David M.

Yikes! No stars from Tom.

Hmm. Del Merei Grille is an option, but I'm not sure I'd call it cozy. Perhaps Trattoria da Franco on S. Washington. It has been a while since I've been (so I'm reluctant to opine), but Kliman has spoken highly of it recently.

Spotted this weekend at Balducci's in Alexandria: a sign advertising truffles (Alba White, I'm pretty sure) for $1,250 per pound.

Twenty-Dollar Tuesday? Nope. More like Twelve-Dollar Wednesday. A quick rundown: Cod: $4.00 - $6.99 Chips: $2.50 - $3.50 Chicken: $2.50 Full panel of sauces: gratis Beverage-of-choice: $1.50 - $5.00 Fried Milky Way: $2.50 7 Rockwellians squeezed on one table at Eamonn's: Priceless

I'm in.

Wednesday evening works for me. I can probably get there by 7:00.

For anyone who has seen Gordon Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares, Bilbo Baggins will look familiar. What should be a cozy place serving simple, yet flavorful, food is instead an unmitigated disaster offering overwrought and poorly prepared slop. How this "Global Wine Cafe & Restaurant" (a huge warning sign, I know) has managed to operate for 25 years is beyond me. My only hope is that with dining options in Old Town getting better every year, this space will one day be turned over to restaurateurs who aren't stuck in some early-1990s fusion cuisine mindset. It can't come soon enough. I had the unfortunate experience to visit Bilbo Baggins within the past month. My prior encounters consisted of three visits to the lounge where I enjoyed the beer selection (but not the over-priced bar food) and one visit to the restaurant (about 2 days before the bar exam, so I really wasn't focused on food). In any event, the "Others" of my group picked Bilbo Baggins, so I acquiesced. Big mistake. The menu is nightmarish, with most entrees having about 8 too many ingredients. My "Filet of Beef Stroganoff," described as "sauteed with wild mushrooms, fresh garden vegetables, in a paprika lemon sour cream sauce; served over fresh Fettuccine pasta," was nearly inedible: tough, gray beef that most certainly did not originate near the tenderloin; overcooked pasta that bore no indicia of freshness; a thick glob of sour cream; and a truly odd assortment of vegetables whose only purpose seemed to be to trick the recipient into believing the meal was worth $19.95. On our walk home, both Mrs. M and I commented that that may have been the worst allocation of $80 we ever spent. A mistake not to be repeated.

OK. But pointing to a wildly successful product does little, in my opinion, to advance your apparent belief that if restaurateurs adopted Apple's strategy they would find an untapped well of vegetarians demanding what Mr. Lalasz seeks. Perhaps if it were 5 or 6 years ago and you were speaking of the sound risk posture of Apple before the iPod took off, then your example would have some merit. But finding a product after it has become successful as evidence that a wholly different risk will be rewarded (see "If you cook it, they will come") seems a bit of a stretch. If taking risks is all that it took to be successful, whether it be in computers or cuisine, then our world would look quite different. Risk is tempered by expected reward. Perhaps adherents to the beliefs offered in the article will ultimately be proven true. And to those potential success stories, they deserve what ever rewards come their way. But beyond anecdotal evidence, there seems to me ample support for the belief that efforts to offer what Mr. Lalasz's article advocates for will not be rewarded. Yes, our economy rewards those that take risk. And I'm all for chefs who are inventive and innovative. And I would posit that many in Mr. Lalasz's article are risk takers -- Cathal opening a restaurant in an area (Old Town) that was unlike any other. That was a risk. Eric, leaving the plush confines of Yountville for SW Washington. That was a risk. The cooking at neither Restaurant Eve nor CityZen can honestly be described as risk averse. Back to the iPod example. Yes, Apple made a prudent decision to invest in the technology behind the iPod and market it well. Yes, that was a risk. But this action was not taken without substantial evidence that the risk would be rewarded. With the current status of restaurants in Washington, I would offer that there is insufficient evidence that the effort to produce what the article seeks will be rewarded. You stated earlier that you found it odd to read a DonRockwell post defending chefs who don't take risks. That is not at all what I'm doing. I embrace chefs who take risks. I have enjoyed the adventurous food journeys offered by many of those mentioned in the article. But taking risk for risk's sake is counter-productive to what many of us seek; it would drive some of the best restaurants out of business. Each of the chefs that folks on this board have embraced as innovative have been, by the success of their business, proven correct that their risk will be rewarded. Until such time that there is some evidence that your belief that all it takes is for restaurants in this area to cook what Mr. Lalasz advocated for, I find it hard to fault (as the article so does) the efforts of many of the finest restaurants in our area as allegedly failing to fill an untapped void in the market. If that puts me in the camp of defending chefs who don't take risk, I'm happy to be there.

I like it. It reminds of the the restaurant - no gimmicks; just simple and elegant (if that can every really describe a web site). And it will make my task of persuading reluctant family/friends to give Corduroy a try a lot easier. On several occasions, I have warmly recommended Chef Power's place, but was met with blank faces. Now, I can point them to the menu, which should make it an easier sell.

The former. Coming south on the Parkway, take the first right-hand exit ramp after the airport (maybe 1 mile past National). Then take a right at the light and you are on Slater's Lane.

I fear you misread what I wrote (perhaps I wasn't clear enough). My point is that asking is not what will bring about more options. Demonstrating through the conduct of customers that offering such options will be a profitable endeavor is what will alter menus. One person (or 100 for that matter) may not be sufficient, but if it can be established through conduct that what you seek is desired by a sufficient number of customers, then that, I believe, is what will change the market. I think that this type of sentiment of portraying vegetarians as "victims" may be what has engendered some opposition to your views. Victims of what? Some scheme hatched by chefs to make your dining options less than desirous? Or perhaps victims of simply being unable to prove that what you seek can be provided profitably. Yes, it may be a "chicken or the egg" scenario, but I can empathize with restaurateurs who may not want to take the risk of pioneering a new attitude toward vegetarian offerings.

I too read your article and appreciate you engaging in this discussion. That being said, I came away from reading your article and posts here that you believe that restaurateurs have an obligation to serve vegetarian dishes (in either quality or quantity) that the market does not demand. With this, I disagree. I think the point that Joe and others have made is that restaurateurs operate businesses. As such, if they see a trend in their area of business that: (a) fits within the theme that the restaurant focuses on and ( will (hopefully) be profitable, then they will embrace said trend. Thus, I disagree with your assumption that culinary trends are driven primarily by chefs and not customers. Indeed, I believe that your foie gras example suffers from several problems. First, I don't believe that foie gras can be lumped into the same category of food trends as mini-cheeseburgers. While many high-end restaurants may serve it, it is a classic French dish, not some newfangled concoction. Second, and more importantly, while you may be correct that customers aren't directly asking for foie gras on their way out, I would argue they are doing so indirectly by virtue of the choices they make when they order. And that is the point that I think many who found areas of disagreement with your article have been trying to make: by virtue of collective choices, we can drive the marketplace of available dining options. Your belief that there are too few options for vegetarians, I would posit, stems from a failure of the vegetarian (and non-vegetarian) community to establish by the choices that they make that customers would support in sufficient numbers what you desire.

Marco Island; Naples Mrs. M and I will be traveling to Marco Island, Florida soon and are planning to enjoy one special meal. In past visits, my experience with dining in the Marco Island/Naples area has not been great. Indeed, the only exception to this is when we stumble upon real dives -- these have been, thus far, the culinary high (and this is certainly relative) points of our trips. So, I thought I'd throw it out to this esteemed bunch: does anyone have any dining recommendations in the Marco Island/Naples area? Say $75 to $125 a head? Thus far, I've come up with one contender that seems promising, but I have yet to find anyone whose ever been to Sale e Pepe. The menu intrigues me, and the chef's background (Turin native, Galileo sous chef, and part of the crew that was there at the opening of Laboratorio de Galileo) really piques my interest.

Agreed. Picked up a half-dozen Rhode Island Red eggs (3 for $1.00). Fried them up this morning and they were outstanding -- the yolk really does stay nice and tight. I can't imagine paying these prices on a regular basis, but for applications where a fresh egg really does matter, that's a different story. Oh, and I asked the cashier how many of the emu eggs they sell -- she said she sees a couple per week come through her isle.

My wife and I enjoyed a fine meal at Vermilion last night. It was just what we needed after a long day of housework. We've been about three times in the past couple months, and this was by far the best trip. Mrs. M began with a Pomolitan (Vodka, Cointreau, Lime and Pomegranate Juices) -- a drink that is beginning to rival the Daize cocktail at Eve. I started with a glass of Pinot-Noir; served in nice stemware but a bit warm. I began with a very good Caesar salad -- lots of anchovy flavor. She opted to skip a first-course in order to justify dessert (not me, I'll take an appetizer over dessert any day of the week). For entrees, Mrs. M vacillated between a venison loin special (which sounded very good and the party next to us so declared to us on their way out) and the filet. She opted for the latter and loved it. Cooked perfectly medium-rare, it had a good char and really benefited from the syrah reduction to add some flavor. But it was my entree that stole the show. Braised veal breast with mustard greens and butternut squash polenta. Served in a deep bowl, the veal fell apart with the touch of the fork. And it was a good thing that I had started with something, because my wife kept asking to for "just one more bite." She even liked the mustard greens (granted, her only other encounter with them was when I made them at home and they turned out almost inedible). We wrapped up with two cups of very good decaf and, for her, a simple, classic warm-chocolate brownie (nothing earth-shattering, but definitely satisfying). All-in-all, Vermilion is the type of restaurant that every neighborhood should be blessed with. Casual enough, but still sufficiently refined to justify about $120 for the two of us. The service was good -- our waiter was there when we needed him, but seemed to realize that we just wanted a leisurely meal and allowed this by giving us plenty of time to order and not rushing out the dishes.