« Alain Ducasse - Paris (Rating 18.5/20) | Main | Asparagus Part II – Textures and Morels »
April 15, 2005
L'Ambrosie - Paris (Rating: 19.5/20)
Arguably, to call this tiny place located in one of my favorite squares on earth, the regal Place des Vosges, a “restaurant” is misleading. In fact, L’Ambroisie is rather an institution which is quintessentially French, and one that can only be found in Paris. Like all institutions grounded in historical traditions, L’Ambroisie has its set of unwritten rules and codes of behavior. One salient rule is that customers at L’Ambroisie are perceived less as passive recipients of gastronomic delights whose needs have to be pampered at all costs, but rather as potential partners and friends of a culinary institution who will internalize the culture over repeated visits. It is therefore the client who should adjust his expectations to suit the mores/norms of the restaurant and not the other way around. To some, especially some non-French more steeped in individualist traditions, this attitude is seen as elitist and nationalist, and their first visit to L’Ambroise (if they have managed to get a reservation) is often the last one. Yet for others, the type of classic traditions that this restaurant epitomizes and stands for are perceived as a magical escape from the dictates of modern fads and realities of the marketplace, and they appreciate the type of professionalism and perfectionism that is expressed in this institution. Thus for many people, including this writer, the first visit to L’Ambroisie is the beginning of a journey whose rewards increase with each repeated visit and whose pleasures, both culinary and intellectual, may be savored long after the end of your meal.
The total capacity of the restaurant may not exceed 40 seats or so, divided in two equally attractive rooms and a tiny quasi-private room in the back. The first impression one can have upon getting seated is that although at first sight the room is not gilded or excessively decorated, every single detail seems to be just right. That is, the Aubusson tapestries on the walls, the oil paintings, the vases, the perfectly polished floors and the marble, the pristine linen and finest crystal glasses, are such that, nothing seems superfluous or excessive, but one can not easily think a way to improve on the decoration without upsetting the overall harmony.
The same can be said of the chef/owner Monsieur Pacaud’s cooking. My standard for dishes in Haute Cuisine restaurants is to ask the question “can this have been any better?” Over the years and after many meals I have reached the conclusion that this tiny establishment who shuns the limelight comes as close to perfection as any establishment to have such a claim. In fact so many dishes I have had the chance to try are such that one can hardly conceive a way to add or detract an ingredient from the dish. All of these dishes consist of 3 to 4 ingredients whereby one ingredient is clearly the “King” but the associative ingredients are also treated regally and form a perfect symbiosis with the leading part. Pacaud treats all ingredients with such an utmost respect that instead of making vocal statements a la Gagnaire or evoking baroque themes a la Ducasse, he works more like a miniaturist, working meticulously to bring out the details and full potentiality of each ingredient without losing sight of its unison with the main theme (I borrowed this analogy from an incisive reviewer who writes under the name lxt in culinary websites). Consequently and this may be the destiny of perfectionists, many diners may find Pacaud’s dishes to be “too simple”. I would sympathize with this statement if “simplicity” is the end product of an arduous artisanal process and if it denotes the ultimate in harmony and restraint. L’Ambroisie is not the place to savor tapas style degustation menus consisting of 10+ culinary fireworks experimenting with new textural contrasts. It is the place to savor one amuse and three courses (plus cheese and a dessert). Choose your courses in consultation with Monsieur Pascal, who is courteous, and he will not be shy about expressing his opinion about the proper sequence and overall harmony of your meal. Take advice and you will see that while each dish you savour will be harmonious in itself, in progressive succession, they will create a crescendo effect.
I am glad that, over the years, I listened to professional advice and, as a result, I have been rewarded by some perfect dishes, some exceptional dishes, and some very good dishes. I am not kidding. One amazing quality of L’Ambroisie’s is the incredible level of consistency. I have never seen a restaurant where the distance between the highs and lows is so minimal and the highs are always perfect.
A typical Pacaud dish displays three characteristics. First, Pacaud is obsessed with ingredient quality, and he is not prejudiced among ingredients in the sense that he will choose the best of the ingredients regardless of price and only serve them at their prime time and only and only if he is content with the quality of the delivery. So it is quite possible that the restaurant may not serve black truffles in mid-January if the chef does not think that they are fully ripe and complex. Second, he is obsessed with harmony without sacrificing the intensity and clarity of particular tastes. The emphasis on clarity may imply that most dishes there contain very little or no butter and cream, as the chef does not want to mask flavors. In this sense, it is apt to call Pacaud the last true nouvelle cuisine chef, and it is especially interesting to have a meal at Ducasse’s Parisian temple for many pre-nouvelle dishes, and experience the classic sauces in all their glory, and then try, say, a cream sauce with vin jaune at L’Ambroisie to see the contrast. And lastly, Pacaud is also obsessed with technique in the tradition of an artisan. Visual effects and techo presentations are not his style, and most dishes embody an element of painstaking research and long preparation times. It is in fact rare to find a Three Star Michelin chef who is not afraid of including in the menu bistro dishes, such as navarins, matelots, long cooked queue de boeuf, etc. But have some of these dishes at L’Ambroisie and you will see why they have been considered timeless classics.
My last two meals at L’Ambroise were on March 12 and March 19. March 19 was especially a memorable date for me because, one veteran waiter of the institution, the affable Monsieur Pierre (not to be confused with Monsieur Pierre Lemoullac who is the General Manager and the sommelier) is about to retire and certainly he will be missed. At any rate the meal was as perfect as it can be. Once the candle was lit and excellent Roederer house champagne was poured, we munched on the gougères which are fluffy and extraordinary given the high quality of the gruyere. Following a very fine amuse of “escalopine de saumon”, a thick piece of marinated Scottish salmon which is topped by crunchy hash browns and served by crème fraiche and dill we had the following dishes:
Veloute de Topinambours aux St. Jacques, copeaux de Truffe
Darne de Turbot aux Asperges
Feuillete de Truffes Bel Humeur
Fromages
Tarte Fine Sablee au Poire
Scallop dishes at L’Ambroisie seem to share the following characteristics: first, the quality of the scallops is impeccable and the scallops are served barely heated and retain all their sweetness and textural integrity when they are so fresh and come from certain places, such at the Brittany or the Galician coast. Second, Pacaud never over complicates the dish, and there are invariably three ingredients which interact in mutually supportive ways. Third, one of these three ingredients is a truffle: the white Alba variety in November and the black Perigord truffle in winter. Last November, in fact, Pacaud had served us a visually stunning and perfect dish of scallops with Alba truffles and a mousseline of broccoli. This time, with Perigord truffles, which are less ethereal and pungent, but more smoky and minerally than Alba truffles, he substituted veloute of Jerusalem Artichokes for the more delicate broccoli. The results were equally stunning in the sense that the subtle earthy tones of the Jerusalem artichokes and the earthy/cruchy perfect truffles accentuated the sweet nuances of the central element of the dish without compromising its unique shellfish qualities. This was a dish which is as light and ethereal as a first course can or should be, yet focused and intense at the same time.
The king of the sea, the Atlantic turbot, is a risky dish to serve in a restaurant because, unlike some other great fish, such as Dover Sol, it does not keep well, say for a week, and it has to be consumed in a two or four day period after the catch to taste as good as it can. Recently, given the current popularity of this fish, there is ample farming and the 10+ pounds Atlantic turbots and the superb Black Sea turbots with buttons, are getting rarer and prohibitively expensive. In the Black Sea region and in Turkey the turbot season is also rather short: March to June, and it tastes the best when it is caught in the cold waters of the Bosphorous in the second half of March. The connoisseurs usually suck the bone of the turbot, which contains the gelatinous fat, and the meat close to the bone tastes the best. Pacaud, when serving turbot, cuts a very thick piece from the bone, and on the day of my visit we were told that they had just received a turbot of 9 kilogram, i.e. about 20 pounds. The meaty turbot can also absorb well some meat jus and Pacaud sometimes serves it with a meat stock and aged balsamic vinegar jus and caramelized endives. He also crusts the turbot with mustard and some oriental spices, which contrasts well with the meaty turbot. But in early Spring he chose to create a lighter dish, serving it with two huge, very first of the season, green asparagus from Pertuis. The thickened olive oil based emulsion and the “tapenade” of chopped black truffles served on the side interacted with the turbot in symbiotic ways and compared to other great turbot dishes I have tried in great restaurants (one at the Italian Le Calandre is still anchored in my memory), this one certainly ranks at the very top.
Perhaps most significantly, Pacaud opted for a relatively “light” turbot dish with incomparable quality asparagus in order to enable us to fully appreciate our main course, which is, one of the most decadent and delicious dishes that I know. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that time stands still and one can believe that Haute Cuisine is well and alive when the feuillete de truffe is served at L’Ambroisie. Cooked to order and encased in a buttery home made pastry, sits a whole truffle of about 200 grams (for two people) cut in two and, in the middle, a very flavorful thick piece of duck foie gras. The foie gras does not dominate the dish, but this dish is perhaps the ultimate expression of the incomparably smoky and minerally taste of black Perigord truffles supplied by Monssieur Pebeyre to the restaurant. When you cut the pastry in two, an intoxicating aroma fills the room and all heads turn towards your table in the small room, and Monsieur Pascal who serves the dish is rightly proud and equally concerned that if we worship the aroma far too long we may do a disservice to this exquisite creation of nature. Alas, all good things end…but memories linger at least.
It is hard to keep the momentum alive after the last dish (or any main course at L’Ambroisie if you listen to advice and give free rein to the chef to concoct a meal for you to experience the crescendo effect), so having the cheese course before the dessert is highly recommended. The restaurant buys cheese from Alleosse, and I was more than content that day with an exceptional, fully ripe St. Marcellin, a three years aged Swiss Fribourg which is on par with a Comte from the great Bernard Anthony and an artisanal Roquefort to finish.
Pascal also intelligently chose for us a fruit dessert to finish, and the long poached and sliced pears served with the sable tarte (like a millefeuille) filled with pear sorbet was the ideal taste cleanser and a very good dessert in its own terms. Pacaud also prepares a great sable au chocolat and if you do not order cheese, I recommend you try it to see how a chocolate based dessert can be made so intense and light at the same time.
It is hard for me to be unbiased about the quality of service at L’Ambroisie as I have interacted for some time with both Monsieur Lemoullac and Monsieur Pascal and they have become friends. But what strikes me most after so many visits is how gracious the whole experience of dining there is, and how smoothly things flow there. I always grin at people and establishments who take themselves too seriously and who mistake lack of fun and good humour for professionalism. Good humour and wit, on the other hand, exhibit an underlying intelligence and good will. I found these qualities to be quite pronounced at L’Ambroisie compared to the other Michelin three stars in France, and the absence of turnover among the staff may indicate that there exists an esprit de corps among the employees of this institution.
Finally, I would like to add a word on the wine list. I trust Monsieur Lemoullac to choose best matches within a price range as I found his palette to be in synch with mine. For instance, during the last visit I have summarized here, he chose a 1995 Leroy Auxey Duresse “Les Boutonniers” and a 1993 Trapet Gevrey Chambertin. The former was silky, smooth and clean with some agrumes notes and a touch sweet/spicy (my notes indicate anise and nutmeg) finish. It was an excellent match for the first two courses. The Gevrey was truthful to its terroir and also displayed the red fruit characteristics of this vintage which I like very much. The week before, again finishing with the feuillete of truffle dish, Monsieur Lemoullac has suggested a 1996 Pomerol, Petit Village. This wine had tremendous balance and good depth, and an intriguing mineral backbone which was even a more perfect match with Perigord truffles. At any rate wine pricing at L’Ambroisie is always fair, and I still recall how Pierre Lemoullac had liked the 85 Sassicaia and offered it on the list for about $100 before this wine became “Parkerized”, and its price went through the roof in wine auctions and all the remaining bottles were depleted. It is also commendable that, unlike many other French sommeliers, Monsieur Lemoullac is not prejudiced against other wines (or cuisines) and this is certainly another indicator of the self-confidence that this institution exhibits.
Gastroville ranking:19.5/20 VM
Comments
Steve
So you know claim that "expressing ingredients" is simply a matter of "more modern culinary techniques". I cannot disagree more. Yes, the techniques is a part, an important one, but surely not the only part. Other vital parts are sourcing (size, genus, terroir, freshness), storage (how and for how long), genus, and what they are accompanied with to help bring out the products natural qualities.
An example of a mistake, Gagnaires raw cauliflower and coconut with cucumber sauce. He must have been thinking that the shaved cauliflower and coconut look like each other. But the tastes did not complement each other nor, in their raw state did they really show the inherent flavors of the two ingredients. This dish was all show no substance. And typical of Gagnaire, "fun idea, doesn't taste good, but what the hell I will serve it anyways to make people think".
An example of a winner, also from this trip and just as wild as Gagnaire's. Senderens matched ris de veau, sauteed with a crisp exterior with POPCORN. Yes, popped popcorn at a 3 star served with organ meat. Why, because both the popcorn reflects the qualities of the ris de veau. Crispy on the outside, soft and buttery on the inside. It also offers the salt/sweet contrast of the ris. A perfect match that truly "expresses the ingredient" and uses no modern techniques. Senderens then takes it a step further by matching the dish with Grüner Veltliner, a wine few of us would order at a 3 star in Paris. Here he has used the food to "express the wine". The wine was excellent on its own (Senderens always ensures that matching wines are served BEFORE the food arrives to make sure you experience the wine both without and then with the food). But after the food comes the wine takes on many new dimensions, in particular the fruit is much more expressive in combination with the food, without taking over the minerality that was the major impressions without the food. Surely this dish was tested in many different manners with different wines (or knowing Senderens, more likely the wine was tasted with many different dishes) until he felt it was ready to go on the menu. Gagnaire probably does not have the patience to wait more than a day or two to put together many of his dishes, and some probably only last that long in the repoitaire. Never mind spending months composing one dish with its matching wine. I feel that Senderens approach (and Pacaud's and Passard's even if they differ in some respects) "express the ingredients" light years more than Gagnaire's. Gagnaire has some parts down well (such as sourcing) but he (and you) is much farther from the complete pictures of "expressing ingredients" than the others.
Posted by: marc dibiaso at April 22, 2005 09:29 AM
Mark, I did not claim that "expressing ingredients" is simply a matter of "more modern" technique. I said that there ARE more modern techniques that express ingredients better than traditional techniques like roasting. I did not claim this is true in every instance of application, and I did not claim that every chef who implements these techniques is successful. It's a point made in the abstract. If you take two of the best quality chicken breasts, and sous vide one and roast the other, and the chefs are equally competent, the sous vide version will be a better expression of the chicken because the technique yields more complexity.
Posted by: Steve Plotnicki at April 22, 2005 11:37 AM
Steve here is you main point, "To get back to the main point, my understanding is that the assertion is that Pacaud expresses ingredients better than any other chef. And I believe that isn't true because there are more modern culinary techniques that express ingredients better than the techniques he uses." You state that Pacaud cannot express ingredients the best without using modern techniques. Since you mention nothing else one has to assume you consider technique to be the most important aspect to expression. Sourcing, storage, combination with other ingredients or wine are simply not as important in your opinion.
To me that would be like saying any orchestra that does not have THE best violinest in the world cannot be the best orchestra. Then by, default that one with the best violinist is the best orchestra. And then by default the best person at expression ingredients must have the best, most modern techniques.
I am not saying Pacaud is best. I have much too limited experience to even begin stating who is best. But, I firmly believe he could be best without using modern techniques by being best in all those other areas I have mentioned as being part of expression. (and being able to execute older techniques to perfection even if they are not as good as more modern ones).
And from personal experience Gagnaire (and I have dined there many times) is not in the same league as Pacaud, Senderens or Passard when it comes to respecting ingredients. And without respect how can one understand. And without understand how can one express. Respect must come first. And from my limited experience Pacaud and Passard are at the top of my list for respect. And in the end respect, understanding, composition and execution are all part of the final expression. It is what is on the plate not in the textbook that is the expression. Your scientific methods for comparing techniques is meaningless unless someone wants to eat plain chicken. And at the prices we are paying to dine at these places I do not think anyone would be content with plain chicken on a plate no matter how good it was sourced or sous vided.
Posted by: marc dibiaso at April 22, 2005 12:02 PM
"Since you mention nothing else, one has to assume you consider technique to be the most important aspect to expression. Sourcing, storage, combination with other ingredients or wine are simply not as important in your opinion."
The inference from my mentioning nothing else should be read as those being different issues, where each chef deals with them in their own way. Hence, roasting is superior to microwaving as a way of expressing ingredients, and sous vide is superior to roasting. That the combination of sourcing and roasting might make Pacaud better than other chefs, does not respond to my point. I am just commenting that Pacaud can't possibly offer the best expression of chicken, bercause he doesn't use the technique that has the potential to result in the best expression. But what I have not said is that he does a bad job of expressing chicken, In fact he does a great job. It's just limited in its potential because the technique is limited in what it can express.
Posted by: Steve Plotnicki at April 22, 2005 03:17 PM
No Steve. You specifically say that you find it untrue that Pacaud is better than "other chefs" at expression because he does not use modern techniques. You make no reference to him, or anyone else reaching the ultimate pinnacle concievable. You just seem fixated on proving Pacaud old fashioned and inferíor just because you do not prefer his style. And frankly I would prefer roasted chicken with the skin getting all the chemical reaction that create smaller molecules and thus more flavor (Maillard effect for example) to sous vide that might do a better job on the meat but cannot begin to express the skin the way roasting can. But the argument will just go in circles so you can put in your last reply if you wish but neither of us is going to convince the other.
Posted by: marc dibiaso at April 22, 2005 05:55 PM
I don't claim that at all. I really have said a few distinct things.
1. There are more modern techniques that are improvements on the traditional techniques used by Pacaud. As evidence I rely on my own experience, as well as looking at which new chefs are up and coming and what techniques they are relying on to make their name. And if you look at the young chefs who are making a name for themselves, they do not roast and saute in the nouvelle cuisine style. They use more contemporary culinary technique.
2. The reason why chefs who use more contemporary technique are succeeding is that the techniques are better. They do a better job of expressing ingredients, and the results yield greater complexity. If this wasn't true, Pacaud's name would be the one in all of the papers instead of chefs like Barbot and Aduriz.
3. Cooking is not like fine art in that as new techniques come in, the old styles of cooking go out of style forever (at the fine cooking level that is, not home cooking.) When the nouvelle cuisine era began, the new techniques that chefs like Senderens, Robuchon, Bocuse, Pierre Troisgros, Michel Guerard etc. invented completely replaced the technique that was used by the generation of chefs who preceded them. It might have taken 15 years to happen, but eventually it happened. Today you can not find a single restaurant that cooks in that old fashioned style. And the same thing is happening today. The technique that Pacaud employs is slowly being replaced by more contemporary techniques. Why? For the same reason that classic French culinary techniques were replaced by nouvelle cuisine. The new techniques are better, so that's what diners are beginning to opt for.
As for preferences, I think that criticism misses the mark. It's like someone arguing that the Lamb en croute that was served in France in the 1930's was better than anything they serve today. To that type of statement there is only one response. They don't serve lamb en croute anymore. And the reason is, better ways of expressing lamb were invented. And the technique that Pacaud employs, is slowly being replaced by more modern technique, the same way that lamb en croute slowly went out of style. And if you want to see evidence of this, look at how many great nouvelle cuisine era chefs are left. They are down to a handful.
Posted by: Steve Plotnicki at April 22, 2005 10:08 PM



