Does It Matter Who Cooks?

[rich]

A couple of years ago when I first joined (6/02) eGullet, there was a thread about the importance of the executive or celebrity chef in the kitchen. I'll take a somewhat different approach with this.

Does in matter at all if the executive chef is in the kitchen or even in the house of any of her/his restaurants? Is it better/worse if they're not present? Is it better/worse if they are in the house but avoid the kitchen and is it better/worse if they don't get involved with the actual cooking or plating.

My feeling then, as it is now, is it really doesn't matter who cooks at all except on rare occasions or possibly in a super avant garde type establishment (WD-50, Gilt come to mind). And for the most part, restaurants run better with the EC or CC avoiding the kitchen area, though she/he should visit the resto at least once a month.

In high school I was a diswasher for an upscale NYC eatery (no longer exists and I eventually became a waiter). But I recall, as a 16-year-old plate wiper, helping with cooking and plating when the restaurant got really busy. No one ever complained, at least to my knowledge. I'm sure similar situations occur today.

What are the eGullet opinions?

Edited April 20, 2006 by rich (log)

[Fat Guy]

In terms of my real-world experiences, some restaurants are worse when the chef is away, some are the same and a few are better. So it's not really possible to generalize, except perhaps to say there are no hard-and-fast rules. In other words, people who say "All restaurants are always better when the chef is in the kitchen" are making an unsupportable generalization. I think a lot of folks want it to be true, but the reality is that, with the exception of an extreme minority of tiny restaurants here and there, the chef doesn't cook your food even if he's in the kitchen. All the work is delegated. Good chefs can delegate from 5,000 miles away. Bad chefs can't even delegate from the pass.

[Gifted Gourmet]

A recent post on One Midtown here in Atlanta revealed that even when Chef Richard Blais was off in Europe enjoying el Bulli and other top dining destinations, his staff produced a top-notch meal for Dave the Cook ...One.midtown Kitchen review

[LoveToEatATL]

It all depends...but I am the biggest chef groupie and am always so thrilled to meet them - especially when we are traveling.

So, for me, the answer is - better to have the chef in the kitchen.

In Vegas this past Thanksgiving we ate at Daniel Boulud's and it was dreadful. I'm guessing he was not in house.

[rich]

In Vegas this past Thanksgiving we ate at Daniel Boulud's and it was dreadful.  I'm guessing he was not in house.

←

Do you think it was dreadful because he wasn't there? Or is the Vegas DB just not a very good restaurant?

[docsconz]

I think it really depends on the restaurant, the chef and the diner. If the kitchen is well run the food should be neither better nor worse. Having the chef there though, especially if the chef is well known or a vibrant personality adds to the aura of a restaurant and may add to the experience of some diners. Conversely if a chef is known to be there frequently and is absent, the absence itself may be a disappointment for some dines adversely affecting their perception of a meal even if the quality is no different.

[rich]

Conversely if a chef is known to be there frequently and is absent, the absence itself may be a disappointment for some dines adversely affecting their perception of a meal even if the quality is no different.

←

True, Doc and we all know perception is more important than reality in today's world.

[Bond Girl]

In some cases, the kitchen is actually better without the EC. The sou chef of one very well established NYC restaurant once told me that the whole kitchen would prefer the EC just stay in the dining room and schmooze the customers. When he's in the kitchen, he makes a mess and gets in the way.

[LoveToEatATL]

In Vegas this past Thanksgiving we ate at Daniel Boulud's and it was dreadful.  I'm guessing he was not in house.

←

Do you think it was dreadful because he wasn't there? Or is the Vegas DB just not a very good restaurant?

←

Rich, I really just can't say. The waiter kept telling us how hungover he was, the sommelier came over to push bottles after we had just ordered by the glass, the beef was overcooked.

It was just a total disappointment.

[MissAmy]

I always assume that the chef WON'T be in the kitchen, or if s/he is, won't be cooking. If they are a decent chef and have hired good people, they don't need to be.

[Vadouvan]

Do you think it was dreadful because he wasn't there? Or is the Vegas DB just not a very good restaurant?

The answer is B, it isnt a very good restaurant.

I had a totally mediocre meal there and at Bouchon vegas.

Fact is most vegas "cheffy restaurants" are just soulless hotel licensing deals to capitalise on the name and fame of famous chefs, I have no problem with that, that is capitalist America but more often than not, it results in Mediocre food.

You can get a better Idea of Boulud's food philosophy in New York.

Chefs dont have to be in thier restaurants for the food to be good, that's the whole point of delegation, hire good people who understand your standards and expectations and the rest is academic.

[docsconz]

In some cases, the kitchen is actually better without the EC. The sou chef of one very well established NYC restaurant once told me that the whole kitchen would prefer the EC just stay in the dining room and schmooze the customers.  When he's in the kitchen, he makes a mess and gets in the way.

←

It may be better when he is not in the kitchen, but the diners still have the perception of his presence and personality, thus a sense of security and value whether there really is added value or not. I wonder what the perception of this restaurant is when the chef is not there at all?