[Tuckerman]

An hour or so South from El Bulli, another three star restaurant in a non-descript little town. I was cheered by the site of the truly roly poly chef, promising warmth, generosity, heartiness in the cuisine.

But this was my prejudice because what we got on our Sunday lunch tasting menu was a succcession of adequate but uninspiringly ordinary dishes which seemed to fall in between all the stalls of flavour, ingredients, presentation and technique-useless in none, excelling in none. A string of fish dishes-mackerel, hake, turbot-had good ingredients but lacked flavour. A prawn dish was spoiled by a broth that wasn't intense enough. Roast lamb flattered to deceive-two lovely looking haunches carved at table-but totally without that long rich intensity of flavour which characterises the best lamb, and made too wet by too thin a jus. Seasoning was poorly judged too-either too much or too little salt.

This place is the diametric opposite of El Bulli. The food is "real" all right. But it is dull. It is boring. I don't know if the kitchen was put off its stride by some of our party demanding to be fed in two hours in order to catch a plane-they met this request with some considerable consternation-but it was very difficult to see why this restaurant merits 3 stars. Especially when compared to the excellent Le Cellar de Can Roca, a two star in nearby Gerona where we'd dined two days previously and which was in a different league.

The vagaries of Michelin I suppose.

[Miguel Gierbolini]

The chef is still Santi Santamaría, no?

[Miguel Gierbolini]

By the way, the name is El Raco de Can Fabes.

[Tuckerman]

Yes,he is the chef. Maybe a mod could correct the thread title

[Miguel Gierbolini]

Tuck:
Somewhere else there was a downhill alert. Not CH though. When was this visit?
And certainly not downhill enough to sound like yours.
Was there anything redeeming about this place during your visit?
Moist flesh or cute waiters?

[Tuckerman]

The visit was last Sunday. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't a bad meal. It was presented well. The food tasted OK, apart from some seasoning problems. It's just that one expects more than OK from a three star restaurant. Nothing stood out, nothing shone, there was no wow factor. When you go to a three star you are looking for something a bit special, no? This would have been a perfectly good meal in a one star, but I couldn't discern any three star quality at all.

[Wilfrid1]

I ate at his Madrid restaurant, Santceloni, and the food was satisfying, but certainly more straightforward and heartier than I expected - I think I must have posted about it on eGullet or possibly OA. Interesting to watch stick-thin Madrid fashionistas having Flintstone-esque sides of meat carved for them.

[cabrales]

I liked El Raco de Can Fabes, after two meals there. The food is not at all dull. It is well-executed, with beautiful products. The shrimp ravioli was appealing, as were a number of other courses. One meal I had was much better than the other, which was still good. This chef is also known for game, which I have not sampled there.

I don't know what kind of lunch was described as having been sampled. Was it a more restricted menu? We asked the chef to cook for us during both meals (our first there), and he was happy to do so.

[ginger milk]

It was the chef's tasting menu and to a person (party of 8) all agreed it was dull.

[cabrales]

What did you have? Food can be perfectly prepared and non-avant garde. That does not mean the food is dull. Also, as mentioned in another thread, that 6 or 8 people thought a meal was a certain way doesn't mean much more than one person believing that, in my book.

[Tuckerman]

cabrales, on May 18 2005, 05:21 PM, said:

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

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

The Roast Lamb dish, for example, did not have the best lamb. I have yet to taste Spanish lamb that is in the same league as Welsh and some French lamb. While this lamb was well cooked it lacked the length and complexity of flavour of the best lamb and was spoiled by a thin jus which made it wet.

The fish was all of top quality but the chef seemed to be having a bad seasoning day and was over or undersalting all over the place. Broths and sauces lacked intensity.

It was not a poor meal. It was a good meal. It just wasn't a three star meal-it just didn't meet the standard.

[voyager]

Tuckerman, on May 20 2005, 06:24 AM, said:

cabrales, on May 18 2005, 05:21 PM, said:

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

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

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

I am completely attuned to this as a hostess. I can, within seconds, tell which guest loves a plate, who hates it and who eats without judgement.

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

[SamanthaF]

voyager, on May 23 2005, 02:26 AM, said:

Tuckerman, on May 20 2005, 06:24 AM, said:

cabrales, on May 18 2005, 05:21 PM, said:

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

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

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


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

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

I was at this lunch, and with the exception of 1 maybe 2 dishes, it was an ordinary, on the whole pretty pedestrian meal. A nice pedsetrian meal, but pedestrian nonetheless.

I think that the point Tucker is making (and correct me if I am wrong Tone), is that we did not get any of the whistles and bangs that often comes with 3*'s, there was no challenge in the execution or flavours and the service was at times was missing. For instance, one of the other diners chose the wines, and the somellier came out with 2 bottles of each wine we had ordered - he wasn't told to do that. The champagne was not cold enough either so he asked for it to be chilled some more, this was chilled again for a couple of minutes and poured without checking if we thought it was cold enough. That's not 3* service.

[Tuckerman]

voyager, on May 21 2005, 12:26 AM, said:

Cabbie's comment reads quite simply:  there is a dining dynamic that quite unconsciously pervades a table, tainting the appraisals of diners, usually without their knowledge.

Er... there was no "unconscious dynamic pervading the table". No-one's "appraisal was tainted". We all discussed the meal quite openly and volubly as it went along. People gave their opinions on each dish and we compared relevant dishes to others we'd had. Some of us liked some things better than others but overall there was general agreement that the meal was OK, but nothing special.

[Wilfrid1]

Does Santceloni in Madrid have Michelin stars?