philadining

Another country heard from: Philafoodie is fairly enthusiastic.

I never got the sense that the pork belly dish was designed to urge me to reconsider the concept of breakfast, and it certainly didn't elicit a Melrose Diner jones in me... I never thought of it as a "high concept riff on bacon and eggs", I experienced it as a variation on the Momofuku ramen that has hipsters lining up every day in the East Village to eat it, fatty pork belly, runny poached egg, bowl of broth and all. Sure this version has no noodles, and WAY better broth, but it's a flavor combo and presentation that's not especially avant-garde, just a buffed-up and slimmed-down zen version of a fairly trad Tokyo salaryman's lunch. If Andrew, and Ms Henri, and Pedro, and (add your name to the petition here), thought the dish was a failure, well, I'm not going to try to change anybody's mind. More strokes and folks as mentioned WAY upthread. I like it. I've ordered it several times, and will again. Many of the structural issues have been addressed, and so far I haven't ruined any shirts. I don't think I suggested that Ms Henri was overly challenged by the food. I think it didn't resonate with her. And if that's the experience she had, or Andrew had, with some or all of the dishes, I'm not one to suggest that any of their reactions is wrong. I spend a good amount of my waking life (and some of my sleeping hours) occupied with strange sounds that many people are reluctant to acknowledge as "music," but I don't take that skepticism as an assault on my perception of reality. I understand that people like different things, and don't suggest that these poor benighted souls aren't sophisticated enough to appreciate whatever I'm enjoying. I'm well aware that some things I like leave others mystified. It's cool, that's why there are a lot of choices in the world... I'm just saying that the Weekly review does not reflect how I've experienced this restaurant. I haven't loved everything I've gotten there, but even the things I was mixed about weren't the result of the chef's ideas outpacing his execution. I haven't found the dishes to be overly conceptual, or absent of gustatory pleasure for that matter. I will agree that the chair-table interface is a little problematic...

I had dinner at Twenty21 a while back (it's just not a neighborhood I usually think of having dinner in, and it felt a little more formal than I usually do, so I haven't been back, but the food was good) and it's certainly an appropriate spot for a business type event. It would probably be more comfortable than being shunted to the bar at Panorama, unless they're really turned on by the prospect of wine flights there. Twenty21 has a good wine list, so they'll be fine if they don't need a gazillion selections by the glass.

It's REALLY easy, almost a straight shot down to Panorama, don't worry about the distance. Philly's not that big of a city... If it's rush-hour, or near it, I'd count on more like 20 minutes, but that's just traffic. Panorama is just a few steps north of Market Street, one of the major streets in the city. The Inn at Penn is on Walnut St, another major (parallel) street. Any cabbie can get them to Front and Market, and back to 36th and Walnut, these are not obscure locations, nor are they especially far from one another. If they're at all into wine, sitting at the bar at Panorama will be serious fun. If they're not into wine, they might be by the end of dinner...

Indeed, nice write-up by Maria Gallagher (teaser here>> there's more in the magazine.) While not an all-out rave, she seemed to generally like the food. In contrast, a bit of a snack-smackdown from Kirstin Henri in the Weekly. While it's perfectly valid to criticize the food, I'm a little surprised by some of her conclusions. She says she's "yet to be dazzled by the flavors" but later writes "I’m wowed by slivers of amberjack sprinkled with a fresh snowfall of powdered olive oil, the fish’s creamy suppleness counterbalanced by tart pomegranate seeds and a Campari gelee. Grilled tender octopus tentacles dusted with smoked paprika are also easy to enjoy." Hmmm. wowed, but not dazzled? But it seems overall that the food just didn't click for her, and I suppose there's no arguing with that. I happen to disagree with most of her assessments (I haven't had all the dishes she mentioned) but hey, taste is personal. But one of her objections is that the food is more intellectual than sensual. Again, I'd disagree, I've had some pretty dramatic sensual experiences from the food here. But I've heard others express a related reluctance about the food: that even if they liked it, they didn't find themselves craving it, that it isn't welcoming, hearty, comfort food. This too is a valid critique, I actually understand that reaction, but it seems to me like there's room in the world for many kinds of engagement with food. Sometimes something simple and familiar and delicious is really appealing. But other times something more stimulating and "interesting" and challenging is just right. But I'd even suggest that much of snackbar's food is both things. The trout with smoked eggs is total comfort food, and feels familiar, even as it's a deconstruction of brunch. Sure the "pear jam" has beer foam on it, but at its heart it's jelly on toast. The chicken could barely be simpler, it's just plain delicious. Sure there's foam on the plate, but the brussels sprouts are simply well-prepared, with small complimentary accents. It's really not so weird... Sure there are more daring things on the menu, and good thing too, if you ask me. It strikes me that there are similarities to other aesthetic experiences: some folks just want to hear music they grew up with, or new stuff that sounds just like that, while others always want to hear something new. Many folks will go see some experimental film and walk out shaking their heads wondering what the hell that was, but then go back for more. Others prefer less-challenging escapist fun at the theater. The Philadelphia Orchestra has trouble filling seats when they perform contemporary works, and sell-out when presenting the old war-horses, but they insist on doing both. I would hope that in a city as large and hip as Philly, there's room for expressions of a wide range of creativity, including culinary artistry. If snackbar's not your thing, fine, there are lots of alternatives. But I for one am happy that they're doing something unusual there. I'm not so much of a conceptualist that I'd eat food that was merely interesting, I actually find most of their food to be quite tasty too. (And I have yet to find a restaurant where I love everything.) Of course it's not what I'm in the mood for every day, but, often I am. Hmmm... maybe tonight...

So, given the outrage about Newman's travel habits, should we expect that the powers that be will give us some assurances that Conti will stay exclusively ay Motel 6 and eat only at Denny's while on business for the PLCB?

Trans-fat Reeducation through labor! A great leap forward! What could go wrong?

It's just that Penn suffers from that same Philly syndrome: proud, yet convinced that they don't measure-up to options in other cities. Penn students/alum do the same thing as Philadelphians in general: in one breath fiercely insisting that what we've got is every bit as good as anywhere else, maybe better, in the next breath complaining that things here suck compared to X. Maybe it's the water. Or the Cheese Whiz.

Why am I not surprised that there's a Nick Tahou Hots Myspace page? I'm sure it's not an official posting from the restaurant, just something from a fan of the Garbage Plate, but there are some amusing stories recounted there. I love how one of the "friends" listed waxes rhapsodic: "Ahhh...Nick Tahou's, one of the first places I ever got punched in the face!"

It's not complicated: if I went to Yasuda or Masa and was served an entire pound of mind-bogglingly great O-Toro, and that's all, I'd be bored out of my skull no matter how great the ingredient is. And it's a similar thing for me with steak at steakhouses. The main attraction is a large amount of one thing. Personally that doesn't generally flip my switches. I've had some pretty fine pieces of beef in the course of tasting menus, and indeed a piece of relatively unadorned Snake River Farms beef at Per Se was one of my gustatory high points of the last few years. Can't say I had an organoleptic seizure or anything, but it was darn tasty... But my point is that I personally would have been pretty disappointed if my meal there had consisted entirely of a huge portion of that beef, no matter how good it was. I'm not suggesting that the meat at Luger's or ordered from Lobel's or any of a myriad of "high end" steak experiences isn't good, or worth it to some people. I'm just saying that eating a large expanse of one thing, with maybe a couple of sides, doesn't especially appeal to me. It surely does to many people. Hence the many steakhouses in Philly, and any city, regardless of the presence or lack of "high end" meat. I'm not claiming the product itself is inferior or that no gradations of quality exist, just explaining why I'm not making any comparisons between Barclay Prime, Lugers, whomever. I'm just not generally a steakhouse kind of guy. Not that I'm ruling-out a field trip to Luger's...

Yeah, that Melograno steak is surprisingly tasty, but I don't think it's really all about the meat. It's a nice, tender slice of beef, but it's too thin for that steakhouse vibe, which also accounts for its appeal: it's soaking up all sorts of great herby flavors from a white bean salad beneath. It's one of my favorite steaks in the city, but as others have noted, it's not going to satisfy someone looking for that classic steakhouse slab-o-meat. The entrecote at Pif gets closer, that was a big, thick steak, left mostly on its own, but probably wouldn't have been as much of a thrill without the sauce beneath and compound butter melting-in from on top. We had a few disappointing reports on Barclay Prime a ways back, but they mostly centered on the bizarre way they split the legendary rib-eye. Anybody indulged in an unsullied Gachot Ribeye there? If so, can you make any comparisons? As with many on this list, if I'm going to drop serious coin on a meal, I generally prefer something more interesting than a piece of broiled meat on a plate, so I have not bothered with the expensive steakhouse thing. But I'd chip-in on a steak smackdown in one of our kitchens...

Holly, I'll agree that the ideal situation for a formal review of a restaurant is to let the place settle-in a bit, and of course visit multiple times, and sample as much of the menu as possible. Most traditional print media reviewers will do this. But there are a few important distinctions. Immediacy and interaction are inherent to this wild new blogospherical world. Blogs and internet forums are going 24 hours a day, and whether it's politics, entertainment or food, immediate unfiltered impressions are the coin of the realm. Bloggers are out in front of even daily papers in many cases, with no physical or editorial infrastructure to slow them down. As Vadouvan points out, many in the conventional media are opting to join the fray, and Bruni's blog and LaBan's online chats are just two of many examples of impressions, if not full reviews, communicated from the more traditional journalistic world, and these observations are often made in the early days of a restaurant's life. Additionally that fast pace of the online world, as well as just the general mania for food info, has put pressure on some of the print journalists too. Magazine writers faced with long lead-times are feeling the need to get into places earlier so that their reviews don't feel like old news. But more importantly, what we're seeing here are not formal reviews. One could argue that it's not "fair" to say anything at all, good or bad, after one visit to a restaurant. They could be having a bad day, or an unusually good one. I'd certainly agree that one meal is not an adequate foundation for a serious final word on a place (although it appears that reviews in the weeklies and other small publications are often based on one visit.) But it would be a shame if the people posting here felt that they shouldn't say anything until they'd made three visits, under assumed names, twice with wigs and prosthetic noses. But that's not what posts here are, they're not "fair," edited, fact-checked, scrupulously researched works of journalism. They're personal, opinionated, rough-edged impressions. Any one post may not represent the same sample size or depth of expertise that a professional reviewer can bring to a review, but in aggregate, between all of us, we're a pretty deep resource! Personally, I haven't formed any final opinions about James, it is indeed early days in the restaurant's life, and I hope it's early in the series of opinions we'll see here. God or bad, first day open or well-oiled machine, I want to hear about it. Not to beat a dead horse, but I'd say it's bad form to publicly criticize a place if it's officially still in pre-opening. But if they're open for business, and charging money, I want to hear what customers think. Do we need to hold-off commenting if they change chefs? If one of the waitstaff is sick? If the manager is going through a personal crisis? Should we check with the hostess on the way out, to make sure everything was OK, to verify that it would be "fair" to comment on our experience? Readers should take these posts for what they are: one person's opinion of one visit. With enough discussion, and enough reports from different people, hopefully we can approach a "fair" picture of a place. So I say, the answer to this problem is more reports, not fewer.

Whether to give new restaurants a pass is an interesting topic, and one that's been flogged in many different discussions on eG, and other boards. I'm still not sure where I stand on it, but I lean toward the position Holly mentioned earlier: if you're charging real money, you should be delivering the goods. There have been many twists on this: a place in NY that while they were new, asked customers to pay what they thought the meal was worth; places that open with limited menus to ramp-up slowly; places that overstaff at the beginning and then slide back as it becomes clearer what they really need; there are many more tactics. But if you're open and offering the full menu and charging full-price, that implies to me that you're ready. If the problem at James is that the place is new, still getting its sea-legs, still ironing-out kinks, what the hell are they doing pushing 8-course tasting menus? If it's straining the kitchen, the back of the house really needs to have a talk with the front of the house! If it's not straining the kitchen, if they're perfectly comfortable putting this food out, then they seem to be fair game for critique. It's an old joke that we'd never put up with the practices of the computer industry in other areas of our lives, as they release hardware and software that isn't quite functional yet. Would you tolerate it in a car? Oh, yeah the brakes don't quite work yet, it's a bug. Yet we seem to put up with it in restaurants all the time - food was cold, service was slow and uninformed, whatever, well, they're new... That's what soft-openings are for, to see where the problems are without pissing-off paying customers. It's really common to have friends-and-family nights where they aren't charging, THAT'S where you work out that stuff. I think everybody gives a new places a certain amount of slack, especially people in the biz, but I can sympathize with bigboss, if I were steered toward an elaborate meal, then charged a lot of money for it, I'd be pissed if it wasn't good. I've had plenty of blah meals in my life, and I don't get mad about it, unless it feels like I was ripped-off. I, for one, am glad bigboss went on his rant. At first I thought he was being a bit over the top, but then more people posted about having similar experiences, or variations on them. Whether the reports are good or bad, I think it's great that we can hear about a range of experiences from a lot of different people. I'm glad pgoat515 posted a contrasting view, and please, join-in (and other lurkers too) this site isn't so tough... the vitriol isn't spraying so widely that you should feel intimidated. I'm sure restaurants and chefs get undeserved slams here, and they probably get undeserved raves as well, but with more opinions expressed, maybe we'll get closer to a "fair" read on things. And I'm sure the folks running James aren't happy to see the types of complaints expressed here, but I hope it can be instructive - as bigboss mentioned, you don't want people leaving your place feeling like they've been ripped-off. I'm never angry if I just didn't care for the food, or if the service was weird, but I do get angry if I feel like they cheated me. Whether the price was actually fair, whether the opinions about the food posted here represent most diners' impressions, who knows? But more than one person has expressed that they felt pushed toward the tasting menu, felt surprised by the cost, and felt that it wasn't a good value. Maybe it's just something the front of house needs to work on, training the staff to communicate better with the customers so everybody better knows what to expect. Maybe the back of house isn't quite ready to put out these elaborate multicourse meals yet. There's no shame in that, except in doing it, and charging real money for it, if they're not ready. The upside for James is that despite all the complaining, the food sounds interesting to me! That menu sounds like something I'd enjoy, so I look forward to checking them out sometime. But in the meantime, I'm happy to have gotten input from you fine eG folks, and feel like I can make more informed decisions thanks to you. I hope we see more posts about James, and I sincerely hope that they're more positive. But I also think this forum is a valid place for a rant as well, if that's how you feel!

Can you elaborate on that?

I'm not sure how new this is, or what to make of aroundphilly.com, but there's a nice review of snackbar here.

Wow, sorry to hear about that experience! A few of us had been eager to check this place out. Still might - but thanks for the heads-up anyway... Abstractly, it seems to me that $90 would be a pretty fair price, maybe a bargain, for an 8 course tasting menu made up of the kinds of things you were served. But that presumes that the food would actually be good, and that you knew ahead of time what you would be charged. The dishes you described sounded like they could be interesting, and a few of us took a peek at the menu a little while ago and thought it looked good. Bummed to hear you thought the execution was so poor. Obviously it wasn't a practical joke, so what do you think was going on really?

I've rarely run into the situation: despite often whipping out a bulky digital SLR to shoot photos, somehow nobody ever seems to notice me or make a connection to any posts I might make on public forums (which is fine with me.) I've never been contacted about posts I've made, good or bad, and I don't think I'd accept an offer of a comp either as a thank-you or as an attempt to prove that they can do better. But that's just me. That said, there is a place in Philly called snackbar where I've found that I can't be incognito. It's a small restaurant, and I'd met the chef through a mutual friend previous to the restaurant's opening. Between that meeting, and later dining at the restaurant with that friend, it was obvious to them that it was me making the posts on eG. As a result, I've received a few comps there, but not free stuff just as a favor or thank-you, instead the kitchen tends to send out new dishes they're experimenting with, with what seems to be a sincere interest in getting feedback on them. I've never just had something I ordered taken off the bill, and I've always paid for my meals there, I've merely received a few extra dishes I did not order. I get the sense that they sometimes do that for other diners who are not writing about them. Doest this treatment make me view this place more favorably? Probably, but I've still been critical, and those times, I hope it's been taken in the spirit it was intended: as a constructive suggestion for possible improvements. They haven't "punished" me for publicly declaring that my pork belly was too fatty, or whatever, nor do they lavish free stuff on me all the time. I try to be upfront in the write-ups when the kitchen sent stuff out to us, and I also sincerely try to remain objective about all of it. I don't think I'd be doing them any favors by declaring that everything is fantastic if it isn't, and I don't get the sense that's what they expect. My posts in public forums are for the public, and I try to keep that in mind. I might be getting slightly better treatment than others around me, given that the kitchen knows that photos and descriptions of my plates are likely to end up on the internet. But at the same time, it's a small enough place that I can plainly see that others are getting plates that look exactly the same as mine, and are being served with similar attention, etc. So I can pretty confidently say that my experience is pretty close to anyone's. I think there are good reasons for journalists to try to remain unidentified, and to refuse to accept comps, but in this tangled world we live in today, where chefs and restaurant owners are interacting with reviewers in new and unexpected ways, especially here on eGullet, some of the old paradigms fall apart. In the absence of anonymity, full-disclosure is the next best thing. I'd be troubled to discover that a blogger or forum-poster was a personal friend of the chef or owner, or was receiving comps on some or all of his meal because of his status as someone reviewing the place, if it was not disclosed. But being known to the restaurant or receiving a comp doesn't invalidate everything one might have to say, it just places it in a different context, and the reader can take those circumstances into account. "Serious" journalists can have just as many biases, preconceptions and agendas as an indie blogger does, I say we all just try to be upfront about what they are.

I've been enjoying Diary of a Foodie in the PBS affiliate in Philly. I think it's one of the better food shows around, on broadcast or cable. It covers serious chefs and serious culinary trends in an intelligent way. It's a little too blipvert, short-attention-span theater for my taste, but todays' media tends to be that way... It seems to be editorially a little uncritically in awe of its subjects (a recent segment on Kee's chocolates allowed Kee to suggest that using chiles or salt in chocolates was some sort of personal innovation, etc...) but then the chefs profiled are generally worthy of some degree of admiration, so that tone isn't too jarring. The main thing that bugs me about the show is the title, and not the word "foodie." It's that it's not at all a diary. It's not recounting the exploits of some real or imagined food-lover, it's a magazine show. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's refreshing that they are focusing on interesting, important figures and movements, not merely on celebrities and quick-and-easy recipes. I like the reporters, and that there are several of them. It's nicely done, I hope it gets distributed more widely.

Sorry to divert our attention from Whitehallgate, but anybody else got anything to say about that EXP Late Harvest Viognier? I thought it rocked, and, ahem, thanks to the (former) Chairman, it's a good deal: $9.99 for a 375 ml. split. (Yes, I did some searching, haven't seen it much under $15.) (Code # 17800)

I'll agree that in a dim dining room, the average flash shot will look "better" than really low-light photos taken with a pocket-sized digital camera. Taking that shot will also very likely irritate the heck out of someone nearby. Of course there are contexts when it's fine, but even as an avid photographer of restaurant food, I'm almost always annoyed by camera flashes if I'm trying to have a nice dinner. It happens semi frequently these days, it's more often people taking snaps of themselves or posing with a celebrity chef, than lunatics like us shooting the food, but I know it bugs me. And I've noticed other diners visibly annoyed by it too. So I generally discourage it mostly as a selfish attempt to make my dining experiences more pleasant.

It's absolutely true that good photos are largely about light. Also true that the Lowel Ego is a cool little light, but not so good for schlepping to restaurants! http://www.lowelego.com/ If you're mostly shooting in restaurants, my tips would be to try to sit in the best-lit area, there's an amazing range in some places. I would generally NOT use the flash, it's not bad for just getting a shot, but it tends to give a pretty clinical, blown-out, soul-less photo. And it annoys other people in the restaurant, including me. DO use as high an ISO setting as you can. That will often make for grainy images, but grainy is better than blurry, and a high ISO setting will allow you to use a faster shutter speed, which should reduce the odds of blur. Additionally in the fight against blur, prop your elbows on something, use the optical viewfinder (if your camera has one) just because holding the camera up to your face provides another point of stability, and squeeze the shutter REALLY gently. It sometimes helps to use the camera's shutter timer, which delays the shutter after you press it, that way you aren't in the process of pressing the camera, which can shake it, as the shutter opens. Put it on delay, press it and hold very still... If you don't feel too self-conscious about it, a tiny little tripod can really help too, although it's sometimes hard to get the right angle/elevation like that. This one gives you great flexibility, but is not very subtle! http://www.joby.com/ Another thing to keep in mind is to pay attention to your white-balance. If your shots are coming out with a blue or yellow cast, the camera was set to the wrong white-balance setting. Many cameras have auto white balance, but they don't always get it right. Most have manual settings where you can specify whether you're shooting under incandescent, florescent or natural sunlight conditions, each of which have different weighting of the various color components of white light. Additionally, don't be afraid to move the plates around a little, it only takes a second, and won't embarrass your dining companions ALL that much! I'm (only a little) reluctant to admit that I've physically dragged my table into a better pool of light, put plates up on a nearby windowsill, and exchanged plates with table mates in order to get a better angle or lighting. Just pay attention to where there's light and get the plate there. You can't always do it, and sometimes you might just have to bail out or live with a mediocre photo. But sometimes there's a solution available with minor physical moves of the plate. And look at how the light is falling too: directly overhead or behind you is reliable, but sometimes dull-looking. If the light can come in from an angle, that can be more interesting. But I think the biggest tip is to do some tweaking in a software photo editor. Photoshop is the most commonly used, and the basic Photoshop Elements, which sells for under a hundred bucks, is excellent, and has most things you'd need. The basic iPhoto that comes free on new Macs is surprisingly versatile, its adjustments panel has gotten much better. There are plenty more that will work fine. No software is going to save a really crappy shot, but it can vastly improve a mediocre one. Much magic can be achieved by tweaking the "levels" adjustments, not just brightness, but color-balance too. Mess around with it, there's always the "undo" command... You're not in bad shape: your shots are pretty good right now. And as already noted, you'll just get better as you get more comfortable with your camera too. Hope that helps...

Ahh, right, thanks urbanfabric, sangrita! I had a mental block about the name of that spicy tomato-citrus juice... yowza, that was a rocking version, more peppery that I've had before, but really nice. I'm not sure if it automatically accompanies all tequila shots. I'd asked our waitress to pick a reposado for me, and that's how it came. I suppose one could ask for a "completo" and see what shows up... Incidentally, the service was quite good at Xochitl, with very friendly, attentive staff. As I mentioned, the drinks came a little slower than might be ideal, but I think they were just swamped - and it looked like they only had one person behind the bar. I think that they're busy enough that they might need to add someone else back there! Even so, it was not a huge problem, and everything else ran very smoothly. Our waitress was very informed and helpful, and the various runners and bussers were efficient but not intrusive. It was a very pleasant experience overall.

The two places are certainly exploring some of the same territory, and I think the chefs at both places are originally from Puebla, so they're riffing on the same regional flavors, therefore it's probably fair to compare them. The physical restaurant Xochitl is certainly a little more refined, especially given the full bar and location. I think both chefs are doing great stuff, I might give a slight edge to Dionicio Jimenez at Xochitl, just for the menu being a bit more adventurous. I've only eaten at each place once, so I don't feel confident making any broad statements about execution. But to answer the question, the quality of the food at Xochitl is probably a little better, but it might be too early to say. So yeah, Xochitl could probably safely be considered a tick up in refinement from Molcajete Mixto, although that might not necessarily translate to "better," whatever that means... And I'm still not giving up on the 3 for $5 taco joints either.

Xochitl 408 South 2nd Street, Philadelphia (215)238-7280 www.xochitlphilly.com Philadelphia had suffered so long from dismal Mexican food options that it's almost dizzying to consider the array of restaurants available to us now. Finally, we have an array of basic bargain taquerias, refined fine-dining, and many points in between. This latest addition to the scene tends toward the upper end of that scale, with artful, but still homey food, and a sophisticated beverage program. Our first impressions were very positive. The menu includes an entire page of tequilas, cocktails, wines and beers, as much space as is devoted to the food. It features a broad selection of Tequilas: several choices each of blanco, reposado and anejo, which can be enjoyed as shots, in small jugs, or in mixed drinks. My reposado came with a chaser vibrant with tomato, citrus and chile that practically lept out of its glass. The basic, classic margarita was excellent, not too sweet, scrupulously fresh. (If I have any complaints about the drinks, it's that they take a while to arrive, because it appears that all are being made from scratch, including squeezed-to-order limes. It's a nice touch, but does bog the line down a bit... ) A cocktail with tequila, lime and thyme was an interesting twist on the overexposed mojito - good enough that we got another one of those, oh, and heck, another margarita. Oh, and another drink featuring tequila, hibiscus and pomegranate was refreshing and exotic. Hmmm... I guess we got a little carried-away with the drinks... Anyway, plenty of interesting selections - there are some house-made aguas frescas at the back of the bar, and lots more cocktails and high-end tequilas to sample from the menu. There's a cozy, dark and comfortable lounge in the basement that ought to be just the right spot to plow through that list some evening. The main dining room is pretty small, but one can eat in the bar next door, either at one of the 4 tables in that area or at the bar itself. They also serve food downstairs in the lounge, although there's only a small bar and couch-like seating areas, no conventional dining tables down there. Even though they've only been open a few days, the place was packed, so, make a reservation if you want to eat in the dining room. Sopes Chorizo, Duck Breast, Goat Cheese with Nopales Salad. These were quite tasty, especially the chorizo. A tender, flavorful slice of duck breast, but not much other accompaniment adorned another - subtle, but still quite good. The goat cheese and cactus was crunchy and creamy, acidic and rich, a bold interplay of sensations. I'd get this again. Gorditas de Huitlacoche Masa pockets stuffed with Huitlacoche Who'd have guessed Huiltlacoche would be on so many menus in Philly? Jeeze, the stuff's spreading like, well, corn fungus. Thankfully, it makes a great filling for a gordita, with a musty mushroomy undertone to the corn crunch and peppery zing from the accompaniments. More huitlacoche appeared in the Pechugas de Pollo Rellena Sesame-crusted chicken breast, stuffed with huitlacoche, with guajillo pepper sauce. The sesame not only gave the chicken a great crunch, but the nuttiness blended into the guajillo sauce so harmoniously, it evoked the mystery of more complex moles. Excellent. Chamorro de Puerco Braised Pork Shank with red onions, manzano peppers and guacamole, served in an achiote sauce with fresh corn tortillas. I'll give them some bravery points for serving a big clump of meat with a couple of bones sticking out of it, it's one of the more in-your-face carnivore platings I've seen in a while! The achiote sauce was more of a rub - this didn't really have a sauce to speak-of - but the pork was tender and juicy and flavorful, so it didn't really need one. Toss some shreds of the meat in a hot, fresh corn tortilla, add some bracingly spicy peppers and onions, a dab of guac: that's a winning combo. For some reason the tortillas are green. No matter, they're good. for dessert: crepas Three sweet crepes, each filled differently. I forget exactly what was in them, I think one had diced papaya, another a tequilla-flavored cream... in any case, they were delicious. Churros Light, crispy, airy, cinnamony churros, with a cup of hot chocolate for dipping. These were fantastic, and the liquid that accompanied was more of a conventional hot-cocoa consistency, rather than the ultra-thick, almost chocolate-sauce you get many places. I like both approaches, this one not only infuses the churro deeply with a chocolate flavor upon dipping, but at the end, you've got a nice cup of hot chocolate to drink, now enlivened with extra sugar and cinnamon. Life could be worse. There's lots more worth sampling, including several ceviches, a chile-relleno-ish thing, a squid hot-pot, slow-cooked barbacoa... This is not a bargain taqueria, but prices are not super-high either. Starters go for 7 or 8 bucks, mains from $15 to $25. Of course the drinks will always get you, I honestly wasn't paying attention to exactly how much they were. We ended up spending about $65 per person before tip, but that was 3 drinks, one starter, one main and a dessert EACH. About half of that was booze, so a reasonable person could get out for much less. If you're spending the evening drinking, as is the case anywhere with drinks of this quality: get a small bank loan. One might think I'd get tired of saying "this is a great new addition to the Mexican dining scene" as more places open up around here, but nope... I'm happy to say it again and again. And indeed this is a welcome new facet to the increasingly complex terrain. I'm happy to have yet another option, in this case a serious kitchen doing serious food, but in a comfortable setting at a reasonable pricepoint. I just need to set myself a limit in the drinks. Did I mention that they're really quite tasty?

As noted above, the name of the organization is the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. Whether their policies toward sales were/are effective, or whether they ought to be oriented that way, beyond enforcing age restrictions, is another question altogether. The structure of beer sales and the way State Stores used to be (no product display at all, simply a counter and a catalog, and restrictive hours) were clearly meant to discourage sales, rather than optimize them. The average drunk on the corner couldn't afford to buy a case of beer, nor would he desire to lug it around. The inflated prices of buying from a bar or deli were disincentives as well. The sparse distribution and limited operating times of State Stores were meant to make it inconvenient to buy booze, not to generate tax revenue. Obviously, some of this has changed, and whether it ever made sense, or worked, is another argument.