Steve Plotnicki

Lesley C - Gee, if the architecture reviewer for the New York Times didn't write his reviews for that top 1% of the readers he would be lambasted. It's only food writing that is watered down for a certain segment of the masses which is the point I/we keep making. All other reviewers write about their disciplines without making any compromise for consumability. And the truth of the matter is that who you are doing a great disservice to that 99% of the audience by lumping them together with people who understand less about food than they do. A large percentage of those people are capable of understanding, and subsequently enjoying a better quality review and meal than what the ordinary paper publishes. These days, those people do not have a way to get the reviews they deserve to get. And again, it's not a matter of the quality of reviewers, but the format of restaurant reviewing in newspapers. No Jonathan Gold doesn't do it for me. . Back in my music business days, he was a music reviewer for the L.A. Times. One day I walked into the office of my in house publicist and she was on the telephone with him. I had never heard of him but she told me we should talk because she knew he was really into food (he might have been writing about it for the paper too.) So she hands me the phone expecting me to schmooze him up so he would review some new CD we released. So we start chatting about restaurants in NYC, and we end up in this huge argument about which was better, Bouley or JoJo. Let's just say my publicist was not happy. But I think his work at Gourmet has been pretty good. I just find the Gourmet editorial style to be a bit sedate for me. I'm not content with idle descriptions, I want robust writing so I can be there eating with them.

Here's the issue. Screwtops are fine for wines that are intended to be drunk right away. New Zealand Sauvignon Blancs are not made for aging. The problem with screwtops and artificial corks is that nobody knows how it will affect wines during the aging process. For example, let's take 2000 Bordeaux which is a heralded vintage. A case of say Cheval Blanc might cost $4000 and won't be ready to drink until the year 2030. Since nobody knows what long term effects artificial corks or screwtops will have on the ageability of wine, nobody is willing to take a chance to buy wine now with an artificial stopper only to find out in 30 years that it is ruined. That's why the changeover to other types of stoppers than corks will be very slow. Consumers would be happier if they came up with a system to rid infected corks of TCA.

Bux - I know what you mean about Wells, but in trying to figure out why I find her less reliable than I used to, I think it has more to do with me and my palate than her losing any ground. I find her reviews a bit diluted compared to my taste. Certain things she raves over I find boring. Still, I think she is the most reliable of anyone out there. Cabrales - I buy the Pudlowski Guides every year. One time it steered me extremely wrong by recommending a small Alsatian restaurant just off the intersection of Blvds. Montparnasse and Raspail. Pudlowski gave it one of his Coeur de Coeur rankings. So 10 of us show up for dinner one Saturday night. Well they hardly had anything to eat there and what they did have was as ordinary as it could possibly be. How it was included in his guidebook, let alone raved about baffles me to this day. It is hardly ever mentioned but I find Claude Leby very good. He publishes two guides. Le Leby Guide to restaurants and Le Petit Leby which only reviews bistros. His books aren't filled with mountains of great prose, but the layouts of his guides are useful since he prints a list of important dishes a restaurant serves, and then he lists what he ate there when he last went including what wine he drank and how much it cost. He also has an index in the back of his guides that list places by dish and where he thinks you can get the best poulet roti, cassoulet etc. For domestic reviewers I think the best person to read is R.W. Apple. Though his writing is infrequent, he gets to the heart of the issue better than any of the other writers. But that might be because he gets more lines than other writers since he writes articles not just reviews.

"And anyone who thinks anonimity isn't important hasn't a clue what goes on behind the scenes in most professional restaurant kitchens" The best evidence I've seen yet that the more info you get (and inside info is even better) the better off you are. It all comes back to what Lesley C. said in the other thread. If the purpose of a review is to allow a couple who live in the suburbs of a major metropolitan area, and who go to a high end restaurant a few times a year for celebrations, and who have saved up money for this extravagance, if the goal is to give them a consumer guide to restaurants I can understand the need for anonymity. But if the purpose is to reveal the best about a restaurant, including a more demanding test of their abilities, I don't see how anonymity helps. My experience is that restaurants perform better for special customers. And as much as people might not like that fact, it's true. And the people who need that information (moi,) don't have much use for a description of the average meal. There's a whole other track to this aspect of the discussion that asks, does better information make the dining experience more exclusive and possibly shut out the people described in the paragraph above from a restaurant? This is an argument made against wine publications all the time. The theory goes, if the information wasn't so accessable and detailed, people who are less interested in wine wouldn't be interested in buying highly rated wines. But now that they have easy access to the info, they drive prices up and it becomes unaffordable for people who "deserve" to drink them because they appreciate them. Do you think there is an aspect of this in restaurant reviewing and why publishers always orient their reviews towards a common denominator?

No I'm in total agreement. I'm always complaining that food gets short shrift compared to other aesthetics, and that the consumption of food is all too often considered gluttony and an extravagence as opposed to an act of intelectual stimulation. I don't buy Marcus's profer. Picasso knew reviewers were going to assess his work and so do movie directors when they release a film. Why shouldn't Daniel Boulud know? Because he won't do his best work if the reviewer is anonymous? How can you tell the difference between purposely not doing your best and an off night? The inference is he will cheat if he knows.

As Fat Guy has already calculated elsewhere, there must be 500 restaurants around the world that can perform to that standard. I think that is a sufficent number to keep us both happy no? Trust me, once you tell the chef to do it *his way,* there is no turning back.

"I find it unlikely that he could produce such a meal for all of his customers every night" This is exactly what goes on in the French Laundry and it used to go on in Bouley. It still might go on there but I've not been to the new Bouley yet. And in France it happens all of the time in places like Gagnaire, Arpege, Troisgros etc. You'd be surprised at how often it happens. I think something Fat Guy said earlier didn't get enough airtime here. "Interest and enthusiasm are legal tender in any serious restaurant." I can tell you the story of a famous 3 star restaurant in Paris that used to be impossible for Americans to get dinner reservations at (I won't name the place but it should be obvious.) But through a friend of mine who is a partner at one of the top law firms, his Paris office got us a dinner reservation. Cutting to the chase, they were particluarly happy with the way we ordered the meal and the wines I chose which although weren't particularly expensive (neither bottle over $200) were "a point" and went perfect with the meal. At the end of the dinner they gave us little cards with private information about how to book a table for dinner in the future. I think this aspect of dining is totally underestimated. Chefs and service staff in top restaurants love diners that know what they are doing. It gives them pride in what they do. For you to go into a place and communicate to them that you know about food and you are interested in them doing their best for you, I think that inspires them to do a good job. Wouldn't it inspire you? I think that so many of their customers don't understand what the experience is about that they look forward to doing their best for the ones who do.

"I see no reason why Didier -- a serious chef -- wouldn't want to try to achieve that level of performance. And if he can't, he's a moron if he does it just for one person who's going to write about it, because he'll just have a lot of pissed off customers coming in day after day asking for that meal and being disappointed." Not only that, if he could fill the restaurant with those types of customers every night they would make a fortune. How about this gets discussed from a restaurants perspective and what type of customers they like to see. Whose a drag to serve etc. Any brave restauranteurs out there?

Oh where is Macrosan when you need him the most?

Wilfrid - No it isn't that anonymity causes the average meal, it's that the goal of anonymity *when one is recognizable* is to ensure that you are served the average meal. The reason you are able to ask for special meals and stay anonymous is that you are nobody. Oh that felt good.

Unless you fashion yourself to be the same as the average diner, the information listed in a review of a restaurant (supposing that is their goal) is already imperfect as to your circumstances. Some people would find reviews of the $20.02 meals useful. Others would find meals that cost $200.02 at the same place more useful. And then there are most people who are in the middle. I think that because restaurant reviewing isn't ordinarily accorded as much respect as the review of a film or an art exhibit, the reviews tend to be geared to a lowest common denominator theory. And while that might be "fair," I think that does the art of eating a great disservice. Because in reality there are many different experiences available in a restaurant. And restaurant reviewing would have a different thrust to it, and would include some of the things I have raised and I'm certain things others could raise as well, if reviewers had the space to write expansively. One thing that is nice about eGullet is there isn't any space limitation. So if you have something to say about a restaurant, there is unlimited space to get it off of your chest. For those who come to the dining experience with an idea towards improving all aspects of dining, eGullet is more useful than any of the guidebooks are, providing there is a large enough group of knowledgable writers on a topic. I think there are better restaurant reviews on this site than you can get anywhere else. And not because the people who write restaurant reviews for newpapers aren't talented, it's because their jobs are so restricted by their publications. For example, I think there is more information on this site about eating at El Bulli then the combined printed literature available elsewhere. And since the site operates in real time, it's more current information too.

Thumbs up for ketchup.

Jordyn - I think there are two flaws in your assumption. One, aside from my own selfish motivations of wanting to have the best meal, we are all better off having the most information available to us. I think the general restaurant review, since it is limited to a certain amount of column inches tries to encapsulate what a restaurant serves in three paragraphs. In reality and if space was unlimited (and it gets close to it in publications like Gault Millau and Gourmet,) the perfect way to review a restaurant would be for all aspects to be written about in detail. So my point goes not to full disclosure so the elite can eat well, it goes to full disclosure so everybody starts with the same amount of info. Then each diner can tailor the experience to their own choosing. The different ways this could impact on people's dining habits could be material. Let's for example say that you normally spend $100 on a meal and you eat out like that once a week. But then you found out that a top rated restauraunt serves a special meal for $200 a person and it sounded interesting. Might you decide to go for it and eat hamburgers and hot dogs the other week so you could afford it? And maybe as a result of doing it your perspective about dining changes? Could you do that if you didn't know? The second flaw I believe is your statement that the type of meal I'm describing is unavailable to you. I think you're wrong. I find that restaurants prefer those types of customers. Why wouldn't they, the meals cost more money? I see no difference between restaurants and the stock market. The more information you have, the better off you are. Fortunately there aren't any laws regarding information about restaurants being secret and confidential. Yet in spite of that, we have imposed some sort of quash on the best information because it is "fairer" to consumers. To me, that's an egalitarian principal that is well intended yet serves to harm the consumer who is entitled to *all the information* not just average information.

I find that the real issue here is what you want accomplished. If you want to ensure that a restaurant serves you the absolute average meal, with no bow to the critics notariety, then anonymity of the reviewer is neccessary. And then if you want to remove editorial slant, you make the critics anonymous. However, and Fat Guy gets to the issue of why, I would find that review almost totally useless. I don't want the average meal, I want the best meal. I don't care how I get it either. I'm quite happy if a chef rolls out the red carpet for a reviewer, even though it's not the typical meal in that restaurant. But when I go there, now I know about it and I can ask for it. So I conclude that more information is always better. As to a reviewers bias, again, that's more information not less. For example, I had a disasterous meal at La Pyramide in 2001. While the restaurant had all the trappings of a 3 star, even though it actually only has two, it would be a zero star for food as far as I'm concerned. And I know at least 4-5 other people who dined there in the months before and after I did that felt the same way. For my purposes, I want to see an in depth discussion that speaks of exactly why it merits two stars. And, if the inspectors are disclosed and I understand their personal likes and dislikes, I can better assess why it got that rating. So once again, more information is better than less and the names of the inspectors is more. I think the most important piece of information you can get from a review is where in the range of their rating is a restaurant performing. For example, La Pyramide is an underperforming two star, Leon de Lyon performs at their rating. A place like l'Astrance outperforms it's single star, as did Violon d'Ingress when they had one star but I find that they are a weak two. For me the missing link that Michelinn doesn't publish is the rationale. But that's just another example of more information not less. As to Michelin's anonymity, I think it works well because they have inextricably tied luxury to quality. Things like no hotel restaurant with three stars (broken when Ducasse opened Louis XV but still basically true) just means they aren't taking any chances. When you don't take chances it's easy to appear objective. If you want to eat the way the Michelin inspectors eat, then their guide is perfect for you. But if you want to eat better than that (and I do) you need more information than they offer. In fact you need more information than Gault Millau offers.

Gee the '78's are underripe. The Latour might be the best of them and I had a good relationship with that wine for a time but in general the vintage is an undeperfomer. The '82's on the other hand are blockbusters but they aren't going to be ready to drink for another 20 years. It's a high acid vintage that is similar to the better wines of 1959. There is no way to drink them now and find them enjoyable. Your saying that they aren't food friendly is an understaement. They are basically undrinkable. If you prefer softer wines with more opulent fruit, buy 90's. The good '90's like Latour and Cheval Blanc have astonishingly pure and ripe fruit. It won't be drinkable for another 15-20 years but the wines are great. And if you want a vintage for current drinking, 1985's are terrific if a bit acidic. Lots of wines from that vintage that are now drinking well.

RTR would never be closing if Faith Stewart Gordon didn't sell the place. Or if the new owners didn't change anything about the old place. There are certain restaurants that stand for the concept of continuity and that is why they are popular. The Ivy in London is a restaurant like that. I'm sure we can name others the world over. What Mr. Leroy did was to take the RTR and turn it into Russian Disneyland. And while that might have been an admirable goal from a business perspective, it one, alienated the day in and day out customers that went there for years and two, and as I said earlier, I don't see the allure of things Russian these days especially on that level. Maybe if he had the Kirov ballet perform every night they would have filled the place.

"The strong view would hold that it would be an ethical transgression for me to omit it. Do you lean one way or the other?" Fat Guy - But the strong view would hold that jaywalking is illegal. Though I'm sure you do it all the time. So what type of indisgression, if any, do you think there is by omitting Shopsin's from this guide? Does it breach a specific obligation to the reader such as "Every restaurant in NYC" or something like that? Or is it really an indisgression that doesn't have any real meaning or cause any harm? If I was writing a guide called "All the quirky places to eat in NYC," I can see that including it be imperative. But there are loads of circumstances where I can see leaving it out too.

Wilfrid - Just so my position is clear, I don't believe the restaurant should have a veto. And I think a publication should have the right to do whatever they want including going to print or not going to print. But in this instance I personally would decide not to print. But in another instance I might very well conclude to print. Point being that among the different things a publisher needs to balance, a request for privacy (not veto, request) is reasonable. And considering that publishers "compromise" what goes to print for numerous reasons, I don't see this compromise as being outside the realm of a reasonable request. And that is because I don't see the information as an absolute necessity for the diner.

But owners of newpapers kill stories for their friends all of the time. And people have press agents that kill stories all of the time because they have relationships with reporters. It has nothing to do with right or wrong, it has to do with how the world works. Journalists aren't white as the virgin snow. They are a business and they often act like one. For example, each week the New York Times decides to publish a review of a restaurant. How do that choose that restaurant? Do they choose the one that is the most interesting, the one that will attract the most readers, or the one that will appeal to the most readers in the demographic segment they want to appeal to so they can maximize their advertsising rate card? I thought the Times wasted good column space this week by devoting an entire review to Mark Joseph. My point not being to throw cold water on the NY Times or intimate anything, I'm just pointing to the types of compromises one makes juggling business concerns and ethics. There are more interesting restaurants to write about if aesthetics are the standard. What is so interesting about a copycat steak? So to me, the request by Shopsin's falls into this category which is why I think it's the publications choice whether to agree or not.

Wilfrid - But reporters get that type of request from politicians all the time and sometimes they agree. Not every piece of news has to be reported. Quite often the press agrees to withhold information on a number of different grounds. Look at Francois Mitterand and how the French press didn't discuss that he had a mistress and a child out of wedlock until he died. And I'm not passing judgement on whether it was the right or wrong thing to do, I'm just saying they voluntarily agreed to go along with his wishes, whether overtly stated or otherwise. Businesses have the power to do whatever they want as long at it is legal. And they certainly have the ability to go along with Kenny Shopsin's request *if they want to.*

I have to add to this thread (and I secretly think it will add to my theory although I'm not pushing this aspect at this point ) that the Bordeaux wine classifications of 1855 were an important marketing step for French food and wine. It codified an entire aspect of dining and made clear mile markers as to what quality was, and how much it cost. Not being expert on the classifications but, my understanding was that the wine export trade, which sold to predominantely British homes, clubs and restaurants of the type Wilfrid has pointed to, classified the wines according to how much money people historically paid for them. So the five first growths were the wines that historically sold for the most money. Second growths the next level etc. I think this codification of an important aspect of French cuisine allowed diners, regardless of where dining, to tailor meals accoring to some benchmark of how they were going to use wine. The idea of making a meal of "Grand Cuisine" only to be served with a fifth growth now seemed odd when there was little written evidence to instruct people not to do that prior to the classifications. People had to be educated about wine to know. I can also point to the classifications, which was a published list, as the first time the general public had good and clear access to the information which also meant (and also supports my theory but I'm not going there now ) that commoners who might not have come into contact with the mysteries of wine could now have the information all on a single page. Clearly the negociants in Bordeaux (wholesalers) made the classifications because they *wanted to sell more wine to wider group of people.* It's an important step in the food information boom and it sets the foundation for wine writers like Robert Parker who came along a century later to further define the categories and point out some of the inherent flaws in the system. Clearly this must have led to other types of codifications and classifications and the upshot had to be that it allowed the French to make their cuisine and wine more exportable. I will try and do a little research on when the various wine regions codified their wines and why they did so and let's see if there is a correlation to how they exported the rest of their culinary culture.

If I was Kenny Shopsin, I would tell all the guidebooks to publish a listing and then I would hang a sign outside of the restaurant with a different name on it. All the regulars would know, but the people who aren't regulars would think the place went out of business. And then for the non-regular people who came in to ask about it, Shopsin could deal with them on a case to case basis, which is pretty much what he does now. He just wants to not be besieged by those types of people. But that would screw the guidebooks pretty good because it would make their listings seem out of date. Some things just aren't a matter of *rights." Some things need to be dealt with on a practical level.

I think Jaybee has got this one right. A restaurant has the choice to view a BYO diner as one who is using a table to the detriment of their being able to sell the table to someone who is going to buy an expensive bottle of wine, or they can see that person as replacing another party that only drinks water and the corkage fees make them more money. I don't think anybody has offered definitive proof to support either argument but, seeing empty tables and knowing there are water only tables seem like pretty good evidence to me. However, Jaybee also rightly points out that the BYO customer is a unique animal and that his main purpose for dining is to drink his own wine. It never gets to the issue of who has what wine on their list. It starts and ends with that premise. So either restaurants want to accomodate that diner or they don't. So when Fat Guy says that it is my loss, it absolutely isn't. On balance, 90% of the time I want to drink my own wine more than I want to eat the food at any particular restuarant in town. And that is what I do. And when I just *have to eat somewhere,* like my upcoming dinner at Daniel which will be the first dinner I've had in the main dining room in two years, then that's what I do the other 10% of the time, .

Well then I would be in good company wouldn't I?

Fat Guy - Well I didn't say it was right or wrong. I said that based upon the facts the way I know them, I would balance the harms that way. I see the harm to the Shopsin's, and I don't see much harm to the public. But like I said, you will never get a perfect answer here. The Shopsin's are not happy with the monetary benefit that comes from fame and fortune. They want an equitable remedy of privacy. While they might not be entitled to get one as a matter of law, if it was in my power, I would give it to them on grounds of morality. Fortunately, the publisher of the guide and you as the editor *do not have to live to the letter of the law, or even the spirit of it.* You are both private entities that have a conscience and can decide it on any terms that you want. You are not bound by the limit of the law. You can also decide things according to the laws of rachmunis. And other arguments showing me where they are listed doesn't change my mind because I do not know the details of how those listings came about. Magistrate Plotnicki concludes that on a moral basis, Kenny Shopsin needs the privacy more than a guy from Kansas needs to know about the Grilled Chicken Breast with Thai Green Curry served atop Soft Polenta.