Judging a restaurant based on one meal

[Fat Guy]

This comes up all the time in food discussion, in various contexts: Can you judge a restaurant based on one meal?

[mikeczyz]

No.

Edit:

While I don't believe that one can conclusively state that a restaurant is good or bad in one visit, i do believe one can learn many things, just as hearing a violinist in concert, even on an off night, one can learn a great many things about the performer.

mike

[Holly Moore]

I'd trust a good impression more than a bad one with just a single experience.

In the case of a bad experience it would depend on the degree. One time had a server chase me out of a restaurant because he didn't like the size of the tip (it was fine). I called/wrote the owner and he never got back to me. That time I formed an opinion and have stuck to it.

It probably also depends on how many people you get to tell. If one has a column or writes reviews, two visits is a bare minimum, three or four is fairer though not really all that representative.

I think I've done the math here before - a restaurant is open for lunch and dinner six days a week, averages 100 covers per meal. It serves 200 meals a day, 1200 meals a week, 62,000 meals a year. A critic with a dining companion visits a restaurant twice before reviewing it. That means the critic has experienced 4/62.000 or .0065 percent of a restaurant's yearly output. Hardly seems fair to declare one's impression to a few hundred thousand or million readers on such a small sampling.

[ngatti]

This comes up all the time in food discussion, in various contexts: Can you judge a restaurant based on one meal?

Well, don't we all do this most of the time. Most restaurants get one shot. Especially new ones. Well at least in this neck of the woods. I think Jason, Rachel may be able to back me up on this. We play to a pretty tough crowd in the tri-state. if I have a bad meal...well I work pretty hard for my money (as most of us do). Should I risk it as well as the calories on giving someone a second chance? It'll usually take much urging from people who's opinions I muchly respect before I again try a restaurant that's dissed me once already.

Nick

[southern girl]

I try not to visit a new restaurant within two months of the opening...granted sometimes this can't be avoided if you are invited to opening parties... I wait two months and go back. The exception is if the first impression at the party is stellar (that has only happened once in 15 or so experiences). As for restaurants where I have had a bad experience...I will give them one more chance, uless I hear nothing but bad reports from friends (who's opinions I respect) who have dined there and also had bad experiences. Until I hear differently I do not see a reason to subject myself to a bad meal out of curiosity. It may be different in Manhattan as you have so many new places to experiment with.

[nightscotsman]

Absolutely.

After one bad meal I can tell they are at the very least inconsistent, at worst it's just a bad restaurant. As ngatti said, I also work hard for my money and there are plenty of other places that I know to be good and consistent. If I take a risk on your restaurant and you let me down, I will take my money elsewhere since you obviously don't have your act together. If it was one bad meal after several good ones I might give you the benefit of the doubt and give a second chance.

[lizziee]

This discussion arose from my comment that I thought Fat Guy was unfair to dismiss French Laundry as 300 dollars better spent elsewhere. Fat Guy did not say that French Laundry was bad, only that it was "perfect" and not as exciting as Charlie Trotter's. But, he as much dismissed it as not worth it. This assessment was based on one meal, 2 or 3 years ago, with the assumption that the staff, the sommelier and the cuisine is stagnant. I think, Fat Guy, because your opinions are highly respected and regarded, it becomes even more important that you qualify your opinions to reflect the "one shot - 2/3 year lag opinion."

We have just returned from Napa and San Francisco and some of my judgments of just 4 months ago, have changed. I have eaten in some of these restaurants numerous times and so have some basis on which to judge the changes. However, you dismissed French Laundry, not even because of a bad meal, but because some years ago it didn't measure up to your Trotter experience and your given assumption that what was is now.

[Fat Guy]

That means the critic has experienced 4/62.000 or .0065 percent of a restaurant's yearly output.

Holly, based on my limited knowledge of statistics the .0065 percent is not the relevant number. When public opinion polls are taken in this nation of 300,000,000 people there are typically 1,200 people polled. That's .0004 percent (I think -- someone check my math; I did it in my head), yet if the sample group is carefully chosen to be representative of the whole population then polls are quite reliable at determining the statistical likelihood of what the entire population would answer if asked the same questions as the sample group. Even if you cut that big number down to be only registered voters or whatever, the percentage of the sample size versus the total is insignificant. The real question is, what is the value of asking more people the same question? Are you likely to get substantially different answers if you keep asking? At some point you say no, we're pretty much within the margin of error that a rational person would consider acceptable.

So let me ask you this: Have you ever eaten at a restaurant 10 times? How about 5? How about 3? How about 1? In your experience where is the point of diminishing returns in terms of the value of another visit? I think you get a tremendous amount of information on a first visit. Absent exceptional circumstances, what you learn on subsequent visits pales by comparison to the mother lode of information you get on your first visit. And sometime around visit number 3 or 4 you start wasting your time. I can think of counterexamples, but in the overwhelming majority of cases I see little value to more than 3 or 4 visits. In other words, if I ate at the restaurant 62,000 times I doubt I'd learn appreciably more -- for the purposes of judging the restaurant -- than I'd learn in 3 or 4 visits. This is my way of saying I don't agree with your statistical argument as an indictment of all restaurant reviews.

Still, framing this thread in terms of restaurant reviews is one angle. A big difference between a restaurant reviewer and a customer is that the restaurant reviewer is financed and is doing a job while the customer is dining for pleasure (presumably) and is paying his own way. It seems to me that a customer is entirely justified in judging a restaurant based on one visit. How could a customer not judge a restaurant based on one visit? Subsequent visits, if they happen, may modify the judgment, but that doesn't alter the basic premise.

Inconsistency is a fact of life in the restaurant universe, it's true. Any restaurant in the world -- even the best one, whichever that is -- can provide a disastrous dining experience for some unlucky customer on any given day. But restaurants should be held accountable for those experiences. One of the things you notice on eGullet is that no matter what the restaurant is, no matter how many serious gourmets say it's great, there are always people -- credible, intelligent people -- who say they had a lousy meal there. It's an interesting phenomenon, and I'm not sure anybody has yet figured out how to sort it out.

[Fat Guy]

I think, Fat Guy, because your opinions are highly respected and regarded, it becomes even more important that you qualify your opinions to reflect the "one shot - 2/3 year lag opinion."

Hey, wait a second. How did you find out I went there once and it was a few years ago? Because I said so on that thread. Doesn't that count as qualification?

[Fat Guy]

Sorry for the multiple consecutive posts. The other thought I had is that there is essentially a canon when it comes to the best restaurants at the high end. I think we have referred to this in other threads as the "gourmet consensus." Such a consensus or canon is an interesting and valuable device, provided it is not followed slavishly. You don't have to dine out, ever, to know what the canon is -- all you have to do is read. You can also learn about the canon while eating, provided you pay attention while you eat and you maybe even back that up with some reading and discussion. The more restaurants in the canon that you've dined at, the more you start to understand the basis for and limitations of that canon. At some point you develop instincts about where the canon is on target and where it's suffering from statistical anomalies or inconsistencies in judgment. It's like when Tim Zagat says he can walk into any restaurant and get a read on the place in five minutes without eating a bite of food. Now of course that's a dangerous game, but I bet his correctness percentage is pretty high. It's not fair to the places he's wrong about, of course, but it's an interesting exercise that any experienced diner will tell you he can reproduce to at least some extent.

Anyhow . . . I think this raises a couple of issues. One is that when you have a meal that completely goes against the gourmet consensus you have to ask what the departure was. If the consensus is that the service is awesome and the tuna with farfel is silky, and you get crappy service and tough tuna and they forget to put the farfel on, you might want to say, okay, clearly this was an off night. If the tuna is silky but the addition of farfel is so conceptually flawed that you know a whole lot of gourmets have been hoodwinked (this is my opinion of, for example, Keller's oysters-and-pearls dish that he's never tasted), well, that's a different story. You can never be sure because you can never put yourself in someone else's shoes, but your instincts get better and better with time. The danger is relying on them too much, to the detriment of actual research.

[lizziee]

I think, Fat Guy, because your opinions are highly respected and regarded, it becomes even more important that you qualify your opinions to reflect the "one shot - 2/3 year lag opinion."

Hey, wait a second. How did you find out I went there once and it was a few years ago? Because I said so on that thread. Doesn't that count as qualification?

Fat Guy,

Yes, you qualified but you also stated that, in your opinion, as of now in 2002, it is not worth it. Maybe, the qualifier would be that 3 years ago, you found Trotter more worth it than Keller instead of "don't bother today."

[Fat Guy]

I make lots of overreaching statements, but given how much detail I provided on that thread I'm not sure you've pointed to one of them.

[lizziee]

This is some very early, and not particularly good, food writing of mine from several years ago. I don't know that it makes a very persuasive case, but it's what I thought of meals at Charlie Trotter's and French Laundry that I had close in time to one another. The reason I'm including the Trotter's report is that I'd characterize it as "worth it":

QUOTE

CHARLIE TROTTER'S

To enjoy a meal at Charlie Trotter's you need to give yourself over

completely to the dining experience. Anything less and you'll just find the

restaurant annoying.

It helps to know a few things before you dine at Charlie Trotter's: First,

dinner (the only meal served) is exactly $100 per person (exclusive of wine,

tax, tip, parking etc.). This entitles you to one of three printed tasting

menus (even the vegetarian menu is $100). Second, what you read on the

tasting menu is only a loose approximation of what you'll be served. By that

I don't mean that the descriptions of the dishes are vague, but, rather,

that the kitchen does a lot of improvising--"Cooking in the moment," as they

call it in new-age Charlie-Trotter's-speak. So where you thought you might

be getting venison, you might get Wagyu beef instead--or in addition. Third,

a team of experts is constantly (and unobtrusively, for the most part)

monitoring your actions (including your returned plates) in order to

optimize your dining experience. If you're eating well, food will keep

coming. If you express likes and dislikes (implicitly or explicitly) the

kitchen will try to work within those parameters. Instead of asking, "Is

everything okay?" the waiters at Charlie Trotter's serenely ask, "Are you

comfortable?" "How are those flavors for you?" and "How are you feeling?"

The more information you offer-up in response to these queries, the more

excited they get. It's really quite an odd way to eat (I think this accounts

for the mixed reviews I've heard and read regarding Charlie Trotter's),

albeit a tremendously satisfying one.

You may feel the need for deprogramming after your meal, but your meal will

be a great one. The food is fabulous, and there's plenty of it. The two most

memorable dishes (each a collection of dishes, actually) from our dinner

were the "amuse bouche" and the dessert platter (both pictured above). The

amuse was four separate exquisite little dishes served on a checkerboard of

square white plates, the best of which was a "Napoleon" of marinated hamachi

with shallot creme fraiche and Osetra caviar (yes, there are many Asian

influences at Charlie Trotter's). A platter of nine small desserts (served

on a remarkably hideous multi-colored plate)--every one of them

excellent--was the great last-chapter that every world-class restaurant

should write. Particularly noteworthy were the Fuji apple crisp with white

pepper ice cream, the rice pudding and the yuzu pudding cake with

citrus--not to mention the pre-dessert of creme-fraiche and chocolate sorbet

with red-wine-marinated berries . . . and the pre-pre-dessert of Alsatian

Muenster cheese almost-melted over fruits, nuts and fingerling potatoes. Of

the intermediate courses, the fish were the most impressive, both because

they take well to the Asian seasonings and because they are cooked

flawlessly, and I'd love to return (after a sufficient period of

psychological recovery) to try the vegetarian menu because the kitchen has a

magic touch with asparagus, mushrooms and the like.

Ask for a tour of the kitchen and wine cellar. If it's late enough (i.e.,

not in the middle of the dinner rush), you'll likely be accommodated. It's a

small but beautiful kitchen, complete with custom-designed Bonnet stoves and

transparent-door cabinetry, and the wine cellar (three cellars, actually)

contains some incredible old bottles--including a vertical of Mouton (with

all the artists' labels). There's also a demonstration kitchen (where

Charlie Trotter films his PBS shows) with an attached a private dining room

(it looks to seat about 20), and you can dine at the chef's table (in the

kitchen) with a group of four to six people (this table books six months in

advance, to the day).

+++

FRENCH LAUNDRY

The drive from Cave Junction, Oregon to Yountville, California took all of

eight hours (we could have done it in seven and a half, but we were taking

the scenic route). It was a beautiful drive along the coast, but, having

already seen about a million miles of jagged coastline on our previous day's

drive, I yearned for a straight, boring interstate highway. We arrived at

our destination, the world-renowned French Laundry in California's Napa

region, at the stroke of 8:30pm (that's the time our reservation was for--we

would have been early had our plans not been foiled by the very slow Napa

wine train crossing the road at the worst possible moment), unbathed (as

you'll recall we had camped at a fairly primitive campground the night

before) and looking almost as disheveled as the wealthy Californians already

dining there (we had changed clothes half in and half out of the car in the

parking-lot of a nearby semi-abandoned gas-station, which gave us an

authentic version of the grimy/rumpled look that many of the other French

Laundry customers had tried to achieve through artificial means).

I'm trying to think of one word to describe our meal at French Laundry.

"Perfect," that much-overused restaurant-reviewing adjective, comes to mind

because the food was flawless in every regard. "Sublime," also from the

official restaurant-reviewer's not-so-secret thesaurus, is another contender

primarily on account of the restaurant's physical setting (which is the

closest approximation of a Michelin three-star restaurant in the French

countryside that I've seen in America--I recommend sitting in the magical

outdoor garden, even though it is considered by most to be the "B" seating

area). Or perhaps "superlative," because in terms of the technical aspects

of food preparation (execution, ingredients, presentation, etc.) the French

Laundry is probably one of the best--if not the best--restaurants I've

visited.

But I guess if I had to choose just one word to sum up my impressions of the

French Laundry I'd choose "boring." Other than the ambience and my

admiration for the precision of the line-cooks there was little there to

hold my interest. If that's enough for you, by all means proceed to the

French Laundry--you'll love it (no other restaurant has received more rave

write-ins than this one). But if you believe that good execution and a nice

garden aren't enough to justify a $300 (with the cheapest wine) tab, you can

probably do better elsewhere. Certainly, if you've dined in a bunch of other

top restaurants, you've seen all these tricks before: The tidy little stack

of ingredients (every dish looks like a "Napoleon") in the center of the big

white plate. Lightly seared or roasted this-or-that on a bed of

brightly-colored vegetables with something-or-other emulsion. The baby

chocolate soufflé/cake for dessert.

Service is good enough. The maitre d' and sommelier are serious pros, and

any restaurant would be lucky to have them, but they're backed-up by a very

young waitstaff. I'm sure some people would characterize our waiter as

pretentious, although I'm willing to be a bit more charitable and just say

that he didn't know as much as he thought he did. The wine list is strong

(unusually deep in French wines for a California wine-country

restaurant--I'm surprised the local wine producers haven't put out a hit on

the sommelier) and priced at the appropriate luxury-restaurant level.

Many of the good things about French Laundry (great ingredients, clear

flavors, simple presentations) reminded me of New York's Gramercy Tavern, so

it was no surprise to learn that Gramercy's Tom Colicchio and French

Laundry's Thomas Keller worked together sometime during restaurant

pre-history. But there's more to Colicchio's cooking that just that--there's

a spark that I felt was notably absent from every one of Keller's dishes.

And so, even though the Gramercy kitchen is not without its flaws

(inevitable in a restaurant doing so many covers per night), I'd much rather

run through a Gramercy tasting menu (priced at $75, including Manhattan

rent--$20 less than a menu at French Laundry that includes far less food but

perhaps a few more luxury ingredients) any day. And, without a doubt, given

the choice between returning to French Laundry or Charlie Trotter's (see

previous entry dated June 9, 1999) I'd choose Charlie Trotter's because,

despite some imperfections, I found it far more stimulating.

--------------------

Steven A. Shaw

Fat Guy,

To be very specific, one of the things that excited you about Trotter's was the "Cooking of the Moment." Our tasting menu has always been at the moment at Keller's. Worse, he knows a dish that I didn't finish 3 years ago because I was stuffed. One time, he had a blue poussin that he had just gotten from a supplier - he didn't have a clue what to do with it and came up with a dish of the moment. By the way, the flesh is actually blue. Every dish, even a first time diner, is monitored by the kitchen. Sometimes, I think they have listed every dish I have eaten and how much I might have left on my plate. Boring is the one adjective I would never use with Thomas Keller's food. He is constantly experimenting, pushing his suppliers, pushing himself and at the same time accommodating those diners who want his signature dishes and worse want his steak with mac and cheese.

Your comment about the wait staff is that some of those staff were young 3 years ago, but after three years at the French Laundry they are seasoned professionals. Also, I would love it if you could point to a sommelier with the expertise and non-pretentiousness of Bobby Stuckey.

Fat Guy, I will post our menu of August 9 when I can find my notes, but the one word I would never use is boring.

[Fat Guy]

That's fine, but why don't you say it on the other thread? The whole point of starting this one was to separate the issues, not to have you copy the other thread onto this one!

[lizziee]

I make lots of overreaching statements, but given how much detail I provided on that thread I'm not sure you've pointed to one of them.

Fat Guy,

I was just pointing.

[mikeczyz]

Lizziee,

you use the word 'our' when talking about fl. are you associated with the restaurant in some way?

mike

[lizziee]

"Our tasting menu"

Mike,

I am not at all associated with the restaurant. Our refers to my husband and myself. We are just customers.

[mikeczyz]

Lizziee-

okay, thanks for the clarification.

mike

[Steve Plotnicki]

I think placing the emphasis on whether one can judge it based on one visit puts it on the wrong place. It has to do with the restaurant. If you happen to be there on a night where they are serving you a typical meal, then the answer is obviously yes. But if you are there on a night when something is going wrong, the answer is obviously no. Take my abysmally boring meal at Trotters which was years and years ago. Is it fair judging the restaurant on that experience? Well yesif I'm offering the qualification of just one visit. However I've heard it from enough people I trust who think the place is mostly hype and that makes me feel better about offering my opinion.

[Simon Majumdar]

I think the real truth is in the diversity of eating choices with which we are faced. If a restaurant does not perform on the first visit, then there are too many other places that one can go to to have to return.

If the restaurant does perform, it becomes one of the regular haunts.

There is little space inbetween.

It also depends where one is. For example. I am in NY infrequently enough that if a place does not shine, I have plenty of choices for my next visit. On my recent trip I was at Lupa and Blue Hill. Neither were bad, but neither really shone. If I was living in NY, I might give them the benefit of the doubt, but as it is, there are too many other places I want to try.

In London, however, I take a different view. If a place stinks for the first time of asking, then that is it ( GR's @ C's ). If it is OK, I might give another try ( Eyre Bros ) and it could become a regular. If it is teriffic, it becomes one of the regular haunts ( as Sutton Arms is already becoming )

S

[GordonCooks]

This comes up all the time in food discussion, in various contexts: Can you judge a restaurant based on one meal?

Absolutely - One visit will tell you if a restaurant is good or bad.

I would say it's unfair to cumaltively score a place on one visit. If I cannot determine one or more features (albeit; food, service, atmoshpere, wine list,) that would merit another a return visit, I don't.

[Robert Schonfeld]

I think it is important to look at this issue from the point of view of a diner faced with choices. More diners are closer to Simon than they are to the FG, a professional, or Lizziee, a frequent diner at high end restaurants.

But most of all, I think it is important for me to be selfish. I don't know any chefs. I don't dine professsionally or frequently at high end restaurants. Mazal and I go out to a high end restaurant maybe 6-10 times a year, or maybe 10-15 times if we are travelling to an area where we might visit several in succession. How many times will I go to the French Laundry in my entire life? Given my advanced age, and the infrequency with which I travel to California, maybe twice, give or take. Will Vongerichten make a call for me and tell Keller I'm coming? Will I send Keller a case of Cabernet from my top-rated vineyard as a gift? Will I go with Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward? No, I will go as just another anonymous, infrequent diner, and I bloody well want the exact same level of quality in service and food as the local who is there once a week, beginning with the reservation process, and ending with the way we are seen off at the door.

Can I judge the restaurant based on my two visits? Who cares? What I can judge, is the quality of my own experience. What else matters to me? If you ask me subsequently, "How was the French Laundry?", what am I going to tell you? I'm going to tell you about my visit. If you want a discourse on the restaurant, read egullet. I call this approach "My Three Hours". Your three hours may have been different. Again, I don't care. For my money, my time and effort, I care about what happens when I interact with the restaurant.

[Fat Guy]

Someone smart once said there are no three-star restaurants, only three-star meals.

However . . . come walk my dog with me a few times and we'll definitely run into Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward. Well, she's a definite. He's not as involved in the dog-walking enterprise. We can strike up a conversation and, who knows, it might turn out that your history with the French Laundry remains to be written.

[Steve Plotnicki]

"No, I will go as just another anonymous, infrequent diner, and I bloody well want the exact same level of quality in service and food as the local who is there once a week, beginning with the reservation process, and ending with the way we are seen off at the door."

Robert S. - If you demand this the FL is likely not the place for you. It is easier to understand why once you have been there. Save to say it is a very casual place as far as 3 star types restaurants go, but they make what seems to me to be a very demanding cuisine. And the dishes arew constructed in a way where they are so dependant on the manner of presentation that I can understand why it would be difficult to make it taste great serving after serving. And considering that the place is so small, and that there is never an empty table at a single meal (other than last minute cancellations,) it really isn't surprising that the reguars and VIP's get treated differently. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me that on any given night the place is more than half full with regulars and VIP's.

[Fat Guy]

Plotnicki, Schonfeld, Lizziee: This isn't the French Laundry thread. Go talk about the stupid ice cream cones somewhere else. This thread is for the larger issue, you dummies.

Another point: Follow-up. If there's a major disconnect between the quality of your meal experience and the rationally expected quality of that experience, a complaint of some sort is in order. Sometimes the way a restaurant handles the complaint is a critical piece of evidence. A serious restaurant faced with a serious complaint always tries to do something about it.