Fat Guy

Totally not in the same league. Maybe Manganaro was great at some point, but the two times I've been there in the 21st Century it has offered only ultra-salty, mediocre sandwiches. They'd be the best sandwiches in many cities, but they're not even on the radar for me by New York standards. Melampo, on the other hand, produces a true artisanal sandwich -- Alessandro was even an inspiration, I think, for Tom Colicchio's 'wichcraft.

The neat trick is that the Times has dumbed down without shortening!

The Times is extremely well funded, and is able to hire some of the best writers available and support them with all the resources they need to get the story. So there is a qualitative edge to the Times food section that nobody else can really touch. But I don't see that quality-of-reporting aspect translating into a quality-of-thought phenomenon. If anything, the self-imposed trend at the Times has been one of dumbing down in order to appeal to the mass market: Nigella Lawson? Hesser's magazine pieces on dating? No question, there's some great stuff in the Times food section, and it operates on a level far above that of the old-school home economist, but I'm not seeing the intellectual rigor, the culinary cultural fluency -- especially not in restaurant coverage. Nor do I see it in the dining coverage in New York Magazine or Gourmet -- overtly or implicitly -- save for perhaps some of Hal Rubenstein's work, which is some of the only New York restaurant reviewing right now that exhibits the culinary cultural fluency of which I think you're speaking.

I don't have a 2004 Zagat survey handy, but for 2003 the average participant dined out 3.5 times per week. That's probably a good indicator of what upper-middle income New Yorkers who are into restaurants are doing. The National Restaurant Association said the national average was 4.2 meals per week in 2002 (http://www.restaurant.org/rusa/magArticle.cfm?ArticleID=138) but of course the methodology could have been different.

What a coup for the LA Times to have full-length writeups of meals at Per Se and Masa so soon -- as far as I know there hasn't been anything close in any New York media. I'm not sure I can accept Virbila's unbridled praise at face value -- it sounds a bit too much like rooting for the home team and a bit too little like any kind of critical evaluation of the food -- but the information content in the piece is tremendous.

I'm sure somebody has collected precise statistics -- perhaps the National Restaurant Association? -- but I'm not under the impression that New Yorkers on average eat more restaurant meals per week than those in many other cities. Rather, I think there are some differences in how those meals are distributed: first, New Yorkers are taking a much higher percentage of their restaurant meals in non-chain, individually distinctive restaurants; and second, there exists in New York a substantial class of people for whom dining is a hobby/obsession -- I doubt that group is all that large in terms of raw numbers, but neither is the number of seats in 2-4 star restaurants and it's probably the largest collection of such people in the US by far.

It's interesting to see your perspective on this, because I find myself having to fight an uphill battle anytime I want to write anything intellectually challenging in the food press. I can only think of one thought-piece I've done for a food magazine or newspaper food section, and I rarely see such pieces coming out of the New York-based media. My opportunities for higher-level expression about food have been limited to online, non-food magazines, and my forthcoming book. And it's not for lack of trying -- I pitch tons of stories to the food press and routinely have them rejected ("That's too controversial/advanced/nobody-will-read-it, but can you give us ten hot new trends in dining for Summer 2004?"), only to be published elsewhere (and even sometimes to garner Beard Award nominations or other recognition that helps me to believe what I wrote wasn't completely stupid). In other words, yes we have a lot of restaurant reviews and a lot of food coverage in the New York Times, New York Magazine, et al., but is there really anything remarkable about it in terms of social-criticism or related intellectual content? To me, the answer is no. After all, the dominant restaurant "review" source in New York is the Zagat survey -- the most intellectually barren and lowbrow system ever designed for evaluating restaurants.

The rating for Hearth makes sense, subject to the reservations I expressed above (on an absolute scale it makes sense, but it's insane for all those has-been restaurants to hold three stars while Hearth holds two). The rating for Asiate makes no sense (it can only be three or two stars for Asiate, as far as I'm concerned).

I think it would be reductionistic in the extreme to lay down axiomatic rules such as "No tablecloths equals no three stars" and "Bar menu equals no three stars." Surely there would be enough counterexamples to refute any such claims. Times change, and even at the highest levels of dining everything is far more casual today than ever before. Is there a single restaurant left in New York that requires a necktie for gentlemen? I'm fairly certain none of the four-star restaurants do -- at most they require a jacket, which really is not a big deal since even the dot.com types can wear a jacket over a tee-shirt and still meet the dress code. Still, although times change, there is a certain continuity to the system of rank-ordering restaurants. Today, it's not formality as such but rather a certain level of luxury -- stylish surroundings, a certain amount and quality of service, extensive beverage programs, and other indicia of a significant investment aimed at creating a high-end experience -- that brackets each of the star categories. Babbo is a beautiful restaurant in a historic building -- the old Coach House -- offering extensive wine service. Yes, it's relatively casual for a three-star, but it's still in the three-star ballpark. Lupa, on the other hand, could simply never be a three-star restaurant -- no matter how good the food; not even if it served the exact same menu as Babbo. Mix is casual in the sense that it lacks a lot of the old-style formality but it is a very stylish and modern place. I don't think anybody would argue that there's an absolute two-star limit on a place like Mix, where something like $8 million went into making the modernist statement. Mix does currently carry two stars, but that's a nutty rating for a place that serves four-star food in a three-star setting and manner. Hearth is a terrific restaurant. I have nothing negative whatsoever to say about the place. My meal there was highly enjoyable, the chef is as talented as can be, and I would recommend it to anybody who loves good food. It also offers very good value. But there's a difference between loving a restaurant and thinking it should have a certain number of stars. Hearth is a lovable two-star restaurant -- it represents all the best in a two-star place. I would choose it over many three-star places. But that doesn't make it a three-star restaurant.

We were there a couple of days before the chef change was announced. I actually liked the food quite a lot, but agree that it wasn't right for the market.

To amplify what Lesley said, readers have a certain expectation of a three-star restaurant. As a reader, one would have a right to be surprised upon visiting Hearth if one had gone there with the expectation of a just-shy-of-four-star, destination/occasion-restaurant experience. Of course, the language of the review can clarify some of this, but the stars have to make sense on their own because so many people rely on them exclusively (and stupidly). To many people, of course, casualness is a plus -- they'd rather go to Hearth than to a place where most men are wearing coat and tie. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that preference, but the langauge of the star system presupposes the opposite set of expectations. Overall, I thought it was a very good review. Hesser is an excellent writer, and this time around I think her judgment was on par with her skills as a wordsmith. I also appreciated that the knowledge she has gained over the years as a reporter covering restaurants came into play in her review. For example, her discussion of Paul Grieco and the cocktail/beer/wine program was no doubt informed in part by her extensive reporting on Paul and Gramercy Tavern over the years. This is the sort of thing that William Grimes -- despite being the author of a book on cocktails -- typically missed because he kept himself at a distance from the people behind the restaurants.

Le Bernardin's menu runs the gamut from minimalist presentions to intricate creations, and from "Almost Raw" to heavily reduced and extracted. It would be a mistake to characterize it as focused on one of those styles -- http://le-bernardin.com/menu_dinner.html The restaurant has perhaps the most versatile seafood kitchen in America. It takes a few meals there to find the parts of the rather large menu that match one's preferences, but I don't recall ever having a bad dish there.

Absolutely, Jason. It appears manifestly unjust for Hearth to get a two star rating when restaurants like Bolo, 5757, JUdson Grill, L'Impero, Park Bistro, and Patria are hanging on to undeserved three-star ratings. Hearth is significantly better than any of those places. Were the three-star rating properly limited to the restaurants that deserve it -- restaurants like Craft, Danube, Gramercy Tavern, Nobu, Picholine, and Veritas -- then two stars for Hearth would be a no brainer. An interesting comparison to Hearth is Bid, another restaurant from a Colicchio protege. Bid was clearly a more luxurious restaurant on all fronts than Hearth. I think it was a slightly better restaurant as well. It also received two stars. And that was probably the right rating. Nonetheless, I'd find the three-star argument for Bid to be more compelling than a three-star argument for Hearth.

If Craft and Gramercy Tavern are three-star restaurants, we hit a conceptual problem if Hearth gets three stars as well, especially since Hearth has so overtly been designed to feel like Gramercy Craft Cafe. The cuisine at all those restaurants is on a similarly high level of technical accomplishment and quality, but the luxuriousness of the ingredients and settings at Gramercy and Craft are in a different category. To me, the stars should roughly correspond to: **** - The absolute highest level of cuisine and luxuriousness available in NYC *** - Restaruants that serve four-star-worthy cuisine but lack the luxuriousness of the four-star restaurants; also, this rating should encompass restaurants striving for four stars, with all the trappings of four stars, but that somehow fall short ** - Very good restaurants that are worthy destinations, but that serve cuisine one notch below that of the four- and three-star restaurants and/or offer very casual/informal atmospheres, service, cuisine, and presentation; the two-star rating is also useful to designate three-star-potential restaurants that somehow fall short. * - The finest examples of neighborhood restaurants, and the two-star-caliber restaurants that are underperforming. This, it seems to me, is the language the better NYT critics have spoken in their better moments. On that scale, two stars is probably the most appropriate position for Hearth. The problem, of course, is that the Times has awarded some real howlers of three-star ratings over the years. Nonetheless, it's difficult to find fault with a two-star rating for Hearth. As much as I think Hearth pushes at the three-star boundary, this is probably the rating I'd have given the restaurant if I had to assign the stars. And in the text I would make clear that Hearth represents the very best of two-star dining, with three-star-worthy cuisine prepared by a tremendously talented chef in a casual, approachable setting and at a very reasonable price point.

He's 34, he's a graduate of the CIA; he worked at French Laundry for from '94-'95; he has worked in New York at Daniel, Gramercy Tavern, Craft, and others; he spent the year prior to the opening of Per Se in the kitchen at French Laundry. To put some of this in context, Tom Colicchio was Thomas Keller's sous-chef at Rakel in New York and they maintain a strong professional bond. So Benno's time with Colicchio at Gramercy Tavern and Craft was in many ways time spent in the Keller extended family.

It's our friend's Jeep. We traded for the week because our van can't handle the snow and mud out here, whereas he lives on paved roads in Gastonia.

They're universal, and there are even some in New York's Chinatowns. One of them, East Buffet in Flushing, is actually excellent. We saw a lot of signs today. Early in the day we saw one that said "Landfill Wanted." And then later, we saw one that said "Free Dirt." Tomorrow I'm going to go tell the "Landfill Wanted" guy about the "Free Dirt" guy. Surely this is the right thing to do.

I hope, and predict, that will not be a consideration. If his lifelong commitment to perfectionism is any indicator, Keller has too much integrity as a chef to go back to Napa or reopen French Laundry one minute before he is certain that his absence from Per Se will be completely and utterly undetectable on the plate. One assumes, also, that like Ducasse he will travel back and forth often. But, ultimately, a successful restaurant kitchen is about delegation. The chef, for the most part, cooks nothing during meal service. Moreover, in most restaurant kitchens, it is a sous-chef or expediter who works the pass and gives the final okay on every dish. The chef's job has to be essentially completed before the meal service starts -- otherwise he's likely to be a failure as a chef. Opening two restaurants simply adds an additional layer of delegation to an already delegated structure. A chef worth his mettle can make that happen without any loss of quality, creativity, or spontaneity. I'm certain that these considerations have been foremost in Keller's mind all along, and that he has done everything imaginable to make certain that the delegation is effective and that nobody will be able to accuse him of "spreading himself too thin." And I'm actually looking forward to seeing what Jonathan Benno does once the restaurant establishes a clientele of repeat customers and it comes time to cook off-menu for them. When I first met Jonathan, he was the line cook at Gramercy Tavern responsible for putting out the foie gras and several other difficult dishes -- he worked the hardest station in the kitchen. Later, I had some good discussions with him when I was working on a piece for Gotham that featured Tom Colicchio's three most promising sous chefs: Marco Canora, Matt Seeber, and Jonathan Benno. These are three names that will, as the next generation of chefs comes to prominence, become household names in the gourmet community. Most young cooks aren't secure enough in their own thinking to argue with journalists, but Benno had no such reservations: when he disagreed with me -- and he disagreed with me on a lot of things -- he said so, slowly, carefully, and articulately. Of the three, Benno was always the dogged perfectionist. He had worked at French Laundry and bought into the Keller idealism about food and kitchens, his cuts were the straightest of all the cooks, his stoicism during meal service no matter how deep in the weeds the kitchen was earned him the nickname (always behind his back) "iceman," and he was tremendously respected by everyone who worked with him. I've long had a fondness for him and his great attitude and even greater skill, but wondered if there could ever be a restaurant in New York that would live up to his ideal. And then the mountain came to Mohammed. In 2000 or 2001 when the rumblings about Keller's New York project started, I don't think there was any question in anybody's mind that there was one guy in all of New York who was the inevitable choice for the chef-de-cuisine position: Jonathan Benno. If anybody can do Keller as well as Keller, it's Benno. With him in the kitchen executing Keller's vision, I feel that we're safe.

Welcome plpcolumbia. Glad to have you here.

Yes, at fish camp (as in the other fish camp across the street, where we ate last night) something like 8 people said things along the lines of: "Aaah laahk yer pants." "I gotta git me somma those!" and "You a fisherman?" That's about double the number of people who normally comment on the fish pants at any given establishment.

About 1:45 as opposed to 20 minutes to fish camp, but I've been to Lexington twice on this trip already (once on the way here and once on the way to High Point to drop off a chair for recovering) and, if I haven't eaten at every barbecue place in Lexington, I've at least already eaten at every important one over the course of something like 6 trips there in the last 5 years. I'm not really down here doing food research and discovery, though. There's no plan to be systematic about anything, make any discoveries, or have any significant meals. I'm here working on something that doesn't allow me any time for significant restaurant research; the fish camp adventure was happenstance so I posted about it. We did consider a return to fish camp today (as in Twin Tops) but it's not open for lunch. Also, Bridges barbecue is closed on Tuesdays. Have plans tonight -- the neighbors are having us for dinner -- so I'm not sure when we'll get the opportunity if at all. We did a drive-by of fish camp and Ellen took a photo, though -- stay tuned.

The woman I spoke to this morning said that they would be calling each cancelled-reservation-holder to reschedule. She said the calls would come in March, and that they'd be rescheduling for dates during the couple of months following.

March 11 reservation, RIP. Yeah, Rich, we need to hear those details from you. Anybody who actually managed to dine at Per Se before the fire, your stock is skyrocketing -- please tell all . . .

Hey at least I didn't say Casco Bay is a fish camp! I'm not trying to dis Charlotte. I wish I had the mobility, time, and funding to eat at all the best restaurants in Charlotte for however many weeks it would take to do that. How about this: if anybody buys my book, I'll come back here to write the next one and I'll eat at any 20 Charlotte restaurants you pick for me.

We don't always know where progress will take us; that's why there will always be a risktaking element to forward motion. But that's what makes for great new cuisine: Vongerichten took a risk when he was in his invention phase, and he was rewarded with recognition as one of the most influential chefs of his era. Now it seems he has settled back into a risk-averse posture, and unless he wakes up and reestablishes some momentum he'll get left behind. Remember, Vongerichten made his reputation through inventiveness. On his own terms, his restaurants will be failures if they don't continue to invent. For other chefs, the rules they've set for themselves may be different. Ducasse, for example, is about a different kind of progress: striving for the ideal of every ingredient, preparation, and dish. Keller is more about culinary whimsy combined with his unique brand of perfectionism -- and I do believe he will need to offer some more progressive cuisine if he is to succeed in New York (and I think he will). Trotter has, I think, maintained a lot of his inventiveness over the years -- he is constantly exploring new culinary frontiers. I don't always agree with his newfound obsessions, but I support his commitment to restless creativity. Those who don't invent or progress shouldn't be disparaged. Reproduction of the classics is a very worthy pursuit. But those who devote themselves to cooking the same few dishes forever shouldn't have four stars and be considered the greatest chefs in the land. They're not. Even in France, where culinary traditions are far more powerful and compelling than they are here, it is intellectually untenable to continue to give three Michelin stars to Paul Bocuse and Georges Blanc. Eventually, Michelin will have to leave those restaurants behind or get left behind itself. Which isn't to say I don't love Georges Blanc. I can even see defending it as a species of three-star restaurant -- I used to see it that way, just because I so enjoyed eating there. But the top rating needs to be preserved for the chefs who are operating at the highest level right now.