JohnL

Good points. As for the tonka bean part of this discussion--the point is--I think--there is a trend today for chefs to use exotic ingredients in their cooking. we can debate whether a particular ingredient is "exotic" or not. However, the issue remains--how ingredients work or do not work in a dish exotic or not. One need not know what a specific ingredient is, let alone know its history to conclude that it (and its flavor) work or do not work. If one feels it does not work then one must ask the question--what is it doing in the dish--why was it put there--especially if the menu singles it out! This goes for tonka beans in a desert or vanilla in a lobster dish (we all--even Mr Cuozzo-- know what vanilla is). There is a larger issue. Intellectual food vs hedonistic food. Every dish (every painting) has an intellectual and hedonistic component. As I see it, it comes down to how much of each element is present. Alinea's bacon on a wire dish is heavy on the intellectual and lighter on the hedonistic. A baked potato with sweet butter and white truffles is heavy on the hedonistic and light on the intellectual. I firmly believe that everyone has varying degrees of tolerance and appreciation for each. High concept food is by its nature going to be controversial. This is because after the appreciation of the concept, and marveling over the execution there is often too little hedonistic pleasure in actually eating it. High concept and execution do not always lead to something that tastes good. This area provides a lot of room for debate and discussion. Back to Varietal. It is clear that there are problems of an executional nature in being a cutting edge restaurant and wine bar. It is IMOP probably an offshoot of current misguided wine geek thinking that there is a wine that is a "perfect" match for every food item and flavor on earth. I would think that operating a wine bar is one thing. Operating a fine restaurant with a great wine list is quite another. Then there is that high concept desert thing!

While everyone is very talented, the place will have a difficult time as it stands making everybody happy. I happen to be comfortable in each of the styles that they represent, but I know many people who while finding something to be happy about will find just as much that they will be displeased with for the reasons you mentioned. I think this view, as you presented it is very reasonable and criticism along these lines justifiable. This is not what Cuozzo did, though. Whether or not his piece was an official "review", it was in fact a review. The problem is that it was a poor excuse for one, based on an "ew, this is icky" mentality rather than solid criticism. I admire the talent in the kitchen of Varietal, but have no stake in the restaurant. I don't mind it being criticized for valid reasons. I hate to see any restaurant butchered the way Cuozzo did to this one. ← Doc, I think your original assessment of Varietal was well written. You did convey the seemingly disjointed nature of this endeavor as a dining experience. As for Cuozzo's piece, I do understand your criticism. I think Cuozzo's article suffers from some of the same disjointedness as Varietal. The headline is unfortunate--I wonder if Cuozzo wrote and/or approved --it does not fit the writing that comes after it. It is clear that the piece is not a review. It's main focus is off beat ingredients--a trend that is most definitely fodder for discussion (and debate). Cuozzo's take would be better served if other restaurants/chefs were provided in support. I fear that the problems with Cuozzo's article are a result of the very "blog" like nature of his column. I see validity in its purpose but I do have a problem in its execution. (maybe similar to the problem Varietal faces). Cuozzo clearly states: "varietal has been open just two weeks and it is too early to judge chef Ed Witt's kitchen..." It is also clear that he (Cuozzo) is offering initial impressions of Varietal. I believe that Cuozzo is no longer formally reviewing restaurants rather he is offering his impressions and thoughts about issues he sees as important. His visit to Varietal clearly provoked some thoughts. The questions Cuozzo asks are IMOP valid. Could he have done a better job? Yes. However the tone of the criticism of Cuozzo is IMOP an attempt to deflect any criticism of Varietal. The inference is clear. Those who would question and/or criticize varietal simply "don't get it." This is intellectually dishonest. The fact that Cuozzo may or may not know (this is not clear) what a certain ingredient is or isn't has no impact one way or the other on whether or not the questions he is asking and issues he raises are valid. The truth is there are any number of controversial issues in food and dining today. For one side of the issues to dismiss the other with : they aren't qualified to criticize or they just don't get it only serves to shut off discussion and debate. So, I really do understand your criticism of Cuozzo and I am not sure you are totally off base. I would suggest you try this: assume we have no idea who asked the questions and raises the issues in the Post piece. Is the author totally off base?

This may be a good example of "it's hard to please all the people all the time." Since there are often subtle and not so subtle differences in bottles from the same region, and what is "best" is often a matter of personal taste, I prefer having some choices and doing some exploring. While I may ask the shop staff if one is better than the others (and they sometimes disagree among themselves), I more often ask them if they can describe the differences. For me, trying different wines from the same region is just part of my wine education, and a pleasure in itself. ← As I noted earlier in this thread, the size of the wine shop most often has little or nothing to do with pricing. Cotes Du Rhone (and most every type of wine) are made in different styles. While one can certainly find a "typical" version, having a few different styles is IMOP not a bad thing for the customer. A good salesperson needs to do two things--ascertain what type of wine the customer is most likely to enjoy and make appropriate recommendations. A good salesperson will, in most cases, have more tasting experience and/or knowledge than the customer so their opinion as to what is "best" counts for something. However, in the end, it is what the customer will like that is of utmost importance. So the salesperson should offer personal opinion with supporting evidence and be able to describe differences between similar wines.

You guys oughtta see the interior of the Manhattan Tony Luke's--what a dump! Seriously though-- I have to say, I have never seen a town more obsessed with its own food image. Why? For a long time, Philadelphia has had some very fine restaurants of many types. It currently has a vibrant and interesting restaurant and food scene. If one is going to compare it to other cities then one needs to look at the factors that impact the restaurant business. Size, per capita income, tourism, business climate, history etc etc etc. I believe that Philadelphia has gotten its share of national recognition. Philadelphians should stop agonizing over comparisons to other cities (New York , San Francisco and Chicago for starters) and enjoy what they have.

That's all I have been trying to say! I apologize if I haven't been clear--hey I am no "professional"!!! Really, I have a lot of respect for anyone who puts their opinions or views on the line. Amateur Gourmet is IMOP credible as someone who is writing about a restaurant experience as a personal experience. He is far less credible as a critic of restaurants. The Le Cirque piece was more interesting about him (and his parents) more than it was about Le Cirque.--to get back on topic.

First, I am not attempting to disparage blogging. There are benefits to easy access to the internet for writers as well as the audience. I am also attempting to adhere to some definition of "blog" rooted in on line diary or personal experience. it seems that blog is often used to describe something far greater. many of these so called blogs are really web sites or are part of websites that go far beyond personal opinion. So, anyone can be a blogger. There is no criteria, no training and more importantly, no oversight, no code of ethics no anything no accountability, no peer review. Anyone can simply post anything they want. There is reason enough to approach even mainstream media that has all these things with some skepticism so I fail to see how one can not be very skeptical when confronting a blog. I am more familiar with wine sites and blogging--there was a lively thread here a while back. Daniel Rogov and I seemed to agree that the proliferation of wine blogs was contributing to a dumbing down of wine writing and wine appreciation in general. this is provable--one need only look at the quality of tasting notes. I believe that this applies to food/restaurant criticism/writing. Blogs are viewed by many as equal to or better than mainstream media (in truth some are). It all comes down to accountability. i would recommend looking at blogging and journalism in Wikipedia, an entity that experienced first hand how lack of accountability can lead to problems--when free access leads to "just anyone" posting something.

Gee--It's on "Youtube" it has to be true! I got really suspicious when reading the that the guy who "discovered" this corporate brainwashing thought--"isn't that the McDonald's logo." As the hidden message flashed. basically if he "saw" it --well--it wasn;t subliminal then is it? Really--I smell a hoax. I would suggest that those who are so concerned --contact the Network, McDonald's and the FCC. ← Heh, no hoax, I swear I saw it for myself. I can use my camera and make a video of it showing on my TV because I have it on my DVR. The youtube clip is unedited and shows it exactly as it happened. If you want to catch it for yourself, it shows after the verdict is anounced and while Alton Brown is giving his final wrap up on the battle. If you don't have a DVR, watch closely and you'll see it flash up for a split second. :-) ← But that's my point--if you can see it with the naked eye then it is not "subliminal" advertising. As usual, a lot of people like to complain but no one contacts the Food Network or MacDonalds for an explanation. The "frame" (I believe it is more than one frame) is a rather crude billboard or slide. MacDonald's was, I believe sponsoring the segment of ICA. So it is possible that this is a bit of a screw up or it is possible that with the emergence of TIVO's --sponsors are inserting messages (probably not subliminal) in the middle of programs. Let's not forget that MacDonald's by sponsoring the program is also helping to pay for it and they want their message conveyed. I do not see this as a big deal whatever the explanation.

You might want to try "Nook" on Ninth Avenue at 50th Street. It is a nice walk from the Park. Ninth Avenue is lined with interesting restaurants by the way. Afgan Kabob House is on Ninth and Fifty First (a block away). Also try www.littleviews.com as well as Zagat's both of which note BYO's. BYO restaurants in Manhattan are rare. There is no scene like one finds in Philly. This is due to the PA state liquor laws and is quite unique in the US. (as the threads here will attest). Many fine restaurants in Manhattan do allow one to bring wine and pay a corkage fee. I personally, would not bring wine unless the bottle was a wine not likely found on a list or a special bottle. To bring wine just to avoid buying wine from a wine list--to in essence save money is IMOP a bit gauche. There are many very good restaurants in Manhattan that have very reasonably priced wine lists. Good luck and let us know how you eventually make out!

I wonder — no offense intended — how any of the above differs from the eGullet posts of a guy named JohnL?JohnL's biography and mission statement aren't posted here. He is using a "handle" (specifically, JohnL). He is not charging us for the previlege of reading what he has to say. Of course, this is true of most eGullet Society members, so I am not singling out JohnL for any reason, except that he's the one with a different standard for bloggers. I think tommy (another anonymous eGullet Society member posting under a handle who has not shared his bio or mission statement, or charged money for his insights): Mind you, I'm not suggesting JohnL or tommy should have provided any of these details. What they've done is just fine. I'm just wondering why a blogger would be different.For the record, my real name is on both my blog and this post, which is probably very foolish of me. I don't feel obligated to post my bio, but thanks to the power of google, anyone who wanted to could probably figure out a good deal of it. My mission statement is whatever I want it to be. Because I am not charging for what I do, I don't feel under any obligation to have the same mission tomorrow that I have today. (Not that I am suggesting that anyone would pay for it, even if I did charge.) ← There's a big difference. This is a website forum where it is clear that various people are exchanging thoughts and ideas and opinions. It is a bunch of people with similar interests talking. The standards are those of eGullet. the very fact that it is a dialog means that opinions are part of a fluid dialog and as such are challenged (as you are doing here) and expounded upon. If I say something ridiculous or present as fact something that is not--there is a strong likelihood that I will quickly be challenged or corrected. If I am perpetrating some fraud or misrepresentation chances are I will also be exposed. A blog is not a forum or discussion group. Nor is it a dialog. It is a published opinion. As you indicate you need to provide no reason for publishing it nor do you need any standards self imposed or otherwise. You can write what you want and you ask nothing of the reader. This is fine IMOP--your blog is what it is! I have no problem with that. What I am getting at (or trying to) is, I think that we are often accepting blogs as on par with other writing like professional criticism. For the most part, many of these blogs are opinions by friends and neighbors or just others who feel they have something to say. The writers often have little or nothing at stake and can say anything they want. I would say that more than a little skepticism is justified. I guess my problem is not with bloggers but rather with readers. We are relaxing our standards and our skepticism. Not too long ago there was a thread about wine blogs. Myriad wine blogs exist with thousands of tasting notes that are poorly written by people who obviously have little talent or knowledge of a complex subject. Ill supported opinions are tossed out and many of these bloggers are basically incompetent. Yet they present themselves as if they were the equal to professional wine writers and worse readers often accept them as just that. Thus the dumbing down. A lot of the bloggers operate under the guise of being the everyman's answer to the professionals or the anti establishment. There is certainly a need for this but it is readers that need to decide the validity of what they read on line (or really anywhere). It is one thing, for eg, to criticize, say, Frank Bruni, it is quite another to set one's self up as the equal of Frank Bruni in doing what he does and to expect that readers also make that valuation without even minimal skepticism.

Consider the context in which the article was written: his entire point was that as a food blogger he wields a considerable amount of influence among tech-savvy foodies (Ha, how's that for a subdemographic?) Also, the second review was written for Serious Eats, which I see as a website that strives for credibility. ← OK. Serious Eats does some good things--It is not a blog. it is an online magazine. It is much like eGullet in many repsects. Adam Roberts writes a column. I still see little in any of his writing that indicates any credentials to write about food other than he eats. If that's not important to you fine. I do see him as a diarist chronicling his experiences in restaurants (mostly). If someone wants to use his experiences as guidelines for their own dining out adventures fine as well--I ain't one of them. Also--I find bloggers incessantly concerned with how powerful they are or how influential they are to be a bit silly. One either is or isn't. Again--there's too much confusion in what a blog is exactly. I prefer the basic online diary. These online magazines/sites are little different than any other magazines--they are online rather than at newstands.

I wonder just how foodblogs are supposed to function. Some are basically websites some are true diaries and some are combinations of the two. I am not against food blogs and I am not saying that there are blogs and bloggers that are not worthwhile reading. Here's what I am saying though. I would like to see all blogs clearly state what their purpose is and why anyone should read them. A mission statement. I would also like to see a biography of the blogger. It is amazing how many bloggers seem to want to work behind (notice I did not say hide) a handle. It is hard to take seriously someone who uses a pseudonym. I will always wonder why, if this person's views are of value they do not charge money for them. There's a nice quip about the value of free advice. I don't necessarily hold this against them but it raises the question. There are some extremely knowledgeable amateurs (in jut about every subject under the sun) who prefer to remain amateurs. My biggest fear over the ease of access the internet offers is that we often are celebrating everyone's views as equal--everybody's a star! There is a dumbing down taking place. The upside is that information and opinion is generally a good thing. Your comparison to Britchky is not a good one, there's a big difference--I believe Britchky charged money for his newsletter. Today, there are a lot of people who think they are Britchky's and by writing like him or performing the same task they believe they should be taken as seriously as Britchky. The only real jury is the public and I am afraid we have lowered our standards. toiday--"It's all good" --is used too often and too seriously.

Just how much influence is dubious. I suspect many of the people who read blogs are also bloggers themselves. Blogging at its most basic level is no different than expressing one's opinions in public--standing on a soapbox on a busy corner. As you note, just about anyone can be the "amateur gourmet" in life or on the net. In fact millions of people would consider themselves "amateur gourmets." The blog in question--works better as a diary--my adventures in eating--entertainment. I believe that anyone reading this as though the writer's opinions on food and restaurants is worth taking seriously, would be fooling themselves.

I haven't yet had the pleasure of knowing in advance that I would be comped. A few times, food has arrived unbidden, "compliments of the kitchen." I had done nothing to suggest I was a blogger, or that a review was forthcoming. Are you suggesting I should send the food back in such circumstances? ← Absolutely not. There's a difference between sitting down to a meal, being recognized as a regular, friend or maybe a chef, and then being sent a few extra dishes. There are times when kitchens send out extra dishes to anonymous people for a number of reasons: they know that the timing on the courses are slow, a random act of kindness, etc... In this case the comp is a wonderful gesture to give and receive. Introducing yourself as a blogger or message board regular and announcing your handle is a different story. If the motive is to befriend a chef you've heard great things about, why not introduce yourself after the bill is settled? Otherwise it's just a wink and a nudge. Even worse, breaking out a camera *with a flash* (gauche) and notepad (even more gauche) and then accepting free food is, like I said, tacky. And to reiterate, if then going home to spread a high-praising word-of-mouth review about the fabulous service isn't biased, I don't know what is. Of course, this isn't a personal attack. And just to make things clear, not all comps are bad. In reference to the original topic, I just think what the Amateur Gourmet did - rip on a place, receive an apology, and accept a free meal ungraciously - was tacky. (Word of the day!) First of all, if Le Cirque was that awful to begin with, why go back? Next, if upon accepting a free meal, you didn't like the food, why not just leave it at that? Why rip it a new one all over again, especially after reveling in the star treatment? I'm all for honesty and I hate pussyfooting when it comes to writing but this was just a tad obnoxious. I'm not a Bruni acolyte, but to ask yourself WWBD?, I don't think he'd be bothered to issue two zero star reviews for the same restaurant in the same year. ← I thought a blog is an on line diary. Highly personal impressions and thoughts etc. Here we have a discussion about a blog as though the writer was a professional restaurant critic. Clearly this is an "amateur" who is playing restaurant critic and food writer. Ethics? Credibility? No one asks these things of a diary or a diarist. As a personal diary, Amateur Gourmet's blog is one thing but why are we discussing it as though the blogger were writing serious restaurant criticism? Why would anyone take it as such?

Busboy mentioned "Cajun" --I second that but refine it to "Blackened"--Thousands of restaurants jumped on the Prudhomme technique and started blackening not just red fish which I believe came close to extinction--but any and everything: chicken, swordfish, steak etc etc etc! In fact at its worst--blackened meant taking a piece of protein dousing it in "cajun spice mix' (most of them were two thirds table salt)--and tossing it in a microwave! YEOW!!!!

Gee--It's on "Youtube" it has to be true! I got really suspicious when reading the that the guy who "discovered" this corporate brainwashing thought--"isn't that the McDonald's logo." As the hidden message flashed. basically if he "saw" it --well--it wasn;t subliminal then is it? Really--I smell a hoax. I would suggest that those who are so concerned --contact the Network, McDonald's and the FCC.

Why sad and nauseating? It isn't PBS; they've always had ads. And I bet that viewers of the Food Network eat at Mickey D's way more than they (or most eGulleteers) would like to admit. If this is real, I suspect that Reefpimp is right, and that somebody in the production booth was having a larf. If McD's paid money for this... well, mainly it shows that their marketing wing have come down with a bad case of what's known in psychological circles as "being idiots": subliminal advertising doesn't work. ← Let's be honest: PBS accepts "advertising". Many of the shows on both radio and TV are sponsored. Additionally, PBS shows like Sesame street are huge money generators for merchandise sales. We should be realistic. I agree where you state that "subliminal advertising doesn't work."

← As noted --there are two issues here. Prior to bottling a wine, the wine can be fined, and//or filtered. Years ago, some critics/writers and importers noticed that some wine makers were making two lots of the same wine. One, unfiltered and the other for export, filtered. Unfiltered wines can lead to sediment in the bottle--usually tartrate crystals affecting bottled wines of a relatively young age. All wines both filtered and unfiltered can throw a sediment as they age in bottle. Unfortunately, filtration has gained a bad reputation. In fact many wineries use "unfined and unfiltered" on labels as a marketing claim. (a badge of honor so to speak). Filtration is especially misunderstood and it is somewhat controversial--there is legitimate debate as to its real effect on the flavor of a wine. It has a beneficial purpose. Just as putting it on a label does not necessarily mean the wine is good a wine that has been fined and/or filtered is not necessarily a poor wine. However, "excessive" filtration is not so controversial--it is generally agreed that it can strip flavors and complexity from fine wines. (really "excessive" anything is usually not good). It really depends upon what is in the glass (bottle) that counts. That leads us to the second issue. What was in bgut1's glass. A wine server should perform due diligence to ensure that the customer has a pleasant experience. If served from a bottle, the bottle should be stood upright or put into one of those baskets. If the server is pouring the wine he/she should exercise some care to see that no sediment makes its way onto a glass. If the customer pours the wine then they should also be aware that there can be sediment and should take care to pour carefully. It is understandable that a tiny amount of some sediment can find its way into a glass. However, if the wine is decanted there is no excuse (ok a very tiny amount could be acceptable--we are not dealing in absolute perfection all the time). Whether pouring from a bottle into a glass or from a bottle into a decanter--the pourer needs to watch for sediment. If the wine is rife with it then a mesh filter needs to be employed. Since sediment can be present in any fine wine, regardless of age, the server needs to keep an eye out for it. (wines can contain some sediment from the barrel in which they were aged that is transferred during the bottling process for eg.).

Alton brown, in his recent "travel around America on a motorcycle" series made reference to the source of hamburger as rooted in the "Hamburg Steak." I wonder if this is also the source of the "Salisbury Steak" which as I experienced it is a large oblong or patty shaped ground beef topped with a brown gravy with onions or mushrooms? Also known as a chopped steak. Then there is meatloaf! also--- I wonder if the "inventor" of the hamburger (the meat on a bun) predates the Earl of Sandwich and his invention?! If so, does the hamburger inventor get some credit for the sandwich invention or, if not, does the earl of Sandwich deserve some credit for the hamburger!!?? I am totally confused! (but hungry)

Not "misguided" at all. At a basic level: Matching wine with food is a matter of selecting a wine whose flavor profile would work with the food. The flavor profile of a wine is really the wine's style. Pretty much every wine making area of the world produces wines of different styles, even from the same grape varietal. I recently tried two verdicchio's from the same region--one was very crisp, light bodied and citrussy, unoaked and simple while the other was medium bodied, minerally, with oak notes and was very complex. I would say they were of equal quality--both very well made. Now either one would "work" for most people with most seafood. Yet each would work "better" with specific seafood preparations. In the days before the EU and the emergence of so many wine making countries and advances in viniculture and viticulture, one dining is, say, the Loire would most likely be confronted with a list heavy with wines from--the Loire. One would invariably ask the wait person or sommelier for a wine to go with whatever they were having. (invariably a local dish). Now was every wine on the list an equally good match for the dish in question? Probably not though most dry whites or dry reds would probably work in a generally pleasing way. Does this mean that if a wine list comprised of wines from Italy were substituted, that one could not find equally good (maybe even better) matches at all levels to one's "Loire dish?" I think that when traveling, most people like to experience the local sights, people and culture as well as the food and wines. If one's goal is to eat food that is perfectly matched by the wine then it is not so important where the wine comes from (or the food really). In the second case, the broader and deeper the selection of wine without regard for place of origin is more likely to provide the "perfect" match. It is perfectly fine to want to drink "what the locals drink" with a particular dish. However this is a moving target as local options and preferences are changing (as they have always changed). So, as I see it, it all depends upon what one is looking for--what kind of experience you want. Today, that restaurant in the Loire may have a wine list that is comprised of only wines from the Loire--this region makes many different styles of wines both red and white. Or, the restaurant may have a more wide ranging cosmopolitan list with wines from elsewhere in France, Europe or the world. The truth is, there is an ever growing diversity with wines to the point that the old generalizations simply do not apply so easily anymore. (if they ever really applied to begin with).

It was a 2001 Salvestrin Cabernet. ← I hadn't heard of these folks. looked em up--they are old grape growers who sold to wine makers like Rombauer, Raymond, Biale, Freemark Abbey and Rutherford Hill. make their own wine since 1994. The 2001 retails around NJ for $40-$50 a bottle. I would not be so suprised if their 2001 cabernet had a bit of sediment. I would be very suprised to find any of it in my glass after a supposed professional decanted the wine. again--the primary purpose of decanting (by any method) is to separate out any sedimant in the wine and secondarily to aerate the wine. (there's no debate as to the first purpose and some debate as to the efficacy of the second purpose). As a chef/poster noted earlier--It would have been a good idea to bring the problem to the attention of the restaurant. if they are serving fine wines and want to be "known" for their wine service this would certainly help them out. By the way dropping a note would be a good idea (it might also get you comped for dinner or maybe a free bottle of wine next time you are there!). By the way--how was the wine before you encountered the sediment?

Katie - I'm not sure if it was just aerated or poured through a mesh funnel. The cab was a 2001 vintage. It was decanted away from the table and brought back in a small decanter. The restaurant is well known for its wine service so I was quite surprised. ← First, decanting a wine has a primary purpose of making sure that sediment is left in the bottle and as little as possible enters the decanter. The person who decanted your wine did a lousy job. Secondly, with fine wines that are vinified for long aging, tartrate crystals as well as pigmented tannins (phenolics) can show up as 'sediment" after only a few years in bottle. I wouldn't say this is common but it certainly is not suprising, especially with well extracted, big and age worthy wines. It would be interesting to know, specifically, what wine you had.

One would expect that most --if not all--of these wines would "stand out" for most wine lovers with a fairly broad range of interest/tastes. It would be interesting (to me at least) to know what wines stood out for you because they failed to deliver. For eg--I would be suprised if the 1982 Sassicaia stood out for failing to live up to its potential (or reputation).

Good points! I am curious and would love to know what you think: The proliferation of blogs begs a question. Integrity. This is a complex enough issue with mainstream professional criticism and writing (witness the discussions here at eGullet) it has to be even more of a concern with blogs. For example--the possibilities for fraudulent practices. can bloggers be influenced by comps and worse? We saw it with movie reviews--could a restaurant or a PR operation create a "blog"? Blogs are perfect targets/tools for so called "Buzz " marketing efforts. I would say that there are a number of wineries that operate blogs and there are a number of blogs by professionals who work at wineries. Most of these seem to be above board and in the open. I wonder what the situation is re: food and restaurant focused blogs. As always caveat emptor seems good advice!

I am not a fan of blogs (of any subject). The Amateur Gourmet is an almost too perfect example of why. I read the Le Cirque review as well as several others. The stuff is IMOP noxious. The writer comes off, to me, as obnoxious. This is obviously a kid with some writing talent--he can turn a phrase. But as with most blogs the opinions are self indulgent unprofessional (that's the point of a blog after all) cry for attention. Now I will make an important differentiation here--there are blogs by established professionals and there are amateur blogs. Most professional restaurant critics have a blog these days. These on line diaries by people who are perfectly nice folks are an awful result of the combined beliefs that 1--everyone's thoughts and feelings are equally important and 2--everyone (read anyone) can be famous. As for Le Cirque, any review (by anyone) that hinges almost entirely on the angle: "how poorly we everyday folk are treated here--my dinner was ruined--we dined in Siberia--should be immediately thrown out. Enough already! Everyone should know what Le Cirque is all about--it IS a scene for the rich and famous--that's the point. If you are nobody you are unlikely to get tables reserved in the "main tent" for the rich and famous and powerful. You can probably increase your chances if you adapt the look and the attitude and muster up a tiny amount of self esteem. By the way--as difficult as this is for me--I actually can see why the rich and famous would want to be in the main tent--AWAY FROM PEOPLE LIKE AMATEUR GOURMET AND HIS PARENTS busily photographing their food! I can imagine Amateur gourmet turning his camera on anyone rich and famous seated nearby to use in his on line diary. "OOOH LOOK HERE'S HENRY KISSINGER AND HERE'S WHAT HE WAS EATING!" (I personally would like to see more restaurants adapt a policy or no cell phone and no photography. ( I am not rich and famous and I realize this may be unpopular here at eGullet but people photographing their food near me in any restaurant give me the willies!). Now I would be interested in reading what the Amateur Gourmet has to say in several years--after he finishes school and gets some experience as a writer (restaurant critic as anything). Reading his and most of these types of blogs is akin to having to listen to someone practice the violin at age five (certain prodigies excepted). I prefer to wait until they appear at a venue where some sort of weeding out process has taken place and one gladly pays money to see/hear them. These blogs are as if suddenly carnegie Hall opened their stage up to anyone with an instrument--how many music lovers would even get dressed and go even if the performances were free?

That's an interesting thought. One would hope that for food as interesting and inventive as that served at Robuchon an enterprising sommelier would design a wine list that was also inventive and interesting. Unfortunately, I can't access the list on line--so until I actually peruse it I can't comment. Most of the comments on line seem to indicate it is quite pedestrian and expensive. The main reason that we are interested in BYO is not price or quality. My group is mostly in the wine business and we enjoy sharing our bottles. Anyway--I will report back after our lunch! (if anyone cares).