Sneakeater

And the reason I keep harping on it, BTW, is because I think it's important. And this thread shows why. People don't show up at Jean Georges and expect to get served immediately, get cranky when they don't get served immediately, and start whining because the food is too exotic. People show up at the Serious Cocktail Bars and act that way all the time. And it's to the detriment of my experience, as someone whom these bars are aimed at (although they'd no doubt prefer it if I were younger, richer, and better looking). First, because all these people prevent me from even getting in. And second, when I occassionally do get in, they're braying and carrying on as if they're in normal bars where you go only to get drunk, rather than places where you go to appreciate what you're drinking. (Phil's point that he wouldn't act the same in the Cherry Tavern as he would in Mayahuel is very telling.) The problem is that Serious Cocktail Bars seem too much like "normal" bars, and there's not enough public explanation of what makes them different. As Sam once commented, Sasha's famous "rules" actually were the best attempt to convey the difference to the public. But I think the Serious Cocktail Bars have got to do something.

OK, but then how come when I asserted several months ago that Serious Cocktail Bars essentially cater to a niche market but are being overrun with inappropriate patrons who are just going because of the publicity these bars have been getting, but who not only don't appreciate but in many cases actively dislike what the bars are offering, you strongly disagreed with me? ETA -- I mean, not to be argumentative or anything.

Just for your information, the Asian head chef was almost certainly not Chang (who rarely cooks at Ko), but probably Peter Serpico, Ko's chef de cuisine (who, despite his name, is Asian).

What about Wylie (otherwise the nicest guy in the world)? I can't see him making, say, a plain grilled steak because someone asks for it. Maybe he's the best analogy.

I think the point of Babbo -- the reason why it's "important" -- is that it goes beyond emulation of a foreign cuisine to adaptation. That's why I can't say that I consider Guy Savoy in Las Vegas -- a restaurant I just adore -- "important". It's just the U.S. branch of a great restaurant in France.

I agree with everything Phil says here (big surprise). But I want to note again a tension between various strands of the Serious Cocktail Movement. I believe (and it appears Phil believes) that Serious Cocktail Bars are like restaurants, and that you appreciate Serious Cocktails the same way you appreciate food. And that Serious Cocktail Bars should relate to their patrons the way restaurants relate to theirs. Sam would say that they're also social centers, and have a whole other set of obligations on top of that (which arguably include not being snotty to people who order vodka drinks). I understand that bars and restaurants are in the hospitality business, and that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, and that it's arguably almost never justifiable to be snotty to a customer. But why should someone ordering a Double Vodka Tonic at Phil's bar be treated any better than someone ordering a burger with ketchup at Masa would be? (And of course it pisses me off even more when people like that are making it impossible for me to get into these places.)

Because there aren't that many "important" restaurants.

In the end, I'm not sure I see what's so "important" (as opposed to just plain good) about successfully reproducing a favorite type of foreign restaurant in America.

I like Lupa more than Babbo, but it would be hard for me to argue that Lupa is more important than Babbo.

I'm not sure I get that last point, Saltshaker. You can be sued for defamation without publicly stating you agree to bound by a set of professional standards. I don't see what the standards have to do with the claim.

Just tell him you know me, taion.

Sripraphai.

If you're going to include something by Doug Rodriguez, I think it should be his original Miami restaurant, not Patria.

My problem is that there are such radically different viewpoints on this that I think it's difficult to even come up with an idea of what the hypothetical Reasonable Person would think. I, for example, don't particularly think that any amount of comping from 0% to 100% would make me believe that someone's report about a cocktail bar was unduly influenced, so long as that person's report or history of reports made me think that they knew what they were talking about. If, to make an example, I were to read a glowing report about a bar from Robert Hess, whose opinion I believe is well-informed in this area and who I believe to be ethical, and were I to later find out that he had been comped 100% by the bar -- it wouldn't affect my reading of his report one iota. ← I think (this is going to get practically Rawlsian) that you have to do your "reasonable reader" analysis on the assumption that the writer is an unknown quantity. I don't think there can be a different standard for well-known posters than for unknown posters -- and certainly not for knowledgeable posters than for unknowledgeable ones. ETA -- Except, of course, insofar as someone's previous posts have made a relationship so obvious that it needn't be repeatedly redisclosed. But that's different from what you're talking about. ETA -- Chris said the same thing much better. PS re the first paragraph -- I've argued with you enough in person to know that.

See, if it's Pegu and D&C, where my relationship with both the bars is about the same, I don't see how any disclosure is necessary. I think the standard is, you need to disclose if it's something that could be thought to affect your judgment. If it's something that's equal at both places being compared, it's a null factor. If (contrary to fact in this case) it weren't equal, then I don't think it would hurt for me to qualify my statements that I prefer the drinks at D&C to those at Pegu with the addendum, "of course, I'm particularly well-treated at D&C." I'll also repeat that I agree with you and Daisy that over the course of a posting history it can become obvious that you have a history with a place, so that you don't have to repeat it in every post. Only often enough that it doesn't become buried. For example, if every review I write of Ssam Bar or Franny's contains a long list of disclosed comps, I don't think that each random comment I make in between reviews needs to refer back to the fact that I'm a well-treated regular. Similarly, your review of Dutch Kill made it obvious that you're friends with many people there. I don't think you need to keep repeating that throughout that thread.

I agree with that.

Which is really a complicated way of making the rather obvious point that you only should feel constrained to disclose comps if they relate to what you're writing about.

Even more interesting, I think, is Eat Me Daily's take on Shapiro's piece.

I see your point, but I'm not sure I agree. If I'm writing something in the nature of a review, where I describe my experience of a meal or set of meals at a restaurant or a night or set of nights at a bar, then it's obvious I have to make comp disclosures. If I'm joining a discussion where I say, "I agree that not allowing standees keeps noise and croud levels tolerable at that bar," or, "on the whole, I prefer the drinks at D&C to the drinks at Pegu," it's hard for me to see how comp disclosures come into play. Even though those statements are in some sense evaluative, they aren't specific enough to implicate the disclosure of any comps. Even if I've received comps at the bars being discussed, they're not implicated by those statements. If I'm friends with management, that might be different: that might warrant disclosure. But as Sam and Daisy have pointed out, that usually becomes obvious in any event.

My point was that it is. It's kind of Ground Zero for contemporary Cajun cuisine (and too old for inclusion on your list).

Le Cirque, Four Seasons, Le Pavillon, probably Le Bec Fin, ALL too long ago. You must be really young.

Something that occurs to me is that I'm making an assumption that perhaps isn't self-evident. I'm assuming the disclosure rules I'm advocating apply only to write-ups in the nature of "reviews", and not what I've referred to as "random comments." I don't think they're implicated every time you talk about a place -- only when you sit down and write something meant to be a full-bore evaluation. I guess I'd add, unless it directly affects your comment. For example, let's say (as often happens) that Daisy mentions that a particular cocktail somewhere is really good, and I then chime in to say I agree. I don't think I need to disclose that I'm known to the house, or that other drinks I had were comped the night I tried that cocktail. If that particular cocktail were comped, though, I think I'd have to disclose that. If I'd had the cocktail several times, sometimes comped, sometimes not, (a) I probably wouldn't remember the comps and (b) I don't think they'd matter anymore, probably, in terms of having affected my judgment.

I totally didn't. To try to elaborate a little, nobody thinks it's a positive good to attract people whose taste is very obviously limited to (the excellent) Peter Luger's to, say, Corton. It's not a matter of "cool" or "uncool" -- and certainly not a matter of patronizing people who like Luger's. If somebody isn't likely to appreciate what a place does well, why is it such a good thing to attract them to the place? I loved my parents, but I would never take them to a fancy French restaurant. They just wouldn't have liked it. What would be the point? I see the flaws in what I just said, and its application to what we were discussing. But I just wanted to try to clear up what I was trying to say.

BUT DAISY, THAT'S MY POINT! It isn't hard to do. Most of us do it anyway.

Really? You've made any number of posts in the Pegu Club thread, as well as on various other cocktail bars and cocktail bar-related threads. I don't think I've ever seen you disclose a comped cocktail in a single one of these posts. Does this mean you never get buybacks? ← I don't write many reviews of cocktail bars (as distinguished from random comments in discussions). When I do, I'm pretty sure I note whatever comps I got. (I should also note that I adopted that usage toward the end of the time when I regularly posted reviews [as opposed to random comments] on eG. I think if you look at my more recent reviews elsewhere, you'll see a very regular practice.)