rich

But the RTR isn't supposed to serve great food. It's supposed to serve top quality caviar, some blini, a bit of borscht, some rubbery chicken kiev and some great champagne. No one should go there and order burgundy with carpaccio and truffles. The RTR is a landmark and a room with a view (of itself). It would be like going to Tavern on the Green or the Rainbow Room or the 21 Club and expecting great food. That's not why you go to those places. I don't hink the Times review will hurt business. Tourists and well-heeled caviar lovers will allow it to continue for a couple of years. After that the owners will revamp and come up with another twist. Whether Robins stays is moot. He really doesn't belong there anyway.

I just thought of something. If the Times did separate its ratings we wouldn't be having this debate and we wouldn't be having so much fun. So maybe it's a good thing they don't. I can't tell if he thought the food was two or three, but it's clear he deducted something for the service and wine fiasco. I can't imagine him deducting two full stars for that however - hell he only took away one from ADNY for non-working bathrooms. And that could get a lot uglier than trying to up-sell wine. It was probably a very strong two and if the service was flawless that would have elevated it to three. But since it was a borderline three he made it a very strong one - maybe to teach them a lesson - don't mess with my Burgundy. But he's sure laughing at all this. We keep talking about him and the Times keeps paying him, so I guess he's doing something right.

As I started this, I'm saying logic dictates you're correct. I'm just trying to come up with some theory why he was dissed. I don't buy he wasn't recognized. Everyone in the restaurant industry knows who the Times critic is and what he looks like (even I know what he looks like) - especially at the level RTR is attempting to operate. And they knew as a new place he would be showing up. Maybe he was in drag.

I don't disagree with the theory, but it has not proved flawless. The Biltmore got three stars and closed - you could get a reservation anytime while it was open. Cru has three stars and reservations are easy to come by. Blue Hill has three - reservations are generally easy. I'm sure there are others. Yet Landmarc has one - try a get a seat after 7pm (even on a Monday). It think your statement was more true with other reviewers. The current person's rep is such that even the general public doesn't pay attention much - and they're always the last to know. And no, RTR was "gone" long before the Grimes review - it was a tourist trap and everyone knew it. But is was like Luchows toward the end - it was a place to go to look at a world that no longer existed.

Logic says to agree with that, but these aren't logical times in the restaurant world. One major restaurant goes out of its way to publicly call for four stars - then gets overall mediocre reviews; a place opens with a grossly over-priced wine list, is forced to reduce the prices and then the chef is run out of town; a seemingly no brainer of a steak house opens with one of the hottest and most successful chefs at the helm in a prestigious location and closes within 6-7 months; a long-standing European survey publication takes on NYC and is met with litttle more than indifference. An up and coming chef writes a book severly critical of established, widely successful chefs; the biggest, most successful TV food personality has never worked in a restaurant or been formally trained (that's not a criticism, just stating the facts); a respected and successful high-end chef sells his reputation to Reality TV and loses everything; one of the most highly recognizable chefs stars in his own sitcom, then gets cancelled after three weeks, others hawk for low-end food chains; most consumers get restaurant information from the web and the best selling guide is not written by an expert, but is compiled from reader surveys. Finally, what was once the country's most prestigious paper and most influential food section hires a food novice as its chief restaurant critic. The person is not respected by many in the business, according to printed articles and discussion groups. So who's to say a restaurant will not take the novel, unique and controversial step of purposely giving said critic a hard time? Maybe it's their way of saying we don't need you, or care what you write about our place - kind of "sticking it to the man." Now granted it could backfire, but if anyplace could get away with it, the Russian Tea Room would be it. Their major patrons couldn't care who writes for the Times or any other publication - just bring them caviar, champagne and a few warm blinis. In fact, they could think it serves the person right for ordering such a mundance little bottle of wine - keep the peasants out. Just saying.

SE - Do you really think the Tea Room appproaches four starts in food? Your review didn't appear to rise to that level. Nathan - do you think he docked them TWO stars because of the service problems? That's a lot, I'm not sure any service error warrants a two-star docking. Normally I look at places with four-star food and little ambiance as a "find" and Nathan is right, most of the time the prices are moderate. The Tea Room would fall into and entire different category. By all the accounts the ambiance is there, but the service (at least according to the Times' critic) is severely lacking. The wine issue he described seems weird. In all my years of dining out, that has never happened. If a wine wasn't available, the steward or manager/owner would offer another at a comparable price. I have been asked to consider something at a higher price before a bottle was brought to me, but that's a totally different story. It is possible they recognized the Times critic and purposely gave him a hard time? Afterall, the Tea Room is probably critic-proof anyway and there are people who just don't like critics. Besides, as a few have mentioned, this review was too soon; and I trust SE/Nathan more than the Times regarding service/ambiance issues (food too). So far my five places for the New Year will be: Mas, Varietal, Russian Tea Room (I'll bring my own bottle of Burgundy), the "Owl" and Ramsay. I think I'll skip Robouchon based on the reviews and comments.

Yeah, and don't forget the bouncer - they would mage a great tag-team entry.

MD gets tipped, hostess/host does not. ← I almost never get tipped Seriously, what is the difference functionally or is there one? If there isn't why does a maitre 'd get tipped and a host/hostess not? ← Never got tipped Doc? Wow, if there's any group I want to keep happy it's my doctors. I always tip them - of course some of the horses don't win. A MD is dressed in a suit and tie or tux (I love women in tuxes.) The MD shows you to your table, makes sure your drink order is taken (perhaps by them) and comes back from time to time to check on things. A host/hostess is really an actor/actress between jobs, is wearing jeans and a jacket from from the local thrift shop that doesn't fit (definitely no socks or stockings), gets someone else to take you to your table and spends the rest of the night on his/her cell phone.

MD gets tipped, hostess/host does not.

You have to stop doing that SE, they will put your photo on the wall. Were you still hungry afterward?

After looking at the list, it's obvious the NY Times chief food critic is ranked the worst. If the "influence" factor is eliminated, he would need a scale of his own. And since the influence factor is because of the paper and not him, his "real" score should read 3.375, which is far lower than any other critic when using the first four factors. It's about time.

I guess the short way to say what I've been trying to say in incredibly wordy fashion is that I, myself, would find it more confusing for Sripraphai to be put in the same category as Freeman's or Via Emila than I do for Sripraphai to be put in the same category as The Modern. ← I see your point SE, but that's you or me. The general public, in my opinion, would see it differently and the Times is writing for the public, not the foodies. We're probably the last demographic profile on their list because we likely know more about a restaurant than their own critic.

Absolutely. I'm canceling my Times subscription until all the stars are eliminated. I'll even print up "extinguish the stars" flyers.

How many 120 year olds go out to dinner?

Too bad. ← Ditto. ← This argument always comes down to the unproven assertion that the stars confuse people, even though the purportedly confused people don't really exist. In fact, the system has survived for the very good reason that this thread illustrates: the ratings provoke interest and discussion, which is a boon to everyone concerned. ← I agree Marc, that the stars provoke interest and discussion (at least among the foodies like us), all we need to do is note how many looks and posts this thread has received. But I always thought the primary purpose of the star system was an attempt to intelligently rank restaurants for the general public through a specific criteria. By that measure, I don't think it's successful as it currently exists. If I'm wrong and it's primary purpose was to evoke debate and commentary among the foodies, then yes, I think it's overwhemingly successful.

Too bad.

In that sense it's like Peter Luger. The Brooklyn site is okay, but the Long Island branch is terrible.

I would have a lot more sympathy with this argument if there were actually people raising their hands, and saying, "The Times really screwed me: I visited Spicy & Tasty, thinking it was the same kind of place as The Modern. That was sure misleading!" Then we'd know this is an actual problem. You're expressing indignation on behalf of people who are absent from the discussion....and those people might not actually exist. ← Yea, I always stick up for the little guy.

I coudn't find a thread for Rosa Mexicana, except for Lincoln Center. If any of the moderators find one, feel free to merge. Truth be told, my wife and I went last evening because someone had given us a gift certificate last Christmas and it was about to expire. We hadn't been there is some 20 years (when it first opened). Well, I was very pleasantly surprised how good it was. First, we arrived at 7:15 without reservations and it was packed - both bar and restaurant. We were told it would be a 45-minute wait. After a few minutes we found a space at the bar and ordered some drinks and guacamole. The guac was served with both hard and soft chips - we ordered it spicy and it was. It was very good. We finally sat down (at about the 45-minute mark) and ordered a bottle of Snoqualmie Petite Sirah - at $24 one of the best restaurant wine values around. Appetizers were a smoked duck covered with chipotle sauce and a mushroom/cheese soft taco - served with two sauces (tomatillo & ancho). Both were very good - especially the moist, flavorful duck. Entrees were two stuffed Ancho Chiles with beef tenderloin and spices - excellent meat quality and firey spices. My wife ordered the rare Ahi Tuna - terrific quality and presented in a sushi manner. The sides were house rice and black beans - both quite tasty. The bill with tax came to $97 and my certificate was $125 - so I told the waiter to keep it. But as in Union Square a few months ago (for those of you who read the post), the real highlight was the show. Next to us sat four botox women all having a good time and to their right sat two gay men. One of the botox set was coughing and at one point one of the men said something to her about spreading germs. The lead woman, who was sitting next to the cougher, said something back. The discussion got somewaht heated. She said to the men that they shouldn't be sharing dessert because that's more dangerous than coughing. One of the men called her a c--t and asked if she knew what her husband was doing right now since she certain didn't look like the type that could satisfy him. She then got up and went over to the manager to complain about their language, but not without a parting shot. As she got up from the table she asked the man if he knew what being on the "down low" meant. If not, he should look it up. When the manager came over to the table, the two men left before he could say anything. That's what's great about NYC, you never know when you'll be treated to dinner and a show. The food was very good - I would return with or without the botox set.

If anything, I enjoy the food experience much more than the ambiance experience and have often campaigned for people to visit places where the food is of high quality but the amibiance is an issue. Saying that, I don't understand why the Times can't categorize its ratings. If Zagat can do it, then the Times can do it. The average person (not us, the foodies) will look at a list of ratings from the Times. They will see ST, Red Cat and The Modern all with two stars. The average person will think all perform at the same level - they're not going to take the time to consult other sources. Yet, all three places offer a totally different experience in food, ambiance, service, wine list etc. If that same person looked at Zagat and all three had the same food rating (whether they do or not is unimportant for this discussion), they would readily see the difference in service and ambiance. The Modern would probably top the list in those two categories followed by the Red Cat and ST. It's a simple solution and there's no reason not to make the change. Someone should call the Times and mention to the publisher and editors that this isn't 1964 anymore - and as Dorothy said to Toto - this ain't Kansas.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with giving places like ST and SRI two stars, three stars or four stars. The problem arises because the system is antiquated. The NY Times can't (I that's the word I choose to use in this instance) give The Modern and ST two stars without adding something further. It must, as many leading papers in this country already do, split its rating and award different stars for ambiance, service, wine list - or at least one of those categories. The fact that the Times has chosen to ignore the changes within the restaurant industry over the last 45 years, gives more ammunition to its critics who say the Old Gray Lady has become nothing more than old, indifferent and a second-class newspaper. They should sell the Boston Globe - that paper is credible, it doesn't fit in with their current philosophy.

That does it - at least a star will deducted by the NY Times for the paper towels (another for the bread) and if they play music he doesn't like, it's all over - probably a "satisfactory" rating. To answer someone upthread. There was/is no "closer" place than the Stork Club. You sat on each other's lap. I was nine years old the first time I went there (fall of 1959 after the theater) and my parents and I were so close it was impossible to lift a fork. But seeing Sinatra made it worth it.

I guess that would work since both have been reviewed prior. Does anyone know if this is the first time he has used the double review format with two new places? I know he's done it with restaurants that were already reviewed.

Surely he did, since PH received 1 star, and STK received zero. If that doesn't convey that one is better than the other, I don't know what does. People do tend remember the star rating, long after the actual details of the review are forgotten.[ ← Fair enough Marc, but I didn't make myself clear. Sure I think PH comes off better than STK, but by placing them together, the public may perceive neither as being very good. I could understand this thinking: well PH got a star and STK didn't, but they were both put in the same review so they're probably not much different. He certainly gave all the others (steak houses) their own column - that alone suggests the level of importance. If he ever does Luger or Sparks, I'm sure they won't be together. What's interesting is the ambiance isssue he has with STK. Again (as in Babbo) he appears totally annoyed at the music (nightclub) and noise. It's a open question whether that was the deciding factor between a star and satisfactory. I do agree with you about PH being critic-proof, so all this is probably moot.

Valid point Nathan. But look at it from another angle. Since neither received a totally positive review and that first Outback paragraph sticks out like a sore thumb in my opinion, a large number of people will come away with a negative feeling. If the reviewer was trying to put PH in a positive light compared to STK, then I don't think he achieved that goal. I know if I owned PH, I wouldn't want to share a column with a place that's received generally negative reviews. I would ask, isn't my place worth a whole review so the food could be explained in more detail? I could see it both ways, but the public (non-foodie) perception is the issue and therein lies the problem.