oakapple

I'm not sure when they were added, but they weren't on the menu originally.

Yeah, but he introduced his rating system by doing a list of the "Top 101" restaurants in New York where he retroactively gave them stars. ← Yes, and Per Se was one of those retroactively rated. When he reviewed Per Se originally, New York did not have a star system.

I think David Chang makes some of his statements for shock value.

probably one visit. it wasn't technically a review and therefore not subject to the Times review policy. ← Probably one for this particular write-up, but I am sure he's been to Noodle Bar multiple times over the last couple of years.

There's no online menu yet, but from the description it seems like Benoit is bringing back the French classics. Assuming you like that kind of food, the question is whether it's well executed.I am not really sure what Adour was meant to be, but it's certainly not "classic" French (in the sense that Benoit is), and for sure it's a much higher price point. My sense of the places Fabricant was writing about, is that they're aiming to be a step above mere comfort food. They aren't reviving the "jacket-and-tie required" environment, but they're reviving a lot of the food and service esthetic those restaurants stood for. In the last 10 years, there's no doubt that those places had been on the wane, though they never disappeared entirely. Fabricant is talking about the Grenouille, Caravelle, Périgord style, not just any restaurant that happens to have some French elements to it.

You are perfectly entitled to say that the whole "style of experience" at Ko appeals to you more than Per Se. You'd have a lot of company, just as the folks who prefer Heavy Metal to Beethoven have a lot of company.You are not entitled to say (and expect to be taken seriously) that the service at Per Se is "downright terrible". You can say that you personally had an experience that struck you that way, but most of us would conclude that that that experience was grossly atypical of the restaurant's usual performance. I think it was docsconz or slkinsey who once said (on an EG thread) that you may enjoy Salieri better than Mozart, but you can't say that Salieri actually is better than Mozart.

Not sure what you mean by that. The "usual suspects" are all reviewing it, with Bruni being last to go (as he usually is). A lot could change, depending on whether Bruni likes it. Foodies are atypical, but for what it's worth, the Adour thread has three pages as of this writing, which is a pretty respectable thread for a new-ish restaurant. It doesn't have Ko's 13 pages, but you can't expect a phenomenon like that every day.

This is not just a classic French restaurant. It is a classic French restaurant with the name Alain Ducasse behind it. he could open a hot dog joint and it would be newsworthy. ← True but did you see Florence Fabricant's article in today's Times? There really is a little trend here.

It's subjective...but then again, it isn't. There's a sufficient body of responsible criticism about Per Se to state as a fact that "downright terrible" service there is exceedingly rare.Unless David Chang has managed to overcome human nature — which is that both people and perceptions are fallible — you'll eventually have reports of "downright terrible" service at Ko, too. Per Se has had four years for them to accumulate (and very few have), while Ko has had four weeks.

What's remarkable is that, all of a sudden, people are investing big money in classic French restaurants — a tradition that (supposedly) no one wanted any more.

Per The Sun, Café Gray will close June 30.

The question is: what's a review? If a mediocre writer like Platt writes a first-impressions piece about Ko, does it magically become a review by virtue of being in New York Magazine (or on its website)? What about Ruth Reichl's piece on the Gourmet blog? What about all the detailed, heavily photographed reports on various websites (this one included)? What makes something a review or not a review? ← They are all "reviews" (though Ruth might try to claim that she's no longer a reviewer). My objection is that if your usual standard is that a review is based on a minimum of three visits, you shouldn't relax that standard for one restaurant, especially when the reason given is patent nonsense. Sutton customarily is the first critic out of the gate, often the very week of opening. What he did with Ko is what he does everywhere, and I therefore don't have a problem with it. You could also argue that New York, with its searchable restaurant database, is aiming for its reviews to have longer shelf lives. Therefore, a restaurant review receiving almost the highest rating Platt has ever given out shouldn't be the one written in the greatest haste, and with the least care.

You are entirely correct. It is a well-done review. I am just saying that if your standards are that you pay multiple visits before writing a review, then you don't relax those standards for just one restaurant—especially one so important that you've given it four stars. I am also saying that the reason he gives for relaxing his standards (difficulty of getting in) is pretty lame, given that his review appeared faster than NYM's reviews usually do. Of course, if what you say is true, then he knows perfectly well that this wasn't the real reason for compromising his standards: "He wanted to be the first major-media critic to review the place."

He normally does that anyway (unless you consider RestaurantGirl "major").

Yes, but after less than a month, and after only one visit—which Platt admits he wouldn't ordinarily do. As explanation for violating his own standards, the only reason given is the difficulty of getting in. But as many people here have shown, it isn't that hard to get reservations a second or third time, and I don't think any of us have editorial assistants mouse-clicking on our behalf.

I've been to Bouley about four times in the last 3-4 years, and I've never had an experience even remotely like that. However, Bouley is notoriously inconsistent, so I wouldn't put it past them to screw up as badly as you've described. The other thing is: it tells you a lot about a restaurant to see how they respond when things are going badly. The delay in the kitchen isn't the front-of-house's fault. What is their fault is what they did about it. In a restaurant of this calibre, they should have noticed the long wait before you pointed it out to them.

Early on, it got a rep for service with an attitude. It's also on the expensive side, which makes people less forgiving of even mild disappointment on the plate.I wasn't really sold on the place, though I thought it had potential. Given the talent here, you've got to figure that there will always be some knockouts on the menu.

The restaurants try to open as fast as they possibly can. Usually it's things like licenses, permits and construction delays that hold them back.

Isn't there a new Anita Lo restaurant? Personally, I have my grave doubts about seeing Restaurant Liebrandt in 2008.

The 10-visit reviews must be extremely rare. It would be physically impossible for them to do this very often, given how many restaurants the critic needs to cover. (Remember, Sheraton generally reviewed two restaurants per week.)I am sure that she paid 10 visits only for "very important" restaurants with potentially controversial ratings, e.g. promotions to, or demotions from, four stars. Other factors might be a long menu, a menu that changes frequently, or inconsistency. As an amateur critic myself, I have definitely had cases where I wasn't sure about a restaurant, even after three visits. For instance, I've been to BLT Fish three times. I had two very good experiences and one that was mediocre. How much of an anomaly was that mediocre visit? I probably wouldn't need 10 visits to answer the question, but I clearly need more than three.

In all likelihood, CG will still be open on the date of your meeting. They haven't actually confirmed that they're closing at all, and if it does happen, it won't be overnight.Any large dinner like that, you would normally be in frequent communication with the restaurant in the days preceding the event. It's not as if they'd give you the all-clear on Wednesday, and you show up on Thursday to find the place padlocked. CG isn't that kind of place. It would clearly be prudent to have a backup plan and to be in constant communication with the restaurant, but if they're closing, they'll tell you so.

Yes, I do see that. He eventually came around to the view that her position made sense in her situation.

It is indeed. I find myself agreeing almost 100% with Mimi Sheraton's views. Paul Levy has this idea of going into a restaurant, announcing himself to the chef, and saying, "Show me the best you can do." This isn't just a Europe/USA divide, as Steve Plotnicki has the same idea.Now, what these folks don't realize—or what they willfully ignore—is that we can't all do that. If Frank Bruni dines under his own name and asks for Jean-Georges Vongerichten's best, he is going to get something different than if I ask for it. It might be entertaining to read about what is theoretically possible, but in a review I'm more interested in knowing what I'll actually get if I dine there.

He proclaims on Grub Street, "We've changed everything." Based on the last meal we had there (Valentine's Day), I really wouldn't say that.

Landmarc can accommodate that many, but I suspect it's significantly beneath CG in both price and quality. I doubt that CG is closing that quickly, but if it does, my next choice would be Grayz.