Chevalier at The Baccarat

[oakapple]

It also appeals to a clientele that would tend to wear jackets when visiting that kind of restaurant, whether they'd been to La Grenouille or not.

[Wilfrid]

What I've learned: At Chevalier, all waitstaff address diners in French most of the time, jackets are pretty much mandatory, as is ordering a cocktail before the meal, and nouveau riche Russians wander in and out from the lounge upstairs.

 

Or...

[Neocon maudit]

Chevalier does not require jackets. Most of the men were wearing one which I think is a spillover from the fact that La Grenouille does require it, many of those diners dine there, and they're used to dressing that way when they dine out. Michael, however, did not wear one and felt totally comfortable.

 

I may not feel comfortable wearing suits in summer, but Chevalier seems the sort of place where I'd feel uncomfortable not wearing a suit, no matter what the official sartorial policy may be.

 

Also I look even more silly sans jacket than I do with one [there's something not right about my torso proportions ].

[oakapple]

Taking an hourlong subway ride (reading a good book on the way) and spending a dollar or two on arepas is fun.

 

Repeatedly spending $200 on an experience you don't enjoy in order to eat good food is nuts.

 

Clearly, you should spend your discretionary dining dollars where you enjoy yourself. This much is obvious.

 

But it's not offensive for a restaurant to be what you personally don't enjoy. The subway ride for areaps doesn't sound like fun to me, but I'm not offended that some want to do it.

 

Now, it might be that Chevalier's model is not economically sustainable, but it's not offensive to be serving what too few people want. Stupid perhaps, but not offensive.

[Neocon maudit]

I've always worn a suit at Eleven Madison Park as well [other than when I dined at the bar], but my first dinner there my 1-per cent friend wore a 'hoodie'. I can't help feeling this would be a bigger solecism at Chevalier than at EMP. That's part of the difference in my [speculative] comfort levels between the two restaurants.

 

Edited: mind you, I don't think hoodies should be worn anywhere.

[Wilfrid]

I really want to underline what Oakie says here. It's entirely a matter for any individual to decide that they are personally offended by a server reportedly addressing someone in French, but to class that as offensive in general, in an unqualified way, is presumptuous.

 

And finding expensive cocktails "offensive" seems to me to be a waste of energy in a city where wine is marked up to three times retail as a matter of course.

 

Oakie is right. Chevalier may be miscalculating some details--but at least it's getting the food right in a very big way. But suggesting that people occasionally speaking French is offensive is, in itself, almost offensive.

[Neocon maudit]

But it's not offensive for a restaurant to be what you personally don't enjoy. The subway ride for areaps doesn't sound like fun to me, but I'm not offended that some want to do it.

 

Now, it might be that Chevalier's model is not economically sustainable, but it's not offensive to be serving what too few people want. Stupid perhaps, but not offensive.

 

 

Right, I don't think Chevalier, or any establishment, is under any moral obligation to make customers like me comfortable. But economically it might be advisable to take into account the preferences of younger diners who don't believe serious cuisine necessarily = formal context, for good or ill.

 

There are a couple of Yelpers already who report feeling they were treated shabbily by the staff at Chevalier. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Edited: adjectives.

[rozrapp]

It also appeals to a clientele that would tend to wear jackets when visiting that kind of restaurant, whether they'd been to La Grenouille or not.

It's a lot like the situation at Cafe Boulud. Daniel Boulud was very vocal that he intended it to be a dress-down place, i.e, no jackets required and casual attire, including jeans, would be fine. But that's now how most of its patrons dress when they dine out. So, while you do see casually dressed men there, the majority still wear jackets, some even with ties. We go there with some regularity, and Michael never wears a jacket.

[Wilfrid]

I really don't think Chevalier has any thought of aiming at a younger, Yelp/DailyCandy/even Eater demographic. I would imagine it's aiming at much the same demographic as Juni, The Modern, and the smart Michael White midtown places.

 

Of course, I would hope they'd make anyone feel at home. The servers were doing wonders with inexperienced diners when I was there.

[Neocon maudit]

I'm going to order cheese as a starter.

[oakapple]

And finding expensive cocktails "offensive" seems to me to be a waste of energy in a city where wine is marked up to three times retail as a matter of course.

 

Certain individuals keep referring to them as "grey goose" cocktails, as if vodka and tonic out of a soda gun for $26 is the best they do, and that is not the case whatsoever.

 

They do not have what I'd call a serious cocktail program, and I think they should, assuming they want to attract a broader audience than just ex-La Grenouille regulars. But that's not offensive, and to call it that is an offense to things that are actually offensive.

[Adrian]

Along with the "bonsoirs" and the copy in Conde Nast, it's a signal that they aren't aiming at a food crowd. In fact, they're doing things that actively repel the food crowd (broadly, not oakfrid) and trying to attract a crowd that is food indifferent.

 

My dog in this race is wanting French restaurants serving good French food to continue to do so. This doesn't seem like a path to that. Time will tell.

[Neocon maudit]

Regarding ladies who lunch: 'Anyone who pretends that these women are an insignificant part of the business doesn’t understand the business' [Masson].

 

https://twitter.com/rsevillet/status/608602545729052672

 

I feel like The Modern, especially the Bar, does pull an Eater-y crowd, though perhaps the more young professional [there was a word...'yuppie'?] rather than hipster end of the population.

[Neocon maudit]

Along with the "bonsoirs" and the copy in Conde Nast, it's a signal that they aren't aiming at a food crowd. In fact, they're doing things that actively repel the food crowd (broadly, not oakfrid) and trying to attract a crowd that is food indifferent.

 

My dog in this race is wanting French restaurants serving good French food to continue to do so. This doesn't seem like a path to that. Time will tell.

 

So the question is why are they bothering with cuisine that's better than it needs to be? It's interesting the rumours suggested Masson had issues not only with 'management' [baccarat?] but with Gallante.

[Wilfrid]

Along with the "bonsoirs" and the copy in Conde Nast, it's a signal that they aren't aiming at a food crowd. In fact, they're doing things that actively repel the food crowd (broadly, not oakfrid) and trying to attract a crowd that is food indifferent.

 

My dog in this race is wanting French restaurants serving good French food to continue to do so. This doesn't seem like a path to that. Time will tell.

 

Another complaint that really reaches. They'd be insane not to seek press coverage for that audience. They're in midtown. You'll find the Michael White restaurants in Conde Nast Traveler too.

 

Maybe in six months time Gallante will be gone and it will be just another hotel dining room. A minority here seems to want that to happen, which is what I find odd.