Fine dining-- kind of a scam?

The shape of the US wealth or income distribution pretty well ensures that regardless of how expensive the individual meals are, the entire “fine dining” category will amount to a rounding error in the national restaurant industry sales total.

For an industry booster group mostly interested in the business of business promotion, not foodery, it makes some sense to lump everything above e.g. Applebees into one category.

For those of us experiencing it from the other end of the fork, that’s a real unhelpful classification.

My personal taxonomy has what I call “mass-market upscale” above the casual dining, then about three layers of “fine dining” above that. I’d bet our OP found a place that’d fit my mass-market upscale. Especially if it was part of a chain, which it apparently is not. But being part of a chain is not a prereq for “mass market upscale”

The whole “fish naming thing” is a farking game… I have worked w/ fish mongers for years… New name, same fish.

Swai and tilapia are new additions to the game.

I really like tilapia. It seems like a way to turn sewage into tasty food. :wink:

I’m confused on multiple fronts. First you say that it was smaller than a Snickers bar, and then you say that it was 4 oz. A Snickers bar is 2 oz, tops. And 4 oz is a perfectly reasonable portion size for a piece of meat.

They said shape of a Snickers bar, not weight. And I doubt that they had a scale with them to exactly weigh it.

I have worked in several very top end clubs and restaurants. I have prepped and served dover sole, tableside… with sides… for less than the price you stated. I vote scam.

They said “the shape of a Snickers bar, but smaller”.

Though now that you mention it, I’m also confused by “shape of a Snickers bar”, because those come in many different form factors.

Because arguing semantics is always fun. Perhaps just accept that the OP was trying to express “the fish serving was disappointingly small”?

So you’re saying the fish wasn’t the fun size? [D&R] :zany_face:

I also noticed the 4 oz. descriptor because around 3.5 is (or was) the recommended size serving of meat–think airplane entree size. That’s smallish for restaurant food, many of which serve large, high-calorie plates. Fine for an occasional meal but not healthy portions, generally speaking.

A few days ago, we ate at Anthony’s, a Washington seafood chain that’s considered to be in the fine dining category. We had the halibut special. I’d say the halibut piece was about 4 oz. It was served with a rhubarb coulis, their usual rice pilaf with currants and asparagus, with sourdough bread and a salad or chowder appetizer and a choice of creme brulee or a sundae with rhubarb-strawberry topping. My lovely wife has food sensitivities, which they accommodated with understanding and care. We had a pretty view over the water and an attentive waiter. The special was $39 each, and while not the finest meal I’ve ever eaten, was a pleasant experience at its price point.

We have had wonderful high end eating experiences and very disappointing ones. That was a disappointing one. That $160 for two including tip does not though seem too pricey for a high end dining experience.

But posting regarding the portion size issue and to share this gift link. It seems that the age of GLP-1 agonists has many consumers wanting much smaller portions and some restaurants, including the high end ones, are trying to respond!

… Otto’s, a French restaurant in London known for rich feasts of canard à la presse, lobster soufflé and crêpes suzette, introduced a “menu for one, small appetite” in May. The tasting menu, which costs 240 pounds (about $325) per person, includes king scallop, seared foie gras, Scottish lobster, Bresse chicken supreme and coconut ice cream.

FWIW if you are coming to Chicago and want a fine dining experience that won’t leave you hungry my wife and enjoyed Feld, except too much food! Her birthday dinner.

Jeez yes, It was a smallish portion of fish, OK, Chronos? Maybe the width and thickness of a fun size Snickers, and possibly a little longer…? And no idea of the actual weight. As kenobi_65 said, I did not have a scale with me, not did I have a ruler. Also, the relative size of my fish portion was really the least of the problems we had with our meals. But, I apologize for the vagueness of my fish portion description :roll_eyes:

Re: seafood

There is a cafeteria at a hospital I used to work at. Once a week they offer a deal on scallops. I ate lunch with the girl in the mailroom who loved that meal. What I saw on her plate were 6 exactly circular disks maybe 1 1/2 inches in diameter of white fish surrounded by a heavily seasons sauce and rice. What food any food not just seafood comes out of nature like that?

Passing off cheaper variants as more expensive seafood is definitely a thing with some restaurants. I’ve seen news ‘exposés’ where they send samples of seafood from various restaurants for DNA testing to see what it really is. In the case of faking scallops, I believe I’ve heard that they will stamp circles out of pollock, the same fish used for making imitation ‘krab’ meat.

You mean like this? That’s just the big adductor muscle that clamps the shell closed and yes it is cylindrical.

Supposedly skate or ray fin is another common source of fake scallops. If anyone was serious about fake, they’d make their “cookie cutter” not exactly circular.

Subtly different sizes, too. All of the ‘skallops’ being the exact same width would be a dead giveaway.