Exactly. Mmmmm… tasty same thing.
For an appatizer that looks about right. If it’s a main course, perhaps it’s a restaurant for anorexic models.
You’re reading the menu wrong. That’s not 1/3rd of a $67 meal, it’s 1/7th of a $95 meal.
If you want to quantify by calories per dollars, perhaps you shouldn’t go to fancy restaurants. (Sorry, I tend to agree with your general complaint, I [em]guess[/em], but I can’t believe it’s 2009 and someone is kvetching about tiny portions on a giant white plate.)
If it’s one course in a seven-course meal, then I don’t really have a problem with it, even if the seven-course meal is more expensive. The issue (for me, at least) is paying a lot for a fancy dinner and not getting enough food to be reasonably satisfied, and not really with the relative cost of the meal. For a seven-course meal, that serving size seems appropriate.
What Ben et al said.
Price compared to size is an irrelevant discussion best left for philistines. If this is part of a 6-8 course meal the size is fine. If it tastes good and you can afford it, the price is too.
Americans need way too much food to feel reasonably satisfied.
and there’s the added bonus of leaving stuffed to the gills.
See, that’s not really a bonus.
Well, yes, it’s overpriced and undersized, but it’s not even in the top tier of pricy restaurants at a mere $67 for three whole courses. Well, three quarter courses. Whatever, it’s not that bad compared to the really expensive places.
$1000 bottles of wine and $200 meals aren’t for everyone. I think you really need to be something of a supertaster to appreciate the difference between something half or less of the price of the highest end goods. A $1000 bottle of wine is a total waste on anyone who isn’t an experienced wine taster.
Obesity whar?!
Honestly, which is an even smaller number of people than those that can afford to pay 1000 dollars for a bottle of wine regularly. Even among so called experienced tasters, I think you could do a blind test and fumble some of them up.
Interestingly, I was watching America’s Test Kitchen and saw the host trying various cheeses in a grilled cheese sandwich. The cheese he preferred turned out to be the most expensive cheese, which the other host joked about good breeding or something. But I think that really goes to that fact that these are acquired tastes and mostly only discernible by experts, if even then.
There’s nothing superior about them, rather, it’s more about what you’re used to having.
[/quote]
Right. Some of us don’t have gills.
Ha, ha… Something about putting grilled cheese sandwhiches with expensive cheese and good breeding cracks me up.
The expensive food, sure, but the difference between a $50 bottle of wine and a $500 bottle doesn’t require training. I had something like two ounces of a 90 year old, $500 bottle of muscat at The Herb Farm and it was so good it practically murdered me. I’ve never tasted anything like that, and I know jack shit about wine other than “I like it sweet.”
Sadly (I guess) I prefer Gruyere on my grilled cheese. I guess that makes me a snooty frencified person. :\
I don’t disagree, but three courses of that size would only be a reasonable sized dinner for someone on a starvation diet. Don’t get me wrong–ridiculously large portion sizes is one of my personal pet peeves, and I am consistently annoyed by people that get all excited about that sort of thing. Personally, I appreciate restaurants that get their portions right–not too much to leave you feeling like you overate at the end of the meal, but not too little to leave you feeling hungry. But three servings of the size shown in that photo would be a pretty small meal by just about any standard.
Yeah, but if you belch loudly when you’re done, we’ll still love ya!
Just call it a croque-monsieur and you’re all set.
Various degrees of melted, toasted, and grilled cheese are some of the best-tasting food there is, so I think it’s perfectly legitimate to spend a lot of effort and money on it…