Nathan

those people weren't me (maybe the Modern and Gilt)...but we'll find out tomorrow.

I'll be surprised if it's not three.

"Actually that's not true with respect to a lot of types of Japanese restaurants. " I said some. But anyway, you then went on to agree with my statement.

Mayur, btw, I don't agree that Babbo was knocked a star for the music. the music was used as an example of how Babbo is simply too casual ( in terms of ambience, service and food) to be a four-star restaurant. EMP is "Eleven Madison Park" -- once a beautiful, somewhat mediocre restaurant that is now garnering rave reviews under Daniel Humm

"You don't, but isn't it a fair point that people who don't eat various foods (such as pig) are thereby inconvenienced or excluded from having the pleasure of the restaurant's cuisine?" so? there are plenty of restaurants where they can eat.... someone who doesn't like anything spicy is denied the pleasures of Sriphithai or S&T....so? a vegetarian is denied 99% of the menu at Momofuku Saam Bar...(not that it prevents them from writing the place up anyway)

every recent study that I'm familiar with boils down to three key things: 1. don't actually worry about the amount of nutrients or vitamins you get in your daily diet....trust me, we all get plenty. unless you go on one of those 1200 daily calorie diets (which may actually prolong your lifespan), there's simply no need to concern yourself with it. especially if you eat a fair amount of veggies. 2. most food-related health issues today relate essentially to calorie intake (yeah, some calories may be worse than others...but overall it's calorie count). with the diversity of modern diets, scurvy, pellagra, beri-beri etc. are things of the past. 3. you have two choices in how you can handle calorie intake -- diet (i.e. calorie limitation) or exercise (ideally, both). if you workout enough (and the key here is intensity -- 45 minutes of intense free weights will burn a lot more than an hour and a half on the treadmill)....you can eat anything you want and as much as you want. literally. you just have to choose which tradeoff you want to work with.

"also the risk of missing something really special that you might otherwise not be attracted to." this is by far the most significant factor in my ordering calculus. I still recall fondly the menu concept at a midwest restaurant (regrettably a relatively mediocre one -- though the chef moved on to better things with more financial backing) which was simply organized as "chicken", "beef", "squab", "Fish 1", "Fish 2", "mollusks" etc.... I thought the idea was terrific...

As I've already noted, they don't sell reservations after noon the day of the reservation. obviously, this means that if they haven't sold the reservation by the confirmation deadline they're letting the table go.

"Chicken breast (Suprème de Volaille) appears on many menus in 'haute' restaurants (for much more money" which restaurants? they're charging much more than $45 for it?

I second all of the recommendations above.

You know, people grumbled about the introduction of the steel plow too. I agree with everything FG wrote...and most of what Mayur wrote. (I agreed with some of Bruni's article -- there is a fair amount of crass commercialism and chef-worship in today's restaurants that irritates me as well -- see the Varietal thread -- chefs shouldn't be compared to Picasso for _____ sakes!) As has been noted, I don't think Alinea or Per Se are serving tasting menus -- only in order to save on labor. Not when they have as many cooks in the kitchen as diners (literally!). Yeah, they like cooking sous vide -- there's a reason for that -- things taste better -- without having to smother them in butter (the real reason why "classic" dishes were actually tasty). As for choice -- frankly, if I'm at a great restaurant -- I don't want it. Seriously. How the heck do I know which will be both more interesting and good between "seared foie gras, peach reduction, ossetra broth" and "brussel sprouts, roasted endive, chorizo water"? If I'm at eating at a diner, I'm going to pick the dish with the tastiest ingredients. If I'm eating at a great restaurant, how the heck do I know how to choose between those two? I want to see what a great chef can do with something that I couldn't work with. Anyone with a modicum of cooking knowledge can make an excellent dinner with luxe ingredients, including me. So, why am I dining out again? I hate sweet potatoes, but if Keller or Achatz or Jean-Georges want to make a dish featuring them....I'll be the first in line. After all, "trust the kitchen" has always been a part of Japanese cuisine -- not just in sushi and sashimi. See Tsukushi or any kaiseki establishment. Ditto for some Italian restaurants in Italy as well.

tribeca

I thought they were very very small... though I really liked the white onion veloute. highly recommend Bar Room at the Modern.

smaller think 1/3 to 1/5 of Bar Room at the Modern portions. (or 1/10 of the Tarte Flambee) put differently, there is no doubt in my mind that a full meal in the main dining room at RGR can be more economical than a full meal in the LB...that's what really rubbed me the wrong way

I've had them substitute cheese for dessert. no extra charge.

have you tried it since the new oven and chef?

those four courses are a joke. its three savory, one dessert. you would need six to eight savories for a full meal. seriously.

I'm going to give them a couple weeks... personally, I suggest turkey is the way to go with Oaxacan moles...

The revamped Craftsteak menu looks quite appealing -- especially the prixe fixe menu for $68 (the same items ala carte are about $95). http://www.craftrestaurant.com/cs_ny_menu.html the lounge menu is very appealing: http://www.craftrestaurant.com/cs_ny_lounge_menu.html

You'll notice that he ate in the London Bar (where it is very easy to get a table...just walk in and ask). The LB is disappointing -- especially when you realize that it is at the same price point as the main dining room -- but for apparently dumbed down food.

the reason why I asked for MORE THAN ONE example of a restaurant being reviewed by Bruni in less than two months was that I knew the Russian Tea Room had been reviewed that early. Indeed, it was, by a week and a half. The RTR re-opened on November 1, 2006. The review was published on December 20, 2006. I know of no other examples.

"So what if Ducasse, Meyer, et al. show off some of thir books? How does that detract from the dining experience?" Well, it is rather gauche, frankly. but agreed that it has minimal impact overall.

The Modern opened on January 5, 2005. However, the kitchen had been serving dishes in the Bar Room since November 20, 2004. The Modern was reviewed on May 4, 2005. It had been officially open for 5 months.

Bruni has greatly expanded his Critic's Notebook article on his blog: http://dinersjournal.blogs.nytimes.com/ the moneyquote: "One of the reasons we go to restaurants is to avail ourselves of others’ expertise, talent, perspective. We say to them: show us what you can do, and show us what you know. But we also go to restaurants to be coddled: to have, in exchange for very significant sums of money, our specific appetites addressed, our particular tastes indulged. And the realities of restaurant-going today convince me that some of that coddling is falling by the wayside."

"Yes, it has taken him slightly longer to get to GR than it did for Del Posto or Gilt. But not so much longer that it begins to look shady. It took him a very long time to get to Per Se." I think we all have a guess as to why on that one (and this may go for RGR as well)....he couldn't get in enough times to write the review. An educated speculation is that it takes a minimum of four visits to write a Times review (some other critics clearly do less)...both to get an adequate sample and to increase the odds that he is not recognized every time. I would suspect that a restaurant with four star aspirations may get even more. It probably took him six months to get into Per Se enough times...