whisk

I was there a little over a year ago. I remember the food to be very good, and sometimes excellent. But once dessert came things went downhill in a hurry. The desserts were unspectacular. Very much what you'd get at a decent bistro in paris. The restaurant has a huge wine list. But they have had serious controversy with the way the restaurant is run. Particularly staffing/sommelier issues as described on Eater.com last month.

ADNY on a very bad day (even under Delouvrier) was very much a Michelin 3-star, and at the very least, a NYTimes 4 star. Bruni's understanding of Michelin 3 stars and how special they are (the European ones; I'm thinking Arpege, Pierre Gagnaire, etc.), borders on the criminally incompetent. That he didn't issue a re-review of Esnault's ADNY should have gotten Bruni fired. Let's see what he does with Ducasse's upcoming NY place. But you can bet your behind he'll say something snarky and completely irrelevant, like "Now, Ducasse has decided that the less fussy approach is better, and Adour is better than its over the top predecessor." I bet the man would love to see cafeteria style dining rooms in every restaurant (which is what the Bar Room, even though the food is very good, is).

I agree. The reason that Zagat (despite its flaws) is so successful (or, shall I say, enjoys widespread popularity) is the very reason that food, decor, service and cost are at least recognized. I've read far too many Bruni reviews where there is no mention of even service. Oh, well in case you count his review of Jean Georges, where he called the service "aloof", yet for some reason felt 4 stars justified!

I definitely agree with you here -- Cru is on my #3 list for Food, right behind L'Atelier de Joel Robuchon and Per Se.

Unfortunately, a visit to Eleven Mad. weeks ago yielded painful memories of insanely tiny portions, a weak signature (the suckling pig confit, which was way too dry), mediocre dessert and strangely indifferent service for a Meyer operation.

I can vouch for FG's argument that this is a wise decision. I was there recently, and the desserts my partner and I had were weak. The restaurant should try to get someone in the Ducasse/Per Se mold, if only to have a better sync with Humm's cuisine.

It is amazing that we're talking two, let alone three stars from the NYTimes. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think the restaurant would be a significant failure (in terms of prestige and dollars spent) in Ramsay's mind if he didn't get four.

The very talented Cyril Renaud is the exec. chef/owner (he was the chef de cuisine at Bouley for years). The chef de cuisine (forgot his name, I think it's Jose) is an alum of the Michelin 3-star Arpege in Paris.

It really is a shame that the NYTimes continues to waste precious resources on Bruni. Perhaps in the past you wouldn't find a chef's book in the foyer, but the "cult of the chef" thing is still NOT a new phenomenom. Although I never dined at Fernand Point's La Pyramide, I can't imagine anyone not walking in there and feeling his presence. So what if Ducasse, Meyer, et al. show off some of thir books? How does that detract from the dining experience? It just seems Bruni misses the point, that he has these strange ixations on everything except for food.

Bruni's comment on "smart" dress was a cheap shot. "Smart" is a commonly used expression in Britain, and I've also heard the term here. As far as the two-hour time limit, I can't possibly fathom that Ramsay and his subordinates would ever have greenlighted this, given that is so basic a faux pas, especially in the States. This seems like a mistake/confusion on the reservationists part. But this mistake, if it is one, speaks to an operational deficiency and may be attributed to an operations head.

Vadouvan - Definitely agree with the foolishness re opening in a hotel. But the Ramsay case may be even worse than most, in that, supposedly, all tips are reserved solely for union staff - not a dime for the so-called management.

I am truly amazed that things are going so well at Ramsay, as I've heard the restaurant has been bedeviled by significant union issues related to front of the house.