DMChicago wrote:

jesteinf wrote:Sweets and Savories is a small neighborhood restaurant with a pretty minimal staff.

Sweets and Savories will be a small neighborhood empty storefront if they can't even execute a simple phone inquiry.

I would think that every potential dining dollar is important.

You know, they've been around for over 5 years, outliving a great many places that I'm sure had very nice people answering the phone.

If anyone's wondering how that can be, it probably has something to do with the fact that there are very few places in Chicago that provide the same level of food quality at that price level.

Regardless of food quality, if you piss people off before they even have a chance to eat it, they won't come back.

I just don't see what was so bad about that phone call. A bit clueless, yes, but insulting? If I was insulted by every clueless person at retail I'd never get any shopping done at Target.

Mike G wrote:I just don't see what was so bad about that phone call. A bit clueless, yes, but insulting? If I was insulted by every clueless person at retail I'd never get any shopping done at Target.

yeah, nothing bad at all. There is a bizarre pork question, which I have to believe the caller just misunderstood (or added in an attempt at a comedic effect).

Kennyz wrote:

Mike G wrote:I just don't see what was so bad about that phone call. A bit clueless, yes, but insulting? If I was insulted by every clueless person at retail I'd never get any shopping done at Target.

yeah, nothing bad at all. There is a bizarre pork question, which I have to believe the caller just misunderstood (or added in an attempt at a comedic effect).

It doesn't strike me as that bad either, except that they never succeeded in checking availability or taking a reservation, which was the original point of the call.

gleam wrote:It doesn't strike me as that bad either, except that they never succeeded in checking availability or taking a reservation, which was the original point of the call.

"succeeded" may be a subjective term, in this case. It's possible that the call provided both parties with the information they needed to determine that making a reservation wasn't a good idea.

I'm sure it's a great place -- otherwise, I would not have been following the posts on it for the last several years that I've been living out of the country, and eagerly waiting to eat there. All I'm "sayin' " is, there's a bad apple at the front of the house. We're not an easily offended bunch, but this guy had MAJOR 'tude.

Perhaps I was incorrect that they had a patio -- I thought I read that somewhere here. Immaterial. And if they didn't have a patio, why didn't he mention so, rather than a "No."

I get the small staff thing, but I don't think it excuses poor service. Moreover, no one was scrambling that morning to "cover" for the host -- heck, only one table of 2 was seated. Again, should I return, I will make a reso, and I will be more than happy wipe the smirk off that arrogant little host's face when he condescendingly inquires as to whether we have bothered to make one.

Hombre de Acero wrote:

Ring- Ring.
(lots of background noise) "HELLO!,Sweets & Savories."
Me:"Hi!- I'd like to check availability, for a party of 4- for tomorrow evening around 6."
long pause....more background noise.
"Well- I think so". "We have a $10.00 Hamburger Special".
Me:-"OK- but one member of my Party's a Vegetarian...so........"
"Will she eat fish?"
Me: Yes, my father will eat fish- but........
"....or Pork- we also serve Pork"
Me:- I understand from lth forum that you all have a Prix Fixe menu.......
"no- we dont do that any more."
Me- OK- well, do you still offer a Chefs Tasting Menu?
"No,"
Me: "OK- well- um- do you have a current menu up online I can view?"
"We have a menu- ........it's online- but.........I'm not sure if it's current"
Me: Um- OK- uh- Thanks......I'll call ya back.
Click.

Kennyz wrote:

It's possible that the call provided both parties with the information they needed to determine that making a reservation wasn't a good idea.

I must be missing something, because I don't see anything in Hombre's transcript of his call that would make S&S believe that giving him a reservation was not a good idea.

Mind you, I'm not saying that a customer can't communicate a bad vibe to a restaurant, or that he is not the "right kind of customer" for a restaurant--just that I can't find anything in Hombre's transcript that establishes this.

Ya know-
some folks just don't get it.
(and yet- "others" do!!)
Last night- we celebrated a Birthday that may have been staged at Sweeets & Savories, had I not been so turned off by their
"greeting"/ demeanor on the phone- and instead had a FANTASTIC meal at The Publican on Fulton.

From the minute we stepped into the place (and prior- in making/negotiating a reservation)- everyone in my party was warmly welcomed- and attended to like we were loyal regulars (it was my premiere visit). The food was superb. Really good. AND- the service was especially inspired. We had a lovely server who hails from LA- by way of Vietnam, who humored us- informed us- and shared laughs with our table- all the while filling our evening with graciousness and care for her craft (serving)-
in direct contrast to what I've read abut S&S- and got an "amuse bouche" of, from their less than stellar phone attendant/waiter/knuckelhead.

Now- I will admit that "knowing" Donnie Madia the owner of Publican/Blackbird/Avec for many years may have helped make our dining experience even nicer (with complimentary dishes delivered/a trio of amazing desserts( including a stellar,and amazingly tart Concord Grape gelato/sorbet) "comped", etc), and Edwourd, as well.
And, I also know that any time I intend to spend between $150.00 and $200.00 for a fourtop- as a Consumer- I will spend my money- where its's not only well deserved- but also appreciated/welcomed.

There is no excuse- for any "service-based" business, in this- or any other Economy- to have 'tude!
Plain and Simple.
And to the comment upstream about comparing service at Target- to a Fine Dining experience-
please??!!! Lets compare Apples to Apples.

Yes, some don't get it, but great that it worked out for you!

Yes, I'm glad we got a true "apples to apples" comparison.

Hombre ripped Patty's a few months back in a similar manner (although he had actually been there).

I can understand having problems with restaurants, but I really find the pushing of other places and the name dropping to be extremely distasteful. Hombre, your point was made in your first post. If you feel the need to defend that point, I have no problem with that. I DO have a problem with using subsequent posts to rave about another place, especially when you know one of the principals personally.

Yes, I am absolutely questioning your integrity.

Hombre de Acero,

One question.

Do you write a blog?

Sorry, sorry, couldn't help myself.

jaybo wrote:I DO have a problem with using subsequent posts to rave about another place, especially when you know one of the principals personally.

I mean this to be an innocent question, not a combative one: doesn't what you're describing in the quoted sentence happen all the time on this forum? (Not, I agree, necessarily in the same thread, if that's your main point.) Isn't it practically an unspoken prerequisite of being a GNR that a restaurant's owner(s) are on a first-name basis with one ore more of the senior board members?

Katie wrote:

jaybo wrote:I DO have a problem with using subsequent posts to rave about another place, especially when you know one of the principals personally.

I mean this to be an innocent question, not a combative one: doesn't what you're describing in the quoted sentence happen all the time on this forum? (Not, I agree, necessarily in the same thread, if that's your main point.) Isn't it practically an unspoken prerequisite of being a GNR that a restaurant's owner(s) are on a first-name basis with one ore more of the senior board members?

Katie, what I objected to was not Hombre raving about Publican, but doing it in THIS thread. He posted basically the same thing in the Publican thread, and I have no problem with that.

By raving about Publican in this thread, the impression to me was that Hombre was trying to steer business away from Sweets and Savories and to Publican. Even if that was not his intention, that's how it came across to me, and that really bothers me. Especially since he knows the owner.

If Hombre had said he went to Publican instead and had a great meal, that wouldn't have bothered me. But to go on and on, I just felt this thread wasn't the place for it. He's done this before, and I felt the need to call him out about it.

Katie wrote:Isn't it practically an unspoken prerequisite of being a GNR that a restaurant's owner(s) are on a first-name basis with one ore more of the senior board members?

Wow, that's a bold accusation. Care to back it up, or just stirring the pot playing devil's advocate?

I didn't mean it to be bold, accusatory, or pot-stirring. (Devil's advocate, now ... you say that like it's a bad thing ).

I said right up front I meant my question to be innocent, not combative, and I was sincere in that. Many of the long-time LTHers do know the owners of many of the GNRs on a first-name basis. I don't see anything wrong with that. You go to a small place often enough to judge whether or not it's a GNR in your book and you probably will get to know the owner personally. Is it true of most or all of the current GNRs? Obviously I can't know for sure who knows who and how well; it's just my impression so far. I know I won't ever get to know most of the GNR owners that well, but that's just because I live too far away from them and don't get into the city that often.

But that's an aside, and not, I hope, a thread-derailing one. My post was directed toward this thread's conversation, and I was questioning whether there was anything wrong or unusual about Hombre's raving about a restaurant where he knows the owner. I gather from Jaybo's reply that he doesn't disagree, but that his issue with it is just that a thread on a different restaurant is not the place for it.

Katie wrote: Isn't it practically an unspoken prerequisite of being a GNR that a restaurant's owner(s) are on a first-name basis with one ore more of the senior board members?

way to try to paint something as good as the GNR's are, as something possibly unsavory.

Jim, maybe I was still typing my reply above while you were posting. No such painting was intended. I hope I explained above I don't see anything wrong, or unlikely, about LTHers being on a first-name basis with the owners of their favorite restaurants.

Katie wrote:Jim, maybe I was still typing my reply above while you were posting. No such painting was intended. I hope I explained above I don't see anything wrong, or unlikely, about LTHers being on a first-name basis with the owners of their favorite restaurants.

its all good, I was typing my response, and then saw your reply.

Katie wrote:Is it true of most or all of the current GNRs? Obviously I can't know for sure who knows who and how well; it's just my impression so far.

You can know for sure. The answer is "no, not even remotely".

I'm a long-time LTHer, former moderator, and former GNR voter.

I just looked at the full GNR list and I am on a first-name basis with exactly zero of the owners. A handful of the restaurants would recognize me if I walked in, being a good customer, but I would say I know none of them personally.

Now, I'm at one end of the spectrum and I'd guess that there's one or two others who know a good handful of the owners reasonably well, but there's simply no way in hell that it is true for most or all of the restaurants or most of all of the long-time LTHers.

I appreciate the replies of those of you who have supported the integrity of the GNRs. I understand that the OP has said the comment was innocent, but the GNR Committee takes any suggestion that the GNRs are somehow influenced by a personal relationship with the owner as a serious question of the integrity of the GNRs.

In this case, the statement was not that the Committee has a relationship, but rather that some undefined group, "senior board members" has that relationship. Since I do not know who these people are, I really cannot reply as to the truth of this. I can speculate that the nominators of the GNRs often have some familiarity with the owners, as has been mentioned above, so if "senior board members" means those who nominate GNRs, then the statement may be true, though I cannot say for sure.

We are vigilant in trying to assure the GNRs are not somehow gamed or influenced by anything other than what is presented to customers at the restaurant. I think our success in achieving that is evidenced by the list itself. The lack of any undue influence on the part of the GNR Committee is further evidenced by the failure rate of our nominations - which is higher than that of non-committee members in the last two years.

Katie, while the comment was offered innocently, it can easily be taken to imply that the real path to becoming a GNR is to befriend those who run the program. While I accept that was not your intention, I must say, emphatically, that is not the case.

d
for the GNRs

I'm on a first-name basis with Doug from Hot Doug's and Gus from Wiener and Still Champion.

Scandal!

LTH has been fiesty lately... sadly fiesty doesn't translate into intelligent food talk.

as far as S&S goes, i went a long while ago and found everything from reservation to my meal there fine. i've since had some amazing service experiences but realize they're not the norm.

gleam wrote:...Gus from Wiener and Still Champion.

Scandal!

Oh, I guess Gus and I know each other, but that's from LTH and not from WasC.

I'm sorry to see service concerns overwhelm the key point about S&S: it's a gourmet restaurant at a great price. I was back at S&S recently after a two and half year gap. I hadn’t realized that they had become BYOB. We shared two prix fixe menus. Starters were the gnocchi and the mussels. The latter was spectacular with a tomato basil sauce that I finished with a spoon because the restaurant didn’t have any bread. (The waiter said something had to give when making prices so reasonable, and there’s a lot of waste in providing bread. It seemed a reasonable explanation to me.) We then had short ribs and scallops. The scallops especially were perfectly prepared with a golden crispy outer layer. We finished with plum cake and bread pudding with caramel and crème anglaise. I liked the plum cake, but I was crazy about the bread pudding, probably because of the caramel. We were the first people seated, and our waiter was attentive without hovering or rushing us. All in all, he made us feel very welcome.

The price for the entire meal came to $85 with tax, tip and service. With a $15 bottle of Malbec (and no corkage fee), the price for the evening was two thirds of what I had anticipated, which provided plenty of funds for wine flights at The Stained Glass back in Evanston.

The latter was spectacular with a tomato basil sauce that I finished with a spoon because the restaurant didn’t have any bread. (The waiter said something had to give when making prices so reasonable, and there’s a lot of waste in providing bread. It seemed a reasonable explanation to me.)

Not to me - sounds more like a cash-flow problem, as does the abrupt dropping of wine service. Bread service is not only a pretty minimal part of food costs, but also an item that can be closely monitored, as well as incorporated into many other dishes.

Hmmm. If they've dropped bread service, I wonder where the bread pudding came from?

I've hesitated about visiting S&S for years based on posts about capricious and outright rude service. For me, bad service can overwhelm an otherwise good meal and destroy an average meal. That's just my preference and I choose the restaurants I frequent accordingly.

This past weekend I visited S&S for the first time and I regret not going sooner. The service was excellent: friendly but not invasive. The meal was perfectly timed and we enjoyed our wine--and bonus, with no corkage fee.

Most importantly, the food was excellent. We started with a complementary vegetarian tart that was good, though the eggplant was a bit underdone for me. The pastry was nice and flaky and I'm a sucker for bread products. I find it endearing when a neighborhood restaurant offers an amuse bouche, let alone a complementary appetizer. As a bread lover, I noticed the lack of bread service but didn't ask about it. I will eat an entire bread basket if the bread is good and often when it's just mediocre. I figured they were doing me a favor.

We ordered the $29 prix fixe, starting with an arugula salad and a butternut squash risotto. The arugula salad was excellent, with a nice truffle oil, citrus dressing and hard cheese. Very simple and very delicious. My spouse liked her risotto. My entree was the lobster risotto. Wow. There were generous portions of lobster--a lobster to risotto ratio I associate more with Boston than Chicago. I want to go back and order it again, like this week. My spouse, a longtime vegetarian who has recently started eating a bit of fish, had the salmon and raved about it. She never finishes an entire serving of fish (and often takes only one or two bites) but ate all of this salmon, comparing it to butter.

The chocolate pie with peanut butter ice cream was the hit dessert. The texture and flavor resembled and improved upon a Reese's peanut butter cup. And I love peanut butter cups. The berry tart was so-so but, to be fair, I'm pretty particular about my berry tarts and pies (my favorite dessert) and prefer a butter crust. S&S's was simply a different version.

I loved this place. I regret not giving it a try sooner and plan to return soon. In fact, I'm trying to convince some friends to return with me this Thursday.

sundevilpeg wrote:

The latter was spectacular with a tomato basil sauce that I finished with a spoon because the restaurant didn’t have any bread. (The waiter said something had to give when making prices so reasonable, and there’s a lot of waste in providing bread. It seemed a reasonable explanation to me.)

Not to me - sounds more like a cash-flow problem, as does the abrupt dropping of wine service.

Let's not jump to conclusions here. My recollection is that S&S was always BYOB, so I don't think that they dropped wine service (certainly not "abruptly'), and I don't blame a restaurant for being a little frugal with bread service -- which is a big money-waster -- in these economic times.

I like S&S and haven't been in awhile, sounds like a return visit is in order.

aschie30 wrote:

sundevilpeg wrote:

TMy recollection is that S&S was always BYOB, so I don't think that they dropped wine service (certainly not "abruptly')

Well, you certainly could BYOB with corkage, but they did serve wine, cocktails and beer. I believe one day of the week, perhaps Sunday, you could BYOB without corkage. Nice to hear it's everyday!