Steve Plotnicki

You mean like my 2001 Guide to Dining. Rankings are good for a certain kind of user. Ratings work better for a broader base of users. Most people who have limited time to do research, want to know what the top restaurants are and that's it. I have no way of knowing but, I bet the list of the 25 most popular restaurants at the beginning of each Zagat's is extremely useful for people who want to eat well, but aren't maniacal about every last detail. If you used that list and nothing else, you wouldn't starve. And I would think that describes most of the people who use that type of information. As for Cheap Eats groupings, I really don't think they are that important to people. The great ones manage to make it onto the lists with fine restaurants. For people coming to NYC from out of town, how many Thai restaurants do you need to list, two or three? More then two or three kosher delis? Outside of fine dining, there aren't really that many great places to eat. Two or three in each category is more then sufficient, with the exception of Chinatown because there are so many prolific choices. But even there, isn't five or six choices enough?

A level playing field is useless information. Not only to me, but I believe to most diners. Because if it wasn't useless, that is how newspapers and magazines would calibrate their reviews already . The purpose of a restaurant review shouldn't be to drown out individualism, either when describing different cuisines or when talking about people's pocket books. . Let's face it. Daniel cost more then Grand Sichuan and there should be no penalty for price point which is ultimately what you are describing. Any system that takes that into consideration and penalizes you is just implementing reverse snobbery.

It has to be absolute. You are rating the restaurant, not individual dishes. DiFara's might have two or three star pizza but the place is a dump. Most people want to know what type of place they will be dining in. Let me ask this another way. Isn't the first thing you consider about a meal is whether it meets the social situation you require? Last night I ate at Effida, the new Turkish run by what's his name (I forget.) It is billed as Turkish fast food. But it is really just steam table food. That fact limits the type of occassion I will use that restaurant for in the future. Steam table is a more casual way of dining then if the food was cooked to order. To buck that logic, it would have to be the most phenomenol food in the world. But that isn't very likely when it was prepared at 5:30 and I was there at 9:30. It is also why the dishes happen to cost $4.50 a plate.

3 1/2.

Okay I agree. But what about them makes them fall short? Or looking at it the other way, what makes the four star places special?

Stone - This is the same argument as to why Israel/Palestine/Jerusalem has been so hotly contested as to who has control of the land. It sits at the crossroads of European/Asian/African civilization. But ultimately that argument goes to cultural, racial and religious diversity doesn't it? I hate to be politically incorrect here, and I am certainly no expert on the topic and I don't want to insult anyone by mispeaking, but isn't this a matter of race? I know the Turks, Egyptians and Iranians all consider themselves to be racially different from the rest of the geo-political region. I am not sure (and part of this is my ignorance on the topic) if we can say the same thing about Lebabnon, Syria, Jordan, Palestinians etc., even Jews born in historic Palestine. And I'm not speaking of a difference that would spur a national identity, but a racial identity. And if I am correct, isn't this the reason to exclude them? And once again I apologize if anyone is offended and I stand to be corrected.

Well I didn't say Muslim cuisine, I said middle eastern cuisine. The last time I looked at a map, Morocco and Tunisia were in North Africa and not the middle east. And Turkey was half in Europe and their cuisine incorporates Armenian, Russian, Greek and other European cuisines. And Iran is not part of the middle east either and in many ways their cuisine resembles certain aspects of Indian cuisine. Let's stick with middle eastern cuisine. Lebanese, Palestinian, Israeli (which is a cultural construct at this point) Jordanian, Saudi Arabian, Syrian. Even Egypt has a unique cuisine that isn't best served being identified as middle eastern, though you can lump it in wihout great difficulty. But once you jump one country to the east of the countries that ring Israel, like Iraq, they start to have cuisines that are possibly better described as central Asian then middle eastern.

Casey - I don't know who you are but, I promise you that if you can get in to Chef Vola (which can be impossible sometimes,) you will have one of coolest dining experiences in the country. Anything at any of the hotels just does not compare. There is a reason the phone number is unlisted. And the place has been there for something like 50 years. It's the real deal.

Explorer - Well as in all other examples we raise about great cuisines, there is usually an aspect of multi-culturalism involved, as well as an aristocratic or monied class that can afford to hire chefs who have create a cuisine for them. Closed off societies, like Saudi Arabia, are not as likely to have created as interesting a cuisine.

I haven't been in a while but, the best place to eat in Atlantic City is Chef Vola. It is in the basement of a private home on Albion Place, down at the end near the boardwalk (I love that word.) It is an Italian restaurant with terrific steaks and chops. The thing is, the phone number is unlisted and I don't remember what I did with it. But you can get it by calling the Chamber of Commerce or maybe the local police station (I'm hoping they are still in business.) But if you want a casual meal, the White House Sub Shop on Mississippi has what I believe is the best Italian cold cut sandwich anywhere. The Italian loaves they use are delivered every hour so they are unbelievably fresh. They make a great cheese steak sandwich as well.

Yes this is my impression as well. Lebanese is the superior cuisine in the middle east. Not sure why. French influence? Most farmable land? They are certainly the only nation in the region to produce world class wines in Chateau Musar and Kefraya. I would be surprised if the reasons were not related to agriculture and class.

Well the issue isn't our criteria, it's the Times criteria. But whatever criteria anybody uses, isn't the issue finding which restaurants are better? Do we really disagree as to what better is? Anyway the best restaurants get four stars. Isn't that simple? On Wilfrid's list, those are the best restaurants in NYC (not saying he's listed them all and I haven't been to Atelier.) But do any of these restaurants belong and why, and if not, why so? Aquavit Babbo Chanterelle Craft Eleven Madison Park Gotham Bar & Grill Gramercy Tavern Kurama Sushi La Cote Basque Montrachet Nobu Patria Picholine Tabla Veritas Union Pacific

Too complicated. I think it is easier if we bite the bullet and look at dining as a social experience first. That way the difference between DiFara's and Otto is stark. You can always tell people that the food is great by adding some special mark or extra comment.

I'm not going to get this name right but, the dish I love is Red Pork Belly (extra fatty) cooked with chestnuts. It is phenomenol. The Sliced Beef in Chilli Sauce is good as well.

I think this sort of misses one of the points (which I made so there .) A four star rating is dependent on many different elements. And while executing well is at the cornerstone of the ranking, I think that they are 75% of the way there just because all of the necessary elements are present. In fact I think it is kind of hard for them to screw it up and get anything less then four stars. Restaurants like Lespinasse, Daniel, Le Bernadin are expected to get four stars because the elements are present. And the issue for them is managing their downside so they don't end up with a demotion.

Yes I would agree that Lespinasse serves four star cuisine. Whether or not they actually execute at a four star level is a different question and I can see arguing for three stars if you think they don't. As for weinoo and his favorite pizza place in Rome, the Italian guidebooks wouldn't rank a pizza place at two stars. They would give it the equivelent of "recommended." We are just asking for the same level of consistancy here.

Well in the conteext of what we both just said, for that restaurant to get two stars is outrageous.

Pan - I was under the impression that the Times had a category between one star and no stars that wasn't a negative category. Like recommended. I guess I was wrong. They use one star for good. So under their system, DiFara's gets one star. But under my system, because it isn't a formal enough place, I would rate it "Recommended" In fact I would still give Otto one star even though the pizza at Otto is crap. That's because, as I was trying to say before, the stars should communicate the level of dining experience a place offers. For the rest you need to read the text. Transposing that methodology onto some of you favorite haunts, Congee Village gets one star (maybe two because I am not that familiar with the food) and New York Noodletown gets recommended. But if NYNT had such unbelievable food that they had lines out the door at all hours of the evening, that might warrant a rating of a star. What I am trying to say is that the stars reflect some unique combination of level of dining experience plus quality of food. But it's weighted heavily on the side of level of experience. The Times would probably be better off saying something is recommended or one star, and then adding something like an asterisk next to it to designate that the food is unique in that category. Fat Guy - William Grimes should have never reviewed Otto either. That's part of the problem. The Times fell for the marketing that Batalli/Bastianich did and treated what is really an under $25 restaurant like it was one of the big boys. Otto is really in the pizza place catagory when it comes down to it and shouldn't be treated any differently then a place like Sally's. It makes no logical dining sense that salumi and antipasti of marinated vegetables and marinated raw fish should be the predecessor in a meal that revolves around pizza and Grimes shouldn't have been suckered in by that part of it. What he should have said is "where's the beef?" and jettisoned any review. Only those restauranteurs would be able to get away with a (flawed) concept and sell it to the Times for two stars. If I might add, if you read any of the Italian guidebooks. There is a standard already in use to review pizza places. They are typically segregated into a separate section along with more formal cafes and places like enotecas. And if they are lumped in with serious restaurants, their scores are well below the top restaurants. And we are talking about some of the greatest pizza places in the world where they use real dough. Grimes has muddled this clear delineation in favor of communicating what upper middle class diners that originate more then five miles from Otto might find appealing when they enter Manhattan.

I think you guys have complicated something that seems very simple to me. Restaurants should be awarded stars based on what type of dining experience they offer. The Mario Batalli restaurants should be ranked as follows; Otto - Good Lupa - 1 star Babbo - 2 stars But if you take the bias that NY Times diners have for restaurants in the upper middle, they will score them; Otto - 1 star Lupa -2 stars Babbo -3 stars I can buy into either of those methods. But what I can't buy into is that Otto is the same level of dining experience as Lupa. Lupa has cooked food for god sakes and Otto really doesn't. That is exactly the kind of thing that needs to be differentiated through the star rating system. A pizza place typically should be rated Good or 1 star. To push it beyond that, it would have to have world class pizza. Pepe's or Sally's, now those I can see giving two stars to because you are talking about pizzas that are among the best in the world. But unless you wrote a review of Otto that said, this pizza is at the same level as Sally's or Chez Black in Positano, which Grimes did not do, because his headline says "A Pizzeria Where You Can Skip the Pizza" there is no basis to say that the discrepency between Otto and Babbo is merely a star. It is at least 2 stars if not more.

Yes, yum is right. Both for the wine and the food.

It was Yves Schillinger's father who died in that fire wasn't it? What was the name of that restaurant?

Peter - The fish is fresh at the Greek restaurants in NYC, they just don't do very much to them but broil them and throw some olive oil and spices on them. Their is no "cuisine" in the sense of the word where they have taken the time and trouble to prepare a proper sauce, or even created a garnish from vegetables and spices that would bring the dish to a different level of cuisine. So the food isn't bad, just boring. As for China, never been.

Martin Rosen - It's a vague term? It means "not-white" or "not our religion" or "not like us" among other inferences. What is vague is the lack of a definition in that sentence. I still vote for "multi-cultural cuisine." I don't think it's a slur or derogatory in to describe something or someone as not being from your culture. There is no race or class distinction loaded into the phrase, and it can easily be describing a bouillabaisse as a dish from Korea. And you can even say that American cuisine (whatever that is) is part of the multi-cultural cuisines available in the U.S.

I didn't realize he was so young. Considering his age, he was out of the cooking mainstream. One would think someone of his age would have been reinventing their cuisine so they could stay at the top of their game.

Seems like a big place to go with your mother.