In preparation for my upcoming trip to Europe. For trusted eating ideas in Paris, I have been going through postings on the Paris board with a fine tooth-comb. My efforts have revealed that the majority of reviews pertaining to some of the current highly raved Parisian favorites……Le Clarence, Alliance, Granite, Pantagruel, Geosmine, Hemicycle … .etc, had been focused on luncheon experiences only! Realizing the obvious that lunches at star caliber establishments offer a better value deal. However, I also question whether the restriction caused by the ‘compressed‘ luncheon menu is an impediment, preventing and truly reflecting the offerings, ingredients used and most importantly, creativity and capability of the chefs.
With a few members in our party possessing quite an immense appetite, as well as our desire to sample more dishes within a meal, we are debating to savor some of the star-calibered establishments through a more elaborate ‘supper‘ experience……but is it worth it?!
A random selection and follow-up comparison of the luncheon menu with the dinner menu, of say, the 2* ‘ Le Gabriel ‘ paints an intriguing picture worthy of detailed debate……98 Euro for a 4 course luncheon vs a whopping 298 Euro for the evening 7 steps dinner!?
With that in mind, of the aforementioned favorites (…and more ), which establishments, in your opinion, stood out the most in terms of offering the best quality and value in order to achieve a more lavish and total experience??
I anticipate some of your feedback will be most fascinating! Thank you in advance!
Alliance multiple people here will tell you is better at lunch, and we love it then. And no question superior in terms of value.
Our lunch at Le Clarence was great; cannot speak to dinner there.
The lunch experience at Granite and (pretty sure) Pantagruel is not the same as the dinner experience, so those I’d recommend going at dinner.
The others you mention I can’t comment on.
Not mentioned by you but Guy Savoy remains our favorite “splurge” restaurant. We have been for dinner 3 times over the years and lunch once. Dinner is much better; didn’t enjoy the lunch much at all the one time we tried it.
Our favorite 3* lunch ever was at Le Cinq a few years ago, for I believe 110E. But I don’t think they offer its equivalent any longer (if I have this wrong, someone please correct me!)
Yes! I heard the same about Alliance. However, my main concern is portion size and quantity not being enough for the male members of the party?!
For real ’ splurges ', I will be heading outside of Paris to eat at places like the 3* Assiette Champenoise and 2* Les Crayeres, Riems …better value and just a short TGV ride. Also, can tag on a sightseeing tour .
Ref: Guy Savoy
I am always hesitant in eating at a restaurant that had been demoted by Michelin.
The only 3* in Paris I would currently like to try is ’ Plenitude '.
Charles, as a long time Paris visitor, and one who has agonized at least as much as you, I can almost guarantee that you will have some major disappointments regardless of all of your machinations. Advice, reviews and realities seldom coincide perfectly. At some point, maybe one long past, you should stop overthinking this. There are too many variables to control every meal.
Addendum, if your companion’s appetite is the limiting factor, I’d suggest he explains his situation and orders an expanded menu. I’m sure any starred restaurant can construct something adequate, if only serving him two orders.
While agreeing with the ‘value’ at lunch, as a sometime visitor, I generally prefer dinner. Those who live there and long-term visitors have more time available to enjoy many of the pleasures of France, but for my trips (from North America) I’m on a ‘time budget’. Plus the six hour time difference means a lunch meal is almost a pre-breakfast time for my still adjusting stomach. At dinner, my stomach is expecting lunch, and I do enjoy the evening meals more. Plus, that leaves the daylight hours free to explore and enjoy the other attractions.
As to the ‘quality’ comparison, I’m not sure there’s a real difference. I love Alliance at lunch. And I also love it at dinner. I’ve never left feeling hungry on any visit.
From your list, Pantagruel was ‘just ordinary’ for me at dinner. And I haven’t been to the others you mention [Aside: Lunch at le Cinq (pre-covid) was indeed the most memorable lunch].
I’ve addressed the issue in another thread but here goes. There are a few more restaurant classification systems now than there used to be. The Michelin red guide, which was practically independent from the tire company for a few years, has been brought back into the family house in 2021, on the grounds of insane spending, and is now closely watched. They have to be competitive and profitable. Other classifications are La Liste and the 50Best. The only ones that really count. It’s a constant gunfight between lists. Guy Savoy has been at the top of La Liste for years, so Michelin is getting revenge on La Liste by demoting Guy Savoy (there’s no other rational explanation really, Savoy being one of the most consistent 3-stars in Paris).
The Maxim’s affair is of an entirely different nature. Guy Savoy hasn’t offended anyone and certainly not Michelin.
Good points. We treat these businesses more as platforms for unpaid advertising, selling editorial content partly in the form of ratings. When we end up at one of the entries, it isn’t a function of how many stars, ratio of X/20, etc., because we’ll make our own decisions rather hang on some strangers’ undisclosed preferences and agendas. The only rating system that’s ever made sense to us is the previous Wall Street Journal’s wine columnists John and Dorothy’s devise: “Yech”, “OK”, “Good”, “Very Good”, “Delicious”, "Delicious ! ".
Is ’ OAD ’ - Opinionated About Dining popular over in France/Paris?
Almost all of my foodie friends over in the Orient and here in North America contribute and rely on it.
Actually, relying on advice from friends whose taste and experience parallels yours is a good strategy. I rely on mine, but would have no history with and therefore confidence in yours or the anonymous band at OA.
Like Michelin, quantifying opinions on scale of 100 instead of three. At day’s end, taste, diner’s reaction, etc. are subjective, so the difference between a 99 and 95 score is as incomprehensible as the difference between one and three, that is no longer couched as worth a journey, worth a detour, try if in neighborhood. La Liste’s obvious, graspable utility seems to be listing what people are discussing.
La Liste is based on “Guidebooks and Publications” weighted by “Chefs” with only a 10% participation by customers. Guidebooks are notoriously out-of-date; other publications are usually a few samples (sometimes biased - although the chef ‘adjustment’ helps) and chefs themselves are often treated differently than conventional customers. However, if it works for some then good luck. Mr. Parker had great success with his system for wine, so maybe it’s the system of numbering that is important.
Just to put in my grain of salt. If my memory serves me right, the “Maxim’s affair” was that Michelin (rightly in my opinion) demoted Maxim’s from 3 to 2 stars (or was it from 2 to 1) and the direction of Maxim’s demanded for the restaurant not to be included in the guide anymore rather than accepting a lower rating. It created a bit of a storm at the time…
La Liste is only modelled on ranking systems of the ‘Rotten Tomatoes’ type. Nothing more, nothing less.
I think it’s more interesting as a means to explore the most successful restaurants in any part of the world — including, for instance, West Africa, which lists like Michelin or 50Best aren’t going to cover anytime soon — than to decide who’s best of the best in a Western-centered dining system.
I interviewed one of its key conceptors, Jörg Zipprick, a few years ago and this is what he told me.
Also read here.
