aaustin

That's a funny statement if you look at the cassoulet and breakfast/brunch in downtown discussions. ← Actually, I find that, many times, people suggest the same places over and over again even if they haven't eaten there in a long time. I expect that, more often than not, those types of recommendations are based on the "in theory, were I to go to Pike Place Market for brunch, I would..." scenario than on actual recent experiences.

You're right---that actually is a better way to put it.

Had dinner at Cafe Campagne for the first time in many years while in Seattle a week ago and I have to say that the food was remarkably good, particularly the oysters we were served and the steak frites, which is among the best pieces of meat I've had out in a very long time! And for $20, that is saying something. We also had the steak tartare which I thought was good but nothing spectacular--I wish I'd skipped it and had the pate which I love. Service was not good. Not good at all. But the food was good from start to finish. I think this place is often overlooked by locals, so I thought I'd make mention of it.

So I picked up three sandwiches while in town last week: the gravlax; one featuring salumi meat (can't remember exactly what type of meat, but the sandwich had cilantro and carrots so it was like a banh mi but with cured meat); and lastly the drunken chicken. Overall we liked them all, though I didn't think any of them were that memorable, and I really think they were stingy with the fillings. I like the flavors in the gravlax, but there was hardly any fish. The salumi one was fine, but again....very little meat. And the drunken chicken---this tasted like Chinese-American sweet and sour chicken stuck in a baguette to me. not at all what I expected it to be and not something I'd order again i don't think.....

A bunch of us did that once, and it worked out great. Get a big variety of sandwiches, cut them all in half and put on serving platter. It will cost a lot more than a plate of salumi, though, which turns out to be pretty darn cheap because you get beaucoup slices in just one pound. ← I just looked and didn't see a post in the baguette box thread but I'd love to know which of the sandwiches you thought was best.

I did call before I posted--I guess I should've mentioned that. So, if Salumi is closed over the holidays, would you all recommend I pick up sandwiches from Baguette Box or is there another good place around that I don't know of. The Other Coast in ballard is too far to drive for me...

So sorry if this is the wrong salumi thread to post this question, but honestly there are just too many and I quit looking after 4 pages! Question: Does anyone know if Salumi is usually open during the holidays or do Armondino and co. take a week off? It will break my heart if they aren't open when I'm home for the holidays so I thought I'd check ahead of time....

Any more recent opinions? Is this a must try on a short visit to Seattle?

I'll definitely call, but these are for my dad who puts quality and quantity on equal par, so...maybe ideas for something a little less pricey?

How much are the caramels there? Are they sold as singles or in packages?

I'm looking for really great homemade caramels, sort of homemade style preferable. Also, great brittle---cashew, pecan, peanut as a last resort. thanks!

I've got reservations this week and I'm wondering if there are any more recent impressions? We're thinking apps and maybe sharing an entree at the bar? What to order!?

Could someone please clarify, or tell me where to look, when the 25 for $25 promotion is running, and also if any restaurants are doing this promotion year-round? I will be home over the holidays and am wondering if, say, the Flying Fish lunch deal will still be in effect.

Sorry if my comment seemed like a drive-by shooting, but, as a person who used to work in kitchens around Seattle, I can honestly tell you that most cooks I knew had heard horror stories about working with Carsberg. I also know of ridiculous things the restaurant has done re. service (telling a would-be diner who had to cancel to "not bother trying to eat there again" and such). In addition, I have dined there twice and was underwhelmed with both dinners. But on a more broad level, I often find that NYC-based media miss the boat when they try to cover restaurants in Seattle. For example, I don't think that Lampreia is representative of what's exciting about dining in Seattle right now at all. I think maybe Bittman sees that it's as much of a NY-in-Seattle a place as can be found and perhaps that's why he continues to focus so much attention on it. But again, this series is called "the chef" and I think the choice of chef is a huge disappointment.

I think Bittman and Carsberg must be in cahoots. I also think it's funny that Bittman is so clueless about the fact that 1/2 of Seattle hates Carsberg.

I'll be up there this weekend. Sounds like Beals is a must-try. Any others I simply HAVE to go to? I'm from the NW so I love a good microbrew. thanks!

Just curious....anyone been here lately?

This is exciting. I'll be in Seattle at the end of summer and would love to go. I look forward to all of your posts.

I am with Rich on this one. The NY Times food section is read by food-lovers across the country. In fact, I'd bet the Wed Times and Sunday Times are the biggest sellers outside of the NY metropolitan area. That's why a review this insider-y, to me, reads like a first draft. His editors should've sent it back and asked him to re-think it. You're giving this place 3 stars--do you want it to read this negatively? Do you want to mention the Red Cross? If so, why? Perhaps the problem is that, unlike Bruni's first 2 reviews, here we see a Bruni who can't seem to make up his mind and seems to be searching. In the end, it just doesn't come across to me as being as difinitive as his other reviews thus far.

A friend of mine who was a restaurant critic for many years always said that the amount of what he called "drool copy" should be in direct correlation to the number of stars. A simplification for sure, but I see the validity in it. That's my biggest issue with this review. I firmly believe you can have it both ways, ie, you can be critical and explain the loss of a star but yet praise and say why the place is still 3 stars. I find the latter to be lacking.

Clifford's comments echo my own thoughts. I really do not feel the purpose of the NY Times restaurant review is to speak directly to a minority of readers; rather, I think the review should stand on it's own and that any of my less food-obsessed friends should understand why a place got the review it did. In other words, you shouldn't have to be an egulleter to understand why this review reads like a slap on the face and yet the place gets 3 stars. Any context needed to make the case should be included therein, and I believe his two previous reviews have successfully shown that is possible. I thought the Babbo review did an excellent job of saying, "here's what babbo is, here's what a 4-star restaurant is...this isn't that, but it's a great place, I love it and here's why it gets 3 stars." Bouley and Babbo both get 3 stars. One reads like a kind, friendly love letter, the other is filled with backhanded compliments. I agree with Fat Guy about there not being a way out. This review is probably as damning as a no-stars review would be to a potential 2-star place.

I wonder if anyone else thinks the review itself, taken on its own without knowing that Bouley had 4 stars and was demoted (which, btw, is not mentioned in the review), reads like less than a 3 star review? Because there is very little specifically praised. Sure, Bruni mentions a waiter deftly intercepting the wine pour...but other than the desserts does Bruni ever really say anything very good about the food? He says, "None of the entrees or appetizers was an out-and-out failure..." What kind of praise is that? How does that describe a 3 star meal? And lastly, after reading this review, does anyone want to eat there? I don't. And I think the reader should want to eat at a 3 star restaurant after reading the review.

I grew up in the area and went to high school in Tacoma and I think I can comment on this issue in a fairly informed manner. Bart Ripp was very well known in Tacoma. He was "the" critic, as there are a couple of smaller papers in the area, and the Tribune is really the area's only paper of record. I would bet there are 3 Tribune writers who the average Tacoma resident can name and Ripp is one. Tacoma is a small town despite the population. In the last few years it's really made amazing strides and several good restaurants (including several with roots in Seattle) have opened. The restaurant scene is getting better. But it's a small town. It is extremely unlikely that Ripp would be anonymous even if he tried. Granted, it does not sound to me like he tried; quite the opposite seems to be the case. I think it's safe to guess that the better restaurants always knew when he was in the house. Ripp also wasn't known for being right very often. He fell into what I think is a fairly easy trap for a food critic who's been in a city too long---the "chestnut" camp, in which the reviewer tows the party line and gives restaurants with good reputations or popular chefs, etc, better reviews than they really deserve, even when the average diner knows that the restaurant isn't as good as it once was. For example, anyone familiar with the waterfront in Tacoma knows that C.I. Shenanigans is really not very good food-wise, though it is very busy due to its "special occasion" appeal and its location. Ripp repeatedly gave it good reviews. He must have been either lying or ....well, I think he was lying. Now, as for his dining in Seattle without paying the check---that grabbed me the most. Critics pay for their meals and are reimbursed by the companies they work for, so not paying is never an option. And it doesn't sound to me like the meal was comped by the restaurant itself (ie, Ripp was friends with the chef, say, or the manager), because if it were why would this anecdote be mentionable? So it sounds like Mr. Ripp dined and dashed. And that to me is simply appalling. That said, I am extremely impressed with the editors for acknowledging this. He's been gone for months and they probably could've just considered the issue to be water under the bridge. I am proud that they did not.

You're right--I just re-read the original Diner's Journal. It's always surprising to see how the Times decides to use that column from week to week, sometimes as a semi-review or "review light" if you will, of a place they'll not revisit (as I believe Sifton's been doing since Grimes left), other times as as a sort of "first look" at a place they will be revisiting.

What I find most interesting is that this is the second review of Geisha in what? 6 months? When the NY Times does just one major review each week, I find it very hard to justify going to Geisha to re-review within a year, let alone a half-year. I would guess that Ripert's good reputation is the reason for such benefit of the doubt re-reviewing.