oakapple

The prices mentioned upthread are at the enoteca (the bar area). In the main dining room, it is still pretty expensive.

It's with great trepidation that one questions Leonard, because he usually has hard data for whatever he says. Nevertheless, I think I disagree.Bruni hasn't said much about the star system as-such. But in one of his few comments about it, he said that the stars "chart ever-increasing levels of excitement" (or words to that effect). This doesn't really suggest that he has a conscious "strategy" stemming from the rising tide of restaurant quality. Of course, it could be that, just by dumb luck, he happens to have implemented a strategy without realizing it. But if he has an actual "strategy," I don't think he's yet shared it with us. It's hard to draw conclusions from Bruni's four-star reviews, because there aren't enough of them to be statistically significant. He awarded four stars to Per Se and Masa, both of which were expected. He smacked down Alain Ducasse, which many of us found incomprehensible. And he smacked down Bouley, and although the way he did it was ugly, most people conceded the restaurant had lost some of its lustre. Bruni has awarded three stars to at least three restaurants that lack traditional three-star amenities (even if the food quality arguably justifies it): BLT Fish, A Voce, and now the Bar Room. Arguably, Perry Street also falls in this category. He's also smacked down a number of three-star aspirants, but I presume this has happened in every era.

You have to remember what Leonard has repeatedly pointed out — that in Sheraton's day almost all reviews were at least two restaurants, and sometimes more. She was therefore able to revisit restaurants far more frequently than Bruni can.The nostalgia for critics like Mimi Sheraton is not because of their star ratings. It's because they were food professionals with an actual background in what they were writing about. Ultimately it is not the rating, but the quality of the writing behind it, that counts.

Leonard Kim wrote about a restaurant called Claudio's, which received (in short order) three stars, and then zero, from Mimi Sheraton. Leonard has mentioned a few other examples like this. In the star system today, a restaurant with three-star potential but inconsistent execution would receive a smackdown to two stars, and in an egregious case to one star, but practically never to zero. An unfortunate problem with this system, is that you can't easily tell whether a two-star restaurant is "very good," or in fact a restaurant that ought to be "excellent," but is failing at it. It's a system that somehow accommodates both Le Cirque and Sripraphai at two stars. From Leonard's examples, you get the impression that Sheraton used zero stars for smackdowns, leaving a landscape where those with one, two, or three stars were genuinely worthy at their level, instead of being failed attempts at higher levels. Leonard, is that in fact what Sheraton did?

Do the restaurants feel demeaned? To the contrary, I suspect Danny Meyer and Daniel Humm are absolutely delighted with their three stars at Eleven Madison Park.And I suspect Drew Nieporent was absolutely delighted with his two stars at Mai House last week. (Actually, I know he is delighted, because he posted a congratulatory letter from one of his celebrity friends in the restaurant's front window.) Of course, those who fail to receive the stars they wanted aren't as happy, but any such system necessarily implies there will be winners and losers. I doubt the feeling is much different after an opera production gets panned, even though no stars are at stake.

JG Shanghai is listed as a JG restaurant on the JG website. If there is a particular distinction between JG Shanghai and any of the other dozen-or-so restaurants where he was paid for his "name, recipes and training," it is not apparent.

I am neither persuaded that Bruni is taking price into account more than his predecessors, nor that this is the only explanation for his ratings.

Although the Times does not award stars to opera performances, I think it's pretty clear that the critics don't review the New York City Opera differently because its top ticket price is lower. Even if the opera critic were to take price into account, God only knows how he would do it. I mean, the performance is fundamentally the same thing, whether you paid $300 for the best box seats or watched it for free on PBS. And while the Met has a higher top price than the NYCO, it has a lower bottom price. For restaurants, there is a pretty long history of taking price into account. As Leonard Kim pointed out, Canaday wrote in the Times 33 years ago: Maybe the Times has been getting it wrong all these years, but clearly it's an approach with some pedigree.I do agree with Fat Guy that price should be the least important of the factors, for the reasons he states.

Let's distinguish GT's responsibilities as a (purported) three-star restaurant, and Bruni's responsibilities as a critic.GT may be in transition, but its price structure is not. As far as I know, GT has neither lowered its prices, nor put up a sign saying "Buyer beware: we are in transition." Diners go to GT expecting a three-star experience, and the evidence suggests that they aren't consistently getting it. That is not acceptable, and there's nothing wrong with any of us saying so. The chief restaurant critic of the New York Times has additional responsibilities. Re-reviews are very infrequent, meaning that Bruni's statements will be the paper's official position for a very, very long time. It is therefore irresponsible for a review of EMP & the Bar Room to make obliquely critical comments about another restaurant at the very moment when the old chef has departed, and the new chef just arrived. Those comments will be part of the public record for many years, long after they have ceased to have any relevance.

What Todd has demonstrated is that, in terms of the printed menu prices at restaurants, the high-to-low ratio is in a narrower band than it is for things like apartments and wristwatches. My reaction is: okay, so what?

What I suggested is that the dividing line between the top 25-50 restaurants, and the rest of the world, is more like $125-150. There aren't 25 restaurants in the Daniel/JG class. Originally, I didn't realize that you were including tax and tip. On that basis, I think the dividing line is more like $150-175. Right, but it's not 100:1, which was your earlier point of comparison. We'd probably need to analyze a few more categories to determine whether restaurant pricing is really as out-of-whack as you're suggesting. I think it gets back to supply and demand. When a wine bottle costs $1,000, it's because there's a limited amount available at that quality level. But I can get into Daniel almost any time I want.

There's that word again: simply. Anyhow, if some of the dishes "simply suck," then USC isn't a three-star restaurant — not because it is still serving 1980s recipes, but because it's serving bad food. While all restaurants have their soft spots, I firmly believe that no dish at a three-star restaurant should "simply suck."But given the number of people who truly enjoy the place, including Fat Guy, I think it's pretty clear that USC isn't sucking in a simple way — even assuming that it sucks in any way at all.

Your point seems to be that there is something wrong with preparing food well that is no longer perceived as cutting-edge.I mean, if you're saying Seared Tuna with Wasabi Mashed Potatoes was never any good to begin with, we can have that discussion. But if it was a good thing in the 1980s, exactly when did its charms disappear? I enjoy cutting-edge stuff too, but recipes aren't flawed just because they've been around awhile. I think you need to recheck the math. At USC, apps are $9-16, mains $23-34. At The Little Owl, apps are $7-14, mains $17-26. It sounds like you're going to spend about $10 more per person at USC, before beverages.

Well, WD-50 is a two-star restaurant, and Perry Street is priced like one. (I happen to think WD-50 deserves a bump up to three, but the guy who decides hasn't come to that conclusion yet.)There's an unfortunate trend in criticism that is biased against restaurants that do classic things well. You see it in Bruni's comment about Bouley, "The pairing of citrus dressing with a seafood carpaccio (scallops, in this case) is a tired, uninspired concept." Is it David Bouley's fault that a concept he helped to invent has been so widely replicated by others who aren't as good at it? My only experience at Union Square Café is too dated to be relevant here. But I don't think it's a fault that the restaurant has failed to start any recent culinary trends.

Restaurants at the high end should be re-reviewed periodically. I mean, there was no particular urgency for Vong and Mercer Kitchen to be re-reviewed last year. Bruni just felt they had drifted sufficiently far from their original ratings that something needed to be said. I think you can safely predict that one or two of the existing NYT three-star restaurants will get kicked in the teeth next year. It seems re-reviews have been a bit more frequent of late, perhaps because the calendar of new openings has slowed down from the pace a couple of years ago.

Nathan is right. With the Rich as a lonely dissenter, most people thought the Babbo review was close to pitch-perfect. With hindsight, I think we can see it had some of the flaws that have infected the whole Bruni enterprise, but at the time Rich was almost by himself.The Bouley review came just two weeks later, and by then most of his support had dried up. A critique isn't a pot shot. He need not write a full review to comment upon his recent experience. There isn't some particular length that a comment must be, in order for it to be appropriate. The USC comments were fine, and the GT comments would have been, except that the place is in transition.I entirely agree, however, that a review of the Bar Room and Eleven Madison Park shouldn't end with a negative complaint about two other restaurants. It ends the review on a decidedly odd note.

I've never been to Le Bernardin. A friend said to me yesterday that Le Bernardin "feels like" a business restaurant, that it's not particularly good for romantic occasions, and that it doesn't even have very many tables for two. She loves the food, by the way; she was just trying to characterize the vibe. Anyone agree or disagree?

What I said, was that if his aim was to call attention to restaurants normally overlooked by the Manhattan-centric fine dining public, either a glowing one-star review or a glowing two-star review would have had the same effect.I have dined at Kittichai twice, and I rate it two stars (the same as Frank Bruni did). I have never dined at Sripraphai or Spicy & Tasty, so my comments about them are based on what I've heard. What Fat Guy and some others said at the time, and I agree with, is that a two-star rating suggests—among many other things—a certain degree of service and creature-comforts, along with very good food. There is a variability in these things: after all, there are thousands of restaurants, but only four ratings. But Sripraphai and S&T are simply too alien from what a two-star rating traditionally has meant. By the way, it's no insult to be a great one-star restaurant. Not every one-star restaurant is a failed attempt at two, three, or four stars. Yes, that explanation accounts for some of the one-star ratings. But sometimes one star applies quite comfortably to restaurants that are doing a great job at their level. I also think—though there's no way to prove it—that if you could magically transport Sripraphai and S&T into Manhattan, with the identical service and ambiance as their outer-borough doppelgangers, Bruni would not give them two stars. In 2½ years on the job, he has never given two stars to a place in Manhattan comparable to these two. (It wouldn't necessarily have to be Thai or Chinese.) I think Sri and S&T got a bonus star for being outside of Manhattan.

I don't know if it's a fire-the-chef review, because I don't know how well The Modern is doing. I'm sure Danny Meyer wants three stars, but what he really wants is butts in seats. If he's getting that, then Kreuther is safe.The only data point I have, is that The Modern was charging around $350 on New Year's Eve, which even at their level is a very substantial premium over the everyday price. It suggests they've accumulated enough satisfied regulars to believe they could fill the room with people willing to spend that kind of money on a special occasion. And firing the chef isn't a panacea. Alain Ducasse fired Christian Delouvrier, and Bruni does not seem to have paid the slightest bit of attention. The one near-certainty is that The Modern will never be rated three stars as long as Kreuther is the chef and Bruni is the critic. I just don't know how much that matters.

Nathan, that's a great post. I do fear, though, that parts of it are too cynical. I agree that every reviewer makes mistakes. But that doesn't mean that all critics are basically interchangeable. Although I don't know how to measure it, there probably are some critics who've made more mistakes than others. Grimes's background, if not pitch-perfect, was a more rational segue into restaurant criticism than anything Bruni has in his background. I'm not sure Grimes enjoyed any more deference than Bruni. What has changed, is that we know instantly what the "blogosphere" thinks of the latest review. Maybe people were outraged when Mimi Sheraton awarded four stars to Hatsuhana in 1983 (the first Japanese restaurant so honored). But those outraged people couldn't as easily find each other as they can today. I agree that Bruni's last year has been better than his first year. When I suggest that he's biased against formal dining, I am not suggesting that he's incapable of ever giving fair recognition to those restaurants. I am suggesting that he does not as readily appreciate excellence in that category. There is also quite a bit more public demand for Britney Spears than Beethoven. Luckily, the Times has separate critics (indeed, separate departments) for pop and classical music. As long as the paper has just one critic for fine dining, that critic needs to appreciate a wide variety of styles and tastes. I think he is absolutely right about calling attention to these kinds of places. But he didn't need to give them two stars. The fact is, for places like that, a full-length glowing review is like a Christmas present. Just to be reviewed at all was more than they ever expected. I agree with most of that, but I think you're being too cynical. No critic can be universally adored, and every critic will write reviews that lots of us disagree with. But I don't think it's impossible to put someone in that job who, on the whole, will be widely regarded as better than Frank Bruni.

Everything the Times publishes is intended to provoke discussion and buzz.

The problem with this review is that it shortchanges Daniel Humm's achievement at EMP. EMP has been given a side-by-side review with a completely incomparable restaurant. They both received the same ranking, but not in a way that sheds any particular light on EMP (and in fact tends to favor the Bar Room). Being given three stars alongside the Bar Room sort of devalues EMP. ← That's why I added the qualifier, "aside from the fact that the Bar Room got one star too many." Had the Bar Room been correctly rated, the fact that they share a review doesn't particularly bother me.Indeed, I'd like to see a lot more double reviews. If you go back to the Mimi Sheraton era, she would often put reviews side by side that had nothing whatever to do with each other. In one that I was looking at, Le Veau d'Or and Smith & Wollensky were in the same review. Compared to those two, EMP and the Bar Room are kissing cousins. I will agree with you that you could imagine a hypothetical case where this was acceptable and coherent. I am suggesting that in this case, it is not.

Bruni surely must be making comparisons in his head, at least among restaurants that he considers comparable. But I haven't seen any evidence that Bruni is "reining himself in," which would imply that he recognizes that some of his earlier ratings were wrong. He's probably not going to admit outright error, but I can't think of a single thing he's said that suggests even the slightest whiff of regret about any of his past reviews or ratings.In any event, there have been too many errors over the years to reconcile them. Even assuming that he recognizes the wretched excess of his past, the only thing to be done is simply to start fresh, and eventually the misguided reviews will become more distant memories.

Rich, do you categorically object anytime a critic makes an off-hand reference — for purposes of comparison — to something he's not fully reviewing? It happens all the time, e.g.:John Doe gave a thrilling performance, overcoming the intonation problems that have plagued him in the past. John Smith has written a compelling legal thriller, which is much improved over his earlier novel, "The Broken Cherry Tree." In this film, Spielberg focuses on the characters, unlike his earlier films that are flawed by mind-numbing special effects. And so forth.

Uhh. Since Chef Humm came on board last February it has been one of the most discussed restaurants in the city. Naturally people was anticipating Bruni's next review and would it be upgraded from two stars. Bruni said so much in the review himself if not for Humm it would not have been re-reviewed. What I meant was that I don't think there are people who rush out to buy the Wednesday Times in giddy anticipation of a particular review. The people who buy the Times were gonna buy it anyway.Yes, it's true that EMP wouldn't have been re-reviewed without a change of chef. But there was no precedent for Bruni re-doing one of his own reviews, and as much as a few foodies might have liked for it to happen, there was no assurance he would. One must always be careful of a claim like "most discussed restaurants," as we tend to talk within a self-selected community, and may not realize what other people are talking about. FWIW, in my totally unscientific impression of the year-end food wrapups in many papers/magazines/food blogs, The Little Owl was the most talked-about restaurant. Heck, Nathan alone mentions it at least twice a day.