rich

I'm not quite sure everyone shares your definition of "over rated." I think the standard interpretation of "over rated" would be "significantly not as good as it is commonly held to be." In your Landmarc example, for example, it sounds like it would be over priced but perhaps not over rated. Similarly, if Tasting Room eliminated its wonderful wine list or if L'impero's food preparation slipped, these places would only be over rated if the generally accepted perception of their quality remained the same. This is the point that Steven makes upthread: Before you decide that a place is over rated, you have to have some understanding of where it is commonly understood to be "rated" in the first place. Further, ErinB makes a good point in that you should have an understanding of the population that is doing the "rating." Are we talking about places that are eGullet favorites or that are popular with tourists and businesspeople? Beyond that, I think you have to take personal preference into account, because there may be a restaurant that is not personally to your taste but which nevertheless achieves at a high level and deserves its good reputation. ← I agree Sam, but if those things occurred to those places I mentioned, then they would be over-rated when compared to their previous performances. For example, I think Luger's is over-rated because it was once the best (by far) and now it's only one of the best. Yet (in my opinion), the majority of people and critics still believe it out-performs all other steak houses. So if I go to Landmarc tonight and the price of the bone marrow is now $25 and my favorite bottle of wine is now $50 instead of $28 then it becomes over-rated becuase it's not the "go to" place anymore. It's merely "one of." But it still has its old reputation by most accounts. Now granted places can be over-rated because someone perceives they're not as good as commonly held. Such is the case with Daniel (for me), where on both occasions it was disappointing, so I've never known it to be anything else.

Did anyone notice that the NY Times chief food critic made yet another cardiovascular reference in today's review? That's the 13th time since he took over. I think his sister/brother must be a heart specialist and he's trying to drum-up some extra business.

Analogies will always get me in trouble. It's also likely that although being a chef is akin to being a composer, the chef may be more like a performing artist. That's especially true where his finest skills may elude the casual diner/listener but impress his peers. As I've also been a great fan of minimalism in the arts, we're not going to find much common ground in analogies of cuisine to music or art. I suppose it gets back to the nature of the "problem" and whether that's a personal fault or universal criticism. My problem with great restaurants is that they're expensive. Nevertheless, my problem doesn't in any way speak to the question of whether they are over rated or not. In fact, whether a restaurant appeals to me or not, may have little to do with how it should be rated, just as how it is rated may not have much to do with whether the restaurant satisfies me. I will admit to a curiosity about any highly rated restaurant and have been known to pay a high price to eat in a restaurant that I suspect will not please me. I would not argue with anyone who called my hobby a vice. On the other hand, the risk is quite saner than say, skydiving, at least in my mind. I do remember times when a disappointing meal at any price was bitterly frustrating. At that stage in my life, I suppose it would have been a real vice to have had an obsession with fine restaurants. I may have gone without a new TV or furniture, but I never bet the baby's milk money on an expensive meal. My point here is just to say that taste is very subjective. No restaurant is over rated to the person doing the rating and all restaurants are going to be over rated to someone. Zagat is living proof that my taste is not a popular one, and I've seen the restaurants I most admire and respect, trashed in this thread and restaurants I think of as second tier at best, highly touted. The value of the posts in this thread may be limited to getting a better grasp of whose comments will be most meaningful to me in the future. Otherwise, a postive review is always more meaningful to me than a negative one. While I know few people share my tastes, I also know that if someone finds something worthwhile in a restaurant, I should be able to appreciate it for that much myself. ← Agreed Bux, but your last few sentences may shed some light on a different perspective about this thread. The five restaurants that I mentioned on top are not without merit. None of them should be considered bad restaurants, but (and here is where the money factor enters) in my opinion they don't live up to their hype and cost. I understand this is a negative, but I'm not reviewing the restaurants - just merely stating there are better vaules/choices out there for your dining dollar. If any of them were truly bad, I would not have gone back a second time (no matter who was paying). Let me describe examples. I happen to think the Tasting Room, Landmarc and L'Impero are three of Manhattan's better places to eat. However, if Landmarc raised their wine and food prices by 50-100 percent, I probably woudn't dine there and would consider it over-rated. If the Tasting Room eliminated their wonderful wine list, I wouldn't be as interested and may consider it over-rated and not worth the time. If L'impero slipped slightly in its food preparation and interesting menu choices, it would still be a "good" Italian restaurant but no longer what in once was, and I would consider it over-rated. Yes, those are negative things that occur within restaurants for various reasons. While they may not make any of those restaurants bad, it may affect the way people think about them. FG doesn't enjoy Chanterelle as much anymore because (I'm paraphrasing here) he says the menu is stuck in the past. (Correct me if I misinterpreted your views Steve). I'm sure he doesn't think it's a bad restaurant, but he would probably say it's over-rated by those (myself included) who think it's one of the better places in Manhattan.

I guess I did find another way to commend Bern's, but that wasn't my intent when I started this thread. Opinions are just that and I wanted to find out what people thought about high-priced or popular places that don't quite live up to their hype. Let's face it, most of us are on some type of entertainment budget. And with the cost of dining out ever increasing, I think it's very important to get expert views on what restaurants do not live up to their PR. I certainly don't want to over-emphasize the negative, but when you're spending $200-300+ for dinner (for two), I think you should have as much information as possible before deciding where to eat. It's very similar to the over-priced wine list thread. I read that not as a negative, but as an informative piece on what some restaurants were doing. Since I always order a bottle of wine with dinner, it's nice to know what people's experiences have been in a particular place. The same should hold true for this thread. Alone I won't influence anyone's opinion about a place (nor should I), but when a similar perspective is expressed by several, then people should at least accept the possibility. I get your point about restaurants having to be rated before being over-rated, but I think the list should go beyond the top ten in the Zagat favorite list. My list was based on the sounding board theory, ie. what restaurants I hear mentioned most by my friends and acquaintences. Obviously, I had to visit each place more than once and found my opinion to differ from the mainstream. What I find most interesting about this thread is the number of people who agree about Luger. I think this solidifies my point. While Luger isn't a bad steakhouse by any stretch of the imagination, it isn't what it was. Years ago when Luger was mentioned, people would genuflect. Today, they barely tip their hat and certainly don't place money in the collection box.

One thing I should add. I haven't noticed a significant decline in the quality of beef. In fact, the best steak I ever tasted (and they're still serving at that level) is offered at Bern's in Tampa, Florida. And I've been going there (at least once a year) since 1979.

Are you sure that doesn't have more to do with the overall decline in the quality of beef? Which steakhouses are doing a better job than Luger? ← It's not so much a question of doing a better job, but others are equal to if not better on any given night. At one point Luger was by far the best, now they're just one of.... Sparks, Post House, MarkJoseph and even S&W can give you a better steak on a given night. Though now closed, Brooklyn neighbor Gage & Tollner was doing an equal job by 1990. But PL is still better than Ben Benson, Palm, Ruth's Chris or Gallagher's. However, if you go to Long Island, several offer a better steak outright than the LI PL. Bryant & Cooper and Tellers just to name two.

I can only go by my experience at Daniel. If a restaurant (especially one at their price point) disappoints me twice, I will not give it a third try. As for Luger, that's based on going there since I was a teenager in the mid 60s. Until the mid 80s, I thought it was the best, then it started to slip. But, hey, these are just opinions - that's what makes horse racing.

We always speak about restaurant "finds," but the other category is possibly more helpful. What NYC restaurants are the most over-rated based on all the same criteria you would praise a restaurant? Since I began this topic, I'll start with my top five: 1. Peter Luger - has been living on its laurels for the last 20+ years. The people who like it now either never tried it in the 60s and 70s or have forgotten when it was the best in its category. (This doesn't include the lunch hamburger, which is still the best value in the city.) 2. Daniel - been there twice and been disappointed both times - at least it's consistent. Once ordered the frogs' legs and they were inedible - stringy, flavorless with a sauce that can only be described tumeric-colored thickened milk. And then the meal got worse from there. 3. Eleven Madison - a disappointing selection because there's really nothing wrong with the place and you want it to be better, but there's nothing that makes you want to go back either. It's very ordinary for a place that should be better and for one that garners consistently high reviews. 4. Piccola Venezia - this Queens Italian gets rave reviews and it doesn't make sense. The food is okay and the place was fine until management began reading and believing the press. At that point prices increased while quality decreased. 5. Spice Market - I don't understand the popularity of this place. It isn't comfortable, the noise level is annoying, the food misses more than it should, it's grossly overpriced and the service is lacking. Aside from that I can't find anything else wrong. It would be rated higher except some reviews express one or more of these opinions, so it shouldn't be much of a surprise.

On rye bread with some horseradish - that was my dinner last night.

My wife and I share a bottle of wine every evening with dinner (90% red). I wonder what category that is? Interestingly (I'm 54), I drink more now then I ever did as a teenager or in my early twenties. I've been drinking wine every night with dinner for the last 25-30 years. I rarely drink anything else - once in a while a beer, especially in the summer at an outdoor BBQ. If I have a scotch every two months or so, it's a lot.

Try the Algonquin - you won't be disappointed. And just think about the literary discussions that took place there. You don't even need someone else to have an interesting conversation.

Foam will subside and be taken over by flecks. $2 Chuck will end and be replaced by $1 Louie. The marketing campaign will focus on a free lifetime membership to WA (winos anonymous). Tall food will return, but it will be served in waffle cones placed in wire holders, thus eliminatting the need for any type of flatware. The NY Times will abandon its four-star rating system and replace it with a multi-layered 16 level "toque" system, where each restaurant will be judged solely on its ability to produce menu items with un-pronounceable names. The current NY Times chief food critic will resign in 2006 to become the PR Director for the Fashion Institute of Technology, where his first act will to be to ban all hard rock music from the sewing classes. The need for two-month in-advance reservations at Per Se will be eliminated in 2007. From then on, a deposit of $750 to cover to the first two courses of a 38.75- course tasting menu will be required 22.37 months in advance. However, if you opt for the 4x3 tasting menu, you will need to supply the restaurant with four valid forms of photo identification and indicate your next three kins. Finally, at the end of 2008, Steven Shaw will resign from eGullet to become the CEO of a new on-line bikini wax firm for men. His first order of buisiness will be to improve the company's website by including interactive waxing demonstrations.

Where is Parkside? Not in Zagat. ← Actually the Parkside I'm referring to is in Corona, Queens. It's spelled as two words in the latest edition of Zagat - page 168 of the 2005 NYC guide. Great southern-style Italian and they don't use butter in their "Sunday Gravy!" Sorry, couldn't resist.

I agree with FG on Pierre au Tunnel, but I would also add La Luncheonette, La Petite Auberge and the very, very old standby Le Boeuf a la Mode. The latter is probably a little more expensive than the others, but still very reasonable. If you want take a short trip to Long Island City try Tournesol.

Doc, I guess that's a family-to family thing. We just referred to it as gravy, without meat was called marinara. The word stood alone - no sauce or gravy attached. As far as butter, it just wasn't used with tomatoes - even when my mother made Chritmas Eve Gravy (with baccala). Just for the record that's one of my favorites.

I recall a dish - not sure where it is right now - that cooks anchovies in butter, then adds evoo some basil, parsley, white wine and chopped onions. I will look it up tonight.

The butter areas, which also tend to be the fresh pasta areas. Bologna has Burro e Oro, for example. I wouldn't want a tomato and evoo sauce on tagliatelle. Interesting. It proves you're never too old to learn something. Wait until I tell my mother. At 76, she'll probably never try it. In fact, when I make my next batch of gravy I'll think about using butter, but I'm sure I won't be able. I will, however, use it is a cold pan sauce - maybe a puttanesca?

Actually, I've read most of her books and agree with her recipes except the red gravy/butter concoctions. But I believe she has Americanized most of her recipes -don't read into that as being a bad thing. It's very similar to what Julia Child did with French recipes. My family is/was from the Naples/Bari area and I have never seen or heard of any of them or their friends using butter in a tomato gravy. Yes, butter is used in many of their recipes, but not that one. I have not spent time in Italy cooking myself, but have watched relatives both here and there cook. I've spoken to several about the butter aspect when I first learned some NYC restaurants were doing that. Unanimously, I was told it wasn't done with red (tomato) gravy. In your experience, what areas of Italy use butter in red/tomato gravy?

It make such an amazing sauce! The recipe is from a Marcella Hazan cookbook. ← I'm sure it tastes fine and I should have guessed it was a Hazan recipe. However, she doesn't cook real Italian, at least in my opinion. She's more of an American-Italian icon.

If it doesn't say DOP on the label it isn't. That does not mean that they aren't good tomatoes, but true DOP San Marzanos are at least a step up from most of the canned competition and even compare favorably to most fresh tomatoes. ← Only recently did learn that D.O.P. on the can means it's the real thing. I had always wondered why the San Marzanos I was buying weren't inspiring. I bought some fake San Marzanos -- "packed in San Marzano" -- at Fairway the other day. They were $1.67 a can -- I'll report on them once I try them. I often use Scalfani crushed tomatoes, which if you add enough butter taste pretty good. ← Why on earth would you add butter to Italian gravy? The only places that do this are those commercial restaurants that cater to the uninformed such as the Don Peppe's and the clones - La Parma, etc.

If you mean another full review by the Times, I don't think so. Bruni has covered Luger's twice in less than a year, if you count the praise it received in the Wolfgang's review. Frank is probably done with Luger's for the time being. ← I hope you're right OA. Reviewing Luger again is similar to people who ride the Long Island Railroad everyday - it's boring but serves a purpose of transporting you to where you really want to go.

I'm sure there's a Cru thread, but several searches didn't turn up any. If it does exist, please combine. My wife and I had dinner there last evening for our anniversary. After looking at the menu, we decided to have the five-course tasting menu ($78) with one change. We opted for a cheese course instead of a chocolate cake dessert. They were very accommodating. The food was outstanding, highlighted by chicken breast baked in buttermilk. It was so moist and tender I thought it was prepared sous vide. The waitress said she heard that comment on many occasion. There were four amuse "courses" before dinner - each more flavorful then the next. The best was a beet cone cracker filled with beet mousse - and I'm not a beet fan. I decided not to add the wine pairings with the food but went on my own. I started with a half-bottle of Austrian wine. The name/producer escapes me now, but the predominant grape was chenin blanc - made very dry and crisp. An outstanding wine. Next I had a 1999 Mauritson Zinfandel - Sonoma, Dry Creek. I chose this because at six years old, I knew it wouldn't overwhelm the food. It was perfect and served at cool castle temperature - I was impressed. After the cheese, we tried two glasses of dessert wine - a German auslese and an Italian moscato. Both had terrific fruit, subtle, yet distinct tones of apricots and, most importantly, were not cloying. After tax and tip - $360. Certainly a place to visit again. Bottom line - food was outstanding; wine list incredible with very low pricing. One thing about the service - it was professional with little interaction or banter unless you wanted. However, I think the oldest staff person was about 11. Post merged by jogoode

Oh no! I just realized something - another full review of Luger's is in the making. Please not again, this place gets reviewed as often as I change my socks ( and I cleaned that up).

At last, the current NY Times critic and I totally agree on something - Luger's kitchen has become careless and lazy. As I have said so many times in other posts, this place is not what it was in the 60's, 70's and early 80's. People who like it now, should have been there then.

Okay - I'm just about open to anything, but eating horse meat is totally out of the question. Horses should be ridden or raced, not killed for dog food or human consumption. I own a few thoroughbreds that I race in Aqueduct, Belmont, Saratoga etc. I could never eat horse meat and in my opinion nor should anyone else. These are beautiful, intelligent animals that should not be part of the food chain - ride a horse don't eat it. PS - This is why I nver sell my retired thoroughbreds. I give them away to farms as pleasure horses or donate them to police departments.