Ron Johnson

Right, Wilfrid already said that, thats why I was asking if there were any for which the converse was true. Which do you feel should be demoted other than those already specified by Wilfrid?

Are there any that you feel should be promoted?

yes

I agree and that is one thing that I like about the Times star rating system. One star means "good". In my paper one star means terrible, even two is construed as bad. As a result way too many restaurants are clumped together in the three star category. Therefore, the categories of stars are meaningless.

I'm not so sure based on what I have seen about places such Lespinasse, Le Bernadin, Jean Goerges, Atelier, and Babbo. Some eGulleters seem to feel that these places are very overrated. Not to mention the Craft debate of last year. I do agree that more disagreement exists re: 1 and 2 star places.

But, I think Tommy enjoys beating his own meat. With that mallet thing, I mean. Oh nevermind.

I did. Wasn't for me.

For me a "batter" means the wet and dry ingredients are mixed together and then the item is coated in this wet mixture and dropped into hot oil and deep fried. This is not correct for chicken fried steak. It should be coated evenly with flour so the egg will stick, then run through a beaten egg mixture until coated, then dredged in the flour again. Afterwards it should be a dry floury outside, not a wet batter-like outside. Then its pan fried, not deep fried. We also call it country-fried steak, but then again, I am a hick.

Although gramatically more correct, suprisingly less likely to work.

I was going to agree with Plotnicki , until the righteous Liza reminded me of this particular salad, which I absolutely adore, and will be enjoying at Chez Leon in St. Louis Friday night. Followed by hangEr steak and frites, of course. and Cote Rotie, Chave that is.

Well first it shouldn't be a batter, but a rather dry to the touch coating by the time its ready for the pan. The last dip is into the flour. It also helps to use a sufficient amount of fat in the pan and to touch it as little as possible during cooking. preferably just one gentle flip with a deft utensil and thats it.

That is when its at its best. Of course it should still be one piece of meat when you are done pounding, and you dont have to have the spikes on the mallet to get the desired degree of poundedness, but yes you are correct about how to beat the meat. If you dont wack it that much , it is very tough and unpalatable. In the South this dish was created for cheaper cuts of meat that had been around a little too long and were a little "off".

Agreed. I especially agree with his comments regarding the winelist. When I was there last (2 plus years ago) it was full of steals.

You don't need buttermilk. Dana's recipe above is very good. The only thing I do different is use a different cut of meat. I usually use a small sirloin or slice off of a round roast, then pound it really good with your mallet. This is a key part to make it not so tough. You need to pound it really think and break up as much tissue as possible. The dredge and pan-fry. This recipe also works well with pork. If you like it spicy season your flour aggressively with cayenne and paprika.

LOL. so I have heard.

Depends. Are they two stars as well?

So Wilfrid was right, they were not serving wine by the glass back in the beginning when they were making pizzas on that shitty crust that everyone hated but is now better and deserving of two stars?

I was just relying on Wilfrid's statement that at some point it was not served by the glass at all. Personally, I am all for the bigger glass of wine.

I think that was a little different. Otto held itself out as an Enoteca. There was no way that they could not serve wine by the glass. In order for WD50's position of not serving salad to be analogous, it would have to be a salad bar. disclosure: I rarely order salad at restaurants anymore because it is so often disappointing.

This is similar to what I do except I just use a can of the crushed San Marzano tomatoes or the Pomi crushed tomatoes.

Well around here we celebrate Fat Tuesday by drinking and eating a lot. You know the whole feast before fast thing. Not that I observe lent in any formal sense. Tonight we will go to a bar where the owner of Maker's Mark distillery will be bartending for charity. I imagine we might have a drink or two.

Right, thats what I was hoping for. I figure that the consensus list created here will be a far more accurate reflection of which restaurants in NYC are worthy of 3 or 4 stars than anything the Times has done in recent memory.

I will leave it to each individual as to whether they feel that non "fine-dining" restaurants should be included. But, for me I would say that the restaurant which makes the perfect hamburger as their only dish would not rank as high as the restaurant that makes the perfect (insert your favorite fancy fine-dining dish here). Its why a person who makes a perfect dive in a competition will always lose to the person who makes a perfect one and a half dive. Degree of difficulty. Second, because I want to know how people here differ from the Times on giving 3 or 4 star to restaurants, it should include service, ambience, etc. because those things are taken into account in a Times review and corresponding star score, presumably. I guess my question really was: if the Times has the wrong places getting 3 and 4 stars, which are the right ones?

Sonoma: Stay at Dry Creek Inn but eat at Applewood Inn.

Lizzie, Browns, etc. Thanks for the report. It was very thorough. Your complaints are valid, but like Wilfrid, I believe that you experienced some kitchen errors that hopefully are an deviation from the norm. I will keep my reservations, but hope that someone from Atelier sees your post and puts the ship back on course before my meal there.