Nathan

You have got to be kidding. Basically, Colicchio is searing the steaks a little better than he did before. That's enough to get Craftsteak a re-review after ten months, but Gilt (which actually did change dramatically) just gets a few paragraphs in "Dining Briefs." The reason isn't difficult to discern. Bruni likes steakhouses. He doesn't like fine dining. So a major fine dining restaurant gets the minimal coverage that he can get away with. A steakhouse gets a re-review because it's searing the meat a bit better than last time. What a joke!!! ← I said awhile back that I expected a re-review for Gilt...I still do btw. Its darn clear to me that the NYT Dining Section does not work by the list of rules set forth for it on egullet. Its also darn clear to me that the Craftsteak section was a hook for what was really a Craftbar review (basically saying "hey Colicchio, you fixed Craftsteak, what are you going to do about Craftbar?"). It seem relatively likely that Craftsteak would not have received a rereview at this point if it wasn't for the fact that Craftbar was going to get one....then it seemed merely good sense to do both. (but that's thinking like a journalist, not like us restaurant obsessives)

rich, Craftsteak has changed dramatically.

Bruni has reviewed several restaurants with four star aspirations. Bouley Upstairs has an entire "Italian menu"...it's certainly more of an Italian restaurant than Little Owl or Spotted Pig. the reason why four-star French restaurants can't be excluded is simple, it would skew the overall ratings given to serious French restaurants downwards.

The two biases I perceive are:1) Higher percentage of Italian restaurants reviewed 2) Higher average ratings given Italian restaurants than other types of restaurants I think both of these things are objectively ascertainable. The only conceivable argument is precisely what constitutes an Italian restaurant, given that so many restaurants these days straddle culinary borders. For instance, I'd put both The Little Owl and The Orchard in the Italian category, though they're not exclusively so. We could check for an Italian bias against the rest of his reviews, or againist Grimes's & Reichl's reviews. The check for an anti-tablecloth, anti-French/Continental bias might be another day's work, but I don't want to presume on Leonard's time. For the purposes of this study, I would leave four-star reviews out of the picture. Since no NYT critic has given four stars to an Italian restaurant, we can assume the relevant population is zero. ← Is Bouley Upstairs an Italian restaurant? you can't just exclude four star restaurants since there are French restaurants with four-stars...those have to be considered in company with formal Italian restaurants (Del Posto certainly had four-star aspirations). in other words, if one set is "serious Italian restaurants" then another must be "serious French restaurants" which must include four star French restaurants.

McNally probably doesn't hire PR firms, he doesn't need to. Batali doesn't, for that exact reason. They know that anything they open will get covered heavily from well before the opening. but sure, his comments are a form of PR...but he didn't deny doing PR, he denied specifically hiring PR people...which is perfectly plausible.

well...it is the first west coast Batali restaurant (discounting his dad)....and it's been very positively received there. ← I'm not suggesting the trip was utterly without merit.But I think he has to be called on it, when A) He is already known to have a pronounced Italian bias and a Batali bias; B) He flies out to L.A. on the paper's dime, pays multiple visits to a pizzeria—and apparently dines nowhere else. ← do you really think the NY Times wasn't going to send someone to check out Batali's first restaurant elsewhere? ← As I said, "I'm not suggesting the trip was utterly without merit." That's despite the fact that Batali was basically only a consultant, and doesn't seem to be the primary creative drive behind the place. It's not a Batali restaurant the way Babbo is a Batali restaurant. ← true. but I'll note that a significant amount of dishes on the Mozza menu are from the Otto menu. there's an Observer article that's directly on point for this thread: http://www.observer.com/2007/feel-bruni-effect-new-york

well...it is the first west coast Batali restaurant (discounting his dad)....and it's been very positively received there. ← I'm not suggesting the trip was utterly without merit.But I think he has to be called on it, when A) He is already known to have a pronounced Italian bias and a Batali bias; B) He flies out to L.A. on the paper's dime, pays multiple visits to a pizzeria—and apparently dines nowhere else. ← do you really think the NY Times wasn't going to send someone to check out Batali's first restaurant elsewhere?

well...it is the first west coast Batali restaurant (discounting his dad)....and it's been very positively received there.

There's plenty of bias against women chefs, but I don't think it's coming from Bruni.In the first place, I'm not aware of any plausible three or four-star candidate with a woman chef that has opened during Bruni's tenure. He can only award the stars if the restaurants exist. The real argument is at the two-star level, since every restaurant these days is a two-star candidate. That's McNally's real beef, since I'm sure he never saw Morandi as a three-star restaurant. But given the widespread critical complaints about Morandi, you can hardly blame Bruni for not loving the place. So if McNally is serious, he would need to tell us which restaurants Bruni rated below the critical consensus. If enough of them have women chefs, then maybe there's a real pattern there. But I doubt it will be more significant than Bruni's bias in favor of Italian restaurants—a bias from which McNally benefited, as the Morandi review could very easily have been zero stars. Question to Leonard Kim: Is Bruni's pro-Italian bias statistically significant? ← Agreed that there's probably a bias against female chefs (it can't be statistically proven because we'd have to look at the number of women going to cooking school, the number of women applying for chef jobs, the number of women with three and four star chef aspirations and experience, etc. etc.); but I think we all agree that it's nonsense to blame that on Bruni. McNally, as a leading restauranteur, has a heck of a lot more pull in this field than Bruni. Although McNally made much of there being no three or four star female chefs, he didn't even bother to mention any candidates for that status (for obvious reasons). He did mention two female one-star chefs who he implied could receive two stars. I addressed that above. Either of those restaurants could be plausibly a two-star restaurant. Neither of them is clearly wrongly rated at one star.

I seriously don't. I don't have the foggiest clue who's in the kitchen at Perry Street...and I've eaten there almost a dozen times. Is it still Benno at Per Se? Who's at Ramsay now? I'm not a groupie, I don't follow that stuff. (and yeah, JG, Keller and Ramsay don't count for those restaurants under the McNally ground rules established for Felidia.) edit: as I said above, I'm guessing all of the answers are male...but the point is, that's not Bruni's fault.

on final thought: um, does anyone here think that if Bruni had one-starred Felidia that McNally wouldn't have included it as an example of Bruni's "bias"? of course he would have.

another thought, of reviewed restaurants in the past couple years, the ratio of female 0-2 star chefs to female 3-4 star chefs is 14 to 0. I'm not sure that's really any different than the male ratio (I'm throwing a number out here...someone can go count if they really feel like it) of 12 to 1. my point is: NY doesn't have very many three or four star chefs, period. It doesn't appear to have any female three or four star chefs. Why either of these is Bruni's fault is unclear to me (certainly the latter anyway).

of course he has biases, all critics do. like I said, I don't know if he has bias against female chefs...but I see no evidence of it (for one thing he hasn't had much opportunity to show a bias). the problem with McNally's purported statistical claim is that it assumes an equal distribution of female chefs across (what would be objectively considered) no-star, one-star, two-star, three-star and four-star restaurants. I don't keep tabs on the genders of NY chefs...but if anyone knows of any NYC restaurants with a female chef at the helm that has three or four star aspirations (as the restaurant now operates)...I'd like to hear it. In fact, I'd like to hear McNally name one. Instead, he named two one-star restaurants that at least had a risible claim to being possibly two-star restaurants. but neither of those cases are manifestly egregious.

(for those who may not be aware, the foregoing was a parody.) today, McNally has made a laughingstock of himself by accusing Bruni of a gender bias in his reviews. I have no way of knowing whether Bruni is biased against female chefs...what I do know is that there is no evidence (or at least none adduced by McNally) that this is the case. Due to the relative paucity of female chefs in NY, McNally can't make a statistical argument, so he makes his claim based off of two restaurants: the Spotted Pig and Prune (well, his contention is really predicated upon the Morandi review...but he doesn't dare actually say that). Even if Bruni's ratings of the Pig and Prune were indefensible, they still wouldn't have any statistical significance, but, neither of those ratings were especially controversial. I've dined enough times at both the Spotted Pig and Little Owl to be comfortable in saying that they are quite similar, even equivalent in culinary terms (and closely located). Since LO has two stars, while SP has one, McNally has at least a colorable argument here that SP is underrated. Of course, SP is slighty more expensive, has far dodgier service and is drastically more uncomfortable...I assume that McNally thinks that because the hoi polloi may spot Jay-Z dining at the SP, that makes up for those factors. well, maybe so. but color me unconvinced that Bruni downgraded SP due to Bloomfield's gender. as for Prune, I've only been there once. but I'm not sure that a place known primarily for its brunches was massively underserved with a one-star rating. I haven't had dinner there. maybe it was. but I don't remember much outcry at the time. further, Bruni implied in his blog that he didn't think much of Uovo, opened by Hamilton's culinary disciple...who happened to be male. I suppose McNally meant to Imus Bruni; more likely, he Chodorowized himself.

It is with a heavy heart that I come here to finally speak truth to power. I can be silent no more. It is indubitably clear that Bruni has a specific personal bias in his reviewing. Specifically, Bruni has a bias against heterosexual male chefs in both haute restaurants and molecular/avant garde restaurants. I note the following: Bruni gave two stars to each of the following restaurants: Gordon Ramsay, The Modern, and Gilt. He gave one star to Varietal and the Russian Tea Room. He has not altered the two stars given to WD-50 by the noted heterophobe, William Grimes. I could go on. Case closed.

that's why Burger King is the best date place!

I ate at Bite Club last night with a group of a dozen. A five-hour long racuous dinner party that I'm only beginning to recover from (all those pours of wine might have had something to do with it)... began with an assortment of Sullivan Street breads, served with butter, chicken liver pate and truffled cream cheese. (that cream cheese was addictive) then an amuse of pea soup (sort of a foamy "cappuccino") surrounding a chunk of butter poached lobster. these played off each other nicely...the texture of the soup was satin, and not slimy, and the lobster was cooked perfectly. first course was cauliflower flan with caviar. the flan was simple, cauliflower, cream, gelatin; the caviar providing the necessary saltiness and contrasting crunch. at first I thought the cauliflower needed a little more salt but upon further reflection the caviar was sufficient for that. I think it could have done with one more flavor element (but a very light one so as to not overwhelm the delicate balance between the cauliflower and caviar)...maybe a whisper of dill? the following beet ravioli was well-prepared and tasty, if not of special interest. tuna tartare in endive was terrific. this could easily be a hackneyed dish, but the use of citrus to give the tuna some pop worked well here... soft shell crab appeared to have been lightly pan-fried and served as a nice setup for the: carmelized pork belly in a rhubarb sauce. (yeah, this sounds terrific, doesn't it? it was!) unfortunately, the lemon, campari and tarragon granita was too sweet to function as a proper palate cleanser. the "prince noir" baby goat (an eight-month old kid fed only its mother's milk) was a succulent chop, cooked slightly rare (i.e. perfectly), accompanied by "grilled cheese" and rancho gordo beans. the goat was superb, the beans even better (they had been cooked in a proscuitto broth before being pureed). I'm not a cheese person, but the four or five cheeses in this course were well received. vanilla bean poached pear with cassia ice cream and a poire william caramel sauce was excellent (I was especially partial to the ice cream). this was followed by a trio of rose-based desserts. I'm not a dessert person, but these all seemed quite good. all in all, an absolutely fantastic meal, on par with some of NY's top restaurants. kudos to our hosts.

ah...the Edouard 72 makes an incredible Sazerac. use a good cognac (or rye if you must)...I find that a dash of simple doesn't hurt ...the Edouard is so potent.

what's the cuisine? I'm in the Heights a couple times a year and have never eaten there (except for two absolutely forgettable meals at Joya and some other shitty pseud-Thai place)

to be honest...I forgot about it over the last year or so...so many new places opened and talked about... besides, it was entirely a date place. I don't go to date places. I think we were the only non-couple there the couple times I went.

huh? Petrosino closed two years after Bruni reviewed it! it also, imo, easily deserved its two stars. this was also at the beginning of Bruni's reviewing career...no rep to speak of. he didn't make it more than it was...it was merely forgotten...(you'll notice that apparently no one here ever went there besides me)

the interior decor was actually rather stunning (especially the bar and the walls). edit: my question is, are there really likely to be many places like that "undiscovered" in the city? I think Petrosino merely opened a couple years too soon.

What I mean is that there are dozens of small Italian restaurants. The City is lousy with them. Only a few are probably extraordinary -- but we only know about them if (a) we happen to stumble upon one or (b) some reviewer points it out. You only know how good Petrosino was because Bruni reviewed it. If Bruni hadn't reviewed Petrosino, you never would have gone there. It would have been another of the multitudes of small Italian places that get reviewed in "$25 and Under" (or used to before that column's focus became more seriously downmarket) and that we all immediately forget about. So you never would have known how good you thought it was. So how can you say that, among the dozens of other places like Petrosino -- small Italian places that we all ignore -- there are no others worthy of note? Absent reviews, you'd have to eat there to know. And probably, you wouldn't bother. ← I see your point. One false assumption that you're making (which doesn't necessarily obviate your larger point)...is that Petrosino was a small neighborhood Italian place. It wasn't. It was decent-sized and had a decor that looked like it could have been done by AvroK. You couldn't peek inside without realizing that it was much more ambitious (or swanky anyway) then all those little Italian restaurants on Bleecker or 2nd Ave on the UES. I tend to wonder if it wasn't in its location a tad too early. If it opened there today, the decor alone would create a lot of buzz (see FRO.G). Bruni actually describes it pretty well: http://events.nytimes.com/2004/09/29/dinin...68983ca&ei=5070 (oakapple will have fun with some of the language in this one)

Petrosino was d_____ good, beyond underrated...and not really comparable to Little Owl and other Italianesque neighborhood places. It had a beautiful decor, much more ambitious (and comfortable)....it was basically in the Il Buco vein (the Petrosino aesthetic -- both in decor and culinary aspects was quite different) as a date place. foodies never seemed to make it there..I never figured out why. It was very good. I think Bruni raised its profile significantly (I wouldn't have gone there if it wasn't for his review)...but apparently not enough. edit: I don't think there are dozens of restaurants like Petrosino. I thought it was as good as Lupa (different type of place of course). In fact, I enjoyed my meal there just as much as I did my meal at A Voce.

we've had "underappreciated restaurant" threads here. Esca was the leading vote recipient if I recall correctly. of course there are underrated or overrated restaurants! I don't see how Bruni's not doing that. he thought that Little Owl was underrated (in a sense) and gave it 2 stars..dramatically raising its profile. he thought that the Modern was overrated. Rosanjin and Petrosino stand out precisely because they had garnered very little attention at all. I'm curious as to how many more such places exist. not very many I would wager.