oakapple
-
Posts
3,476 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by oakapple
-
-
Nobu and Babbo strike me as good examples, not because they aren't capable of delivering great meals on occasion, but because on merit alone they should not be quite as popular as they are.
-
I'm surprised you didn't respond: Beacon. Although any regular of this forum will be aware of it, Beacon gets practically no press anywhere else.
-
We were there on Saturday (photos here). Our ticket level gave us access to the Caesar's Club, which has fast food-style service, but comfortable restaurant-style seating. None of Danny Meyer's food is served in the Caesar's Club; still, it struck us as far nicer than it needed to be for a stadium.
From our seats, we had a clear view of Shake Shack and Blue Smoke behind center field. Both appeared to be packed all game long, despite inclement weather and a crowd far short of a sell-out. I figure a trip over there would have cost us at least two full innings of game time, maybe three. I don't quite grasp the point of buying a ticket, only to miss a third of the game waiting for food that is probably inferior to its Manhattan equivalent.
-
Particularly under Bruni, that distinction has eroded considerably. Obviously Per Se is in a price category by itself, with dinner there costing two or three times as much as it costs at almost any other 3- or 4-star restaurant except Masa. But the three-star ranks also include places like Convivio, where you can get four courses for $59 and nearly all entrées are below $30. It also includes Ssäm Bar, of which no more needs be said.I have often thought with respect to 3- and 4-star retaurants that, if you can afford to become a "regular" there, comping becomes pretty meaningless as a perk. I mean, it's nice to get some extra courses at Per Se or whatever, but it's really more about the extra attention and improved access once you reach a level of affluence that lets you become a regular at these places.
I think it's a sliding scale. At some restaurants, I've noticed a significant difference on just a second or third visit.Or... how many times does one have to go to become a "regular" at these places? Once a month? Once a quarter? -
For some reason, the Times is only listing those places Frank Bruni has reviewed, which is a bit odd. I am quite sure that Tom Colicchio still believes he is a three-star chef, even though the stars came from Biff Grimes.As a starting point, here are the lists of current four- and three-star restaurants from the New York Times website....These, to my knowledge, are the three-star restaurants named by Reichl or Grimes that Bruni has not either re-confirmed or demoted:
Aquavit
Chanterelle
Craft
Gotham Bar & Grill
JoJo
Kurumazushi
La Grenouille
Nobu & Next Door Nobu (but Bruni did review Nobu 57)
Sushi Yasuda (visited by Bruni in Dining Briefs)
Tabla
Union Square Café
Veritas
-
I don't eat there often, but I'd say that's a pretty good summary of Cercle Rouge. It is capable of doing bistro standards well, but you can't count on it.
-
I do not think you are correct, unless you are referring to "hot & trendy" restaurants run by exceptionally stupid people—and I don't think Corton and Scarpetta fit that description. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that "hot & trendy" does not last forever, and that they will eventually need to survive the way most restaurants do, on a solid backbone of loyal repeat visitors.- Whether correct or not, I generally believe that "hot" & "trendy" places do not do anything extra for you. We have word on Ko, but I suspect the same for a place like Corton, or a place like Scarpetta. I would love to know if this bias is correct. -
The interesting thing about Daniel is that, although many people say that it's a completely different restaurant once you become a regular, I do not recall any food board posts from anyone who had actually done so themselves.Daniel is the obvious answer.(Just thought I'd get it out of the way, so that the interesting discussion could begin.)
Among restaurants popular with food board participants, Momofuku Ssäm Bar seems an obvious candidate, in that: A) There are a large number of people who have become regulars; B) If you know what to order, the food there is quite good; and C) If you make the substantial investment, the staff there do take care of you.
Fat Guy's question is hard to answer. Most people, as he notes, do not invest thousands of dollars in becoming a regular at a restaurant like Daniel or Per Se. Those who do, probably aren't in a position to compare it to many others. By its nature, this is the type of investment you can only make in one place, unless you're one of those folks with the budget and the stomach for eating out practically all the time.
I've always found Fat Guy's suggestion intriguing (this isn't the first time he's made it), but I'd have an awfully empty feeling if I invested all that money, only to find I'd chosen the wrong one.
-
As of course you should be, but I do have some sympathy for the restaurant's difficulty, because it is difficult to predict how long patrons will linger. They have some cushion built into the schedule, but occasionally even that precaution is not enough.p.s. We were comped a bottle of sparkling water for waiting 20 minutes to be seated. I'd rather have been seated promptly. -
I am not sure whether it is inconsistent, or whether it consistently produces dishes that some people like a lot more than others.Given the above, I'm forced to conclude that Corton is an inconsistent restaurant.
We are fans of Corton, but on both of our visits we have found this to be the case.I found service erratic. At times it was rushed, at others slow.
I don't really hold this against the restaurant, though it is probably approaching the outer limit of what is acceptable. However, they ought to comp you a drink (which I am gathering they did not).I was seated 20 minutes after my reservation.
I am not sure if ckkgourmet is defining "inconsistency" the way I do, but I do not recall any complaints to that effect. The cuisine at Gilt was more ambitious and more outré than at Corton. The major critics did not warm up to it—not because it was inconsistent, but because the concept was consistently not to their taste. I think they were wrong, but their opinion carried a lot more weight than mine.Does anyone remember why Gilt failed? Was it inconsistency or "wayward" invention? Or both?
People always debate how much the critics' opinion matters, given that some places are quite successful despite poor reviews. Of course, the reviews at Gilt were not poor. It's just that a place charging $98 prix fixe needs the reviews to be ecstatic, and they certainly were not. Another problem could be that the clientele that Gilt's location attracts was probably looking for much more traditional food, more akin to the restaurant that formerly occupied that space, Le Cirque.
Anyhow, Liebrandt was gone pretty quickly, and his successor, Chris Lee, served much more conservative cuisine. Lee has now moved over to Aureole, and you don't hear much about Gilt these days, although it is still open.
-
Scott Bryan was actually two chefs ago. He was replaced by Ed Cotton, who I believe is now executive chef at BLT Market. And Ed Cotton was replaced last year by Gregory Pugin, who had been executive chef at L'Atelier de Joël Robuchon.This may sound a very redundant question, but since I heard several months ago that Scott Bryan was no longer the chef, I wondered what happened to him or where he went to? I haven't been able to find any information about it. -
Wildwood is a Stephen Hanson place, and therefore inherently derivative. I mean, he explicitly touted that he had hired a pitmaster from Hill Country. On top of that, Wildwood is a mongrel, not wedded to mastering any particular barbecue style. There's just no way that it could have generated the kind of excitement as Hill Country, just as a Peter Luger clone (even a good one) isn't going to generate the same excitement as Luger itself.I think that barbecue in New York in general has settled into sort of a middle period. When there was nothing good, anything remotely good was a source of much excitement in the community of leading-edge eaters. Now that the bar has been raised, it's hard to generate excitement. Hill Country was probably the last big opening to generate major excitement. You just didn't see that kind of enthusiasm when, say, Wildwood opened.I am actually surprised that there haven't been any new "category killer" BBQ places since Hill Country. It seems (to my relatively untrained eye) that if you're a restaurant investor, barbecue is a pretty safe bet, as these places tend to be pretty successful, and they don't require a multi-million dollar Adam Tihany décor.
-
Now that the review cycle is over, I wonder how she's allocating her time between the John Dory and the Spotted Pig?
-
I have just noticed that ChefSlade is new to eG, so I would extend the benefit of the doubt. The original comment was inelegantly put, but obviously he was saying that his own experience was negative. It's usually not a good idea to make a declarative statement about something that, in fact, is a perception based on a limited experience. Even a pro critic like Bruni, who generally gathers a much larger sample than we do, hedges his bets: "The duck was overcooked when I had it," rather than, "This restaurant can't cook duck."With all due respect, it sounds like you had a specific bad experience that has left you with a chip on your shoulder about Tailor.
Sam made a few other mistakes. There was a long feature on Grub Street that breathlessly chronicled the restaurant's birth, which made Mason look foolish. He also opened with a small-plates format (since changed), which left some diners feeling like they were paying an awful lot for just a few bites.The real disaster was how long it took to open the place, which must have cost them a lot of money. -
Except it isn't, and I've read a ton of reviews of this place, besides visiting myself several times. Corton isn't the same genre.Unique, important and bad. I like this style of food when executed well. I like Alinea, Moto, Corton, and Pierre Garngie. I dislike this place and P*ong.It's not that I don't get what he is trying to do, it's just bad.
-
Let's hope they make it through chapter 11 and get some buzz again. NY really needs Tailor to round out its dining scene...there's really nothing else that fills the same niche.
I dont get what niche they are filling. You already have pretentious cocktail bars. You already have forward thinking restaurant like WD50 that has this type of food but, not done poorly.
This place was a disaster from the start. If the chef wasn't so "cool", who would care about this place. This place is a joke on every level.
Actually, the path to success is usually paved by copying what other people are already doing. That's why NYC has so many formula steakhouses, formula trattorias, formula sushi bars, and so forth.
Tailor, on the other hand, did not copy anything. There's WD~50 DNA in its lineage, and there are other serious cocktail bars, but Tailor went its own way, and yeah, they made some mistakes. The Tailor of today is considerably different, and considerably improved over the concept that Mason opened with.
Obviously you have to like this type of food and cocktails, and it's clear the poster does not. The same kind of comments were made about WD~50 when it opened. But assuming you're open to this type of cuisine, Tailor is unique and important.
-
The situations are considerably different. On TC, the contestants are thrown into close quarters, where they share a big communal apartment for several weeks. It is only natural that people are going to get on each other's nerves. The exhausting pace of the challenges, coming one after another, tends to create a ton of pressure all by itself. Of course, the stakes are higher too, as winning TC (or coming close) is perceived to be a real career-maker.What I liked about this show was the same things that I enjoyed about The Next Iron Chef - real professionals, doing smart, good food and respecting one another. Also NO drama - loved that. I have never understood the draw of watching people behaving badly. -
I was surprised how "gushy" they were. I expected the English guy, in particular, to get in some zingers. But this was the first episode, and I think they were feeling their way. Also, to be honest, all four chefs did a pretty good job under these bizarre circumstances.I though the judging was a little "gushy" - "Oh it was so wonderful what you turned out bla bla bla" They really need a couple of peer judges.Peer judging could be awkward. I suspect Tom Colicchio would feel a bit uncomfortable about publicly critiquing chefs like Chris Lee, Anita Lo, and Wylie Dufresne, who are his direct competitors in the NYC restaurant market. And even if he were willing to do it, it's arguably a conflict of interest. It's not the same thing when he's judging Leah Cohen, since nobody would say that Centro Vinoteca and Craft are comparable. But Aureole, Anisa, and WD~50 are on the same level as Colicchio's own restaurants.
-
I had the asparagus dish recently. Although it was perfectly edible, I found it pedestrian. I agree that the Goat Cheese Gnocchi with Caramelized Baby Artichokes is wonderful.
-
Reports like this have been common since Del Posto opened. I don't dispute the accuracy of it (we were underwhelmed, too) but it's just one side of a restaurant that also has its fans. Given the names of the guys behind it, two Michelin stars, three Times stars, and so forth, it can count on a pretty steady stream of curiosity-seekers. It is much more popular at dinner; lunch is known to be dead in that neighborhood.Even with our choice of a cheese plate, we departed the restaurant not stuffed...........but mostly without good memories or an intent to return.I wonder about their future at this price point for less than exciting cuisine.
Of course, like all expensive fine-dining restaurants, Del Posto has felt the recession. But it also has the advantage of deep-pocketed owners who can afford a loss leader, as most of their other places remain insanely popular.
-
I assume the other shoe will drop soon. I mean, you don't leave Cru to become a corporate chef for David Bouley just because you're seeking "new opportunities."
-
It's too soon for the pro reviewers, but this Eater post has a pretty good summary of the early word (including Ruth Reichl and Gourmet), and Gael Greene had a mostly positive blog post this week. Do a bit of googling, and you'll find more of that ilk.is there any word on this yet? i'll be in the area tomorrow at lunchtime and always liked carmellini.thanks
-
Now that you've explained it, I'm afraid I am still having trouble with the math. Obviously you're right that a $35 dinner results in a lower tip than a $70 dinner. But it results in a higher tip than an empty seat.EDIT: Anyways thats not really important. The point is that more covers at a lower check average is not going to help you in a sense, in less you staff the floor really "creatively".So why do you say it's a losing proposition to extend "deals" that pull people into the restaurant, into seats that would otherwise be empty?
-
Oh, I don't either. But the vast majority of high-end places are offering them in some form, and it strikes me as notable that Cru is not.No, I don't see a prix fixe by Cru getting nearly the fame and widely good reputation of Jean George's prix fixe.One change they did make, is to return to the former à la carte format; they opened that way, but were prix fixe for a while. It's not a cheap ALC, though, with most entrées $30 or higher. A tasting menu is still listed, at $135.
"Undervalued" restaurants
in New York: Dining
Posted