Going to a French restaurant for the first time in a while, what should I get? I will probably be going during dinnertime but possibly brunch.http://lebarricouny.com/menus/
For dinner, escargots definitely, and either coq au vin or boeuf bourguignon.
>>12037649just get the burger you fucking faggot, you made the same shit thread 15 minutes ago you hyper retard
>>12037660why get a burger at a french restaurant? we eat enough burgers to begin with in Burgerland
>>12037663Because two things might happen:- You're an Amer*lard and the food would seem alien and foreign to your cheez whiz McCkicken cornsyrups tastes;- The restaurant is shit because it's in Amer*ca made by Americans or stinking wetbacks.So getting the burger would be your safest bet.
>>12037696Whatever you say, Mohammed
>>12037696And I've actually been to France and much enjoyed the traditional French food I had (though the ham sandwiches for lunch got boring). Have you ever been to the US?
How is eggs and merguez?
>>12037649Try the French fries. Oh and get a burger too with a chocolate shake.
Pizza, pepperoni if possible. LARGE
ask for French's yellow mustard if you get a hot dog
why is /ck/ filled with so many immature retards? this was supposed to be one of the more serious boards, it's just b+fast food now
>>12037955>>thinking anybody needs to be mature on an anonymous Bhutanese pottery forum
>French Restaurant>not a single red Burgundy, much less 1er Cru burgundy by the bottleyou should always bring your own and pay corkage but that wine list is a major red flag, and the fact they offer a burger
Their cocktail list is shit, but they have Rittenhouse Rye and Carpano Antica Vermouth, so order a Rittenhouse Manhattan with Carpano Antica vermouth, flamed orange instead of a cherry on a big rock. If they make it correctly it will be the best manhattan you'll taste in your life
>>12037971Burger is not that bad because it’s now served in most French restaurants in France. Like instead of using “American” cheese (kek), they’d use roquefort, beaufort or whichever french cheese they have. t. French
>>12037649Honestly, ask them. They'll appreciate the effort, and they'll probably recommend their best specialties.
That menu is aggressively stereotypical. Is the chef a cartoon with a twirly mustache? Anyway, definitely go for dinner, the brunch menu is just like any other brunch menu. I'd ask what the cheeses are and get that if it sounds good, otherwise go for the tartare. Then I'd get the hanger steak or the bourguignon. Maybe split a side of brussel sprouts.
>>12037971>corkage feewhat the fuck is that? are yuros so poor because they pay other people to open their bottles for them?
>>12037649>http://lebarricouny.com/menus/mussels marinière with frites,cassoulet, crème brûlée and then fart your way through your home
>>12038034When you bring your own bottle to a nice restaurant in America, typically they charge what's called a "corkage fee" of 20 or so dollars as to discourage normies from bringing in their shitty cheap supermarket bottles. However, a decent growth bordeaux or a 1er cru burgundy typically has a large markup. A decent bottle from a nice wine shop that costs you 80 dollars will cost you 150 at a restaurant (probably more), so it's worth it. Not to mention if you want to bring in an extremely rare bottle to have with a special dinner at a restaurant but don't want to have to rely on their pleb wagie 1st level sommelier who knows fuck all. It's the patrician method to drinking wine at a restaurant. If the restaurant doesn't know what you mean when you say corkage fee, don't eat there.
>>12037649The cassoulet, sprouts, mussels mariniere, and wild mushroom pasta all jumped out to me. If I was at dinner with my SO I think we'd split these things over white wine.
>>12038069>A decent bottle from a nice wine shop that costs you 80 dollarsWTFtoo much money on your hand buddydecent hobo juice isn't worth that money, anything more than 2~3 euro a bottle is luxury
>>12038069What if I bring my own food and just pay a forkage fee?
Dude, you live in NY. GO TO LE BERNADIN. what are you even doing with your life on this cheap shit.
>>12038079I've spent over $3,000 on a bottle of first growth bordeaux, fight me>>12038081kek
>>12037649CASSOULET MOTHERFUCKERif they're not shit
>>12037985which is how they serve it at that place. and yeah, I went to France twice and burgers are everywhere.
>>12038020No, the chef is a CGI Rat >>12038052do French people really fart from beans? >>12038069do most restaurants even allow that?
>>12038085I'm not a richfag
>>12038095but they're clearly shit anon
>>12038105Yes most decent restaurants do. Cheap shit ones won't know what you're talking about, and some will say no. But if I'm getting a $100+ Chateubriand I want my 1er Cru Burgundy along with it, it just goes with the territory. I'll even give the server a little taste and tell them about the producer, etc. if they're curious. Sometimes if I order a bottle from them as well for the table, say a bottle of champagne when we sit and then the bottle I bring in with the entree, they even waive the corkage fee. It's happened many times.
>>12037696Shut up Mohammed
>>12038107Too bad, you're missing out. I've been twice and it was excellent both times.
>>12038090Do you actually believe you could distinguish between a decent bottle of 10-30$ wine and a 80-100$ bottle? Pro tip: You can't probably. Therse is quite some evidence pointing in that direction that you are paying for the name and sticker on the bottle. Is it a good wine? sure, lots of tradition and high standards going into wine making? sure. But an actual improvement in quality? Unlikely.
>>12038150You have no idea what you're talking about. That's okay, but you really don't. 80-100 is on the low-midrange side to be honest. It's not worth it to try to redpill someone who'll never be able to afford it on wine. People get so butthurt and defensive about their shit palates.
>>12038177>You have no idea what you're talking about.I have and it's backed by actual science. Just try blind tasting wines and you'd see yourself. Just to begin with "palate" is quite foolable because much of it is depends on smell and smell isn't very well developed in humans.
>>12038189You sound like a r*dditor who has never been able to afford nice wine and is upset they can't have in on it. Just like OP who is going to some literal who restaurant with probably frozen mussels in NYC of all places instead of a real restaurant, and when a decent actually French restaurant is suggested, he balks at the idea that you pay for quality. I don't know why I even try with you internet faggots, you will never succeed out there in the real world.
>>12037696What's with these retarded faggots and their asterisks? Is it supposed to be a sign of intelligence or some shit?
>>12038209Calling names, figures. If you claim expensive wine is superior back it up with actual evidence. Because science points otherwise. Fun fact: It's easy to fool even trained people into take a white wine for a red wine when using food coloring.And I agree that the restaurant's menu is somewhat generic, but it might be a start. French cuisine doesn't boil down to high class dining either. So maybe you should have recommended a restaurant in a more similar prize range. If I ask for a good authentic pizza and you'd recommend me a high scale Piedmontese restaurant, we might be talking about different things.
>>12038242>Fun fact: It's easy to fool even trained people into take a white wine for a red wine when using food coloring.That's not a fact at all. It's you either misunderstanding or using deliberate hyperbole. It is true that in some particular cases trained testers couldn't distinguish red from white. But that doesn't mean that is "easy" or even typical. You seem to be drawing a broad conclusion from very specific data.If you're going to ask for evidence, which you should, you should make sure that you're interpreting your own evidence correctly first.
>>12038253It was somewhat more than "some" cases. And making this test with oenology students is quite telling too. And changing the color of wine with food coloring isn't to difficult either.
>>12038270>It was somewhat more than "some" casesThe point was it was a specific subset of cases, not all of them. And at least the two examples I read were equally impressive on the other side as well. While the tasters did mix up a couple varieties, they also managed to correctly indetify the others, even down to the geographical area. There certainly is BS in the world of wine tasting, but that doesn't mean it's entirely BS.>> And changing the color of wine with food coloring isn't to difficult either.Why would that matter? sometimes they use opaque glasses, sometimes they use dye. What does the difficulty of that procedure have to do with anything? Some wines taste very similar despite being red vs. white. Others taste radically different despite being made with the same color of grape.the only thing that data shows is that wine experts are not infallible, which everyone already knows. It certainly doesn't mean that all high-end wine is overpriced trash, or that a sommelier is always wrong.
>>12038280>The point was it was a specific subset of cases, not all of them.Look at the size of that subset. The majority isn't able to tell the difference. And this goes well with other data about wine experts. These suggest that a small minority might have an exceptional good taste for wine. But the majority doesn't.>Why would that matter?Because in opposite to the original statement this is not a very sophisticated way to fool the visual sense. And the visual sense seems to play a major role here too.>the only thing that data shows is that wine experts are not infallible, which everyone already knows. Thats wrong. If you take other experiments and statistics into account it shows that they are overall quite inconsistent in their rating of wines. >certainly doesn't mean that all high-end wine is overpriced trash, or that a sommelier is always wrong.I didn't say it was trash. Not at all, there are good and bad wines. I just doubt there is that much of a difference in taste alone. And if this applies to professionals it likely will apply to amateurs too. If you are willing to to spent that much on a bottle of wine - be my guest. But don't think you are automatically enjoying a better product.
>>12038345*But the majority doesn't.But even they are likely to fail if confronted with a large enough sample of wines.
>>12038352And I am still waiting on positive evidence that expensive wine is superior. And this is tastable to the average person if they put some reasonable effort into it. Even if there might be some experts with beyond human sensual capabilities, that wouldn't refute my point.