oakapple

I based the comment on the fact that the manager told me they're renovating to bring in more business, which suggests the original concept hasn't lived up entirely to expectations.

MJ Grill (110 John Street, just west of Pearl Street) is the casual sibling of MarkJoseph Steakhouse. I dropped in last night, and from the thick crowd at the front of the bar I thought I might have trouble getting seated. Once past the mass of people congregating near the open-air storefront, I found a different story: the dining room was practically empty. MJ Grill really is two places in one: the bar, which is unremarkable; and the dining room, which is surprisingly stylish, with its elegant light fixtures, artwork, and a working fireplace. Unfortunately, I was about the only one there appreciating them. The manager conceded that the dining room draws more of a lunch crowd. He's been there only a month (promoted from the mother ship), and he promised a renovation in the next few weeks that'll make MJ Grill more of an evening destination. Or so they hope. The one thing he's not changing is the food. I tried the MJ BBQ Spareribs, which is a bargain at $15.95, or about the same price as Houlihan's. They were achingly tender, fell off the bone and melted in my mouth. The dish was served with mixed seasonal vegetables (carrots, beans, mushrooms) and french fries. Another day I'll have to try the burger, which has received plenty of praise here. The MJ Grill menu hasn't decided what it wants to be. As you start reading, you think you're looking at enhanced barfood: burgers, salads, sandwiches. Then you get to some mid-priced entrées, like ribs, chicken, and fish. Last, you find the $40 filet mignon and the $39 28 oz. bone-in ribeye, which are high-end steakhouse prices for a house with decidedly casual aspirations. There are daily specials written on the blackboard outside, which yesterday included a black bean soup, baked salmon, and a veal chop.

Perhaps a tad unfair, as I don't recall any restaurant issuing a press release about how their reservations policy works. Generally the only thing you know is: they take them, or they don't.

Per Se is not currently listed on OpenTable.com.

If you ignore economics, Marcus's observations are entirely valid. It is indeed true that, at one review per week, the New York Times can't take even a passing swipe at maintaining accurate and up-to-date ratings of the full NYC restaurant scene. But the resources the Times devotes to restaurant reviewing - already a vast sum, far exceeding what any other local publication spends - have to be in line with the economic value of the reviews. The Times is a publicly-traded company, which is in business to make a profit. Of course, we would like to see five restaurant reviews per week. No doubt the science buffs wish the science section were daily, rather than just Tuesdays. The rail fans would like to see a transit story every day. The line must be drawn somewhere. As many have noted here, the Michelin inspectors may not be revisiting restaurants quite as often as we've been led to believe - even in France, their home territory. If Michelin is able to launch and sustain in New York the full-scale reviewing program of our dreams, I'll be both pleased and impressed. They'll need to sell an awful lot of Red Guides here to do that, in a market that's already saturated with coverage. Even Michelin needs to calibrate its expenditures to the revenues realistically achievable.

Pascale Le Draoulec reviews August in today's New York Daily News, awarding two stars: Eric Asimov also had generally favorable comments in his April 28 "$25 and Under" column. The Asimov column retains that quaint moniker almost two decades after he started it, although at August you're highly unlikely stay under $25 unless you order just a main course and soft drinks. Even then you might not make it, as August's entrées top out at $24, just barely clearing the bar for Asimov's column. With a new reviewer coming in next month, is it time for a re-think? The main rap against August is that it doesn't take reservations, and it has "fewer seats than August has days." Perhaps it's best to wait till later this month, when an outdoor garden will open, doubling the restaurant's capacity. Until the buzz dies down, I suspect you're in for a long wait unless you show up very early or very late. August is at 359 Bleecker St, between Charles and W. 10th.

Alex, I'll take "How to ruin a restaurant" for $200, please. It didn't have to happen. New owners closed it for a very lengthy renovation that, by most accounts, was not needed. When it opened (2 yrs later?), all of the regulars had found other places to patronize.

What exactly does the Bib Gourmand symbol signify?

The system is actually quite simple, although the reviewer never tells you how the calculation was done. First she asks herself, "What kind of place is this, if everything is done well?" For Wallse, the answer was apparently "a two-star place." She then ate there several times, and concluded that everything was done well. Therefore, two stars were awarded. To give another recent example, at Montrachet the first answer clearly was "a three-star place," since Montrachet had had three stars historically. She then ate there several times, and concluded that things were no longer up-to-snuff. Therefore, two stars were awarded. Both reviews were two stars, but the Montrachet review read like a riot act, and the Wallse review contained nothing but praise. This is not just a Hesserism. From the dawn of time, any NYT two-star review could be a two-star concept performing well, a three-star concept not quite clicking, or a four-star concept that's a disaster. Mind you, I am not saying that she has pegged Wallse accurately. I'm just explaining the reason why a restaurant can legitimately receive two stars even though the reviewer "didn't seem to dislike anything."

I'm not sure if that's in reference to my post, but I don't think anyone has said Michelin is arrogant. You are absolutely correct - the Times and Michelin systems are just different. However, as FG observed, the NYT's system was designed for the New York market; Michelin's wasn't, and past experience suggests it hasn't worked especially well anywhere but in France. Oh, there are quite a few of them, and I agree that you can't go too far wrong eating at any of the restaurants listed. But I question the utility of a system that assigns a single star to two restaurants, and leaves the rest an undifferentiated scrum.

In my view, a rating system based on stars is useful only if there's a reasonable number of restaurants in each category. Let me give a concrete example: Last year, I spent the better part of five months working in Edinburgh, Scotland. This is a major city, and it has just two restaurants with one Michelin star, and none with two or three. Now, I am not saying that Michelin has mis-rated the city of Edinburgh; by its historical standards, it may be that no other restaurants in the city deserve as much as a single star. But when a major city has just two rated restaurants, the guide isn't of much use if you're planning a week's visit, much less an extended stay. I entirely agree with Fat Guy about where the NYC restaurant population will rank, if Michelin follows its historical standards. The current NYTimes one- & two-stars, and some of the three-stars, will get zero. With so few of the city's restaurants carrying any rating, most visitors won't find the guide all that helpful, and for natives there is already an abundance of information.

I don't think they do three turns at Per Se. It sounds like they've got two seatings on July 4th, and you got your choice. If it's really true that the res line is first-come, first-served, starting at 10am, two months in advance, then they can't have filled the whole restaurant in 1 second.

I haven't eaten at Thalassa, but I walked in recently, and the management kindly gave me a tour and walked me through every species of fish on the ice bar. It is a very nicely designed space. Steve Cuozzo of The New York Post had an article a few weeks ago that took Greek restaurants to task for pricing fish by the pound. Thalassa wasn't mentioned by name, but it clearly was in his sights. His point: most diners want to have some idea what the bill is going to be. As I understand it, you order the John Dory, they pick out a whole fish, and that's what you get. If it's enough to feed 4 people, and only 2 of you are there, you still get the whole fish, and your bill is the per-pound price times the weight. It's not like ordering a $35 entree and paying $35. You order the fish, roll the dice, and at the end of the evening find out the damage to your credit card. Is that correct? Incidentally, I believe Thalassa has never had a NYTimes review, or even a Diner's Journal entry, which for a restaurant on this level is a significant omission.

In Europe, to gain even one star is quite an accomplishment. Zagat, on the other hand, rates hundreds of restaurants, from ADNY to Gray's Papaya. To compare Michelin and Zagat is really apples to oranges---they are doing different things, for very different audiences.

I'm pretty sure it was 2 1/2 stars.

I've been invited to dinner at Nobu next week. I've never been, so obviously I'm looking forward to the experience. My host, who is not from New York, said that he called the restaurant, and they told him they don't take reservations for parties of less than six people, but at 6:30pm we "shouldn't have to wait too long." This contradicts everything I've ever heard about getting into Nobu, and makes me wonder if perhaps he's confusing it with "Nobu, Next Door." Can this be true?

In today's Crain's New York Business, Bob Lape reviews Wallse, awarding it 3 out of 4 stars: Fat Guy observed recently that the New York Times is far from being the only paper with a full-scale reviewing program. With the Times's performance being so erratic nowadays, it's worth giving some notice to the "other" reviewers in town. One point that sets Lape's reviews apart: he tells you the wine markup, which for Wallse is 140%-200%. For those who don't follow Crain's, Lape's reviews are usually of newer places, so I'm not sure why he reviewed Wallse, except perhaps to take note of the aforementioned fourth birthday. His last three were Geisha (2 1/2 stars), Riingo (2 stars), and Landmarc (2 stars)---all new places. Before Landmarc he reviewed Le Perigord, again to take note of a birthday (the 40th). Incidentally, the link offered above takes you to Crain's restaurant page. The contents of the page change weekly, on Mondays.

Regardless of what happens, this news seems to confirm that Food Has Arrived.

I'm particularly curious about the decision to offer so many half-bottles. You don't often find half-bottles in stores. Does the restaurant have to make a side deal with a few vineyards? Or, do certain vineyards make a point of marketing half-bottles just to the restaurant industry?

You're right that, at least on this thread, only you and Marcus seem to think this matters. But you're wrong that everybody else has been deceived. To the contrary, the methodological flaw of the survey is obvious. No great insight is required to see this. My reaction is: it's a magazine poll...who cares? Or, as a previous poster sarcastically put it, quel désastre! Indeed, your own post militates against your argument. If Restaurant Magazine is "insignificant," then why are you so exercised about what it says? To paraphrase Fat Guy (who doesn't seem to have been deceived either), it's no worse than Zagat, and arguably better due to the expertise of the voters. A whole lot more people read Zagat than Restaurant Magazine, and Life As We Know It goes on.

In today's New York Post, Steve Cuozzo gives Megu two stars. The article is called "Megubucks." You'll find it here. Given the number of complaints Cuozzo has, I'm surprised he awards two stars.

If resources weren't an issue, I'd have a large, full-time, highly-qualified (and appropriately paid) staff, with an expense account about equal to the GDP of Monaco. As that isn't going to happen, I have a few more modest suggestions: eGullet's forum-based reviews are irregular, disjointed, non-systematic, and of widely varying quality. I enjoy them for what they are, but they aren't a rating system. At the risk of sounding heretical, I think the Zagat guide is organized about the way you want. The problem with Zagat is the lack of rigor in the numbers themselves. Yet, Zagat has many desirable attributes: It shows each's restaurant's correct name, address, and telephone number It rates food, service, and decor separately It gives you a good idea of the price range Neighborhoods and cuisines are classified granularly There's a brief sample of multiple reviewers' comments It captures other useful indicia (accepts reservations, accepts credit cards, open Sundays, serves breakfast, serves lunch, romantic restaurant, great view, kid-friendly, etc.) You can search by most of the above data elements. As a restaurant search engine, Zagat is actually pretty good, once you understand that the ratings themselves aren't terribly meaningful. In the ideal eGullet ratings, I would also link to more detailed reviews, and also to the restaurant's own website (if it has one). As noted above, I would rate food, service, and decor separately, and perhaps include an overall composite rating. This structure would satisfy those who care only about the food, and it would also satisfy those who are interested in the "overall experience." I like one-to-four stars, rather than a numerical rating of one-to-twenty (Gayot) or one-to-thirty (Zagat). In a four-star rating, it's easier to establish and maintain rating criteria consistently. If you allow half-stars, that gives you nine gradations (including zero stars), and that's more than enough. Of course, implicit in this is that you try to define the star criteria--something that neither the NYTimes or Michelin has done very well. I think the system needs to formally recognize the restaurant's intent (or apparent intent). A two-star restaurant can be a two-star concept executed well, a three-star concept with a few problems, or a four-star concept that's failing abysmally. Someone searching for a two-star restaurant probably wants the first kind, not the second or the third. In my view, you need separate surveys for each city or region that you want to cover. For restaurants in Spain and Turkey to be on the same list is really useless, except as a lively topic of conversation. I don't think there is any economically-feasible methodology that would allow you to mix results from different geographies with any rigor, because the reviewers will have too little in common. Within a city or region, the main question is: are you trying to rate a broad range (like Zagat), or only the high-end restaurants (like Michelin)? In a major international city, there are thousands of restaurants. If you're covering only the top, say, 50-100 of them, it shouldn't be too difficult to assemble a group of qualified reviewers, who have eaten at enough of those top restaurants to have relevant experience in common. If you're trying to cover the area more broadly, then I think the reviewers need to be qualified by "category." For instance, somebody who regularly eats in noodle shops and pizza parlors might be extraordinarily well qualified to vote in those categories. But if that same person splurges one day at Jean-Georges, that does not qualify her to vote for Jean-Georges, when she hasn't tried any of the other restaurants in its class. Do separate surveys in each city or region where there is sufficient critical mass to get enough qualified voters. Put restaurants in categories, and then rank by stars. Don't attempt to impose a strict rank ordering, as no methodology will reliably differentiate #18 from #22. Marcus was concerned that restaurants could be highly rated simply because they are oft-visited. As he put it: Normalization introduces the opposite problem: a seldom-visited restaurant that hasn't proved itself across a wide spectrum of voters might get rated more highly than it deserves. I wouldn't try to normalize. A restaurant needs to get at least N votes. If it has that many, and the average is 3 stars, then it's a 3-star restaurant. Zagat has a little symbol that it uses to designate restaurants that have had a small number of votes, to signal that the rating might be less reliable. Zagat's notation for restaurants garnering mixed reviews is also useful (i.e., where the range of votes wide, suggesting uneven food/service). Lastly, I would suggest moving this branch of the discussion to a new thread, as I think many people who would contribute are tired of the heated temperature of the Restaurant Magazine debate.

Métisse is a French bistro located at 239 W. 105th St, just slightly east of Broadway. It is about 2 blocks from the 103rd St Station on the #1 line. A friend and I ate at Métisse on Saturday evening, as we were already going to be in that part of town, and wanted to remain up there. I ordered breaded shrimps with a sweet dipping sauce to start, followed by calf's liver. My friend had cream of asparagus soup, followed by grilled sea bass. We were both satisfied, with the caveat that my friend found her soup a tad too salty. I had never ordered calf's liver as an entree before, but I'm the adventurous type and was looking for an something new. It was indescribably beguiling, with a crispy exterior and that cool, squishy livery taste inside. The portion was shaped like a very large sausage. I don't know if that's how it's usually served, since I don't normally order this dish. The restaurant was full without being over-crowded. We waited at the bar for about 20-25 minutes before being seated. Once seated, service was more than adequate. The ambient noise does not overwhelm the senses, as can happen at some bistros. There are two lovely outdoor tables on a porch below street level, and the inside is decorated tastefully. It's a suitable date place, in a neighborhood where one doesn't ordinarily think of looking. Dinner for two ran to $72, including tax and tip. We did not have alcohol.

But the Fulton Fish Market is not a great civic monument, or even a monument of any kind. It's a wholesale fish market, and assuming Fat Guy's comments to be correct (which I have no reason to doubt), not even particularly well suited to its function. And besides, you write as if redevelopment is always presumptively a mistake, and I wouldn't make that presumption. Progress isn't always backwards.

The reader could just as easily have posted, "Was just checking the NY Times website. Asiate and Compass both received one star recently. Which would you recommend of these two?" Translation: Yes, of course people pick up magazines and ask questions about what what they've read.