oakapple

I can't critique their 2- and 3-star choices. I've dined at two of the former (Bouley & Danube) and none of the latter. I will say that I can far more easily see some of the current 1-stars being promoted to two, than any of the 2-stars being promoted to 3. The peculiar fact that there are an equal number of 2- and 3-star places is almost certainly not permanent. I think I can comment on the 1-stars, since I've been to about half of them. I agree with Nathan that if we each made a list of our own 31 "special" places in NYC, there'd be a considerable amount of overlap with this list. Like it or not, I don't think they drew Saul out of a hat. A considerable amount of thought must have gone into awarding that star. That actually seems to me a pretty reasonable defense. Michelin was introducing an existing system to New York, not inventing a new system. On the Q&A that Andy Lynes pointed to, Michelin's UK editor said that a restaurant can earn one star by preparing a traditional cuisine extremely well, but that two and three stars require originality (in addition to other things).

Among New Yorkers, Zagat remains king. The question is how much influence Michelin will have with tourist/business visitors. I suspect that, to restaurants that were flying below the 'foodie' radar, there could be a noticeable boost. Michelin has made some changes for the NYC guide. It's 500 pages, with photos and text descriptions of the restaurants. It'll be interesting to see how they describe these places — particularly establishments like Chanterelle and L'Impero that believed they were in line for a star, but didn't get one. Will the write-up offer a hint as to why they were overlooked? (The much-lampooned "Yes...but" style of Zagat comes to mind.) It is worth noting that there are 507 restaurants covered in the guide. Not every person is looking for a "starred" meal every night. It's not as if the 39 starred restaurants are "winners," and everybody else "losers." Andy Lynes posted some useful links. According to Michelin, a star restaurant is comparable only to other restaurants in its category. They are most definitely not saying that Babbo and The Spotted Pig are comparable, since they are not in the same category. Bigorre wondered whether restaurants will go "star-hunting." In general, I doubt it. Running a restaurant is a commercial proposition. They will change if it's in their best interest as a business; otherwise, they won't. FatGuy said that Michelin is capable of judging classic French cuisine, and nothing else. How, then, does one explain restaurants like El Bulli and and The Fat Duck having three stars? I do agree that non-European cuisines seem to have been under-represented in ths star list. It'll be interesting to see what they say about places like Sushi Yasuda and Kurumazushi, or for that matter Tabla.

I have yet to see the method of classifying restaurants that is without flaw. The Times ratings are flawed. Zagat ratings are flawed. Gayot ratings are flawed. Michelin stars are flawed. What you read on eGullet is flawed. Jim Leff thinks Chowhound knocks them all out of a cocked hat, but his site is the most flawed of them all. In tomorrow's NYT article, it says they visited every starred restaurant a minimum of three times, and some as many as twelve. Jean Georges received eight visits, one of which included a two-hour inspection of the kitchen. The article also says that the awarding of stars requires a consensus of multiple inspectors. On the whole, one gets the impression that this was a helluva lot more thorough than any other system out there. Even if you say that The Spotted Pig doesn't deserve a star....well, there are 39 starred restaurant. When was the time any reviewer got 39 entries in a row correct, just the way you wanted them? It doesn't happen, folks. Reviews are a matter of opinion. I'll be interested to read the supporting text, but I doubt the Michelin folks were unaware that The Spotted Pig is a different kind of restaurant than Babbo.

I've eaten in 15 of the 31 one-star restaurants. On the whole, it seems to me a reasonable list. Personally, I'd choose Chanterelle over Fleur de Sel. Then again, I've been to each once. I assume the Michelin inspectors had the luxury of a more thorough study. If anything, the Michelin folks appear to have brought their own viewpoint, instead of just repeating the accepted wisdom. It would have been quite easy to include Union Square Café, Chanterelle, Montrachet, Balthazar, Aquavit, Felidia and so on. Instead, they left those restaurants out, and included some provocative choices, such as Spotted Pig, Saul, Etats-Unis, and Scalini Fedeli. Obviously, many restaurants have a reputation for being good because they are good, so it's not surprising that a lot of the usual suspects are there. But it's not just Zagat/NYT redux.

The Financial Times covers the story here: ...and...

The Michelin folks said all along that some changes to the format and rating structure were required for a non-European city. We haven't seen the book yet, so we don't know how they've explained themselves. We do know that the book contains more detailed descriptions of the restaurants than the European guides. Fat Guy said, "I wonder how this list will achieve any relevance....So what?" Well, I have a few thoughts. Zagat will remain the most popular New York restaurant guide, but Michelin could be a strong second. It will be influential with business travelers and the well heeled international visitors that many high-end restaurants are courting. Restaurants will incorporate their Michelin star status in their publicity. The NYT stars will continue to have cachet, but Michelin has further refined that list, since there are many restaurants with NYT stars that Michelin hasn't annointed. Over time, Michelin may be more sensitive to change, since their inspectors can re-rate restaurants far more often than the Times can. Out-of-town visitors are more likely to consult a guidebook than to read the Times online. Among the eight restaurants that were awarded two or three stars, Danube is the clear winner. It's the one non-obvious choice at that level. All of the others are now rated four stars by the Times, or were recently. This is vindication for David Bouley, and I suspect Danube will have more business because of it. Although Daniel Boulud is no doubt unhappy, I doubt that this will cost his restaurant any business; it's mostly a case of wounded pride. Meanwhile, other restaurants that are arguably in Danube's class will no doubt say, "Why not us?" The new ratings clearly leave room for more two-star restaurants, and these other restaurants will be trying to make their case next time An Inspector Calls. The one-star list obviously does not equate to one NYT star. It's an eclectic "best of the rest" list, and certainly defensible. These restaurants will see an influx of tourist business, although there are some (like Nobu) that don't need it. The Spotted Pig was the only entry that struck me as decidedly peculiar, but we'll have to see how the editors have defined "one star." As far as I know, it's the only restaurant on the list that the Times considered a "$25 and under" place. However, depending on how Michelin defined the category, Spotted Pig might well belong on the list. To reiterate my earlier comment, Chanterelle and L'Impero are the most obvious omissions. I've dined at Chanterelle within the last year. It certainly did not seem to be below the class of restaurants such as Aureole, Gotham, JoJo, March, Picholine, Scalini Fedeli, Wallsé, etc.. It is arguably better than several of those. Danny Meyer is probably not celebrating tonight. Gramercy Tavern made the list, but not the Union Square flagship, Tabla (nor any Indian restaurant), or 11MP. I suspect he at least fancied the hope that Modern would break in at two stars. That said, any such list is going to involve judgment. This list is one of the many reasonable ones you could have drawn up. Those restaurants that earned any number of stars — one, two, or three — will probably see a noticeable uptick in business. For those that weren't already packed, it could make a meaningful difference.

Why would you treat steakhouses as a second-class restaurant genre? Bearing in mind that the Guide Michelin is a travel guide, and many international visitors probably don't have an abundance of U.S.-style steakhouses at home, I see nothing wrong with singling out what the Michelin inspectors considered to be the best of the pack. Whether Luger in fact is that special steakhouse is a whole other question, but as a matter of principle I see no objection to it. Yes, it is very strange to have as many 3* as 2* restaurants, but as I mentioned in my earlier post, I suspect that will shake out in later years.

Per Snack, here they are: Three Stars Alain Ducasse Jean-Georges Le Bernardin Per Se Two Stars Bouley Daniel Danube Masa One Star Annisa Aureole Babbo BLT Fish Café Boulud Café Gray Craft Cru Etats-Unis Fiamma Osteria Fleur de Sel Gotham Bar and Grill Gramercy Tavern JoJo Jewel Bako La Goulue Lever House Lo Scalco March Nobu Oceana Peter Luger Picholine Saul Scalini Fedeli Spotted Pig The Modern Veritas Vong Wallsé WD-50 It strikes me as a very conservative list at the two- and three-star levels. The one-star choices are very eclectic. Some of these could reasonably hope to gain a second star eventually. It is not a happy day for Daniel Boulud. David Bouley, Eric Ripert, and Jean-Georges Vongerichten probably feel pretty good about this outcome. Has anyone been conspicuously slighted? Chanterelle and L'Impero/Alto come immediately to mind.

Eater says it's tomorrow.

I assume that any news would be posted at http://www.michelintravel.com/products/nyc_guide.html. As of now, that site says:

It seems inevitable that there are some misfires on WD-50's $95 tasting menu. That was my view when I tried it, and it is echoed by many of the posts here. Yet, the level of delightful inventiveness is such that I am willing to look past a few faults. At most starred restaurants in New York, you're likely to be above $50 for a three-course meal, and it can easily be a lot more. Viewed in that light, $95 for nine courses is a bargain, even if a couple of them misfire. I view it as a kind of entertainment.

I found nothing illogical about it. Referring to one of those dishes, he said, "It was actually good, a judgment that applied to only about a third of the food, much too small a fraction for a restaurant this expensive." The judgment "Poor" seemed amply justified by the text. As I have not been there, I can't personally say that it actually is poor, only that the bottom-line rating is consistent with the reasons given to justify it. Previous comments on the Ninja thread suggest that the rating is not only consistent with the text, but that it is accurate as well.

The easiest review to write is when the subject is truly awful. The hardest review to write is when the subject is simply average.

I thought that Ripert was right in sprit, not necessarily concerning Japanese tourists, but tourists and out-of-town visitors in general. For those of us who live here, there are already tons of ways we hear about restaurants; this will merely be one more. It's a bit like television news: Meet the Press had a lot more influence when it was one in three, rather than one in thirty. The strength of Zagat is much wider distribution and coverage: Michelin will cover only 500 restaurants or so, which is significant, but still leaves a lot of territory to Zagat. The Times will still serve a useful role in generating buzz for new restaurants, but with just one review a week they can't keep up with subtle changes at places that have been open a while. I suspect there will be a few surprise ratings in Michelin, but most of the stars will just confirm what we already know. I mean, Babbo's full every night, so what difference does it make what the guide says?

This week's New York dives into the Michelin anticipation games. There are sound bites from Mario Batali, Eric Ripert, Anthony Bourdain, Gray Kunz, Danny Meyer, and Tony May. Batali thinks the Michelin ratings will be more important to French-born chefs than to guys like him. Ripert thinks Michelin will have a tough time displacing Zagat, but he admits that New York-based chefs all want the sense of validation that comes with Michelin stars. Bourdain admits he's not up for any stars with Les Halles. He believes ADNY and Per Se will most likely get three, and that the guide will be influential primarily with Japanese tourists. Kunz says he's happy with his Zagat rating, and his restaurant is busy despite being dissed by the Times. Meyer sees nothing but upside, since no one can lose a Michelin star this year. May wonders whether Michelin will adjust their standards to the American marketplace, and he believes the Michelin ratings will be similar to what the Times doles out. Ripert's and Bourdain's comments seemed the most sensible to me.

Cookshop (156 10th Avenue, at 20th St, in West Chelsea) has been open for several weeks. There was a good Sunday night crowd in the restaurant last night, but my friend and I were pleased that we could still hear ourselves talk. The restaurant features a market menu that relies heavily on local produce. The menu is printed on loose paper, and I suspect it is re-done every day. To start, I had the smoked bluefish. My friend had a pizza, which our server warned "is one of our larger appetizers." Indeed, for many people it would serve as an entrée. We both had the duck main course, an ample portion of juicy medallions with a luscious layer of fat around them. Main courses are generally between $20 and $30, except for the aged rib-eye ($34); appetizers are generally under $15. The wine list fits on a single page, but is not organized according to any system I could perceive. Nevertheless, I was delighted to find a modestly-priced cabernet that topped off the evening nicely. I suspect Cookshop will be a hit, and deservedly so.

Well, if it's not profitable yet, I can't imagine what would happen to change that, short of a three-star re-review from the Times, or similar publicity from a comparable media source (Michelin?).

A friend and I had dinner at Gari last night. The place doesn't seem to be as crowded as the posts upthread would suggest, so perhaps the buzz has died down. From the time we arrived (6:00) to the time we left (7:15), it wasn't full. I do realize that those are early hours for a Saturday night dinner in New York, but we had an opera to catch. If you're looking for another pre-Lincoln Center option, Gari should be on your list. We also saw no evidence of the service issues mentioned upthread. The staff was helpful, attentive, and efficient. We were also pleased to find that Gari is a rarity among Manhattan's newer restaurants: a place where you can actually hear yourself talk, without having to shout. It's rare that Frank Bruni covers a restaurant so well that there's really nothing much for me to add, but his two-star review on March 2, 2005, sounded all the right notes. I agree with the two-star rating. We weren't able to try as much of the menu as Bruni did, but we were most pleased with what we had. We had the sushi omakase. As Bruni mentioned, the restaurant actively discourages the use of soy sauce, and indeed there is none on the table. Our server made a point of mentioning that none was needed. I'm no expert, but this was some of the best sushi I'd ever tasted. Every piece was unique, and already perfectly seasoned. To dip in soy sauce would have been a crime, and we remained honest citizens. As others have mentioned, including Bruni, you aren't going to get out of Gari cheaply. The recommended omakase came with ten pieces each, which wasn't enough to sate us, so we had three more. None of the sake options was inexpensive, but we settled on a $47 bottle that we nursed through the meal. With edamame and dessert (a fig tart with green tea ice cream), the final bill for two including tax came to over $200 before the tip. This is sushi on another level of skill and creativity than one finds at most Japanese restaurants. I can't recommend Gari to people on a tight budget, but if you can afford the prices it's well worth it. Incidentally, the correct name of the restaurant is just "Gari," not "Sushi Gari." The confusion may arise because its East-side cousin is called "Sushi of Gari."

I presume that Wolfgang associated himself with people who do have that experience. I have had two of my best steaks ever at Wolfgang's, and the place is such a success that they're opening another branch in TriBeCa. There are a lot of steakhouses in Manhattan, and there are plenty of alternatives if a restaurant fails to deliver. Several people whose judgment about steaks I respect, such as eGullet's Fat Guy, confirm that Wolfgang's is coming pretty damned close to Luger's. (The place also has a far more diverse menu, a more convenient location, a nicer atmosphere, and it takes credit cards.) I wonder how many times you've been there? The Times reviewer found the place inconsistent. If you were there on one of their better nights, then your experience is not necessarily inconsistent with hers. But I suspect she ate there at least three times, and maybe four, before writing the review.

I certainly did mean that. Steve Cuozzo has a full article in today's post, mentioning other factors that go into the taste of the steak. Read the article, and you'll find even Luger is coy as to both its aging and cooking methods. Then there are the issues of cooking temperature, charred vs uncharred, sliced vs served whole, on vs off-the bone, and so forth—all of which are endlessly debated. Obviously, all things being equal, I would prefer USDA prime dry-aged steaks. But all things aren't equal.

It's probably pointless to guess, as no one predicted the demotion to three stars. The interesting question is just how long we'll have to wait for Mr. Bruni to return. I do not think he'll even consider a re-review of ADNY until he's published first reviews (for him) of Daniel and Jean-Georges. I suspect we'll see at least one of those before the year is out, and then another sometime in 2006.

I think this emphasis on USDA grade and aging method vastly over-simplifies what goes into making a great steak.

Most of this conversation (and the WSJ article) is about national chains. Manhattan has quite a few excellent steakhouses that are not national chains. I would be very surprised if the Palm is the only Manhattan steakhouse that serves dry-aged USDA Prime steaks. The original claim was that Palm is the only chain to do so, and even that appears to be inaccurate (see earlier comments about S&W and Capital Grille). I would add that there are many factors that contribute to a great steakhouse meal, of which the USDA grade of the meat, and the type and duration of aging, are only a part.

she reviews restaurants prior to their openings, discusses dishes that aren't yet being served, and generally has a poor palate, in my opinion.. she lives off of press releases and is a tool for restaurant owners and PR folk.. ← I hope this isn't viewed as off-topic, but there doesn't seem to be a proper "home" for the response. Strong isn't a newspaper reviewer. She is writing an email newsletter about her experiences as a diner, and she happens to have some experiences not available to the rest of us. If she is invited to pre-opening parties, or if she is served a dish not on the menu, I don't see any offense to humanity if she chooses to write about these things. She also writes about mainstream restaurants that are open to the public, and her Luger review was among these.

Per Se turns tables. Their earliest reservation is at 5:45pm. The people they seat at 5:45 are out early enough to do a second seating at those tables. Now, if you get a premium reservation at Per se (say, 7:30pm), then the table is yours for the night. I believe ADNY turns tables too, although less often, since the demand isn't as great.