What makes a really good restaurant really good?

The head of our group where I work came to us from Pennsylvania about four years ago. When he first came out, he asked for restaurant recommendation in the Sacramento area. I gave him a few, but over the years none have seemed to measure up. There are a number here that are highly regarded for different reasons, but he was not really pleased with any of them. A few days ago, he mentioned that he was in New York City, and that you really had to go there to find a good restaurant. In his eyes, the two star places there were better than anything out here.

Once I got over the slight to my favorite restaurants, I started thinking about what it is that would lead to the differences in our opinions. IMO, we have some really good places out here. Maybe no Jean-George or Per Se, but we have some chefs who put together exciting menus with seasonal local stuff, we have a couple of excellent Mediterranean bistros, we have an amazing array of first-rate ethnic food, so I just don't see the place lacking. But obviously, he looks for something different in a restaurant than I do.

I can't comment on what he wants from a restaurant, but I've been thinking a bit about what I want. First and foremost, I want food that makes me go, "WOW!". Whether that's a fresh fig risotto or a plate of mussels, or a club sandwich, I want food that makes me sit up and take notice. Sometimes that means a new take on a dish or a new combination of flavors that I haven't had before. Sometimes that means an absolute pure expression of one ingredient. Sometimes it's a perfectly made version of an old standard. But if the food's good enough to stop my conversation for a moment and make me concentrate on what's in my mouth, then I'm likely to consider the restaurant a really good one. This is the one thing I can come up with that's independent of the cost of the place.

Service and atmosphere are more price-dependent. Service must always be competent, of course, but in an expensive restaurant it must be perfect. Atmosphere works in a similar fashion for me: all restaurants need to be clean and reasonably comfortable but a pricey place needs a really elegant atmosphere. I can accept that a really good restaurant that's not expensive will not have the service and atmosphere of one that is. But I will still consider it a really good restaurant.

So really, by those measures, there are lots of really good restaurants out there. What do y'all think?

So really, by those measures, there are lots of really good restaurants out there. What do y'all think?

I agree with your measures, but I don't find that many restaurants make me sit up and take notice. My most common issues:

1. Boring menus. So many seem to be cookie cutters, with a menu chock full of trendy dishes of 10 years ago that everyone does.
2. Standard dishes done competently but no better. If I find myself thinking, "I can do this better," I am unlikely to be happy when the bill comes.
3. Unnecessary creativity and "busy" dishes. If you're doing a caprese, do a caprese; adding fig jelly, caper oil, deep fried truffle slices, and bitter melon puree is just trying too hard.
4. Pretension. If a restaurant has a "philosophy," it's going to suck. The "philosophy" ought to be "great food, served well."

The idea that New York restaurants, without the same level of local agricultural resources, are going to be almost universally better is laughable chauvinism. Except for pizza, of course, where one is FAR more likely to find a better specimen in NY than anywhere in California.

I'd agree with those points. The one I had really overlooked was the "unnecessary creativity" one. That sort of thing can get really annoying.

The idea that New York restaurants, without the same level of local agricultural resources, are going to be almost universally better is laughable chauvinism. .

You had me until that last sentence. I think I understand where Mike's friend is coming from.
I don't see it as a NYC vs everywhere else thing, so much as a big city, small city issue. And the secret ingredient is talent. The fact is, much like great actors all seem to head toward Broadway, the best talent in the restaurant biz tends to migrate toward great restaurant cities. New York and San Francisco spring to mind instantly, though there's certainly others. I don't know that Sac town would make that short list, any more than Santa Barbara would.

I have a customer who once told me that, when he ran restaurants in NY, he could send staff home if he didn't like the color of their socks. In other words, he didn't have to put up with the slightest shortcoming, because for a good house, there was a line of competent people a mile long waiting for an opportunity. To be sure, Santa Barbara does not have a labor pool nearly as deep, and operators often have to look the other way, because they need a warm body filling a position. I'm guessing Sacramento operators share that situation.

We have some terrific restaurants here, but most of my well traveled guests feel that they fall short of great, and it's hard for me to argue the point.
If I may use a baseball analogy, it's the difference between Triple A and the big leagues.

So John, do you by necessity leave ethnic restaurants off the "great" list? There are some Mexican and Vietnamese places here that I'd rate as at least "really good" if not "great", although they're certainly very different from places like The French Laundry. They don't have the elegance, wine list, and amazing staff that a Thomas Keller place does, but they absolutely amaze me with the food they serve.

I guess that was my point. Does a place have to be a French Laundry kind of place to be considered a really good restaurant?

For me, knowing what they're doing, but having enough change to keep them interested. Key to this is if they are comfortable in their own work, then they can start to adapt to particular guests and be more formal or more relaxed, depending on the vibes they get from the customer.

Food-wise, honesty is great. Don't attempt to over-embellish (in description or delivery) the food. I don't see food as an art-form. Good presentation is ok and bad presentation detracts, but beyond that it all gets a bit arty-farty. Well-sourced and considerately prepared food is key for me.

Wine-friendly: No 3xmark-ups as standard; honest profit taking on food and wine in equal (or at least fair) proportions. BYO is a bonus, but a good wine list can be even better, as a wine can be selected that goes really well with the food chosen at the table.

Timing - Being rushed is the pits and barring some appalling instances, slower is better.

regards

Ian

To me, a good restaurant is any place that I will go back to. Not necessarily fancy. For example, the Sawyer Creek Hotel, where I've dined with other WLDGers as they visit the area. Old building, interesting decor (old photos of Abe Lincoln, etc.), very reasonable prices - menu that has wings, fish fries and daily specials and a limited wine list, but some nice draft beers. I eat there at least once per month. Last night I had Haddock Florentine for $10.95 - with a glass of Riesling my bill was under $20 and it was quite tasty.

Good question, Mike. While the fellow from Pennsylvania may judge restaurants by the “stars” those restaurants have on paper, I sometimes find that the truly “great” restaurants are often the ones off the beaten path where the food, service, wine list and general hospitality are remarkable.

Case in point…Many years ago, Rob Adler and Stuart Yaniger introduced me to a restaurant in San Francisco named Chapeau. Every year I now take my parents there right before Christmas for a special dinner. I’m not sure what Zagat thinks of Chapeau, but Chapeau focuses on their core competency (simple, but excellent French fare), the service is attentive but not obtrusive, the wine list is actually affordable and the hospitality is unmatched. The owner even hugs and kisses my Mom which is a VERY positive thing at her age. Oh, and the check, by SF standards, is reasonable.

That is what makes a really good restaurant in my mind.

A great restaurant (or restaurant experience, to be more precise) depends on who and where I am on any given day. These are my standards:
1. The food has to be at least as good as I can make it -- not necessarily better, I am eating out for any number of reasons that don't necessarily have to be about the food.
2. The atmosphere needs to speak to my sensibilities in very specific ways. The one thing I really can't stand is music that is too loud, no matter what kind; or wait staff who show up every 5 minutes to ask "how's that doin' for ya". But, background noise is essential -- as long as it's controlled (no meet/meat market loud talking and over enthusiastic laughter, please; no techno dance music; no microphone announcements of "Henderson party of 2, your table is ready", with a repeat)
3. If I am at a corner table with my book, reading (or writing) while eating, don't hover and don't rush me out. The food is acceptable, the atmosphere is what I'm looking for, I'm alone for a reason, and -- trust me, I will leave a reasonable size tip to make my time at your table worth any revenue you may have lost with my over-extended stay.
4. If I am dressed for a night on the town with another party or two, and we have ordered food and beverage totaling no less that $75/ea (usually more), I expect my water glass to never be empty (accompanying chatter during the refill unnecessary), anticipation of more bread or condiments as the main course is being put down, a wait person who is within eye view (but not hovering) so that a nod from me will bring them to inquire as to my wishes.
5. Wait staff who will ask (but not automatically run through the routine) "would you like to hear about the specials we have this evening?"; then someone who can tell me without reading it from a notepad. In addition, someone who has taste tested the daily specials and will offer specific comments such as "the halibut was just brough in this morning and is the first of the season, and it is a must have if you especially like a little spice in your food, otherwise....."
6. I should have one waiter and one busperson (perhaps a wine stewart, if I ask for them). If more than 3 people show up at my table to wait on me, the total tip has just been reduced to no more than 20% and you can figure it out among yourselves.
7. Lastly, if all the stars align and I get all the above PLUS, the food is exceptional and there is at least one dish I have never experienced before that leaves me wanting the recipe -- you have just scored a perfect 10 and my tip will reflect it (usually a minimum of 30%).

But, I must admit, I also love to eat in dives wherein it really is all about the food and little else. I have really enjoyed great food in some hovels! What can is Say?!

But, I must admit, I also love to eat in dives wherein it really is all about the food and little else.

I totally agree. We can't eat that fancy ice sculpture in some fancy restaurant, but we can eat some fantastic food in a little dive.

But, I must admit, I also love to eat in dives wherein it really is all about the food and little else.

I totally agree. We can't eat that fancy ice sculpture in some fancy restaurant, but we can eat some fantastic food in a little dive.

That's what bothers me about the idea that a restaurant has to be a phenomenal New York - San Francisco - LA kind of place to be really good. There are so many great dives out there that offer amazing food experiences even if they don't have Petrus on the wine list or a chef-God.

So John, do you by necessity leave ethnic restaurants off the "great" list? There are some Mexican and Vietnamese places here that I'd rate as at least "really good" if not "great", although they're certainly very different from places like The French Laundry. They don't have the elegance, wine list, and amazing staff that a Thomas Keller place does, but they absolutely amaze me with the food they serve.

I guess that was my point. Does a place have to be a French Laundry kind of place to be considered a really good restaurant?

Great grub is great grub...could certainly, and often is a hole-in-the-wall that food-wise, will blow away the upmarket jointswith all their ups & extras. The disclaimer of course is that dining for many of us, including me, is and should be a, 'dining experience' so service, decor, attitude, are all important.
So saying, if you're a 'foodie' and love ethnic food, then L.A. is right up there among the best with Asian, pretty much all nationalities, and Mexican naturally but including outstanding South & Central American cuisine, pretty good Indian and decent Eastern European.
The irony is that L.A. (IMO) is not favored with many really outstanding haute cuisine restos and lags way behind in that department in back of NY, SF, Nawlins, Chicago and probably another dozen cities. And no, LOL, nobody has ever come up with a valid reason why this is the case.

4. Pretension. If a restaurant has a "philosophy," it's going to suck..

This is one of my big pet peeves as well. Even if the location has a 'story' that makes it charming, I don't necessarily want to hear about or have it crammed down my throat because I'm not there to eat the story or the philosophy.

I guess that was my point. Does a place have to be a French Laundry kind of place to be considered a really good restaurant?

Absolutely not. And ethnic "dives" are probably my number one favorite type place to eat. It just sounds as if your friend is looking for something more. He's looking for something that is very difficult to find in a small market. I'm guessing he's going to be very hard to please.

Mike, I really like your question, and almost everyone's comments match mine. Especially Stuart's #2 and 3, and JoAnn's #1. We have major issues where we live because both places are dreaded "resort towns." The Palm Springs area has several "really good" restaurants but these are the places that have been around since Frank and the rest of the brat pack were dining there. I'd imagine they have not changed much in either atmosphere or menu since then. We have specific dishes we go there for, we know what to expect and the service is always outstanding--a waiter who's been at one place 12 years is still considered "new." There are a few places we really like that are new by comparison. Problem is, they are inconsistent--the kind of places where we've had outstanding meals, but have also had mediocre or even inedible ones so hesitate to recommend to people in case they go there on an "off" night. We've also encountered scores of "OTOs" (One Time Onlys) in both places. Usually, they are highly recommended by friends, but we are not impressed. It must be an off night (or our friends' standards are not quite the same as ours.) We never go back.

I would say the main reasons we go out to eat on any given night are:
1. No time to shop/cook
2. We have a hankering for something we don't usually make at home. (fish and chips; fried chicken; Mexican or Chinese food)
3. We want to "go out to dinner" with friends

For number 1, we are usually looking for a place (most likely a "dive") with relatively good food, with a good variety of "home cooking" kinds of foods, and can get in and out quickly. We don't want to make an event of it. Unfortunately, there are VERY FEW places that fit this bill anymore. What happened to all the diners?
For number 2, the food must be really good and that's why we are going. We probably also aren't making an event of it, but most likely will drag our best friends along. This place also can be a dive.
For number 3, we usually go very upscale, make a bit of an event of it and want everything we put into our mouths to be wonderful. We want to feel like the $16 shaved beet salad was worth every penny. Like Stuart, many times Len and I think I could make better food, so we're not thrilled when the bill comes.

So that brings me to my definition to what makes a "really good restaurant." I think it's the same as yours Mike. I want everything I put into my mouth to be so wonderful that I pause for a moment so I can say, "Wow," or "You have to try this!" to my dining companion.

Absolutely not. And ethnic "dives" are probably my number one favorite type place to eat. It just sounds as if your friend is looking for something more. He's looking for something that is very difficult to find in a small market. I'm guessing he's going to be very hard to please.

It must be something along those lines. Seems like you'd lose out on a lot of great experiences if that's the case, but everyone has their own ideas on this.

Here's close to my ultimate in "it's more dangerous than that, Max, it has a philosophy" sort of pretension. Right across the street from Traci's.



Even the typeface choice is pretentious. Geez, I love noodles, love 'em, but I can't bring myself to walk in there.

We have enjoyed wonderful restaurants all over the country, and for that matter all over the world. However to my mind the quintessential restaurant is the New York City steak house. Have enjoyed them since I was a tyke Even though they tend to be too expensive to go to on regular visits; we try to get to one now and then.

A few years ago we managed to get to Sparks Steak House with some wino friends including Thomas. It was the most memorable meal we have had since.

We have enjoyed wonderful restaurants all over the country, and for that matter all over the world. However to my mind the quintessential restaurant is the New York City steak house. Have enjoyed them since I was a tyke Even though they tend to be too expensive to go to on regular visits; we try to get to one now and then.

A few years ago we managed to get to Sparks Steak House with some wino friends including Thomas. It was the most memorable meal we have had since.

The question I'm asking isn't "what's the absolute best", it's "what makes a really good one really good". So what I'd ask in response to this for you, Carl, is whether every other restaurant just pales in comparison to the great NYC steak houses. Can you still feel like you've had a really good experience in other kinds of restaurants? And if so, what is it that makes for that good experience. If not, what sets apart the steakhouses?

Can you still feel like you've had a really good experience in other kinds of restaurants? And if so, what is it that makes for that good experience. If not, what sets apart the steakhouses?

Certainly as I tried to express, we've had many other great experiences; including out your way. As others have alluded what we look for in a restaurant is somthing far better than what we can do at home.

The New York City steak house gives you ambience that you can cut with proverbial knife, absolutely impecable service, meat that you can't find anywhere else prepared perfectly, and a wine list to fill every need. A rather simple package it would seem, but one we've not been able to find elsewhere. I guess you have to try it to believe it.

Interesting topic. As with so many other esthetic experiences, I don't think that there's one single answer for me.

Novelty: Once in a very long while, a restaurant comes along that does something so new and unique that it grabs my attention and makes me notice. The last such example I can recall is when I had the tasting menu at Manresa, as it was my first encounter with the trend toward microportions, with a nod to molecular gastronomy, too. Of course, my first encounters with new ethnic foods also qualify, such as my first Thai meal, my first Ethiopian meal, etc.

Regional interpretations using top quality ingredients: This is a more common experience for me, usually encountered while traveling. An example would be going around the corner from our hotel in 8th arrondisement in Paris and having a marvelous meal of classic Normandy dishes. It's as much a function of time and place as it is the food served.

Personal style of a chef that appeals: Just as certain winemakers seem to have a fast track to my taste buds, so too certain chefs just seem to find ways of appealing to my palate. Of course, with the turnover present in most kitchens, there's little guarantee of continuity, but c'est la vie.

In listing these categories, it occurs to me that all of these qualities are fairly transient, and that it's hard for a restaurant to continually appeal to me, although a few manage to do so. A good wine list doesn't hurt the case, either.

Mark Lipton

I cannot help but "great" is more than in the menu, it's execution, the service and the ambiance. Great is in the eyes of the beholder and is thus dependent on the moment, the mood and the company (even if that is only ourselves). I know a small restaurant in Jaffa for example best described as "a joint", at which the dishes, from the mezes to the fish and seafood dishes are prepared in the simplest of fashions, and at which, if that is what beckons, I can dine for a minimum expenditure in truly great fashion. I know another seafood restaurant in the Tel Aviv port where the style is distinctly American, the seafood and fish dishes all with a superlative but never overdone creative French Provencal touch, at which the wine list is magnificent, and the prices absolutely outrageous. There too I can dine magniciently. Depends on my mood. And then there is a place on a back street of the ancient town of Acre in which simplicity is the key to the decor and service but at which the dishes, many with a North African touch are superb, and the prices quite moderate. Also there one can do it "a la granda".

As to the stars awarded to restaurants (even though I am one of those people who awards those stars), that too depends on one's mood. Going to a restaurant simply because it has stars is, for lack of another word, a dumb move.

Best
Rogov

It's as much a function of time and place as it is the food served.

I think you and Rogov both allude to this, Mark, and it's a good point. Time, place, mood, and dining companions all have an impact on our perception of a meal.