oakapple

My friend and I dined at Aquavit Cafe on Friday night. As Frank Bruni commented in last Friday's paper, there are now several restaurants in New York that have an informal cafe attached to a fancy main dining room. I've tried several of these "little sister" restaurants, and the Aquavit Cafe is the most refined. Despite its comparative informality, tables are generously spaced, and there's plenty of fabric to deaden the sound. Service was top-notch. We started with cocktails (a bit pricey at $14 ea.), two kinds of Swedish bread with luscious goat cheese butter, and an amuse of toast with sour cream and a hot mushroom sauce. My friend ordered the Herring Sampler ($12), while I had the Salmon Sampler ($18), and we each sampled each other's plates. My friend observed that my appetizer had "enough salmon to feed all of Chelsea." Okay, not quite, but it was a large portion. On days when I've had a full lunch, it could be dinner all by itself. But it is also perfectly prepared, and not at all "fishy." Quite to our surprise, the kitchen sent out mid-course plates, compliments of the house. We aren't celebrities or regulars, and we weren't spending much on liquor, so this was most unexpected. My friend was served a lobster roll, while I got a plate of duck carpaccio. For the entrees, my friend had the Swedish meatballs ($18), one of chef Marcus Samuelson's specialties, made with beef, veal, and pork. It was an enormous portion, and even after I shared a bit of it, she was unable to finish. I ordered the hog smoked salmon, which was poached in wine, cauliflower, pearl onions and lentils. (I know, salmon twice — what was I thinking)? This was a bit bland, as I am wont to find with fish courses, but technically excellent. The kitchen recommends paired wines with each entree, and we adopted their excellent suggestions ($14 ea.). When my friend ordered, our waiter noted that her appetizer and entree choice were both on the prix fixe, so she might as well get that, and have dessert in the bargain. She had the Arctic Circle, a terrific goat cheese parfait with blueberry sorbet and passion fruit curd. Although I had not ordered dessert, the kitchen sent out a plate of chocolate cake for me anyway, compliments of the house. We left Aquavit happy as could be, but stuffed to the gills. The bill for all of that food was just $121 with tax. I left a 25% tip.

Yes, we did receive that warning about the cassoulet. We weren't burned, but it was simply too hot for comfort. It's possible for something to be too hot to fully enjoy, and that was what happened. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't what it should be.I struggle to describe the duck dish, but it came wrapped in pastry dough that I would call tortillas if the restaurant were Mexican.

A friend and I went to Jarnac last Saturday night. We both started with the Duck Rillettes ($10.25), which came in thin wrapped pastry dough and packed plenty of flavor punch. We then tried the Cassoulet-Braised Pork Cheeks ($24), with duck confit, pork sausage, great northern beans, tomato & garlic. It's a heavy meal, which neither of us was able to finish. It comes painfully hot, to a point that some of the flavor potential is cooked out of the ingredients. Our table was comfortable, service was friendly, and we were pleased to find a reasonably priced wine list. In nice weather, be sure to get one of the window seats (which we had).

In today's New York Daily News, Pascale Le Draoulec awards 2½ stars to Tocqueville, probably a half-star less than they were looking for. Take it for what it's worth, but the Daily News seldom reviews restaurants in this category, so it's hard to compare this review to others in the same paper. Le Draoulec loved "the sea urchin carbonara, one of the best dishes I've had this year," as well as "a lush 24-hour rib pot roast." But:

My friend and I had dinner at Craft last Friday night. We had a wonderful time, although we concluded that the restaurant is, perhaps, a touch overrated. We started with the foie gras terrine ($24) and the roasted quail ($14). Everything at Craft is served family style, and two appetizers are more than enough for two people. We were especially struck by the ample foie gras portion—two hefty discs that resembled slender hockey pucks. It was superb, to be sure, but required a little more of the wonderful toast that came with it. The quail, too, was excellent. I had asked upthread whether the Côte de Boeuf, at $125, could possibly be worth it. No one replied, so we went with a more modest choice, the braised veal shank ($75), which is a portion for two. As one would expect for a braised meat, it fell off the bone at the touch of a fork, and was perfectly prepared. We ordered a side of the gnocchi ($10). Our waiter seemed aghast: "Just one side?" We stuck to our guns, and good thing too, because we were plenty full and were unable to finish the gnocchi, which was chewy and over-salted. The dessert menu is confusing. There are six sorbets and six ice creams listed. Below these, it reads: "Ice Cream & Sorbet Sampler. 6./12." So, what do you get for $6, and what do you get for $12? When our server heard that we were both interested in the sampler, he advised, "In that case, you can get one of each." We didn't ask him to specify what that meant. Promptly, $24 worth of ice cream and sorbet arrived, and there full scoops of each flavor. One must assume that this was a greedy waiter who eagerly seized on an opportunity to pad the bill, as no one could sensibly believe thattwo people could polish off that much ice cream and sorbet. Indeed, a party of four most likely wouldn't have finished it. At Craft, wine selections under $50 are few and far between. We settled on a Cadence Coda 2003 at $60, which was terrific. The final bill for two was $229 before tip.

The current Craft menu (on their website) shows a 21-day dry-aged porterhouse for $125. I assume that's an order for 2. If so, it's a significant premium over the porterhouse for 2 at most of the city's better steakhouses. (For instance Steak for 2 at Ben & Jack's = $75.90.) Is it worth it? The menu also shows a 30-day dry-aged Côte de Boeuf for $125, which I'm also assuming is for 2. How would you compare this to the porterhouse?

I would add that Rich's "different strokes" observation applies to the food, too. It's not as if we are exactly unanimous about that element, either.

I haven't seen "traumatized" or "ruined" in any review. But most people, to at least some degree, want efficient service and attractive, comfortable surroundings when they're paying fine dining prices. The fact that it keeps getting mentioned in review after review suggests that Urena really missed the boat, in a way that goes far beyond petty complaints about the paint, the artwork, or the carpeting.

Batali's **** definition won't jibe with most people's, I'd guess, which is perhaps why Del Posto is seemingly so far from it, no matter what his group is claiming. ← He's playing it both ways. On the one hand, he's saying, "This isn't your typical four-star restaurant." Perhaps that's a statement of fact, as well as an attempt to influence our expectations.On the other hand, "although it's not that important," by referring to Frank Bruni, he's acknowledging that he inevitably must bow somewhat to expectations that are out of his control — that is, unless he is able somehow to alter them.

I dined at Colors last night with two colleagues. It is an attractive space, even if the international theme hits you over the head (you can't look anywhere without seeing a map). There are white tablecloths. The staff, in general, are highly professional and smartly dressed. The bread service was as good as, or better than, many three-star restaurants I've been to. The menu is a mongrel creation, with dishes composed from many cuisines and styles, and no recognizable theme uniting them. To start, I ordered the COLORS House Cured Duck Breast ($13). The menu says it's "Citrus flavored, hardwood smoked, served on raisin bread with porcini jelly." The porcini jelly tasted more like a horseradish spread. The duck, an ample portion for an appetizer, came stacked on three small slices of bread. It was a little unwieldy to pick up and eat, but the rewards were ample. One of my colleagues had an oyster appetizer that looked wonderful, while the other had a tuna appetizer that he described as "okay." He didn't finish it, so I would guess his response fell well short of rapture. None of the entrees really caught our fancy, so all three of us wimped out, and ordered the NY Strip (around $33). It came with chimichurri sauce, potato confit, watercress and blue cheese salad—or so the menu said; I couldn't really detect any blue cheese. The online menu shows a "Grass-Fed Ribeye," and I don't know why it's been replaced. It's hard to go seriously wrong with a steak, but at such a restaurant the strip is predictably going to fall short of what the better steakhouses have to offer. The restaurant was nowhere near full. I suspect they are just hanging on for dear life. As far as I know, there have been no professional reviews yet, only Frank Bruni's Diner's Journal preview. I suspect the critics are giving Colors a bit more time to get its act together—a kindness extended to a restaurant one wants to root for. Based on last night's experience, I'd say Colors offers a pleasant experience in comfortable surroundings, but I wouldn't rush back.

The Times has not been completely transparent about its star criteria, but the empirical evidence makes one thing abundantly clear: restaurants are reviewed against expectations for their peer group. Del Posto is built for four stars, and priced accordingly. It's therefore graded on a tougher curve than a restaurant like Urena.You therefore can't count the number of "problems," and presume that it converts via mathematical formula into a certain number of stars. When the critic reviews a restaurant with four-star aspirations, very picky defects are going to be reported. When the critic reviews a humbler restaurant, such defects either aren't reported, or might even be described as charming (see the Al Di La review).

Complaints about Urena's decor have figured in every professional review that has appeared so far (NY Times, NY Mag, NY Daily News), as well as several eGullet posts. It is fair to say that, as far as this issue is concerned, the Times is not alone. Frank Bruni doesn't focus on that issue more than other critics, although it is certainly true that he has a bathroom fetish. Bruni's emphasis, like most intelligent critics, reflects the fact that most people aren't indifferent to the surroundings in which they dine. This is the first time in Bruni's tenure when I got the impression—but it is only an impression, not a certainty—that a restaurant serving three-star food was docked a star for non-food reasons.On the other hand, I would strenuously argue that there is no shot whatsoever that Urena would have been even remotely considered for four stars, no matter what the decor. For if Urena's food is considered four-star worthy, then there are surely dozens of four-star restaurants in New York, and that would imply a very different reviewing system than the one we have. This reflects a fundamental understanding. While Frank Bruni showed considerable enthusiasm for Urena's food, he did not say that it was better than some of his four-star choices. Frank Bruni has awarded four stars only three times: Per Se, Masa, and Le Bernardin. Urena's food is better than which of these?If it is true that the decor is the only thing standing between Urena and three-star status, then you would be right that Urena would be a perfect candidate for a re-review if the decor is upgraded. But you must remember that the critic's enthusiasm for a place is based on many factors. Bruni was over-the-moon for Sripraphai, but that doesn't mean he thought it was better than the three or four-star restaurants he has reviewed.

In last week's Post, Steve Cuozzo complained that Piano Due is "New York's best new Italian restaurant - and almost no one knows about it. Piano Due opened seven months ago with a Michelin-starred chef, a famous address that's also home to Le Bernardin and Bar Americain, and one of the prettiest new dining rooms in Midtown." Cuozzo said that the restaurant is seldom more than a third full. But then, here's the strange thing. He complains that there have been no reviews, aside from a brief Gael Greene write-up after the place first opened. That's a little inconsistent coming from Cuozzo, since he was responsible for the elimination of reviews from the Post's own coverage. Had Cuozzo not made that dumb decision, he'd now be in a position to do the very thing he's complaining the other critics have not done. Mind you, Cuozzo is not unaware of the irony, as he mentions the Post's no-review policy later in the article. Still, he was so troubled by the situation that he even called Frank Bruni to ask why there's been no Times review. Bruni replied: This is a reasonable strategy for Bruni to follow, although it calls very much into question why he reviewed P. J. Clarke's a couple of weeks ago. If ever there was a "Why did he bother?" review, it was that one.

Yes...thought of that after posting, and on my blog was able to update the descriptions of the dishes.

Hmm... not true either - at least for the day I was there. The chef's tasting had another supplement - an Australian Wagyu beef course that was a $100 supplement and had to be ordered by two. ← That was very unusual. I've been picking up sample Per Se menus off-and-on since the place opened. Foie gras is the one and only supplement that is always there on the 9-course tasting menu, and usually there are no others.

Cafeteria (119 Seventh Ave @17th St) is open 24 hours a day. It's perfectly suited to clubland exiles who need a place to get over their 4am hangovers. For Sunday brunch, which my friend and I tried yesterday, you can do a lot better. Cafeteria isn't a cafeteria. It's a restaurant with sit-down service. Perhaps I should put 'service' in quotes, because there wasn't much of it. The milk to go with our too-strong coffee was served in a sugar bowl. You can imagine the mess when we poured it. Omelets took about 25 minutes to come out of the kitchen. (To that, add the 25 minutes we waited for a table.) Each omelet came with just a single slice of toast. We had to ask for butter. The omelets were great: goat cheese and mushrooms (we both ordered the same). But not so great that I'd rush back for them.

My friend and I had dinner at Telepan on Saturday evening. We were underwhelmed. The menu seems designed to bump up the final bill, with savory courses in three categories (appetizers, "mid-courses" and entrees), instead of the usual two. One is naturally tempted to choose the four-course prix fixe at $55, which entitles you to choose one from each heading, plus a dessert. Wine pairings would have been another $32 apiece, which seemed a little dear, so we went for a single bottle at $48. The website tells you very little, except that Bill Telepan is "so excited about the opening of...my new restaurant." I remember our selections only in general terms. I started with seared quail, while my friend had the foie gras terrine. Both of these were pretty good, if not outstanding. For the second course, I had something called "Egg in the Hole," which was a fried egg on top of a small piece of soggy toast, with an even smaller strip of smoked salmon on the side. Telepan gets an A for Dufresne-like creativity, but what was the point? My friend's mid-course was even more peculiar: cauliflower (without anything else), which she reported was over-cooked. My entree was a duck breast with a foie gras custard, but for the life of me I could taste no foie gras on the plate, and the portion was awfully meagre for a main course. My friend ordered sirloin, which came with vegetables that were, again, over-cooked. I've entirely forgotten the dessert, except that it was both unexceptionable and unmemorable. We found the decor rather dull, and even tasteless. We sense the possibility that Telepan could be an excellent restaurant. All of the dishes show a considerable amount of thought, but the execution leaves much to be desired, and many of the portions are too small.

My friend and I had dinner at 5 Ninth last Friday evening. The restaurant was running a bit late, and our 9:00pm reservation was honored at more like 9:20. Some of the silly service quirks remain from my last visit, such as serving bread without bread plates. This seems so elementary that it defies belief they haven't thought of it. On the other hand, the wine list is to the restaurant's credit. We had no trouble identifying a very pleasing red for around $27, where one would much more commonly pay something in the 40's at a restaurant in this price range. We both started with the Berkshire Pork Belly in a garlic chilli paste. It was four gorgeous hunks of pure fat, which is of course the tastiest part of the animal, so we found it wonderful. Anything after that was bound to seem bland. My friend had the hangar steak, and I had a baramundi (one of the day's market specials). The baramundi had a nice crisp exterior, but it was totally unmemorable after the pork belly. I didn't note the prices of individual items (and they aren't shown on the 5 Ninth website), but the total for two, with tax and tip, was a very reasonable $127.36.

And Platt could? I'm quite sure he was recognized at Masa (as was Hesser), given that the omakase is the only thing they offer, and he must have tried it several times before awarding four stars. There too, the chef/owner is preparing your meal from across the table.

← Eater usually has pretty good sources, but this report is just plain wrong. 66 wasn't a big hit by Vongerichten standards, but I've eaten there quite a few times, and it pulls in a decent crowd. Whether it's enough to cover expenses is a whole other question, and I'm not saying anything about the restaurant's future, but Eater's quote is not even close to literally true.

This is a definite plus for the star system as NY Mag has implemented it: Platt doesn't just give you his rating, but he also deconstructs it for you. Bruni has only very rarely done that. In my view, it's not acceptable to review a restaurant that offers an omakase without trying it at least once. Bruni's failure to mention it is certainly odd. Reviews are impressionistic, and can only present a subset of the reviewer's experiences, but the omakase seems to me too significant to ignore. Anonymity couldn't be the issue, because there are plenty of restaurants where Bruni is recognized every time. I also don't get the impression that the Times micromanages the number of visits, aside from establishing a minimum. There probably aren't enough restaurants like that to have a separate rule for them. A three or four-star restaurant needs to be excellent or extraordinary in pretty much everything it does. (Yes, there are exceptions, but this is the general rule.) A two-star rating is appropriate for a restaurant that's terrific at some things, but with serious shortcomings in others. Bruni's single star for Morimoto suggests that even the omakase didn't wow him—assuming he tried it. However, one can only guess at this, given his silence on the matter. True, but then again, editorial policies aren't fixed in amber. Perhaps the present Times management would allow Ruth Reichl's double-review of Le Cirque as she conceived it, if she were still reviewing today.

What you get is excellent. Given that you're already committed to spend a minimum of $210 (before beverages & tax), what's another $30? I suspect that most Per Se patrons order the foie gras, unless they have other reasons besides mere cost (i.e., they don't like foie gras, or have ethical issues with the way it is farmed).Indeed, I suspect the moral issue is the reason why foie gras is the only dish on the whole menu that carries a supplement. I mean, they're already giving you lobster, caviar, and (when in season) truffles on the chef's tasting menu, so why is foie gras the only supplement? I suspect it's mainly to give a "humane" option to those who object to eating foie gras on principle. None are available right now.

In today's New York Daily News, Pascale Le Draoulec likes Ureña, awarding two stars: She complains, as pretty much every reviewer has, about the decor:

I paid a visit to Strip House tonight on the advice of blogger Augieland, who pronounced their bone-in ribeye ($42) his "favorite steak in Manhattan." I'd been to Strip House once before and ordered the NY Strip, which was okay without being memorable. But Augieland is right about the ribeye. It's a wonderful hunk of meat, with high fat content and a crisp char on the outside. I tried the identical cut of beef at Bobby Van's the other night, and while it wasn't bad, it lacked the perfection of Strip House's version. Best steak in New York? It's hard to say, when there are so many of them. But I don't recall offhand having tasted a ribeye better than this one. It was preceded by an amuse bouche of warm potato soup with parsley oil in a shot glass. The restaurant was packed on a Thursday evening, but I had no trouble getting served at the bar, where service was friendly and efficient. While I was eating, a couple next to me saw what I had ordered, and raved about the Strip House ribeye. The gentleman told me that the March 2006 issue of GQ pronounced Strip House one of the five best steakhouses in America. I couldn't find an online version of the full article, so I can't say which four other steakhouses were so honored. Visit the Glazier Group homepage, and you'll see they're crowing about it. I understand the company has announced plans to open Strip Houses in several other cities.

Heck, he could have reviewed Fraunces Tavern, which has considerably more history than P. J. Clarke's, and has never had a full rated review (at least as far back as the Times archives go).Among new-ish restaurants, there are Battery Gardens and Flames Steakhouse, both of which received favorable write-ups from from Bob Lape in Crain's, but haven't been rated by the Times. I couldn't find rated reviews for Mark Joseph or Delmonico's, either. Bobby Van's is a clone of its uptown sibling, which received one star from Ruth Reichl. Bayard's received two stars from William Grimes.