oakapple

He explained in his blog that he makes many more restaurant visits than there are reviews written. At some point, he has to decide which of those restaurants are worth the multiple visits that a review requires. For some percentage of restaurants, his conclusion is "not worth writing about."Anyone who follows the Times knows that there are certain "must-review" restaurants, but that P. J. Clarke's wasn't one of these. As I've lived below Chambers Street for 6½ years, I have a point of view on this. Even allowing for reasonable differences of opinion, there is no conceivable possibility that Frank Bruni believed P. J. Clarke's was the best restaurant below Chambers.

The old Clarke's is a NY landmark. So is Nathan's Hot Dogs. That doesn't mean it merits one of Frank Bruni's 52 reviewing slots this year.The fact that the Times has such a large circulation base is the very reason why this review is so meaningless. I really question who will be interested in this review, given the way it turned out. As it is, the Financial District does not really attract diners, except for those who already have some non-food reason for being there. Had he chosen to review a restaurant he could actually recommend, it might have had some value. Frank Bruni is in no danger of becoming another Andrea Strong. His one, two, and even three-star reviews contain plenty of complaints.Long before Bruni took over, the zero-star rating had become a statistically insignificant rarity. I don't know why Bruni decided to review this restaurant, but I'd be surprised if the reason was, "I haven't written a zero-star review lately, and I thought it was overdue." Gimme a break. Given that Bruni does not purport to review every available restaurant, every review—regardless of the number of stars—should fulfill a journalistic purpose. I've no problem with the idea of a zero-star review, but I object to this one in particular. The main critic seldom covers this type of restaurant, and the Times devotes practically no coverage to restaurants below Chambers Street. So, why not pick a place that he could write about with some enthusiasm?

It's only March, but we already have a candidate for the most pointless NYT review of the year: zero stars for P. J. Clarke's on the Hudson. One might reasonably ask, "Why ever review a zero-star restaurant at all?" With only fifty-two Wednesdays a year, many restaurants are never going to be reviewed. So, why waste one on a marginal restaurant that probably won't attract diners outside its neighborhood, only to tell us it's not worth the trip? Some restaurants are so newsworthy that they simply demand a review, even if it is unfavorable. But the Times has never paid much attention to the tourist and lunchtime restaurants in the Financial District. Most restaurants in the neighborhood have never been reviewed. Frankly, most don't deserve to be, but there are a handful that are at least "good", and perhaps a few that are even better than that. Why not review one that the critic can actually recommend?

I've never ordered a tasting menu that didn't have at least one dud—even at Per Se. That changed on Saturday evening, when my friend and I ordered the five-course tasting at Tabla. This was a culinary exercise in near-perfection, from beginning to end. Tabla is a bit difficult to characterize. Downstairs, there is a "bread bar" that serves conventional Indian food. The main restaurant borrows ideas from many cuisines, with only the slightest hint of Indian spices. (The Michelin Guide was thoroughly stumped; they branded the cuisine "Contemporary," the same pigeon-hole as Alain Ducasse.) Tabla offers three dinner options: a prix fixe at $64 (you choose one appetizer, one entree, and one dessert from a fairly long list of choices); a five-course winter tasting menu at $79 (optional wine pairing, $38); or, an eight-course market tasting menu at $92 (optional wine pairing, $48). We chose the five-course winter tasting menu with the wine pairings, which included the following: Sweet Maine Shrimp & Fluke Cru Lime, Cider & Toasted Spices Champagne Brut Reserve, Biillecart Salmon (Mareuil-Sur-Ay, France) NV Rice Flaked Turbot Baby Spinach, Applewood Smoked Bacon and Jaggery-Tamarind Glaze Sémillon, The Willows Vinyard (Barossa Valey, Australia) 2002 Slow Roasted Nova Scotia Lobster Yellowfoot chanterelles, Water Chestnuts & Walnuts Viura, Cune, Blanco Seco Monopole (Rioja, Spain) 2002 Challan Duck Two Ways Braised Endive, Horseradish, Orange Curry Chiraz, 3-Rings (Barossa Valley, Australia) 2004 Apple Tarte Tatin Greenmarket Quince Membrillo, Mutsu Apple Fritter Gewürtztraminer, Kent Rasmussen Late Harvest (Sonoma County, CA) 2003 Petits Fours, Coffee and Tabla's Teas (The above is from Tabla's website, which appears to be up-to-date. I cannot swear that we had those exact wines, but I believe we did.) The first course (Sweet Maine Shrimp & Fluke Cru) was a daring winter choice, as it was served cold. However, it worked in the context of the overall meal. The Rice Flaked Turbot was one of the top fish courses I've had anywhere. The duck was tender and hearty. If I had to deduct a half-point, it would be for the lobster, which was ever so slightly tough. I was particularly impressed by the wine pairing. The wines were all a bit off the beaten path, but went perfectly with the food. And we had five glasses of well contrasted wines for $38. It has got to be one of the better deals around. The layout at Tabla is a bit unusual. The fine dining restaurant is upstairs, but it is partly open to the floor below, and some of the sound from the bar drifts into the dining space. There is an attempt at elegance, and the tables are generously spaced, but I found it a bit chilly—and not only metaphorically; I regretted not bringing a sweater. There is no flaw in the service, however, which is polished and efficient. Overall, this was one of the finest meals I have had in New York over the past year.

Del Posto finally has a four-star review—not the one they really wanted, but I'm sure they'll take it. Here's Bob Lape in Crain's:

Any rating system, in any field of endeavour, is somewhat bound by the ratings that have been given out in the past. This is true of all subjective rating systems, and not just those for restaurants.I haven't yet dined at Blaue Gans, but it's pretty apparent from all that's been written that this restaurant is serving far less ambitious fare, in a setting of considerably less formality, than either THOR or Wallse. It therefore seems to me perfectly correct that Blaue Gans should be one star, given that the others are two.

Can you give us some more information? What kind of budget? What kind of cuisine? It's hard to narrow down tens of thousands of restaurants without a better idea of what you're looking for.www.opentable.com lists 542 New York restaurants where you can make online bookings. You might want to start there and narrow down your selections.

That's perhaps the extreme case. But I think Perry St attracted a lot of diners because of Vongerichten's known association with the place, Del Posto because of Batali, Per Se because of Keller, Bar Americain because of Flay, Upstairs because of Bouley, and so forth. Gutenbrunner isn't a celebrity on the scale of any of those folks, but between those who know him from Wallse, Cafe Sabarsky, and Thor, he's got a reputation.

On most people's scoresheets, it's the Times rating that really counts, since it's the system that's been around the longest in this town. When Mario Batali said that Del Posto was designed for four stars, it wasn't the verdict of Bob Lape in Crain's that he was talking about. Then by all means you should stop scoring them! Personally, it has never stood in my way of enjoying the meal.

Actually, I think they do -- if only to say "This really feels like X stars to me." You may say, "They never would have done that if the newspapers & Michelin hadn't done it first," but that's water under the bridge. I actually know someone who keeps a written log, and she assigns "snouts" (1 to 5) to each restaurant. I thought he had more enthusiasm for Al Di La than he did for Blaue Gans, so it's quite possible he really thinks that the former is materially better.But as many others have pointed out, ratings for non-luxury restaurants are not broadly comparable. To the extent Blaue Gans's star means anything at all, it's meaningful only against other Austro-Germanic restaurants that the Times has rated. Most of them, aside from Danube, happen to be Kurt Gutenbrunner's restaurants, so there's not a huge base to choose from.

A restaurant with a celebrity chef is like a movie with a famous director. People who have appreciated the chef's work in the past are likely to give the place a try. Some may even give it a try based on reputation alone. I am sure that the new restaurant Morimoto is getting a lot of customers based on Morimoto's name, when they only thing they know is that they've seen him on TV. Obviously, if that reputation doesn't translate to success on the plate, the restaurant will eventually run out of luck.Theoretically, the chef's reputation shouldn't influence the rating. Human nature being what it is, it may be unavoidable that a chef's latest venture is viewed through the prism of his past successes. One certainly has to wonder whether Spice Market, V Steakhouse, and Perry St would have received the identical reviews had they been launched by anonymous chefs, instead of Jean-Georges Vongerichten. To give yet another example, one can't help but conclude that Alain Ducasse's reputation worked against him, when William Grimes wrote in a three-star review:

I haven't dined at Del Posto, but I've looked at the menu, and it's clearly not the same as Babbo's menu. One can debate whether they made the right choices in menu design, but it's pretty clear that they did more than gussy up the Babbo menu, add purse stools, and hope for four stars.It's actually rather funny.....because if they engaged a PR firm and sought advice on what it takes to get four stars, I think it was reasonably predictable that such a long menu was going to offend Frank Bruni's critical sensibilities. No other four-star restaurant offers such a long menu, and Bruni has made this comment about other restaurants. So I think their publicist fell asleep at least twice, if you include the menu design and the public announcement that they were gunning for four stars.

If there were a mathematical formula, it would be something like: rating = ambition * success * uniqueness * value where: ambition answers the question, "What is this restaurant trying to do?" success answers the question, "How well is it succeeding?" uniqueness answers the question, "How 'special' is this restaurant?" value answers the question, "How good a value is it for the money?" This is not to say that the critic actually answers all of these questions explicitly in every review. But they do explain why a 1-star review can seem almost ecstatic, while a 2-star review can seem rather nit-picky. In today's case, Bruni clearly concluded that Blaue Gans is a restaurant of rather modest ambitions, but it is executing those ambitions reasonably well at a good value. However, the same chef has three other restaurants in Manhattan that offer a lot of very similar cuisine. Al Di La benefitted from a Brooklyn rating premium. I strongly suspect that if the identical restaurant existed in Manhattan, it would get one star, because Manhattan has plenty of restaurants like that. (Then again, Bruni awarded two stars to Spigolo, which seems simply erroneous.)

They bring around the tray, and you choose as much as you want. Obviously, two normal people would not eat that whole tray. There are indeed 2 of each, but many of the tables have 4 or more diners, and I suspect some of the sweets are more popular than others.

I'm afraid I don't see a difference in philosophy. When Bruni was asked if there are restaurants he's reviewed that have already changed enough that his rating would be different today, he said on his blog: This is not a whole lot different than Ruch Reichl's answer to a very similar question when she participated in an eGullet Q&A.

And here, it's useful to go take a trip in the wayback machine. Ruth Reichl first reviewed Gramercy Tavern on October 14, 1994, awarding two stars: She closed with: "In six months, if the restaurant stays on this course, it will surely deserve three stars, and with time four stars seem like a distinct possibility. Gramercy Tavern has everything it takes to make a great restaurant. Except maturity."A bit less than eighteen months later, on February 2, 1996, Reichl was back, this time awarding three stars: She suggested what was missing if the restaurant wanted that elusive fourth star: Ten years later, there is no fourth star, but I doubt that Danny Meyer feels like he's a failure. In contrast, Del Posto has it pretty good, since they got the third star right out of the gate.

Okay, I agree with that part, and have all along. What I maintain, however, is that Del Posto was doing behind the scenes the same things all major new restaurants do. The mistake was talking about it on the Food Network, instead of letting the food do the talking for itself.

Baum makes that very point, saying: As self-serving as it is, I think there's a lot of truth to this Baum quote: "There are very few chefs or restaurateurs who would dare to open a restaurant, especially in a big city, without the assistance of a publicist." Rich keeps saying that, but I just don't see the evidence for it. How is Del Posto different from any of the other dozens of restaurants that open every year, and receive less favorable critical notice than they had hoped for?

Eater points the way to an article in this month's New York Restaurant Insider, "What Restaurant PR Brings to the Table." The article is written by Jennifer Baum, who is a partner in Bullfrog & Baum, a firm that specializes in the Hospitality Industry. Baum caught Eater's eye, not just for the cute photo, but because, of the five restaurants named in this week's New York Magazine New and Noteworthy, four have Baum as their PR rep: Jovia, Bar Americain, Cookshop, and Maremma. Only Blaue Gans doesn't have Baum representing them. The article gives a window into what restaurant publicists do (although it is obviously self-serving): There are three case studies. It's interesting to play "guess the restaurant." The second one mentioned is very obviously David Burke & Donatella, and the third is clearly Thalassa. I couldn't identify the first.

I've become a great fan of Leonard Kim's posts, which always add so much to think about: I'm not going to agree or disagree, but I'll make an observation. The enthusiasm in a review is nearly always a function of expectations. Bruni's two-star review of Sripraphai seems far more enthusiastic than his two-star review of The Modern. Why? Sripraphai is performing at or above expectations for that type of restuarant, and in Bruni's opinion The Modern is not.Now, if you parachuted in from another planet and read both the Babbo and Del Posto reviews, you'd probably conclude that Bruni likes Babbo better than Del Posto. You might therefore conclude that Del Posto just barely crossed the *** line, while Babbo is solidly ***, possibly verging on ****. And indeed, that may be the case. But it's also possible that Bruni was reviewing Del Posto through the prism of its **** expectations. "Okay, guys, you think you're four stars? Well, not so fast!" I certainly don't think a Del Posto re-review is inevitable. They may simply fail to improve enough to satisfy him. ADNY has a better shot at it, if only because Ducasse fired Christian Delouvrier and replaced him with Tony Esnault. It's always easier to get a re-review if you've changed personnel. Just ask Compass.

As the current "star keeper" how could he conclude otherwise? ← I believe Ruth Reichl was a bit more openly skeptical of the star system, even as she continued to award them. It's fair to note (as Bruni does) that New York magazine started awarding stars at almost exactly the time that the Post stopped. So far, nobody else is following the Post's lead.Bruni says that the Post's approach offers "an interesting perspective and certainly a valid one." But then he asks, "is the abandonment of stars a better option or just another of many imperfect approaches?" We won't know till Bruni updates one of his own ratings. He referred to "a year or two down the road" as the timeframe when he might be inclined to do this. He's been in the seat for just over a year and a half, so presumably some of his earlier review targets might be in line for a re-assessment.

While he said that the pastas were "the most consistently impressive," he did not say that the rest of the menu was uniformly unimpressive. While he said that Del Posto "needs more blockbuster desserts," he did not say that none of those now on offer are any good. That's why I suggested that it's a mis-reading of the review to say that "nothing clicks except the pasta."

In the blog today, Frank Bruni addresses the factors that go into the decision to re-review (and re-rate) a restaurant....or not. He admits quite a few things that we already knew: With only 52 published reviews per year, most restaurants will never get a second review. But he does think it's important, "especially in the cases of prominent restaurants, to make an effort, no matter how random and flawed, to go back periodically to determine whether the initial published appraisals and existing star ratings seem to hold true." He sees the blog, which is both less formal and less space-constrained than the newspaper, as a space where he can provide "dispatches" on previously-reviewed restaurants that don't warrant a full re-review, although those write-ups (usually based on a single visit) "will necessarily steer clear of sweeping judgments." A reader asked him, "Are there restaurants you’ve reviewed during your tenure that have already changed enough that your rating would be different if you went back and re-rated them?" I was that reader, by the way. Bruni concedes that there probably are, and there's no way he'll ever know for sure; otherwise, he'd have to keep eating at the same places over and over again. But, "Among the restaurants I've reviewed ... there are some that, more than others, struck me as places with the potential to be better a year or two down the road than they were a few months after they opened. I'll indeed make a special effort to return to these restaurants, but I'll probably only re-review them if I feel strongly that they need a different rating." Bruni also concludes (as against Steve Cuozzo of the Post) that star ratings generally—if not always—remain reasonably valid over a long period of time.

Here.

That strikes me as a pretty harsh reading of what Bruni said. However, I would certainly agree that if Babbo didn't appeal to you, then you shouldn't bother with Del Posto.It's funny how we (all of us) see in a review what we want to see. Blogger Felix Salmon found: "Reading the review, there's no nitpicking, no on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand. In fact, I've never read an NYT restaurant review which makes me want to visit a restaurant more than this one does. This is three-stars-verging-on-four, not two-stars-bumped-up-to-three. Del Posto is now officially The Restaurant I Most Want To Go To In New York, easily overtaking...Per Se." My own reading of it is probably somewhere between Robyn's and Salmon's.