rich

Not even close to being half about the food - somewhere around 1/3 at best. How can anyone know if the restaurant deserves one star or not, when the reviewer failed to devote much space to the food? He even recommends four dishes in the insert, he never mentions in the body of the article. ← hmmm...I'm looking at it online...but it appears that most of the first page is not about food and most of the second is. as for recommended dishes not in the body of the article...that's true of every review and I think was true for Grimes as well. ← Got out my trusty ruler just because I wanted to check my eyesight. Here are the numbers: 13 inches to non food (entire first part and last two paragraphs), 7 1/4 inches to food and 1 inch to a wine he found that he personally has enjoyed in the past. If I include the wine as part of the food that's 61% to non food, if I don't include the wine the number rises to 66%. As for recommeded dishes in the insert, I don't say everyone needs to be mentioned, but some of the four should be since he had room for discussing his friend's eyesight and that he had a Torii Spelling sighting one night - hey, the latter makes me want to cancel my reservation at the Modern for some Spelling liasions.

Not even close to being half about the food - somewhere around 1/3 at best. How can anyone know if the restaurant deserves one star or not, when the reviewer failed to devote much space to the food? He even recommends four dishes in the insert, he never mentions in the body of the article.

Here's the note from Amazon: Order Date: August 16, 2005 Order #: 103-2130451-3895033 Recipient: Richard Schulhoff Items not yet shipped: Delivery estimate: October 28, 2005 1 of: Turning the Tables : Restaurants from the Inside Out

You got yours - that's why there's no more left. Maybe all the eGullet people ordered one and wiped out Amazon's stock.

No Sam I ordered it separately - in fact I ordered a pizza cutter (which I did need anyway) just to bring the total to $25 and get the free shipping and was informed in the same email the cutter has already been shipped.

The review today of Bette is, in my opinion, the final straw. He must resign the position and go back and hang out with Benny in Rome. The Bette review was the poorest excuse for a restaurant review in the entire history of food journalism. At least 2/3's of the article dealt with going to the place for celebrity hunting (and then he has the audacity to give it one star). In one of his first lines, he refers to his friend from Washington and "...her newly gleaming eyes...". When did he start writing reviews about eye transplants? I understand the NY Times as a whole has been trying to dummy itself down to compete with the NYC tabloids, but it's getting silly at this point. What was once a great paper has turned itself into a laughing stock among serious journalists. And now, one of the last sections of the paper that people respected (at least somewhat) is traveling the same path. It's time for Eric Asimov to become the main reviewer (if he wants) and Amanda Hesser to take a more prominent role - her Sunday article on Sous Vide was an excellent piece of reporting. If the NY Times continues much longer with the present critic in place the stars will mean absolutely nothing. In another thread someone said NY Times four stars equals a Michelin 1 or 2 stars. Under its present critic, it would be an insult to mention the NY Times stars in the same sentence as Michelin stars. Please reviewer have some respect for yourself.

Hey Steve, I just received an e-mail from Amazon. The book I ordered yesterday won't be arriving until October 28th. Are you in your second printing already? The note said that's when a new shipment is scheduled to arrive. Hope the royalities are piling up.

My very first kitchen was my brand new 1973 Camaro - used it to cook hot dogs by starting the engine, opening the hood and placing the franks on a piece of foil as close to V-8 as possible - then closed the hood. It took about ten minutes - but they were good - sans the grill marks. Also fried eggs the same way and served on lightly toasted bread. This was great if you were riding around the country and wanted to picnic, but didn't have a grill. Tried hamburgers once but it took almost 45 minutes to get medium - used way too much gas.

Today is the Official Book Opening Ceremony - congratulations Steve! All the best. I just ordered the book and will take you up on the signing offer. I hope you have chapter on tipping and the pratfalls of pooling in a Capitalistic society. Seriously, all the best - a remarkable achievement. I remember when I saw my first TV/Video credit and print byline - but a book!!! That's the ultimate literary achievement. Your talent and knowledge are always respected.

That would be interesting to know, but I think Keller will leave that aspect to his personal determination. What I hope happens is that the people who do get the extra bucks, get to keep it as they do in Chez Panisse. At least it allows for some method of reward for going that extra mile and taking some extra initiative. However, I still think there will be less personal "tipping" than usual because of the service charge and there would be more if the charge was built-in. There would also be more if the service charge was 17%, but that's for another thread. The 19% at FL seems like a strange number, while I don't believe the 1% is significant it could pay another salary or two over the course of a year. Here's a question - what is Keller going to do with the extra CASH, people toss around at Per Se to the host/hostess, bartender, captain, wine steward, etc?. If pooling, I guess he needs to go by the honor system.

The article sheds some light on the situation, but leaves one point hanging. According to the article the waitstaff at Chez Panisse are allowed to keep whatever they make beyond the 17% and split it as they please. Keller doesn't state what will be done with the "extra" money. The article confirms that the 20% service charge is subject to tax, bringing the real charge to almost 23%, which is identical to the average tip at Per Se before the change. But I commend Keller for taking a major step toward salaried restaurant employees - today's explanation goes much further then previously thought (especially since all employees will be paid during any restaurant closure). I salute Ms. Waters even more, for providing health insurance after she raised the service charge 2% last year.

So, after eight pages of discussions and numerous opinions, some arguing, some joking, some insights, some sarcasm, it may come down to this. At the end of the year, with all the surcharges in place, will it cost more to dine at Per Se or fill up your car?

Apparently this has been a huge problem for Keller at The French Laundry -- what with the waitstaff and customers leaving in droves. ← Oh, I didn't mean the restaurant will lose customers. I actually think it will be tougher to get a table - the more you charge at the high end, the more people will come, if for nothing else, then just to say they've been. It's the build it, they will come theory of evolution. If Keller wanted to guarantee a full house for years, he should have made it a 30-35% surcharge. People would flock, just to see what it was all about. My meaning was, just to see the reaction when someone (maybe slightly less affluent) saw that service charge in print - the look could be priceless. Could possibly use it for one of those MasterCard commercials. Wow, I'm glad I ate there when it was cheap - hey, I got out of there spending under $700 for two and that included two bottles of wine and a 25% tip, gratuity, surcharge, tariff, levy, bribe or whatever. I feel blessed and honored. Now when I walk by the Time-Warner Center I just bow, respectfully genuflect and fight back the urge to kiss someone's ring...

sounds like the setup at Per Se should do this very thing. while i completely agree that BOH staff get regularly screwed, i do wonder: is a service fee the way to fix that? ← What will be interesting to watch is who takes the biggest hit with this system. On face, it appears the wait staff. But it depends what happens to the money (if any) that's left above the 20%. Will that be pooled? If you hand one person a $20, $50, does that go into the pool? What Keller has hit upon is a way to give his BOH people a raise without anything coming out of his pocket and based on the ability for the wait staff to "upsell" the wine list because that's where the big money is going to be. I want to be a fly on the wall the first time that $500 wine becomes an automatic $600 or that special bottle of champagne goes from $400 to $480; and then when the bill arrives and right there in black and white for the person to read is that $723.47 service charge. It should be great theater! But hey, if you're dining at that level, that kind of tip is just "chump" change anyway. And the chumps will be there in force to collect their winnings. I hear the first reservation has Bill Gates, Alex Rodriguez, Warren Buffet and Oprah Winfrey at the same table. They use that kind of money as toilet paper. Of course, he could have given the BOH people a raise and then just marked up his prices, but this way he saves money on all the things that have mentioned in earlier posts. And we wouldn't have had nearly as much fun during the last few days.

If that's truly the case, wine drinkers might become upset knowing they are subsidizing the food costs for non wine drinkers - and then paying an additional 20% on top the already inflated wines prices.

If that's the case, then the "personal experience" you've referred to in this thread is no more reliable than the studies you're criticizing. After all, your "experience" is based not only on what happened to you, but what you perceive to have happened to other waiters with whom you worked. I'm assuming you didn't rigorously audit their tips, but they told you what they were making, and you believed them. But if people are not completely "up-front" when speaking about cash, then why is your anecdotal experience any better than the repeatedly verified results of numerous controlled studies? For two reasons: 1) First and foremost, I know what I made. Before the change to the "15% must system" I was turning in more money in cash and credit card tips night after night than any waiter in the restaurant. And 2) I heard the complaints from others who didn't make as much after the system was changed to "15% must." I also saw the credit card tips that had to to be turned in every evening over years of time - and those couldn't be inaccurate unless the waiter convinced the customer to put a small tip on the card and give cash for the rest (not a reasonable assumption). And once the 15% rule went into affect, it didn't matter because the individual got to keep anything above the 15 number anyway. Just to note - only about 10-20% of the tips were in cash. Sure they could have been less than honest about the cash tips, but it's far more likely customers weren't completely up front about the tips they left. Everyone wants to look better in surveys and studies - simple human nature, we all do it. Reference the Kinsey report someone mentioned in a earlier post on this thread.

From now on I'm going to give my credit card to the restaurant and let them put it a service charge, tip, gratuity, bribe, etc of their choice. Let them determine the amount I should pay based on the total experience. About thirty-five years ago a baseball player named Boog Powell and his team, the Baltimore Orioles, coudn't come to a salary agreement. He signed a blank contract and said at the end of the season, the team should just put in a fair number. During the season he was paid at the previous year's rate and at the end of the season he was given an additional $50,000 - everybody was happy. This could work in restaurants. At the end of the meal, the manager would determine the food quality, service, ambiance etc. and just enter a fair monetary figure. No pressure, no hand held calculators, no tipping studies, nothing to fret about - everybody's happy.

I got married in 1979 and one night during our honeymoon week, we went to the Palace on 59th Street near the Queensborough Bridge. It was considered one of the finest and THE most expensive NYC restaurant at the time. The service charge was 23% - 15% waiter, 5% captian, 3% wine steward. I didn't leave anything extra. The final bill came to $385 in 1979 money.

Here we can only make suppositions. Your guess is as good as mine. What I expect will happen is that people who eat here regularly will talk among themselves. Journalists will help spread rumors about what's becoming the standard and tipping will, or will not re-establish itself. For all that those who wish tipping would be replaced by a fair professional salary and true dining costs reflected on the menu, I should not that some people buy their lawyers Christmas presents as well. Call it a gift, call it a tip or call it a bribe, it's ingrained. ← True, but human nature being what it is, don't you think seeing a large service charge number in print, rather than it being included in the menu/wine list price, would deter people from leaving an additional tip? Or do you think at that level, it doesn't matter and people will add more for whatever reason they may have?

I suspect their research indicates that -- in the context of the US restaurant world -- consumers will be less confused with a separately stated service charge. Picture these two checks at Per Se (dinner for 2, tax omitted intentionally): Food $350 Wine 250 Total 600 SC 120 Grand 720 or Food $420 Wine 300 Total 720 Now, the menu and bill both say service included. Do you still feel obligated to leave a meaningful "tip" because that's the way things are done in the US? What if you are a German tourist and you are used to service compris but you understand things are "different" in the US? I think the service charge is a middle road that most people will understand better. ← I think they will understand it better, but they will be less likely to leave anything extra once they see that $120 in print.

I thought I mentioned that in a very early post, but I've made so many in this thread, I might not have. I'm going to make a wild leap of faith here and say that's the reason for 20% and not 18% or 15%. My guess is (as someone else said, either Sam or Bux) the average Per Se tip is probably closer to 15% because of the high prices and some people don't give a full tip on very expensive wine. I guess the 20% (and I'm sure Keller knows) represents an increase in the average Per Se tip.

Sorry, I simply cannot resist this one. Just which one of you gentlmen was once a member of the other sex? ← Good catch - I meant generation gap. I'll go back and fix it.

I've tried NOT to be truculent, just offering an alternative view to the studies. The more I read this, the more I'm convinced this is really a generation gap issue. Steve, you're 19 years younger (I'm jealous) than me. At 19 I had already worked for a couple of years in a restaurant and at the time, service was the determining factor for better tips. On that I ask you to take my word - I don't even think they did tipping studies back then. (The age difference is also the reason why you and I have different views of Luger's) If over the years it's changed, so be it, Ill accept the studies if that makes everyone happy. It's not how I tip now or the people I go out with tip. Since they are usually around the same age, the generation gap issue is a strong possibility. I have expressed my view about supporting a complete salary system, the only two places we disagree are the studies and the money beyond the added-on or built-in (we both prefer this) service charge. You say it should be pooled because that money is determined by factors other than service, based on the studies. I say it should be kept by the individual who received it because it was earned due to good service, based on my experience. Since I haven't worked in a restaurant since 1977, I'll give in and say the pretty face gets the better tips. But I must add that I'm very glad it didn't work that way when I was a waiter!

One at a time: 1) the crowd chooses who to pay MORE (others are still getting 15-20%) after the dinner based on performance, just as the jockey who wins gets more, 2) ONE determining factor in restaurant tipping may be based on charisma because a person with great charisma is more likely to make for a more pleasant experience. As far as weather and gender - I know the studies say this is the case, but once again I don't believe it's a MAJOR factor (gender gap issue). 3) I'm not sure what you mean by three unless you're referring to race bias. If that's the case I totally disagree. If it's not, then please explain. I don't think the last part is true at all. If a waiter/waitress had great chrisma, but lacked in other basic skills, that person would not get extra consideration. If someone looked and acted great but failed to honor requests, disappeared for long periods, got the order wrong, failed to ask about drinks, etc, no trick or joke in the world would get them a better tip. And the jockeys would always want to ride a horse that can run fast over one that looked pretty. Because, at the end of the day, winning is the only the way to earn a living.

Okay Bux, I see your point. But within that abstract is the 15% rule. Yes, we have heard of people who leave 10% and Sam told us about a lawyer friend who leaves 6% (those are rare), but the common ground to start is 15% (might be higher in larger metro areas). So the wait staff knows before a party sits down they're going to get 15% unless there's a castastrophe of some sought. Now, what I'm campaigning for is the additional monies left above the norm and that's where skill, service, etc. come into play. The better waiters or the pros as you call them, know how to provide better service and if they perform up to their level of competence, then they will make more than the actor/actress who is just there to pay rent. And those pros should keep (not pool) the addtional "tips" they make because they earned it. I'm going to digress and give an analogy within the horse racing business. When I hire a jockey to ride my horse the standard rate is 10% of the purse but only if they win. Running second or third, etc. nets them less of a percentage. So it's not until after the race is finished do they know their pay scale and that's determined by their skill in getting the horse to perform at its best. Naturally, the best jockeys earn more because they win more races and are racing in the better races. And they achieve that level due to a higher skill level. Other jockeys witness this and will attempt to emulate the success of their fellow jockeys. I don't see the problem with earning more simply because you have more skill. The incentive still comes into play as a positive for both parties whether its restaurants or horse racing.