Tasting Menus: Revolting.

[DonRocks]

It's been a long time since we've been to Komi. Are you still able to pick at least one or two of the courses of your dinner? I ask because I am kind of over tasting menus in general (I'd rather pick four or so courses to indulge more thoroughly in).

I've heard numerous diners say they're "over" tasting menus, and I'm asking myself what, exactly, this means.

Prix Fixe menus (which are nothing more than multi-course meals) have been occurring in France for probably a couple hundred years, if not longer.

So what exactly is it about tasting menus that gets on peoples' nerves? Is it that every 25-year-old CIA graduate wants to play Thomas Keller? Is it that you have 30 bites of food and leave hungry? That last question reminds me of this post I made over ten years ago in which I said:

 

P.S. I can honestly say this was the first 34-course meal I've ever had that was followed by two Wendy's spicy chicken filet sandwiches on the way home. (Seriously.)

Is it:

1. The young-amateurish chefs who cannot orchestrate a symphony, but insist on doing it anyway?

Or is it:

2. The modern-day leave-hungry lab-experiment visual-textural food-as-art experiences (Minibar, Rogue 24, Riverstead, Moto, etc.)?

As a reference, here's the divisive article written by the snotty Corby Kummer for Vanity Fair: "Tyranny - It's What's For Dinner" which is like reading someone lambasting operas because you have to sit there and watch for four hours and shell out two-hundred bucks for the privilege. I've come up with a very simple solution to this problem, btw (it has two words).

How many restaurants *really* force you to have a tasting menu? I say, "Not that many," and if you've grown "weary" of tasting menus, you're either going to the wrong restaurants, or you've simply ordered them too many times (grand tasting menus are not designed to be a daily, or even weekly, experience).

--- Subject Change ---

Now, if you'd like to discuss wine pairings? Done it. Done *with* it. It is the almost-nonexistent meal where I've had a wine pairing that fared better than me simply purchasing a wine from the list, and it's for both reasons, #1 and #2:

1. The young-amateurish sommeliers who cannot orchestrate a symphony, and

2. Fixed-amount pours that require me to have the exact same amount of wine with each course (I *hate* running out of wine in the middle of a course without the ability to fill my glass, and some courses simply demand more (or less) wine than others). A 2-ounce pour of Grí¼ner-Veltliner with my carpaccio, and a 2-ounce pour of Nebbiolo with my venison? I'd rather order a bottle from the list, even if it means paying close to double-retail (now you know why I drink rosés so often at restaurants - it's like tuning a piano with equal temperament: It isn't perfect, but it's the best you're going to get - and double-retail with a rosé means you were only nicked for twenty extra bucks).

[mtureck]

How many restaurants *really* force you to have a tasting menu? I say, "Not that many."

Inn at Little Washington now, sadly. I strongly preferred the less expensive prix fixe that they recently got rid of.

Nothing particularly philosophical about why I don't like tasting menus...I just prefer looking at a menu and ordering what I want to eat, as opposed to what the restaurant wants me to eat.

Actually, let me clarify that a bit. If you've ever had their "Gastronaut" menu, that's your only option now, and they have three versions, a classic one, a daily one, and a vegetarian one. I believe you can mix and match as well. So really it gives you three options for each course, which is far less than they used to have, but more than a tradition tasting menu would give you.

Plus there are still fewer than 10 courses, so each is bigger than a typical tasting menu. I didn't go away hungry.

[genericeric]

 So what exactly is it about tasting menus that gets on peoples' nerves? Is it that every 25-year-old CIA graduate wants to play Thomas Keller? Is it that you have 30 bites of food and leave hungry? That last question reminds me of this post I made over ten years ago in which I said:

 

Is it:

1. The young-amateurish chefs who cannot orchestrate a symphony, but insist on doing it anyway?

Or is it:

2. The modern-day leave-hungry lab-experiment visual-textural food-as-art experiences (Minibar, Rogue 24, Riverstead, Moto, etc.)?

Personally, for me its the first.

There should be a reason beyond inflating prices or ego that chefs create a tasting menu - there should be some sort of thought given for those courses to have been chosen and placed in that order.  When chefs are able to create a coherent progression of courses amounting to a sum that is greater than the individual parts, the tasting menus have value to the diner and enhance the overall experience.  For me, while I may be annoyed at being hungry an hour or two later, if the meal revealed something I had not experienced before - a new taste, a different way to think about the ingredients, this is more valuable than the nutrition itself, which I can get for a dollar at McDonald's.  I'm not saying that being hungry is ideal, its just not AS irksome as receiving ample food that feels uninspired.

Tasting menus at Komi and Cityzen, for example, provided that experience of being well thought out, with a progression that made sense and revealed new tastes and experiences that were greater than the individual dishes.  I hate to jump on the bandwagon of beating up on the Inn, but the current menu feels to me more like a group of 'greatest hits' that were combined to help increase the average check size and make things in the kitchen more streamlined.  Now, Chef O'Connell probably deserves the benefit of my doubt, and is definitely no 'young amateurish chef', but I find the tasting menu-only option irksome because it doesn't add value to my overall experience.

There is another factor at play here as well  - Mrs. Genericeric is not an adventurous eater to say the least.  She was able to enjoy wonderful meals at the Inn before, whereas she didn't care for Komi as much, and ended up leaving a significant amount of food for me to eat.  Now that certainly isn't the fault of the restaurant, but all else being equal we would have gone to the pre-tasting only Inn over Komi since, while I would have preferred Komi, it just doesn't make sense at that price point to pay for a dinner half eaten and less enjoyed.

Each to their own...

[DonRocks]

Tasting menus at Komi and Cityzen, for example, provided that experience of being well thought out, with a progression that made sense and revealed new tastes and experiences that were greater than the individual dishes.  I hate to jump on the bandwagon of beating up on the Inn, but the current menu feels to me more like a group of 'greatest hits' that were combined to help increase the average check size and make things in the kitchen more streamlined.  Now, Chef O'Connell probably deserves the benefit of my doubt, and is definitely no 'young amateurish chef', but I find the tasting menu-only option irksome because it doesn't add value to my overall experience.

Congratulations - you're the first person in the history of the world to mention The Inn and value in the same paragraph.

(We can start a separate thread on Washingtonian Magazine, Inn At Little Washington, aspirants, mercenaries, and hypocrites).

In the meantime, I'd like to leave everyone with a thought: I have a friend who recently went to L'Ambroisie, and was disappointed that a tasting menu wasn't available.

[darkstar965]

I'm not one of the "over tasting menus" crowd but, in reading your query, Don, I have been annoyed by some tasting menus I've encountered for both reasons you list.

For me though, it's definitely not about the tasting menu format.  It's simply about the food.

Whether in a tasting menu or more traditional courses, one never wants to spend a good deal of money on dinner and leave hungry.  And, equally annoying are the growing number of provocateurs in white chef garb who forget about (or, worse, dismiss) taste and deliciousness in the drive to experiment or be creative.

Some of the most memorable or best restaurants (and we're fortunate to have a couple here in DC) are those where discovery, deliciousness, sufficiency and fair pricing (whether inexpensive or expensive) are all on the menu.  Much easier for me to type here than for a professional to pull off.  And those pros in the US and abroad who can pull it off are most heralded* and the ones we most admire.  Even moreso for those who eschew scale due to an obsessive focus on quality and consistency.

*Of course, those with incredible "buzz" due purely to television or social media are an entirely different story

[Tujague]

Well, since I was one of the persons who wrote that he thinks he's "over" tasting menus--referring to Iron Gate--I guess I should say a bit more. I suppose that there may be some other tasting menu experiences that also triggered this, though I'm drawing a blank right now about which; I was rather underwhelmed by my experience at Restaurant Eve's Tasting Room, but that was some years ago. Nevertheless, I do think that it's something a little different from what Don describes above; it's less about leaving hungry, but having left a speed-dating event without the opportunity to make a longer-term connection. With some courses on many tasting menus, a few bites is enough to leave you satisfied--more would be overkill--while other courses seem to beg for more time to be spent with them. Of course, there's few things as discouraging as ordering from a normal, a la carte menu and finding yourself with a dish that bores you a few bites in. But as I said in my review of Iron Gate, there were a few courses that I really wanted them to be larger, so that I could really tear into them, get to know them better. I wish that some places would give the opportunity for "second helpings" on certain courses, so that if there is something you really enjoyed, you could get a bit more, or options for larger portions (with any necessary upcharges). (Cafe Atlantico used to do a small-dishes brunch where you could order a second helping of anything that you liked--that sort of idea.) At any rate, I get frustrated at some places because I can't spend more time with dishes I like, but the possibility of returning for more is unlikely.

But this also gets mixed in my head with the trend toward creative menus with smaller or sharing-size dishes that ask you to order from many different categories, with little certainty of what makes for a solid meal. That's a real virtue to the old-fashioned three- to four-course meal, which is why it's endured. Perhaps that's why Restaurant Week has proved so popular--not because of quality or value, but because it sticks to a format that "works," feels familiar, and is a fairly safe bet to leave one satisfied on some level. (Case in point: a very good lunch at DBGB yesterday: salad, burger, dessert. Only the salad was a bit disappointing in terms of size; overall the quality was high and value excellent.)

(Woo hoo! My 600th posting!)

[DanielK]

... there's few things as discouraging as ordering from a normal, a la carte menu and finding yourself with a dish that bores you a few bites in. .

This is why I love dim sum, tapas, Asian restaurants with a group, Ethiopian, and yes, tasting menus. I'd almost always rather have a few bites of a bunch of different things than an app and a main.

[agm]

Different meals for different purposes.

Sometimes I want to sit down at a table, have a little something to stimulate my appetite, and a larger something to satisfy it, and a bit of something sweet to finish things off. There are lots of restaurants where I can do that.

Sometimes I want to eat a variety of different things. Call it small plates, or tapas, or just a bunch of appetizers with no entree, I want a few bites of something that looks good, and a few bites of something else that looks good, maybe something completely unfamiliar that I'm curious about but don't want to commit to, and I want to be able to make my own choices. There are restaurants that specifically offer that, and others where I can make it happen.

And sometimes I want to just sit back and say "show me what you can do." That may be because I genuinely don't know what the chef can do, and I want to let that chef do what he or she thinks represents the kitchen at its best. Or it may be because I do know, and I know I'm going to get a great experience out of it. That sounds like an ideal time for a tasting menu. Which, incidentally, I think is quite distinct from a prix fixe meal. I expect the latter to have greater emphasis on the meal as a whole, and less on the variety of its individual components.

None of these options is any better than the others. Any of them can be done well, any of them can be screwed up. What matters is not the format of the meal, it's whether that format is what you're expecting, or willing to accept, on that day.

[DonRocks]

A couple other points to ponder:

Is Little Serow a tasting menu?

What about Komi?

[agm]

A couple other points to ponder:

Is Little Serow a tasting menu?

What about Komi?

Haven't been to Little Serow, but Komi, to me, was a multi-course meal but not a tasting menu.

[DonRocks]

Haven't been to Little Serow, but Komi, to me, was a multi-course meal but not a tasting menu.

So what is your difference between the two? I've been to Komi where one of the courses is, if I recall, "an oyster," and another is "crackers." I'm curious as to nomenclature - what is the difference between a "tasting menu" and a "multi-course meal" or for that matter a "prix fixe?"

At what point does it become a negative, and at what point does it become a positive? I honestly don't understand the public's perception, and am trying to figure it out - agm, you're hardly a "normal" member of the dining public, but you're representative of the non-industry diner, so your answers would be important, to me.

I also may be fighting windmills. Corby Kummer's article could be a one-off mistake, and perhaps only a couple of people are bristling at tasting menus, but it just "seems" like there's a pushback out there, somewhere - but maybe there isn't.

I keep going back to my friend at L'Ambroisie being disappointed that he couldn't get a wide sampling of the restaurant, and I've been in similar situations in the past. Whenever I'm at a Michelin-starred restaurant in Europe - one that I've never been to, and one that I may never return to (generally having two or three stars; one-stars can be pretty disappointing), I actively seek out the smaller versions of tasting menus. Then if I happen to ever visit a second time, I might order a la carte.

Terry Theise is a friend of mine who eschews tasting menus because he likes to tuck into large portions and enjoy them over a longer period of time - I can see this, too - especially because he goes to multi-starred restaurants a lot and likes to *eat*; I'm something more of an aesthete who wishes to understand the heart and soul of a restaurant (again, I'm talking on the rare occasions when I'm overseas dining at a multi-star).

Do note that when I say "multi-star," I'm not actually referring to Michelin per se (because I don't put a lot of credence into other peoples' rankings), but it's as easy of a way to describe what I'm talking about as any, I suppose.

Lastly, I hope people realize the title of this article is a double-entendre pun and nothing more.

[DanielK]

Terry is also likely to want to find an entree to pair with a bottle, rather than trying to pair a series of courses with a series of glasses. Probably a significant subset of diners eat this way.

[DonRocks]

Terry is also likely to want to find an entree to pair with a bottle, rather than trying to pair a series of courses with a series of glasses. Probably a significant subset of diners eat this way.

Yes, Terry is a "whole-bottle" guy.

[agm]

Well, in the particular case of Komi, it's tricky. That's actually one of the problems I had with our meal there; the overall concept of the menu is probably clear to the kitchen, but not so much to us. The first half of the meal was a series of small bites, mostly raw fish and salt. OK, we're sort of in tasting menu territory here. But what's next? More of the same, perhaps branching out into other proteins and progressively more complex preparations (and larger portions)? No, it seemed to suddenly switch gears into a traditional meal structure - app (that awesome date), pasta course and slab o'meat entree (yeah, I want that goat again). OK, so what was that at the beginning? A series of amuses? A fish course served one bite at a time? The two ends of the meal didn't really fit together into a coherent whole; the transition was awkward at best. Ultimately, it was a four-course meal (more or less, it was five years ago and I don't remember the details) with a long intro.

More generally, there's no clear delineation. To me, in a tasting menu the various courses are chosen to exhibit the full range and creativity of the chef, and in a multi-course meal every course is selected to build towards a satisfied appetite and palate, even if that means some of the chef's better tricks are left for another occasion. Of course, you should always try to achieve both goals, but it doesn't always work that way.

About wine pairings: If you're a wine expert, why bother? Pick a bottle (or 2 or 3) that you can enjoy throughout the evening. But if you're not (and I'm certainly not), pairings are likely to be better choices than I would make myself, and usually give me the opportunity to try several wines I know nothing about. I'd rather my selections be made by "young-amateurish sommeliers who cannot orchestrate a symphony" than by someone who can't read music at all.

[DonRocks]

Well, in the particular case of Komi, it's tricky. That's actually one of the problems I had with our meal there; the overall concept of the menu is probably clear to the kitchen, but not so much to us. The first half of the meal was a series of small bites, mostly raw fish and salt. OK, we're sort of in tasting menu territory here. But what's next? More of the same, perhaps branching out into other proteins and progressively more complex preparations (and larger portions)? No, it seemed to suddenly switch gears into a traditional meal structure - app (that awesome date), pasta course and slab o'meat entree (yeah, I want that goat again). OK, so what was that at the beginning? A series of amuses? A fish course served one bite at a time? The two ends of the meal didn't really fit together into a coherent whole; the transition was awkward at best. Ultimately, it was a four-course meal (more or less, it was five years ago and I don't remember the details) with a long intro.

More generally, there's no clear delineation. To me, in a tasting menu the various courses are chosen to exhibit the full range and creativity of the chef, and in a multi-course meal every course is selected to build towards a satisfied appetite and palate, even if that means some of the chef's better tricks are left for another occasion. Of course, you should always try to achieve both goals, but it doesn't always work that way.

Maybe Komi can be compared to Obelisk, with their array of antipasti, followed by main courses?

Every restaurant is unique, of course, I'm just trying to sort this out as well as I can.

[darkstar965]

For the great majority of trained and highly-experienced.chefs, think I usually favor and appreciate choice. Tasting menu? Fine but offer other options like Japanese restaurants do alongside Omikase or Kauseki menus (not directly analagous but somewhat). I think you have to be a truly top .001% kind of rare talent to force customers into a tasting menu and not annoy some. Given the feedback above, and as blasphemous as this will sound, maybe even the amazing Chef O'Connell isn't that exceptional to be able to pull it off?

[agm]

Maybe Komi can be compared to Obelisk, with their array of antipasti, followed by main courses?

Haven't been to Obelisk in a long, long time. Do they bring out their antipasti one or two bites at a time?

[Pool Boy]

I do not really have a problem, per se, with Tasting Menus. It is not that a tasting menu is a bad option at all. They have their time and place, and are often just there for you to choose *as an option*, and not *required*. Some indeed are quite fun - Minibar ( i went years ago) was really fun. Some are very well executed (think French Laundry). Some are reasonable from a number of courses perspective, while others get a little crazy. Is a menu really a tasting menu with just 4 courses? Is there a minimum needed to be a tasting menu? And when is a tasting menu overkill? 10 courses? 12? 15? 20? 30? FWIW, I think you cannot really call it a tasting menu until you get to 6 courses, but that is just me.

So what is my problem?

Nothing really, it is just that my preferences have changed. Have I ever left a dinner where I had a tasting menu still hungry? Fortunately no, but I can see how some folks may have experienced that. That would drive me nuts. But I think all too often some restaurants are doing these massive tasting menus that are just overboard in terms of sheer quantity of courses. Let's face it, most of these 12 to 30 course tasting menus amount to one or two bite tastes and I honestly get palate fatigue after about 12 courses in most instances. Each tasting course I get needs to be memorable, and if it is not, that's a shame. I echo the sentiment that I wish I had the ability to know if I go ga-ga over a course to either ask for a larger portion or get a second helping of it. While it is great to be over a course that is not memorable, it is a travesty to move past a course that you simply adore. Delivering what customers really want is a difficult balancing act for restaurants, and threading that needle is terribly difficult.

I've had great tasting menu experiences, and some ones that left me realizing it was not so memorable. Momofuku Ko was a good meal, but it really left me disappointed because my expectations were too high (and their bar-only seating seats were undesirable). Daniel was a great experience, but it left me realizing that, as good an experience as that was, that Palena, to me, was better. But a lunch at The French Laundry was unbelievable. My only Inn at Little Washington experience back in 1999 blew me away. Roberto Donna's Laboratorio back in 2003 (I think) was fun and memorable. A meal at Babbo in 2002 was one of the top 10 meals of my entire life. It is also important to note that, a great experience, tasting menu or no, for a dinner is not only dependent on the restaurant, the food, the service, and the ambiance but also in a lot of intangibles beyond the restaurant's control - the company, the conversation, the diner's state of mind. It's a miracle there are any restaurants at all!

My preferences these days are that I'd like a dinner with progression, some ability to choose from at least certain courses if not all of them, and choosing the number of courses I want. This usually means I am ordering a la carte. But notable exceptions have existed. Palena's menu until 2010 or 2011 was where you could pick 3, 4 or 5 courses if you sat in the back room and you could mix and match how you wish. That is what I crave. Later, they changed to a proposed meal (with some options) or a la carte (and if you groveled you could tweak things a smidge). So I tend to go places where I can have that, or close to that, these days. That is not to say that I won't go have a tasting menu, nor does it mean I avoid small plates places (which are semi-tasting menued experiences, but you have choice). Time and a place for everything.

Anyway, I will never say never, I guess, but my tendencies are more for a non-tasting experience these days is all. Palena was my culinary North Star and I'm itching to see what Frank's new situation will offer soon. But there are other places locally that do a pretty good job as well of what I like - Ris and Corduroy are some examples. Obelisk as well, but that's a smidgen more casual (not that that is a bad thing at all!).

Veering off a bit...................When I go out for a very nice dining experience, which I crave, I want an unstressful, relaxing experience and time devoted to conversation with my wife and our joint exploration of the current menu of where I am dining. I want the seats to be comfortable, because I prefer a 2.5 to 3 hour dinner. I prefer to not be cramped in my seating arrangements nor so close to other tables, too. I prefer a buzz to the room, but nowhere near loud because I do not want to have to raise my voice to be heard in my conversation (nor strain to hear what my wife says). I like good, but unobtrusive service. I like to become a regular.

[Tujague]

Pool Boy's post resonates with me. Most of the best tasting menus I've had were nearly a decade or longer ago--Minibar, CityZen, Komi, Obelisk--and most I've had in recent years have left me rather indifferent. None were bad, but few rose to level of the memorable. Palena and Bistro Bis are also high on my list, but they seemed to be something slightly different, as more full, multicourse meals (the latter seemed to be doing a best of classic French cooking). So, yeah, maybe my tastes have changed also.

But I am not sure that the tasting menu is necessarily the best way to get to the "heart and soul" of a restaurant, as Don suggests--or, at least, I wouldn't assume that is necessarily how one would find that. It depends a lot on the chef. While José Andres is not necessarily the best person to point to here, outside of his work at Minibar, it seems like he is a chef who works best on a smaller scale; the least of his local restaurants to date have been America Eats and Cafe Atlantico (at least in its later iterations), where larger dishes have largely not had the sort of resonance of his small dishes. Some may work well on both levels (Eric Ziebold? Frank Ruta? Cathal Armstrong? Michel Richard?) but I think those chefs are less common than the menus we're being presented would make you think.

[darkstar965]

The Palena reference is interesting. I was as big a fan as anyone of Frank Ruta (and Aggie Chin now as well)* but it never would have occurred to me to think of his nose-to-tail feast as a "tasting menu." Guess I associate that term with very small plates/bites versus the fixed-courses served family style that Palena did. We did that menu twice there with groups and absolutely loved it each time.

Unless Pool Boy and Tujague are referring to a tasting menu done in the dining room?

*Never wrote a post but it was a real thrill to enjoy a different side of their talent at the penultimate "BreadFeast" dinner last month.

[Pool Boy]

Pool Boy's post resonates with me. Most of the best tasting menus I've had were nearly a decade or longer ago--Minibar, CityZen, Komi, Obelisk--and most I've had in recent years have left me rather indifferent. None were bad, but few rose to level of the memorable. Palena and Bistro Bis are also high on my list, but they seemed to be something slightly different, as more full, multicourse meals (the latter seemed to be doing a best of classic French cooking). So, yeah, maybe my tastes have changed also.

But I am not sure that the tasting menu is necessarily the best way to get to the "heart and soul" of a restaurant, as Don suggests--or, at least, I wouldn't assume that is necessarily how one would find that. It depends a lot on the chef. While José Andres is not necessarily the best person to point to here, outside of his work at Minibar, it seems like he is a chef who works best on a smaller scale; the least of his local restaurants to date have been America Eats and Cafe Atlantico (at least in its later iterations), where larger dishes have largely not had the sort of resonance of his small dishes. Some may work well on both levels (Eric Ziebold? Frank Ruta? Cathal Armstrong? Michel Richard?) but I think those chefs are less common than the menus we're being presented would make you think.

Precisely. I was not intending to suggest Palena ever had a tasting menu. They had a 'proposed meal' from late 2010 to their closing, but I would not consider that a tasting menu at all - the courses were of sufficient size to allow you be welcomed by them and haunted by them (the consommé!). I am speaking mostly of the back dining room, though I loved the cafe as well.

[Pool Boy]

The Palena reference is interesting. I was as big a fan as anyone of Frank Ruta (and Aggie Chin now as well)* but it never would have occurred to me to think of his nose-to-tail feast as a "tasting menu." Guess I associate that term with very small plates/bites versus the fixed-courses served family style that Palena did. We did that menu twice there with groups and absolutely loved it each time.

Unless Pool Boy and Tujague are referring to a tasting menu done in the dining room?

*Never wrote a post but it was a real thrill to enjoy a different side of their talent at the penultimate "BreadFeast" dinner last month.

I did get to do the beef feast they did for a while, once, with some DR folks. It was GREAT. Family style all the way and it was aMAZing. Beef heart! Beef tongue that would make you swoon. Also, we got to do a BreadFurst dinner as well, and it was a treat. Those little fishes to start had me giddy.

[The Hersch]

My preferences these days are that I'd like a dinner with progression, some ability to choose from at least certain courses if not all of them, and choosing the number of courses I want. This usually means I am ordering a la carte. But notable exceptions have existed. Palena's menu until 2010 or 2011 was where you could pick 3, 4 or 5 courses if you sat in the back room and you could mix and match how you wish. That is what I crave.

You're describing Marcel's to a tee. (Sorry if I'm a Johnny-one-note these days.) You can choose a four-, five-, six-, or seven-course dinner. The menu is organized into a progression of courses, but only as a suggestion. If you opt for a five-course meal, for example, as I did the other night, you can choose any five dishes from the entire menu, and have them served to you in any order you wish.

When I go out for a very nice dining experience, which I crave, I want an unstressful, relaxing experience and time devoted to conversation with my wife and our joint exploration of the current menu of where I am dining. I want the seats to be comfortable, because I prefer a 2.5 to 3 hour dinner. I prefer to not be cramped in my seating arrangements nor so close to other tables, too. I prefer a buzz to the room, but nowhere near loud because I do not want to have to raise my voice to be heard in my conversation (nor strain to hear what my wife says). I like good, but unobtrusive service. I like to become a regular.

Aside from the conversation with your wife, whom I've never met, again, Marcel's. Although, much as I would like to become a regular there, unless I get unexpectedly richer than I am, I don't think I can quite swing it.

[Pool Boy]

Thanks for the confirmation of all that is Marcel's. My experiences there are slim - once for pre-theater, and then once just because we wanted to come back (but I think that was 2+ years ago).

The *only* issue with Marcel's is that it is not so Metro-friendly. Not that this is a showstopper, it just makes the mechanics of an after work thing to meet up with my wife more complicated. This will not stop me from hitting up Marcel's, and more particularly, Frank & Aggie's new digs. If this is my only complaint, I can deal.

[Tujague]

Unless Pool Boy and Tujague are referring to a tasting menu done in the dining room?

 

It's been so long since I went there, I can't recall precisely how the meal was set up, but I agree with Pool Boy that it wasn't really a tasting menu as we seem to be describing it here.

The *only* issue with Marcel's is that it is not so Metro-friendly. Not that this is a showstopper, it just makes the mechanics of an after work thing to meet up with my wife more complicated. This will not stop me from hitting up Marcel's, and more particularly, Frank & Aggie's new digs. If this is my only complaint, I can deal.

 

Wow--I guess we have a really different definitions of "Metro-friendly," since it's only about three blocks from the Foggy Bottom station, and right on several bus lines. Granted, it's not the most pedestrian-friendly walk for various reasons--and that's not an especially customer-friendly Metro station--but it's hardly a trek to get there.

[Pool Boy]

Wow--I guess we have a really different definitions of "Metro-friendly," since it's only about three blocks from the Foggy Bottom station, and right on several bus lines. Granted, it's not the most pedestrian-friendly walk for various reasons--and that's not an especially customer-friendly Metro station--but it's hardly a trek to get there.

Well you can tell how long it is since I went there HAHA! I am an idiot! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[DonRocks]

It's been so long since I went there, I can't recall precisely how the meal was set up, but I agree with Pool Boy that it wasn't really a tasting menu as we seem to be describing it here.

Wow--I guess we have a really different definitions of "Metro-friendly," since it's only about three blocks from the Foggy Bottom station, and right on several bus lines. Granted, it's not the most pedestrian-friendly walk for various reasons--and that's not an especially customer-friendly Metro station--but it's hardly a trek to get there.

Well you can tell how long it is since I went there HAHA! I am an idiot! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Not an idiot - when people in the suburbs think "Marcel's," they think SE-NW on "Pennsylvania Avenue" not south to "Foggy Bottom." Honestly, I would have had to check which Metro stop to take - it's those darned angular state streets.

[Pool Boy]

For some mental reason I was in my head thinking Georgetown East - but it's like the Thomas Dolby song 'My brain is like a sieve'

[The Hersch]

For some mental reason I was in my head thinking Georgetown East - but it's like the Thomas Dolby song 'My brain is like a sieve'

Yes, but from Marcel's to La Chaumière in eastern Georgetown is about a five-minute walk. So a five-minute walk from Foggy Bottom-GWU Metro station to Marcel's, and a ten-minute walk to La Chaumière. All pretty Metro-friendly, even without the hellish bus system.