oakapple

Anyone want to earn an easy $500? Eater is currently offering that sum to anyone who can produce the address and an interior photo (cell-phone shot acceptable) of Liebrandt's new restaurant. Eater recounts the abundant evidence that Liebrandt surely is planning a restaurant that would open sometime in the fall. But all attempts at confirming it have failed, and "Frankly, it's driving us mildly insane."

Once you get inside, I don't think there's a whole lot of difference between BLT Steak and BLT Prime.

He is generally behind-the-pack. New York magazine had already pronounced Franny's the best pizza in New York. All Frank did was to place his benediction on a judgment that other, more knowledgeable people had already reached.

Soft opening last night. Flash report here.

I don't know that Wylie has ever said that. Even if he had, comparisons are unavoidable.

I don't think a review of a pizza place is going to win Bruni any converts, but this is the type of restaurant that I'd expect him to understand as well as anybody. I'm more inclined to trust his judgment here than, say, at Alain Ducasse.

I've had long tasting menus twice at WD-50, and I loved it both times. The visits were far enough apart that the menu had changed considerably, so I've tasted a pretty broad sample of what Wylie is doing. The only caveat is that I haven't sampled much of the avant-garde movement anywhere else, so I don't have a lot to compare it to. The closest was Paul Liebrandt at Gilt, and of course he didn't last. In NYC, no one but Wylie has enjoyed long-term success in this genre.

One reason for the lunch price, I think, is that LB is in a neighborhood where it can attract a significant business crowd.

Do you mean that:A) Bouley isn't doing as good a job as it formerly did; or, B) Bouley is still doing what it always did, but the overall quality level in New York has gone up while Bouley has stayed the same; or C) Bouley doesn't follow any of the latest trends, so by definition is simply less exciting.

Just read a few posts upthread. About $175pp seems to be the going rate, and it does include service.

The Mutton Chop at Keens Steakhouse (in addition to the above)

Thanksgiving is increasingly a big-revenue day for those restaurants that choose to open. Not as big as Mother's Day, but significant. There are more & more New Yorkers who don't want to cook, but who want a first-class dinner with all the traditional trimmings. The restaurant industry has started to recognize that. Heck, even Alain Ducasse offered a turkey dinner on Thanksgiving the final year it was open. I didn't go, but I'll bet it was tremeondous. Gramercy Tavern (if they're open—which I believe they will be) would probably be an excellent choice. It'll be expensive, but if you were willing to consider Blue Hill at Stone Barns, GT shouldn't be out of your price range. When the holiday gets a lot closer, OpenTable will have a list of all the restaurants serving Thanksgiving dinner. It will show which restaurants are open, whether they are offering a set menu, and what they're charging for it. The only problem with OpenTable is that they don't put up their list until around 3-4 weeks before the holiday. I sometimes find it a little nerve-wracking to get that close, and still not know what I'm going to be doing. But I guarantee you will find something good.

Some people think she is incompetent (doesn't write well, doesn't have the background to be a food critic).Some people think that she's basically a shill for restaurant owners (goes to opening parties, gets comped, then writes puff pieces liberally cribbed from the press release). Some people think she's too blatant about promoting her sexuality (two very glamorous photos in the Daily News), in what purports to be legitimate criticism. Some people resent the career path she took to get where she is now. Some people have rather traditional views of what a critic is supposed to be, and aren't willing to accept someone who chooses a different approach. I'm not suggesting all of those reasons are valid (I don't personally agree with all of them), but those are the themes of the criticisms you read about her.

You're arguing a false dichotomy. No, restaurants aren't out to cheat us. But every starred restaurant can roll out the red carpet when it wants to. It would be pointless to deny that some people get better service than others. Heck, you wrote a whole book to explain how to get the best out of restaurants, which begins with the premise that not everyone gets that.It's not that the average restaurant is stiffing most of its customers. But there is a level "above the norm" that's reserved for VIPs. By pre-announcing yourself, you would guarantee that, whatever that level is, you'd get it every single time. By going in anonymously, Frank Bruni guarantees that, at least sometimes (~25%), he experiences restaurants as the ordinary customer would. The whole idea of sending a letter in advance, which the restaurant must assent to, seems awfully bureaucratic. It is also a concession that, unless you have such an agreement with the restaurant, they will indeed send out food that almost no one else would get. Your strategy of sending confederates to double-check is likewise a concession that, without monitoring them, you wouldn't be sure which restaurants are "cheating" and which ones are playing by the rules.

Insofar as the aforementioned strategy is concerned, her track record began yesterday. There is no evidence to suggest she violated it.

It strikes me that there are degrees of anonymity. At one extreme is Ruth Reichl, who actually worked rather hard to disguise herself—though sometimes she was recognized anyway. I don't think any other NYT critic has done that. Frank Bruni's strategy might be called "passive anonymity." He doesn't disguise himself, and he's well aware that his photo is out there. But he reserves under false names, and he doesn't announce himself to the restaurant. I don't believe he pays with his own credit card. He interviews chefs by telephone, and his photo isn't printed in the newspaper. He appears on TV without his face being shown, which is a bit of a joke. Despite all that, he is frequently recognized, and doesn't try to pretend he's someone else. RestaurantGirl's strategy, taking her at her word, is a little less passive. Like Bruni, she reserves under assumed names, and doesn't announce herself at the restaurant. However, I'm assuming she'll pay with her own credit card. She interviews chefs in person (or gives that impression), and there are fresh photos of her all over the place. She's basically saying: "I'm not going to tell you when I'm coming, and I'm not going to announce when I arrive, but I don't mind at all if you recognize me, and I'm not going to try to keep my face a secret." Lastly, the critic could be wide open about it. "Hi, I'm Steven Shaw. I'm reviewing your restaurant for the New York Times. Could I have a table for four tomorrow evening at 8:00 pm?" FG: If you were the Times critic, which of these strategies would you follow? Or would it be something else?

I have. He looks the same. His weight loss wasn't dramatic enough to change what his face looks like.

Restaurant Girl says that she is going to reserve under assumed names, and that she won't announce herself at the restaurant. If she lives up to that, then she's doing pretty much what Frank Bruni does. Bruni's photo isn't in the paper every week, but as FG notes, there are enough photos of him already floating around.

Gawker is more wired than the two of us put together, but he isn't using any special connections or insights to reach the conclusion he reaches. He even admits that RG's maiden review isn't all that badly written.Gawker's main concern is anonymity. But Steven Shaw has been saying for years that critic anonymity is bullshit, and the reasons he gives are rather similar to RG's. Shaw has never convinced me, but if RG is adopting his position, I can't categorically reject it as unreasonable. I do agree that the "launch" of Danyelle Freeman as a reviewing industry for the Daily News was pompous and vain, but presumably FG is correct that, whatever one may think of it, it's a one-time thing. Maybe it was just an excuse to show that sexy photo. For a more favorable view of Freeman as a critic, check out Gael Greene here.

The g/f and I have reservations this Saturday, so thanks for the timely review. That really is an exaggeration. It's one block from the 42nd Street–Times Square subway complex (albeit the west end of that complex). That means there's 9 transit lines that can get you to within one long block of the place after you exit the subway. No address in New Jersey can say that.I always worry about misleading non-NYC readers. Esca is in a perfectly fine location, and a lot easier to reach by mass transit than many extremely popular places that no one thinks twice about going to. It used to be that anyplace west of Eighth Avenue was considered "the middle of nowhere" (and Eighth Avenue itself was a bit dodgy), but that kind of thinking has been obsolete for about a decade.

I did see the paper, and they give the photo quite a bit of space, which is understandable: she is indeed very pretty.I assume that she had something to do with the way it was promoted. She sat for the photo shoot, after all. The idea that she's "a different kind of critic" is no doubt coming from her. Somehow, I don't imagine the Daily News dreaming that up. Some of her views on criticism are legitimate. Although I happen to think that critic anonymity has value, there are enough people with the opposite viewpoint to put her in good company. But that type of intro for a new critic is unusual. She said she feels like the Dear Abby of food because lots of strangers ask her questions about food. Big deal. ← It's the "for years" part, not the "Dear Abby" part, that I noticed, given that she hasn't been at this for all that long. I have no doubt that she does indeed get a lot of requests. Heck, I get them, and my blog has about 1/100th the traffic she gets.

I don't recall a restaurant review where a photo of the critic in a glamourous pose (here) was larger than a photo of the restaurant she was reviewing. It sets up a situation where the critic herself is the story.Then, there's this: I especially liked: "I've felt like the 'Dear Abby' of food for years." This is someone who didn't have a blog two years ago.

I agree that the self-promotion is disgusting, and no respectable critic—even one who shared her views on critic anonymity—should be doing that. That's even allowing for the fact that it's in the Daily News, where you do expect more sensationalism.I now realize that I mis-read the graphic. It is 1½ stars (exactly what it reads like). According to her system, that's the equivalent of a pan.

Her views on anonymity are exactly the same as Steven Shaw's. Now, I'll grant you there's a difference: Shaw wouldn't allow himself to be photographed in a sexy dress.She's employing a star system with a plus-one bias above the Times. She defines one star as "disappointing," while the Times defines it as "good." She defines two stars as "a safe bet," while the Times is "very good." Gemma comes from the same people as The Waverly Inn. Frank Bruni gave one star to Waverly, Freeman gives two to Gemma, so they're tracking about equally, after accounting for the plus-one bias. She doesn't only say good things. Indeed, given the text, 1½ stars ("hit or miss" by her definition) might have been more appropriate. But there's been plenty written about Bruni's star inflation, so she's in good company there. Of course, the writing isn't as good as Bruni's, but we expected that.

I recently snagged a reservation for October 7th. Did you find the process difficult? For the first half-hour I tried calling and was unable to get through to the reservation line. After I finally got through to the reservation line I had to wait another ten minutes. I thought that I was doomed for disappointment but I was able to get a 5:45 reservation for two (pretty hard to get, so I am told). Has anyone else had this sort of experience? ← I have a reservation for the 2nd weekend in September. My experience was similar, but I don't believe I had to redial for quite as long as you did. But yes, I was redialing for about 15 minutes, and then was on hold for probably another 10-15 minutes. Fortunately, the appointed day for calling (2 months in advance) was a non-work day. I even got a reasonably civilized time (around 7:00 p.m.), rather than the dreaded 5:45.