bechamel

So would I, but the Times format isn't conducive to that.

Again, you're missing the point. The Times set the standard for issuing so many re-reviews of ADNY in a relatively short period of time. And I hasten to add that just because ADNY is a place you would not go to doesn't mean many people don't care about the place. If they didn't, why would the Times devote so much ink on the restaurant. As far as me not understanding restaurant economics, let me ask you this: Do you really think Keller, Vongerichten, Boulud, Masa want to get re-reviewed? They already have four stars, and hence are reaping the financial windfall. It would be a nightmare for them if Bruni walked into one of their restaurants with the aim of re-reviewing.

So why not a fourth? There were two reviews under the opening chef, Didier Elena, and one under Delouvrier. Why not one for Esnault, particulary given, once again, the high profile nature of the circumstances? The Times itself ran a story on the three-star demotion right after Delouvrier was canned! And interesting how you the use the word "granted." I'm not sure anyone at ADNY (or anyone in the restaurant business) would want to be "granted" the right for reviewers to keep hounding them with reviews. Can you imagine Daniel, JG, Le Bernardin surviving that kind of scrutiny?

Back to ADNY/NY Times. Given the high profile ouster of Delouvrier and the installation of Esnault, it was an appalling abdication of responsibility for Bruni not to re-review the restaurant. We're talking about one of the biggest restaurant news stories of 2005, a new chef with a completely new menu and take on cuisine, etc. As far as the option of the Times running multiple reviews, I somehow doubt they would do that. I mean, I hope they do. Part of the power of The Times review is that there is only one a week.(I don't count the $25 and Under nonsense.) Would the mulitple format make them look more like TimeOut?

The only factual error I saw was the bit about Ducasse "about to open another [restaurant] in the refurbished, five-star St. Regis." Everyone here knows the Essex House restaurant is closing and relocating.

It still seems contradictory. On one page, Michelin is talking about 3-star places involving the entire experience, then on the other page there's absolutely no mention of a total dining experience under explanatory text for 3 star restaurants. Just words about the cuisine. Perhaps I'm nitpicking.

One of the things that irritates me about Michelin is that they can’t just be honest and admit that there are other factors that inform the awarding of stars, especially three stars. It’s not solely about food and, in fact, there is explanatory text in the guide that contradicts Michelin’s assertion. Under the explanation of starred restaurants (page 26), you’ll note the following: “Three stars – our highest award – are given to the very best restaurants, where the whole dining experience is superb.” Then, on the next page: “The awarding of a star is based solely on the cuisine.”

Nathan - I agree about the mystifying inclusion of some of those places way up in the Zagat Top list, namely Annisa, Gramercy Tavern and Peter Luger (with the inclusion of The Grocery years ago as the most horrifying example). But remember the flack Michelin received last year for some of the downright dubious choices? Examples: La Goulue, Spotted Pig, Etats-Unis -- all again receiving a star in this year's guide! And look at the restaurants that are omitted: Blue Hill, Alto, L'Impero, etc.

Nathan - I genuinely understand your frustrations with the Zagat top list, especially Le Bernardin coming in #1 -- again. But compare the Zagat list with the Michelin 1-, 2- and 3-stars. Many of the Michelin starred restaurants are also on the Zagat list. So how exactly is Zagat so off the mark? Nevertheless, I appreciate the value of Michelin immensely.

Golden Unicorn - Probably the best of the dim sum BIG rooms Gum Fung (what is this?) - same, in Flushing ← In response to sneakeater's previous comment re local non-foodies and Michelin: I recently asked a sales clerk at a local bookstore if Michelin sells well. She said Zagat outsells Michelin 5 to 1 there.

chefboy - How, in fact, are the other guides (Zagat, TimeOut, et al.) meaningless? I could have sworn I read a piece in the NY Times a few years ago about what it means to be a top restaurant in Zagat. From what I recall, being a top dog in Zagat can translate into millions of dollars. (That may have been a quote from Clark Wolf.) And as far as the NY Times influence, it's important to note that it has a limited effect on the overall dining scene. Of course, it's power cannot be disputed when it comes to the early life of a restaurant, but after that? I would argue that Michelin and Zagat are in their own right more influential than the Times, since both books come out every year. My main contention with the Michelin guide is not necessarily its (much debatable, much maligned) content; it's with the way the book is organized. Maybe I'm an idiot, I just find it too hard to find a restaurant. Perhaps that's another reason why New Yorkers aren't buying it.

Have there been any studies on how an NY Times review affects a restaurant’s bottom line? Some (many?) have argued that a Times review in the Bruni era doesn’t carry as much weight anymore, that the post under Bruni marks the Times’ decline in influence on the restaurant scene, etc.

Bruni has an impossible job in the sense that pre-publication of a NY Times review should be premised on suspense. It comes out 52 times a year. When you wake up the next day and see a review for Freeman’s or Da Silvano, wouldn’t you ask yourself, “So this is what I was looking forward to reading?” But then again, if his principal duty was to re-review established sacred cows (e.g. Daniel), wouldn’t some also ask, “So, Bruni, you call this news?!”

Would Michelin keep Ducasse in the forthcoming 2007 book?

On another subject, I remember a friend of mine having an issue with a lobster course, specifically that it was thoroughly tough. I did not have that experience -- mine was deliriously tender. Is the lobster bedeviling the restaurant? Perhaps I missed some discussions upthread.