74 replies to this topic

[oakapple]

I can't help but notice that you didn't answer my question.

I thought I'd made myself clear. I am saying it's impossible, based on attributes that can be seen at sight, and that have nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of the food, which I have not yet tried. (Lest anyone doubt that I'm a fan: I both want and expect the place to succeed.)

I think it impossible that Lincoln doesn't receive at very least 3 stars. Impossible. (queue the review of The Modern, I know...)

And Gilt, Café Gray, Alto (originally), Gordon Ramsay — that's just within the past five years. Mind you, I think this place is the surest 3-star to have opened since Marea, but it's never a lock.

I will add this. If I had to stake my life on it, after 4 days of service and a limited opening menu, I'd go with 3 NYT stars. I just take issue with someone saying "impossible" when they haven't even been there, let alone eaten there. Seems silly.

I am only writing from the perspective of what the NYT critics have done for the last 30+ years. One of these days, the rules could change. But they haven't yet. Momofuku Ssäm Bar was an impossible 3-star until it happened.

Edited by oakapple, 30 September 2010 - 09:23 AM.

[sethd]

I find it difficult to imagine that the Patina Group hires the chef at argubly the best restaurant not only in New York but in the entire country to head a restaurant in an extremely visable location, spend millions on design, have the chef and general manager travel the length of Italy looking for the best Italian produce, and not have the aspirations of receiving a 4 star review. I ate at Lincoln and thought the the experience was worthy of Four Stars. L'astrance does not look like a 3 star michelin restaurant from pictures either

[sickchangeup]

I can't help but notice that you didn't answer my question.

I thought I'd made myself clear. I am saying it's impossible, based on attributes that can be seen at sight, and that have nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of the food, which I have not yet tried. (Lest anyone doubt that I'm a fan: I both want and expect the place to succeed.)

It seemed to me that you said those things sight unseen. I was far more impressed with the space in person than in photos. I had not seen servingware etc.. anywhere in photos before going there.

So perhaps more importantly - what attributes are those exactly? Food? Service? Decor? You admitted it can't be the first two, so it must be the last. And on that point, this places destroys Le Bernardin. I find it a lot nicer than Daniel too. Is it the lack of white tablecloths?

(It's a legitimate question, I consider you far more knowledgable about reviews/stars/requirements than me or most people for that matter).

[oakapple]

I find it difficult to imagine that the Patina Group hires the chef at argubly the best restaurant not only in New York but in the entire country to head a restaurant in an extremely visable location, spend millions on design, have the chef and general manager travel the length of Italy looking for the best Italian produce, and not have the aspirations of receiving a 4 star review.

I can give you many indications this is not so. The most obvious is the cost of dining there. No one would call Lincoln a cheap date, but it is quite a bit less expensive than every other four-star restaurant except Del Posto, whose fourth star they couldn't have anticipated when they designed the place.

It doesn't have a four-star wine list either. It's not a bad list at all, but it isn't as broad or as deep as the other four-stars have.

Another is the open kitchen. As I sat there sipping my cocktail last night, the sound track was punctuated every few minutes with the sound of Chef Benno barking out orders to the line cooks.

Finally: no tablecloths. Now, I'm not one of those snobs for whom the lack of tablecloths spoils the experience. But if you wanted four stars from the get-go, you would surely notice that every non-Japanese four-star restaurant in NYT history has had tablecloths.

I'll add that the menu, even if prepared perfectly, has an "introductory" quality to it (e.g., no tasting menu, and fewer dishes overall than most four-star restaurants have). That, of course, could change over time, but remember that the critics these days start visiting almost immediately.

If it gets four stars, I'll buy dinner for both you and sickchangeup.

[sickchangeup]

The wine list is actually an excellent point. It is quite reasonably marked up from the very little that I paid attention to, but certainly falls well short of the four star group, no doubt.

FWIW, the tasting menu will likely land somewhere in the price range of Del Posto's, if not exactly on it (until DP increases it's prices post-4 stars). It's also worth remembering that prices go up over time, sometimes quickly. So I don't consider the initial price to be of any consequence to the discussion of stars personally.

And although I've heard Benno's voice many many times at per se, he certainly adds to the theater of the meal at Lincoln, no doubt about it.

[sethd]

Jean Georges has an open kitchen as well, though not seen from the main dining room. The a la carte pricing at Lincoln is very close to the prix-fix menus at Jean Georges, Daniel, and Le-Bernardin. We can debate this point ad infinitum. Even the Michelin Guide which used to be extremely rigid in its expectations of what differentiated a 3 star from a 2 star restaurant, has over the years, lessened those criteria. Noma, the newly crowned best in the world, to my recollection has no white linens.

As for the menu, ADNY had even fewer menu selections, but achieved a 4 star review. I remember that when L'ambrosie was on the left bank the menu consisted of 3 starters, 3 mains, and 3 deserts. At that time, it held 2 michelin stars.

Edited by sethd, 30 September 2010 - 01:32 PM.

[oakapple]

FWIW, the tasting menu will likely land somewhere in the price range of Del Posto's, if not exactly on it (until DP increases it's prices post-4 stars). It's also worth remembering that prices go up over time, sometimes quickly. So I don't consider the initial price to be of any consequence to the discussion of stars personally.

Oh, I certainly expect prices to go up if it's successful; that's practically always done. But at Per Se, the last non-Japanese restaurant to open at four stars, the lowest introductory price was $125 P.F., and that was six or seven years ago.

Jean Georges has an open kitchen as well, though not seen from the main dining room. The a la carte pricing at Lincoln is very close to the prix-fix menus at Jean Georges, Daniel, and Le-Bernardin.

The open kitchen at JG is both unseen and unheard from within the main dining room. As for prices, to give but one example, Daniel is $105 prix fixe for three courses. At Lincoln, if you order two savories and a dessert as expensively as you can, other than the anomolous $120 steak for two, you land at $80, a pretty substantial difference. Obviously, the average will be lower.

Even the Michelin Guide which used to be extremely rigid in its expectations of what differentiated a 3 star from a 2 star restaurant, has over the years, lessened those criteria. Noma, the newly crowned best in the world, to my recollection has no white linens.

That is true, but if you were designing the place for four stars, and had even the barest notion of what it has historicaly taken to get four stars, you would probably not make that choice. Momofuku Ssäm Bar got three NYT stars, but David Chang has admitted that he never intended to do so.

As I said: dinner is on me if it gets four stars.

Edited by oakapple, 30 September 2010 - 03:15 PM.

[sethd]

i am the last person on this board to defend the decreasing level of formality that exists in fine dining restaurants in this city. However, if any restaurant has a chance of four stars, either in the initial review or subsequent reviews, it is Lincoln.

At my meal at Lincoln, it appeared that most of the patrons were ordering 3 savory courses plus desert: thus the prices are more in line with jean georges, et al.

I have eaten at all the four stars in the city (including one whose rating i still question),and am aware of what makes those restaurants stand out against their peers. In terms of food, service, and ambience, I think Lincoln compares favorably to all of them (perhaps not Per Se).

Edited by sethd, 30 September 2010 - 03:36 PM.

[Bobster]

i am the last person on this board to defend the decreasing level of formality that exists in fine dining restaurants in this city. However, if any restaurant has a chance of four stars, either in the initial review or subsequent reviews, it is Lincoln.

At my meal at Lincoln, it appeared that most of the patrons were ordering 3 savory courses plus desert: thus the prices are more in line with jean georges, et al.

I have eaten at all the four stars in the city (including one whose rating i still question),and am aware of what makes those restaurants stand out against their peers. In terms of food, service, and ambience, I think Lincoln compares favorably to all of them (perhaps not Per Se).

I agree with its four star chance. But what about it doesn't compare as favorably to PerSe? (Curious, not disputing)

[sethd]

I believe that Per Se does what it does better than any other restaurant in the city. The level of precision and innovation of the kitchen is brilliant, the service at all levels faultless, and the restaurant is blessed with wonderful dining spaces. Recently, I had the opportunity to eat at Per Se four times in 3 weeks ( i am a regular at the restaurant). I was served over 60 dishes over the course of those four meals, only one of them was repeated. All were delicious. I don't believe that those meals could be replicated at any other 4 star restaurant in the city or elsewhere.

I am very interested to see how Lincoln evolves over the next few months. The restaurant has started at a very high level. I expect it to get even better.

[Bobster]

Good, just the kind of answer I was hoping for.

Four times in three weeks??? I'm extremely envious (your wallet and exercise schedule included)!!!

I guess I shouldn't whine since I do go three-four times a year...

[LPShanet]

i am the last person on this board to defend the decreasing level of formality that exists in fine dining restaurants in this city. However, if any restaurant has a chance of four stars, either in the initial review or subsequent reviews, it is Lincoln.

At my meal at Lincoln, it appeared that most of the patrons were ordering 3 savory courses plus desert: thus the prices are more in line with jean georges, et al.

I have eaten at all the four stars in the city (including one whose rating i still question),and am aware of what makes those restaurants stand out against their peers. In terms of food, service, and ambience, I think Lincoln compares favorably to all of them (perhaps not Per Se).

Sorry to be the voice of dissent, but based on my meal there last night, I have to disagree 100%. As I see it, there is absolutely no chance that Lincoln will get four stars from the Times. It's more likely to be a matter of two versus three, and if the meals they have are like mine last night, they'd be lucky indeed to get the three. Not only is it not designed to be a four star in terms of ambition, it's simply not good enough, both in terms of food and service. The only thing four star about the place is the price level.

I'd even venture to say that the meal I had might not put it in the top seven Italian restaurants in the city, let alone the top seven of any kind. (I believe the number of four star restaurants is currently seven.) We all have various places we like a lot and those we "dont' get", but observed objectively, there's nothing about Lincoln that makes it comparable to those in the four star category. It may be possible to have a great meal there (though I certainly didn't have one that was anything better than very good), but that isn't what the criterion is for determining the four star recipients. I didn't find it to compare at all (let alone favorably) to the seven four-star owners. In Del Posto's case, food aside, they're at least trying to deliver a level of service comparable to the other four star operations. Meanwhile, Lincoln is much more of an upscale bistro environment, in terms of service structure and ambition, similar to A Voce and the like. No tablecloths, no sommelier in evidence, one waiter per table and amuses that are more bar snack than inventions of creative genius. It's just not the formula you use if you want the quad.

Edited by LPShanet, 11 October 2010 - 09:43 PM.

[sickchangeup]

The only thing four star about the place is the price level.

Ironically too low a price was one of several quoted reasons that Lincoln wasn't to be a 4 star place. Now it's the only criteria that meets a 4 star rating. Quite the price point they set! :-)

[Bobster]

That makes sense, LPS. I'm still hoping for three stars for them.

[LPShanet]

The only thing four star about the place is the price level.

Ironically too low a price was one of several quoted reasons that Lincoln wasn't to be a 4 star place. Now it's the only criteria that meets a 4 star rating. Quite the price point they set! :-)

I wasn't one of those that cited its price point being too low for four stars, since I don't agree. The price is very comparable to Del Posto, only with less value delivered, and is pretty close to Jean Georges's entry level prix fixe if you compare apples to apples (meaning doing a four course option including a pasta at Lincoln). It's also within a few percentage points of the costs involved with Le Bernardin's entry level menu and with EMP's lowest cost option. If you take the typical cost for each of the four courses at Lincoln and add it up, it comes to $100 even. That's higher than Del Posto and Jean Georges, and pretty close to the other two I mentioned. And keep in mind that they don't provide the level or number of amuses or mignardises that any of the four stars do. What I do agree with is that the FORMAT of the menu isn't typical of what most of the four star places do. From a purely financial standpoint, it makes Del Posto seem like the real bargain of the bunch, at least for now. Which is appropriate, as this is a Del Posto thread after all...

Edited by LPShanet, 12 October 2010 - 02:03 PM.

[Sneakeater]

That makes sense, LPS. I'm still hoping for three stars for them.

I hope it DESERVES three stars.

Sifton is so erratic that I don't particularly care what they GET.

[oakapple]

The only thing four star about the place is the price level.

Ironically too low a price was one of several quoted reasons that Lincoln wasn't to be a 4 star place. Now it's the only criteria that meets a 4 star rating. Quite the price point they set! :-)

I wasn't one of those that cited its price point being too low for four stars, since I don't agree. The price is very comparable to Del Posto, only with less value delivered, and is pretty close to Jean Georges's entry level prix fixe if you compare apples to apples (meaning doing a four course option including a pasta at Lincoln). It's also within a few percentage points of the costs involved with Le Bernardin's entry level menu and with EMP's lowest cost option. If you take the typical cost for each of the four courses at Lincoln and add it up, it comes to $100 even.

As I was the one who said Lincoln does not charge four-star prices, I probably ought to elaborate on what I meant.

It is true that if you order four courses at Lincoln, the price is pretty close to what you would pay at all of the current four-stars except Per Se and Masa. But because Lincoln allows the option of ordering à la carte (indeed, that is its only option, at present), its revenue per check will be quite a bit lower. This has significant impact for the restaurant, because customer revenues must (naturally) cover many other costs besides just the food.

Remember, Benno told the Times that the cost per person would be around $110 including beverage. That is clearly not the case at any other four-star place. They might not even hit $110 as an average, because a lot of people go into a place like that and don't order four courses. Lincoln also lacks the upper end of the wine list, which many of these restaurants depend on for a big chunk of their revenue.

This lower check size at Lincoln has a direct impact on the restaurant's ability to offer the luxuries that the other four-star places have.

Del Posto's $95 menu certainly does look good, though I suspect it won't last, and the price of the wine list (which is not available online) may very well bump up the average check size considerably beyond what appears, at first glance, to be a very good bargain.

[Sneakeater]

Just to amplify, food snobs -- oops, I meant educated diners -- like us would never dream of going to an Italian restaurant and ordering less than a standard Italian four-course meal. But how many "normal" people do you know who voluntarily order a pasta in addition to a main course after an antipasto?

Edited by Sneakeater, 12 October 2010 - 03:25 PM.

[LPShanet]

That makes sense, LPS. I'm still hoping for three stars for them.

I hope it DESERVES three stars.

Sifton is so erratic that I don't particularly care what they GET.

My thoughts exactly!

I also concur on the comments you made about the menu pricing and structure, and the fact that most people don't order the way we folk do.

To that extent, Marc is dead right about the pricing. When viewed from the restaurant's viewpoint (i.e. a per-check total), they are definitely going to make less than the current 4-stars. But from a cost to the buyer viewpoint, it's right up there...

[sickchangeup]

Del Posto's $95 menu certainly does look good, though I suspect it won't last, and the price of the wine list (which is not available online) may very well bump up the average check size considerably beyond what appears, at first glance, to be a very good bargain.

Link to Del Posto's wine list.

I've always enjoyed the fact that one of the VERY few French wines on the menu is Chateaux Le Gay. Gotta love that sense of humor.

[oakapple]

Today, Ryan Sutton of Bloomberg gives Del Posto two stars, in a review that couldn't be more opposite of Sifton's.

[sickchangeup]

Yeah, he ate a lot of the same stuff I did, and experienced a lot of the service issues I saw.

The review is still a bit mean spirited though, he's definitely driving an agenda IMO.

[wkl]

Del Posto's $95 menu certainly does look good, though I suspect it won't last, and the price of the wine list (which is not available online) may very well bump up the average check size considerably beyond what appears, at first glance, to be a very good bargain.

Link to Del Posto's wine list.

I've always enjoyed the fact that one of the VERY few French wines on the menu is Chateaux Le Gay. Gotta love that sense of humor.

quite a bit of champagne on that list.

[LPShanet]

Today, Ryan Sutton of Bloomberg gives Del Posto two stars, in a review that couldn't be more opposite of Sifton's.

Wow, quite the disparity. I'm headed there in a few weeks, and very curious which way my experience will lean.

[sethd]

The disparity between the two reviews really doesn't matter since the New YOrk Times review is still considered to be the most presigious and important review in the city. Del Posto is now a New York Times 4 star restaruant and will keep that rating for the forseable future.

[oakapple]

The disparity between the two reviews really doesn't matter since the New YOrk Times review is still considered to be the most presigious and important review in the city. Del Posto is now a New York Times 4 star restaruant and will keep that rating for the forseable future.

You are entirely correct, of course, that the Times review is "the one that counts". (It works the other way, too. At around the time Bruni gave Del Posto three stars, Bob Lape of Crain's gave it four. Hardly anyone remembers the latter.)

STILL, it is a remarkable disparity. I don't recall any professional review THAT scathing, of ANY of the current four-star restaurants. Some may have questioned whether Daniel or EMP was truly a four-star place, but no professional reviewer has suggested that any of them are as bad as Sutton just wrote about Del Posto.

[Fat Guy]

I don't think we've seen "professional" reviews that negative of a NYT four-star place since Alain Ducasse at the Essex House. But there we had a whole complex stew of political considerations going on. Everybody loves Batali, though. I can't think of a single person in the food press who has an axe to grind with Batali. With Del Posto, I'm inclined to believe Sifton had meals as great as he said he had, and Sutton had meals as bad as he said he had.

Although, I will say that the argument “Haven’t we had a better, cheaper version of this elsewhere?” that Sutton makes seems symptomatic of the soft bigotry against fancy Italian restaurants.

[sethd]

Is Sutton considered an important reviewer?

[Fat Guy]

I think the strongest argument is that, in general when you're talking about nice restaurants, no reviewer other than Sifton is important. Some would argue Adam Platt is also important, because New York Magazine has traditionally had an important restaurant-reviewer post (Gael Greene occupied it for ages). But there's also probably a respectable argument that any paid reviewer with a budget and an audience is important. Of the online professional reviewers I think there are only two significant ones: Ryan Sutton (Bloomberg) and Alan Richman (GQ online). Richman actually used to hold Sutton's position. I have no idea of their readership numbers. I'm not sure if any business gets driven one way or another by the online reviews, but I know that restaurateurs and publicists follow them very closely. I can pretty much guarantee you that Batali, Bastianich and Ladner are seriously bummed about Sutton's review, even though it might not affect business at all.

[sickchangeup]

There is no way Sutton didn't understand the importance gained by his reviewing the place with a slam just a few weeks after the NYT somewhat controversially gave it 4-stars. I've had most of the dishes he had - the "next day" take on the 100 layer lasagna may be "mushy", but throwing in language referencing Hamburger Helper is purposefully sensationalist and woefully inaccurate. It's a review specifically written to attract pageviews, unfortunately at the expense of a very good restaurant.

It get's worse as it goes, sort of picks up steam. "Chef Mark Ladner’s pork loin here is no better than Babbo’s $29 chop." (Is Babbo's chop good? excellent? poor? Is anyone expecting a loin of any animal to taste better than the chop of that same animal??) The paragraph after writing he could do better at home, he starts with "A near-perfect meal starts to seem possible until service starts to fall apart in the later hours." Wait, what?? "Hamburger helper", "could do better at home", and yet the meal can be characterized as "near-perfect" until several hours in - and only ruined by service?

The irony is that I agree with a lot of the things he noticed, and noticed them myself. But I would have to be hellbent on a takedown to write it up that way, cause this place - no matter what - isn't Ninja.