JohnL

When making a reservation I asked and was told corckage is $50 per 750ml bottle. This is pretty stiff but actually for a high end Manhattan restaurant not IMOP unreasonable.

Unfortunately, my guess would be it probably won't. (without some reworking) First--trying to be a wine bar and a restaurant is difficult at best--one has to be somewhat sublimated to the other. Logistically, you can't serve a full menu at a wine bar and combine complex food with tasting flights of wine. I personally, would be hard pressed to focus on tasting various wines and eating complicated food at the same time while sitting at a bar. second--IMOP the menu has to make sense. The style and execution of the savory dishes needs to be carried through in the deserts.--the vision needs to be in synch. You can't successfully pair a great chef and a great desert chef unless they have the same vision. third--same for wine--the list needs to flow from the food or vice verse. it all has to come together for a patron and make sense. the pricing, service and ambiance also come into play and coalesce into a dining experience. This sounds like (and again I haven't been yet) several concepts that taken individually, are well executed (the wine bar especially,sounds like a lot of fun) but that do not come together well as a whole. That is, this may be a case where the whole is less than the sum of the parts!

Doc and Nathan I think we are on the same page re: moles! This is an interesting thread. Since I have not eaten at Varietal I have several resources upon which I have questions. Note I have questions and thoughts I do not have any firm opinions of the restaurant specifically. I refer you to Foodpassion's well written (and passionate) post which goes to great lengths to "explain" the restaurant, mostly by touting the chef. then to fauxtarga's post which introduces Cuozzo's piece into the thread. This post indicates that fauxtarga's concern is that people won't "get" varietal and will criticize it. (people like Cuozzo). Herein lies the crux of the debate. There is a group of people who are struggling to "get" varietal. By "get" I mean understand what varietal is trying to be as a dining experience in terms of food, decor, beverage service, overall ambiance etc etc etc. After a bit of research here's what I believe: Varietal is the brainchild of a wine guy Greggory Hockenberry. It features a wine bar with options to have flights as well as a cute "master of wine" deal where if one guesses the wines in question the flight is free. The wines are sourced from small producers and a wide range of varietals. The dining room features food by a chef (experience Il Buco) that, based upon my reading of the menu--is slightly daring (a personal vision/creativity is at play) a bit eclectic but certainly not anywhere approaching experimental or cutting edge. The desert menu is definitely daring and very cutting edge (the chef is from Alinea). Ok here goes. My guess is there are three very different experiences to be had here. A wine experience, a food experience and a desert experience. Each is different enough to be somewhat confusing to many people. Looking at the savory dishes on the menu, I have a problem seeing food that begs for wine. Most dishes are not very wine friendly IMOP. A wine geek would have fun trying to match the somewhat complexity of the dishes. Also, many people (non wine geeks) having a dining experience here will have some difficulty with what is probably an eclectic wine list--these are folks who pass the wine bar experience and go to the dining room. Then one gets to desert. This is a departure from the savory dishes--we are in very experimental territory--while the main courses are creative and complex the deserts are a substantial leap in terms of pushing the envelope. Contrast this with how these deserts would be an easy and understandable transition from the cuisine at Alinea. So, I see this place as being somewhat confusing--it does not have a clear execution of its vision leading to a cohesive dining (and drinking) experience for someone who is looking for a nice dinner, nice wine, and nice deserts that all come together and make sense. It is also not a place where someone looking for cutting edge experimental cooking would be totally happy either. Who would it appeal mostly to? Wine geeks who like experimental deserts! (not suprising because the restaurant is a vision of a wine geek!). I would suggest that if they do not do this already--the menu include wine pairings for the food. It seems the flavors are tricky enough that most people would require some assistance. This is a bit odd--IMOP-because in keeping with the theme, the food should showcase the wines. This menu would be a struggle to find appropriate wines to not clash with the food. In the end--I see the whole operation as a bit disjointed: three very interesting elements that just don't seem to be in synch. The responses are like those from the blind men describing the elephant.

I'm sorry--you are saying that most moles that do involve chocolate consist of chocolate sprinkled over top? I am not aware that deconstruction has taken hold of Mexican cuisine yet. But again, you seem to confirm my point. Rather than deal with larger issues, a lot of folks here (ok I am sometimes guilty too) get immersed in minutia. As for Varietal and its deserts --that's your opinion. Not having been there I really can't argue (or agree). My guess is when dealing with these bold and off beat combinations people will be quite divided. From your list I have only been to WD-50.

I am hip to moles and chocolate. My point was chocolate is integrated into the sauce to one degree or another. I have no problem with conceptual deserts--when they work they work, when they don't.... I would also say Varietal wasn't the focus of the Cuozzo piece--I think the headline is unfortunate. However, this should not detract from the issues Cuozzo raises and certainly does not warrant attacks on his credibility. Agree or disagree--it is pretty simple. Back to Varietal--even Docsconz notes the dichotomy at play. It seems that the restaurant may not be a cohesive effort. I personally think the savory dishes sound pretty interesting. The deserts? I am very skeptical--but as I noted--if these combinations work then they work.

← I was lucky enough (or old enough) to have dined at Forgione's original "American Place" on Lexington Ave. The food was wonderful and I believe he was among the first to seek out high quality artisinal products and feature them on his menu. I remember a very fine fillet of beef from a Michigan producer. also worth noting (in addition to Chez Panisse) are Jonathan Waxman--Jams The Coach House Michael's (Santa Monica and New York City)--Michael McCarty Cafe Nicholson--Edna Lewis I am sure there are others I do not recall at the moment or are unaware of!

It is in fact his use of the word "weird" and its denigrating connotation with the way he used it that makes me think he has no business in the food journalism business. I suppose that he could be seen as representing the "common man", but that is condescendng and stereotypical in its own right. ← from Webster: weird--unearthly, mysterious, magical, odd, unusual. Doc--IMOP you are reading into Cuozzo's piece. This happens a lot here. People seem to take sides and if someone disagrees--then that person (especially if a professional) is attacked as incompetent to hold their views or worse. Cuozzo says some complimentary things and notes clearly this is not a formal review. You seem to miss this. again maybe we should forget who is asking the questions Cuozzo asks and simply deal with them. The fact is a lot of chefs are using a lot of odd, strange, weird ingredients in their cooking today. It ain't all good. You used, I believe the use of chocolate in mole as a case for using savory with sweet in deserts. I would say the chocolate in a mole should never be present--it makes the mole as a whole greater than the sum of its parts. The use of ketchup and savory items in the deserts at Varietal as seen in your excellent photos and in the menu descriptions looks like things are not subtle but rather disjointed--tossed together. Now I will go there and try them for myself but--safe to say Cuozzo is put off,you can disagree but tha't what makes the world go round!

Most folks would be suprised at the demographic of the Post. Neither that or Steve Cuozzo's credentials are really all that important. He asked some interesting questions. He also is not trashing the restaurant--my sense is that he has some problems with the deserts and the wine list and my impression is that his impression of the place is that it is at this early stage a bit disjointed in terms of the overall concept and execution. I haven't eaten there but from what I can see from the posts and from the menu etc Cuozzo has a very valid point. One can certainly disagree--Doc Sconz does a nice job in presenting his own more favorable perceptions in the original post. Bashing the Post or discrediting Cuozzo ignores the points he is making. if Cuozzo were doing a full review it would be one thing but Cuozzo obviously ate there and his experience raised some larger issues and questions about restaurants and dining in general. I am just as leery of people from the Dennis Miller school of writing and criticism who lard their prose with obscure references to show their "qualifications" --see Elvis Mitchell. Cuozzo made it clear that he is going to try to focus on a broader issues oriented coverage and that is what he is doing.

I don't like to make blanket statements, but among the major NYC critics, I've found Cuozzo the one I'm least likely to agree with. By NYC standards, the desserts at Varietal are pretty far out there, and couldn't be called conservative in any sense. Conservative is apple pie, cheesecake, and peach melba. ← A good critic IMOP is not "good" based on whether or not I happen to agree with him or her. Rather do they provoke thought and discussion. I agree that Varietal is not a traditional or conservative restaurant by any means. The main dishes are let's say--less avant garde than the deserts. This is another question one must ask--does this restaurant work as a whole? Does it live up to its pretensions? What exactly are those pretensions?

Nevertheless, there are reasonably predictable steakhouse attributes you can judge on, such as the way the steaks are butchered; whether served on or off the bone, sliced or whole; the aging program; the style of broiling and seasoning; whether steaks are prepared to the requested temperature; and so forth. Those are things that shouldn't change, even if the quality of the ingredients is no longer as dependable as in the past.An extreme example would be Craftsteak, which got one terrible review after another. It's safe to say that all of those reviewers couldn't have coincidentally just happened to visit on the isolated bad day. Something clearly was wrong. (Colliccio has since fired the chef de cuisine, and told the media that he was getting new kitchen equipment, so perhaps things have improved, or will shortly.) There are also the non-steak attributes to consider, such as the side dishes, the wine program, service, price structure, ambiance, and so forth. ← Yes you are correct IMOP. Many of the steak related things you note are pretty subjective. The non steak related areas have always been a key factor. For eg, I have always liked the Post House simply because it was more civilized than many other places and while Sparks had very good food I really disliked their way of honoring reservations. I haven't been to either place recently so things may have changed. I do know that the truth remains--it is much harder to find both great meat and consistency anywhere these days.

First, there is no indication in the piece that Cuozzo does not personally know what these items are. He is making a point--that most diners do not know what they are. In fact, more would know them as hen of the woods though I would posit that the vast majority of diners would not even know hen of the woods. By the way bet even most gourmands don't know they are also known as "grifola frondosa." Cuozzo is not wring solely for a tiny group of gourmands or foodies. The Post and the Times are not The Art of Eating. Second, attempting to discredit Cuozzo via his credentials (knowledge) still ignores any larger points he is making. Those remain valid and largely ignored. Third, Cuozzo and his arguments entered this thread as they apply to the restaurant in question--Varietal. The fact is, as I noted, the main courses at varietal are not particularly avant garde but the desert menu most certainly is (or at least it is anything but conventional). Most of Cuozzo's questions are focused on the deserts. (and the wine list, he could have used more examples than the one offered).

I also would add that the wine world is undergoing a dramatic shift. Basically, the rapid emergence and growth of new wine producing areas and in different varietals and styles of wine made in the old areas has made it more difficult to pigeon hole or stereotype wines. It is critical for wineshops and sales persons to understand each wine's flavor profile so they can meet customer's needs. What is in the bottle (glass) is as at least important as where the wine comes from. I recently tasted two wines from neighboring producers in Italy both from the same grape--the wines were dramatically different. Consumers are also accessing information from an ever growing number of sources. Newspaper columns, critics and newsletters, blogs, magazines etc etc etc. Wine shops need to be able to use these resources to their benefit rather than complain about them. Prices? If you are pricing fairly and competitively for your market then someone coming in with a better offer from the internet can be dealt with--for starters ask them if they factored in shipping and can the seller vouch for the provenence and storage conditions of the wine--trust someone five hundred miles away or someone who is your neighbor..... Most importantly, every wine shop should have an idea of who they want to be and who their customer is.

I think there are too many steakhouses chasing not enough prime beef. Over the last 2-3 years, there's been an explosion in the number of steakhouses. The number of cows yielding the best cuts of meat cannot possibly have grown by a similar proportion. So it means that no steakhouse can hit a home run every time. I've been to Wolfgang's quite a few times, and usually it does a very good job. But on a given night, you can have a bad steak almost anywhere.A Kobe steak is very a different animal, and shouldn't be compared to anything except for other Kobe steaks. ← I agree totally! At present the steak scene is plagued by inconsistency more than anything. This has rendered judging any one place "the best" based on the quality of the meat almost impossible. At one time, there was a higher percentage of restaurants serving a very good to great steak regularly. One made one's choice based upon other factors--atmosphere etc. Today it is difficult to find a great steak regularly anywhere. One can get a good or very good steak and can expect much fluctuation in a lesser quality range. I recall very good steaks day in and day out at Palm Too. Also Smith and Wo's and the Post House. The meat was fine at Gallaghers and Sparks (I had problems with Sparks reservation and seating policies) then there was Christ Cella and a number of others. I think today the bar has been lowered.

Steven: Have you checked out Moore Brothers New York yet? They definitely have everything but #5 of your wants covered, and #1 of your don't wants covered. It is a nice shop. Don't hold that against them. Additionally, they will put you in the computer once you register and purchase some items and your portfolio of purchases is available to you online. You will always be able to look up what that lovely little Rhone blend you had was, even if you can't remember the name. You can keep notes on your purchases as well. An awesome customer service. PM me if you need any other details on the place. Sounds right up your alley. ← Moore Brothers is a very good and interesting wine shop. I would recommend them to anyone. However, their big plus is in the end a big minus as well. Commendably, they offer "hand selected" wines but those wines are selected from a very small universe. If Greg Moore was selecting his inventory from the full breadth of wines available it would be one thing, however he is working mostly with wine makers from a very short list. For eg their offerings of red Burgundy are limited to those of a few wine makers. Heavy Rion for eg. Now Rion makes fine wines-- however, in any given vintage, I would question if a customer would be better served if their wine shop offered "hand selected" examples from a wider range of wine makers from a quality and a stylistic standpoint. There are many consumers who would be perfectly happy with Moore brothers as their only wine shop--one can do infinitely worse. Ultimately, though, I feel their strong point is also a weak point.

I read through this thread with some interest. the original post with great photos presented some interesting looking dishes. Then Cuozzo's piece. I read this with interest as well. I believe that we may be missing the point or worse ignoring it. I feel he was quite clear in what he was saying or rather, asking. First, Cuozzo offers some praise for the restaurant citing "obvious talent" in the kitchen and noting it is too early to render a final judgment (full review?). The issue he is raising is IMOP a very valid one (I seem to ask this myself more often these days). Are many chefs adding/using ingredients for the sake of trying to be new or "cutting edge"? To offer diners new taste experiences in a quest to wow. And more importantly, are these ingredients more gratuitous than integral to the flavor of the dish? and most importantly, do they work? I still believe that truly great cooking produces dishes where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. The real question re; the tonka beans is what do they contribute to the dish in which they are used? Cuozzo is also on target in asking why the wine list here also offers obscure wines that are often not very good. I also find this trend disturbing. I am getting the feeling that some restaurants are constructing wine lists for affect rather than effect. That is we have a rash of young sommeliers who seem to want to wow people with their knowledge offering obscure wines rather than wines that actually work with the cuisine. (obscurity is in and of itself not a reason to place a wine on the list). I think the problem with Cuozzo's piece is he is using this restaurant to make some larger points. In perusing the menu the issues Cuozzo raises are more pertinent to the desert list not the main courses which aside from the use of tobacco in one dish seems to me to be pretty straight forward. I think his broad brush is a bit unfair to the restaurant overall. The deserts do appear to be bizarre. Not itself a crime but it does prompt the question do these flavors really work? Restaurants cooking is always moving (in many directions) chefs are always on the lookout for ingredients and techniques--sometimes they work and endure and sometimes they are a fad that quickly fades. I recall nouvelle cuisine's use of vanilla in lobster preparations. Yes, one or two supremely talented chefs may have made this work but diners suffered the trend when less talented folks applied the combination to their work. Actually, i am not so sure about the one or two talented chefs--this was and is IMOP a bad idea. Cooking moved on and one rarely sees this culinary mistake any more. In the end, I think Cuozzo is asking some interesting and very valid questions. Rather than attempt to denigrate and devalue them by questioning his knowledge the discussion here would be better served, I think, if these issues were dealt with on their face value. getting hung up over whether or not he is "dissing" a restaurant is a secondary issue at best.

Boston has a lot of very fine restaurants. one of the most venerable (and best) is Hammersley's Bistro. I would also say that the original Legal Seafood downtown is very good as are any of the Summer Shack locations-- these are casual atmosphered seafood specialists. IMOP what New England does best. Also the East Coast Grill in Cambridge casual and fun.

As a general rule, I would agree. The very concept of a buffet is rife with potential problems. Large amounts of food prepared well in advance and left out in the open. Having said this, I have been to a number of really well executed buffets and interestingly they are/were mostly Indian. Let's face it, all the curries/stews are dishes that actually adapt to the steam table quite nicely. In the end, a buffet can't cover up for poor cooking and/or ingredients of any cuisine and the added challenges a buffet presents make them a good bet to avoid altogether.

"hatchet job"? The whole point of Richman's piece, indeed his whole premise is that New Orleans is a dichotomy. long before Katrina. This is a city that has for decades ridden on its reputation for food and has sold itself as THE Convention town, a giant Disneyworld for adults. Cajun and Creole were and are part of the myth of New Orleans. Richman is merely casting a critical eye (maybe a bit jaundiced) on the city as it has been presented to the rest of the world and as it is seen by the rest of the world in contrast to what it really is (has been). I think that how one reacts to Mr Richman's article seems to depend upon how much one has bought into that myth (or wants to buy into it). Interestingly, the myth of New Orleans pre Katrina also glossed over the fact that the city had some very severe social and infrastructure problems--this is a tale of two cities or rather two tales of one city. One tale was never really told or if/when it was no one listened or no one cared. The endless conga line along Bouron Street was much more fun. Instead of joining it, Richman stays sober and looks at where it originated and where it is going. In the aftermath of Katrina, the other New Orleans emerged. I fear that a lot of this righteous indignation at any and all criticism of the city is a result of people once again, trying desperately, to get the party restarted. An opportunity to really change things for the better is being wasted. Let's just get the good times rollin again! Hey, nothin wrong with the city's food scene let's just rebuild it exactly like it was! Now--I believe that most cities have a dark side. I think that Richman enjoys looking at each place he visits in terms of how it presents itself and its food scene and how he (Richman) sees the reality in that context. He's done this most everywhere he has traveled. He just left Las Vegas, he did Southern Barbeque. This is his schtick. Yes he often exaggerates and uses some smart ass and sometimes callous language but I find he often gets closer to the truth or at least some truths by examining and challenging the culinary myths. People thrive on myths--creating them (for profit) and buying into them (for fun). it is hard to accept anyone messin with our myths.

Vintage New York does and is allowed to. They're able to operate under a different set of regulations, because all the wines they sell are produced within the state. Also, there are several places that integrate wine shops with food shops pretty closely, though they're technically two different stores. Visit Stew Leonard's in Yonkers to see this arrangement in action. ← Another example of this that does a very nice job is Putnam Wine and Putnam Market on Broadway in Saratoga Springs. I don't have anything else to add to the superb advice offered here. The most important things are to know the wines, know your customers and know how to get to know your customers. ← yes, I have been to Stews also Whole Foods is another example. Stew's wine operation is legally a separate operation (O and O) from Stew's food enterprise--they note this in their fliers.--again exploiting the loopholes. I have never visited "Vintage New York"--where is it? I think I did make mention of "food courts" often food and wine in close proximity. I do not know the specifics of the law, but basically selling food in a wine shop is a no no. Also of interest is no one can own more than one retail wine shop.--some have gotten around this by various loopholes but you can't have two Sherry Lehmann's for eg. Silly and not in the best interest of the consumer or the retail business--but then again we are better off than to be in Philadelphia!

Because an amuse is a gift from the chef... ← I have to agree with Andrew. No one "has" to eat anything in a restaurant. There was an interesting article on this a while ago (I forget the magazine and the particulars). The author asked Thomas Keller (and I believe Mario Batali) about someone refusing to eat an amuse or something included in a chef's tasting menu. The response was--a chef wants a diner to be happy and never expects a diner to eat anything they do not want to eat.

Well--who are they? This is an interesting take on the way British wine merchants operated long ago-- specifically with Bordeaux. (without the on line aspect of course).

Let me cite you: If you're serious about this, it's tantamount to picking a fight. But I'll assume that you meant it in a general context, and not in the specific case at hand. Of course, in the overwhelming majority of cases (and in the case that opened the thread), there isn't a policy: the restaurant serves foie gras because it tastes good, and whether or not the owner and chef have looked into the ethics of it, they haven't formulated anything like official restaurant policy, one that has been communicated to the staff. Nor should they, necessarily. But I'll repeat what I said before: in the absence of an official policy, it's not the job of the person taking reservations to formulate one. They should let the customer discuss it with a manager. (And to be clear: none of this is meant as criticism of Meredith380, who as far as I can tell, acted with aplomb in a difficult situation.) ← Yes I meant it in a general way. Restaurants need to have a policy. This is IMOP a problem. Too many restaurants are passive in this stiuation. I think more need to stand up to people who are imposing their will on the public and restaurateurs. Implied in having no policy is that restaurants don't care about what they serve and this, in turn, fuels the argument that society needs folks like PETA to look after them (and the animals). They are attempting to become the "official" and legal conscience of the food world. By the way--I am not saying that the original poster should have "set policy" on her own. Rather her restaurant should at least have the internal discussion. This won't go away and it certainly won't end with foie gras!

Ya know! I was just thinking about this. Suppose the customer calls up to cancel a reservations and informs the restaurant--"I just found out your chef is gay (or black or caucasian or...) and....." Even here--I would be polite and inform the person of the restaurant's policy to hire anyone who is qualified and serve anyone....and we are sorry you feel otherwise.

I stand by my statement. I've seen enough foie gras debates on this website to know that while each side believes that their case is based on cold, steely logic, in reality that case is often as much about emotions, a priori assumptions, or political biases. If that weren't the case, then there wouldn't be disagreement among the many educated, intelligent folks who make up the eGullet membership. But that's not relevant to this thread, and I'll let it lie. No. There are plenty of times and places when it's appropriate to stand up for your beliefs, even if you piss people off. At work, in a service industry? That's not one of them. It's about being classy. And picking fights with customers isn't classy. The appropriate thing to do would be to let the person rant, hang up politely, and go rant on eGullet. ← I don't think my advice even comes remotely close to "picking a fight" it simply and politely informs the customer of the restaurant's policy regarding an obviously sensitive (to some)issue. No debate. No insulting the customer. There most certainly is a line in terms of customer service which when crossed demands actions that would otherwise be deemed "not classy." ---Customer pees on a hostess's leg. or uses foul language or.... Of course, the incident in question comes nowhere near these kinds of behavior and my recommended response is far from what would be called for in these instances. In fact, I believe that politely informing a person of policy is respectful and thoughtful. but we can certainly disagree!

Keller is not about keeping locals happy. His restaurants rely heavily upon tourism--Napa, Las Vegas and tourism and business customers--Per Se. He did run a noteworthy restaurant here in NY --Rakel (at one time my favorite restaurant here). it was in a poor location and when the stock market experienced a downturn he lost a lot of his Wall Street business and closed. To put this Philadelphia discussion into better perspective: Philadelphians seem find much to support in the BYO scene (though there seems to be plenty of debate among them). However, one would find very little support among three key groups of potential customers: 1--Tourists 2--Business travelers 3--local Businesspersons 4--locals who would prefer full and reasonably priced beverage service on premise where they dine. Any debate over the impact of BYO's or no BYO's on restaurant food quality and "cutting edge" establishments is speculative at best. The fact is, Philadelphia does not compete as well with other cities for the aforementioned and important groups. No one would argue that Philadelphia does not have some very fine restaurants or that one can not eat well there. The fact is, if BYO's are offering exciting food then adding a great wine list and beverage service to them can only make them more appealing to more people. The potential for Philadelphia's restaurant scene is greater than the present reality due in large part, to arcane and restrictive laws. governing a key area in dining for a very large number of people as well as the opportunity for a restaurant to thrive and make money.