Steve Klc

Thank you wingding--I just re-read the usually oafish Adam Platt review of Bouley in New York magazine, thanks to Liza providing the link on another thread. He mentions that "Delicate eaters can nibble at a dish of thinly shaved pineapple dappled with sugary mint leaves and a single scoop of sorbet" which, as I've written elsewhere on this site is so, so widely copied and employed that I would be interested if members could weigh in on this presentation--and its particulars? Is Bouley as pastry chef bringing anything interesting to bear with this dish--any personal revelation? (Not that Adam Platt would know--and why mention that Bouley lost "Galen Zamarra, Bouley Bakery's supremely talented executive chef" and make no mention of pastry chef?) The first beautiful pineapple carpaccio presentation I recall seeing was by Pierre Herme in his 1997 book "Plaisirs sucres"--with crystallized cilantro leaves, pomegranate seeds and lemon sorbet. Herme revisited it in the 1998 Dorie Greenspan book as well, this time with lime sorbet and a very easy coconut milk/pineapple emulsion. My favorite versions use sorbets of yogurt or fromage blanc--Gale Gand has run a pineapple carpaccio for some time at Tru as well. There is even a Valrhona chocolate souffle on the Bouley menu. Doesn't sound like poetic genius so far.

I'm solidly with Roger on this one, Macrosan, you are possibly skating on thin ice trotting out scientific and literary practices as some sort of valid comparison. Whether a book is reviewed at all, who is assigned to review the book and the role of book section editors in this process is highly, highly political--but the comparison isn't valid. A book could be a bestseller despite any negative review--it's reviewed nationally in numerous outlets whereas a restaurant is reviewed locally and the future of such a restaurant--and such a serious commitment of time and savings-- is directly in the hands of that city's main newspaper restaurant critic. Science encourages public debate, but journal articles are vetted and peer-reviewed usually privately and these scientists are fighting each other privately and in some case waging very public political and personal agendas as they try to get booked on tv shows, get appointed to bioethical commissions, secure grant dollars and get book deals themselves. It can be as internecine and petty as any field. Doctors performances are evaluated by other doctors but behind closed doors. Chefs and culinary authors will readily blurb each others book jackets but rarely criticize in print. This is why we have restaurant critics, why we have this thread and why a few of us argue for higher standards.

Well said Steve. Do you think living with Michael Bauer as lead restaurant critic, editor of the Food section and in control of the Sunday magazine column is a necessary--or even acceptable--compromise?

I'd appreciate input from members regarding Bouley's "passion mango ravioli" a few have mentioned. I read elsewhere on the boards that Bouley is doing his own desserts (always interesting in and of itself when a pastry chef is not hired) and others have commented on a current tropical emphasis in the cuisine. Can anyone recall whether the passion mango raviolis were offered in previous incarnations of the restaurant, when Herme had some involvement or Bill Yosses was the pastry chef of Bouley Bakery? The reason I ask is thin slices of mango, rolled up as a ravioli with a passionfruit cream tucked inside has been a signature of Ferran and Alberto Adria dating back at least to 1995--though I'm not prepared to say who invented the technique or when. (It is assumed among certain very talented, widely-travelled chef friends of mine that Adria was the first to do this.) Those raviolis are in just about every Adria book and in the Oriol Balaguer book as well--in both fruit soups and plated dessert applications. I'd appreciate specific information about Bouley's use historically of the ravioli and any observations of other chefs using this technique which date back a few years.

Most definitely so, Cabrales. Much in the same way a certain segment of diners go to the Palm--or other power steak places--for those gargantuan lobsters and cuts of meat--and perhaps for ego-stoking of a different sort?

Bux--I reacted to "The bill was very hefty!" because I know from first hand experience how delegated wine choices can add "dealer markup." Of course, being charged for the missing fifth meal in full was not the most gracious and we've already wondered about the comping aspect. Then again, travelling chefs can deduct all of this anyway.

Check out the wine list at Gramercy Tavern--last time I was there Paul Grieco had several gruner veltliners and I remember a few good ones on the Union Pacific list, too.

Liza--our default Gruner Veltliner is Berger in a nice liter bottle. A very affordable, under $10, estate bottled Therry Theise selection imported by Michael Skurnik Wines of Syosset, NY. In general, when in doubt, go with Therry Theise and Michael Skurnik Wines.

Thank you Lizziee--you've given alot of yourself, more so than many chefs give preparing a meal, and your effort is appreciated. One very small thing I picked up on is that you had the sommelier choose all your wines on the second visit, perhaps accounting for a sense of sticker shock at the resulting bill. (This is not meant to mitigate the fact that chefs usually comp other chefs, especially when they themselves have been comped previously.) My wife and I, both pastry chefs, once dined with three other Beard award-winning chefs and two top sommeliers from elite NYC restaurants at Michel Richard Citronelle. He greeted us at the table, wanted to cook a special tasting menu for us, which we all agreed to heartily. We asked the sommelier, a known colleague of the two NY somms, to choose wines. My wife actually worked in Richard's pastry kitchen for a time but he did not recognize her when they met before the meal. (Should have been a harbinger of things to come.) We got the "regular" tasting menu other diners got, excellent wines, and each couple left $400. poorer--which would not have been so bad if the meal was at a high level, which it was not. I have no doubt Michel would have been comped at every one of their restaurants as a matter of course. From reading the Anthony Dias Blue article in December's issue of Wine Country Living--did it appear he had a similar menu to yours? did he get into descriptions of certain dishes and you found yourself going "yes" or "right on" (not that you would necessarily ever use the term "right on" but you know what I mean.) I have not read any other reports of the 2001 season but remain extremely grateful for your followup Lizziee.

Lizziee--were the same chefs present on both visits? It seems they were with you only on the second one, right? on the second (bad) experience--did you sense your meal reflected what was served to all other guests or perhaps that it was something created especially for your group with 2 known American chefs and a two-star Michelin chef, perhaps because of stated preferences toward being surprised or perhaps motivated by the knowledge that you've been there before and knew the tricks? Is the two-star in question known for an eclectic, experimental cuisine himself or for more traditional, classic presentations? Had either of the American chefs ever eaten at El Bulli before or was this their first visit? Is it possible you received a few (bonus) very experimental or daring dishes on the edge (even for Adria) because your group might have been better able to receive them--i.e. less culinarily inhibited? You presented the first 9 or so dishes from the 2nd visit in approximate order? If not, could you re-order as close as you remember or possibly post the menu? In a 25 course meal, it would be logical to attempt to get some of the palate teased, some essences but not volume, some light gamesmanship out of the way early--did the latter courses continue in this vein--gimmicks like the smell card, liquid infusions? Was there any discussion among your group of chefs at this second dinner that Ferran might have taken certain ingredients or combinations that one of those chefs might have been known for working with--and spinning it back at them? And no mention of the desserts/petit fours/lollipops/chocolates? Had you all mentally surrendered by that point? Even on your positive first dinner you did not seem to mention many dessert courses--or were the savory/cheese/tomato "desserts" it? I would have expected those as transitions with much more to follow.

...another topic already being addressed on the compromised food critics thread--weigh in with your thoughts there choco--especially since you dropped that bomb of an article on Bauer's autonomous power in SF!

I always pronounced it "she-boost" but could convert, depending on what the marketing people say.

well, on the subject of gold leaf, there is the same visual appeal thing working as with the visible sea salt grains--24K gold is edible, and a nice visual contrast with the dark chocolate and in some applications, kind of an almost supernatural way a little piece twists and folds back upon itself even in the absence of any wind or breeze. yes, there are undoubtedly other historical connotations and pretense is one of them.

Choco--thank you so much for the link. I found the article powerful, issue-laden and revealing of the way games are played both within a newspaper and within the larger world of food. Quite an indictment of a situation which allows a restaurant critic to lose anonymity and consolidate a power base over time, becoming Food section editor and editor of the Sunday magazine as well. Bauer, who could now be my personal poster boy of ethical lapses coupled with embarrassing appearances of impropriety and layered upon actual conflicts of interest, ties in well with our thread in terms of a critic courting and accepting special attention, developing personal relationships with chefs, getting better meals, recognizably shmoozing at public events. I love the fact that he is revealed to be the sole "journalist" representing SF on the Beard award panel, too. Whole else would it be? The most salient issue of the article, for me, is the question of whether it is possible for one person to have too much power in a given city? What happens when you not only don't avoid the appearance of impropriety but very publicly flaunt it and consolidate power autonomously over time? At least in other large, serious food cities one could always point to the fact that the Food section editor was distinct from the restaurant critic. One could always mitigate the damage done by the restaurant critic with make-up features in the weekly Food section or holiday magazine issues--each would be relatively free to dissent and disagree, to act as a separation of church and state or a system of checks and balances or any other political analogy you'd want to employ. (Last year, relatively new Washington Post restaurant critic Tom Sietsema dissed chef Susan Lindeborg in a review of her Majestic Cafe, upsetting faithful legions of Lindeborg devotees and probably the entire Post Food section staff. Numerous positive "makeup" mentions in the Food section and Magazine section followed, culminating with Tom even figuring out a way to include Majestic Cafe as one of his favorites in his Dining Guide.) Of course, the defense for a compromised reviewer, always somewhat lame, is a variant of "the bottom line is the quality of the reviews" and after reading this piece on Bauer, I can't help but feel that defense to be even more self-serving and disingenuous than usual. We might reasonably disagree about the value of a critic remaining anonymous, about imposing some sort of term limit on the length of a critic's service in the same capacity but would anyone carry the argument even further to say that there isn't any problem with the lead restaurant critic of a newspaper in a large city also serving as Food section editor? No one person should have such carte blanche. Is anyone else as ethically and professionally troubled by this as I am? (Choco: is his article touting the genius and fame of Waters and Cunningham online as well?)

I suspect fleur de sel is specified, even when dissolved in a preparation, because the savvy patissier knows that it has cachet in the media. I'm with you Bux on the true appeal of fleur de sel as being its large crystalline structure, potential for visual appeal and the crunch of the grain. It works differently in the mouth. There's no doubt in my mind that the effect of most dissolved or dispersed fleur de sel in a baked good is indistinguishable from most other salts, though some palates may disagree.

ajay--just go to the link I provided above for freethegrapes--all the articles, court decisions and press releases are there, even the recent New York and North Carolina ones.

Dimitri--Virginia was one of the recent decisions, then a stay was issued. I think the state scorecard recently is 3 decided for, 3 against and that's why it will go to the Supreme Court.

Jinmyo--I, too, enjoy the small-scale fleeting sculptures and feel that they work best. He has at least 5 books by now, and "A Collaboration with Nature" (1991) remains the best for me with "Wood" second. But I have family members who disagree and find charm in his others. The burial chambers are in "Time."

Steve--for me, too much of her "baking" and writing is basic, boring, unsophisticated, unoriginal or has been done better by others previously. The last things we need are more recipes by volume and more recycled baking advice dumbing things down for the home baker. Fewer recipes, more helpful information, more reflective thought, more pictures of technique and presentation would improve things greatly.

One of the Navarro wines I order--a lovely dry gewurztraminer--gets a nice mention in the NYTimes today by Eric Asimov, who concurs by writing that "Even better is the version from Navarro Vineyards, but although I see it regularly on restaurant wine lists, it's not sold in retail shops." That doesn't mean restaurants are your only option, however. What he doesn't mention (or his editors don't deem fit to mention) is why you can't buy it in retail shops or how you can get it if not in a retail shop or restaurant--the answer is complex: their wines are so good, so fairly priced, their effort to provide a wonderful tasting room experience is legendary, at every turn the winemakers engender such loyalty in their customers that the wines sell out by being offered direct to individuals without having to be in retail shops. The 2000 dry gewurz was just released and also this Spring Navarro pulled out a 1998 dry gewurz from the cellar as well. The best $14 or $16 you'd spend. As for the dessert wine version--it's not clear which Asimov tasted, but he writes "If you have an opportunity to try a late-harvest gewürz from Navarro, you're in for a treat." I'd agree wholeheartedly. But note also that NY is in the same restrictive "3 tier system" boat as Virginia--and that New Yorkers who would like to order the dry Gewurztraminers or the rare, but superb, Cluster Select Late Harvest Gewurztraminer (last I had was the delicious 1997) can buy direct from Navarro, but have to go through the same consolidated shipping and processing through an in-state distributor as I did--and pay a premium to do so. I can't help but wonder if more food and wine writers and editors started confronting the politics of this issue directly, more consumers would realize how small farmers are being hurt, how often the availability of special wines are needlessly constrained and restricted and really how regressive and anti-American this whole system is. (Might this have anything to do with ad revenue from retail wine shops and large producers?) For anyone that wants to get on the Navarro bandwagon, you can call them at 800.537.9463, visit them at: http://www.navarrowine.com/main.php

Macrosan, ajay doesn't ask for too much. what he asks for is reasonable and he didn't seem to me to be asking for a guarantee. I guess I disagree with you in that you feel you can't really expect much of a reviewer--whereas I think a diner can reasonably expect alot. Bill, your passage: "You have to be vigilant, you have to stay aware of what you're doing or else the other stuff - the freebies, the junkets, the attitude - can slowly creep over you and render the readers a disservice." Well said. However, I'd go one better--you'd do your subjects a disservice, too--the small chef-owned restaurateur struggling to compete with the larger chain operations, the ethnic restaurant just doing what they known how to do with little comprehension of English, the new restaurant opened by novices, the sous chef just out on his own--they are entitled to "feel" like they are going to get a fair shake regardless of whether they shell out the bucks for a connected publicist or have contacts in the media. That doing good interesting work across many culinary disciplines and price points can be enough. I expect a restaurant critic to be able to draw those distinctions fairly and well. Perhaps it is naive or an illusion, but the anonymous newspaper restaurant critic--freed simply to do his or her job for a limited time irrespective of undue influence, preferential service, the collusion of chef and industry friendships and private dinners with the chef is the only way to serve both readers and subject. And term limits augur against reviewer "attitude creep." Macrosan, it is precisely because so much of the restaurant experience can be ethereal--can be altered if known--unlike an assembly line product like a car--that a critic should be anonymous. That snapshot in time has to be assessed in real time for a normal person over several visits (not 10), and not as a known, pampered foodie--even, Steve P.--if the resulting review nails what the experience would likely have been for a normal person or an anonymous reviewer. (What a diner should expect--or be conditioned to expect--from reading a restaurant critic is a separate issue; no one loses anything when a critic has to be above reproach for both his/her readers and subjects, the restaurants themselves.) All subjects have the right to expect to be fairly evaluated not only in their inital newspaper review but also afterward in that critic's "Best of" guides or "Favorites" lists--which end up being a record or collection of snapshots over time. Note that certain reviewers have moved away from star rankings and some observeable criteria--and moved away from a discussion of what or who is the best but rather who are their "favorites?" Not the same really--again subtext, sorry Bill--championed historically by the Washington Post group. That's another thread, too. There is so much to go around for all the non-anonymous celebrity food writers or personalities that asking this one person per newspaper (in major and medium cities) to be anonymous and to toe a different ethical line is reasonable and he/she would surely not be missed from the junkets and the schmooze-fests. I feel completely differently about glossy magazine food writers and media--and much closer to Macrosan and Steve P. I don't see a contradiction in this either--perhaps others will. For me the newspaper beat is not the magazine beat. Let's use a hypothetical example--again involving Steve Shaw were he to become the NY Times restaurant critic. What's wrong with him recusing himself were he asked to "review" a new Kunz restaurant--a chef Shaw has written often about and knows personally? Steve P. would say that's ridiculous, that Shaw should review it even if he's friends with Kunz and his review might even be better for it. Should Shaw recuse himself?

Steve--it's called the appearance of impropriety, which as you state and I agree doesn't have anything to do with whether someone has a well-developed palate. And it doesn't confer anything other than that. Everything else is still fair game--palate, perception, opinion, writing style, knowledge. No absolutes, no insurance, just taking any and all steps to remove the appearance of impropriety and disclose conflicts of interest in one subset of food writing--the full time restaurant reviewer. Bill raises a valuable corrollary--what to do about small markets which can't support the full time restaurant critic? Should there be a sliding ethics scale for different circulation categories-- in this case for those of us who value an organization's attempt to reduce or eliminate the appearance of impropriety on one hand yet have to face financial realities in a tight job market with the other?

Steven--did you get the sense that the Charleston Grill valued pets more so than dessert? I re-read your wonderful post and wondered how the meal ended--wondered whether you felt some of Bob Waggoner's whimsy, advanced technique and successful re-invention in the dessert or, sadly in too many of my experiences, got a typically underwhelming rustic New South dessert--some type of bread pudding, pie or crumble completely unrelated in either skill or interest to the savory cuisine that preceded it? This actually is a larger issue than just one experience at the Charleston Grill. Chefs in NYC, let alone around the country, are either taking control of the desserts themselves or de-emphasizing desserts and/or pastry chefs in general. How successfully did Bob follow through all the way to the end?

I wonder what percentage of Juan Mari Arzak's clients on any given service are locals just as I wondered if there was discussion in Spanish and Catalan press of outside influences and an awareness of how even the most local of cooking is being perceived more globally. Arzak, to your point of looking further afield, is in New York City this very week cooking with Ducasse and Jacques Torres and a few other chefs.

Yes, for a newspaper critic, I'd say tenure with pre-agreed term limits is perhaps the best way to go--do the restaurant critic beat for a while and be guaranteed to slide into a food writer beat after you're done. Specifically that you should not ever be both a restaurant critic and a food writer simultaneously. You can be both, of course, in all sorts of new media opportunities, but then you are not the mainstream media's main voice on restaurant criticism in your town. In my distinction, if Fat Guy were to become the restaurant critic for the New York Times he would have to agree to be constrained--to stop all the junkets, outside writing, website journals and blogs, disavow all prior publicist contacts, etc. The restaurant critic should not ever sit with a publicist on the dime of the client. I have no problem with food journalists and restaurant critics being opinionated--and don't believe it is actually possible to be truly impartial anyway. But the restaurant reviewer has to be made to walk the finest line and navigate even the mere appearance of ethical conflicts--for the period of time that he or she is allowed to review restaurants--and then be trotted out to the populated pasture of just general food writers, journalists and celebrity authors.