Nathan

no one gets in trouble for putting egg whites into cocktails...you'd demolish 25% of the classical repertoire. I was in last night....the Fancy Free is quite nice. Asked for, and got, an excellent Red Hook. Then they suggested the East Point, an excellent variation on the Red Hook...substituting chartreuse for the maraschino. it became packed at 9:30....several large groups....all young and female. what's clear is that there are already two groups of people at D & C: people there for the cocktails and then people there for the buzz -- they're generally ordering wine or beer. the second group will largely dissipate pretty quickly....D & C doesn't have the geographical placement that Flatiron Lounge does (which for some reason has a massive afterwork crowd completely uninterested in the cocktails)

regardless of whether price should be taken into account, the Times guidelines say that it is. I think it's fair to say that Bruni weighs price more heavily than did his predecessors. One may certainly disagree with this weighing...but it is a coherent factor within his reviews. And Bruni's ratings only make sense when one takes this into account

I think we're in general agreement. "But the claim that either is a mediocre restaurant is really hard to accept. " I didn't mean to purport that. that's why I backed off USC as a one-star...it's certainly hard to countenance as a three star. I do think it's overpriced for what it's serving.

what neighborhood? there are at least 50 or so winebars in the city. of which at least 20 have something to merit them

"Good Lord, you pantywaist! Yes. It. Will." ah, but you see one also omits the ice...!

I really doubt that JG or Keller are spending any time whatsoever envying DM. Do they respect him? I'm sure they do. Seriously, there is no important restaurant group in North America then Keller's. We could probably argue all day on whether DM's group is the most important in New York -- but in North America? Imo, its not even close.

"Oh Nathan, nothing "sucks" at USC. If it did, it would be off the menu in a heartbeat. Some may not suit your taste, but to use that term is a bit over the top." with reference to the "Indian Spiced Vegetables"....I'll use that term. If they were a $5 side dish I would think differently.

as I noted before, I love that tuna dish. the problem is that it's the best thing on the menu. here is the menu: http://www.unionsquarecafe.com/docs/dinner.pdf the baby lamb is served once a week. no, I haven't had it. I have had the lamb chops -- and they weren't very good. oakapple: yeah, the Indian Spiced Vegetables are $23, they're also pretty poor. everything else is thirty. the duck is new to me and looks interesting, I'll grant that. I might have exaggerated...one star might be a bit too low...I could see an argument for two...I was going off the memory of spending close to a $100 a person for a glorified (and better) version of Chat 'n' Chew down the street -- which is most of the USC menu no matter how it's described. "Then you're making the claim that three-star restaurants from the 1980s deserve one star in 2007. I think that claim fails on its face. " Like I just noted, a two-star drop might be a bit much. But I am confident in saying that there probably wasn't a four-star restaurant in the 80's that if was opened de novo today, would garner four. FG: you yourself have critiqued the JG flagship for being behind the times...almost intimating that maybe it didn't deserve four... but maybe we can all just agree on a one-star across the board drop....

"Your point seems to be that there is something wrong with preparing food well that is no longer perceived as cutting-edge." of course not. but is it worth two or three stars? certainly not at those prices. and some of the dishes at USC simply suck. "At USC, apps are $9-16, mains $23-34. At The Little Owl, apps are $7-14, mains $17-26. It sounds like you're going to spend about $10 more per person at USC, before beverages." not really. virtually everything worth ordering at USC is around $30 for entrees. not so for Little Owl. and the portions are significantly larger at Little Owl. But yeah, one could do USC for less...its just that in my experience the per-person cost at USC somehow ends up at close to a $100. I think people perhaps feel compelled to spend more on wine there.

oh, well, I think that discussion was perfectly relevant. but anyway...USC isn't "tired" in the way that Bouley purportedly is, USC just belongs in the 80's....its food is along the same lines of my Silver Palate Cookbook from the 80's. when the best dish on the menu is seared tuna with wasabi mashed potatoes.....its simply not a two or three star restaurant no matter how much nostalgia people have for it. USC is a lot like Little Owl actually. But the food at Little Owl is a bit better...the space is less comfortable (though the service is just as friendly), and Little Owl is 1/3 the price. Of course, if you're offended by no one around you wearing a suit, then one might find USC worth the price.

"No, the twenty-something crowd that flocks to Spice Market and Buddakan is not at Gramercy Tavern." that's an entirely different twenty-something and thirty-something crowd than the one that is eating at WD-50 and Perry Street. But as Sneakeater hinted, making that distinction got folks a twitter the last time we talked about it.

that's my understanding as well. although, as noted above, vodka hardly qualifies as a base spirit in the OF. and keep the fruit out! I'm not hardcore opposed to a splash of soda water...it won't kill it, it's just unnecessary.

arguably, there's no reason to re-review USC though....nothing has changed. its just that you can't get three stars for tuna and wasabi-mashed potatoes today (or "Indian-Spiced Vegetables" -- an extremely mediocre entree that was probably daring 20 years ago)

well, as anticipated, they've raised the prices to the standard level. interesting to see the Pink Lady reappear. that and its very close brother, the Clover Club were once considered quite "manly"...before eventually shifting to a different demographic. the Wicked Kiss is a simple riff on the Widow's Kiss -- another drink I'm surprised to see return. any bar that makes a Bobby Burns is on my good side. the Fancy Free looks very interesting. I can't wait until this whole ginger beer fad goes away though....

"Criticisms and pot shots are easy, explantions are more difficult." Fair point. But an actual review and downgrade would have been far more perverse (as I noted on Monday). The last thing DM wants is for USC to be reviewed. We all know it's a one star restaurant...at least I think most would agree. He can't change the place and make it relevant because it has one of the highest percentage of regulars in the city. They don't want any changes. Its full every night. Its not going to change. So the last thing he wants is a review.

To augment my point about cost being the implicit category definer for some: Masa hardly fits in the traditional four-star category (unless you really want to argue that Hatsuhana was sufficient precedent -- instead of simply being a ghastly outlier). Honmura Ann hardly fits in the traditional three-star category. Otto hardly fits in the traditional two star category. etc. But Bruni's four for Masa didn't even get a murmur of complaint. I'd say that if Masa was exactly the same but cost 30% as much we'd have seen some gripes. Yes, I'm cynical.

oakapple: its hard to have this discussion when you haven't eaten at Sriphithai or S&T. I haven't eaten at S&T so I won't comment on that. as Sneakeater noted, Oriental Garden is in Manhattan and for some reason (unknown to me)...that two star rating wasn't controversial. I have a theory as to why though -- its cause you can spend a lot of money at Oriental Garden...and you can't at Sri or S&T (to my knowledge). with that said, the food at Sriphithai is at a three star level. period. so, yeah, it gets knocked down a star for ambience and comfort. should it get knocked down another star for being a long commute? I have never been in a restaurant more deserving of the two-star rating. I wouldn't even have objected if it had gotten three. If Otto can have two stars (and Grimes gave it that without significant controversy) than my goodness Sriphithai can have two. Yes, a couple people objected...as far as I can tell the arguments were predicated upon pure..............

Rich, read the Babbo thread and the first Bruni thread. the reaction to the Babbo review was overwhelmingly popular (yours wasn't, but virtually everyone else's was)....some were literally euphoric. Read the threads. btw, Babbo was Bruni's first review.

"Nathan as I recall that was a very controversial review based on his first paragraph, where he came as close as possible to saying he didn't award Babbo four stars because he didn't enjoy the music. I don't think euphoria existed at all. In fact, it was in that review he set the tone for his other problematic proclamations." I remember you making points on the music. Read everyone else's posts on that thread. They were very positive. I've gone back and looked...human memory is faulty. Look at the thread. "To take a negative approach certainly speaks volumns about his character and personality." Eh, here's the problem. USC and GT have three stars and are at the top of the Zagat ratings. They're also not that good. (especially USC). GT might have changed in the past week, but with all due respect to FG, that's the past week. If you really want to emphasize that the best restaurants in the Meyer Empire are EMP and the Modern, you have to compare the others negatively. With all due respect, there's a certain age demographic that gives an unmerited affection to USC and GT as they are now (whatever they may have deserved in the past). In the past five years I've eaten at USC four or five times and at GT twice. There's a reason why we were the only people under 50 in the room that weren't accompanied by parents. edit: as to why we kept going back to USC -- cause my ex lived on the block and USC was better than Chat 'n' Chew or Blue Water Grill.

"I don't know if it's a fire-the-chef review, because I don't know how well The Modern is doing. I'm sure Danny Meyer wants three stars, but what he really wants is butts in seats. If he's getting that, then Kreuther is safe." I think Sneakeater was joking. Kreuther is also the chef of the Bar Room. Thus, he has three stars from the Times for one part of the venue and two stars for the other part. Thus, DM faces the conundrum that if he fired Kreuther for underperformance in the Modern proper, he also loses the chef behind the three-star portion of the venue.

"I'm not sure Grimes enjoyed any more deference than Bruni. What has changed, is that we know instantly what the "blogosphere" thinks of the latest review. Maybe people were outraged when Mimi Sheraton awarded four stars to Hatsuhana in 1983 (the first Japanese restaurant so honored). But those outraged people couldn't as easily find each other as they can today." You don't think outrage is partially a confluence of like-minded people? That we aren't affected by each other? There are cognitive studies (done with politics but I don't see why it wouldn't be valid here as well) demonstrating that if you put together a group of people all sharing views on the same general spectrum and exclude explicit opposing voices then the group consensus will inevitably end up nearly identical to the most extreme position in the room. In other words, some people might not have been outraged at all if they weren't exposed to similar people who were outraged. The blogosphere has a remarkable similarity to an echo chamber. "But I don't think it's impossible to put someone in that job who, on the whole, will be widely regarded as better than Frank Bruni. " I agree. But part of that will simply be a matter of concrete institutional memory -- these threads.

"USHG is probably the most important restaurant group in New York City, and therefore North America. So when you go to write about USHG, you need to have your act together." No. Either of the JG or Boulud groups are both more influential and more significant. The Thomas Keller group is by far the most influential and important in North America. The Robuchon North America group is now more influential and important. Probably LettuceEntertainYou as well. BRGuest has a presence everywhere in the country. So does Chodorow. So does Bartolotta I'm sure there are some California restaurant groups that could easily compete. I love and appreciate what Danny Meyer has done for dining in this city...but today, only one or two of his restaurants are of any significance at all. As for the rest of your post, it's well-taken. And would be most applicable to a feature article on the Group.

you know, here's why I think people are (sometimes) unfair to Bruni: I'm certain that with every prior reviewer one could find mistakes just as egregious (if we go far enough back those mistakes won't, of course, be obvious)...I can think of a couple Grimes ratings that if given by Bruni would result in massive amounts of consternation and condemnation on this board (of course, Grimes' background wasn't in food either, he was one of the preeminent historians of the American cocktail). The difference between Bruni and his predecessors comes down, imo, to two primary factors: A. (and this is by far the most significant one)...the astronomical growth in amateur criticism and internet writing about restaurants. No critic will ever garner the deference of the past....Grimes was the end of that era. If Bruni had been the critic ten, even six, years ago...he wouldn't have been criticized anywhere near as much. By restauranteurs, sure. But that's always been the case. Restauranteurs will always apologize for critics who give them a good review and disparage those who do not. This isn't a bad thing of course...but I do think there's some nostalgia for a past that never was...(previous critics were all over the map as well). B. He got off to a bad start. There were some notable initial missteps. Undubitably, he's not the only Times critic that has done this. However, thanks to the internet and these threads...there's a certain amount of institutional memory that a critic can't escape now. So, I suppose this point is really a sub-point to the one above. Another factor is his apparent bias against formal dining. I'm not quite sure this is true -- he did after all four-star Per Se and Masa, and three-star Atelier, EMP, Country and Picholine. But, insofar as this may be true, I'd avow that this bias only follows that of the dining public. I'm not sure that a public critic writing for public taste is necessarily a bad thing. And his ratings of Sriphithai, S&T and general willingness to write about the other boroughs shows an attempt to broaden public tastes, not just follow them. Frankly, I can handle a little populism in a critic if he is willing to write seriously about Sriphithai and S&T. And here's my final point (in this already too long post): I'm willing right now to put down cash that the next NY Times critic will be written about on threads analogous to this one in the following fashion: initial euphoria after the first review (just as Bruni was after his inaugural Babbo review -- if you don't believe me, go back and read the thread...I'm not joking); followed by one of the two following sentiments over the next year: "well, at least he/she is better than Bruni" to which someone will write "that's supposed to be a compliment?"; or, someone will write "________ is even worse than Bruni!" anyone want to take my bet? I'll even give you odds. in other words, every NY Times dining critic will be compared disfavorably to the past.

of course, its always the outliers that skews one's perception of a critic's entire ouevre. the problem is that Bruni's outliers have been especially egregious. (though nothing compares Hesser's three stars for Spice Market!)

"I think illuminating to the larger dining public who still consider GT and USC among the best restaurants in the city." This, of course, was exactly Bruni's point. I think part of the issue here is that everyone on the thread takes this for a given...while the vast vast vast majority of the NY dining public follows Zagat (this isn't quite so true with the younger demographic...there's a reason why you never see anyone my age at USC unless they are accompanied by parents).