Sneakeater

Chefs are cattle.

Sure it does. I should think that if numerical/star ratings are an insult, the feelings of those to whom the offense is purportedly directed ought to count for something. If there aren't very many of them saying, "I am insulted by this," then maybe it just isn't that insulting. It isn't so much that chefs (or, more to the point, chef/owners) are being insulted, but that gastronomy is being insulted. I'll bet there are gallery owners who would like numeric ratings for paintings and sculpture. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be an insult to the visual arts.

Thanks. I wanted to write something like that, but you said it better anyway.

Poniewozik is right. So I guess FG must have been.

The proof that this is false comes from the chefs and restauranteurs themselves. Did you hear Daniel Boulud's reaction when he got the third Michelin star? He was floating on air. If he felt insulted, it was a marvellous acting job to pretend the opposite. I do realize that a few restauranteurs have given up their Michelin stars, but this is comparatively rare. Nearly all chefs profess themselves delighted when they receive a high star rating. Obviously the chefs who don't get the rating they expect are unhappy, but any meaningful system needs to disappoint some people. Even then, I seldom hear chefs and restauranteurs saying that they wish the stars would go away; they just wish they had more of them. That makes no sense at all. I don't know what Chef Boulud thinks, but it would be entirely possible to find the idea of numerical ratings insulting as a concept, but still be EXTREMELY happy to get a high one -- especially when it is well known what a positive effect it has on your business.

I think any kind of numerical rating is an insult to both the reader and the subject of the review. It's for people who are too lazy to read a set of words in sentences in paragraphs and figure out what the author is saying. The Times doesn't give ratings to shows or to concerts or to operas. It's an insult to gastronomy that they give stars to restaurants.

I think the world at large may think it's quaint that people like you and me think there's a difference between tweets and other kinds of writing.

(I'm not claiming that they weren't overly obvious or overdone. Just that they weren't nonsensical or misleading.)

How could anybody think that a bunch of references to bands that became famous playing at CBGB's "don't add up" in a review of a place named after CBGB's on a stretch of blocks now mainly known for being where CBGB's used to be? (I agree the hip-hop reference was out of place.)

Maybe I wildly underdress for per se, but I wear the same clothes to D&C, PDT, etc. that I wear to per se -- a sport coat, a cotton shirt, and cotton or wool pants -- all the time. Of course, maybe everybody at the Cocktail Bars are secretly laughing at me. I've even gone right from per se to one of those bars, now that I think of it. I could handle it, but my date ended up passing out from all the alcohol and other intake.

You're not missing anything. The critical establishment in New York now has a very decided bias against "fancy" restaurants. This is perhaps the most egregious example of a tendency that has been apparent for a few years. The treatment SHO has gotten is scandalous.

This is actually an easy one. Nebbiolo di Langhe.

You have to remember that Chef Hergatt comes from Australia, where Asian fusion comes more naturally than it does to people in this hemisphere. I don't think there's been anything comparable in New York to date.

That's interesting. Actually, my personal preference is for "not dressed up" fine dining. My favorite restaurant (NYC) is Momofuku Ssam Bar. I love that I can go there dressed however I want* and get food as good and ambitious as at the finest places in town. But OTOH, I know that when I do go to the other "fancier" places, different dress is appropriate. ________________________________________________________________ * Not really "however I want." I'd feel uncomfortable if I went there from, say, a court appearance, when I was wearing a suit.

If a restaurant doesn't have a stated dress code, it doesn't follow to me that you can wear anything you want. It's more like they're trusting their clientele to dress appropriately. I know you guys think this isn't an apt analogy (for reasons I frankly don't grasp), but there's no stated dress code for funerals. Everybody is just expected to know what's appropriate.

That's not 100% accurate. I don't really like "dressing up" (I'm putting that in quotes because I don't really view putting on a sport coat as dressing up). I'm just willing to do it if I feel it's expected. Other people seem to be taking the position that they don't care what's expected: they only want to do what they feel like.

The question is, Florida, whether it's "my" expectations, or whether it's the expectations of the place or generally accepted conventions. If a restaurant itself has a dress requirement, it's hard to argue with their right to impose it on you. If it's a generally accepted social convention to dress a certain way for a certain type of activity (and I'm not asserting it is here, just arguing that it might be), then I think it's selfish and self-centered to insist on your right to flaut that convention just because you don't like it or it's inconvenient for you to follow it. If anybody came to my wife's funeral in bright orange sweat pants, I'd have been pissed off. And I think I would have been justified.

It seems to me that one would organize one's wardrobe around one's interests, not one's interests around one's wardrobe. I have a bunch of sport coats because I like to do things -- theater, concerts, opera, high-end dining -- that in my view require them. It would seem strange to me to decline to do those things because I didn't have the appropriate clothes; I would just get the clothes. But OTOH, it would seem lazy and solopsistic to me to say that I refuse to dress appropriately because I don't happen to have the appropriate clothes in my closet right now. Again, just get the clothes.

I don't have sport coats because work requires them. I have them because my social life requires them.

I think all this "suit" stuff is a red herring. I don't know of any restaurants that require suits. At most, they require jackets. It isn't that much work to throw on a sport coat. As to the people who claim they don't have sport coats, I guess it's right that fine-dining places cater to a niche market that doesn't include them. I personally can't imagine being an adult (male) living in a city and not having sport coats as a substantial part of your wardrobe. But then again I'm part of the niche.

I used to go out with someone with celiac disease. The better the restaurant, the more willing they are to accomodate things like that. By all means have the reservation-holder call as soon as possible. It's only polite to give them as much notice as possible. It would be wrong, IMO, not to advise them of your condition. Why waste all that food? They will be happy to accomodate you. It's what they do.

Just to be clear, I DIDN'T feel it was appropriate. I felt it was INappropriate. I did it anyway because I'm selfish. But also, to be fair to myself, I guess I felt like it's up to the restaurant to decide what's appropriate for them. I didn't just plop myself down at the bar. I went to the maitre d' and asked if they'd permit me to eat at the bar despite what I considered my inappropriate dress. Frankly, the maitre d' responded like he didn't know what I was talking about.

Before the summer, they had a series of great wine dinners for $275 each. Given that wine is more expensive than beer, it seems hard to justify the extra $75.

When else would you conceivably drink cognac, other than at the end of a meal?

Wait a minute. If something affects the nose of the wine, how could it not affect the taste? I mean, when you're actually drinking wine and not composing tasting notes where you artificially try to break a holistic experience down.