Sneakeater

I dunno. It's true that I've definitely been accused of bragging in the past when I was just disclosing comps I thought I was obligated to disclose. But I'm a big boy, and I can take that. But how hard is it to remark, at some point in your write-up, that you're well known to the house? Once you make it a habit, it just comes easily. And I don't think you have to do it every time you post, if you post about a place frequently. Just periodically, so that it never becomes stale information. (As far as disclosing comps go, I just put a note at the end of every write-up I do, marked "COMP DISCLOSURE." It's inelegant, but it's easy.)

I think the hot girl and the person with a keen interest in mixology got disclosable comps. The gregarious guy should disclose any comps he gets; otherwise, I don't think he has to disclose that he's gregarious. I do think he should disclose it if he's any kind of friend of the 'tender, though. I think your last point is salient. I have to think about it. But one initial response is that you may be encouraging the hordes of clueless Vodka Tonic drinkers that pollute Serious Cocktail Bars during prime time. I understand that what's "pollution" to me may be "outreach" to you. But nobody thinks it's such a great thing to get steakeaters into Yasuda so they can complain that the fish isn't cooked.

Not necessarily. He came out of Commander's Palace (which has generated enough significant chefs that it would otherwise be worthy of inclusion) -- and it's too old for the list by a lot.

Daisy, you have to remember you're writing for other people to read and rely. There are too many places I've been to -- not cocktail bars so much, but since I'm part of that "club", too, it wouldn't happen to me at those -- where it was apparent to me that I was misled by overpraise from a claque or coterie, who were having an experience I just wasn't. I resented that, as a reader. So would you.

You mean you're NOT as crafty as I think?

You don't know it's 0% added value because you don't know how much worse a "normal" person's experience would be. In this case, I'm sure the bottom-line average experience at Dutch Kill is of a very high quality. But there are too many places in the world where experiences differ greatly based on whether you're a friend of the house (or, more to the point -- since we all agree there's nothing wrong with a place's treating its friends well -- places where the "friends'" experience is excellent but the bottom-line "average" experience can be deficient). Think of Ruth Riechl's famous Le Cirque review, or the obvious differences in experience given out at Daniel. Meaning, it's possible -- in this case highly unlikely -- that your review without disclosures is of 0% value to nonmembers of the "cocktail club". I don't say that as an accusation; I just think it's a possibility you have to consider.

Gotta have Chez Panisse. (I hope Weinoo realizes I mean it as a compliment when I say I suspect he left it off on purpose, in order to make a point when we all jump to fill it in.)

I personally totally agree with you.

It probably isn't clear, but that's EXACTLY how I'm analyzing it. To be clearer, in my view: If the "comp" is something that isn't given out generally to most or all customers, as a matter of course, then you have to disclose it. You have to disclose it because (a) it made your experience atypical and (b) it (or the circumstances surrounding it) might have affected your judgment of the experience (even if you firmly believe it didn't).

Last summer a friend and I went to some NYC restaurant you've all heard of, and I engaged in a lengthy chat with the sommelier during wine selection (and selected a moderately pricey although not anything near exhorbitant "special interest" wine-geek bottle, remarking that I also had some at home). A lot extra dishes started appearing. Then, after dinner, the sommelier reappeared and said to me and my friend, "we have an unfinished bottle of 1973 Barolo tonight and were wondering if you would like to join the staff in finishing it." Is there any doubt that these are "comps"? How different are they from your experience with Daniel Shoemaker & Co.?

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Not "rapport" as in they know you, but "rapport" as in they like you, and so are giving you special treatment. It's not "suggesting" anything. It's something that has to be disclosed because it could have affected your judgment, that's all. I mean, comps in restaurants (and I'm talking from experience here) pretty much work the exact same way as what you describe above. You sit there and seem engaged and knowledgeable, and suddenly all this extra food starts appearing, and charges end up being dropped from your bill. And we all agree that should be disclosed.

I guess my bottom line is, if it "depends on the rapport the bartender has with the customer," it's a comp.

Totally. But I view that as a comp. For one thing, the bartender probably doesn't "have conversations" like that with every single customer, or even most customers. To me, that kind of selectivity makes it a comp. I guess we're in agreement that this constitutes a comp -- although we're also in agreement that it's not an unqualified good.

It's funny you'd say that. I'd think at least "3", "4", and "5" are comps by that standard.

From your lips to God's ear, as my mother used to say.

I think FG is clearly right about this.

If they really intend that payment to be a service charge, as at per se, then the wording on the check is indefensible.

I wouldn't, either. I guess knowing what I know I'd ask when I make the reservation.

So you're saying you (reasonably) felt constrained to tip a large sum on top of it.

In fact, they DO turn away business. Plenty of business. I get turned away at least 4 or 5 times for every time I get in.

You're corrected in your rereading, and upon reflection, you're correct in your conclusion.

But surely you're not saying that you wouldn't have tipped something like 20% without the "service charge".

Well, part of it is the distinction between bars and restaurants that Sam draws above. Most of the time I spend in bars is in restaurant bars, eating not drinking. So the comps I'm thinking of are mainly free extra courses, things like that. Which may or may not be par for the course -- I don't know. Even though they're probably given to me just because I'm affable (and an extravagant orderer), I think they have to be disclosed when I write a place up because (I can't lie) they do tend to favorably dispose me to a place.

But Holly, in a way that's my point. I'm not a restaurant reviewer. Chris isn't a restaurant reviewer. We're customers who more-than-occassionally post review-like write-ups on the internet. Which I suppose gets us back to your contention that the same rules shouldn't apply to bloggers and posters. I agree in principle, but am afraid that the distinction isn't as clear-cut as all that.

I receive special treatment above that given those around me all the time, and I'm convinced it's usually because I'm an engaged solo diner who, sitting at the bar, interacts knowledgeably with the bartender a lot and who also is not afraid to order very extravagantly. But I can't know for sure. The various bartenders at Insieme, for example, where I go maybe twice a year, could be concealing their knowledge that I'm also a foodboard poster.