slkinsey

But we know that 1,100 of those 1,300 meals are likely to be at no more than 10 different restaurants (and likely fewer).

The anonymity thing is pretty much bullshit, as has been endlessly rehashed in these forums. There's no way that any single-city, weekly reviewer isn't recognized at 90% of the places he or she reviews. Here's my thinking on the professional/print versus online/amateur difference: I don't think there's a restaurateur in this City who wouldn't vastly prefer a positive review by Bruni in the NY Times to ten raves in the eG Forums, or ten glowing writeups at someguy.blogspot.com, someotherguy.wordpress.com, yetanotherguy.typepad.com, etc. Now, this isn't to say that certain blogs or forum posts might aren't meaningful or more meaningful to certain consumers. There are certainly posters in these forums, and blogs of which I am aware, whose opinions I value far above Frank Bruni's. But I also don't consider myself a typical consumer. I also know that, as online-centric as I may be, a print review of me is much more valuable than an online one.

I think you've highlighted the absurdity of the distinction with that example. I agree that people make the distinction on a widespread basis, but it's certainly also the case that the average blogger comes to the table with more restaurant and dining knowledge than Frank Bruni had when he got that job (though of course he is a better writer than most bloggers). It's also true that, most likely as of 6 months after he took the NYT job, Bruni had acquired infinitely more restaurant and dining experience than most any amateur blogger out there. This is the real advantage of being a reviewer for a publication like the NY Times. You will be going to 10+ theater performance a week, or eating 10+ restaurant meals a week. The amateur gourmet or opera lover rarely has the time and/or resources to pursue that kind of schedule in addition to maintaining a day job, and those who do are often... well... to put it kindly, a little unbalanced, which has an additional effect on credibility and reputation. It's actually easier for someone like, e.g., an amateur opera reviewer -- he can amass expertise over a few decades of less-frequent attendance, and this knowledge retains currency because La bohème is the same now as it was in 1896 and operatic performance traditions have experienced far less change over the last 30 years compared to culinary trends. It is a little bit absurd, of course. But for the time being it's the way it is. I wonder if it might come to be the case that more and more people will make restaurant reservations online via web sites like OpenTable until that becomes the dominant paradigm. If those sites were to include amateur reviews similar to the reviews Amazon has for its products, the totality of amateur reviewing could take primary importance.

Doesn't a lot of this come down to disparities in prestige between professional restaurant critics and amateur restaurant critics (and among professional critics, disparities in prestige between the publications)? Because when we say "online review" what we are also saying is "amateur avocational reviewer" (there is, I think, a difference between a true "online review" and a printed review that is mirrored online). Fair or not, by and large blogs are not considered as prestigious and authoritative as newspapers and magazines -- largely because blogs are amateur (or extremly small potatoes professional) and newspapers and magazines are professional. I suppose it might be possible for an amateur online restaurant critic to create a strong enough reputation for his reviews to "matter" more and have more influence than those written by professionals and appearing in newspapers -- but I am not aware of any right now. This seems unlikely to change. I suppose the best an amateur online critic can hope for right now is to compete with the critic for something like the "Upper East Side Post Crescent." It does seems likely that, at some point in the future, an exclusively web-based "newspaper," "magazine," etc. with a hired restaurant critic may come to compete with the newspaper reviewers for prestige. I know this is a little ridiculous, since an online amateur restaurant reviewer could get hired by the Times and immediately go from "very little influence" to "great deal of influence" -- but it does seem to be the way things are today.

I'm always particularly amused by posts that try to stereotype a restaurant's clientele. I was there last night, and both two-tops near me were taken by elderly couples (a category not matched by any of the above). One of the tables cleared, and another 50+ couple came along. There were indeed a number of stroller families too, along with other parties of various sizes that I wouldn't presume to categorize.If you thought the comments you quoted were an attempt on my part to stereotype or narrowly define Landmarc's clientele, I must not have expressed myself very well -- since that is exactly the opposite of my intent. My examples were intended to be just that: examples from among the many kinds of people who might go there and be well-served. The point being that they've always been a neighborhood restaurant that seemed devoted to serving the neighborhood -- and that includes every demgraphic that stops in. That's partly correct. The private rooms are "created" by bringing down a couple of gigantic garage doors. This area can funtion as two smaller private rooms or one larger private room, and of course with both garage doors up the space simply becomes part of the main dining room. I was at Landmarc late on Saturday with the cast of NYCO's Flavio, along with assorted friends, family and colleagues, after their final performance. They were kind enough to lower the first garage door in order to hold several large tables for us in that area of the restaurant so the 25 or so in the post-performance group would be able to sit together (they raised the door upon our arrival). This is a nice feature: Both rooms have separate entrances and can serve as entirely separate and private areas. Or, as it was for us, the garage doors can be lowered to separate out a space for a large reservation or party, then raised once the diners arrive for a more open feeling. Since the lowered garage doors obscure the view of the wine storage area, I have to believe that they will normally be raised -- effectively making the restaurant a 300 seat space. When we arrived at around 11:15 PM on Saturday, I'd estimate the rest of the space at around 80% capacity. Walk-ins would be able to get a table, but they were doing a bustling business. When we staggered out at quarter to two in the morning, there must have been at least 40 people still there. Edited to add: The TWC location is now up on the web: http://www.landmarc-restaurant.com/twc/. Fact sheet says: "300-seat dining room / 17 seats at the bar / 80 seats for private entertaining"

I get the impression that Bonny Doon is "aging" it's peach eau de vie in stainless steel rather than wood.

I wonder if the folks at Clear Creek or Bonny Doon could be convinced to put some of their peach eau de vie into barrels for a year or two. Dave: how long is peach brandy usually aged?

These are variations of the same question. The reason to have a separate tool from what would normally be used in a bar is that there really isn't another bar tool that is good at this function. For muddling herbs, as I said before, you can get by with a bar spoon that has a flat disk on the opposite end. But this won't help you if you want to muddle something like citrus. Try it some time: If you have 4 lime quarters (actually 8ths -- a quarter being a halved lime cut into quarters) in the bottom of a mixing glass, it takes a considerable amount of pressure to squeeze out all the lime juice. The advantages of muddling the herbs or citrus in the mixing vessel are several: First, as others have pointed out, none of the oils that are extracted through the muddling process are lost, because they're stuck to the inside of the mixing glass. Since a muddled drink is often shaken together with the muddled ingredients and then (sometimes) strained, all of the expressed oils are washed off the side of the mixing glass into the drink. If the muddled items were muddled in a separate container, it would have to be rinsed with the liquor used in the drink in order to capture all the oils. This would be a big pain in the butt. Second, sometimes the muddled items are muddled together with simple syrup, granulated sugar or some of the liquor, which aids in the extraction of oils. Third, for some drinks (the Caipirinha comes to mind) the fruit and/or herbs are muddled directly in the glass in which the drink will be served. Glass mixing glasses are plenty strong enough to handle vigorous muddling without breaking, but if this is a concern, one can always muddle in the metal part of a Boston shaker. I use all metal, so it's not an issue either way. Muddling definitely makes a big difference. Try making a Daiquiri three ways: First, the standard way, with 2 oz of Cuban-style white rum, 1/2 ounce of fresh lime juice and 1/2 teaspoon of superfine sugar, shaken hard with ice and double strained. Second, squeeze the lime as usual, but throw the squeezed-out lime shell into the shaker and shake it together with the ice, rum, lime juice and sugar. Third, cut lime quarters and muddle half a lime in the bottom of the mixing tin together with the sugar, measure the expressed juice to make sure you have 1/2 an ounce and make adjustments as necessary, then add the rum and ice, and shake as usual. You'll find, I think, that the three drinks are distinctly different due to the amount of lime oil incorporated by the three different techniques. For herbs in shaken drinks, I think muddling makes less sense since the herbs will end up sufficiently bruised by the ice during the shaking process (so much so that double straining is usually necessary). But muddling makes plenty of sense for non-shaken drinks like Swizzles, Juleps, etc.

The deal with the red lacquered muddlers is that, food-grade or not, the lacquer will eventually wear off and the red dye will eventually wear off. This won't be in chips, as Eric suggests (or at least I've never seen that happen), but it is true that the dye and lacquer will end up in your drinks. I've seen plenty of those red muddlers with the finish worn off of the base and the red color looking like it's partially soaked off. As with anything, of course, whether it makes sense to spend 30 bucks on a muddler will depend on how much muddling you're doing, and also whether it's enjoyable for you to have a nice muddler. The PUG! Muddlers, as well as some of the other "artisanal" muddlers not only do a great job, but are also a joy to hold and a joy to behold. No, you don't need one of these to make a great drink, but you don't need copper cookware and a professional-quality stove to make a great pork chop either. For those who make few muddled drinks and aren't particularly interested in bar equipment, one can easily find bar spoons with a flat disk on the end opposite the spoon that can be used for muddling. We've even known those who put the wooden end of a potato masher to good use when muddling is required. Choice of muddler will be a personal one, just like choice of chef's knife. There is no one obvious answer. I know a few people who use the stainless/rubber muddlers, but most seem to feel that the top of the stainless muddler is too small and hurts the hand when any pressure is applied. The plastic muddlers, I think, are slippery and too light, and often have a seam right across the top of the handle. I can't imagine that too many bartenders are actually choosing to use them, and have to believe that they're chosen by management because they can be thrown into the dishwasher. In my opinion, what you'd like to have in a muddler are these characteristics: 1. Long enough to easily fit into a tall glass or mixing tin with plenty of muddler left available to grip. 2. Flat, round base that is large enough to cover most of the bottom of the glass or mixing tin without getting stuck. 3. Heavy enough that, if one is muddling mint, the muddler can simply be "dropped" onto the leaves a few times for a few light tape. 4. The top part of the muddler should be broad enough so that when any pressure needs to be applied (e.g., in muddling limes) it doesn't hurt your hand. 5. It shouldn't be slippery. 6. It shouldn't have any material that is likely to dissolve, flake away or otherwise find its way into any drinks. 7. It should be made of a material that is durable, long-lasting and relatively nonporous. For a home user, however... if you don't really like having cool bar equipment and you don't muddle very often, why not just use the handle end of a nice thick wooden spoon?

The TriBeCa Landmarc, at its heart, is an unpretentious neighborhood restaurant trying to offer quality NYC-worthy food and wine at a great price along with friendly service. The TWC location is following the same aesthetic. So, yea, of course it's for UWS mommies and kids... it's also for 30somethings on date nights, pre- and post-theater dining, after-work hanging out for industry types and performing artists. Providing breakfast to mothers and kids before a trip to the park, museum, shopping, whatever is entirely in line with their raison d'être.

PUG! Muddlers are what most, but not all, of the top 'tenders in NYC seem to use.

Erik, how do you mean "contacting the folks at The Northerner"? It looks like they're set up as a straight e-commerce site, and you should be able to order their Carlshamns Flaggpunsch Original online and have it shipped directly to you. When I did a dummy purchase they seemed to be charging around 14 bucks a bottle. So 35 bucks for a bottle of Swedish punsch isn't cheap, but it would be nice to have around.

Right. That's my thinking as well. Considering the demographic of customers filling the downtown location after midnight, many of whom are actually much closer to the new location, I have no doubt that Landmarc TWC will become an after-hours hangout for area restaurant workers and Lincoln Center performers. So, they'll be doing real business until 2AM most nights. Since they're serving lunch, you have to figure that there are going to be people working as early as 7AM anyway just to prep for lunch and do routine maintenance. So the cost of a few waitstaff and cooks for the breakfast shift has got to be marginal, and I'm sure their business plan does not assume 300 covers every day for breakfast. It also may turn out that they do good breakfast business on area deliveries. If there's one thing that seems clear, it's that the Landmarc team are good businesspeople, and I'm sure they've thought this out. In that light, I'm not sure Marc's Café Gray comparison is a good one. First, Gray Kunz seems to be notoriously shaky as a businessperson, and the real stretch for Café Gray was opening for lunch, not breakfast. They weren't even able to sustain a lunch seating, and opening for breakfast was iffy at best. I'm also not sure Joe's Bouchon comparison is a good one. There's a big difference, to me at least, between paying 12 bucks for quiche and the privilege of sitting at a table in the hall versus 9 bucks to sit in Landmarc's space. Bouchon at the TWC has always seemed to me like an extremely expensive Au Bon Pain.

Absolutely. The bar seats around 20, I'd say. But, given the size of the space, I don't think there's any reason why you couldn't just grab a two-top for a half-bottle and a couple of apps.

So it is! My mistake. What's the thinking behind stirring with ice and then straining onto rocks? I generally build an Old-Fashioned right in the glass and then add the ice.

I understand your point, Mitch. And, as I said, I'd prefer lots of cracked black pepper as well. But while the lack of cracked black pepper may have made the dish less authentic, it was nevertheless very good. Landmarc isn't presenting itself as an Italian restaurant or one that strives for slavish duplication of regional cuisines, so I'm less inclined to be a purist than I might be if I had the same dish at, e.g., Celeste. As for cooking dry pasta correctly: My experience is that few restaurants of any kind do it well, regardless of whether they offer lots of pasta dishes... and this goes for many of the ostensibly Italian ones. Landmarc, on the other hand, is not an Italian restaurant, and their menu doesn't feature a lot of pasta dishes. At most restaurants, this would translate into even lower expectations of expertise in pasta cookery, and I wouldn't be likely to order pasta. To return to an earlier example I made in this thread, I wouldn't necessarily expect French Roast to give me properly al dente dry pasta. This is a moot point, however, since Landmarc seems to have a good handle on cooking dry pasta to a good texture.

Well, the choice between PJ Clarke's/Josefina/O'Neals/Fiorello and Landmarc is a no-brainer IMO. When I spoke of French Roast, I was more speaking of places like French Roast than French Roast in particular. But, just to make an example, if I'm standing on 72nd and Broadway and I can either go uptown 13 blocks to French Roast or downtown 13 blocks to Landmarc, I'm going downtown. At least in my experience, 13 blocks is reasonably within what I would consider "neighborhood restaurant area" (which is to say that I'll walk 13 blocks for a quick bite without thinking too hard about it). Edited to add: There's a Steve Cuozzo writeup in the Post.

Looks like he's doing this: http://www.delpedro.com

One of Phil Ward's cocktails was recently featured in "Shaken & Stirred" in the NY Times: The Oaxaca Old-Fashioned 1.5 oz : El Tesoro Reposado tequila 0.5 oz : Los Amantes Joven mezcal 1 tsp : amber agave nectar 1 : dash Angostura bitters Orange twist Shake with ice and strain into an ice-filled rocks glass. Garnish with flamed orange twist.

Compass has also gone through so many chefs and so many incarnations, and for a while seemed to be booked around 50% of the time for private parties, that I think they've lost a good bit of confidence from UWS locals. I should also point out that there's a significant difference in price point, which is very important to UWS customers. Check out their dinner menu. The least expensive entre is 24 bucks, the median seems to be around 29, and it goes up all the way to 45! Landmarc's dinner menu, on the other hand, has small pasta dishes and hamburgers in the 10 to 13 dollar range, and even the most expensive choice on the menu, the ribeye steak, is only 34 dollars. When you consider that Compass has wine by the glass at prices comparable to Landmarc's half-bottle prices, a dinner there will very likely be twice what you would pay at Landmarc. When you think about it, Landmarc's UWS competition is going to be places like French Roast. This place is packed most of the time, and has a similar price point. Now, personally, I can't imagine someone who wouldn't rather go to Landmarc than French Roast.

Rich, where/how did you order the bottles? I googled "Norma Kalani" to see if I could find a picture of the bottles, and came up with a big goose egg.

I assume it must have to do with the price of copper. Consider what, say, All-Clad is charging for interior clad aluminum pans (their MasterChef line) and the fact that copper is more than twice as expensive. My experience is that prices for heavy copper cookware have gone up, but they haven't doubled in the last 10 years. In 1999 I was citing list prices of $580 and deep discount prices of $410 for Bourgeat's eleven-inch "flared saute pan." Then what happened (in my opinion) is that Falk Culinair entered the market and rationalized the prices of stainless lined heavy copper in the US. At the same time in 1999, I noted list prices of $399 for Falk's eleven-inch "sauciere" (same type of pan) and normal sale prices of $338. Eventually, I believe the US distributors of Bouregeat and Mauviel had to reduce their prices in order to compete with Falk Culinair. Today, Falk's eleven-inch sauciere lists at $375 without the cover, and $485 with the cover. I should point out that buying a fancy copper/stainless bimetal cover is a complete waste of money when you can get a perfectly good stainless cover for 20 bucks, but I believe the 1999 prices all included the cover so that would be the appropriate apples-to-apples comparison. Understanding that, we're looking at something like a 22% increase in the price of an eleven-inch stainless lined heavy copper sauteuse evasee with a fancy bimetal cover over 8 years. That's not nothing, of course, but I wonder how that tracks the rise in the price of copper over the same period.

So... just for kicks, I measured a few of my pans and compared them. I have a Falk Culinair "low casserole" that looks like this. It has a diameter of 9.5 inches. I also have an heavy antique Griswold cast iron skillet with a diameter of 10.25 inches. Both weigh 4 pounds, 15.25 ounces (2,247 grams) on my kitchen scale. That would give the cast iron pan a thermal capacity of 1,009 and the copper pan a thermal capacity of 865. 144 may seem like a significant difference, but really isn't when you consider that a cast aluminum pan of the same weight would have a thermal capacity of 2,164 (that would be a significant difference). Without using calipers, the cast iron pan and the copper pan appear to have approximately the same thickness. If anything, the cast iron pan is a little thinner. The larger-diameter cast iron pan has lower sides, which explains why they weigh the same. Here's the thing: I use these two pans all the time, and I can tell you with 100% certainty that the copper pan heats up and cools down significantly more rapidly than the cast iron pan. Since the thermal capacity is very similar, this difference is explained entirely by the large difference in thermal conductivity. I also have a smaller diameter cast iron pan, which has a smaller thermal capacity than the copper pan. It, also, is slower to heat up and cool down compared to the copper pan.

So... I was at Landmarc for a quick bite yesterday evening, where I was pleased to run into both Sneakeater and Daniel, who I hope will contribute their own reactions. They appear to be firing on all cylinders in the kitchen. Their foie gras terrine is still a ridiculous bargain and warm snail salad is a new favorite (I have no idea why I waited so long to try it). We shared a big plate of the Tuesday pasta, spaghetti alla carbonara, which was properly sauced and nicely al dente (which is no mean feat for a restaurant that only features one pasta dish). Ideally, I would have liked some cracked black pepper with the pasta, which as an Italophile I consider an important part of spaghetti alla carbonara, but this is a fairly minor quibble. There is now "a little bit of Ditch Plains" on the menu in the form of raw clams and oysters, and the possibility of choosing littleneck clams with one of five sauces in addition to the mussels their menu has always featured. The wine list has some very nice new additions, and the value remains tremendous. We had half bottles of falanghina, aglianico and prosecco, all delicious and none costing more than 16 bucks. We had 2 appetizers, one large pasta, three half-bottles of wine and a cheese plate. We left full and a little tipsy, completely satisfied and even feeling like we had splurged a bit. Yet in the end, the tab was a little less than 60 bucks a person (including tax, but not the tip). The service is good but lags behind the kitchen maybe a little bit. I assume this will pull together quickly as they have a bit more practice. All the signs are there: they have experience, they want to do a good job, they're enthusiastic and they all clearly want to be there. The one thing that, in my mind, has distinguished Landmarc's FOH since my second visit was also there: We were recognized, greeted warmly and received as friends. Both owners, the wine director and a few other managers we knew from TriBeCa stopped by our table for a quick chat, and we've already made friends with the new FOH people at the TWC location. This, in my mind, is the keystone to their repeat-business success as a neighborhood restaurant. I don't know anyone doing it any better.

We should also consider the fact that cocktails 50+ years ago were very much smaller than they are today.