oakapple

A rhetorical question, I'm sure, but it's German for an epicure or gourmet. (schmecken is 'to taste') ← I would have translated it "Chowhound."

In a blog post today, Mister Cutlets makes two obvious observations: 1) Ruby Tuesday is opening a 10,000 sq. ft. outlet in Times Square in April 2007 2) Foodies will decry it as the End Of Civilization As We Know It. Then, he surprises us with the observation that, if you order well, a few items on the Ruby Tuesday menu aren't all that bad. For the price, Cutlets likes the margarita, the burger, the breaded typhoon shrimp, and—shocking!—the blackened rib-eye steak. He notes:

Ducasse's timing is exquisite. Given an early November publication date, the book must be in the final stages of production—too late to remove it.

It looks like Frank is either taking a vacation or going out of town on a long assignment without his laptop. A blog entry yesterday mentioned that there would be no more posts for about two weeks. Maybe we'll have a couple of weeks of Marion Burros reviews coming up.

Historically, the Times gives its critics very broad independence. Wells would have to tread very lightly around telling Bruni what/how to review.

I have trouble believing Ducasse would want to relinquish the 3rd Michelin star. His past comments suggest he wants to regain the 4th NY Times star. The fact that Esnault is remaining with the restaurant is consistent with this.The move's timing makes sense, too. They get the fall holiday revenues, close during the January doldrums, then re-open in time to make the 2008 Michelin guide.

Yes, Da Silvano seemed to be a pointless review. Although it's slender pickings at the moment, I find it difficult to believe that there are no restaurants in the whole city that aren't worth calling attention to. Now, the review was not totally without journalistic merit, because it tells us that the original two-star rating is no longer valid. But there are probably a lot of old two-star restaurants that don't deserve the second star any more. Why review this one? I would add that if you asked someone to read the Freemans and Da Silvano reviews, without showing them the ratings, it would be hard to see why they aren't both zero stars.

There clearly is a team. The last time I was there, a guy came over and introduced himself as one of the sommeliers. Obviously for such a restaurant, one person could not do it alone.However, once we requested a wine pairing, we saw the same sommelier the whole evening.

The exact relationship of price to rating has never been that clear-cut. If indeed Bruni believes (and I'm not saying he will) that the food is at the high end of three stars, and if the service is also at that level, I don't think he'll dock a star for prices alone. In his roughly eighteen months on the job, I can't think of a review in which he appeared to have done that. He will let you know when he thinks the prices are out of hand (BLT Fish was an example), but he doesn't take a star away for that reason by itself.

The blog does have one very annoying feature. If a post is more than a paragraph, you have to follow a link to get the rest of it. Often, there's only a few sentences more. In most other blogs I've seen, the "after-the-jump" rule is used only for long posts. Otherwise, it's irritating to follow a link and find almost nothing there.

On his blog, Bruni has now posted a response to the question, "Why bother reviewing a zero-star restaurant, particularly Freemans?" In summary, Bruni says: * He agrees that zero-star reviews ought to be rare. They are, however, worth printing on occasion, if only to show that one star means something. * The number of stars isn't the sole measure of journalistic importance. A restaurant as popular as Freemans is part of the NYC dining scene, for good or ill. Freemans is attracting big crowds, not all of them regulars, and diners deserve to know what they're in for. * There's no clear consensus as to what is relevant. For instance, I thought that Mr. Chow TriBeCa fell into the category of "restaurants too prominent to ignore," but after he gave it zero stars, some readers asked why he had bothered.

It's pretty surprising to find someone with Ozersky's savvy promising hourly updates. If ever there was a promise made to be broken, this was it. It's not that there isn't enough to say, but I don't think one guy can sustain that kind of pace. Still, even if he only posts half that often, Grub Street will be compelling reading. The daily call for 8:00 p.m. reservations is a gimmick. Ozersky has included some places that aren't on OpenTable, so it's not entirely without informative content. (And as FG has often pointed out, even the restaurants that are on OT don't put all their tables there.) It does show that, even at the last minute, decent reservations are virtually always available all over town. I wouldn't try that on Valentine's Day, but otherwise there's always a ton of options.

Grimes still had to file 52 reviews a year, and there weren't 52 new Temples of Haute Cuisine for him to cover. Even Grimes went downmarket at times. Café des Artistes, by the way, is still better and prettier than a lot of restaurants that get a star from the Times.Referring to David Burke's new Hawaiian Bikini place, Slavery is illegal; sex is not.

I rate Devi a little higher than LPShanet does. Nevertheless, Tabla's the choice.

I don't wish failure upon any restaurant, even if it's personally not my culinary taste. Given the scenery, I may just try this place anyway, even if they're serving prison food.

If that is indeed the the reason for the review, it seems awfully peculiar that the reviewer would have gone "down market" only to trash it.

What exactly do you mean by "creative"? Most tasting menus I've had in NYC stay well within safe culinary boundaries. Many are nevertheless excellent, but if creative is what you want, the pickings are slim. Cru and 11MP fall into the category of excellent tasting menus that I wouldn't really describe as "creative." In the "creative" category, with Paul Liebrandt gone, WD-50 takes the palm. I can't comment on Urena, but according to repuatation, Alex is doing some things there that are out of the ordinary. I found Asiate's tasting menu very enjoyable and interesting, but I suspect most readers here will find that a surprise recommendation. The two best tasting menus I've had in the last year were Country and Tabla, and I would describe Tabla as the more creative of the two.

There are literally thousands of restaurants that have never had a New York Times review. When the new-and-notables are exhausted, I think the critic should look for the old-and-notables. In a city of 20,000 restaurants, he can't find an overlooked restaurant worthy of at least a star? He can't find a restaurant that's never been reviewed before? Or a restaurant reviewed long enough ago that it deserves a fresh look?

A zero-star review is appropriate in two situations:1) A high-profile new restaurant must be reviewed, even if it gets zero stars. Mr. Chow's TriBeCa was in this category. 2) A previously reviewed restaurant may deserve a zero-star re-review if quality has fallen off considerably. Mercer Kitchen was in this category. It's a waste when Bruni awards zero stars to a restaurant that really didn't call out for a review in the first place.

The last two reviews might seem to be a corrective to the rather generous two-star kisses given to Little Owl, Dressler, yada yada yada. Unfortunately, those other reviews are still out there, and will be forever. (They are not likely re-review candidates.) It's not yet clear whether Bruni thinks he did anything wrong. Of course, he's never going to come out and say "I blew it," but Bruni's often uses coded language to give subtle hints. I see NO indication that he has second thoughts about The Modern, as he has continued to make back-handed comments about it. The Freemans review is open to more than one criticism, not only that he wasted a reviewing slot on a zero-star restaurant, but that the price point is really more in Meehan's territory, and Meehan reviewed it only two years ago. Although Freemans has expanded, it does not appear that the basic idea of the restaurant has changed. Do we truly have a new Frank Bruni? It will take a while before we know if that's the case, or if he will return to being his usual random, all-over-the-map self. I agree that Tasting Room is very likely a re-review candidate, but in this case I think it's appropriate. There's no question that it's Bruni's territory, and a move to new digs is very different from an expansion in existing digs. Also, the existing Grimes review is much older than Peter Meehan's Freemans review. The new Grub Street blog has a brief interview today with the new dining section editor, Peter Wells. He's asked if the time has come to raise the $25-and-under price point, and he implies that this might be considered.

Eater is reporting that ADNY at the Essex House will close. It will re-open in an as-yet undetermined new location, where a fancy restaurant will be coupled with a more casual café. The report suggests that even the fancier of the two will, nevertheless, be a "dressed down" version of what ADNY is today.

Well, the Michelin system in general is fairly conservative (in more ways than one). Stars are neither given nor taken away lightly. And frankly, that's the way it ought to be.I agree that there are unlikely to be changes at the three-star level. Changes at the two-star level would not surprise me, especially given the odd anomaly that the number of two and three-star restaurants was identical last year (four). There will almost certainly be several new one-star restaurants, and I wouldn't be surprised if a restaurant or two had a star taken away (not counting the obvious cases of restuarants that closed).

As one star has evolved, it means "you can have a good meal here, although you'll have to order judiciously." That and the wallet-friendly price point added up to one star under the current system. Zero stars really means "don't bother," and clearly Bruni felt it was better than that.

They put up a correction as soon as they were aware of it.

Update: It turns out Matthew Hamilton did not blame Bruni. It was a supporter who was unconnected with the restaurant. In a clarifying e-mail to Eater, Hamilton puts the blame on the local community board, which held up Uovo's liquor license.