rich

When throwing a dinner party (and I do one once a week), what's you favorite number of guests? Including myself and my wife, I feel most comfortable with six. It seems things go very smoothly. I can plate all the dishes as my wife delivers them to the table, the soup stays hot as I serve each one and four bottles (two white, two red) of wine work perfectly. Eight would be my next choice, but I hate cooking for four. With four the conversation appears to wane when I'm serving and when we're cleaning the table. The number of wine bottles never is right and it's more difficult to pace the courses.

What has been the biggest change in the way you cook over the last 10 - 15 years? For me it has been salt, both the amount and type I use in cooking. When I started serious cooking at home about 25 years ago, I rarely used salt and when I did it was just plain table salt (mostly on potatoes). Today, I use salt more liberally to bring out the flavor in food and have about five different types from kosher to sea to gray etc. In fact, the only time I use table salt is to assist in removing red wine stains from the carpet. My every day salt of choice is Morton's Coarse Kosher - the best everyday salt I ever came across. (edited by Malawry with author's permission to open topic beyond amateurs)

The point of the number of errors or failures is meaningless unless the reviewer were to give a more substantive overview of the food. With only five of the 19 paragraphs devoted to food, I don't think any meaningful discussion can take place regarding the amount or percentage of food he found flawed. The NY Times reviewer truly needs to redefine his methodology.

I have eaten at ADNY. I think the price was the consideration that cost it a star. It is so expensive that you do have to stop and think what about it is so much better than say JG. ← That may be true, but then explain the Masa review. Certainly, fish that needs little or no preparation shouldn't cost as much as it does. Said reviewer didn't seem to mind the price point there.

My wife and I went there again two weeks ago - Saturday at Sideberns and Sunday at Bern's. Both were as good as ever. The Delmonico cut is still the best steak I've ever tasted. The dim-sim appetizers at Sideberns were extraordinary as was the fish I ordered. I forget the name right now, but it was indigenous to Hawaii. When I'm home I'll look at the menu and post the name. It was something like aho pu.

I'll repeat what I just said above. It makes no sense to compare star ratings across genres. There is nothing strange about Bruni's rating; whether you agree with it or not is another thing altogether. He is working within the star system and if he feels a four-star restaurant underperforms, then he's obligated to dock stars. If a three-star restaurant lives up to expectations, he's obligated to give it three stars. But if the reader is at all informed, he or she can see that these two restaurants -- with the same star rating -- are not directly comparable. ← I was just being sarcastic. My main observation is that the reviewer doesn't write about food as much as he should - especially when the review is somewhat negative. Said individual writes more about ambiance, his friends, cardiovascular problems, his expected life span, rock music, et al.

That very well may be true. I hear he will re-review Sri if it gets a wine list - that will make it eligible for four stars. Imagine if ADNY's bathroom wasn't fixed on his last visit - it would have wound up with the same rating as Sri.

Whether the review was fair in its final assessment is certainly a debatable point. But what seems totally unfair to the restaurant is that of the 19 written paragraphs, only five were dedicated to food. The other 14 dwelled on the misadventures in the life of the reviewer. Is this any way to assure readers that the ultimate rating of ADNY is credible? When Doc wrote his ADNY review, the non-food aspects covered about 20-25 percent. The food and his descriptions were more important than the ambiance - as it should be. ADNY (whether it's two, three or four stars), as all restaurants, deserves to be judged more by its food than anything else. If a restaurant such as ADNY is willing to go the extra steps of acquiring top of the line ingredients, then more than half of a review should be devoted to such. This last thought may belong in the "Beyond" thread, but I'll say it here because I believe it's relevant at this point. It seems the NY Times reviewer writes more about ambiance issues when writing a "negative" review (as he did with Bouley - but there he got personal as well). It appears that has become his methodology of justification.

True, but the real neighborhood soda fountain/candy store/luncheonette has virtually disappeared. My parents' place had a juke box in the back and there was always a bunch of teenagers (I thought they were older and wiser then) hanging in the rear of the store. Lime Rickey's, Milk Shakes or Malteds with eggs were big as were banana spilts, ice cream sodas and Campbells canned soups - they had small cans and a special machine that heated the soup quickly. Aside from my job as soda jerk, it was my responsibility to "put together" the Sunday newspapers on Saturday. The store sold over 500 copies of the Sunday Daily News, about 200 of the Mirror, some 50 NY Times and 25 Herald Tribunes - also some Il Progresso (the Italian paper) and a few Journal Americans and a bunch of the Long Island City Star Journals. It took about 3 hours on Saturday to put these together. I tried to get in by 6am so I was finished by 9am - then it was off to play ball. The teenagers eventually formed a club - the RK Angels (girls) and the RK Devils (boys). I wasn't allowed membership because I was too young. Those type of stores are just about gone - I don't know of any that exist today.

I think Egg Creams disappeared because soda fountains (the way we knew them in the 50's and 60's) disappeared. To add a line about my above post - I also made Vanilla, Strawberry and UGH! Root Beer Egg Creams. Never did care for the root beer or sasparilla, but some did.

My parents owned a luncheonette (Red & Kitty's) in Long Island City during the late 50's and early 60's. I began working there when I was nine and soon became the Egg Cream King - this was before there was a Corona Ice King. People would come from all over the area to have egg creams I made. Even the priests from St. Patrick's Church (two blocks away) would bring the bishop when he came to the parish - hey, it got me to be named head altar boy when I was in seventh grade. I didn't use condensed milk but had two secrets to ensure a frothy, cream top. First never, ever, never, ever, never add the chocolate syrup first. This creates a glob at the bottom of the glass that will guarantee a smaller "head" at the top. The syrup should be added last - after the milk and the seltzer in that order. After the syrup was added, it was given a vigourous stir and then the final touch. You had to push the seltzer lever backward to create a powerful thin stream - the head would be perfect and the taste clean and chocolate-ty with no ugly glob on the bottom. To top it off, I dipped a salted pretzel rod in the glass.

Are you referring to A&C Supermarket or is it another?

And who says one hand doesn't wash the other? - and together they could certainly wash more than the face.

Here are five that fit most of the criteria. Listed in no particular order, I would gladly visit one every night of the week. And since all serve a different type and style of cuisine, the palate would never tire. Mesa Grill - flies under the radar unlike its owner, and has served top quality, consistent food for years. Parkside - the best kept secret in NYC. For more years than I care to remember, the best (without question) Italian in the city. Outstanding value for both food and wine. Serves the best poultry dish in captivity - Chicken Provencal. I think it's $15. Henry's End - for more than 25 years this Brooklyn eatery has dished up some of the best game and fish selections the city has to offer. Rarely gets noticed, yet is packed night after night. Tasting Room - Should fly with the best, but doesn't get the notices others of lesser quality attract. Pound for the pound one of the the top five wine lists in the city. It's impossible to have a bad meal. Chanterelle - the most exquisite dining room Manhattan has to offer. Doesn't get the press that most of the other big boys do, but serves better, more consistent food. Should be four stars (if you believe in that kind of thing). The only restaurant that outperforms Per Se or ADNY course after course; and their menu choices change more often.

I agree with you Rocks. I've long advocated for the removal of "stars." But I don't need to press my point anymore. Frank Bruni is doing it for me every week and making a much better argument than I ever could.

Can "middlebrow" serve four-star food or is that reserved for just "highbow."

One of the interesting lines of the review stated "...you can't take the four stars out of the chef...". Does it mean Bruni deducted two stars for service and ambiance? The review reads similar to the Babbo disertation in that he found very little fault with the food, but problems in the inedible areas. Bruni obviously criticizes the service, but comes down harder on the restaurant layout. Maybe he deducted a star for each.

Didn't Uncle Jack's recently open a Manhattan version?

Based on your discussions of the New York Times star system, your judgment of what constitutes a 4-star restaurant or 4-star meal clearly seems to be at variance with the judgments of most if not all other participants in such discussions, and I think it's fair to say that if it were up to you, many more restaurants would be awarded 4 stars (though your ultimate preference is for stars to be eliminated). So as this thread continues, it might be expected that you would consider it more likely for home cooks to be able to achieve a 4-star level than other participants would. It's very possible that in this discussion, though everyone is agreeing on using the term "four-star," the term doesn't mean the same thing to you as it does to most of the rest of the participants, thereby making this thread somewhat of an apples vs. oranges argument, though an interesting one, nevertheless. ← Actually, I think there should be fewer four-star restaurants then already exist, based on the NY Times formula. In fact, I can only think of two, possibly three. I think there are several (I'm guessing six-eight) that I would give four stars based on food and eliminating the ambiance/service issues because those aren't important to me. But like Tommy, I think wine is nescessary for the four-star meal. That's just one reason why Sri shouldn't have been reviewed in the primary column.

Not only the broiler, but pounds and pounds of the butter they use to get "that taste" - similar to what some very popular Italian places do to their red gravy.

It's not the produce. These guys are just better cooks than we are. A reasonable facsimile of 4-star cooking is not 4-star cooking. It may be great stuff, but it's not 4-star. ← I'm not sure I would use the term "better," especially if someone cooks at home extensively. I think the biggest difference and the one area that separates the pro from the rest of us is creativity. If you're a professional chef it's an everyday thing and you have the time to experiment that the amateur doesn't. ← Oh, c'mon. I have as big an ego as any home cook, anywhere, but to pretend that I can pull off a full meal -- not one course and some cheese, but a full meal -- as well as the handful of humans of the hundreds of thousands who devote their professional lives to cooking that earn 4 stars (3 in France) is beyond me even after a couple of glasses of wine and a good meal. This is like all the people who call into sports radio claiming to be better than the coach of their home team. They're not, we're not. ← Having played baseball professionally, the difference between cooking and sports (professionally) is a chasm as wide as the Grand Canyon because there are just some things you can't teach - like hitting or throwing a 95mph fastball. In cooking, techniques can be taught, and creativity comes with time, talent and a keen mind. And these can improve over time. Maybe the difference over "better" and "creative" is just semantics. I've had meals cooked by home chefs that I would consider 4-star and also had meals that I would give a zero. If you're willing to put in the time, effort, creativity and money, I believe it can be done. Having a few connections in the food business wouldn't hurt either.

It's not the produce. These guys are just better cooks than we are. A reasonable facsimile of 4-star cooking is not 4-star cooking. It may be great stuff, but it's not 4-star. ← I'm not sure I would use the term "better," especially if someone cooks at home extensively. I think the biggest difference and the one area that separates the pro from the rest of us is creativity. If you're a professional chef it's an everyday thing and you have the time to experiment that the amateur doesn't.

We have been discussing four-star food on the New York board and the possibilty of restaurants serving four-star food without being a four-star restaurant. Several members have stated what makes a four star restaurant - highest quality ingredients, labor intensive preparation, creativity and top wine list have been mentioned as necessary for four-star food. (For the purpose of this discussion, let's eliminate the ambiance/service issues.) The question is can a home cook of some expertise, create a four-star meal if the above criteria was met? I think it can be done and I think it can be done on a fairly consistent basis, especially now that top quality ingredients are more readily available.

My guess is if you describe soup as a "song of joy," you either like the restaurant or you're on some sought of chemical additive.

Yeah, but this is not the Rich star system. This is the New York Times star system. Under the classic NYT star system, to achieve 4 stars, you have to serve for the most part luxury ingredients. We're talking the highest grade meats and vegetables, prepared using classic haute cuisine technique, in a highly labor intensive fashion. And on top of that, the dishes have to offer some aspect of creativity or unique contribution to the cuisine. Also as others have said, the restaurant must serve wine and other alcohol, and have a respectable list of offerings. While Sri may be the best Thai restaurant in the NY metro area, it doesn't fit any of those parameters. ← For the most part I agree. And for some of those same reasons, is why it shouldn't have been reviewed in the primary review section. For the record (once again), I never, ever sugested that Sri is a four-star restaurant. I find it so hard to believe that people have forgotten how to read and understand. It must be a negative by-product of modern technology in this "supposed age of information". Too much scanning = too little understanding.