oakapple

so - how was it? ← Review here. Short answer: very good. Obviously, that's based on tasting less than 10% of the menu. I have no data on which to judge how it compares to Balthazar.

If people are eating something that the restaurant serves, you can't exactly blame them for "not getting the restaurant." Maybe I'll make an exception for those that order the salmon at Peter Luger, but that's about it.

I was also impressed with that little bar when I visited, and equally perplexed that it was built to seat only four.

Thanks...it is awfully hard to find. I'll say that the Adour and Benoit websites were clearly not designed by the same folks, and the Benoit folks got it right.

Funnily enough, it's a far better website than Adour got. Two months after it opened, the website still has no online menu or wine list.I'm going to Benoit tomorrow night. They called to advise it's BYO, as they don't yet have a liquor license.

I absolutely would. I can really only safely have 2-3 cocktails on a school night, but almost always want to try taste more than that. A smaller cocktail would be perfect for me. (I'm sure that my bartenders would disagree on the perfection of the situation - that's a lot of work.) ← Given the labor intensiveness of most cocktails, it's not practical to offer half-cocktails at anything approaching half the price.

It was 10 days ago, which was the last time I checked.

One needs to be reminded occasionally what the word "extraordinary" means, lest it be confused with what is merely excellent. I was reminded of this last night, when my girlfriend and I dined at L'Atelier de Joël Robuchon (review here). Momofuku Ko and L'Atelier are in many ways comparable. They both feature counter dining and an emphasis on "small plates," though L'Atelier has table seating too. Chang has acknowledged a debt to Robuchon, and even admitted that he would make an exception to Ko's egalitarian reservation system if the French chef dropped in. It's especially striking that when Adam Platt reviewed L'Atelier, he said that the food was worth four stars, but he subtracted a star for ambiance. But there were no demerits for Momofuku Ko, to which he awarded four stars, even though Ko is, in every respect, less comfortable and less pleasant than L'Atelier. What David Chang does, and that Joël Robuchon unquestionably does not do, is to make an approximation of top-tier cuisine available at what seem to be plebian prices. Ko's tasting menu (the only option offered) is $85, while it is $190 at L'Atelier. But L'Atelier also offers a wide variety à la carte, such that you could probably visit half-a-dozen times and make different selections each visit, without exhausting the possibilities. At Ko, you will have seen just about everything after a couple of visits. We did not order the tasting menu at L'Atelier. Our dinner there for two was $475, while at Ko it was $447. (A higher food bill at L'Atelier was somewhat offset by a higher wine bill at Ko.) I suspect that there isn't much overlap between Ko and Atelier patrons, and this produces a version of the Zagat problem: the people giving Di Fara in Brooklyn a 27 food rating aren't the same ones giving L'Atelier de Joël Robuchon the identical 27 food rating. (I use DiFara because we don't yet have a Zagat rating for Ko, though you can predict it will be pretty high up there.) Ko is, of course, cheaper than L'Atelier, but the capabilities of the kitchen are proportionately lower. Excellence costs money. This rant is not meant to take anything away from Momofuku Ko. It is a wonderful restaurant. But it has to be said that what Chang is doing — as good as it is, and as much as we enjoy it — is a whole order of magnitude below what the best restaurants are capable of.

These seem like typical flubs for a restaurant on its 3rd night.

Robuchon was actually in town the last few days, but he left yesterday and won't be back till September. Opportunity missed.

That's not what Cutlets says.

At Strip House, the ribeye excels; at Wolfgang's it's the porterhouse or even (if you're dining alone) the NY Strip, which they call "Steak for One" in the Luger style.I agree that the midtown and downtown versions of Wolfgang's are indistinguishable as far as the food is concerned, but the downtown Wolfgang's isn't as loud. Craftsteak is in my regular steakhouse rotation for the excellence of the non-steak items, but since the opening the steak has greatly improved too.

This strikes me as the type of restaurant with a high probability of a drop in quality after the review cycle is over.

It's almost as if Steve Cuozzo read your post and then composed today's column in the Post. However, he limits himself to Financial District steakhouses, and his main complaint is that there are too many of them, in relation to other kinds of eating down there. Anyhow, I think Craftsteak would be worth your while.

It very well could be, but that isn't tantamount to failure: Bar American is still in business. ← and doing very well I would imagine. but it's not taken seriously. that would be a kind of sad fate for Ducasse in NY don't you think? ← Yeah, I do agree with you. It would be sad if Benoit is the French equivalent of Mama Leone's. However, when Ducasse gave New York what he does best, the restaurant wasn't successful.

It very well could be, but that isn't tantamount to failure: Bar American is still in business.

Well...a Ducasse restaurant, no matter what he is serving, is a tourist place practically by definition, especially if it gets a Michelin star, but probably even without it.

depending upon the location and pricepoint, that's precisely what they sometimes do consider (using our names in the generic sense). I agree that some restaurants are built for "people like Nathan" (in the generic sense). But I disagree that the only types of patrons are tourists, business, and "people like Nathan."

Except...it is. I can assure you it's not just "neighborhood folk" that make Balthazar so tough to get into.

I wouldn't panic or pre-judge, as some people seem to be doing. Many restaurants have less inspiring lunch menus. I'd say they're simply trying to build interest. I can't imagine why they only posted the lunch menu, though. But remember, this was a photo posted on flickr. We only know what that person chose to photograph.

It's hard to say what's in DeChellis's head, because such statements are always part self-justification, part posturing for the next project. Funnily enough, "My food sucked" is never part of the explanation.And let's face it, this isn't the first failed project with Josh DeChellis's name on it.

Not so much a complaint...just an observation. By the way, Bruni hardly ever makes a substantive comment about a restaurant he intends to review. This used to be common when the Diner's Journal was a print column. After it became a blog, Bruni decided to use it mostly for general comments about the industry. The policy seems to be evolving. The server asked us if we had any dietary restrictions, and sure enough, my girlfriend doesn't eat scallops. For that course, they prepared a soft-shell crab dish and a scallop dish. They actually gave her the latter, but we swapped plates. It wasn't an exception for that course. About half the time, she and I received different items.

We had the wine pairings too (the $85 version) and thought they were terrific. I am not so sure about the last statement, however. There are plenty of boottles on the list below $50, and tons below $100. Since the cheapest wine pairing is $50 per head, I can't see how ordering individual bottles would "undoubtedly" be more expensive.I do agree that the pairings are better, especially as the staff here are doing such a good job with them. But a pairing is undoubtedly more expensive, not less.

Reviews so far haven't been good.

Seems like just the normal tweaks that any new system goes thru. I don't really interpret Bruni's comments as "bad press".