Nathan

I don't think the issue applies to tasting what's on your husband's plate. The main thing is hogging a 4 top for two entrees only. I'm sure if they were ordering booze or desserts, it wouldn't be such a big deal. If you can feed them and hustle them out the door in 20 minutes, it sort of saves the night for that table. ← yup. the basic issue from the restaurant's perspective is that they're losing money on these people (and I don't just mean opportunity cost). on the one hand, restaurants are in the hospitality business. on the other, they're not in the charity business.

I haven't had the hotpot but the Chongqing chicken items are superb.

there's nothing illegal about discriminating against diners on the basis of cheapness.

unfortunately, you can't ask their name when they call - not before you give them a table... ← why not? that's standard practice here in NY. I'd certainly cut out the extra amuses for a start. I don't think you need to put a plate-sharing charge on the menu...but be sure to have their server tell them when they order....nothing wrong with making up a plate-sharing charge just for them.

the specific reference was eater.

here is the Nougatine lunch menu...with the exception of one or two dishes, its standard fare...nothing like the main dining room. http://nymag.com/listings/restaurant/nouga...enus/lunch.html there's no way that 95% of those very everyday dishes are being "tested" for the main room.

well..you could do a splurge dinner but then you'd have to go way downmarket on the other meals. instead, I'd highly suggest doing lunch at Jean Georges on Thursday or Friday in the main dining room (be careful not to accidentally get the Nougatine)...its not open on Saturday or Sunday.

I ate at Kitchen 22. It wasn't haute. It was a bargain. $25 for three courses (with a bunch of $25 and $35 bottles of wine). first course was a basic cheap-bistro appetizer. second would be chicken or a skirt steak. third was a premade (and not very good...they were probably Bindi or Sysco) dessert cheap...but not haute.

That's like saying "7. 42 items." The breakfast component of American cuisine is pretty extensive in and of itself. But just to add a few things to your list: mac and cheese, turkey club, Caesar salad, Cobb salad, chicken salad, tuna melt, Reuben, Monte Cristo, BLT, split pea soup, clam chowder, grilled cheese, fish and chips, chicken pot pie, apple pie, turkey with stuffing, hot open-face roast beef sandwich, hot fudge sundae, milkshake . . . we could go on like this for awhile. And it's not all just crummy diner food -- the restaurant Delmonico's alone contributed quite a few dishes to the American canon (Lobster Newberg, potatoes Delmonico, Delmonico steak, eggs Benedict, baked Alaska, etc.). The same list exercise can be done with Ashkenazi Jewish cuisine. Just pick up any of the scores of 300+ page Jewish cookbooks out there. ← the George Webb diner chain and its clones (there are something like a 100 George Webb's) do not serve any of the following: mac and cheese, turkey club, Caesar salad, Cobb salad, Reuben, Monte Cristo, split pea soup, clam chowder, chicken pot pie, turkey with stuffing. but I take your point that there's a ubiquitous diner culture of Americana, I just don't think the list of universal items is that long.

it'd be helpful to know a lot more about price points and tastes. with that said, the best gelato in the city is at Otto....you can definitely just stop in for gelato in the afternoon....or late (after 11)

I know places where the diner menus are composed of the following: 1. Greek items. 2. hamburgers 3. soups 4. meatloaf 5. chicken fingers 6. fried chicken. 7. breakfast items.

I'm not sure you've really established that for American cuisine, nor am I sure it's true in general. I think it's safe to say that all regional cuisines are tied to location, but how is a hamburger tied to location? Any dish that enjoys popularity all over America can't possibly be tied to location because America is too big to be considered a location for these purposes. No, it's not too big. The America that made the hamburger into an "American food" is the America of a mass-media induced monoculture. I should point out that there is considerable dispute as to whether there truly is such a thing as "American cuisine." Again, we may be running into the issue where we can identify a few "American dishes" but they may not add up to any kind of meaningful "American cuisine." This observation actually supports my thought about cuisine and location. Yes, it's true that one can't necessarily say that "this food is French" on one side of the border and "this food is Italian" on the other side. This is because the geography, ingredients, etc. are largely the same on either side of the border. Whether there is something that ties together all of French cooking is another question. More geographical diversity means that there will be more uniquely diversified cooking and culinary culture in a smaller area. ← see the Italian cooking of Alto Adige (or the proximate area of the Veneto)

I'm not sure you've really established that for American cuisine, nor am I sure it's true in general. I think it's safe to say that all regional cuisines are tied to location, but how is a hamburger tied to location? Any dish that enjoys popularity all over America can't possibly be tied to location because America is too big to be considered a location for these purposes. No, it's not too big. The America that made the hamburger into an "American food" is the America of a mass-media induced monoculture. I should point out that there is considerable dispute as to whether there truly is such a thing as "American cuisine." Again, we may be running into the issue where we can identify a few "American dishes" but they may not add up to any kind of meaningful "American cuisine." This observation actually supports my thought about cuisine and location. Yes, it's true that one can't necessarily say that "this food is French" on one side of the border and "this food is Italian" on the other side. This is because the geography, ingredients, etc. are largely the same on either side of the border. Whether there is something that ties together all of French cooking is another question. More geographical diversity means that there will be more uniquely diversified cooking and culinary culture in a smaller area. ← there isn't an American cuisine. there are a number of clearly identifiable regional American cuisines...all quite dissimilar: Italian-American, Pacific Northwest, BBQ/southern, Tex-Mex, coastal Atlantic, Cajun/Creole, southwestern, Chinese-American. many other immigrant cuisines haven't really changed much....the German, Polish and Norwegian cuisines of the midwest haven't really morphed into anything else (yet). then there are the ubiquitous American dishes that are made in every American household (pretty much literally): the hamburger (it apparently was first put in a bun in the U.S.), meat loaf, pot roast, roast turkey, chili, steak (American cuts)....but I don't see how those five items a national cuisine make.

well..more recent Chinese immigrants have tended to be Fujanese or from Taiwan..but, yeah, they're all making Cantonese-American food... what I've found living across the country is that the set menu varies a little by region. my understanding is that there are large regional distributors who supply the sauces, egg rolls, etc.....and so the lineup varies a bit by U.S. region. the names of the same items change as well (often confusing my non-foodie friends when they travel because they don't realize the name they're asking for something by is made-up to begin with) the cooks are often Mexican. (the Chinese cooks are working at the local sushi bar instead) menus do expand over time. for example, in NY every cantonese place offers chow fun, mei fun etc.... but it's really the same question as why does almost every "Italian" restaurant in the U.S. offer bastardized Sicilian food (well, cause that's Italian-American food...which can be quite good on its own merits...)

Okay, I see your point. I don't know whether that's true or not, but my only claim was that Zagat is fairly close to accurate at the 23+ level. I am not trying to figure out how it got that way. "Grocery" explains why Zagat is "fairly close to accurate," instead of "totally accurate." The suck/best dichotomy on the Internet is so last-decade. You need to get over it.But here are your answers...you were partially right: Joya: 25; Sea: 21; Pam: 24. I am too lazy to check other sources that rate Thai restaurants, to see if there is a rational basis for these results. If others rate Joya more-or-less comparably to Pam, then Zagat is rational—and that's all you can expect a guide to be. ← Joya is a Sea clone. it sucks. as to why it has that high a ranking...it's very popular with the Brooklyn Heights set.

what I meant was that the reason Zagat generally gets the top sort of right (explain Grocery!!!!) is because that's being determined by a pretty small group of voters who are generally gathering dining info from other sources...(I know some of this group...attorneys or bankers or execs who have a favorite restaurant (such as Aureole) that they eat at regularly and then they hit places like Jean Georges or Per Se once or twice a year. They read the Times reviews...they hear word of mouth when GR or the like opens. but are they foodies? would they trek out to Sri in a million years? heck no.) Zagat doesn't get anything besides the top right because after the top it just becomes a blob of (primarily tasteless and uninformed) people voting for their favorite restaurants. edit: to illustrate my Sri example, if someone has a guide handy...could they post the respective rankings for Joya, Sea (either branch), and Pam Real? what are the odds that they all have similar rankings..or even that Joya and Sea are ranked higher than Pam Real? (the point being...Joya and Sea suck, Pam Real is probably the best Thai in Manhattan)

what I said was name a restaurant and I can tell you the Zagat rating and the comments without having seen the Zagat entry. that has nothing to do with my personal view of the restaurant. no. Zagat is a somewhat accurate survey of the views of a self-selected group of the dining public....no one disputes that. so? the claim was that Zagat is "more accurate" than the Times or Michelin in some larger sense....not "Zagat is more accurate than the Times or Michelin in reflecting the views of Zagat voters". what I don't understand is the foundational assumption that the majority of Zagat voters have taste.

the even more self-selected group of Zagat voters that dine at four-star restaurants which is a small portion of the self-selected group of Zagat voters in aggregate know who the top restaurants are.

huh? huh? they insist they simply average the votes! I believe them. the editing is of the comments. huh? we know everything about their methodology. its transparent. it's not Michelin. and it's not like people who used to be editors for them haven't talked since....a little googling will reveal a lot here...

I almost agree. But the Grocery ranking (which was likely simply ballot stuffing by people in its neighborhood) and USC's top rating year after year are greater anomalies than anything at the top end by Bruni or Michelin...they'd have to give the highest ranking to A di la or something to reach that point. exactly. and that only accounts for most of the restaurants in the guide! edit: and this is why Zagat is really useless...everyone knows what the top restaurants are!

I'd say that the fact I was able to exactly predict the Sri entry without having seen it is telling. one could do that for every restaurant...and its comments (which are undifferentiated and useless). if there was something horribly wrong with Britney Spears as a musician she wouldn't sell any records..... the problem is...taste is not a democratic attribute.

heh...if you go to Milwaukee you'll find people identifying matzoh ball soup as Grießnockerl no matter which broth you use.

There's a difference between being entirely compromises and partially compromised. The second still has utility...the first is only fit for compost. by self-selecting, I mean the entire set of Zagat voters are self-selected. the Zagat concept only works on any level at all if they simply poll a representative cross-section of the population. furthermore, Zagat is inherently biased because most Zagat voters don't keep a running total of every restaurant they go to with a score. they fill out all of their ratings at once...and the restaurants they mainly remember are the ones they've been to more than once (or that anniversary meal at Union Square Cafe). as for Zagat delivering perceived accuracy....yes, its perceived as accurate by the majority of diners...who also happen to be idiots and without taste. I'll take Bruni or even Randall Lane over the average Zagat voter...

I 100% disagree in the strongest possible terms. eh. your underlying assumption for this entire argument is hopelessly flawed. regardless of whether you mean "the majority of consumers" or "the majority of Zagat voters"....the problem with either formulation is that both of these groups are almost complete idiots (the simple fact is that the set of Zagat voters (at least in NY) is synonymous with the set of well-to-do people who dine out a lot at the same restaurants over and over again). furthermore, a Zagat rating means nothing to me. it tells me nothing. I'll take the Times' star ratings, the Michelin Guide...etc. over Zagat in a heartbeat. as flawed as either of those rating systems may be...they're still much more accurate than Zagat. as for Bruni, I know his tastes and biases...as do we all. so, that makes his reviews of places I haven't been to quite useful...as opposed to Zagat where it means nothing. example: I don't know what Sri's Zagat rating is but I'm sure it's high. why? because the set of people willing to trek out to Woodside to eat really authentic Thai food is small and composed of people who will love it. now...place Sri on the UWS and change its name so no one has heard of it. it'll probably get a much more mediocre rating (if it makes the guide at all)....much too spicy and "weird" for the average Zagat voter. edit: in other words, the accurate Zagat ratings are anomalies....they have extenuating circumstances. Mimi Sheraton did a nice takedown on Zagat awhile back here: http://www.foodandwine.com/invoke.cfm?obje...2620002B3309983

well...yeah! leaving aside the mechanical issues...the Zagat system is inherently and completely compromised by the very simple fact that its voters are a self-selected group.