JohnL

I think Busboy did a good job "reading" this piece. Richman is what we Easterners call a "wiseass." ("smart ass" works equally well) I do not believe he is ever mean spirited. I can also understand where his "schtick" would be off putting to some people. I really enjoy the guy and his call em as he sees it candor is refreshing.

I almost agree. But the Grocery ranking (which was likely simply ballot stuffing by people in its neighborhood) and USC's top rating year after year are greater anomalies than anything at the top end by Bruni or Michelin...they'd have to give the highest ranking to A di la or something to reach that point. exactly. and that only accounts for most of the restaurants in the guide! edit: and this is why Zagat is really useless...everyone knows what the top restaurants are! ← If the restaurant ratings by Zagats reflect your own impressions then I'd say they are doing a pretty good job--by your own admission(and your own standards)! Yes most of us know what the top restaurant are. I would gather that most people do not use these guides to simply find out what top restaurants are. Zagats are clearly not attempting to be arbitors of taste. (Bruni and the Times are wrestling with that one, though I am not all that sure). Rather, Zagat is more like a directory with many uses and purposes. I think a lot of their critics can't grasp that Zagat is really not about setting standards or establishing taste beyond reflecting where a chunk of the dining public is currently. That's why I keep pointing up the fact that taken in context their scores and copy etc are fairly accurate--they should be--they have to be. If they are not useful to some people --so be it! They are not useful not because they are inaccurate. that is all I am saying.

You may be correct. I am not sure you are. The problem is, I do not believe that Zagat reveals specific numbers for a given restaurant or for a rating. There is no "average" for them in terms of score. 10-15 they say is "fair to good" and "16-19 good to very good." The assumptions about what is average are just assumptions. One needs to not only look at just their ratings or numbers but rather, the verbiage. As well as all the rating numbers and cost. Zagat's, obviously, does not simply regurgitate votes--there is some "editing" at play. I keep going back to my belief that within certain parameters, they seem to get most restaurants correctly regardless of the specific rating. I have never come across any egregious discrepancies. I also have not spent an inordinate amount of time looking for them. I do know that if they were not at least providing reasonably accurate information to a lot of people (of whatever intelligence) who dine out; they would not be successful. It seems to me that most of their critics seem to take shots at their methodology, about which not that much is known--again, we have little idea how they process the numbers and select the quotes for the copy. Or, folks will disparage the participants or users. Anecdotal information is dangerous but, I know a lot of pretty savvy diners who utilize these guides. Also assumed is that the people who use these things rely solely upon them. Many probably do but many also get dining information from other sources and process it with Zagats. So, rather then delve into methodology with very little real information, or look at what I perceive to be the audience or participants and try to determine if some standard of deviation is at play--I simply look at the reviews and I just do not see any egregious problems with the information Zagats provides based on my own (admittedly limited) experience. Will other reviews provide more information about Sri and better perspective--more in depth and even more accurate information? yes. But if one wants a fairly accurate snapshot of Sri (or most other places of all pretensions) then Zagat does a pretty good job!

I 100% disagree in the strongest possible terms. eh. your underlying assumption for this entire argument is hopelessly flawed. regardless of whether you mean "the majority of consumers" or "the majority of Zagat voters"....the problem with either formulation is that both of these groups are almost complete idiots (the simple fact is that the set of Zagat voters (at least in NY) is synonymous with the set of well-to-do people who dine out a lot at the same restaurants over and over again). furthermore, a Zagat rating means nothing to me. it tells me nothing. I'll take the Times' star ratings, the Michelin Guide...etc. over Zagat in a heartbeat. as flawed as either of those rating systems may be...they're still much more accurate than Zagat. as for Bruni, I know his tastes and biases...as do we all. so, that makes his reviews of places I haven't been to quite useful...as opposed to Zagat where it means nothing. example: I don't know what Sri's Zagat rating is but I'm sure it's high. why? because the set of people willing to trek out to Woodside to eat really authentic Thai food is small and composed of people who will love it. now...place Sri on the UWS and change its name so no one has heard of it. it'll probably get a much more mediocre rating (if it makes the guide at all)....much too spicy and "weird" for the average Zagat voter. edit: in other words, the accurate Zagat ratings are anomalies....they have extenuating circumstances. Mimi Sheraton did a nice takedown on Zagat awhile back here: http://www.foodandwine.com/invoke.cfm?obje...2620002B3309983 ← It is amusing that so many people basically spend a lot of time attacking Zagat's based upon audience or participant analysis which is based upon things they believe rather than any real facts. Either the people who participate in the surveys are suspect or worse ('idiots?"); or, the people who rely on the guides for information (ok there's overlap here however common sense says many more people buy these things that don't participate). Or It's the rating point system or it's a hypothetical case: Yes "Sri" is rated highly and the comments noted are right on. So rather than conclude that the "idiots" got it right and the system worked, the critics say: "oh yeah, well if Sri was in a different location...." It's always something. (to quote Roseanne Rosannadanna!) I am not trying to carry any water for the Zagat's--I have never participated in their surveys and I don't rush out to get the latest guides (I am still in possession of the 2006 New York edition). I do not believe they are the be all and end all of restaurant reviewing. I agree they have their drawbacks. But! I would argue that for the most part, they get it right! Somehow, some way despite all their flaws......they get it right! maybe it's luck..who knows. I would also argue that there is far from universal agreement on what Frank Bruni's standards/criteria are. Seems to me there is quite a bit of debate over just what four or two or whatever number of Times stars means exactly. (and not just here either). All I am saying is give Zagat their due. Use em or don't use em. If there was something horribly wrong with them they would be out of business. (unless of course, everyone who buys these things is an idiot!--in which case let's let all the idiots have their fun and move on).

There is no perfect system for reviewing or rating anything. I would posit that every "system" is compromised to one degree or another. As for Zagat's, only repeat diners would form this self selecting group. Many people who visit a place once and rating that place with a low score would certainly "balance" things out a bit. Also Zagat probably takes steps to eliminate problems and ensure some integrity in the system. In the end, if Zagat did not "deliver" reasonable perceived accuracy, they would quickly be out of business.

Right now there are more choices in both domestically brewed beers as well as imported beers available on retailer shelves than ever before. The same goes for wine. So what is the problem?

This is a pretty awful piece (usually Slate does a much better job). To their credit Slate indicates that that 2005 study is contradicted by the 2006 version (via the link) wherein people prefer beer over wine. The whole beverage and food industry is evolving in this country so it is no wonder there is a bit of concern and angst. Eje makes some good points.

Just to add: Ratings systems aside. If someone like Johnny Apple wrote that X was the best corned beef he had ever tasted" my response would be--"damn, I gotta try that!" That's de facto a Times Four star rating! I just don't have this response much anymore! There isn't a single place touted on the pages of the Times recently where I got excited and thought--"I gotta try that" or "I need to get a reservation."

Any rating system can be nit picked endlessly (never to death though). They either work or they don't and believe me if they don't work then they are useless. There is a key reason that Zagat Guides (for all their faults) are so successful. Their ratings are pretty much on. By and large, one gets a reasonably accurate snap shot of what a restaurant offers in terms of food, decor and service. Any consumer needs to calibrate any ratings or reviews based upon their understanding of the who and how the ratings are arrived at and their own criteria. Actually, the Zagat (and others) system offers some leeway. People know what 20-25 "means" . I would argue that most people would have no problem placing most of the restaurants that receive say 20-25 points in their own "good" to "excellent" range. Thus Zagat's succeeds. If, on the other hand, Zagat's awards 20-25 points and a majority of consumers real experiences would be 15-20, then there is a problem--Zagat loses credibility and people stop buying the guides. interestingly in the Katz's example that 23 (again this from the 2006 guide) seems to be pretty much in synch with Bruni's prose and pretty damn accurate (lying in the good to excellent transitional range for food). where Zagat falls a bit short, IMOP, there may be one or two outstanding dishes at a given restaurant amid a sea of just ok or good ones and Zagat's sometimes does not convey this with specifics). I would agree that a very good critic and a comprehensive review can be more valuable to a serious diner. However, these are fewer and farther between these days. There is a lot of information about restaurants on the net for those who are serious enough to seek it out. I believe that Zagat's rating system is pretty accurate and easy to calibrate one's tastes with. I also believe that the Times system is difficult to comprehend and calibrate to one's individual tastes. In the end, a rating system is shorthand. It is up to the consumer as to how to use it and what importance it has. At a very basic level it merely states that the methodology used to apply it indicates one place is better than another.

To simplify, The Beverage Journal is part of Beverage Media. This is a service that wholesalers and retailers use. It basically provides what is available and wholesale pricing for alcoholic beverages State by State. It is organized by wholesaler. If a customer inquires as to the availability of an item a retailer will invariably take out the Beverage Media book or Journal and try to locate the product. If the retailer has an account with the wholesaler who offers the product they will try to order it for the customer. A retailer may have to take a case of the product so it is up to them if they want to do this to supply a customer with one or two bottles. If the retailer does not have an account with the wholesaler then it is up to them if they want to open one (paperwork, credit check etc etc). The retailer can also work a deal to get the item with another retailer etc. It makes little sense for a consumer to bother obtaining one of these books as the book would not provide much information as to where the consumer could purchase an item. There are on line services (wine finder etc) that do this. The best thing a consumer can do is have a good relationship with a retailer. If one is looking for something then a motivated retailer will be able to either get that item or at least make reasonable attempts on behalf of the customer. Rare and limited production items and/or high demand items may be difficult or impossible to procure even if they are available legally in a given state. I would also suggest that anyone living in a particularly difficult or prohibitive state try contacting a retailer in a less prohibitive state nearby--thus increasing their chances. Also with a little legwork via the net and phone calls, a consumer should be able to find out what wholesalers carry a particular product. The easiest way is to call the producer or the importer and inquire as to what wholesalers they do business with. A call to that wholesaler should provide retailers who carry the product.

This flood of information gets confusing. I stand corrected. Thanks. The facts may change but, unfortunately, the situation remains the same. "Control states" actually control liquor sales through the retail level. This is IMOP a deviation from our free enterprise system. (free never really means free anyway). The selection at these places is far better than that found in the old Soviet Union GUM stores but the principle (or lack of principles) is still the same!

Amazingly, the star system is still being debated. Just how does the star system work?

Just more evidence that the Times Star system presents problems. A skilled and respected reviewer could overcome these problems by "establishing" his or her criteria and applying it fairly with support in his or her review copy. Once again the Zagat's system offers more accuracy. (even with all their problems) Katz's gets 23 points for food (very good to excellent) 9 for decor and 12 for service. (I am using the 2006 book, I can't find my 2007 at the moment). The comments they selected do a good job as well.

Restaurant reviewing is not just a matter of writing about exciting new trends and openings. there are thousands of restaurants in New York many of which have not been reviewed. there are many "old" places which could use a new review a fresh look. the writers are becoming as jaded as the dining out public. media outlets are looking for every word every visual to increase circulation to sell copies get viewers--to hold a very fickle and flighty public's attention. it's no longer about the public record or providing useful information.

This issue is quite complex. All states are responsible for regulating alcohol. There are 19 states where the state basically controls alcohol from distribution to retail sales. North Carolina is one. other states still regulate but have varying degrees of regulation short of actually operating local retail outlets.. I would suggest folks simply find their state laws on the net. (easy to do). Distributors perform several functions. One is they navigate the often ridiculous and arcane laws state by state to get products into the market place. They see that fees and taxes are paid etc. (this is really all about money--basically tax money). Simply put--the states want their share of the dollars. Distributors also navigate the world of importing/importers for foreign brands. At worst--distributors are a necessary evil. Also simply put, retailers basically have to deal with the distributors their respective states have "approved" to do business in their state. That is those retailers who have paid all the taxes and fees the states require to set up a distribution business in that state. Though a retailer is often hindered or restricted in what brands are available a retailer relies on a distributor to to stock items and to take care of a lot of paperwork--few retailers would be able to operate independently of distributors. A motivated retailer can pretty much "get" anything for customers. They can work around the system. A retailer in a control state is further restricted--in essence these folks are the state. That is the retail operation is a state run operation and the people working in them are state employees. Most retailers have little reason to be motivated. Let's face it there are hundreds of choices even in the most regulated states. Finding an obscure brand to add to the dozens they already have access to is usually not worth the effort. "What these fourteen different vodkas are not enough for you?" Often some of the items in question are very limited in quantity. There simply is not much DRC Romanee Conti. Many liquors are also scarce. There are all sorts of deals and incentives that producers/importers/wholesale distributors and retailers get involved in that impact what ends up in a shop's inventory. For eg--want some of that DRC Romanee Conti--well you gotta buy a mixed case of the DRC offerings and you get a bottle or two of the Romanee Conti. Want a specific vintage of a wine--well you may have to pony up for some not so good vintages first. Want a rare limited production rum? well...... So even if there was a free and open marketplace for wine and liquor-- not every brand would be available everywhere. In fact, prices for some limited production/availability items would probably skyrocket! (an odd benefit of all this nonsense is that what rare items you may have at reasonable prices available to you now may disappear completely if there were no regulation). Things ain't so simple! especially when a lot of tax money is at stake! The folks of Pennsylvania still pay an 18% Johnstown flood tax on all the alcohol they purchase. Enacted to help the good people of Johnstown through their misery (the Johnstown flood was 1938 I believe). Here in NY we were told the tolls on the GW bridge would be removed soon as the bridge was paid for. Most everyone who built the darn bridge and all the politicians who voted for the toll are long dead --yet seems these tolls go up every year.

I guess her age would excuse her sophomoric quote about wine being "fermented grape juice" for the masses! Sheeeesh!

"trend definer"--I can live with that! Interestingly (at least for me) is how the current scene is evolving. The interest in food has been growing on a large scale: food TV more national food related magazines than ever (I just noticed "The Art of Eating" on the rack at WF) probably more chefs with formal training (chef schools rather than the traditional apprentice system only). the fascination with ingredients and sourcing--Pollan et al. "Four Star chefs" elevating foods/cuisines like hamburgers and hot dogs, barbeque, sandwiches and more plebian foods like short ribs and organ meats appearing on "four star" menus. The Keller take on coffee and donuts is a classic example. (blue collar items on a blue nose restaurant menu). Name chefs like Jasper White who elevated shore/beach foods to the four star experience then goes back going down market with actual shore dining joints.--"beach shack" to add to "shake shack"--the haut "shacks" trend. Counters as an option to the white linen tablecloth experience. Noodle bars are a distinctly "food for the masses" cuisine in the Orient so why not "elevate" that experience? There's a lot going on!

This makes sense to me. Writers and critics often confuse things more than necessary in their quest to identify and cleverly "sum" up trends and situations with catch phrases etc. Use of terms like "pork bar" and "haute barnyard" and even "new paradigm" often serve to cloud things. Identifying a trend is not that difficult. Explaining it and tracing it back to the source is often very complex and difficult. a clever moniker or phrase can not do justice. A good case made here for Momofuku perhaps embodying an important trend in restaurants.

There was an awful lot going on way before Craftbar. Again, the quest to oversimplify things to boil it all down to one catch all phrase or label to identify one source is to be far less accurate. I suspect we are heading for one of those six degrees of separation charts or maybe a family tree of influence. If only we can trace Kevin Bacon's dining habits over the years--I just know we will find the answer!!!!

I believe that Whole Foods is attempting to be too many things with a mission statement that is too complex/confused and IMOP impossible to execute on a large scale. Eventually, something's gotta give!

I agree with Oakapple. This seems to be the result of a trend which is in and of itself just the evolutionary process. It has been developing for quite some time and I believe it is the result of diners' habits changing combined with the industry evolving sometimes separately and sometimes in response to the consumer habits. Years ago, the lines between formal and informal were more clearly delineated. Not just in terms of dining habits of consumers but also in terms of chefs. One cooked at one or the other type place. Today, a chef can be the creative force behind many different types of restaurants both formal and informal. It is hard to imagine say, Pierre Franey behind Le Pavillon and involved in a burger joint simultaneously. Today, it is hard to imagine a chef just working within the confines of one type of cuisine in one restaurant. It is also hard to imagine a much more sophisticated market of diners also happy with fewer and less imaginative dining options. If Danny Meyer can run high end sophisticated urban restaurants-- why not a hot dog stand? Why shouldn't Daniel Boulud try to elevate the hamburger? Unthinkable in the past! Interestingly, much higher end places are changing as well--why not counters? L'Atelier was done much earlier at Galileo (and I'm sure other places). These chefs are elevating what was once more mundane and run of the mill cuisines. One simply doesn't have to cook within the confines of rigorously defined rules. One doesn't have to dine within them either. So I firmly believe that where we are now is not due to some recent phenomena but rather it is simply a result of a long slow evolution that makes perfect sense in historical context. New paradigm is ok with me but is perhaps an oversimplification. I think there is a new paradigm (current--this point in time) and and old paradigm (pick any previous point in time) fine for making a comparative point but inadequate for really explaining what is happening today.

No certainly not ignorance. Just a misguided sense that the French cru system somehow denotes quality. It does not. At best it may indicate potential. Most consumers will be just as lost as they are now.

I think you are on to something Mary. I believe that the wine press and some critics have made alcohol levels the issue. Most of these people are comparing new world wines to French wines. Different climates and different wines. I have always believed (as I think you do) that the real issue is mouthfeel. The truth is alcohol levels are difficult even for trained tasters to sense let alone most consumers.

"Drink sweet and talk dry" Yeeeow! I have never seen an industry that developed and relied upon so much conventional wisdom. There is measurable sweetness and there is percieved sweetness in wine. I think that what is important is what consumers perceive. I also would suggest that maybe this issue is not about sweetness but rather mouthfeel--a roundness and softness/suppleness in a wine. If people reallty had a sweet tooth/palate then German Riesling would be selling like hotcakes!

The key is to offer consumers a good quality dry riesling at a reasonable price. I think that heritage is important and should be part of any marketing effort. The goal would be for people to try the wines and come away with a favorable impression of German (or Alsation or Austrian) Riesling. A label needs to impart some important information: varietal, country of origin and whether it is dry or off dry or sweet. The wine inside the bottle needs to deliver on that. For eg consumers will try a Kabinett after being told it is a dry wine and feel mislead coming away with the impresion that it is "sweet." They also lose trust in the German labels and in German Riesling. I don't think that a cute animal or an overly simple label of catchy name is required. Just some additional information a consumer can rely upon.