Gastroville

Fantastic review. The scallops at L'Ambroisie are probably the best I have had. I have never been in the black truffle season and now I think I must. The only comparable dish I have had is the truffle en croute at Les Crayers and I wonder how does Pacaud's Feuillete de Truffes Bel Humeur would compare? I agree that the service at L'Ambroisie has a charm, wit and confidence that is much lacking in most other Michelin-starred establishments. Thanks for the review.

Great review and the photos are superb. Is this your highest rated restaurant in Paris?

A thoughtful and intriguing review. A restaurant that truly respects ingredients and not just lip service, one whose charms only show when a relationship blossoms with visits over time, it makes sense why Pacaud and company tend to be not understood or ignored by non-French gastronauts and so called connoisseurs. This is easily one of the best descriptions I have read yet of L'Ambrosie. I am happy to say i will be dining there myself for the first time at the end of the month, hopefully to start my own journey.
Thank you for sharing.

Just to add a wider perspective of the restaurant. I find the decor terrible, like being on the set of a bad French novel about a quasi-aristocratic family. It is the most formal dining room of any three star restaurant that I know of, and it was a style that was already out of fashion on the day they first opened. The service is a bit distant, call it stand-offish and cool, and it is likely that first time diners, even second timers, or at least until they get to know you, can feel completely ignored and never feel they have made real contact with the serving staff. The wine service can be a bit uneven, and you might find that the sommelier doesn't want to sell you the Henri Jayer Cros Parentoux from a good vintage, because while he has it on the list, he would prefer to save it for a regular customer. And while I agree that the cooking can be perfect (two dishes I had there recently, the Oysters with a Watercress Mousse and the Turbot with a spice crust were super delicious,) I find the best description of the cuisine to be that it is staid. One wonders, if Robuchon was still cooking, whether Vedat's comments would carry the the same weight?

I think whatever criticism can be foisted upon L'Ambroisie lies in that comparison. In the days when Robuchon was at the top of his game, L'Ambroisie was a clear number two of the restaurants working in the more classicist aspect of the nouvelle cuisine genre. But all that has happened to the restaurant since Robuchon shut his doors, is that Robuchon has shut his doors. And maybe Pacaud has become a better chef because he has perfected his approach over time, but one can also argue that nothing has changed, that time has stood still at L'Ambroisie, and it might as well be 1990 when you walk through those doors.

The conclusion one can reach from these facts (and others which haven't been joined,) is that personal preference plays an important role in where we like to dine. And if one wants the concept of forward culinary motion to be present in their cuisine (a component I rather appreciate,) then dining at L'Ambroisie can be a delicious, but also somewhat boring, experience. But if one is looking for a haute cuisine version of L'Ami Louis, and they are willing to invest the time and effort to build a relationship where they can call and get a table at will, and then be treated like a regular, then it's a great choice.

I apologize from the readers for having forgotten one important detail. The truffe bel humeur comes with a side dish of mache and creme fraiche with another 4 thick round slices of the same truffles. The salad adds harmony to the very rich dish.
Ferdinand, I have(unfortunately)never been at Crayeres. One reason for concern is that Lizzie, whom I respect very much, reported that they were serving Perigord truffles in May. This will not happen with Pacaud. Monsieur Pebeyre also had told me that his favorite truffle dish is the one prepared by Pacaud. I met Monsieur Pebeyre, the truffle merchant, when he came to Berkeley and attended a dinner at Chez Panisse.
Scott, I have dined several times in Parisian 3 stars (save for Ledoyen and Savoy where I have only dined once) and I had some 19-20/20 dishes at Gagnaire and Arpege too. The latter is showing some signs of tiredness. The former is far too inconsistent. So in an overall rating L'Ambroisie comes on top.
Steve, I don't agree about the Robuchon analogy. When Pacaud was at the old place (the street where Mitterand lived), clearly he was delivering at the higher end of 2 stars but not on par with Jamin and Taillevent. Many things changed since then. Towards the end of his tenure, Robuchon displayed some signs of tiredness and I recall some less than perfectly fresh fish (I esp. recall one case of turbot and one case of rouget)dishes and sometimes an overemphasis on plating and aesthetics at the expense of overall harmony and quality. Pacaud, on the other hand, is a late bloomer and his cuisine now is on par with Jamin/Robuchon if you compare the latter at the zenith with Pacaud today.
In terms of service, I personally found Monsieur Caimant at Jamin cold but the second in charge Mr. Beineix (I hope I am recalling the spelling right) more than made up for it. I never liked the New Orleans bordello like decor at Jamin. I know that Pacaud redecorated the middle room where you set and I know that it appeals to the French taste from a certain segment of society and from a certain cultural background. I am happy that they seated you there which is a priveledge. But, as the French say, when aesthetics is concerned, "les gouts et les couleurs ne se disputent pas".
I found it hard to believe that, as my friend, they would not have given you the wine you wanted. As far as I know they have the 88 from Jayer which Lemoullac sincerely believes is not ready, and if it was discussed, then I am sure he was sincere.
I agree with you though about "selectivity" in the restaurant. Please read my first paragraph in the article when I contrast some aspects of French versus American culture. There is less geographical mobility in France and they can afford to invest in relationships. But each first time client there is treated as a potential friend who will join the inner sanctum of close friends irrespective of country of origin and economic status provided that they appreciate the overall experience and the cuisine. They are not populist in the restaurant but they are not snotty or nationalistic either.

And they are honest about what they are. I have heard Pacaud quoted "Someone first meal here is never their best. It takes at least 2-3 meals for us to learn the customer and for the customer to learn us." I will report back shortly as my 3rd visit is coming up this week

Well I think you are comparing apples and oranges. Pacuad might be a late bloomer, and Robuchon might have gotten tired, but the only way to compare the two is when each was at their peak. And at the time of Robuchon's peak, his name was on the tip of everyone's tongue. But Pacaud, both then and now, never achieved that sort of fame. And the reason is what I stated. His cooking is excellent, but there is an argument to make that it is boring. One could never make that argument about Robuchon during his reign. He was more than excellent, he revolutionized an entire aspect of haute cuisine, and brought it to a logical conclusion. And Pacaud, as great a chef as he is, is really working in the milleau that Robuchon created. He is Wayne Shorter to Robuchon's Coltrane, just to stick with music metaphors.

As for my comments about the service and wine, they were describing my first visit a number of years ago, not this visit where I was treated very well. But in large part that has to do with your putting in the good word for me before my visit.

I have given a lot of thought to our different ways of viewing the restaurant (this includes my disagreements with Mikael as well,) and I believe that we do not have a disagreement about the facts. I agree with everything both of you say about it. Where we disagree is in what it all means. Take the decor, to some people it is classic, to me it evokes extreme formality and an era that doesn't exist anymore. And while I am not taking a position on whether everyone would like or dislike it, I am trying to objectively describe it so people know what to expect, and so that people who do not prefer to eat in that environment (I really hate it) know that before they choose this restaurant. As for the cooking, while Pacaud might use the best ingredients and express them perfectly, it is not unfair to say that he expresses them in a way that could be described by certain people as being old fashioned. Again, I am not trying to make a value judgement about it because I can understand why many people would consider that the most important element of a meal. But I can also see how people would not be as excited about his cuisine because it is a style of cooking that they have been eating for the last 30 years, regardless of how well Pacaud delivers it.

I enjoyed reading your review Vedat - I’ll be going back for my third time in a couple of weeks and am very much looking forward to it. My first visit was over a year ago and second was in January. While I only have a few days in Paris, I am drawn back again even though I was just there a relatively short time ago because of the high quality of the ingredients, delicious preparations and fine staff.

On my first visit, I was anxious to try many of the items offered that night and when I couldn’t decide they offered to put together a tasting menu of sorts with half-dishes. It turned out to be a perfect progression, as you described, and I was very pleased that they were willing to do this and they seemed pleased that we were willing to place ourselves in their hands. It turned out to be a very good first visit that was facilitated by the extremely helpful front of the house staff.

My last visit included the wonderful spice crusted turbot and also the classic langoustine in curry sauce which I thought was phenomenal. The turbot on the bone was of pristine quality and must have come from a very large fish as it was the thickest and most succulent piece of turbot I’ve ever had.

I think you described the reason I find L‘Ambroisie so compelling - it is a complete package. If the first two times are any indication, I know I can trust them to guide me through the kind of experience I look for at this level of dining.

Vedat, it’s a pleasure to find someone with a palate and views so closely aligned with my own. Let me agree with you on your perception of L’Ambroisie’s decor, which I didn’t explore previously on eG. I think in all its cliché, L’Ambrosie’s décor carries the most lucid and lyrical statement without the striking turn of polarities – contemporary versus classic, permanent versus impermanent, mobile versus immobile or reason versus imagination – that you may find at Ducasse’s establishments. The parquet floors, Aubusson tapestries, stone, all the little details bring law and order into a relatively small perimeter of each of the three rooms, stressing their sober design, with a distinctive hand-made imprint, executed in a true old fashion, which provokes, however, not a sense of antiquarianism or superficiality, but affection for the respectable and genuine. The décor carries the personal touch of a private residence hosting guests versus the more dynamic, generic fashion of some other three-star institutions designed to accommodate unknown, transient diners whose identities become lost in the egalitarianism of a restaurant’s space. Indeed, the tables at L’Ambroisie, though well spaced, are close enough to force diners to follow the rules of etiquette and civility -- moderate voice, reserved manners – requiring a demonstration of courtesy and respect to the surrounding and their neighbors, and therefore imposing certain behavioral constraints, the breaking of which may bring a scent of dissatisfaction and perhaps even snobbism along with Monsieur Pascal or Monsieur Lemoullac, though they’ll never utter a word of displeasure. So long as one is ready to enjoy his meal as a guest, not a customer, willing to submit his will to the knowledge and impeccable professionalism of the service staff and allow Monsieur. Pascal to steer the meal, he will have a chance to experience the marked individualism of Pacaud’s cooking – an experience that may prove to be memorable, aside from one’s stylistic preferences.

The more contemporary culinary trends assume every element of a dish to be nearly on an equal footing compositionally as opposed to the primitive, Renaissance, Baroque or for that matter nouvelle dishes, the organization of which is usually focused around the main ingredient or groups of ingredients. Indeed, the simplest rendition is that of a central ingredient with balancing elements to the right and left, which although in itself trite, when combined with a technique of such personal and distinctive character, as in the case of Pacaud, is redeemed from banality.

I’m more interested, however, in analyzing whether Pacaud’s style is a relic, independent of how we define it – classic, nouvelle, miniaturist or “realistic.” The design of a dish consists of the general “plot” or handling of the various details, one of the most critical factors, which should be uppermost in discriminating the essential from the irrelevant. I don’t think many would deny that Pacaud is magnificent in his ability to achieve an exceedingly rich effect by means of the greatest simplicity – the way in which a single ingredient is made to function as a distinctive character, and at the same time as a means of unifying compositional elements. His cuisine does not have the airy quality of the contemporary Avant-Garde, but while it carries weight, it is not heavy or academic; it is just fine, convincing and quietly powerful. Even when there is a complex, striking pattern, a clean-cut organization is maintained, which is certainly Pacaud’s strength compared to less structured, more eccentric chefs like Gagnaire.

However, the most important attribute of Pacaud’s style, which secures his unique and contemporary significance, is that he manages to create such a synthesis of flavors that not only does the palate not tire from the dish (generally of a significant portion), but it becomes more open and receptive with each bite, as a result of a clever and natural relationship between the ingredients, transforming the amalgamated flavors gradually and creating a new sensory response with each spoonful, as in the amuse, morel consommé with foie gras. Instead of changing the palate’s response over the progression of multiple small courses, Pacaud achieves the same in one dish. All that is required is the diner’s attention and patience to catch the transformation, which is more camouflaged than in a simple multi-course meal. This is true mastery, and though I haven’t eaten Robuchon’s cuisine at its prime, there was not even a hint of the same flavor-evolving concept at his L'Atelier, which may indicate that Robuchon has changed his style or his style never really conceptually coincided with Pacaud’s even though both chefs cooked under the same nouvelle realm. Vedat, what say you?

I recall reading that Pacaud’s brother-in-law cooked along side him when the restaurant started out as a small family business. Do you know what became of this gentleman?

P.S.
Interestingly, a 9 kg turbot should have a sufficient amount of fatty meat strips around the edges of the fish, which are very highly regarded in Japanese cuisine, but which I’ve never seen used separately in European dishes, other than Gagnaires unfortunate attempt to pair it with Madras-spiced polenta. I wonder what Pacaud does with these magnificent fatty strips.

I love responding to Lxt because indeed her arguments are baroque. (I wish I knew how to insert a laugh out loud icon here.) But I think people keep missing my central argument, which holds true about both the food and the decor at L'Ambroisie. Maybe I can do a better job of explaining it

Pacaud might do a perfect job of expressing a 9kg turbot, but the way he expresses it tastes old fashioned. Why is that the case? Because chefs all around him, from Passard to Gagnaire to the Spanish sous vidists, have developed better cooking techniques and they have improved the way ingredients are expressed. And it has nothing to do with trendiness which is a sort of backhanded way that people try to deny that what they have created reflects a permanent change in haute cuisine, and that what Pacaud does is representative of a prior era. The closest analogy I can make to this are the jazz tenor saxophone players who described the rush to copy Coltrane's modal style of playing as doing it for trendy reasons. In that case, trendiness also happened to be the first step towards a permanent shift in style. In fact, those tenor sax players who did not make the switch, saw their income go down substantially. And in retrospect, they are not considered as highly as the ones who did make the switch.

So one needs to look at my point in the abstract. It has nothing to do with Pacaud, and everything to do with a basic premise about cooking I am espousing which is, sous vide expresses chicken better than roasting does. All you have to do to know that is taste a sous vide chicken breast. It is moister, has better texture, has a more complex flavor etc. And to dismiss that as trendiness is a faux statement. It isn't trendy, it is an improvement. And like the tenor sax players who couldn't make the switck to the langauge that Coltrane created, Pacuad has not made the switch. And it is the same for the decor. There is classic French decor which has been rethought through a contemporary lens, and which does not feel oppressive or boring, and there is the style that wealthy bankers use to decorate their Avenue Foch apartments that is dowdy and old fashioned. And the decor at L'Ambroisie represents the latter, not the former.

Of course in the end of the day this all comes down to personal preference about where we like to dine. And I certainly wouldn't fault anyone for choosing L'Ambroisie as their favorite restaurant, it has a lot to offer people from a gourmandise perspective. But it's quite another thing to claim that this is the best restaurant, or that Pacaud is the best chef. That statement needs to be qualified by the restaurant's limitations. And I believe that there is no argument about whether roasting, or sauteeing, in an old fashioned style, is the best style of cooking. It's simply not. All you have to do is to taste more contemporary styles of cooking to see that it isn't true.

As for Lxt's question about Robuchon, I believe that one of the reasons Robuchon retired is he was aware of everything I just wrote. And he knew that he would either have to reinvent himself, or lose his stature as being the world's greatest chef. So he shut his restaurant, maintained his stature, took a few years off, and now he is trading on his stature by reinventing how he delivers his product to a different segment of the market.

Steve is right. Nutrasweet is better than sugar. Tang is better than fresh squeezed orange juice. Give me back the sixties where science makes things better and my laundry detergent has some special chemical like lemon freshened borax to make it work better. Now where is that laugh out loud icon Steve asked for cause I could use it too.

Steve I was at L'Ambroisie, Gagnaire and Passard in the span of 3 days. Passard is using traditional methods (that monkfish sure didn't get grill marks from the sous vide). Passard and L'Ambroisie both blew Gagnaire away. Gagnaire needs to go back and learn that if you serve a meat in two, (or 15) different manners you can served it in two (or 15) SEPARATE servings. His method of putting 5 different plates on the table, doing the saucing or serving tableside, and then having someone explain them and the 38 ingredients before you can eat means the food is often cold before your first bite even when dining alone. Forget about the last bite. Unfortunately the food served too cold doesn't warm up as fast. I timed a table with 5 guests just for fun when there mains arrived. It took 10 minutes from when the first plate was set to when the last one was described. And to do it that fast was only possible because the staff is more damn efficient than robots and there were 3 of them, two serving and one running back and forth to the kitchen to get more trays with more plates. With any lessed skills servers it would have taken 20 minutes just to get all those plates on the table. And whoever has to wash and sort all the dishes must feel like Hades would be a move up on the ladder of life/death.

The best thing Gagnaire put on my table was a slow braised lamb leg (one of 4 ways the lamb was served). Very traditional cooking if you ask me. His more avant garde stuff served no other purpose than filling my stomach with mediocre food so that I could not find room for that wonderful lamb (topped with very traditional puff pastry). It's a shame because if Gagnaire dropped all the hype and stop trying to impress everyone, including himself and just cooked using the traditional techniques that he has proven he masters so well, he could have a great restaurant. Today he has a circus sideshow. I saw many guests laughing at the number of plates or strange ingredients or presentations but no one oooooohing about the food as it went in the mouth. That to me says it all.

Mark - I don't see how that responds to my point. I haven't said that every contemporary method of cooking is better than traditional methods, I just said that it is incorrect to dismiss every new cooking method as trendy, when indeed, some of them offer a better result than traditional methods.

As for Alain Passard and his grilling, he slow grills (whatever that means) a turbot for two hours. And while I didn't find his approach to be a better approach than roasting, it certainly could be.

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. That it might not culminate in a better dining experiences than you might have at L'Ambroisie is a different issue. My point is offered in the abstract, and has to do with weighing the techniques against each other regardless of who is implementing them.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.