slkinsey

No reason not to call it "Carpano Antica." Some people just call it "Antica" and everyone around here seems to know what they're talking about.

Well, I don't disagree with that. But what we think the NY Times critic job is and what the NY Times thinks that job is are two different things.

However, it is of course possible that Oakapple isn't remembering the article correctly. Or... If Esnault did say that in the interview, it is possible that he misspoke, misremembered or deliberately misrepresented. There is some possibility that Bruni did get in there and it was not reported to Esnault. There is the possibility that someone said something like "I think that might be Bruni at table 42," but the kitchen was in the middle of some kind of clusterfuck and he didn't take notice. There is the possibility that several of Bruni's trusted friends and acquaintances dined at ADNY and gave him the impression that the things he didn't like hadn't changed all that much. I'm just saying that we're predicating an awful lot of argument on the premise that he was never there, based on a recollection of a comment from an interview that appeared some time ago, and comment that Esnault may have made in that interview without giving it a great deal of thought. On review: Steven, I'd be interested to see the quote if you have it, in context.

I should point out that we're basing this whole idea that "Bruni never ate there once after Esnault became chef" on this one line from Oakapple: "I recall reading an interview in which Esnault mentioned that Bruni had not yet even paid a visit, to the best of Esnault's knowledge." With all due respect to everyone, that hardly seems definitive.

Assuming he did a Diner's Journal look in 6 months (and he may have thought, or had reasons to believe that not enough had changed in 3-6 months for that -- or may have been turning his attentions in other directions), a year after that would have been exactly when people were hearing that ADNY would close. So, even under your schedule, there never would have been a full follow-up review.

We are, of course, taking the "no visits" thing on faith. It's entirely possible that he did eat at ADNY at some time during Esnault's tenure. Or, failing that, it's possible that he heard from his various sources that ADNY hadn't made such huge changes to be worth such an immediate re-review. I wonder what he would say if he were asked why he didn't re-review ADNY. I think we might be surprised at the response.

3-6 months? Wow, that's very fast. Is there any precedent for a re-review of a demoted restaurant on anything approaching this timetable? I'm not necessarily saying that you're wrong in suggesting that ADNY should have had a re-review, but it does seem a bit like you're saying they should completely change their established way of doing these things. I'm also curious as to what other restaurant things were going on in NYC during that timeframe that might have been Bruni's plate (so to speak).

It's Carpano Antica Formula, meaning "Carpano (the manufacturer) ancient formula." This is supposedly Carpano's old formula for vermouth. (Antonio Benedetto Carpano is the inventor of vermouth.) The other one is Punt e Mes -- Italian, not Spanish, meaning "point and a half" (actually, to be technical, it's Piemontese dialect... Italian would be punto e mezzo or punt'e mezzo). This is a stronger version of vermouth (more herbal, more bitter, more intensely flavored) also made by Carpano. For some reason, it's somewhat common for people over here to say "Y" instead of "E" in the middle, I guess because we're more used to Spanish.

It seems clear to me that ADNY would have been re-reviewed by now if it had not closed. But I still don't see any persuasive argument that it automatically had to be re-reviewed in less than 1.5 years (the period of time between Esnault's hiring and media reports of ADNY's imminent closing). From what Leonard has said, I gather re-reviewing even one of the City's most important restaurants after a demotion would be unprecedented during a timeframe this short. It's too bad that it didn't get an opportunity for a re-review before it closed, but it seems to me that a change of chef and reconfiguration of the restaurant shouldn't necessarily mandate an immediate re-review within a short period of time or the Times will run into exactly the same problem mentioned upthread: restaurants that are demoted or feel like they were reviewed under their goals will feel as though they "deserve" a short-time re-review if they fire the chef and make changes. If we go down that path: It's no secret Batali and Bastianich were going for four stars with Del Posto. And Batali is certainly in the same stratosphere as Ducasse, Jean-Georges, etc. in terms of name recognition and industry power. If they had fired Ladner following the three star review and reworked the restaurant, does that mean Del Posto should reasonably have expected a re-review within 12 months of the change? Steven, when do you think would have been a reasonable time to do this re-review? After six months? A year? I'm interested... if ADNY had been re-reviewed in January 2007, would we feel that the re-review had been unreasonbably delayed? What about a re-review in September 2006?

Between 100th and 110: Thai Market is good for Thai Awash has very good Ethipopan Carne is good burgers, steaks, etc. Henry's has plenty of good things. Rack & Soul has already been mentioned I like Flor de Mayo for delivery roast chicken and cilantro rice El Malecon is also no slouch in the roast chicken department A, up on columbus and 107th is interesting and eclectic Tokyo Pop is good for "fusion sushi" rolls. Taqueria y Fonda la Mexicana is one of the two best Mexican places on the UWS Between 90th and 100th: Regional is good Italian Noche Mexicana is the other best Mexican place on the UWS (Sundays they have posole!) Interestingly, it would appear that the West 90s comprise the most desolate stretch with respect to good restaurants on the UWS.

As far as I know, the main difference between Gordon's in the US and Gordon's in the UK is that the former is 40% abv and the latter is only 37.5% abv. All that means is that there is more water in the UK bottle than the US bottle. I doubt there is any other difference. I'm not sure that I think any brand of gin varies the formula by geographical location. The proof may vary, but that is not the same thing as the formula. Gordon's does appear to be manufactured in multiple geographical locations (all apparently former British territories), but from one recipe. I'm not sure that brands like Tanqueray, Plymouth, Beefeater, Boodles, etc. are substantially produced in multiple locations. In any event, the US versions are all "imported from the UK" (although, interestingly, they are often bottled in the US -- which means that giant tankers of gin must cross the ocean). Anyway, in order for the gin to be responsible for the cloying sweetness you find in a US Gin and Tonic, the US version of Gordon's would have to be practically syrup coming out of the bottle. It's much more likely that the tonic water is responsible (and, indeed, most tonic water available over here is disgustingly sweet -- which has opened the door for specialty products like Q Tonic and Fever Tree).

I don't quite understand this comment? Are you saying US sloe gin is sweeter than UK sloe gin? Because that is certainly true, as there is no real sloe gin currently available in the US. Until Plymouth becomes available, we have only disgusting "sloe gin liqueurs" that bear about as much resemblance to the real thing as mass-market "grenadine" does to real pomegranate grenadine. If you're saying that "London" dry gin -- as exemplified by Tanqueray, Beefeater, Junìpero, etc. -- sold and/or manufactured in the US is sweeter than "London" dry gin sold and/or manufactured in the UK, that's nonsense.

My understanding is that you cannot legally take liquor purchased on one state and sell it in another. This is exactly why it was not possible, before Laird's bonded was available in NY State, for NYC bars to simply purchase the spirit in NJ and sell it in their bars. To continue examining your scenario... if the Montecristo rum were legally sold in the both states, it would be fairly difficult for the liquor authorities to figure out what you had done. But, if you were found out, you'd be in big trouble.

Bubbles in ice form because, as water freezes, the dissolved air comes out of solution. Since the top part of the ice -- the air's usual route of escape -- is usually already frozen, the released air has nowhere to go. The air is trapped and freezes in place as a bubble in the ice. If, on the other hand, the water is flowing and the ice forms more or less one tiny layer at a time, the air is able to escape into the flowing water and does not freeze in place as a bubble. Thus, less air in the ice, resulting in denser ice with better clarity. Kold-Draft, in effect, miniaturizes the moving water freezing process used to make large blocks of clear ice for ice carving, etc.

The only real commercial sloe gin (which is to say, lightly sweetened gin infused with sloe berries) of which I am aware is made by Plymouth. It is not available in the US yet, although they are working on bringing it in (red tape abounds).

Pecten maximus

By the way, if anyone wants to know how Kold Draft machines make such high quality cubes, their special technology is explained here: http://www.kold-draft.com/why/technology/

Jesikka, those just look like whole (i.e., uncleaned) scallops with the roe attached. Further on the St. Jacques thing... it appears that the scallop shell is the symbol of Saint James the Greater.

You know... Kold Draft makes an under-counter sized machine suitable for residential use. Just saying.

Hill Country... somehow I can't get that excited about smoked sausages. That's just my taste, but I don't think it's as difficult to master as whole cuts of meat (you can adjust the fat content and grind to keep the texture and moisture where you want it, etc.)

As I understand it, the review demoting ADNY to three stars came out in February 2005, then Esnault was hired in April 2005 and the restaurant closed at the end of 2006. If we consider that a major re-review would be largely, if not absolutely unprecedented before February 2006 (i.e., 1 year after the previous review)... is it not possible that there was already a sense that the writing was on the wall and that ADNY would be closing? Eater was reporting the closure in September 2006, which means that people in the right circles must have suspected this might happen several months before that. Indeed, Fat Guy posted at the time: "There has been talk of ADNY moving ever since the union exemption expired." So, let's suppose that Bruni is thinking of fitting in a re-review of ADNY sometime after February 2006. It doesn't seem unconcievable to me that the Times started to get wind of a possible closure and a decision was made to not "waste" a review on a place that is probably closing within six to nine months. I don't think the argument can be made that Bruni had any obligation to re-review ADNY before February 2006 at the earliest. And, if ADNY hadn't closed, perhaps he would have re-reviewed it sometime around, say, May 2006.

Bring on the bitters: Chicago bartenders make their own to achieve the complexity they desire. By Michael Nagrant

Coquille is French for "shell." Coquille Saint Jacques is the name for "scallop shell." It is also the name of a classic preparation where scallops are served in the shell, etc. To add to the confusion, both coquille and coquille Saint Jacques may refer to scallops.

sounds like a cool place. Finally a restaurant to recommend when out of towners really want an Italian meal in what's left of Little Italy. A few thoughts and comments... I'm sure they were delicious with mascarpone. But I find it funny when people give reasons like this. I can remember once when David Rosengarten did a television piece on Philly cheese steak and he was asking one of the guys at one of the famous places about the bread and what makes it special. "We like this bread because, you know, it's crisp. It has to have that crispness," the guy said. Rosengarten raised his eyebrows while squishing the bread with no apparent difficulty and said something like, "well, I don't know that I think it's crisp, but..." and went on to say what he thought was special about the bread. Anyway, the point of this is that people seem to think that "crisp" is a word one uses to describe desirable properties in bread, and also that "we used this because it's lighter" is a desirable way to describe substituting a different ingredient. Anyone who is familiar with ricotta and mascarpone will know that substituting the latter for the former will in no way result in a lighter ravioli filling. Quite the opposite: it will result in a richer, silkier filling. Which, from the sound of things, is a good idea -- but not lighter. Cappesante (usually with a doubled P, but there are numerous spellings) is Italian for "scallop(s)." It comes from cappa (cape) and santa (saint) -- presumably because scallop shells look like a cape and... er... Italians like to throw the church in whenever they have a chance? Anyway, beet-grappa vinaigrette sounds very interesting. Did it taste alcoholic at all, or was the alcohol cooked off somehow?

Another Laird's bonded update: They recently added Opici as distributor, and Opici may be the best option for those wishing to order/stock Laird's bonded.