oakapple

I'm pretty sure I was told to wear jacket and tie at Picholine when I dined there recently.

The New York Times reports that "Little India" - the stretch of Indian restaurants on 6th Street between 1st & 2nd Avenues - is in decline. Five years ago there were 30 Indian restaurants, and now there are just 19:

Amuse offers an inventive and eclectic menu, beautifully presented, and fairly priced given the overall standard in the city for fine dining restaurants. There are 28 appetizers (priced from $4-18) and 8 mains (priced from $20-30). We sampled but two of each, so your mileage may vary, but everything coming out of the kitchen certainly looked good. There is also a chef's tasting menu (obligatory these days at any restaurant claiming to be serious about food): amuse bouche, four courses, and dessert for $55, or paired with wine $75. This looks to me to be a bargain, although it's not the option we chose. It's on my list of places worth trying again, but I would add that there's a long list of places I've yet to try even once, and these days I put a higher priority on giving myself as many new experiences as I can.

Amuse (108-110 West 18th St., between 6th & 7th Aves) has had as many lives as a cat. It was once Harvey's Chelsea, and then it was The Tonic, and last year it became Amuse after Garry Heyden (formerly of Aureole) took over as chef. William Grimes of the New York Times reaffirmed its two-star status, while observing how improbable it was that a restaurant so often re-invented has managed to maintain its culinary standards. It's been about a year since Grimes's review appeared, and Amuse has evidently changed its concept again. On May 21, 2003, Grimes wrote: Other reviews I found on the web seemed to be based on the same menu Grimes saw, which you can still read on menupages.com. That menu is no more. Although many of the same dishes are still there, the menu is now organized in the more conventional appetizer-entee format. Amuse is no longer trying to be a tapas bar. It does retain some hints of the original idea - the appetizer section is labeled "Tastes for Sampling and Sharing." One who didn't know what the former menu looked like would simply conclude that this is a longer name for "appetizers," and that indeed is how my friend and I took it. Some of the dishes cry out to be shared. I ordered Crisp Cod and Yukon Gold Potato Cakes with Truffle Tartar Sauce to start. Out came four thick half-dollar sized fish cakes - a dish perfectly suited for sharing. Heyden's preparation gave a crispy and spicy excitement to a dish that could otherwise seem an upscale version of Mrs. Paul's fish sticks. My friend ordered Atlantic Salmon Two Ways (house smoked & tartare, with a chive potato cake). This dish was not quite as easy to divide, although I had a taste. Every review has mentioned with approval the Five Hour Braised Short Rib of Beef with Carmelized Sea Scallops, so I had decided well in advance that this would be my main course if it was still available - which it was. The short rib was so tender that one hardly needed a knife, and it tasted like home-cooked brisket. The scallops were a hearty size, with a crisp exterior that led to a tender, beefy center. My friend ordered the Grilled New York Strip Steak, which arrived pre-sliced. Some restaurants serve porterhouse this way, but I've never seen it done to a New York Strip. This, too, could be a vestige of the restaurant's earlier tapas-style menu. The steak had a crispy charred exterior and and a wonderful tender flavor. I'm usually skeptical of ordering a NY Strip anywhere that doesn't specialize in steak, but this dish is worth a try. I reserved Amuse on opentable.com. The restaurant called me twice to confirm I was coming, which led me to think, "Wow, they really must have heavy demand for tables." To the contrary, it was nearly empty when we arrived at 7:00pm, and only about half-full by the time we left at 8:30. The space is comfortable and the contemporary décor pleasant on the eye, with rooms called the apartment, the lounge, the salon, and the library. Both the bar and dining area are amply proportioned, and there appear to be private rooms upstairs, which we didn't investigate. Our dinner for two (appetizers, mains, and coffee) ran to $106, including tax and tip. We didn't drink alcohol, nor did we have dessert.

I just had brunch at at the Gee Whiz Diner, which is not far from Le Zinc, and they were charging $10 for the same dish. Given the vast difference in quality between the two places, $12 at Le Zinc is indeed a great value.

I followed the link. The website says, "Didier Elena, who has worked with Alain Ducasse for over 13 years, heads a team of 20 chefs," so this is the old menu.

How much is the VIP premium? Is it more courses than the usual menu? Did they tell you it was available, or did you know to ask? Did they offer the "2x2", or was it something you requested? Sorry for all the questions!

SethG wrote: Nobu and Per Se are both extremely pricey, with cost placing them above the 98th percentile of New York restaurants. Yet, Seth is happy to include Nobu on his "dollar-for-dollar" list, while doubting that Per Se belongs. Nobu does have a wine list, by the way, and I suspect you can drink beer at Per Se (but who would?). Fat Guy's comment on the economics of Per Se apply equally to both restaurants. Nobu is one of the toughest reservations in town, and has been for many years. They probably could charge 50% more and still fill the place every night.

Somebody mentioned lunch at Jean-Georges. Indeed, lunches are probably the best unsung bargains in high-end eating. Most haute cuisine restaurants that serve lunch have a fairly low-cost prix fixe menu, where you pay a fraction of the price you'd pay at dinner time. Rich suggested we ignore service, decor and ambiance, but he went on to suggest a number of very pricey places where, beyond a doubt, these qualities are part of the bargain. For instance, "One if By Land, Two if By Sea" is a NYT 1-star (which I believe is the just rating), at 3-star prices. Probably your best bet is to find the little-known places where they don't have a huge investment in décor to recoup. Eric Asimov used to review those places, but he has been drifting lately towards higher-profile restaurants. Among places with a citywide reputation, Landmarc may be one of the best bargains. A friend of mine has a system where he looks for places where the price on Zagat is less than double the food rating. For instance, for a Zagat food rating of 22, the price would have to be below $44. This works surprisingly well as a proxy for "good-at-the-price" restaurants. For instance, a Tapas restaurant called Afrazan in TriBeCa (77 Warren St) has a Zagat food rating of 24, and a price of $42/person. William Grimes gave Afrazan a very favorable NYT review.

Neither does the New York Times, and neither does Michelin. Nevertheless, in whatever population a publication chooses to cover, there needs to be some differentiation, or the ratings aren't very meaningful. Zagat does list such places as Gray's Papaya (food rating = 20), Hard Rock Cafe (12), White Horse Tavern (13), Hale and Hearty Soups (20), Starbucks (13), Burger Heaven (16), Baluchi's (18), and Dallas BBQ (14).

I've studied the Zagat NY ratings distributions a little more since posting yesterday, and there is an additional curiosity. I pointed out that 97% of NY restaurants have a Zagat food rating of 16 or higher, 75% are rated in the narrow band from 18-23, and none are rated worse than 9. However, in the Zagat décor ratings, just 62% are rated 16 or higher, and just 36% are in the 18-23 range. There are actually 25 restaurants with Zagat décor ratings worse than 9, including one rated a 2. This tells us that, when it comes to décor, Zagat voters are considerably more willing to assign below-average ratings. I suspect it's because the distinction between good and bad food is awfully difficult to quantify, but most people know a physically ugly space when they see it. In case you were wondering, about 80% of Zagat's service ratings are 16 or higher, and 54% are in the 18-23 range. Just two restaurants have a service rating worse than 9. So Zagat voters are the most discriminating about décor, a bit less discriminating about service, and the least discriminating about the thing that should matter most - the food. Again, these are just the New York ratings, although I shouldn't be surprised to find that the same anomalies exist everywhere Zagat operates. It could be just statistical "noise," or it may be another manifestation of the fact that people are far more likely to vote for restaurants they like. (Another way of looking at it, is that people don't want to admit to themselves that they've wasted their time and money at bad restaurants. I suppose "cognitive dissonance" would be the psychological term for this.)

It's Pascale Le Draoulec's turn to review Landmarc. The NY Daily News critic has decidedly mixed impressions in a two-star review: Like Amanda Hesser, he found the desserts disappointing, notwithstanding the bargain price of $3 apiece. He also finds it distinctly odd that a place that won't take a reservation has only a six-seat bar. Like everyone, he singled out the wine list:

As much as I've come to appreciate eGullet, only a miniscule fraction of diners even know about it. It is also spotty in its coverage, and very difficult to search. (These limitations are inherent to the bulletin board format, not any fault of the good folks who organize eGullet.) Word of mouth is great when you happen to know a lot of people who dine out. Not everybody does. Lastly, any publication that presents "information about the restaurant, average meal price and description of restaurant" is a guide, is it not?

Bux wrote: I don't really have a problem with this - it depends on what they mean by "only part." Many diners quite legitimately consider non-food attributes of a restaurant, such as service, comfort, price, décor, convenience, etc. Most newspaper reviews (and not just the NYTimes) seem to consider the overall experience. Of course, a pretty space and friendly service can't overcome terrible food, but sometimes great food isn't enough by itself. For me, the most telling line in the article was this: So that's how you become an restaurant critic? The even more serious problem with Zagat is an unrealistic bunching of scores around 20. Because the individual voting scale is just 0-3, Zagat gets an awful lot of 2's. (The final score is the average multiplied by 10, and then rounded off.) Here's the distribution of Zagat food ratings in New York. The first number is the rating, and the second is the number of restaurants: 0-8: none 9: 2 10: 2 11: 2 12: 4 13: 4 14: 10 15: 22 16: 48 17: 67 18: 158 19: 174 20: 228 21: 210 22: 178 23: 122 24: 83 25: 61 26: 59 27: 32 28: 9 29: none 30: none So, almost 75% of the restaurants rated are in a bunched scrum between 18-23. And on what's nominally a 0-30 scale, 97% of them are rated 16 or higher. When Zagat asks for opinions on a 0-3 scale, they tend to get a lot of 2's. If they asked on a 0-30 scale (which is the same scale they report on), the numbers would be more spread out. Voters would score an "average" restaurant a 15, instead of scoring it a 2.

Because the U.S. is so vast, I don't really think a nationwide guide - by Michelin or anybody - is particularly useful. France, with a land mass about the size of Texas, can reasonably be considered as a single restaurant market. The U.S. cannot. This is essentially the conclusion Shaw reaches. On the other hand, there clearly is a market for NYC-specific restaurant guides, given that Zagat and others have continued to offer them. Whether Michelin can sell enough guides to justify the expense remains to be seen, but presumably they've thought it out. I suspect their target market will be international visitors.

I don't think she's the first of the city's critics to review it. The opening of this restaurant generated plenty of media buzz, and already it's a dining destination. Whether it stays that way depends on whether they clear up some of the service and quality problems, but it certainly merited a Times review. Probably not. They wouldn't have minded a star, but the fortunes of a place like this don't really ride on the Times's rating, given that they bring in so much brand identity from the New Orleans location. It's almost review-proof, like the Hard Rock Cafe. Since this is a relatively informal place, probably one star is the highest it could realistically hope to attain. In a sense, she was rating it on a zero-to-one scale, not a zero-to-four, because practically no restaurant like Jacques-Imo's has ever been three or four stars, no matter how good it was (a few aberrations excepted). Two stars would be a remote possibility if it were literally perfect at everything it was trying to do. Once you understand that one or perhaps two stars is the practical maximum for this type of place, then it makes sense that a restaurant with as many problems as she found here was rated at zero.

I was invited to lunch today at Mercer Kitchen (corner of Mercer & Prince Streets, in SoHo). It's an impressive space. The ground floor is a bar, with comfortable chairs and small cocktail tables generously spaced. In the back of this area are floor-to-ceiling shelves, suggesting a library. The restaurant proper is downstairs. Part of it is in the vault space below the sidewalk. Look up from your table, and you see (and sometimes hear) people walking over the grillework up above. There is glass in the interstices of the grille, but keep reading: evidently the seal isn't quite perfect. Near the back are several long communal tables - evidently a staple of Jean-Georges Vongerichten's restaurants. These tables look on an open kitchen - yet another JGV staple. The décor is dark and sleek. I ordered from the $20 prix fixe lunch menu. An appetizer of Wild Mushroom Bruschetta with Proschutto failed to impress. I am the world's worst cook, so when my reaction to a dish is, "I could easily do that," it's not a good sign. It seemed to be no more than mushrooms and ham on slightly soggy rye toast. Things improved as we moved to the main course: Roast Duck Breast with Bok Choy, Ramps and Rhubarb. The rhubarb, a pale pink sauce framing thin duck slices, was what made the dish. Dessert - Gianduja Parfait with Coconut Soup - was heavenly. One of my lunch companions speaks seven languages, and he explained that gianduja is a hazelnut chocolate. I wonder why the restaurant couldn't tell us that on the menu. Is "gianduja" a common word? I don't think so. In the middle of the meal, we noticed a flurry of activity around the tables near us. It turned out the staff were hanging umbrellas on the sprinkler pipes just below the grillework that separates the restaurant from the sidewalk above. By the time they were done, the entire front section of the restaurant was ringed with a protective cocoon of upsidedown umbrellas, resembling the famous scene from Mary Poppins. What a bizarre sight! It did not actually rain before we left, so I didn't get to see what that was like. It was a satisfactory meal, but I won't be dying to go back.

We've had plenty of debate over whether Michelin's New York guide will succeed. Since they've already made the decision, the debate is academic till the guide actually comes out. But there is one area where - if they're reading - Michelin perhaps could use some advice. Fat Guy and Marcus are at opposite ends of the will-it-succeed argument, but they agree on one thing. FG wrote: ...and Marcus wrote: Now, it's possible that Michelin thinks their reviewing system is just fine, thank you, and intends to review New York the same way it reviews every other place. But if Marcus is right that Michelin intends to adapt its system to New York's "polyglot dining culture," how do you think they should go about that, without diluting the Michelin brand?

Spice Market has yet another glowing review to its credit. Bob Lape of Crain's New York Business awards 3 stars in this week's issue:

Admin: merging above. A vendor invited me out to lunch at Nobu on Friday. That meant he was paying. We had no reservation, but we were waiting by the door when they opened at 11:45am, and we were seated immediately. My host had done this before, so apparently it's a dependable way to get into Nobu without a rez. We only had to promise that we'd vacate our table by 1:30pm. It was my first visit. For lunch, Nobo offers a wide variety of sushi and sashimi plates, soups and side dishes, several sushi/sashimi assortments in the $23-$28 range, a prix fixe package at $20.04, and the chef's omakase at "$55 to $65 and up." There's also a two-column list running to a closely-spaced half-page, which the waiter called "Chef Nobu's signature dishes." The menu had another name for them, but the waiter's term sticks in my memory. The waiter advised us to skip the sushi, and to order 4 or 5 of the signature dishes, which he told us are served "Tapas style." That means they come one at a time, to be shared by the table. We chose 5 of the signatures - basically the ones the waiter recommended - as well as the Spicy Seafood Soup, which my host had enjoyed on his previous visit. The waiter's descriptions went by at blazing speed, and frankly I wasn't entirely sure what we'd chosen. He told us about a few special dishes not on the menu, and we chose one of these, but I always wonder why a restaurant can't be bothered to put the daily specials on a piece of paper. I think Nobu could manage it. At any rate, it all sounded good. The Spicy Seafood Soup came first, and it reminded me of that old commercial about the soup so chunky you want to eat it with a fork. There was just an amazing amount of seafood packed into the soup bowl. Then came yellowtail with cilantro and jalapeno peppers; I thought the last two ingredients slightly overwhelmed the first. It was the only dish about which I had even the slightest reservations. Our second signature dish was kobe beef, thinly sliced, and prepared with two kinds of spices. A tuna sashimi salad was sheer perfection, with several large slices of rare tuna. Then came squid pasta (hard to explain), and finally a black sea bass so rich and flavorful that I can still taste it. Sorry if the descriptions are a little vague. The more I try to write about food, the more respect I have for those who mange to do it so well. I can see why the waiter steered us away from sushi. My host, who had ordered sushi the last time he visited, confirmed this. The so-called signature dishes are extraordinary and without parallel. The sushi, he said, is of course among the best that can be had, but doesn't stand out from what's available elsewhere quite so conspicuously. With five dishes shared among two of us, plus soup, I left Nobu quite full, and yet sorry that the meal was over. Every dish was creative, full of flavor, perfectly seasoned, and prepared with an obvious attention to every detail. While enjoying our own meal, my host and I watched the parade of plates arriving at adjoining tables. No matter what you order, every dish entertains the eye as much as the taste buds. They are all works of sculpture - "Art in Food," as my host observed. He promised to invite me back again, this time for dinner, in a couple of months or so. I can hardly wait.

Steve Cuozzo reviewed Jack's in this week's New York Post. In an article titled "At Jack's, Be Nimble," he liked the food, but was happy about little else:

Pascale Le Draoulec reviews Mas in today's New York Daily News. It's a rave, earning 3 1/2 stars:

I think I spent more than the typical meal at August. My point was not so much that this is a $73 restaurant, but that by no stretch of the imagination is it a $25 restaurant. Entrées at August are in the $14-$24 range, and appetizers are $7-$11. You can't really call that "expensive" these days, but you will most likely spend above $25 - even before dessert, beverages, taxes and tip. I haven't followed the Asimov column assiduously since its founding, but my understanding is that it's been called "$25-and-under" for about two decades. Given inflation, it simply stands to reason that the column can no longer cover the range of restaurants it originally did, while remaining believably within the $25 range. So I'm suggesting it's time for a new name. I admit that "Informal Dining" is imperfect, for while Asimov's restaurants, including August, are invariably "informal," the main critic doesn't always limit herself to restaurants that are "formal."

I had a very happy experience with August last night. Eric Asimov was absolutely right about the heavenly smell. Arriving at 6:30pm for a pre-theater dinner, I had my choice of tables. When I left an hour later, they had started to fill up but still had two tables free. By 8:30pm, you would definitely have a wait. An outdoor garden is to open within the next couple of weeks. It will have a retractable roof, allowing it to be used year-round. This will double the capacity of the restaurant. I ordered a Ramp Vichysoisse soup to start, which misfired. It is supposed to be served cold. If this were a blind taste test, you'd have trouble deciding whether it was a hot soup that had been left at room temperature too long, or a cold soup that had been allowed to warm up. Things improved markedly with Softshell Crabs Grenobloise, served over a bed of haricots verts. The crabs, served whole, were done to perfect crispness, and an explosion of flavor greeted the tongue as I bit inside. Incidentally, the dish appears on the menu as "Skate Grenobloise," but for now softshell crabs have replaced the skate. (This was fully disclosed before I ordered.) I finished with the daily selection of artisinal cheeses, a selection of three very flavorful and contrasting chesses that the manager informed me he had selected and purchased himself. He recommended a glass of Castilla y Lyon Rioja that perfectly complemented the cheeses without overwhelming them. Service was friendly and prompt, although I thought it took a tad too long for the cheese course to arrive. However, I had left plenty of time to finish dinner, and the Rioja kept me amused. One minor complaint is that the dessert menu had no prices. Silly me, I assumed the desserts would be priced in proportion to the rest of the menu, and didn't bother to ask. Turns out the cheese course was $15, which was only $2 less than my entrée. Although I've no regrets about the evening, I really had no clue that I was selecting a $15 dessert. August doesn't take reservations, but apparently there are exceptions if you get to know them. While I was there, a lady came in and booked a table for 8pm on Sunday for her mother's 91st birthday. "We don't take reservations, but call me at 6pm Sunday to remind me, and I'll set aside a table for you." It was obvious from the conversation that the lady had been in before. I overheard a couple of other conversations along similar lines. It really is time to rename the Asimov column. The arrival of a new critic starting June 1st may provide the occasion to do so. My 3-course meal, with two glasses of wine, ran to $73 including tax and tip. By no rational definition can this be considered a "$25-and-under" restaurant, unless you eat a one-course meal and drink sodas, which is probably not what most people have in mind. Nor is August the first restaurant the Asimov column has covered that stretched the $25 ceiling way beyond plausibility. The name hasn't changed for about 20 years. Thanks to inflation, restaurants that realistically fall within that range, and yet are still worth reviewing, are a vanishing breed. Perhaps "Informal Dining," although less catchy, would be a more sensible title.

The New York Times reports this morning that La Caravelle is to close on May 22. Florence Fabricant says: