oakapple

Well, you got me there. (And I think DB&D was arguably underrated at two stars.) Such a quick review was abnormal, though.

Which full review (i.e., a review eligible for stars) came out just 26 days after opening? I don't recall that ever happening. A Diner's Journal column, yes. A full review, I don't think so. Because the DJ column is unrated, and represents no more than a first impression, I don't mind if it covers important restaurants shortly after they open. But in that case, the critic should wait quite a while before writing a full review—and that hasn't always been the case.

In general, the Times pays for Bruni and all his guests. This can be justified because Bruni has a taste from everybody's plate. That way, he can get a sense of the whole menu without having to visit 20 times. (If Bruni's guests weren't covered, he'd be eating alone an awful lot, because nobody has enough friends that can afford to dine out on his scale at their own expense.) That Bruni's brother sprang for the wine — and that Bruni felt obligated to share that fact with us — suggests one of two things. The first is that a $270 bottle of wine perhaps goes beyond what he felt he could legitimately spend on this type of meal. The second is that, because it was his brother, he felt his judgment could be questioned if he picked up such a large tab by himself.

Frank Bruni's column on Cru is another one of those Diner's Journal entries that reads like the draft of a full review to follow soon after. I handicap it at three stars. Has anyone noticed that Frank Bruni always mentions his dinner companions? For instance, here: He doesn't usually say who it is, but the review always at least mentions his companions, and often quotes at least one of them.

There is a cognizable difference between substantive ambiance issues and entirely aesthetic ones. Substantive ambiance issues include things like: rude/abrupt service, tables crammed too close together, an unreasonably loud noise level. Aesthetic ambiance issues are things like, "I don't like the color brown." My quarrel with the Cuozzo Per Se review is that his ambiance issues were purely aesthetic. These types of issues shouldn't affect the rating, and here they clearly did. Substantive ambiance issues, on the other hand, are of sufficient importance to the typical diner — and especially to the diner at the luxury level — that they deserve to be considered. The reviewer's perceptions of these issues are, of course, subjective. But so is his judgment about the food.

(Continued from the Per Se thread, as what I'm going to say really isn't about Per se.) Rich Schulhoff has no problem with the idea that restaurants get reviewed, but he objects to the assignment of stars, because.... I've two reactions to this. I wonder if this is a non-existent problem, or a barely-existent problem. I mean, how many people select a restaurant solely because of the number of stars it has, without any further investigation? You could probably find an idiot or two who has done that, but is it common? I tend to doubt it. In reality, the star rating is a shorthand signal of the type of dining experience the restaurant represents. It's a "coarse screen," if you will. It does not present all of the information any sensible person would use to decide whether to dine at the restaurant or not, but it helps narrow the search. Zagat does this better than anybody. No other guide allows you to search and sort restaurants according to so many fine-grained criteria. However, even the Times's primitive search engine allows you to search for restaurants satisfying a number of criteria, other than just the stars.

I thought Fat Guy had the best comment (on another thread). At this point, the public has rendered its judgment: Per Se is four stars. If Bruni awards four, he'll just be confirming what we already know. If he awards three, whatever vestige of credibility the Times food section had left will be seriously compromised. Little noticed in the Cuozzo review is a companion piece, Per Se, Can You Get a Seat? He says that they have a waiting list, but you're not likely to get lucky: he tried it five times, and never got a table that way. In the same article, he says that he thinks both the food and the service are better at lunch than at dinner.

That's an interesting comment coming from you OA. If I remember correctly, you approved of Bruni essentially taking away a fourth star from Babbo because of the ambience problems he had. Why doesn't Cuozzo get the same benefit of the doubt? Bruni didn't do a partiuclarly good job of explaining himself in the Babbo review (does he ever?), but he articulated several problems with the ambiance that are substantive (e.g., the erratic service, tables crammed together, music that "thunders"). These are all issues that prevent Babbo from being recognized as a true luxury experience—which a four-star restaurant invariably must be. In contrast, Cuozzo tells us he doesn't like "brown on brown" or "a busy, swirly carpet and a wooden 'wave' sculpture" that might "transport you to suburbia." These are defensible complaints from an architecture or interior design critic, but they don't substantively affect the dining experience — the way it does, for example, when the tables are crammed together, the music "thunders," or waiters "recite the specials" with "tongue-twisting velocity" (quotes from the Bruni review of Babbo). The reason I disagree with you, is that your complaint really seems to be about criticism, rather than stars. If no stars were awarded, you would still be left with a review that "comes down to a reviewer's personal opinion based on subjective likes and dislikes." The number of stars is merely a summary of the underlying critical opinion. If you are unhappy that newspapers employ critics who tell us their subjective opinions, abolishing the star system won't change that. If you are unhappy that newspapers pay anybody to render opinions, that view would have to apply to the music, book, and movie sections, and even the editorial page. A radical view indeed.

From the accounts that have been posted, it now seems that anybody can have a 2x2 for the asking. Whether that's a good way to experience your dinner is another matter. Reasonable minds can differ—and they have!

If I've counted accurately, the Post's review today is the third professional review in the New York media. Crain's gave Per Se four stars. New York Magazine doesn't do stars, but the review there was certainly enthusiastic. Cuozzo is often the contrarian—he seems to delight in that role—and he seems to have done it again here. Fat Guy referred to "the gushing consumer baseline," but it must be remembered that an awful lot of people are doing the gushing, including many savvy diners who are not easily swayed. Cuozzo doesn't like the décor, and that complaint is essentially uncorrectable. His complaint about the dress code could certainly be corrected, but I'm not exactly sure what he is arguing for, or why it makes a star's worth of difference.

We have often debated the extent that ambiance figures in the final NYT rating. At 71CFF, you can't even escape the banquettes without having to pull your table into the center of the room. That's not two-star ambiance. The question is whether the food is enough to compensate. On the strength of my one visit, the answer was clearly no. Unfortunately, I seem to have ordered the worst dish on the menu -- the duck. If this is two stars, then the rest of the menu must be an awful lot better. Mind you, I did not suffer at 71CFF, but a one-star restaurant isn't a bad restaurant, and one star is about what I felt 71CFF deserved. However, I must add the caveat that Frank Bruni probably tried the place 4 or 5 times, and I've been there only once.

I had called & asked about bar dining, and they told me only snacks are served at the bar. Obviously this was misinformation, or perhaps they misunderstood me. Do they have actual tables near the bar, or did you sit on stools at the bar itself?

I've been there a few times. Satisfactory, but undistinguished Italian. As the other post noted, its proximity to Lincoln Center is the primary attraction.

I can only guess at the reasons, but I suspect that Chinese has become associated with casual dining, given the number of extremely low-end take-out places all over town. Because Chinese food at the low-end is so commonplace, perhaps not enough diners are willing to regard it as a high-end cuisine. In contrast, the fast-food equivalent of French cuisine simply doesn't exist. I haven't added it up, but I don't think that most of the three-stars are either French or Japanese. There's pretty good representation of other cuisines at that level. At the four-star level, it's all French. Most of the starred restaurants owe their sense of being to a particular individual. Once that individual (usually an owner or chef) dies or retires, there's a good chance that the restaurant will either close, or lose the attributes that made it appealing. In contrast, I don't think we particularly care who's behind the counter at Fairway or Citarella.

According to the article in last week's New York Magazine, that restaurant still has a ways to go. We probably won't see it before next year.

Andrea Strong's blog, the Strong Buzz, reports this week: As the story's in Time Out New York, I'd assume the opening is for real this time.

I had the same duck entrée, and while I don't recall the meat being tough, it was as unexciting as Artichoke describes. I also share his views about the layout, and the extreme proximity of your table to those on either side.

Bob Lape awards four stars to Per Se in this week's Crain's New York Business:

We have only his word for it, but it's not unlikely. Masa is a tiny restaurant, and often not full. Per Se is always full, but it has far fewer tables, averaging 1.5 turns a night. V Steakhouse is by far the largest of the three, and if they average 2 turns they could be outgrossing Per Se easily. Per Se also has very high costs, given its server-to-customer ratio and courses that are manually intensive to prepare. I would guess that at least 75% of V Steakhouse patrons order steak, which is comparatively straightforward to make.

As each new Jean-Georges property opens, the amount of time he devotes to any one of them goes down. He has opened two new restaurants in New York this year alone, bringing his New York total to seven — eight if you count Nougatine as a separate restaurant. He also has at least six restaurants outside New York, and the JGV website lists two more on the way. I think V Steakhouse's problems are fixable, and I don't think Jean-Georges is the only man capable of fixing them. But anyone who keeps putting his name on restaurants is going to make a mistake eventually. If I were JGV, I'd forget about the NYTimes for now, because it takes a long time to get re-reviewed. Just fix the place, and let word-of-mouth take care of the rest.

I have a Britchky 1991 guide. That year, these were the four-star restaurants: Aquavit Le Bernardin Chanterelle Lafayette Lutèce And these were the three-stars: Adrienne Arquà La Caravelle Chalet Suisse Le Cygne Da Silvano Da Umberto Gotham Huberts Mondrian Montrachet Petrossian Polo Raoul's La Régence San Domenico Vucciria Among the two-stars that still exist (may not be exhaustive, but s/b close): Aureole Bouley Café des Artistes Duane Park Café Felidia La Grenouille Le Périgord Rosa Mexicano TriBeCa Grill Union Square Café And among the one-stars that I believe still exist: B. Smith's Chez Jacqueline Four Seasons Indochine Le Madeleine Manhattan Ocean Club Minetta Tavern Odeon Provence Smith & Wollensky Le Zinc Also notable among the one-stars, although it doesn't exist, is one Café Rakel. Is this not Thomas Keller's former New York restaurant?

I was there a month or two ago. My friend and I were underwhelmed. Nothing bad about the food, but its reputation had led us to expect something special. Unmemorable is the word I'd use. I've no itch to return.

Per Se has an absolutely anemic website. It brings up a page with links to Thomas Keller's four restaurants (FL, Per Se, Bouchon, and Bouchon Las Vegas), plus "The Store," where you can order his cookbook. Click on any of the other three, and there are further links for the menu, wine list, bios of key personnel, press clippings, and so forth. But click on Per Se, and you jsut get a single overview text page. It's a little odd that the "perseny" site has the least information on the restaurant it's named for.

Interestingly, the statute of limitations seems to have run on the pre-Reichl reviews. The Times's "Quick Guide to the Best Restaurants in New York" (here) lists only ratings assigned from Reichl's time or later. It hasn't been updated all year, so any rating given since Grimes left isn't reflected. That includes demotions, so Bouley is still at four stars on that list, Montrachet and Union Pacific at three, Compass at two. But pre-Reichl ratings aren't available on the site (e.g., Mimi Sheraton's three stars for Sammy's Roumanian), so you could say those ratings have expired. Ruby Foo was a Reichl rating, so it's still up there at two stars.

In my opinion, to rate Bern's on the same level as PL is a total insult to Bern's. I totally agree with all you say about the Bern's experience, but Peter Luger is a very atypical three-star restaurant — and, in FG's view, the third star is tenuous. Compare Bern's to the typical three-star restaurant in New York — and that includes some pretty impressive places, like Bouley, Oceana, Danube, Veritas and Gramercy Tavern. Bern's is not in a higher class than those places.