oakapple

The only thing I know for sure, is that the main dining room is totally, totally, totally off the radar. It doesn't get a mention anywhere.But that doesn't mean things are going badly, or that GR was fibbing to Larry King. The restaurant probably draws plenty of tourists and business travelers, and those folks wouldn't be posting to boards like this one, or writing reviews in local magazines. There are a lot of diners who are looking for something solid, highly competent, and unadventurous. This might be the ticket for them. It will be very interesting to see where this restaurant lands in the next NYC Michelin Guide.

The g/f and I are going to Montreal for my birthday weekend. We are looking for a recommendation. We have already been to Toqué, which we very much enjoyed. We don’t want to do the same restaurant again, but we're looking for something in Toqué’s class.

I'll try to reply to Sethro without running of-topic.Demotion reviews always seem unusually negative, because the critic is explaining why the old rating is too high. Almost all of Bruni's demotion reviews have seemed more severe than a new review at the same star level. He is pretty consistent about this, and the PL review has to be read in that context. There is always a respect for precedent in Bruni's re-reviews. He never suggests that the prior review was wrong. Rather, he explains how the restaurant has changed in the intervening years. Ruth Reichl's three-star review was based on the premise that Peter Luger is all about the porterhouse, and Bruni seems to have accepted that. At one time, PL had four stars, and I'll bet that was the premise even then. Notwithstanding all of that, it did not read like a zero-star review. Over the years, Bruni has filed some pretty negative one-star reviews, as long as there were some high points that he could mention (e.g. Morandi, Russian Tea Room). A restaurant doesn't have to clear a very high bar to receive one star. This read like a one-star review. Bruni has filed a few two-step demotions, so it certainly wouldn't have been unprecedented for him to award one star in this case.

Unfortunately, all the major steakhouses are inconsistent. The problem is that the principal ingredient—top-tier aged prime beef—is itself inconsistent, and not available in sufficient supplies to meet demand. Luger may get it right a tad more often than the others, but not often enough to be any kind of guarantee. Against that are Luger's well known drawbacks which are guaranteed to be there almost every time. It's virtually a sure bet that you cannot. No one has the combination of aging facilities and special-purpose broilers that the better steakhouses have. Whether the steakhouses are worth the money is a whole other matter, on which you have to make a personal decision. BLT Prime serves its share of home-runs steaks too. After all, it's chasing the same sources, and knows what to do with them. Obviously Prime's drawbacks, like Luger's are a constant, and won't change. I agree with you about Wolfgang's, but I must confess that I just don't 'get' Keens, unless you are going for the mutton chop, the atmosphere, or the single-malt scotches—all very defensible reasons, btw.

A $100 steak? What did you order?The fact is, a lot of NYC restaurants are too loud, and I don't think it's just to turn tables. It's just the current vogue. I mean, there are also industry studies showing that patrons will spend more if you play classical music, but almost no one is doing that. The ambiance is also very loud at PL, by the way, although for different reasons.

Today, Frank Bruni demoted Peter Luger from three stars to two. To anyone who has followed recent accounts of this place, the demotion is hardly a surprise. Indeed, from the text of the review, one star could very well have been justified. Luger always had a number of significant drawbacks: location, refusal to accept credit cards, a limited menu and wine list, gruff service, beer hall ambiance, and the difficulty of getting reservations. Its only claim to fame was a porterhouse to die for. But now, there are a good half-dozen Luger clones in Manhattan. Most of them do not have Luger's drawbacks. If Luger's porterhouse is better than the clones, it's only by the narrowest of margins. After all, what Luger is doing isn't rocket science; sooner or later, others were going to duplicate it. On top of that, with so many restaurants chasing limited quantities of prime beef, it stands to reason that even Luger sometimes cannot get the best short loins. The timing of the review was a little odd. It mentioned that renovations are in progress. Given the typical 10-year gap between re-reviews, would it not have been better to wait until the renovations were complete?

I was there about a year ago, and I was very favorably impressed. What little I recorded of my visit is available here. I loved the pork shank "fra diavolo".

For a change, let's critique another critic. In this week's two-star review of Bar Stuzzichini, Adam Platt in New York says: For my taste, there's a bit too much navel-gazing here. I don't care about "the endless stream of restaurants" the poor professional critic "must endure." Yes, we all have unpleasant duties to perform at times, but if it feels like an endurance test to poor Mr. Platt, perhaps he's in the wrong job. I don't think Platt's readers really care how put out he is by the rigors of his profession.

It was a pocket digital camera. I agree, it was a little odd. These days, there is hardly a restaurant of consequence that hasn't been extensively photo-blogged. In contrast, the g/f and I dined at Per Se on Saturday night. They were actually helping us out—leaving bottles from our wine pairing on the table, so we could photograph them.

It may very well depend on who is in charge that day. For a very copiously photographed meal at Perry Street, see here. A very wise move, IMO. All good restaurants tweak their menus, but having said that, I cannot recall a restaurant opening with such minimal offerings to start with. As one who orders cocktails reasonably frequently, I can tell you that they were on the smallish side. Not unreasonably sized, but below average. If the correct sizing is that well known, it's surprising that more restaurants aren't aware of it.The truth is, they were very enjoyable, but I felt they competed with the food, and if that's what they're encouraging you to drink, the bill is going to mount rather quickly. I thought that people ought to be aware of that.

It was totally empty when I arrived, and only sparsely populated when I left, but it was the 6:00–7:00 hour, which I would not expect to be prime time for this sort of place.

It's possible he was confused, but he said no photography whatsoever.My usual practice is to use the flash if there's no one sitting nearby, and to turn it off otherwise. As I mentioned, the restaurant was empty, so I used the flash. (Had I kept it off, it's probable he wouldn't have noticed.) The host said, "Sorry, no flash photography." "No flash photography?" I replied. He came back, "Sorry, please no photography."

I was happy to find that Tailor is only about 5 minutes’ walk from the subway station I use to get home, so I thought I’d drop in after work. The bi-level space is modern chic, but nicely done. There is an ample bar area downstairs with a dining room on the ground level. The dining room is arguably more comfortable than WD–50, and it is certainly more so than p*ong or the late lamented Room 4 Dessert. Service was as polished as at just about any three-star restaurant. Although there are no tablecloths, there are cloth napkins. Silverware was promptly replaced, and an empty glass or a finished plate were promptly noticed. My bar tab was transferred to my table without complaint. Both ambiance and service bear no comparison to Momofuku Ssam Bar, which is distinctly unpleasant, no matter how much Chang may be canonized for his cooking. The food at Tailor has three-star potential, but with some serious limitations. At the moment, only six savory courses and six desserts are on offer, making Tailor’s menu the skimpiest of any comparable establishment. None of the items individually is very expensive (sweets $11; savories $12–15), but as the servings are small, the costs can mount in a hurry. Mason made a considered decision to feature cocktails, rather than wine. The cocktail menu features twelve very clever selections by mixologist Eben Freeman, but only five wines by the glass (none by the bottle). Freeman’s offerings ($12–15 each) are excellent in their own right, but they are small, and they overpowered the food. Frank Bruni thrives on the unpredictable, but if he is unwilling to award three stars to WD–50, it seems unlikely he’ll do so here, as Tailor is in many ways far more limited. Two stars seems to me about the best Tailor could expect, unless the menu choices expand and a real wine list is added. It seems almost a crime to have such a polished service brigade, and so little to serve. Although the dining room was empty, the staff insisted that I not take photographs. Why Thomas Keller can permit this with a full dining room at Per Se, while Mason won’t allow it in an empty one, is beyond me. Apparently he wants to keep the food a secret. I will therefore accommodate him by not describing what I had. I’ll say that there was an amuse-bouch. Of the two dishes I paid for, one was very close to the best thing I’ve had all year; the other one wasn’t. I had planned to order more, but after the no-photography edict I decided to go home. What’s the deal with the no-photo rule? Gordon Ramsay was the last jerk to pull that stunt, and look where it got him?

The presskit is available here (PDF). It mentions that a chef's tasting menu is forthcoming.

Can a solo diner walk in impromptu, get a seat at the bar, and order some food? Or is that crazy?

According to this Eater post, it's six apiece. As I recall from Mason's pre-release comments, the focus on cocktails over wine was a deliberate decision.

I haven't been yet, but the most impressive comment came from Eater's post-opening comment: between 8:30 and 11:00 p.m., Mason did not leave the kitchen to schmooze the dining room, despite the presence of a number of celebrities. That suggests his attention is where it should be—on the food. The concept of a New Paradigm is, of course, totally fictional.

It's hard to get past our predisposition against it, but I don't think the décor is tacky at all. Its reputation for being one of this city's most romantic spots is entirely justified. The first question is whether Hopson has the culinary chops. Supposing he does, the second question is whether he will get the support he needs from the front-of-house. When you've been running one kind of restaurant for decades, it's hard to become another kind of restaurant, even if you realize it and are intent on doing something new. Old habits die hard.

The number of "relevant" places (as FG defined it) surely numbers at least 100, and perhaps more. Anyone monitoring the message boards (EG, Mouthfuls, Chowhound) can readily find the restaurants that are repeatedly recommended by knowledgeable diners, over and over again. There are a lot of them.I think the object of the thread—though perhaps it has morphed a bit—was to discuss expensive, high-concept places that were formerly considered trailblazers, but are no longer regarded that way—Vong being a prime example.

RestaurantGirl reports that Craig Hopson, formerly chef de cuisine at Picholine, is making the jump to One if by Land, Two if by Sea. The restaurant will close in October for "a sizable makeover." Hopson will hire a new pastry chef, and the cooking will feature "exotic ingredients and bold world flavors on a menu that will be printed daily." Even allowing the usual truth discount, given the source of this information, one clearly gets the impression that OIBL is actually trying to make the push to become a serious restaurant. There is no logical reason why it could not be, if the owners are truly intent upon doing so. I suppose the odds are slim, but it could be interesting to watch.

WD-50 has had a pretty good run, so I wouldn't be so fast to write its epitaph. But to put the comment a little more judiciously, the "foodies" definitely have distinct preferences from society at large. "Intellectual cuisine" has a limited audience, but it can be very difficult to get into some of these places, as anyone who's tried to snag a reservation at El Bulli or The Fat Duck will attest.

Nathan is referring to the Meatpacking District. I think it's a nickname he invented, but I knew instantly what he meant. As the name implies, it was formerly an industrial meat packing district, but it is now primarily a club/restaurant/retail area. Nathan thinks that only tourists and the so-called "bridge & tunnel crowd" go there, which of course is not true at all, but to an extent it has that reputation. It is certainly hard to find a restaurant there that any of the food community takes seriously, although Spice Market was very favorably reviewed by multiple critics when it opened.There is also the matter of defining that neighborhood properly. Morimoto, which he named, is not technically in the Meatpacking district, though it is close by and might be said to appeal to the same crowd. But Del Posto and Crafsteak are across the street, and they're in a very different class.

Aureole, which carries a Michelin star, doesn't quite seem to fit the rest of your list. Come to think of it, Fiamma Osteria (a Hanson restaurant) has a Michelin star too. You'd be surprised how many business lunches and dinners there are, where people are looking for dependable unadventurous fare. Vong, which is smack in the middle of East Midtown, is perfect for that. Edit: I'm not sure whether FG is looking for places that were formerly relevant (certainly true of Vong), or for places that never were relevant to begin with (most of Hanson's empire).

My one and only experience with Vong was about 2 years ago. My thinking was, "It's a Vongerichten restaurant that I've never been to. I want to check it off the list." It wasn't a disappointing meal in any sense, though obviously it's no longer ground-breaking, and JG's association with it is, by now, strictly nominal.The word "irrelevant" in the post meant, I presume, "irrelevant to foodies." I think that "foodies" (it's an awful term, but I don't have a better one) probably comprise a miniscule fraction of the dining public. I suspect that even the places that people like us still consider "relevant," like Babbo, draw most of their revenue from guests who aren't serious connoisseurs. There are many "old school" places that fit the bill, like One if By Land, Cafe des Artistes, Four Seasons, 21 Club, Petrossian, Russian Tea Room, Tavern on the Green. They all pre-date the "big box Asian" theme (of which Vong was among the first), but they'd all be considered "high concept" if they opened today.

I'm writing in relative terms. Tailor and Ssam Bar—it's too soon for me to speculate about Ko—are obviously ambitious in an important sense. But I don't think you can say they're consistently striving for, or achieving, the same culinary level as The Modern or Per Se.That's not to suggest any kind of disappointment about what they've done. It's not about good and bad. They're just putting on a fundamentally different kind of show.