Consistency and Inconsistency

[John Talbott]

More than anything, I think it just goes to show how little has to go wrong to torpedo a meal at a restaurant of this caliber.

←

The subject of consistency/inconsistency in places arises again with the report of two recent meals at Le Meurice.

Elsewhere I've talked of the sophomore jinx, eg, second meals not coming up to the level of first experiences. There are lots of reasons for this phenomenon that members and I have noted.

But then we have Le Meurice and Le Comptoir with equally puzzling variances, sometimes (in the case of another member and I) where two people agree 100% when together and 0% when dining separately.

Is this inconsistency, is it the situation/company/mood/chef/absence of same/etc.? It cannot be ascribed to dining alone, since I've had it happen equally as often when alone as when dining with others.

And let me cite another example - the Fables of Fontaine - where I've had 2 great meals alone and 1 with others, 1 disaster for 4 of us, and the most recent one - a 50% redemption where there was 1 hold-over from the disaster (Colette) and 2 new folks.

And yet another puzzle - the 33% situation, eg Auguste, where 3 of us ate and where A's entree, B's main and C's dessert passed the test, but all 3 of us agreed the other dishes failed.

What's going on?

Anyway, I hope others will chime in.

Edited and moved by John Talbott Friday Aug 29th, 2005.

[Felice]

I think that one reason, among many, that you have two wildly different descriptions of the same restaurant is, of course, that people’s tastes and expectations vary and are very personal; a dish I love might be something someone else strongly dislikes. I personally don’t care for andouillettes, it’s just something I don’t like. If I went to a place that was said to serve the most amazing andouillettes in the world, I still don’t think I would love them, but I would realize that this was something particular to me and not that andouillettes are inherently bad.

That’s why, if I were to eat in a place as reputable as Le Meurice (and I haven’t) with a chef as accomplished as Yannick Alleno, I would hesitate to label a dish I didn’t like as “bad”. Right or wrong, I would tend to trust and respect his training and would assume that he knew what he was doing and that if I didn’t like something it was due to my own personal tastes and not because of the dish was bad. I’m not saying that these places are infallible; I just assume at that level, off nights are hard to come by. Maybe I’m on wrong on this.

And of course, expectations, company, mood, service, and experience all come into play when dining out, it’s not only about the food which is why it’s so hard to repeat a truly memorable restaurant experience.

[pierre45]

I think that one reason, among many, that you have two wildly different descriptions of the same restaurant is, of course, that people’s tastes and expectations vary and are very personal; a dish I love might be something someone else strongly dislikes.  I personally don’t care for andouillettes, it’s just something I don’t like.  If I went to a place that was said to serve the most amazing andouillettes in the world, I still don’t think I would love them, but I would realize that this was something particular to me and not that andouillettes are inherently bad. 

That’s why, if I were to eat in a place as reputable as Le Meurice (and I haven’t) with a chef as accomplished as Yannick Alleno, I would hesitate to label a dish I didn’t like as  “bad”.  Right or wrong, I would tend to trust and respect his training and would assume that he knew what he was doing and that if I didn’t like something it was due to my own personal tastes and not because of the dish was bad.  I’m not saying that these places are infallible; I just assume at that level, off nights are hard to come by.  Maybe I’m on wrong on this. 

And of course, expectations, company, mood, service, and experience all come into play when dining out, it’s not only about the food which is why it’s so hard to repeat a truly memorable restaurant experience.

←

Je suis tout a fait d'accord avec toi,Felice.However there is the point that john was making about inconsistensies in restaurants.This is a fact and its true in all restaurants,however to a lesser extend in starred ones.

Chefs & their teams are human and make mistakes or are too busy or tired.Perfection does not exist. For some it's not often and they are the ones that prosper.

[docsconz]

Not everything a given chef creates will excel or hit the mark. Even if it does most times, it might not for various reasons every time. The best restaurants generally create the best food and do it most consistently. I disagree that just because a chef or a restaurant has a particular reputation a disliked dish is the fault of the one having it. That smacks of "The Emperor's New Clothes".

When formulating an opinion for myself, I prefer to trust my own palate rather than a chef's stature or training. Certainly, there may be times when I simply don't "get" the dish and that is my problem. I tend to be a fairly adventurous eater and enjoy new things so that is unlikely to be a big problem for me. Nevertheless, I can usually determine when something works or doesn't work.

It is important to get a sense of the critic and what the criticism is based on. I am much more likely to take seriously criticism from someone whose opinion I have come to understand. This can be from a long history of reading or discussion or sometimes from an extremely well presented and thought out statement from someone unfamiliar. The context is important. A Frenchman may be more likely to dismiss a criticism of a specific dish or restaurant given by an American than another American would simply because of cultural discrepancies. Great service to a Frenchman may seem rude to an American and vice versa. Depending on the type of restaurant I prefer the more formal french approach myself.

The other important thing I look for is a trend. One poor review or bad experience amongst many glowing reports can easily be chalked up to "bad luck" or an "off night". If the reports start becoming more frequent and from people I trust, I start to get concerned. On the other hand, one bad report without a background of significant positives may be sufficient cause for concern by itself.

Expensive restaurants are less likely to be suffered for inconsistency. My one experience at Alain Ducasse in NYC although generally excellent was very disappointing. I simply think that my meal was too flawed for the exorbitant price I paid. I don't mind paying, but if it is a lot of money, I feel the meal should live up to it. This one experience certainly doesn't mean that the restaurant was "bad", although it failed to impress me. I give much greater leeway to less expensive places.

[pim]

I agree with Felice and Pierre45. I also agree with Pierre that the examples John posited at the beginning of this thread were not all equal. When the same diner experiences meals of varying quality, that is likely inconsistency. But when taking into account reports from different diners whose experiences are vastly different, perhaps what is more at play there is personal taste and experience.

I am not saying that not all individual experiences are valid, but they are certainly not created equal. Inherent in each review - amateur or otherwise - is subjectivity and personal judgement. That's why comments like, this is the best/worst dish I've ever tasted are - I find - far more revealing about the diner than about the dish.

Nor am I saying that a great or highly praised restaurant can never have a bad night or a bad dish - I've been to Pierre Gagnaire far too many times for this to be true. What am I saying - and I am finally getting to this - is that it is not easy comparing reviews of restaurants. Like dosconz said, it is also important to understand the context, the taste and experience of the reviewer, upon which the review is based. Also, the more descriptive and less prescriptive the review, the better for us readers. Descriptors such as overdone/underdone, over-seasoned/underseasoned, bad ingredient quality, or incomprehensible pairing (albeit somewhat subjective still), help to unpack ambiguous prescriptions such as bad or wrong and make them more understandable by readers, and easier for readers to exert their own judgement of the meal.

One more thing I have got to say. A relationship between you and your servers at a dinner, like any other relationship, is a two way street. Bux has said many times that - and I am paraphrasing here - he had never received an ugly American treatment because he's never behaved like one. Again, I must state here that I am not implying that everyone who has ever received a bad service deserved it. But I am saying that, when reading a review, perhaps one needs to also glance at the demeaner of the reviewer himself during the meal. Reading the review that precipitated this thread, I could hypothesize that, perhaps, the service staff at the offending restaurant were perhaps stiff not because they were normally that way, but because they were unsure how to deal with customers who were so displeased, and who made his dissatisfaction and unease so very apparent to all, including chiding the chef tableside for a dish that, in his words, was just wrong.

Seen in this light, this stiffness on the part of the staff was still in itself a flaw in service, mind you, but a completely different flaw than what was described in the review.

..à chacun son goût...so true, in so very many ways...

[Bux]

It's one thing to have inconsistent reports from different people eating the same meal, and another to have inconsistent reports from a single person reporting on two different meals. I think it's safe to dismiss the reports of those who don't agree with me.

Just kidding, but different reports from different people, even on different nights will always suggest it might be a matter of different tastes. Not so when the inconsistent reports come from the same person. I don't have to stress that to be imperfect is to be human. Most everyone else is already saying that. Most of them are addressing imperfection in terms of off nights, but it should also be noted that every dish on the menu is not created equally. Yes ago I was advised to order the dishes mentioned in the Michelin Guide. (The red guide mentions a few dishes at each starred restaurant and one or two local wines that can usually be depended on to be inexpensive or at least at a value point.) These dishes are usually the ones the restaurant is most proud of serving and the ones on which their reputation is most solidly built. To miss these dishes is sometimes to miss the restaurant's strength. There are members who swear by tasting menus and those who swear at them. My overall impression is that it depends on the restaurant. There are restaurants whose tasting menus may be their specialty, and there are those restaurants where the true genius, the special dish, never appears on the tasting menu. There's just no way to do a proper tasting portion of the rack of lamb in bread crust or a whole fish baked on the bone. I recall once ordering a specialty at a two star country inn and returning later to order something else. The second dish was flawless, it was sheer perfection, but it was not the kind of dish on which a restaurant builds its reputation. Perhaps that's also the difference between a three star and two star restaurant. The three star is far likelier to excel across the lline, but still there's no guarantee. At the neighborhood bistro level, there's certainly going to be less consistency.

Bux has said many times that - and I am paraphrasing here - he had never received an ugly American treatment because he's never behaved like one.

Well certainly not that I will admit to.

[BigboyDan]

"Inconsistency" is relative.

The biggest problem with many diners who frequent multi-starred restaurants is that they want more than a meal - they want a transcendental experience for their euros. Almost by definition, transcendence comes rarely and is almost always a result of a priori conditions being met (experienced diners), or from something experienced for the first time (it can happen only once). When expectations are not met, dissapointment follows. What cracks me up, more than anything, is that one diner can experience something quite dissimilar to that of ten other diners eating the same meal at the same table... We always argue to the patron, "If it's good enough for the Prime Minister, who ate here three weeks-ago, it's good enough for you..."

[Bux]

Good points and I see a common thread to Dan and Pim's messages. If a restaurant has three stars and a certain universal respect, it's best to go with an attitude that the restaurant can teach you something you don't know about food. I trust I'm not putting words in either Pim or Dan's mouth. Again and again I'm reminded of Jeffrey Steingarten's comment about needing eight meals to understand and appreciate Passard's food at Arpège. Most of us may never have eight meals at Arpège and many reading this forum may not be so lucky as to have eight meals in Paris. It seems criminal when one has scrimped, to spend what seems to be a fortune and not to have the transcendental experience. It happens all the time for any number of reasons including the fact that these moments are hard to plan. Many of my epiphanies have been at holes in the wall, but I'm probably moving in a tangent to the thread at best, so I'll stop, but if I have a point, it's that expectations play a very large role in people's ultimate satisfaction with their dinner and more so at the mulitstarred places.

[docsconz]

There is no question that expectations play an important role in how a diner perceives a restaurant. The diner certainly brings a lot to bear on the experience in addition to expectations. Even so, there can be relatively objective criteria for being less than fully satisfied with a particular meal or a particular restaurant. When I go to a any restaurant I hope for a transcendant experience. Unfortunately they are rare no matter how many stars a restaurant has so I don't really expect one. Fortunately for me, i don't need this to be satisfied. What I do expect out of a 3 star restaurant is delicious food exhibiting sophistication and artistry in an environment in which I can enjoy it. My biggest beef with ducasse in NYC was the pace they were putting us through for our tasting menus. It was literally one course on top of another. I felt rushed, which really got under my skin in that situation. This may have affected my response to certain courses.

The problem with disappointing meals at high end restaurants is that for most people it is indeed too much of a luxury for multiple chances. In the right situation I would return to ADNY because I suspect the food would generally warrant it., but because of my experience I am not in a hurry to do so.

I think the real value of reviews such as we see here on eGullet is not any one in its singularity. It is instead the overall compilation and trend of the reviews as well as their contextual niche. Some individual reviews are clearly better than others and therefore carry more weight whether it is due to the accumulated authority of the reviewer or the quality of the review itself.