Sneakeater

I see what you're saying. But I think what you're really saying is that what would be considered a screw-up at one level is considered tolerable service at another. In other words, Landmarc might still deserve its one star even if 100% of its patrons had to wait 15 minutes for water refills 100% of the time. But those aren't the kind of screw-ups we're talking about here, are they? We're talking about disasters like the wine-spilling and misrepresentation of a dish at Ago. Things that, if uncorrected, wouldn't be tolerable at any level. The way I look at it is this. Think of food quality instead of service. Obviously, three- and four-star restaurants use better ingredients and feature generally more complex and creative recipes than two-star restaurants. But if Le Cirque, say, burned its duck 15% of the time, that wouldn't make it a two-star; it would make it a "Poor". And if Little Owl burned its pork chops 15% of the time, it would also demote it to "Poor" instead of demoting it to one star.

I think there's an erroneous assumption underlying some of the recent discussion. I don't think it's the case that a four-star restaurant will screw up service 0.5% of the time, a three-star will 1%, a two-star will 15% of the time, and a one-star will 25%, or anything like that. I think there are different levels of service you get in different classes of restaurants. And while I think we tolerate more frequent screw-ups in lower classes of restaurants, I don't think it's the case that a one-star restaurant is a four-star restaurant that screws up service 50 times more often. A one-star restuarant could have a nearly perfect service record and still have only one-star service. ETA: I guess that if you're deciding how much you should dock an otherwise three- or four-star place for service screw-ups, the frequency of the screw-ups would matter. Maybe. Service would have to be really awful to bring an otherwise three- or four-star restaurant down to one star, though.

Ditto.

Some of this is beside the point, though, because whatever any of us might think, the Times pretty clearly views restaurant reviewing as a species of consumer reporting rather than arts criticism.

I was going to make that point myself. Absolutely right. It's a quandary.

I mean, imagine if the Times would hire as its theater critic only someone unknown in local theater circles. Or as its classical music critic only someone unknown to local musicians and presenters. The results would be laughable.

OK, now we're getting to the nub of this. I'm all for attempted partial anonymity. I think it does encourage more representative experiences for reviewers. But the problem, which hasn't been identified until now, is that the anonymity requirement eliminates many of the people who'd be most knowledgeable in the field. The Times expects its main reviewer to sever all ties with the local restaurant industry. It's like it sends them off to a convent for the duration of their tenure. And, although I'm not privy to its criteria, if the Times is really serious about anonymity, it would have to reject anyone who's already well-known to the local industry, since unless they're willing to go around in disguise like Ruth Riechl they'd be instantly recognized without the need for surrepticious photos being hung in the kitchen. Like FG, I think the Times would be able to hire more authoritative reviewers if it didn't care so much about anonymity. How I ultimately come out on the issue I have no idea.

Absolutely yes.

I actually was there with the intention of ordering that menu. But then I got distracted by some things I'd never had before on the a la carte menu. I'm a moron. PS -- I have to add that some of us consider Grayz to be fine dining.

Two words. Pancetta ripieno.

As a longtime resident and propertyowner in Prospect Heights, the distinction is important to me. If my apartment were a couple of blocks away, in Park Slope, its value would be enormously higher. I can't let it go by when Manhattanites -- nobody who lives in either my neighborhood or Park Slope would say Franny's is in Park Slope -- contribute to keeping my property value down by assigning what is probably my developing neighborhood's single best amenity to Park Slope. It just rankles that anything good in Prospect Heights is assigned to that other neighborhood by tourists because, of the two neighborhoods, Park Slope is the one they're more familiar with. Park Slopers shouldn't get all the property-value credit for Prospect Heights amenities.

The same way Arturo's is more or less on the boundary between Soho and the Village.

Obligatory Post Franny's is NOT in Park Slope. (I will go to my death fighting for the universal acknowledgement that Franny's is in my neighborhood.)

I don't remember ever seeing this there, but, as Weinoo said, I'd try the Italian food store in the Chelsea Market.

I don't get the "phoned-in menu" stuff. They have a credible chef de cuisine. The two times I ate there, it tasted like real food. I had problems with the concept, but the general level of the execution actually overcame them for me.

Does anybody think Eater would've roughed this place up so much if it weren't in the MPD?

I'll let you know next time I'm going.

Does anybody know what the secondary market is like in pizza pebbles?

It occurs to me that the pizza pebbles would make good projectiles in a food fight. Can't wait to go back to WD-50 now!

No, she was talking about price. She was saying that although it's not inexpensive, it's not in the the top eschelon of expense of New York. (At least I think that's what she was saying.)

Tell Dennis to go to Franny's instead of Otto.

But there's a lot of hidden pork. For example, when I went, one fish dish was accompanied by a cylinder of rice. It was delicious, maybe the best rice I've ever had. I asked the chef if he did anything special to it to make it so good. His response: "No. Nothing special. I just brushed it with pork fat."

That's how I rated those dishes. Unagi fritter -- pathetic. Tuna ribs -- pathetic. Pork wing -- not bad, really. But the price . . . . ? If Bar Q were cheaper, it would be easy to tolerate, I think. But it isn't.

Right. Just about ANY fish that's hard to get right, they do, consistently. That's why I think they're (or he's) so good.

Tell Dennis to go to Franny's instead of Grimaldi's (if he's going to cross the bridge for pizza).