HOME > Chowhound > France >

Discussion

Which Michelin 3 in Paris is worth being poor for?

Does anyone have a vote for favorite fabulous meal in Paris? Something I can tell my grandchildren about that I can shamelessly go in debt for?

Thank you in advance~

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
Delete
    1. Highly subjective but L'Ambroisie could be included.

        1. re: purpleceline

          I agree that Taillevent is a wounderful experience, but unless there's a new Guid Mich, Taillevent is currently a 2 star. I would include it in my top rec's along with L'Ambroisie,Gagnaire and Le Meurice.Just behind would be L'Arpege and Savoy

          1. re: purpleceline

            I agree that Taillevent is a wounderful experience, but unless there's a new Guid Mich, Taillevent is currently a 2 star. I would include it in my top rec's along with L'Ambroisie,Gagnaire and Le Meurice.Just behind would be L'Arpege and Savoy

            1. It's an easy question. The response is l'Ambroisie, l'Arpège and Pierre Gagnaire for the food; Guy Savoy for the show and the Human experience. And maybe, soon, le Cinq, when Chef Briffard is well installed. And you can throw in le Meurice for the Palace/Versailles-like experience. The first three, in any case, are definitely head and shoulder above the others, kind of an unofficial four stars category.

              3 Replies
              1. re: souphie

                About two weeks ago, we did dinner at Pierre Gagnaire and the three-course prix fixe lunch at Guy Savoy. We enjoyed Guy Savoy much more. PG seemed to me to be over the top in his experimentation with mixing food flavors and textures, and every course came with a very healthy serving of condescending attitude. We are not unsophisticated diners, but could not recognize, by sight, smell, or taste, many of the items served to us (two different tasting menus, and we are French speakers, so no language problems). The best course was dessert, and the sommelier guided us to a wonderful wine. It was an interesting experience, but not one I'd care to repeat. I got the feeling that "the emperor has no clothes on" there; its all about PG's reputation, and how far he can go in shocking diners. Perhaps he's the Salvador Dali of haute cuisine? Guy Savoy, on the other hand, was perhaps not quite as inventive, but the flavors, presentation, and service were excellent, and not as much of a "show" as PG. We were treated well, and enjoyed each course. Again, the sommelier helped us select a wine that complemented our meal. In short, I'd recommend Guy Savoy over Pierre Gagnaire if I had to choose one.

                1. re: CynD

                  I listed these three because they just are the best, but they have significant style differences. I personally wouldn't go back to Gagnaire, ever. But people with different sensitivities enjoy it much more than I ever did, and he remains one of a kind. You can see that, for those who enjoy it, it is insurpassable. As far as I am concerned, the best PG experience is watching the movie on DVD: I get the excitement, the inventivity, the project, and I don't have to eat the food and pay the price. But see tupac's recent review (and a couple of others) to demonstrate that Gagnaire is one of the handful of chefs worldwide who can offer a life transforming experience.

                  1. re: souphie

                    I want to thank you, Souphie, for your recommendation of each of them before my trip. Notwithstanding my opinion of PG, or the cost, it was a good experience to have, and one my daughter and I will long remember. I'll have to check out the PG DVD, and maybe I'll understand his method better. The vanilla souffle I had for dessert there was divine, but on the whole, the GS meal was more to our liking. Thanks again, Souphie - you're a good resource.