LPShanet

Alright, it has happened...pigs have flown, hell has frozen over and armageddon is nigh. I went to Del Posto on November 8th, and despite all previous inclinations, I have to say that my experience was MUCH more in line with the one described in Sifton's review than that in Sutton's. I definitely wasn't expecting to drink the Kool Aid, and never would have expected the experience I got based on my own previous visits to Del Posto Enoteca a few years ago, nor based on the fact that I seem to disagree with just about every subjective aspect of Sifton's reviews in general (and a surprising amount of even the objective stuff, too). But I have to say that I had what was probably the best Italian restaurant meal I've had in this country since...well, the last time I went to a NY Times 4-star Italian restaurant. (That would be Parioli Romanissimo for those too young to recall the only previous Italian joint to snare the honor.) That's not to say that I like everything about Del Posto. I still think the decor is more evocative of a cruise ship trying to be "classy" than a top-tier temple of gastronomy. I still think the piano music comes off a bit like a desperate attempt to conjure up a bygone era that never really existed. (And it might have eventually gotten annoying if it hadn't stopped midway through the night.) The overall feel when you first walk in is that you're dining in the in-house restaurant at the best hotel in any second tier city in the flyovers. But those aesthetic quibbles aside, the meal was the real deal, and no one was more shocked than I. First, an important disclosure. I wasn't just dining as a random guy off the street, as I typically do. I was with people in the food biz (a chef and a former cook/FOH person), and we therefore were definitely being given a "friend of the house" experience. Still, even without the things that would seem to be a product of that treatment, I still believe we would have had a really exceptional meal, and certainly the best Italian meal I've had in recent memory. And all that without even having much pasta. Since it has been over a week since my visit, and quite a bit of wine was imbibed, I'm sure I will omit a few of the items we tried, and won't do full justice to the meal in terms of detail. But I'll try to recount the specifics that I do remember. Beginning at the beginning, I think one of the areas people may be less aware of Del Posto excellence in is their cocktail program. It's probably also one of the reasons I don't have a sharper memory of all the courses we ate. We sampled a number of their drinks (both classic cocktails and proprietary versions), and all were really fine examples of their kind. We had a Sazerac, a pisco sour, a Clover Club (which we all nervously agreed was as good as any we've had at the namesake bar), and the embarrassingly named but delicious Honey Don't Call Me Honey. All of them were of a level and precision that would be at home in any of the top cocktail bars in town. After sitting down, we were brought a series of little bites, including three fried morsels (one was chickpeas, one was cod and one was an olive). The olive was especially eye-opeining, and filled with a complex, rich flavor rather than the typically straightforward salinity of most olives. One diner at our table, who usually dislikes olives in any form, really loved that one. There was also a little demi-tasse of soup, rich with capon broth and delicious. Also worth noting were the butter and lardo that came with our bread, both of which were top notch. The first formal course was a carne cruda with truffled salsa, and Parmigiano-Reggiano. In place of (or rather in addition to) the usual shaved porcini mushrooms, we were treated to a generous shaving of white truffles. It was much more subtle than a typical steak tartare, since the overwhelming raw onion flavor was absent. But it was still rich and savory, and made a great combo with the truffles. Next came Lidia’s jota with smoked pork, sauerkraut & crisped wheat. Jota is sort of a distant cousin of cassoulet, in soup form. Based on white beans (cannellini, I think), the soup was smooth and rich, but still hearty. And, of course, it made an excellent vehicle for more white truffles. With all the pastas in the primi section of the menu, it would be easy to overlook ordering this, but it's well worth having. The jota was followed by a whole wheat tonnarelli with spicy cicerchie, fried rosemary & shaved bonito. I'm not usually a big fan of whole wheat pastas (other than buckwheat soba), but this one really worked. The bonito flakes added a nice umami component, and the spicy little chickpeas were an unusual taste, but they definitely worked in the context of the dish. Because we ate so many other things, we actually didn't get to try any of the more traditional pasta primi courses, and I'm really looking forward to trying those on a future visit. Our first main was a striped bass, though I can't say for certain that it was the preparation listed on the menu. It came to the table with the tail still attached for a viewing, and was then whisked away for tableside preparation. It's worth noting that Del Posto seems to really revel in the whole tableside preparation thing. Personally, I don't think it's really necessary, and serves more as a show-off thing. Surely, people in the kitchen should be able to prepare the dish as or more skillfully than the servers, but I do enjoy seeing the stuff come together. And I suppose the predilection for tableside preparation is in keeping with the restaurant's style and decor. In any event, the fish was lovely. Firm, super-fresh and clean tasting, and seasoned perfectly. No quibbles with this one. The final main was a veal tenderloin in ash with golden polenta and osso bucco vinaigrette. It was a perfect balance of flavors, and also gave us a final dose of truffles. The polenta was tossed tableside on a marble slab with fresh truffles, like some twisted version of the Coldstone Creamery for foodies who lean more savory than sweet. The veal tenderloin was an absolutely perfect medium rare (presumably sous vide) apart from the ash it had been rolled in, and had an amazing silken consistency. Rich and mild at the same time, the various elements all complemented each other in this dish. Very well thought out. Already fairly full at this point, the pastry chef, Brooks Headley, came out and told us a little about the desserts we were going to have to make room for. And boy are we glad we did. Despite our fullness, and the fact that I'm not a huge fan of sweets, everything he prepared was a highlight of the meal. As good as the savory food was, his desserts are worth the trip by themselves. Rather than focusing on just the sweet notes of various ingredients, Headley gives equal or greater time to the "other" notes in his desserts...the sour/acid notes, the floral notes and other less expected aspects. It's sweets for those without a sweet tooth. Without being gimmicky at all, he is one of the most inventive and talented pastry chefs working in the country right now. Even before the main desserts came out, the palate cleansers were an excellent indicator of the interesting things to come. Brooks told us that he had been having some fun using extra/surplus ingredients from the savory kitchen. He had made a cashew gelato, if I remember correctly, and then a sorbetto from verjus that they had been stuck with too much of at one point. The sorbetto was one of the single greatest flavors of the whole meal, and a revelation in its own regard. Far from the wimpy flavors often used, this sorbet was assertive, acidic, palate-cleansing, refreshing and delicious. Wish I could keep it around at home. The actual featured desserts were equally clever and eye-opening. In particular, a sfera de caprino (basically a ball of soft cheese) with celery and fig agrodolce and celery sorbetto was spectacular. Tart, sweet, and complex, it hit all the notes that dessert should. Other desserts included a polenta-squash cake with roasted pumpkin and sage gelato, and an eggplant and chocolate tart with ricotta ice cream that made you feel like eggplant was always (or should be) a dessert ingredient. It worked seamlessly with the chocolate. All the courses were paired perfectly by the service director with various wines too numerous (and poorly recalled) to list. Overall, the service felt both friendly and extremely professional, without being stuffy. Our servers were humorous, informative and seemed to enjoy what they were doing, which is infectious. The meal ended with a tour of the kitchen(s), which are HUGE. In addition to the main kitchen, which is as impressive as any in town, there are prep kitchens on a lower level that occupy almost the entire footprint of the restaurant. Mark Ladner wasn't in town during our visit, so it would seem that they can execute at a very high level, even without him actually being present. It is certainly possible to make a good case for Del Posto's four stars based on the visit I had in all areas of analysis (food, service, decor, wine, etc.). I'm guessing that the variation in the recent professional reviews of Del Posto may be due to some inconsistency, though it would seem that they're working to eliminate that issue. There was certainly no sign of it during my visit, which didn't have a single low point (apart from the decor, which I suppose is a matter of taste). It's also worth noting that a few of the items mentioned in Sutton's takedown suggest that at least some of his visits were done in earlier seasons, as they mention menu items that aren't on the current menu. I'm sure the debate over Del Posto will rage on, and I have to say that I never expected to find myself on Sifton's side of things in this particular instance.

This is an underappreciated but really special meal option in NYC. Many people are unaware of the difference between sitting at the "omakase bar" and simply ordering the omakase menu in the regular dining space. The latter can be quite pleasant, but is a standard dining experience, but sitting at the omakase bar is a really special (and unique/personalized) experience. If you do that, you basically get the Iron Chef experience, in which Morimoto himself of one of his trusted lieutenants creates a custom meal based on what is great from the markets that day. You set a price point, and they simply create for you. Make sure to request omakase bar when you reserve, as there are only a few seats, and be prepared to shell out 200+ per person for the food.

That's why I asked. The default table setting should only include a spoon and fork, and chopsticks should only be offered with noodle dishes. That was, in fact, the default table setting used. Lotus of Siam is quite authentic in Las Vegas, and maybe slightly less so (at least for now) but still close here. It certainly isn't one of those typical American fakes with chopsticks, etc. On to the food: We started with Tuna Koi Soy, which was diced raw tuna cubes in a dusting of Kaffir lime, mint, cilantro and chilies. It was like an elevated version of a dish I'd had a number of times in Thailand, and one of the spicier of the evening. The preparation was somewhat like a good laab/larb with slivered onion, etc. A very good start. That was followed by an assortment of standard Thai appetizer fare. Though many of these items were the least interesting due to their ubiquity at Western Thai places, they were very well executed...great versions of their kind. They included a crisp fried shrimp roll that had been wrapped in a thin layer of bacon before frying, a chicken satay, boneless chicken wings stuffed with vegetables and chicken (sort of like a roulade, and nam kao tod, which is sausage with crispy rice, chili, ginger, peanuts and lime. The nam kao tod is similar to one of their signature dishes in Vegas, which is sort of a hybrid in a way between what we ate and the tuna koi soy. In the Vegas version, it's a larb style salad (usually with beef) in which the protein is dusted in the same spice as used in the tuna koi soy, but also features the crisp rice, chili, peanuts and lime of the nam kao tod. It's one of the star dishes in Vegas, and I assume they'll bust it out once the a la carte menu comes here. The next course was the soup course. They did both a clear shrimp soup (tom yum koong) and a coconut milk soup (tom kha hed). The clear soup was quite good, but not special. The coconut version was fantastic, with deep flavor and a great body. My only complaint is that both were milder than I would usually associate with authentic Thai fare. And the version of the coconut soup I had in their Vegas outpost was much spicier. This seemed to carry on throughout the meal. The next course featured a pair of yum salads: soft shell crab yum and green mango yum. The soft shell crab had a great texture, perfectly greaseless and very crisp and light. However, the accompanying apple slivers could have used some help to boost spice and acidity. The simpler-seeming green mango version was actually much better balanced, which came as a surprise, with great acidity and a nice kick. Both were surprisingly mild, though. Next a seafood course. Scallop krathiam prik thai (seared sea scallop with garlic and cilantro pepper sauce) and seabass king sot (seabass with ginger sauce). In this case, I think the mildness of the spicing was appropriate, since the flavors of both dishes were subtle and might have been lost a bit with a really high heat level. These dishes would both have been at home in Western fine dining restaurants, for better or for worse. Lastly for the mains, a pair of curries, one red (with beef and fresh and dried chilis) and one green (with chicken and thai eggplant). The red curry was one of the spicier dishes of the night, and my fellow diners and I agreed it was the spice level we would have liked throughout. Hot, but not so overwhelming that you can't taste anything else (what some people refer to as "dare hot"). The green was a bit milder than authentic green curries usually are, but the flavors were great. Both curries had a thickness that you usually see in high end places in Bangkok, and that I really like. Too often, curries (especially green) are made quickly, and end up quite watery in texture, even when the flavors are at the right level...probably due to not reducing them enough. These had perfect body and were really great. For dessert, a simple riff on the classic Thai sticky rice dessert dish, with condensed milk. Simple, unassuming, and really good. Overall, it was a great meal, but I just couldn't help feeling that maybe Chef Chutima was pulling her punches a bit on all the food, or trying to present a more "refined" or Westernized version of her food than I experienced in the Vegas restaurant. Prior to striking the NY deal, they had expressed concern about what would have to be done to open in New York, and maybe they are trying too hard to present a somehow upscaled version of the food served at the Vegas outpost. I hope this isn't the case, and I hope that once the a la carte menu is available, we get all the same stuff they have in Vegas. My preview was certainly more than good enough to warrant multiple return visits to find out. I have no word yet on when the full menu will be in place, but it should be soon if not already.

Of the ones you're still "thinking about", I'd suggest SHO (I'm sure there's a "fo' sho" joke in there that needs to be avoided) and Marea over Gramercy Tavern these days. While Meyer maintains a high level at all of his places, I think Gramercy has lost a little bit of luster of late. If you want to include a new Colicchio place, people seem to be saying good things about Riverpark.

So true! This is the second time recently that you've pretty much taken the words right off my typewriter keyboard. Regarding taking risks, no matter how "out there" diners are willing to go, they often also want at least one familiar dish to keep them "safe". When I go to Thailand, I'll eat whatever is ordered, but I still request gai pad grapow because it's familiar and it reminds me of my dad. For many, that familiar dish will be pad thai. FWIW, I rarely see Thais eating pad thai in Thailand and I don't think it's nearly as popular with Thais as it is with farangs. Other rice noodle dishes like rad na are more popular, at least amongst the crowd I hang with, but perhaps those are too Chinese for a place like LoS. There's another dish similar to pad thai that uses coconut milk that I think is much tastier, and if a restaurant owner wanted to offer something in place of pad thai, it would be a good choice. Familiar enough for those who look for familiarity, but different enough to offer a "risk". Just out of curiosity, does LoS offer chopsticks as a part of its standard table setting? The menu for the soft opening (which started yesterday) is a prix fixe (tasting menu), and doesn't include any pad thai, or even any noodle dishes at all. You can see it here: http://images.nymag.com/images/2/daily/2010/11/03_lotus_pre-openingmenu.pdf They'll be adding a la carte options next week, supposedly, when they do their full opening. Interestingly, some of the people from Cru are still involved, including the ownership and manager, and they've inherited some of the wine cellar. So Saipin Chutima isn't in this alone. They are currently in the process of figuring out which wines they will add to the present selection, which ones they will remove, etc. Obviously, the focus will be on reislings and other Thai-friendly wines. As of last night, the limited list they're using for the opening was heavy on German reislings, but didn't have much in the way of French (Alsatian) or Austrian. Having eaten at both the Vegas outpost and now at the NY iteration, I still feel like the Vegas version was a little more authentic, a bit cheaper and a little bit better. That said, it was still very good. The spice level was more moderate last night than my experience at the Vegas original, and there seemed to be some slight concessions to American palates that I hope will change. Still, the food was light years ahead of the usual sweet, sloppy junk that poses as Thai food here. Lotus of Siam absolutely does not offer chopsticks as part of its standard table setting. In my mind, offering chopsticks is usually a dead giveaway that the place is not authentic and is catering to some other group's idea of what Thai food is. LOS proffers spoon and fork, in proper Thai style. However, for some courses, they offered a fish spoon/spade in place of a typical tablespoon...I'm guessing this was an effort to "upscale" the feel of the setting, while still providing a utensil configuration close to authentic. More on the food I had soon.

Interesting mix you've got there. I'd recommend adding any of the following: Corton, WD-50, Aldea, L'artusi, Brooklyn Fare, L'atelier de Joel Robuchon and maybe Momofuku Ssam Bar (if you don't get in to Ko)...although there are dozens of other great places to eat obviously.

It definitely doesn't seem like you'd put the same restaurant in that space, but that may be intentional. After all, if they're going to come to NY, they probably think they need to do things a bit differently here. Also, keep in mind that the Cru space may well be totally redone for the new restaurant. In the end, it's just square footage. My personal experience was that while the Vegas place is a little bit nicer than its strip mall location implies, it certainly wouldn't be mistaken for a fancy restaurant at all. The interior is pretty comparable to mid-level ethnic eateries in many towns around the country. However, the operation (food and wine) is far from it. I can attest that the food more than lives up to the riesling-heavy wine list. Some of the best Thai food I've had anywhere in the U.S., and certainly better than anything I've had in Manhattan.

I don't think the bigotry is only against fancy Italian food specifically, but against fancy versions of a number of cuisines that a segment of the eating population has come to think of as being "value cuisines", and therefore commodities in a way. Food of those ethnicities is treated differently than, say, French cuisine, whose high end tends to mimic its prole cuisine less. So I don't think the bigotry is just against fancy Italian, as it would seem to be true for Chinese, Thai and Middle Eastern food as well. As I said, I think this may stem from the fact that when some of these cuisines are presented in a higher end format, they still rely on many of the same dishes as are available in the low-priced outlets. Specifically, the dishes you get at a high end French restaurant (e.g. Daniel, Jean Georges, etc.) are much less likely to seem like fancified takes on what you'd get at a standard neighborhood bistro or brasserie. That's not to say that they're not influenced by traditional dishes (just as even the most out-there Spanish molecular creations ultimately have their roots in traditional Spanish cuisine). But in the case of Italian food and the others mentioned above, as well as a few more, the chefs tend to serve thinly veiled versions of essentially well known peasant food at much higher prices, without significantly modifying those dishes, "upscaling them" or making them their own. Without the veneer of modification, that probably sets off the "value radar" of many diners who have eaten these dishes for years without paying a premium. It certainly goes a long way to explain the overall mixed reception that places like Mr. Chow, Ilili, 66, Wakiya, Kittichai, Chinatown Brasserie, Pera, and others have received...and can probably be applied to fancy Italian cuisine, as long as places practicing that category keep serving lasagna, potato gnocchi, pasta e fagiole and the like.

It doesn't matter to their business prospects, but it matters to me, and presumably to other diners who read both reviews. For anyone who reads both, Del Posto now seems like a place that can be quite inconsistent...or at the very least a place that isn't universal in its appeal. That's a real contrast to most of the current four-star holders, who don't seem to have generated such variance of opinion.

Wow, quite the disparity. I'm headed there in a few weeks, and very curious which way my experience will lean.

Nor are they doing anyone any favors by raising the already high prices on half the apps, almost all of the pastas, and a few mains! Aside from the steak, only one reduction has been made and lots have been increased. The veal (my favorite main) is now another 15+% higher at $42, and most of the others took at least a $2 hike. I wonder if the move is a food cost thing, a marketing thing or something else entirely. Seems quite soon to be doing it.

If the star-counting doesn't interest you, and if you ignore those posts, what remains is the very clear sense that the food at Lincoln is very good. I do not recall any post (here or in other fora) suggesting it was anything less than that. To those who follow the industry, it is impossible to separate Chef Benno from the place whence he came, namely Per Se. If there is a debate about Lincoln, it is whether he is still turning out food on that level, or if he is currently operating at a lower (but still very good) level. Absolutely true. The food is excellent, and most of our arguments had to do with its category and how highly the place will be rated by critics, its value, which other places it will compete with, whether it's truly unique, and the like. There wasn't a bad item in the bunch that I ate (other than a few little dry cookies at the end) and all of it was tasty. I thought all the dishes were very well executed, some were really excellent and I'd happily eat almost any of them again (though I'd prefer to have them on someone else's dime!). So for me, I don't "get hungry" for any of the food there like I do for some of Michael White's or even Scott Conant's Italian food. But that is very subjective. There weren't any particular dishes that are haunting my memories or anything like that, but if you like Italian-ish food, then by all means try it, especially if you're not extremely price sensitive. Don't expect the Italian Per Se. But aside from being the second or third most expensive Italian restaurant in town, it's also one of the better ones.

Thanks, Seth. I totally agree that "creativity" shouldn't necessarily be a highly stressed criterion (or even a requirement at all) for a good review. I also think that creativity is one of the most subjective terms used in food analysis and a hard one to define. For that reason, I don't necessarily agree that there is nothing innovative or creative about Daniel Humm's food, let alone many of the others on the Times four star list. And, of course, some of us put a higher value on creativity than others in our dining. However, if it's present and used in a positive way, I do think it can and should be rewarded, as it highlights the chef as creator and even artist rather than just a technician who can re-create existing items. (Maybe it's even a small part of what separates a great chef from a great cook, though that's a much more complex conversation for a different time and thread.) Surely a restaurant that does amazing versions of old standards will be popular and highly rated, but I would say that a restaurant should also have a reason for being...something that makes it different from its competition if it is to be considered a real standout among its peers. I'm not referring to using advanced molecular techniques or unusual ingredients here. If a town doesn't have a great high end Italian restaurant, for example, then just opening one at a high level is an innovation for that area. In the end, creativity is a relative thing. And while Maximin's definition is really great in the absolute, it seems more stringent than we need in most cases. I'd think that even a slight change in something that is otherwise a copy could be seen as creative. Creativity can simply be a chef putting his own mark on the food, making it his (or hers), for lack of a better description. In the way I intended to use the term, I certainly wasn't solely talking about the use of groundbreaking techniques or ingredients. Creativity can take many forms. And surely there is even creativity in something as basic as creating an upscale version of what is traditionally a more lowbrow dish...though there is a premium on making the revised version an improvement on the original. However, I do think that there is a level of creativity in putting together new flavor combinations at even the restaurant examples you chose to cite. I know I've tasted things that felt new and exciting at Daniel, Per Se, Masa and even EMP. Things that I knew I couldn't get elsewhere or wouldn't taste the same elsewhere, and that were signature items for that chef. And surely, there was an inventive quality to many of the dishes that Benno prepared at Per Se, though we don't know for sure whose inventiveness was at work there. So for those who enjoyed his food there, it may have created an expectation that there would be similar inspiration at Lincoln. New York is a tough food audience, and they have often shown an unwillingness to pay high prices for something they feel they can get an equivalent of at a much lower price. This has been made quite clear by the failure of places like Jean Georges's 66, among many others. In that case, it seemed that people expected a new take on Chinese food, or at least a clearly elevated one. When they instead felt that they got what they felt was Chinatown food on nice plates at triple the price, they stopped going. (There were many reason's for its failure, some unrelated to the food, but that was absolutely one of them.) It remains to be seen how this standard is applied to other cuisines, as there as some that have a greater expectation of value than others, but if you look at the seven four star restaurants on the NY Times list, there are very few that simply offer upscale versions of food you can get elsewhere for a fraction of the price. The food at Daniel is a far cry from the offerings of any brasserie, the food at Masa not at all comparable to that at a standard sushi bar, and so on. I can't speak to Del Posto with authority, as I haven't been since they re-structured the restaurant's format, but it will be interesting to see how it compares to mid-level Italian restaurants both in quality and in creativity (whatever we decide that it means). For me, while I don't think Lincoln had any requirement to be creative, it did leave me with the feeling that I had tasted many of those dishes before elsewhere, and almost certainly for less money. That's a big factor in my measuring its value. Clearly, others have visited and felt very differently. Whether the reviewers (and other customers) decide that his technical execution is so far beyond what other Italian restaurants are doing as to set it apart and justify the price point will surely be a critical factor in its eventual reception. If enough people are as impressed as some have been with the cooking, then certainly it may well get good reviews (though I still don't think it can get four stars for the reasons mentioned earlier). And even if it doesn't become a culinary darling, it still may very well be a guaranteed success as a business venture based on its location within Lincoln Center. Just my two cents.

- Lack of tablecloths and other high-end service trappings - tables serviced by a single waiter - absence of sommelier or wine-specific staff consultation for some visitors at some tables - wait staff with limited food knowledge - absence of typical amuse courses and lavish mignardises - placement and proximity of tables to each other - lack of separation between dining room and bar - a la carte only menu format - wine list of bistro (albeit a very good bistro) level NOT above - open kitchen (and accompanying kitchen noise) It's almost the prototype for an upscale bistro, and fairly hard to argue objectively that it isn't less formal than Alto, for example. I'm sorry, but we must have eaten at two different restaurants... the table cloth thing is ridculous comment, some of the best resturants in the world don't have table clothes, Noma, and Alinea are two that come to mind right away. we had 2 sommiliers at our table, and the table are very spaced out, did you eat at the cafe on broadway??? three addition courses were sent out to our table. what prototype to you refer too, an open kichten does not make a bistro, i had an amazing meal at l'atelier last week, no bistro there, and no tablesclothes... you criteria needs a re-boot, we are not in 1980's anymore! Check out oakapple's post above (#42). While no one thing makes a place a bistro rather than a more formal restaurant, a collection of items does. And bistro is a pretty broad category, so there's some subjectivity involved. But just because one item, such as tablecloths, seems silly to you doesn't mean that it isn't a valid characterization. (As it happens, I agree, having eaten at many amazing restaurants that don't use them, including the two you mentioned and Mugaritz, among others.) But taken in concert with the rest of the list, many items of which you couldn't argue with, it's not unfair to put Lincoln in a category lower in formality than, well....every single four star NY Times restaurant in NY right now. Right now none of them have any of the items I listed at issue. In my personal experience (which as we've already discussed could be an outlier, and could still be remedied as they smooth out the kinks), the service was the biggest issue with them being compared favorably to the top restaurants in town. My server literally hadn't heard of the Alto Adige region (shocking in an Italian restaurant), didn't know what bicchiere meant (even though the restaurant uses the term on the wine list), hadn't tasted most of the dishes himself, and was the only server of any kind who interacted with me or my table during all of the courses of the meal. Maybe your table had all the sommeliers and that's why I got none...or maybe none of the wine staff is on duty on some nights and some times. I don't know, but it's not acceptable when you're paying close to $40 for your main and shouldn't happen at a formal dining establishment. Out of curiosity, what were the additional courses sent to your table? We got arancini before the appetizers, rather than the more involved amuses at more formal restaurants, and a plate of small bakery items at the end that may or may not have been made in house. When you talk about open kitchens, you also have to take into account what impression those kitchens give, and whether they're run in a way that takes into account their effect on the dining room. There's a big difference between a place where you get a glimpse at the final plating or garde manger station as a showpiece (and they behave with the knowledge that people are watching), and one in which there's a wide open window to the entire kitchen as it goes about its usual business. At L'atelier, which I agree is amazing, they are so smooth and silent that you wouldn't know they are there. Also, items that are cooked in a way that might produce smoke, smells and so on aren't cooked next to diners. At Lincoln, you could hear the chefs barking orders to each other, and see them running around. Rather than L'atelier's slickly produced quiet show, this was a real working kitchen. There are many places that allow you a peek into the prep areas (including Corton), but that's a little different from what was going on at Lincoln. Again, they may still change this, but in its current state, it separates the place from its more formal competition. It's also worth noting that Joel Robuchon himself doesn't consider L'atelier to be a formal restaurant, which is why he called it L'atelier...to distinguish it from its more formal predecessors in his career. He'd wear the label of lowered formality proudly and even suggest that his place is less formal than most would label it. (It's further worth noting that L'atelier has also failed thus far to be awarded four stars by the Times despite its wonderful and inventive food.) And while they may easily (and probably will) alter the menu to be more in keeping with fine dining formats, that is still unlikely to be the main focus, as that would marginalize their Lincoln Center business. I'm sure they'll be loathe to do that unless the place is a huge smash hit. So far, it's not. Regardless of that, their wine list simply doesn't stack up with that of a top restaurant at this point, and that fix will take more effort and money. All of the places mentioned here as comparison (Noma, Alinea, Mugaritz, L'atelier, etc.) for various specific shortcomings, have wine lists that are so far different to Lincoln's as to make comparison pointless, as do all of the places that have garnered four stars from the Times. So in the net, while you may personally disagree with some of the things I contend make it an upscale bistro for lack of a better term (albeit a very good one), it's still a valid argument based on the preponderance of items I listed, among others. I can tell that you really enjoyed your meal(s) at Lincoln and want it to do well, but most of these issues are factual, not subjective. I tried to keep the discussion of whether the restaurant is an "upscale bistro" or not on that plane, rather than discussing whether those things make it a better or worse restaurant. In a subjective discussion, I would have had to mention the fact that while they were good, I've had better, more flavorful arancini at quite a few casual Italian joints, and that the bakery plate, which may or may not have even been done in house, was mostly AWFUL (dry as the desert, filled with over-processed marzipan and completely unimaginative), and certainly not any better than what they give you at the end of a meal at Torrisi. I would also have cited a surprising lack of imagination in the menu from someone who became famous at a place that is known for theirs. Whether you love your experience at Lincoln, hate it, or somewhere in between, on a factual level it's simply in a different CATEGORY of restaurant (by its own ambition) than every single one that currently holds four stars from the NY Times. Whether the items that define that category matter to you or not, they historically do to reviewers and will continue to until some food writer at the Times has the guts to give a four star rating to a place that is SO good that it overcomes the traditional requirements for that status, tablecloths be damned. Personally, I don't think this is that place. They've already awarded four stars to the much more formal Del Posto, and even that was a shock in itself to some. Lincoln isn't different, special or inventive enough to completely change the paradigm for an Italian restaurant that isn't as formal. The food, even if you think it's better (which I don't), can't be objectively found to be so unique when compared to that of Alto, Marea, Babbo and other top Italian restaurants that it "changes the game". Even if you find that every dish was sublime, and compares favorably to existing examples at those places mentioned and others, there are very few flavors there that are new or different from what you'd get at the top Italian places of any level. This isn't the Momofuku Ko or Alinea of the Italian world...a true game changer that will set the restaurant world abuzz all over the world. Someone upthread (maybe Marc) offered to buy dinner for all those who wagered that Lincoln would get four stars. He wasn't slagging the place off...he was simply (and correctly) pointing out that by its very structure and setup, it doesn't seem to be trying to get four stars. Judging by history, and the comparative formality levels, I'd say he's probably safe in his bet.

- Lack of tablecloths and other high-end service trappings - tables serviced by a single waiter - absence of sommelier or wine-specific staff consultation for some visitors at some tables - wait staff with limited food knowledge - absence of typical amuse courses and lavish mignardises - placement and proximity of tables to each other - lack of separation between dining room and bar - a la carte only menu format - wine list of bistro (albeit a very good bistro) level NOT above - open kitchen (and accompanying kitchen noise) It's almost the prototype for an upscale bistro, and fairly hard to argue objectively that it isn't less formal than Alto, for example.

Technically, you can do it by phone or email. From their site: To reserve seats please contact Heidi at 718-243-0050 or email kitchen@brooklynfare.com. She'll then notify you when the next available reservations will go up for grabs. I'm sure it's going to be much tougher to get in going forward.

I hope it DESERVES three stars. Sifton is so erratic that I don't particularly care what they GET. My thoughts exactly! I also concur on the comments you made about the menu pricing and structure, and the fact that most people don't order the way we folk do. To that extent, Marc is dead right about the pricing. When viewed from the restaurant's viewpoint (i.e. a per-check total), they are definitely going to make less than the current 4-stars. But from a cost to the buyer viewpoint, it's right up there...

That would definitely work. Another great way to go is to bring a decent Txacoli (Ametzoi, Txomin or the like), as his cuisine definitely has Spanish influences, and Txacoli goes with almost everything. It also depends on how drunk you want to get... As you noted, you can always take home what you don't finish (or don't even start). And yes, you should be able to have it lined up in front of you, as long as they don't run out of anything in particular. Not sure they have enough for everyone in the place to have a lineup, but we certainly did when I went last week. You'll have a great time.

Ironically too low a price was one of several quoted reasons that Lincoln wasn't to be a 4 star place. Now it's the only criteria that meets a 4 star rating. Quite the price point they set! :-) I wasn't one of those that cited its price point being too low for four stars, since I don't agree. The price is very comparable to Del Posto, only with less value delivered, and is pretty close to Jean Georges's entry level prix fixe if you compare apples to apples (meaning doing a four course option including a pasta at Lincoln). It's also within a few percentage points of the costs involved with Le Bernardin's entry level menu and with EMP's lowest cost option. If you take the typical cost for each of the four courses at Lincoln and add it up, it comes to $100 even. That's higher than Del Posto and Jean Georges, and pretty close to the other two I mentioned. And keep in mind that they don't provide the level or number of amuses or mignardises that any of the four stars do. What I do agree with is that the FORMAT of the menu isn't typical of what most of the four star places do. From a purely financial standpoint, it makes Del Posto seem like the real bargain of the bunch, at least for now. Which is appropriate, as this is a Del Posto thread after all...

I can't speak for LPShanet, but when I make the comparison to A Voce I'm referring mainly to the "vibe," since I haven't yet had the food. Alto, I think, presents a much more luxurious, more unhurried environment. Again, that's just the vibe. I think the issue is not just whether the sommelier can give good guidance when you have his attention, but also whether there is enough of "him" to go around. Restaurants like Per Se and Le Bernardin have teams of sommeliers, not just one--and their dining rooms are smaller. At even a three-star restaurant, much less a four-star place, the experience LPShanet described simply should not happen. The vibe in the room was probably somewhere in between the two in my estimation. The decor and style of the place was closer to A Voce, in the sense that it was elegant but casual. But it was definitely quieter, less bustling and not in any way rushed, although the level of service I received was not as deep as that I had at Alto. I wonder how much of the quietness and lack of rush was due to superior vibe and how much due to the fact that the dining room wasn't very full. A Voce is partly cursed by simply being more popular at this point. Maybe the sommelier wasn't on duty when I was there, or maybe a visit wasn't deemed necessary for our table, but either would be considered a failing at a place competing for three stars. As oakapple points out, there should be enough wine staff to at least have seen one of them during my visit...especially if the wait staff is going to have so little knowledge of wine. The first step would be for the waiter to acknowledge this lack of knowledge in himself, so that he would seek out guidance from a more educated source.

I hope it stays that way. It's been tough enough getting in up till now, and with the Michelin stars, it's going to be a nightmare to keep going back. Tell everyone it's awful and they shouldn't even consider it! >

First off, you're going to want to stay in touch with them leading up to your reservation, as they've been pursuing a liquor license, and it's possible that it won't be BYOB by the time you go. Now on the the specifics of how it works currently. They have plenty of stemware of various sizes and configurations. Small white wine stems, large bordeaux style stems, balloon/pinot/burgundy glasses, champagne flutes and even dessert wine/cordial glasses. They even have a few decanters for you to use. So you should be fine with multiple wines. In fact, we went through about 8 different bottles ranging from bubbly to dessert when we went last week. One suggestion, though. Depending on the size of your group, I'd suggest that you may be a little light on white. There is quite a lot of seafood in the meal, and usually only one round or so of meat, so I think you'll want to lean towards things with highish acidity. Champagne will go great with a lot of the menu, and you may want to drink it with much of the menu or bring a versatile white as well, before moving on to the medium red, which may only match only two or three of the many items served. But in the end, the answer is yes, they have enough stemware to definitely handle doing multiple wines with your dinner. Enjoy!

Sorry to be the voice of dissent, but based on my meal there last night, I have to disagree 100%. As I see it, there is absolutely no chance that Lincoln will get four stars from the Times. It's more likely to be a matter of two versus three, and if the meals they have are like mine last night, they'd be lucky indeed to get the three. Not only is it not designed to be a four star in terms of ambition, it's simply not good enough, both in terms of food and service. The only thing four star about the place is the price level. I'd even venture to say that the meal I had might not put it in the top seven Italian restaurants in the city, let alone the top seven of any kind. (I believe the number of four star restaurants is currently seven.) We all have various places we like a lot and those we "dont' get", but observed objectively, there's nothing about Lincoln that makes it comparable to those in the four star category. It may be possible to have a great meal there (though I certainly didn't have one that was anything better than very good), but that isn't what the criterion is for determining the four star recipients. I didn't find it to compare at all (let alone favorably) to the seven four-star owners. In Del Posto's case, food aside, they're at least trying to deliver a level of service comparable to the other four star operations. Meanwhile, Lincoln is much more of an upscale bistro environment, in terms of service structure and ambition, similar to A Voce and the like. No tablecloths, no sommelier in evidence, one waiter per table and amuses that are more bar snack than inventions of creative genius. It's just not the formula you use if you want the quad.

As stated by the others, Luger's not only takes reservations, but it's pretty much mandatory to have one if you plan on eating there. Not sure where you heard otherwise. What they historically don't take is credit cards...so bring cash. In terms of the location, you didn't mention where you're going to be based/staying, but as stated, the geographical barrier is much more mental than physical. Luger's is REALLY close to Manhattan...enough so that it may well be closer to your location than many of the Manhattan options being proffered. At worst, it's certainly not going to be much farther, and you can get there easily (and with no major additional expense) by either subway or cab. So don't let it's Brooklyn location dissuade you, especially since what you're after is dry aged goodness. Fair price is another thing, as this is NY after all. None of the places are cheap, but most are in the same range. It's also a real classic NY experience at Luger's, while eating at Wolfgang's, even if the meat were exactly the same (although most say it's not quite), won't provide that. Seems like you'll have to trade either old style ambience or steak quality to dine at almost any other place. And even those that don't like it are likely to at least have a smile about their story of going there. Still, if you want other steak places, there's a pretty good list on this thread now, none of which will do you wrong. Trying several, as you mentioned, might be a great idea, if you're not sick of steak. And if you're going to try more than one, I'd echo the above recommendation of Minetta, as they serve a really nice piece of meat (either the Cote for two or the sirloin for one) in what may become a new NYC classic in time. So my list would be Luger's, Strip House, Minetta, just for the sake of variety, though you could probably substitute any two others from the thread and do almost as well. Make sure to get reservations at all of them well in advance, as Minetta can be even tougher to get into than Luger's.

Went to Lincoln last night and had about a third of the menu. First off, let me say that Lincoln is a very good restaurant. It might even be an excellent restaurant. That said, I hate to be the first to burst the Benno love bubble, but I think the statements originally made by Sneakeater and Oakapple are dead-on even though they haven't been yet, in terms of the level of place it is. Judging by the decor of the room (clean, elegant, but definitely not formal at all) and the level of service, there most certainly aren't any four-star aspirations going on here. This, of course, assumes the current reviewing status quo, whereby a restaurant needs to have a certain level of ambience, service, presentation, etc. to even be seriously considered for four stars. This is a restaurant with no tablecloths, after all, and no visit by a sommelier at any point in the meal, despite the fact that we ordered quite a bit of wine. I'm not even sure the sommelier was in the house. There is no way it can or should be considered in the same group as the likes of Daniel, Per Se, EMP, etc. It's not of that level, and there isn't any serious effort to try to be. It's much more comparable to a slew of three star Italian restaurants in town (e.g. Esca, Alto, A Voce, Babbo), and the debate will be over whether it's as good as those (in which case it will be competing for three stars), or not (in which case two is more likely). But on to the specifics. The Food: We had the Capesanta In Padella (sea scallop with sunchokes, almonds and sunflower oil); the Di Stefano Burrata with squash blossoms; and an order of the eggplant parmigiana to start. All were really solid, though none blew me away. In fact, that's sort of my overall impression of all the food we ate. Everything was very skillfully prepared, and the flavors were nice, but there were no surprises, no super vivid flavors, and nothing so memorable that I had to go back. The scallop was very pleasant, but I've had sweeter and I've had ones that were better caramelized. The sunchoke puree was reminiscent of high end hummus...and a little bit pastier than optimal. The whole sunchokes were unevenly cooked, with a few perfectly done, one mushy and one almost totally raw. Still, the overall taste of the dish was quite good. The burrata was a very nice sample of the cheese, although I agree with the poster above who mentioned that the match with the squash blossoms might be reconsidered. However, I perceived the reason for this a little bit differently. Burrata is not a really strongly flavored cheese, so the idea that it was overpowering to the squash blossoms is a bit odd. I think the problem was that the blossoms had almost no flavor of their own. While the burrata may have been a tiny bit more pungent than average for the form, I don't think the idea of pairing it with that type of vegetable is misguided; you just need an example with more offer. The eggplant parmigiana, intended as a side, was the most flavorful of our starters. Like an upscale version of the red sauce classic, it really hit the spot. It was constructed sort of like a mille feuilles, and was sort of an optimized version of the one I ate at Torrisi once. Very nice, but certainly not four star food. We then moved on to the primi, where we sampled the Bucatini with dungeness crab, pacific sea urchin, pepperoncino and sea beans; the Agnolotti Di Polenta with braised lamb, cavolo nero and marjoram; and the Lasagne Verdi Alla Bolognese with veal, beef and pork ragu. The bucatini has a lot of potential. In the same way that any bite of foie gras is delicious, I find that almost any bite of sea urchin can provide real pleasure, assuming it's of decent quality. Still, the main flavor of the dish was butter, and while I really liked its decadent richness, there really weren't any counterpoints such as acidity, sweetness or the like. It was just straight butter and umami...not that there's anything wrong with that. Still, once it was gone, I wasn't thinking of ordering another round. The agnolotti di polenta was a little less successful. The agnolotti had a really mild (read: almost bland) center, which was an odd pairing with the extremely rich and unctuous lamb. The cavolo nero (a braised green somewhere between kale and cabbage) was a bit bitter (which it's supposed to be) but didn't add much. Overall, the dish just seemed a bit unbalanced to me. It either needed more flavor in the filling, or a bit more balance and restraint with the braised lamb. The lasagna, like the eggplant before it, was an upscale take on a lowbrow classic, and was again probably the most successful dish of the course. Calling it lasagna is a bit misleading, since the pasta portion of the dish acts almost like a pie crust, containing a ragu filling. There aren't really layers of noodles throughout, but the flavors were well-balanced, and the overall effect was very nice. We then moved on to the Agnello Arrosto which consisted of a lamb chop and shoulder, garlic sausage, and romanesco cauliflower. The chop wasn't a traditional form, as it had the sausage worked in. The result was a large ball-shaped piece of food on the chop's bone, almost like a stuffed and formed magical McNugget. The taste was very rich, but wasn't necessarily balanced by anything, which made it a bit overwhelming. Also, it was cooked slightly unevenly, with parts being just barely off-red, and others closer to medium. I think that's a risk of cooking something so round in form. Still, the flavor wasn't harmed. The shoulder was even better, and just as rich. Biting in to the cauliflower was a welcome respite from the intensity and richness of the two lamb elements, but a sauce would have been welcome doing the same. We also had a veal chop with gnocchi alla romana, green market carrots, and chanterelle mushrooms. This was the best balanced dish of the night, although again, there were no flavors that I hadn't had before at many Italian restaurants. Overall, the food was very good but lacked the creativity, inspiration and technical perfection that would make it stand out from the other very good Italian restaurants in NYC. The Service: Since our entire meal service was provided by one waiter, this is really more of a review of him rather than the restaurant's overall service. But I think the fact that one waiter was expected to be the only service person involved with our meal also says something about the place as a whole, and their aspirations. He was extremely nice and tried very hard to be helpful and informative. However, I was surprised at his level of food and wine knowledge...or rather his relative lack thereof. As I often do, I asked him whether there were any really amazing dishes that he liked, or that were possibly future signatures of the chef. I'm guessing that he hasn't actually tried all the dishes on the menu (in my opinion a big no-no at a good restaurant), because he seemed to balk at that question. Instead, he told me what he thought were the most popular/high-selling items. That's the sort of answer I expect at an Applebee's. Considering this is a new restaurant with a not particularly adventurous clientele (I don't think Sneak, Oak, et all were wrong when they noted that a notable portion of the customers would be Lincoln Center visitors), that wasn't what I wanted to know. Obviously, they're going to order the chicken and the steak and stay away from the tripe. When it came time to select some wine, he was even less sure of himself, and was actually unfamiliar with a number of the wine regions of Italy. Now, I'm no Italy expert, but when I asked about Alto Adige offerings, I got a sort of blank look. Same thing happened when I asked about a particular wine that I thought might have a combination of typical red and white wine qualities. Rather than being able to confirm or deny, he simply answered that it's "very good". Not very helpful, and most of the other info provided to my dining companions suggested that he was essentially faking it in the wine department. I had even asked him whether we should consult the sommelier or simply ask him our wine questions, and he decided to do it himself. As mentioned earlier, I'm not sure there was even a wine/spirits person in the house (other than maybe the bartender). There is no doubt that a good restaurant, even at the two and three star NY Times level, needs to offer better service than this. Friendliness gets you far, but not far enough when the prices are as high as they were. The Cost: It's worth noting that the appetizers are $18 - $30 and the mains $32 - $60 (for a $120 steak for two. At this price level, Lincoln is more expensive than most of its competition, and this high price point (along with the fact that Benno is in the kitchen) may be why people are comparing it to places that are a bit out of its league. Personally, I think the prices are a bit higher than appropriate for the restaurant, but I'm guessing it won't be a barrier with the captive Lincoln Center audience. Certainly the service level should be elevated at these price points, but instead it would best be characterized as an "elegant bistro", in a similar way to A Voce (the restaurant it reminds me most of). The Room: It's a really nice space, with lots of glass, some pretty dramatic design touches (including a slanted wood ceiling and an ambience that changes as the sun goes down. The circular booths are appealing to the eye as well as to sit in, and the other tables on the open floor benefit from the floor to ceiling windows, even if they aren't as comfortable as the booths. Still, the decor would not be characterized as formal, as the tables are bare wood, and space quite spare. It's my taste but it's not trying to be Daniel or the like. The Bottom Line: As I said, Lincoln is a very good restaurant. The fact that I sound as critical as I do in the prose of my description is because of the rhetoric that has preceded the restaurant. With all the hype, the high prices, and Benno in the kitchen, the level of expectation is very high. And while there aren't a lot of things notably wrong with the restaurant, it certainly raises the question of whether Benno might be a better executor of other people's (i.e. Keller's) brilliant ideas than a creator of his own. The cooking here and the flavors are certainly not original. And while the technical level is quite high, it was far from perfect, and he has led us to expect more in the past. Although obviously the Per Se experience isn't what anyone would reasonably have expected here, I still was hoping for more. I'm not convinced he's actually a better creator of dishes (at least Italian ones) than his competition at the previously mentioned Italian strongholds. I've had better tasting meals at most of them, as well as at Scarpetta, Locanda Verde and L'artusi. I know that last statement will certainly earn me some flames on these boards, but it's a very subjective thing, and that's my feeling. It's true that this is based on only one meal at Lincoln, and that it's very early in their existence, but at those prices, it's going to be tough to get me to go back on my own dime when I can go to those other places for about two thirds of that (6.6 cents?). So back to the star issue. I think that four NY Times stars is definitely out (even if Sifton does have questionable judgement). For a restaurant to change the entire historical paradigm of the star system, it's going to have to be much better of its kind than this...even if it improves a lot in the next three months. Certainly if places with this level of service were in the running for four stars, then places like Marea, Brooklyn Fare and Ko would already have received them. I'm guessing that the likely result will be either two or three stars, depending on how well they tighten the screws down. Certainly better educating their wait staff will be one key (or choosing ones with more experience and skills). But in terms of food, there are restaurants that have two stars right now that are not only more ambitious at a better service level and lower price point, but the food just tastes better and is more inspired (I'm looking at you, Annisa). Sorry to disagree with all the Benno-philes, as I truly wanted him to succeed and for Lincoln to be special, but I don't think Lincoln is a game-changer in any sense. Still, it's worth a visit, and probably a re-visit in a few months.