Ohhh sh!t - there's a critic in the corner!

I often wonder what resulting panic ensues when a critic - of some note lets say - is found to be lurking in the corners of a restaurant. You hear stories that there are pictures of certain critics on kitchen walls and staff are trained to recognise when one of these feared critics enters a room, yet, is all this true? Yep, it sure is!

It must be a double edge sword in some ways, say you are a critic, a renowned critic of some repute and you go out for dinner. Now this is just a causal dinner with friends (mmm, do critics have friends?) or family yet the restaurant is one that has a half-way decent reputation and hence keeps an eye out for critics. In walks the critic, obviously it wasn't booked under his name and while not "judging" or there to "make official comment" the staff's eyes light up, hell! its Mr X, as they casually yet nervously seat the table, run through some basics before rushing off to get the drinks list and menu they make a B-line for the kitchen. "Chef! Chef! Mr X is here. Table 9"

• Now let's be honest for a moment, its not like the critic is about to say: "wait, wait, wait, I'm not here in an official capacity, I'm just out for a nice meal with friends, so don't worry about trying to go over the top, just relax"

Now this changes the whole dynamic of the evening, and this is where the 'job' of a critic walks a very fine balance and must, or should have a very good bullshit detector. Why? Lets be honest, my custom or the average persons in the street is a case of: yes, lets make sure they leave happy and satisfied yet we aren't going to roll out the red carpet for them, so you and I get the real world treatment, this may be good or bad, yet it's the everyday service without bells and whistles and the over the top tarting up of all things "my restaurant is".

Now a great restaurant doesn't need to worry about this because it is a great restaurant for a reason, however they still succumb to this flurry and sweaty brow sphincter clenching evening of making sure service is not just A1, yet AAA111+, drinks are always topped up - sadly often to the point of being annoying and/or intrusive - yet this is where brilliant floor staff come into there own, water is chilled and topped up, plates cleared in a timely fashion - yet not to quick, and of course the kitchen must be a nightmare. Cooked to better than perfection (if that's possible?), presentation that is good enough to hang in a gallery and on it goes.

Now Mr X (or Ms Y) - we are back to them in their role as 'working' critic - will expect to be recognised, and will expect things might be a little over the top, yet they should be able to detect this and see past the "kiss-arse" repartee of staff and kitchen. However, their experience will always be tarnished, that is it is not the real world experience that you and I experience.

Sure there are 'hidden' and 'secret' proxy critics who dine on behalf of more recognisable or known critics and report back, yet I doubt very much that - or at least I would be shocked beyond belief if it was true - for example Pat Nourse or John Lethlean put their name to an article for which they had no direct experience of. Shit, call me naive yet hopefully there is still some professional integrity left in the world.

So when you or I read Gourmet Traveller or The Australian we are reading something that might not quite reflect what we will actually get, as they say: on the night. This applies across the board whether you are considered the best of the best, or just some average 'cafe', the experience I get is not what they get, and so, does the review reflect reality or a warped version of it?

As I say I expect Mr X to see past the staff BS, yet they can't know if the food has been plated better than any other night, or if "special" attention was paid to the plates by Chef, or if all other meals were on hold for 10 mins while they beavered away for Mr X and his table, these are just unknown answers. And thus, given who they are its not like they can compare last night with next week as the treatment will always be the same, always! It might change slightly depending on what staff are on, or if Chef is in the kitchen that night, yet its always the same.

The another side of this is the feared "face" of critics. In my world a critic is someone, especially when in a business where your face is a disadvantage - and not just because you are ugly - then it somehow flies in the face to be a "critic" and everyone knows you. A prime example (sadly) of this is Matt Preston. A man who personally I think can't tell McDonald's from fine dining yet all the same his opinion at some point mattered, got a gig on TV, now he appears on some godforsaken load of "reality TV" - revealing the one asset (in his case a very ugly liability), his face, to the nation and now can you seriously be taken as a 'proper critic'?

Yep! He is taken more seriously than ever because he has been on TV, and unfortunately more 'power' than ever. So, because of TV and radio, his comments carry more weight, as does he, than they should, and importantly he is absolutely recognisable and the service, food and full experience cannot begin to reflect what you or I will received.

This also applies to the English critics Jay Rayner and A.A Gill, to name a few.

So while being a wine critic is relatively easy - you can't just make a super-duper bottle of wine and give it just to the critic, your wine faces the same level of scrutiny as any other bottle you offer to anyone else. So knowing the critic, in the sense of who a critic is, matters not a tot when it comes down to whether or not your product is good. However, a food critic is rating/passing critical comment on actions and events which can be controlled. Thus, the more awareness of a critic etc., means more control can be influenced to (hopefully) ensure that the end result is more in your favour than had it been not known.

I guess the one aspect that annoys me the most is that the continued survival of a restaurant is the "average" person in the street coming along each night. Sure, if a critic such as any of those listed was to completely trash a Chef's food and restaurant then there might not be a tomorrow, yet given this doesn't happen all that often then you would think that its my ass they want to kiss as I will be the one to come back more often than the critic ever will!

While I might not be the "average" diner I refer to, the same still applies.

Restaurant Review - Esquire, Brisbane

Esquire Restaurant
145 Eagle Street, Brisbane.
http://www.esquire.net.au/
07 3220 2123
Chef: Ryan Squires

Now to the important bit, the scores. All out of 5.

Overall - 4.5. Absolutely Outstanding.

Food - 5                                                Service - 3.5
Location - 5                                           Price - 5
Wine List - 2.5                                       Access - 4.5
Confort - 4.5                                          Cleanliness - 5

Menu - Degustation Only [9 or 13 course]
Open - Lunch Tuesday to Friday & Dinner Tuesday to Saturday. Close Sunday & Monday & PH's.
Price - 13 course $130 (ex. drinks)
Dress - Smart/Smart Casual
Type - New, creative, fresh, innovative, no formal food here

It’s a difficult task to be a fresh and creative chef when so many have come before you claiming the same, and usually offering so little. However, Esquire has surely set itself apart from the rest with what can truly be called a fresh and new approach.

Sadly in a town like Brisbane which still thinks so much of the public is wanting 3 big heavy courses and cheap booze Ryan (Chef) and Cameron have stepped outside the quiet country town of the Brisbane feel and decided to take a gamble, one which I and many hope will take-off.

There are a number of restaurants in and around Brisbane which offer tastes of inventive (and not so inventive - all too much the case) degustation course, yet where Ryan differs from the rest is his confidence, at least that's what I will call it, to push the boundaries and take you for a ride, whether you wish to come or not. A review for another day: yet think Urbane, however the boat just hasn't been pushed out as far.

Esquire sits (almost) on the water’s edge of the Brisbane river with magnificent views of the Story Bridge and surrounding city scape, yet the view soon fades as the meals come out, however sometimes a little too quickly for my liking.

As I understand it, all the tables and chairs are hand made for Esquire and based on a similar style in New York, and they have this just perfect. The comfort is next to sensational and make sitting for long periods a dream.

It should also be said that the table size is truly a pleasure. While most restaurants would try and get 4 to a table Esquire keeps it to 2, which makes for an even more comfortable experience.

Table ware is at a minimum, whether this has anything to do with the environment or not I have no idea, yet its nice not to have a cluttered table.

The plates and bowls are simply stunning. They remind me of oversized river pebbles that have been moulded into the shape of a plate or bowl. I want a set for my own.

P.S. I love the open kitchen look, it’s nice to see the goings on.

The wine list is limited. This doesn’t mean it’s not good, yet with so many changes in the kitchen - after all the food design is not to design anything. To side-track, what you get with the food is what is in Chef's head that day. So the menu constantly changes and evolves as new ingredients come in (and out) of season.

Back to the wine, so with this constantly shifting "menu" there should be a wider selection of wine. So, while not a bad wine list, a broader more wider selection of wines would be a wise decision. However, I wouldn’t expect to see a wine flight anytime soon as trying to match this constantly changing "menu" would require a cellar of enormous depth and size.

Expect to find a single A4 piece of paper on the table as you sit down detailing the nights "menu". Some will be coloured in red while others in another colour. It’s simple really, the 4 in a different colour are the ones you miss out on should you go for the 9 course only - so don’t be cheap, nor think you can’t fit it in, you can, so just ask them to "feed you".

The menu will give you a hint of what is coming, yet so does an oncoming car, yet until you hit it you can only guess what is going to happen - mmm, might need to rethink that analogy.

Service? Now this is my only bone of contention. I expected in the first week service to be somewhat 'unpolished' and it was, yet as the weeks have moved on the service has 'polished' up, yet you still feel unloved. It’s not that I want kisses and hugs yet you just feel that the service, while friendly and polite is somewhat rushed, even when not busy, and this starts to rub after a while.

My other compliant about the service is the lack of, umm, knowledge or dare I suggest care from some staff when brining the dishes out. While at times it is obvious what is in front of you it would make an incredible difference if the staff took the time to explain and detail the food. For another review at another time, yet the staff here should pay a visit to Tank Restaurant and experience service I haven’t seen in a long time. Staff at Tank know the food, they explain what the concept was, how it was created and give some hints as to what it is made up of, and of course when you ask questions they have the answers. This is a wonderful experience, and one Esquire could really go with.

So, if you are looking for an amazing culinary experience, tastes to challenge both your perception of food and how it can work with others then Esquire is the place to be. With a good choice from the limited wine list, comfort and style (not over substance in this case) and food you would happily die (or live) for then drop in one night, you might just find this becoming a regular.

--------------------------------------------------------

This review, like all restaurant reviews - unless clearly stated, is based on a visit to the particular establishment within a 4 week period of the review. This could mean it was last night, or 3 weeks ago. In an effort not to identify dinners, usually sufficient time will have passed so that hopefully any little peculiarities cannot be recalled to specific dinners, should such an event have taken place.

This review, like all reviews is not to detail the experience in depth, nor detail the menu, nor provide photographic samples of the food, location or anything else. This review, like all reviews is intended to provide some basic information from which you, the reader, can make an informed decision as to whether this establishment is suited to your dining needs and tastes.

--------------------------------------------------------

Wine glasses - wonder or wank?

While on the subject of wine - for those who didn't/haven't read my first posting, it was also about wine - what is it with the whole wine 'glass' phenomena that seems to have hit the shelves (to use a term very loosely) lately? Yes, it has been around for a long time, yet there seems to be a resurgence that I just can't explain.

I think at last count, get ready for an exaggeration, Riedel had some 738 different glasses for wine. This is pretty amazing stuff. Considering the average person cant tell red from white, thinks the height of wine sophistication is spending up to $25 on a bottle (although there are some great drop's at $25) then isn't the whole "doesn't your wine deserve the best", that is the best glass to serve it in, just ... well crap?

Sure, don't get me wrong, serving a great or even half decent red in a coffee cup will somehow not really open up the wine as much as say a Riedel Vinum XL, and no I'm not on a name dropping fee for them, they just happen to be a glassware that I trust and personally use.

I know there is lots of science in the field of wine - glasses, decanters, gadgets to pour wine, storage, growth patterns, soil (terroir) etc, yet lets be honest the whole reinvention of glassware is just in the broader sense an advertising gimmick to sucker in the "home" wine snobs. I would easily bet that if I took any wine and set-up a table in the middle of a mall or market and got passers-by to try the same wine in different - yet similar - glasses they wouldn't know the difference. Of course they would not know the wine is the same, just asked to describe each wine they taste.

I'll be overly pessimistic and go for a 99.98% success rate - that is, they couldn't tell the difference.

You see, the problem with the whole wine game is that its based on the obvious. If you know the wine, or its heritage, or its background, or its maker, or its location, or its structure, or its ... well anything about that one particular wine you already have a preconceived notion of what to expect. Yes there are blind tastings etc., yet more often than not you turn up to 20 bottles of Shiraz all in front of you and you make a comment on them - knowing who they are.

Now, not to suggest otherwise, yet do you know, or can you name a single source - of notable quality - who said the 2006 Penfolds Grange was over-price cough medicine? No, well neither can I. Sure some differ, some gave it 97 out of 100 while others gave it 96, yet hey we'll let that one pass.

Wine is about the taste, the scent and how it all works on the palate. Not all, and in fact very few have a palate that can tell the difference between, as I say red and white wine, yet that doesn't mean that the level of nonsense in this business is not over blown and boarding on the corrupt - well that one is more directed at some of the critics than it is the wines.

So, back to glasses. You can argue until time stops that "glassware has been designed for specific grape DNA" yet really, who do you think buys this, and I don't mean the glasses I mean the advertising guff?

There was a brilliant story in the Australian Gourmet Traveller Wine Magazine sometime back where they interviewed a famous sommelier in Paris about his (the restaurants) cellar, the wines, his experience, his thoughts and views on being a sommelier and in charge of one of the most impressive wine cellars in a restaurant, let-a-lone anywhere in the world. And there was remark he made which has stuck with me, and one which I couldn't agree with more, and the gist of what he said was:

... that it is often very disappointing to watch people buy an extremely rare and expensive bottle of wine, and they then go through the motions of tasting, sipping, commenting, swirling it, letting it sit, letting it breath etc., and all I can think is why don't you just enjoy it ...

And its this view I agree with. So long as the conditions are right: the wine is not corked (when will they just use screw-caps only?), has been kept well, decent glassware (not coffee cups), and an appropriate respect paid to the wine's taste do you just not sit back and forget all you know (or think you know) and just drink the dam stuff and enjoy it?

Wine Tasting - Can you really taste that much?

Funny how my first posting is about wine and not food, yet while I have thought this many times, and discussed it with many I haven't really ever put my thoughts to paper - so to speak. So here goes.

Last night while sitting back and reading my latest copy of Gourmet Traveller Wine and Drinks (an Australian publication for those who don't know) I read a story by the much famed Jancis Robinson titled "Oh, the Horror!". There was just one piece that made me wonder, and that was, this being a formal occasion - a sit down dinner - the occasion probably didn't cater for the swirling and swishing of wine in the mouth and subtly (or not so) spitting into a spittoon. So, I thought to myself, here is a very knowledgable wine critic/reviewer drinking some of the best wines in the world, and I mean drinking not tasting, along with numerous plates of food (11 according to the article) along with god knows what else and so I wondered that there must be a point at which you start to lose the structure and taste of the wine. That is, you no longer have the ability on the 25th glass of wine that you had on, say the 1st.

Let my start by saying that Jancis along with others are some of the best in the business and hence their finely tuned palate can handle more wine than the average 'punter', yet even they must hit a wall when tasting/drinking wine.

So, I posed the questions to Jancis on her twitter account, and never expecting a response she said "a piece of cake", and referred to me to a tweet by another famed wine critic Neal Martin, in which he said "7 hrs tasting, 190 wines, 9500 words of tasting notes of Cru Bourgeois. Will write intro on the train home. Job done."

This got me thinking, he is trying to suggest that even a man of his skills managed to taste one wine every 2.21 minutes, for those of you: 7 (hrs) multiplied by 60 (min's) divided by 190 (wines). Now this doesn't take into account going to the toilet, writing notes, speaking to others, taking/making any calls and finally stopping for food.

So, does he seriously expect - I guess he does, us (people) to honestly believe that he can taste - meaningfully that is - 190 wines in 7hrs and provide to us (people) notes, thoughts, expectations and views that will help us in making our decisions when we next ponder over a wine list, or make a stop at the local wine store?

Personally, and get ready for a naughty word, this is just bullshit. Sorry Neal, and my apology and thoughts will mean little to you, yet this is simply bullshit. I read many times stories by (amongst many others) Nick Stock (an Australian wine critic) and James Halliday (possibly the most respected Australian wine critic) and Jeannie Cho Lee (a famous Asian MW) saying that they managed to get through 100, 110, 150+ wines in a day at a tasting showcase etc., and personally I think this is bullshit as well. All naughty words are now finished.

I am not for one second saying they did not taste these wines. What I am suggesting is that there is just an element of professional pride in claiming bigger and bigger numbers of tastings in a day.

Now it was possibly native of me to think Jancis would find it difficult to drink 20+ wines in an evening (lets assume 6hrs), with food etc., yet I think Neal's and others claims are ... as I have already said above.

Many people buy wine because they like it or want to taste it yet so often the catalyst for liking or tasting that wine was a recommendation. Now it could be one from the guy behind the counter, yet he more than likely got his initial tasting of it from one of the big critic's or a wine magazine. And so, if a critic has seriously tasted 1 wine ever 2.21 mins then it does raise a very serious question: Was the high rating and notes associated with this (or that) wine done at a time when so much wine had been tasted and so late in the day that he or she couldn't tell a red from a white anymore?

The responsibility that critics, like any critic, yet especially those in wine and to a lesser degree food have is that their recommendations come at a (often) high price. You can tell me to see a crap movie and it was $10 wasted, you can tell me this is the best wine every made and likely to be made and I could waste 000's of $'s.

Maybe the pressure to get through so much wine in a day needs to be revisited, yet all I can say in the end is, I sure hope that my wine is in the first 20 or 30 that are tasted that morning!