[Sneakeater]

Nor did I claim that Waltuck's squab mousse wasn't good.

But you DID wonder whether, for the high prices Chanterelle charges, you wouldn't require innovation. Or maybe another possible word to insert at the end of that sentence is "currency".

Then the question becomes, if yes, why?

[oakapple]

But you DID wonder whether, for the high prices Chanterelle charges, you wouldn't require innovation. Or maybe another possible word to insert at the end of that sentence is "currency".

At a restaurant one seldom visits, I am not sure that it matters. As long as the food is great, the fact they were also serving it 10 years ago is beside the point, because one is not there often enough to exhaust its potential. Of course, if the food is NOT great, then one wouldn't have wanted it even when it was novel.

[Wilfrid1]

Nor did I claim that Waltuck's squab mousse wasn't good.

But you DID wonder whether, for the high prices Chanterelle charges, you wouldn't require innovation. Or maybe another possible word to insert at the end of that sentence is "currency".

Then the question becomes, if yes, why?

And I don't have an answer for that. I have always prided myself on being unimpressed by over-fussy plates, but I now have to concede that I have been trained over a number of years in Manhattan to expect a bit more flash for my money.

Compare Pugin again: that looks like an appetizer from a $90 prix fixe, and fortunately it tastes good too.

[nuxvomica]

food is just as trend- and fashion-driven as clothes, shoes, haircuts, etc. there is a reason lobster newberg is not on many menus these days.

Chanterelle speaks of the time it opened, it continues to serve the same food in the same way. the dining scene has evolved with new flavors, techniques, presentation, etc.

fashion is cyclical, of course, so we see dishes, ingredients and preparations come back. and, gasp, there will be time when pork belly falls out of favor too.

[g.johnson]

Yes, but there's no NECESSARY discrepency between "outdated" and "very best."

I think the point I made above is still salient: there's a difference between an "historical" dish like turtle soup, which is so outdated it becomes interesting, and sort of middle-outdated fare like at Chanterelle.

More precisely, there's this big yawning gap between turtle soup and The Way We Eat Now -- or, for that matter, Le Perigord and The Way We Eat Now -- such that stuff that "outdated" is almost like its own separate cuisine (sort of analogous to Red Sauce Italian).

Whereas what Chanterelle is serving is an earlier version of The Way We Eat Now. So it's arguably been superseded by current food in a way that turtle soup, or Le Perigord Classic French, hasn't.

Or to put it another way, I've had my fill of vegetable purees, I've never had turtle soup. (Actually, I have but only once.)

[Sneakeater]

Nor did I claim that Waltuck's squab mousse wasn't good.

But you DID wonder whether, for the high prices Chanterelle charges, you wouldn't require innovation. Or maybe another possible word to insert at the end of that sentence is "currency".

Then the question becomes, if yes, why?

And I don't have an answer for that. I have always prided myself on being unimpressed by over-fussy plates, but I now have to concede that I have been trained over a number of years in Manhattan to expect a bit more flash for my money.

Compare Pugin again: that looks like an appetizer from a $90 prix fixe, and fortunately it tastes good too.

So maybe we're talking as much or more about plating as about food preparation. Styles definitely evolve as to that, as well.

There was a discussion on eG a couple of years ago, in fact, after FG went to Chanterelle either for the first time or the first time in a long time. He said he couldn't believe that anyone would still plate like that in the 21st Century.

[Wilfrid1]

Chanterelle speaks of the time it opened, it continues to serve the same food in the same way. the dining scene has evolved with new flavors, techniques, presentation, etc.

That exactly hits the nail on the head. Probably consciously, but in any case definitively, David Waltuck decided at some point not to keep up with contemporary trends.

This also justifies my fanciful Villon quote, which one might paraphrase as "after thirty years, I'm ashamed of nothing."

[nuxvomica]

i wonder whether one day some MFer will be saying Chang's food's old hat and boring and i'll be insisting it's a classic

[Daisy]

I have no problem with classics and I admit it's been a few years since my last trip to Chanterelle but it wasn't that I thought the food was old hat. It wasn't that good considering the price, tasted rather bland.

[mongo_jones]

proves my point.

[Daisy]

proves my point.

Missing him?

[nuxvomica]

I have no problem with classics and I admit it's been a few years since my last trip to Chanterelle but it wasn't that I thought the food was old hat. It wasn't that good considering the price, tasted rather bland.

what i meant was not so much about Chanterelle but about how the food will keep changing and evolving - imagine what it will be like 20 years from know. and Chang as elder statesman (as opposed to "iconoclast" as per NY mag)

[Lex]

i wonder whether one day some MFer will be saying Chang's food's old hat and boring and i'll be insisting it's a classic

More likely they'll be saying "after 50 years I'm ashamed of nothing."

[marauder]

After reading this thread, I think we're all in trouble. I've seen interviews with no fewer than 5 great NY/NJ chefs all say that Ma Grastronomie is their current culinary inspiration. Keller among them. What was old, shall soon be new again. lol.

[nuxvomica]

hey, JGV is bringing Vong's original menu back. we can now eat like it's 1992