Jump to content

yvonne johnson

legacy participant
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by yvonne johnson

  1. yvonne johnson


    I'm quite taken with the rabbit, but the round foil-cutter that comes with it is useless, so I have to rely on a second thing to remove the foil. I find that a bit of a draw back. As for it looking like a rabbit, to me it looks more like a gynecological instrument. http://www.sharperimage.com/all/en/images/...ts/BP305-MI.jpg (Oversharing?)
  2. Humorous? Now that you mention it, I guess it is funny to see F-G communicate in so few words.
  3. No, you haven't. How can one categorically say that this wasn't the case (that is, that at least on one occasion a better steak was had at place other than PL)? Added to which, jeunefilleparis is a new member around here as far as I can see and unless she/he is a troll (and I have no evidence that this is so), why is making an absolute statement like this (no, you haven't) in line with the spirit of the board’s aims? (That is not to say that it might be the case that, in general, PL serves superior steaks.)
  4. Interesting. I'm not that keen (ha) on SH overall (hate the decor, and had a pretty disappointing meal with Simon lately), but I do like their strip steak. I must go to PL. So many years in NY, there really isn't an excuse for not having been.
  5. Bux, I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. When you said that GT was "less recognizably four star" I read that within the context of what you said earlier, namely, "I'm inclined to agree that the dining room at GT is operating at a three star level, in spite of the fact that I think it does so with four star service and cooking." I inferred that you saw something about the "operation" (not challenging the diner enough, you mentioned) that was 3 starred and that that got in way of recognizing the 4-starred cooking and service. I guess where we differ is that I don't think the food and servcie in the dining room merit 4 stars, leaving aside the overall "operation"
  6. I'd be very disappointed if I received the service that ajay did: "In spite of the small army of staff floating around, often standing around and intensely discussing the next step for table x or y, I found the level of my water and wine to be neglected a bit more than I would have expected at a restaurant of this caliber. For example, I actually stopped eating for a while hoping to catch the attention of a staff member so that I could initiate a request for more wine. After a while, a busser came to clear the glass and he asked if I might like some more wine. Of course I did and the problem was solved. However, my water glass often suffered from neglect as well suggesting this is an element of service that the staff should pay more attention to--they're more than capable; it just seems like they have a tendency to glide around on autopilot a bit too much." At $500 for 2, at the restaurant that some view as the best in NY, I wouldn't want waiters (no matter how many there were) on autopilot.
  7. I've just seen this after posting story on the media forum. Link is here--added by Rosie http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?act=ST...f=2&t=18035&hl=
  8. First, I must revise my statement made yesterday about Waxman's chicken. Yes, I've had very fine chicken at Washington Park, but last night I tasted some very poor chicken at WP. On the basis of three visits, I've come to the conclusion WP is hit or miss. Back to GT: Bux, I must respectfully disagree with your point that the cooking at GT is "as good as it gets". Your argument seems to be that it is simple, understated and people don't see its value because they expect fireworks? I think it's completely understandable why most people would rate J-G and Daniel higher, and that's because the food at those places offers cooking that is "as good as it gets". As for the difference between the tavern and the main restaurant, I've found the food in the tavern to be more flavorful, interesting, and (to use Plotnicki's favorite) complex and the service to be less oily and more helpful. As for the tavern's staff having simpler tasks, I'd disagree. The staff at the bar have more contact with diners (eating at the bar) than the restaurant staff do with their customers and I've found the bar staff to be very skillful in guiding us through our meals with wine pairings and other suggestions.
  9. Goodness, that's some line up of desserts. I thought the raspberry dessert would appear as it seems to be a signature dish. (Sorry about the mispelling of your name, Lauren, earlier.)
  10. Sounds good, Lauen. Let me guess, did you have a dessert with raspberries and pastry?
  11. And I hope I haven't contributed to any confusion between the two. But here's the rub: using any reasonable standard, I've found the food & service betterin the tavern part. Bux, I think you've articulated the commonly held notion of GT. Despite the evidence that it's 3 star place, people wantto believe it's really (or could be with a little stretching) 4 starred. The question is why? (PS: On chicken, Jonathan Waxman does very, very fine chicken. I wouldn't rave overall about Washington Park, but, my, can Waxman do chicken.)
  12. I take it the answer to your question is no?
  13. I think GT is operating at a three star level in terms of food and in a consistent manner. I know Fat Guy has written that GT is the best American restaurant in America and that it maybe hasn't reached its zenith yet, but I fail to see how it approximates a 4-starred restaurant. I've said before that in the larger scheme of things GT's food in the main restaurant is ordinary. (That's not to say I dislike the tavern. I've had very good, hearty, bistro-type meals at the bar.)
  14. Yes, and here it is (Admin. edit: see Fat Guy post below for link)
  15. I'm a bit late on this one. Here are some notes on a visit to Aberdeen a couple of years ago (not exactly fresh, I admit): The Olive Tree, Queens Road, Aberdeen. Mediterranean influences. Excellent smoked chicken pate with pomegranates, and nicely dressed greens. Good fresh fish with saffron, and on another night with lavender oil. It's a pretty little restaurant in a former toll house on two floors. http://www.olive-tree.co.uk/home.htm The Marcliffe at Pitfodels, North Deeside Road, Aberdeen. Everybody in the NE of Scotland is raving about this place. I was very disappointed. Sandy, tough scallops, overcooked halibut, smoked venison app nothing to write home (actually I was home) about. An interesting main was lamb with cabbage stuffed with black pudding, but it was a bit much. The hotel is in an attractive location and the lounge is comfy. Norwood Hall, Cults, near Aberdeen (01224-868951). I recommend it. This is a Victorian mansion by the river Dee. Tasty fare for lunch: really fresh fish and salads. (This might be a nice place to stay.) As G. mentioned above, The Silver Darlings Restaurant in an old lighthouse is charming with lovely views, but we found the food to be average.
  16. Ardbeg....a bonnie sight
  17. No, no, no, no, not the worst (in the best possible way) review by Grimes. On December 27, 2000 he reviewed Hudson Cafeteria and the words "toxic waste" came up. He rated the place poor. (I can't seem to find it on the web.)
  18. I considered it breakfast. This was an informal job interview at around 10AM a few years back in the large dining room with (I guess) faux Louis XV furniture (I didn't like the room). The service was very poor: no butter for toast despite asking twice.
  19. The four star places are special because they're French! Alain Ducasse Bouley (going this month) Daniel (x1) Jean Georges (x2) Le Bernardin (x2) Lespinasse (x1 for breakfast and it sucked) I've got pretty limited experience at the 4 star-end and what follows seems a no-brainer, but of the 75% of places I've been to on Steve's 3-starred list below, I think the only one that comes close to 4 stars is Union Pacific. It's ambitious, but at times too much so. As for the others, they're not in the league of 4 stars on grounds of a) general inconsistency (e.g., GB&G, Patria--not to say I've not had some great meals there); b) inconsistency across courses (e.g., Babbo--despite being one of my favorite restaurants, the main courses are not of the same calibre as the appetizers or pastas or desserts; c) blandness (e.g., Gramercy Tav's main dining room, Veritas) and d) harder to pin down, but failing to present a conceptual whole (Tabla, and possibly Craft though I do like it). Overall, I don't think there's real gap between the 3 and 4 starred places in terms of service. I’ve found the service at Babbo very, very good, but I think Babbo tires to mimic, in some respects, the service at 4 starred establishments (e.g., by clearing up every so often every single crumb from the table cloth, and I just find that to be going over-board).
  20. I can't say the NYT's story made me want to rush out and go. Sounds like a Blumenthal meets New York. But who knows? "The kitchen, just a few blocks from the restaurant, has become a lab for subjecting ingredients to extreme conditions. In the dehydrator, slivers of calamata olives are withering to a crisp; in stainless-steel vats of molten caramel, pineapples festooned with peppercorns and vanilla beans are completing a three-day braise; in the freezer, tubs of lovage await an undetermined fate." "When diners open their menus, they will face only a list of ingredients next to each dish, with no indication of how the dish is prepared. There will be appetizers like the one listed as "oysters, Chinese sausage, green apple, pistachio," and entrees like "corned duck, white beets, rye crisp, purple mustard." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/26/dining/26WD50.html
  21. Yes, that dish is the one I go for. Greasy as hell but I think it's tremendous. Red stewed pork is pretty good too. Around the time of Chinese New Year they serve a sausage and lotus root ( a very pretty thing in the shape of a star) dish which is fab.
  22. G. and I had a very good dinner with Sandra and ranitidine the other night at the 9th/51 st branch and the dishes g and I are used to at the Chelsea location (after around half-dozen times) were equally as good as, if not indistinguishable from, those at Chelsea--smoked tea duck main and the oxtail-tripe app (really good). The king pao at both places leaves me a little lukewarm. Service at 50th St (on basis of one visit) is, despite the plusher decor, a bit impatient and surly in comparison with Chelsea. The dish I really like at the Chelsea loc is the beef with chilies (from the front of menu--order it if you like hot food). Here's a long thread on GS with good recs http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?act=ST...t=3921&st=0&hl=
  23. I hear some US network is thinking of doing an American version of The Office. It'll never work.
  • Create New...