oakapple

I agree with Sneakeater's earlier comment that Andrea Strong is not withholding the negative reviews, since she covers pretty much every major restaurant that opens.But I would not accuse her of dishonesty. It seems her palate is such that she is relatively easy to please. I see no crime in that. It might not get her hired as Frank Bruni's successor, but there's nothing wrong with operating a blog in which you talk about the places where you eat, and it so happens you like most of them. By the way, in this week's Buzz Ms. Strong takes a definite dislike to Destino, but that's only a mini-review. The main review (Christos in Astoria) is, as usual, extremely favorable.

Recent history suggests that there is often a significant backlash against these "designer's wet dream" restaurants. The price of the design is inevitably reflected in the prices. After the novelty wears off, people realize that they're paying extra for something they can't eat.Also, the big-box designed-on-overdrive Asian restaurant isn't exactly news any more. Buddakan joins the likes of Ruby Foo's, Spice Market, Ono, Matsuri, ENJB, Nobu57, Ninja, and Stephen Starr's other NYC entrant, Morimoto. (Have I left any out?)

I think this is accurate. The Telepan folks might have believed they had an outside shot at three stars, but two isn't a failure. But for a restaurant with Gilt's aspirations and price structure, anything less than three stars is a serious let-down.Another way of looking at it is this: How often does a restaurant in Telepan's genre open? There's probably a good dozen of them per year, and probably more. How often does a restaurant in Gilt's genre open? On average, maybe it's once every couple of years, or even less. The Gilt review raises many questions. Does Paul Liebrandt get extra points for being an experimentalist, even if the critic thinks some of the experiments have failed? Or is an over-wrought dover sole the same as an over-cooked ribeye steak? Frank Bruni seems to be saying that whether it's sole or steak, there are no extra points for daring to be different. Another question is, should the critic give more leeway to a restaurant that is trying to be unique? Should he, perhaps, wait a bit longer to pass judgment? Or should he say, "Sorry, but my schedule is the same, whether you're a four-star wannabe or a neighborhood trattoria." Obviously Bruni is in the latter camp.

Whilst I have no doubt that TAPrice's concern is sincerely felt, I must confess that I just don't get it. Food media is a permitted topic here on the eGullet forums. People are going to talk about Frank Bruni's writing wherever they want to. TAPrice's view appears to be that, since the blog is open for public comments, any comments should be posted there. Well, it is also possible to comment on the print reviews at the Times site, and some people do. So, if we take TAPrice's argument to its logical conclusion, discussion of the Times print reviews would be inappropriate here, as well.

Curiously, Frank Bruni had also complained about the bread. I didn't re-read his review before going, so I wasn't predisposed against it. Perhaps they have good days and bad.

I visited Perry St with two friends on Wednesday. My review comes with a significant caveat. Earlier in the day, I came down with a high fever. I had already cancelled my dinner with these friends on an earlier occasion, so I was determined to keep the date. However, I was frankly miserable, for reasons having nothing to do with the food or the service. Perry St is cool, quiet, and elegant. There are some nods to informality (e.g., the paper placemats and the lack of tablecloths), but it is still one of the more refined dining experiences you can have in this part of town. The lounge and bar area are both large and extremely comfortable, and they serve the full menu. I tried the chicken soup ($10.50), which Ed Levine praised in this week's Times: The chicken broth was actually added tableside. The soup bowl contained an array of fresh vegetables (carrots, radishes, greens), and the server poured the broth on top of that. The soup was fresh and tangy.At Perry St, the menu is spare: just eight appetizers and eight entrees are offered. Our server advised that only two of the entrees have been on the menu since the place opened. One of those is the crunchy rabbit ($31), which Frank Bruni had liked, so I gave it a try. It looked like a wrap sandwich, but was warm with a crisp breading on the exterior with a splash of avocado puree on the side. Here too, a broth was added tableside. I finished only half of it, due to my fever. Two different staff members asked if there was any problem with it. There wasn't; I just wasn't up to finishing. My only significant complaint is the bread service. There is wonderful, fresh butter at the table, but the bread rolls tasted like they were baked eighteen hours ago. At its price point, Perry St needs to do a better job with the bread. We didn't drink (except that I had a cocktail to start). The total was about $150 for three, before tip.

Read the posts upthread from yours. There have been several reviews posted on this forum.

I can definitely see where you're coming from, but I don't think there has ever been a standard of fairness concerning which restaurants were reviewed, and when. All you could expect is that the critic exercises his judgment to choose the best subjects at the right times.Mind you, the lack of a standard does not mean that the critics' behavior has been ethical; perhaps they should have been held to a higher standard all along. But if there is an ethical rule, it's got to be something more broad than "if two restaurants vying for four stars open within X amount of time of each other, then they must be reviewed in a comparable time frame." That's too rare an occasion to warrant its own special rule. Perhaps the folks at Telepan are grousing today that The Orchard had three months to shake out the bugs before getting reviewed, while Telepan was granted only two. Both received 2 stars. If there is such a rule, why not apply it to all rating categories?

There was no Del Posto review today. Instead Bruni reviewed The Orchard, which has been open since November, although Gilt and Telepan (the last two restaurants reviewed) both opened in December.It's pretty hard to discern a pattern.

I love when people close posts with "period," implying no other conceivable interpretation is possible.Yes, of course restaurants that are charging full price are morally obligated to deliver full value—not necessarily four-star food, as no one knows precisely what that is, but fair value for the outsized prices they are charging. If you want to know how they're doing in real time, there are resources like eGullet and Chowhound, where the posts accumulate continuously, and where one can track long-term trends in a restaurant's performance. The Times, unfortunately, does not have the resources to publish a new review every month—or even every year. Because of this, the critic tends to wait a while before publishing a rated review. That's why the NYT review of a restaurant doesn't appear in the opening week. There may be reasonable scope for debate about how long a wait is prudent, but nobody advocates rushing into print with a rated review immediately—even though your comment, read literally, would seem to imply that they should.

Here's what I meant: The most likely resolution to the Del Posto lease dispute is that the restaurant will pay some more money, and in exchange they'll get a modified lease that allows them use of the extra space. I mean, the landlord doesn't really want to evict Del Posto; they just want to make more money, and the lease violations they purport to have found are merely the 'hook' that will allow them to do so.Now, if Del Posto is a four-star restaurant, that space suddenly becomes a helluva lot more valuable. By publishing his review now, Bruni gives negotiating leverage to one side or the other. He becomes, in effect, part of the story. That's an angle that simply didn't exist as he was preparing the Gilt review. Mind you, I am not predicting what he'll do. I am only saying that I wouldn't review Del Posto just yet. A reasonable case can be made for waiting that does not smack of favoritism.

Before Gilt, Per Se was the last Frank Bruni review of a restaurant with clear 4-star aspirations that hadn't previously been reviewed by another critic.After the fire, Per Se re-opened on May 1, 2004, and Frank Bruni's review didn't appear until September 8th — four months later, and three months after Bruni's first published review on June 9, 2004. I would therefore disagree that there is some standard amount of time for him to wait before reviewing a place, or that there is a fundamental fairness rule that obligates him to allow the same amount of time in every case. Because of the landlord/tenant issue at Del Posto, prudence would counsel waiting to review it. I mean, if Bruni awards four stars, the landlord's leverage goes way up; vice versa if he awards two stars. There's no assurance Bruni will be prudent, but that's what I would do.

In a post today on Bruni's blog, he goes into more detail about what the stars mean. The latest comments were prompted by "several readers" who felt that he had underrated Telepan, the subject of last Wednesday's review. Bruni's comments aren't revelatory, though it is helpful to have them publicly acknowledged, including: — Obviously, ratings are a matter of opinion, and there are always going to be some readers who disagree. — Bruni visits four or five times and samples a majority of the menu. If you've only been there once or twice, you simply may not have as broad a base of experience as he has. — There's a big difference between restaurants that are just barely better than one star, and those that are just barely worse than three, but two stars is the result in either case. Lastly: He also mentions that he is well aware that he is recognized, "especially on second, third or fourth visits and especially in new, vigilant restaurants that make concerted efforts (rounding up old photos, eavesdropping on table conversations, etc.) to know I’m there." He says that, to the extent he can, he tries to compensate for any special treatment that he may be getting.

It's no coincidence that most of the four-star restaurants in town are also very busy restaurants. If Del Posto gets four stars, it will probably be because it is doing the "right things" that luxury diners are looking for.In a sense, I think that Batali and Bastianich wanted a challenge: what would it take to open the Italian equivalent of Daniel or Jean Georges? But I don't think the game is up if Bruni awards fewer than four stars. Yes, the Times review is one of many measures of whether a restaurant is succeeding at what it set out to do. But at the end of the day, a four-star review is of no avail if Del Posto isn't a hit with its customers. Last week, Batali told the AP's Adam Goodman, "I'm not going to tell anybody, but of course I'm worried. I'm working every hour of every day. This is my main event." I don't think he was just referring to the suspense of whether Bruni would award four stars. Batali isn't so foolish as to spend $12 on that gamble alone. Obviously, it helps Batali that Bruni is already on record as being a huge fan of Babbo. But to even match Babbo's three stars, Del Posto has to be a lot better, in light of the prices they're charging.

Frank Bruni's blog is now a week old. It already has 10 posts, including four mini-reviews: Morimoto, David Burke @ Bloomingdale's, Hooters, and Il Mulino. That's quite a motley assortment of restaurants! I find the quality of the writing on the blog superior to the quality of the writing in his print reviews. We shall have to see if he keeps it up. There is a well known phenomenon that the initial excitement of blogging often cools off. On the other hand, he persuaded management to drop the Friday Diner's Journal column in lieu of a blog, so he obviously has a professional duty to keep it going at some level. Still, it's an impressive start. Historically, the nature of the NYT restaurant critic's job is that he has many more meals out than there is room to write about in the daily paper. Under the previous system, one of the four "mini-reviews" that have appeared in the blog this week would have been the Friday Diner's Journal column, and the other three simply wouldn't have been written about.

In an earlier post, you said that "their better days are over." The tone of this latest post suggests that, even in Babbo's better days, you didn't find anything there that was great.It's one thing to say "Babbo has gone down," and another to say that it wasn't anything special to begin with. I can't match xyz123's 10-15 visits, but I was there twice—both last year—and found the food stupendous.

My understanding is that the Del Posto lease was signed with a prior owner. I assume it was market rate at the time the deal was done. Batali and Bastianich even gloated in the Times that Del Posto probably couldn't have been built on such a grand scale anywhere else in town, as the cost for so much space would otherwise have been prohibitive.That said, if Del Posto were operating within the literal parameters of its lease, the landlord would have no recourse. Batali and Bastianich have conceded that they had a verbal understanding with the prior owners—but nothing in writing—that they could have use of vault space that was not technically theirs. Unfortunately for them, the new owners aren't bound by an unrecorded "gentlemen's agreement" to which they weren't a party.

So does Per Se. It's as if they made an inventory of all the things the 4-star restaurants are doing....then imitated them.

New York Magazine, New York Post, and Strong Buzz have all reviewed it.

How is it possible for someone to have an opinion and write so many posts on Per Se without eating there. ← When a restaurant receives as much praise as Per Se, it makes my list of "places I'd like to try." When I referred to "admiring...from a distance," that was all I meant.

Anywhere from $120 to $250 is my understanding.

After admiring Per Se from a distance for the last two years, I finally had dinner there on Wednesday evening with two colleagues and a vendor, who was paying. Your choices at Per Se are simple: the seven-course tasting menu, the nine-course chef's tasting menu, or the vegetable tasting—all at $210 (service compris). The seven-course tasting offers a couple of options, the nine-course tasting just one option (foie gras or salad), the vegetable tasting none at all. So, while these menus do change frequently, on any given evening the kitchen's life is a lot more predictable than at other luxury restaurants. I was not surprised that all of us selected the chef's tasting menu with the foie gras option ($30 supplement). The printed menu offered a foie gras terrine, but our server told us that we could substitute seared foie gras if we preferred, which two of us did. After our host selected bottled water and a red wine, we were done making decisions, and it was time for the parade of food. At Per Se, people walk in every day asking to see a copy of the menu. At some point, the management obviously got tired of this, so they erected a stand outside of the main entrance, where copies of the three menus are there for the taking. Nowadays, curiosity-seekers need not enter Per Se's hallowed doors just to get a copy of the menu. I had meant to take an extra copy as I left, as a memento of the evening. When I got home, I realized I'd taken a copy of the vegetable tasting menu instead. (That's how tired I was.) So unfortunately, I don't have a complete record of everything we had. As it has been from the day Per Se opened, the amuse bouche was the salmon cone, and the first course was "oysters and pearls" (pearl tapioca with oysters and caviar). It's no surprise that Per Se keeps serving these dishes, as they are superb. Meanwhile, we were offered a choice of house-made breads, along with two butters that come from a farm with only five cows that sells only to Per Se and the French Laundry. Although foie gras is a standard second course at Per Se, it has been offered in a variety of preparations. As I mentioned above, I chose the seared foie gras, which came in a large portion that melted in the mouth. Greater perfection could not be imagined. Third was a fish course that was very good, but I have forgotten what it was. Then came the cuit sous vide that some people have found underwhelming. I had no such complaints with the preparation, but it was awkward to cut into pieces with the fish knives we were given. Serrated knives would have been the way to go. Next came duck breast, which I found mildly uninteresting for a restaurant of this calibre. Calotte de boeuf grillée (basically a slice of ribeye steak) was beautifully done. The cheese and dessert courses were excellent, although I have forgotten the details. We concluded with the house-made mignardises, of which I could have had many more. We were sent home with a cellophane bag of cookies. (The coffee cake that Compass leaves you with is better.) At Alain Ducasse, which I also visited recently, I had two courses that were absolutely transcendent, and which I will remember for a long time to come: the blue foot chicken and the "baba" rum dessert. Only one dish at Per Se reached this level — the "oysters and pearls," which was gone in about sixty seconds (it was only a taste). If Per Se deserves four stars, it is for sustained excellence over the course of such a long menu, rather than for a particular extraordinary dish. The service was, of course, at the highest level—seamless, polished, and expert. Some people find the Adam Tihany-designed space a little chilly, but its warm elegance grew on me. The view across Columbus Circle and Central Park's southwest corner is wonderful at night.

I am mindful of restaurants' tendency to over-charge and under-perform on special occasions. (Picholine on New Year's Eve was my latest experience of that kind.) At Oceana on Valentine's Day I am happy to say that we were not disappointed, although I suspect it is possible to have a better meal there than we had. For Valentine's Day, Oceana pared its cuisine down to a six-course tasting menu at $125: You'll note that the only decision for the diner was Loup de Mer or Short Ribs for the fifth course. (Anyone who'd come to Oceana and order short ribs needs to have his head examined.) I do realize the need for restaurants to simplify on such a busy night, but I should think a professional kitchen could offer more variety than that.The smoked cod chowder, the duck & pistachio terrine, and the loup de mer—a house specialty—were all superb. I especially would have liked more of the cod chowder and the loup de mer. That's always the drawback of a tasting menu: no matter how good a dish may be, it's gone in a few bites. My friend wasn't fond of the iceberg lettuce salad, although I thought it was just fine, if unmemorable. For me, the low point was the steamed halibut, which was dry and had left all of its taste in the poaching pan. The desserts were first-rate. I could have done without the sarsaparilla ice cream soda (basically melted ice cream that you sipped with a straw), but I can't complain about one dud when they give you a four-item sampler. Paired wines would have been another $100 a person. Here my rip-off alert went into high gear. For well under that figure, one can select a superb white from Oceana's long wine list, and come home with cash to spare. Oceana also has a fine selection of half-bottles, and you could even sample a few of those without spending as much as the house wine pairing. As it was a work night for both of us, we settled for cocktails followed by a half-bottle of chardonnay ($38), with which we were delighted. Including beverages, tax, and tip, the meal came to $398. Nobody would call that inexpensive, but for a three-star restaurant on Valentine's Day, it was one of the better special-occasion meals I've had.

Perhaps one of the historians here can provide some further color, but the weekly "Diner's Journal" column has long been used for—among other things—previewing restaurants that will later receive rated reviews. It is part of the system that Frank Bruni inherited, and I don't recall anyone else having such a big problem with it.What purpose does it serve? Well, it simply increases the amount of coverage provided to those restaurants. Whether he chooses the right restaurants at the right time is a matter of critical judgment, but I fail to see how additional information could be viewed as a liability. Historically, previews of restaurants that would receive full reviews shortly thereafter have been a minority of the Diner's Journal columns. I suspect his blog will continue this practice. His lead-off post suggested that he will mostly be blogging about restaurants he has no immediate plans to formally review. This presupposes that the formal reviews are a "complete" opinion. Although they occupy more space than a Diner's Journal column, a formal review is still only a snapshot—a momentary utterance in the ongoing public conversation about these restaurants. I don't understand the "gossip" comment at all. Whatever flaws Frank Bruni's writing may have, his reviews are not gossip.

While I think he over-relies on quotes from his friends, I've never doubted that some friend or other actually said what is attributed to them. What makes you believe otherwise?