robyn

OK. I'm not sure that everyone here gets it. The circulation of the NYT is about 1.5 million+/- depending on day of the week - with half of that circulation coming from outside a very large multi-state area defined as the NY metro area. Over 60% of its revenues come from advertising. Here's the most recent 10-K where you can get detailed information. The New York Times isn't some blog - or some freebie alternative newspaper. It's a major public company (the NYT newspaper is but a part of the operations). And its goal is to increase profits (that's what public corporations try to do). That's hard for newspapers to do these days. People - especially younger people - tend to read fewer newspapers. They tend to get the information they want from television - the internet - or nowhere (which is why so many Americans are ill-informed about so many things). And they tend not to want to pay for what they read. In turn - advertisers are a lot pickier about how they spend their dollars. They don't want to spray them all over the place. They want to spend them where they'll get the most bang for the buck. Which is why you'll see lots of ads for Viagra on TV golf tournaments - but not many for Playstation. So - for a newspaper to succeed - you "gottta have a gimmick". In the case of the NYT - it has chosen to cast itself as a high end NATIONAL newspaper for upper middle and higher income people who are very interested in world news, politics and cultural events (and I include dining in the latter category). Interested enough to spend hundreds of dollars a year for a newspaper that doesn't say anything about the town where they live (except if your town manages to make the national headlines). Affluent enough to create buyer interest among high end advertisers (whether it's Chanel or the Ritz Carlton hotel chain). More sophisticated than the average USA Today reader - and not satisfied with the Personal Journal in the WSJ (which - although quite good - is generally quite limited). This has been a trend with the NYT for a long time. I've been a subscriber for over 30 years - during which time I have never lived in NY. But the trend has become more pronounced in recent years as the NYT tries to distinguish itself and save itself from what is probably oblivion for the vast majority of US newspapers. Like it or not - the main goal of a public company is to make money for shareholders. So it has to keep its target audience happy - which in turn makes its advertisers happy - which in turn keeps its bottom line healthy. And I can assure you that target readers like me really don't care about neighborhood restaurants in Queens. I'll go to a crummy town in France to eat 3 star Michelin food - but a crummy area of NY to eat Thai food in a dumpy place - forget it. If a reader like me wants to read about the best Thai food (and I'd find that interesting) - we'd much more appreciate an article about the most wonderful Thai restaurants in Thailand (or perhaps other countries where there are great Thai restaurants). As for steakhouses like Peter Luger - sure people from out-of-town go there. Like guys attending a big business convention - or a football game. But they didn't get the idea to go to Peter Luger from the NYT - and they won't be dissuaded from going there even if the place gets a bad review (heck - a lot of people who showed up for the Republican convention in NY were looking for Mama Leone's!). IOW - the NYT is totally irrelevant in terms of places like this. Again - like it or not - the NYT has - in terms of cultural matters - cast itself as an arbiter of fashion. And once it stops talking about things that are fashionable - or even have any potential of being fashionable - it becomes irrelevant for a lot of its readers - the people its advertisers are trying to reach. By the way - I mentioned in another thread recently - and Steve reiterated in this thread - that Americans (and other westerners) - in general - are woefully ignorant of non-western food today. We're about where we were 40 years ago when it came to Italian food. And we spoke of meatballs and spaghetti and pizza places as being good Italian restaurants. On my part - I've had high end Japanese food - but only in Hawaii and on the west coast. Middling Chinese (again mostly on the west coast). Nothing but low class Thai. I am perhaps a bit more well versed than most diners - but not much. But I do know enough to know that when I have my first encounter with high end Thai food - it will be in a restaurant that's every bit as elegant as restaurants which serve high end occidental cuisine in the US and Europe - and it won't be in New York (at least not as of today). Robyn

My dad would do neither, but he reads the Times. ← Newspapers don't flourish based on people paying for their newspapers. They flourish by attracting high paying advertisers - and - depending on the newspaper - things like classifieds. The WSJ can even get people to pay for an internet subscription (most papers - including the NYT - can't). Your father is the past of the NYT. Readers like me are the future it's betting money on. If it loses the bet - it will probably wind up circling the drain like a lot of US newspapers. Robyn

Not that anyone asked me - but I'd feel the same way about a review of Peter Luger. Not only don't I like steak - but the last thing I'd want to do when visiting New York is schlep into Brooklyn with a purse full of $100 bills (or do they accept credit cards now?). Robyn

Perhaps a better analogy would be deciding to review a Queens College production of Hamlet the week The Producers opened. Unlike the theater section - which frequently has many reviews on a given day - the Dining Section has only 2 on Thursday - the main review - and the $25 and under. I agree about the split audience - but with out-of-NY-metro area readership now approaching a majority of readers (and exceeding it on Sunday) - perhaps it's not your mother's NYT. Robyn

I think you're plain wrong here. Look at the ads in today's NYT - first 3 inside pages (at least the pages in my edition). Chanel, Tourneau, Barneys, Coach, Bergdorf Goodman, Tumi's at Macy's, Interior Design Studio at Bloomingdales, Lord & Taylor, Saks Fifth Avenue, Tiffany, Fortunoff, Talbots Kids, another Bergdorf Goodman, Mikimoto and tumi.com. These places may be "popular" - but they're not exactly average retail establishments. I don't know many people who get their outfits at Barneys and then take the subway to eat dinner in Queens. But heck - I don't live in New York. If the people in New York want the NYT to turn into a liberal version of the New York Post - distinguishable only by editorial content - that's their prerogative. I can read Tom Friedman on line. Robyn

Do you use these reviews for anything - or do you look at them as amusing non-fiction writing? I've used these reviews for years to help me decide where to eat - where to spend thousands of dollars dining in New York when I visit there. Just like I use theater reviews (although the restaurant reviews are more important because most tickets to shows cost less than dinner - even at cheap restaurants - once you factor in transportation costs from mid-Manhattan). If I had to guess - I'd guess that about half of the out-of-town readers (like me) use the NYT for this kind of thing - and the other half (like my husband) use the NYT for extensive coverage of world news (although I prefer the WSJ for the latter - except for Tom Friedman's op-ed column). So that's 25% of subscribers. Even if that's generous - and we're only talking about 10% - that's a hefty chunk of readers. And I'm the kind of reader most of the high-end advertisers are trying to reach (I actually check out the new stuff in those stores when I'm in New York - do you?). If the NYT becomes parochial - then I'm afraid I'll tell my husband he has to read about what's going on in Upper Volta on the internet (it's free there - a lot less than we pay). Don't mean to pick on you - but I want to make the point that the NYT has made an extensive effort to improve circulation by appealing to high-end readers all over the country. It's a "freebie" in many high end hotels with a sticker that says - "please subscribe". It has bucked the trend of declining readership among most newspapers by doing so. And adopting any editorial strategy which makes those of us who subscribe think that it's a waste of money is - no matter how laudable arguably from any number of points of view - simply a stupid business decision IMO. Robyn

Then perhaps he should be writing for the New York Post - or the Village Voice - or a similar newspaper. Even an alternative newspaper (we have papers like New Times and Folio all over Florida - I suspect there are similar in New York). Or New York Magazine. But not the New York Times in its main restaurant reviews. I really don't think that's what most people are looking for in this review - in this newspaper. Robyn

I think this is misleading, at least to those who haven't used a Michelin guide. The crossed forks and spoons (there are actually no knives) and the stars are two separate and parallel ratings. The forks and spoons denote a level of comfort or luxury. The stars are for the cooking or the quality of the meal. It's been argued that the decor and service figure into the qaulity of the meal as well when Michelin awards its stars, but it's still a separate rank. Not all restaurants have stars, but all restaurants are rated from one to five crossed forks and spoons. All of the three star restaurants in Paris have either four or five forks/spoons. When we get to the one star places in Paris, the range is from one fork and spoon all the way up to five and there are restaurants with five forks and spoons, but no stars at all. ← Technically you're correct. But I've always equated a couple of knives and forks with pleasant surroundings and decent food (because that's what I almost always get). Robyn

I agree with you. Who is this review for? I'm sure most people in Queens know about the place - as do most knowledgeable diners in Manhattan and the other boroughs (although the latter are less likely to go there than people who live closer). As for being a "destination" restaurant - I don't think so. How many people will arrange to sleep over near this restaurant to eat there (which is my definition of a destination restaurant)? Or travel 2 hours in the subway to eat there? Or wind up driving in the dark around LaGuardia Airport like Bruni did because he couldn't read a map very well? Or - have mercy on me - try to take a cab. Heck - when we hailed a cab in midtown and asked to be taken to 400 W. 119th St. in Manhattan this last trip - the driver told us he didn't know how to get there! When I'm visiting New York - I don't want to do this - and I doubt many people who live there want to either. And let's turn the tables. I never realized Thai food in New York is in general so terrible. We happen to have some pretty good Thai restaurants in Jacksonville. Now if I told you that there was a really good Thai restaurant an hour's drive away from your hotel when you're down here to play golf - or go to the Super Bowl - or whatever - would you think of going there - even for 10 seconds? You might drive the hour for great BBQ - or seafood - or something that is particularly distinctive about the cuisine here (even though I wouldn't). But you wouldn't go out of your way to get something that most people can get at home. I used to have a guidebook called something like "Best Cheap Eats" in New York (I think it was written by a NYT critic - a person who wrote the $25 and under column - can't remember) - and that's the place where I think a review of this restaurant belongs. By the way - in terms of discussions about "elitism" - I pay more attention to the Design and Arts sections of the NYT than the Dining section (I'm more interested in design and the arts than food). And although there are articles about trends in these areas that aren't necessarily "high-end" (not a huge number though) - I really can't imagine an editor who's determined to cover trends in these areas that are frumpy or low brow. Nor would I pay money to read about those trends. I see enough frumpy low-end stuff without having to pay to read about it. I buy the NYT because it helps me to keep in touch with the cutting edge of new trends. And if that is elitist (probably is) - so be it. If the NYT isn't elitist - what will distinguish it from the New York Post? Is there really anyone here who reads the NYT to find out about neighborhood Thai restaurants? Robyn

Took me a while to find it - but the NYT circulation is about 50% outside the NY metro area (which includes parts of NY, CT, NJ and PA) - according to the 10K. So why would one assume that someone in Arizona or Oregon is supposed to know this? Reminds me of Eddie Murphy looking for his Queen in Queens in Coming to America. I simply don't agree that a local ethnic joint that tries to be the best Thai ethnic restaurant in NY is comparable to a restaurant with higher aspirations (perhaps a Thai restaurant can have these aspirations - like some Indian restaurants do in London - they have Michelin stars - but I don't think that's what this restaurant is trying to do). Under the Michelin system - the former would - if perfect - get perhaps a knife and fork or two. Never a star. The latter might not get a star if it failed in terms of meeting its goals - but you wouldn't get confused about the difference between the 2 places. I'm just concluding the NYT system is a silly way to rate places. BTW - just as a point of curiosity - do you live in Manhattan - and - if so - how many times a year do you go to Queens to eat (excluding visits to family members who might live there)? I'm just a tourist when I go to NY - and unless I have business or want to see family members in other boroughs (I have relatives in both Queens and Staten Island - and my grandmother used to live in the Bronx a long time ago) - I pretty much stay in Manhattan. Robyn

I am definitely a "little deal" wine person in terms of taste - the lighter the better. So I don't think I'd like it. My husband on the other hand.... Perhaps if the Supreme Court knocks down all the state wine import laws this term - I'll order a bottle for him on the internet. Robyn

Chefs are awarded points out of 5 for influence, innovation, success and longevity giving a maximum possible of 20. ← That sounds like "important" to me. Robyn

That's the same rating given to David Burke & Donatella (albeit by another critic). Somehow I don't think I'd have been as happy traipsing out to Queens to eat there. Unless this is truly a "destination restaurant". I tend to doubt it - but what do those of you in New York think? Robyn

How is Ola? Is Doug Rodriguez in the kitchen? I'm going to Scottsdale AZ next month and was thinking of trying his new restaurant there (Deseo?). I used to love YUCA - but that was a long long time ago. Robyn

As noted above - the difference between stuffing and dressing is one is cooked in the bird - one isn't. I always found that stuffing came out entirely too greasy - so I'd take it out of the bird - and then mix it 1/2 and 1/2 with the "dry" stuffing I hadn't put in the bird. The oven brown the whole thing. Big pain. I found a terrific recipe a few years ago in the NYT for Sausage Stuffing (actually it's dressing) with Carmelized Onions and Fennel and Leeks. Adapted from a Tom Colicchio Craft recipe. Can't find the link on the NYT - and if I could - it would be a paid link by now. I'd be glad to paraphrase the recipe here if the PTB won't delete my message for possible copyright issues. Otherwise - email me - and I'll fax it to you. It is moist - not greasy - and delicious. Robyn

Depends what the criteria for the list were. I suspect that the list is really of "important chefs" - not "great chefs". Wolfgang Puck is important because - in my opinion - he was responsible for the "invention" of "New American" cuisine - which in turn spawned a lot of sub-categories (Nuevo Latino, Floribbean, etc.). Ditto for Alice Waters. Perhaps she wasn't a "great chef" - but she started the whole idea of cooking the freshest of ingredients in relatively simple preparations. No question I'd say that these 2 people are 2 of the most important chefs in the history of restaurants in the US. I agree with Andy that it's too bad that most people in the West don't know enough about chefs or restaurants in the East to include them in a list like this. Robyn

This is the last message I wrote about eating in Miami/Miami Beach. I've dined at Azul before. Casa Tua is better in my opinion. Where are you staying? Dade County is very big - and the traffic is very bad. Robyn

If you're dealing with the non-vintage - well I prefer Veuve (have had both in one meal - and I think the Veuve is a bit more dry - and I just like the way it tastes better). But it's purely a matter of taste. And they're really not far apart in quality (although NV Veuve tends to be more expensive). Has anyone here ever had the Pol Roger Churchill? My husband had been looking for it for a long time. Finally found a bottle in a wine store in New York (think it was a '96) - but it was $170 <yikes>. The sales person at the store said for that money - one could do a lot better. If you've tried it - what do you think? Robyn

Traditions die hard, but I don’t sense that French waiters are what they used to be. In the sixties I remember a team of black suited waiters serving us table side in the provinces. The captain or maitre d’, led the team. Someone else pushed the trolley and there were two waiters to slice and serve whatever was in the pot. Maybe there was even a third to wipe clean the edges of the plate with an impeccably clean towel. There was certainly another whose job it was to pick up whatever dropped to the floor. More often than not, he stood at attention the whole time. I forget whether he was followed or preceded by an observer waiting to inherit a real job. At the tail end was a lad who aspired to someday hope to move up a slot. I don’t know how many of those towards the tail of this parade were actually paid, but most of that team would now be in school getting what we might consider a rudimentary formal academic education. The other fact is the general “youthening” of the population at large, most notably in the important services sector. Whereas I once felt I was in the good hands of sagacious men of learning and wisdom, I now find my life in the hands of surgeons much too young to have learned very much. I’m told nothing has really changed much except my relative perspective. ← I think things have changed more concerning attitudes about restaurants than attitudes about medicine. With doctors - you always want one who is old enough to have learned his/her craft - but not so old to have fallen behind the curve. In general - depending on length of time to learn a specialty - you're talking about people 35-60. As one ages - those doctors can start to look pretty young . With restaurants though - I think it's truly attitudes that have changed. I don't know if you've ever dined at good restaurants in high end ski resorts - where the food was often very nice - but the service suffered from benign neglect because all the servers were hot skiers trying to pay their way through the season. Or in places in Florida or Hawaii - where you were dealing with surfing/beach bums. These days - instead of the service levels coming up in these places - I find the service levels coming down in more "worldly" places. Not necessarily in terms of how many servers there are - or what they wear - but in terms of their depth of experience - what they know. And this seems to be acceptable to a lot of diners. I haven't been to France for a long time - so I can't comment there. But the French tradition dies hard - at least for me. Our waiter from Paris at David Burke & Donatella commented intelligently when I remarked that I hadn't had a sea urchin since I'd had one at Robuchon's Jamin. Similar experience when discussing menu items with the maitre d' at Gordon Ramsay in London. Had I made a similar comment to the California waiter at Per Se - I think I would have gotten a somewhat intelligent verbal equivalent of "duh". Not that there was anything wrong with the service at Per Se - just a lack of tradition and historical perspective. The times they are a'changing. And I don't miss the formality - or redundancy. Just the things a staff that knows a lot more than I do can teach me. Robyn

I don't know whether I agree with your conclusion without discussing definitions. But - if no one wants to talk about it here - that's ok with me <shrug>. Seems to me that the point of a good ---> great restaurant is delivering a good ---> great meal - and that merit stars - or brownie points - or whatever you want to you call them - shouldn't be added - or subtracted - simply because a self-appointed arbiter decides that a particular eating establishment is or isn't avant garde. FWIW - avant garde is defined simply as the advance movement in a particular area. By that simple and widely accepted definition - drive-in burger joints like McDonald's were avant garde at some point in time. And there's a lot of really awful art that has - over the years - fallen into the avant garde category. That said - like I said quite a few messages back - I really enjoyed my meal at Tom Aikens - and I wish I lived a lot closer to London so I could dine there more than once. Certainly in a city as large as London - there's a place for a chef of Mr. Aikens' caliber. And many other chefs/restaurants who deserve more criticism than a lot of people seem to be heaping on him here. Robyn

Aikens is of the classical school because, although his food is highly technical, its all based on established methods. The avant garde chefs are investigating and employing methods of preperation and presentation outside of the classical canon e.g. Ferran Adria, Grant Achatz and Heston Blumenthal. ← Well - I remember one thing I had that knocked me out at Tom Aikens was foie gras beignets <sp?>. Maybe someone else thought of this first - but I never heard of it before. Of course - this dish was fried (I think) - which is a traditional form of cooking. So does the dish have to be new - or does it have to involve some strange new chemistry of cooking - for the chef to be considered avant garde? Would cooking in an Advantium oven count (that's new - best I can tell - no one's figured out how to use one yet ). Or does the server have to bring a tank of some kind of gas to the table? I'm not being facetious here. I'm asking these questions in all seriousness. I'm more familiar with "avant garde" when it comes to art than food. About 95% of all the new art movements I've seen are total garbage. Of course - there's the other 5% that is destined to go down in history. So is new for the sake of new what you're looking for? In the quest to find that 5%? I find that fun when I'm doing art things. Because worst that happens is I walk into a museum or gallery - hate the stuff - and walk right out. On the other hand - when it comes to food - I'll have wasted a night and a lot of money in a wonderful (but expensive) city like London. Of course - London is your home turf - so if you waste a night - or many nights - you still have 1000's more in your future. Robyn

And we can't forget that the Michelin guides started as a way to sell tires. You didn't want people to think they'd wasted a lot of tire tread going to a mediocre place . Today - we don't worry about tire tread - just time and money. I don't want to waste a valuable vacation day and hundreds of dollars at a mediocre place anywhere - who does? Robyn

I agree that 95% about restaurant "style" is too much - but some discussion about style or the lack of it is warranted. And I think the higher you go up the restaurant food chain - the more I want to hear about style. When I eat $15 worth of dim sum in Chinatown - who cares? But when I'm spending a lot more - I want a place that pleases senses in addition to the sense of taste. Also - I want - for lack of a better phrase - "a good fit". My husband and I walked into a London restaurant one night - and we knew immediately from looking at it that it wasn't for us (crowd was too young, too trendy, too loud - and the seating was uncomfortable ). On the other hand - someone disliked Per Se - thought it looked too '70's corporate. I thought it looked like what Barbara Barry and similar designers are doing in restaurants these days (even though she wasn't the designer) - not 70's corporate at all. I liked it a lot. On the other hand - I took a peek into V on the way out. Hated the way it looked. Not my cup of tea at all. When you're talking about the top of the mountain - these differences in perception matter. They can enhance a personal experience - or distract from it. And it's clearly not a case of "one size fits all". So - to me - that part of a restaurant review isn't surplusage. Robyn

I'm not sure I agree with that. Do you think all the 3-stars in New York would get even one Michelin star? (Leave out Spice Market in considering your answer, if you like.) ← If they wouldn't - there's something wrong with the NYT system. I know about the recent "expose" of the Michelin system - but whether or not the ratings are rigged - or out of date - or whatever - you can never accuse the organization of being anything but stingy with top ratings. Heck - when we were in London in May - there was only one restaurant in the whole city with 3 Michelin stars. If 3 NYT stars isn't 1-2 Michelin stars - what is it? What is it supposed to be? I had a talk with one of my cousins Saturday night about restaurant ratings in New York. He isn't a foodie - he's an eater - but he's a wealthy trim 65 year old NYC resident who can taste the difference between cheap lamb and the good stuff. He thinks the NYT panders to certain business interests in the city in its reviews. In other words - there's a lot of "grade inflation". I have no way of knowing if this is true - but it wouldn't surprise me. Now clearly - Babbo (3 recent NYT stars) is not even a Michelin 1 star. Not even close (we ate at 3 Michelin 1 stars in London - so I'm not relying on ancient recollections here). And what is 2 NYT stars? That's what David Burke & Donatella got in February. Even though I thought it was a clear Michelin 1 star. (Perhaps the problem there was reviewing the restaurant a few weeks after it opened - which doesn't do any favors for the restaurant or those who read the reviews.) Like I've said in other threads - I don't understand the standards at all. Whereas with Michelin I have more than a fighting chance (only bum steer we got from Michelin last trip was at a 1 star - it wasn't a 1 star - but I didn't know when we dined there that the chef who got the star had left the restaurant about a month before we got there). Otherwise the 2 1 stars were 1 stars - and the 3 star was a 3 star. Robyn

You know I fully agree with you there. "$25-and-under" should really be $25-and-under. And I would object if the Times eliminated the "$25-and-under" column and abdicated coverage of inexpensive restaurants to the Voice, Newsday and such. I also agree with Bux that it would be great if the Times reviewed more restaurants, but that's a business decision that they so far haven't been willing to make. ← I'd divide the reviews somewhat differently - between big deal "destination" restaurants (which are always expensive) - and more casual "neighborhood" places - the places where people in New York are most likely to eat most of the time. The latter could perhaps have a price limit - but I think $25 is unrealistic these days. The way the reviews are divided - with most reviewers you get a lot of "big deal" - a lot of "cheap" - and very little in between. Robyn