Why are you so fixated on how many calories they were? If the candy tasted horrible but was 300 calories, would it have been better?
Well done, sir. 
That place looks amazingly good, and from further perusal of the menu, you guys should have ordered the chef’s tasting menu for dinner…5 courses plus wine pairings with each course would have set you back $220 for two…I would absolutely kill to be able to afford to eat at such places with any sort of regularity.
That’s my element! I’m just too damn poor! So I just stick to raiding their dumpsters in the wee hours of the night…
Oh, my! :eek: Well, that explains volumes! I should be glad I wasn’t hunted down and shot in the head for lobbing a totally UNINTENTIONAL spitball of snark at this fine dining expert… I wanted to contribute more to this thread, but as I’ve had my ass handed to me, I can take a hint. I’m off to ‘fuck the rich’, being a trophy wife myself…
Dude, you’re being a fucking a-hole. These types of restaurants aren’t for everyone. The people that appreciate them for what they are are not necessarily rich. They are just foodies.
Yes, its expensive. Yes, most cannot afford it with any regularity, including me. But its worth it when you can for the experience of being in the hands of a master chef. You are just being contrary.
Both of you – and everyone else – dial it way the fuck back. We’re in Cafe Society, not the Pit. If you want to call each other assholes, with or without all the consonants, do it elsewhere.
No warnings issued – yet – but they will be if people don’t start acting civilly.
twickster, Cafe Society moderator
Seriously, looking at the web site the last thing I would expect is a good restaurant. Expensive yes, good food, no. I would never even consider going there and I love high end dining.
What about the website gives you a bad impression of the food? Judging by the menu, the offerings look pretty promising. For sure not a regular Thursday date kinda place (at least not in my tax bracket) but I have the impression that they deliver on the quality - just about ideal for a hotel restaurant - varied and seasonal menu, good blend of haute cuisine and local flavour.
The impression I have from the website is that the ambiance might leave a little to be desired, but the menu is something I might bite on if I was looking to splash out on a special night.
Places like Raincity Grill are more attractive to me - even when hotel restaurants have a spectacular menu, they tend to be dull and stuffy. I want to eat an amazing meal and have a good time.
Just a point de Gastronomique, but I believe that with so called, Fancy or noveau dining came the European tradition of the formal court or Royal dining banquet that consisted of many courses in smaller portions, but the concept of small portions is sometimes muddied or has become inseperable from the whole American concept of fine dining. If you only had three courses, then I think it should have been larger portions … now for your experience, and the portions you describe, the meal, properly, should have been at least 8-14 courses. It’s really an errant idea of fancy=starving/small portions. It’s really banquet tradition, translated, or mistranslated iMHO, into a rather provenial goofy misappropriation of insitutional snobbieness and airs.
If i had a restaurant, I would take pride in both my existential (flavor and delicacy) and experiential (physical) satiation. No one would go away hungry.
Maybe at the highest of high-end restaurants people actually go away hungry, but at the high-end places I’ve eaten at, I tend to leave pleasantly satisfied, but not stuffed.
The key is getting the whole meal- appetizer to share, soup/salad, entree and dessert. If you skimp, you’re not getting the whole experience, and you end up with less food.
Hm, Chef’s tasting menu looks killer. Might consider doing the anniversary there next Feb. I could do 3 days/2 nights of luxury =)
I would consider that an appetizer, an entree and dessert there should have in the range of about 500-600 calories [mainly because higher fat/higher sugar content foods have more calories - sauces even if they are a bare drizzle tend to be fairly calorie dense, you have no idea how rich in calories 1 oz of foie gras can be …] though it all depends on if you split the appetizer or eat it all yourself.
As long as I am not going away ravenous [I prefer to end a meal still less than full. I hate feeling stuffed.] I am good with tiny portions, I am there more for taste than stuffage. If I want to be stuffed Ill go somewhere for huge portions of cheap foods. What I am after is sensual pleasure.
Now I am craving duck, and we are having cod for dinner tonight =(
Do you actually understand FDA portion sizes of food?
In my grantedly diabetic world a portion of starch [rice, pasta, potato, legumes] is measured as half a cup of cooked. Go measure it out. Tiny isn’t it? Meat is three oz, about the size of a deck of cards. My world is measured in tiny amounts, I get 13 grapes as a snack, 6 baby carrots and 2 tablespoons of hummus … a dozen pita chips and 2 tbsp hummus. You should go to a nutritionist sometime and take the class they offer.
Most americans sit down to meals that technically are 2 to 3 times the amount of food that the average human needs [not counting the seriously fast growing adolescent males, or athletes that can chow down 4000 cal a day and burn it off effortlessly]
How would you accomplish this, given the standard food cost model?
I’ll expand a bit on my previous post to say: I have no idea what you’re talking about, and with regards to fine dining, I (respectfully) don’t think you do either.
The “hottest new chefs” don’t really open places that serve 300 calories meals. They use their status as hottest new chefs to open places that serve 10 or 20 course tasting menus. Each course may be one to three bites; but, you know, there’s a bunch of courses. You certainly feel satiated when you leave.
You mention expensive “spa cuisine”, you talk about places charges $200 a plate for it. Well, spas probably serve spa cuisine, sure, and charge highly for it, but I think you’re attempting a metaphor. As for actual restaurants that charge $200 a plate for food, I don’t know what you’re talking about. Maybe you’re thinking of a specific hotel restaurant? They’re often expensive (and mediocre, but consistently so, so points for that). Either way, the “hottest chefs” aren’t working there, and the rich and their trophy wives usually don’t hang out in hotel restaurants with the plebs.
I don’t think you’re “raging against the rich and thin”, but I also don’t think you’re discussing something you know anything about. Out of curiosity, are you thinking of names like Ramsey or Wolfgang Puck or something? They… they aren’t good.
Oooh, I do though!
And apologies to salinqmind for being out of line with my insult.