actually, the press release was what Michelin sent out to, yes, the press.  Perhaps there were indeed inaccuracies, but I couldn't be arsed to look through the entire guide, especially since at the time of that post on the blog, February 23, 2005, the guide itself had not been officially released yet.  I may be many things, but clairvoyant I certainly am not.

My apology if I misled anyone, I merely assumed, as one does, that a press release out of Michelin about Michelin's own guide would be accurate.

←

I certainly didn't mean to imply you were at fault, but I am surprised that Michelin didn't check their own press release a little better. I didn't look through the entire guide either, but a couple of two stars that were two stars at least two years just popped right out at me and I quickly checked them against last year's guide and they still had two stars last year. That drove me to check a few more of the two stars and most of them were inaccurately identified as new. This called into question the entire release. I'm sure some of it is correct and I'm sure some of it is inaccurate. All I can say at this point is that it's not reliable. I'm not sure the Michelin web site is reliable either, but it shows Jardin des Sens as having three stars and the page says © Michelin 2001 - 2005.

[et alors]

Yes I am completely open to discussions. I have a excellent palette and I know food very well, having worked in the industry for years before changing to something that allowed me to afford eating more broadly, but my experiences have mostly been Bay Area ones. I'm eager for other points of view!!!!

This is my third french starred experience, and my first three-star although I have eaten at some of the nicest places in the US. And yes, I plan to eat at another three-star first chance I get, preferrably bras or troisgros. I have family that have eaten at both, and their descriptions have been enticing. I have a dedicated goal, and that is to find someone who can outcook Thomas Keller. Just because that is the defining eating moment of my life, and I would love to see it matched or topped.

This conversation is particularly interesting to me, because of the meta-aspects (if that isn't too tiresome for this board) of what makes something great, and how do you distinquish quality from taste.

What makes Keller so great in my my mind is the fact that eary single item on the plate is perfect in both itself and its relationship to the other items, and that includes garnish. It's probably naughty to be speaking of an American chef on this forum, but that is my current measure. His food is often about two things, the materials and human experiences-- his plates often remind me of sadness, or love, or whimsy. I think he is a Pollack of the kitchen, in that his food is both about the nature of the food (as Pollack's were about painting's flatness) but also about the artist's realtionships with life. Though Keller's are less self-centered and much tastier. (admittedly, since Stephen left, the desserts no longer continue the level of quality and fall back into "merely" excellent. But the same thing happened at Jardin. Why is dessert so hard?)

With all my starred experiences, even the little one star in Lacave, some dishes achieved this moment of tastiness and expression, many were (just?) extraordinarily yummy and some were just food. The percentage of dishes that go beyond yummy and into art is, to me, the mark of a starred experience, though I can imagine Michelin inspectors might not feel that way.

and chefzadi-- I assume you know it is shockingly rude to use soy or wasabi at a good sushi place. it's used to disguise the taste of second-rate fish. So your attitude is properly respectful!

One question-- the truffle dishes truffles were marked with a slight-- er-- amonia taste? I noticed this taste in a much worse strength from a truffle pieces that had been in my fridge for a couple days. Is this typical of truffles, and considered okay or is it a sign of over-maturity? In the dish I had it just added a slight sharpness that was actually okay but I was really surprised by it since I associated it with age.

Edited April 4, 2005 by et alors (log)

[Ptipois]

If you are coming to France with the objective of having a meal whose author "outcooks Thomas Keller" (or indeed outcooks anyone else), I'm afraid you're in for some disappointment, and also for overlooking some meals that would be enjoyable in their own right, while being very far away in their inspiration from your original reference. This has nothing to do with your archetypal chef being American or anything of the sort, it's just that by having such set standards you're bound to narrow your range of sensations.

To my knowledge (which is not very wide), there is only one chef who achieves the experience you're describing; "human experience; sadness, love and whimsy", though on a very earthy, Catalan level. It's Ferran Adria, of El Bulli, Roses. With him, eating becomes more a literary experience than a sensorial experience, and this is achieved through the bare senses. However, this is so remote from the general experience of good food that I put it in a different category. To me, it is already not cuisine anymore. Which means that in no way does my appreciation of his meals get in the way of my idea of other chefs'. I would indeed find everything dull if I set my standards at Adria level. Also, everyone has his or her style. Keller's ways you like, it may very well be that you don't like Adria's. Would it mean that you'd rate him at a lower level?

I have to say that I am not a believer in the Michelin star system, I tend to find my gastronomic happiness aside from it. I have sometimes found the "beyond-yumminess" you mention, but not necessarily in starred places. Also, when I travel, I like to put my taste experience counter back to zero and forget whatever I've eaten before. I do not do this out of fairness but in order to rely more on my senses than on my intellectual memory. I don't know if I have "an excellent palette" but this has been satisfactory so far.

By the way: truffles were at the end of their season when you had them in Montpellier. Thus they might have been a bit assertive. But it is in the nature of truffles to be strong-flavored.

Edited April 4, 2005 by Ptipois (log)

[chefzadi]

What makes Keller so great in my my mind is the fact that eary single item on the plate is perfect in both itself and its relationship to the other items, and that includes garnish. It's probably naughty to be speaking of an American chef on this forum, but that is my current measure. His food is often about two things, the materials and human experiences-- his plates often remind me of sadness, or love, or whimsy. I think he is a Pollack of the kitchen, in that his food is both about the nature of the food (as Pollack's were about painting's flatness) but also about the artist's realtionships with life. Though Keller's are less self-centered and much tastier. (admittedly, since Stephen left, the desserts no longer continue the level of quality and fall back into "merely" excellent. But the same thing happened at Jardin. Why is dessert so hard?)

Quite allright to bring up Keller in the French forum. He is afterall a French chef, more French than alot of French French Chefs who are trying to be more International in style and at turns are criticized for being too French or too Internatinal. Yes Keller has quite the painterly and sculptural style with his plating. And he is quite the poet with the naming of some of his dishes. He's a French Chef made for Americans to embrace. I did see a photo of a plate with a series of dusts/powders along the rim. Very pretty to look at, but I wonder if they inform the central component of the dish or if they are window dressing. Overall my "philosophy" is too avoid extraneous elements. But then again my wordview is to not cling to my philosophies too dearly.

I have no idea why dessert is so hard. Sometimes when I'm dining out I want to go into the kitchen to make my own souffle. The worst was when there was that whole creme brulee trend. Very few got the texture right.

and chefzadi-- I assume you know it is shockingly rude to use soy or wasabi at a good sushi place. it's used to disguise the taste of second-rate fish. So your attitude is properly respectful!

Yes, you eat what the chef gives exactly the way he wants. Adding anything yourself is like smothering my food with ketchup.

This conversation is particularly interesting to me, because of the meta-aspects (if that isn't too tiresome for this board) of what makes something great, and how do you distinquish quality from taste.

Oh, this board in particular embraces long discussions.

The quality from taste distinction is the one that bugs me the most about a lot of reviews.

[chefzadi]

Ptipois and I must have crossed posts. She addresses my last comment very well.

[chefzadi]

I have a dedicated goal, and that is to find someone who can outcook Thomas Keller. Just because that is the defining eating moment of my life, and I would love to see it matched or topped.

Keller is Keller. The thing that makes other chefs great is that they are not Keller and don't want to be Keller.

So if a Chef matches Keller he is not being himself and mimicing Keller. Great chefs don't mimic. They interpret.

So if Keller is the defining eating moment in your life, than only Keller can top Keller for you.

By the way how does Keller cook at more than one restaurant at a time? So Keller has sous chefs who can cook Keller. So maybe one of his sous chefs can top the Keller experience for you. Sous chefs follow orders, of course many of them are great chefs. They have to be to cook in place of the name brand great chef when he is away.

Was it Loiseau who said his sous chef can cook Loiseau better than Loiseau?

[Gary Marshall]

Actually, the press release was what Michelin sent out to, yes, the press.  Perhaps there were indeed inaccuracies, but I couldn't be arsed to look through the entire guide, especially since at the time of that post on the blog, February 23, 2005, the guide itself had not been officially released yet.  I may be many things, but clairvoyant I certainly am not.

My apology if I misled anyone, I merely assumed, as one does, that a press release out of Michelin about Michelin's own guide would be accurate.

←

I certainly didn't mean to imply you were at fault, but I am surprised that Michelin didn't check their own press release a little better. I didn't look through the entire guide either, but a couple of two stars that were two stars at least two years just popped right out at me and I quickly checked them against last year's guide and they still had two stars last year. That drove me to check a few more of the two stars and most of them were inaccurately identified as new. This called into question the entire release. I'm sure some of it is correct and I'm sure some of it is inaccurate. All I can say at this point is that it's not reliable. I'm not sure the Michelin web site is reliable either, but it shows Jardin des Sens as having three stars and the page says © Michelin 2001 - 2005.

←

i think the 'nouveau' and the 'espoirs' are a line out in each case it should be the one above or below in each instance, i can't remember which.

but jardin is definitely now a 2 star!

cheers

gary

[Ptipois]

Was it Loiseau who said his sous chef can cook Loiseau better than Loiseau?

←

Quite possibly, and Bocuse is supposed to have answered, to a journalist who asked him: "Who cooks when you're not here?"

"— The same guy as when I'm here."

[chefzadi]

That guy is nameless and faceless to the general public. That guy has quite possible been working under Bocuse for years. And that guy may quite possible never open up his own place or become famous. But there are many more guys like that working than there are celebrity chefs who's egos have become imprinted in the public as being represented of industry professionals. Some of those guys can outcook the guys they work under.

[Jon Tseng]

What Gary said.

[Bux]

. . . .

Was it Loiseau who said his sous chef can cook Loiseau better than Loiseau?

←

It was Loiseau who said that, or at least who was quoted saying that. I didn't hear him say it, it's reported by Echikson, in Burgundy Stars that he said it.

[John Talbott]

No, the Jardin des Sens has three stars.

←

It has lost one star at the latest Michelin rating. It's all over the press.

←

April 1st's Liberation had yet another article on the Pourcels' losing the star; but Libe says (1) they're not going to change things, and (2) it only represents 10% of their business. There's more too from Ducasse and Robuchon and Philippe Gaertner in Alsace trying to give up his star, previously reported.

Edited by John Talbott to correct tense of the Pourcels.

Edited April 5, 2005 by John Talbott (log)

[et alors]

Keller is Keller. The thing that makes other chefs great is that they are not Keller and don't want to be Keller.

...

So if Keller is the defining eating moment in your life, than only Keller can top Keller for you.

Gosh, I hope you are wrong... I've had sushi that has been in a "Keller" league yet sharing no style with him but a passion for the nature of the ingrediant. And I had a rabbit bolognese that made me love my mother a bit more in portland. heh.

I think what I'm looking for is not the keller style (as much... admittedly my fierce loyalty to ingrediants is a stylistic choice) but the keller sustained excellence. Every.single.damn.dish. at the FL was great, even stuff I typically don't like (until dessert, again.). I think that is what I seek in the three star-- sustained attention and complete performance.

So when I eat, I think I look for

* was every single ingrediant the best it could be, by common judging of the ingrediant? (ripe, in season, hand crafted, etc)

* was every ingrediant cooked to its best? (and long stewing is a way to get a meat to be its best, if it can't be young and tender. I appreciate fully the transforming of the secondary ingrediant into something more-- even if it conflicts with criteria #1)

* was every ingrediant allowed to be itself, or an aspect of itself?

* was the marriage of the ingrediants interesting/complementary/harmonious/pleasently discordant (hardest to judge!)

* did every ingrediant have a job to do for my eye and my tongue? (that means you, you lazy garnish you)

* was the dish more than its parts?

* does the chef have a story to tell me, about food, ingrediants, love, country or family?

This was accomplished here

but (IMO) not here

(all so gorgeous, aren't they?)

I'm interested in what other folks value. BTW, I don't expect this from every meal, just the ones that cost 350 a head.

When it comes to service, I want it to be invisible but always present to help. And lead if I ask, but never bully.

Well, sounds like the next time I step out, el bulli should be my destiny. maybe for my 40th....

But I do love french food. What is the best restaurant in france, in your opinion, for food alone? Or point me to a thread?

Edited April 5, 2005 by et alors (log)

[Ptipois]

April 1st's Liberation had yet another article on the Pourcel's losing the star; but Libe says (1) they're not going to change things, and (2) it only represents 10% of their business.

←

That is indeed what they said at their recent press conference. I think they forgot to mention that they found their three Michelin macarons pretty useful for the building of their "financial empire" in Asia, which now - as they say - represents 90 % of their business, and does not necessarily deliver 3-star quality. Knowing them as rather modest people, I was expecting a bit more sense of proportion from them.

[chefzadi]

Gosh, I hope you are wrong... I've head sushi that has been in a "Keller" league yet sharing no style with him but a passion for the nature of the ingrediant. And I had a rabbit bolognese that made me love my mother a bit more in portland. heh.

I think what I'm looking for is not the keller style (as much... admittedly my fierce loyalty to ingrediants is a stylistic choice) but the keller sustained excellence. Every.single.damn.dish. at the FL was great, even stuff I typically don't like (until dessert, again.). I think that is what I seek in the three star-- sustained attention and complete performance.

I'm not wrong. Although I think we are playing word games now. So you have made me wrong. So let's play more word games. Keller did not invent "a passion for the nature of the ingredient". I wonder if Keller's salmon tartare is in the same league as Masa's sushi/sashimi? Many chefs have passion for the nature of the igredients. They interpret their passions and ingredients differently. He simply defined it for you.

What is the best restaurant in france, in your opinion, for food alone?

I can't remember the name right now, but I had the best Merguez sandwich of my life there.

Overall I don't disagree with your standards. Although I am sure we will disagree with it's executions. Which is my point with most of my ramblings here. I also tend to forget about my standards while I'm eating, untill there is something glaringly discordant with my standards. I don't limit it to $350.00 meals either. My attitude is hard wired into my brain. Which is why I never eat junk food.

* did every ingrediant have a job to do for my eye and my tongue? (that means you, you lazy garnish you)

What do you think about Keller's little garnishes of those vegetable dusts? I know they're not lazy, it takes alot of labor to make them and they are straining to be pretty on the plate (and yes I do think they are lovely to look at). How do they inform the dish for you? What do you do with it? Sprinkle it onto something, dip something into it, is it a condiment of sorts?

Agan et alors, I will mention that I am having fun with this discussion.