Sneakeater

(And I really will shut up about this.)

That's very true (and important). Thanks for pointing it out.

I don't want to drag this out, but it's funny you should say that, because I thought of that EXACT SAME analogy last night. Here's where I think it fails. Success in sports (let's put figure skating and gymnastics aside) is a completely objective thing. It's not a matter of how some third party judges you in accordance with unclear criteria that others might or might not share: you either succeed at hitting .300 or you don't. So hoping an athletic comeback succeeds simply means hoping someone objectively succeeds qualitatively at what they're trying to do. Starred reviews aren't like that. This is exacerbated because none of us really trusts Bruni, but even with the most reliable evaluators (Claiborne, Sheraton) there's an element of unpredictability and caprice in star awards. So if you "hope" for a three-star award, it's not the same as hoping the restaurant is actually good. It's more like hoping it gets the recognition afforded a good restaurant (with the attendant economic benefits). That seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse: you're wishing the owners success (at the expense of consumers who pay the fare) without knowing how good it is. I think I understand why people say things like this, and I object to it. I care more about my fellow consumers than the chefs and the owners. I think a particular venture should only succeed financially if it deserves to -- not because of the chef's or owner's reputation or what they've done in the past or what we hope they'll do in the future, but because of what they're doing now. Just because I love the Rolling Stones' Beggars Banquet and Let It Bleed (and, I'm happy to say, A Bigger Bang), it doesn't mean that I "hope" anyone spends his money buying Goat's Head Soup and Steel Wheels (or that those substandard products get praised as if they were good). I think there's a difference between saying "I hope it's a very good restaurant" or "I hope it turns out to deserve three stars" on the one hand and "I hope it gets three stars" on the other. As I've repeated to the point where I'm sure nobody wants to hear it any more, I don't see how you can justifiably say the latter if you haven't been to the restaurant. I know this must seem like a very nice (lawyer lingo for "crabbed") distinction. But for some reason I really think it matters. (And -- to the undoubted relief of everyone else -- I'm willing to agree to stop yammering about this if it's getting really tiresome.)

As I noted before, it appears to me that he didn't like the food and that's a subjective opinion to which he's entitled. What's unfortunate is that the backing of the NY Times gets put behind one questionable subjective opinion. Perhaps this is just one more instance demonstrating the weakness of the star system. "I loved the chef's technical virtuosity, but hated the flavors and combinations of flavors," without the addition of a rating, is going to have a very different effect on readers than the same statement combined with a number and it's unrealistic to expect a reviewer to award a high number, if he didn't like the food. I assume each and every reviewer would like to believe they were hired for their opinion, even when they've never offered one in public before they were hired. Intelligent readers will, if they can't disregrd the rating, at least read the lines and perhaps between the lines. ← I can't even adequately state how much I agree with this post.

Apparently, at these places in the center of Turin.

That was one of the best posts I've ever read on this topic. Thank you.

But disconnects are sort of inevitable, aren't they? If I were the Times restaurant critic -- a horrible prospect, since I'm even more technically unqualified than Bruni -- I'd keep Blue Hill's two-star rating, whereas plenty of people here would give it three. There are plenty of restaurants -- The Tasting Room, L'Impero, Peasant, Les Halles, to name a few off the top of my head -- that get a lot of praise (in some cases, uniform praise) that I don't see at all. And I'm sure there are places that I like a lot that others would say I overvalue. I guess what I'm trying to say is that we're never all going to be on the same page. And you can't know if you'll -- you, a particular person -- like someplace, or think it's worthwhile, or that it lives up to its reputation, or however you want to put it, until you try it, no matter what anyone else says.

I hate to resurrect this divisive topic, but that's kind of what I was trying to say when I inveighed against expressing "hope" that some restaurant you haven't been to will be awarded three stars. Gray Kunz has lots of fans, and when Cafe Gray opened they all wished him well. But why should you "hope" a place like that be given three stars, just because you like the chef, when eating there and thinking about it over time might reveal that it deserves less? Because you like the chef so much that you want him to get good publicity, even though you, when you've had the chance to think about it, don't think a particular venture of his deserves it? Here's the only point I was tring to make (I'm going to put in bold for emphasis, since I seem to get it lost whenever I try to express it): Shouldn't your "hope" be that the public be given a valid evaluation (something you can't expect from Frank Bruni -- but that's another issue) -- whatever it might turn out to be -- rather than that a particular place you haven't tried be given a high rating, regardless of what you ultimately might think it deserves, just because you like the chef or like the way the place sounds? I'm sorry if people think this is tiresome, or if any mention of this opinion annoys people. I hope you all see by now that I'm not trying to insult anybody. Since my probably inept expression of this opinion before seems to have turned people off, I just want to take another shot of explaining what I was trying to say -- expecially since Oakapple, who at least thought he disagreed with me, now seems to be saying something at least sort of similar. And I do think this points to a flaw -- a sort of over-identification with favorite chefs -- that I think you sometimes see on boards like this. (PS -- None of this should be taken as meaning that I think Bruni's review of Gilt supports his two-star rating. Like everyone else who's commented, I think the review is overly subjective, technically clueless, and, in fact, makes Gilt sound, to an objective reader, like a three-star restaurant.)

(That was a "joke".)

If you want a fine dining "experience", you have to eat at Per Se.

I guess I should add the mandatory report of a service glitch: They forgot to bring us our amuses, and instead served them to us between our appetizers and entrees. (Hush of pure shock falls over the room.) The amuses were tempuraed shrimp in some kind of sweet and sour sauce, BTW, and were absolutely wonderful (and very generous). I was so happy about my and my companion's being seated at Cafe Boulud at 8:30 AS WALK-INS that I didn't think to mind. They were appropriately apologetic, though.

In Boston, Greek ownership was the sign of a truly horrible pizza.

For the little it's worth, I got a bottle of Sazerac 18 (I don't remember the year off hand), and I liked it all out of proportion to what I thought its reputation was. I'm glad to see that others feel strongly favorably disposed to it as well.

Well, yeah, but you have to make it. (I told you, I'm lazy.) (THANKS!)

Because I'm lazy: I see that the earliest recipe mentioned here used sugar instead of simple syrup. Is everyone absolutely agreed (as I fear they are) that simple syrup is preferable? (I can't really figure how sugar would even work, I'm afraid to say.)

A REALLY ignorant question: Am I right in assuming this would be a digestif rather than an apperativ?

My first post-Carmellini meal at Cafe Boulud. Happily, I don't think the place is materially different. Appetizers: a cream of wild mushroom soup for me. As I sometimes say, with dishes this familiar, the question is only how good the rendition was. This was excellent. For my companion, tuna tartar with black truffles. LOTS of black truffles. Yet -- how does this happen? -- not an amount of black truffles that overpowered the fish. Two wins so far. Entrees: my companion had the duck with mostarda di frutta. She said it was the best duck dish she ever had. After I directed her attention to the other side of the room and snatched a chunk off her plate, I agreed that it was excellent, one of the great current NYC entrees. Gaf's description above is perfect. I had a lamb shank with Algerian spices (I think the menu said) with a bunch of root vegetables and tea-infused raisins. The lamb shank itself was disappointing -- I mean it was good, but for all the talk of Algerian spices and stuff it wasn't really better than any old lamb shank at any old restaurant. But -- this is going to seem weird, but bear with me -- those few tea-infused raisins were delicious. I never had anything that tasted like that before. Imagine a raisin, but with an extra charge of fragrance that propels it into the extraordinary. OTOH, four or five raisins, however extraordinary they may be as raisins, are probably not a sufficient reason to order this dish. For dessert, a special of milk chocolate mousse with meyer lemon. I'm not a big fan of milk chocolate, but in this short window I'll get any meyer lemon dish I can. Boy was it good. If you liked Cafe Boulud before, no reason to stop going now. New(ish) chef Bertrand Chemel is keeping the place on course.

I don't see how anyone (by which I mean Batalli and Bastianich) could reasonably think that a restaurant that fits the descriptions we've all heard of Del Posto could be a candidate for four stars.

The problem is that Bruni -- while clearly an enthusiastic restaurantgoer -- just doesn't know that much about food. He doesn't have the chops to be a restaurant critic. And, as you said, he has to cover that up with a lot of overly-stylized, "knowing" writing about the "scene".

Agree completely. (But don't listen to me. I'm gross. I like Junipero in everything.)

Jesus.... Who's taking this stars thing too seriously??? If Liebrandt gets two or three, it will be a great thing for him, three especially. If he gets dissed, people are still going to go there. And when Michelin time comes 'round.... BTW, I'm sitting on a chair, is that too low? ← I can see how that might have seemed much more personal than it was ever intended to be. I think my main beefs are with the star system, with (big surprise!) Frank Bruni, and -- I have to say it -- with the occassional tendency you see on boards like this to put the interests of the supply side (the restauranteurs) over those of the paying customers. Not really appropriate to go into here -- but there are always those recurrent discussions of the star system to bore people in. I'm sorry if I offended you, though, Ted. It's easy to see how I would have. I never meant that.

God bless anyone who gets people to switch to gin from vodka!

My Austrian grandmother was a terrible cook. I think one of the reasons I so enjoy going to the flock of Austrian restaurants that are now opening in New York is that I finally get to see what that food was supposed to taste like.

I'll add a vote for "citrusy". To me, Tanq 10 is too mild, though.

Everything there that isn't a club or a restaurant is a boutique (except for the stray remnant of the meatpacking industry). They aren't as suburban as the stores in TWC. But it's definitely like a mall (the outdoor ones we used to have out on Long Island in the late fifties and early sixties, before they all got enclosed).