Gothamist: Gothamist Visits Per Se

Laren

Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:21:42 -0500

And on that note . . . thanks to everyone for participating in the very lively, interesting, and mostly productive discussion. We've broken a record for the most comments ever on a food post. Hooray! In the future, however, please refrain from personally attacking 1) the author; 2) other commenters. We have a policy on this. Please read it. Comments are now closed. --Laren

Robert

Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:52:52 -0500

L'Emmerdeur, Bravo!!! The next time my wife and I are in the city I would gladly buy you a drink if your free. On second thought maybe even dinner at Per Se. And what the hell, Laren can join us too.

L'Emmerdeur

Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:12:40 -0500

Dear Carl: 1. Belittling me by referring to me as "He/she/it" - quite mature. Not surprising that you attempt to objectify me by using "it". Did you learn this in the Al Goldstein School of Semiotics? Classy. I'm a "he". I link to my site, where you can see my real name: Dimitri. I stand by my opinions. I don't impose them on others. I'll leave the bombing of abortion clinics and overpriced restaurants to you. 2. I get my coffee from the cart outside my building. In fact, I refuse the free cup I can get with my breakfast so I can give him the business, because he's a nice guy. 3. Lack of nuance: guilty as charged. Greeks don't like to complicate life; we keep things simple, so that we may enjoy it. That way, we avoid becoming miserable, guilt-ridden ideologues. This is why everyone loves the Greeks, even our enemies. This is one of the most important reasons everyone hates Americans. 4. Equating spending too much on a meal with moral bankruptcy is pathetic. Attempting to make me feel guilty for doing so is an act of aggression. I live my life well. I am a good person. I help those who need it or request it, I don't screw people over (even when they SO deserve it). In fact, I probably live a more Christian life (as Jesus intended it) than most devout Christians, and I don't even believe. THIS is how you judge the status of one's morality, NOT by whether they indulge their palate with a meal whose cost is unconventional. By questioning my morality for eating the occasional expensive dinner, you nullify everything else I have ever done, as if I have committed murder. 5. "Not anchored to community". There's more community in my family than in this whole borough. 6. "Pursuing self-satisfaction at all costs". If you refer to the monetary cost, who the hell are you to dictate how I should spend my hard-earned money? Would it be acceptable if I spent the same amount on a television? How about at a casino? Please draft a list of appropriate purchase items, and then we'll get the Church Elders to approve it. As for "moral" costs, IT'S JUST FUCKING DINNER, not the massacre of a Rwandan village. And who said "at all costs"? I haven't eaten at Per Se, because these places usually let me down when compared to the cost. That doesn't mean I judge Laren for going; in fact, I applaud her for risking such a large amount of money, because I know how upsetting it would have been if she hadn't enjoyed it, or if it hadn't lived up to the hype. "At all costs" sounds like they are sacrificing endangered species for our culinary pleasure, and cooking them over a slow-roasting fire lit by Dali canvases. 7. Movies, art, music: You contradict yourself. I am as critical of these as I am of every single meal, at any price. However, I DON'T question the wealthy collector who spends millions for a piece of art. I don't point a finger at him and accuse him of "moral bankruptcy". If I think the piece sucks, I will say so, but then I am judging his taste, not his moral code. You didn't say "Per Se sucks". You didn't say "Laren sucks for wasting her money in an overpriced restaurant like Per Se". You said "Laren is immoral for eating at Per Se". 8. "Unbridled hedonist". I'm not Caligula.

cynthia

Fri, 28 Jan 2005 03:12:29 -0500

i'm not too concerned with how expensive anyone's "enjoyment" is, but as to the jealousy issue--there is a reason everyone hates martha stewart and was glad to see her humiliated and jailed. there's a reason marie antoinette had her head cut off. it's human nature, especially when someone's always talking about how great their luxurious life is. call it jealousy or pettiness or whatever, but your words won't stop the guillotine. there is a reason the rich have learned to be discreet.

Carl Marks

Thu, 27 Jan 2005 18:55:45 -0500

L'Emmedeur seems a little tetchy. Perhaps a few many $10 cups of coffee? s/he/it even concludes his/her/its non-argument with an implied threat at the end more appropriate to the craigslist than to a serious discussion. But that's just a demonstration of the lack of nuance and moral bankruptcy of the unbridled hedonist. Not anchored to community, pursuing self-satisfaction at all costs, L'emm and the others sharing that pov frequently (not always, mind you) refuse to reckon with the high price to be paid by a high price to be paid. Are the movies you see simply something you enjoy or not? The art? The music? Is it too much to ask that something like an excessive $440 dinner tab be subject to the same rigor through which we examine these other aspects of our culture? You may want to invest in that $100 cocktail tonight, L'emm. You need to calm your ad hominem rhetoric down.

L'Emmerdeur

Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:05:22 -0500

Incorrect, Carl. She is furious that New York seems to have attracted a population of political ideologues who attempt to make us feel guilty about enjoying every day of our lives before our ashes are added to the garbage dump of history. Such people belong in the Bible Belt. New York is no longer The City That Never Sleeps, but The City That Bitches And Moans If It Doesn't Get Eight Hours. You people are succeeding in turning this city into the same bland, featureless, blighted purgatory most of the rest of the country has become. You're like an incurable disease, spreading your Grey Gospel of frugal misery and self-flagellation to the four corners of the Earth. The whole point of New York is that you can find EVERYTHING here: A cheap slice of pizza or a $20 individual pie, Broadway or off-off, and everyhting in between. If you want to live in a land of limited choices, go almost anywhere in rural America, where you are free to eat anything you want, as long as it's on McDonalds' menu. Better yet, go to Iran or Saudi Arabia, where excess is carefully hidden from view, and sin is punished by random removal of appendages. Why the fuck do you Americans always have to measure out a pound of guilt for every pound of pleasure in which you indulge? And when were the hungry, hard-working immigrants who believed in coming here for something better (like steak) replaced by jealous, whining, Birckenstock-clad asstards who want to make sure every person is eating gruel and soybeans? If you want to question "mindless conspicuous consumption", question your own. Leave mine alone, if you know what's good for you.

Carl Marks

Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:25:26 -0500

la depressionata (or whatever) helps make my point for me. I think s/he thinks s/he's being "transgressive" by "sticking it" to the "liberals" but it's just that sort of glorying in mindless conspicuous consumption that calls for questioning. Congratulations.

soso

Thu, 27 Jan 2005 14:24:12 -0500

Oh no she definitely wasn't bragging: http://nyc.dodgeball.com/social/venue.php?id=17942

MisterZ

Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:40:14 -0500

I ate at Per Se a while back, and was completely underwhelmed. For $500, you'd think we'd have had the best meal ever. Frankly, I can't even remember anything I ate. Sure, everything was perfect, but it was completely unmemorable. Compare that to the meal we had at Masa's in San Francisco a couple of years ago; I'm still dreaming about the squab and the foie gras and the pea-puree ravioli and the rest of Ron Siegel's tasting menu (which cost less than half of Keller's). Compare also to a meal at Felidia over 10 years ago that is still remembered fondly. YMMV, of course, but for my money Per Se is wildly over-rated.

Scotty B

Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:37:12 -0500

Laren, I really enjoyed your review of this experience. Don't let the haters get you down. I can't afford a meal at Per Se but I still love reading about other people's good times.

mcf

Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:08:17 -0500

Lauren-- Thanks for sharing your take on a phenomenal meal. For what it's worth, I'm in the camp that sometimes once-in-a-lifetime experiences are worth that kind of money. Me, I'd rather eat at Per Se (someday) than buy, say, new clothes, or a huge car. Or whatever. To each her own, people. To each her own.

cynthia

Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:42:49 -0500

flah--yes both of the bloggers you mention (expensive theater seats and expensive sports seats) would be flaunting and i would not read their blogs. and flaunting is not what 90% of blogs are about, i'd say more like 60%. robert--people were irked with the flauting even before the price was mentioned. it's obvious the meal was very expensive whether the exact price was listed or not. the correlation you suggest isn't there. when people demanded the exact price they were just demanding more specific evidence.

Fred Engels

Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:56:39 -0500

Carl, just wanted to say, love your stuff. Let's collaborate on something some time.

dave

Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:38:50 -0500

Maybe this has been said above, but imagine going out to Per Se for a special dinner and having some yo ho snapping flash pictures of thier water glass and the chocolates. I guess it could be worse, but still.

janelle

Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:15:58 -0500

well, i can't afford this meal, so i'll live - er, dine - vicariously. not jealously or bitterly.

la depressionada

Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:08:38 -0500

implications, subtexts and politics, o my! If you guys really want to freak out google ortolans, and I guess you don't want to hear about the dinner for 2 that cost me near 1200 bucks at Taillevant. Shit and I was saving that for Parisist.

flah

Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:49:58 -0500

$80 cheeseburgers and $100 cocktails are usually publicity stunts cooked up by marketers, not chefs, who want to draw attention to their restaurants (rember the omelette that cost over $1000? got a lot of press, but no one bought it because msot people know that eggs are cheap.). It's not how much one spends on one meal that's the issue, it's how much one spends in general and how one balances charity with indulgence. we react strongly to someone driving a Hummer because there are things we know about it - its poor gas mileage, bad handling, likelihood to kill pedestrians in an accident - and we wish someone would have made a more educated choice. so far in this discussion, no one has tried to deconstruct the menu at Per Se to show that the meal was not, in fact, worth the money paid for it, especially in comparison to other meals obviously there is a markup in all transactions, but what was the base price of the meal's ingredients. don't we also have to consider the professional training of the chef? if we pay lawyers $500/hr because they went to school, shouldn't some top-level, institute-educated chefs be able to charge top dollar for their services? considering the price of the meal and the likely training of those who prepared it, $440 might not be as bad a markup as the $20 most people pay for ironic t-shirts that probably cost $1 to make. I think there is a moral consideration to be made in all our purchases, sure, but no more so for a $400 meal than for a $4 cup of coffee. There are cheaper alternatives to both, but the quality of the less expensive versions are up for debate. if someone donated $10,000 to charity last year, would it then be acceptable for them to indulge in a $400 meal? how do we judge that balance? what if someone decided to save the money she normally spent on lunch at Subway each day, made her own sandwich, and put aside $5 a day towards a fancy meal at the end of the year? would that be acceptable? as far as flaunting one's experience, why, those of you who threw that criticism at laren have basically defined 90% of blogs. blogs are, at their nature, a display of one's experiences, opinions, etc. why do we not yell at the theater bloggers who go to see "the producers" or other shows at $100 a pop? shouldn't they mention underfunded arts programs in their reviews? what about a sports blogger who goes to a playoff game and then posts pictures taken from his $200 seats? are they not "flaunting" their experience of an event by posting that they went to see it? where is the line drawn? if laren had spent $200, $150 or $100 on her meal, would there have been an outcry? the fact is, in the face of so much world-wide suffering, any non-essential purchase could be considered immoral. also, how much recognition of other's suffering would she have had to mention for her post to be acceptable? my bet is that she was in a lose-lose situation as far as some readers are concerned. mentioning hungry people or tsunami victims in a food report on a blog would have been loudly decried as insensitive.

Robert

Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:33:09 -0500

People never fail to amaze me. First Laren never stated in the post what the finale cost was to a few dam near begged for a answer. Then Laren is accused of flaunting when you finely get a answer. WOW!

Cat

Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:09:24 -0500

Ya'll need to lighten up. Come out to the Bay Area and chill. Three of us treated ourselved to the French Laundry and what an experience!!! One of the top two restaurants I've been to (Masa's #1 in my book). I'm not the kind of girl who likes to dole out her duckets on food, I'd rather buy a new camera lens or something more tangible that I can physically cherish. But, I have to say, I don't regret spending my hard earned duckets on the tasty sensation that the French Laundry offered. I will always cherish the memory. Everything was splendid, except for the stinky Vacherin cheese that tasted smelled like DOO DOO, I almost died. The waiter was making this big production of twirling that stinky stuff in front of me and explaining what village in Spain that it came from. I was feeling like, get this shit out of my face NOW!!, but trying to keep a straight face. My friend had the nerve to taste it and it tasted exactly like it smelled.

bb

Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:08:43 -0500

I agree with cynthia in that it feels like lara was flaunting. I guess you can buy a $440 meal, but you still can't buy discretion or class.

Carl Marks

Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:06:14 -0500

I love L'Emmedeur's sarcasm and s/he scores some amusing points. And I do take the point about special, once in a lifetime experiences. But the turth of the matter is there are implications, subtexts and politics to the one like was eaten. Just as there is if you drive a Hummer or wear an $10,000 fur coat. We look down our noses at the conspicuous consumption of the nouveau riche but when one of the blogging hipoisie engages in it unmindfully, we must applaud uncritically. No! Spending $440 for a meal at this moment means something. $440 meals, $80 cheeseburgers, $100 cocktails, and yes $2000 bottles of wine. Consuming them has meanings, political ones and moral ones. And those meanings should be teased out, explicated and explored. Which today's discussion has animatedly begun to do.

cynthia

Wed, 26 Jan 2005 15:50:10 -0500

well we all know what they say about good intentions... :) i know it wasn't your intent, but intentions aren't the issue--it's the result of any food column. as is evidenced, i suppose, by the commenter who mentioned the food columnist who got lots of hate mail.

Robert

Wed, 26 Jan 2005 15:40:41 -0500

Laren, Thank you so much for your review. There are so many people that fail to understand that a restaurant like Per Se is not about satisfying ones appetite. It is about tasting things you never tasted before. When one tastes a carrot at Per Se is likely they would walk away and say wow " This is what a carrot tastes like." These ingredients cost money. ALOT of money. So is it worth the cost? Yes, if you want to try things you never tried before. But even more than that; it is about experiencing a few hours that will lasts in ones memories a life time. Like your dad making chili on a cold winter day when you were a child. Or the taste of your first perfectly ripe peach. Can you put a price on that? Per Se is not about food; it is about the experience. When I visited Per Se last year, I was only working part time and not bringing home more than one-hundred dollars a week. Goes to prove not all are filthy rich who dine there. It was worth every dime to me. There has not been a week that goes by that my wife or I don't bring it up in conversation at one point or another.

Laren

Wed, 26 Jan 2005 15:38:23 -0500

I will try to scan and post the menu at some point soon, but I have described all of the courses in the body of the post and can email you the wine list if you're interested. And overall, please remember that my intent was not to flaunt, but to share the experience with Gothamist readers.

cynthia

Wed, 26 Jan 2005 15:05:47 -0500

while this post irritated me (sorry laren), personally i don't care how anyone spends their money. it's not the spending but the flaunting that irks me. at least the uber-rich, who eat like this daily, are discreet. but this is a food column, and that's what food columns are for. which is why i never read them. (i only came here from laren's blog, and probably won't come here again--a diary of consumption just isn't my thing.) all of this is to say that while my sympathies are with the detractors, my advice is to stop reading columns like this if it irritates them so.

la depressionada

Wed, 26 Jan 2005 14:29:48 -0500

There is no need need to spend HARD-EARNED money on expensive restaurants. I like to steal hipsters beer money off LES bars when they are pontificating about world matters (as I know their parents won't really miss it).

Euan

Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:47:41 -0500

Everyone has the right to spend their hard earned money as they please. Personally I love my food (I live in Scotland) and will happily pay good money for an excellent meal. I think it's fantastic that you are able to go to a fantastic restaurant with friends who love food just as much as you and enjoy every minute and every $.

L'Emmerdeur

Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:21:52 -0500

Laren, there's a few things you need to do from here on in: 1. Please post a copy of a pay stub, your 2004 W2 and your last credit card statement ASAP. I am required by law to shove my nose so deep into your affairs that the lack of blood flow leads to gangrene and amputation. 2. From now on, when writing about very expensive places most people cannot afford, don't neglect to mention the starving people in Africa, the victims of various tragedies, and the social injustices inherent in the capitalist system. Such analysis is not only relevant and appropriate, it also adds flavor and texture to a restaurant review. 3. In fact, you should think about these topics as you dine, as it will make the flavors richer and the wines sweeter. Also: 4. Red state types wouldn't be able to appreciate this sort of thing. That is why God created Kraft macaroni and cheese. And Red states. 5. I'd also like to lodge a complaint about the lack of coverage of falling pita-bread quality sold in open-air markets in Baghdad since the U.S. invasion. how can you write ANY article on the Iraq debacle without mentioning this critical issue? Infidels! God damned hippies. Get a job!

la depressionada

Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:40:49 -0500

Good works and a good life are not a zero sum game. See e.g. George Soros. However, if you insist upon zero sum thinking consider this: Time spent in vituperation could well be spent working at a soup kitchen (or raising money for tsunami victims for that matter).

gar

Wed, 26 Jan 2005 10:53:20 -0500

Kingsley writes, "not to bring the whole blue state/red state thing into this" and then proceeds to bring the whole blue state/red state thing into this. So a New Yorker spends $400 on a meal. And people in the midwest spend $50,000 on Hummers and live in giant homes that use a huge amount of gas, oil and electricity to heat and power. And people in red states are no more or less charitable than people in blue states. Boiling every choice, from where we eat to where we donate our money to what we drive, down to a blue state/red state divide is tiresome. No one type of state has a monopoly on morality.

jmc

Wed, 26 Jan 2005 10:21:38 -0500

can you post a copy of the menu? call me a capitalist pig, but i'd love to see it and savor the vicarious thrill you've provided.

Kingsley

Wed, 26 Jan 2005 09:49:53 -0500

if only the waitstaff were as pretentious as the diners.... not to bring the whole blue state/red state thing into this, but this is a good representation of why people in red states dislike the blue states. yes, we dislike their SUV's, but they certainly dislike anyone paying more than their mortgage payment for a meal and being really pretentious about the whole thing. and no, this is not the only reason, but this is a microcosm.

cristin

Wed, 26 Jan 2005 02:59:45 -0500

one question, do they serve entrees or only 'tasting menues' to choose from?

Carl Marks

Wed, 26 Jan 2005 01:40:25 -0500

Sorry, I thought I saw the same names in the recap and the postings. My crappy browser may be scrambling the format a bit. And once again, I'm not saying don't enjoy food, life and what not. All I'm suggesting is mindfulness. I don't think I've ever read another critic review a place like this or Ducasse without acknowledging some of the conflict the meal's cost might engender. How could you not? It's not that there's a disaster half a world away. There is a politic to choices like this as I've amply argued above. Can't be, shouldn't be, ignored

Laren

Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:07:57 -0500

"Also, it seems like so many of those who disagree with the disagreers now come out as friends of the authour who were present at the dinner." If by "so many" you mean "one," then you're right. And I like nachos too. :)

tom

Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:25:40 -0500

Thanks for the review. I think it totally conveys the sense of pleasure you experienced, and that makes it a fun read. I have followed a plan I read about on another blog a while back: a savings plan. Every week, my friends and I have been tucking away $20, with the plan to all reserve a large table (or private room) at Per Se for an evening. We're looking toward spring, when Central Park is blooming, to reserve the table and all get together to experience the restaurant and a (hopefully) amazing evening. In meantime, it is fun to read reviews and hear other's experiences, to browse the amazing French Laundry Cookbook, and to know that soon, we will go and enojoy ourselves. I think it is unfair to judge people for using their money toward one experience or another, especially one that hurts no one and brings the spender a lot of real pleasure. Is there a true problem with treating oneself? It seems puritanical to deny the pursuit of pleasure. I'll keep saving. Thanks for keeping the desire kindled.

Carl Marks

Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:07:51 -0500

The value of raising the question of the implications of such a large tab and indulgent dinner seems validated by the defensiveness of the comments.(although I'll give n--b the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps s/he/it meant to say I was an ASSET. Even though this is perhaps a diaristic blog, a review such as the above qualifies as "journalism" and really is subject to the challenges we might raise about a "William Grimes" piece. Also, it seems like so many of those who disagree with the disagreers now come out as friends of the authour who were present at the dinner? Ok, I'm going for pizza now

Beavis

Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:31:19 -0500

I like nachos.

Autrement qu'etre

Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:05:33 -0500

Laren! Don't apologize! Not that you did exactly, but why limit yourself by describing it as "once in a lifetime" -- I say, "Brava!" and hope you can make it three times a year! The folks complaining spend more $$ on their stereos, computers, tivos, cable bills, and other hipster accoutrements than you did on your meal. I'd take (I do take!) several great meals over a yearly digital cable bill anyday. I got to go to Per Se in the beginning of June and also opted for the 5 course meal with the wine pairings. And (start lighting the pitch on your torches!) even paid extra to work in some bottles that we knew we wanted: a particular white burgundy and a particular rosé champagne. When serving the champagne, the waiter DECANTED it and gave it a swirl -- I had never seen such a thing in my life. I asked and the waiter said that it was so the bubbles weren't too aggresive and didn't interfere with the texture of my soup. Now, as I said, I had never heard of this and neither had anyone I knew. Pretentious? Absolutely! But hilariously so. Why not?

RSH

Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:10:15 -0500

Responses to some comments, from someone who was present at the meal: _____________________________________________________________ Don: I actually thought that the service wasn't terribly pretentious. I'm one of those people that got annoyed when Babbo was given three stars in the Times simply because they're more casual and play good music, and I was afraid that Per Se would be pompous and stuffy. The waitstaff was attentive without being doting, didn't once get into the differences between salts (though i admit i'd have been kind of curious) and, except for the fact that they were clad in suits, wasn't stuffy at all. And yes, we did leave at 2:30. That's what we get for a nine-course dinner at 10:00. But, frankly, I would have been out past 2:30 anyway; it was a Saturday night, after all... _____________________________________________________________ Jen: We figured the blizzard would scare some people off, so we called and got lucky. As you can see, it was still difficult (only available table was at 10pm). Incidentally, we stopped by Cafe Gray for a drink before the meal (which, by the way, looked great), and it was empty. _____________________________________________________________ Limousine: Come on. I'm not going to take too much time to respond, since your assertion is so silly that it's not worth a lot of effort. However: 1) maybe I and others at the table donated money to relief efforts, and still wanted to go out. I notice you don't seem to care. (note: maybe we donated nothing; I don't see how it's any of your business). 2) Just because the tsunami tragedy got a lot of press, are you sure it's the only tragedy going on in the world? would it be any worse if the meal had occurred on December 23rd? Any better? 3) Do you stay in each night, rather than go out (and spend money), so you can donate money and/or time to all of the victims of these and other tragedies? Because apparently you should. ______________________________________________________________ Larry: I actually didn't know it was restaurant week until last night (whoops). Either way, though, I wanted to take advantage of what I felt was a one-time chance to get in somewhere where I would otherwise have a great deal of trouble getting a reservation. Per Se is one of those places. ______________________________________________________________ Carl: Needless to say, it was the most expensive meal I have ever paid for and is not something that I can afford regularly (or even semi-semi-regularly). All that said, though, I didn't look at it as a regular event, but rather as a one-time thing; kind of like a vacation. I am a food nut and so I'm willing to forego other things for a unique event such as this. Besides, like Brooke said, you can't take it with you. I see Laren's already broken down the cost, so I won't. In response to your second post, I don't see how there's any more of a moral subtext to spending $440 on a whim to go to a restaurant than there is to your spending the same to take your next vacation. One is a meal, one is a vacation; they're both luxuries. And there's no magic to $400, either, no? Would it really have been somehow better, in your mind, had it cost $50, or $100? Enough people in the world, unfortunately, make less than that in a month to make that a sad affair as well. I don't think most people would have been very offended, though. ______________________________________________________________ Critic: I disagree. Perhaps that sort of dining experience is nothing but an "insipid and narcissistic display". That's up for debate. Like I said, I happened to enjoy myself very much, despite my fears that the place would be kind of pretentious. I have a hard time seeing how the review (or any like it) is some sort of display, unless you really think there was some attempt to brag. I don't think that applies. ______________________________________________________________ KeithS: I agree about the TV. If you did, though, I wonder if you'd be lambasted on this message board... ______________________________________________________________ Felix: To be honest, I don't remember having any budgetary conversations with the sommelier, though we did speak to him about some items we thought were interesting (none of which ended up on our table that night). They were pretty good about serving wines that were "reasonable" (definitely a term that needs to be used in quotes because I actually thought that the list is somewhat overpriced compared to those at some other good restaurants - though the rent probably has something to do with that. They did not serve us the 8 most expensive wines on the list). Also, I have to say, each wine was paired absolutely perfectly with the course to which it corresponded. ______________________________________________________________ Greg: They did split the tab seven ways. Go figure. You have to love New York.

n--b

Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:16:20 -0500

Oh Carl Marks...truly you are an asshat.

larry dvm

Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:08:54 -0500

I have no objection to spending so much on a meal in principle, but it just seems like such an obvious choice. Breaking news! Ultra-expensive restaurants also serve outlandishly complex and delicately prepared food! And your meal will take a long time! And the service staff will do goofy things to draw attention to their attentiveness! Holy cow! Food writing is so much more fun when it presents a new insight.

slaw

Tue, 25 Jan 2005 16:54:39 -0500

I wonder how many people who posted here are paying $7 for a pack of cigarettes every day. Seems just as "immoral," maybe more, than spending good money on good food.

Ned

Tue, 25 Jan 2005 16:45:33 -0500

ho snap! Laren paid for all this... so why are you complaining? Food is a lifestyle choice, there are people who wear crappy clothes and spend their extra money on food, it's just a decision, who are you to judge? Actually, that's all we do as humans, is judge...

Rolen Indo

Tue, 25 Jan 2005 16:30:13 -0500

You folks are cute. You know, if the price of a meal at Per Se (which is wonderful) bothers you, you should hear what I just paid for my new watch.

Ned

Tue, 25 Jan 2005 16:26:20 -0500

Laren rocks! Like you wouldn't take all that free junkus. it also takes balls to admit that you don't have the words as a writer to properly describe an experience

KeithS

Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:52:23 -0500

"And William Grimes? The Times writer? That's who you want to cite?" Yes, I think he's a nifty food writer. What's your point?

greg.org

Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:46:54 -0500

On the other hand, somebody got 3500 frequent flyer points on their card. Or did you split that, too? I'd love to hear that per se took a sheaf of cards and split the tab seven ways... LOVE the storm-inspired initiative, by the way. Kudos.

Carl Marks

Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:45:35 -0500

And yet, the reason why there are now twenty plus postings here is not for the description of the flatware bit for the size of the bill. And William Grimes? The Times writer? That's who you want to cite? Of course, he'd have no interest whatsoever in defending the status quo.

Laren

Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:37:29 -0500

Thanks, Felix! I wasn't trying to "hide" the price, actually. I included the $175 in the write-up b/c that's the bare minimum (plus tip) that people could spend and have dinner there (not sure about lunch). Our group made a deliberate decision to go all out with no limitations because we viewed it as a particularly unique and rare opportunity for us. We didn't ask, but I think that the sommelier would be willing to work within budgetary limitations on the wine as well as have fewer pairings during the course of the meal.

KeithS

Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:32:46 -0500

Have to love those Peter Singer-Lite kneejerk killjoys like limousine liberal. Toward the end of his tenure as the Times restaurant reviewer, Grimes wrote a thoughtful little essay about the angry letters he would receive every time after reviewing an extravagant restaurant. Personally, I'd have nary a qualm over spending $500 or more for the right sort of meal. On the other hand, I can't imagine spending more than $50 for a television.

Felix

Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:30:00 -0500

I'd also like to add in Laren's defense that people frequently get all up-in-arms about the cost of food at restaurants, but the fact is that every steakhouse in the city sees bills well over $440 per person almost every day, when the really rich (or well expense-accounted) decide to splurge on $2k or $5k bottles of wine. I would certainly say that spending $200 on food is a lot more defensible than spending $2000 on wine. Chill, people: this isn't a zero-sum game.

Felix

Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:22:56 -0500

Thanks for coming clean on the price, Laren -- I have to say it doesn't surprise me, especially if the Yquem is indicative of the quality of wines you were drinking. But I'm also interested in how the wine-pairing worked in practice. A table of 7, with 8 wines, seems almost perfect: you get one bottle per course, with slightly less than a full glass per person per course, and everybody drinking just over a bottle's worth of wine by the end of the 4 1/2 hours. But if you don't know what's coming, do you see something like the Yquem and suddenly think to yourself "oh no, there's another $100 each"? Or do you negotiate an all-in price for the wine pairings beforehand?

Carl Marks

Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:21:38 -0500

I don't think the ad hominem tone against the writer is productive. How the writer chooses to spend her money truly is her own business. And furthermore, the elements of an "expereience" in all things in life can make it more synergistic enjoyable, pleasurable, ecstatic even, then each by itself. We all know that. But the cost of such an "experience" and its moral subtext is a fit subject for comment. "Foodie"s (god, what an ugly, ungainly coinage) like Alice Waters (actually she's far too important a figue to diminish with such a hideous word) assert that eating is a political act with the provenance of our food, how it is prepared, the working conditions etc key parts of that politic. Isn't the check equally political? Per Se may be a unique "experience" and perhaps even worth it but not to consider the moral subtext of a $475 tariff at least in passing must be questioned. And perhaps the reason the writer didn't mention that truly huge--and to 99 percent of her readers, eternally unaffordable--bill is consciously or un-, she's embarrassed. Conspicuous consumption indeed. Where is Thorsten Veblen when you need him? Oh, that's right. Dead.

moses

Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:12:35 -0500

did they serve golden calf as one of the entrees? $440???

Laren

Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:56:03 -0500

My, my . . . I leave the internet for a few hours and look what happens. First, let's start by noting that how people choose to spend their money is a very controversial topic generally. Everyone has their own set of priorities, and as Jen mentioned, I'm a foodie, and this was a once-in-a-lifetime experience for which I was willing to shell out some hard-earned cash. Second, if you're interested in finding out what I do for the community, feel free to contact me. Finally, my total for the meal including 8 wine pairings, tax, and a generous tip, was about $440 ($175 prix fixe menu, $30 fois gras supplement (we had a choice for that course), approx $165 for wine, and about $70 (or 20%) for tip, all of which I paid for myself), and I'll note that we gave them no limitations on our wine selection and we had some pretty amazing wines (if you're interested in the full list, contact me). Also -- we called that day for the reservation. It wasn't through Open Table.

Matt

Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:38:48 -0500

I think any restaurant review should break down the true cost of the meal(s) reviewed. So, given the $175 base price, how much did it actually cost with wine, tax & tip?

gar

Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:25:32 -0500

limo liberal, if we all used your logic, then spending money on ANYTHING beyond basic necessities in the face of 200,000+ dead people in Asia - not to mention countless tragedies elsewhere - would be horribly inappropriate. but i don't use your logic because I understand that spending money in one area does not necessarily stop me from using money to help people in another. before you flame Laren, perhaps you should have wondered about how much money she gave to charity last year, or asked how she volunteers in ways to help people in this city. what a horribly ignorant comment on an innocent post.

Howard

Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:18:48 -0500

I've also had the pleasure of dining at Per Se back in July. However, I find it odd that they didn't let different members of your party select different menus. When I went, two of us had the tasting menu and the other two had the 5 course menu.

critic

Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:07:25 -0500

I think these "experience" reviews are nothing if not insipid and narcissitic displays of vanity and wealth.

nopeydope

Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:53:32 -0500

meringue sandwich cookies? were you given french macarons? i ate at alain ducasse back when its prix fixe was the priciest in town. the food alone was not worth the tariff, but the whole experience certainly was.

Jen

Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:38:44 -0500

There are things people enjoy doing. Some people save their money to buy CDs, for others it's subscriptions to the opera, or some will take weekend trips. I think you can assume the dinner cost a lot, but, if you're a foodie and you classify it as a once-in-a-lifetime experience, it's worth it. Some people make pilgrimages out to the French Laundry - factor in those airplane tickets!

Brooke

Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:24:20 -0500

We were given life so that we may enjoy it, the sense of taste so that we may USE it.

Carl Marks

Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:10:51 -0500

Well, as much as I am in favour of appropriating the Per Se kitchen to feed and fuel the weal of the people, I'm not as strident as limo lib above. But as always, you neglected to tell us EXACTLY how much your meal cost. Please be specific. And you paid for this meal yourself? I know I'm being nosy, but how can you afford that?

larry dvm

Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:50:01 -0500

Why pay full price for the "restaurant collection" during restaurant week? We ate at V Steakhouse yesterday for $20.05. While it was no 9-course bacchanal with wine pairings, it was enough of the experience to satisfy me. I think digging up the hidden gems of this city is infinitely more satisfying than heading straight to the blue-chip gastronomic temples and gushing over what must be an excellent but certainly not surprising experience.

n--b

Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:47:36 -0500

Oh yeah, Limousine Liberal. But at the same time, YOU SIT THERE USING THE INTERNET when you could easily sell off your PC and send the money to the tsunami victims too, right? Idiot.

limousine liberal

Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:16:11 -0500

hey, must be nice shelling out that kind of money while tsunamai victims starve. keep up the good work laren.

Beavis

Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:03:35 -0500

You said "amuse bouche". hehehehe.

Jen

Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:38:19 -0500

Oh. My. God. This is so amazing. Thanks for sharing this with us, Laren. I will start saving my pennies for a trip there! But one logistical question: Did you call per se for a reservation, or did you check OpenTable.com?

SP

Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:36:32 -0500

how much?

Laren

Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:26:37 -0500

Don -- being the food dork that I am, I loved the explanations of everything. It was an opportunity to learn even more. And yes, we walked out at 2:30 in the morning, which was fine with us.

Don

Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:18:57 -0500

I, too, had the pleasure of dining at Per Se, and I was taken as a guest, which made it all the more enjoyable. But... I found the service to be comically pretentious. Every course came with a lecture. We were even lectured on the butter and the salt. After a while we were giggling into our napkins as the staff came around to explain something else about this chocolate vs. that chocolate. We started to think it would never end. The waiter himself explained that we should think of the evening as a performance rather than a meal. Indeed. By the way, you say it took you four and a half hours. Are you saying you walked out of there at 2:30 in the morning?