oakapple

It's $100,000 towards whatever their culinary dreams may be. But this was still a highly unrealistic measure of what Radhika can do, because in any real-life restaurant she would be cooking food, not working the FOH. And as several folks mentioned, on the show she doesn't have the real-life option of "firing" one of the contestants.

There's another irony, which is that no one wants Stefan on their team, but the guy cooks rings around almost anybody. He was the last guy picked, but in the end his desserts are the reason why Leah is still on the show.

I have no problem with Leah staying, because the rules are clear: in team challenges, the whole team gets the win. Also, I think she's very clearly a better chef than Carla, who is still in the game.Radhika suffered because the judging is one challenge at a time, and not cumulative. Looking at just this challenge, there's a colorable argument that Radhika deserved to go, because she was the "owner" of the restaurant. But if you consider the whole body of work to date, Carla seems to wind up near the bottom over & over again, just managing to avoid elimination, while Radhika has generally been a star. With a bit better luck, I could have imagined her winning the season, while it is inconceivable that Carla would. But frankly, even judging this challenge in isolation, I would have sent Carla home, because this is fundamentally a cooking show, and on the losing team Carla cooked the worst food. Radhika proved she doesn't belong in the front of house, but the name of the show is Top Chef, not Top Host.

I completely agree that popularity does not make a restaurant worthy of four stars. I was reacting, rather, to your comments that the concept is dated, old-fashioned, and "kind of wearing." To the contrary, this style of dining is every bit as valid as Momofuku Ssäm Bar.Flaws in the quality and consistency of the execution would be very good reasons to deny the fourth star. The claims that it is dated, old-fashioned, or "kind of wearing," are not.

That, I'm afraid, is contradicted by the facts. Daniel does far more covers than any other four-star restaurant. In fact, it's among top-grossing 100 restaurants in the whole country. It got that way by having a large, loyal cadre of regulars who absolutely swear by it. It couldn't survive if most of its patrons felt about it the way you've just described. I think it was Sneakeater who said that Daniel has more regulars than any other four-star place. Although you personally do not particularly enjoy this type of experience, there are many who do. Again, I don't like to put words in people's mouths, but I suspect your hostility to the concept gets in the way of your appreciating why some people find it welcoming, not wearing, and not at all old-fashioned. In percentage terms, there aren't many such people. But there aren't many such restaurants, so it all works out. Even Masa has people who dine there 3 times a week. Although many of us see restaurants like Daniel as "occasion" or "once in a lifetime" places, even the most expensive of the brood has a loyal clientele who visit them as often as some eGullet members visit Ssäm Bar or Noodle Bar.

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, but you did say, "The whole UES club-thing is also a bit uptown for my tastes. But that's surely my age and downtown bias speaking." You also described the service at Per Se as "a bit stiff," which is a judgment call, but IMO they're about the least stiff of any restaurant in that class.

I believe Daniel's rating at its two locations has varied anywhere between two and four stars, and I believe Bruni is the third critic to award four. Do you think it was never a four-star place, or do you think it has lost something since the earlier days?

I'm getting the sense that this isn't the type of experience you particularly crave, even when it's done well. That's a fair enough preference, but Bruni is the critic for the whole city, and for diners of all ages, not just the downtown critic for folks under 40. Since the Times elects to have just one critic giving out the stars, he needs to be able to put himself in the shoes of a lot of different demographics, including those he might not personally identify with.

On the basis of food alone, I think it's pretty clear that Bruni was rating Daniel higher than Corton. Leaving aside one's own opinion of the two restaurants, just read the reviews—leaving the service and ambiance aside—and it is abundantly apparent that Bruni thought Daniel was better.Whether it's "better enough" to warrant four stars is a whole other question. But if you imagine a forced ranking of the four-star establishments, some restaurant would inevitably be at the bottom of the ladder, just as some restaurant would inevitably be at the top of the three-star ladder. But I think Bruni made a credible case for four stars, though he could have made the case for three, as well. The only problem is that it's so unlike anything else he has ever written. I believe Fat Guy has suggested in the past that restaurants ought to be evaluated at their best, and I suppose this was an example of it. As I mentioned upthread, I have always been treated well at Boulud's restaurants—not like royalty, but well. Bear in mind, Bruni has panned plenty of places where he was recognized, so the fact they know it's him is no assurance of a good review.I did feel, though, that Wells was awfully naive if it didn't occur to him that maybe not every table would get the same treatment.

In about 7 visits to Boulud's various restaurants (only one to Daniel itself), I have never had that happen.

Yes, and it is so blatant that I have to think Bruni is aware of it. How does he justify this review in relation to everything else he has ever said? Mind you, Daniel might very well be a four-star restaurant by a some definitions. It just doesn't add up in light of Bruni's own past standards.But let me emphasize a point I made, perhaps not quite clearly enough, on the Daniel thread. Historically, the number of four-star restaurants has been stable over many decades, at 5-6. The only definition the Times provides is the word "extraordinary." What it means has varied over time, but in a city of >20,000 restaurants it's fair to say that some set of 5-6 restaurants is extraordinary by some definition. While Bruni has put his imprint on the star system at levels zero-to-three, he has not done so at the four-star level. It is entirely possible that if Sheraton, Miller, Reichl or Grimes were still the critic, the four-star places would be the same ones they are now. I suspect Bruni is keenly aware of this, but he hasn't yet found a restaurant that would allow him to put his mark on the four-star level, the way he did at three stars with Ssäm Bar and the Bar Room, or at two stars with Sripraphai and The Modern. By re-affirming four stars for Daniel, he is in essence kicking the can down the road, assuming (as is widely believed) that he will be leaving the job in June, and that no new four-star places will be named between now and then.

It is hard to reconcile this review with the rest of Bruni's oeuvre. Classic luxury doesn't always get a bad review from him. But you always got the sense he'd rather be somewhere else—that these restaurants succeeded (if they succeeded at all) in spite of their grandeur, not because of it. He always seemed to be saying that smart folks (people like him) really don't want to dine this way any more. This is the first time he comes right out and says, in effect, "Luxury is fun."Bruni has boxed himself into a corner. Until today, he has shown no love for classic luxury, but he hasn't figured out what ought to replace it. The number of four-star restaurants has been fairly stable over many decades, at 5-6 establishments, and there are 5 today. Demoting Daniel without a candidate to replace it would invite questions to which he has no clear answer.

Even when they're recognized, it is not always instantaneous. Bruni once said that there's often a moment in the middle of a meal, when suddenly everything changes.

Hearth is the superior restaurant, by a fairly wide margin. The idea of a romantic meal at the Little Owl seems almost incongruous. That's not to say I dislike the place; quite the contrary. It just doesn't strike me as that type of restaurant. Tables are small and close together, and service is designed for fairly quick turnover. The formal dining room at Country is indeed closed, but we actually went there twice on past Valentine's Days. They actually did a very good job...which was what prompted us to return. However, it was a much more expensive place than either Hearth or the Little Owl. I agree that the Café should not be bothered with.

Reservations not taken, I assume?

On Colicchio's blog, he gives a good explanation for why Ariane was the one sent home: That makes sense. Leah's under-the-radar strategy (if that is her strategy) can only get her so far. At some point, she will have to shine on her own, or get sent home.By this point in the season everyone left is a very good chef. But even very good chefs make mistakes, just as very good baseball players sometimes commit fielding errors. Sometimes, it's just bad luck. My guess is that in the heat of battle, it was somehow agreed that Ariane would do the butchering, and Hosea and Leah believed she knew how to do it. Given Ariane's success with lamb in past challenges, that wasn't an unreasonable assumption. It was as much her fault for accepting a task she wasn't capable of, as it was theirs for failing to notice what a mess she was making of it.

There's a brief article in TONY in which Chef Schaedelin talks about the changes he's made. I tried one of the new items last night, the choucroute garnie, which was pretty good. My friend gave the cassoulet a "B+".

I agree that he probably cannot do either one of these things unilaterally, but the Times star system has changed many times over its 40+ years, and could change again. So I think it's perfectly reasonable to use this thread to "lobby" for things we believe Bruni and/or his management ought to be doing better. I agree with this, but double-reviews (like this week) used to be the norm, rather than the exception, and would allow the Times to stay far more current than it now does. Last year, someone posted an analysis which showed that prices at Dovetail and Eighty One did not differ materially. I think Bruni believed that Dovetail was better in the absolute sense, not better in light of the price. You could very well be right about his reasoning in awarding three stars to Ssäm Bar, but that does not necessarily mean he made the right decision.

We were there last night. It seems the tongue is no longer available.

That's what I assumed. As I recall, Leah saw that was a mess and tried to rescue it as best she could, in the time available.It goes without saying that the cheftestants have clashing objectives. First, they want their team to win. But second, if it loses, they want to make sure someone else goes home. As the first objective trumps the second, I have to assume they believed Ariane was up to the task she had volunteered for.

It's funny/sad that they're keeping the space for private parties, and now is about the worst imaginable market for such events. Let's hope Trabocchi finds another gig in town. ← I read on Eater that they own the building. ← This is true, but even buildings you own have expenses.

He may be an ass, but he knows what he's doing. It's a reality show...what do you expect? The rule, by the way, is that contestants may not employ physical intimidation or violence. There's no rule against consensual displays of affection. Chefs screw up sometimes. If Tom Colicchio were a contestant, he wouldn't win every challenge. Overall, Hosea has been pretty impressive. (Not as sure about Leah.)

It's funny/sad that they're keeping the space for private parties, and now is about the worst imaginable market for such events. Let's hope Trabocchi finds another gig in town.

It's hard to tell, because he really doesn't explain why places aren't re-reviewed. In most cases, you don't even know for sure whether he has visited them or not. Bear in mind that Times policy requires a minimum of 3 visits for a review. He has said in the past that there are probably a lot of places that would get a different rating if he re-reviewed them, and there simply aren't enough days in the year to do it. Some of the re-reviews seem like random events, based on what he happened to be interested in. He did something close to that in his year-end blog post, suggesting that Eleven Madison Park isn't quite a 4-star restaurant yet, and that Del Posto seemed to have slacked off a bit. He didn't go as far as to formally change Del Posto's rating, which (under current policy) would require 3 visits.I think Bruni should do a lot more of that. I suspect that around half of his meals are just "prospecting," and never make it into any review. The original idea of the blog was to give him a forum to report on those more often, and more promptly, than the newspaper format allows. But he has seldom taken advantage of it.

As the tree widens, it's harder to be consistent. If you think the 3-star list is "insanely all over the place," you should see the 2-star and 1-star places. This is very much Bruni's list. Of the 41 restaurants listed, he reviewed 29 of them. The exceptions are: Aquavit, Chanterelle, Craft, Gotham B&G, JoJo, Kurumazushi, Nobu, Nobu Next Door, Town, Spice Market, Sushi Yasuda, and Union Square Café. [see note below.] It's a safe bet that Bruni has dined at all of the places awarded 3 stars by his predecessors. He may agree with the rating, or he may simply feel that it's not newsworthy enough to merit a re-review. For instance, he has made side comments about disappointing visits to JoJo and Union Square Café, but he hasn't demoted either one. Since there is limited time for re-reviews, he has to decide which ones are important enough. The same is true of a place like Aureole, which was 3 stars in the past, but demoted to 2 by Bruni's predecessor, William Grimes. Bruni may agree with the rating, or he may simply feel that it's not quite interesting enough to be re-reviewed at this point. Some of the discrepancies can be explained by the wide range a rating has to cover. As I recall, Perry St. seemed just barely above 2 stars, while Momofuku Ko just barely missed getting 4. (This is my interpretation of what Bruni wrote, and has nothing to do with my personal opinion of those two restaurants.) In some cases, Bruni's ratings are just nuts. Dovetail, which got 3 stars, is clearly inferior to the nearby Eighty One, which got two. Bar Room at the Modern, which got 3 stars, is a lesser place than The Modern itself, which got two. Momofuku Ssäm Bar shouldn't have the same rating as the more-ambitious Ko. Although I would be in favor of half-stars, I don't think the ratings would suddenly all be "correct" if they did that. Critics are going to make mistakes, no matter how finely-graded their scale is. Bruni could correct his Modern/Bar Room debacle anytime he wanted, without half-stars. ____ Note: After sickchangeup did his cut-and-paste, Eater posted a correction. Country should be off the list, as the place that got 3 stars (the formal dining room) has closed. And Kurumazushi should be on the list.