mogsob

Haven't been to a Thai restaurant in the US that was halfway decent, so while I freely admit that NY Thai restaraunts suck, so do SF's. I don't like Vietnamese, so I won't comment there. As for Mexican, while SF may excel at the low end, I think NY has several upscale Mexican restaurants that would blow out anything in SF. There is no good BBQ north of the Mason Dixon line, so it is pointless to compare. As for Ethiopian, let's just say the DC rules the roost there. But that doesn't take away from the fact that despite being located in the Pacific Northwest, SF can't serve up a halfway decent Japanese restaurant.

Just a thought -- why not set the corkage fee equal to the least expensive wine on the list?

Jason, I would comment on the quality of the beef at Harris' but for the fact that they failed the most basic function of a restaurant -- cooking food correctly. I ordered, as I always do, my steak black and blue. It was black alright -- but more like black and grey. They did not take kindly to my objection either.

For a town lousy with meat eaters, DC has really failed to produce a top quality steakhouse. If you like Prime Rib, The Prime Rib is very good, but that's really not a steak per se. Sam & Harry's, on the right night, can be extremely good, but their beef is inconsistent (based on at least 20 visits) and their cooking unreliable. The Palm is no better in DC than it is in NY, which is to say not good. Ditto Les Halles, where I had a very rubbery and bland onglet last year. I once had a good steak at the Capitol Grill. I haven't tried the new Smith & Wollensky's, but their out of town restaurants (Vegas, notably) are better than the NY original. The only other place of note would be Old Ebbitt, where I had a very good steak recently -- not great, but the atmosphere can't be beat. As for Morton's, any place that wet ages their meat isn't even worth discussing.

Thanks, Hollywood. This list confirms a few things: 1. Some of the very best restaurants in SF are located miles away from what is actually SF. How can The French Laundry be considered a SF restaurant? Ditto Chez Panisse. 2. There are about only about 2 or 3 SF restaurants that are world class. 3. There is little ethnic food in SF when compared with NY. Laughable, really.

My god, man. Must be a great bottle you're bringing to stomach 50 pounds for opening the bottle.

VivreManger -- can't back up your ludicrous position? How about listing the Top 100 restaurants in SF. And I don't mean Berkeley or Napa. Just the city of SF. My guess is that of those, maybe 2 or 3 would crack NY's top 100.

The question is not whether SF is the best foodie city in the country, but whether it is even the best foodie city in its state. 1. There is not a single SF restaurant that can compare with ADNY, Daniel, Bouley, Lespinasse, Jean Georges or Le Bernardin. 2. Even at the next level, SF may have 2 or 3 competitors at most, while NY has Cafe Boulud, Gramercy Tavern, Gotham Bar & Grill, March, Chanterelle, Lutece, Nobu, Union Pacific, Veritas and so on. Indeed, if any of these restaurants moved to SF, it would likely be universally declared the best restaurant in SF. 3. For all the vaunted Asian food in SF, I have yet to find a decent sushi place. Certainly nothing on the level of Sushi Yasuda or Karumazushi. 4. SF does not have a single decent steakhouse. Not one. While there is no need to list all of the great NY steakhouses, Peter Luger, Old Homestead, Sparks should do. 5. While there may be good Mexican food in SF, I've not had any good upscale versions. I'll take Rosa Mexicano over anything SF can offer. 6. Scandavian? NY has Aquavit. Italian? How about Il Mulino, Babbo, Lupa, Esca, Scalinatella, Il Postino, Il Nido, Il Buco. 7. Casual restaurants? NY has Etats Unis, Tocqueville, Blue Hill, Annisa, Savoy and I'm just getting warmed up here. That's not even counting the numerous French, Chinese, Indian and god knows what else NY can offer that SF just can't. You may have grown up in New England, but you don't know NY for squat.

Not sure about the BYOB, but what about Ransome's Dock?

Pizza Metro is the best I've found, with Made in Italy a close second. I live right by Chelsea Farmer's Market (really poor name, considering the complete absence of farmers and the relative paucity of the only food market there), but have never been to the pizza place -- that will be remedied soon. Thanks! Which brings up a somewhat unrelated topic. I seem to recall years ago a butcher shop on the corner of Sydney Street and the King's Road -- what happened to it?

My visits to SF have not resulted in many memorable meals -- far from it, in fact. Apart from my irrational love for the Tadisch Grill (chioppino at the bar for lunch, or in a private booth is one of the great SF experiences), the only meals I have had of note were at PlumpJack Cafe in Cow's Hollow. And those meals have been memorable indeed. PlumpJack epitomizes the relaxed elegance that comes so easy to Californians, but until quite recently, not to NYers. Perhaps the best way to describe PlumpJack is to relate it to other restaurants that are most similar in cities I am more familiar with: Etats Unis (NY) and Ransome's Dock (London). Like Etats Unis and Ransome's Dock, the cooking is very competent and very tasty, but not haute cuisine or incredible inventive -- just plain tasty. The atmosphere is relaxed, but the service is very attentive and professional. The wine lists (PlumpJack also owns a vineyard and one of the better wine shops in SF) at all three are above average in quality, variety and value. And (for Fat Guy), the desserts are pretty damn fine -- although I once had a very, very wrongheaded souffle there (see my SF post for more details). Needless to say, I cannot praise PlumpJack any higher than this -- it is my favorite restaurant on the West Coast.

A while back Gramercy Tavern had a very affordable 1973 Rioja on their list. I was informed that although it was quite oxidized, it pairs well with cheese. We opted for port instead, but I often regret not taking that chance.

Boy, I sure don't think that wine list is bad at all. $85 is a bit steep for the 1998 B.V. Tapestry, but it is a fine bottling and better than many more expensive CA wines on that list. $165 is pretty good for the 1996 Dominus, which is a brilliant wine. Personally, though, I would get the $115 1988 Gruaud Larose, one of the best 2nd growths and a remarkable wine to have with beef. On the lower priced end, the La Nerth CDP is probably quite good, but will need a lot of time to open.

Yes, yes. It's this "essence of Margaux, essence of Paulliac" thing I'm getting at. You know, those bottles may show the "essence" of what was once a great wine, but wouldn't it have made more sense to drink it when it was still great? Personally, if I want the "essence" of French wine, I drink marc.

Looking over a wine list earlier this week, I was immediately struck by a 1973 Leoville Poyferre selling for a song. A nice wine to be sure and would have been a solid selection about 10 years ago. Today, however, I would expect the wine to be more than a little dried out and well past its peak. Of course, Leoville Poyferre is a St. Julien and perhaps not a likely to age as well as its neighboring wines in Margaux and Paulliac, but nonetheless, the fact remains that at some point in time wine reaches its peak and then declines. My question is why do "those in the know" look down on drink wine that is too young, but readily pony up big money for wine that is clearly past its peak. Clearly, the youthful vigor of wine can be tempered by judicious exposure to air by decanting the wine a few hours before service, but nothing will bring the bloom back into a wine that has faded.

A few thoughts. First, Mexican food is pretty spicy and therefore threatens to overwhelm the wine. So you need a big and bold wine, preferably with complementary spice or contrasting sweetness. So here goes: 1. A big California zin. Generally faulted for overpowering food, zin would be a good match I think and is clearly my top choice here. 2. Amarone. Also big and the famous sweetness of the wine would contrast nicely. 3. Australian Semillion. Bigger than the Loire wines, but a lot of the same acidity to go with the sweetness of the wine. Stands up well to big flavors. 4. German Riesling. I would be bold and get an Auslese bottling. A lot of sweetness goes a long way here.

Quite possibly, as service was not included.

Funny, just yeserday I was thinking about making a reservation at the Old Homestead instead of trekking out to Luger's. Do share if you go. BTW, I would get the rib steak -- it is their speciality, although the prime rib has been on the menu longer.

Wow, needless to say I'm shocked to hear this. Although I live in Chelsea, this was my first time to Monkeys and I could not have found the staff to be any more friendly and solicitous, despite my distinctive NY accent. We were warmly greeted by Madame at the front of the house and shown to a very nice table where we could sit side by side. I had a lengthy discussion with the owner about the wine list -- he was particularly knowledgeable I might add. While the service was informal, there was a sense of "anything we can do for you" rendered with a smile and grace. What happened on your visits that turned you off so? I did note that Monkeys is quite traditional and has an unstated dress and conduct code, so we dressed and acted accordingly. We also ordered a somewhat expensive bottle of wine and champagne, which is always a welcome site for a restaurant, so perhaps we were spared the attitude. But I enjoyed Monkeys so much, we are thinking of going a few times a month on a significantly lower budget. That said, I would reconsider if the lovely evening we had was traceable only to the size of our bill.

I don't understand the excitement over "baby bistros." The grand chef doesn't work there and the restaurant does not serve his cuisine. So you don't get Guy Savoy food and bistro prices. Generally, you get middling bistro food at rather high prices. Outside of the Cagna's Rotisserie, which is just plain good (but, clearly, not Cagna food), I don't understand the attraction. Can anyone explain? Is it a celebrity thing?

Now this is England. Monkeys is an unassuming storefront restaurant on Chelsea Green, and it is as traditional as you get. Not overly fancy or elegant, but proper in every respect (even our Bordeaux was decanted into a claret jug). And that is a good thing. This is what Rules pretends to be for the tourist trade, but probably hasn't been for quite a while. Needless to say, we enjoyed our evening in every respect. Here is what we had. Two glasses of house champagne -- very, very nice (I didn't catch the label) at 6 pounds each. I had: (1) terrine of veal sweetbreads and wild mushrooms, (2) roast mallard with bread sauce, (3) millefuille of pancakes in orange sauce. The wife had: (1) lobster ravioli, (2) rack of lamb, and (3) tarte au citron. We drank a 1988 Beychevelle with the meal. The highlight of the evening were the mains. Succulent lamb, cooked perfectly. And the roast mallard was quite simply the best roast duck I have had in many years. For game fans, the menu also featured woodcock, pheasant, and grouse, among others and subject to availability. Service was personal, but not formal -- I poured my own wine. Monkeys is clearly a family affair (kind of like an English Chez Gramond). I also appreciated the sensible billing policy. Two preset menus only (mine at 35 pounds, the wife's at 40 pounds). The menus include everything, from starter to pudding, coffee, bottled water. Everything but the booze. Which brings me to the next point -- what a great wine list! The Beychevelle was 78 pounds, quite reasonable given the age and only 20 pounds above retail (at BBR, at least). Also notable was a 1994 Pichon Lalande for 68 pounds and a 1983 Gruaud Larose for 100 pounds. And, unlike so many restaurants in London, Monkeys does not turn tables! A leisurely dining experience in what must be a bygone age. Highly recommended.

While B&T has traditionally referred to the "Bridge and Tunnel" crowd (i.e., those from Jersey or outer boroughs), times have changed and a more nuanced approach is in order. To wit, a quiz: 1. Is your favorite Broadway play of all-time Cats? 2. When you order wine, do you usually just say "A glass of [Merlot/Chardonnay], please." 3. Back in the day, was your favorite upscale NY restaurant Aureole? 4. For special occassions, did you go to One If By Land/TIBS, Tavern on the Green, or Cafe des Artistes? 5. Is there nothing better than tea at the Plaza? 6. Is the best pizza in NY found at John's? Gee, this is fun, but I need to get back to work. Anyone else want to continue?

You should note that while some of the so-called baby bistros are very good indeed, you are not getting anything close to what you would get at the chef's main restaurant. Think of the bistro as having a similar owner, that's all -- there is no cache or value in eating in any baby bistro. That said, I like Rotisserie d'en Face a lot, as it is reasonable, convenient and usually open for business (including holidays and Sundays, as I recall). But it is not Jacques Cagna, by any means -- just a good restaurant. Also, baby bistros tend to be a bit more expensive than comparable bistros without the tie to celebrity.

I have not been to Aureole since Mr. Palmer departed, but it used to be very much overrated. The fact that Zagat touts OIBL/TIBS is reason enough to stay away. Can't the Zagats edit out comments from the B&T crowd?