Interesting article in today's NY Times by Frank B on an outing to sample Atlantic City's new celebrity chef outposts (registration may be required)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/dining/09note.html.
To sum it up, he says the (new) celebrity chef's places suffer from lack of attention from the chefs in general, too much volume to be able to do a really good job, and in most places a dumbing down of the menus to satisfy high rollers, who are not really about what's on the plate.
And he found a hidden gem, away from the casinos.
It has been many years since I dined in Atlantic City, and a few years since I dined in LV. I readily admit to not having tried any of the celebrity places there. In general, I have found my gambling town meals to be disappointing - the copious buffets were very much about volume and not as cheap as I expected at that, the dirt cheap breakfasts were serviceable at best, and the nicer restaurants (the kids were younger and I could not quite bring myself to spring for the nicest places) were fairly pricey and more or less what one would expect from a decent hotel restaurant. In other words, something I would avoid.
Yet I continued to read breathless articles praising the newest incredible outpost of a celebrity chef, not to mention the glowing guidebook and travel articles about how well one could eat at any price point and particularly at the top end. The same applied to the places opened by this same pool of celebrity chefs in resorts, and the continued glowing reports on dining in Theme Park-Land, particularly Disney (once a year or more I consider canceling my subscription to Wine Spectator when they publish another gush on Disney's wine service, though the most recent one was a lot more detailed and reserved in its praise). None of it rang true to me, but in the face of this barrage of enthusiastic praise I had begun to waver and consider that maybe I was the one missing something - perhaps this was another instance where the more general version of Mike G's rule of "if it's about the destination, it ain't about dining" was totally wrong (to paraphrase for your reference - "If there is a strong reason for diners to frequent a place other than the food, the food will not be very good," though his specific version refers more to the view, but I hope he will agree to the more general version).
But now Frank Bruni and Wine Spectator's recent more critical review of wine service at the myriad of Disney restaurants have begun to restore my faith that the world is still round, the sun still rises in the east, no one chef can run 6 restaurants and turn out equally perfectly executed, creative and tasty food at each, and food at hotels and resorts is almost always over-priced and rarely much better than okay, because it most assuredly is not about the food first, or even second or third.
This has freed me of any further attempt to find the best casino buffet, the cheapest breakfast, the exquisite high end resort or hotel meal. The cost/risk/return/likelihood of enjoyment is much better in the real world.
Yes, I know there are exceptions - there are some places in Chicago hotels that are great (Trio was in a sort of hotel after all), and the same is true in other cities, but as much as I want to finish with a witty rule to explain that, it is just true that if an excellent chef has the resources he or she can create wonderful food anywhere, be it resort, hotel, or spectacular mountainside vista.
I hereby solemnly take this pledge then - when staying in fantasy land, I will spend as much time dining in the real world as possible, only dining in the hotel/resort/casino for convenience, amusement, or because someone I really trust told me it was worth it. And I will not be seduced, confused or caused to question what I know to be right by the work of flacks planting seductive articles of praise in publications I otherwise find trustworthy or at least useful.
I know what I know, and I will not waver.
d
Feeling (south) loopy