Jules Verne Restaurant - Paris
canth...@webtv.net
We've heard that lunch is much cheaper than dinner. Is the restaurant
touristy and overpriced or worth a visit? Of course they want to see
the Tower, and we thought this might be a nice way to show off Paris
to them.
Also, we know there is a private elevator to the restaurant. Can you
continue up to the top after eating there or do you have to go back down
and ride the regular elevators up to the top?
Thanks, Ellen
cotedor
I'm not sure what you mean by "touristy", but I think it is a wonderful
restaurant - expensive, as are most Michelin-star restaurants in Paris,
but the view can't be beat. The staff speaks fluent English, French
(of course), and Spanish (probably other languages as well).
Of course they want to see
> the Tower, and we thought this might be a nice way to show off Paris
> to them.
Absoluetly, but I'd prefer dinner there - the view at night is
incredible.
>
> Also, we know there is a private elevator to the restaurant. Can you
> continue up to the top after eating there or do you have to go back
down
> and ride the regular elevators up to the top?
You must go back down and ride the other elevators to the top. the
elevator for the restaurant only goes to the restaurant, and is
controlled by an employee of the restaurant (an elevator man, if you
will).
>
> Thanks, Ellen
>
>
Your welcome,
Jim
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
j coulter
reached from the restaurant without descending (smart folks often walk up
that far to avoid the lines and save Francs)
The view should be very good most days (it can actually be better than the
top if there are low clouds) Better lunch can be had for less, but it
depends upon your priorities
canth...@webtv.net wrote:
> We are thinking of taking first time Paris visitors there for lunch.
> We've heard that lunch is much cheaper than dinner. Is the restaurant
> touristy and overpriced or worth a visit? Of course they want to see
> the Tower, and we thought this might be a nice way to show off Paris
> to them.
>
> Also, we know there is a private elevator to the restaurant. Can you
> continue up to the top after eating there or do you have to go back down
> and ride the regular elevators up to the top?
>
> Thanks, Ellen
Jack
Magnificent of course. Unfortunately the cuisine is very beatable,(is
that English, Michael? :-)) and debatable, certainly for the price you
will have to pay and I suppose that when you're in such a classy place
you don't look to economize a few dollars :-). Have a nice evening, I'm
sure it will stay in your memory. Bon appetit!
Jack
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my personal website where you'll find my
travel tips, hotel suggestions, and restaurant
reviews for Paris, most regions of France, Belgium,
Amsterdam and Venice.
http://www.jack-travel.com/
personal contact address: giti...@my-deja.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <7156-39E...@storefull-172.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
canth...@webtv.net wrote:
> We are thinking of taking first time Paris visitors there for lunch.
> We've heard that lunch is much cheaper than dinner. Is the restaurant
> touristy and overpriced or worth a visit? Of course they want to see
> the Tower, and we thought this might be a nice way to show off Paris
> to them.
>
> Also, we know there is a private elevator to the restaurant. Can you
> continue up to the top after eating there or do you have to go back
down
> and ride the regular elevators up to the top?
>
> Thanks, Ellen
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
canth...@webtv.net
expect from rec.travel.europe.
Even though the above 3 answers varied, I got out of them what I had
wanted to know. After numerous trips to Paris, and many many fine
dining experiences, some a lot more expensive than others, we had never
given much thought to eating at Jules Verne on any of the previous
trips.
For our next trip, with first-timers, we thought that lunch and the
view, would make for a nice day, rather than an expensive dinner, which
may or may not have been worthwhile. I'd rather pay less for a
mediocre lunch with a fabulous view than more for mediocre dinner with
a fabulous view. We would be going more for the site itself. A
fabulous meal would have been the frosting on the cake.
If we do eat there, I'm sure that the entire 'package', will make for a
nice dining experience.
Thanks again, Ellen
Michael Forrest
writes
>The only unbeatable about the Jules Verne restaurant is the view.
>Magnificent of course. Unfortunately the cuisine is very beatable,(is
>that English, Michael? :-))
I would certainly use it. But then I believe that the language should be
allowed to evolve. It is certainly also used by others although the
Concise Oxford English Dictionary does not allow it.
>and debatable, certainly for the price you
>will have to pay and I suppose that when you're in such a classy place
>you don't look to economize a few dollars :-).
Dollars at the Jules Verne - sacrilege. Or were you just referring to
the fact that the dollar and the Euro are/were at parity?
(Various smileys).
--
Michael Forrest
nham...@my-deja.com
canth...@webtv.net wrote:
> We are thinking of taking first time Paris visitors there for lunch.
> We've heard that lunch is much cheaper than dinner. Is the restaurant
> touristy and overpriced or worth a visit? Of course they want to see
> the Tower, and we thought this might be a nice way to show off Paris
> to them.
Ellen,
I've been to the Jules Verne 2 times. Once for my 40th birthday and once
with first timers to paris. Both times were memorable. The food was
good, not fabulous but the appetizer I had last time was one of the best
I've had. The ambiance is unbeatable. The decor wonderful. It's
understated to emphasize the view. Be SURE to reconfirm your reservation
the day before or they'll give it away. That happened to a friend of
mine. OH and DO be sure to get reservations well in advance. When you
arrive at the elevator to the restaurant there is someone there with a
clip board. If your name is not on it you don't even get near the
elevator.
Bon Appetit!
Nancy
Robert Buxbaum
wrote:
>In article <7156-39E...@storefull-172.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> canth...@webtv.net wrote:
>Is the restaurant touristy and overpriced or worth a visit?
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by "touristy", but I think it is a wonderful
>restaurant - expensive, as are most Michelin-star restaurants in Paris,
>but the view can't be beat.
For a single star, it's expensive.
--
<www.worldtable.com> Food/Wine/Travel
-
new offer for car rental and leasing in Europe
posted 21 June 2000
Robert Buxbaum
canth...@webtv.net wrote:
If you're going for the view, I understand that not all tables have a great
view. Make sure you have a table by a window or the view is not going to be
fabulous from what I hear.
According to the Michelin guide, there is a lunch special at 290f. Dinner
is 680f or a la carte which may run from 550 to 670f - all according to
Michelin. When Parisian restaurants offer a special menu at lunch that's so
much lowere than the dinner menus, you cannot expect the same food as on the
a la carte or diner menu, but it may be exactly what you are looking for.
Personally, I'd rather have the view without the distraction of a meal
although the view would add to the meal if all other things were equal. A
lot would depend on the interests of your friends.
louisa
> In article <25435-39E...@storefull-174.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> canth...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> >Thank you for the honest and knowledgeable responses I have come to
> >expect from rec.travel.europe.
> >
> >Even though the above 3 answers varied, I got out of them what I had
> >wanted to know. After numerous trips to Paris, and many many fine
> >dining experiences, some a lot more expensive than others, we had never
> >given much thought to eating at Jules Verne on any of the previous
> >trips.
> >
> > For our next trip, with first-timers, we thought that lunch and the
> >view, would make for a nice day, rather than an expensive dinner, which
> >may or may not have been worthwhile. I'd rather pay less for a
> >mediocre lunch with a fabulous view than more for mediocre dinner with
> >a fabulous view. We would be going more for the site itself. A
> >fabulous meal would have been the frosting on the cake.
> >If we do eat there, I'm sure that the entire 'package', will make for a
> >nice dining experience.
are you sure these first timers want such a 'touristy' experience? you
know them better than I do -- but most people I know who are visiting with
people who are insiders i.e. very knowledgeable about a place, are
interested in some out of the way little known treasure that they couldn't
find on their own -- and that they can later brag they were lucky enough
to experience. I would be very disappointed if I visited friends in Paris
who 'knew' the place and the big treat was dinner on the Eifel tower. I'd
want that little bistro that noone in Desmoines has ever heard of -- but
was fabulous and interesting. Just another point of view.
Jack
A few dollars impresses more than a few FF. Up to now. (smiley)
Jack
>
> --
> Michael Forrest
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my personal website where you'll find my
travel tips, hotel suggestions, and restaurant
reviews for Paris, most regions of France, Belgium,
Amsterdam and Venice.
http://www.jack-travel.com/
personal contact address: giti...@my-deja.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Evleth
----------
Dans l'article <8sg070$9sq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Jack <giti...@my-deja.com> a
écrit :
> The only unbeatable about the Jules Verne restaurant is the view.
> Magnificent of course. Unfortunately the cuisine is very beatable,(is
> that English, Michael? :-)) and debatable, certainly for the price you
> will have to pay and I suppose that when you're in such a classy place
> you don't look to economize a few dollars :-). Have a nice evening, I'm
> sure it will stay in your memory. Bon appetit!
>
> Jack
I agree with Jack. The last time we went we were disappointed, finding the
food rather indifferent. We went at lunch, as guests of a friend. Perhaps
it is better at dinner, although lunch is cheaper.
Donna Evleth
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Visit my personal website where you'll find my
> travel tips, hotel suggestions, and restaurant
> reviews for Paris, most regions of France, Belgium,
> Amsterdam and Venice.
> http://www.jack-travel.com/
> personal contact address: giti...@my-deja.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> In article <7156-39E...@storefull-172.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> canth...@webtv.net wrote:
>> We are thinking of taking first time Paris visitors there for lunch.
>> We've heard that lunch is much cheaper than dinner. Is the restaurant
>> touristy and overpriced or worth a visit? Of course they want to see
>> the Tower, and we thought this might be a nice way to show off Paris
>> to them.
>>
>> Also, we know there is a private elevator to the restaurant. Can you
>> continue up to the top after eating there or do you have to go back
> down
>> and ride the regular elevators up to the top?
>>
>> Thanks, Ellen
>>
>>
>
>
>
KLM2050
Montparnasse tower, have drinks (9 US$, approx.), then go to dinner at a good
restaurant. It has a great view at night. Kristen
Mark Brader
>> Magnificent of course. Unfortunately the cuisine is very beatable,(is
>> that English, Michael? :-))
>
> allowed to evolve. It is certainly also used by others although the
> Concise Oxford English Dictionary does not allow it.
Dictionaries, generally, do not allow; they record. This is particularly
true of concise dictionaries, which perforce record only those usages that
are relatively common. But for what it's worth, "beatable" is listed in
the Random House Unabridged.
As a matter of curiosity, what other restaurants in high places does Paris
have? I can't think of any, but then I've never looked for one either.
For instance, is there one in the Tour Montparnasse? Or one in Montmartre
with a view to the city center?
--
Mark Brader "It is considered a sign of great {winnitude}
Toronto when your Obs are more interesting than other
m...@vex.net people's whole postings." --Eric Raymond
My text in this article is in the public domain.
j coulter
Michael Forrest
<loui...@homeplc.com> writes
>
>noone in Desmoines has ever heard of
Pronounced? (smiley)
--
Michael Forrest
Jack
where the view on Paris is also magnificent. But of course a self is a
self and let's not insist too much on the quality of that food :-
))....And it's only open during business hours.
At the 5th floor of the same department store you have a "real "
restaurant, "Toupary", open 11.45-15.00 and 19.30-23.30. There is also
a panoramic terrace. Prices are also not a give away, but the view.....
Jack
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my personal website where you'll find my
travel tips, hotel suggestions, and restaurant
reviews for Paris, most regions of France, Belgium,
Amsterdam and Venice.
http://www.jack-travel.com/
personal contact address: giti...@my-deja.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <39EC90A3...@mediaone.net>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
canth...@webtv.net
sister and her husband. At this point I don't think that they even know
that there is anything else in Paris, but the Tower!!! We still can't
believe that they are leaving the US.
We will be renting an apartment on Ille St. Louis and plan to really
show them the Paris that we know and love. Her only request. so far,
was to see the Tower.
That will all change hopefully, if she read the pile of books.
etc,,,,that I sent her home with.
They are nice people, but.......
Ellen
Michael Forrest
<klm...@aol.com> writes
>If you simply want a view, go to the bar at the top of the dreadful
>Montparnasse tower, have drinks (9 US$, approx.), then go to dinner at a good
>restaurant. It has a great view at night. Kristen
There is also a good view from the bar at the top of the Concorde
Lafayette at Porte Maillot. But the prices are even more astounding than
the view.
--
Michael Forrest
j coulter
The Tour Eiffel is best seen from almost anywhere but the Jules Verne <G>.
If you want dinner that shows off the city in a real touristy way and
includes the tour, try a tour boat/dinner boat (yes, I know the food isn't
michelin quality, but the views are world class)
My first view of Paris was coming up the stairs at the Alma-Marceau Metro
and it was breathtaking with the tower gleaming against an azure sky. So
they will see the tower, whether they eat there or not.
Robert Buxbaum
>>> The only unbeatable about the Jules Verne restaurant is the view.
>>> Magnificent of course. Unfortunately the cuisine is very beatable,(is
>>> that English, Michael? :-))
>>
>> I would certainly use it. But then I believe that the language should be
>> allowed to evolve. It is certainly also used by others although the
>> Concise Oxford English Dictionary does not allow it.
>
>Dictionaries, generally, do not allow; they record. This is particularly
>true of concise dictionaries, which perforce record only those usages that
>are relatively common. But for what it's worth, "beatable" is listed in
>the Random House Unabridged.
It would seem likely that concise dictionaries are less inclusive than
unabridged dictionaries. I would think the former contained the short list
of words and the latter to be all inclusive. "Allowable" may be an
applicable word only in terms of scrabble perhaps.
>As a matter of curiosity, what other restaurants in high places does Paris
>have? I can't think of any, but then I've never looked for one either.
>For instance, is there one in the Tour Montparnasse? Or one in Montmartre
>with a view to the city center?
I assume all the two and three star restaurants exist in a high place.
Knowing the chef or maitre d'hotel would allow one to note they had friends
in high places, at least when attempting to secure a reservation.
Robert Buxbaum
loui...@homeplc.com (louisa) wrote:
>
>are you sure these first timers want such a 'touristy' experience? you
>know them better than I do -- but most people I know who are visiting with
>people who are insiders i.e. very knowledgeable about a place, are
>interested in some out of the way little known treasure that they couldn't
>find on their own -- and that they can later brag they were lucky enough
>to experience. I would be very disappointed if I visited friends in Paris
>who 'knew' the place and the big treat was dinner on the Eifel tower. I'd
>want that little bistro that noone in Desmoines has ever heard of -- but
>was fabulous and interesting. Just another point of view.
Personally I am with you on this issue, but I'm not so sure we share a
universal taste. This is not to say that if you ask people what they want,
they will not be more likely to to opt for the local bistro. It's just that
in the end, they'll really be impressed by Jules Verne. Maybe I've just
overheard one too many parties in neighborhood bistros complaining about the
local food.
Robert Buxbaum
canth...@webtv.net wrote:
>I'm embarrassed to admit this Louisa, but the relatives are my husband's
>sister and her husband. At this point I don't think that they even know
>that there is anything else in Paris, but the Tower!!! We still can't
>believe that they are leaving the US.
>We will be renting an apartment on Ille St. Louis and plan to really
>show them the Paris that we know and love. Her only request. so far,
>was to see the Tower.
>
>That will all change hopefully, if she read the pile of books.
>etc,,,,that I sent her home with.
>
>They are nice people, but.......
... they need someone to show then the Eiffel Tower when they arrive in
Paris. Enough said. In a restaurant newsgroup, not travel newsgroup, I
read a post that encouraged anyone who had to go to Paris, to eat at the
restaurant in the Eiffel Tower. At least your relatives are going to Paris
by choice, and not because they have to. Or are they being sent there on
business?
louisa
> I'm embarrassed to admit this Louisa, but the relatives are my husband's
> sister and her husband. At this point I don't think that they even know
> that there is anything else in Paris, but the Tower!!! We still can't
> believe that they are leaving the US.
> We will be renting an apartment on Ille St. Louis and plan to really
> show them the Paris that we know and love. Her only request. so far,
> was to see the Tower.
oh well this may be just right then -- the important thing is to know
your guests. I have always loved the tower at night -- it is ugly by
daylight -- but quite stunning at night.
my husband and I took my elderly mother to Florence and Rome and it was
absolutely the most fabulous time of her life -- she was just thrilled --
so I hope you have the same experience of being able to share YOUR special
knowledge of the place with them.
> That will all change hopefully, if she read the pile of books.
> etc,,,,that I sent her home with.
>
> They are nice people, but.......
>
> Ellen
canth...@webtv.net
are going to Germany to visit family We got them to change their dates
to coincide with our next stay in Paris, probably by offering them a
free place to stay!! We convenienced them that since we had the
apartment, and it was only 6.5 hours by train from Frankfurt.....it
would be easy for them to swing by and then fly home from Paris.
After telling them our travel experiences after each trip, this is the
very first time that they have ever expressed an interest in going
anywhere.
I don't know why a lot of you good folks assume that I want to go to a
"touristy place". We just wanted to do something for them that THEY
would think was special. It was either Jules Verne or Captain
Flunch.....JUST KIDDING.
Seriously, we do prefer neighborhood bistros and the smaller
restaurants, department store roof tops for lunch and snacks, etc....
and that is probably why after 10 trips to Paris we have never even
thought about eating at Jules Verne. I am definitely a 'foodie', that
is why I have a solid gold Weight Watchers card!!!
We eat for enjoyment, not prestige.
We're hoping to reshape their entire lives and infect them with the
highly contagious travel bug.
EVERYBODY SING....
"How ya gonna keep them down on the farm after they've seen Paree....."
I don't know why, but I love rec.travel.europe...if only you guys
weren't so shy and reticent... Speak up, state your opinions!
Ellen
Bob V
> As a matter of curiosity, what other restaurants in high places does Paris
> have? I can't think of any, but then I've never looked for one either.
> For instance, is there one in the Tour Montparnasse? Or one in Montmartre
> with a view to the city center?
La Tour d'Argent has a nice view, closer up to the Seine. Be prepared to
drop .... ...oh, a thousand dollars here, for four people.
Bob
--
compassionate conservatism is an oxymoron
canth...@webtv.net
I think we'll take them to Leon's for moules and frites!!!!!!
Do they have a branch with a view...... preferably of the Jules Verne?
Ellen
Michael Forrest
<225st...@mediaone.net> writes
>
>The Tour Eiffel is best seen from almost anywhere but the Jules Verne <G>.
There is of course the joke that a view from the Eiffel Tower is the
best in Paris because you cannot see the tower from it.
--
Michael Forrest
Robert Buxbaum
canth...@webtv.net wrote:
>In a way these relatives ARE being forced to go to Paris....by us. They
-snip-
>We're hoping to reshape their entire lives and infect them with the
>highly contagious travel bug.
>
> EVERYBODY SING....
>
>"How ya gonna keep them down on the farm after they've seen Paree....."
>
>I don't know why, but I love rec.travel.europe...if only you guys
>weren't so shy and reticent... Speak up, state your opinions!
Good luck. ;-) In some parts of the world if you save someones' life,
you're responsible for feeding and clothing them for the rest of their life.
You may never be able to travel again without them. ;-)
We happen to enjoy great bastions of haute cuisine, cozy little bistros,
brasseries, cafes and even a sandwich in the park or a crepe on the street
in Paris, but neither Jules Verne or Leon's for mussels has attracted us.
;-)
Jack
<b...@worldtable.com> wrote:
>In article <15606-39...@storefull-178.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
>canth...@webtv.net wrote:
>
>>In a way these relatives ARE being forced to go to Paris....by us. They
>-snip-
>>We're hoping to reshape their entire lives and infect them with the
>>highly contagious travel bug.
>>
>> EVERYBODY SING....
>>
>>"How ya gonna keep them down on the farm after they've seen Paree....."
>>
>>I don't know why, but I love rec.travel.europe...if only you guys
>>weren't so shy and reticent... Speak up, state your opinions!
>
>Good luck. ;-) In some parts of the world if you save someones' life,
>you're responsible for feeding and clothing them for the rest of their life.
>You may never be able to travel again without them. ;-)
>
>We happen to enjoy great bastions of haute cuisine, cozy little bistros,
>brasseries, cafes and even a sandwich in the park or a crepe on the street
>in Paris, but neither Jules Verne or Leon's for mussels has attracted us.
>;-)
I agree on all your views, Robert, but you know that since a long
time.....
I had a period (25 years ago) where I visited methodically all starred
Michelin places in Paris and throughout France (they were still
affordable). It was a great experience but I enjoy much much more the
actual way of "cozy little bistros, brasseries, cafes and even a
sandwich in the park or a crepe on the street like you mentioned in
your message".
jack
David Gascon
I heard that one about the Tour Montparnasse (more appropriate, I
think).
David Gascon
>
> >> The only unbeatable about the Jules Verne restaurant is the view.
> >> Magnificent of course. Unfortunately the cuisine is very beatable,(is
> >> that English, Michael? :-))
> >
> > I would certainly use it. But then I believe that the language should be
> > allowed to evolve. It is certainly also used by others although the
> > Concise Oxford English Dictionary does not allow it.
>
> Dictionaries, generally, do not allow; they record. This is particularly
> true of concise dictionaries, which perforce record only those usages that
> are relatively common. But for what it's worth, "beatable" is listed in
> the Random House Unabridged.
>
> have? I can't think of any, but then I've never looked for one either.
> For instance, is there one in the Tour Montparnasse? Or one in Montmartre
> with a view to the city center?
The cafeteria on the roof of Samaritaine has a very nice view.
Go Fig
wrote:
La tour d'Argent... but pricey... very.
Their site has a QT pic of the Panorama
http://www.la-tour-dargent.com/uk/salle/panoramique.html
jay
Wed, Oct 18, 2000
mailto:go...@mac.com
--
Legend insists that as he finished his abject...
Galileo muttered under his breath: "Nevertheless, it does move."
canth...@webtv.net
I don't think that you can see the Tour Eiffel from the top of the
Grande Arche de La Defense. The dreaded Tour Montparnesse, is behind
it and 'blacks out' the lower 3/4, making it virtually impossible to
see.
We can take them to La Defense so that they won't have to see the
Tower, and they can eat a sandwich on the Metro, on the way there. ;-)
Ellen's husband Frank...(Hey, watch it guys, that's my little sister
you're talking about!)
Robert Buxbaum
<gpad...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
Interestingly enough, although the tower was not well met by critics and the
public when it was built, it seems to have becom a well loved symbol of
Paris. Intellectually it would seem as if this souring iron industrial
structure would be ugly in context of the generally low rise stone and
stucco facades of Paris, but I don't hear many people call it an eyesore
today. There seems to be universal agreement regarding the horror of la
Tour Montparnasse. It's only given credit for bringing Parisians to their
senses and restricting new highrise buildings to the periphery of the city.
Sacre Coeur is another story. Either you love it or hate it. I hold that
the best view of Paris is from the porch of Sacre coeur with your back to
the church. That way you don't see Sacre Coeur and the Montparnasse tower is
very far away.
Robert Buxbaum
<ja...@skynet.be> wrote:
>I agree on all your views, Robert, but you know that since a long
>time.....
>I had a period (25 years ago) where I visited methodically all starred
>Michelin places in Paris and throughout France (they were still
>affordable). It was a great experience but I enjoy much much more the
>actual way of "cozy little bistros, brasseries, cafes and even a
>sandwich in the park or a crepe on the street like you mentioned in
>your message".
You have the great advantage of having Paris relatively convenient to your
home. Once we've flown across the ocean and paid the fare, the cost of a
great dinner and that of a bistro is less significant in a way. My wife is
dying to return to Gagnaire, but I pine for La Regalade. Perhaps it is
because I can find the equivalent of Gagnaire in NY, but not of La Regalade.
canth...@webtv.net
favorite in all of Paris. One day we sat there mesmerized, watching an
electrical storm over Paris. There was no rain, just flashes of
lightening. Absolutely spectacular. That's the Paris that you would
love to see again, or to be able to share with others.
Ellen
Mxsmanic
news:En3WhLAr...@sonning.demon.co.uk...
> There is of course the joke that a view from the
> Eiffel Tower is the best in Paris because you
> cannot see the tower from it.
I have only heard that applied to the Tour Montparnasse, a surpassingly
ugly structure, which, unlike the Tower, does not seem to have gained
either many fans or much popularity with tourists. It has been thirty
years and it is still an eyesore.
Mxsmanic
news:8si1ee$2n73$1...@news.tht.net...
> As a matter of curiosity, what other restaurants
> in high places does Paris have?
Lots. Since there are restaurants everywhere, there are inevitably
restaurants in high places as well.
> For instance, is there one in the Tour Montparnasse?
Yes, near the top.
> Or one in Montmartre with a view to the city center?
Yes.
There is also the Tour d'Argent, a starred restaurant with a
superlatively beautiful view of the Seine and Notre-Dame, and Les
Célébrités, also a starred restaurant with a fairly nice view of the
Seine, and probably a zillion others as well. There's even a restaurant
with a great view at the top of the Samaritaine department store (on the
northern bank of the river).
Mxsmanic
news:bobandmaria-7B7A...@news.imagina.com...
> La Tour d'Argent has a nice view, closer up to
> the Seine. Be prepared to drop .... ...oh,
> a thousand dollars here, for four people.
You'll have to really enjoy the view, because the food is not at all
worth the price.
Mxsmanic
news:21170-39...@storefull-176.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Do they have a branch with a view...... preferably
> of the Jules Verne?
There is another restaurant in the Eiffel Tower, Altitude 95, with more
tables, lower prices, no star, and a much better view. It is on the
first platform.
Mxsmanic
news:11940-39E...@storefull-173.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> If memory serves me correctly, and if not I know
> I'll be laid to waste, I don't think that you can
> see the Tour Eiffel from the top of the Grande Arche
> de La Defense.
You can if you stand at the southern end of the roof. From the center
and northern end, the Eiffel Tower is blocked by new buildings in La
Défense. Last year, you could see it from the center of the roof, too.
> The dreaded Tour Montparnesse, is behind it and
> 'blacks out' the lower 3/4, making it virtually
> impossible to see.
You have it backwards (I think). The Tumor Montparnasse is _behind_ the
Eiffel Tower, as seen from La Defense (in fact, it is _directly_ behind
the tower, aligned with it from La Défense), but it does not hide the
Eiffel Tower, it just hides the sky behind.
> We can take them to La Defense so that they won't
> have to see the Tower, and they can eat a sandwich
> on the Metro, on the way there.
There is a food court in Les Quatre Temps shopping center there.
canth...@webtv.net
Tour Montparnasse, In this video of ours, you can barely make out the
Tower, the only clear part is the narrow l/4 on the top which looks as
if it is coming out of the roof of Tour Montparnasse. Actually it makes
Tour Montparnasse look more interesting. Sorta like it has a big lacey
pencil standing up on its roof.
We were correct, at least according to our memories and our video.
Of course this was about 4 years ago, so the skyline may have shifted
;-)
Ellen
canth...@webtv.net
steps of Sacre Coeur, you know Magda, the ones in front of the church?
I have no idea why my faux pas so incensed you, causing you to make fun
of my posting. If you had read Robert's posting, you would have
realized that I was referring to the steps.
I was just sharing. Flaming isn't flattering!
Ellen
canth...@webtv.net
automatically put in bits and pieces of another message. Each portion
has to be typed in. Web TV is great at what it does, but that is one
feature that it sadly lacks.
I respond from memory, and this time my memory got confused . I stand
corrected.
Ellen
.
canth...@webtv.net
What I was questioning was the numerous little smiley faces that were
inserted throughout my posting. I thought that you were mocking me (AM
I ON THE WRONG SITE OR WHAT????)
Question: I don't understand the significance of the faces, and how they
got into my posting. Please let me know how you did it.
Thanks,
Ellen
David Gascon
Ellen,
You & Mxsmanic aren't really differing, just saying the same thing in
opposite ways: you say the Tour Eiffel is in front of the Tour
Montparnasse, whereas he says the Montparnasse is behind the Eiffel! Of
course, he made precisely the same mistake in saying you had it
backwards...
I had to look this up to be sure; when you reply to someone else's post,
it's helpful if you quote a bit of it, as I've done below:
Mark Brader
> What I was questioning was the numerous little smiley faces that were
> inserted throughout my posting. I thought that you were mocking me (AM
> I ON THE WRONG SITE OR WHAT????)
>
> Question: I don't understand the significance of the faces, and how they
I think what happened is that Ellen's newsreader reformatted Magda's
article when Ellen read it, treating the boundaries between lines as
insignificant. Because it's customary to mark each line of quoted text
with a "citation character" at the left, like the ">" characters in this
article, any newsreader that reformats needs to be able to figure out
which are citation characters and which are not.
Now Madga, rather than a single citation character, was using a smiley face
further indented by a space: " :-)". Presumably Ellen's newsreader was
unable to identify this as indicating citation. Hence the ":-)"'s that
were supposed to appear on the front of each line got interspersed with
the text instead.
That is, if Magda had been posting this instead of me, Ellen's article
would have been quoted like this. I've added line numbers, which as I
post this article are at the left of each line in square brackets.
[1] :-) What I was questioning was the numerous little smiley faces that were
[2] :-) inserted throughout my posting. I thought that you were mocking me (AM
[3] :-) I ON THE WRONG SITE OR WHAT????)
But Magda might see it something like this, for example:
[1] :-) What I was questioning was the numerous little
[2] smiley faces that were :-) inserted throughout my posting.
[3] I thought that you were mocking me (AM :-) I ON THE WRONG
[4] SITE OR WHAT????)
Thus causing the confusion that Magda speaks of, since the smiley faces
seem not to refer to anything. If Magda sees *this* posting with the
line numbers above anywhere but the left-hand side, this proves my point.
(And in my opinion, establishes her newsreader as one that's too smart
for its own good.)
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Don't try this at work."
m...@vex.net -- Dennis Ritchie
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Mark Brader
> But Magda might see it something like this, for example:
>
> [1] :-) What I was questioning was the numerous little
> [2] smiley faces that were :-) inserted throughout my posting.
> [3] I thought that you were mocking me (AM :-) I ON THE WRONG
> [4] SITE OR WHAT????)
>
> Thus causing the confusion that Magda speaks of, since the smiley faces
> seem not to refer to anything. If Magda sees *this* posting with the
Those three instances of "Madga" were each supposed to be "Ellen".
Sorry about that.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "More importantly, Mark is just plain wrong."
m...@vex.net -- John Hollingsworth
Nina & Frank Pohl
Magda, I apologize again.
Mark, I don't really understand everything that you said, yet it still
made sense to me! Thanks for the clarification.
Ellen
Michael Forrest
canth...@webtv.net writes
>Beg to differ, we checked a picture and the Tour Eiffel is in front of
>Tour Montparnasse, In this video of ours, you can barely make out the
>Tower, the only clear part is the narrow l/4 on the top which looks as
>if it is coming out of the roof of Tour Montparnasse. Actually it makes
>Tour Montparnasse look more interesting. Sorta like it has a big lacey
>pencil standing up on its roof.
>
>We were correct, at least according to our memories and our video.
>
>Of course this was about 4 years ago, so the skyline may have shifted
>;-)
>
>Ellen
>
the Tour Montparnasse is behind the Eiffel Tower, which is correct. The
point they were making was that this kills the silhouette of the tower
against the sky and therefore "hides" it. Am I not right?
--
Michael Forrest
Robert Buxbaum
pikro...@email.com wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 18:52:27 -0700 (PDT), in rec.travel.europe,
>canth...@webtv.net
>arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
>
> :-) Pardon, Magda, I may have misnamed the area . I was speaking about the
> :-) steps of Sacre Coeur, you know Magda, the ones in front of the church?
> :-)
> :-) I have no idea why my faux pas so incensed you, causing you to make
> :fun
> :-) of my posting. If you had read Robert's posting, you would have
> :-) realized that I was referring to the steps.
> :-)
> :-) I was just sharing. Flaming isn't flattering!
> :-)
> :-) Ellen
>
>If you mention an area of Paris I never heard about, I want to know where it
>is !
>It's not flaming in my book
I don't remember Magada's exact words, but was happy to see someone else
question the term used in that context. It did not ring a bell with me and
it's good to have the matter set straight. We all need to be careful about
"inflection" in our post lest we seem to flame where none is intended, but
we also need few callouses on our skin not to feel the sting of an
unintended barb.
Robert Buxbaum
>Urk. I wrote:
>> But Magda might see it something like this, for example:
>>
>> [1] :-) What I was questioning was the numerous little
>> [2] smiley faces that were :-) inserted throughout my posting.
>> [3] I thought that you were mocking me (AM :-) I ON THE WRONG
>> [4] SITE OR WHAT????)
>>
>> Thus causing the confusion that Magda speaks of, since the smiley faces
>> seem not to refer to anything. If Magda sees *this* posting with the
>> line numbers above anywhere but the left-hand side...
>
>Those three instances of "Madga" were each supposed to be "Ellen".
>Sorry about that.
I have no idea if you're on track or not, but even before your second
message, I suspect you deserve the Camp David award for going to all that
trouble. ;-)
Jack
Shakespeare wrote a play you all know, I suppose: "Much ado about
nothing".
What is all the fuss about, here?
Jack
Steve Martin
canth...@webtv.net wrote:
> We are thinking of taking first time Paris visitors there for lunch.
> We've heard that lunch is much cheaper than dinner. Is the restaurant
> touristy and overpriced or worth a visit? Of course they want to see
> the Tower, and we thought this might be a nice way to show off Paris
> to them.
>
> Also, we know there is a private elevator to the restaurant. Can you
> continue up to the top after eating there or do you have to go back
down
> and ride the regular elevators up to the top?
>
> Thanks, Ellen
>
I have just been trying to get into that restaurant. "Nothing is
possible until the end of December"
Take them to Pierre Gagnaire instead. He will not book more than a
month ahead and he is the best there is. The prices are as high as the
tower, but worth every franc.
--
Steve Martin
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
canth...@webtv.net
I confused the whole name thing...There is no such place. I was
referring to the front steps of Sacre Coeur, which have no separate
name.. We saw the lightening from the steps. Robert was talking about
the same place with the church behind him. I will have to remember to
start off with a better reference to the message/subject I am responding
to. As I said, I don't have the 'snip' feature.
Ellen
canth...@webtv.net
You're right Michael, that is exactly what I was trying to say.
Ellen
Robert Buxbaum
wrote:
>
>Take them to Pierre Gagnaire instead. He will not book more than a
>month ahead and he is the best there is. The prices are as high as the
>tower, but worth every franc.
>
Hard to argue about Gagnaire's ability to cook, but it's not the place I'd
take anyone who wasn't dedicated to creative haute cuisine. First it's very
expensive. Second it's rather cutting edge food and requires some sense of
adventure. I'd go back in a flash if we could get a reservation when we
return to Paris, but the desserts we had were so acrid as to be inedible.
There were a slew of desserts on the tasting menu and the flavors ranged
from vinegar to aluminum as I recall. Mind you this is the opinion of a man
who longs to return and would sign a blank check at the door and just ask to
be fed. It's just not the place I'd take someone to introduce them to
Parisian food.
Jack
>On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 19:05:49 +0200, in rec.travel.europe, Jack <ja...@skynet.be>
>arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
>
> :-) Shakespeare wrote a play you all know, I suppose: "Much ado about
> :-) nothing".
> :-) What is all the fuss about, here?
>
>No fuss at all. Please translate "Pied du Terre" for us. I would guess Ellen meant
>"Place du Tertre", but the *view* from there does not match her description of it...
>
>(Pied à terre ?? Parterre ??)
>
>Magda
Or maybe "pied à terre" (sort of second, small residence or studio for
bachelors, mostly ;-)))
Jack
wrote:
>In article <7156-39E...@storefull-172.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> canth...@webtv.net wrote:
>> We are thinking of taking first time Paris visitors there for lunch.
>> We've heard that lunch is much cheaper than dinner. Is the restaurant
>> touristy and overpriced or worth a visit? Of course they want to see
>> the Tower, and we thought this might be a nice way to show off Paris
>> to them.
>>
>> Also, we know there is a private elevator to the restaurant. Can you
>> continue up to the top after eating there or do you have to go back
>down
>> and ride the regular elevators up to the top?
>>
>> Thanks, Ellen
>>
>I have just been trying to get into that restaurant. "Nothing is
>possible until the end of December"
>
>Take them to Pierre Gagnaire instead. He will not book more than a
>month ahead and he is the best there is. The prices are as high as the
>tower, but worth every franc.
If money is not the main concern, I second that motion.
The city of Saint-Etienne is still devastated that they let a talented
cook like Gagnaire leave their city . But is was their entire own
fault. Now Gagnaire is making "le bonheur des gastronomes in Paris".
jack
Mxsmanic
news:4632-39E...@storefull-177.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Beg to differ, we checked a picture and the Tour Eiffel is in front of
> Tour Montparnasse,
Correct, if you are looking at them from La Défense. In fact, if you
are standing on top of the Grande Arche, the Eiffel Tower and
Montparnasse Tower are lined up with each other, the latter being behind
the former.
MHS
>take anyone who wasn't dedicated to creative haute cuisine.
I would love to hear more about the menu and approach.
MHS
Michael Forrest
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> writes
sufficiently cynical about architects to ask.
--
Michael Forrest
Robert Buxbaum
<ml...@sonning.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I suspect it was part of Eiffel's plan. ;-)
Steve Martin
Robert Buxbaum <b...@worldtable.com> wrote:
> In article <8sqfmo$u2u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Steve Martin
<sma...@cwcom.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >month ahead and he is the best there is. The prices are as high as
the
> >tower, but worth every franc.
> >
>
place I'd
it's very
> expensive. Second it's rather cutting edge food and requires some
sense of
> adventure. I'd go back in a flash if we could get a reservation when
we
> return to Paris, but the desserts we had were so acrid as to be
inedible.
> There were a slew of desserts on the tasting menu and the flavors
ranged
> from vinegar to aluminum as I recall. Mind you this is the opinion
of a man
> who longs to return and would sign a blank check at the door and just
ask to
> be fed. It's just not the place I'd take someone to introduce them
to
> Parisian food.
>
experience. It may not be for everybody.
I had seen your review of the sorbets, but the 5 desserts we had were
superb. So there is no need to worry about your return visit:-)
M. Gagnaire himself looked a little ragged and care-worn. He was shy
but charming. A great genius. Do note that he will not book more than
a month in advance, so you have a good chance of getting in for your
visit.
I will put some detail from the menu on my web site - soon.
Robert Buxbaum
m...@aol.comnospam (MHS) wrote:
>>Hard to argue about Gagnaire's ability to cook, but it's not the place I'd
>>take anyone who wasn't dedicated to creative haute cuisine.
>
>I would love to hear more about the menu and approach.
>
We ate there a few years ago (Jan. '97). It was just before they got their
third star although it can reasonably be assumed it was the kind of cooking
that earned them the third star in the next release of the Michelin guide.
The menu of five courses, plus the obligatory hors d'oeuvres before and the
cheese and dessert courses that followed, were 780 francs tax and service
included. Wine and coffee not included as is the practice in France.
Reservations became impossible a few months later when they got the third
star.
I have some notes plus the original menu.
Hors d¹oeuvres - several little tastes served in separate plates:
A dollop of Pied de Mouton hachée, with ravigote sauce; two paper thin
slices of black radish with eggplant caviar in between and a cooked leek on
top; a dollop of lentils and shredded red cabbage; demitasse cup of cold
jelled cream of chicken with a spoonful of cold tomato sauce
Le Menu - (note that I had to have some of the terms translated later, as a
few were arcane or archaic)
Ormeaux (abalone?), scallops, and spider crab marinated in grapefruit juice
with hot pepper and an aspic of pinatelles (still intranslated) with leeks.
The roast "cigale de mer" (prawn) listed next on the menu was not available
and with our permission a dish of truffles was substituted. From my notes:
A bowl full of paper thin slices of truffle over a bed of truffle puree and
tiny French artichokes. A warm raw egg yolk poured over the truffles and a
velouté soup of jerusalem artichokes added.
Veloute of beans and cabbage with a brochette of fat oysters and sea urchins
Line caught turbot with "feuilles de melisse" (best translation I could get
was was "trendy green vegetable"), celery root lasagne (as I recall, a
nouveau cuisine license describing thin slices of celery root - no pasta
involved) and shallot juice.
Breast of wild (ramier) pigeon, with hare (garenne) mousse.
A cheese course.
Desserts - once again separate plates with small individual desserts.
Several were interesting but the minced apples in a citrus soup was bitter
and a trio of sorbets (fromage blanc/okay, safran-orange-apple/metallic &
tamarind/bitter) was outright unpleasant.
devil
Robert Buxbaum wrote:
>
> I have some notes plus the original menu.
>
> Hors d oeuvres - several little tastes served in separate plates:
> A dollop of Pied de Mouton hachée, with ravigote sauce; two paper thin
> slices of black radish with eggplant caviar in between and a cooked leek on
> top; a dollop of lentils and shredded red cabbage; demitasse cup of cold
> jelled cream of chicken with a spoonful of cold tomato sauce
What's a dollop? What was the French word?
> Le Menu - (note that I had to have some of the terms translated later, as a
> few were arcane or archaic)
>
> Ormeaux (abalone?), scallops, and spider crab marinated in grapefruit juice
> with hot pepper and an aspic of pinatelles (still intranslated) with leeks.
>
> The roast "cigale de mer" (prawn) listed next on the menu was not available
> and with our permission a dish of truffles was substituted. From my notes:
> A bowl full of paper thin slices of truffle over a bed of truffle puree and
> tiny French artichokes. A warm raw egg yolk poured over the truffles and a
> velouté soup of jerusalem artichokes added.
If my memory is correct, a "cigale de mer" is a relatively large
shellfish, more like some kind of spiny lobster than a prawn.
> Veloute of beans and cabbage with a brochette of fat oysters and sea urchins
>
> Line caught turbot with "feuilles de melisse" (best translation I could get
> was was "trendy green vegetable"), celery root lasagne (as I recall, a
> nouveau cuisine license describing thin slices of celery root - no pasta
> involved) and shallot juice.
No idea about what melisse could be?
> Breast of wild (ramier) pigeon, with hare (garenne) mousse.
I think that would be rabbit, not hare? Garenne would refer to "lapin
de garenne," lapin being a rabbit while lievre is a hare? (Mind you,
Jackrabbits such as the cartoon character are hares, not rabbits. We
occasionally get some in your yard here, although you only notice them
in winter.)
> A cheese course.
>
> Desserts - once again separate plates with small individual desserts.
> Several were interesting but the minced apples in a citrus soup was bitter
> and a trio of sorbets (fromage blanc/okay, safran-orange-apple/metallic &
> tamarind/bitter) was outright unpleasant.
Here I suspect you forgot translating saffron :-)?
Laurent
>
> No idea about what melisse could be?
The "melisse" is an aromatic plant, sometimes used in sweets or
infusions.
> > Breast of wild (ramier) pigeon, with hare (garenne) mousse.
>
> I think that would be rabbit, not hare? Garenne would refer to "lapin
> de garenne," lapin being a rabbit while lievre is a hare?
The "lapin de garenne" is a wild rabbit, indeed.
Michael Forrest
<de...@attglobal.net> writes
>>
>> The roast "cigale de mer" (prawn) listed next on the menu was not available
>> and with our permission a dish of truffles was substituted. From my notes:
>> A bowl full of paper thin slices of truffle over a bed of truffle puree and
>> tiny French artichokes. A warm raw egg yolk poured over the truffles and a
>> velouté soup of jerusalem artichokes added.
>
>If my memory is correct, a "cigale de mer" is a relatively large
>shellfish, more like some kind of spiny lobster than a prawn.
My "bible" on the subject (Alan Davidson's "Mediterranean seafood") says
there are two creatures called Cigale in France, the Grande Cigale and
the Petite Cigale.
The Grand Cigale is up to 45 cm long and the Petite up to 14cm. They are
generally referred to in (UK) English as "Flat Lobster" - Scyllarides
latus. In Spanish Cigarra, in Catalan Cigara.
Cuisine: "The petite Cigale is used mainly in fish soups, the Grande
Cigale, from the point of view of the cook, may be treated in the same
ways as a langouste or lobster.
I looked this up to take my mind off the attractions of the menu as
whole. It's not fair to publish these kinds of descriptions for us to
read where we cannot go out and get some for supper.
--
Michael Forrest
Steve Martin
m...@aol.comnospam (MHS) wrote:
> >Hard to argue about Gagnaire's ability to cook, but it's not the
place I'd
> >take anyone who wasn't dedicated to creative haute cuisine.
>
> I would love to hear more about the menu and approach.
>
>
The summer 2000 menu is here:
http://www.smartco.cwc.net/Pierre%20Gagnaire.htm
The approach is eclectic, more British than traditional French.
Robert Buxbaum
wrote:
>Yes, you are right, Robert. I am a bit over-excited about the
>experience. It may not be for everybody.
>I had seen your review of the sorbets, but the 5 desserts we had were
>superb. So there is no need to worry about your return visit:-)
I had lunch with a food savvy acquaintance, who's also a pretty intense
diner. Gagnaire's name came up and he noted that he had a similar problem
with dessert when he ate there. It didn't stop either of us from believing
Gaganire was one of the truly great chefs, however.
>M. Gagnaire himself looked a little ragged and care-worn. He was shy
>but charming. A great genius. Do note that he will not book more than
>a month in advance, so you have a good chance of getting in for your
>visit.
It's a wearing profession if you take your work seriously, as I'm sure you
know. His policy is much like many fine restaurants, but unlike most of the
better restaurants in NYC, I suspect he has but one sitting at dinner. I
recall the restaurant was not that large either. All this contributes to
few covers for many aspiring diners. The French Laundry in Napa Valley is a
restaurant in a small town which takes reservations up to a month in
advance. Every morning the phone rings off the hook and reservations for
the next available day are gone in minutes.
>I will put some detail from the menu on my web site - soon.
I have a slow service and a bad connection at the moment, but I'm waiting
for the menu to load. A text version would be wonderful. It doesn't appear
that the jpgs are going to display right now.
Steve Martin
Robert Buxbaum <b...@worldtable.com> wrote in message
news:bux-6D1E61.1...@news.rcn.com...
Steve Martin.
Robert Buxbaum
>A couple of comments and questions (mostly about translation).
>
>Robert Buxbaum wrote:
>>
>> I have some notes plus the original menu.
>>
>> Hors d oeuvres - several little tastes served in separate plates:
>> A dollop of Pied de Mouton hachée, with ravigote sauce; two paper thin
>> slices of black radish with eggplant caviar in between and a cooked leek on
>> top; a dollop of lentils and shredded red cabbage; demitasse cup of cold
>> jelled cream of chicken with a spoonful of cold tomato sauce
>
>What's a dollop? What was the French word?
IMHO, a dollop is about tablespoon or so. This was not on the menu or
carte. It was complimentary and accompanied only by an oral description.
My "notes" are not exact and I switch languages at my convenience. "Dollop"
was my word, not the restaurants.
>
>> Le Menu - (note that I had to have some of the terms translated later, as
>> a few were arcane or archaic)
>>
>> Ormeaux (abalone?), scallops, and spider crab marinated in grapefruit
>> juice with hot pepper and an aspic of pinatelles (still intranslated) with
>> leeks.
>>
>> The roast "cigale de mer" (prawn) listed next on the menu was not
>If my memory is correct, a "cigale de mer" is a relatively large
>shellfish, more like some kind of spiny lobster than a prawn.
There's a whole family of critters whose names in Spanish and French are
most confusing and for which there are often no exact English translation.
The best I am able to do is attempt to keep the fresh water versions
separate from the oceanic varieties. I tend to use prawn as a sloppy
translation for all of them larger than your average shrimp. Of course
there are those oxymoronic jumbo shrimp commonly offered for sale in America
and no one seems to complain about the "shrimp scampi" found on so many
Italian-American restaurants. "Prawn" was only to give some idea of what a
cigale de mer might be. In any event, I didn't feel it needed a great
translated description as it wasn't served.
>> Veloute of beans and cabbage with a brochette of fat oysters and sea
>> urchins
>>
>> Line caught turbot with "feuilles de melisse" (best translation I could
>> get was was "trendy green vegetable"), celery root lasagne (as I recall, a
>> nouveau cuisine license describing thin slices of celery root - no pasta
>> involved) and shallot juice.
>
>No idea about what melisse could be?
I suspect some herb or, more likely, some esoteric lettuce or other green.
>> Breast of wild (ramier) pigeon, with hare (garenne) mousse.
>
>I think that would be rabbit, not hare? Garenne would refer to "lapin
>de garenne," lapin being a rabbit while lievre is a hare? (Mind you,
>Jackrabbits such as the cartoon character are hares, not rabbits. We
>occasionally get some in your yard here, although you only notice them
>in winter.)
Perhaps, the information I got was wild rabbit, which I read as hare.
Obviously there are both domesticated farm raised rabbits and wild rabbits,
as well as jackrabbits. I suppose wild rabbit is not synonymous with hare.
>> A cheese course.
>>
>> Desserts - once again separate plates with small individual desserts.
>> Several were interesting but the minced apples in a citrus soup was
>> bitter
>> and a trio of sorbets (fromage blanc/okay, safran-orange-apple/metallic &
>> tamarind/bitter) was outright unpleasant.
>
>Here I suspect you forgot translating saffron :-)?
Guilty as charged. As I look at my notes, I see they read
"safran-orange-pomme." At the time I posted I saw ...orange-pomme and
thought I should put it all in one language without thinking. Of course
orange was bilingual and I needed to look a bit further. ;-)
It is interesting how many cooking terms in French (and other languages)
have entered our language. I don't mean the long established pork for pig
when it's in the kitchen type of usage. I'm thinking of saute. An earlier
generation would have just used fried to mean saute and deep fried for the
other. Lots of terms that might have been seen on a menu in a French
restaurant now seem to appear with regularity in new American restaurants.
Robert Buxbaum
<ml...@sonning.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I looked this up to take my mind off the attractions of the menu as
>whole. It's not fair to publish these kinds of descriptions for us to
>read where we cannot go out and get some for supper.
You sound as if the Michelin itself makes no distinction between your neck
of the woods and the middle of the Gobi Desert. Though I suppose last
minute reservations are hard to get. ;-)
Michael Forrest
<b...@worldtable.com> writes
>In article <JivFgBAV...@sonning.demon.co.uk>, Michael Forrest
><ml...@sonning.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>I looked this up to take my mind off the attractions of the menu as
>>whole. It's not fair to publish these kinds of descriptions for us to
>>read where we cannot go out and get some for supper.
>
>You sound as if the Michelin itself makes no distinction between your neck
>of the woods and the middle of the Gobi Desert. Though I suppose last
>minute reservations are hard to get. ;-)
And it was Sunday evening.
--
Michael Forrest