ulterior epicure

Just so we're clear my recent meal at Manresa was certainly more interesting and eye-opening than my meal here. I, too, think it's one of the best restaurants in the country, just not on the same level as the grand dining temples with regards to room, service polish, and other niceties. I think a Michelin inspector would agree with me here. I'm not willing to come down on which meal was tastier, though. Both put consistently excellent to extraordinary food on the plate. EMP, however, was certainly the much more refined dining experience across the board. That's no slight to Manresa. At all. Alinea is, well, Alinea. To me, it hits all the sweet spots and is in a class of its own. ← No worries, Bryan, I'm perfectly clear as to where you stand on Manresa's food vs. trappings. I'm just noting that difference.

To quote Helene Cousins (for those who know her): "Exact-lay!" Right, right. I venture that this is the same reason why so many cite Manresa and alinea as two of the other great tables in our country, currently (although I know you might disagree with one of those). As you know, I have been a big proponent of Eleven Madison Park since I first experienced a meal there in 2007. Though I have only been twice (and once more for desserts), I can't say that I ever put it on the shelf below any of the other four stars. I know many here disagree with me. I don't doubt that Eleven Madison Park has only up'ed their game since Bruni's review. The fact that it is now being put in the category with per se - a restaurant that many feel is at the pinnacle of the four-stars - further convinces me that Eleven Madison Park has been a four star restaurant for some time now, only to have moved up in those ranks. (Even as I type this, I know I will draw fire for that last sentence, so shoot away.)

But I venture that even you, Bryan, would agree that stripping down a meal like the extended VIP at per se or the Eleven at Eleven Madison Park to a series of signs and symbols remains well within the realm of The Formula: "(i.e. the chamnpagne cart, gougeres, a full round of canapes, a wide selection of macarons, ... etc.)." These components do not a four-star make by their mere appearance together in one meal. For example, I'd venture to say that both Del Posto and Bouley could put out similarly extended luxury. But, given my experiences at those two restaurants (and I was VIP'ed at Del Posto), I can't say that they are four-star establishments. I might even pin Picholine up here as another example where the formula doesn't necessarily compute four stars. I'm sure that others can come up with better examples than I. Rather, what I think you are saying (and I would agree) is that places like Eleven Madison Park and per se plug in extraordinary symbols, numbers, and factors into The Formula, thereby escaping it in ways that others can't/don't. That's what makes their formula compute four stars.

Thanks for the report, BryanZ. I would have to agree with tupac on the difference in priorities. You know how I feel about alinea, so I won't rehash that topic here. For me, Kinch's food is so otherworldly, so beyond comparison to any other restaurant in the U.S. that I'm not sure I could utter in the same sentence as another. I agree wholeheartedly that it puts out some of the best food in America.

Really. Dining shouldn't be this hard.

I know what you mean. And given a nice wedge of Stichleton, it's like a vicious cycling back-and-forth until the whole lot is gone. You know, the recipe in his cookbook seems simple enough. But I can't seem to overcome the mental block that goes up when I see the amount of butter involved. Sometimes, ignorance is truly blissful.

Oh good, I was hoping you'd show up, Le Peche! Like I said, "If I may, I suggest sticking with his homier dishes." You're such a good salesperson and ambassador of the restaurant -- entrees having a higher price tag than desserts.

I've been to all three within the past year, though none of them for lunch, so I'm not sure I can be of much help except to say that: If the dinner can be indicative of lunches, then I can draw the following conclusions: 1. Michel Rostang will be on the heavy side, and much more traditional than the other two. It will have the darkest dining room of the three. 2. le Bristol will probably offer the most creative, yet approachable food, overall. If they are still serving in the summer pavillion, the lighting will be splendid. If not, the lighting in the "Winter Garden" will be substantially less, though perhaps not quite as dark as Rostang. 3. le Cinq will probably offer the most creative and strange food overall. Of all of my meals in Paris on my last trip, it was the least successful one for me. But, I explained it further on my blog, if you care to read the details. Lighting will be very good, increasing with intensity the closer you get to the windows that look out into the courtyard of Georges V. Service at le Cinq was stellar. le Bristol's service was good, but nothing memorable. Michel Rostang's staff is very warm, but perhaps not as sharp as the staff at the other two. Again, based on one visit each for dinner, I'm sure you can't count me as the most reliable source out there (or here). As an aside: This is really neither here nor there, but I had lunch at le Cinq many moons ago under Legendre. Service was stiff and the food was mediocre at best. Though I did not have a great meal at le Cinq this past December, I'm inclined to believe (based on reports from those I trust and believe) that an excellent meal can be had at the hands of Briffard. If I may, I suggest sticking with his homier dishes.

Trust me, you shouldn't. That piece of well-aged meat was good, but nothing terribly mind-blowing.

What's the oldest (longest) dry-age you've seen in New York? Last month, I had a steak that was eleven-month dry-aged. It was a Porterhouse. The man overseeing the operation is none other than Adam Perry. Although I have no reason to doubt that the meat was truly dry-aged for nearly a year (the texture and flavor was like no other steak I've ever had), I'm sure there is something to their technique that is unconventional. I don't hound the steakhouses in New York City. But the longest dry-aged steak I've seen on a New York menu is 60 days.

But isn't the Salon a la carte? So you get to choose what you have, right? Or, are you saying that the Salon menu has changed every time you've been in? That makes sense since the dining room menu changes every day. ← I think Seth is referring to his experience as a regular diner - the house brings out a selection of canapes and little extras each time, and they are different every single time (even something as signature as the caviar canape, you stop getting O+P). But yes - as a person living in NY, the reason I make Per Se my go to restaurant is that I get to eat new things every single time I go. In fact, it was the previous GM's mission to ensure that if you visited 100 times, you would experience something new that 100th visit (one assumes the new GM carries the same mission), a theory I am in the midst of testing out. It's also why I like Degustation FWIW. Back to EMP, I was really hoping the Gournmand menu was that. I check their online menu's every few weeks, and go back in for the lunch tasting once it changes, which isn't a ton more frequently than the seasons change. I was a bit dissapointed to learn that the Gourmand may not be new each time, but I'll have to chat with the folks there to know for sure. When a menu is online, it's easy to know when to return. When it's not, it's much harder, which is a shame cause the Gournmand is the one I want to return for. p.s. and yes, JG is for me the exception to the rule, I'll eat there every chance I get and gladly repeat many dishes over and over. ← Just as an update, my friends (from my above post) notified me that their Gourmand last night was a mix of prix fixe and completely off-menu items, with one dish from the Seasonal Tasting. Again, they are regulars. And, so, I assume, as with all other four-starred restaurants, if you are a regular and good friend of the house, the restaurant can and will jump through extra hoops. No surprise there.

But isn't the Salon a la carte? So you get to choose what you have, right? Or, are you saying that the Salon menu has changed every time you've been in? That makes sense since the dining room menu changes every day. re: superb repeats. I would agree with you about Jean Georges and Le Bernardin's mainstays. And that is why I happily revisit, knowing well that I may encounter them again. From my two meals at Eleven Madison Park, I've had no repeats (they were a year a part). But I would walk back to New York right now for that lavender-glazed duck. I wouldn't mind repeating most of the other dishes I've had as well. I haven't been to Eleven Madison Park in just over a year now. The other thing I think Eleven Madison Park could improve (though it's certainly not lacking or deficient in any way), is their cheese cart. I've only seen it once, and it was rather limited selection. I know I can't expect the panoply I'd get in a European restaurant of like status (or Picholine, which really out-does any other cheese selection I've seen in the States), but it could take on a bit more muscle. I've never had the cheese cart at Jean Georges or Daniel (the latter, I hear has a particularly impressive one). I'm not sure that Le Bernardin has a cheese cart, though I know the tasting (the longer one, anyway) always includes cheese course just before the desserts are introduced. Like per se's "composed" cheese course, I don't really care for it. For me, the cheese course is supposed to be slather-and-lick type of event. The frilly, tinkered, and garnished types miss the point. ETA: I should clarify my statement above: I haven't been to Eleven Madison Park for a full meal in over a year. I was there at the top of May this year just for desserts with some friends. We cleared through a good third of them (tarts included).

And this is where, I think, per se (and to a lesser degree, masa) steps away from and beyond the other four-stars. Keller's/Beno's kitchen has an amazing ability to turn out a staggering variety of dishes at a moment's notice. No diner, unless they want to, would experience the same dish meal after meal after meal, regardless of their proximity of those meals to one another. I DO wish Eleven Madison Park and some of the other four-starred restaurants would make their top tasting a wholly unique experience. From my limited experience, the top tasting menus at Jean Georges, Le Bernardin, Eleven Madison Park, and Daniel are largely, if not entirely, composed of dishes from the prix fixe menu. Other than per se and - to some extent - BH@SB, I can't think of any other New York restaurant where you can have a tasting menu experience totally different from the the table next to you. Of course, this is largely a non-issue for me, as I rarely eat at these restaurants. Every time I visit, I'm almost guaranteed a different experience from my last one. Yet, as I type that, I realize that I've had quite a few repeats at Jean Georges and Le Bernardin, despite the fact that I usually visit them annually. I should also add that I've never had the prix fixe at any of the four-starred restaurants (the ones that offer them), always having gone with the tasting menu. Two of my friends just had dinner at Eleven Madison Park last night. They are regulars and clearly friends of the house. Their menu last night - with the exception of two dishes (which they, admittedly, signaled that they might want to repeat) - was comprised of dishes they had never had before. Now, that's not such a hard feat to accomplish, since their last meal - just under a month ago, if I'm not mistaken - was a three-course prix fixe dinner, which included the guinea fowl. Carved table-side, that bird is probably not served (to two diners anyway) as a part of the Gourmand. At any rate, I'm fairly certain that their Gourmand last night was culled from the prixe fixe.

Why?

2. Perhaps not better - just that he's retooled the menu to focus on his strengths (based on feedback). 3. Not just that it's increased, but that it's increased in a good way (i.e. not over-doing it, rather, using the technique to create great dishes, like said spherephized tomato dish, and a "cheesecake" one). Re: Liebrandt - from what I understand, Liebrandt's food was very controversial to begin with. (I know many on this board feel that Bruni crucified Liebrandt at Gilt. I never ate at Gilt. I have eaten at Corton. The circumstances surrounding that meal are well-documented elsewhere. That was a four-star meal, in every respect.) Given that the man has around 1,200 words to play with (less if it's not a really important review), I can't fault him for wanting to give an "overview" of the restaurant AND talk about the goodness of the food (which, I do think he does to a larger degree than most are willing to allow). Most New York Times readers aren't the analysts that this crowd seems to breed. Like 95% of Bruni's readers just want to know: (a) What's good about the restaurant, (b) What they should order, and © What it's going to cost them for the experience. That Bruni says its good enough is all they care to know. I agree wholeheartedly with you, Sneakeater, that Bruni seems to have wanted to crown a new four-star. And, I agree that this last-minute publication, in tandem with three reviews over his tenure, is unconventional, if not unprecedented. But Bruni does make it clear - in this review and his previous writings - that Eleven Madison Park has had a hill to climb in earning its four stars (and why shouldn't they?). Given all of his previous hesitations, hedges, and objections, the fact that Bruni now unreservedly awards them four stars seems sufficient without the specific line-item accounting that you and others here seem to want. In effect, this last review is just the third (and final) installment of what has been a larger, three-part story of the making of a four-star during Bruni's tenure.

In my opinion, the weakest of the four star restaurants in the city. ← Based on one visit? Fair enough. The weakest of the four-starred. (I disagree, there is one other four-star I find far weaker.) But a four-starred nonetheless, no?

Because I'm a glutton for punishment, because a good friend nudged me a with an itemized list), and because I feel the need to point this out for posterity's sake, if nothing else: From the review: 1. Improved service: 2. Ever-improving pork: 3. Increasing success with modern cooking: (Spherecized tomato dish description follows.) Add to that a forward-moving momentum and a host of compliments about the strength of the food, and I think Bruni has more than justified how the restaurant has made the step from a strong three-star operation to a four-star one.

I'm going to throw out a possible explanation here. But before I make the following comment, I note that this is ONLY a possible explanation and not one that I necessarily believe is true nor can prove (clearly): What if Bruni (felt like he) got it wrong (i.e. giving Eleven Madison Park three stars instead of four) on his second review (which no one disputes as being unwarranted since there was a change in chefs) and felt the need to redress it before his term was up? It's kind of like what the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences do every year with the Best Actor/Actress categories.

Right. I suppose I should withdraw Le Bernardin from my earlier statement. I'm not talking necessarily about value. I'm talking about the type of experience you're more likely to have with a "menu" with high prices. That is to say, at per se and masa there is only one, multi-hour meal to be had at lunch. So the experience is going to be totally different than an experience at Jean Georges or Le Bernardin or Eleven Madison Park for lunch. Will it necessarily be better just because of that fact? I don't know. But what I'm saying is that I *think* some here would say yes. Again, I don't know whether Eleven Madison Park's lunch is "sheer excellence." It seems that from many on this board, it's not. Someone (I think it was sickchangeup) earlier commented that the lunch prix-fixe at Eleven Madison Park is running at a 2-star level, whereas the lunch Gourmand is running at a 3-star level, with the dinner prix-fixe at the same level. A quick review of the current online menu reveals that all of the dishes on the lunch Gourmand are from the dinner prix-fixe menu. So, sickchangeup's evaluation certainly is squared with itself.

Although I find myself stuck in the middle here, and am not in the "anti-4-stars-EMP" camp by any means, I personally object to the fact that they serve PLENTY of meals that arguably aren't even 3 stars - specifically the 2 course lunches. This NEVER happens at Per Se, JG, Le Bernardin. Everything that leaves those kitchens are 4 star quality, they constantly strive for the very very top every single time you visit - even in the salon at Per Se for example. They prove themselves from the second the door opens to the second the door closes. If you go for the dinner tasting or Gourmand, EMP is - in my estimation - a 4 star restaurant. Any other meal leaves some doubt. Some meals leave little doubt that it's not a 4 star restaurant. That's what bothers me. They are capable. But they don't hold themselves to it 100% of the time (and potentially, a very small % of the time) ← If true, that's certainly a fair point to make. I can't legitimately agree or disagree, as I've only been to Eleven Madison Park for dinner. And both times, I had the Gourmand. However, I don't think that comparisons to per se and Le Bernardin are appropriate here, as the pricing structure is completely in a different league. And therefore, you will naturally get something in a different league (or, one would hope).

oakapple, did you mean "Brun is incapable...?" ← Sorry, I realized that marauder hadn't posted on this thread. That's what I get for reading too many email notifications from the hand device.

marauder, I tend to agree with most of what you said. (Aside: I'm not the Kellerphile that many are, but I definitely think that per se is in the highest guard here. And, although my meal at masa was unforgettable, it didn't send me the way some of its peers have; and it was expensive.) As for desserts, I would disagree. Iuzzini's selling point for me is that he's creative, forward-thinking, and produces delicious desserts. Laiskonis, to a lesser extent, is also that way (but I'm reminded of a tomato and berry dessert I had at le Bernardin that was quite odd yet terrific at once). For me, Laiskonis's desserts rely more on unconventional ingredient couplings instead of comforting familiarity for uniqueness. Humm doesn't go for the strange and the eye-popping, or even unfamiliar. But I find nothing wrong with that. I think Bruni did a good job of describing Humm's desserts: "Mr. Humm supervises the sweets in addition to what precedes them, and with most he finds the right middle ground between hyper-imaginative artistry and molten chocolate pandering. Accessorizing the gooey chocolate centerpiece of one dessert with both caramel popcorn and a popcorn-flavored ice cream did that trick nicely. " In many respects, I *think* what many are really objecting is the fact that Eleven Madison Park is the most approachable one of the four stars, and therefore isn't really a four-star. I find this to be an utterly confounding reason to bar its membership. oakapple, did you mean "Brun is incapable...?"

Seeing Anita Lo on Top Chef Masters prompted me to check in with annisa online. Apparently, there was a fire on July 4 and the restaurant is closed until this fall.

That quote was me backing up my "seems Bryan got it right" statement. The apologetic part was the way the article read to me, he goes on and on explaining different things, even saying "They're still young and will improve even more!" at the end. I probably should have started a new paragraph in between the first two sentences of my post. ← Are we speaking about the review, or the subsequent Diner's Journal "supplement" that you linked to just a few posts upthread? If the latter, I assume you must be referring to this: Even if you read that to mean that Humm and his crew "will improve even more," what is wrong with that? Does that preclude them for achieving four stars today? This is stating the obvious, but the four-star system is imperfect. It is but one man/woman's opinion. You disagree with Bruni. I agree. Regardless, I certainly don't think you can fault Bruni for failing to justify why he finds Eleven Madison Park deserving of four stars. If that isn't clear from his review, this - from his Diner's Journal "supplement - makes it so:

I fail to see how this is apologetic.