BryanZ

Indeed, I loved the Modern Bar Room when it first opened and went more than a few times in first several months. Indeed, I still think it's a great spot. With that said, the slow price climb there has kind of moved it out of my budget for a light meal. It used to be even the items of the third section of the menu hovered in the $16-$18 range. Now $20+ seems to be the norm. Your post gets at something that's been touched on frequently in many discussions of small plate restaurants. Restaurateurs can't charge $50 for an entree, especially now. Instead, people seem more than willing to order a starter for $14 and two $25 small plates. The restaurateur often times can come out ahead in this kind of transaction. That's why I liked my meal at Damon: Frugal Friday so much. It really embraced the small plate ethos. I could order something, and if I didn't care for it, oh well. If I really liked, I could order another. And there you can get two orders of your favorite dish for less than the price of one at the likes of the Modern Bar Room, Maze, and even some Spanish places that serve small-main course-sized raciones.

It's Damon, and I believe two other cooks. There might have been more I couldn't see. No reservations, walk-in only. After about 6:45/7:00 expect to wait.

Umm, they're pulling a Le Cirque and are moving to some big building, maybe anchored by a bank. And they hired a new chef for the transition, from some big restaurant I'm forgetting. Or maybe all of this already happened and there's still no buzz. Has anyone been to Bouley yet? This seems much the same.

I checked out Damon: Frugal Friday last night in its second week of existence. This is the foil to Tom: Tuesday Dinner, the biweekly, ten-course extravaganza hosted by Tom himself. The menu is presided over by Damon Wise, and all dishes are less than $10. I suspect that in coming weeks, prices will bump up a dollar, so that the most expensive dishes, now $9, will hit the $10 ceiling. Tom was, in fact, in house last night, though instead of cooking he seemed to be enjoying a lengthy dinner with his family. I'll take that as a vote of confidence in the food. We arrived shortly after 6:30 to make sure we wouldn't have to wait. The dining room was almost full by this point, with only a couple more tables available. By the time we left at around 8 the bar was two deep, and people were filling the foyer and vestibule. I really like the space, it's cozy yet not in an kitschy way. Tables are close but not packed in. Kudos to Chefs Colichio and Wise for finding another revenue stream for this quite agreeable room. The menu is actually quite large and three of us tried a good portion of it. These plates are rather small, and one needs three or more of the larger ones to make a meal. If ordering from the top-half of the menu that number might jump to five or six, the number originally suggested by our waiter. On the beverage side of things, there are many wines available by the glass. The bottle list is from Craft, so don't expect to see many bottles under $50. Instead, we opted for a cocktail and glasses of wine. Cocktails range from $4-$10. Cheap but on the smaller side. The Hudson Sour--Buffalo Trace, apple schnapps, lemon, egg white--for $6 did not suck. The 19th St. Headache for $4 was too sweet, and the Old Man River for $9 had an interesting Tabasco kick but lacked balance. Wines run from $6-$10, with all major varietals duly represented. So, back to the food. The menu Sorry for the creases. It had to endure a night in my back pocket. From this we had the smoked beef tartar, crispy sardines, ricotta and cabbage pizza, ham hock and orange rillettes, escargot skewer, octopus skewer, fried quail, pork belly, all the offal dishes, and the dessert in a jar. Given that I was able to try 13 (14, counting a comped/mistakenly delivered order of the salt cod fritters) different things with a couple drinks for about $53 this is a pretty killer deal. With that said, some of the items represent a better value than others. The dessert, for instance, wasn't worth the $5 tariff even if it was pretty tasty (though too sweet). Furthermore, I'm not sure three crispy pig ears with some egg salad is worth $9, even if I really enjoyed the dish. I know this sounds like a weird complaint, but viewed as a tasting menu, a diner can come here and put together a really nice five-course meal for less than $40 before tax and tip. But if you're here to just snack and pick a few of the smaller items, you could end up spending $20 on food and feel like you haven't really eaten much of anything. But, this conundrum aside, I came away really happy with my meal. Again, since individual items are so cheap, it encourages creative ordering. Although we were sated after our first round of nine dishes, the menu is interesting and cheap enough that we ordered four more items. Stated more explicitly, it's a fun and flexible way to eat and really gets to the appeal of small plate dining. I'm kind of tired of $22 small plates in NYC. This reminded me more of the pintxos in northern Spain; La Cuchara de San Telmo specifically came to mind in the offal dishes. Favorite dishes were the bone marrow (two short, cross-cut bones topped with a rich oxtail ragout) the beef tongue (topped with crispy sunchoke chips), and the pork belly (the condiments make the dish). One of my party loved the rillettes and placed it among his favorites, and I can see how the interplay between salt, smoke, and orange could be really affecting. The least favorites were, unanimously, the sardines and the pizza. The toppings on the pizza were very tasty, but the dough is too crispy and flatbread like. In fact, it's more a crispy flatbread than a good pizza with that fickle balance of char and chew. The sardine dish just felt a bit clunky to us. Not bad, just, like fried fish, some mayo, some pickles. The duck hearts and the pig ear had camp appeal, and I really enjoyed them, my companions less so. Service was harried but solicitous. Our server let my friend try three different wines before he finally settled on a glass. A nice touch for a restaurant this casual and this busy. With that said, they really push the food out of the kitchen. All of our food in the first round of ordering was delivered in one massive wave. A bit overwhelming, I think. Here, ordering a little at a time is the way to go. Most of the food is prepped and just needs to go down in the (kind of annoying) little bowls that are used to serve most dishes. You won't wait long. In the end, I really liked this place. I actually want to go back next week to try a few more items and spend some time with my favorites. It's rare for me to find a restaurant that finds the balance between value and creativity that makes me want to rush back. The best food in the city? No, far from it, but a concept I'm really excited about.

Among my most memorable for being painfully tasty (quite different than most memorable and not necessarily my favorite dishes either): -Skate Chateau Chalon @ JG -Foie brulee (various preps) @ JG -Foie terrine and parfait (various preps) @ EMP -Polenta with mushrooms @ L' Impero/Alto -Chicken with black truffles (the crispy skin prep from years ago) @ EMP -Toro @ Yasuda Again, these aren't my favorite dishes, but the ones that take you by surprise and make you think, "Damn, this is good!"

If they did that for lunch, that'd be amazing. Still, I'll take what I can get.

It's further important to remember, however, that quantity of service does not inherently equal quality of service by any means. This is especially true in NYC where you might get a different and oft-unintelligible runner dropping off your food with each course. I don't expect a captain to coddle me-- though I admit I don't mind it--but with too many servers any kind of interaction with anyone on the floor feels forced. The ideal service situation for me is when I feel like I'm being "hosted" rather than "served." Whether it's a personable backwaiter or the restaurant's GM, someone should place an interest in each table. By further extension, the higher the pricepoint, the higher the expectation. Not to drag this off-topic, but that's why some people are left cold by Daniel. The service is technically very sound and there are surely many bodies on the floor, but the scale and club-like atmosphere seems to leave some tables (relatively) neglected. Furthermore, it's widely acknowledged that the place sometimes shows something of an "attitude." This may be part of the restaurant's mystique or character, but I remember one time I left the restaurant without a "thank you" from either of the untaxed folks at the host stand. A slight oversight like this would be fine at a Momofuku but not at a four-star establishment.

Fair enough. But as you write in NYJ, this is kind of like the first time Bruni has celebrated some of these more classical/old-fashioned aspects of dining. Even in the Le Cirque review, his praise of the Sirio show was almost grudging. I think that individuals have every right to be frustrated with the Daniel experience, but, you're right, on the whole for some it has its merits. And as much as I love the Momos, surely parts of that experience are wearing, even more so, than Daniel.

That, I'm afraid, is contradicted by the facts. Daniel does far more covers than any other four-star restaurant. In fact, it's among top-grossing 100 restaurants in the whole country. It got that way by having a large, loyal cadre of regulars who absolutely swear by it. It couldn't survive if most of its patrons felt about it the way you've just described. I think it was Sneakeater who said that Daniel has more regulars than any other four-star place. Although you personally do not particularly enjoy this type of experience, there are many who do. ← This isn't necessarily the point I was making, however. What I'm saying is that the feel one gets at Daniel is different than at many top restaurants in the three- and four-star club. If anything, the number of covers it does alone sets it apart from its peers. Surely, Daniel is an excellent restaurant. In my mind, it's best of breed. What the breed is, however, is not "extraordinary" restaurant. The likes of Tavern on the Green and Tao are also among the highest grossing restaurants in the country. They, too, have legions of devoted fans who love the experience those restaurants offer. Just because a place is great at what it does and happens to be very formal, as in Daniel's case, doesn't make it a four-star restaurant. Again, I'm not taking issue with how Bruni or anyone else interprets or enjoys the restaurant. Rather, it's in light of some obvious flaws--inconsistency across the menu, less revelatory food, and the oft-cited factory-like nature of the place--does this place measure up to its four-star peers and, more generally, the four-star moniker?

The above post sums up one big thing I've been thinking. I've been to Daniel in a VIP situation. I've been to Le Bernardin just as a couple on an odd weeknight. It was nice to be fawned upon at Daniel, but Le Bernardin delivered one of my meals "of a lifetime." Beginning to end. ← That, to me, is the definition of a four-star restaurant. Fine, meal*-of-a-lifetime is a bit much, but at least a contender for meal of the year. And, as many have said, it's not quite that kind of place. *By meal, I mean food and service experience provided by the restaurant. I can totally see it as a place to propose or to have a 10th anniversary dinner or to celebrate your 50th birthday. The restaurant succeeds most as a backdrop for those grand moments in one's life--assuming you're not a regular. To this end, the refined-rustic food works, but only as a backdrop to something else. In this way, Daniel is most like Le Cirque, just better.

Well specifically the old-boy club that Daniel seems to lavish in is kind of wearing. I'm not too sure very many people--be they younger folks or just casual readers of the NYT reviews--like to be surrounded by the hierarchical ethos that the likes of Daniel and Le Cirque seem to represent. It's old-fashioned, and not in a nostalgic, good way.

I'm getting the sense that this isn't the type of experience you particularly crave, even when it's done well. That's a fair enough preference, but Bruni is the critic for the whole city, and for diners of all ages, not just the downtown critic for folks under 40. Since the Times elects to have just one critic giving out the stars, he needs to be able to put himself in the shoes of a lot of different demographics, including those he might not personally identify with. ← Indeed, that's a fair point, but I think Fat Guy said it well in that Daniel's service bandwidth feels rather preferential. As in, there's only so much, and you can very clearly tell who is having a top-notch experience and who is being left to languish. On my two visits, I've been somewhere in the middle. And to say, that I don't prefer this kind of experience isn't really fair. I love, love, love fine-dining in NYC and beyond. I've done the whole Temples of Gastronomy thing, and I'm just saying that the Daniel experience might not be worth the four stars just bestowed upon it.

Indeed, it's difficult to separate my own impressions and even more difficult to separate what I think makes a great meal vs. what Bruni thinks makes a great meal. If we ignore the service and ambiance, as I admitted, it kind of makes sense that Bruni would like this kind of food. It's at its heart rustic cooking but refined and a lacquer of luxury. To me, one is much more likely to have a great meal at EMP or Corton. Bruni seems to differ. I'd also like to call attention to the similarities between Bruni's blog dispatch on EMP from 12/31 and the Daniel review. While I concede that Bruni seems to like Daniel more--the issue we're debating here isn't really if he's consistent; if there's one classical, fussy restaurant to deserve four stars it is Daniel--it seems to be something like a half-step difference between the two. I suppose this makes sense--the best of the three-stars vs. the worst four-star--but to me the common thread in these two passages is that both restaurants have room to improve. It seems like I'm with Fat Guy here, in that a restaurant with such evident shortcomings isn't, by my definition, a four-star restaurant. Which brings us to your next point. So, as I answered, I don't think this better enough should warrant four stars. I think with such a dearth of four-star/three-Michelin star restaurants in the city, there are actually doesn't have to be a clear bottom of the ladder. It seems to me that Michelin got it right in elevating Per Se, Le B, and JG to the three-star level; all three have their various supporters and the general consensus is that all three are better than Daniel. Although Masa is less comparable, the consistency of glowing reports suggests that it too is a better restaurant. I also think it's fitting that most posters here aren't saying, well, Daniel is almost as good as JG. Rather, we're debating how much better it is than the likes of EMP or Corton (or presumably Picholine, it's most apt competitor in my eyes) and whether or not these marginal benefits are worthy of that fourth star. That we're comparing it to three-star restuarants and not four-star ones says something. I believe Fat Guy has suggested in the past that restaurants ought to be evaluated at their best, and I suppose this was an example of it. As I mentioned upthread, I have always been treated well at Boulud's restaurants—not like royalty, but well. I've never gotten bad service at Daniel in my two meals there. It just feels too mechanical. And not in the good mechanical sense (there's something that makes me happy about the servers at Per Se even if they're a bit stiff) but in the hotel dining room sense. The whole UES club-thing is also a bit uptown for my tastes. But that's surely my age and downtown bias speaking. The whole thing is technically sound (though not faultless) and lacks a certain joy.

I guess this is where my personal bias comes in, but I really disagree with this is all.

You make some fair points, but I read the review as Bruni saying that, outside of the new room and feeling of luxury, the restaurant is categorically not as good as the other four-stars. If a restaurant that aspires to be something (a restaurant that serves some of the very best, most consistent food in the city) isn't that something, it shouldn't be held in that class. Del Posto would be an even more extreme example of this. It seems to me that the fourth star was awarded to the restaurant on non-food grounds. I suppose I'm okay with this--as I mentioned, to some four-star dining is less about the food than about the theater--but it just doesn't sit quite right with me. It's as if Bruni, in this one review, is trying to prove that he actually "gets" traditional fine-dining, in contrast to his well-documented aversion toward anything fussy or overwrought. Of course, I suppose this ode to luxury that is the Daniel reviews seems fitting: the restaurant and its namesake chef have built a reputation on what is effectively a refined version of rustic French cuisine. More explicitly, I guess my issue isn't so much with the words on the page or even the rating, but how he evaluated the restaurant. I like to think there's something between Ko (definitely not a four-star restaurant to me because of the lack of amenities) and Daniel (also not four-star restaurant to me because I find the food boring and the whole experience a bit factory-like). And, of course, this discussion thus far ignores the fact that the restaurant is notorious, even among the highly stratified levels of service frequently witnessed at the city's top restaurants, for its favoritism toward regulars and, surely, critics.

Here's the full passage Fat Guy is referring to: I thought this was one of the most significant parts of the review. I think Daniel serves three-star food, but Bruni acknowledges this shortcoming in effect and nearly explicitly gives extra/bonus points to the decor. I don't find this all that compelling but I could see how some diners might find the presumed luxury of Daniel to be more evocative of a four-star experience than what's on the plate at, say, Corton.

markk has noted that though the tongue dish isn't on the menu, it is still served with the charcuterie plate for two and can be ordered a la carte if one asks for it. I'm not sure if this is still the case. If it is in fact gone that's a major disappointment. I really loved that dish.

Since my first visit early this summer I've been popping into Otto for the occasional snack or light meal. Usually just a pizza or pasta and a quartino. Nothing to report on of note. Last night, however, a friend turned me on to the winter Caprese salad. I'd never think to order a Caprese in January, but this is a pretty awesome version. Otto uses their own canned tomatoes along with some pesto and a ball of mozzarella. A seriously tasty salad, probably my favorite thing I've had there. In general, I find this restaurant "dependable," but you do occasionally luck out with something special.

Closed. Damn. I quite enjoyed my meal here.

If anything, he's really come into his own over the past couple years. His preferences are pretty steady, and once you've got those down his reviews make sense.

I was just about to mention the half-price wine bottles with the tasting menu. You might even see if they're discounting the pairings at all and arrive at some serendipitous compromise anyway. But here's what I would do if you really want to make an evening of it and drink A LOT of wine. This of course assumes that the 50% discount applies to multiple bottles. You're willing to spend up to $150 on booze, since the pairings run $75/person. Nice bottle of rose champagne for $45. Then a bottle of the Scholiumm 2006 for $45 more. That's an interesting wine that should work well with a lot of the cuisine. I think it was being poured over at Ko for a while. Then there are plenty of medium-bodied reds with some fruit that you can drink with the later courses and ease into your desserts. Finish with a shared class of moscatel for $12.50 and you're in at $147.50. That's a free subway ride right there with the change. Cinq Sentits is good and all, but wd~50 really slaughters with real creativity.

What do you mean by "specials"? Were they listed on the menu as such, verbally recited? I've never encountered this.

I wouldn't say it's tough as much as toothsome. You know you're eating meat. Not necessarily a bad thing, but not meltingly soft either.

But the buzz around his new menu didn't really start until the fall, I'd say.

Co. Pizzeria 24th and 9th After what seemed like years of well-chronicled delays, people are going ga-ga over Co., sometimes called "Company" and not to be confused with Ko, Jim Lahey's new pizzeria. Even on a rather cold Thursday evening, waits ranged from 30 minutes to over an hour. I arrived shortly after 7, was quoted a 45 minute wait for a party of three, and was seated after about 40. Patrons congregate in the foyer and in front of the bar where about five beers are on tap along with glasses of wine starting at, I believe, $7 with most in the $9-$12 range. The service here is still pretty discombobulated. It's hard to tell who is a server and who is a diner, we were delivered the wrong food twice, one server didn't know what pizza he was delivering and had to consult the menu, and water glasses occasionally went empty. Also, pizzas did not come out at the same time, so for those not sharing this could lead to an awkward situation. The pizzas are best when piping hot. Hopefully, these issues will get sorted as things calm down and the staff becomes more seasoned. Crowds and service issues aside, this is seriously tasty pizza. Certainly more restaurant-style (i.e., real Italian-style) than corner pizzeria style. I haven't been to UPN, but I enjoyed these pies significantly more than those at Otto or Franny's, for instance. This is not a toppings-centic pie, nor is it a crust-centric pie. There's a real synergy as you work your way down each slice. First, the toppings dominate, then as the crust thickens toward the outer edge you get more char, more chew, more yeast. Very nice. I also liked the differences in the pies we chose. The Brascaiola was more analogous to a gloppy (in a good way) corner pizzeria slice. Saucy, cheesy, assertive spice and sausage. The Special Pie was an exercise in excess. I particularly loved how thick and smoky their bacon is. Finally, the Ham and Cheese was the most understated and bordering on one-note, but the caraway really gave the pie more than just pork and salt notes. While this latter pie was my least favorite, I could easily see how one would prefer this simpler pie to the excesses of the others. Starters included a small but tasty bowl of bread soup with cannellini beans, kale, and various goodies and also a bowl of fresh ricotta with olive oil and bread. For my friend's who'd only been exposed to deli-style versions of Italian cheeses, this ricotta, and the buffalo mozzarella on the pies, was a revelation. All in, $35 or so, with one beer each. One pie was with some shared starters was good for me, but the lady in our group had trouble finishing hers. Naturally, I made up the slack. These are iPhone pics. Sorry. Ham and Cheese Boscaiola The pie the server couldn't identify, although it's the only one with mushrooms on the entire menu. Special Pie Now listed as Market Price, it's still $21. I'm not sure what's so volatile with the market on this pie, but it was tasty. A bit much for some, but I loved it.