Ouest

[Pan]

Thanks, Yvonne.

Col Legno is still as good as it ever was - a little salty, but very satisfying, and a quiet, civilized room.

[jaybee]

Yes, welcome back Pan. I look forward to reading your posts. I've eaten at Ouest about five times now with mostly good results. The last meal I made the mistake of ordering a strip steak. Over done, too salty and not as good a cut of beef as I would have had at Mitchell London's at Fairway. The other dishes I've had there were very enjoyable. It is a good place to go for a staisfying and tasty meal in a pleasant room.

Not haute cuisine, but well prepared enjoyable food.

[Bux]

Let me also welcome you back. I found your comments interesting. I've kind of been a fan of Valent's. I say kind of because I live downtown and don't get to the upper west side much. I've also found it hard to convince others to go there for dinner.

It's got to be a drag when one can't eat much carbohydrates or protein and then has the vegetable substituted to one that's also on the restricted list. I'm not sure it's a fault of the restaurant, but I'm sure he should have had the option of returning the dish and feel they really should have mentioned the substitution before bringing the dish. I suppose running out of food in the evening means it's all fresh. At least I hope so.

Perhaps your duck salad was not so unorthadox. Was it in any way reminiscent of a salad frisse with bacon and poached or softboiled egg? That has greens, cured meat, egg with runny yolk and I guess some croutons. I recall a nice salad at Ouest that was a rift on salad frisee only there was smoked fish in place of the meat.

It's hard to comment on the confit. It shouldn't be too fatty, but that's just too relative a term. The confit shouldn't have a thick layer of fat under the skin. Ideally the skin should have been recrisped. I had a very tasty, but still disappointing confit in a brasserie in Chartres this spring. Had the skin been crisped, I think my confit would have crossed the line from disappointing all the way to pretty good. Unfortunately my fries weren't very crisp either. It was a nice enough place and every restaurant in town was closed except for this brasserie in our hotel and one other place all the way at the other end of town and truthfully, it didn't look too promising either.

You summation seems reasonable enough except for the implication that is should be comparable to JoJo at its best several years ago. I seem to recall JoJo as having higher prices, at least relative to the times--I've really noticed inflation in restaurant prices. I've also found JoJo to be less than consistent although I've haven't been there much either. Of course not being there much will either exaggerate inconsistency or miss my chance of seeing it.

[Pan]

Thanks for your replies, Jaybee and Bux.

Bux:

I think I'll deal with your last point first. I agree with you that JoJo was more expensive in its heyday (in current dollars) than Ouest is. I use JoJo as a basis of comparison in terms of quality of food, mostly having to do with the degree of imagination and felicity of Vongerichten's mixing of flavors. I don't know how much price goes into that, but I certainly agree that it would be a little much to expect Ouest to be that good. I had heard and read several raves before going, however, and was solidly satisfied but not blown away by the place. My impression, based on that one meal, is that it's very good but not really special.

I don't remember whether the spinach that came on the plate with my father's dish was a substitution, though I know he wasn't aware he was going to get it; the problem was the kitchen had run out of a separate side dish of cabbage. Yes, the food was all very fresh, except that my sturgeon might have been just a tiny bit fishy (I still liked it). My father wouldn't have thought of returning the food because he had been waiting such a long time for it! As I said, the service was very slow. I was surprised to read through an earlier thread on Ouest and see how many people really liked the service. I think that the speed of their service and the fact that they ran out of things were their low points.

I see your point in your comparison of the smoked duck appetizer to a salade frisse with bacon and croutons, but I don't think that I've ever had that with a _fried_ soft-boiled egg.

The confit didn't have a thick layer of fat under the skin but did come with a fair amount of fat that my mother removed and didn't eat. It was not crispy. But I guess my viewpoint was that it's the meat that's confit that I really care about, and I thought it was very good.

[Wilfrid]

Finally made it to Ouest. I liked my appetizer, described as a "souffleed omelette". It looked like a yellow sponge cake, except that the sponge was two slices of fairly firm egg (reminiscent of tamago, the egg slice served over sushi rice), sitting on a pool of Hollandaise, and the filling was a black truffle sauce. Imaginative and tasty.

I wanted to try one of the braised dishes. Reading the list of entrees didn't excite me; very much a meat and veg place with few frills. So, I ended up ordering the tripe. Maybe a mistake; I eat a lot of tripe, and that makes me fussy. This was stewed with tomatoes, and helped out with little chunks of smoked pork loin. The texture was adequately, but not inordinately, tender. Best tripe dish in town is still Le Cirque's Tripes a l'Armagnac, which admittedly is at least twice the price. With a side of mash, it was certainly filling.

Watch out for the martinis. I ordered a French martini (a dash of Lillet in there) while perusing the menu, and I was served at least half a pint. Generous, but it meant I didn't drink much wine with the meal.

Dessert. For once we enter the category of "really nasty" - the faint of heart should move on. Described as a pumpkin cheesecake, a glob of densely textured, bready pumpkin turned up under some sort of cloying white sauce. Whatever liquid surrounded it had a very distinctive kind of viscosity which has its place in life, but not at the table. Quite disgusting. Sadly, since I had mentally composed a few remarks about it, no-one asked why I didn't eat it.

Like Aix down the road, the prices are attractive: $85 for three courses and drinks. My server seemed exceptionally impressed with himself; why, I couldn't say.

[Liza]

Oh Mighty W, do share you prepared remarks on the inedible dessert here. Twould be a shame for wit such as yours to go unasked for.

[Wilfrid]

Pretty much what I said in the post. Had my server invited comment, I would have enjoyed telling them. IHowever, I wouldn't have told them what the sauce reminded me of. I can't even post that here (well, I could, but...).

[Liza]

Sounds like how Tony Bourdain described the Mexican beverage pulque.

[Pan]

Wilfred:

It sounds like you didn't consider sending the dessert back. Did you consider that? Why did you choose not to?

I rarely send things back, but if I found something so disgusting in a restaurant where dishes aren't $5 or even $10 apiece, I'd send it back! (Actually, if I were _really_ disgusted, I'd send a $3 dessert back, too.)

[Wilfrid]

I admit it didn't cross my mind, I think because I assumed it was meant to be that way. I would send something back if it had not been cooked or made properly. I mean, it's not like I wanted them to do something to it and then give it back to me; and it put me off the other desserts on the menu, perhaps unfairly.

[Pan]

I admit it didn't cross my mind, I think because I assumed it was meant to be that way.

I see your point, Wilfred. When I'm in doubt, I usually ask the waiter questions about the dish and attempt (sometimes unsuccessfully) to avoid giving an immediate impression that I hate a dish, if I'm merely doubtful about it or some aspect thereof. But it sounds like you were way beyond that. It's a pity to order something and eat none of it.