Jump to content


participating member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
    New York
  1. We went last night and had a great time. Yeah, it's overpriced (we racked up about $280, including tip, for two apps, two mains, a shared dessert, coffee and a bottle of $60 wine), but the room is pretty amazing, and we were as interested in the spectacle as the food. My shutterbug partner demanded I make reservations as soon as he heard it was open; he put a few photos up here. We both had the chicken kiev -- hard to justify at $45, but it was a damn good chicken kiev. The big hit of the meal was my partner's appitizer, the sliced hamachi with a minty sorbet dab on the side. Service was fine; the wine was served too warm, but no other quibbles, and they were very gracious when I did my typical klutzy thing and knocked over my glass. (Red carpets are a very wise choice.) If you're willing to pay a premium for the decor and history, it's a fun place to go.
  2. Kiz

    Per Se

    I see prices are jumping again ... as if Jan 10 it'll be up to $250 per person.
  3. this hasn't been active in a while, so I just wanted to note that Mashiko's remains awesome as ever. I've been in Seattle twice this year for work, and have made a pilgrimage each time. $50 or so for the omakase; at least nine courses and three hours; totally spectacular. I've dragged sushi novices with me each time and sold them on a few new things. On the last visit, I discovered that the sake sampler flights has fallen off the menu. It went off, our waiter explained, because it's a total pain for them to do. but if you ask nicely they'll do it anyway
  4. ← I fought through the mob yesterday around 5:30 and browsed, but didn't actually buy anything -- the line was wrapped completely around the store, and back to the door. The staff seemed in remarkably good spirts about it all.
  5. I'm curious how the prices will turn out here. That has got tobe very pricey real estate they're taking on.
  6. looks like they're doing some recruiting ....
  7. My Aussie partner has been talking up the glories of Penfolds' reds to friends of his, and I promised I'd invite them over for dinner and wine. The problem: I'd like to cook a dish that complements the wine (we'll probably have either the Bin 128 Coonawarra Shiraz or the Bin 389 Cabernet Shiraz), but I don't eat red meat, ruling out the obvious steak pairing. Anyway have any suggestions? Roast chicken in a rich sauce is my next guess, but I thought I'd ask and see what there is I'm not thinking of.
  8. Kiz

    Sparkling Shiraz

    Another vote for Fox Creek's Vixen. It's been a while since I had it -- NYCers can try it by the glass at the Broadway outpost of Morrell's wine bar -- but I don't recall it being sweet. I've also had sparkling shiraz by the glass at Eight Mile Creek, but that was at least three years ago, so I've no idea if they still offer it. Morrell's also offers Vixen by the bottle in their store, for $17.95.
  9. Tommy, if that is true, it is hypercritical to allow cigar bars and only target cigarette smoking. methinks it's a scale issue. if most of the bars in the city were nonsmoking bars, there'd be reasonable employment opportunities for wait staff, bartenders, etc who want to avoid the smoke -- and reasonable alternatives for patrons who want to avoid it. but that isn't the case now, so this legislation was seen as necessary by those who passed it. otoh, there's less than a dozen cigar bars, and as mentioned, it's their whole reason for being. I don't think it's hypocritical to let them continue. no one is saying cigars are better for you than cigarettes -- they're just saying that the cigar-bar market isn't so large that secondhand smoke within it poses a threat to employees who are left with no other options.
  10. Sigh. If I'd *realised* in time y'all were doing the omakase ... But I can't complain too much. I got to try the sawagani :) And now will not sleep until I track down a NYC place serving it. BTW, the 'expert' sushi assortment was also excellent. There's probably no reason to go and not order sushi, but for those crazy enough to do so, my partner highly recommends the wasabi steak.
  11. Kiz

    Tim Tam Biscuits

    It's also known as the Tim Tam Slam, and works quite well with chocolate milk instead of coffee. And arrrugh, want tim tams! We've never been able to find anywhere in NYC that imports them. Booo.
  12. John Thorne's Pasta with a Fried Egg is a great quick, cheap dinner. You can mix in nearly anything you have -- I'll use pesto when I have some, or just garlic and red pepper flakes if that's all that's in the kitchen.
  13. It gets journalists hung up as well -- an industry ethics brawl will usually pop up every few weeks in medianews' letters section. It's a profession with lots of gray area. It might help for me to throw in that two things definitely in the unethical pile are a) misrepresenting what you're doing, or b) directly lifting, without sourcing, either verbatim comments or information you've not otherwise confirmed. In the misrepresenting pile, it's not kosher to post on a board looking for info intended for an article without saying that's what you're doing, or to lie in any way. Posting anonymously would fall into that -- you can't post, say 'hey, anyone know about <whatever>?' and then use that information without identifying yourself and your publication. So, yes, when I post looking for leads, I always give my name and affiliation. On point b, it's likewise very bad to directly copy information without attributing it. If someone on a board (or offline, or anywhere else) says 'Gramercy Tavern serves three salmon dishes,' and the journalist for whatever reason can't independently confirm that, then they'd better be sourcing the information back to whoever said it, for all the usual reasons you source things (basically, to let the readers know where the information came from so then can judge for themselves its accuracy, and to cover yourself in case it's wrong). But many things can be independantly confirmed, and should be. So if the journalist rings up GT and confirms that yup, three salmon dishes, there's no reason to trace the info back to the original source -- even if that original source is the only reason you knew to ask about the salmon. How to treat old media vs new media is one of those ongoing industry debates, and every publication has its own policies, formal or informal. Personally, I treat them the same, except I draw more frequently on online/new media sources. But unless it's directly relevant to the story, or necessary for sourcing, I usually don't mention the places I used for background research.
  14. FWIW, I'm a tech journalist (for IDG's news service), and I often do what Katy did: Post on boards to say, hey, I'm researching topic whatever, anyone have ideas/leads/etc? Unless I'm quoting directly from the online group, or quoting one of its founders or leaders, I rarely include the group's name in the final piece. That's pretty standard journalistic practise. You draw background information from lots of places, and it would just drag the story down to source everything back to its earliest origin. I can quote, say (to use a recent example) several Lotus system administrators without also adding that I found all those administrators though an online Lotus user forum. There's definitely something to be said for karma, and if you draw over and over again on one group or source for material, it's nice to find a way to acknowledge that, but it's not a standard operating practise for the profession. A journalist who took pains to do that would be the exception, not the norm. And as far as ripping off other reporter's ideas and reworking them with a local angle, that's also par for the course. It's not considered unethical, just lazy.
  15. Sadly, the Aussie's only food interest is in eating it. But he did get me his mum's pavlova recipe, so for now, his food karma is in check.
  • Create New...