rich

Most food reviewers, especially Mimi Sheraton, hate Zagat's. That must mean it's a good thing - a very good thing.

Thanks. You're correct. There will be no stars, toques, diamonds or anything of that nature. I enjoy the reviews in the New Yorker (they did Stone Farms last week) and will follow their template - much to the chagrin of my editor who wants ratings. No stars in my future.

Get a corporate food sponsor and get them to give you some money!!!!

In general, the Times pays for Bruni and all his guests. This can be justified because Bruni has a taste from everybody's plate. That way, he can get a sense of the whole menu without having to visit 20 times. ( Actually, I was asking because I'm reviewing Staten Island restaurants (don't laugh) for a weekly newspaper (Staten Island Register). I had my first review published Wednesday - a french bistro named Bordeaux. I want to get a feel what other papers do with respect for paying for meals. I know the Register doesn't have the budget of the NY Times, but I think they should pay for me a guest - we're still discussing the second person.

Just a question. Does the NY Times pay for Bruni and all his guests or just him?

He doesn't usually say who it is, but the review always at least mentions his companions, and often quotes at least one of them. What's really sad is that he never mentioned me or even invited me.

Having only had one steak at Berns, it was a great cut, not expertly cooked. I guess that happens everywhere now and again. But over the last 25 years, it hasn't happed to me once. Granted, I only fly down twice a year, but that's about 50 visits. In my mind it's the steakhouse that all others should be measured against. I'm thankful I don't live in Tampa - I would just give my paycheck to Bern's.

Just received some information from my friends at the Chestnut Tree Inn - B&B at 9 Whitney Place in Saratoga. They still have some rooms available for next weekend (the final weekend of racing at Saratoga). I've stayed there for many years and it's truly a fine B&B and walking distance to the track and downtown. If anyone is going next week call them (518) 587-8681 - ask for Kathleen. This week (after the Travers) has always been my favorite time in the Spa. The crowds are dwindling, the restaurant reservations are easier to get - it's more of the "real" Saratoga experience.

Steve, let me put you on the spot (just a little). If you had to choose between PL, Sparks, Wolfgangs (maybe S&W) or V, where would you go? You already know I would choose Bern's. I'm very impressed by the red wine temperature. I wish more places would take the time to research "castle temperature." As an aside, I was at Sparks Wednesday evening and had a dish I never thought to try - their "Cheese Steak" - sirloin strip topped with melted Blue cheese. It was okay, but I thought the cheese overwhelmed the taste of the beef and the beef was spectacular.

I just noticed on a re-read that Luchow's had three stars in 1968. I was there (at the 14th Street location) about three or four times and always during the Christmas season. The decorations were spectacular and I recall the food being quite tasty. It was truly a magnificent dining space. Someone should re-create it. I still have a Luchow's cookbook with a 1938 publishing date. I've made a few things from it with a varying degree of success.

I've two reactions to this. I wonder if this is a non-existent problem, or a barely-existent problem. I mean, how many people select a restaurant solely because of the number of stars it has, without any further investigation? You could probably find an idiot or two who has done that, but is it common? I tend to doubt it. In reality, the star rating is a shorthand signal of the type of dining experience the restaurant represents. It's a "coarse screen," if you will. It does not present all of the information any sensible person would use to decide whether to dine at the restaurant or not, but it helps narrow the search. Zagat does this better than anybody. No other guide allows you to search and sort restaurants according to so many fine-grained criteria. However, even the Times's primitive search engine allows you to search for restaurants satisfying a number of criteria, other than just the stars. I don't really disagree with your concept, but I do disagree with your assessment of the number of people who just refer to stars and nothing else. We are a food group here and probably a lot more serious about restaurants and food than the average diner. Outside of this group (or any food group), I would say the number of people who just use the stars as a reference is much larger than you think. At least, that's been my experience.

The reason I disagree with you, is that your complaint really seems to be about criticism, rather than stars. If no stars were awarded, you would still be left with a review that "comes down to a reviewer's personal opinion based on subjective likes and dislikes." The number of stars is merely a summary of the underlying critical opinion. If you are unhappy that newspapers employ critics who tell us their subjective opinions, abolishing the star system won't change that. If you are unhappy that newspapers pay anybody to render opinions, that view would have to apply to the music, book, and movie sections, and even the editorial page. A radical view indeed. I have no problem with anyone criticizing a restaurant or getting paid for it. My problem is simply "how" the stars are awarded, because many people (we have probably all done it at one time or another) just look at the stars and make a decision accordingly - therein lies the problem. If the star system didn't exist, then people would be forced to actually read the review and come to their own conclusions. That's why lists of four star, three star, etc. restaurants are so meaningless when they don't include editorial comments. Yet people use those all the time. At the very least, the stars should be separated into different categories. With respect to the ambience issue - different people are bothered by different things. Some people may dislike sitting in a room of a certain color for three or fours hours, while others may have a problem with a specific type of background music. That's exactly what makes a single star-based system so subjective and therefore too personal to be taken seriously - because those types of ambience factors affect the final rating (either in the positive or negative).

Do I have a comrade in arms?

Artichoke's review of the review was much better than Bruni's review of the restaurant. I just wish Bruni would concentrate on writing about the food and the restaurant, rather than attempting to be the Dylan Thomas or John Keats of food writers.

That's an interesting comment coming from you OA. If I remember correctly, you approved of Bruni essentially taking away a fourth star from Babbo because of the ambience problems he had. Why doesn't Cuozzo get the same benefit of the doubt? (Doesn't he say in the review, the ambience matters more at Per Se because it's a several-hour experience? At least he made the effort to explain it.) Personally, I thought the review was quite straight forward and thankfully didn't have the "fluffy" and cute terminology that has become a trademark of the Bruni reviews. While I don't agree with some of his assertions based on my one meal, Cuozzo was there several times and I will defer to his experience. Lape, who I think is currently NYC's most insightful reviewer, gave it four and that's closer to what I thought it was. But it simply comes down to a reviewer's personal opinion based on subjective likes and dislikes. It's just another reason why the star system is antiquated and should be totally revamped or eliminated. I must have said this a hundred times on eG, but alas no one ever listens.

Cabernet Franc makes a much better wine on Long Island than Merlot. But then again, the only Merlot I've tasted worth the price is from Duckhorn.

I think this was Crist Cella and was a steakhouse. It was a very attractive room with slightly above average steak. At least that's my recollection.

Has any winery succeeded once it went public or was purchased by a conglomerate? I can't think or any, maybe someone else has a better memory.

Having eaten at Luger's for the first time in the mid-60's, it's nice to see that Claiborne agreed with me about their food then. It's not nearly as good now - probably still in the top ten steak places in NYC, but certainly not even close to being #1.

The best collection of old zins (in my opinion) can be found at Bern's Restaurant in Tampa, Florida. The selections they offer (and at the price) is nothing less than spectacular. It's worth the airfare just to have dinner and an old zin. Nothing goes better with their Delmonico cut (medium rare to rare) than an old zin. Among other reasons, that's why Bern's is certainly one of the top five restaurants in the world.

I think the Food Network aired some shows from the series when it first came on the air. Maybe they will do it again. The PBS show last night was inspiring. Great photos, great old tapes - glad they had the ingenuity to include the SNL skit.

In my opinion, to rate Bern's on the same level as PL is a total insult to Bern's. Aside from the food being much better, the menu is infinitely more varied, the service is far ahead of PL, the wine list is probably the best in the world, the cheese selection is second to none, the caviar choices are exemplary, the decor is quite tasteful and the dessert rooms are a unique experience. As a bonus, there's Sidebern's next door where you can experience the same wine list with some of the most creative American cuisine in the country.

Of the wines mentioned, most have a life of 5-7 years. However, if you get your hands on some Ridge Zinfandel (try the different appellations), then you have a keeper. I recently opened a 1969 Ridge Mountain Zinfandel. It was one of the most spectacular wines I ever tasted and will probably last another 5 years or better. Others that will age well inlcude GB, Martini and some from the Amador Foothills.

Agreed, but I take it a step further. Bring me the good food, I'll serve myself if needed and I'll bring my own cloth napkin.

The title of this thread is perfect. Four stars are ONLY hypothetical (in the mind of that day's reviewer). There are no REAL four-star restaurants - the only rating that matters is yours. Just for the record - there is a steak house worthy of the nebulous four-star designation that the NY Times condones and has been accepted by its faithful minions who need that crutch, but it doesn't exist in New York. It exists in Tampa, Florida and its name is Bern's.