IXCAPUZALCO

Very friendly. i think they wanted my business, but I wil never take my mistress there. Overpriced. So duck entree special with special mole was chicken. Grilled chickjen breast in mole (which was good ) but for 20 bucks. I'm not rich enough for that deal. Pumpkin soup was good, but just a squashy cream.

Sounds like cuisinism to me. Not enough details to know for sure, but sounds like cuisinism.

Would you pay $20 at Cafe Spiaggia for brick roasted chicken with potatoes? Would you pay $25 for pan seared chicken with veggies at mk?

If not, maybe you just don't like chicken and should order something else to feel like you received a good value. The real question, of course, is whether Ixc is a bad value because the prices are out of line with restaurants of its caliber or out of line because it's Mexican food. Having a copy of the menu, I doubt the former and suspect the latter. But the latter would be cuisinism.

Sasquatch,

Are you saying that you ordered duck are were served chicken?

I'd tend to agree with Vital Info on Ixca: http://lthforum.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=1867&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=ixca

I've had two outstanding meals in the past two years there... the duck breast in mole being one of the highlights.

I love Ix. But, it does have an inconsistent history. There was a period two years ago, before some changes were made in its kitchen that I was ready to write it off.

I thought they had turned the corner. Maybe its time for another visit to confirm with my own taste buds.

Having only had the sopes surtidos at Ixc, I can only really go by Chilpancingo (and only one visit where I tried 10 dishes), which most people seem to think is as good or better. While I think it's good, I think there's a lot of room for improvement. However, I think a lot of that improvement is in the *soul* of the food, if that makes sense.

I have a suspicion that the problem might have something to do with it being halfway between two worlds: the world of peasant food, hearty and complex, making bad ingredients good and the world of haute cuisine, sauces strained a dozen times, only the best cuts of meat, etc. I've seen it in other attempts to make cuisines upscale, too, eg, Indian and American home cooking. But I've seen successes, too. You can read a detailed description of my meal at Chilpancingo here.

Also, a friend who had the 10 courses with me and has visited both Frontera and Topoplo with me, plus my favorite in the US so far, Cafe Azul, plus has been to several other haute Mexican places in the US, has found a place he thinks is the best, though it's more upscale than any of them. Read his reports on Lanny's here and here.

Lest I fade into the obscurity of less than cogent 4 AM posts, and garner further lessons in 'isms' let me apologize for the lack of detail and give the actual story. Went down to Ixcapulzulco last Wednesday evening about 6:30. There were maybe 3 other tables seated in the main dining room. Overall, the experience was fair, and the value quotient was pretty low. I don't mind paying for finer dining, and don't think the prices were really out of line for the 'caliber' dinner I was expecting. The problem however, was that our experience really didn't meet expectations, which admittedly were perhaps too high based on some glowing reports.

We started with a pumpkin soup. This was tasty, with some subtle flavors but perhaps a little overloaded with crema for my taste. Perhaps due to all the crema ,or the overall chill in the room, this arrived cooler than I would have liked.

I had the previously mentioned chicken in mole. This was on the menu as duck, and I think the duck probably would have left a better impression, and paired better with that mole, but nobody tricked me. I was told they were out of duck and did decide to go ahead and have it with the chicken. I don't usually order a lot of grilled chicken breasts at restaurants, because that's precisely what you tend to get - but in this case I wanted to try the special mole and went ahead. I found the chicken dry, and again, not as hot as I would have liked. The mashed potatoes served alongside weren't hot either. I like mole, and found this to be good, but not great. It was a dark deep red, slightly sweet (with pineapple) and although I usually go for an earthier mole, this was fair, and as the sauce that makes the dish it left a little to be desired. In fact, the plate itself was barely warm to the touch. This was probably accentuated by the fact that the room was cold too. We were seated right below the heater, but this was more of a distraction than a comfort as every few minutes the machine would come on with a loud sustained whoosh and grumble and blow cool air down on us.

My companion had a garlicky scallops in coconut milk based sauce. This was probably the best thing we ordered, but not amazing. The sauce was quite good, but the dry run of the mill Spanish rice alongside detracted more than complemented. The scallops themselves while hot, and not overcooked, were small and few.

All told we spent about 65 bucks without any wine or drinks. As a restaurant clearly aiming for the 'haute' territory, I felt it didn't quite get there. Nothing blew me away, nothing surprised. I admittedly had high hopes, so maybe was reducing points from a perfect score rather than building up, but considering we were one of the few tables in the restaurant, the cold food left me hanging. My entree was far from inspired. Overall, I wasn't impressed, maybe because it seemed like they could have done better. Far from wanting a 13 dollar combo platter, I wanted more - that's why we went, but in the end, I wished that we had stuck with something a little more traditional and a *lot* more satisfying. Somewhat begrudgingly, I'd have to say that I had a much better meal a couple months ago at Adobo Grill. I would give this place another a shot if people wanted to go there, but I'd make sure I was going for a good time, ready to spend some money on some fancy tequila and would think twice about what I ordered. The pork loin on the menu probably would have been a better choice.

Nick, thanks for the link to DallasFood.org. Hope the site grows quickly and well.

As for Ixcapuzalco, to me the best value there is found in the appetizer menu. Don't get me wrong, the entrees are good, and the execution can be very good. But the portions are pretty small, the "wow" factor is hit-and-miss, and room and service are a little less than I'd hope for at that price point. Which is all a little odd, because I really like the place. I like the slightly off-kilter service, the laid-back decor--the place is extremely comfortable and the food can be quite good. I just wish it was a little less expensive. Which brings me back to the appetizers.

Kate and I went for a late afternoon dinner/snack the Friday after Thanksgiving, looking for a change of pace. The appetizers each are about $6-8, and two or three/pp is very satisfying for us. You probably get the same amount of food on an appetizer plate as on an entree plate, for about 1/4-1/3 the price. Our stand-bys are the sopes surtidos and a marlin ceviche. The ceviche was actually a little off last time. We also had some stuffed jalapenos and a taco plate--fresh handmade tortillas with carnitas, carne asada, chicharron (crisp), and guacamole. Probably enough food for 6 or 7 small tacos, and quite delightful at that. Total for the food plus one ($9) margarita and some extra avocados for the boy's avocado tacos, plus tax and tip, came to about $40. And with restaurant.com $25 off coupons, that's value that's hard to argue with.

Cheers,

Aaron

The prices for Ixc and Chilpancingo seem pretty comparable. I think people looking for the value added of nicer decor and better service might find that value in Chilpancingo.

Sasquatch, one thing to think about, though I don't know if it's intentional: Mexican generally eat their foods much closer to room temp than Americans.

If you ever get to Salt Lake, I would highly recommend The Red Iguana. It's a downscale place with a choice of 7 moles and a lot of antojitos not found in the US normally, especially at places of this level. See report here: SLC Report. I wouldn't say it's better than the upscale places in Chicago, but it's not a lot worse, but a lot cheaper. Think of it like Taqueria Puebla, but a little more like a combo platter place, with 7 moles.

I don't think the prices are unfair given the generally high prices in Chicago for nice food. There are a lot of *** restaurants with prices that are similar or higher, it seemed to me. And the **** and ***** restaurants that are a step up, are also a step up in money.

extramsg wrote:I don't think the prices are unfair given the generally high prices in Chicago for nice food. There are a lot of *** restaurants with prices that are similar or higher, it seemed to me. And the **** and ***** restaurants that are a step up, are also a step up in money.

Yeah, I don't mean to imply that the prices are unfair relative to other spots in town. I'm no cuisinist, dammit . I think a lot of *** places aren't the best use of my dining dollar.

One really does not need to go to SLC or Fort Worth to get excellent food of the sort EM is mentioning. Just explore Chicago's Mexican universe, which is gigantic and growing

Amanacer Tapatio in Joliet does amazing specials every day of the week at $8 a plate. It is hard to spend more than $15 a person. And there are a multitude of other places in Chicago that offer amazing Mexican dishes of different sorts - La Quebrada for their grilled specialties, ByBys in West Chicago for their Huitlacoche and other antojitos (I know best the west suburbs, others know the city places better). And most of these places are damned cheap. If one searches LTH and CH you can find lots of others including places that make amazing Posole, Carne en su jugo, barbacoa, and more. And even some pretty good moles.

What one will not get at most of these places (Amanacer being a strange and wonderful exception in some respects) is what I would call haute cuisine of the sort that Ix, Chilpancingo and Topolobampo are striving for. And I do think there is a genuine category of Mexican haute cuisine that was created in the halls of power in Mexico City, and draws from the specialties of every region as well as France (remember Maximillian), the US and some other foreign influences. And it is a cuisine that is evolving. Where each of these places fall in the galaxy of Mexican haute cuisine is debatable and changing, depending on the chef's level of inspiration and execution, and I am not arguing which is best.

There are more and more fine dining Mex places across the nation, and while I am sad to hear of Ix's lousy execution for Sasquatch, I am very happy they are here. EM, thanks for the suggestions and info - my point is just that if one wants good, interesting and well-priced Mexican food, there are a lot of choices here, too. But, for the most part, they will not be as "nice" as Ix, of course.

Belatedly, I have corrected the spelling of the initial post so a search for this restaurant's (decidedly difficult) name will turn up this thread, fyi.

dicksond, I agree. I've gotten to eat at a couple haute Mexican places in DF and resort towns. There's a very organic French influence in Mexican cuisine, certainly, not just in haute foods.

But it seems that sasquatch isn't truly looking for haute Mexican. That's the impression I got. I wasn't suggesting you *had* to go to SLC for good Mexican, just that *if* you were in SLC.... And if there's a Chicago downscale Mexican restaurant with 7 quality moles available every night for $11/plate, I wish I'd tried it.

I'm a fan of Ixcapuzalco, but I have to agree with extramsg that The Red Iguana is both reasonably priced (and funky) and extremely good. I had their Almond-based mole, which was among the very best moles I've experienced -others in our party who ordered moles were also impressed. RI is certainly as good as Ix. if not better - at a much more reasonable price. The non-mole dishes at Red Iguana were not stellar, but for their specialty - wow.

extramsg wrote:
But it seems that sasquatch isn't truly looking for haute Mexican. That's the impression I got. I wasn't suggesting you *had* to go to SLC for good Mexican, just that *if* you were in SLC.... And if there's a Chicago downscale Mexican restaurant with 7 quality moles available every night for $11/plate, I wish I'd tried it.

just to be clear, we went to Ix looking for fancy mexican, when it failed to deliver I regretted having spent twice what I would have for what I knew would have been a solid meal. I was disappointed with execution, cold plates and dry chicken. This isn't cuisinism. As many have pointed out there are other chicago alternatives, with which I am familiar.

Whoa. I'm getting in late here. Let me preface this: if you look at what I've written before, I don't think you can accuse me of making too many blanket statements, universal pronouncements, hyperbolic criticisms or raves. Nor do I believe that nothing good exists in other cities, great or small.

But I've been to the Red Iguana in SLC, multiple times. Recently, I've noted that it is doubtless the best option in that very sorry food town. But this quirky, hippy-ish, Mission-ish Mexican, which boasts "Killer Nachos," burritos, and fried ice cream (all highly recommended by the SLC papers) is not objectively superior to Bahena's restaurants in any sese that I can tell. No way, no how. Just my opinion. Then again, I have never had the poor experience described above at Ix or Chilpancingo.

Speaking of Bahena, may I inquire if anyone knows the story of the apparently failed (or never opened, which seems also quite possible) Apaxtleco on Western just north of Polk on a bustling ( ) commercial stretch in the beautiful Tri-Taylor neighbourhood? The building bearing the Apaxtleco sign is a little, old, deconsecrated church, formerly housing an Italian restaurant. No activity can be seen there but every so often someone takes the trouble to pick up some of the trash that has blown in behind the wrought-iron fence on Western (mostly detritus from Polk and Western Hot Dogs).

Antonius

JeffB, you say nachos, burritos, and fried ice cream like they're mold, freezer burn, and flies in your food. Don't fall into Kennedy's folly of thinking that regional Mexican above the border doesn't deserve as serious a look as regional Mexican below the border. See here.

I do think that Red Iguana probably out performs Chilpancingo compared to other restaurants in its class. Much like Taqueria Puebla. For what they're trying to do, they probably do a better job than Chilpancingo for what it is trying to do. But haute Mexican doesn't have as much competition as downscale Mexican, nor does it have as much competition as haute French, haute Italian, etc. Hopefully, places like Topolo and Chilpancingo will spawn imitators who will try to improve upon their rivals in order to compete with them.

Nick-- I was just writing in a context set by the mention of 7 moles and antojitos seldom found north of the boarder. Also, I know that you did not make an apples-to-apples comparison, but others did. Beyond arguments about "authenticity," the presence of fried ice cream and "killer nachos" is a signal that the place is adjusting its food for a wider audience -- just as Bahena's places are (though without adding North-of-the-border inventions). That does not mean that the other stuff has to suffer. Certain Italian places in Chicago are a good example. Chicken Vesuvio can and does share the menu with more traditional Italian-from-Italy foods. But mole to mole, masa to masa, I disagree that the place in SLR is better than or as good as the places to which it has been compared.

Although the owners are from Chihuahua and California, I think, so to some extent the moles are less "theirs" than the nachos, perhaps.

On a straight comparison, value excluded, The Red Iguana probably isn't as good as Chilpancingo. I agree. If nothing else, the ingredients used at TRI -- chicken and turkey primarily -- aren't equal to the ingredients used at Chilpancingo -- duck, nice cuts of pork, fish, etc.

Don't fall into Kennedy's folly of thinking that regional Mexican above the border doesn't deserve as serious a look as regional Mexican below the border. See here.

Geez, I am amazed by the historical revisionism going on with regards to Tex Mex. Historically, it is just plain awful food - Cheez Whiz, brown sauce, canned tomato sauce, tortillas and chile powder. Not good.

The current vogue is to make food that borrows heavily (at its best) from New Mexican regional cuisine, which has always been damned good, IMO, and present it as Tex Mex.

True Tex Mex was always awful in any context, and is mostly done and gone, thankfully. New Mexico is not Texas, though it is a fine thing that their regional cuisine is being adopted and improved upon in Texas. It would be fairer if New Mexico had the same flair for self-promotion, but nothing is perfect.

I do appreciate regional US cuisines, including Texas BBQ, New Mexico-Mexican, and even some California-Mexican, as well as lots of others that are not too relevant to this. And some of the nouvelle Mexican in Texas is, from what I hear, quite wonderful (other than a brief visit to Austin, I have not had the opportunity to enjoy it in the last decade), but I will not accept real Tex Mex as being better than, say, Central Illinois farm cooking in the 50's. It wasn't. Don't be fooled by the publicity machine.

dicksond wrote:Geez, I am amazed by the historical revisionism going on with regards to Tex Mex. Historically, it is just plain awful food - Cheez Whiz, brown sauce, canned tomato sauce, tortillas and chile powder....I will not accept real Tex Mex as being better than, say, Central Illinois farm cooking in the 50's. It wasn't. Don't be fooled by the publicity machine.

Whoa, you're sure to open up a can of worms with that. I don't know about the history, the authenticity, the cross-regio-culturo-influence whatever, but there was a take on Mexican food that I got living in Texas for 6 years that I've not found duplicated up here, and it was damn good. And while I haven't eaten a lot in New Mexico, I've eaten enough to think of it much different than Tex-Mex.

Sure, there's a Tex-Mex analog to cream of mushroom soup and jello molds, but it seems to be painting a pretty tasty cuisine with an unfairly broad brush.

Cheers,

Aaron

What is the approximate time period of this horrible Tex-Mex? Growing up in Houston in the 70's, I remember a plethora of good Tex-Mex food.
What my family ate was no relation to cheeze-whiz, tomato sauce, and chili powder. You must be referring to a much earlier time? Texans have never confused New Mexican cuisine and Tex-Mex. Used to be you wouldn't encounter the New Mexican influence until you'd lost yourself way, way out in West Texas. For the record: I'll take Texan "bastardizations" of Mexican cuisine over that peculiar midwestern fear of spicing anyday.

Considering that Cheez Whiz wasn't invented until the 1950s (in Canada), it's hardly fair to 1) blame it on Texas (blame Canada!), and 2) consider it an integral part of Tex-Mex. People have been eating Mexican food in Texas for a hell of a long time and re-inventing it all that time just like in every other region of Mexico -- lest we forget that Texas *was* Mexico. And it's not whitey who invented Tex-Mex.

Lastly, you shouldn't overly romanticize "true" Mexican cuisine. If you think that it's a pure cuisine, read this:

http://www.latimes.com/features/food/la ... story?null

Nick, I saw your rundown of the Red Iguana. Looks good, better than I remembered. One can't help noticing, however, that everything seems to be covered with melted cheese. Maybe this is from the Chihuahua side of the family. But I'm really mad that no one ever directed me to the greasy spoon burger place. Next time, I'm there.

extramsg wrote:Lastly, you shouldn't overly romanticize "true" Mexican cuisine. If you think that it's a pure cuisine, read this:

http://www.latimes.com/features/food/la ... story?null

What a great article, Nick -- thanks for the link. Her next-to-last paragraph exactly nails the problem I have with discussions of "authenticity."

Yeah, she's very nice and knowledgable, too. She's active on eGullet's Mexico forum as Caroline. (Though I don't participate there often because the administration doesn't do anything about moderators who harass people.)

I disagree with her on some points, but it's made me make the effort to use words like "traditional" instead of "authentic" and try to be more specific. I don't think there's anything wrong with, like the Slow Food folks do, encouraging methods of preparation and ingredients that are traditional, produce high quality results, and may disappear if not used. But then, I use a stick blender for most of my salsas even though I have a nice molcajete on the counter.

Interesting article.

It's a little ironic that most of what she considers not worth noting because of rareness outside Mexico is pretty easily available at least here and in LA (the readership that is her audience). That's not "America", I know, but it's a hell of a lot of Americans who might buy a cook book. I also wonder whether she intended to convey negative judgments about atoles, which she describes as "gruel" -- a technically fair but obviously pejorative translation, and/or Americans, whom she assumes would not care for the drinks and lots of other stuff. In fact, any number of different atoles can be had at Maxwell St. and on street corners around town. I like them. So, at least in a couple of places north of the border, you can do "traditional" if you want, so why not make the recipes available rather than suggest (a) you can't get the ingredients and (b) you wouldn't like it anyway.

My favorite part of the article is the mention of Mexican Costcos. The one in Acapulco is where I'll go when I die if I manage to turn things around. Lots of very high quality stuff, super cheap (it's Costco and it's Mexico for God's sake) that stores don't or can't sell here: bags of fresh Gulf oysters, top quality Cuban cigars of solid provenance, and many more Spanish wines and spirits than one sees here.

The above three or four posts a take this thread in a direction that seems to deserve its own place on the 'Non-Food' board. With that in mind I have posted my remarks on Laudan's article there.

JeffB wrote:Interesting article.

It's a little ironic that most of what she considers not worth noting because of rareness outside Mexico is pretty easily available at least here and in LA (the readership that is her audience). That's not "America", I know, but it's a hell of a lot of Americans who might buy a cook book. I also wonder whether she intended to convey negative judgments about atoles, which she describes as "gruel" -- a technically fair but obviously pejorative translation, and/or Americans, whom she assumes would not care for the drinks and lots of other stuff. In fact, any number of different atoles can be had at Maxwell St. and on street corners around town. I like them. So, at least in a couple of places north of the border, you can do "traditional" if you want, so why not make the recipes available rather than suggest (a) you can't get the ingredients and (b) you wouldn't like it anyway.

I have not had a chance to comment much of late, and I want to say more in this thread (i.e., I am very happy with Ixcapulzalco and think it worth the $$). Also, I was just very much in the land of Tex-Mex, and while I do not agree necessarily with Dickson's points, I gotta say, Chuy's is not a very good place to eat. Anyways, for now, I want to comment on one thing, based on just reading the linked LA Times story.

I'm not a fan of atole either, and gruel is quite a nice way of putting it. Perhaps warm (and spicy) creamed corn is another. It's like biryani, as much as I like the cuisine it is part of, there are certain dishes that I never "get". So, I do agree with the author's point on atole.

Rob