Sneakeater

Further beating that dead cow, I have to point out what restaurant appears at the bottom of that list.

But, as I said when NY Magazine instituted its star system, to me the "critic's pick" system actually makes more sense than stars. "Critic's picks" just highlight shows or restaurants that are notable in one way or another. They completely avoid the problem of creating a hierarchy among things that aren't really comparable. A threadbare off-off production is just as appropriate a "critic's pick" as the most elaborate star-laden Broadway production -- and Spripraphai is just as appropriate a "critic's pick" as Le Bernadin, without any of the carping about how you can't compare the two or put them in the same category. Because they really aren't being categorized. Instead, they're being flagged as being particularly good for what they are -- and the reader is left to the text of the review (or blurb) to see what that is. If the Times "starred" theatrical productions instead of "critic's picking" them, you'd get the same kinds of silly disputes we have about starring restaurants. Is "four stars" limited to really good productions of Shakespeare and nothing else? Can a light contemporary comedy get the same number of stars as a decent production of Long Day's Journey? Can you compare a downtown production done on the cheap with a well-financed uptown production? Does the uptown production automatically deserve more stars just because of higher production values? And on and on. And all a result of the unnecessary hierarchy established by the star system. I.e., not inherent problems that have to exist, but rather problems caused only by the use of that particular evaluative shorthand.

I guess the short way to say what I've been trying to say in incredibly wordy fashion is that I, myself, would find it more confusing for Sripraphai to be put in the same category as Freeman's or Via Emila than I do for Sripraphai to be put in the same category as The Modern.

Perhaps it may be clearer to say that we may be having a disagreement about the need that the "$25 and Under" column best serves. You appear to think that it's to highlight the cheap places that have truly superb food but rudimentary ambiance and service. I think that those rare places have a place in the star system. To me, the best use of "$25 and Under" is to give a fair appraisal to places that are worthwhile values, but which wouldn't warrant a star and so would be dismissed by a "starred" review. Like the difference between the Freeman's "$25 and Under" review and the Freeman's "starred" review. And, as I tried to explain above, I think that relegating the really great cheap places to "$25 and Under", instead of letting them get their due in starred reviews, would end up doing the same disservice to the more ordinary kind of cheap places as not having a "$25 and Under" column at all. The oridnarily good cheap places can't compete with the really great cheap places. But there aren't enough really great cheap places to fill the column. (Especially if you're going to include a substantial number of inexpensive mainstream restaurants, and not turn it exclusively into a Sietsema/Chowhound-type search for good outerborough ethnic joints.) So the "$25 and Under" critics would have to end up being as halfhearted in their praise of most of the inexpensive places as the lead-review writer would be.

But in that case, here's the problem I have with that. The "$25 and Under" column can't work the way you're proposing. It can never accomodate the few really exceptional cheap restaurants at the Sripraphai level. Because most of the restaurants reviewed in "$25 and Under" are no more than good for what they are. And properly so. As I said above, I think that in fact that's the purpose that "$25 and Under" serves: to alert you to good cheap places that deserve patronage at their price but whose food wouldn't warrant a star. If you were to include the truly great cheap places in "$25 and Under", then the only way to communicate their relative quality vis-a-vis most of the places reviewed there would be to damn most places with faint praise. To me, that would destroy the usefulness of the column. When I read something there now giving high praise to a place like Via Emilia, I know that I should still not expect anything special from it. I don't know if it would be possible to convey the absolute excellence of a place like Sripraphai in that context, without giving most of the review subjects the same indifferent treatment they'd receive in a "starred" review. I.e., you'd be back to the problem that, I believe, the "$25 and Under" column was designed to solve. Well, you might say, there is a way: by instituting a second-tier star system, as New York Magazine has done. I have to say that I'm about as derisive of that option as Eater.

That's different. Those aren't no-star "star" reviews. (If that's what you meant in the post we were commenting on -- i.e., if you meant a review that couldn't possibly get stars, as opposed to a no-star "starred" review -- I apologize for misconstruing.)

I think this is absolutely true. You could have the most positive no-star "starred" review in the world, and I think most readers would STILL avoid the place.

This is more in the nature of a random thought than anything approaching an incisive comment, but to me much more damage is done to the "classic" star system by giving two stars to neighborhood places like Dumont and Red Cat and even my beloved Little Owl than by occassionally giving two stars to a really stellar but unprepossessing Asian place. I agree that for these Asian reviews to have any force, they have to be fairly rare. But to me, they have a real impact. Giving one of these places two stars means, "here's a place that of its type is really outstanding: pay attention to it, this food is really extraordinary." So to me, the "three-star food, docked two stars for ambiance and service, up one star for price" calculus seems not only unconfusing, but intuitive. What confuses me is the calculus by which restaurants doing a very good job at something ordinary routinely get boosted to two stars because they're either or both of relatively inexpensive or in offbeat or picturesque neighborhoods. I guess what I'm saying is that Sripraphai and the Modern having the same rating doesn't confuse me at all (except for the fact that I think the Modern deserves three stars on its own merits). What confuses me is the Modern and Dumont having the same rating.

I'm sure you know this, but just in case it isn't obvious to all possible readers, I don't think anyone is arguing that a restaurant lacking "four-star amenities" should get four stars. The argument is that restaurants with excellent food should be able to get two stars, even if they lack amenities.

I have this odd hunch you're thinking of Sripraphai.

I do think, though, that when that term is now used, it does have a reference to a particular kind of recreational eating typified by that board. No one talks about "chowhounds" looking forward to the next iteration of ADNY.

NOTE TO EATER: What's so fucking funny about this thread?

How many 120 year olds go out to dinner? ← Typo. I corrected it to "30". At least at LCB, PLENTY of 80 year olds go out.

I'll say this once more: The Times doesn't "star" movies. The Times doesn't "star" theatrical productions. The Times doesn't "star" concerts and operas. The Times doesn't "star" dance performances. The Times doesn't "star" books. Out of all the things it reviews -- and note that most of the above-mentioned things are recurring events, not one-offs -- the only class the Times "stars" is restaurants. I'm sure the star system started as an attempt to ape (or to be more charitable, adapt) the Michelin system. I still think it's a reductive consumer-oriented obstacle to any kind of serious criticism. Serious criticism -- unlike "reviews" -- doesn't have stars. Maybe reviews are all the Times aspires to for restaurants. But I don't see why food should be treated as something less worthy of serious appraisal than performing arts. And I don't see why people who read boards like this should support this kind of insulting second-class treatment.

Ya know, when I go to LCB Brasserie, I'm usually the youngest person in the room by 30 years (except for whomever I'm taking) -- and I still think the food is kind of great.

Actually, in its hayday Shun Lee (reputedly) served superb up-to-the-minute Sechuan (before that region's cusine became a cliche) with top-notch ingredients.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! My wife is going out there in a few weeks and was told she needed to pick me up some. Crap. Anyone have any other leads for places in London? ← Somehow I don't think SHE'S gonna be as disappointed about this as you and some others are.

Yeah, but, to be fair, Shun Lee Dynasty was a very different kind of restaurant from Sweet & Tasty.

Too bad. ← Ditto.

SEARCH RESULTS: Shun Lee Dynasty, certainly. Did Uncle Tai's have four stars?

People DEFINITELY griped about Honmura An getting three stars. (It's still one of my favorite places, but I see their point.) Ruth Reichl was constantly criticized for what her critics viewed as her overrating Asian places. Bryan Miller caused a stir by going public with that criticism, in fact. I think someone pointed out in some thread here that there WAS a Chinese four-star back in the day (Claiborne or Sheraton). I can't remember what it was.

An interesting thing about the Rosa chain is how much better the East Side one is than the Lincoln Center one. (I've never eaten at the Union Square one). Everytime I eat at the East Side branch, I'm pleasantly surprised by how good it is, given their terrible repuation. Everytime I eat at the Lincoln Center branch, I wonder why there isn't a horde of former customers approaching the place with torches, like the peasants in Frankenstein.

Nathan said everything I was going to say. (Although I still think Red Cat's two stars are nuts.) I think that even with the "$25 and Under" column, there's room for starred reviews of really exceptional cheap places. I think Noodletown deserved its two stars ten years ago, and I think these new entries deserve their two stars now (Spicy & Tasty by repute). I personally think that the institution of the "$25 and Under" column deprived Grand Sichuan of the starred review it deserves, as that place(s) was just getting recognition at about the time the "$25 and Under" column was instituted, and it appeared to me that, at that time, more of an effort was being made to segregate the cheaper places in order to create an identity for the new column. To make this more (tediously) explicit, I think "$25 and Under" is for places like, say, Via Emilia: places that are worthy in their way but which aren't really of a quality or interest to warrant starred reviews.* I think that if a place has food that's really exceptional, like the Asian places we're discussing, a disservice is done (more to the readers than to the places) by keeping them in the "$25 and Under" ghetto, just because they're cheap and have rudimentary service and ambiance. _______________________________________________________ * For example, on the one hand, Freeman's is, like, a prototypical "$25 and Under" restaurant: interesting, cheap, and fully worth its cheap prices -- but not really good enough for stars. OTOH, I think its no-star "starred" review was also justified, not so much for anything it said about Freeman's itself (if anything, Freeman's was better served by its "$25 and Under" review, which appreciated it for what it is rather than castigating it for what it isn't), but because an explanation (if not a corrective) was needed of what Bruni's criteria were for small places of modest ambition -- and Freeman's is a well-known (and popular!) enough place to provide a justifiable vehicle for that. In contrast, a no-star "starred" review of a place like Via Emilia would be pointless and even cruel.

Not that you necessarily care, but I think you have this exactly right.

The three-terrine sandwich on the night menu at Momufuku Ssam definitely merits a shout-out.