Sneakeater

Also, I wish Peter Meehan's friend were my friend.

I know this has been discussed to death, but I think a review today of a restaurant that opened IN NOVEMBER is ridiculously premature.

I don't know which way this cuts, but as a non-clubber, non-dancer, everytime I go to APT I'm surprised at how much I like it. The DJs really are often excellent (even to a non-dancer) (once I stumbled upon the guy who's Isolee there), and it really is amazingly, um, comfortable for this kind of place.

There's no way they're using Monterey Jack cheese. There seems to be a lot of attention paid to ingredients here -- remember, the chef came from Savoy. Although, strictly through luck of the draw, the dishes I had used creme fraiche to the extent they used anything like that at all. I don't think they're open for lunch. (It's funny. I was thinking of actually appending a note to my review stating that I'd be very interested to hear what you thought of this place.)

Where are you going to be? How are you planning to get around? (I ask because if you're going to be in, say, Midtown and are willing to take a cab downtown to eat, it doesn't really matter how out-of-the-way Perry Street is, cuz once you're in a cab it's as easy to get there as anywhere else. OTOH, if you want to stick to the neighborhood you're going to be in, then we'd have to know which neighborhood that is in order to avoid recommending places that are inconvenient for you even if they're not particulary out-of-the-way as a general matter.)

You don't dance there, but I've always thought that Pravda was, like, remarkably non-douchey (we might as well drag out all the snarky cliches if we're gonna talk about this) for a non-cocktailist lounge.

No no no no no. Bottle service dosen't AVOID B&Ters. Bottle service gets you CLOSER to B&Ters.

The venison is the best savory I've had so far -- but it was only on the tasting menu. Two entrees I haven't had yet that look interesting are the pork belly with tobacco and the beef two ways. But you don't need me to tell you what looks interesting. I'm very eager to try the monkfish liver appetizer, but haven't yet. Does that count as a recommendation? I thought the rabbit/foie gras appetizer I had was ordinary. I think the thing to do with the desserts is just dive in. I think they're all of a piece, and it just depends on what strikes you. One problem is that what to me is the most interesting-seeming dessert (I'm not saying it's the best, only the most interesting-seeming) -- the concord grape with eggplant -- is only on the tasting menu.

The feeling I got from the wine list is that they're ahead in gathering the off-beat stuff of where they are in gathering the standard stuff. Not necessarily a criticism -- just an observation. They don't have any house cocktails.

OF COURSE "B&T" now includes people who live in Manhattan. How else do you account for the fact that many neighborhoods in Brooklyn and Queens are now much cooler than several neighborhoods in Manhattan? (I guess that's why "Murray Hill" is now said as sneeringly as "B&T" used to be.) Because it would be terrible to have to have this rather embarassing discussion twice: http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showto...88834&hl=sceney

Especially now that Siberia has closed.

I don't think it was one of the Seven Moles. It was called Almendra. Not surprisingly, it was mainly almond, although I think it had some chocolate (and of course a bunch of other stuff) in it. To be fair, I think that one of the reasons my friend was so blown away by it is that he didn't know there were other moles besides mole poblano (more to the point, usually bad mole poblano).

Papatzul -- opened this fall in the old La Jumelle space on Grand St. just off West Broadway -- is a new entrant in the NYC upscale Mexican derby. Well, it's not upscale the way the Richard Sandoval restaurants are -- and nor is it priced at that high level (entrees barely breeched $20, as I recall) -- but the food is serious. It probably hasn't reached its full potential yet, but it's very good already. Well worth a visit -- and given the paucity of such places in New York, worthy of support. The chef is named Thierry Amezcua. He's cooked at Il Buco and Savoy. It turned out that, although the restaurant was my suggestion, my dining companions were acquainted with Chef Amezcua through their children. Although we got a lot of comped dishes sent out to us a result, they were all menu items that I am sure were prepared as they usually are. The food seemed recognizably of the Mexico City style, and it turns out that Chef Amezcua is in fact a native of the DF. Everything was very well prepared -- the glop factor was low. The dishes, as of now, lack the imaginative spark of a Sue Torres (much less Aaron Sanchez at Centrico); Chef Amezcua is, for now, staying closer to the tradition. But he may loosen up as his place gains a following. And, in any event, more traditional Mexican food fills a need in New York when it's this well prepared. The huitlacoche sopes were very very good. No surprises, but very cleanly prepared. A comped scallop appetizer (so I don't know exactly what was in it) was a standout. It had the kind of assertive but well-modulated multiflavorings that you look to Mexican food for. (In that respect it's like Indian food.) I enjoyed the swordfish napoleon I had for my entree -- but not as much as one of my friends appeared to enjoy his mole duck enchiladas. His response was such that I have to recommend them by proxy. I think they sent us out every dessert on the menu. They were all much better than you'd expect at a place like this. If you go this week, I also recommend a seasonal cocktail called La Piedra, which consists of tequila, Fernet Branca menta, and pomegranite. What is especially attractive about this place is the evident care and passion that is discernable in every aspect, from the decorating to the obviously serious and committed cooking. It's obviously not run on a huge budget, but their choices all seemed right. This place is good now, and given a chance will only get better. But we're still so starved for good above-budget Mexican in New York (the kind where you can actually eat the protiens without forcing them down) that the opening of even a good-but-not-yet-great option is an event. Without expecting miracles from it, I'd strongly recommend you give Papatzul a try.

What I thought about the savories this time was that there is just something missing that keeps them from being excellent. I can't put my finger on it. I've been thinking about it all weekend (not all the time all weekend -- I'm obsessed, but I'm not a maniac), and I still can't think exactly what it is. (Sidenote: a problem with "this kind of food" is that Bouley Upstairs and Perry Street do it so well, for such reasonable prices, that it makes it hard for everyone else trying to do it.) As for the desserts, I'll admit that I find it hard to acclimate myself to "avant-garde" cooking. It took me more than a year to get WD-50. So it's not surprising that I'm still trying to crack Jordan Kahn's work. It's extremely imaginative and excellently put together, and I strongly recommed that everyone at least try it.

(Even if it were more centrally located downtown.) JG and Perry Street are clearly the two great high-end lunch deals in NYC. In terms of placating your wife, though, Perry Street has the advantage of seeming much less like a "big deal." The only problem is, it isn't likely to be very convenient to wherever you're planning to be.

It seems far to people cuz they don't know where they're going. Once you know, it's just a typical walk. I remember the first time my wife and I walked down to Wallse on 11th St. from 14th St. We didn't know how far it would be and it seemed like the longest walk in the world. Of course, it isn't.

It's one of those Ted Breaux absinthes that you order from these guys: http://www.absintheonline.com/acatalog/Jade.html I don't think LeNell's (or anyone else in the US) could legally stock it. FWIW, I, too think it's great in Sazeracs (although I use the more plebian Sazerac 18 for the rye).

I think your large point about accellerated change is very salient. But on a micro rather than a macro level, you wrote a few years ago that you thought that JG could have already been losing its relevance. Do you still think so? I think it's maintained its preeminence (with the POSSIBLE exception of the superpremium Per Se, where I've never been so I don't know) to an extent that's almost surprising.

Moral: You can run, but you can't hide.

Why wouldn't you count expense accounters and foodies? JG is weird because of its location. It's obvious that Daniel has loads and loads of regulars.

The only thing I'd say -- and this is part of what led me to raise this query, misbegotten as it might have been -- is that I'm not sure I see any clear correlation between any kind of discernable quality and longevity in restaurants (at least below the absolute top level). Now you might say that's true of Broadway, too. But even with Broadway (where I personally would say that at least 80% of what's put up -- and at least 90% of what has long runs these days -- is absolute shit), I can at least understand why some things succeed and some don't (in other words, while they're not pitched to my taste, I can still sort of discern that there's a taste to which they are pitched, and against which they can be judged). And likewise, I can understand why there are things I like on Broadway that aren't huge hits. Restaurant survival seems much more random than that to me. It just seems to me -- totally anecdotally, I admit -- like, now more than ever, perfectly good places get supplanted by other perfectly good places. I may be wrong, of course.

I don't know how we'd measure that. What's the basis for the statement that many (as opposed to "some" or "a few") struggle after the first three months?In particular, neither of the examples in Sneakeater's post really stood for the stated premise. Cru isn't struggling at all. You don't need to reserve months in advance, but it generally sells out prime-time seatings. Cru is clearly a hit. Biltmore Room did close, but that was after almost a three-year run. If it was already struggling after three months, I doubt it would have lasted that long. March was not in business for "a couple of years." It had an extremely long run, having opened in 1990. Jovia? Well, that's the only one mentioned that more-or-less fits the pattern, though not necessarily because there are more high-end restaurants than the market can bear. A certain number of restaurants are going to fail, even in the best of times. (Was the average check size at Jovia over $100? I actually think of Jovia as a mid-level place.) ← Not that I'm arguing with you on the facts, because you're probably right. But: From your own weblog, Town. Also, Alto.

So maybe it's just that there's a pattern that John LaFemina reported (and none of his places are high-end). Great first several months for practically anywhere with decent publicity. Then, the shake-out period, where only the places with legs survive (and even then with business diminished from the honeymoon period). (It's here, I believe LaFemina noted, that things like reviews become important.)

Same question, though: was it always like that?

That's why I initially thought it was stupid for them to hire Robins in the first place. Problem was, when I ate there, I really liked the food.