oakapple

Hypothetically yes, but I'm trying to picture the luxury restaurant with a 35,000-bottle wine list and tuxedo-clad waiters, and only hot dogs are on the menu. This might be one of Woody Allen's dreams in his next movie, but nobody in real life is going to open such a place.

I had a business dinner at V Steakhouse last night. The décor has been much written about. You love it or you hate it. I found it charming, and so did my companions, who are from Boston. It reminded me of the interior of the Metropolitan Opera House, with its plush velvet reds and shimmering chandeliers. They pamper you at V. Jean-Georges may not know how to do three-star steak, but he certainly knows how to deliver three-star service. It is a large dining room, but the tables are generously spaced. By the end of our evening, it was about 90% full, but not at all noisy. Most of the tables had parties of four or more. There are hardly any two-seaters at V. One of my companions had a foie gras appetizer, which he loved, while two of us shared steak tartare, which was wonderful. However, a steakhouse must be judged mainly on the quality of its steaks, and V fails to deliver the goods. My porterhouse was unevenly charred, had an unacceptably high fat and gristle content, and offered a flimsy and under-sized filet on the smaller side of the cut. It was done correctly to the medium-rare temperature I had ordered, but it was otherwise a porterhouse no restaurant of this purported calibre should serve. The other porterhouse at our table was a bit better, but we quickly agreed: this was not a $66 steak. At half that price, I would have considered myself over-charged. I went to the men's room, and a couple of guys asked me about my steak. I shared my experience. "Mine sucked," one fellow said. "So did mine," said another. To be fair, I should report that my other table companion ordered the Waygu, which he said was the best steak he'd ever had in his life. Undoubtedly V has the equipment to put out great steak on occasion, but they must be accepting whatever wildly inconsistent inventory appears on their loading dock every morning. V has an ample selection of side dishes. I ordered the "fripps," which are like large potato chips prepared in a tempura batter. These are superb, but it's a problem when they utterly out-class the steak. A selection of complimentary sauces came with our meal. These added a little spice to an otherwise humdrum steak, but in my view the best steaks shouldn't need them. For dessert, I ordered the berry cheesecake. Like so many of the V desserts, the kitchen hasn't assembled the pieces. You have a small slice of cheesecake, and a berry goo in an accompanying glass, which you're encouraged to sip through a straw. How this is supposed to be superior to a traditional cheesecake utterly eludes me. Try the assorted cheese platter instead. The NY Times doesn't give separate ratings for service, décor, and food. But if it did, I'd say that three stars is appropriate for the first two categories, but that one star is awfully generous for the third. The kitchen desperately needs a wake-up call.

It remains unclear whether the Times would award four stars to a restaurant that executes a classic cuisine extraordinarily well, with the service and ambiance to match. I think it might. The one thing highly unlikely to change is the exclusivity of that rating. There are just four 4* restaurants at the moment. There will probably be five after Per Se is reviewed, but there will never be dozens & dozens of them. However, if your question is, "What restaurant does the Times consider the best in Category X," this is easily answered if you visit their website. Although no Chinese restaurant has 4* at the moment, you can discover in a flash which restaurant(s) in that genre the Times's critics have rated most highly.

Actually, I think the four-star standards have been pretty consistent from one reviewer to the next. Now, if each reviewer promptly demoted all of the past four-star places and replaced them with a bunch of others, it would lend credence to your view that it's "in the mind of that day's reviewer." But that does not happen. Also, since most of us have the neither the time nor the money to try every restaurant, we tend to rely on recommendations. The Times's rating is one such recommendation. Nowadays, we also have eGullet, but eGullet is a relatively new phenomenon. I have been to Bern's several times. It is a very fine steakhouse. It would get three stars, just like Luger.

I see your point. I meant "fine" and "serious" compared to the rest of what's available below Chambers Street. This isn't Babbo. I think there are some pretty expensive places that draw very heavily from the tourist crowd. The question is whether that formula will work in this particular location.

Sad to say, but service glitches such as I described are common in New York at this price range. See, for instance, the thread on two-star Artisanal, which is probably a tad pricier than this place. Of course, during a 60-90 minute visit, you tend to note (and hence, report) the things they did wrong, and pass without notice the many they did right. In the location, I would expect Saturday and Sunday to be their slowest days. Indeed, many downtown restaurants simply don't open on weekends, aside from the Seaport and Battery Park City, where there are large tourist and resident populations respectively. At the location, they're fairly convenient to the row of office towers along Water Street, and I wouldn't be surprised if their lunch business equals or exceeds their dinner business.

As far as I know, there has never been a four-star steakhouse per the Times. This suggests that Luger's three stars is the de facto maximum for that genre of restaurant. I think Fat Guy is right, when he observes that four-star restaurants need to be on the cutting edge of creating and evolving a cuisine, and not merely executing a well known genre to near-perfection. Of course, a four-star restaurant needs to do other things too, but if all the restaurant does is to tread a well-worn path superbly, it's no better than three stars. It could be argued that the system is biased against "good ol' american fare," and not just at the four-star level. Relatively few restaurants in this category carry any star rating at all. Luger's is the only three-star steakhouse, which is perhaps surprising when you consider the number of high-end steakhouses that are available.

No argument there, but Bruni (and most of his predecessors) write as if they consider themselves bound by the system as it has historically evolved. Bruni is there for 2 1/2 months now, and while his writing has been criticized, there have been very few complaints that he got the actual ratings wrong. I am not saying no complaints, but there have been very few. This suggests that most of us have an innate sense of what it means to get N stars. If Peter Luger got four stars, suddenly we'd have no idea what the existing ratings mean any more. I do realize there's a minority on eGullet who think the existing ratings are meaningless already, but most of us believe that the current system, like it or not, conveys meaning. That works because there are settled expectations that either don't change, or that change very slowly and imperceptibly over time.

For some reason, this strikes me as a September type of review — something you publish after upper-class New York gets back from their summers in the Hamptons or at the Shore. Yes, I'm sure the photo request was the reason why the restaurant knew the review was forthcoming.. Fat Guy has said — and I'm sure he's correct — that all of the high-end places will recognize Frank Bruni at sight. Even if they somehow missed him the first time, anybody who visits five times within a few months is going to attract attention, no matter who he is. On the other hand, I suspect that many of the one-places Bruni visits (like this week's subject, Gavroche) do not immediately recognize him.

The Manhattan Mall is less than twenty years old, and at the time it was built the mall was a well-entrenched concept elsewhere. In relation to the population, malls in Manhattan are scarce. There is a crucial difference. The marketing concept of a retail mall is that you pop in and out of stores, visiting several of them per trip. I mean, if you're going to visit just one store, then the mall offers no benefit to the consumer — and therefore no economic advantage to the developer or the merchants — over the detached stores that can be found anywhere else. A restaurant mall doesn't fit this concept. It's not as if you're going to have cocktails at Masa, dinner at V Steakhouse, and dessert at Per Se. Nor are these restaurants going to attract much walk-in traffic, the way a traditional mall food court will do. So, the fact that they're in a mall, and located within footsteps of one another, is economically irrelevant, except in the sense that it makes a good story. Other than that, these restaurant will succeed or fail individually, because the association of being together in the same mall doesn't really confer any benefit. To the contrary, most malls are extraordinarily successful, which is why developers keep building them. Quite simply, they work. To call them "boring" is a typical New York reaction, which is one reason why so few malls have been built here, and is why Time-Warner has been so vigorously pooh-poohed when malls generally are welcomed elsewhere.

The fine restaurants south of Chambers Street can be counted on the fingers of one hand, making any new arrival in this neighborhood a news event. Battery Gardens is a recent arrival, occupying the space that was formerly American Park. It's located in Battery Park, just steps away from the Staten Island and Statue of Liberty ferries. The space has been remodeled in pale greens, paper-thin white shear curtains, marble table-tops, and plush ultra-comfortable off-white slipper chairs. It reminded us either of a 1930s cruise ship or a movie star's boudoire; we weren't sure which. The dining room offers floor-to-ceiling picture window views of New York Harbor and the Statue of Liberty. There is an ample outdoor dining area, with an open-air bar. The menu is a serious one, under the direction of executive chef Tommy Lee, who comes to Battery Gardens from the Pierre Hotel. Per the website, "Specializing in American continental cuisine, his menus reflect his Korean heritage and vast knowledge of seafood." Appetizers and salads are $8-15 (most under $12). Soups are $5-7. The menu offers several gourmet pizzas at $10-12, meat entrées ($17-27), pasta ($14-16), and fish ($18-26). There is also a raw bar, with Little Neck Clams ($7/half-dozen), Blue Point Oysters ($12), or Fruits of the Sea ($30, $55 or $75). The fish category on the menu offers the most choices, which is unsurprising given the chef's background and the location of the restaurant. I started with the Grilled Diver Sea Scallops ($10), which are served with Spicy Asian Peanut Sauce and Red Cabbage Slaw. This came with three scallops, and the inspiration to serve it with asian peanut sauce was heavenly. For the main course, I chose the Miso Glazed Chilian Sea Bass ($25), which comes with Jasmine Rice, Sesame Hinted Shitakes and Green Beans. The miso glazing was just hinted at (as opposed to Nobu's version of it, where it's far more powerful), but this allowed the beautiful flaky fish to do the talking. It was an enormous portion, which I devoured. My friend started with the Tempura Sampler, which isn't currently shown on the website. It came with 7 or 8 tempura pieces — a mixture of potatoes, shrimp, and chicken with a tangy dipping sauce. I tried a few pieces myself, and it really was done to perfection, although the sauce perhaps was a bit too ordinary. She continued with the Pan Seared Tuna ($24), which (per the website) came with Corn Fritters, Red Onion and Tomato Salad, Cilantro-Chili Aioli. This was a nearly porterhouse-sized portion, which she enjoyed, but I found it a bit blander preparation than the sea bass. There were some service glitches. When we arrived, they took my order for a cocktail, but neglected to ask about a glass of wine with dinner. By the time they got around to it, I was nearly finished eating. Two cups of decaf coffee arrived lukewarm. When we asked for fresh cups, they returned a bit warmer, but still shy of the correct temperature. Battery Gardens hasn't been "discovered" yet. On a Saturday evening (8:00pm reservation), it was less than half full. One very large, elegantly-dressed party seemed to be having a celebration. Most of the other diners seemed to be at least "smartly" dressed, suggesting they considered their visit here a night on the town. My friend and I came casual, but we did not feel out-of-place. Battery Gardens offered us a thoroughly enjoyable meal, with dramatic views to match. On a nice evening (which regrettably this wasn't), a scenic walk along the Battery Park esplanade would be the perfect nightcap. In any event, Battery Gardens offers serious food in a locale where there has historically been precious little of it. I hope the restaurant succeeds.

March restaurant (405 East 58th St, just east of 1st Avenue) is an occasion place. I visited recently to celebrate a friend's birthday. Without question, we were treated lavishly. The maitre d' presented her with a bouquet of roses. Service throughout was impeccable. But for the price, none of the courses at March wowed us. Or perhaps, as my friend suggested, Wayne Nish's cuisine is just too subtle. Mind you, it was all good, but I expected to be transported, and we weren't. March's menu is an interesting hybrid between the tasting menu and the prix fixe. You choose a number of courses, from three to six. ($68, $74, $85, or $102). Wine pairings are another $10 per course, although like anywhere you can just order from the wine list. You can order specific courses — listed in broad categories like "raw," "vegetarian," "shellfish," "fish," "poultry," and "meat," with about three or four options per category. Or, you can put yourself in the chef's hands. We selected the four-course menu with wine pairings and allowed the chef to choose for us. Each of us got different items, and we swapped plates about halfway through each course. This, indeed, is encouraged at March. Another of the menu options is called the Five Course Dual Tasting Menu ($270 for two, including wines), with which it's assumed that a couple will share plates. Now to the food ... and here I'm afraid I've failed as a food writer. It was five days ago, and I can't remember exactly what we had. The first plate for each of us was a cold item, then a fish course, then a meat course, then dessert. What were they? I don't recall, except that they were all very good without being transcendent. At these prices, I wanted at least some of the courses to reach culinary orgasm, and none did. March is located in a gorgeous East Side townhouse. The tables are on three levels, with ample space between them. It is a lovely and romantic setting that makes you feel like you're in another world. The food failed to transport me, it is true, but I would still try March again on the right occasion.

Whenever the Bruni review appears, it will not be a verdict. Steven seems to have taken me seriously. Sorry I didn't include the smiley face, or put "verdict" in quotes. I totally agree with him that the market has already decided that Per Se is four stars. Bruni will either confirm what we all know, or demolish whatever credibility he had. I'm dining at V tonight and will draw my own conclusions, but when I look at the range of comments about V, I can't say that Bruni's rating was unreasonable. New York Magazine doesn't do stars, but its "verdict" was about on par with Bruni's.

Nope. This week's review is on the website, and it's not Per Se. The vigil continues.

You are probably right about the menu, but Dave H's main point was: Drop the final clause, and he still seams dead-on. Per Se was derived from an existing successful model (The French Laundry), and their finances should be predictable. If it's losing money, it can't be a surprise.

Per Se is living proof that the Time Warner Mall isn't a bad venue for restaurants. As far as I can tell, Per Se is full almost every night. The reviews are almost uniformly rapturous — this, of course, is pending El Bruni's verdict this Wednesday. If Per Se is losing money, it's not the venue's fault. You can't do any better than to sell every seat every night, which is about what Per Se is doing. V Steakhouse's problems seem pretty easily fixable, while on Cafe Gray and Trotter's place we simply can't render a verdict yet. Masa is another story. This may be the one restaurant in the Mall that is conceptually flawed, and cannot survive without a serious re-think.

Where did JGV say that? As far as I know, JGV has yet to fail anywhere in Manhattan, and Spice Market continues to be one of the toughest reservations.

Given that this restaurant requires an investment that, in some towns, would equal a monthly rent payment, I think it would be beneficial if these options were spelled out, so that diners wouldn't need to make an instant decision the night of their visit.

The notoriously cryptic "She Loves NY" site has a report — if that's the word for it — on Masa. It says, "venue to be reinvented, poss. relocated in short order." This would not be surprising, as recent reports have suggested that Masa seldom fills up. Perhaps either the mall venue or the uncompromising $300 tab is failing to attract enough business. Still, one wonders about the source. Two other equally cryptic comments (not worth their own post):

just to be absolutely clear, a 1x1 carries a surcharge of $100 on top of the price fixe.. I'm not so sure that this is absolutely clear, given the wide variety of prices people have been quoted (anywhere from a $25 to a $100 premium). It seems a certain amount of mystery surrounds this option. Another affectation reported by many, is that the server first says that he has to check with the kitchen...but nobody has said that the answer is ever anything but "yes."

"Liberal substitution" is just my made-up term for 1x1. I meant exactly the thing you described.

If you order the regular tasting menu and your partner orders the veggie tasting menu, the combined price for two is $275 (before tax, tip, and beverages). If you and your partner both order the regular tasting, but you ask them to make liberal substitutions — so that the table has as many different dishes as possible — this seems to be what they call a 1x1. The premium for this has been variously quoted, but I think it's around $25. It is nothing like $500 for two, unless you also count wine pairings. Lastly, there is the extended tasting menu, which is something like 15 courses, and for which the premium is something like $100 pp (before tax, tip, and beverages). All of the above is what I have understood from the various postings. I hope it is an accurate summary.

Michael, you and I have been on the same side every time the issue has come up. However, to correct one factual inaccuracy, Bruni didn't write the Diner's Journal pre-review for Ixta. It was Sam Sifton, in his final D.J. column before Bruni took over. And in this case, Sifton's piece wasn't really a preview of what Bruni would write in the full review two months later. Sifton had, er, a unique personal slant on the matter. But even allowing for a change in critics, I still agree that more time should pass between a Diner's Journal entry and a full review.

Some people just love loud music — for whatever reason. Frankly, whether it's the first date or the hundredth date, I want to be able to conduct a conversation. But NYC is full of trendy nightclubs in which it's virtually guaranteed you won't be able to hear a thing your companion says. A place like Casa Mono seems to be trying to emulate that environment, with good food as a bonus. But if one must have a Machiavellian theory for it, your second option fits the facts much better. If the music's that loud, patrons aren't going to hang around for light chit-chat.

The New Yorker has a peculiarly anemic restaurant reviewing program, but it does have the occasional capsule review worth noting. Five Ninth is reviewed in the current bi-weekly issue. The link I've provided always points to the current review, so it will remain valid only until the next issue comes out.