rich

Normally I would agree with that, but I served some to my brother-in-law last month and it seemed to work very well. It wasn't bad at all.

Proof, that in spite of what Leo Durocher once said, nice people do finish first. Congratulations and best of luck - bring home an Emmy!

I wasn't referring to any individual, just the NY Times in general from the food section to the business to the news. They have allowed the "paper of record" to become a shadow of its former self. That the food section has followed the news department is evidence of a system-wide failure within the editorial halls of the company. I know the current food critic from his writings (especially in Rome)and articles on other subjects. There is no doubt in my mind that he has worked for the NY Times as a writer for many years. I believe I complimented the article twice in this thread.

That would be true only if the person writing the article is a journalist. Currently at the NY Times, that word should always be used carefully. For the most part the article rang true, but it should have concentrated more on the practices (especially the water) than on a few specific restaurants. I still think the consumer has the ultimate power to purchase however.

I don't think there's anything bad to say about the place, but I think other neighborhood Italians are equal if not better in certain respects. Two places in Queens come to mind - Park Side and Sapori d'Ischia. But both have more of a southern tilt, so they're a bit different in style and presentation. It's similar to Di Fara in a sense - very good but doesn't quite match the hype.

Based on the article it could just as easily be two.

I agree. It's silly a comment to say people know how much they're going to spend. Impulse buying is an economy unto itself. I thought the article was on point, espcially with the water. I've come to believe restaurants make more money selling bottled water than any other single item. As far as paying that much money for a glass of wine, I would blame the patron more than the restaurant. And that's true with bottles as well. If a restaurant's wine list is grossly overpriced, drink water (not bottled). The restaurant will eventually get the message. It's no secret why Landmarc sells more wine per capita than any other restaurant in the city. And in the long run, they probably make more gross profit on wine as well.

That's very interesting. Unless his "alternate" menu is very creative, he will get bored in a hurry. ML doing steak is like Jacques Pepin doing french fries.

The New York Times will finally break down and hire a restaurant critic.

The Tandoori-style Salmon at Devi - the most outstanding dish I have ever eaten.

Right, but you're begging the question aren't you? The first amendment does not apply only to journalists, it applies to all US citizens. I'm not a legal expert, so if you could point me to some case law showing that FA applies unequally to different groups of US citizens, I'll promptly eat crow. I was under the impression that it applies to everyone equally. ← We're going to deleted because this has nothing to do with the thread, but the first amendment has different applications for different groups. It covers freedom of religion. But it doesn't mean anyone can start a one-person religion and claim such a religion should enjoy some of the same constitutional guarantees afforded to "established" religions - such as priest/penitent confidentiality. Same as freedom of the press. The journalist must work for a "recognized" form of the media to enjoy certain privileges ie cameras in courtroom, revelation of sources - all of the "slippery slope" stuff. Bottom line, yes virtually every amendment affords certain rights to certain groups: women's sufferage, civil and voting rights, duly elected office holders etc, etc. We are a country of individual equals, but some professions enjoy privileges others do not. And the list of professions is long - doctors, clergy, lawyers, journalists, elected officials etc. But of course with those privileges comes additional responsibilities. To keep this somewhat on topic. A restaurant has the right to refuse anyone from taking photos, but they do not have the right to seize such photos (if taken) unless they can prove harm, slander, liable, copyright infringement etc. As far as posting such pictures on a public forum or a personnal internet blog - stay tuned, that determination will be made in the near future.

As far as freedom of the press issues, they do. Whether one agrees or not, bloggers have not been defined as journalists - yet. There have been multiple articles written about the subject to date. Some highly respected J Schools differ on whether a blogger is or isn't a journalist. It will be a hot-button issue in the near future, especially as it gets into Homeland Security concerns. This is way off the subject for photos in restaurants, so if you want to discuss this very important issue further, please PM me. Thanks.

The First Amendment covers ANY person, there is no requirement to be a journalist!! Very doubtful that this is anything the Supreme Court would get involved with. Besides, a blogger is a type of journalist, anyway... ← The courts have traditionally given journalists more latitude than individuals and have recognized, and in some cases, specifically defined the unique privledges of the fourth estate. For instance, cameras in the court room (when allowed) are limited to credentialed journalists. It has never been taken to mean or interpreted that members of the general public can bring in cameras. As far a blogger being a "type of journalist," your language proves the point. Right now it's a gray area and I believe it will eventually be a Supreme Court case.

I agree with that totally. I haven't deluded myself into thinking the star system will ever disappear, but it's fun to rail against the system every once in a while. I was shocked the NY Post dropped the stars. But I understand they will probably return one day. Everyone enjoys rankings, but champions win on the playing field.

Journalists have the first amendment to protect them. A personal blog is not covered as of yet, but expect an eventual Supreme Court case. However, even journalists must abide by a posted "no photography" sign in a busines setting. However, as was mentioned in a earlier post, if they are able to sneak a camera in and publish the photos, they should be able to prove their points. If not lawsuits may follow.

Yes, it's an excellent point. The stars do eclipse the prose, so let's snuff them out.

I think that would be true as well, but how often are two people's tastes that similar? And then there's the question (at least with the Times) of having current stars awarded by many different critics.

Bux, in a perfect modern-day world the star system (3, 4, 5 or 10) would still only work in vacuum. The current system needs to address the lifstyle-changes of the last 30 years. While Zagat has its faults, the three-tiered breakdown is an important step in that direction. I don't believe the system has problems because the public believes their tastes are the standard, but rather because of a general mistrust in the media. Cuozzo makes an excellent point in dumping the star system. He says it's worthless because restaurants change and re-invent themselves so quickly. They must in order to survive or because of key personnel changes. How many times have you gone to a restaurant and found it's very different then your review of choice? I know it's happended to me. A three-star restaurant in February may be a one-star place in April or vice versa. Now granted, a prose review will be just as obsolete, but at least the restaurant won't live forever (or until some future review) in the "wrong star" category. I agree we are a society of "rankers." We like to know whose best, whose worst and we live in a world of "top tens," "top twenty-fives," and top "one hundreds." But that's just numbers game we as society enjoy playing. The star system as we know it, is confusing, misleading and yes, archaic. It's a product of a different era. It's a Univac in a day of lap tops.

I have lived by this rule all of my life: never drink alcohol until the sun sets in some part of the world. Of course you need to invest in one of those world-wide 24-hour clocks.

Blot it my be, but it's reality. When I went to Per Se (and I did unfortunately wear a tie), I had a problem with ambiance. Everyone, including the wait staff, was speaking in hushed tones. I was getting ready to bow or genuflect. To this day, I don't know why everyone was whispering. Now, I don't want the noise level to be that of Yankee Stadium during the World Series. But I don't want to eat in an atmosphere resembling St. Patrick's Cathedral during Good Friday services either. The food was still terrific, but it wasn't the most comfortable night I ever experienced.

I need to follow up on my previous post with an example. In 1979, Parioli Romanissimo (since closed) was one of the top Italian spots in NYC. I took my wife there and was dressed in a sport jacket, trousers and dress shirt with no tie. Management informed me I coudn't be seated without a tie and then proceeded to give me an ascot to wear. The food was excellent, but I was uncomfortable. I don't wear ascots and only wear ties to work. I don't enjoy wearing them to dinner. At dinner, I want to be relaxed and enjoy my meal and wine and for me a tie or ascot negates comfort. Bottom line, I never retured to Parioli because, in spite of great food, I wasn't comfortable. I guess under the current NY Times et al guidelines, Parioli wouldn't qualify for four stars (if I was the critic) no matter how great the food.

That's an extreme example and the answer is obviously no. But would a diner enjoy Keller's food as much in a Blue Hill or WD-50 setting? I think the answer is some may enjoy it more. A number of people don't want to be pampered in the manner that Per Se and other places do. Some are just not comfortable in that setting. Those same people may enjoy a more relaxed setting, maybe more comfortable attire etc. Personally, I would. And that would make my meal more enjoyable. Following that thought process, could a critic deduct stars because a place is too formal for her/his liking? Well, I guess they could since ambiance is currently part of the overall rating. Just as the NY Times current critic seemed to deduct Babbo a star for rock music et al as part of an ambiance issue. I would enjoy reading a star being deducting because the critic was pampered too much and the service was much too formal and the music too soft and the setting wasn't relaxed.

Welcome Life is a caberet - come to the caberet. Come hear the band, come drink the wine. Come blow your horn, start celebrating. Right this way, your table's waiting. But, please no photography.

Bux, I agree and have stated that numerous times over the past three years. In believe I started a thread about four-star food in moderate surroundings at one point. But don't you believe that this is why the star system has become archaic? I'll use my favorite restaurant choice here. In my mind the Tasting Room serves top-level food is what may be called uncomfortable surroundings. Don't you believe this is a major factor why its not ranked higher? Compared to the Tasting Room, Blue Hill (which I believe serves top-level food) is a palace. I maintain we don't need a star system, but for those who enjoy the "fun" of ranking, then at least revamp it to reflect the current restaurant climate

Now that 2005 has offcially come to an end and I reviewed some records here is what I've come up with: Overrated: 1. Le Bernardin - simply not as good as most 2005 reviews stated. I think a good PR firm is at work here. 2. Il Mulino - was sponsored at this place in the early part of the year, hadn't been there in ten years. Why this grossly overpriced Italian gets the reviews and keeps its following is one of the world's great mysteries. Could be a special on the History Channel. 3. DiFara Pizza - a late visit (12/30) and addition (in fact, knocked the perennial entry, Peter Luger's off the list). Very good pizza, but not nearly worth a special trip. After thinking about this, I think the draw is watching Mr. DeMarco perform his one-man pizza show. There are many places in the city serving this quality. Haven't figured out why people refer to this as the holy grail of pizza. Underrated: 1. Landmarc - One of the best values in the city and serves top-notch food with an exceptional wine list. Some places just fly under the radar and this is one. Thankfully, it doesn't get more press or you would never be able to get a table. As Yogi Berra once said, "...the place is too crowded, no one goes there anymore." 2. Mesa Grill - It's very hard to say a Bobby Flay restaurant is underrated, but this one is. Still serving some of the best southwest cuisine in captivity, Mesa Grill doesn't get respect from the foodies or the press. I don't know why, they serve great food at very fair prices, have a great bar and a very nice and reasonably priced wine list. Arguably serves the best brunch in Manhattan (Saturday and Sunday). 3. Aquavit - Maintained high level in new digs. Year in, year out this landmark serves some of the top quality dishes in NYC, yet still manages to avoid the hype given to others. You don't get more consistent food. The problem may stem from a lack of spectacular and showy dishes.