Just how many courses can there be in a meal?

$228 for the whole meal is rather inexpensive if compared to NYC. A few weeks ago I took my queen to one of my favorite Italian restaurants in NYC. Not inexpensive but far from some other costly places. App, two entrees, 4 glasses house montepulciano (my favotite wine!) and $340 bill to go with it.
I like to eat as much as the next person, but it all comes out the same the next morning. So unless it's for the "experience" I can't imagine spending over $20 for a meal, although I don't get any drinks or dessert when eating out.
 
There can be a huge difference in the overall quality of a meal not entirely defined by price and it's important not to confuse quantity with quality.
If we are overnighting near an airport ahead of an early flight the following morning, then a Cracker Barrel level meal is fine, although if there is something better nearby we'll go for it.
If we are on vacation and trying the local scene then we might want something a little better. Eating at a roof-top restaurant in Istanbul or a riverfront one in Tbilisi along with a bottle of a local wine would run you a tad bit more than 20 USD but then the food and the experience is also beyond what 20 USD would buy you.
 
There is more than one "main" course. A "course" is simply something served separately at its own time.

They bring out the first app, then clear it bring out the second, clear it, and so on. The first time I was completely full by the second main course. The main courses were in fact complete items - like one was some sort of chicken breast with a potato, the next was a small cut of beef, and I think the third was lamb and some veggies. They were very small, but still too much. They came on a plate, the waiters clear the plate, then they bring the next.

The food was good, but it was purely about gluttony, and I found it not very enjoyable and sort of a great waste. I think that is the point, in a sort of let them eat cake sort of way.
 
The dinners at Montclair (Italian) on Green St. in San Francisco were 7 course, IIRC. You could also order ala carte because after the first 2-3 dinner courses, you were pretty much done.
 
The more courses there are the smaller the portion size you eat - if you have any sense. You may just want to have a bite or even skip a course. Nobody is forcing you to fill the tank until it overflows.
 
How do you define a "course"?

It’s a dish or a set of dishes served together. So if it’s a 30-item tasting menu served over 3 hours, that is indeed 30-course.

There’s an extremely influential restaurant in Napa Valley that does that. The number varies though.


12.23_dinner.pdf
 
Does anybody know the areal pyrotechnic called the "chrysanthemum"? It kinda looks like a chrysanthemum, the flower.
It has a center and petals (or whatever they are) which go out evenly in all directions.

That is what this thread resembles. Just sayin'.
 
It’s a dish or a set of dishes served together. So if it’s a 30-item tasting menu served over 3 hours, that is indeed 30-course.

There’s an extremely influential restaurant in Napa Valley that does that. The number varies though.


12.23_dinner.pdf
A menu with no prices would mean either prix fixe or DANGER WILL ROBINSON!
 
Being listed in the Michelin guide is quite a big deal in itself.

Each one of those 22 courses would be tiny, probably not much more than a mouthful. Each one beautifully prepared, beautifully served and very flavourful. The only problem - that meal would take forever.

We ate at a Michelin guide listed restaurant in France a decade ago. The food was excellent and not all that expensive. But it took forever (a couple of hours for lunch, might have been longer).
 
Fanciest meal I ever had was a salad, main course, and then dessert. It cost me $83 Canadian, plus tip, and is the most expensive meal I've ever had. To this day I regret wasting that much money on 1 meal. If I had gone somewhere else, I would have been able to eat out 5 times for the same amount.
 
Back
Top