oakapple

I am still waiting to see Colicchio's explanation. On the Bravo Blog, Toby says he thought that Hosea should go home, but was outvoted by Colicchio.They will probably never admit it, but I agree they must have been judging based on the "body of work." Based on the comments we saw, it seemed to be clear that Stephan had cooked the worst dish, and he should have been sent home if you were judging that challenge in isolation. Of course, I do agree that it would be lunacy to have Leah in the final 4 in place of Stephan, but that's what you'd come up with if the rules were interpreted literally. (Of course, it's also possible that the episode was cleverly edited to make it seem like Stephan was doomed, only so that they could surprise us in the end.

That's too cruel and overly simplistic. The fact is, a truly creative dish generally takes multiple iterations to get right. For instance, Wylie Dufresne took about a year to perfect the Eggs Benedict dish he serves at WD~50. At El Bulli, Ferran Adria takes half the year off to experiment with the dishes he'll be serving the following season at the restaurant.The format of Top Chef doesn't allow time for trial and error. The "one mistake and you're done" format does not encourage risk-taking. That doesn't mean the chefs on the show are incapable of it. They are playing intelligently within the rules.

It's rather remarkable this place does not have a website. I think you're quite likely to find Degustation more interesting than Babbo. As a practical matter, a reservation at Babbo less than a month in advance will either be unavailable or at an undesirable time (5:15 or 10:00), and I wouldn't trust a celebration dinner to a walk-in table.

One star ← Now, that was a review that Bloomfield was entitled to be upset about.

It wasn't captured on camera. They were focused on something else, and suddenly there was a shriek from the opposite end of the kitchen.

Ed Levine twittered that April Bloomfield was disappointed with 2 stars. That's what Frank Bruni hath wrought with giving 3 stars to marginal places like Ssäm Bar, Matsugen and Dovetail. Now every restaurant thinks they're a 3-star candidate. Like weinoo, I thought that the John Dory was serving solid 2-star food (in the good sense—meaning "very good").

What, in the name of all that is sacred and true, justifies the price tag on that burger? Or, am I just way out of touch with New York prices? ← Well, what really struck me was that it was only $5 more than I paid for a premium burger+fries at City Burger. But City Burger is a fast-food joint with styrofoam containers, plastic trays, and minimal counter seating. Beacon is a full-service restaurant, with waiters, white tablecloths, cloth napkins, silverware, bread service, etc. On top of that, their burger was better (thicker, juicier, tastier) than the one Cutlets has been shilling at City Burger, and their fries were better too.If you assume the City Burger offering is fairly priced, I think $5 more at Beacon is fair too.

The g/f and I stopped in for a pre-opera meal last night—our first visit. We had a rather humble meal, just a green salad ($13) and a burger ($21) apiece. I don't think I can assign a "rating" on such a minimal sample, but it was the most enjoyable salad+burger meal I've had in a long time. I don't know why Mr. Cutlets has been shilling for the LaFreida black-label nonsense, which I tried last week. This burger and these fries were about 100% better than the City Burger product in every respect. And for just $5 more you sit in a lovely environment and have waiter service. Beacon isn't suffering at dinner time, but they're not full either. The $35 restaurant week offering has been extended until at least the end of February, and heaven knows it could go on longer. Service was just fine, aside from a slight whiff of upselling by the waiter.

I am struggling to comprehend why having fewer choices would make a restaurant more appealing.As I mentioned upthread, there certainly are restaurants that operate successfully with just half-dozen apps & entrées, but it's undeniable that this is on the low side, and based on what Bouley has historically done, I would guess it is not the final total.

That is fewer appetizers and entrées than they formerly offered in the original location, and fewer than one normally finds at a restaurant with à la carte service. I am not saying they cannot operate that way, but my reaction on seeing it was that they were easing into the new space, and would eventually offer more.

I agree the space is gorgeous, but the menus I saw looked provisional and incomplete. Given that Bruni has already reviewed Bouley once on his watch, I suspect he will give it more time to settle into a routine, and then re-review it if he thinks the food has changed enough to warrant it.

If you are looking for an avowedly romantic setting with excellent food, Annisa carries the day.

I believe private dining was its originally intended use, and it is probably still used for that when they are able, but bookings these days are way down.

FG, I don't know if you consider yourself a friend of Colicchio's, but you obviously know him on some level better than most folks here. What do you think is the endgame for this restaurant? Is it a test-run for a place that could ultimately be open every day—or at least, a lot more often than every other Tuesday? Does Colicchio still have enough fire in the belly to be in a kitchen close to full-time? Obviously Colicchio has long since proven that he can run a restaurant without being physically present every day. How much of the $150 tab is intrinsic value, and how much is the perception that "Tom Colicchio personally prepared my food"? What would be the demand if the restaurant were open more often, but without Colicchio present all the time? Colicchio has picked up basically every honor that a chef can. One of the few that has eluded him is getting four stars from the Times. It sounds like "Tom" could theoretically become that restaurant if it were open more than every other Tuesday.

There are two things we don't know: who's not applying, and who's applying but getting rejected. Obviously the contestants all have some level of culinary skill, but other factors control who gets on the show: personality, looks, geographic and ethnic diversity.Obviously it limits your talent pool when you need people who can take 2 months off of work. But there could be chefs who feel it's not worth the bother, given the contrived nature of the challenges and the lack of cumulative scoring. I mean, your "season" could effectively be over in the first half-hour of episode 1, and you're stuck in the losers' house for another 8 weeks.

Yeah, it's a bit like Salieri saying he's bored with Mozart.

That's not what Eric Ripert thinks.

As others have noted, Top Chef is not a show that rewards artistry. The contrived and time-bound nature of the challenges does not encourage risk-taking. Except in the final challenge, you do not need to the be the best; you only need to avoid being the worst. I suspect when these chefs are in their own element, and not constrained by the show's format, they're all better than they appear on TV, and that would apply to Stefan as well.Anyhow, I am not sure how you are defining culinary artistry, but I think it's a gift given to very few. Most great meals are served by chefs with the talents that Stefan appears to have. If you're really being served by artists every time, I envy you. I'm not sure that Jaimie's statement about "uninspiring" was during the exit interview. I suspect it was during what reality shows call a "confessional" that probably occurred just after the meal. That would be more typical. Participants are called over to an interview area away from the group and asked to give their top-of-the-mind thoughts or impressions. ← It could very well be. Either Padma or Colicchio mentioned that the debate at Judges' Table sometimes goes on for hours. I suspect they use that time to conduct these interviews.

He was able to reproduce a Le Bernardin dish he had tasted only once, to about 99% accuracy. As Colicchio said, "It's not that easy." It might be a travesty that the season has only one Stefan, but give the guy his due. Most kitchens would be pretty happy to have Stefan cooking for them.

The comment was, IIRC, that the lunch was "delicious" but "a little boring" and she found it "uninspiring." There is nothing wrong with that statement. You guys make it sound like because she didn't have an orgasm at the table that she somehow was jamming a knife in Ripert's back. ← This is, of course, the fallacy of the false dichotomy. She did not jam the knife in Ripert's back, but it's fairly telling that her most pointed comments she did not say to his face, and I suspect never would. Obviously Ripert is far beyond caring what Jamie thinks of his food, but in any other setting to call someone's food boring is clearly not a compliment.

Get real. When you make that comment, by implication you are saying something about the chef responsible for the food. What else could it mean?

absolutely!! but i think you're sarcastic, no? some make no profit at all. (see fleur de sel, fiamma). I think you have to confine the question to places that are open. After all, you could have a failed hot-dog stand that doesn't make a profit. Among high-end restaurants that remain open, I've no reason to think their profit margin is thinner than any other kind of restaurant, except for those being operated as loss leaders. Who knows what they wanted?

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't think the producers are manipulating you into thinking that. Stefan is quite clearly, and by a wide margin, the best chef of the bunch. It would take a stroke of very bad luck for him to be eliminated, but it can happen. I mean, Leah is still on the show, and several chefs better than her are gone.

I suspect she talked herself into believing it wasn't quite that bad. In a 15-minute challenge, it takes a lot of self-awareness to suddenly drop an element that you were planning to serve. Hosea has some definite weaknesses, but Carla and Fabio have generally been weaker. There is an element of luck to it, but if skill prevails Hosea will be in the top 3, along with Stefan. I am not sure who the third will be, but I would be most surprised if Leah makes it that far.

As always, the explanation is on Colicchio's blog. The answer is that although Leah did a poor job of reproducing the Le Bernardin dish, taken on its own it wasn't terrible. At least two judges thought that Jamie's dish was almost inedible.I suppose that if all other things were equal, the chef who understood her mistake would have the advantage. But all other things were not equal.