Dealing with problems at restaurants

[Jaymes]

I'm very surprised that regardless if anyone thinks that drrevenue acted inappropriately, why they wouldn't feel "gypped" if the chef(s) were off on a night when they ate there?

Steve -

I wouldn't feel "gypped" because I understand that even the most famous and competent and dedicated and devoted of chefs is also a human being and deserves some time off.

Furthermore, as I stated in either this thread or the related one in "Site tips and recommendations," I understand that unexpected events DO come up over which we have no control. And that the world does not revolve around me.

And therefore I am aware that it is a possibility that on any given night, the "boss" ain't there.

But I DO expect that the "boss" will maintain a certain level of excellence in the kitchen which bears his/her name, and in the staff that works under him/her and that he has trained.

I hate to use this example (because it does not reflect my actual desires), but it pops immediately to mind: I have heard of Emeril. Say I want to eat "his" food while visiting New Orleans. I would seek out his restaurant. I would hope he is there. I would even dare to hope I might meet him. But I would know that he may NOT be. I would go to the restaurant anyway and I would expect to eat the same dishes, prepared in the same manner, executed with the same skill, as if he WERE there.

Yes, I would rather he were there.

But I wouldn't get all horsy and pissed off if he were not.

[Blue Heron]

Dr. Revenue- Given your long term friendship, it is possible that Chef Hans Rockenwagner accidentally chose the wrong words when writing his email, and that he was sorry to hear about your experience (rather than reaction) at the restaurant while he was away. Especially when English is one's second language it is not uncommon to use a wrong word or phrase. I have numerous friends & family that speak English as a second language, and it happens all the time. With email it is even more difficult to tell if a wrong word was used. I hope this is the case in your situation, as I wish all the best for you.

[Stone]

I'm very surprised that regardless if anyone thinks that drrevenue acted inappropriately, why they wouldn't feel "gypped" if the chef(s) were off on a night when they ate there?

I would expect that the chef would leave the kitchen in the hands of someone who could cook the dishes on the menu well.

It's not like going to see The Producers to see Nathan Lane and the little castratto. When the actor in a play is out, there's no hiding it. True -- the understudy may be great, but can't be the same.

[Jaymes]

Dr. Revenue- Given your long term friendship, it is possible that Chef Hans Rockenwagner accidentally chose the wrong words when writing his email, and that he was sorry to hear about your experience (rather than reaction) at the restaurant while he was away.  Especially when English is one's second language it is not uncommon to use a wrong word or phrase.  I have numerous friends & family that speak English as a second language, and it happens all the time.  With email it is even more difficult to tell if a wrong word was used.  I hope this is the case in your situation, as I wish all the best for you.

Blue is exactly right....

He may have been trying to say that he was "disappointed FOR you" rather than "disappointed IN you."

It seems to me that this situation cries out desperately ( ) for the "benefit of the doubt."

[lizziee]

"Is it okay to show up at a dinner at an expensive restaurant and to have it be an inferior experience, only to find out afterwards that the chef(s) weren't on hand?"

"But I DO expect that the "boss" will maintain a certain level of excellence in the kitchen which bears his/her name, and in the staff that works under him/her and that he has trained."

"I would expect that the chef would leave the kitchen in the hands of someone who could cook the dishes on the menu well."

I think this is the issue we should be discussing. I am not bothered by an understudy if the quality of a performance is maintained. Maybe, the correct word would be disappointed. I am also not bothered to have the 2nd, 3rd, 4th chef in line cook a meal as long as the expected quality is still there. In fact, many of the so-called celebrity chefs are rarely in the kitchen. To cite an example, Thomas Keller, at times, has not been in the kitchen when I have eaten there and I was unable to tell the difference - dishes were perfectly executed.

[cabrales]

It's my third post today again, but I'd like to add that drrevenue is a valuable member who is indeed leaving on the described trip and who has many things to contribute (should he feel so inclined). I'm sorry he experienced what he did, and hope the situation will be quickly resolved.

[Suzanne F]

(Steve Plotnicki @ Aug 25 2002, 03:14 PM)

I'm very surprised that regardless if anyone thinks that drrevenue acted inappropriately, why they wouldn't feel "gypped" if the chef(s) were off on a night when they ate there?

Steve, how almost-charmingly naive of you. You think one should always be eating the chef's hands-on cooking, not merely the chef's food as executed by an underling? Do you truly believe that "the chef(s)" are there on the line, every minute of service? Or even expediting and checking plates all the time, if not actually cooking the meals? Of course not! You know better!! There are, after all, regulations that must be followed regarding time off, and even if they are ignored, "chefs," especially those like Chef Hans, have other legitimate commitments that might keep them out of their kitchens during some services.

God gave chefs de cuisine to executive chefs, and sous chefs to chefs de cuisine, in order make sure that someone is always there to look over the work of us poor little ignorant line cooks ::super-big wink:: If drrevenue is to be believed, NO ONE was in charge of the kitchen that night. If that was indeed the case, then shame on Chef Hans. (I just have trouble believing it, though.)

In any event, nothing justifies the vitriol of drrevenue's blasts. Oh, and by the way, "gypped" is highly politically INCORRECT rather on the order of "jewed down."

[Stone]

Oh, and by the way, "gypped" is highly politically INCORRECT    rather on the order of "jewed down."

No kidding. I never put gypped and gypsy together. (I assume that's the link.)

[tommy]

don't piss off gypsies. they're effing nuts.

[John Whiting]

I feel sorry for anyone whose relationship with someone he calls a friend makes no allowance for occasional -- even gross -- imperfection. Four thousand dollars must have represented a lot of dinners, however extravagant, and they must have been good to lead on to so many repeat performances. If friendship is not merely a euphemism for subservience, then a discussion was in order, not an ultimatum. Who's perfect? In 1967 I heard Rubenstein give a terrible recital. He was not a friend, but I felt sympathy, not anger.

[glenn]

(Steve Plotnicki @ Aug 25 2002, 03:14 PM)

I'm very surprised that regardless if anyone thinks that drrevenue acted inappropriately, why they wouldn't feel "gypped" if the chef(s) were off on a night when they ate there?

Steve, how almost-charmingly naive of you. You think one should always be eating the chef's hands-on cooking, not merely the chef's food as executed by an underling? Do you truly believe that "the chef(s)" are there on the line, every minute of service? Or even expediting and checking plates all the time, if not actually cooking the meals? Of course not! You know better!! There are, after all, regulations that must be followed regarding time off, and even if they are ignored, "chefs," especially those like Chef Hans, have other legitimate commitments that might keep them out of their kitchens during some services.

God gave chefs de cuisine to executive chefs, and sous chefs to chefs de cuisine, in order make sure that someone is always there to look over the work of us poor little ignorant line cooks ::super-big wink:: If drrevenue is to be believed, NO ONE was in charge of the kitchen that night. If that was indeed the case, then shame on Chef Hans. (I just have trouble believing it, though.)

This is my 2nd (3rd?) comment on this and it seems to be the root of the argument. Suzanne is absolutely correct in stating what I thought was the obvious, but obviously not. A kitchen should work equally as well on the chef's night off or else the chef ain't worth his paycheck. There is no obligation to tell anyone, with the possible exception of the chef's mother, that the chef will not be in the kitchen. I wish Plotzkie would defend his assertion to the contrary. [and as an avid theater goer, I was never told or made aware that I was entitled to a refund if any of the regular cast members were absent.]

[lizziee]

"Hi! I have just booked Boyer ‘Les Crayeres’ for mid-October but have recently read reports that Gerard Boyer is not actually cooking anymore, having handed control of the kitchens to someone else. Is this true? Should I reconsider my booking?"

"I'm not sure how official this is, but I understand that for quite some time, the actual work in the Boyer kitchen has been headed up by Thierry Voisin, although Gerard Boyer does hang around and supervise periodically.

Based on a recent meal I had there, I would strongly encourage you to go. The restaurant is still suffused with the famous Boyer warmth and hospitality and the food is still terrific."

This was on a thread entitled Boyer 'Les Crayeres', but I think it is appropriate to post it here. The fact that Boyer is not in the kitchen makes no difference and shouldn't. It does not mean that there is any evidence of a loss of quality. I think that is all one should expect.

[Deacon]

i don't like the fact that when someone tells drrevenue he might be wrong and might consider giving the restaurant a second chance, he starts to vent.  did he post expecting us to all be on his side so as to make himself feel better?

Well, yes.

When you're burning blue-hot on an issue, you're not in the mood for reasoned discourse. You want to be reassured that you were right. Drrevenue has come here, I believe, only for a sympathetic ear. Bad choice of site for that. He sounds not only angry but personally hurt--and he says the chef was considered a friend, so that may explain it.

I once had a similar experience--not dealing with a restaurant, but with another "service industry." There were friendship involvements complicating my story, as well. I was treated like a cockroach by the staff of that facility, and while the "event" was still fresh in my mind, I wasn't interested in rational discourse, either. I basically was looking to be told, "You're absolutely right, Deacon, the people at [that place] were total assholes. World-class turds. You're totally right." So I can sympathize with drrevenue.

I can only repeat the idea that when the chef said that he was "disappointed," what he meant was that he was "disappointed" that a trusted friend and customer did not have a good night at his restaurant. Not knowing anything about drrevenue or Rockenwagner, I can only go on what I've heard here.

Perhaps drrevenue will be able to analyze the subject dispassionately in time. Perhaps he will return to Rockenwagner in six months, or a year--perhaps never. But LA has a thousand restaurants. You can afford to burn your bridges behind you when there are a hundred other bridges across the river.

[stefanyb]

Dr. Revenue- Given your long term friendship, it is possible that Chef Hans Rockenwagner accidentally chose the wrong words when writing his email, and that he was sorry to hear about your experience (rather than reaction) at the restaurant while he was away.  Especially when English is one's second language it is not uncommon to use a wrong word or phrase.

Thats what I was saying way back on this thread.

But his behavior, both in his email to Hans and his posts here, is clear evidence of his overarching feelings of ENTITLEMENT. Thats what makes his behavior so egregious.

[Jaymes]

But LA has a thousand restaurants. You can afford to burn your bridges behind you when there are a hundred other bridges across the river.

And vice versa....

Chef Hans is operating his business in the midst of a population of at least ten million, not to mention a plentiful supply of visitors to Southern California.

To extrapolate the analogy: When there are millions of fish in that river, one can easily afford to toss a rotten one back.

[Steve Plotnicki]

"Steve, how almost-charmingly naive of you. You think one should always be eating the chef's hands-on cooking, not merely the chef's food as executed by an underling? Do you truly believe that "the chef(s)" are there on the line, every minute of service? Or even expediting and checking plates all the time, if not actually cooking the meals? Of course not! You know better!!"

Suzanne - I haven't said that. But what I have said is that if a restaurant thinks they aren't going to be on par for a given occassion, and you are a regular customer and you return over and over expecting a certain type of treatment, they should take your preferences into consideration. What seems to be at issue here is that Hans thought it would be okay, and it wasn't. And the rest of the staff at the restaurant seem to support the drrevenue side of the argument that he should have been told in advance. Now when it didn't work out okay, Hans should have been the one to eat crow, under the customer is always right theory, and apologize for it. That doesn't seem to be too much to do for a regular customer who is somewhat of a personal friend.

I had the following experience recently that was on par. I organized a wine tasting dinner at Craft for six people. When we got there and I asked if Marco was in the house (like a rap star, shout out for Marco, whoa,) he wasn't there because he and Tom were opening Craft steak in Las Vegas the next night. But both the front of the house and kitchen staff seem to be prepared for my visit and the evening turned out fantastic. You couldn't tell that Tom or Marco weren't there (I bet they are happy to read this.) However, if the evening turned out lousy and then I found out they weren't in the house, I could see adopting a policy of asking the day of my reservation as to whether they will be there that evening. And if I was personal friends with either of them and they didn't tell me, or they pre-arranged to make sure I was happy and it didn't turn out that way, I can see beefing with them over not telling me.

I think Deacon has got the balance right here. drrevenue is entitled to vent, even if it is a bit disproportionate. But again, we don't know that because we don't know how personal it is. But as to the issue at the heart of this, chef(s) not being present when you have dinner, I think the non-disclosure policy sucks. I can't believe a single one of you are in favor of not knowing that information. For instance, I am having dinner at Pierre Gagnaire next month and if his chef de cuisine of the last 5 years who he relied on to do the cooking walked out in a fit of anger, or got swallowed up into a mixing machine, as a consumer I am better off knowing because maybe I prefer not to spend $500 taking the chance on having a sucky meal. Maybe I'd be happier with a simple choucrotue that night instead? I just don't see how anybody here can be against getting that information. Please explain to me how a diner is better off not knowing. And save the bleeding heart restaurant stories about how hard people work and how they are entitled to a night off. It's my $500 and I want to make sure I spend it *the way I want.* Not the way they want me to.

[mynamejoe]

I see your point, Steve. I agree that it does no harm to let a customer know, should they ask. However, some or most chefs do not know their schedules far enough in advance to let diners that are making reservations ahead of time know whether they will be in on any given night.

Another related point: sometimes it doesn't matter if the chef is there. In my last position (chef de cuisine, more or less), 3 orders of lamb chops went out to the dining room, one night. Two of them were grossly over-cooked. I was standing right there on the line. I even checked one of them. As bad luck would have it, I happened to check the one that was cooked correctly. I (or any other chef I know) don't have time to check every detail of every dish. So, it doesn't really matter whether the chef is there or not; mistakes happen and we can't catch all of them, as much as we'd like to.

[Fat Guy]

Plotnicki, it's not a question of being better off not knowing. It's a question of whether a policy of calling around to all the VIPs with reservations on the chef's day off and telling them about it is a stupid policy, which of course it is. Start a new thread on just this issue and I'd be happy to continue your education in logic and dining.

[glenn]

.... Please explain to me how a diner is better off not knowing. And save the bleeding heart restaurant stories about how hard people work and how they are entitled to a night off. It's my $500 and I want to make sure I spend it *the way I want.* Not the way they want me to.

I'm beginning to think you choose to completely ignore my remarks. To the best of my knowledge, not one person said anything about being better off not knowing. The anti-plotzkie collective has merely stated it shouldn't matter. Please reread the posts.

[Jaymes]

For instance, I am having dinner at Pierre Gagnaire next month and if his chef de cuisine of the last 5 years who he relied on to do the cooking walked out in a fit of anger, or got swallowed up into a mixing machine, as a consumer I am better off knowing because maybe I prefer not to spend $500 taking the chance on having a sucky meal.

In that case, I gather we can all assume that you have called ahead to demand a personal guarantee that said chef will be in attendance the evening of your visit.

And that you have left your address and telephone number along with strict instructions that they are to immediately notify you should a situation arise that he is not.

[tommy]

after years of suspicion, scientists have just located plotters dead-center in the middle of this photo.

[helenas]

[Deacon]

Let me just thumb my nose at the anti-Plotnicki crusade long enough to say:

If I buy a ticket to see Bruce Springsteen, I want to see Bruce Springsteen, not Bruce Springsteen's band.

[Jaymes]

Let me just thumb my nose at the anti-Plotnicki crusade long enough to say:

If I buy a ticket to see Bruce Springsteen, I want to see Bruce Springsteen, not Bruce Springsteen's band.

And that is the absolute truth.

But IMHO, the analogy is not valid.

[Jaymes]

Hmmmm.....

He doesn't seem to be suffering much.

And what is that he's holding on to? A huge, green........... Dr. Revenue???

(Boy, is that photo ripe for parody.... should change his name to "Rocketwanger.")