Mike G wrote:I have to admit, I'm wondering what you expected when you go to a place with a tasting menu and ask the chef to devise something special, as if the tasting menu does not represent the chef's thinking on those lines in the first place. How would throwing together a tasting menu on the fly ever be better than the tasting menu he's already carefully thought through?

My experience is that at 4 star (using NYT rating system) or Michelin *** restaurants, it works quite well as a rule.

DutchMuse wrote:

Mike G wrote:I have to admit, I'm wondering what you expected when you go to a place with a tasting menu and ask the chef to devise something special, as if the tasting menu does not represent the chef's thinking on those lines in the first place. How would throwing together a tasting menu on the fly ever be better than the tasting menu he's already carefully thought through?

My experience is that at 4 star (using NYT rating system) or Michelin *** restaurants, it works quite well as a rule.

I'm a bit confused here...isn't the tasting menu a "menu he thought best for that night" anyway? I guess what I'm trying to say is, what is the reasoning behind eschewing that evening's tasting menu and asking for something else?

In my experience, the tasting menu changes on a weekly, sometimes daily basis, and even then, the chefs often sub items in and out as they see fit as ingredients come and go that evening. But either way, I personally would prefer to have a menu that's been well thought out, discussed with the staff, or in the case of some place like Alinea, Moto or El Bulli, developed and perfected after much trial and error specifically for that tasting menu.

These are good points, and certainly valid. The restaurant knew we were coming and, usually, we have found at 4 star restaurants that the chef and his/her staff are open to creating a menu for what is best that day. Some 4 star restaurants have a tasting menu that changes seasonally--not every day--and so there is an opportunity for them to deviate from it to really reach that extra level.

Had the Captain or GM or anyone said "The tasting menu that's published is what is showing best today" in response to our request, that would have been fine, and we would have probably ordered that. But when we did ask, they agreed to create a menu by leading us to believe, at first, it was at the direction of the chef, only to find out later it was the work of the Captain and maybe GM.

Long story short, I've found most NYT 4 star places are happy to create a menu for you if they know you're coming in and they can really show what they can do. At times, I've also had them suggest the regular tasting menu, which we've done as well.

Here we had a confluence of mixed signals that just got all messed up.

However, all the items we ended up receiving were from the published menu. Putting aside the lack of flow, the comments about the variable quality and execution still stand.

DutchMuse wrote:The restaurant knew we were coming ...

Does this mean something different from "We had a reservation."

Kennyz wrote:

DutchMuse wrote:The restaurant knew we were coming ...

Does this mean something different from "We had a reservation."

Yes, I had corresponded with the sommelier in advance as to mutual contacts (I write wine articles occasionally), asking about corkage policies, and introducing her to my friends who would be coming as well.

I attended the L2O dinner last night with Dutch Muse. There is a small but critical difference here. Sometimes diners at the very top gastronomic restaurants will tell their captain, "have the chef cook for us." This means that they wish to be served those dishes that the chef feels are his pride and/or those that he is currently working on. This says put aside the number of dishes on the tasting menu and put aside the price, but do your very, very best as an artist. Some chefs may prefer not to do this (although the top chefs know what the request means and typically will treat it as a challenge) and in that case diners should be told so that they can create their own menu. This was to be a special dinner that involved a national evaluation of L2O and the staff knew who was dining (not that "I" counted for much). However, for many of the courses, we were served three separate dishes, even after telling the captain that we weren't going to share (we were a melange, but not a melange a trois!). So, the captain selected dishes for each of us: far better would have been to have had 21 courses with smaller portions or, again, to let us decide.

But the problem was deeper. I have come to the conclusion that Lauren Gras might make a marvelous Chef de Cuisine, but not a Managing Chef. The chef should be the face of the restaurant. As Dutch Muse points out we were told again and again that the chef was "focused" on his line cooking. But what would happen to the restaurant should he ever stub his toe and needs to lie in bed. A kitchen should not require the continual attention of the chef, neither should the stove; the kitchen should hum on its own. Granted, chefs differ in how much time they enjoy being in the front of the house, but this was a case in which a brief visit - a little smoozing - would have solved everything. However, even though we were the final diners in the restaurant, Chef Gras did not appear. We were told that he was "focused" on cleaning the kitchen. Does he exist? Yes, because apparently even when friends appear, Gras does not appear or even invite them into the kitchen. Chef Gras produces some brilliant, ethereal dishes, but the management of the restaurant is a let-down and some of the dishes (such as the salt cod pudding or some overly chilled sashimi and slightly overcooked fish) require a head chef who is tasting what leaves the kitchen. The champagne-poached buttery char looked delicious and was lusciously prepared, but it needed something to cut the unctuous pool of butter. At the least, the restaurant needs a strong general manager who can make up for a chef who dreams of being a line cook.

There were some fantastic dishes - the diver scallops with blueberries, sorrell and earl gray sauce was astonishing and the medley of lobster with tarragon gelee, as was Dutch Muse's cotton candy foie gras. The pair of amuses were impressive as was the palate cleanser. At times the quality of the dishes can compare to the very best anywhere, but my experiences at L2O have not persuaded me that the restaurant is meeting its own expectations.

Diver Scallops with Blueberries

Champagne-poached buttery Arctic Char with Chantrelles and Zucchini

Lobster Medley with Tarragon Gelee

That really sucks that you guys had a less than stellar experience. Our meal there on Saturday was probably my favorite of the 4 times we've now been there.

I've definitely come to the conclusion (and this most recent experience re-enforces it) that the best way to experience L2O is to do the 4 course menu. Obviously a restaurant at the level that L2O aspires to be should be able to put out a stellar long tasting menu, but IMO they just can't. I've had much better luck there when selecting from among the options in the 4 course with some guidance from the captain handling our table.

FWIW, I would absolutely agree with your description of the scallop/blueberry dish as "astonishing". Based on the current menu, if you did a 4 course meal comprised of the tuna with foie gras snow, the scallop with blueberries, the lobster, and a souffle you'd walk out of there feeling like you had a true 4 star experience. For it to be a true 4 star experience, though, one shouldn't have to order so carefully.

I agree. One can have a stellar meal at L2O, and receiving a less than stellar dish is not only a problem at L2O. I had a less than stellar dish at Le Bernadin.

I guess I disagree with GAF in a few ways... When I go to a restuarant and spend hundreds of dollars on a meal, my first priority is the food. Sure it would be nice to meet the chef, but at the end of the day, I go to a restaurant to eat.

In the situation described, when the first dishes appear and I notice that all 3 dishes are different, when I specifically said "no sharing", a warning bell would have sounded. A simple "There might have been a miscommunication..." might have helped the party alter the path their dinner was taking.

The chef should be the face of the restaurant.

I would argue that the chef should be the orchestra conductor of the kitchen. A chef runs a kitchen. When I see chefs stroll around the restaurant, slapping men on their backs, jovially laughing, flirting with women guests, the first thing that comes to my mind is "Shouldn't he be in the kitchen making my dinner?!". I know most chefs will probably not spend more than 5 seconds on my plate of food as it leave the kitchen, and some sous chef is probably the master behind the magnificent meal I am having. But knowing is one thing, seeing is another!

More and more I notice a lot of name dropping in higher end restaurants. Customers would say in loud voice, "I am a foodie" or "I write on a food blog", etc. What ever happened to the early days where we sat down as regular people, ate our meal like everyone else, and paid the bill without anyone from the restaurant ever knowing we were from Chowhounds, or LTHForum. If the restaurant knew that we were going to write a review and post it on LTHForum, and therefore made the extra effort to impress us, that would obviously be awesome for us. But for the people who read our reviews and expect the same service/menu? Is that not a dis-service to the public? Would that not just set them up for disappointment? Would that not increase the number of pretentious diners that we see out and about?

Sorry for the rant... but chefs should not be expected to schmooze. I pay for their food not for their excellent PR skills. I would take a chef who dreams of being a line cook over a chef who dreams of being a slick food tv personality. Which is also a reason why I would not go to a Bobby Flay restaurant!

CrazyC wrote:More and more I notice a lot of name dropping in higher end restaurants. Customers would say in loud voice, "I am a foodie" or "I write on a food blog", etc. What ever happened to the early days where we sat down as regular people, ate our meal like everyone else, and paid the bill without anyone from the restaurant ever knowing we were from Chowhounds, or LTHForum.

I agree.

Charlotte, from our mutual experiences we don't draw too much attention to ourselves. At one very nice restaurant, we received lousy service at a rushed pace for a pretty lofty price.

While we were not too happy with our experience. It pretty much defined the restaurant's character: how they behave when they don't think they are being critically observed. We were nobodies who didn't matter.

As much as I disliked their discourtesy, it was great to see their true colors.

Regards,

DutchMuse wrote:

Kennyz wrote:

DutchMuse wrote:The restaurant knew we were coming ...

Does this mean something different from "We had a reservation."

Yes, I had corresponded with the sommelier in advance as to mutual contacts (I write wine articles occasionally), asking about corkage policies, and introducing her to my friends who would be coming as well.

Thanks. This extra info, plus what GAF shared about your group calling attention to the "national evaluation" you had planned, helps me put the situation and the reviews in context.

I have mixed feelings about Cathy's and CC's posts. Typically I am very much like them, and had I been dining with them at L2O I am sure that this is how things would have proceeded. I don't ask the chef to cook for me, but will order the tasting menu or a la carte, however it strikes me. And it is rare that a chef will come and greet me. And often I am watching my budget - not closely but enough that I take care in the wine that I select.

However, there are some diners who desire to find the very best cuisine possible. They challenge chefs to be Mozart and Rembrandt, but with a twist. At global four star restaurants, it is often expected that there is a community of chefs and diners. I have dined in such circumstances just often enough to see how it is done - and to see how amazing the cuisine can be. There is an understanding that occurs. You would not find this even at such sterling restaurants such as Naha or Carlos (I'm guessing), because these are primarily locally-based (and perhaps not even at Tru), but you might at Trotter's. It is a kind of brotherhood (sisterhood rarely), embedded in an elite network. The problem is that there is a sense that L2O wants to be in the league, but my two colleagues felt that L2O didn't understand the rules. A chef who likes to stay in the kitchen might well be a terrific chef at most restaurants, but at some he should be a chef de cuisine. This was a situation which many chefs at this level could have handled with aplomb and, as the saying goes, transform lemons into deconstructed lemon foam. It is part of the skill set that many of the top global chefs have. And part of the skill set that top managers should have. (I should note that L2O's manager is probably very capable for running the restaurant, but perhaps also was not sufficiently familiar with the demands of global gastronomy and also that Chef Gras is a man with great creativity and skill - and certainly focus).

Now, I don't know if this style of eating is a good thing overall - it is certainly related to chefs and diners as sharing a network of celebrity to which Cathy, Crazy, and I don't belong. It is not a game that I play as host - but it is part of that world in which some fifty restaurant are known as "temples of gastronomy" with high priests ready to give out blessings.

(I might further add that there were some things that we as diners probably should have avoided. I don't hold us fully blameless, but this is a discussion board about chefs who matter and not diners who, in the long run, do not).

DutchMuse wrote:The restaurant knew we were coming ...

DutchMuse wrote:Yes, I had corresponded with the sommelier in advance as to mutual contacts (I write wine articles occasionally), asking about corkage policies, and introducing her to my friends who would be coming as well.

KennyZ wrote:Thanks. This extra info, plus what GAF shared about your group calling attention to the "national evaluation" you had planned, helps me put the situation and the reviews in context.

I think Kenny meant to hit the "sarcastic-font-button"...oh wait...that doesn't exist yet. Kenny, let me break it down for them: GAF, your "national evaluation" comment begs further explanation.

Is requesting that the kitchen just send out some dishes of their choosing inappropriate? Clearly, it depends on the restaurant. I'm a semi-regular at one local restaurant where the chefs and cooks tell me they love to cook such meals. They appreciate it when a diner has that level of faith in them. It fires them up (or so they tell me) and since, in my experience, those meals have typically been marvels, I tend to believe them.

It sounds like that isn't quite the case at L.20. They have a set tasting menu and for whatever reasons, do not want to stray from it. Fine. But what's troublesome about the recent accounts above is that the restaurant didn't just come out and say they couldn't accomodate the request, or at the very least, it seems that they weren't entirely clear about it. As GAF suggests, this is the coin of the realm at many restaurants -- especially those that strive for world class status -- so GAF's party's expectation was completely reasonable. It's too bad that it wasn't met with a more unmitigated response. Had an understanding between the diners and the restaurant been reached at the outset, the expectation level would probably have been re-set accordingly.

As for chef Gras not coming into the dining room, I have no problem with that and don't see it as a failing in any way. I don't agree that his desire to stay in the kitchen means that he's been mis-hired or mis-assigned. I've been to Alinea many times and have only seen chef Achatz in the dining room once -- at a special event. Is he merely a chef de cuisine? Obviously not. Conversely, I've seen supposedly great chefs chatting with customers in their dining rooms while chaos swirled around them. To me, that's far more intolerable and inexcusable. The bottom line is that chefs and restaurants have their different styles, and we diners can either accept them or decide to eat somewhere else. It's really that simple -- there's no right or wrong here (which doesn't at all discount the notion that L.20 might not be, as GAF wrote above, "...meeting its own expectations.").

In this case, it seems that L.20 knew the status of their guests, was as prepared for them as they could possibly be and sent out a meal of the kitchen's exact choosing. As such, the diners had a truly representative experience, which they found uneven and not particularly thrilling. It appears that no one at the table was really happy and that's a shame but I'm grateful to have read the accounts, which I think are valuable for a variety of reasons.

=R=

GAF wrote:The problem is that there is a sense that L2O wants to be in the league, but my two colleagues felt that L2O didn't understand the rules.

This is an earnest question, as I don't know much about Laurent Gras, his history, philosophy, etc.: is it that they don't understand the rules, or that they don't abide by them?

Personally, I hope it's the latter, for the very same reasons that Cathy & CC detailed very nicely. The "do you know who I am" approach to procuring the best service doesn't sit well with me, so I would be thrilled to champion a place that breaks from that particular fine dining "tradition".

That said, I do agree that there was a severe lack of communication between the staff and the diners - if it went down as stated in these two accounts, someone should have been up-front about their exact dining options. Also, the fact that the manager apparently wasn't comfortable speaking with Chef Gras and the kitchen staff is kinda messed up.

I would say it's troubling that the FOH didn't come out and say "we don't do special menus" IF the OPs hadn't dropped phrases like "national evaluation" to the staff.

The staff hears "national evaluation" and says "oh crap! we'd better give these big shots everything they ask for, even if they kitchen doesn't want to do it, or we'll get a nasty writeup on bobsfoodandwineblog.com"

As soon as you play the "we're judging you for national publication" card, you can't complain about your service. You asked to be treated like big shots, they treated you like big shots.

Sweetbread wrote:

KennyZ wrote:Thanks. This extra info, plus what GAF shared about your group calling attention to the "national evaluation" you had planned, helps me put the situation and the reviews in context.

I think Kenny meant to hit the "sarcastic-font-button"...oh wait...that doesn't exist yet. Kenny, let me break it down for them: GAF, your "national evaluation" comment begs further explanation.

Not really, but I do realize that my comment may have come across that way. I meant that the background info gives me a sense of the expectations these diners might have brought with them to the dinner. I get the feeling that they were really expecting (or at least hoping for) some extra special treatment that other patrons don't get. It sounds like they wanted to be treated differently from the rest of us. When the restaurant didn't provide that, they might have been disappointed. It's possible that that disappointment colored the whole experience, even if the diners don't even realize it did. I'm left to think that the review might tell more about the diners' expectations than about the restaurant itself. Knowing the context, I'm less likely to rule L.2O out for a future dining experience of my own.

(edited because my initial post failed to include Sweetbread's actual quote)

Thank you, Kenny.

The term "national evaluation" was mine, not a quotation, but one of the guests publishes a recognized national fine dining survey and runs a national discussion board, and was in Chicago to judge L2O in the context of the evaluations that it had received. It was his hope - and mine and that of DutchMuse - that we would have an experience that would be transcendent. Chef Gras might have the talent to have made that possible, but for a variety of reasons, including problems of communication on both sides, that did not happen. And perhaps - if every diner is to be treated equally - it could be to the restaurant's credit. I don't like seeing elites receiving special treatment, unless - for the night - it is me!

My conclusion was that L2O is a high three-star restaurant (not at all bad - think of all of the three star restaurants that we love), pleasing a local/regional market with touches of real genius, but also inconsistency in the food preparation and in the front-of-the-house. Best seafood restaurant in Chicago, yes, but is that enough?

This thread makes me laugh.

oh, so steve plotnicki was there? then I really have no sympathy.

gleam wrote:oh, so steve plotnicki was there? then I really have no sympathy.

ok, now that's the funniest thing i've heard all day.

gleam wrote:oh, so steve plotnicki was there? then I really have no sympathy.

As this discussion forum thread indicates, Steve Plotnicki was indeed the third mystery guest. I'll try to contain my comments about his "nationally recognized" survey, and will only note that this additional piece of context reinforces my supposition that the report here serves little value in determining whether I might have an enjoyable meal at L.20. Interesting to note the different response to the OP over there vs. over here.

The comments to my post are both interesting and revealing.

Please--give us (and me) a little credit--no one is talking about wanting a back slapping chef, yucking it up, acting jovial and flirting with women who ignores a commotion in the kitchen to just mindlessly joke with guests. If that's your view of our intent, then you are sadly mistaken.

Also, I do not need Tony (GM) or Allison, or Chef Gras' attention to validate my self-worth.

But for those of you critical of my observations, just two or three questions:

1) Have you, yourself, been to L20?

2) How many times?

3) Do you regularly spend your money--between $200 and $300 per person, to support the restaurant regularly, to put your money where your mouth is?

If so, how does L20 compare with other restaurants of its purported caliber, nationally? Which ones?

If you don't, why not? For L20 to survive financially, it must have as its base diners who come from beyond the city limits. How many diners used to NYT 4 star dining nationwide and beyond will be pleased with L20 as it currently stands?

Local pride is one thing and I understand that. But its not enough to make the restaurant survive economically.
Curious as to your thoughts on these questions.

I think it's hilarious that they're (the people on the forum Kenny linked to) all ruling out return visits based on this one experience.

It seems like you're better off being a "nobody" than a purported "somebody".

Josh and Kenny, have you been? How many times? What was your personal experience?

If you haven't been, would you be willing to go a couple of times and report back?

jesteinf wrote:It seems like you're better off being a "nobody" than a purported "somebody".

Yes, I agree. I sincerely wonder how the experience would have differed if nothing had been said to anyone at L.20 by the inbound party. It sounds like it wouldn't have been any less enjoyable and possibly, might have been a better experience. Maybe, perhaps unjustly, chef Gras felt that this group -- who had pre-announced their arrival and implied they expected special treatment -- was annoying and he just didn't want to deal with them at all. That said, in my trips to to L.20, I've never seen chef Gras in the dining room, not even on opening night.

=R=

DutchMuse wrote:Josh and Kenny, have you been? How many times? What was your personal experience?

If you haven't been, would you be willing to go a couple of times and report back?

I've been 4 times. I did the tasting menu once, I ate in the lounge once, and I've done the 4 course twice. 3 of the 4 times I paid my own way (the most recent was an anniversary present from my sister-in-law). You can read about all of my experiences upthread. To summarize, my experiences were all better than your most recent meal.

DutchMuse wrote:Josh and Kenny, have you been? How many times? What was your personal experience?

If you haven't been, would you be willing to go a couple of times and report back?

I've never been, but I'd be willing to go. Are you paying? Let's do it incognito this time please.

GAF wrote:This was to be a special dinner that involved a national evaluation of L2O and the staff knew who was dining (not that "I" counted for much).

GAF wrote:The term "national evaluation" was mine, not a quotation, but one of the guests publishes a recognized national fine dining survey and runs a national discussion board, and was in Chicago to judge L2O in the context of the evaluations that it had received. It was his hope - and mine and that of DutchMuse - that we would have an experience that would be transcendent.

GAF wrote:And perhaps - if every diner is to be treated equally - it could be to the restaurant's credit. I don't like seeing elites receiving special treatment, unless - for the night - it is me!

I must confess that I've been following this thread and one thing doesn't seem to make sense to me. I was under the impression that "evaluations" are conducted blind; in other words, the restaurant isn't supposed to know that they are serving someone who publishes "a recognized national fine dining survey." To avoid "elites receiving special treatment," among other things.

Given that understanding, I don't understand why this information was communicated in the first place. It seems to send primarily a "we're special" message and "we expect special treatment." Perhaps, indeed, the attendees were "special" in that their palates are unusually refined or have some other rare distinction. I'm perfectly willing to believe that. Even if that's so, however, doesn't communicating that to the kitchen/staff alter the representativeness of the experience? And doesn't that, in turn, result in a skewed review. It might be skewed in favor of a highly favorable review of an experience that most people will not likely be fortunate enough to get. Or, it might, perhaps, be skewed like the one we've been reading? After all, not everyone responds as expected to such information.

Or is my understanding old-fashioned or wrong?

Gypsy Boy wrote:...I was under the impression that "evaluations" are conducted blind; in other words, the restaurant isn't supposed to know that they are serving someone who publishes "a recognized national fine dining survey." To avoid "elites receiving special treatment," among other things.

...

Or is my understanding old-fashioned or wrong?

Your understanding is not old-fashioned. The reviewer in question has a different view, which is expressed here:

Steve Plotnicki wrote:... Take my own business model which is based around getting the best meal possible so I can communicate the information to my readers. If I go into a restaurant in Spain and whip out my little OAD Dining Survey and the restaurant cooks up a meal that I wouldn't know I could order if I didn't disclose my identity, and then I get comped on the meal (without asking for it,) using "the code," many people would argue that is unethical, even though I disclosed it in my review. But the people who read my site expect me to ferret out that type of information for them because they would like to be able to ask for that type of meal when they go to the restaurant.

viewtopic.php?p=259395#p259395

This incident at L20 illustrates the problem with this approach: reviewer asks for so-called special treatment. He apparently gets special treatment, but in an unsatisfactory way. So is the conclusion that the restaurant is good, but one shouldn't ask for special treatment? To conclude that, it seems as thought the reviewer would have to revisit and not request special treatment. The readers of the review would probably have been better served if the review had at least first sampled the standard options that L20 offers.