oakapple

This week, a four-star review of Alain Ducasse in New York complained as follows: I've seen other examples in recent reviews. At another New York restaurant, Megu, servers routinely offer Edamame without mentioning that it'll set you back $25 — which is a lot more than you would normally expect to pay. One reviewer referred to that as "dirty pool." When the server asks, "Would you like....," we don't always ask, "What'll that cost me?" We presume that anything being offered is in line with what such things usually cost — taking the overall price level of the restaurant into consideration. Even allowing that Alain Ducasse is New York's most expensive restaurant, it's not reasonable to foist a $42 glass of champagne upon the unwitting diner. When do restaurants have a moral responsibility to disclose the price of hidden extras, or is it the diner's own fault for not asking? Does anyone have stories more egregious than these?

I paid my second visit to Artisanal last night. My friend and I had a 7:00pm reservation. Most tables were still empty at this time (this being an early reservation), but they were certainly full by the time we left. We had the fondue. The menu lists five fondues, but they also had two specials. We chose the "100 cheese" fondue, which was excellent. Artisanal's fondues come with a bowl of bread squares for dipping, but you can also order side dishes ("Les Baigneuses"), at $6.50 apiece. We chose the beef tips and the air-dried beef. The latter item could be much more enticingly described. It was thinly-sliced dried beef, something like cured ham, and extremely tasty. The beef tips were lightly cooked, very rare, juicy sirloin. We also asked for a side order of the Gougeres, which are available in small or large portions ($7.50 or $10.50). These are hopelessly addictive, so I recommend ordering the small size unless you want to ruin your dinner. The fondue comes in two sizes (petite and grande), serving 1-3 or 4-6 persons respectively. For two people, it's quite filling enough to be a meal, so we just ordered a cheese plate for dessert. Artisanal offers numerous composed thematic cheese plates, but you can also choose your own. We chose four cheeses ($18), with the able assistance of the fromagier. For the record, they were: Robila Due Latte, Italy ("Yielding, Lactic, Subtle") Manchego, Spain ("Briny, Nutty, Sturdy") Ubriaco del Piave, Italy ("Crumbly, Hints of Pineapple & Wine") Keen's Cheddar, England ("Creamy, Earthy, Meaty Finish") These were wonderful choices. The Robila Due Latte and the Ubriaco del Piave were my favorites. The Manchego and the Keen's Cheddar were wonderful, but not (for me) sufficiently differentiated from the others. But then, where a choice is offered, I usually ask for the most ridiculously exotic choices available. My friend was in a bit more conservative mood. Many of the posts here have reported service issues at Artisanal. I didn't have that reaction on my first visit, but this time was another story. It took two hours to get through all of the above, mainly because we were left waiting for such ridiculously long times. When I sat down, my server asked if I'd like a drink. I asked for tap water, while I perused the wine list. The tap water came instantly, but twenty minutes later the server hadn't returned to take my drink order. It seemed like 15 minutes after we were done with the fondue before our server came by to ask about dessert; another 15 minutes before the fromagier came over; another 15 minutes before the cheese actually arrived. I didn't actually time these things, but two hours had gone by before we knew it. On the other hand, once you did order something, it usually came quickly (other than the cheese). Dirty plates were cleared promptly, and they were attentive about refilling our water glasses. But if you needed your server, you were in for a very long wait. We were in no hurry, so it didn't really bother us that much. I wouldn't recommend Artisanal for a pre-theater dinner! Another friend recently visited Artisanal and had a similar experience with poor service. She, too, was sufficiently wowed by the food, and says she will quite happily return, as will I. Just don't go there when you're in a hurry.

March is currently carrying three stars from its last full review. Bruni was surely aware of this. While the Times doesn't explicitly confirm previous star ratings in the Diner's Journal column, those columns often contain subtle — or not-so-subtle — signals. In this review, I found no signal that Bruni thinks March's existing three-star rating is undeserved. Indeed, the review was overwhelmingly positive. He had a few complaints, but a three-star restaurant doesn't have to be perfect. His loudest complaint was that he didn't need "so very many reminders" of a chef whose food "speaks impressively for itself." That doesn't sound like a criterion for demotion to two stars. (If you want to see what a demotion from three to two stars looks like, read Amanda Hesser's review of Montrachet or Marian Burros's review of Union Pacific, both dating from earlier this year. Or, for that matter, read Bruni's demotion of Bouley from four stars to three. Granted, those were full reviews, so you had no doubt that the restaurant was being demoted, but those columns had a clear indication of great disappointment, which was not the case here.) Had there been no previous review to fall back on, I would agree that it was unclear whether this was "a very good two-star review or a slightly temporizing three-star review." But in the context of March's existing status, I've no doubt whatsoever that Bruni considers March to be still executing at the three-star level. The occasion for the column seemed to be the hiring of a new chef de cuisine. There's probably only a relative handful of New York restaurants for which such a change would even warrant a Diner's Journal column. I therefore doubt that a full re-review is coming anytime soon. This review seemed to be a confirmation that March still deserves its three-star status. What's missing is for the Times to change its stupid policy, and allow the critic to explicitly say so in the D.J. column. Then, we wouldn't need to read tea-leaves.

Coincidence? Joe Dziemianowicz reviews Ici in today's New York Daily News:

Ah, the mysteries of Per Se! Can you clarify what you ordered, and what it cost? You've listed two different fifteen-course tasting menus. My impression is that the "regular" menu offers a single nine-course tasting menu every day. However, if you ask for it, you can pay more for what's variously been described as a 1x1, a 2x2, or a VIP menu. What did you do?

Some restaurants have the buzz, and some don't. Thalia (828 8th Avenue @50th St) is one of those restaurants that's never mentioned on the food boards, but it carries a two-star NYT rating from 2000, and on last night's showing it deserves a lot more attention. I started with the Seared Herb Crusted Tuna Sashimi, which comes with pickled vegetables, sweet soy, chive oil & hot mustard. (I am copying from their website, else my identification of the ingredients wouldn't be so precise.) The tuna was wonderfully fresh, and the soy sauce, which artfully decorated the plate, added a tangy finish to the taste. For the main course, I had the Jerked Florida Grouper, which is served with lump crabmeat pico de gallo, sweet plantains & chipotle pepper sauce. This too was a wonderfully inventive combination, giving life to a fish that I usually find dull. I have to report that my friend was a bit less enthusiastic. She had the crab cakes appetizer and the rack of lamb entrée. No particular complaint, but she wasn't as wowed by her choices as I was. To conclude, we shared a Trio of Creme Brulee, which comes with three small servings of raspberry, lavender, and chocolate Pot de Creme. No complaint here, and at $10 a bargain. Appetizers are $7-18 (the latter for a lobster salad; all others are $14 or less), entrées $13-27, and desserts $7-10 ($14 for the cheese tasting). There is also a raw bar, which we did not sample. Service was prompt — perhaps to a fault. Our appetizers arrived seemingly within minutes, which was so quick that our server hadn't yet arrived with the wine. The wine list seemed to us expensive in relation to the menu. We settled on a $38 red that was acceptable without being special. The next level up would have required us to spend quite a bit more, which we weren't of a mind to do. The noise level at Thalia was mercifully lower than at many restaurants I've tried lately, although there is still an audible buzz around the place. We enjoyed a leisurely meal and were able to hear ourselves talk, which is never a given in New York restaurants.

That's great reading...and worthwhile. It's no small achievement to get a less-than-stellar review from Andrea Strong.

Not all restaurants aspire to four stars. To get four stars, you need to operate at a certain level of service, wine list, ingredients, preparation, décor, etc. Mind you, there's no guarantee that restaurants will get the star rating they're shooting for, but they don't all shoot for four. And if you actually visit the restaurants mentioned, it is quite clear that they are less formal and less ambitious than Jean-Georges. This is not to say that these restaurants got the number of stars they expected or wanted. But none of them were seeking four.

I think Wolfgang's and BLT are more likely candidates than V.

In today's New York Post, Steve Cuozzo awards four stars to Alain Ducasse with Christian Delouvrier as chef: Cuozzo writes reviews for the common man. Even in the context of a four-star review, he doesn't hesitate to let you know when you might get taken to the cleaners: Admin note: Merged thread.

If one argues that JGV is slipping, what exactly are you comparing him to? You're surely correct to say that 66, Spice Market, and V Steakhouse aren't as good as Jean-Georges. But did JGV intend these restaurants to be as good as Jean-Georges? I don't think so. Jean-Georges is his four-star flagship, and by most accounts is still performing at that level. But JGV's other properties are meant to fill different niches. Whether deserved or not, most reviews of Spice Market — not just Amanda Hesser's — have been extremely favorable. I'm writing from memory, but no reviewer in my recollection gave it less than two stars, and at least one other gave it three. V Steakhouse has earned at least two stars from every reviewer in town that awards stars except for Frank Bruni. So, it is no evidence of slippage that JGV's other properties aren't on the level of Jean-Georges: they aren't meant to be.

As I understood it, some people questioned whether the Times should "waste" paper reviewing "neighborhood restaurants." xyz123 was emphatic in this: In my view, this is a fallacy for several reasons: 1) Many neighborhoods attract visitors from all over town for other reasons, and once they're there, people will want to know their dining options. Ici's neighborhood, for instance, attracts those who are visiting BAM, and in that neighborhood there aren't a whole lot of other choices. So whereas Ici might not be worth mentioning if it were located on the Upper East Side, it is newsworthy for being in an area that has very few other such places. 2) A journey of, say, 20-30 minutes is really not that far to travel for meal out. In New York, to travel such a distance for a date or a casual evening with friends is commonplace. I said earlier that the whole city can be regarded as one large connected neighborhood, because the fact is that many of us treat it that way. xyz123 may feel that he must have at least a two-star experience to justify a 20-minute subway ride, but I don't think he's typical. Many people get tired of the same old places in their immediate neighborhood and have the itch to try something new. As a Times reader, I'm grateful to have such places brought to my attention. 3) Sometimes, a one-star restaurant can be worth a detour, because it does one or two particular things especially well, even though it doesn't qualify for an overall rating of two stars or more. I'm thinking of Franny's for its pizza, or Landmarc for its wine list. It so happens Franny's didn't get a star, because of the stupid dichotomy at the Times between the fine dining and the $25-and-under critic, but several papers in town reviewed it favorably, and it fits perfectly in this category. 4) The Times's rating system contemplates the idea that there will be one-star restaurants in New York. Inevitably, some of these restaurants should have been two or three stars, but the critic finds them under-performing. But surely there is a place for restaurants rated one star that truly meet the description of what one star is supposed to mean, which is "good." I would not be in favor of a system where one star was only used for higher-end restaurants that aren't worth the money. At least sometimes, one star should mean "good, and worth it."

A friend and I tried BLT Steak on Friday night. The restaurant has a split personality, with the décor seeming more upscale than a bistro, but the specials menu posted on the back wall screaming, "Don't take us too seriously!" Our table seemed larger than the typical table-for-two, and at first it seemed like we had to shout a bit to hear each other above the din, for BLT Steak is certainly a loud place. After we sat down, a server brought bread and some goose liver paté. This was followed by the celebrated popovers, with soft butter. At this point, those with small stomachs feel half-full already, but there is a dinner to be eaten. We both fixed our gaze on the heirloom tomato appetizer, and a fine choice this was. The tomatoes were thick, rich, and perfectly seasoned. Several reviewers had said that BLT Steak was actually a better place for fish. However, we were in a carnivorous mood, so we ordered the Ribeye for Two, with sides of french fries and creamed spinach. We also chose our sauces: horseradish and three mustards. This seemed to us a competent presentation, but nothing to rush back for. Our feeling was that BLT Steak deserves another look...but next time, for the fish. We ordered a $48 cabernet from the specials board. It too was acceptable without wowing us. (I could have sworn there's already a BLT Steak thread somewhere, but I couldn't find it.) [Pan: Yep, there is, and your post is duly merged with it. I found this thread by doing a search of the New York Forum for "steak," title only, 90 days ago or less. I thereby got around the problem that "BLT" is too few characters to be usable in an eGullet search.]

I gave Babbo a try last night. Following eGullet advice, I showed up shortly after 5pm and had no trouble getting a seat for dinner at the bar. I had my heart set on the pasta tasting menu, but I was surprised to learn that they won't serve their tasting menus to parties of one. What an unfriendly policy! Anyhow, it's there loss, as I ended up spending less money. Anyhow, I proceeded to order a la carte. Babbo is well known for offal, so that's where my priorities lay. I started with Pig's Feet Milanese. This looked a bit like a large potato pancake, crispy on the outside, gooey on the inside. It was a wonderful taste sensation. I then had the dish so much talked about, the Beef Cheek Ravioli. Perhaps it was inevitable that it couldn't exceed its reputation, but it is a wonderful creation, putting traditional raviolis to shame. Babbo offers plates of 3, 5, of 7 cheeses for dessert, priced at $12, $15, and $18 respectively. I chose the 5-cheese plate, which was really far too much for one person after a full-size appetizer and main course. A waiter came around and gave a back-story for all five cheeses (one of them came from a farm run by Mario Batali's wife's parents) and recommended the order in which they should be eaten, from least-to-most "assertive." In an unusual custom, Babbo serves its single-serving wines by the quartino, rather than by the glass. A quartino is about 1/3 of a bottle, so you get about two glasses for around the price many restaurants charge for just one. I'm not a big drinker, so that was about all I needed to pace myself through the meal. I agree with Frank Bruni that Babbo is a bit too crowded to qualify for four stars, but the music was not loud, nor was it the "relatively hard rock" he complained of. Perhaps the soundtrack changes later in the evening? Although I was there alone on this occasion, I believe my dining companions — had there been any — would have heard each other a lot easier than in most New York restaurants I've tried recently. The Bruni review led me to expect the hustle-bussle of a brasserie, and that Babbo is not. Service was excellent, particularly considering that I was a bar patron. Babbo has so much to offer, and I felt that I saw just the tip of the iceberg. I will have to go back.

In March, Amanda Hesser made a stir when she demoted Montrachet, a long-time three-star standout, to two stars. Whether Montrachet deserved the slap-down may be debated, but the review stood out for its soul-lessness. I had a chance to find out for myself last night. Hesser's comments about the décor seemed to me completely wacky. She wrote: I can't comment on the coat rack and space heater — it being high summer, these accoutrements were entirely unnecessary. But the space itself seems elegant and refined. It didn't smell old. I was there with a party of three. Two of us chose the appetizer of Marinated Sea Scallops with Gazpacho Sauce. This was a bit disappointing, as the gazpacho overwhelmed the scallops, leaving them flabby and dead to the taste. The third member of our party ordered a Wild Mushroom Bisque, which he pronounced a success. We had three different main courses, which all were pleased with. Between us, we tried the Magret of Duck with Pistachios and Cherry Endive Compote, the Chilean Sea Bass "en Barigoule" with Parmigiano Reggiano, and the Grilled Rib Eye Steak with Morels, Texas Sweet Onions and Truffles. Montrachet has one of the most revered wine lists in the city, and it takes a connoisseur (or the sommelier's guidance) to make sense of it. One of my companions knows his wines, and he chose a PlumpJack Cabernet Sauvignon —a brand previously unknown to me — that I found superb. For the record, appetizers at Montrachet are $11-22, mains are $24-32, desserts $10-11. A cheese course runs to $16 per head. All three of us tried that, and I was gratified to find that it included good-sized samples of five contrasting cheeses, which is more than you get for the money at many restaurants in town. Montrachet also offers four fixed menus. There are two three-course prix fixe options at $30 or $46, a six-course tasting for $79, or an eight-course tasting for $95. The latter is available only Monday to Friday. Most of my dining out is at the one and two-star levels. Montrachet certainly seems to me superior to most two-star restaurants in New York. While one cannot judge fairly on a single visit, on this showing I would say that Hesser's demotion to two stars was an injustice.

The fact that there is a one-star rating available implies that it will be used sometimes — and not, I hope, solely for the purpose of slapping down restaurants that should have been two or three stars had they gotten their act together. Otherwise, why have the rating? Unfortunately, because there are far more "good" restaurants than reviewing slots available, not all can get reviewed. This doesn't mean that none of them are newsworthy. Ici's proximity to BAM, coupled with the connection to Rocco's and other well known restaurants, made it a plausible candidate. The context of the Bruni review was clearly quite favorable — not, as you imply, merely neutral or average. And as I noted, the condescending "neighborhood" label clearly misses the point. Even Bruni noted the contradiction:

I think the pejorative term "neighborhood restaurant" is over-used. It properly applies to restaurants that are of no likely interest outside of those who live/work in the neighborhood, and I agree the Times generally should not bother reviewing these. But Ici, which Bruni reviewed this week, transcends its neighborhood, because of its proximity to BAM, which in turn draws audiences from all over the city. If you've ever gone restaurant-hunting near BAM, you'll know the options aren't obvious or abundant. Ici will definitely be on my list the next time I see something at BAM (which is about once a year). Your argument falls down for other reasons, too. I agree with those who pointed out that, if you live near the subway, a pretty wide swath of the city can be reached in 30 minutes or less. In a sense, all of Manhattan below Harlem is my "neighborhood." I don't believe I must have a two-stars-or-higher experience to justify a trip of that distance. V is trying to be a two or three-star restaurant, and in Bruni's view has failed at it. Ici is attemping something a lot simpler, and in Bruni's view has succeeded at it. Anomalies like this abound. You can never tell from the rating alone whether XYZ is a solid N-star restaurant, or an N+1 or N+2 restaurant that fell down on the job. To know that, you have to read the text of the review. The Times's published criteria also state that the critic takes price into account. Exactly how this is done isn't specified, but V Steakhouse is a pricey place. Bruni is effectively telling us: "V isn't bad, but for that price, if you want a steakhouse, you can do a lot better." Ici is a bargain restaurant — in real terms, probably one of the least expensive that the main critic has ever reviewed. Bruni is telling us: "For its modest ambitions, this place is a gem." You're almost certainly wrong about the one-star reviews. Remember, the definition of one star is "good." One-star reviews aren't necessarily bad reviews, and indeed, sometimes they are almost glowing. Amanda Hesser's review of Landmarc was a good example. Zero-star reviews are fairly rare. Offhand, I can recall only two so far this year. There are some well publicized restaurants that the critic probably feels he must review, even if he has only bad news to deliver. Certainly the Times's movie, theater, music, and book critics don't limit themselves to favorable reviews. Why should the restaurant critic?

Whether the Times has two, three, or eight reviewers, inevitably there will be some tough-to-classify restaurants that don't obviously fall in one critic's turf. Of course, anyone who frequently dines out would love to see more reviews, and adding a third critic would make that possible. But I don't see that as the main problem.

We shall see, but I doubt that this signals a sea change. The fact is, there's a certain number of restaurants the Times must review — pretty much any restaurant that has aspirations of two stars or higher, plus any restaurant in the one-star class that has garnered sufficient public attention that it can't be ignored, plus a certain number of re-reviews of major restaurants whose old reviews are no longer current. Once all of those reviews get written, there's no more than a few slots per year where the critic can come out of nowhere, and cover a restaurant that no one had expected to be reviewed. My own preference would be to make the $25-and-under category eligible for stars. That would give the Times 104 star-eligible slots per year, rather than 52. The fault line in this week's pair of reviews is particularly evident, where the restaurant reviewed in the $25-and-under column was actually more expensive than the restaurant Frank Bruni covered. However, I recognize that my approach also has its problems. Some people feel that the $25-and-under column has suffered from grade inflation, and the Times should use it for the truly cheap restaurants. Indeed, although there is some overlap between the two critics' turfs, at times Asimov has reviewed hole-in-the-wall sandwich and taco places. To give a star to this type of restaurant, no matter how good it is, would really bastardize the system beyond recognition. It's not that there's anything intrinsically bad about tiny sandwich shops, but people have a minimum expectation of a one-star restaurant that these places simply cannot satisfy. One possible compromise is to introduce the Times equivalent of the "Bib Gourmand," which quite apart from the stars would denote restaurants that excel in simple fare at prices that keep the wallet happy. Anyhow, I don't see any evidence that the Times is ready for a fundamental re-think. This week's Ici review, welcome though it was, is probably an exception.

Steve Cuozzo reviews Brasserie LCB in today's New York Post, awarding 2 1/2 stars:

This is a welcome trend — a curative to the Times's historically Manhattan-centric coverage. By the way, one of my personal theories is that, by definition, once the Times reviews a restaurant, it can no longer be deemed a "neighborhood place." The review had a "Hand of God" feel to it. No doubt the proprietors feel that way! There are probably many places in the outer boroughs that are worth reviewing, but it's almost a random event when the Times gets to them. Pan wrote: I had that exact reaction. At Ici, per the Times, entrees are $12-17. At Maia, reviewed in today's $25-and-under column, entrees are $12-21. In Eric Asimov's review of August, the entrees mentioned were in the $16-22 range, and I believe at least one entree there is $24. But I have often said that the Times should rethink the star-eligibility of the $25-and-under restaurants. Today's review offers yet another example of why that should be the case.

Actually, it strikes me that a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous. Either the investor should help to run the restaurant (and have the background to be helpful), or s/he should entrust that responsibility to those who do. I haven't opened a restaurant, but in most fields, investors who dabble in substantive decision-making can be the kiss of death.

Anytime somebody attempts to change a familiar paradigm, they can expect to be greeted with considerable skepticism. And Starwich is attempting to change not just one, but several things at once: the number and type of ingredients offered, the "hanging chad" ordering forms, the smart cards, the price. True enough, but it's well known that most restaurants fail, and I presume that it's not because most are opened by idiots. It's because it's just damned hard to succeed at this, even when you're competent. And when you're attempting to change so many of the settled expectations of the genre — which in this case is a sandwich joint — the odds against you just get steeper. Mind you, I'm not hoping for failure. A Starwich is planned for the neighborhood where I work, and I'm always happy to have another alternative. The food options sound terrific. But at lunchtime, I'm usually not looking for a leisurely dining experience. The service and traffic flow had better be efficient, and certainly there's a point when a restaurant is offering too many options for it's own good. It remains to be seen whether Starwich has crossed that line.

The New York Daily News reviews PF&W today:

The reason owners care, is that there are diners who care.