oakapple

The website is here:http://www.WolfgangsSteakhouse.com/ You'll see a lot of people there in business attire, but "smart casual" is ok too.

I think that Café Gray is the only Time-Warner restaurant that reaps any significant benefit from walk-ins. Its unique position on the 2nd floor reinforces this.

Until stevenis's post yesterday, there hadn't been an eGullet review since last August, so it would seem the members here aren't patronizing it in droves. I do remember a lot of people felt that Amanda Hesser's 1-star rating was unduly harsh. If indeed they've changed chefs, then perhaps the time is ripe for a re-assessment.

James, you aren't fighting an uphill battle with me. I think you've summarized the place quite reasonably. Comments like "one of the worst in New York" and "tourist trap" clearly aren't analytically defensible. I think it's more reasonable to put this restaurant in a class with similar places like Tavern on the Green and Cafe des Artistes, which fill a useful and important niche, but aren't known mainly for their food. By the way, I think Tavern quite possibly is primarily a tourist place; I can't think of the last time I heard about a New York resident going there, except perhaps as a favor to visiting friends or relatives. But both CdA and OIBL do significant local business. One must recognize that eGullet posters are an atypical bunch, and our criteria for choosing and judging restaurants aren't universally shared.

One if By Land is the foodies' bete noire. It attracts vitriol far in excess of what it deserves, simply because the food doesn't live up to the ambiance and the prices. This does not mean the food there is objectively bad, but in any other setting the restaurant would not be able to charge what it does without delivering the goods a lot more consistently. Foodies resent it, because OIBL's popularity is derived from "non-food reasons." As Frank Bruni noted in his recent mini-review, the ambiance remains heavenly, and on occasion the kitchen turns out a great meal. For someone who's into food, the restaurant's performance is too erratic to justify a $65 prix fixe, but one must accept that there are other legitimate reasons for patronizing a restaurant. For the right occasion—such as an engagement—OIBL is the ticket, and there's noplace in New York quite like it.

I'm afraid my answer won't help you: It's not any one restaurant, but rather the profusion of such a wide variety of restaurants, that makes me say, "I Love NY."

Guide Michelin first needs to answer the existential question whether their rating system needs any fine tuning for the New York market. Does a restaurant get three stars here only if the identical restaurant would get three stars in Paris, or is the system tweaked to suit the local market? Same question for one and two stars. I would guess that, to be seen as credible, the guide needs to award the top ranking to at least 2-4 restaurants. The current NYT four-stars obviously are candidates, along with ADNY, and perhaps a couple of other places with comparable aspirations (Bouley, Chanterelle). The Guide will have a lot more credibility than the current NYT ratings, and I suspect there will be some bragging rights at stake. For example, suppose Le Bernardin is awarded three stars, but Daniel and Jean Georges only two. That's only an example, not a prediction. I think it will be a good thing, because it will encourage further competition and a striving for excellence at the top end. There is, of course, a faction here that opposes restaurant ratings. To them, it will not be a good thing, no matter what the ratings turn out to be. I suspect that the chefs at the restaurants mentioned above are very aware of the Michelin inspectors. These restaurants make a lot of money from international tourism. Being able to hang a few Michelin stars on their shingle will have a real impact.

Bruni has posted two zero-star reviews in the last three weeks. That is most unusual. To the best of my recollection, there were only two zero-star reviews in all of 2004 (one of them by Bruni, another by Hesser). I agree, and based on historical practice, it seems to be the Times' de facto policy. I do think that English is Italian and Koi are "more or less mandatory" reviews. (Whether one agrees with the rating is a whole other question, but they're "buzzy" enough that a Times review was expected.) It's regrettable that these two reviews came so close together, as it gives the impression that the Times is going to start handing out a lot of zero-star ratings. I presume that's not the case. On the other hand, Bruni's lone zero-star review last year, Indochine, was entirely pointless. Indochine had been around for years, and there was no particular reason to review it again.

Bob Lape awards four stars to Blue Hill Stone Barns in today's Crain's New York Business. The link will be good only for this week, after which it will be replaced by next week's review.

That's my understanding too. It's been a year since I went there alone, but that's how it was last May. You might consider just giving them a call and see. You never know. ← That was my experience also.

Two colleagues and I had dinner at BLT Fish the other night: an enjoyable experience, to be sure, but the restaurant is a bit over-hyped. Our feeling was that Bruni had perhaps awarded one star too many. Mind you, a two-star restaurant is still very good. But this didn't feel like it deserved three. Our server got things off on the wrong foot. We said, "Can we order some appetizers?" He said, "The kitchen prefers to receive your entire order at once." This is no doubt true, but it was an awfully clumsy way of telling us that the restaurant values its own convenience over that of its guests. Perhaps he should have just said, "Sorry guys, but we have tables to turn here." BLT Fish wheels out impressive looking whole fish. Red Snapper "Cantonese" Style was a gorgeous presentation, filleted tableside, but both the fish and the cantonese vegetables seemed a bit bland in the end. The appetizers, spicy Tuna Tartare and Softshell Crab Tempura, were more successful. There were two different amuses--both imaginative turns on "bread & butter." But in one case there was too little bread and too much spread; in the other case, it was the opposite. No one came around to offer more bread. Vegetables are separately priced side orders, steakhouse style. Sauteed spinach was fine. Our server talked us into ordering Salt Crusted Sunchokes, which were mushy and not at all interesting. The sommelier helped us choose too excellent wines, both of which were a hit. All told, an uneven performance. I would certainly return, but the restaurant needs some fine tuning.

For some reason Thalassa slipped under the NYT's radar when it opened, and it never received a rated review. In my view it would score at least two stars. I found it superior to BLT Fish, which scored three.

Actually, this appears to be a pretty new piece, as it is up-to-date with reviews Bruni published through last week. The website page is dated May 12th (today). That's a bit harsh. The article acknowledges that Bruni is controversial, and it quotes a number of people who are less-than-enamored with his performance.

It is dangerous to make sweeping generalizations about people whom one doesn't know. I do agree that, for many diners, a visit to a four-star restaurant is a special occasion. But these aren't the same people who thought college dorm food was a gourmet experience. Those folks are probably going to One if by Land, Two if by Sea for their special night out. A fair survey of media reports and eGullet posts on Per Se shows that it has received a number of ecstatic reviews from people who, without question, clearly did know what they're talking about. That this view is not unanimous may suggest that Per Se is uneven; that it is no longer executing as well as when it first opened; or that it's not to all tastes. I don't know that anyone has said that Per Se must be as good as FL. Beyond that, the comparison breaks down. Per Se and FL are two implementations of practically the identical concept. Whether one likes V Steakhouse or not, no one claims that it is the same concept as Jean Georges. JGV does not appear to have much involvement in V Steakhouse, aside from lending it his initial.

The Dining Room and the Bar Room are now separately bookable on OpenTable. The only comparable situation I can think of is the Aquavit Dining Room and Aquavit Café, which likewise appear as separate restaurants on OpenTable, despite being in the same building, under the same chef and kitchen.

It would be sad indeed if corner-cutting is the reason, given that the price of the 9-course has gone up by 1/6th ($150 to $175), and the price of the 5-course by 1/3rd ($125 to $175), since the NYT review came out. In percentage terms that's a pretty hefty increase, although anyone prepared to pay $125-150 at Per Se was probably not deterred by a price $25-50 higher. As far as I can tell, reservations haven't gotten any easier to snag. The question is whether Per Se has gone down, or whether flaws it always had are just finally catching up with it.

Andrea Strong writes, "I would rather see Chodorow drop this Mix nonsense, scratch the concept, start fresh and reopen with a new name and design. Band-Aids like this tend not to stop the bleeding." This is from a reviewer who seldom has a bad word to say about any restaurant.

The reviews are clearly less significant than they once were. I don't think we have clear evidence that people are making personnel decisions solely based on Frank Bruni's say-so. As clumsy as his reviews are, he may at times stumble onto real issues that the management already suspected. Even a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day. In Ducasse's interview with Florence Fabricant, he mentioned the Bruni review as a factor. That does not mean it was the only factor.

I assume there are no reservations in The Bar Room. How long of a wait would be typical if you drop in on, say, a Saturday evening?

BLT Fish was awarded three stars just two weeks ago.

It was certainly made to appear that way, though he exercised poor judgment in choosing that particular example. I mean, it's certainly legitimate to withhold stars if there's an overall lack of professionalism in the restaurant. But if the service issues rise to that level, is there not a better illustration than an isolated remark by the coat-check girl? This part is really not new. At the high end of the dining spectrum, there have always been careers riding on New York Times reviews. William Grimes was once asked about this. He said that a reviewer has to call the balls & strikes as he sees 'em. You can't withhold what you consider to be legitimate criticism because someone might lose his job. In the last eighteen months: Marion Burros demoted Union Pacific from three stars to two, and it has since closed. Amanda Hesser demoted Compass from two stars to one, and Katie Sparks left shortly thereafter. Frank Bruni gave V Steakhouse one star. JGV said in the press, "I don't do one-star restaurants." According to later stories, V is getting retooled. Both Bruni and the Post's Steve Cuozzo slammed Cru's original pastry chef, Will Goldfarb. Coincidentally, the reviews appeared on the same day. Goldfarb is no longer at Cru. On the other hand, I am not aware of any repercussions at Montrachet, Bouley, Asiate, or Café Gray, all of which have either been demoted or received poor reviews in the last eighteen months.

I may be the last foodie in New York to have reached this conclusion, but I am on the bandwagon: Frank Must Go. In the early days, I was more tolerant than most. Even in so prominent a job as NYT food critic, there is an adjustment period. The incumbent needs time to grow into the role, and we need time to get acclimated to his reviewing style. To a degree, this would be true even if Bruni had earned his stripes as a food critic elsewhere. It was especially true here, because Bruni was more of a fan than a trained food writer. He clearly loved to write and talk about food, but more as an enthusiast than as a seasoned professional. Bruni's now been in the job for about a year. If he was going to be an excellent critic, or even a merely acceptable one, that should have been apparent by now. Frank Bruni is unacceptable. Even if he turns it around (which would be miraculous), it is too late. A year was more than enough time for Bruni to acclimate to the role—assuming he even had the chops to be doing it in the first place, which it now appears he didn't. A two or three-month apprenticeship might have been tolerable. A full year is not. And there is no sign of things getting better. Early on, I was at least able to say that Bruni was getting the ratings right. From the very first review (Babbo), there were signs of the irritating tics that infect Bruni's writing every week, and are only getting worse. But at bottom, Bruni rated Babbo three stars, and there is no serious argument that he was wrong about that. But nowadays the star ratings, and even the restaurants he chooses to review, seem to come out of a random number generator. Last week, he gave one star to a diner (Florent). This week, he gave two stars to a restaurant many thought would be a serious candidate for four (Modern). And even where the rating is arguably correct, the anecdotes he chooses to make his points are anywhere from irrelevant to tasteless, whether it be the music (Babbo), the cholesterol (Wolfgang's), the clientele (LCB Brasserie), the plumbing (Alain Ducasse), his Italian roots (Ama), or the coat-check girl (Modern). Bruni does everything he can to avoid writing about the one thing readers want most: the food. One can only infer that this part of the job is especially difficult for him, so he defers it until as late in the review as possible. When he finally does get around to critiquing the food, the prose is so awful it makes one cringe: "The grilled octopus is as fine as any in New York, and if its ablution of bergamot oil sounds like an eccentric marriage of gastronomy and homeopathy, it's really just a route to a subtle citrus zing, which is an effect Mr. Tourondel relishes." Frank must go. His recent article on the late Pope John Paul II suggests the section of the paper where his contributions belong: obituaries.

He doesn't seem to be saying he's more interested in his rating, only that the rating is one of those things he's interested in. This doesn't really strike me as news. FatGuy has been saying for years that high-end restaurants in New York are built with a particular star rating in mind, and there can be no doubt that ADNY was built for four stars. The article says, "....while Mr. Delouvrier's talent was in traditional French cuisine, [Ducasse] wanted a less classic approach." I took this as a pretty emphatic signal that it's not only the FOH that Ducasse thought needed changing. I can't believe he'd do this merely to please a NYT critic who doesn't know french cooking from french fries.

Rightly or wrongly, Ducasse himself said that regaining four stars was a priority, and was part of the decision in replacing Delouvrier. You could question why chefs care about stars, but clearly this chef does care, and so it is part of the story.

My guess, as FG goes on to suggest, is that Ducasse already had concerns about Delouvrier's stewardship at ADNY. Bruni's stars may come out of a random-number generator, but in this case they gave Ducasse the impetus to make a change he was considering anyway. But had Bruni reconfirmed the restaurant's four-star status, Delouvrier would probably still be there.