oakapple
-
Posts
3,476 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by oakapple
-
-
On the basis of my one meal there, I certainly agree with you. We cannot afford to eat at L'Atelier as often as you do, but if we could, we certainly would.I've been dining a lot at L'Atelier in NY as of late, and I'm somewhat surprised to see that it doesn't garner the same sort of attention for its counter food as some of the other important restaurants in town like JG's, Per Se, Adour and LB. Maybe people don't like paying for the discovery menu, from where the best stuff comes, but some of the best food in NY is available there.As for why it does not get more attention, I think part of it is New Yorkers' characteristic aversion to imports. JG and Le B exist in New York, and nowhere else. Per Se is the rare example of a luxury restaurant that has succeeded without the chef living here—but in any case it is part of a chain of two, not one of many. Adour isn't really in the same category as the others. I don't get any sense that New Yorkers have embraced it to any great degree. (It is also quite a bit less expensive.)
The price of the discovery menu at L'Atelier is dwarfs the price of dinner at the other places you mentioned except for Per Se. The whole Per Se experience (whether you're a fan of it or not) is really in a category unto itself.
-
We were there on Friday night. LPShanet's comments are directionally correct, but he puts it more harshly than I would.
For the food on the plate, the entrées are indeed about 25% more expensive than they deserve to be, with nothing under $32 on the current menu. (The appetizer premium is not as steep; perhaps 10%.) Of course, it is still good food—just a tad over-priced if all you are looking for is nourishment.
However, it is a wonderful room, beautifully appointed, and we've found service to be excellent on both of our visits. Those amenities have value, and on the right occasion (which this was) I do not mind paying for them. I've encountered none of the condescension that LPShanet referred to.
The wine list doesn't offer much for the budget-conscious, but I guess they've concluded they don't have to. The restaurant was full on a Friday evening, as I've found it to be whenever I've reserved, or tried to.
I am not so sure about that. The prix fixe is $68 for four courses. That's consistent with the overall price level of the restaurant, but certainly didn't strike us as a bargain.NB: the prix fixe was a good addition to their menu, and was desperately needed.The arrangement of it, too, is as confusing as anything I've seen. The prix fixe appears on the first page of the menu, with two choices for each of the three savory courses. But then, the server explains that any of the prix fixe items can be ordered à la carte, and any item from the carte can be substituted into the prix fixe at no extra charge. So what is the point of listing them that way, when everything is interchangeable?
-
I don't carry the water bucket for Tribeca Grill, but I do question the characterization of its food as "dated," which imparts a negative connotation merely because the restaurant continues to do what it has always done, at pretty much the quality level it has always had. I am not really sure that any cuisine is dated. Okay, maybe if you come up with some Escoffier recipe that no one has made in 50 years, but not Tribeca Grill.I love the wine program at Tribeca Grill, and used to attend many tasting events and wine dinners there, but eventually lost interest due to the relatively mundane, dated quality of the food. -
It's funny you should say that, as your actual review did an excellent job of persuading me that I shouldn't bother. It sounds like the quality varies widely, and for $60 (even including alcohol) it's hard to believe that one cannot do better.$60/person all in with a round of cocktails and two bottles of wine for four people. With that much alcohol you would almost certainly do worse for the same money anywhere else. -
First of all: unless money is no object, you should inquire in advance about the corkage policy. Not all restaurants allow outside wine, and those that do may charge a big bundle.1) They're meeting their wine broker for dinner on a Monday night. They'll have two spectacular bottles of Burgundy with them, one white and one red. The broker suggested Tribeca Grill, but they're wondering about the quality of the food. The alternatives they mentioned were Perilla, Perry Street and La Sirène. What's the quality at those places?Objectively, Perry St. is probably the best of the restaurants you named. Tribeca Grill doesn't get a lot of press, but I have never had a bad meal there. It is very good, solid American food, but it's not a culinary trend-setter. Perilla has the Top Chef story behind it, but I don't think it's on the same level.
La Sirène is a small French bistro, much more casual and unassuming than any of the others. One point in its favor is that it's BYO, so there is no corkage charge there.
Alto is probably the best choice among that bunch. WD~50 would also be very good, provided you're into avant-garde cuisine. I'm reading good things about the new chef at Aureole, but there hasn't been much press yet, as I think the critics are waiting until it moves into the new space. Telepan is highly uneven, and not on a par with any of the others you mentioned.2) For another evening, they're debating between Aureole (which they said looks great but pricey -- they can afford it, but maybe WD-50 is their splurge for this trip); Telepan (reasonably priced); and Alto (currently waiving the corkage fee). Any thoughts about these? -
As far as I can tell from a quick google search, it was ignored by all of the other pro critics who publish weekly reviews (Platt, Richman, Restaurant Girl, Cheshes, Sutton, Cuozzo, Sietsema, DiGregorio, Tables for Two). Maybe I missed one, but it clearly wasn't one of those places (like Corton or the John Dory) that every critic knew they had to visit. That's what I mean by "did not cry out to be reviewed". Certain places are so newsworthy that they can't be ignored, and the Charles isn't in that category.
Marc, just because the restaurant was doing its best to appear exclusive, doesn't mean that it wasn't review worthy.I think what it says is that the current restaurant scene bores him — hence, the selection of a restaurant that did not really cry out to be reviewed, coupled with a format that was meant to entertain more than inform.The pro critics spend an awful lot of time copy-catting each other, so in a way it's good to see that rare review when a critic goes out of his way to point out something the others had missed. But as Bruni himself once said, it's somewhat counter-intuitive to call attention to a place, for the purpose of telling people to avoid it. That is why, from a purely journalistic standpoint, I think the zero-star reviews should be confined to the places that must be reviewed (e.g. Secession), and the Charles clearly wasn't such a place. Since he can't review every restaurant in town, he ought to use his infrequent "discretionary" reviews—those he has a choice about writing—to call attention to restaurants that are worthy of it.
So my sense is that this review was more about a bored critic finding a way to have fun, rather than telling us something we needed to know. Mind you, if he's going to review an unimportant restaurant, finding a fun way to do it is probably the best approach.
-
I think what it says is that the current restaurant scene bores him — hence, the selection of a restaurant that did not really cry out to be reviewed, coupled with a format that was meant to entertain more than inform.It really wasn't any different than his review of the Waverly Inn, which I suppose is no excuse but at least he was trying to make the best out of what's clearly a bad situation. -
I read that it's going to be called "DFF".Anyone know if they're going to keep the name now that they're operating six days a week? forgot to ask. -
The food board community is overwhelmingly skewed towards less expensive places (sort of like the world in general). A place like Corton, with Liebrandt at the helm, naturally gets attention. But it's telling that most people wouldn't even know the chef's name at Gilt, unless they look it up. Gilt may be doing great stuff (I had a very nice meal there under Chef Lee), but it has flown under the radar since Paul left.Gilt doesn't get much press on egullet that I've noticed, but I think it should. I know since liebrandt left for Corton he took some of egullet with him, but Gilt deserves to be recognized as a great addition to New York selection of fine dining. -
I thought Bruni said he liked the interior.Bruni's critiquing of the interior design was pretty annoying. -
That, in a nutshell, is why Bouley doesn't attract the same level of attention as other restaurants in its genre.Nice, overly ornate room, good but unspectacular food, not too expensive but cheap by any means either. -
Bruni has acknowledged elsewhere that reviews are more about the "story," given that most readers will never visit the restaurant. Also, it is not that long a menu. He focused on the more innovative dishes.I totally agree - he seems short on the food description and long on the interior design.In the paper, at least half the review is history, interior design and desserts before he even gets to the food, which seemed to me to be very superficially discussed for a 3 star restaurant.
-
According to Frank Bruni, the portions “like most of the tasting menu’s, will be slightly larger than appetizers but much smaller than conventional entrees.” If that holds up, it suggests that you probably need to spend around $100 to get something resembling a full meal. That's not bad compared to the dining room, but it means that Per Se remains a pretty expensive place, even in the "salon."I walked into Per Se this evening and looked at the lounge menu: They are about 8-10 options, with one cheese selection, a selection of sorbets, and one desert. I would bet that a meal would probably start with the gougeres and the salmon cornet as well. The prices varied between $25-50. The foie was about $48. Unfortunately, I didn't ask portion size but plan on eating in the lounge sometime in the next week.Bruni got a couple of other tidbits in an interview with Keller. The salon won't take reservations initially, but that “could change quickly, though, he said. The restaurant is waiting to see how much traffic it gets for the salon menu, at what pace, etc..”
He also mentions that Per Se has been hit a lot harder than the French Laundry. That's because private dining was always a big part of Per Se's business model, but not so much at the French Laundry. Although tables at Per Se are no longer hard to come by, my sense is that the main dining room is still full most of the time.
-
I think it merely shows that Momofuku Ko, like all expensive restaurants, is not recession-proof. They are still selling every seat, which is more than most restaurants can say.How is it that I've seen six two-tops available at Momofuku-ko two times after midnight this week? They eventually get taken, but there's a lot of second thinking going on.
The general consensus has been that food of this quality would cost at least 50% more in a "real restaurant." If you thought the food wasn't that good anyway, then it means in a "real restaurant" you would feel even more cheated than you already were.I didn't have the time to post anything after my visit four weeks ago, but there were two very good dishes and the rest were a poke in the eye of real gastronomy. Chang has his gifts; too bad they get wasted in a place that feels more like a tight-fisted business plan than a real restaurant.To me, Momofuku Ko seems consistent with the business plan of all the other Chang restaurants. (And if you want to make money, you do need to have a plan, don't you?) Chang has been wildly successful at it, so I don't expect him to change.
-
You shouldn't be intimidated in any restaurant; just remember that you are the customer. Having said that, WD~50 is pretty unpretentious as restaurants go. It is not the typical luxury restaurant. If you can afford it, I think the tasting menu is definitely the way to go, as you'll sample a much wider cross-section of the cuisine.Hi..We just made reservations for my birthday in April and plan to have the tasting menu....It will be our first trip to WD-50 and we are a tiny bit scared..or rather intimidated...any suggestions ...any recommendations...all advice welcome ...parking suggestions also...thanks a lot in advance..we have eaten in most of the other luxury restaurants in NY and just feel we have missed something by not eating here.....
-
The answer, for me, is yes. I do consider Ozersky to be helpful. However, I find no contradiction in enjoying what is good about his work, while being frustrated with limitations that (as I see it) could be quite easily cured.Take Ozersky, for example, and the supposed shilling for La Frieda. Even if Ozersky's efforts have unfairly elevated La Frieda, the probable alternative to the supposedly shilled information is not the same amount of perfectly unbiased information, but either no information or less information. As it is, Ozersky has introduced a lot of us to a part of the food chain that otherwise would have remained shrouded. Isn't that helpful, even if Ozersky might be too taken with La Frieda (if indeed he is)? -
As Holly noted, it is possible to be both an enthusiast and a critic. I am an enthusiast too. I only visit restaurants I expect to like, and I only order dishes I expect to like. If I were a pro critic, I would be obligated to visit a much wider range of restaurants, and to order a much wider range of food. But even as an enthusiast, if it should happen that I am disappointed, I say so. I would prefer that this never happens, since I am spending my own money, but the reality is that restaurants screw up sometimes.Josh considers himself an "enthusiaast" rather than a critic, a designation I apply to myself as well. The difference is that an enthusiast tends to write about what he likes, while a critic looks to pick things apart. I write about my meals, but unless something strikes me as really off or really annoys me, I tend not to write about lesser experiences. That doesn't interest me to do that, though I'm glad that there are critics who do.Josh Ozersky clearly is a critic, in the sense that he publishes material designated as "reviews." What's more, the act of deciding which places to write about is "criticism," even if he does not tell us how he arrived at the decision. I doubt that he is looking to me for career advice, but I think his reputation would be enhanced if he wrote negative reviews too. It would prove that, despite all the free food and publicist-massaged access he gets, he really can call a spade a spade. He claims he can, but he provides no evidence of it.
-
I am not attacking his ethics. I am questioning his independence. There is nothing unethical about being the sport and toy of publicists. I mean, publicists aren't independent, are they? We don't consider them unethical; we accept them for what they are.I think when attacking someone's ethics, good taste requires being specific.Publicists often supply useful information. Josh often supplies useful information. I believe Josh may be naive about his ability to separate his considered opinion from the manipulation of the people who feed him. But it is not unethical to be naive.
Of course, we could just say that we disagree with him, and leave it at that. But we do tend to "diagnose" our critics. Frank Bruni, for instance, is too inexperienced; Adam Platt is too bored. (I know Josh says he isn't a critic, but as there are plenty of "reviews" with his name on them, I trust I'm on safe ground when I disbelieve him on that point.)
So yeah, I think that Josh is too influenced by the chefs and publicists who feed him free stuff. I do not believe he is doing anything unethical.
-
True, but you're not getting comped all over town, or at least, not to my knowledge. Josh is saying, "Yeah, I hang out with publicists and get mounds of free stuff, but I'm so indepenent I can freeze out the hype, and only report on what's really good." You can choose to believe that, or you can conclude he's getting played. I think he's getting played.Yikes. As someone with some pretty bad blindspots myself -- as well as idiosyncratic preferences that others don't share -- I usually assume that everyone else has them too. Those who live in glass houses, all that. -
We dined at Commerce when it was new, and our conclusion was: "We'll never eat there again." And we haven't.
-
My difficulty is that there are so many cases when his enthusiasm is just not consistent with the "received opinion" of critics and other food board writers who are known not to be compromised. So either Cutlets is compromised or his judgment has some pretty bad blind spots. Because he seems to be an extremely intelligent guy, I assume he is compromised, as that is the most logical explanation for an otherwise smart guy making such bad calls.At first it seemed maybe there was an actual claim here. But it turns out that this is just a variant of the conspiracy theory that says all media are tools of the military industrial complex and not to be trusted. -
Every restaurant has its off-days, but ginger chef's experience is certainly at the bottom end of any report I have ever read about Per Se. In three visits, it has never been less than excellent.
-
My sense is, yeah, food alone won't do it.Trying to bribe someone like Mr. Cutlets with a free plate of food would be about as effective as trying to bribe the owners of Imperial Beef with a bowl of Wagyu chili. -
There is a pretty wide variety of ending times at Lincoln Center. The New York Philharmonic, for instance, hardly ever goes past 9:30, when every restaurant is still seating. The Metropolitan Opera, on the other hand, often gets out past 11:00, which takes most restaurants out of the picture, except on Friday and Saturday nights, when they tend to be open later.
The Big NY Dining "blogs"
in New York: Dining
Posted