oakapple

I thought this one was a no-brainer but as both Todd and FG have disagreed with me, I'll elaborate. First off, let me be clear that I advocated the rotational system only for the $25-and-under column. In the main reviewing chair, the lack of stability over the last 12 months has definitely been a disadvantage. But the $25-and-under column differs in several respects. Most important, $25-and-under is a much more random selection of the available restaurants. In the main column, you can be sure that nearly all of the "important" star-quality restaurants are going to get reviewed. Frank Bruni's decision is when, not whether, to review them. But with 52 slots a year, $25-and-under is merely scratching the surface of what is out there. It's more of an impressionistic dining diary than a systematic thorough coverage of a genre. Because the column doesn't claim to be comprehensive, it is useful to get more than one voice out there, so that we're not limited to one critic's selection bias. There are other differences. The $25-and-under restaurants aren't starred, so there is no issue of ensuring the stars are assigned consistently (not that the main critics have excelled at that). The $25 restaurants are never re-reviewed, so all you're getting is a one-time snapshot, so maintaining a consistent voice from one review to the next doesn't matter as much. In most of the other Arts disciplines (theater, music, books), the Times has more than one critic. I agree with Fat Guy that cooking is an art, and it deserves more serious analysis than Frank Bruni has given it. But the argument for limiting it to just one voice doesn't necessarily follow.

For the main review: William Grimes, Marian Burros (interim), Amanda Hesser (interim), and Frank Bruni. Sam Sifton gets an honorable mention for writing the Diner's Journal column during the Grimes-Bruni interregnum. The Times is now rotating the $25-and-under column among several reviewers, which I think is a very good thing. It's not as if they're trying people out, to see who'll get the job. Today's $25-and-under was by Frank Prial, and I am quite sure he doesn't want a weekly reviewing gig. Eric Asimov has also done the column several times since relinquishing it as a full-time beat as of June 1st.

Yes, and no doubt the big-ticket chefs and their FOH staffs would know what Bruni looks like in their sleep. But I don't think all the places he reviews are expecting him. Maybe after the 3rd or 4th visit it dawns on them who he is...but by then, he's already had several meals anonymously.

I'm not sure what a "home run" four-star review looks like. In part, I suspect that Steven is over-estimating eGullet's importance to the NYC restaurant scene. What I mean is that, to those of us who've read most of the 500+ post Per Se thread, Frank Bruni's review contributed little. It confirmed what we already know. But eGulletteers comprise only a fraction of NYC's fine dining community. If you're not on eGullet, there's a good chance the only reviews you know about are those that appeared in New York Magazine and the New York Post (and you may not even know that much). Judged in that context, Bruni's review contributed enormously to the dialog about Per Se. By extension, it also contributed enormously to the dialog about Thomas Keller, because you can't separate one from the other. I'm also not sure that an individual restaurant review is the place for making higher-level comments about the dining scene. The Per Se review should be about Per Se. A "thought piece" about the metaphysics of fine dining would be more suitable for one of his occasional "Critic's Notebook" columns (these appear about four times a year). Will the review be considered a landmark in the documentary history of cooking? No, it won't. I'm not sure when the New York Times last published a review to which such high accolades would apply. At the moment, this seems to be well beyond Mr. Bruni's capabilities. If this review wasn't akin to a child learning his multiplication table, it can't be denied that it has taken Bruni quite a while to produce a review that hit all the right notes without sounding any wrong ones, and it remains to be seen whether he can hit this level with any consistency whatsoever.

Probably every four-star restaurant misfires occasionally. As Fat Guy observed recently, four stars means "extraordinary," but it does not mean "perfect." I thought the review gave more than ample evidence that the extraordinary capabilities of the restaurant more than outweigh the odd couple of things that fail to reach that level. There's actually no mystery about it. Put your phone on speed dial two months to the day in advance of your desired reservation date. While it may be virtually impossible to visit Per Se on short notice, the way you can most other restaurants, with advance planning just about anybody can get in.

As I re-read the review, I have a few additional comments: First, some had speculated that Bruni would write a longer article for a four-star review. Not so. As far as I can tell, the Per Se piece is about the same length as all of his full reviews. Second, eGulletteers are well aware that Per Se has an unadvertised extended tasting menu, of which Bruni partook at least once: I believe Bruni is the first critic to mention the existence of this option in his review. But having mentioned it, he should also have mentioned the cost. Bruni also had this telling comment about the service: This implies that Bruni believes that most restaurants don't recognize him. Who's getting the better of whom is an open question. Fat Guy has said before that he thinks reviewers are recognized more often than they realize. Along these lines, Steve Cuozzo had an interesting comment in the Post a week or so ago. He had reserved a table as "Mr. X" at the Capitale Grill, and the waitstaff claimed to recognize him from a previous visit to the Washington, D.C., branch of that restaurant. Thing is, Cuozzo had never been there!

In my view, Bruni's best reviews have been Babbo, Blue Hill Stone Barns, and Per Se. What do they have in common? They were all three stars or higher. Bruni was sufficiently enthralled with the food that he didn't have to fill space with comments having nothing to do with the restaurant. In all three, we were spared having to relive his friends' witty comments. But this is the best one yet. The Babbo review was marred by the suggestion that the restaurant was docked a star because of Mario Batali's taste in music. I don't actually think Bruni meant that, but it says something about the sloppiness of the writing that some readers believe he did.

They must change the soundtrack about midway through the evening. I have dined at Babbo's bar twice in the last couple of months. Both times, it was pretty early, around 6:00pm. And on neither occasion was loud rock music playing — it was neither rock nor loud. I second the recommendation for the Mint Love Letters.

I think you should write a letter or e-mail to the restaurant. This is so unlike the service that anybody else has reported. Indeed, most posters have said that the staff happily stay within a reasonable wine budget. I recall one mentioning that their Per Se server actually "downsold" them — suggesting they not order bottled water, when they made it clear they were trying to economize. Against these reports, this server's behavior is an anomaly, and the restaurant would want to know. I think you will get a favorable reaction if you contact them.

Even when the outcome is a foregone conclusion, people are eager to see it memorialized. Also, Frank Bruni is quickly turning into a train wreck, and there's nothing more mesmerizing than a train wreck. Lastly, let's not over-estimate our own importance. There's a large segment of the high-end dining public that hasn't as much as heard of eGullet, much less read any reviews here. For many, the Times review is the review of record. As you noted, the Times has to review Per Se. There are 51 other reviewing slots over the next year when the Times can do as you suggest. This one just has to be done.

Unfortunately, Bux drew a subtle distinction that my words weren't meant to bear. Although I wrote "food critic" in haste, I really did mean "restaurant critic." (I will be editing my original post as soon as I finish typing this.) As a restaurant critic, Frank Bruni should absolutely discuss more than just the food. But week after week, we find that the actual examples Bruni uses to explicate his points are of dubious relevance, and at times reflect astonishingly poor judgment. In what is clearly a very limited amount of space, things that have nothing to do with the restaurant itself (e.g., Al Taubman's legal problems) don't belong there. Often, these points are not just parenthetical, but actually take up quite a bit of the review. bpearis: I doubt that there is truly so little of interest to say about the food. Bruni loved the entrées, once he got around to talking about them. Even allowing bpearis's point to be valid, the trouble is that Bruni does this week after week, in many of his columns. I am guessing that because restaurant reviewing is new to him, he writes about what comes naturally, rather than what he's actually being paid for. He does cover the restaurant itself in enough detail that he's not being technically delinquent, but as a reviewer he has not yet hit his stride. The question is if he ever will. Incidentally, given Bruni's enthusiasm for the entrées, I didn't find two stars unreasonable. Although I haven't yet dined there myself, I thought there was more than enough support for two stars. Indeed, until he got around to the appetizers and desserts, I thought that Bruni might be headed for three stars. Bux suggested: Perhaps, but I don't remember any past critic who found so many excuses to avoid talking about the restaurant he was reviewing. I'm not ready to assume that this is a conscious policy decision by the Times. What is the policy, I think, is that critics have a pretty wide berth to cover their subject area as they see fit. Like Frank Sinatra, Bruni is doing it his way. Perhaps, coincidentally, a majority of Times food section readers are saying, "Gee...finally a critic who tells us what we really want to know, instead of those boring critics who write about the food." I don't know about that.

There are some methodological problems with the Zagat survey, but there is more validity to the survey than you give it credit for. According to Zagat, the top food restaurants in New York (all tied with 28 ratings) are: Le Bernardin Daniel Peter Luger Nobu Bouley Jean Georges The Grocery With the exception of The Grocery, this is not a ridiculous list. It includes 4 of the 5 restaurants the Times had rated four-stars at the time the survey was taken, and two three-star restaurants. (Alain Ducasse, the other four-star restaurant, has a Zagat food rating of 27.) Now, if it were true that everybody responding to Zagat gives the top rating to their personal favorite—even if it's McDonald's—you'd see a lot more restaurants like The Grocery getting ratings far out of proportion to where they really belong. You can go down the Zagat list, and as far down as about 24, the rankings are generally believable, with just a handful of ridiculous results thrown in. But then, professional critics sometimes uncork ridiculous ratings, too. (Witness for the prosecution: Amanda Hesser.) By the way, it is not true that the Zagat respondents are "people who really liked it or really hated it." In fact, bad ratings on Zagat are very rare. Zagat is nominally a 1-30 scale, but about 98% of restaurants are 15 or higher, with the average being about 20. Once you get above 24 (i.e., well above average), Zagat is rather reliable at winnowing the wheat from the chaff. It is also worth noting that the text comments Zagat provides, which unlike the numerical ratings reflect editorial judgment, are witty and often devastatingly accurate.

Asiate has been full since it opened — one-star review or not. All of the Republican Convention's main events take place in the evening, so if you had dinner there and the place was full, it wasn't because of the convention.

Readership is down in the summer, because lots of people are on holidays. For a review of that importance, I think they're deliberately holding it till after Labor Day. I think you'll see it next Wednesday.

I've tried to give Frank Bruni the benefit of the doubt. He is new to the job, and he is still finding his voice. This was the review that finally sent me over the edge. This guy just doesn't get it. He is a restaurant critic, not a commentator on the New York social and sartorial scene. I don't mind him observing that the clientele are elderly. Like it or not, that is part of the ambiance of the restaurant. But Bruni has only limited space alloted. The food needs to be primary. Don't dwell on Al Taubman's legal history, tossing in a gratuitous swipe at Martha Stewart for good measure. Incidentally, Bruni kept up his record of nearly always quoting the friends he dines with: ...and... I'm glad he has such witty friends, but I am tiring of them.

Bruni raved about the entrées. If LCB could just get its appetizers and desserts together, the pieces are all there for a third star....one of these days.

CNN did not originate this. They were simply reporting on a recent study that had been done by a professor at Cornell University. Some of the techniques mentioned may be old hat, but the study is new. It was a controlled test, and not just some guy making random obseravtions. Whatever we may think of these tricks, I have no doubt that they really do work at the types of restaurants that were studied. It's worth restating that most of the research was at "low- to mid-priced casual dining restaurants such as Applebee's, Cracker Barrel, Olive Garden and Outback Steakhouse." Most people on eGullet don't each much at these places. We are atypical. The article noted "that if some of these techniques were employed at more formal, refi-your-house-to-pay-for-dinner restaurants, they might actually decrease tips." But upscale restaurants have their own way of tempting you to run up the tab. They are less blatant about it, but they do it nonetheless.

I'm afraid I don't understand your reasoning. How is it inconsistent for a restaurant to "believe in the food they serve," and also be in business to earn a profit. Most of those time, those objectives are mutually-reinforcing. There are probably very few restaurants that don't engage in some form of "upselling." The only difference is how they do it.

Tim Zagat has more-or-less defined his own category, so it's pretty hard to say whom his peers would be. Nobody else is doing what he is doing, at least not on his scale.

I recently did a major microfilm photocopying project (not food realted) at the main branch (42nd St) of the NYC public library. They charge 25 cents a copy. I suspect most reviews are on a single page, so the cost would be about 25 cents per review. But it is not necessary to photocopy the reviews. I think the idea of the project was just to copy down the main indicative data (restaurant name, restaurant genre, reviewer, date, rating, and perhaps a brief summary). This is of course time-consuming, but doesn't require that you photocopy each review.

Note: Menton's comments appeared in a thread in the NY forum entitled "Zagat Editorial in NYT - Dining with the enemy" referring to Tim Zagat's dining advice column for delegates to the Republicn National Convention. Whether you like Tim Zagat or not, I don't see how an isolated editorial represents such a radical departure that it justifies this attack. It is even harder for me to see what the Times has done wrong by printing it. Actually, I found the column rather entertaining. And lastly, exactly how is Zagat an insult to "serious foodies"? Myself, I don't get insulted quite that easily. The Zagat guide is no less reliable than most NY food guides I've seen (they all have their limitations), and in fact, it presents in one place quite a bit of genuinely useful information. The multi-faceted search capability on their website is superior to what's available on any other restaurant site.

I thought he was being tongue-in-cheek. You may not like his sense of humor, but it wasn't serious.

I would not go to Little Italy when all the tents and street vendors are set up for the San Gennaro Festival. But Little Italy itself is practically always a delight for visitors—whatever we may think of it. I may be the only person on eGullet who finds it delightful. The words "Little Italy" seem to cause the foodie community to break out into hives. It's true that no restaurant there is among the city's best, but the average visitor will find most of them competent, and there is an electricity to the atmosphere there that many visitors enjoy. The Festival is not the best time to experience it.

A four-star Chinese restaurant would require a significant paradigm shift, since there have been no four-star Chinese restaurants in recent times. I suspect it would need to be in Manhattan, to have access to the largest number people who are willing to invest $150+pp on a meal. But because it would be a paradigm shift, it would also be a huge risk. (I am not saying that price of meal is what determines the rating — Megu is a great example showing it does not — but a four-star rating simply requires a level of luxury that doesn't come cheap.)

Pan, no disagreement there. Indeed, some people have hypothesized that any restaurant review in the New York Times, even if largely unfavorable, results in more business. That's not to say the restaurants don't care about the stars. The more enthusiastic the review, the more the review helps them.