oakapple

Wondering why is a lot different than using terms such as bizarre and/or silly - that's disingenous Since I called some of the suggestions "bizarre," I'll elaborate further. The glorious thing about the Internet is that anyone can offer an opinion, with as much or as little justification as the writer chooses to offer. That opinion can be extremely well thought-out, or ridiculously off-the-wall. Whatever it may be, we all get to post. Whether we are taken seriously is another matter entirely. People who want to be taken seriously have a knack of recognizing how much justification a particular opinion calls for. If you put Jean-Georges or ADNY on your list of four-star restaurants, it doesn't require a whole lot of explaining, because the merits of these places have long been recognized. Anyone with the slightest bit of initiative can easily find long essays on these restaurants, explaining why they are widely regarded so highly. You can write a new essay of your own, but if you don't, we'll assume you're agreeing with an existing consensus. If you put Aquavit, Chanterelle, or Danube on your list of four-stars, a brief explanation will suffice. These restaurants are carrying three stars today. Everyone recognizes that the borderline between three and four stars is a matter of judgment, and some of the three-star restaurants could well have been four if another critic had been doing the judging. Some of them haven't been reviewed for a few years, and they may well have improved since then. It's not a shocking suggestion that some of the three-stars in fact deserve four. But when you put restaurants on your list that are currently carrying one star — places like Grocery, Landmarc, Henry's End, Tasting Room — places that no published critic has ever rated anywhere near the Jean-Georges, Daniel, Per Se stratosphere — a whole lotta explainin' is needed if you want people to take these suggestions seriously. Of course, the beauty of the Internet is that many people post here who could care less whether they are taken seriously. Then again, such people shouldn't object when their ideas are ridiculed as "bizarre."

As the stars represent points on a continuum, it follows that some restaurants — we can argue about which ones — are almost, but not quite, four stars. You suggested Danube. I would add Chanterelle and Atelier (the caveat being, in the latter case, that it will soon be under a new chef). It would not seriously disrupt the galaxy of settled notions if any of these received a fourth star, although clearly not all of them will. We can also presume that Masa is in this category (cuz Amanda told us so ). But I agree with xyz123 that some of the suggestions here are extremely bizarre, and under no circumstances could ever be four stars. Perhaps the writers mean, "Damn the system, these are just places I like." I totally agree with Fat Guy that there's a huge difference between "best" and "favorite."

Curbed replied:

It's customary nowadays for the tips to be pooled among all the staff. I therefore presume that the restaurant is divvying up my tip appropriately. I would only single out an individual if s/he had gone well beyond the normal duties of the job.

There probably aren't very many of us who have eaten at all of the plausible candidates at least twice. I have not. Based on a consensus of recent critical opinion, Bouley seems the most vulnerable to losing a star if it gets re-reviewed. It is at least arguable that Chanterelle is four stars, given its Beard award as the best restaurant in America. When Grimes reviewed Atelier, he implied it was thisclose to being four stars. With Kreuther now leaving for the Modern, all bets are off as to whether this level can be maintained or improved. There are probably other places that just barely missed four stars; one could look at recent three-star reviews and find similar examples. You have to presume that the Times will maintain past standards. Whether you like the standards or not, it is pretty clear what they are. Based on that, there is zero chance that places like Landmarc, Sparks, Henry's End, or Grocery will ever be four stars, unless they close down and re-open with a very different concept.

The restaurant does not seem to have a website. I would strongly recommend having a reservation. You can book on OpenTable. You'll find a menu on menupages.com. It isn't quite the current menu, but it's certainly good enough to get an idea of what Artisanal is about.

Chanterelle is due for a return visit from the NYT. It had been four stars in the Reichl era, but Grimes demoted it to three. There is no science to determining the best restaurant in America, but when the winner of that award is only three stars (making it, in the Times's view, no better than the seventh best restaurant in New York), a fresh look is clearly in order. Not that Bruni is obligated to award a fourth star, but the reasons for denying it would have to be clear.

Megu is a restaurant operated by Japanese people, and they call it Kobe beef on the menu, as is customary nowadays even when the beef isn't really from there. Bruni could have pointed this out, but then he'd need to do so in every review he writes where "Kobe" beef is served — and these days that's pretty common, and not just in Japanese restaurants. It would be rather tiresome to see this in review after review. The more appropriate place to say so is in a feature article about where so-called "Kobe" beef on restaurant menus these days really comes from, and if I recall correctly the Times did run such a feature quite recently.

It had to be less straightforward. Babbo is very solidly in the three-star camp. Last week's review reaffirmed what we, in essence, already knew. The Megu review was an excellent reminder that there are two types of N-star restaurants: those that are N-star concepts executed well, and those that are N+1-star concepts with problems. Babbo is a 3-star concept executed well. Megu is a 3-star concept with problems, leading to a 2-star verdict. It's not so much that Bruni was conflicted, but that he had the painful duty of reporting that what could be three stars is, regrettably, only two. I call it a "painful duty" because, like anyone who loves food, Bruni surely wishes that every restaurant lived up to its potential. When they don't, it's his job to deliver the news. I don't think he had any doubt what the rating should be. Megu is so gorgeous inside, I think it merits a sightseeing trip. I've gone in twice just to admire it, and both times the staff have quite happily let me wander around.

First decision: Spice Market or not Spice Market. It's more of a "fun/unusual" experience, while the others are luxury fine dining. If not Spice Market, then second decision: Per Se or not Per Se. You've already been there. You know the drill. It's rated higher than Bouley or Biltmore by just about everybody, but perhaps you want somewhere you haven't been. If not Per Se, then the choice is Bouley (inconsistent, but near the peak of the city's restaurant hierarchy when at its best) or Biltmore Room (very good, but few would put it in the Daniel-Bernardin-Bouley class).

I suspect the reality is that the critics are grading on a curve. From the photos I've seen of Frank Bruni, he's not old enough to really know whether today's four-star restaurants are as good as those of thirty years ago. What he does know is that the category has historically been limited to the best half-dozen or so restaurants in the city. Bruni also knows the ratings that restaurants are currently carrying, and from this he will infer what the de facto standards are. I'm not sure that the standards of thirty years ago would be the right ones to apply, even if we happened to have a critic who could remember them. Any restaurant should be docked a star if it doesn't consistently deliver its best performance. I haven't been to Bouley, but if it's as erratic as reported here, then it no longer deserves four stars.

Thalassa (179 Franklin, between Greenwich & Hudson) is a Greek seafood restaurant. The Hellenic influence is on display everywhere, but with fish imported daily from all over the Mediterranean, you can think of Thalassa as simply a very fine seafood restaurant. Thalassa means "the sea" in Greek. The letter theta is everywhere, from the china, to the banner outside, to even the doggie bags. The design radiates cool blues, making Thalassa a most soothing place. Billowing fabric covers the exposed brick walls. Perhaps it is meant to suggest sailing ships, but it also absorbs the sound, making Thalassa a place of calm, even when it is full. Our party of 3 shared a starter of calamari. We're all used to strings of calamari, breaded and immersed in the deep fryer. This dish was totally unexpected. The calamari was wrapped in the shape of a sausage around stuffing of feta cheese, parsley and pine nuts. We were simply amazed. Thalassa's menu offers a number of standard entrées, as well as a whole page of fish by the pound, which varies depending on what's available. The restaurant recommends one pound of fish per person, but you have to order a whole fish, and not every selection is available at every weight. You're dependent on your server to explain all this, and our server had a bit of trouble getting it across. In the end, my friend and I settled for a two-pound sea bass, which we shared. A pound of fish sounds like a lot, but remember this is the uncooked weight. After the head is removed and the fish de-boned, this turns out to be just the right portion size. It was a nice flakey fish with a rich taste. The fish-by-the-pound selections don't come with anything else, so we ordered a side of asparagus to go along with it. My mother chose one of the standard entrées, Snapper Spetsiota, which is described as "oven-baked in a clay vessel with tomatoes, onions, fresh oregano and white wine." This turned out to be a very large portion, which she enjoyed immensely, but she had half of it wrapped up to take home for tonight's supper. Thalassa boasts a long and varied wine list. We settled on a modestly-priced but obscure cabernet, which was such a hit that we asked the staff to give us the label, so that we can buy ourselves some more. (Yes, I know: red wine with fish ... do forgive us!) We passed on dessert, but at the end of the meal we were each presented with a silver box with the familiar letter theta printed on it. Inside was a sugary pastry puff to send us on our way. All evening long, service was superlative. The New York Times hasn't reviewed Thalassa, but based on a consensus of other media reviews and my own experience, I would award two stars. Appetizers at Thalassa are $8-18, mains are $24-36. The market fish selections available last night were at $26-45 per pound, with most in the $26-32 range.

What's the largest number of restaurants that have ever carried four stars at the same time? Right now there are five. If there are five thousand restaurants in New York (which is probably a low estimate), then that's just 0.1%, making four stars pretty exclusive territory. Even if there were twenty-five of them, which is never going to happen, the category would still represent well under 1% of all restaurants.

I had dinner on Friday night at Artisanal with my mother, who's visiting from out of town. She has traveled in France extensively, and even lived there for a year. She said Artisanal immediately transported her to a brasserie in Paris. The Adam Tihany-designed interior conjures up the original brilliantly. The tile floor and other exposed hard surfaces makes it a bit noisy, but we had no trouble hearing our own conversation. Artisanal is chef Terrance Brennan's ode to cheese. I understand he has his own factory in Manhattan, where many of the chesses are manufactured. The distinct odor of eau du fromage permeates the whole restaurant. One lucky table gets to sit in "The Cave," where many of the cheeses are stored. We weren't that lucky, but cheese is everywhere. There's even a retail counter, where you can buy a hunk of your favorite cheese to take home. Your server greets you with a bewildering array of menus. There's the dinner menu, with wines on the reverse side; a separate premium wine menu; a cheese menu that lists themed servings, optionally paired with wines; and a cocktail menu. Later on, there's a dessert menu and a new cheese menu with the cheeses listed individually. The main dinner menu, however, is packed onto just one page. Starters run $7.50 to $21.50, mains $17.50 to $29.50. Fondue is either $24 (petite, serves 1-3) or $40 (grande, serves 4-6). A $30.04 prix fixe is available every night, though it's worth noting that if you add a flight of cheese, a party of two is still going to have trouble getting out for under $100. I ordered Bleu Cheese and Walnut Crisp to start, served with asian pear, watercress, and warm bacon vinaigrette. It looked like a green salad, but the flavor of Brennan's astonishing bleu cheese put all others to shame. I'm no cheese expert, but I've never experienced anything of this quality. I then had a lamb porterhouse, a cut that neither of us had ever heard of. It was a bit smaller than the typical New York Strip steak, but for lamb it was an enormous piece of meat, very tender and cooked perfectly to the medium rare I had ordered. (The lady at the next table asked for medium, but she also got medium rare, and was dissatisfied; after she sent it back, it returned well done.) The lamb was served on a bed of stewed rice, tomatoes and olives that was a perfect compliment to the meal. You can't visit Artisanal without sampling the cheeses, so we ordered a plate of three. What do you call the guy who comes over and takes your cheese order? Is he the fromagier? Anyhow, he looked like he was about 16. We asked for two goat cheeses and an "exotic" bleu cheese. As at Picholine, you get back your own copy of the cheese menu, with your choices circled. One of those he gave us wasn't even on the printed menu, and it was probably the best of all. At the end of the meal, our waiter looked at my plate, and said, "You did good!" I'm glad to know he approved. We certainly did!

Pan, first off, many thanks for the compliment. I was not suggesting that price equals rating. I would posit, however, that when people pay a certain price, they are in general expecting a certain kind of experience. A restaurant charging four-star prices and delivering a one-star experience would probably not be in business for very long. There might be some exceptions (places living off their reputations), but this is not the norm. So my hypothesis, as yet unproven, is that with so many established ultra-luxe Japanese restaurants attracting serious diners at four-star prices, there is probably at least one delivering an experience worthy of that rating.

It would be easy to pick apart this list, and I'm sure someone will. Instead, I'd ask what are the criteria — in YOUR mind — for the lower star ratings? If so many of the restaurants presently at lower levels are elevated to four stars, what is the purpose of one, two and three-star ratings? I mean, you've included here three-star places like Aquavit, Nobu and Chanterelle. It is at least arguable that these places were serving four-star food at the time they were rated, and "other issues" prevented them from getting the fourth star. It is also arguable that even the food wasn't four-star quality at these places, and I suspect someone will make that argument. But Grocery, Sparks and Landmarc are currently carrying one star. Are you suggesting that the Times docked them three stars apiece due to non-food issues? Or are you suggesting that the critic was that far off, even on the food component of the rating? If the latter, then the Times rating system isn't the problem; what you're really saying is that the critics are incompetent. You say you're sure there are "quite a few more." What you're arguing for, fundamentally, is that the four-star rating should be a awful lot easier to get.

Most people here support the idea that restaurants should be rated, and most newspapers around the country do exactly that. What, then, is the evidence for obsolescence, aside from the fact that an apparently small minority don't like it?

I think most people found it "fresh and creative," in the context of something that would only be done once, and in the unique circumstance that it was Hesser's farewell review. A fresh, creative idea is neither fresh nor creative if repeated every week.

That's just because there's no argument that four-star restaurants should serve four-star food. I believe everybody here agrees that if the food is sub-par, décor can't rescue it. Rich, to an extent I think you have misunderstood the Times's current rating system. Although admittedly the paper hasn't stated this, I think the de facto standard is that the food primarily determines the rating. If the food is solidly two-star quality, the restaurant isn't going to get three stars just because it looks pretty. But for restaurants near the borderline, non-food issues determine the final rating. The four-star category is special: everything has to be just-right. Your original position was that the Times should abolish stars, and only publish unrated reviews. A number of reasons have been given why this is a bad idea. You may not like the reasons, but they're there all the same. I do think it's worth exploring changes to the system, while maintaining the core idea that there should be an actual rating. However, changing the system is a bit like tax reform: you could get a majority to agree that there must surely be a better system, without getting a majority to support any one particular plan. So while the Times mulls this over, in the meantime they have to keep their newspaper running. As you've seen from the discussion here, most people do think there should be a bottom-line rating, however it might be done.

I think you've conflated separate issues. Frank Bruni has already spoken about Babbo: it is not four stars. Bruni may be exploring more flexible notions of four-star dining, but he's satisfied that Babbo belongs at three due to the issues he mentioned: over-loud music; cramped tables; frenetic service. But I will come out and say it: New York has several high-end, ultra-luxe, Japanese (or Japanese-inspired) restaurants that charge four-star prices. I no longer consider it plausible that not one of these is "extraordinary," which is the criterion for four stars. As I have not been to most of these places, I am not sure which one will be the first to tip the scales at four stars, but I am quite confident that one of them should.

Robert Brown wrote of "impending star inflation": This is entirely untrue. Bruni said very clearly that Babbo is not a four-star restaurant, for a whole bunch of reasons, and not just the music. It remains to be seen whether Masa will get four stars. Supposing it does, and likewise Per Se, that would make just seven (out of thousands of restaurants in NYC). There were six four-stars till Lespinasse closed, and an increase to seven — assuming that happens— is hardly grade inflation. If Bruni bumps the number up to something like 9 or 10, we can re-open the discussion of whether the category is being watered down. I doubt that that will happen, but we shall see. I don't think that the NYT should go to a 5-star system, just to accommodate two restaurants that are at the top end of the 4-star category. Every star category covers a wide range. A 3-star, for instance, could be just barely better than two, or just barely shy of four. If anything, I'd be more inclined to add half-stars, to allow the more heavily populated 1-3 star categories to be more finely differentiated. I know that Rich thinks the whole system should be junked. Even if he were right (which I don't think he is), the first review of a new critic who just got here, and wasn't even living in New York for the last several years, and has not historically been a food critic, is not the time or place to do it.

You write as if these are the only two options. I did not sense the slightest note of frustration. Does that mean "poseur" is my only other choice? I think not. Bruni's musings seemed strongly to suggest that it may be time to change our notions of what a four-star restaurant should be, but that Babbo didn't offer the right vehicle with which to do it. I did not sense that he had any regrets about being constrained by the system to award Babbo three stars. He seemed comfortable that this was the correct rating, based on the settled notion that a four-star restaurant must excel in all dimensions, not just the food. I suspect we will continue to see this issue explored, as Bruni gets around to visiting other restaurants that flirt with four stars.

The NYT reviewing system could certainly stand some improvements. Frank Bruni told us very clearly in this week's review that Babbo offers 4-star food, coupled with 3-star service and ambience. (I agree with Sam Kinsey that, whether one likes it or not, there's an inescapable conclusion that Bruni considered the food on its own to be worth four stars.) But most NYT reviews don't spell it out that way. You're left with an overall rating, and a statement on the website that names all the criteria the critic considers, but typically without any indication how those factors were weighed. Rich says: I think Rich is wrong about this, but if every review spelled it out, as Bruni did in his Babbo review, it wouldn't matter. The people who want the critic's reaction to the overall experience would have an overall rating, and the people who just want to know about the food would have a food rating. Since it's not practical for every review to dwell on meta issues, the ideal system would be a separate star rating for food, service and ambiance (i.e., what Zagat does), and an overall rating (what the Times does now). There are other newspapers that do this, and it would satisfy both constituencies: those that care only about the food, and those who want the critic's reaction to the entire experience. Sam Kinsey wrote: The problem no one has yet solved - not Zagat, not the Times - is how to easily distinguish the two measures Sam mentioned: "what style of restaurant is this?" and "how well has the style been realized?" To give a concrete example, Amanda Hesser gave one star to both Landmarc and Asiate. Yet, her review of Asiate sounded like the place is terrible, and her review of Landmarc was enthusiastic. Why is that? Because she thought Landmarc was doing a solid job in a one-star concept, but Asiate was doing a poor job in a two- or three-star concept. The result, in both cases, was one star. For the sake of this argument, I'm assuming that her assessments of Landmarc and Asiate were correct. Even if you disagreed with them, the reviewing system remains the same for any NYT critic: "What kind of concept is this reataurant?" and then, "How well has the restaurant executed against that concept?" While it is usually apparent from the text, from the rating alone you can't tell whether the restaurant is doing a great job at what it was trying to do, or whether it is a poor imitation of a higher-starred concept. The Zagat ratings have the same problem. A hot-dog stand with a 20 rating is a pretty damned good hot-dog stand, but a French bistro with a 20 rating is just mediocre. Whatever we may think the Times rating system ought to be, Frank Bruni's first review was not the place to change it. Versions of this system are used at many newspapers today, and I wouldn't call it antiquated. Bruni followed the system faithfully, and by explaining his reasoning, actually performed a greater service.

I have always thought that the chief restaurant critic had pretty broad discretion to choose his or her subjects. This seemed so personal for Bruni; I find it difficult to believe he was just following orders. I'd also like to see that, but it's a tougher concept to describe. A four-star restaurant has to be like Mary Poppins - "practically perfect in every way." The 1-2 and 2-3 borderlines are a lot harder to describe.

Surely it is within the critic's purview to say, "I was moved." This is what Fat Guy is saying. Anyone with a contrary point of view is welcome to write their own critique, but I see no reason to question why he said it unless they have contrary observations. The name of the event was "New Indian Cooking in America." From the description, it seems that a good representative sample of prominent Indian chefs in the Americas was there. While such an event can only present only a sample, I don't think it was misrepresented. Where we run into a slight difficulty is in the original post itself, which referred to Tabla as "one of the world's most important restaurants," referred to New Indian cooking (unqualified as to geography) as "one of the most significant movements in modern cuisine" with Tabla "at its nexus," and had various references to "Western" this & that, again without limitation to America only. Since Steve wasn't claiming to have studied this movement anywhere outside of America, probably the post would be better if "in America" or "American" replaced those references that attribute a global or pan-Western influence to what happened at Tabla the other night. But these seem to me just technical corrections to the spirit of what he obviously meant, particularly when re-read in the context of his recent comments on authenticity. In other words, the post may have had a bit of over-exuberance, but I don't see a fundamental problem with it.