Thank you.
Vaguely akin to the SoCal “Chili size” (Chili burger - Wikipedia and not one of wiki’s better efforts) in that it was an obscure working class restauranteur who improvised a pile-o-workin-class food on a plate and it caught the local imagination.
It’s not a buffet, because the courses come one at a time, you get exactly one of each course, and the remains of each course is cleared away before the next arrives.
To me, a buffet is about the diner’s choice. What to take, how much, what order to eat it in. A tasting menu is about the chef offering a set experience to the diner.
You’re completely missing my point. I know what a tasting menu is. My contention is that 18 courses more resembles a Gilded Age dinner than specialized tastes still memorable afterward. You may disagree, but you can’t factually negate my opinion.
I’m not sure what this sentence is supposed to mean. Is a word missing?
5 courses is not a tasting menu.
Yes, because you didn’t actually make that point above.
This comment makes sense, unlike your prior comment, comparing it to a buffet.
I do disagree, because that 18 course dinner probably has 7 “real” courses interspersed with little things intended to amuse, cleanse the palette, etc. but at least i think you are presenting an arguable opinion here.
Yeah, “buffet” strikes me as a strange term to use for a formal Gilded Age banquet with zillions of courses in service à la Russe. Those were very highly regimented affairs, no getting up from the table to help yourself to some more of the chicken wings!
Although in some respects even a formal service à la Russe dinner was more laid-back than some modern haute cuisine tasting-menu experiences, because back then it was considered nobody’s business if you chose to pass up one or more of the offered courses. Superchefs nowadays rather expect you to be following their playbook.