Leonard Kim
-
Posts
232 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by Leonard Kim
-
-
Molly Abraham reported Tim Voss is going to Fiddleheads in Royal Oak -- he may actually be there now, since she wrote he's going to start "in January." This is just fine with me, since I like this restaurant, and I don't view it as being significantly "less conspicuous" than Forte.
-
We all read differently, but my own opinion is that the food part of the RTR review is not quite ***. Marc's already referenced an older post where I talked about Bruni's *** reviews, and yes, there I said Perry St. was an anomaly. Since that time he's done 7 more: Del Posto, A Voce, Country, L'Atelier, Blue Hill, Picholine, and Felidia. The last three are re-reviews with Blue Hill getting a bump from ** to ***.
I think most of what I said in the old post still holds basically true. Two of the reviews, Picholine and Country, have no negative food remarks whatsoever. In another two, the only negative food comments are basically insignificant:
A Voce: "If April Robinson's fittingly straightforward desserts. . . are a bit of a letdown, it's because she has such a tough act to follow."
Blue Hill: "For better and worse, Mr. Barber loves the tenderness that comes from sous vide cooking. . . . But while the results are gorgeous they can often be sexless, making you long for crunch and ooze, for some charred skin here, some messy fat there."
The other three do have negatives, but to my reading nothing on the level or quantity of the RTR review. And note that these negatives don't actually say individual dishes are bad -- just comparatively less successful or just unexciting.
Del Posto: "[reducing the # of menu offerings] would improve the ratio of outstanding dishes to less successful ones. The veal shank. . . was dull and slightly dry, as was swordfish. Pappardelle with wild boar needed more kick"
L'Atelier: "a few undistinguished slices of roasted rack of lamb. That lamb was one of the menu’s definite soft spots"
Felidia: "Seafood is not Felidia's strength While grilled branzino. . . had a clean, clear taste, it mostly seemed like a sop to health-conscious or timid eaters. A poached fillet of striped bass couldn’t quite stand up to the mushroom and tomato broth and celery root purée around it." "desserts are an otherwise uneven affair, the joy of a peach-flavored tiramisù undercut by the joyless pairing of a watermelon sorbet with a chocolate-almond cake. Felidia is uneven in other ways, too. Humdrum lamb chops didn’t live up to heavenly beef cheeks. A dull dish of fettuccine with soft-shell crab couldn’t compete with a salty, zesty dish of chitarra with speck and razor clams."
In terms of positives, the majority of these reviews have a blanket, across the board statement about the dishes such as "most are fantastic" "mostly exhilarating" "mostly terrific" "most ... make you happy ... very happy" and they also continue to display Bruni's bias against what he sees as pointless inventiveness: "straightforward . . . tend not to go off precious, rococo tangents" "They don't wow you with their inventiveness, but they do wow you with their execution." "cares more about robust flavors than about clever conceits. . . sating diners as opposed to wowing them" "avoid excessive trickery or unusual flavor combinations"
-
One basic question raised by those linked discussions: who have been the anomalous critics? Miller or Reichl? Miller invoked Sheraton and Claiborne in defending the "system" against Reichl. Reichl compared herself to Sheraton and Sokolov in defending her star choices (in Garlic and Sapphires.)
Funny thing is that, for all that, there haven't been a lot examples of critics changing predecessor's ratings over philosophical disagreements. Miller's Hatsuhana review is one (cited in the previous page.) I'll have to go back and read them, but Reichl did re-review some restaurants relatively quickly after Miller had. Sheraton's tenure was briefly interrupted by Moira Hodgson, and I get the impression that afterwards, a number of Sheraton's reviews served only to change the ratings back.
-
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=.
Thanks. That link links to two other discussions devoted to two individual guides and are really good reading. Just goes to show that everything really has been talked about before.
-
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.)
Before the internet, and the Times search engine, how would the average consumer consult the star ratings (short of clipping and saving each review)?
You could have clipped and saved the guides that went under various names over the years: "Eating Out", "Dining Out Guide", "Directory to Dining" which would present weekly capsule reviews and information on several restaurants under some theme (like a type of restaurant, or a neighborhood, or a holiday, or something like that.)
In these guides, until 1985, not only was the star rating and the date of the last review given (as in the online guide now), but also stuff like "not reviewed in the past five years" or "re-visited in the past two [or three] years and the rating is still valid." In combination with frequent re-reviews, I can see how this might be useful: an up-to-date shorthand for the consumer. (I mentioned earlier the very first star ratings appeared in these directories, not in the review articles.)
I always suspected when Miller complained Reichl was destroying the system upheld by him and his predecessors, this was his real beef, not noodle shops, but changing the system into something less useful, because it was necessarily less up-to-date. The ratings become almost "permanent" as SE says. Reichl did do some rapid re-reviews as an admission of getting a rating wrong. But it's a problem. Bruni blogged that the trouble with ratings is that you had to come up with something that not only accurately represents your experience, but is likely to stay valid in the long-term future.
-
Long, quote-ridden post -- sorry.
1) Yes, Miller and his predecessors did multiple restaurants in a single column with no pretence of linking them thematically.
2) Just my opinion -- I've already expressed negative opinions of the Times' classical music reviews. I think they'd be more useful if they were actually more like the restaurant reviews. I think it would be more useful to have reviews (and re-reviews every year or couple of years) of institutions (not performances) taking into account the venue, the staff, the personnel, audience makeup, prices, programming choices, general performance quality (considering several performances and programs), consistency of performances, strengths and weaknesses in different repertoire and genres, performance with and without guest artists, general caliber of guests artists, etc. With all that, heck, I'd even accept a star rating. This could even be done (though harder to accept) for individual artists (on the basis of several recent performances and recordings, with periodic re-reviews.) I'm not saying they have to be written in the breezy, anecdotal style cited above (of which Bruni is not the only offender.)
3) The history lesson. Regarding ADNY, I think **** star restaurants have been demoted for less, or been slammed worse for the same faults (inconsistency). Reichl's *** review of Le Cirque is famous, but here are some others:
Grimes' *** review of the "new" Daniel, which seems almost Bruni-esque to me
It was a foregone conclusion that New York would be getting an important new restaurant in Daniel. It has. What it's still waiting for is the best that Mr. Boulud can deliver. Daniel, which opened in January, still has the feel of a work in progress. When the kitchen is firing on all eight cylinders, immortality seems within reach. . . . Many dishes, however, are merely very good, and the occasional clunker is not unknown. . . . if the waiter happens to be bringing the oxtail, it's not much of a stretch to believe that Daniel is the finest restaurant in New York.Hatsuhana (**** from Sheraton on 4-15-83, demoted to *** by Miller on 2-21-86)
Miller says he encountered "a few rough spots." I think this is one of the few reviews that actually support the popular image of him as having "frankly Continental" sensibilities.
When Hatsuhana received a four-star rating in 1983 it was praised for having some of the freshest and most intriguing sushi and sashimi in town. While that remains true, the restaurant's overall performance merits a more realistic three stars, which still places it at the head of a crowded and competitive class.Here's Grimes not quite having the heart to deliver a full ** smackdown of Le Cirque 2000 after the departure of Sottha Khunn. (After her famous review, Reichl did "come around" and re-instate the fourth star for Le Cirque 2000). He gives *** but writes:
As a social dynamo, the restaurant thrums along, even if the roster of regulars often makes it seem like Le Cirque 1982 rather than Le Cirque 2000. But the kitchen merely equals the performance of the better two-star restaurants in town.Others have had fewer qualms. At least five restaurants have actually been demoted from **** to **:
1) Lafayette (**** from Miller on 4-22-88, ** from Miller 10-18-91). Changes: Chef
Funny thing is, this is a positive review, like it's not a bad thing to be docked **.
Lafayette may no longer be the four-star showcase of cutting-edge cuisine that it was under Mr. Vongerichten. But it doesn't need to be. Under Ms. Boller, Lafayette is a relaxed, inviting place that serves refined two-star fare.2) Vienna '79 (**** from Sheraton on 1-9-81, ** from Burros on 7-6-84). Changes: Chef
To those for whom Austrian-German food means dumplings and library-paste gravies, Vienna 79 will be a revelation. To those who already know that most of Europe, not just France, has lightened its food - blurring the distinctions between national boundaries in the process - the cooking will come as no surprise. . . . Vienna 79 continues to provide deftly prepared examples of today's Austrian cooking. But when the chef, Andreas Kisler, who has been at the restaurant for six months, gets carried away with the lightening process, flavor goes out the window, and consistency, the sign of a finely honed kitchen, is missing. Thus Vienna 79 no longer seems up to the standards it set when it received a rating of four stars3) Le Cygne got **** in 6-20-80 (in a themed reviews of three restaurants, all awarded **** stars -- the others were La Grenouille and Lutece). A little over a year later, Sheraton demoted it to ** on 10-16-81. There doesn't seem to be an external motivation for a re-review (and she specifically says the menu itself has changed very little over the years.) All she seems to be saying is some dishes are exceptional, most are above average, but several are, in brief, not as good as they were last year.
IT is not often that an ambitious French restaurant in New York deserves two stars, and such a rating attracts attention and optimistic diners. But if a four-star restaurant is reduced to a twostar ''very good'' rating, it does not seem quite good enough in relation to ''extraordinary.'' This came to mind after recent return visits to Le Cygne, on 54th Street, between Madison and Park Avenues, which indicate that while it is not the four-star restaurant it was a year or two ago, it continues to offer a number of dishes that make a visit worthwhile.4) Of the other two restaurants from that 6-20-80 review, Lutece held on the longest (12-1-95 -- with a new chef, Reichl knocked it down to ***, but implied it still had **** potential). La Grenouille fell to ** on 3-15-85. Miller wrote:
the food and the service fail to communicate any sense of celebration, or a feeling that the customer is out for a special occasion. A four-star restaurant must do this. While the service staff here is efficient and pleasant enough, it's like the cooking, in a way: well-rehearsed but lacking in spontaneity. The chic gastronomic palace built by Charles Masson has become merely another fancy French restaurant.5) Chanterelle got **** on 2-27-87 from Miller and was demoted by the same critic to ** on 7-28-89. Changes: moved to new building
My first revisit was befuddling - overcooked steak, flaccid sweetbreads - but I wrote it off to reopening jitters. Three more dinners and nearly 50 dishes later, puzzlement has turned to dismay. The new Chanterelle still has its soaring moments, but they are not so frequent as before. Maybe larger crowds have overburdened the kitchen, but the sublime integration of flavors and textures that once marked Mr. Waltuck's cooking is not always evident.Miller eventually bumped it back up to ***, and Reichl to ****. In 2000, Grimes reduced it to ***, giving it a positive, but nuanced review.
It is unquestionably a fine restaurant, but the fresh face in TriBeCa is well into middle age now. Admittedly, it's a Catherine Deneuve sort of middle age. . . . It's still there, and it's still pretty much the same. That is its appeal and its weakness. -
As for ADNY vs. Spicy and Tasty, maybe I'm the one who can't read now
In principle, Bruni could have, without changing his feelings or ratings written a substantially positive review about ADNY and a substantially negative review of Spicy and Tasty.
I had a few enchanting evenings (how, in a certain sense, could I not?) and a few insanely indulgent dishes of the sort that I would like to be fed just before my deathHe could have described those evenings and dishes at length reserving negatives at the end ("I have had an occasional disappointment. . . ." as Ruth Reichl wrote at the end of her **** Daniel review). That is the format of the Spicy and Tasty review. But then people would have been really confused by the *** rating. Demoting the restaurant forces him to emphasize and elaborate on the negatives.
Similarly, people would be confused with the ** of Spicy and Tasty if he had written it in the format of the ADNY review -- if he had devoted a short paragraph stating the restaurant was "modestly priced", "hugely enjoyable", and "eye-opening", and then devoted more than a small, closing paragraph to the rather substantial charges that the menu has
many pitfalls. Apart from those shrimp, seafood was disappointing. And neither ma nor la could redeem the dryness of nuggets of chicken festooned with sesame seeds. That chicken wasn’t the only meat less tender than it could — and should — have been.All those negatives in the ADNY review amount to is the contention that he thought it did not consistently deliver on the promise of its reputation and prices. That is very different from saying that the negatives mean that he wouldn't want to eat there again (because he didn't like it or thought it was bad or something). And all the positives in the S&T review amount to saying that people who don't know it should take a chance on it -- they'll probably enjoy it.
You have to be willing to take chances, and you have to trust that most of them will pay off. At Spicy & Tasty, you can. -
Stating that the rating is based on "the reviewer's reaction" is non-substantive, because obviously that was always true.
Let me put it this way. If the online archive is to be trusted, the first ratings carried no author's byline (because stars apparently were introduced not in the review articles, but in the dining directory listings.) The stars were in existence for three years before Claiborne's name appears on them. In the stars explanation, the reviewer is not mentioned in the formula for the first 10 years of the stars existence. Only then, coincident with a new critic, is the formula change to mention "subjective judgement" (a stronger statement than "reviewer's reaction" which it was later toned down to, but I'll accept that as a non-substantive change.)
To me there is something substantive there. I'm not sure what, but it has something to do with this discussion on "objectivity."
-
(I think part of the disagreement is that some people here do not consider prices at all.)
Looking back at my chronology, there have been times when price is explicitly mentioned in the ratings definition.
I'm surprised nobody picked up on Canaday's remark, which seemed noteworthy to me, that if two restaurants serve food of comparable quality, but one is more expensive, the more expensive one gets the lower rating.
I can sort of understand this (and this may explain some of the "** smackdowns"). I think it is simply true that, to a point, money buys you quality. A restaurant operating on a limited budget has very real constraints on what it can offer. Though one can perform admirably under such constraints, that ceiling is there. And maybe that ceiling is **. On the flip side, if a luxurious restaurant is not "cost-effective" in terms of quality, then might not ** be also reasonable? What the reviewer is saying is, "at these prices, you damn well better expect ***, but you won't get it here. You're money is better spent elsewhere."
I believe historically there have been a number of expensive restaurants that have been given zero stars. And sure, there has been some star inflation (Miller and Reichl being the culprits). So maybe it does all make sense.
-
Another mistake was adding "Satisfactory" as an option in the zero-star category. In recent times, there have been very few "Poor" or "Fair" reviews, while those rated "Satisfactory" seldom convey much satisfaction.
Quick point regarding this. I suspect Bryan Miller meant to replace "Fair" with "Satisfactory." I say this because after he (or the paper) introduced the "Satisfactory" rating, he never again gave a "Fair" rating.
Unfortunately, his successors did use both, confusing the issue.
-
Geez, I'm sorry I brought it up.
Just two comments:
From 1973 on, the stars definition always specifies that the rating is based on "the reviewer's reaction." Wouldn't you read as saying subjectivity must be understood to be implicit in the ratings, with no pretence otherwise? In fact, when Hess was critic, the definition actually says, "based on the author's subjective judgment of quality. . ."
Second, wouldn't you kind of think that, despite the tenor of the reviews, and despite the flaws and strengths he cites, Bruni would if given a choice rather eat at ADNY than Spicy and Tasty?
-
I've said this before, but I am kind of fond of Bruni's description of his "system." For him stars come down to how excited he would be to return to the restaurant. Food, service, and ambience are all considered, but that excitement is the bottom line.
There are no assigned percentages for food versus service versus ambience. The star ratings take into consideration all of those elements, giving primary importance to food, to come to a conclusion about how excited I would be to return to the restaurant. The number of stars chart ever greater degrees of excitement. -
I reported in an earlier post that Mimi Sheraton's most common rating (which you might take to be her baseline) was 1 star (45% of reviews) with pretty good symmetry around that (25% 2 stars, 23% zero stars). I don't have all her ratings in this calculation but this figure considers 383 ratings.
Don't forget "comparable establishments" were part of the stars definition at the time she was reviewing.
Actually specifying whether a no star restaurant was "poor" or "fair" happened sometime in her tenure, I think. I'm not sure where yet.
I think there are a couple of really interesting facets to Sheraton's reviewing. When I have time, I'll compile a few examples. Stuff like giving a restaurant 3 stars and then, within five months, knocking it down to "fair". In the era of multi-restaurant reviews, star ratings were much more malleable, subject to change in very short time frames, without any need for external justification like personnel change, etc. She lamented more than once that some restaurants were unable to handle the interest generated by a high rating, resulting in poorer service and food, resulting in a lower rating in re-reviews just a couple of years, or less, later.
-
FYI. I'll comment more later, when I'm not working. But here is a rundown of what the stars have "meant" over the years. Dates should be fairly close to first appearance of each description. I sure as heck can't find any long consistent period matching what FG describes (and says "had value") where people would have gotten their "long experience."
5/24/1963: Stars, when they appear, are employed as follows: one star denotes restaurants of more than routine interest; two stars denote those of superior quality, and three stars pertain to restaurants regarded as among the finest in the city.
10/30/1964: [range expanded to 4 stars] "Four stars pertain to restaurants regarded as among the fittest in the area."
9/3/1965: [the introduction of relative ratings] "The criterion is the food and service in relation to the cost of dining in any particular establishment."
5/21/1971: (Sokolov) [split ratings] The restaurants reviewed on this page on Friday are rated both for their food (four stars to none) and for their service, atmosphere and decor (four triangles to none).
6/1/1973 (Hess): [death of split rating. relative rating now considers "comparable establishments" as well as price] "The restaurants reviewed here each Friday are rated four stars to none, based on the author's subjective judg ment of quality in relation to the price of meals and the quality of comparable establishments. Roughly, one star may be translated as fair, two stars as good, three as excellent and four as superb."
1/18/1974 (Canaday): The restaurants reviewed here each Friday are rated four stars to none, based on the author's reaction to cuisine, atmosphere and price in relation to comparable establishments. [one star is now "good" and two stars "very good"]
3/8/1974 (Canaday): "I'd like to get to get a few things straight about the stars. . . A restaurant serving excellent food at high prices will get a lower rating than one serving food of the same quality at reasonable prices." [four stars is now "extraordinary"]
10/15/76 (Sheraton): These ratings are based on the reviewer's reaction to food and price in relation to comparable establishments. [i.e., no more "atmosphere." Also this is when the definition of no stars as "poor to fair" was added] "It seems appropriate to point out that that rating [one star] is a positive one, meaning good, and it is not easily come by. It has become apparent that such a rating is all too often taken as a put-down, meaning, in fact, not very good at all, so some clarification is definitely in order."
3/9/84 (Burros, between Sheraton and Miller): These ratings reflect the reviewer's reaction primarily to food, with ambience and service taken into consideration. ["Comparable establishments" removed suggesting an "absolute" rating system.]
5/9/86 (Miller): "Satisfactory" rating added. Kurumazushi gets the first "Satisfactory" rating (Sheraton before and Reichl afterwards, both gave Kurumazushi 3 stars, but this is actually not necessarily evidence that Miller treated Asian restaurants differently than his colleagues.)
The stars description doesn't change after this I believe. The biggest change implemented by Reichl is the one review/one restaurant policy. In my opinion, the biggest effect of this is on re-reviews. Before Reichl, many restaurants were re-reviewed every three years or so, and some even more frequently than that. On the other hand, a Grimes or Bruni re-review is more on the order of 10 years since the last review. Reichl, as I've mentioned before, was the most generous with her star ratings, giving more 2 and 3 star ratings than any other critic.
-
After taking my kids to the Hands-on museum Sunday, we walked over to Sabor Latino, a restaurant which has had some very strong advocates on this board, though I remember one poster describing it as ho-hum after going on the strength of those recommendations. My wife, who lived at Kingsley and Main before we met, used to eat there often.
I think that may be the appropriate context when characterizing this restaurant. It is inexpensive. There are things on the menu that you can't readily find elsewhere. It's good up to a point, especially given the price. If I were still a resident or a student within walking distance, I could easily see myself eating there frequently. (I lived in Ann Arbor for six years, and lived in various neighborhoods, but not anywhere that would have made that scenario realistic.)
But I don't live there now. I visit with some frequency, though, and I doubt I'd seek it out again. Not because I didn't like it, or thought it wasn't good, but because it's, shall we say, "every day" food and my visits to Ann Arbor aren't every day.
Maybe that doesn't make sense (and I definitely hope that didn't come across as snobbery.) I guess an analogy might be the cheap Korean places around campus, which have also gotten favorable comment on this board. I am Korean-American and to me these places, some I find good, some bad, serve what I'm calling "every day" food, food that you could and sometimes do live on day-to-day, whether at places like this, or eating at home, depending on your situation. But it would never occur to me, if I were traveling, to seek out a place like this, unless it were something I just happened to really be in the mood for.
-
This quote is from e-gullet's own chat with Ruth Reichl.
My own experience as a mother is that Nick was, for years, one of those kids who only ate 5 white foods. Everyone thought it was hilarious that I had this kid who turned up his nose at everything but matzoh brei, Cheerios, French Fries and toast. For a while he ate nothing but chunks of Parmesan cheese and plain chicken. He literally never ate a fruit or vegetable until he was about 7.My own kids (4 years and nearly 2 years) both stopped eating fruits and vegetables almost overnight at about a year and a half. It's not like anything about the example their parents set for them changed. There is probably more nature (i.e., genetics) and development at play here, rather than nurture. It's Ruth Reichl's kid for pete's sake.
-
Reichl reviewed it twice, first in December '93, giving it two stars, then again a little over 2 years later, in March '96, bumping it to 3 stars, writing, "I wasn't crazy about Picholine when it opened. . . . [brennan] has pushed himself. . . to make Picholine the best restaurant in the area. . . . And he has succeeded. . . . everything about Picholine has improved."
In his *** review, Bruni starts by recounting a very bad experience he had there just pre-makeover. But the overhaul he says makes it, "arguably the nicest restaurant surprise of this disappointing season."
-
Can cuisine be art or is it entirely craft?
Cuisine is art when it's not repetitive, if you are following a recipe, even if it is one you created in the past, it is a craft. The same with painting, you have "artists" who simply reproduce the same style over and over, now that's not a bad thing, but it becomes more of a craft as the creativity isn't necessarily at a maximum. That said, as a diner, the first time you try something new, it is art to you.
It's tricky making analogies across different media, but I disagree with this because, by this logic, only classical music composers, but not performers, can be "artists", and I doubt this is a commonly held opinion. I think music is probably a better analogue for the culinary arts than painting because of the importance of the ephemeral re-creation (the musical performance or the food we eat) as well as the permanent creation (the musical score or the recipe.) Both creation and recreation have objective technical standards (the "craft") which is somewhat related to, but is not synonymous with artistic merit. A person can be a creator or re-creator or both, and art is possible either way. I could go on, but this is somewhat OT, and there's probably a thread devoted to this topic elsewhere.
-
I usually end up eating at Applebee's a couple times a year for one reason or another. Anyway, I was there tonight and tried one of the Tyler Florence items: penne rosa, which consisted of penne in a "traditional" spicy tomato sauce, sweet sausage, and peas.
Verdict: if Florence's name weren't on it, it wouldn't have seemed obviously out-of-place with the rest of the menu. That is, it's still clearly Applebee's food first. On the other hand, it was "good" Applebee's food.
I don't subscribe to the idea that a feature of eating at a chain restaurant is getting the same experience and the same food regardless of which outpost you're in. In my experience, what can make the chain restaurant experience so awful sometimes is exactly the individual execution. At its worst, the food is poorly prepared, overly greasy and salted, served cold, and leads to later gastric distress. In different hands, everything is just fine and even tasty.
Anyway, my dish was just fine, even tasty. I've had worse at some local Italian places. I can easily picture the same dish being virtually inedible if executed less happily. But for now, you can up the tally to "pasta: 2 pos."
-
I have been to one restaurant in Michigan where I have definitely seen diners bring their own (and on multiple occasions, so it's wasn't just a fluke or mistake or something.) I don't know what the situation is there.
They are breaking the law, and have just decided that they are unlikely to be reported.
http://www.michigan.gov/cis/0,1607,7-154-1...99198--,00.html
Q. Can I bring my own bottle of wine to a restaurant and just be charged a "corkage fee" for serving?A. No. All alcohol served at an on-premises licensed establishment must be purchased from that establishment. If the establishment does not hold a license, MCL 436.1913 clearly states that those establishments may not allow consumption of alcohol on the premises. Please direct specific questions to the MLCC Enforcement toll free line at 1-866-893-2121.
Interesting how the law is worded to make both parties at fault. If I were a belligerent customer that absolutely insisted on bringing and drinking my own drink in a restaurant, yeah I'm breaking the law, but so is the restaurant. If the restaurant called the cops on me, it would be for something they're technically at fault for too (i.e., they'd be calling the cops on themselves.)
Compare this to a situation with less force of law behind it, say if some establishment (not a restaurant) had a "no food or drinks" sign posted (and assuming there were some obvious good reason for this), if I don't respect that, common sense suggests I'm at fault and not the establishment. But in this case, what this law is saying is that the establishment is also at fault for not enforcing the ban.
What surprises me is that, given this wording, it's a little unclear to me what purpose the law is supposed to serve. I would understand it if the patron only was at fault, i.e., this is a law to protect licensed and unlicensed businesses alike from people trying to frequent an establishment but bringing their own "goods." I suppose it is intended to serve a safety function (safe driving etc.) in that BYO reduces the control the establishment has over the amount of alcohol consumed.
I'm amused that, just a couple tables down from the BYO party, there was a table of uniformed police officers. But I guess enforcing compliance and reporting such violations isn't (or is it?) part of their everyday responsibilities. After all, there's an "enforcement toll free line."
The year of the regulation linked to by tammylc is 1998, but I'm assuming that it's possible that particular section could be older and just unrevised.
-
No BYO at all in Michigan. :-(
But you can ask the restaurant to recork an unfinished bottle so you can bring it home with you.
I have been to one restaurant in Michigan where I have definitely seen diners bring their own (and on multiple occasions, so it's wasn't just a fluke or mistake or something.) I don't know what the situation is there.
-
http://dinersjournal.blogs.nytimes.com/?p=91#more-91
After servers cleared the table, one of them returned with a claim check instead of a doggie bag. We had not yet had dessert, so rather than give us a clunky bag we had to keep track of, Craftsteak kept it stowed somewhere behind the scenes. Servers told us that when we presented the claim check to a host on the way out, the bag would be given to us. -
Watched the episode -- great shirt, Chris.
So what did you and Steingarten fight about? It didn't seem to make the edit.
-
I think John's point about the importance of the particular neighborhood is well taken (implying that "neighborhood restaurants" differ in character depending on location.) I think Grimes was sensitive to this in his reviews. Here are some examples (which I did not include in my original list of Grimes' "neighborhood restaurants". as they were not specifically ID'd as such, despite the following.)
What they find, once inside [Calle Ocho], is a social setting, a sense of design and a style of cooking that fits the neighborhood like a well-made suit. You feel it instantly in the happy chatter at the bar and in the catlike contentment of the dating couples who have settled, drinks in hand, into the cleverly deployed recesses that make the front of the restaurant feel like a club. (The elevated lounge at the end of the bar, with its Pop Art wall of bright circles, almost demands the presence of Austin Powers.)Above all, you feel the perfect marriage of restaurant and neighborhood. . .
Woo Lae Oak has opted for a spare, cool decor that fits the neighborhood like a glove. In fact, it looks more like a downtown Guggenheim than the downtown Guggenheim doesAix, infectiously messy, seems about right for an Upper West Side neighborhood that does not tolerate too much formality or pretense.In my opinion, SE's post about two discrete senses in which "neighborhood" is used and his analysis of its meanings and origins seems pretty dead on and might even close the discussion.
Hard Times for Michigan Restaurants
in The Heartland: Dining
Posted
Shawn Mac, unless something has happened that wasn't reported, is at Twingo's in Detroit, and was heavily involved with its re-opening a year ago.
Oh, and the Free Press reported yesterday that Rick Halberg, after the closing of Emily's in Northville, is now working for Hiller's (the supermarket) as "Director of Culinary Services."