Nathan

the official NY Times guidelines say that that's exactly what they do. nothing about "classes".... and it's not inane...it's exactly how I rate and distinguish restaurants personally.

That's nonsense. Ravioli will remain Italian, no matter how mainstream it is. ← you're taking that literally. the intended point was that your omission of Masa was understandable. I agree that Bruni has a predilection for Italian cuisine(s). I tend to think that the number of steakhouse reviews (with disparate ratings) simply reflects how many have opened in the last couple years. (which arguably necessitated the Luger rereview as well.)

Frank Bruni does the same; otherwise, the two stars he awarded to both The Little Owl and Le Cirque could not be rationally comprehended. That's just a feature of the system. Whether you think it's a good system or not, those are the rules. ← that's one possible explanation. it's not the only one. we could take Bruni and the Times at their word -- which gives us a mix of food, atmosphere, service and price. looked at that way, if a reviewer believes that Le Cirque has 25% better food than Little Owl, 25% better service, 50% better atmosphere and 200% higher prices....then, depending upon the relative weights given to these factors, one could end up with LC lower ranked than LO, higher ranked or ranked the same...even when directly compared with one another. no need for classes. and I think that's (roughly speaking) exactly how Bruni rates restaurants.

I suppose sushi is now so mainstream that it almost doesn't count as "Asian"...but anyway... he's certainly two-starred plenty in the sushi, kaiseki, fusion mode....and a Chinatown seafood restaurant. but that's predictable enough. but the goalposts have really moved from a couple years ago if his two-starring a couple drab storefronts in Queens with challenging, spicy, unfamiliar food served without real wine lists or other accoutrements of fine dining can be deemed as "conservative". the Sripaphai review was astounding at the time. as for the Italian and steakhouse point...that's simply a reflection of which restaurants have opened in the past couple years. that's the trend du jour. a couple years ago Bruni was reviewing a crapload of Asian fusion restaurants.

Yeah, that's my sense as well. Michelin obviously doesn't look outside their service model, but their rankings reflect a wider variety of food tastes. Bruni is only one man with one perspective- and it's not one of culinary adventurousness. ← when it comes to avant garde food, yes. but he's much friendlier to Asian food than Michelin. have we become so jaded that that's seen as "conservative"? some people on this forum had real issues with the two stars he gave to Sripaphai. that's "conservative"

We really don't know how GR changed after Josh Emett replaced Neil Ferguson. I haven't found a single review from a respected source that post-dates Ferguson's departure. Emett says the changes were considerable.Even supposing that GR under Emett is still "safe, conservative, competent" (i.e., boring), I don't see a lot of evidence for that kind of bias in the Michelin ratings. Note, for instance, the complete absence of places like Chanterelle and La Grenouille in the ratings. And aside from GR, all of the Michelin 2 and 3-star restaurants correlate in a fairly predictable way with the NYT rankings. ← I was actually speaking to Michelin's international reputation (with possibly the exception of the Spain guide) for certain dining preferences....a much broader scale than merely NY. It's true that I know nothing about GR under Emett. ← I've never gotten that impression at all. I think Bruni prefers FAR more conservative restaurants (steakhouses, Italian) than Michelin. There are a lot of avant garde restaurants in France and elsewhere that have Michelin stars. Have you forgotten that Bruni killed Gilt? ← we're using "conservative" in different senses. see how Bruni treated Ssam Bar compared to how Michelin did. also see Bruni's three stars for Bar Room or his two stars for both Sripaphai and S&T. I also don't think that Michelin is really THAT friendly to avant garde....there are some Michelin starred avant garde restaurants in Europe because there are a lot of avant garde restaurants in Europe with two and three star service models.

We really don't know how GR changed after Josh Emett replaced Neil Ferguson. I haven't found a single review from a respected source that post-dates Ferguson's departure. Emett says the changes were considerable.Even supposing that GR under Emett is still "safe, conservative, competent" (i.e., boring), I don't see a lot of evidence for that kind of bias in the Michelin ratings. Note, for instance, the complete absence of places like Chanterelle and La Grenouille in the ratings. And aside from GR, all of the Michelin 2 and 3-star restaurants correlate in a fairly predictable way with the NYT rankings. ← I was actually speaking to Michelin's international reputation (with possibly the exception of the Spain guide) for certain dining preferences....a much broader scale than merely NY. It's true that I know nothing about GR under Emett.

we did this as kids...the resulting libation is called "Swampwater"

my impression is that Michelin looks more favorably on "safe", conservative, competently executed food than does the Brunster...

I assume you're saying that Kurumazushi is top 3, Gari is top 20, and Jewel Bako top 40? So, you're saying there are 19 places better than Gari? I don't think so.I can't agree or disagree about Jewel Bako, as I've not tried it, but as noted above, Michelin doesn't claim that every restaurant with one star is equivalent in the absolute sense. ← well..."Gari is top 20" could just mean "there are 10 places better than Gari" (though I agree that a more accurate statement is probably "Gari is top 10 and JB top 20")

hmm...GR would seem to be a prototypical Michelin two-star

its a chinese olive garden

Bruni has similar things to say here: http://dinersjournal.blogs.nytimes.com/200...elin-musings-2/

it's a meet market....which has its points. all depends upon what you're looking for.

Unchanged from last year. ← yeah...but last year Jewel Bako was a year less into its decline.

Jewel Bako and not Yasuda?????????????

from the people behind Ruby's (an always crowded tiny NoLIta Aussie burger joint), it's in a space that if memory serves, was some sort of sushi place on W. 10th, close to sixth ave. the decor is beautiful. very AvroKesque. there's a downstairs lounge in the works as well. set off tables in the front, a massive open bar in the middle and then the main dining room. service at the bar was good. cocktail list shows some ambition but the usual tendency toward sweetness. small wine list. a fair amount of NZ and Australian producers represented. started with scallops served with some sort of carrot puree. this was nice, nothing exceptional but everything properly made. my lamb chops were cooked to the rare side of medium rare...which was fine and nicely seasoned. served with buttered green beans and tomato orzo (which was really good). three small chops...could have been four but the clientele is quite similar to Jane's so I guess that make sense. I was happy with this dish. my date had the coconut monkfish curry...although sturgeon was substituted on Saturday evening. served over rice, this was pretty much a moqueca. undersalted and bland. she had to add salt. weird, cause my lamb chops were aggressively seasoned. prices are gentle. this place is basically similar to Little Owl in terms of culinary ambition, has nicer decor (and you don't have to wait two hours) but probably isn't going to be as good. (it does look like it has a marvelous burger)

if for some reason one didn't want to go to Bar Room at the Modern for drinks and snacks....then yes.

Perry Street, Perry Street, Perry Street, Perry Street, Perry Street, Perry Street, Perry Street.

Jay McInerny writes up the same meal that FG had...here: http://www.houseandgarden.com/winefood/blo...the-modern.html

ah.. I arrived around 8 and had to wait about ten minutes for a seat at the bar. all the tables appeared to be taken. except for two women on my right...no one else was eating at the bar. I did see couples waiting for an hour seated at the bar to be seated at a table......something that always seems strange to me.

I grazed at the bar here last night. Decor is much more opulent than when it was the old corporate-feeling Aquavit space. They've turned it into six different rooms...some for private dining. Crowd was a mix of midtown-after-work types (like me) and some older uptowners. Except for a couple women who might have been in their 20's...I was the youngest person in the room besides staff. Service was generally very polished. Platings and china and utensils are of a high standard. cocktails: There's a list of about 8 house cocktails...of which I sampled three. There's also a list of about 10 "Classics".....this was pathetic...on what planet are fruity shit vodka drinks and cosmo variations "Classics"????!? This simply wouldn't fly downtown. anyway, I had an "Irish Day" -- Jameson's, pomegranate molasses, apple juice, lemon juice and a black pepper garnish that just wasn't very good. it needed a much more robust whiskey to stand up to everything else. maybe a rye or even a Scotch. it's the kind of drink that you come up with when you're just fooling around at home...palatable enough to finish instead of throwing out...but not something you'd make again. then a "Loretto" -- bourbon, maple, port drink that was at first predictably too sweet...but the very friendly bartender (there were three working) revised it for me. it's an interesting combo...I might fool around with the concept at home. definitely needs some citrus. finally a "Toranja"...this was actually really good. cachaca, grapefruit syrup, lemon juice, orange bitters. an excellent summer sipper. of the small plates, the chestnut truffle consomme was undone by quite gummy and tasteless agnolotti. however, the prawns (grilled and served on a stone) were simply marvelous. I'd go back anytime for those (and the Toranja). good bread is served with an olive oil and yogurt thing...that's actually rather boring. much better are the excellent crisps of some sort at the bar.

I agree that the wine event is the troubling part and could have been solved with a simple disclosure. Unless, he really is a good friend of the Paley's. (I partially defended Amanda Hesser on the Spice Market review by pointing out that just because JG wrote a blurb doesn't mean they're actually friends or that he had even read the book)

Union Square is nicely prepared comfort food. but it's not exactly interesting. can't speak for River Cafe but I imagine it's in the same vein. 11 Madison Park is a good idea and so is Tabla...but why not do them on different nights?

hmm... arguably all Manhattan neighborhoods are "wealthy" (at least below 96th street). you could say that the LES (where Milk & Honey is located) was "gentrifying" when it first opened...and that still sort of applies to its block. but sure any neighborhood that is becoming hip is conducive to a good cocktail bar. that applies to every good cocktail bar that I'm aware of.