oakapple

As I said on the other thread, I thought the review was inspired. Let there be more like it. The chances of the Times taking a hiatus till Labor Day are about equal to the chances that I will be the next reviewer.

The quality of the steak was sufficiently covered:

I thought it was a terrific review. People may think that the fine dining critic shouldn't review steakhouses, but that comment belongs in the same hopper as all of the other changes to the NYT system that people here have advocated. Until the Times changes its system, places like Wolfgang's fall into Bruni's territory. If he doesn't review them, nobody does. Given that Wolfgang's is so obviously inspired by Luger's, the approach to the review was an inspiration: visit both on the same evening, and compare the two. I came away from it knowing exactly what I need to know about Wolfgang's.

It's interesting that Andrew says: ...and yet... I am not criticizing these conflicting emotions, just remarking how unusual they are: "lives up to the hype" and "blows away" the competition; yet, by a considerable margin, not worth the money. Is Masa still filling up every night? The conventional wisdom is that a restaurant's long-term survival depends on repeat business. How many people love this experience enough to be return customers for an out-the-door cost of $400-$500 a head?

xyz123, you seem to have the luxury of trying these places multiple times to get a feel for what they're capable of. Most people, if they have a sub-par meal, are not coming back anytime soon!

This thread has hinted at another component of journalistic responsibility: the timing of reviews. The Times's main theater critic doesn't have a choice about which Broadway shows he reviews, or when he reviews them — he reviews every show when it opens. It's also rather rare for a show to get re-reviewed later on, even though shows, like restaurants, change over time. Bruni, on the other hand, has complete discretion over what he reviews, and the 52 slots per year aren't enough to accommodate every deserving restaurant. Bruni didn't have to re-review Bouley, and he didn't have to do it now. There was no event, such as a substantial change in the menu, chef, or décor, that specifically motivated this re-review. Fat Guy said that it's pretty common knowledge in the biz that David Bouley was aware that things had slipped, and was actively working on upgrading the staff. If Bruni knew this, then a re-review now was irresponsible. Given the scarcity of reviewing slots, he should have waited till the situation at Bouley was stable once again. However, if Bruni didn't know that David Bouley is upgrading the place, he might have felt it would be irresponsible to leave it at four stars when it is clearly operating below that level, particularly with an expected four-star Per Se review coming within the next few weeks.

This was probably an aberration. Per Se must receive calls almost every day asking if they have any cancellations. I know they hold a few tables for VIPs, but this many? I don't think so! Although Per Se evidently doesn't require a credit card guarantee, I believe they require you to call back two days in advance to confirm. It seems unlikely that so many people would confirm, and then not show up, especially given how difficult it is to get a reservation there in the first place. Incidentally, does anyone know what it takes to score one of the VIP tables? Not that I have the slightest chance of doing so, but I'm wondering how it works. Do you call and say you're Derek Jeter of the Yankees, then there's a quick sidebar to decide if Jeter's an important enough celebrity, and based on that he either gets the table or he doesn't? I know there must be more science to it than that, or else they'd get a lot of people pretending to be VIPs.

Edinburgh has two Michelin star restaurants: Number One and Martin Wishart. I tried the tasting menu at Wishart’s a couple of months ago, and this week I decided to see what Number One could do. While both restaurants have their strengths, I would have to give the slight edge to Number One. Located in the basement of the Edinburgh’s marquis hotel, the Balmoral, Number One exudes a sense of luxury. There is an ample and comfortably appointed lounge area to enjoy a drink before sitting down for your meal. The walls have a dark, highly polished sheen. They’re covered with small modern artworks that don’t distract you, but in fact are witty and eclectic if you take the time to study them. The tables and banquettes are plush and generously spaced. The service at Number One is impeccable. As I watched them operate over two and a half hours, I couldn’t help but be impressed by the teamwork and precision. A team of five servers covered the whole restaurant (it is not that large, and not all the tables were taken), and while they had their individual duties, they operated as a coordinated unit. Now the sommelier serves you a glass of wine, and the next moment he’s serving appetizers at the next table. Now the lovely French woman is serving your soufflé, and the next moment she’s refilling wine glasses at the opposite corner of the restaurant. I ordered the chef’s tasting menu with paired wines, which clocks in at £85 before tip. There were five courses plus two amuses and six glasses of wine in this degustation. Although most of the portions were small, as you’d expect on a tasting menu, I walked out quite full, and in fact skipped breakfast the next morning. All of the dishes were plated beautifully, in designs clearly intended to delight the eye as well as the stomach. I had never ordered a full wine pairing before. It adds a significant premium to the meal, but I have to say it’s worth it. You get a selection of diverse wines that is expertly chosen to suit the menu, quite a few of which you probably would never order on your own. They are smaller pours than wine ordered by the glass, but with six of them included it’s about as much as most people care to drink. I did have trouble pacing myself, though: you were never sure how much time you had before the next course was to arrive. The amuse-bouche was a tiny cup of tomato consommé, which I found a bit disappointing. The more successful amuses-bouches display some culinary wit, which this uninspired dish lacked. The champagne paired with it was similarly unexciting. A wonderful foie gras came next, served with oatcakes and mushroom chutney. It was paired with an intense New Zealand fruit wine that complemented the liver taste perfectly. The fish course was a scallop in a light curry sauce, accompanied by braised oxtail. This was the hit of the evening, and unfortunately that lonely scallop was gone all too quickly. This is the drawback of a tasting menu. The meat course was less successful. Six slender lamb medallions were sufficiently tender and tasty, but I’ve had far better lamb elsewhere. Sauces are Number One’s strength, but this lamb was served in its own juices. Nothing was done to raise it above the ordinary. The grilled sweetbreads that came on the plate were far more memorable. Some writers have suggested that meat courses are not as well suited to a tasting menu, because they require larger portions to make a culinary statement. I can certainly see the point, although I’ll have to try the format a few more times before deciding whether that’s true. The cheese course was generous to a fault. The server wheeled over a cart with a wide range of selections. I told him I preferred the exotic and offbeat, and he cut six thick slices. It’s easy to order a $15 cheese course in New York and get three skimpy pieces, so this was refreshing indeed. He asked if I wanted any more, so there didn’t seem to be a hard limit. Anyhow, at six pieces this was a more substantial course than the entrées had been, so I thought it best to stop there (with dessert still to come). I can’t describe cheeses, but the six I sampled were wonderful. They were paired with a sweet port wine. There was a small pre-dessert of apricots and cream, followed by the main dessert, a raspberry and white chocolate soufflé. This is a specialty dish at Number One, which I’ve had on previous visits. It came with a white dessert wine, which the sommelier described as a palate-cleanser. I’m still trying to guess what that means. It was an expensive evening, but well worth it. This could turn into an expensive hobby.

What's interesting is that the arguments here are about the quality of the writing. Nobody has made a passionate case that Bruni got the actual rating wrong. And I don't think he's gotten one wrong yet. Fascinating observation. Bouley's tasting menu is indeed priced below, and in some cases considerably below, the current four-stars. But do restaurants get high ratings just because they're expensive, or do high expenses allow restaurants to do the things that win four-star ratings? I think it's the latter. Someone suggested that Bouley isn't even striving for four stars. You wouldn't know it from the devastated reaction of chopjwu12 and his colleagues who work there. I wouldn't say "under no circumstances," but to borrow a phrase from Mr. Bruni, that gaffe was emblematic of why Bouley is no longer operating at that level.

The issues cited here are typical of "demotion" reviews, which inevitably must explain why a restaurant is no longer at the higher level. Contrary to what aaustin said, the review does point out that William Grimes had rated Bouley four stars, so readers who aren't food-scene insiders will know that that's the context. Bruni's complaints are also typical of any review where a restaurant, although excellent, isn't living up to expectations. Bruni tells us that he is grading to a high standard, and he also tells us why: For those seeking it, there are comments appropriate to a three-star experience, such as: ... and ... I am inclined to agree that the three-paragraph historical overview lost its way. Instead of psychoanalyzing why David Bouley may (or may not) have lost his passion, Bruni could have given us one paragraph of that, and talked a bit more about the food. With re-reviews, there is always the question: why now? Had Bruni attempted to answer that question, perhaps he would have made a more compelling case. Fat Guy wondered what it would take for Bouley to get back the fourth star. What precedents are there for restaurants losing stars and later regaining them, and how quickly can it be done?

Fat Guy has more of the historical context on Bouley in his pinky finger than I have in my entire body. If he says that "Frank Bruni betrays a degree of inexperience that places him in an inferior posture to the chef he is judging," I take it on face value. But if this is indeed the problem, waiting a little while to re-review Bouley isn't the solution. If Bruni lacks the insight, he isn't going to acquire it anytime soon. If you can't trust him to rate Bouley at three stars, then you can't trust him to rate Per Se at four.

In today's New York Post, Steve Cuozzo reviews V Steakhouse, awarding three stars: What is the difference between "amusingly tweaked appetizers" and "the precipice of parody"? Time alone can tell.

I also am a bit perplexed at the timing, but I won't draw inferences from a sample size of three. I suspect that with a (most likely) four-star Per Se review forthcoming, he felt it was appropriate to take Bouley out of a category in which it no longer belongs. The Bouley review is different than the Babbo review, because it came in with a new rating, so it is certainly not a waste of type. The typical NYT food page reader isn't necessarily aware of the "public and industry opinion" to which you referred. If Bruni maintained a pace of two re-reviews to every new review, it would be a problem. I don't expect this to happen. There aren't thousands of "reviewable" restaurants that haven't been reviewed, bearing in mind that the whole $25-and-under category is out of Bruni's scope. If you're unhappy with re-reviews of restaurants last reviewed in the '90s, what would people say if Bruni reviewed Asiate or Spice Market so soon? He should visit them again next year.

chopjwu12, I know you're all upset, but on a fair reading it's more than just the FOH that lost Bouley its fourth star. Of the food, Bruni wrote: ...and... These are not four-star comments, even had the FOH been perfect. Possibly, but Bruni's comments reflect the kind of write-ups Bouley has been getting for quite a while now. If you "don't disagree with a lot that was said," then you more-or-less must concede that three stars is accurate today, and most likely has been for quite some time. I'd question whether a few new hires can turn things around that quickly, and I'd also question why it took Bouley so long to take these necessary steps. They have not gone to waste. Bouley is still rated three stars, which means "excellent." Even without the fourth star, you're in pretty select company. Bouley has an established reputation, and business isn't going to dry up because of this review. Just focus on getting things right for every diner, and avoiding the kind of erratic reviews you find throughout the eGullet archives. Business will take care of itself.

I don't think the Times system is quite as confusing as Pan says. Readers quickly figure out that $25-and-under restaurants are ineligible for star ratings. This, of course, does not mean that these places are bad, only that they are out of scope. I would personally like to see the inexpensive restaurants rated somehow, but the existing system isn't confusing on this count — it just turns its nose on a vast swath of the dining universe. While the Times has never said precisely how service, ambiance, and price figure into the rating, the de facto standard appears to be that the food primarily determines the number of stars. The other factors figure into the rating mainly when the food is on the borderline between two possible ratings. In an extreme case, a restaurant might get a bonus star or be docked a star if ambiance, service, or price are significantly out of line from what is typically expected for the type of restaurant that is being reviewed. I think that's because high ratings require a significant investment in food, ambiance, and service. This investment is then reflected in the price. Sometimes a restaurant gets it wrong — charging four-star prices, but delivering a two-star experience. This is not a good recipe for remaining in business! Last week's Megu review was a clear example of where a restaurant clearly had been docked for charging too much in relation to what it delivers. I'm not sure how all of this can be captured precisely in a rating, unless the Times develops a system more complex than the scoring of Olympic figure skating. The star rating is a summary of the critic's overall impression, and you need to read the review to learn why. Hopefully, a good critic will write reviews that are rationally correlated to the star ratings he assigns. Bruni has had only two shots at it so far, and both times I think he's gotten it right. I have said elsewhere, and still agree with Rich, that it wouldn't hurt to have separate food, ambiance and service ratings, in addition to an overall rating. This could be done quite easily, while still maintaining the historical context of what the Times star ratings have traditionally meant.

Most of the papers have now reviewed Spice Market, and it has received several 2.5 and 3 star reviews. Maybe the whole city is over-rating Spice Market, but we can no longer blame Amanda alone. By the way, JGV claims he's only met Amanda once in his life.

Henry's End? This is a good family, neighborhood "joint" - not a four star restaurant. The food is good, but to call it "four star" level is simply not accurate. Well, maybe the mud pie... Try as I might, I simply can't divine Rich's theory of restaurants. For instance, after Rich visited Per Se, he wrote: I'm presuming that the best meal he has ever experienced is a four-star meal. Is he saying that — ambiance aside — these other six places are in the same league? I just don't get it.

In this week's New York Magazine, Adam Platt reviews Per Se: ...and... Is this the first major media review of Per Se?

It's hard for me to imagine how he could have done this, given that till very recently Bruni was the Times's Rome bureau chief. Any change to the 4* list should be based on more than just a month's data. I presume the Times critic dines at all of the 4*'s periodically. At some point, he decides that XYZ should be re-reviewed, and he starts visiting a bit more often, culminating in several visits in the month before he writes the review. Bruni was announced in April, and I would guess he started testing the 4*'s as soon as he got here. What made him choose Bouley now is anyone's guess. It's certainly not the only 4* that hasn't been reviewed in a while. I suspect he's aware of the importance of stripping a star (if indeed that's what he's going to do) and wouldn't take it lightly. Fat Guy says that the Times reviewer is usually recognized. I'll take his word for that, but if he's right, it's amazing how often the reviews mention service lapses. Either the critics are recognized less often than he thinks, or restaurants are shockingly incapable of delivering the red-carpet treatment even when they know they're serving a reviewer. Without some moderation, this could become ridiculous. You could reach the point where most of the reviews were based on VIP meals that practically no one else could get. However imperfect anonymity may be, I like the idea that the critic is at least attempting to give a realistic picture of what Joe Diner will experience. Four stars is the only category that speaks for itself, which is perhaps a flaw of the system. At the more densely-populated 1, 2, and 3-star levels, you need to read the text to find out what is really going on. If Bouley gets demoted, you would describe it as a 4* concept that has been docked a star for inconsistency. Babbo, most people agree, is a 3* concept that gets almost everything right. If you accept the Spice Market rating as accurate, you'd have to say it's a two-star concept that was awarded a bonus star for extraordinary execution. On the other hand, the Times rates 52 restaurants a year, and some of those ratings are bound to be wrong. That hazard is inherent in the system. If Spice Market's rating is wrong, we just need to wait patiently till Mr. Bruni gets around to correcting it. I do think that half-stars could clear out some of the fuzziness. For instance, a 4* concept that's not hitting the mark consistently would be docked a half-star. Bouley, then, would be 3 1/2*, which would establish it as clearly above the Babbo category.

Whether NYC sommeliers are earning less than they're worth is an interesting economic question. If they're worth more, then there ought to be somebody willing to pay more. If nobody's willing to pay more, then I have to doubt that they're really worth what you say. The standard of 15-20% of the bill for good service (i.e., neither bad nor extraordinary) is customary. The typical restaurant diner has only a very brief interaction with the sommelier. If you order a $100 bottle and tip 20% on the final bill, then $20 of that tip is attributable to the wine — which in most restaurants is already coming at a very high mark-up to cost. If the restaurant is then denying the sommelier of his/her share of the $20 tip, I don't think that's my problem. Again, I'm referring to the typical dining experience. If you have a long colloquy with the sommelier (i.e., he has done more for you than usual), a separate tip for that individual would make sense.

These are the ratings JGV's New York properties currently carry: **** Jean-Georges *** Jo Jo *** Spice Market ** Mercer Kitchen ** 66 I couldn't find a star rating for Vong, but the Ruth Reichl quote on the website says it's "not quite up to the standard of Jean-Georges Vongerichten's other restaurants (Jo-Jo and Jean Georges)." So I wouldn't conclude that the Times considers JGV untouchable. I agree that it's too soon for a second look at Spice Market, but I would look for it in a year or two.

It seemed inescapable to me that Bruni was crediting Babbo with 4* food. He wrote: And he went on to list a number of non-food reasons for the judgment. When the "short, emblematic answer" to the question "Why not Babbo?" is a bunch of non-food reasons, I am not able to reach any other interpretation. In Bruni's view, Babbo is serving 4* food. I mean, what could have been the point of including this lengthy back-door explanation of why Babbo isn't four stars, if the food had already disqualified it?

That's got to be one of the best definitions I've seen. It might not cover every case, but it comes close. I don't think it's far off the de facto Times standard. I too liked snausages2000's homage to innovation, although I agree with FG that a restaurant can also get four stars by executing classic cuisine extraordinarily well, with of course the ambiance and service to match. Benno is the Chef de Cuisine at Per Se (I think I'm getting the term right), so in practice, that's essentially what's happening, isn't it? Keller is still responsible for the menu, and he splits his time between his two restaurants. The menu at Per Se is always changing, and it continues to reflect Keller's influence. If that stopped happening, at some point it would no longer be the place everyone is raving about. Because the Times "star" system is such an institution, I don't see any chance of these factors being eliminated. The best you can hope for is what Bruni gave us in the Babbo review — a clear indication that, if food were the only thing that counted, it might be four stars. You need to stop viewing Bruni's review as "punishment." Remember, the meaning of three stars is "excellent." It was not a bad review. The consensus on the post-review threads was that Babbo is doing precisely what Batali wants, and he neither strived for nor expected a four-star review.

Not IMO. But probably the most legitimate gripe about the star system is that, from the rating alone, you can't tell which is which. If you read the text of the review, however, it is clear. For instance, Frank Bruni made it resoundingly clear this week that Megu was an underperforming three-star. (I know we're talking about 4* here, but the concept is the same.) Le Cirque 2000 was formerly four stars. Like any of the restaurants in that club, it is undoubtedly capable of hitting a home run occasionally. It's the failure to do so consistently that caused it to be demoted. Seems to me awfully doubtful. An experienced critic can probably tell the difference. From past reports, I believe the minimum standard for reviewing a place is three visits, and it could be as many as six. I know that the Times critic eats out at least ten meals a week, which obviously includes lunches. Reviews seldom mention the lunch menu, so I'm not sure how the critic takes this into account. It's not an issue at Per Se, as the lunch menu is the same as the dinner menu. Given FG's intel, it would appear that a review of Per Se is imminent.

Good question. But how do you separate them, when personal opinions play such a large factor? It comes down to the credibility of the writer. Having said that, there's a core set of restaurants that recur on most people's lists, which suggests that we, as a group, have a pretty solid intuitive understanding of what it means to be a legitimate 4-star restaurant. AndrewG said it well: It's true — as Rich observed — that every one of the current four-stars is disputed by at least one person, but consensus doesn't require unanimity. If one person says they had a terrible meal at ADNY, it's of course relevant to the discussion, but it doesn't diminish the very strong consensus that ADNY is a four-star restaurant. Similarly, there's only a few restaurants frequently mentioned as challenging the current four-star list. Perhaps that's because, despite the revolving door of critics at the Times, the criteria for being in the top category are pretty consistent from one reviewer to the next. Ridiculous clunkers at the 1-to-3 star levels have occasionally slipped into the Times's ratings, but I think the standards for 4 stars have been pretty consistently applied.