JohnL

only if it was cooked in trans fat!!!

This couldn't be more misleading. First--there is a recent thread on this topic already. Second--suggest you re read the article you cite and go to the CDC web site for more information. Third--The simple fact is you are more likely to die from eating raw shellfish or unwashed vegetables (and yes--from driving your car to the market) than you are from eating venison.

I don't see the "negativity." The Times piece was negative and used Gilt as an example of dubious pricing practices. I think it is pretty clear that this piece was not very well written. The NY Post gave quite a good formal review of Gilt. In his review Cuozzo noted that Liebrandt faced some difficulties given his foods "experimental" nature but he lauded the cooking and indicated that he hoped Liebrandt would be successful with Gilt. (he also dealt fairly with the high prices by providing the context that Bruni did not). I think most posters here seem to be hopeful that Liebrandt can overcome some high hurdles which have been noted. Location, need to charge top prices, finding the right crowd etc. I would also note that the posters who have actually eaten at Gilt paint a much more positive picture than Bruni. I also believe that any ambitious endeavor (especially one in a place like Manhattan) is met with some media skepticism. Also, in this specific case, Liebrandt has encountered some success problems in his earlier efforts. especially at Atlas which was in the same neighborhood as Gilt. Seems to me that "negative" is the wrong word--I would say "hopeful" is a better fit.

My guess is Manhattan is a very tough place to do business--especially for anything "experimental." Location is critical--I believe that WD-50 would have a very tough time in Mid Town while it has done well downtown. I would also note that Meigas which did fairly cutting edge Spanish food was downtown (Hudson St) but still failed because it was too far West with little dinner traffic and a lot of lunch traffic comprised of people in advertising and printing businesses--the conventional Italian restaurant that replaced Meigas has thrived on that business. Midtown also means high rents and a more "conservative" audience. On the far east side you can find Perigord which to me seems stuck in a time warp--this is a French restaurant right out of the sixties! It is doing well with a very conservative older crowd that lives on Sutton Place etc.. You also have March where Wayne Nish does a pretty good balancing act with modern food that is still somewhat conservative (compared to what WD-50 is doing). Great and creative chefs are faced with a balancing act. JGV and Kunz and Keller are three that have found success with menus that walk that line. The first time I visited Minneapolis, I noticed that the architecture was more "daring" than most of what we have here in Manhattan. A designer friend of mine explained that the financial stakes are so much higher in NYC that there is a tendency to "play it safe."

She is the Latin Rachael Ray! (by the way--i like both though one can easily overdose on their personality and schtick). Ms Martinez is an ex model who went to a good cooking school--her bio (on her website) is interesting. I also like her flair for making you feel that you can and should make the dishes she is preparing--nice when introducing a "new" cuisine to novices.

cdc reprt There appears to be no need for much concern (unless you are a hunter who eats a lot of wild game) Even for them the watchword is be careful. The risk to the rest of us is quite small--I would be more concerned with shellfish and unwashed vegetables (if one must be concerned). Anyway--everyone should be aware, look at the facts and make up their own minds.

A lot of people forget that the US is a Republic. The states have power to regulate and tax etc. There is a balancing act between the federal government and the local governments guided by the constitution. This is a mixed blessing. The current situation is all about power and money (what else is new). The states want their share of tax money. The distributors want their control (money). The wineries want some power and access to consumers and consumers want access to wines. As I see it-- I doubt there will be a dramatic change here. States will find a way to get their tax money (don't they always). Distributors will have to change somewhat. They will still perform a valuable function--making life easier for retailers and wineries. (at present I believe they are receiving unwarranted protections from state governments). They will have to change and adapt to a new business climate. (most, i believe, will). Most consumers will still rely upon local wine shops to buy their wine though they will be able to access a wider range of wines from other sources. Retail wine shops will also be able to access smaller wineries (distributors will have to carry a wider range of wines if they want to compete--it is still a lot easier for a wine shop to work with a distributor than to have to purchase direct). In short--hopefully, there will be more competition among all entities and the consumer will benefit. If the consumer benefits--then wine shops, distributors, and wine makers will all do well. (oh, and the states will get their damn taxes--also not a bad thing --if only they would spend the money better!!). But that's an issue for another web site!

I have to agree that this is a very tired topic. And I have to politely disagree that he did a good job with this piece. Not one interesting tid-bit or insight. Not one. What, the margarita lady? The myriad of specials to be memorized? The hungry, angry customers? Gimme a break! As a friend sarcastically snarled " Yeah, this expose' really blew the lid off the service industry." As I've said before, a great city deserves a better paper. ← I do agree. I think the Times has been on a crusade to become a "National" newspaper. The writing is watered down compared to what it once was. as a result They are losing relevance here in new York (and readers). too bad

I think this is absolutely untrue. With the possible exception of George Bernard Shaw (who is obviously a fairly exceptional person), could you give an example? I can't imagine a worthwhile music review being written by someone who can't follow along the score. (I assume you're talking about classical music. Pop music reviewing -- which I've done; it isn't like I'm trying to say there's anything wrong with it -- isn't even really music reviewing, IMO, but more like cultural criticism. But even there, you need a solid basis of experitse in the field, even if not technical knowledge, for your criticism to have any value -- it isn't enough to just listen to like listening to records. Read Elizabeth Wurtzel's lamentable pop music "critiscism" for the New Yorker in the 1990s and you'll see what happens without such expertise.) ← I am talking about any and all kinds of music and any other art form. Understanding something does not mean mastering it. I am talking about knowledge--which may or may not come from being able to create in the medium in which one is working as a critic. In fact, the case has been made that criticism is in and of itself an artform. (It is writing) Susan Sontag was an esteemed critic, she was also, in the context of her criticism, an artist. (she was also a novelist). John Simon is also a respected critic (who I believe never acted in a play). and so on..... I agree with Richman (quoted in this thread). I also enjoyed of Reichl, and many others who bring wildly divergent experiences and perspectives to food writing and restaurant criticism. My problems with the Times are not with individual writers and critics and their specific experience, knowledge and perspectives. I have a feeling that the paper is not differentiating between assignments and the particular writer assigned to the task. For eg--I find Hesser to be a knowledgeable and entertaining writer on food (one can certainly argue about her writing style--some will like her others not, true of any writer). Unfortunately, IMOP she approached her restaurant reviews not as a disciplined critic but as a food writer. As for Bruni--he is a good writer/reporter. His reviews sometimes reflect a reporter's approach not a critics--he seems to be looking for an angle over and above reviewing food atmosphere and service and proivideing some perspective and insight on these things. I would also note that the Times food section does have some marvelous writing and does a good job with their features. It is in the area of criticism and reviewing that they seem to be confusing things--this is IMOP a more editorial and editor issue. Though I have never written or worked at a newpaper-- I have difficulty putting my finger on where the "blame" lies--I am responding as a restaurant goer and food lover/ eater and a long time reader of the Times. I hope I am making some sense.

anne it is not really of any import who is to "blame." a restaurant review by a critic comments on the quality of service and really does not need to assess blame. That is for the restaurant to do. however-someone who is writing a piece about restaurant service needs to have knowledge or an understanding of how restaurant service works (or doesn't) there is a distinction here.

annecros, Hi Knowledge is important, actual hands on experience is less so, though i do not want to minimalize it. For example a great music critic does not have to know how to play an instrument or even read music. Some literary critics are also novelists and poets etc some are not. They all need knowledge of the subject though. As someone earlier noted in this thread--one can critique a restaurants service without having once been a waiter. One can critique a dish without having prepared it. I do not need any special insight or experience to recognize that a waiter is providing bad service (food and drink spilled, long waits for water glasses to be filled, orders screwed up etc). That's not to say that someone who has been, say, a chef, does not bring something valuable to the art of criticism of food and restaurants. I do not know if Johnny Apple (who I admire immensely as a writer and critic) was ever actually a waiter or ever actually worked in any capacity in a restaurant-but I trust him totally when he writes about food and service!

Nothing illustrates my point about "perspective" more than ASM's posts and also Bux's post. Bux has an "understanding" of the NY food scene based upon his experiences-thus his post here provides some valuable perspective about restaurant prices (for one issue) that was missing from Bruni's piece (Cuozzo did provide perspective on pricing and Gilt specifically in his review). ASM also adds some valuable context to the fine review of the experience of dining at Gilt provided in earlier posts). What I have been trying to get at is my sense (and others) that Bruni is just not bringing much to the table so to speak. In the restaurant pricing piece ---Bruni offers nothing more than some basic reportage about about current practices restaurants engage in--do we need the chief restaurant critic to write this stuff?

As I see it, Bruni may have done them an enormous favor, since he offered advance notice of what his complaints are likely to be. If the restaurant cares what he thinks, there is still time to make adjustments before the "permanent" review—the one most visitors to the Times site are likely to see for years & years—gets written.Of course, the restaurant may not care what he thinks. ASM said the place was full, so the Bruni piece probably hasn't cost them any business. Indeed, it may actually have been good for business. There's an old saying that there's no such thing as bad publicity; the only bad publicity is none at all. There really is no "etcetera." Until now, WD-50 has had the avant-garde niche pretty much to itself. The question is whether that genre can succeed in a space that was formerly known for conservative haute cuisine. ← The fact remains that Bruni offered no context for the prices. He had an angle and he pursued that angle. A bit more on why restaurants charge what they do was in order. Cuozzo notes the high prices in his review and provides some context. You are correct about WD-50--my point was more that in NY location is extremely important in a restaurant's menu, pricing, and focus especially when engaging in anything "experimental.". Looking at failures is probably a better way to make that point--wrong place wrong time etc--Meigas, Rakel and Atlas are three that come to mind. There seems to be some confusion about Gilt among those who have not been to the restaurant and are relying upon what they read-internet, Bruni etc. Interestingly, those who have been there from Cuozzo to folks here at egullet (ASM, BryanZ et al) offer a different perspective from the web site and Bruni. Oddly, no one who has actually experienced the place--seems to be making a big deal about the prices. (Bruni practically "condemned" the place over its pricing practices.) In fact--Bruni's attempt at any context was a backhanded slap at the food--the sole (fish) reference. IMOP--Bruni is slowly and steadily devaluing the relevence of the Times restaurant reviews. The cumulative effect of this Gilt issue (more to come in his full/formal review of Gilt, wanna bet that when this comes out we will be spending a lot of time comparing his review to his comments about Gilt in the pricing practivces piece instead of discussing the review wand the restaurant?) along with his "waiter" piece, l' affaire Del Posto and the confusion over his awarding of stars, his obsession with decor and color schemes etc etc etc..........

I agree that a restaurant critic need not have worked in the industry, but I think some expertise is called for, beyond mere enthusiasm for dining out—which is all Frank Bruni seems to bring to the party. ← I don't think it is "expertise" that is important. One rarely, if ever, refers to critics and reviewers as 'experts." I believe it is perspective that is important. That perspective can be the result of a critic who draws upon a certain expertise such as Pierre Franey or Craig Claiborn--it can be a cumulation of myriad experiences as a restaurant patron and food enthusiast--Johnny Apple or Ruth Reichl etc. There is also IMOP a difference, though it can get somewhat murky, between a reviewer and a critic. At its very basic level the Times should be providing an accurate review of the dining exxperience one is likely to have--decor/atmosphere, food offered, service, wine list, value/prices, dress code, hours of operation.--just the facts basically. This is information that must be conveyed in any review. The criticism part requires that the critic now bring his or her life's experiences, to bear wherein they apply a critical eye to the restaurant. Now readers get a certain perspective and context from the critic, and the "review" becomes something more than a basic assessment of the restaurant based upon--decor, food, service etc. There should be little that one can argue with in a basic review but in a critical piece there is much that can be debated. For example, the theatre critic John Simon who could infuriate people with his reviews/critical pieces but the gravitas he brought to his writing almost demanded that one interested in the theatre read him. As for the Times and Bruni, IMOP , it is not so much about reading Bruni for the gravitas and perspective he brings--actually, I probably care less about Bruni's reviews and the Times than I ever have. I really used to look forward to reading Reichl (though I did not always agree with her). So this piece about what it is like to be a waiter though well written and entertaining could have been done by anyone--any writer at the Times. Why was the restaurant critic doing it? I would challenge anyone to state what special perspective or insight is conveyed in the piece by Bruni. Basically the piece is an anecdotal recounting the events that happened the night Bruni acted as a waiter. Instead of discussing the piece itself--the focus seems to be more on Bruni and his experience or lack thereof etc and why he did the piece. Why? I believe it is because the Times now makes little distinction between the job of restaurant critic and features writer--they are interchangeable. IMOP--the Tmes is losing its gravitas--it is losing the fine perspective and insight its pieces once provided.

After reading ASM's interesting post (and some others) -seems to me that Mr Bruni did the restaurant (and Times readers) a disservice by singling it out for its high prices with little or no context. It will be very interesting to see how he handles things in his formal review. Interesting how the Gilt menu is divided. NYC is more than ready for this cutting edge cuisine (witness WD-50 etc) but one must consider the location--Gilt is ensconced in prime uptown real estate. The overhead must be phenominally high--Gilt has to go for a very well healed crowd which may or may not be as adventurous--especially at these prices. Thus, it makes sense that maybe they are hedging their bets a bit--also given the chef's experiences at Atlas (same neighborhood) this may be a smart thing to do.

← I know it will be hard for some people, but, for the sake of the discussion, let's forget it is Parker's notes etc that are involved , for a few minutes. What is wrong with consumers having easy access to information about wine? IMOP this is a great idea. Via numerous threads here, there seems to be a consensus that presently and generally speaking, wine prices in restaurants are high and service quality is low. Same for retail establishments. Being able to access information, retail price, tasting notes and yes, scores, from any reliable source is a good thing. Of course, using any device discreetly, is important. So--on with the information age!

I recall visiting the Rabbit Ridge winery in Sonoma a while back My wife and I thought-what a charming little operation. Turns out Rabbit Ridge may make charming wines but they are far from "little"--being a fairly large company in the wine world. I believe that a lot of wine marketing is of limited value--people may try a bottle based on some marketing effort--a family run tale or a cute animal etc--but of they don't like the wine in the bottle they will not return. Let's face it --we are talking about "lower end" wines here for the most part. Also worth noting is that there is a reverse effect. that is, a winery like Gallo has a hard time selling a higher end wine under the Gallo name--they do make some very nice wines--Gallo Sonoma for eg. Most wines from Australia are made by a handful of companies--it is a fact of life that once small operations are sold to larger conglomerates as entrepreneurs and families "cash out." Part of a cycle--as some cash out, others start new small family ventures and so on. Some very fine products are made by big companies--Maytag Blue cheese is an example. The key question is-do large companies "tinker" with the products they take over? Maybe the best example (non wine) is Haagen Dasz ice cream--I have been waiting for this product to be 'ruined" by the mega companies that have been buying and selling this once "artisinal effort"--so far, to my amazement--it has not been "tinkered" with.

Thanks all! I am ready to "hit the streets"--some good suggestions. I heave read that some places only carry Cotechino atround the holidays. I used to get a good version at Citarella but this year they a version in a box that i believe was "preserved." --I was tempted to try it but it wasn't cheap and.... I also tried on line following some recommendations by David Rosengarden's newsletter but had no luck. I have read that cotechino, being very perishable is not available on line (at least I haven't found it there). I will try Faicco's and DiPalo --I am also excited to visit Biallese--I did not know about these folks previous to the thread here.--cotechino or not-this looks like a wonderful operation--I love good sausages of any type. I am mildly suprised that cotechino is not more popular here--though a number of restaurants serve it--and several cookbooks have recipes for it. My guess is--it is a fresh sausage (or should be) thus perishable also must be cooked. I have tried the recipe in Marcella hazan's book--simmered in milk--with great success and a good friend of mine who is Northern Italian, slices it and grills it then drizzles balsamic vinegar over the slices and serves with shards of parmesan--this is absolutely fantastic! The grillling seems to intensify the delicate pork flavors.--I recommend this. He also serves grilled cotechino over polenta--also good.

I loved the "Underground Gourmet" Ed Levine would be the person to do an updated version--maybe Eric Asimov. Arthur Schwartz has a great book out about New York Food. I miss him on food talk--he may be the ultimate authority on New York food scene. Remember the Cattleman and their "wagons" plying the streets around Times Square? also all the "chains"--Nedicks, Childs Pancake House, Orange Julius, Krums (spelleing),and maybe best of all the "automat!"

Keeping in mind that mere assertion does not constitute evidence, what scientific evidence can you bring to the table to support this claim? Also, isn't it possible that SARS hasn't become a pandemic because of quarantines, travel restrictions, etc.? ← The scientific evidence--the odds, the numbers. Yes, it is reasonable to assert that measures taken helped--even the WHO notes that SARs was held in check, in part, due to methods that are hundreds of years old. (at the source of the breakouts)--the fact is that doctors and hospitals did what they are supposed to do. I also believe that it is reasonable to assert that much the reporting in the media on SAR's was not based upon facts and good evidence and perspective. I also note that Patrick in his post sums things up nicely: "The truth is nobody knows for sure what will happen." so back to the Mad Cow issue. It is good to err on the side of safety (few would argue this). But are we really being served well by dire predictions with little or no perspective and context? That is all I am noting.

I wonder if someone can help me find a good source for cotechino. I live in the Columbus Circle area. really anyplace in Manhattan or the Bronx. also Westchester. i love this simmered (per Marcella Hazan) or even grilled (with a little balsamic --ohhh myyyy! thanks

Thanks Patrick--I really enjoy reading your posts! As you point out--Bird flu has been around for 47 years. It is worth noting that if in all this time the "predicted bird flu pandemic" has not occured--it is unlikely that it ever will. That is not to say that sensible precautions and preventative should not be taken and that the situation does not require close monitoring. Not long ago--we were "warned" that SARS was the next pandemic. I would also note that there was a brief period when Ebola was hyped by the media and we were warned "it is only a matter of time..." I also recal dire predictions in the early seventies of a "nuclear freeze." Now it is global warming. Pan is correct in pointing out that there are more urgent and more real problems with water born diseases. He is also correct in noting that because these problems are not close to home we (our media) do not focus on them in proportion to their seriousness. What is needed is a press that challenges the information they and we get from all the vested interests and provides good reporting not scare tactics. People need good facts and statistics--information that can help them make sound decisions.

I have encountered this a few times. The most striking example was the 1976 BV-Georges de Latour Cabernet. I bought a case when this wine was about ten years old. There was quite a bit of variation from bottle to bottle. None was bad-but the range was from good to exellent. Some people whose opinions I respect-noted they had similar experiences with this wine. Bottle variation is probably more prevalent than the industry lets on or realizes.

sorry-Mountain house is in Sparkhill. It is very good for pizza. also a friendly bar scene. (kids are welcome here too though). The link provided by Liz Johnson is really good--I am saving it for myself. (the Journal News does a very nice job covering the restaurant/food scene) by the way--thanks to Liz--that Italian place in Old Tappan I couldn't remember the name of-- is Giulio's--good food--nice atmosphere. also in her link is Il Portico--another good Italian for lunch or dinner. In the Palisades Mall at Nyack is a Legal Sea Foods--I love to sit at the bar for lunch and have chowder and oysters on the half shell. there is also a very nice wine shop on 303 just over the border in NY--"Wine For All"--it is very small but the selection is eclectic and good--the owner Eli Hardoff really knows wine and is fun to discuss wine and food with--everytime I visit--I leave with a "new discovery." In NJ --Northvale--just south of the line on RT 303 (left onto Paris Avenue) you will find a good restaurant/ saloon --"Hennesey's"--good burgers etc also live music--owned by Jill Hennessey (the actress) and next door is the exterior of "Stuckeybowl" from the late TV show "ED."

Boy is all this confusing!!!! or what? the fact remains that the number of cases of both infected animals and more importantly humans getting the disease from BSE is miniscule! between this and bird flu.... by the way, I believe that more people get sick from eating unwashed vegetables that from either BSE or bird flu. " There is a vast difference between getting sick from unwashed vegs, and dying a slow, raging death from BSE, ten years later. But both diseases are preventable. ← I think Patrick S handled this very well in his post. I recommend that folks go to the CDC web site and look at the statistics and other facts about this issue. My real problem is with the press who once again, are miserably failing to do their job well. As with the "bird flu" epidemic, BSE is another "event" to sell papers and gain viewers etc. What is needed is some perspective and context. Not more fear mongering.