rich

Next time someone deftly grabs my beer at Katz's, I'm giving them four stars. I'm happy someone else read the review as I did. My faith in society has been restored.

Directionless is kind Steve. There doesn't seem to be a map. As a reviewer what are your thoughts about including the rescue workers' situation and just leaving it hanging with no further explanation.?

Excellent point Robert, it certainly read that way.

Except the text of the review wasn't equal to awarding it three stars - it was one.

This sounded more like a personal attack than a review. If anyone read this who knew nothing about Bouley, you would come away with two thoughts: Why does this place deserve three stars and I guess I'll go there for chocolate desserts. Someone who isn't familiar with the restaurant or the chef would avoid it "like the plague" after reading this. Bruni criticizes everything except the chocolate desserts. I don't think the line about the "almost undercooked lobster" will attract many diners. Even the photo that was used was totally unflattering. I don't want to hear that Bouley is a four-star restaurant and received three stars because it didn't meet those expectations. (First of all Bruni didn't award it four stars, Grimes did, so he had no basis that it was four stars.) That review wasn't worth three stars no matter how much "you spin it." Compare it to the first two Bruni reviews and it doesn't measure up to either and one was three stars and the other two. Based on the text, that was a one-star review. I thought Bruni's first review was very good, his second was good, this was terrible, not for his opinion, but for his methodology. And the comments about the rescue workers problem is sophomoric at best, yellow journalism at worst. First, it has no place in a restaurant review. But if you're going to pursue that ill-conceived notion and include it, than it needs further explanation. That's Journalism 101. What J-School did Bruni attend - Philadelphia Textile? To leave it hanging there is a disservice to Bouley and the readers. If I was Bouley, I would be very annoyed as it appears this was a biased piece based on pre-conceived concepts.

Okay we're two powerful guys, we're on the same side, let's get it done.

I agree Sam. In fact I would take it a step further and say I've never had a restaurant risotto that comes close to anything that's been made in my family's kitchen. (mother, grandmother and great grandmother)

The problem with most restaurant risottos is the use of arborio rice. If carnaroli was used the results would improve significantly.

When I still lived in Manhattan it was mine, but alas I'm in Staten Island now, so you're on your own.

If the size of your caper is a teaspoon, it's probably a caper berry. Buy the small size (about half the size of a pea).

Yes. Just ask the waiter (as you're paying the check) if you could see the wine steward.

No argument with anything you wrote Doc. However, your post makes a very good case as to why the NY Times should revamp and separate their star system. Someone mentioned the SF Chronicle does exactly that - a separate rating for food, decor and service.

Eclectic. I have a new kitchen (six years old), designed by me and my wife that's completely open. It has a wrap-around marble counter and that seats six-to-eight and the dining room area is immediately behind the counter. The stove is facing the counter and dining area (I have an overhead exhaust hood hanging from the ceiling), so I'm facing the guests (and talking to them as I'm cooking). As for the rest of the house, we don't buy expensive furniture, but comfortable. For instance, we'll buy a couch (the entire length of the wall type) for about $1500 and replace it after five or six years. We decided to buy a built-in Murphy bed in our bedroom, so we could use it as a sitting room when we have company. The other rooms are a television room (simple 20") and a guest room. Why do you ask?

Henry's End? This is a good family, neighborhood "joint" - not a four star restaurant. The food is good, but to call it "four star" level is simply not accurate. Well, maybe the mud pie... Try as I might, I simply can't divine Rich's theory of restaurants. For instance, after Rich visited Per Se, he wrote: I'm presuming that the best meal he has ever experienced is a four-star meal. Is he saying that — ambiance aside — these other six places are in the same league? I just don't get it. Per Se was the finest meal - on the whole (all nine courses). Places such as Henry's End and Grocery serve (on a consistent basis) food that I (and hopefully will continue to) consider four-star. (As an aisde, I've eaten at Henry's End about 200 times over the last 25 -30 years - and I don't even live in Brooklyn - traveled there from Manhattan, Queens and Staten Island. And you haven't lived until you tried their game menu in the fall.) For example, the Grilled Tuna with the fiddlehead fern pesto I had the other night at Henry's End was the best single dish I've had in years. It was better than anything served at Per Se, but on a whole the dinner at Per Se was much better. Henry's End and Per Se do no compete at the same level, but that's not to say both don't have four-star food. Over the weekend I was thinking about this four-star issue and I realized that I was once like the majority of people who have posted here. I believed the four-star experience had to have the right combination of ambience and food, otherwise it didn't work. When I was 28 years old (1979), I took my new bride to what was considered the newest and finest restaurant in Manhattan - The Palace. It was located on 59th Street, just under the Queensborough Bridge. We had four courses, wine, petit fours - all the "right stuff." The appointments were sublime, the servce was outstanding and the experience was breathtaking (as was the $375 bill). At the time, that's what I considered four stars. As the years passed, I went to places like Lutece, La Caravelle, Four Seasons, La Cirque, etc, etc. and these all matched the four-star experience. Then somewhere in my 40's, these places began losing their appeal to me. (I also came to the conclusion I didn't need to impress people by taking them to "fancy" restaurants any longer.) I began to realize the ambience just wasn't that important and wearing a jacket and tie to dinner just wasn't that comfortable. I didn't need the expensive china, the "tuxedoed" waitstaff, the crystal goblets any more. All I needed was great tasting food in pleasant surroundings for a four-star experience. I guess you could say I mellowed and came to the realization that it was all about the food. After all, I couldn't eat the Degas hanging on the wall. I don't expect anyone to agree with me or get it, nor do I expect to change anyone's mind. People may go through life believing that a four-star restaurant MUST have the corresponding ambience , and that's fine. Some may eventually (over time) come to realize that the food is the thing and that's fine too. We all mature and mellow in different ways and now that I'm 53, I have experienced four-star food at restaurants that I didn't expect. I've opened my mind to the vast possibilities of the restaurant world and have enjoyed every second of it.

In another thread on the four-star issue, several posts suggested that, psychologically, elegant surroundings could improve the taste of the food. If true, does that mean some current four stars may be serving three-star food but because of the money that was put up for oustanding ambience (service, surroundings, tableware et al) the food tastes better than it really is?

A baseball analogy - now that game is totally four stars.

Can a resturant attain "four-star status" without striving for it? I know the question was not addressed to me, but I would say this would be highly unlikely. In order to achieve the overall experience of a 4*, a lot of money must be put into a restaurant. I don't think that is done lightly without aspirations of 4* greatness. Doc, I was just using that quote as the springboard to my question. It was really meant for anyone. Wouldn't it be great, though, if a restaurant that didn't have that much start-up money, but was run by a chef of vision attained "four-star status" because the food was just overwhelming, even though the surroundings didn't match the current "four-star" criteria.

Can a restaurant attain "four-star status" without striving for it?

well that's just silly. Touche'

You're correct. But my observation was that Andrew overlooks a room he hates and still gives it four stars (I assume because of the quality of the food). I overlook the inconveniences of the dining area of the Tasting Room because the food is so overwhelming. ok. so you can agree with the fact that taste, as far as rooms go, as far as decor goes, is a personal preference. and you feel that having to get up out of your seat is also a personal preference. that's fair enough. i just don't see many people finding the layout of the room at the Tasting Room acceptable for a "4 star" experience, given the whole getting-up-getting-down routine that comes with some of the tables. unless we're simply talking about how tasty the food is, in which case this thread is nothing more than "my favorite restaurants with the best food", as opposed to the "let's discuss and debate the 'star' system" as the other current threads seem to be." but i do love the Tasting Room, and i do have a crush on renee, which fat guy suggests can sometimes happen. I agree with you Tommy. I know the Tasting Room is not a four-star setting by any stretch of the imagination, but in this one instance I overlook that because the food is so good and consistent. I said this was controversial, but hey, everyone should be allowed one controversial pick. Maybe that's a new thread - What one current non-four star restaurant would you include on "your" list and why.

You're correct. But my observation was that Andrew overlooks a room he hates and still gives it four stars (I assume because of the quality of the food). I overlook the inconveniences of the dining area of the Tasting Room because the food is so overwhelming.

That's interesting. You say the four-star experience is a compilation that includes ambience. Yet, you "hate" the room. So you do make exceptions if the food totally overwhelms the setting - much like I do for the Tasting Room.

Good question. But how do you separate them, when personal opinions play such a large factor?

Didn't I say I have a problem with ADNY? The room is distractingly overdone. The food is not ALL ethereally wonderful: The French, they should not attempt pasta. To me, 4 stars means perfect in every possible way. ADNY is not. Which is why I am more upset at its consideration than, say, that of Jean Georges, where at least the food WAS perfect, and pretty much only the scene outside the window (not controllable by JGV) was detrimental to the experience. Sorry Suzanne, you did say that. But it strengthens my point that opinions of experienced diners, though different, are valid. I thought ADNY was terrific, but I understand and respect your conclusion. So now, I believe every NY Times four-star restaurant has at least one member who doesn't believe it belongs.

Please read my first post again and you will see the only one of these listed as four stars was the Tasting Room, which I have explained several times. The other three were listed below that category for the reasons offered. Nevertheless I'll explain once more. Grocery and Henry's End do serve four star food (on a consistent basis in my opinion), but totally lack the minimal ambience to be considered in that category (even for me who doesn't place a major emphasis on ambience, but does look at the wine offerings as a large piece of the puzzle.) As far as Landmarc - that was on my "to watch" list as an up and coming restaurant. Whether it will continue to grow and improve - only time will tell. The ambience there is fine for me and their wine list is special.