oakapple

Personally, I don't feel weird by myself anywhere. Obviously I'd like a companion if possible (preferably an attractive one), but if I'm alone that doesn't bother me. Now that we're in the OpenTable era, it's always possible to find a reservation at short notice. Just for the heck of it, I checked OpenTable for tonight at 7:00pm. It returned 253 restaurants with tables for one within an hour of that time, including many very fine ones (Artisanal, Hearth, March, Oceana, THOR, WD-50). If you're willing to dine at the bar, the possibilities expand dramatically.

I don't have handy the overall number of starred restaurants in Paris. I know that there are around ten Michelin 3* restaurants in Paris vs. four in New York. Yet, I haven't encountered anyone who believes there are a half-dozen other serious candidates for 3* that Michelin overlooked. At the moment, just five NY restaurants carry four stars from the NYT, so the Times is comparably stingy with its highest rating. Although one can argue about individual cases, I can't come up with another 5-6 NY restaurants that could be awarded three Michelin stars without drastically de-valuing the meaning of that achievement. At the one-star level, there is a more serious argument that the methodology is somewhat flawed, particularly the way certain cuisines were either ignored or significantly under-valued. Having said that, quite a few non-French restaurants received stars (including a rare—for Michelin—two-star Japanese restaurant). So it slightly over-simplifies matters to say that they were unable to recognize any cuisine but French.

It's notable that Jamie found Michelin "parsimonious" in its choices. Others argued that Michelin awarded stars to restaurants that never would have received them in Europe. Most of the criticism I read was not that Michelin awarded too few stars, but that it awarded them to the wrong places. Even on what is supposedly Michelin's 'home turf,' some of the choices were peculiar; for instance, a star for Etats-Unis, but none for Chanterelle, La Grenouille, or Montrachet.

It's important to recognize that we—the folk who populate forums like eGullet—are atypical. There is a very large and significant constituency to whom places like OIBL and Carmine's are "great restaurants."

I agree with you about the Cuozzo piece. Of course, because he writes for the Post, his reasoning was full of hyperbole. But in the end, all he did was to diminish his paper's relevance. Cuozzo pointed out that restaurants sometimes "mutate" after the early reviews. This is, of course, true; but there are also restaurants that remain remarkably consistent over many years. I also agree that critic anonymity is "both possible and important." You refer to reviews as "old-fashioned" and "antique." I presume you're referring to the abundance of alternative information sources that didn't exist 15-20 years ago. Having said that, restaurants still post mainstream reviews in their entry foyers, which suggests that people still consider those old-fashioned reviews relevant to an extent. As you still live in New York, surely you must occasionally have the experience of walking into a restaurant, and seeing your own Times review posted in the lobby. Do you often find that the restaurant has changed significantly from when you wrote that review? (I am not suggesting that the change must necessarily be for the worse; the restaurant could have improved.) A related question.... With just one rated review per week, a paper like the Times has only limited opportunities to take a second look at a restaurant. When you were the reviewer, did you ever find that there were errors you wished you could correct, but could not? An example would be, "Restaurant X has improved since I gave it two stars a year ago, but the improvement isn't quite newsworthy enough to justify another full review."

Bob Lape awards two and a half stars to Barca 18 today:

Two months ago, Frank Bruni posted a double-review of Mainland (*) and Oriental Garden (**). Today, he's done it again, demoting Cafe Luxembourg to one star and bumping Compass back up to two stars. I don't believe any of Bruni's predecessors have published double-reviews, have they? This is apparently his innovation, which I applaud. Not every restaurant needs a full review to itself. The occasional double-review allows the paper to cover more restaurants in the same amount of space. Compass has got to be one of the luckiest restaurants in New York. In under four years, it has had five chefs and three rated reviews in the Times. An awful lot of restaurants are never re-reviewed, so Compass has fared well. Originally two stars, Amanda Hesser demoted Compass to one star last year. Katy Sparks promptly departed. Two chefs later, Compass is practically a new restaurant, and in fact a very good one. I entirely agree with the reinstated two-star rating. But coupled with Bruni's Diner's Journal on Compass several weeks ago, the restaurant has had plenty of coverage. A shared review with the next-door Cafe Luxembourg was appropriate. Although I dine in the area frequently, Cafe Luxembourg has never caught my attention. I see it there (usually on the way to Compass), and walk right by. The 22-year-old restaurant has been resting on Bryan Miller's two-star review for thirteen years. Since I haven't dined there, I can't say whether today's demotion is fair. But if it is, I agree with Bruni that a half-column, rather than a full column, was appropriate. If Cafe Luxembourg ever wants to get its second star back, I suggest that it hire Compass's publicist. Any restaurant that attracts three rated reviews in four years is doing something right. I've long believed that critic anonymity is a useful thing. There are some who say that critics are always going to be recognized, so they might as well shed the pretense that their visits are anonymous. And yet, Bruni reports two experiences at Cafe Luxembourg that strongly suggest otherwise: I think it's abundantly clear that, on both occasions, the restaurant did not know that they were serving Frank Bruni.

A friend and I had dinner at Django on Saturday night. There were tons of empty tables, both downstairs in the bar/lounge and upstairs in the dining room. I'm assuming the restaurant caters primarily to a weekday business crowd, and its location at 46th & Lex is ideal for this. Django is a very comfortable place. The downstairs lounge has huge armchairs, and there is a band playing light jazz in the background. The chairs in the upstairs dining room are equally comfy. This is a place where one can easily relax. I started with a simple grilled asparagus appetizer, and my friend with a risotto, both of which were out-of-this-world. Neither one is listed on the currently posted online menu, and I'm afraid I can't report on the other ingredients. My friend pronounced herself highly pleased with a bouillabase entrée ($29), which includes (per the website) "Yellowtail Snapper, Clams and Lobster Stew, Salsify and Baby Leeks, Spicy Rouille Croutons." I decided to try the Ribeye ($35), which is actually a double-entrée of ribeye slices and braised shortribs. Of the two, the shortribs were a bit more successful. The ribeye was fine, but didn't erase the memory of the better steakhouse ribeyes I've tasted. Our server earned plenty of brownie points early on. My friend likes sweet white wines. I had initially selected a $52 riesling. The server suggested that another bottle costing $2 less would be a lot better, and indeed it was. The $2 is obviously insignificant, but one grows so accustomed to "upselling" that it's almost a shock when it doesn't happen. The setting at Django is romantic, comfortable, and highly recommended.

What were the accents? Were they all French? All American? A mixture?

BLT Prime is the only restaurant in Laurent Tourondel's empire that's open on Sundays. I had a BLT craving today, so I headed out to the restaurant, arriving at 5:00pm (opening time). Both BLT Prime and Steak serve a $28 entrée that's a riff on the familiar BLT sandwich. Here, it's made with 'kobe' beef and foie gras, and served on toasted ciabatta bread. (You'll find a photo of it at the website of either restaurant.) It's about the cheapest meal you can have at BLT. I decided to give it a shot. It's a tasty sandwich indeed, but like the burger at DB Bistro Moderne, a bit of a gimmick. I could barely taste the foie gras, and the beef was nothing special. At the price, I rate it a dud. I had a couple of other complaints. The BLT sandwich comes with an enormous helping of french fries, but this isn't stated on the menu. It seems to be the only entrée that comes with a side dish, so I had no reason to expect fries. My waiter happily took my order for a side of potato skins ($7), which left me with twice as much potato as I needed. (Probably four times, actually; either the skins or the fries came in portions far beyond what I could eat alone.) Had I known the sandwich came with fries, I would not have ordered the skins. By this time in the meal, the server assignments had been re-arranged. My new server came around to ask if everything was alright, and I told her I was a bit miffed that the menu didn't announce that the BLT came with fries. She remarked, "I would have told you that." I was also unhappy with a cocktail called a Tamarind Margarita ($11). It came in about the smallest cocktail glass I've ever seen. The drink tasted fine, but one expects a margarita to be a little bigger than that. On the other hand, the restaurant is generous with extras. When I sat down, the server brought a helping of a wonderful paté and crispy bread. While I was devouring that, one of BLT's famous popovers arrived. The popovers, first introduced at BLT Steak, weren't initially offered when BLT Prime opened. I suspect they had some complaints, and now both restaurants have them. (They even provide a free copy of the recipe.) I did not order a dessert, but the kitchen sent out two half-dollar sized hazelnut ice cream sandwiches, which were excellent. Overall, it was a mixed performance for the restaurant. It is hard to believe that I dropped over $50 for a cocktail, some potato skins, and a glorified BLT sandwich.

There's probably a fine line between the top end of two stars and the bottom end of three, and Daniel might well be at that line. Several people have suggested that Daniel turns tables too aggressively. As an example of this, Daniel's long tasting menu isn't offered on weekends. It's as if the restaurant is saying, "The table is too valuable for us to allow it to be occupied for 4-5 hours on a Friday or Saturday night." It is, at least arguably, a factor that differentiates Daniel.

Bruni isn't an editor at all. He's a critic who happens to have a very high-profile beat. It doesn't make any sense to refer to his "pull" in the section, because he's not competing for anyone else's assignments, and nobody else is competing for his. He gets his regular slots on Wednesdays and Fridays. He has broad latitude to choose the restaurants he reviews, and what he says about them. Several other writers have far more seniority on that page than Bruni does (e.g., Florence Fabricant, Marian Burros, Eric Asimov, Frank J. Prial, and even R. W. Apple, Jr.). Asimov and Burros have subbed for the main critic on occasion, and probably either one of them could have had the job if they wanted it. It's a demanding position that has burned out most people within a few years. Bruni probably got the nod after others declined it.

I don't think that conclusion squares with what's in the guide itself. Five of the eight restaurants that received two or three stars are French restaurants (ADNY, Bouley, Daniel, Jean Georges, Le Bernardin). But these five restaurants tend to dominate most lists of the city's best places to eat, no matter who is doing the judging. And that still leaves three restaurants in the top eight that are not French, including a very rare (by Michelin standards) two-star Japanese restaurant. By my count, seven of the thirty-one single-star restaurants are French, which hardly supports the proposition that "Michelin feels that great food has to be French, or styled like French food." As I mentioned upthread, in the guide overall, the dominant cuisine is (surprisingly) Italian. Indeed, it can be argued that the guide graded French restaurants on a rather harsh curve. Many people were surprised that long-admired French restaurants like Chanterelle, La Grenouille and Montrachet were left unstarred.

The Bruni Digest is one of my favorite food blogs. Every week, the blog takes Bruni's latest review apart, line by line. Lately, the blog's owner, Julia Langbein, was starting to get a little bored. It seemed Frank's reviews were almost getting reasonable, as if he were finally learning his craft. This week, Frank returned to his old habits, uncorking a one-star review of the restaurant D'Or Ahn, despite the fact that he had a whole lot of trouble finding anything good to say about it: The confused review was full of the tortured prose that Langbein calls "Brunisms," such as: Now, the Associated Press has taken notice. In an article linked to the Yahoo home page (at the moment; it changes frequently), writer Adam Goldman profiles Langbein's blog. Bruni claims to have seen the blog, but only "once or twice for a nanosecond." (Methinks he protests too much.) Interviewed for the article, former Times restaurant critic Ruth Reichl said, "I look now and there's a Bruni blog. There's some incredibly smart young woman who makes fun of him on a weekly basis. They would have done that to me."

Yes, we need restaurants for people who don't care about food. ← It isn't so much a matter of "not caring about food." There are a lot of people who don't eat at fine dining restaurants very often, and to whom a place like OIBL or CDA is fine dining. To that crowd, the great romantic appeal of these restaurants has considerable pull. If you interviewed patrons coming out of either establishment, by and large they would tell you that they had an extremely enjoyable meal, and that they found the surroundings enchanting. It has been many years since I ate at OIBL or CDA, and I've never been to TOTG, except to take a quick look inside. Based on a quick perusal of their on-line menus, the initial impression is that OIBL is aiming a bit higher than CDA, which in turn is aiming a bit higher than TOTG. How well they in fact achieve what they're aiming at would require more recent experience, which I'm not prepared to invest in. FYI, One if By Land, Two if By Sea has a prix fixe menu at $69 and a tasting menu at $79. There appears to be no a la carte menu. The famed Beef Wellington (the one dish most people agree the restaurant does well) carries a $6.00 supplement. The Executive Chef is one Gary Volkov. At Café des Artiste, the menu is a la carte. Most apps are in the $10-14 range, although Salmon Five Ways is $19, and Lobster Salad is $23. Mains are in a wide range, from $24 (Calf's Liver) to Dover Sole ($47). Most are between $26 and $37. Sides are $8 apiece. The Chef de Cuisine is one Joseph Paulino. At Tavern on the Green, apps are generally in the $11-16 range. Mains range from $21 (Penne alla Vodka) to $39 (Prime Rib). The prix fixe theatre menu is $39. The restaurant's website seems to emphasize its location and attractive décor over the food. Indeed, I had to stare at the website for a little while before finding the tiny button that takes you to the on-line menu.

Please excuse the "me too," but this is one of the more elegant restaurant websites I've seen. But besides elegance, it is sensibly organized, loads quickly, and is easy to use.

If I've counted correctly, it looks to be about 90, with Astoria (33) having the most listings. The only other Queens neighborhood with double-digit listings is Flushing (10). To Menton's point, I tend to agree with the moderators that the current set-up, with one forum for New York State, is at present the correct one. Chowhound has separate forums for "Manhattan" and "Outer Boroughs," and that arrangement has never worked well, IMO. The moderators there are constantly yelling at people for posting about Brooklyn restaurants on the Manhattan forum. A lot of people view New York City as one integrated marketplace, and splitting off the outer boroughs confuses as many users as it helps. Somebody who lives in Cobble Hill is a lot closer to most Manhattan restaurants than she is to much of Brooklyn, to say nothing of the other boroughs.

On my only visit to Danube (about a year ago), I ordered the Wiener Schnitzel and was disappointed. It seemed merely competent, and for a $30 entrée I expected something a lot better. I also ordered the double foie gras that Megan referred to, and I considered that more successful. I'm going back to Danube in December and will try something else.

By my count, Zagat 2006 has 312 outer borough restaurants out of 2,098 listed. Obviously, like Michelin, it is primarily a Manhattan guide. This isn't exactly surprising news, and I suspect one would find a similar breakdown in any New York City restaurant guide. The outer borough neighborhoods with the most Zagat listings are Park Slope (43), and then Williamsburg (17). The entirety of Staten Island has just 16 listings; the Bronx just 25. Even Manhattan neighborhoods that are perceived to be "on the fringe" have minimal coverage. Just 8 restaurants are listed in "Washington Heights & Up," which is a very substantial area. There are just 20 combined in East Harlem or Harlem, another very substantial area. In contrast, there are 193 restaurants listed in Greenwich Village, along with 127 in the East village. Thus, over 15% of the restaurants in the guide are in the East & West Village. The only other neighborhoods with over 100 listings are the West 40s (117) and the West 50s (125). Again, I don't think this is surprising, and any NYC restaurant guide would likely do the same.

Yes, http://www.davidbouley.com/ must be the new one, because it has a link to "Upstairs," and the others do not.

As the resident Zagat apologist, I wouldn't want to disappoint those (both of you) who were expecting a response. Zagat lists about four times the number of restaurants as Michelin. I think you'll find that every restaurant in Michelin is in Zagat, which then adds another 1,500 or so that Michelin didn't touch. Taking the two publications on their own terms, naturally some things belong in Zagat that don't belong in Michelin. Zagat has a coffeehouse category, which Michelin does not. I suppose one could make a valid argument that coffeehouses shouldn't be listed in Zagat, although with 2,000+ entries I don't really see where it's a fatal flaw to include that category. Well, if coffeehouses are in Zagat, I don't see where it's a fatal flaw to include Starbucks, which is merely the most ubiquitous coffeehouse franchise there is. Despite that apparent flaw, there's a remarkable confluence in what Zagat lists as the top restaurants, and what every other media site lists as the top restaurants. Most ratings on Zagat are believable, given the numerous obvious methodological problems with the survey. There's no reason to attribute to dishonesty what incompetence can explain. Yet, despite their problems, the places Zagat puts at the top of the heap are awfully close to what other media have come up with. Estimates of the number of restaurants in New York City range as high 17,000 to 23,000. This means that Zagat could be omitting up to 90% of the restaurants. Undoubtedly, many of those 90% have their devoted fans. I mean, they're in business, so somebody's patronizing them. The fact that you can identify omissions is unsurprising. Indeed, perhaps 9 out of every 10 restaurants you pass on the street aren't in Zagat. What I think you cannot say, is that there are "important" restaurants missing from Zagat. Define "important" any sensible way you want, but it can't be merely "People in the neighborhood love it." It doesn't show malicious intent that some popular neighborhood places in a 20,000-restaurant town aren't in Zagat. Another example offered (on the other thread) was Bandol Bistro. A spot-check of on-line restaurant guides demonstrated that about half listed it, and half did not. I didn't find any that had rated it (a star, an 'editor's choice', or the like). Unless we are to conclude that there's a grand conspiracy against poor old Bandol Bistro, the logical conclusion is that it's an ordinary happy little place that is known in its neighborhood, but that much of the rest of the dining community simply hasn't noticed. There's hardly much grist for a grand Zagat scandal there.

It appears that Café Gray and Pe Se are financial successes. Masa is a critical success; reports have varied as to whether it's actually making money. V Steakhouse is the one clear loser. It was never clear how much time or money Vongerichten put into the place, but as it is named for him, he can't escape at least part of the blame. Vongerichten has never had a restaurant fail in New York, and with the number of places he had, it was a winning streak that was sure to come to an end eventually. I haven't looked at a V Steakhouse menu lately, but when I was there they were charging a significant premium over typical steakhouse prices. It was a gutsy gamble to do that in a restaurant genre that's so plentiful in Manhattan. Meanwhile, they don't have a website, they aren't on OpenTable, and they aren't on MenuPages. (There's a separate thread on JGV's poor web presence.) This is a restaurant that cetainly could have used all the publicity it could get.

It's not so much a vociferous defense, as pointing out that it's not as bad as some people say, and some comments about it (such as those upthread) are demonstrably incorrect. I wasn't saying that. The original comment was that "...many many good restaurants are not listed at all, probably a quid pro quo for some editorial grudge, or the like...," which was the point I responded to. Why is that a problem? Starbucks is the most ubiquitous coffeehouse chain in the city. Given the premise that coffeehouses are in the guide (and I see no fundamental reason why they should not be), the exclusion of Starbucks would have been highly peculiar. Of course, there are a jillion non-franchise coffeehouses in NYC that aren't in the guide, probably because no one voted for them.

This decision has been pretty well dissected on the Michelin stars thread. There's a perception that Daniel is too large a room, and turns the tables a bit too aggressively, judged by the standards of top-tier European restaurants. Some will say that that's either untrue, or doesn't matter, but it's the most likely reason why Daniel was left out. If anything, I'm more sympathetic to the argument that Le Bernardin should have received two stars, than that Daniel should have received three. I don't see any consensus that Daniel is "much better" than Jean Georges or ADNY. eGullet's Fat Guy—who seems to have dined at this tier of NYC restaurants more than anybody who regularly posts here—said on the Michelin thread that he could quite readily see a distinction between the three-star level of ADNY/JG and Daniel. FG also believes that there is a clear gap between ADNY and any other NYC restaurant, with the possible exception of Per Se. I am not suggesting that one opinion—even a highly authoritative opinion—settles the matter, only that there's at least one informed person who thought the distinction was justified.

In Europe, it is considered an honor. Most New Yorkers, except for those who have a stake in the outcome, have responded with a collective yawn. Zagat and New York Times reviews are considered more important. Obviously, those restaurants that did better-than-expected are elated, and those that did worse-than-expected are saying the guide doesn't matter. Since this is but one of many sources of dining information, I suspect it won't have much of a perceptible impact at most places. (That is, it may have an impact, but you won't be able to measure it, since there are so many other factors at play.) A comparatively unheralded restaurant like Saul (an unexpected one-star recipient) has probably seen a noticeable influx of diners. That may just be a temporary blip, but I'm sure they'll take it. I don't think anyone has claimed that the 468 unstarred restaurants are on the same level.