oakapple

I last visited Compass (208 W 70th St, west of Amsterdam Ave) during its brief steakhouse phase, enjoying a wonderful rack of lamb on that occasion. The restaurant will still serve you a dry aged porterhouse or a rib-eye, but the emphasis now is on "Creative American Cuisine." A friend and I looked in on the continuing experiment on Saturday night. She was last there with me three chefs ago, and pronounced the current version a significant improvement. There is a prix fixe menu at $32 (or $46 with paired wines). It looks like a good value, but the available entrées (chicken, salmon, or hangar steak) didn't suit our mood, so we ordered ALC. She chose the Gazpacho ($9), I the White Corn and Summer Truffle risotto ($18), a wonderful if slightly watery concoction. The restaurant calls its ALC main courses "Compositions." There is also a section of the menu called "Simply Roasted," which offers mostly steaks (anywhere from $24 for a fillet or $72 for the porterhouse for two); side dishes are extra, at $8. If you order one of the Compositions, I should think the side dishes were superfluous. Anyhow, I chose the Confit of Halibut, with Baby Squash, Artichokes, Picholine Olives, and Basil Sabayon ($28). She chose the Poached Maine Lobster with Potatoes, Summer Truffles, Leeks and Onions ($33). Both were happy choices, aided and abetted by a terrific Chardonnay on the wine list for about $40. We concluded with a selection of cheeses ($12), to which the restaurant added a selection of complimentary petits-fours (five apiece). As we were leaving, we were each handed coffee cakes to take home for Sunday's breakfast—a nice touch usually associated with higher-end places. Part of Compass's problem, I suspect, is that it's an unusually large space for the area. I don't think I've ever seen it full. Here's hoping that the latest formula will take root and flourish.

When Per Se was $175, I think we paid about somewhere around $168 for the long tasting menu at Daniel. ← The menu at Per Se is still $175. They have simply included the service charge in the price, which no other major New York restaurant does. Leaving that factor aside, there's only an irrelevant $7 difference between the comparable menus at Per Se and Daniel. (I realize Daniel has lower-priced options, and Per Se does not; in that sense, they are not comparable.) Far be it from me to tell Thomas Keller how to run a restaurant, but I think it would have made more sense to say, "All menus are $175, to which a 20% service charge will be added," than to say, "All menus are $210."

Another visit to RUB yesterday, this time for the Szechuan Smoked Duck. It's gotta be the strangest offering on the RUB menu, not at all typical for a barbecue restaurant. It's truly a hybrid dish, with the duck prepped as it would be in Chinatown, and then given the finish in Paul Kirk's smoker. The billowing layer of fat underneath the skin gives the duck a flavor explosion, while the flesh has the smokey bbq taste. You can have a half duck at $14.75, or a full duck at $26.75. Unlike most of the other entrée dishes, it doesn't come with any sides, but the half-duck alone was sufficient for me. You have to be a bit careful, as there are a lot of bones to pick through, but the payoff is sufficient to justify the effort.

Two friends and I had dinner at EN on Wednesday evening. EN is part of the city's new hip trend for big-box Japanese restaurants with Nobu-inspired menus. It is one of the pleasanter destinations in that genre. Our reservation was at 6:30, a time when the restaurant is still comparatively empty. However, we were impressed with the high ceilings and the wide spacing of the tables. Even at peak time, I suspect my companions and I wouldn't have had to shout (as we did at the comparatively claustrophobic BLT Prime). Someone upthread complained about the service, but we encountered no problems. Indeed, the service was about as efficient as one could hope for. Obviously it helped that the place was nearly empty at that hour, but I've found that a sparsely-populated dining room is no guarantee of the server's undivided attention. As at other restaurants in the genre, you're encouraged to order a variety of small plates, and share. One is never sure precisely how many of these plates are enough to make a meal. Our waiter naturally advised us to err on the high-side; his upselling wasn't unctuous, but certainly we were aware of it. Anyhow, we chose four items, and once those were finished, ordered a fifth. We had two types of sushi rolls with different tangy dipping sauces, shrimp fritters, a tempura sampler, and the obligatory miso black cod. The latter didn't erase memories of the signature dish at Nobu, but all were wonderfully prepared. The tempura batter was crispy and light; the sushi rolls crisp and flavorful. This is definitely the way to order at EN, as I don't think any of these dishes would have been nearly as successful as one's only entrée. If we had any complaint, it was the speed at which the dishes arrived. The trend at these "small plate" restaurants is to deliver the food at the chef's convenience, instead of the customer's. After we ordered, it seemed we barely had time to blink before the food came trooping gaily out of the kitchen. It's not that they needed our table; I just think it's the way the restaurant is put together. EN has one of the most ridiculously over-engineered, yet simultaneously unhelpful, websites (http://www.enjb.com/). The menu shown there is far from complete. Frank Bruni complained of "an extremely long, confusing menu" in his one-star review. It appears there has been some simplification since then. The menu is now a single page, which makes it shorter than the Nobu menu. As at any Japanese restaurant, it's easy to spend a ton of money in a hurry. But our experience at EN showed that it is by no means necessary. We were out of there for $35 a head, including tax and tip, but without any alcohol.

It's worth separating the problems that are Bruni's fault, from the the limitations inherent in the NYT star system as he inherited it. NYT critics generally do not say precisely how they've weigh the various factors that go into the rating (food, ambiance, service, price). Nor do they say whether a restaurant is comfortably in the "heartland" of a rating category, or if the restaurant just barely made/missed a level. Overlaying this is what I call the "penalty system." Each rating category, except for four stars, includes restaurants that truly belong there, and also restaurants that should have been at a higher category, but are being "penalized" for some reason. (Less often, a restaurant that normally belongs at a lower level is given a "bonus star" for doing one particular thing extraordinarily well.) Now, with all of that in mind, the ratings of Perry St, Modern, and ADNY aren't necessarily inconsistent. The tone of the Perry St review suggests it's a borderline restaurant at the lower edge of the three-star range. Since we're not told the reasons, we must infer that, as BryanZ said, "when JG scores, he scores big," and that makes up for some less-than-stellar dishes. ADNY and The Modern, on the other hand, are clearly being penalized. Bruni knows that ADNY is designed to operate at four stars. He concludes that it's falling well short of the mark. He also considers ADNY's rather staggering prices, at which expectations are necessarily higher. Likewise, I'm sure Bruni realizes that The Modern was designed to be a minimum of three stars, and a contender for four. Its two-star rating carries a significant penalty for getting a lot of things wrong at a fairly high price point. Mind you, I realize that the reason we're having this discussion is because, at root, nobody trusts Bruni's judgment any more. But, assuming a competent critic, it is not necessarily inconsistent that ADNY, Perry St, and The Modern, would be carrying their current ratings.

The most I can say—since I haven't eaten there myself—is that a three-star restaurant from JGV isn't a surprise, and the language in the review is reasonably consistent with the rating. Frank has anointed two new four-star restaurants (Per Se and Masa), and he re-affirmed another (Le Bernardin). He has also yanked two restaurants out of that class (Bouley and Alain Ducasse).

This week, the Count's glance settles for the nonce on Jean-Georges Vongerichten's Perry St, which garners three stars. Eater is none too pleased: In Eater's view, "Unofficially, two stars is the new one star and one star is the new zero stars." And apparently, three stars is the new two. I would disagree with that. It's true that many of Bruni's one- and two-star places have been over-rated by at least a star. But along with that come places like Alto, Modern, and Café Gray, which arguably were under-rated by a star. The reality is that Bruni's one- and two-star ratings are all over the map. In contrast, his three-star reviews, few & far-between as they may be, have generally been defensible. That doesn't mean every last reader will agree with them, but they don't seem to come out of the same random-number generator that produces his one- and two-star entries. The Conant reference above is to this piece in the latest New York: The piece quotes Bruni as saying, "I don't intentionally or consciously go tougher on Italian restaurants.....I think one star is my most frequently given rating, regardless of ethnic orientation." I disagree with Eater that the Perry St review is over-compensating for the heavy-handed slap-down of Alto. I thought that three stars for Perry St was pretty much pre-saged by Bruni's Diner's Journal entry of July 29th. If he was over-compensating at all, the cause might have been his harsh one-star review of JGV's V Steakhouse, although comments in today's review don't suggest he has any regrets about that assessment. (If anything, he seems to imply that Spice Market's three stars from Amanda Hesser might have been a tad generous.)

Does this mean we're coming to the end of a term? Can Benny be far behind? Is it graduation day? Where do I send a parting gift? ← Bruni hasn't even hit the two-year mark , so I wouldn't start planning the celebration.

If it's really true that Del Posto is gunning for four stars, I wish them a lot of luck. In the last year or so, we've had two restaurants open that clearly had four-star pretensions, and didn't even make it to three (Modern, Alto). Two others in the category were demoted to three (Bouley, ADNY). Whether those ratings were accurate is a whole other question, but historically it's a tough category to break into, and for an Italian restaurant the odds are about as long as can be.

I am quite sure you could. Like all of the BLT's, it isn't stuffy or overly formal. And I think most steakhouses are used to giving out doggy bags.

I noticed today that BLT Prime is now the #1 steakhouse in the city on Zagat. It is tied with Peter Luger with a 27 food rating, but has higher service and decor ratings (23/23 respectively for BLTP; 19/14 for PL). Zagat must have made a process change, as I don't recall a restuarant as new as BLT Prime ever being rated before.

I dined at BLT Prime last night. Laurent Tourondel has now refined the BLT formula to a science, and the third restaurant in the chain is a triumph. We started with two 'bread' amuses. The first was a sourdough bread with chicken liver paté. Second was a very fresh, soft garlic bread roll. For appetizers, two of us had the Grilled Double Cut Canadian Bacon ($9). These bacon strips are similar to those at Peter Luger. They aren't quite as thick as at Luger, but you get four of them on the plate, and they are lightly seasoned. My other colleague ordered the Tuna Tartare ($14), which was also an enormous helping, and he pronounced himself satisfied. BLT serves its porterhouse pre-sliced, as in the Luger/Wolfgang's model. Unlike those restaurants, it is offered only for two. As there were three of us, we ordered the porterhouse ($79) and the 12 oz. kobe ribeye ($72). We divided on which was the more flavorful, although the porterhouse, which feeds two with some left to spare, is clearly the far better deal. For side orders, we chose the onion rings ($8), the bleu cheese tater tots ($7), and the asparagus ($8). The menu at BLT Prime seems almost diabolically designed to encourage you to over-order. I don't believe a person with a normal appetite can finish an appetizer, their share of a porterhouse, and one of these ample side dishes, especially if you've also ordered wine. We ended the meal happy, but with quite a lot of food remaining on the table. Only one of us could even dream of entertaining dessert. My colleague ordered the banana cream pie, which he said was heavenly. I strenuously resisted his suggestion of after-dinner drinks, but he insisted, so we finished the evening with 18-year Highland Park whisky. For future reference, I'd say that three people of normal appetites would have plenty to eat if they ordered an appetizer apiece, and shared the porterhouse and two sides between them. Occasional glances around other tables confirmed that portions are enormous, practically no matter what you order. All three of the BLT restaurants have been instant hits. BLT prime was full to the gills, and it was hard to carry on a conversation over the din. That's about the only negative at a restaurant that clicks on all cylinders.

I went to RUB yesterday and ordered the burnt ends ($19.95). I've never had this dish before, but it sounded so appealing that I was willing to forego the St. Louis ribs, which are my usual order at 'cue restaurants. The burnt ends were really terrific. You get a plate full of juicy brisket squares, with perfectly charred ends and nice pink flesh with a real smoky flavor. I was not tempted to add any sauces, being content to let the intrinsically musky flavor do its own work. Side orders were the cole slaw (underwhelminig) and onion straws (addictive). To my surprise, the soda was free. In the mid-afternoon on a Sunday, I had no trouble getting seated. I'll certainly be back to sample more of the menu.

Sorry....no bar dining or walk-ins at Per Se.

Per Se is advertising on Craig's List for servers. One wonders whether predictions of a mass exodus among current staff are indeed coming true.

Unfortunately, it's yet another review that awards two stars to a restaurant that appears to be merely above-average. A two-star rating is supposed to mean "very good," but to Frank it seems to mean "not bad."

I have to agree, this is probably the low-water mark of Bruni's tenure, although he has come close to it several times. However, there is no evidence that Frank himself has any doubt about his qualifications to be writing these reviews. The paper could remove him, but he won't resign. I think the post was already Asimov's if he wanted it. He appears to be very happy as wine critic. At the 1 and 2-star levels, the Times stars have been pretty much stripped of their meaning already. I do believe that Frank (so far) has been faithful to the system at the 3 and 4-star levels. He has perhaps been stingy about awarding three stars (Alto, Modern, Café Gray), but when he does so, it is nearly always reasonable.

If that's the case, then the "personal experience" you've referred to in this thread is no more reliable than the studies you're criticizing. After all, your "experience" is based not only on what happened to you, but what you perceive to have happened to other waiters with whom you worked. I'm assuming you didn't rigorously audit their tips, but they told you what they were making, and you believed them. But if people are not completely "up-front" when speaking about cash, then why is your anecdotal experience any better than the repeatedly verified results of numerous controlled studies? FatGuy wrote: Well, the same argument would apply in respect of any service for which tipping is customary, such as porters, bellboys, doormen, taxi drivers, blackjack dealers, and coat-check attendants. However, the customs surrounding who gets tipped and who doesn't are somewhat peculiar and difficult to rationally justify. Airline flight attendants perform services rather similar to many of those listed here, but I've never seen anyone tip a stewardess.

eGullet's Steven A Shaw ("FatGuy") has this editorial in Wednesday's New York Times about Thomas Keller's decision to "abolish the practice of tipping at Per Se, his luxury restaurant in New York City, and replace it with a European-style service charge." FatGuy thinks this change is for the better, noting studies showing that tips aren't well correlated with service quality. The story was also covered in this NY Post Page Six story on Monday. The Post's writers aren't so hot on the idea: "Let's hope this trend doesn't catch on," they say. Quoting an "inside source," they add: "Most of the service staff are planning on quitting at the end of this month when the salary changes happen." I find that a little difficult to believe. The service charge will be a flat 20% of the bill. This means that patrons from the "double the tax" school of tipping will be paying a shade more for their experience at Per Se. I presume that high rollers who want to be generous will still find a way to slip twenty dollar bills into the hands of waitstaff who've gone the extra mile.

I should add a corollary to my original post (which I implied, but did not state): At the one, three, and four-star levels, the Frank Bruni has been coherent. I do realize that we want more from the Reviewer of Record than mere coherence, but we must take our small favors where we can get them.

In Today's New York Times, Frank Bruni "awarded" two stars to Scott Conant's Alto. I put "awarded" in quotes, because I doubt Conant feels like he's won any kind of award today. Only a few weeks ago, Adam Platt of New York Magazine had a feature on the likely candidates for the next four-star chef in New York. Scott Conant was at the top of his list. With his review today, Bruni seemed to be saying, "Not so fast, Platt!!" It seems to me that Bruni has done most of his damage at the two-star level. When The Red Cat and Sripraphai are two stars, but so are the Modern, Café Gray and Alto, the category no longer means anything.

I recall from past discussions that corkage was $75. At that price, I think the wine you bring with you had better be awfully special. Someone here referred to it as "F. U. corkage."

We shall see; it sounded like one to me. BLT Steak was awarded two, but it was (at the time) unique. I think that as Tourondel syndicates the pattern — launching a BLT "fill-in-the-blank" franchise, in effect — he will be slapped down for it. This Diner's Journal entry was the first shot across the bow.

I had the nine-course degustation menu several weeks ago. I agree with doc: it's a full meal, but you don't feel like you're going to explode (as you sometimes do with tasting menus). I think the tasting menu at $95 plus the paired wines at $45 has got to be one of the better fine dining deals I've encountered in the city. WD-50 might be a good candidate for promotion to three stars, especially when compared to nearby 71 Clinton, which has two.

This comes from the Stanton Social thread. I'm responding here, as it's really a meta-reviewing comment. The standards for what constitutes a "reviewable" restaurant have been relaxing for a long time now. Bruni has continued the trend, with the two stars awarded to Sripraphai being perhaps the most extreme signpost seen to date. Another recent example was Florent (one star), which prompted Andrea Strong to write, "Why is Frank Bruni reviewing a diner?" I haven't been to Stanton Social, but if Sripraphai can be two stars, it seems to me Stanton Social can be one. What would the Michelin man think? Well, the Times system and the Michelin system have never had much in common, aside from the superficial resemblance that both are based on stars. By the way, I don't think Bruni docked Café Gray a star for the reasons you suggest. One never knows for sure, since there is no exact formula, but I took his comments about the décor & view to be observations not affecting the final rating.