oakapple

I don't wish to appear condescending again - which I never intended - but I am still having trouble grasping JMayer's point. Earlier on, he conceded that he doesn't expect the named chef to personally prepare every dish for ever diner. Yet, he says: So here, again, is what amounts to the Frank Sinatra analogy: Frank has to be singing, or it isn't the same product. I mean no condescension, but I wish JMayer would stick to a theory. Either he expects the named chef to personally execute his meal, or he agrees that the chef does not literally do that. If the chef does not literally prepare each dish, then ensuring quality control over a product one doesn't personally touch is a matter of management, not of art. In this sense, it is not the same as Frank Sinatra, who really did have to personally sing his songs. That said, most restaurant cooking, and this includes Per Se and The French Laundry, is in fact "mass produced." Obviously it's not on the same scale as McDonald's slinging hundreds of hamburgers an hour, but even the best restaurants have "assembly lines" designed to produce the same things at the same high level of quality, over and over again, night after night. Keller's famous "Oysters and Pearls" dish is a classic that he and/or his staff reproduce night after night, not a single work of art (like the Mona Lisa) that is produced only once and can never be duplicated.

Yes, but you started by saying that if you paid $1000 for a Paul McCartney concert, you'd feel cheated if Joe Blow showed up and sang instead. So, indeed, would everybody. That's not philosophical, but substantive: you paid for one thing, but got something drastically different. But nobody who goes to Per Se or The French Laundry believes Thomas Keller is personally cooking every dish that is served to them. Keller didn't literally do that even when TFL was his only restaurant. Perhaps you took some comfort in imagining that he did, but you would have been wrong. If, as a result of opening Per Se, either restaurant is not matching TFL's quality when it was Keller's sole focus, then that would clearly be a problem. But chefs sometimes lose control over quality even when they only have one restaurant. It has been known to happen! So it isn't so much whether Keller's running 1, 2, or a dozen restaurants. It's whether he has them under control. In the case of Per Se and TFL, the two restaurants that started this discussion, it appears he does. There is nothing philosophical about this; either he is delivering the quality people expect at these restaurants, or he is not. Perhaps it would be useful to discuss how other "celebrity chefs" have handled it, and whether they've succeeded. In New York, Alain Ducasse just installed Christian Delouvrier as executive chef at ADNY. Fat Guy reports that ADNY is still up to snuff. But Ducasse also put his name on Mix, which so far is not a success. Jean-Georges Vongerichten has put his name on more New York restaurants than anyone can count, and while some of them are better than others, he has yet to have an actual failure. I can't imagine the last time anyone believed JGV was actually cooking their supper.

As patrons may very well be seated in the dining room, Hesser's complaints about service that is "slipshod" absolutely belongs in the review. Faults in the service lie within the purview of any responsible critic, especially for a restaurant that is charging so much. I fail to see how this is childish. Her paid position required her to deliver a review on a deadline, which she did. If you disagree with the conclusion, that's fair enough. But she did her job. And by delivering an unorthodox conclusion, I would argue that she did a greater service than if she had followed the conventional formula.

It's not so much a defense. More like: "How can you tell the difference?" Many of the comments here suggests an emotional/visceral reaction that smells more like resentment than analysis. "I'm eating in Thomas Keller's restaurant, therefore I'm being cheated unless he cooks every dish for me personally." Even when he had only one restaurant, it didn't work that way.

Thes comment might resonate with me if you can actually demonstrate to us that you can tell the difference. As others have noted here, even when the chef is physically present, he does not personally execute each and every dish, for each and every customer. Any chef who does must be operating on an extremely small scale, because there's only so much that a single human being can do. Again, at the risk of over-burdening us with analogies, there is never any doubt when Frank Sinatra or Paul McCartney is singing. But can you tell me that you've gone to any restaurant, and from the taste alone, inferred with confidence exactly who cooked it? If so, please enlighten us how you did that. JMayer wrote: This is a valid point, although eventually the market will punish those who over-extend themselves. At the moment, practically every reviewer in a position to judge says that Per Se is operating at the same level as The French Laundry, or perhaps even higher. It's absurd only if you can demonstrate that it actually makes a difference. BTW, at current prices, anyone who paid $1000 for two at Per Se would have had to spend a majority of that on beverages. Keller isn't the sommelier, even when he's present.

Perhaps the historians among us can help out, but there's definitely a precedent for re-reviews of prominent restaurants not long after the initial review. Grimes reviewed Alain Ducasse twice in a fairly short time period; Ruth Reichl gave Le Cirque time to clean up its act after her famous "double review," and then went back, restoring the fourth star she had stripped. And bear in mind, these were return visits by the same critic. The next review of Masa will be by a different critic. Let's not get silly; this was obviously a one-off situation. And by the way, the Times's "current list of 'starred' restaurants," as published on its website, is still the old list. It doesn't include any review written since Grimes left, and demoted restaurants are still listed at their former ratings. It also includes some restaurants that have since closed. This tells you how serious the Times is about keeping this list fastidiously up-to-date. We seem to be a lot more preoccupied about it than they are. You are right that the stars serve as a reference for a lot of people, but I see no harm in this unusual case. No one makes a casual decision give Masa a try. Anyone looking to the Times for guidance will quickly find that Hesser considered it a four-star experience, provided you sit at the sushi bar, and a three-star experience otherwise. Hesser has thus done a greater service than if she had chosen one rating or the other. Obviously the system would break down if the Times started doing this regularly. The fact it has been done once does not undermine the system - assuming you believe the system was all that clear-cut to begin with.

Actually, it's been discussed a bit on the Masa thread in the New York forum. This is one of those topics that could go in either forum, as it's about New York and it's also about Food Media. To the contrary, she did write a review; she just decided not to award stars. Your comment seems to imply that the stars are what really count, and the words backing them up are extra baggage. To the contrary, I think it's the words that really count; the stars are just a headline. Otherwise, the Times might as well just publish star ratings alone, and skip the articles altogether. Remember, the "$25 and under" and "Diner's Journal" columns don't come with stars, so you could say that a majority of the Times's restaurant reviews don't come with a rating. Hesser's review was like a Diner's Journal entry that appeared on a Wednesday, instead of a Friday. Hesser has done something remarkable that a lot of people have clamored for: she actually explained the underlying logic between a 3-star vs. a 4-star restaurant. How many times have we commented that the connection between the review and the final rating was hard to comprehend? Here's a reviewer not merely lifting the veil on her thought process, but actually admitting that she's conflicted over what the final rating should be. Would that reviewers admitted such doubts more often! I have great difficulty drawing any analogies to the Jayson Blair incident. She did write a review. The only way to say she didn't is if you believe that the stars are more important than the words. It would be a sad day for journalism if that's the case. LOL! I think it's implicit that Mr. Bruni will review Masa relatively early in his tenure, although not necessarily in a few weeks or months. Now, perhaps you consider that unfair, but when exactly did the Times start dolling out its reviews fairly? A number of Hesser's reviews have been re-evaluations of restaurants previously covered, where there was no particular reason (such as a new chef or a major overhaul) justifying a second look. There have been some complaints about her judgment, but I don't recall any complaints that she had no business writing about these places. There have also been times when the Diner's Journal entry was followed by the main review a very short time later. Yet, we can all name significant restaurants that have never had a Times review at all.

The tasting menu has evidently evolved from where it started a couple of decades ago. These days, I frequently see fixed menus with as few as five courses described as "tasting menus." Perhaps this bastardizes the original concept (or improves on it, depending on your perspective), but a five-course tasting is now commonplace. Where a restaurant also offers service a la carte, the tasting menu is invariably the premium product (as opposed to the prix fixe, which at many places is still the budget product). It seems almost no restaurant aspiring to the high end can be without a tasting menu any more. The hallmark of a tasting menu is that you usually get no choice, or very little choice, as to what the courses will be. And as Robert mentioned, they are smaller courses than you'd find in a typical 3-4 course meal. The idea is still what Robert said - to put yourself totally in the chef's hands, to see the range of what he can do. From my limited experience with tasting menus, I've had the same nagging feeling as Robert: Per Se's five-course prix fixe offers you at least three choices for each course, and sometimes as many as six choices. Per Se's nine-course tasting offers no choice whatsoever, aside from the Foie Gras at a $20.00 supplement. Although the price differential is rather inconsequential at this level, in some ways the five-course is more appealing because I can choose my own courses, and I'll get more of each item I chose. (This is hypothetical for me at the moment, as I can't afford Per Se right now, but I'm torn as to which option I'd choose when/if I ever make it there.)

Florence Fabricant reports in today's Times: The "too mundane" comment caught my eye, as Fabricant's weekly "Off the Menu" is usually a "Just the facts, Ma'am" section. I walked by the other day, and there's a huge gold V on the door. It was between lunch and dinner, so the door was locked, although we peeked through and saw a bit of the "gilded-leaf canopy and ruby-red boudoir setting" that Fabricant referred to.

I would guess not. Masa isn't exactly catering to the type of diners who bring up the Times website on a whim, to see what the paper is recommending these days. Although no formal rating was assigned, anyone who reads the final paragraph will see that AH considers it a four-star experience, provided you sit at the sushi bar. Although slightly off-topic for this thread, it's questionable under what circumstances any NYT review significantly affects a restaurant's bottom line. It has been more than three months since Hesser gave Asiate just one star, but it remains a hot restaurant. I suspect the hip places that "everyone's talking about" aren't much affected by what the Times says - at least not in the short term. Where I think the Times review does matter a lot, is for those restaurants that aren't on anyone's hot list. I'm sure Wallsé's bookings picked up significantly after Hesser's recent review, even though all she was doing was to re-affirm a two-star rating the paper had previously given. So, to bring it back on-topic, I doubt that what Hesser said matters much to Masa. And if there were an effect - positive or negative - it would only be temporary, as the paper is all but promising a second review early in Bruni's tenure.

I don't consider it a waste at all. Presumably we look forward to the reviews for their text, not just for the number of stars at the end. Now, if you think the review is poorly written, that's fair enough (although I saw nothing wrong with it). But if you feel the review is a waste without stars, then we might as well kill the Asimov reviews and the Friday Diner's Journal columns, none of which have stars. Any review reflects no more than the critic's opinion that day, and is subject to be re-evaluated at some point in the indefinite future - either by that critic, or his/her successor. Obviously, we can reasonably expect a Frank Bruni look at Masa within the next half-year or so. Others she reviewed may not be revisited for a very long time, if ever.

The Amanda Hesser era ended today with her final New York Times review. Masa received no rating, but Hesser said: The review on the Times website ends with four question marks where the rating would normally go. Her view that the experience varies tremendously depending on whether you sit at the sushi bar or the tables echoes curiously Adam Platt's comment in New York Magazine mentioned earlier in this thread:

This is a really poor analogy. I don't agree with Bux that all analogies are false, but this one surely is. The executive chef is a designer whose work is replicated many times over by those working under his direction. Even at restaurants where the chef is physically present every day, he usually does not cook every dish himself - the way that Frank Sinatra would sing every song at one of his concerts. If you must have an analogy, think of designer clothing. If you buy a suit by a famous designer, it does not mean that the designer personally sewed the garment together, or that he even saw it. It only means that it was executed according to his design. Of course, whether in restaurants or in clothing, quality requires not just a great design, but also top-notch management to ensure that the production line actually delivers what the artist intended. Thomas Keller has gone so far as to install a live video link between the kitchens in his two restaurants, so that he can keep tabs on one while residing at the other. I don't think any other peripatetic chef has done as much to ensure his quality standards are upheld even when he is not physically present.

Public (210 Elizabeth St, bet. Spring & Prince Sts) is a double James Beard award winner for both restaurant design and restaurant graphics. The motif is that of a public library circa 1964. Who knew that card catalogues and leaded glass restroom doors would be modern chic? Even the menu comes on a clipboard that looks like it's been pulled from manilla card stock. Unfortunately, you can't eat décor. When it comes to food, Public's catalogue entry is: almost, but not quite. My friend's Grilled Mayan Prawns with asparagus were very good, but she thought the chef was too parsimonious with the ingredients, especially the asparagus. My sister-in-law's Tasmanian Sea Trout was very good, but a tad too spicy. My brother's Roast New Zealand Venison Loin was "very good, but not great," for reasons he didn't specify. My Roast Lamb Chump was stringy, and in fact not as good as the accompanying vegetables. So we had a happy evening, for which we had no regrets, but no one in our party of four felt that the food quite lived up to the design. Luckily Public is very reasonably priced for a high-concept place, with mains in the $18-25 range. However, they do clean up on the appetizers (we weren't that hungry, and didn't order any), which are expensive compared to the rest of the menu at $8-19. Desserts are $8.50-$11.50; we shared two between us and were satisfied without being overwhelmed.

A few years ago, BondSt was the Japanese restaurant of the rich and famous. Every review mentioned the celebrities and fashion models one encountered there. It is still doing a healthy business, but you can land a reservation easily on OpenTable, and you score a 1,000-point bonus for requesting an off-peak time, which we did. BondSt has a suave décor of cool earthtones. My brother said it's the kind of restaurant that the chicks on Sex and the City frequent, but which he always assumed didn't really exist. From the unassuming frontage of a townhouse on the eponymous street in NoHo, you don't imagine that such an oasis lies waiting for you inside. An elevator took us to our table on the second floor, emphasizing the feeling of being transported to another world. I ordered the $60 tasting menu for me and my two guests. (Tasting menus are also available at $40, $80, and $100.) We were served eight courses, as follows: 1. Steamed, salted edamame. 2. Vegetable tower in a preparation so fancy it seemed a crime to bite into it. 3. Small squares of tuna tartare, with a respberry sauce and szechuan peppercorns. 4. BBQ quail wings with a beehive of fried soba noodles. The crispy quail wings were a highlight, although gone all too quickly, but the soba noodles were ruined by an overly salty soy sauce. 5. Scallop and shrimp over a sweet potato puree. This was the hit of the evening. 6. A sushi plate, six or seven pieces, with a mixture of salmon, whitefish, yellowtail, tuna roll, and others. 7. Noodle soup with seafood tempura. 8. Dessert - each of us received something different, which we shared, and all of which were wonderful. One was a bento box of mixed sorbets and ices; another was a heavenly preparation resembling strawberry shortcake with heavy cream, served in a sundae bowl; and third, a vanilla custard. We ordered from the lower end of the sake menu, a $45 bottle that was smooth and fruity to the taste - one of the best sakes I've experienced, which may just tell you that I am not a true connoisseur. Service was friendly, attentive, and unpretentious. The total bill for three, including tax and tip, was $285. I can't say it equaled the amazing lunch I had at Nobu a few weeks ago, but it was a great meal nevertheless, which I'd be happy to recommend to anybody. BondSt is at 6 Bond Street between Broadway and Lafayette, about a block from the Bleecker St station on the 6, or two blocks from the Broadway-Lafayette station on the B/D/F/V.

Sorry, I think this should work now.

I went to the Time Warner Mall today. Tourists in shorts were walking into Per Se and walking out with menus, so I gave it a try. Copies of the May 24th menu were ours for the asking, which I've scanned and posted to my website. Click here. The actual menu is three pages, but it appears in this PDF file as six, because I had to scan each page in two parts.

My brother and his wife are visiting from California. They bought tickets the other night for Movin' Out, and on short notice we needed a restaurant reservation. We're dropping some major dough on food this weekend, so I wanted to keep things on the inexpensive side. It's here that OpenTable.com came to the rescue. I chose Le Madeleine (403 W. 43rd, just west of 9th Avenue), a French bistro slightly to the left of the Theater District. Entrées are generally in the $15-20 range, with an entrecote steak priced at $25. Appetizers are from $6-11, and side dishes all at $4. However, as all of the entrées come with appropriate vegetables I really see no need for the side dishes unless you want to load up on such things as braised red cabbage, Israeli couscous, or creamed cannellini beans. You can read the menu at http://www.LeMadeleine.com/, although the website at present is still showing the winter menu; what we saw was a bit different. My sister-in-law chose the Spice Crusted Duck "Aigre Doux," which is served with creamy polenta, braised red cabbage, and caper-currant-cranberry sauce - a clever preparation that was full of diverse flavors. My brother chose the braised Berkshire pork (I didn't know the Berkshires were known for that), which he described as wonderfully tender. I had the grilled marlin, an off-the-menu special, which tasted a lot like swordfish. It was served in a sweet lemon butter sauce. Le Madeleine is clearly oriented to the pre-theater crowd, and service is organized to get patrons out to their shows on time. Service was friendly, if occasionally frantic. There is a lovely garden room with a skylight, as well as a more conventional indoor room that resembles a hundred other bistros. This is a solid pre-theater restaurant off the beaten path of Restaurant Row. It offers inventive fare that, at its relatively low price point, is well worth a try.

That might be just a tad simplistic. One way a restaurant can fail is by delivering a poor product. But the other way is by delivering a product that is excellent for what it is, but is poorly calibrated to the diners one manages to attract. The latter can occur because the marketing campaign is mismatched to the product, or because the aspirations weren't realistic to begin with. I know that certain buildings have the reuptation of being "death locations" for restaurants, and this is one of them. However, I can't think of any intrinsic reason why this type of restaurant couldn't succeed at the Washington Park site. Let's hope Cru does better than its predecessors.

The five-course prix fixe at Per Se is $125, or just eight dollars more than the $117 three-course dinner at Gordon Ramsay. On that basis, I wouldn't describe Per Se as pricey.

I don't know whether it was Reichl or Grimes, but the restaurant has been, and remains, two stars. The Quick Guide to the Best Restaurants in New York on the NYT website consists entirely of ratings from the Reichl/Grimes tenures. No new restaurant reviewed since Grimes departed is on this list, and demoted restaurants (Union Pacific, Montrachet, Compass) are still at their old ratings. Closed restaurants (Lespinasse, Lutèce) still remain. Balthazar is on this list with two stars, which Hesser has now re-affirmed.

I believe it's called "V Steakhouse," not RARE.

The premise still seems flawed: at $26 for chicken pot pie (what is essentially a traditional pub food dish), it needs to be extraordinary. Same for a macaroni side dish at $14.

Isn't this the essence of the "tasting menu" concept? At the end of the meal, you'll have had as much (or more) food as in a typical three-course meal, but any given course won't be full-size. The tasting menu at Per Se is nine courses. Unless you have a wooden leg, those courses have to be a lot smaller, or your tank will be full long before dessert. I do agree with FG that after three bites of a great steak, I feel like I'm just getting started. With due respect to Keller, the best dishes don't wear out their welcome after three bites - they keep you wanting more. But that's the inevitable trade-off of a tasting menu, particularly one with nine courses.

If Mr. Bruni has the same reaction, then Per Se won't get four stars. "Very good" translates to two stars; three is excellent, and four is extraordinary.