West Seattle Blog...

WSB Forum » West Seattle Food

(36 posts)

Seeking opinions on "scary" chefs and intimidating restaurants

Started 2 years ago by cjboffoli
Latest reply from jen

cjboffoli
Member Profile

I'm wondering to what extent a negative perception of a chef would influence your decision to eat or not to eat in that chef's restaurant. And I'm not talking about first-hand experience but "something you heard" from someone else. Would you still try the place for yourself? What if their food were really exceptional despite a chef's rumored bad behavior? Would you still try the place out at the risk of having some Seinfeldian moment of being barked at by a soup Nazi just to get a bowl of his delicious soup?

For example, I had heard rumors for years that Hajime Sato at Mashiko was terse and scary but that his food was excellent so long as you sat far enough away from the sushi bar. However, when I interviewed him last year I found that not only was he a kind and charming man, but I couldn't seem to find anyone who had actually originated the rumor that he was a culinary diva. I began to think about how, if you don't know anything about a person, it really is easy to believe anything about them.

So I'm curious if anyone out there in WSB land has ever avoided a particular restaurant based solely on a chef's reputation and whether or not you would still try it for yourself. Thanks in advance for your answers.

Posted 2 years ago #
KBear
Member Profile

More often I've regretted NOT going to places where I'd heard GOOD things about the chefs before it was too late.

The rumor about Hajime was probably started by someone who read "The Rules", but never actually met the man. Opinionated, yes. Scary? Maybe for the first few seconds. But otherwise, very kind and generous and has a great sense of humor.

I'm not aware of any such rumors about other West Seattle chefs. I'm curious to know what else you've heard!

Posted 2 years ago #
GenHillOne
Member Profile

Ha! We ONLY eat at Mashiko if we can eat at the sushi bar. I'll second that Hajime et al are great and I've never found it to be a scary experience at all - and I'm far less adventurous than my dining partner, so I SHOULD be afraid of "the rules" ;) I guess I don't hear much scuttlebutt about chefs, so it wouldn't affect me. And unless I'm interacting with them directly, how would I know, or care (though I wouldn't want to see servers in tears), how they act in the kitchen?

Posted 2 years ago #
HelperMonkey
Member Profile

not a restaurant, but when I was younger Delores the bartender at the New Luck Toy used to scare the sh*t out of me. :)

Posted 2 years ago #
hopey
Member Profile

I've only experienced the opposite: choosing to visit a restaurant based on stories of a supposedly great, welcoming chef who turned out to only be welcoming of his cronies. Watching the chef dally at tables with his buddies and personally serve their plates, while we received mediocre service from the house staff -- not on one visit, but twice! -- really soured me away from a particular local restaurant with otherwise wonderful food.

If I'd heard that the chef was a jerk who made fabulous food, I'd still go. How much interaction does your average restaurant patron have with the chef, anyway?

ETA: The ones that freak me out are things like The Carson Building in Georgetown. Very small communal meals, served family-style in an open kitchen space. What if I don't like the people I'm seated with? What if I don't like what's on the menu? Too much risk for me.

Posted 2 years ago #
cjboffoli
Member Profile

Hopey: I always felt that way about Phoenicia. The food was OK. But Hussein's hospitality was five star.

And I agree that communal tables, especially in Seattle, are just a bad idea. I've had some experiences in which I've worked SO hard to get a conversation going but it just was not happening. Why chefs like Matt Dillon, Tom Douglas and Ethan Stowell insist on doing communal tables here I'll never know.

Posted 2 years ago #
HelperMonkey
Member Profile

I went to Serious Pie on the recommendation of a friend and was a little turned off by the communal seating. Not my bag unless it's a German beer hall.

Posted 2 years ago #
francis57
Member Profile

"Communal tables" as you call them are a great way to meet new people, or just sit quietly and have a meal. My husband and I were volunteers at Union Rescue Mission and all the tables there were "communal" and people didn't seem to mind. They were grateful for the opportunity to have a good meal.

Posted 2 years ago #
hopey
Member Profile

I think the folks populating the communal tables at Union Rescue Mission are quite different from the folks who would try communal seating at a high-end restaurant, and have completely different social needs. I have no qualms at all about communal seating in such a setting.

But I agree with cjboffoli -- communal tables in high-end restaurants aren't the best idea in this town. Maybe the chefs think their food is stellar enough to thaw the Seattle Freeze?

Posted 2 years ago #
maude
Member Profile

Wait a minute! You're telling me that people go to restaurants based on who the chef is? I wouldn't know one chef from another. I'd rather visit a place based on ambiance and food rather than reputation/crankiness of the person designing the recipes. Ambiance goes a long way for me and I visited The Surrogate Hostess exactly one time. I sat next to strangers at meals when I was in boot camp and sure as heck didn't want to sit next to them when I was paying for my meal.

Posted 2 years ago #
loodale
Member Profile

I tend not to frequent restaurants, or any place of business for that matter, where I feel that I received poor customer service. I think I'm a fairly laid back person, so my list is really short of places I won't go.
However, I had a bad experience at Mashiko regarding the chef's attitude towards me and my husband. It was nothing outrageous - we just felt that he seemed really dismissive towards us. Since I don't know him personally, he might be a cool guy, but we'd just rather go somewhere else for dinner nowadays.
That being said, I wouldn't ever spread rumors about the chef personally, or the restaurant. I also wouldn't rely on second-hand information regarding a restaurant or a particular chef.

Posted 2 years ago #
HunterG
Member Profile

I would still eat at a "scary chefs" place. Usually "scary people" have no idea they are scary.

Much of the time I get the moniker of being stuck up, which is the furthest from the truth, I smile and try everything to be friendly, but am still seen as those judge me to be.

I would eat at a scary chef's restaurant before a nice ones any day.

Posted 2 years ago #
bluebird
Member Profile

It depends who the chef is "scary" to. If my friends or acquaintances tell me the chef is an uber ass to work for/with and makes their lives miserable, I avoid the place. Some chefs think they are descendants of god. No thanks. If your talking about someone who is just generically cranky, but still a good boss, making good food, who cares.

Posted 2 years ago #
villagegreen
Member Profile

The guy at Mistral scares me - even though I've never met him. The concept of his new South Lake Union space seems intriguing (multiple kitchens with different menus and price points). But for some reason I feel intimidated. Super high end restaurants always seem to scare me, though. I really don't have the disposable income for it, but there's really nothing like being served an amazing meal in an amazing environment.

Posted 2 years ago #
dawsonct
Member Profile

This is a corruption of an old bartender joke, but it often applies:
What's the difference between God and a chef?
--
--
God doesn't think he's a chef.
Ba-dum-bump.

Posted 2 years ago #
JanS
Member Profile

I don't think I've ever been one to think that the chef would come out and mingle with me at my table. I don't want his company, I want his good food. I'm there to eat, to enjoy what is being made, and enjoy whatever ambience there might be. If it's crappy food, and I send it back, and I get attitude? That would probably be a different story. If it's wonderful food, I'd let them know.

But they don't have to be my friend.

Having said that, the guy from "Hell's Kitchen" ain't exactly my cup o' tea..he's a bit frightening ;-)

Posted 2 years ago #
dhg
Member Profile

Scary chef would be an attraction. The Soup Nazi is famous because people love it. The owner of the Elbow Room in Vancouver was quite insulting, that was the entertainment.

Posted 2 years ago #
grr
Member Profile

re: Hajime...Can't even imagine why anyone would say that. I'm one of those who ONLY wants to sit at the sushi bar. Mariah and John are equally as wonderful!
-
communal tables..TOTALLY depends on the place!! I sooo love the Corson type of experience. Same with Elemental in Freemont. I love the crap-shoot of 'what's for dinner?" as well as never knowing who you might meet. Art of The Table in Wallingford is like that as well. AMAZING chef, amazing food, amazing place.
-
When traveling (here and abroad), Mrs Grr always learns ONE specific thing in what ever language: "bring us your favorite... what you're going to feed your family after work". Hell of a way to eat across Italy, THAT's for sure!!!

Posted 2 years ago #
moxilot
Member Profile

The Corson's communal seating is integral to the experience. Sure, you may sit next to some folks you don't particularly care for, but at the very least you have the incredible food to talk about. We are so obsessed with having the world revolve around our needs and wants that we need to be in control of everything: our ability to just show up and expect seats to be available, where we sit, what we drink, how much we order, etc. Matt (and friends) are trying to go back to the philosophy of food bringing people together, and I really appreciate that. If you just want to sit down, stare at your plate and mow through your food, then it’s probably not going to make you happy to go there… and it’s not going to make anyone sitting next to you happy, either.

The food is awesome. Understandably, you have to be rather willing to try just about anything. But it's not like you're in the back room of the International District trying some foreign meat. Usually, people have bad associations with some foods because they've experienced a poor preparation. There's a little bit of trust in believing that these folks are cooking dishes as good as you may ever have it, so I've always suggested to my dinner partners to at least try whatever come out of the kitchen.

Sorry, didn't mean to turn this into a Corson rave, but I love that place. Plus, their fruit preserves make me beam.

Posted 2 years ago #
FullTilt
Member Profile

The corson building has an amazing brunch buffet. The only do it every other Sunday or so.

Posted 2 years ago #
carter
Member Profile

Interesting topic Christopher. During a previous life, I worked in restaurants off and on for 17 years from busboy to Manager of a multi-million dollar grossing restaurant, I would never patronize a restaurant where the chef abused his staff or customers. That said, I'd have to have pretty damned good proof the abuse was going on. I lived in London for several years and for that very reason never ate in any restaurant owned by Gordon Ramsey. The proof was on telly once a week.

I agree communal seating is rather silly in Seattle but I have to admire those who try to get people to interact. I have no problem striking up a conversation was a stranger but my partner would rather walk barefoot over broken glass . . .

Posted 2 years ago #
cjboffoli
Member Profile

moxilot: I hear you. And actually, I'm down with the intended design of communal seating. The problem is that in 2010 many of us seem to have lost the ability to have a conversation. I'm not referring to making small talk, or talking about oneself or the weather, but actually talking: asking questions, listening to the answers, sharing ideas and stories. In situations like that it doesn't matter how great the food is. Being seated with people who are not equipped with conversational skills can ruin the dinner. And escape isn't always so easy.

Posted 2 years ago #
dawsonct
Member Profile

I've worked with a number of different chef personalities in the kitchen, and surly chefs don't bother me; I actually feel sorry for them. (at least the ones who are angry because they don't like their careers, I mean, QUIT ALREADY!) My biggest problem is with chefs who use me as a tool as opposed to the chefs who saw me as a colleague, someone with whom to discuss ideas and dishes.
My worst experience was in a W. Seattle restaurant where, as I exhibited my skill set, creativity and culinary knowledge, the chef seemed to become more and more resentful of me and restricted my job to prep and family meal. When she hired me, she told me she would be rotating her cooks through stations so we would all be cross-trained. As soon as the doors opened, that idea was out the window.
She didn't last long there, and, though the restaurant tried to bring another chef in to rescue the place, by then it was too late.
--
The one area where I agree with the 'surly chefs' is when a customer picks and chooses components from different dishes to create their own, I.E.: I'd like the fillet, but could I have the sauce from the venison dish and the side from the pork dish?
Write the ingredients down and try it at home sometime, but don't treat your fine dining experience like you are trolling through some buffet line somewhere.
Occasional substitutions are one thing, but completely redesigning the menu is really insulting.

Posted 2 years ago #
KBear
Member Profile

"The one area where I agree with the 'surly chefs' is when a customer picks and chooses components from different dishes to create their own"

I know someone like that. She wants a filet mignon, no matter what cut is offered on the menu (or whether the menu includes steak at all.) Spends 10 minutes explaining to the server how to cook it (as if "medium well" were some sort of exotic request that the chef might not understand.) HAS to have Bearnaise sauce on it (again, whether it's on the menu or not.)

Posted 2 years ago #
afrikando
Member Profile

i totally agree, moxilot. i love communal seating and have enjoyed this successful model all over the world; my observation is that it seems to clash with the PNW sensibility. not sure what that issue is... but it's too bad really.

Posted 2 years ago #
voodoo
Member Profile

I've been lurking on this thread and just today, the inimitable Rose Levy Beranbaum (pastry chef and cake guru extraordinaire) has a blog entry about hospitable vs. inhospitable chefs/restaurants:

http://bit.ly/aA0O70

Posted 2 years ago #
cjboffoli
Member Profile

What an interesting story, voodoo. Thanks for sharing. While a $25 forkage fee sounds (and perhaps is) outrageous, the restaurant IS in business to make money, and usually on very thin margins at that. Every bit of food or wine someone carries in from the street is potential profit lost to them. It is their restaurant so I guess they can make the rules. And customers can choose whether or not to eat there. But they're not in business to provide a quiet, comfortable dining room in the middle of Manhattan in which to eat brought-in cake, any more than local coffeehouses are in business to provide free wi-fi all day to a patron who sits nursing a $2 cup of drip coffee.

With due respect to Danny Meyer and his restaurant empire, I'm not sure I agree with that writer that hospitality is important above all else. I've definitely had experiences in which I've refused to go back to a certain restaurant (Elemental at Gasworks, I'm tawkin' to you) because I was treated rudely. But there was also the added element of the food being unexceptional. Had the chef been a genius I may have been willing to suck it up and go back.

I was recently talking to a James Beard award-winning food writer who suggested to me that Americans tend to get too caught up in the whole notion of a restaurant as a service. That if you go in and demand a cheeseburger off the menu they should make it for you because YOU'RE the customer. If you've ever read any behind-the-scenes stuff about what waitstaff can frequently go through with boorish customers (www.waiterrant.net is a great one) you'll quickly recognize the extreme to which this notion has been taken. You'll also get a sense of the actual contempt that the waitstaff has for customers, hidden under the veneer of hospitality.

Again, as long as the food is good there can be something interesting (and even fun) about surly restaurant service. I think of the infamous Soup Nazi from Seinfeld (inspired by a real place on 55th St in NYC) or these red sauce joints in Boston where you go in and they TELL you what you're going to have.

This thread was inspired by rumors of a Seattle chef famous for tanrums and who was rumored to have actually thrown boiling water on a patron once. That's obviously an extreme example. But again, if the food is something special, I'm motivated to overlook (to some extent) bad behavior from the chef or staff.

Posted 2 years ago #
dawsonct
Member Profile

Something restaurant workers need to understand: a good experience is reported to a few friends, usually in passing, a bad experience is relayed to ALL friends as quickly as possible; a bad experience by a world famous food writer can destroy you. If I owned that restaurant, whatever attitude I was trying to project, and knew that a server acted that way even AFTER they knew who they were dealing with (the chef certainly should have, at least), they would NOT be in my employ anymore, and Ms. Beranbaum would quickly receive a very apologetic, even downright repentant phone call from me.
--
I DO agree with charging a NOMINAL fee when a customer brings in outside food or wine, the restaurant is STILL providing a service even if it is at the minimum level of providing equipment and cleaning up afterwards. My experience though, has always been that we plated and served as well, not to mention having a cake in your walk-in, fragilely taking up space for a significant amount of time. Charging for that isn't unreasonable, charging $25 for tossing four forks on the table is despicable.

Posted 2 years ago #
voodoo
Member Profile

Yes, without this turning into a debate over whether forkage/corkage/cakeage fees are warranted in any occasion (I myself lean on the side that on very special occasions it may be acceptable to call a restaurant ahead and ask if it would be permissible to bring a wine/cake/whatever and then expect a small fee for dishes or whatnot), I do agree with the idea that surly service or an overly megalomaniacal chef to be taken in stride is not the model of restaurant I want to visit.
However, this is freakin' Rose Levy Beranbaum we're talking about - the waiter missed out on a very good thing by snubbing her cake! ;-)

Posted 2 years ago #
Gina
Member Profile

I do not go back to restaurants with co-owners that cause talk of revenge schemes if ever visited again. I just stay away, and point out other places to get the same type of food, even though the quality is less.

Don't want to see the names of people I know in the Crime Watch section! Or provide bail.

Posted 2 years ago #
MargL
Member Profile

Well, here's the line. How often do you interact with the "Chef" - the person preparing your food? I think the chef does set a tone in the restaurant with the menu choices and how well it's prepared. However the -waitstaff- has much more opportunity to affect the dining experience. If I walk in the door and am greeted with surly attitude, have to wait for a very long time to order, wait to get my food, wait for water, wait for the bill, etc. then I do not care what the chef is doing or what is on the menu - I'm going to report a poor experience to friends and family!

So, I can't really say I have or will avoid a restaurant because of the chef or his reputation, but if I hear about poor service (especially on top of uninspired food) I will avoid the place.

Why would I possibly want to spend my time and money being somewhere I feel abused? Part of what I'm paying money for is the experience and atmosphere and the attitude of the people working there is a big part of that. Otherwise I might as well just stay home, make my own food and spend quality time with family.

Posted 2 years ago #
whiskey
Member Profile

>>>This thread was inspired by rumors of a Seattle chef famous for tanrums and who was rumored to have actually thrown boiling water on a patron once.<<<

The only reference in the first post is Hajime Sato... **sniff sniff** I love the smell of libel in the morning...

Posted 2 years ago #
JanS
Member Profile

And...if you read the whole post, he had good things to say about Hajime...libel? really? have some more whiskey :)

Posted 2 years ago #
whiskey
Member Profile

JanS>>

Post#1 -- "I had heard rumors for years that Hajime Sato" -- sets the premise that he is indeed a "scary chef." And is the only chef involved by name.

Post #27 -- "This thread was inspired by rumors of a Seattle chef famous for tanrums and who was rumored to have actually thrown boiling water on a patron once." Referring to Sato (as the only chef in post #1).

Why perpetuate unsubstantiated rumors?

Nevermind "good things to say." Perhaps some damage has been done? SEO and connections to Sato with said rumors?

Severe damage to reputations and ultimately business and livelihood can be done by printing unsubstantiated "rumors."

Think about it. This ain't a smiley face joke.

Posted 2 years ago #
cjboffoli
Member Profile

whiskey: Remember, truth is a solid defense against libel ;-) However, the unnamed boiling water chef was NOT IN WEST SEATTLE. Think about it: there's not a lot of boiling water in use at a sushi joint.

But 100 points for you anyway and thanks for playing ;-)

Posted 2 years ago #
jen
Member Profile

cjb...I have a pretty good guess as to the chef. If it's the same one, I heard the scary/snarky rumors and visited anyway, didn't have a problem and enjoyed the experience very much. I also visited the newer incarnation of the space, where the chef met me at the door and was very gracious (and I don't know him personally at all). But then, I didn't have an issue at Elemental, either - I love that place! I'm sure anyone who's ever visited a restaurant has had a bad experience somewhere along the way. I'm equally sure that every chef - even the always-super-nice ones - have managed to annoy/anger/P.O some customer, whether it was intended or not.

All that said, I never let a chef's reputation scare me away from trying a restaurant IF I've heard that the food and service are otherwise good. Pretty much the only thing that puts a restaurant on the no-visit list for me is when I have personally had a bad experience there.

And...chiming in on the communal table discussion - I don't mind it at all and usually find the experience to be interesting. The only time I haven't enjoyed it was at The Corson Building. The food was amazing, the company was engaging, but they seated 12-people at our 10-person table, which made the whole situation way more awkward and less enjoyable than it should have been. I was literally sitting past the corner of the table, while my plate was 8 inches to my left. I'd totally go to Corson again, but only if I could ensure that the table wouldn't be overcrowded.

Posted 2 years ago #