El Raco de Can Fabes

[marcus]

Does Santceloni in Madrid have Michelin stars?

It has 2. We're having dinner there this Saturday.

[Wilfrid1]

I will be very interested to hear what you think. Did you consider La Broche - also a two star, I believe?

[marcus]

Did you consider La Broche - also a two star, I believe?

La Broche is the other 2 star restaurant in Madrid. I didn't seriously consider it, as recent buzz has not been very good, and it is Adria inspired, which is not a plus. I have eaten once at Can Fabes in 2003, and enjoyed it quite a bit, better than the meal reported on this thread. I considered it a solid 3 star, probably in the 3d quartile of quality, as compared to the French 3 star places. I really have very little dining opportunity in Madrid, as we will be leaving on Monday, and absolutely nothing serious is open Sunday evening.

[Wilfrid1]

From two meals at La Broche and one at Santceloni, I would return to La Broche. But Santceloni had its merits: save room for the cheese. It could hardly be further from molecular gastronomy.

[voyager]

Also, as mentioned in another thread, that 6 or 8 people thought a meal was a certain way doesn't mean much more than one person believing that, in my book.

I have read that sentence many times now and am still no nearer to understanding what it means

 

 

Cabbie's comment reads quite simply: there is a dining dynamic that quite unconsciously pervades a table, tainting the appraisals of diners, usually without their knowledge. One person may, for what ever reason, determine a plate to be inferior, and, whether by eyebrow, subtle grimace, setting down of fork, cause other diners to question the merit of a plate.

 

 

This subtle form of mass psychology is a major problem in dining review.

I'm sorry, but IMHO that's bollocks.

No offense was intended.

 

I took Tuckerman at his word that he simply did not understand what Cabbie was suggesting.

[Tuckerman]

 

I took Tuckerman at his word that he simply did not understand what Cabbie was suggesting. 

Its probably better to allow Cabbie to explain the things that Cabbie suggests.

 

If that is indeed what she was suggesting, then I agree. It's bollox

[Wilfrid1]

It's bollox that people dining together can subliminally influence each others' opinions? Strikes me less as bollox than an obvious possibility. I am not suggesting it happened in this case, or in any particular case, but I am sure it happens.

[Tuckerman]

Also, as mentioned in another thread, that 6 or 8 people thought a meal was a certain way doesn't mean much more than one person believing that, in my book.

Now that's what was said. It doesn't say "people can subliminally influence others opinions"

 

It says ( I think) that when 6-8 people state an opinion on a meal it doesn't mean that more than one really feels that way about the meal

 

It may be true somewhere, sometime

 

In our case, and in my experience, its bollox.

[Wilfrid1]

I can't imagine what else it can mean other than subliminal influence. Coercion? bribery?

[cabrales]

Since what is a fairly obvious statement to me requires apparent explanation, here we go with respect to only some of the many ways in which diners can influence one another:

 

1. Leading Diner Paradigm -- If one diner is known to be more interested in food, to have more PERCEIVED dining capability (including by reason of age, palate or dining experience), his views could sway other diners who may be seeking to not "pick a fight" with him or to not risk going against his assessment of the dish. This paradigm rests of the power imbalance among different diners during any given meal.

 

If a diner tends to be friends with another diner, they may not want to go against the latter's assessments. This is not an uncommon social dynamic. In the dining context, the potential for this dynamic is exacerbated if one diner does not feel 100% confident in his own assessments and is worried the other diner might deem their palate to not be refined, for example, if they go against them.

 

2. Spouse/Family/Close Friend Paradigm -- If spouses, family members or close friends dine together frequently, their preferences may affect each other's tastes. People tend to dine together frequently if they have close relationships. Therefore, saying there were six members of a family who gave the same assessment of a restaurant is not saying that six people made independent evaluations, because those six may have developed similar tastes over time from dining a lot together.

 

3. Social Norms Paradigm -- Sometimes it is akward to tell a member of a dining group their assessment is wrong for a dish, if it is the first assessment articulated. People are likely to avoid confrontation in some situations, and may just acquiesce even though their own assessment is somewhat different.

 

4. Restaurant Performance Correlation Paradigm -- If there are true imperfections in a restaurant's execution of its cuisine or service, all diners dined during the same meal will experience that and therefore what they experience, in terms of true faults, are worth no more than a single diner experiencing that as part of the same meal.

[Tuckerman]

How about this paradigm. Eight interested diners all express their opinion of the dishes as they go along. No one gives a toss about how anybody else perceives their "dining capability", everyone is "confident in their own assessments", no-one cares whether anyone thinks their assessment of a dish is "wrong" and no gives a hoot about anyone else's assessment regarding the "refinement", or lack of, of their palate.

 

Everyone expresses their opinion by calling it as they see it and if people disagree no one gives a monkeys.

 

That was the paradigm at this restaurant . I didn't say everyone agreed about every dish. I said the general consensus was that the meal was OK but disappointing for a three star. If anything some were more disappointed than others. Nobody thought it was a significantly better meal than anyone else, but some thought it was worse.