oakapple

Landmarc at the Time-Warner Center opened today. Snack broke the story, with Eater following. There's a photo at Grub Street. The dinner menu (MS Word here) resembles the TriBeCa branch, though it has more steaks on it than I remember seeing downtown. The low-priced wine program is also comparable to the TriBeCa branch, with a selection of half-bottles that supposedly runs into the hundreds. The hours are 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., and the space seats 300. The question is: on that scale, can they maintain the quality?

The g/f and I had the Farmer's Feast at BHSB on Saturday (report here). In terms of quantity, it was pretty much on par with what Doc and JosephB had. My photos aren't as good as Doc's, but you still get the general idea.In a couple of cases, I would have preferred Doc's courses to ours, but I suppose it's the luck of the draw. The couple next to us also ordered the Farmer's Feast, but got different courses because the guy gave a long list of food aversions. The last time I had the Farmer's Feast was a couple of years ago, and I don't remember so many amuse courses coming out. Obviously I liked it enough to come back, but I thought this time out was even better.

Online menus are usually a bit outdated, especially for a place like Perry St., where it changes fairly frequently.

The reality is, that cost already has been passed on to consumers. It's just that, because nearly all restaurants accept credit cards, you can't easily see the difference. But that 3% has to be paid for somehow. With most customers nowadays paying credit, the cost is just buried in the general cost of running a business. But you are, in effect, the one paying it.

I don't know what you mean by negative vig, but I agree there is a virtually guaranteed (albeit imaginary) profit.The fact is, Bruni is far more predictable than horse racing. Eater isn't always right, but he's right far more often than not. If you simply bet on the Eater favorite every time, you will make money. Another way of putting it is that, although Eater is very good at identifying the most probable outcome, his odds aren't realistic. If an actual casino offered those odds, the house would go bankrupt. As a game, the only way this would make sense is if a group of people make their predictions every week, and then someone tracks wins and losses over time. While any half-knowledgeable person should be able to rack up a winning record, some people will be better than others at predicting when Bruni will do the unexpected.

That would be funny if it wasnt childish. Fact it's until there is concrete proof, the presumption of innocence is how things work in America. ← Actually, that isn't how it works. Presumption of innocense is purely a legal concept. Outside of the courtroom, we are entitled to believe anything we want. O.J. is the ultimate example — there are others — of someone not convicted legally who is nevertheless guilty in the minds of the public.(Obviously, the offenses Neroni is accused of, whether guilty or not, are on a whole different scale than O.J.'s.)

I think a mention is fine. Bruni offers a detailed chronological history. Stating "after a rocky start..." or "after a period of turmoil..."and moving on to where the place is today is plenty sufficient. The ending with the ominous policemen entering is a bit much. This reads like a magazine article not a restaurant review. ← I thought all the background at the beginning of the article was about at the right level of detail. I actually counted it out, and he managed to start talking about the food by the 6th paragraph. That's pretty good for him. For Rosanjin two weeks ago, he didn't get to the food till the 15th paragraph.I entirely agree that the bit about the ominous policemen was over-the-top. It had nothing to do with the restaurant. I mean, the same policemen could have shown up anywhere.

The "hook" was slightly overdone, especially the bit at the end about the three grim-looking police officers walking in. But overall, not a bad performance by Mr. Bruni.

Could we have pari-mutuel (spelled correctly) wagering? ← On my blog, I have a recurring weekly feature where I place an imaginary $1 bet according to Eater's odds, and keep track of who's right.In the eight weeks that I've been doing it publicly, I've gone 7-1, amassing a war chest of $24.67. Eater has gone 6-2, amassing $17.00. The lone blemish on my record was Robert's Steakhouse (I took the 2-star odds; Bruni awarded one). The two blemishes on Eater's record were Sfoglia and The Four Seasons (he bet on one and three stars respectively; Bruni awarded two in each case).

That's my bet too.

You're meaning "best" as "most puzzling," Marc? Count me in on that one. It's certainly a notable re-opening, but Best seems a stretch, I agree. ← Yeah, that's what I meant. It was probably the worst choice of the five candidates, as it's the closest thing to a clear failure.

The best one is: Best Re-Opening, Russian Tea Room, beating out Le Cirque, Picholine, Tasting Room, and The Waverly Inn.

"Affordable" is relative. A $48 prix fixe could be called a bargain, bearing in mind that Wayne Nish is the chef. But it also means a couple can't get out of there for under $96, before beverages, tax, and tip.Given that the restaurant isn't full, and has basically never been full, I think it would have been smarter to offer an à la carte menu, to accommodate people who don't want 3 courses. I realize that ALC is available in the bar, but the dining room is a lot more spacious & comfortable.

What Stupak doesn't say, is what most of the reviews did say: Ed Witt's food, however characterized, was rather uneven, and over-priced for what it was.

Was the Four Seasons ever a four-star restaurant? It's an honest question since I can't say for sure (progress is slow and incomplete.) I did a quick online search, and I very well may have missed a rating. ← My quick search the other day found fewer reviews than Leonard did. I found none at four stars. I know that Craig Claiborne loved the place. If anyone awarded four, he did. But I can't find it.

I thought it was more like taking credit for having made a correct prediction. With the large number of detractors the original Varietal had—including quite a few published critics—it's pretty hard to give credit to any one person. It would be almost like waking up the day after the election in 1948, and saying, "See, I told you Truman would win."I find Cuozzo entertaining, but I do not rely on him for dining recommendations.

We have no idea what the "market" thought, because there is no one place where the "market" expresses its opinion. After all, you and I are both part of the "market," and we have different opinions about why it might have failed.The critics didn't agree either. Just compare the Adam Platt and Frank Bruni reviews. Not a lot of agreement there. Among other things, Platt liked the desserts; Bruni didn't. Agreeing that something has failed, and agreeing on the root causes, are two very different things. The first is obvious and requires no further elaboration: both chefs are gone. The second could have many answers, and will never be resolved definitively.

I assume you're referring to the interior decorating, since you referred to only two of the four restaurants.I am referring to other aspects of comfort, like not having to eat dinner while sitting on top of your winter coat, which is on top of a backless bar stool.

Because Varietal failed so quickly and spectacularly, you could probably come up with 100 explanations. As I saw it, Witt's cuisine, for what they were charging for it, didn't have a good enough ratio of hits to misses. It might be as simple as that. I also thought that you had to be a little gullible to buy into their concept of the wine list.Depending on what you compare it to, there certainly are examples where a similar concept has worked.

Does that mean Nish is leaving Nish and Nish is closing? ← Read the Post article. Nish is doing what a lot of chefs do, but that he (so far) had resisted: running two kitchens at once.Nish is at least an established chef, but Cuozzo wonders it it's too little, too late. I am not sure Varietal's clientele would find a $48 three-course prix fixe attractive. I would have chosen a menu that lends itself to grazing. The other problem will be Getting The Word Out. Varietal managed the unusual feat of getting reviewed by every publication in town. But the reviews are over now, and the critics aren't likely to rush back for Release 2.0.

While I certainly enjoyed Ssam Bar, I was not transported to orgasmic levels of ecstasy, as some of the "buzz" would lead you to expect. That was 2½ months ago, and I know the menu changes rapidly, so my experience might not be relevant today. My visit also pre-dated the Bruni review, and while there was already a lot of attention on this place, it wasn't quite at the stratospheric level it has now reached. When expectations are so insanely high, first-time visitors are probably ripe for disappointment. Taste can't be proved or disproved, but I find this difficult to believe. Since my visit to Ssam Bar, I've been to The Modern, Country, Daniel, and Eleven Madison Park. If money were no object, I'd choose any one of them above Ssam Bar. In. A. Heartbeat.Obviously, money is a factor for most of us. It's nice to know that you can waltz into Ssam Bar any night of the week, wearing whatever you want to wear, and have a very good meal at a fraction of the cost that other places charge for comparable quality. While The Modern, Country, Daniel, and EMP were my four best meals of the year so far, I certainly had others that were very good, came close to or met Ssam Bar's general level of excellence, and took place in much more enjoyable surroundings. I wouldn't say Ssam Bar is an emperor with no clothes. It thoroughly deserves all the praise it has received. But some of the praise seems to me over-the-top.

Probably not worth posting here, because anyone can find your earlier comments on the thread, and there's nothing new to say. But Frank Bruni ought to write as if he's introducing the Four Seasons to readers who are not familiar with it. The closest recent comparable precedent is Le Cirque, which also received two stars, so Bruni is at least consistent. At both restaurants, how you're treated depends on who you are, but if you happen to know what to order, you can have an outstanding meal.The only other possibly relevant comparison is Russian Tea Room, which got one star. It's not quite the same thing, because the new RTR opened with a totally different team than the old one, while Four Seasons and Le Cirque had (at the time Bruni reviewed them) long-standing continuity both in FOH and in the kitchen. To the extent the stars mean anything, they tend to be most useful when comparing similar establishments. You could argue that there's nothing really comparable to The Four Seasons, so its two-star rating conveys no information except that it's not as good as the three or four-star version of itself. I doubt that Bruni would tell you that The Four Seasons' two stars mean very much when compared to Rosanjin's two stars a week ago.

That's a very fair assessment. Of course, as I've said about 100 times, I think Frank is bored with traditional fine dining. That part of his beat should be taken away, and given to someone who actually enjoys it. Bruni's beat should be the steakhouses, burger joints, Asian restaurants, and Italian restaurants. Those are the things he likes.Having said that, I have no evidence suggesting that Bruni got the review wrong. You just don't find many examples of people dining at The Four Seasons, and coming back wowed. As far as I can tell, it doesn't even have its own eGullet thread. That's pretty remarkable for a restaurant that's been at the high end of the NY dining scene since 1959.

This review was notable in another way. Usually, when reviewing classic luxury restaurants, Bruni makes some kind of sideswipe at the genre — suggesting that today's diners don't really want white tablecloths, elegant service, "fussy" presentation, and so forth. There was none of that in today's review. He seemed perfectly willing to accept The Four Seasons on its own terms—something he ought to do more often. He simply found the food and service too uneven for a three-star restaurant with $50 entrees, which is fair enough.

Demotion reviews tend to sound unduly harsh, because the critic is explaining why the higher rating is no longer justified. A comparable example is Bouley, which didn't really read like a three-star review. It made sense only if you knew that he was taking it down from four.