oakapple

Yeah, that's my sense as well. Michelin obviously doesn't look outside their service model, but their rankings reflect a wider variety of food tastes. Bruni is only one man with one perspective- and it's not one of culinary adventurousness. ← Bruni's rather tame and limited dining tastes have been much noted.Bruni and Michelin are both somewhat tied to the same "service model." Whether that's a bug or a feature is open to question. All of Bruni's four-star choices and most of his three-star choices have fairly traditional service models. He is much looser about it when he gets to the two-star level, but so is Michelin with their stars to places like Spotted Pig and Peter Luger. Whether those places deserve their stars is a whole other matter, but they're clearly not bastions of traditional French-style service. If anything, the star for Spotted Pig is much more remarkable than anything Bruni has done, given that winning a Michelin star is a more difficult thing to accomplish. I'm not so sure the praise for Bruni's Asian-friendliness is warranted. As best I can recall, no Asian restaurant has won three stars from him. He's given two stars to a couple of Asian restaurants in Queens that broke the traditional mold. Aside from that, he reviews what comes along, with the only clearly favored formats being Italian and steakhouses.

It seems to be one of the Michelin rules: leave an obviously starworthy restaurant starless for as long as possible to generate interest every year and keep people talking. ← That's nonsense. It's just a reasonable disagreement. Remember, Bruni got EMP right, but totally dropped the ball on The Modern. Any such list, no matter who compiles it, is going to include a few restaurants you disagree with, and omit a few that you belive should be there. If Bruni (or Steven Shaw, or Nathan, or Adam Platt) were given a similar assignment, they'd make different errors—but errors nevertheless.

We really don't know how GR changed after Josh Emett replaced Neil Ferguson. I haven't found a single review from a respected source that post-dates Ferguson's departure. Emett says the changes were considerable.Even supposing that GR under Emett is still "safe, conservative, competent" (i.e., boring), I don't see a lot of evidence for that kind of bias in the Michelin ratings. Note, for instance, the complete absence of places like Chanterelle and La Grenouille in the ratings. And aside from GR, all of the Michelin 2 and 3-star restaurants correlate in a fairly predictable way with the NYT rankings. By the way, I'm not carrying a torch for Ramsay, as my own visit there (within weeks after it opened) isn't recent enough to be relevant. I'm just noting that the two ratings are clearly not consistent. I think Michelin's rating is more likely to be correct, partly because this is a class of restaurant that's squarely within their expertise (and squarely ouside of Bruni's), partly because their rating is simply the more current one. But I thought it was notable that Bruni entirely ducked the issue in his blog post.

hmm...GR would seem to be a prototypical Michelin two-star ← I'm referring to the inconsistency between Michelin's rating of the restaurant and Bruni's rating of it. Yes, of course GR was designed to be a two or three-star Michelin restaurant. But it was also designed to be a three or four-star NYT restaurant, and that didn't happen.

I assume you're saying that Kurumazushi is top 3, Gari is top 20, and Jewel Bako top 40? So, you're saying there are 19 places better than Gari? I don't think so.I can't agree or disagree about Jewel Bako, as I've not tried it, but as noted above, Michelin doesn't claim that every restaurant with one star is equivalent in the absolute sense.

And he also makes the mistake of asserting that Michelin stars do not take price into account. The press release says that "value for money" is part of the rating system.Bruni points out several ratings that seem like anomalies to him, while ignoring the biggest one of all: the two stars for Gordon Ramsay at The London.

Unchanged from last year.

The absence of Eleven Madison Park was remarked on last year. I agree that it's the most conspicuous absence, but for the most part, I think the list is far more accurate than not. I don't really need a foreign guide to help me select restaurants, but if I were advising a visitor, I'd say that Michelin is a whole lot more dependable than Frank Bruni or Zagat. Note that the definition of one star is "very good in its category," so the inspectors are not saying that Spotted Pig is better than EMP in the absolute sense. Whether Spotted Pig deserves its star at all is a whole other matter.

The Michelin 2008 Guide is out. The press release is here. The three-star restaurants are the same as last year: Jean Georges, Le Bernardin, and Per Se. Bouley, Daniel, Del Posto, and Masa retain two stars. Joining them are Gordon Ramsay at The London (!!) and Picholine. Per the BruniBlog: And these restaurants retained one star: Annisa, Aureole, A Voce, Babbo, Café Boulud, Café Gray, Country, Cru, Danube, Dévi, Etats-Unis, Fleur de Sel, Gotham Bar & Grill, Gramercy Tavern, Jewel Bako, Kurumazushi, The Modern, Oceana, Perry St., Peter Luger, Saul, Spotted Pig, Sushi of Gari, Veritas, Vong, Wallsé, wd~50. It will be interesting to see if these results prompt a re-evaluation of Gordon Ramsay, as every other restaurant with two Michelin stars has at least three NYT stars. I am assuming that Fiamma lost its star because the chef departed, and there wasn't sufficient time to evaluate his replacement. There really are no other surprises, aside perhaps from Dressler, which didn't impress me the one time I visited.

I "grazed" there last night too. I took it to be a mostly 30-something crowd, and when you're my age that's a young crowd. My sense is that it's a very strange restaurant concept: three-star finger food. I also had the prawns, and I echo Nathan's admiration of them. My unscientific observation was that it's the most popular dish, as I saw more prawns coming out than anything else. Crisped calamari put most other preparations of that dish to shame, but in the end it was a fried food and a dipping sauce. Pasta fiore in a tomato concassée was so light and delicate that it almost floated from bowl to mouth. The smoked salmon dish looked wonderful. Having seen it go by a few times, I wished I'd ordered that instead of the calamari. I had the cheese course for dessert. It was the one dish that really misfired. It was served with marinated vegetables, which were fine, but the cheese was just a shaved pile that tasted like supermarket provalone. I had no trouble getting a walk-in table at 6:00 p.m., but had I arrived an hour later, there would have been a wait. The accounting firm KPMG had the downstairs room booked for a private party.

I can't imagine dining at that kind of place pre-theatre, but I know there are people who do it. When I dined at ADNY, the server asked if we needed to be out in time for a show. At most restaurants, though not necessarily J-G, you can make a 6:00 reservation, have plenty of time to eat, and still make it to an 8:00 curtain. It's a lot harder when the opera starts at 7:30 or earlier. I don't know, but it has been gone for a very long time—at least 20 years, I think. Some of the elevators still label the top level "Restaurant," though of course you can't actually get up there. I understand that it's now used for storage. I am guessing that it didn't do very well, because the Met (like most performance venues) certainly doesn't hesitate to make every dime they can get. If it turned a profit, it would still be open.

That was likewise my take when I dined there. When we did it, the appetizer and entrée were served pre-opera, and only the dessert at intermission. But they may do it the other way on special occasions, or if diners request it.

Funny...you weren't of that opinion when you were touting New Paradigm restaurants, which (allegedly) appeal to a mostly young clientele.

I'll concede that point, but I'm still not getting where "charade" comes from. All NYT critics have admitted that they are frequently recognized. All they are saying is that the 25% of the time they aren't recognized has some value (to the reader) by providing a sense (however imperfectly) of what the ordinary diner would experience. If you shed the attempts at anonymity, all that happens is that 25% becomes zero. I believe Reichl's immediately preceding job was as restaurant critic for the L. A. Times. Critics of that ilk (LA, SF, Chicago, Philly, Boston, Washington....) ought to be conisdered, although I say this without having researched the specific incumbents in each city.

Mr. Kinsey is being generous: the Grand Tier aspires to mediocrity.All of these comments seem to be pre-makeover. Perhaps the change of management (and chef) won't matter very much, but we should at least give them the courtesy of a fair test. I loathe over-generalizations about any restaurant's clientele. For all we know, they could be dining at the Met one night, and Café Boulud the next.

But you haven't offered any evidence that this was the reason why Bruni was chosen, or that it will figure in the decision on his replacement.I also don't understand your use of the word "charade". Both Bruni and Asimov have repeatedly acknowledged that they are frequently recognized. Reichl's many disguises (also publicly acknowledged) amounted to an admission of the same thing. The average reader probably doesn't know about the "anonymity policy." But those who do know about it are probably equally aware of the various admissions of its imperfection. A charade would be if they actually claimed that they are never recognized.

I think you're imagining an unnecessary parade of horribles. The Times already knows that its critics are usually recognized. When Bruni was announced in the job, his photo was widely available on the web. If anonymity were the main driver, they could have picked somebody far less well known. And they didn't mind having Amanda Hesser as a long-term fill-in, even though she was likewise easily spotted—perhaps even more so than Bruni. Even if they picked a total unknown, it wouldn't be long before all the main kitchens in town had phone-cam shots of him or her. You cannot possibly believe that the Times doesn't realize this.None of this explains why Bruni got the job, but the explanation given can't be the reason. I know you're not in favor of critic anonymity, but that is an entirely separate issue. My own view is that the Times basically thought that restaurant reviewing was something anybody could do. So they opted for a generic writer with a hobbyist interest in restaurants, rather than someone who has actually trained in the field.

Mine too, though I have far less experience with the place than FG does. As far as I'm concerned, Bruni's mis-ratings of both the Bar Room and the main dining room are the two most egregious errors of his tenure—even more so than the demotion of ADNY.

Nathan, I'm glad you mentioned this article. I especially enjoyed Barber's description of his phone exchange with Grimes. I find the whole chef-and-restaurant critic dance to be incredibly wonderful and silly. It might not be that silly, given the stakes involved.But there's an amusing twist in the article. It turns out that the guy who received the red-carpet treatment wasn't Grimes—he was some lawyer who merely resembled Grimes. In the meantime, Grimes's first Diner's Journal piece had already appeared, so apparently he had managed to dine there unrecognized at least once, while the restaurant fawned over his doppelganger. Currently, Grimes is writing book reviews for the Times. The most recent one was published yesterday. Bruni is still quite a young guy. I believe he is not yet 40. With a solid background in both hard news and entertainment writing, he could probably write his own ticket. I strongly suspect he'll do something in feature writing, where he is no longer tethered to a weekly deadline.

Yes, exactly what you expect from a NYT two-star restaurant.

I've had good meals there a couple of times. Nothing stellar, but never bad. My sense is that, on any given day, anything on their menu can be done well, but whether it will be is a crap shoot. The place is too big, and Mark Murphy is no longer keeping his eye on the ball. I've always done my own wine ordering there, and I've found some terrific half-bottles, but I don't ask a server's advice.

Ruth Reichl was in the job for six years, and I believe Mimi Sheraton even longer. Bruni just passed his third anniversary, so we could have him in our midst for quite a while.

New Question: Anyone who's studied physics will know of the Heisenberg Principle, which basically says you can't observe something without altering it. The question is, how does this apply to NYC critics? Frank Bruni has been on the job long enough that his biases are pretty well known. For example, Italian: yes; French: no. Casual: yes; Formal: no. So the question is, are restauranteurs starting to design restaurants based on their perception of what Bruni likes? My own view is that Bruni's tastes must surely be affecting design and menu decisions, even if only subconsciously, and even if only at the margin. The magnitude would be hard to assess, because there won't be many chefs who would actually admit to having done so. But his influence must surely be lurking in the shadows to some extent.

They appear in print on Tuesday.

I agree with FG...they're both making essentially the same point.Even ignoring Restaurant Girl, Bruni's observation is hardly profound. He's merely observing the rather obvious fact that Gemma is a "formula" restaurant. Freeman noted that her own review several weeks ago. Reviewers tend to write condescendingly of such restaurants, because they are boring. In fact, well-worn formulas are what 80-90% of diners want. These restaurants are, of course, less interesting to the reviewer. Had it not been for the background of the people running it, Gemma might not have even warranted a review.