Sweets & Savories Disappointment

We ate Saturday at Sweets & Savories, and although the food was great, we came away resolving not to bother going back. The main reason was that we were told on the phone that the tasting menu was eight courses, yet we only got seven. We did have the foie gras burger in addition (they gave it to us after the fish course, and we split it) and the wonderful fries fried in duck fat, so it was a lot of food, but we paid for those extras, so not to get the full tasting menu left us feeling cheated (especially since we could see other people getting a chocolate dessert to finish up with, and we were awaiting it eagerly). When they plopped the bill down in front of us instead of a final dessert, we were taken aback. We asked about the number of courses, told them we were under the impression that it was an eight course meal, and pointed out that the numbers "1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8" were written on our check. The bald guy who runs the front said, "Well, it's seven." Which brings me to the second reason - the bald guy. We didn't like the car-salesman-like hype that he subjected us to all through the meal - saying that he was going to "treat us right," implying we were going to get special items because we were "sititng at the Chef's Table." We've been to places where they did indeed give us little extras, or created a special tasting menu just for us, so we half-belived him - but actually all we got was the standard tasting menu (minus, possibly, one dessert).

I would feel a lot better about the experience if I knew it really was meant to be only a seven course meal (though I'd still feel disappointed that it didn't end with chocolate). But former posts have spoken about eight courses that include three desserts, and we paid $60 per person, so... Are they just totally unpredictable at this place?

Anytime I've done the tasting menu it has been 7 courses:

Appetizer
Soup
Fish
Meat
Salad
Sorbet
Dessert

Now, sometimes dessert is several desserts meant to be shared by the whole tables, sometimes it is just the same thing served individually to everyone at the table. Either way, it's always an insane amount of food which has never left me looking for extra courses.

My only time dining at S&S, we were offered a 7-course tasting menu. One of the courses was a sorbet, which I don't really consider a "course".

Frankly, I was so impressed with the food and the value that I could not imagine being upset about this very minor mis-step.

We were served by "the bald guy", who was affable, friendly and very helpful. He was happy to discuss the food with and wine us and even provide a little extra splash of the wines that I really loved.

Akatonbo, I wonder if they had told you the correct number of courses and not over-promised any "extras", would you have enjoyed your meal there? (I'm curious about the menu you had). Personally, I don't see these as reasons enough to never return.

Best,
Michael

jesteinf wrote:Either way, it's always an insane amount of food which has never left me looking for extra courses.

Without a doubt. I left sated and petit pois felt a tad over-stuffed (although she did insist on having a piece of all three breads offered

I'm looking forward to returning very soon.

Best,
Michael

The only reason why I'm comfortable calling the sorbet a course is because of the size of the portion. Otherwise I agree, this would not typically count as a course in a traditional tasting menu.

eatchicago wrote:My only time dining at S&S, we were offered a 7-course tasting menu. One of the courses was a sorbet, which I don't really consider a "course".

Akatonbo, I wonder if they had told you the correct number of courses and not over-promised any "extras", would you have enjoyed your meal there? (I'm curious about the menu you had). Personally, I don't see these as reasons enough to never return.

That's true - because we were very satisfied with the food - it was, as I said, great! I think the person on the phone mis-spoke, and then the bald guy didn't handle our question very well. But we just didn't like his style, I think. Okay - I feel better.

As for the menu, first we had a tomato fondant with orange slices and frisee (very tasty and original), followed by a ceviche consisting of a huge scallop, a shrimp, and some lobster (garnished with something sweet - which I found strange, but it was tasty), followed by an excellent slice of halibut on some sort of sauce that was delicious, followed by our foie gras burger (very good, but not as wow-y as I'd hoped - glad we didn't get just that) accompanied by the wonderful fries. Next came the meat course - a slice of beautiful, tender, rare fillet on a mound of lobster mashed potatoes - quite delicious, once the garrulous bald guy got done telling us about his recent get-together with David Burke, so we could finally start eating it. Then there was a salad, then the sorbet (agree that I don't consider this a "dessert," especially since they told us it was a "palate cleanser"), followed by the dessert, which was a sort of sundae in a glass, with raspberries and creme fraiche - good, but not great - and we'd heard so much about their desserts that we felt a bit underwhelmed by this one.

Overall, we did agree it was an enjoyable meal. Now that I know they didn't stiff us on the courses, we probably will go back - once they change the menu.

Akatonbo wrote:Overall, we did agree it was an enjoyable meal. Now that I know they didn't stiff us on the courses, we probably will go back - once they change the menu.

I agree that they didn't stiff you on courses -- it's always been seven when I've eaten there. And even though the 7th "course" is the sorbet (6th actually), I find that their servings are so large that I'm full with 7 -- and at $60, I think it's a great deal. Of course, I also think that they have one of the most reasonably priced wine lists in town.

You'll be happy to know that the tasting menu changes all the time (not sure if it changes every week, but I wouldn't be surprised).

BR wrote:You'll be happy to know that the tasting menu changes all the time (not sure if it changes every week, but I wouldn't be surprised).

Akatonbo's tasting is almost identical to the one I had a little while back and linked above (the meat course is the exception). While they say that it changes often, I get the impression that if you want a completely different tasting, you're best bet is to wait for the next season.

I plan on returning in the fall.

Best,
Michael

Akatonbo wrote:Which brings me to the second reason - the bald guy.

I nominate Paul at Sweets & Savories official LTHForum Lightning Rod.

I still LOVE the food at S&S, but David, Paul, et al really need to pay better attention to the criticism about pacing. We were asked at least five times - can we take that away yet? - in clear attempts to bring out the next course way before we were finished with the current one. I guess they got frustrated, and one course was actually removed when I stepped out to the restroom, even though I had just said I'd like to keep it. We arrived at 7:30 and did not leave until 10, but it was like pulling teeth to get them to let us enjoy the amazing dinner at a leisurely pace. I think the expectation for a 7 course meal should be at least 2 and a half hours. Maybe the best solution would be for them to just ask at the begiinning: we can complete all seven couses in anywhere from one to three hours - what would be your preference? This criticism of S&S is so common at this point that it's time for them to heed it and take action already.

I would also like to comment that my family and I also were served by the bald guy and received some very interesting comments/remarks to various questions or comments, which slighly disrupted the mood of our dinner.

For instance, my wife had a tomato bread soup, or something like that, which had nearly a cup of olive oil floating on top. She only ate a little because all the oil was making her ill. When the bald guy asked if everything was okay and she politely commented that it tasted fine, but she found there to be way too much olive oil. He simply said, "well thats how that dish is served". It was just said very bluntly and defensively. If you didn't want to know, then don't ask, but don't make the guest feel wrong for stating their opinion you asked for.

eatchicago wrote:We were served by "the bald guy", who was affable, friendly and very helpful. He was happy to discuss the food with and wine us and even provide a little extra splash of the wines that I really loved.

I could see how the "bald guy" might put some people off.

He has only been extremely helpful like the above pouring of extra wines or pouring a 1/3 glass of something he prefers. I dined at S&S about a month ago and he even ran out to get ginger ale as one of the people I was with wanted that in their cocktail.

babern38 wrote:I would also like to comment that my family and I also were served by the bald guy and received some very interesting comments/remarks to various questions or comments, which slighly disrupted the mood of our dinner.

For instance, my wife had a tomato bread soup, or something like that, which had nearly a cup of olive oil floating on top. She only ate a little because all the oil was making her ill. When the bald guy asked if everything was okay and she politely commented that it tasted fine, but she found there to be way too much olive oil. He simply said, "well thats how that dish is served". It was just said very bluntly and defensively. If you didn't want to know, then don't ask, but don't make the guest feel wrong for stating their opinion you asked for.

Yesterday I received a private message from the restaurant (possibly the owner), which I am not familiar enough with this software to copy here. The gist of it was: I took your phone reservation, I said the meal could be 7 or 8 courses, depending. I'm glad you enjoyed the food (so he did pick up on that part of my original post), but sometimes they do special stuff for regular patrons, etc, etc, etc. Then he ended by saying he hoped we would find a better fit in our next dining experience! The tone of the message was petulant, to put it mildly. And, yes, defensive. Since they obviously read this forum, here's a direct plea from me to them: Please lighten up! We thought the food was great! I even said in a later post that now that the confusion about the number of courses was cleared up, I felt better about our experience there, and would return. But if I receive another defensive, self-justifying e-mail, I'd be likely to re-change my mind

It seems to be a tough situation for a restaurant whom almost all agree is a great dining value at the price point. They have an energetic staff, one member who will even run to the store to accomodate a customer.

They read this board, like a lot of other restaurant professionals and media, then write a note trying to mend the fence. Only to find it ridiculed, it seems no matter what they try to do they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Try to find their level of ambition and energy as well as an affordable price point in other restaurants. It will be a challenge to do so.

Regards,

Cathy2 wrote:They read this board, like a lot of other restaurant professionals and media, then write a note trying to mend the fence.

Cathy, unless I misread the gist of the communication that Akatonbo received from the owner, the owner told him to please take his business elsewhere! Which hardly qualifies as an attempt to mend the fence.

I agree with you that Sweets & Savories does a lot of things right, and that it must require a lot of hard work to do that, which should be noted and appreciated. But there are flaws, too, and it's not wrong on a board like this to make note of those as well. At least, I don't think it's wrong.

And one of the things in the "wrong" category is the owner's response to Akatonbo--unless I misread it's meaning. Akatonbo, if I'm misinterpreting, please correct me. (Because I'd rather not believe it.)

although the food was great, we came away resolving not to bother going back

Then he ended by saying he hoped we would find a better fit in our next dining experience!

Frankly, assuming the owner did read this thread as appears to be the case, you ARE misreading the gist of the communication that Akatonbo received. If someone has already resolved not to go back, publicly, what would be the point of the owner pretending otherwise?

Me? Misinterpret? Sure! Hopefully not too often.

I guess I read, "Better fit in your next dining experience" as a suggestion to come back and we'll try to make it better rather than a send off.

Regards,

continued:

I feel like we need to organize another dinner at Sweets and Savories, assuming they'll even let anybody who uses the Internet back in the joint. I mean, we've picked on the personality of the waiter (who has a name, Paul, by the way, which has been used enough in these threads that there's no reason to be referring to him generically still); we've picked on a place that gives you tons of food for the money for not offering exactly the number of courses claimed (all of which is dependent on an elastic definition of what constitutes a course); and of course, at another board they were smeared and not allowed to defend themselves over what I felt, personally, your mileage may vary, was a totally petulant and unreasonable complaint which the restaurant bent over backwards to be nice about (a fact unfairly denied to the readers of that board by its management).

Let's get real about a place like this. Ten bazillion restaurants open every year in this city. Many of the high end ones are well-funded mediocrities basically out to con people by pretending to be what they're not. This, to the contrary, is a little place run with heart and soul by nice guys with a few quirks, offering tremendous value for money. It is not as slickly run as the Ritz-Carlton. It is not as accomplished culinarily as Charlie Trotter. But for a storefront on Fullerton it serves large portions of high quality, occasionally outstanding food in an easygoing, no-BS atmosphere. And while they may or may not be your kinda place, they really don't deserve to get kicked around on the Internet like they have been. Or at least if they do, I can think of a hell of a lot of places that should be in line in front of them.

Now, I'm not saying that criticisms shouldn't be made. I certainly don't want anyone to go away thinking a moderator said S&S was off-limits at LTHForum, which I realize is a risk with me saying all this. I'd just like to see a little perspective. Sweets & Savories could avoid all this hassle by not having a personality, plenty of restaurants are as cold and impersonal as the fish counter at Jewel; instead it has one, let's not beat up on it for it. Sweets & Savories could avoid arguments about its multi-course tasting by serving single dishes for $27, instead you give the chef $60, he takes you on a ride, don't pick it apart. This is one of the city's little gems and even when you have legitimate criticisms, let's keep them in that perspective so that people don't simply come away from LTHForum thinking "Boy, there sure have been a lot of complaints about Sweets & Savories."

Mike, that was from the first post, not Akatonbo's subsequent post. She clearly had changed her mind.

Akatonbo wrote:Overall, we did agree it was an enjoyable meal. Now that I know they didn't stiff us on the courses, we probably will go back - once they change the menu.

Mike, that was from the first post, not Akatonbo's subsequent post. She clearly had changed her mind.

Nevertheless it was said and I would not expect the owner to have read everything here and carefully weighed which to give more credence to before getting on the phone and dealing with the problem at hand.

If someone has already resolved not to go back, publicly, what would be the point of the owner pretending otherwise?

Actually, once the initial misunderstanding was cleared up, the OP said they would go back

we probably will go back - once they change the menu.

Cathy2 wrote

it seems no matter what they try to do they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

A restaurant - even a very good restaurant - can never be all things to all people. One of the drawbacks to reading boards like this if you're a chef is that you're bound to read criticism of your work. Some of it may not even be justified. It's hard not to be defensive, but you just can't take it personally. No matter how hard you try, not every customer will always be completely satisfied - but for minor issues like Akantombo's experience, responding can do more harm than good. Better to keep on doing the things that earn you praise and let the accolades drown out the minor criticisms than risk appearing overly sensitive/defensive

Mike,

Outstanding post above. You very clearly articulated everything I was thinking when reading this thread.

There's a lot of crap out there. S&S should be appreciated for what it is and not picked apart for every single misstep they make.

I would be more than happy to attend another LTH dinner there.

ETA - Never in my wildest dreams after my first time eating at S&S did I think that this restaurant would become one of the more controversial in the very bizarre world of food message boards.

jesteinf wrote:There's a lot of crap out there. S&S should be appreciated for what it is and not picked apart for every single misstep they make.

I know! I hate it when people mention bad experiences with a restaurant!

Double YUM!

gleam wrote:

jesteinf wrote:There's a lot of crap out there. S&S should be appreciated for what it is and not picked apart for every single misstep they make.

I know! I hate it when people mention bad experiences with a restaurant!

Double YUM!

I think you are misunderstanding me.

If people were going to S&S and reporting back that the food was uninspired, poorly prepared, or some other terrible food-related experience, the community has every right to know about it. People should not hesitate one bit to discuss negative experiences at restaurants. It just seems to me that, for whatever reason, S&S seems to be nit-picked more than others. For a small, neighborhood place trying to do something different, I just don't feel like they deserve that kind of treatment.

S&S is being picked on because its price point is high enough that a dinner for two is not usually a once a week experience. When paying, say, $150 (after tax and tip) for dinner for two, people have different expectations of what the service will and will not be.

The service seems to rub some people the wrong way. Other people love it. Almost all of the posts here are overwhelmingly positive about the food. Only about half are overwhelmingly positive about the service. That, to me, shows some kind of problem.

Is the service truly as good and polished at the other places in its price point? How does it compare to Blackbird or Vie or North Pond?

If you were at Alinea and had a bad experience with the wait staff, would you find it not worth posting about?

No, the price point of the tasting menu is not a once a week experience.

(Nor do I know one anywhere that is.)

The $10 foie gras burger special on Wednesday nights, however, is, to name just one alternative.

Maybe it's just that I tend to go after bad service with a small stiletto rather than the hammer of naming the entire thread for it; I mocked the service at Scylla, for instance, in the course of often praising the food, I didn't label the whole thread with a complaint about the service. That's why I feel like S&S keeps getting taken into the alley and roughed up online, more than it could possibly deserve.

Mike G wrote:

although the food was great, we came away resolving not to bother going back

Then he ended by saying he hoped we would find a better fit in our next dining experience!

Frankly, assuming the owner did read this thread as appears to be the case, you ARE misreading the gist of the communication that Akatonbo received. If someone has already resolved not to go back, publicly, what would be the point of the owner pretending otherwise?

Maybe he missed my second post where I said I felt better after having been told that it was indeed a 7-course meal, but even so, you'd think a savvy, customer-oriented owner would want to make me feel better about the whole thing - like maybe include the phrase "I'm sorry for the misunderstanding - we hope you'll come back and try us again." It wasn't a mean or nasty e-mail, it just didn't sound like a genuine attempt to keep a customer who was mistaken about something, and questioned it, but still went on record as saying the food was great.

There's a lot of competition out there for any one diner's dollars. It doesn't take much to make some people (like us, I guess) just want to forgo a problematic or unpredictible place and dine elsewhere. Yet you can keep a customer simply by mollifying them a bit. It really wouldn't take much - just a willingness to say "we're sorry this happened.'

Ms. Paris wrote:One of the drawbacks to reading boards like this if you're a chef is that you're bound to read criticism of your work. Some of it may not even be justified. It's hard not to be defensive, but you just can't take it personally.

I agree.

Several years ago I read a comment by Cindy Crawford whose gist was:

If you believe and take in every accolade received (in the press), then you will subject to believing and taking in every negative statement about you. It is far better to scant notice of either praise or criticism, otherwise it will rule your life.

I thought that was a pretty even approach to the ups and downs servicing the public or celebrity.

Regards,

It wasn't a mean or nasty e-mail, it just didn't sound like a genuine attempt to keep a customer

Well, I just don't see the insult there. I see a realistic response rather than a phony upbeat one. And once again, they're being dinged for being real people, not corporate androids.

jesteinf wrote:If people were going to S&S and reporting back that the food was uninspired, poorly prepared, or some other terrible food-related experience, the community has every right to know about it. People should not hesitate one bit to discuss negative experiences at restaurants.

Agreed, however, are you limiting discussion of "negative" experiences to only food-related experiences? Sometimes, one little service-related issue can ruin a whole dining experience. We may be on the same page here, but I think it's justified to discuss those, too. I don't think any good restauranteur out there would relegate service to the lowest tier in the dining experience.

jesteinf wrote:For a small, neighborhood place trying to do something different, I just don't feel like they deserve that kind of treatment.

I appreciate that they are a small, neighborhood place that is trying to do something different. I also appreciate that they kind of got screwed on the other board in that their post in which they defended themselves was deleted. But they could be a small, neighborhood place that is trying to do something different that has a customer service problem (or maybe a communication problem). [I am speaking hypothetically here.] I've never been to S&S, so my point is not to imply that they have any type of a problem, but that doing something good food-wise won't (and shouldn't) immunize them from complaints, assuming these complaints (and they do appear to pile up) are valid. A restaurant is ultimately a business and while it could have the best of intentions in the kitchen, if their business end, front-of-the-house issues need fine-tuning, well, that can eclipse everything else. I don't know if that is the case with S&S, I don't even intend to imply it. Like I said, I'm speaking hypothetically.

Now, having said that, I haven't heard anything on this or that other board that would prevent me from going there, but if I do have a bad service-related experience there, I'm less likely to give them the benefit of the doubt that it was an isolated, truly odd experience.