oakapple

This could be part of his evolution as a critic. He may have said, "Steakhouses are formula restaurants; I've described the formula several times in the past; Neither of these places deviates from the formula in an important way; Ergo, combined review." Had he never written a steakhouse review before, his view might have been different.Actually, I think a combined Luger-Sparks review would make a lot of sense, and if you look at the past examples of double reviews, it would fit the pattern.

Surely he did, since PH received 1 star, and STK received zero. If that doesn't convey that one is better than the other, I don't know what does. People do tend remember the star rating, long after the actual details of the review are forgotten. That's indeed the question they're probably asking today, to which Frank Bruni's answer is a clear "no." I think Lomonaco was positioning PH to be "more than just a steakhouse." By consigning this restaurant to a dual review, Bruni is suggesting that neither one is important enough on its own. That's partly because the steakhouse format is so well trodden that it need not be explained in much detail, and partly because (as he sees it) neither restaurant is sufficiently important.If memory serves me right, Bruni has written rated reviews of four steakhouses before today: Wolfgang's and Keens received two stars apiece; V Steakhouse and Harry's Steak received one. For PH and STK to receive 1 and 0 respectively makes it pretty clear where he thinks they stand. But I'll reiterate that, although Lomonaco no doubt thought he deserved two, I don't think this review will be bad for him the way one star was bad for V Steakhouse.

I agree, but I think Porter House will be critic-proof. Unlike V Steakhouse, it doesn't need three stars to survive. Bruni's bottom-line is that the steaks are fine, and that's what most people will be looking for at Porter House.

I thought it was just barely worth a star, but on my one visit there, my girlfriend and I ordered the signature dish (Tomahawk Chop). My gut said that if that's the best they can do, then a star was awfully generous. Given the number of very ordinary places that have received two-star air kisses from Bruni, I can see your point. On the other hand, just because a few places have benefited from grade inflation, it doesn't mean everyone should.

I sensed that it was a borderline case, which is also the conclusion I reached in my own review. Either one or zero stars would have been consistent with the text. He's not allowed to award a half-star, so he had to jump off the fence.The restaurant also got goose-egged by Adam Platt in New York. Overall, not an auspicious start.

All that means is they're matching what the other top steakhouses do. ← And that's a problem? ← No, I'm merely saying that it's not "promising." It means they're doing what's expected of them.

i'll say probably a month. but i've never had a problem making reservations for "busy" nights (friday or saturday) the same week. I'm pretty sure I made my reservation for Saturday night the same week. I never felt rushed, but I was finished in well under an hour. Some other kinds of meals at that expense level would take longer.

Bruni has another post up today. The reservationists are no longer mentioning a two-hour limit. It remains to be seen whether the reservationists were confused, or if Ramsay has changed his mind after being publicly ridiculed."He could simply care less" is an unlikely explanation. Ramsay has a lot of his own money in this place, and he has admitted in various interviews that he's nervous as heck. (That's not exactly how he put it, but you get the idea.) Two-hour time limts for luxury dining? I'm sure that's not the first impression he had in mind.

I had the omakase at Sushi Yasuda on Saturday night. It was Yasuda-san's night off (an odd night for a restaurant chef to be absent). I can't make comparisons, but I was happy with the chef who served me. I was also happy with the price, $105 for about 25 pieces, before tax and tip, which I think was excellent for the quality.

Adam Platt reviews Porter House in this week's New York. He awards two stars, although it's a weak two. In the "scratchpad" (the section of the review where he explains his rating), he writes: "We’ll give Lomonaco one star for good, old-fashioned steakhouse style, and another one for good luck."

Don't you mean that when your reservationists are warning customers of a two hour time limit it's time to panic. Strange to pin this on Bruni when it could've been anyone with a blog mentioning the tactic. ← I think Bruni's posts get more traffic than the typical blog, and his published reviews (of which the blog posts are usually a preview) certainly do.

For the benefit of those who may not have read the Bruni post, the two-hour limit seems only to apply to reservations after about 8:45 p.m., or so. What's more, when Bruni called the mgmt to inquire about the policy, they responded that "If anyone’s being told that, it’s a mistake....No one should be told that.”But yes, if that's really the policy, it is peculiar for a restaurant aspiring to NYT 4/Michelin 3 stars. Actually, he hasn't. His original post on L'Atelier wasn't a "poor impression". It was mostly favorable, concluding with "I felt a little thrill. And, yes, a definite sense of moment."The Ramsay post isn't comparable, as he hasn't yet tasted a morsel there. But in restaurants aspiring to four stars (as this one clearly is), Bruni expects service to be imeccable. It's hard for a restaurant that hasn't opened yet to be already deficient in service, but Ramsay has managed it. Depending on which spokesperson you believe, either they are imposing a Draconian deadline that is unusual for a luxury restaurant; or, they haven't given the right instructions to the reservations staff. Intimidation might not be the right word, but the basic idea of coming in at a lower price point seems sensible. ← Having thought about this, I wonder whether I agree with it.Are you saying that it's a good idea to open with lower prices than you eventually plan to charge? That strikes me as a bit of a bait and switch. Remember how upset people here got when Country raised their prices after they got a highly favorable New York Times review? It's one thing to have lower "introductory prices" that are expressly so designated. But it strikes me as a bit of a sharp practice -- nothing very high on the insidiousness scale, but still a bit sharp -- to open with low "stealth" prices, knowing you'll soon raise them. ← I'm certainly not privy to Ramsay's plans, but the announced prices are lower than all of the current Michelin 3-star restaurants in New York. Given that Ramsay considers himself a peer of those restaurants, it's hard to imagine that prices won't go up, if business is good.Another data point is that a recent Forbes article had Gordon Ramsay RHR (on which the new restaurant is clearly modeled) on the list of "World's Most Expensive Restaurants 2006," with an average check for one of US$183. Is this "sharp practice"? It doesn't bother me. Look at how the prices at Per Se went up.

Time for Ramsay to panic. When Bruni is complaining about service before the place has even opened to the public, it's not a good sign.

There are a lot of cases with a shared kitchen that are considered separate restaurants. And, to bring this back on topic, Ramsay's new place is one of them. This was quite clear when I called for a reservation, and the agent asked which of the two restaurants I wanted. Both the Times website and the Zagat Guide list Nobu and Next Door Nobu as separate restaurants, and I'm pretty sure they did so before Nobu 57 opened.

I don't consider the Nobu statement erroneous. New York does indeed have three separate restaurants with "Nobu" in the name. The Times reviewed Next Door Nobu separately. It has its own storefront, different hours, and is listed as a distinct restaurant in many guides.

I've made a reservation for Saturday evening, but they tell me Yasuda-san will be off that day. Knowing that, should I try to get into Kuruma instead? Does it matter all that much? I have not been to either place.

It's hard to imagine that the senior staff (including Esnault) would all be going to the St. Regis, if the objective were not to continue to offer a Michelin 3-star product.

The prix fixe at Jean Georges is $95; at Daniel, $96; at Le Bernardin $105. Ramsay is starting out a bit below them, which is appropriate for an import that hasn't yet proved itself. I've very little doubt that, if he is successful, his dinner price will go up by $10-15 within the next 12-18 months. That's a fair assessment of Bruni to date. I would also add that traditional luxury doesn't impress him. The problem with the analogy is that Country and Cru were probably delighted to earn three stars from the Times, but Ramsay will not be. Intimidation might not be the right word, but the basic idea of coming in at a lower price point seems sensible.

The real open question is: What kind of restaurant is Alain Ducasse at the St. Regis intended to be? Is Ducasse still aiming at Michelin 3/NYT 4 stars? Or, is the new restaurant going to be a more casual version of the old?

I'm not really all that "hung up" on it. It's really just a response to comments like, "Michelin didn't award a star to Blue Hill; therefore, their ratings are garbage." In fact, their stars have a reasonably high correlation to other media sources that rate restaurants. A few of their choices are odd, but a few of Zagat's choices are odd, and a few of Frank Bruni's choices are odd, and a few of Adam Platt's choices are odd, etc., etc. The "eGullet consensus list" is obviously a hypothetical construct, because as FG has pointed out, eGullet doesn't formally do restaurant ratings, and doesn't intend to.I do think the Michelin Guide is the best New York restaurant guidebook I've seen. For those visitors that buy restaurant guidebooks—I don't know how many do, but Michelin isn't printing them as a public service—it's a pretty good resource. I would recommend it more highly than the Zagat Guide. That doesn't excuse Michelin's lapses, but in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. I agree with FG that eGullet and the Michelin Guide really aren't comparable. They're just different types of resources. As a regular here, I have a sense of this site's strengths and limitations. Someone just parachuting in for a quick look won't necessarily know. And there are huge gaps in what eGullet covers. Some restaurants are covered in practically encyclopedic detail, while some other excellent ones are seldom mentioned. As someone with a higher-than-average interest in New York dining, I have the time and interest to collect data from many diverse information sources. The tourist or occasional diner might not be inclined to do that. And for that purpose, I find the Michelin Guide reasonably well-informed and useful. Indeed, it is useful enough that I bought a copy for myself, even though I am obviously not relying on it as a primary source.

I would not advise showing up in your running shorts and tank top after you've just run a marathon.

I've never dined at L'Impero, but it isn't the only NYT 3-star restaurant that lacks a Michelin star. The Beard awards are notoriously political, and represent a point-in-time judgment, not what the restaurant is necessarily doing today. The Times reviews are similarly stale, and conceivably some of these restaurants wouldn't get three stars if they were reviewed again.In terms of my personal favorites, I would give single Michelin stars to Chanterelle and Blue Hill. But another person says L'Impero, and another says Union Square Café, and yet another says Aquavit. That's why I agree with Nathan that a "consensus eGullet list" wouldn't be any better than Michelin's—it would merely be different. Of NYT 3-star restaurants that currently do not have a Michelin star, my views are: Felidia - no opinion L'Impero - no opinion Chanterelle - should have a Michelin Star Blue Hill - should have a Michelin Star Spice Market - rightly denied a star JoJo - rightly denied a star Nobu - rightly denied a star Nobu 57 - rightly denied a star March - no opinion Union Square Café - no opinion La Grenouille - no opinion Aquavit - borderline, but IMO rightly denied a star BLT Fish - rightly denied a star That's off the top of my head; there are probably others.

This is the verbal equivalent of the famous New Yorker poster that shows Manhattan as the center of the world. Do we really think tourists and the B&T crowd haven't heard of Jean-Georges Vongerichten? (I hate the expression "B&T crowd" and the implied insult. Unfortunately, there's no other convenient replacement word.)Anyhow, I suspect that non-Manhattanites are more likely—not less—to visit a restaurant because of the perceived association of a celebrity chef. Whether Vongerichten actually spends more than ten minutes a month thinking about Spice Market is a whole other question. What counts is the perception that he does. That factor is less likely to be operative at BLT Burger, as Tourondel's empire—at the moment—is entirely in Manhattan, whereas Vongerichten is an international star. That doesn't mean, though, that nobody outside of Manhattan has heard of him. Within his more limited sphere, he is nevertheless very good at self-promotion. Would a place called "Joe's Hamburger Stand" with the identical menu be getting all of this press? Of course not.

It says "Bistro Laurent Tourondel" right on the menu, right below the initials "BLT". I think a lot of people will figure this out.Having said that, I basically agree that, to most diners, Laurent Tourondel is irrelevant—even assuming they vaguely know who he is. eGullet members are atypical. We have an interest in the food industry that is far greater than the dining population at large.

It's not as bad as getting the book wrong; nevertheless, a press release should be correct.