Sneakeater

This is extremely interesting whether or not it's true: http://nymag.com/daily/food/2006/12/benson...inatown_br.html Anyone who had Joe Ng's dim sum at World Tong knows he's holding back at Chinatown Brasserie -- even if he has vastly better ingredients and equipment there. The combination of a lot of resources and an audience that appreciates the full range of his talent and vision could produce something truly awe-inspiring (not to mention worth travelling to Bensonhurst for). In any event, even if this rumor turns out not to be true, the background to it sheds an interesting light on the discussion we had of "haute" Chinese restaurants and the kind of clientele they would have to appeal to. This could be the start of what many of us (OK, larrylee and I) have been waiting for.

No no no no. Now you've got to write about how, I dunno, everybody in Argentina knows that Serendipity is the best dessert place in New York.

The short ribs are really good.

Not sweet. Or balanced. Or they taste like what they taste like, and if you don't want something sweet just ask for something that isn't sweet. You would seriously love the Pegu Club.

There are two ways that Time star ratings could have been "consulted" in that paleolithic era. First, the Times periodically published restaurant guides that contained a bunch of summaries of reviews, with star ratings. They're discussed in this thread: http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showtopic=89986&hl=. Second, I am going to make the ridiculous anecdotal claim that many more restaurants then than now had placards advertising their Times ratings posted in their doorways or windows.

I disagree strongly.

I liked Conventual a lot, and am happy to hear it's still good.

Then make the calendar.

To say that that place has been extensively discussed here would be an understatement: http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showtopic=3921&hl=

Same.

Florence Fabricant might have mentioned it, but it deserved more than a mention. It warranted an evaluation. Bruni could have said in the Diner's Journal column (as I think it still then was) that there's been a change in chefs at ADNY and that, based on a few visits, the difference is . . . whatever he thought.

It's funny you should say that about Tezka. I was so impressed by the food there that I never really stopped to think that the place was dead as a doornail. You're certainly right about that.

Yeah, of course you're right.

I'll go further and say that I wouldn't feel as strongly about the need to do these re-reviews IF the Times didn't utilize a star system. Without the star system, there would only be reviews, specific to the time and circumstances of their publication. But the star system purports to do permanent consumer rankings. As oakapple keeps reminding us, the stars are remembered (and consulted) long after the reviews are forgotten. Since the star system purports to be a permanent consumer guide, it seems to me that the Times has some kind of obligation to update when circumstances change. (At least at the upper end, where there are comparatively few restaurants and the high prices charged give more weight or import to the recommendations.)

I just don't know about this. (Certainly it's a moot point now that ADNY is closing.) A new chef at ADNY seemed like big enough news to me to warrant a reevaluation. I mean, Bruni at least should have gone. He could have written it up in Diner's Journal (in whatever form that column/blog was then taking) even if he did not make it the subject of a formal re-review. I think Eleven Madison Park should be re-reviewed in light of the change in chefs, despite the fact that its last review was only about a year ago. I think the change in chefs made it in essence a new restaurant -- and to my mind a highly significant one. I think it's just silly that the Times has on its books a rating that has nothing to do with what this (again, and to my mind) now highly significant New York restaurant is now doing.

I know that where I live (major urban center) 20% is the current standard, and that 15% would indeed look cheap. How and when it got raised is an interesting question. Certainly 20 years ago it was 15%. I don't know how it was decided to go up to 20%, or by whom, or how everybody found out. But it is general knowledge here now. Somehow. (Silly as it seems, I think I remember seeing an article about it in the New York Times several years ago. I guess that's how everybody used to find out about everything here. Now I guess it would be circulated through the internet.) On a side note, I think that anyone who doesn't overtip when sitting at a bar is really missing out.

This is exactly why exceptionally good "cheap" restaurants should get starred reviews and not be relegated to "$25 and Under".

From now on, I'm never gonna recommend Grand Sichuan without appending a note: "DO NOT ORDER ANY NON-SICHUAN OR -HUNAN DISHES!"

Although, of course, educated opinion concerning "old" work changes over time. Mozart wasn't nearly as highly regarded at the turn of the last century as he was at the turn of this one. Bach, of course, famously disappeared from view until Mendelssohn revived him. Haydn's gone down and up (although never back up to where he was). There are countless examples. And, of course, critics have a role in this constantly ongoing reshaping of educated opinion.

GREATEST NYT CORRECTION OF ALL TIME: "Correction: November 29, 2006, Wednesday An article last Wednesday . . . misstated the number of continents on which the food writer Mimi Sheraton has searched for bialys. It is five, not two."

Through happenstance, I found myself back at the RTR again. Livelier crowd on Monday than on Sunday. The bar was so crowded we couldn't get a seat. (While waiting for my date, I did spend a lot of time hanging with two women of a certain age who used to be regulars back in the day. They were hilarious.) So shoot me, I liked this meal about as much as my other one. The duck confit filling of the blinchiki appetizer (with beet) was a bit mushy, and duck was not, perhaps, the most appropriate flavor for that dish. But my entree of turbot over something very much like sauerkraut with pastrami, under a mustard sauce, was both highly delicious and very witty. (Again, I wonder if the audience for this restaurant is willing to appreciate a dish like that.) The buttermilk panna cotta was fine, but my date's chocolate souflee was better. The wine list is limited and expensive. In a way, that's appropriate for this place -- but I hope they work on it. The sommelier is a great guy.

I think that "received" opinions are simply accepted without much thought. I think in the case of "educated" opinions you learn it and internalize it, to the extent that you are able to think independently within the tradition.

I hope this will not distract Leonard from making actual worthwhile posts.

I've been thinking about Pan's many comments to this effect all weekend. At risk of moving this discussion backwards, let me write down some thoughts. If someone told you he liked Bruckner more than Brahms, you'd take that as a fairly uninteresting statement of personal preference. If someone told you he thought Bruckner was better than Brahms, your immediate thought would be to question his knowledge and judgment. The person could conceivably offer a plausible, obviously educated justification (as Thomson was able to justify his privileging of the French tradition over the German tradition) that, even if it didn't persuade you, would establish his credentials as someone whose evaluations are to be taken seriously. But the burden would be on him. He couldn't just rank Bruckner over Brahms without offering such a justification and expect anyone to take him seriously. The reason for this is that there's such a thing as an educated opinion. Is it a coincidence that there's general agreement that Brahms is better than Bruckner? I don't think either of us thinks there's some external reality that makes it a foregone conclusion. I don't think either of us would say it's anything like an existing fact that simply needs to be discovered. I think that we're all educated in the same way so our perceptions are the same. If anyone who demonstrably doesn't know anything about music has a different opinion, we don't care much about it: that's just an unschooled preference. We'd only care, as I said before, if someone who seemed knowlegeable -- educated -- gave an informed explanation of such an evaluation. And not as a simple personal preference, but as an "objective" evaluation, based on standards that can be articulated and applied elsewhere. I'd finally note that critics have more of a role in forming new judgments with respect to things that are new and current. One problem that classical music critics now have is that classical music currently is heavily freighted with recreations of old work as opposed to introductions of new work. When Hanslick was writing, it was different. Not that I'm advancing Hanslick as a good critic. From the little of him that I've actually read, he's too much like Frank Bruni (and me): an uneducated enthusiast purporting to make informed judgments.

I didn't know that donbert ate anything.