oakapple

That's a demotion, is it not? I recall 11MP being three stars. Incidentally, when's the last time the Times promoted a restaurant? It has been a while. Frank Bruni has written quite a few re-reviews himself, and I'm quite sure that not one has been a promotion. Amanda Hesser didn't promote anybody, either.

I thought the piece of meat itself was excellent: definitely better than a ribeye I had recently at Dylan Prime, and certainly the peer of one I had at Wolfgang's.

I've been taking a leisurely tour of Manhattan's steakhouses, and last night was the Old Homestead's turn. The décor, the service, and the menu all scream "old-fashioned steakhouse" — in both the bad and the good connotations of that phrase. Where the Old Homestead diverges from the stereotype, it's in their extensive "Kobe" beef selections. (Perhaps their version really is from Kobe, but I suspect it's the American-bred "Wagyu" beef they're serving.) You can get a Kobe ribeye for two for something like $150. Also on offer: a Kobe burger at $41 or a Kobe frankfurter (the mind boggles) at $19. I went for the Gotham Rib Steak ($39), which they say is their signature item. Elsewhere it'd be called a ribeye. The cut of beef was practically a carbon copy of the ribeye I ordered at Wolfgang's a month or two ago. The preparation was respectable, but not quite as accomplished as at Wolfgang's: the char was less even, and parts of the steak were a tad (but only a tad) overdone. The Homestead added a welcome helping of shoestring fries, which the Wolfgang's version didn't have. At another table, I overheard a couple who are clearly frequent visitors. They ordered the porterhouse for two ($75), which was served just as they do at Luger's, Wolfgang's, and Mark Joseph, complete with the familiar tilted plate, allowing the unserved slices to wallow in juice. The restaurant was not crowded, and there were plenty of servers hanging around. Despite that, the staff was not as attentive as it should have been, and my own server seemed rather bored with his job. I was served a piece of raisin bread that was practically rock-hard, as though it was a leftover from last Friday's bakery run. Although it doesn't get my vote for top steakhouse in the city, the Old Homestead is better than many. I'll probably be back, but not before trying a few other candidates.

If you mean another full review by the Times, I don't think so. Bruni has covered Luger's twice in less than a year, if you count the praise it received in the Wolfgang's review. Frank is probably done with Luger's for the time being.

In yesterday's New York Post, Steve Cuozzo weighs in with the first post-Kreuther review of Atelier, aptly titled "Going for Baroque": The Post's website doesn't indicate how many stars Cuozzo awarded, but if it's not four, it probably didn't miss by much.

Les Halles has a choucroute special going on throughout February. A whole bunch of us tried it at the downtown location last week, and it was awesome. I especially liked the bed of sauerkraut—which is notable because I usually hate sauerkraut.

I thought it was Babbo's success that launched Mario Battali's reputation, not the other way around.

According to the New York Post, V Steakhouse is in trouble, and will most likely be retooling its menu to be more like a traditional steakhouse. On January 28, Steve Cuozzo and Braden Keil jointly wrote: The closure of V would be a colossal embarrassment for all concerned. I continue to believe that $62 per steak won't cut it, when the rest of the city's high-end steakhouses are charging more like $40.

I agree with all that Pan wrote, but would add two further comments. First, the reviews aren't very long. If Bruni had unlimited space, it might not matter that he devoted some of it to extraneous comments about ex-convicts, wobbly lamps, broken toilets, and heart disease. As it is, one can't help feeling that every paragraph devoted to these matters is borrowing from the precious little space available for what really counts—the restaurant itself. Second, it is hard to escape the impression that everything stated in the review impacted the rating to some extent. Some of these comments may be mere dicta, as they say in the law, but we really don't know. The best way to avoid all doubt is to focus on the facts necessary and essential to the rating. Some of these comments just don't belong in the newspaper at all, or would find a better home somewhere else—the Diner's Journal, for instance, where the reviews are unrated.

I wonder whether the menu and the décor of the Bar Room are in harmony with one another. With appetizer-sized plates averaging $14-15, you're talking about a minimum fifty or sixty bucks a head for a full meal, tax and tip inclusive. I'm sure you can quite easily spend a lot more than that, depending on what you order to drink. Against that, the tables seem pretty close together, and all of those hardwood surfaces bode for a noisy environment when the room is full. Of course, Meyer and Kreuther had to ensure a contrast between the Bar Room and the main dining room, else there was no point in having both of them. But I wonder if the food in the Bar Room is too formal for the environment? I ask this based only on the descriptions and photos in this thread. I have not been there.

Bruni said that his visits were over months, not just one month. He might not devote that much time to every restaurant, but he did for ADNY. That probably compares pretty favorably to the number of times Ben Brantley sees a Broadway show before weighing in with his reviews, which invariably appear just after opening night, and are seldom followed up. The NYT has reviewed ADNY three times, and I'm sure they will again. The Times doesn't have the same objectives as Michelin. The Times is a newspaper. "Point-in-time" snapshots are what they do. I would also dispute your premise. After 4-5 visits, a competent reviewer should be able to write a dependable point-in-time snapshot. For a majority of restaurants, if the initial review is competent, it should remain sustantially valid for a considerable period thereafter. If a restaurant is important enough, it will get a re-review periodically. That's about all you can ask a newspaper to do. They're in business to sell newspapers, not to maintain a restaurant database.

Although Bruni doesn't say so, I believe the food issues, as judged from his perspective, were the main reason for the demotion. In otherwords, had he not perceived "numerous and recurring" problems with the food, the defective toilet and the snooty sommelier wouldn't have been sufficient reasons for the demotion. I am not just saying that this is my opinion, but I suspect it is Frank Bruni's as well. Of course, when he devotes so much space to non-food issues, it's easy to get the impression that they're what defines the experience for him. But this reminds me of the Babbo review, which was capable of being interpreted to mean that the restaurant lost out on a fourth star because Bruni didn't share Mario Batali's taste in music. I don't think Bruni meant that, but it's emblematic of his writing style that his reviews lend themselves to this type of misunderstanding. Part of the problem, I suspect, is that he just doesn't have the verbal arsenal to describe these dishes the way a seasoned food writer should. He tells you about the broken toilet, because he can. Like Sam Kinsey, I got the impression that the food issues he listed were mere examples of the "numerous and recurring" problems he perceived. But I agree with Fat Guy that this should have been more clearly stated. I think we all agree that you can't precisely quantify what makes a dish good or bad, but there is some level of disappointment, beyond which you can no longer justify a four-star rating. The question is whether Frank Bruni's judgment on that matter is reliable.

When we "review the reviewer," we need to ask ourselves two questions: 1) Has he accurately portrayed (within the confines of the allowed space) the experience that the restaurant presently offers? 2) Does the "star" rating follow reasonably from what has been said? As applied to the Ducasse review, there's a pretty good case that three stars was reasonable, if you believe everything that Bruni wrote. He said: FatGuy often reminds us that no restaurant is perfect, and every restaurant disappoints occasionally. But the "numerous lackluster dishes and recurring letdowns," if true, are pretty hard to reconcile with a four-star restaurant at any price, and certainly not at ADNY's price. Bruni also points out that, after his first visit or two, the restaurant knew who he was. If they were going to produce their best for anybody, they would certainly have produced it for him. In short, if you believe that Bruni is reporting on the food accurately, you would have to conclude that there are quality and consistency issues at ADNY that go beyond what's reasonably acceptable at a four-star restaurant. The question, then, is whether Bruni's report is accurate. Obviously I didn't share those meals (I wish I had!!), although his account is consistent with some others I've seen. The more significant issue is of emphasis. If the lackluster dishes and recurring letdowns are the main reasons for demoting ADNY from four stars to three, one must question the decision to devote only one paragraph to it. The service/ambiance issues, although I'm sure they were genuine, probably aren't sufficient justification for a demotion. The incident of the toilet was probably not worth the space devoted to it. I agree with Bux's observation that the comment on the wine suggests that Bruni isn't much of a wine connoisseur.

Give him time. The majority of the reviews are of new restaurants. He will get around to all of the previous four stars eventually—say, in the next year or so. He has already reviewed two of the four-star restaurants that he inherited from his predecessor; unfortunately, he has demoted both of them (Bouley & ADNY). On the other hand, the number of four-star restaurants in New York has always hovered around 5 or 6. There are five of them now, so the three he has yet to review are probably safe. Bruni is unlikely to reduce that number unless he promotes somebody else, and there are very few plausible candidates for that (even by Bruni's standards).

Pascale le Draoulec reviews Abboccato in today's New York Daily News, awarding 2 1/2 stars:

Interesting comments. I'm not so sure that foie gras is in decline, though. I have yet to visit a serious restaurant that doesn't offer it.

I had dinner at Sparks last night, and like Tommy (above) I was underwhelmed. The décor and servers come straight out of Central Casting. I suppose that somebody needs to act out the part of the cliché steakhouse, but because it's a cliché there's not a whole lot to distinguish it. My unscientific survey of the surrounding tables suggests that most Sparks patrons do as we did, and order the prime sirloin steak ($38.95). You get a thick hunk of meat, which the kitchen prepared it to a perfect medium rare. However, I found it a slightly tough, and as Tommy noted, also a bit too salty. The steak also didn't have much char on the outside. It was, in short, not the kind of world-class steak you expect from a high-end steakhouse. I knew a huge steak was coming, so my colleague and I decided to split a shrimp cocktail rather than order separate appetizers. Without prompting, the kitchen divided the portion onto separate plates. That was a nice example of going the extra mile: not many restaurants would do that, particularly when it was unprompted. I have no complaints about this dish, except that $17.95 is awfully expensive for four shrimps (two apiece). Sparks is known for its deep wine list. We shared a bottle of the 2001 Cakebread Cellars, which I mention only because it was terrific: an exceptional cabernet, at least to my untutored taste. Not a bad evening, but with so many other steakhouses to choose from, I won't be rushing back.

A friend and I had dinner there earlier this month. For a three-star restaurant, it was remarkably uninteresting. Probably the best thing was my friend's appetizer: the foie gras terrine. I ordered the orange shrimp appetizer, praised in so many reviews. I found it deadly dull. My main course was an utterly unmemorable sea bass. Again, my friend probably did better with the salmon.

I haven't been taking tetsujustin's numerical ratings all that seriously. It seems to me that, just as in the New York Times, the ratings of two different restaurants aren't always directly comparable. When he gives Craft a 6, he's rating it against his expectations for that restaurant, rather than on an absolute scale.Even with the out-of-focus photos, the food tetsujustin and his friends had at Craft looked great. It seems they would have benefited had the server provided a bit more help navigating the complicated menu.

What's the great evil in menus slipped under the door? They're a lot more useful than most of the junk mail I receive, and I never know when I'm going to want food delivered. I put all of those menus in a drawer, so they'll be there when I need them.

I paid my first visit to Wolfgang's last night and ate at the bar. The Gustavino ceiling is priceless, but it makes Wolfgang's noisy (and I was there before they really filled up). Carpeting, rather than hardwood floors, would probably make a big difference, but peace and quiet are clearly not the idea here. Like Peter Luger, Wolfgang's signature entrée is simply labeled "Steak for Two," "Steak for Three," or "Steak for Four." It's a porterhouse, but they don't say so. I was alone, so my options were the ribeye, the NY sirloin, the filet, or the lamb chop. They're all $36.50, so it's just a matter of preference. I ordered the ribeye, which was a hefty size and thickness, a perfect medium rare, and had heavy char on the outside. I was fully sated after finishing it. About four hours later, I had a distinct craving for another. One small strand of gristle was all that stood between my steak and perfection. It was still damned good. Also like Luger, Canadian Bacon is on the menu. It's $2.50 a slice, and you wonder why more appetizers aren't offered with that kind of flexibility. I knew I was in for a large steak, so I ordered just one slice. Oh my, but was that superb: thick, crispy on the outside, gooey on the inside. Like many folks, I found the medical advice in Frank Bruni's review ("Eat up, but don't tell your cardiologist") of dubious value. It doesn't bother Wolfgang, though. A copy of the Bruni review is very prominently posted. There are plenty of FOH staff roaming around, although it can be hard to get their attention. As I was leaving, I was looking for someone to fetch my coat, and quite inadvertently I ended up presenting my claim check to Wolfgang himself. Momentarily flustered, he said, "One of zee girls!" (Any girl would do, I suppose.) A couple of minutes later I had my coat and was on my way. Until next time.

Does anyone know if this still holds true? ← I think that was true when Masa was a hard ticket to come by. By the time Frank Bruni reviewed it last month, this apparently was no longer the case.

I checked it out - I was first surprised to see that they now have a real functionning website, but then even more surprised to find out that you were right. Is this an indication that not enough cash is coming in to cover their operating costs? I wonder if they also jacked up the prices on wines... ← Keller must have huge costs in New York, and significant up-front investments to recoup. Yet, until now, Per Se carried the same prices as The French Laundry. Since it's practically the toughest rez in town, simple economics suggest that Keller wasn't charging enough. This had to happen sooner or later. The surprise is that all three menus are now $175, whereas before they were differentiated.

This isn't my field of expertise, but there are some amazing ones at 66.

This site has an article with some interesting statistics from the 2005 Zagat guide. Among the highlights: — 2004 was a great year for the NY restaurant industry. Among restaurants Zagat tracks, there were 226 openings (to 174 in 2003), and only 93 closings. — 45% of those surveyed say they're spending more money on dining out than the year before. — The average check in New York is $37.45 per person, which is only 1% higher than the year before. It's well above the national average of $31.51, but well below Paris ($62), London ($64) or Tokyo ($71). — Steakhouses are most definitely in. Peter Luger and Sparks, both established favorites on the NY scene, saw significant jumps in popularity (9th to 6th and 45th to 26th respectively), while the Top Ten Newcomers' list included both Wolfgang's and BLT Steak. (Anecdotal evidence is that both restaurants remain extremely popular. Compass also re-invented itself as a steakhouse, although too late for the guide.) — Only 7% of those surveyed said they make reservations on-line. — Per Se was the first restaurant in the history of the New York guide to earn a 29 in all three categories (food, décor, service). — Décor is in. Three new restaurants vaulted into the top 10 for décor: Asiate, Matsuri, and Spice Market. Megu might well have made that list if it had opened earlier in the year. — Zagat says there are only four restaurants left in New York that require a jacket and tie: Alain Ducasse, La Grenouille, Rainbow Room and 21 Club. You can crow all you want about methodological faults in Zagat, but I think there is some validity to these trends.