slkinsey
-
Posts
11,151 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by slkinsey
-
-
I think if you have an important and influential chef who never stuck around at any of his restaurants for the restaurant itself to be considered important and influential in its own right... well, that's too bad. I don't think it makes sense to just pick one of the chef's restaurants and put it on a list like this. If, hypothetically, a chef's body of work across 8 restaurants is important but not any particular one of those 8 restaurants individually, it doesn't belong.
-
First, I should mention that you're being a very good sport about me breaking your balls on some of this stuff. It's just because you're willing to play, and because you either have a position contrary to mine or are in a position for me to make a larger point.
I think the standard is, you need to disclose if it's something that could be thought to affect your judgment.My problem is that there are such radically different viewpoints on this that I think it's difficult to even come up with an idea of what the hypothetical Reasonable Person would think.
I, for example, don't particularly think that any amount of comping from 0% to 100% would make me believe that someone's report about a cocktail bar was unduly influenced, so long as that person's report or history of reports made me think that they knew what they were talking about. If, to make an example, I were to read a glowing report about a bar from Robert Hess, whose opinion I believe is well-informed in this area and who I believe to be ethical, and were I to later find out that he had been comped 100% by the bar -- it wouldn't affect my reading of his report one iota.
-
So, what does that mean? From now on you're going to put a disclosure at the bottom of every bar post you make saying, "Disclosure: I'm a regular visitor to both of these bars, I've known some of these bartenders for years and at one or more bars, and in addition to probably getting some special attention at this bar as well as other bars where these bartenders have worked, my bill has often been discounted to the tune of 20% and occasionally as much as 50%"?
-
If I'm joining a discussion where I say, "I agree that not allowing standees keeps noise and croud levels tolerable at that bar," or, "on the whole, I prefer the drinks at D&C to the drinks at Pegu," it's hard for me to see how comp disclosures come into play.
For the sake of argument: What if it turns out that you get a lot more buybacks or other kinds of special treatment* at D&C compared to Pegu? If you believe this is significant enough that you should mention it in a more lengthy writeup, why wouldn't it also be significant enough to disclose even when saying that you prefer the D&C drinks over the Pegu drinks? One could certainly argue that a number one-liners to the effect that you prefer D&C drinks over Pegu drinks (and you mention this frequently enough that I've been well aware of your preference for some time) has a cumulative effect that is far more influential than a single, more detailed post. I say that if you believe something absolutely must be disclosed in a detailed post, then you should disclose it in any post.
* Not that I'm saying you do.
-
Oh, I agree, doc. I'm just wondering if that's enough to make it a "25 most important of the last 30 years restaurant." Okay, it put Chicago on the map for fine dining. But unlike, say, Crook's Corner or Turtle Creek, I don't get the sense that it put any particular style or approach to cooking on the map. It just happens to be a good restaurant and the first one at that level in Chicago to attract a lot of attention. Is that enough? Is Charlie Trotter's important in influential in the way that, say, Gotham Bar & Grill is?
-
To the best of my knowledge, there is no Campari made anywhere that includes carmine anymore.
-
The argument for "unjustifying" Per Se is that, despite the fact that it is one of the top restaurants in NYC, it's still basically a retread of the French Laundry and isn't doing anything meaningfully different.
Per Se is probably one of the top 5 restaurants in New York City...since it opened.
French Laundry is probably one of the top 5 restaurants in California...since it opened.
Each of the restaurants may be in the top 10 in the United States...since they opened.
I think the fact the Keller is able to maintain these two highly regarded restaurants, in 2 such disparate locations, warrants the inclusion of both.
No one is saying that they aren't both great restaurants. But "great" and "important" (by which I assume is meant a combination of groundbreaking-ness, influence, etc.) are not the same thing. I mean, Charlie Trotter has been one of the top restaurants in the Midwest...since it opened, but so what? Does that make it one of the most important restaurants?
The French Laundry and Per Se are effectively one restaurant that happens to exist in two cities. I could see combining "French Laundry/Per Se" into one entry, but it doesn't make sense to me to give two separate spots on a list of 25 to two more or less identical restaurants that have the same executive chef, the same culinary philosophy, many of the same dishes, and with the same influence on American cuisine and restaurant culture. If you're only going to pick one of these restaurants, it has to be French Laundry -- and really I think that makes the most sense. When Keller is gone one day, his legacy will be what he created at French Laundry.
-
The argument for "unjustifying" Per Se is that, despite the fact that it is one of the top restaurants in NYC, it's still basically a retread of the French Laundry and isn't doing anything meaningfully different.
-
But one initial response is that you may be encouraging the hordes of clueless Vodka Tonic drinkers that pollute Serious Cocktail Bars during prime time. I understand that what's "pollution" to me may be "outreach" to you. But nobody thinks it's such a great thing to get steakeaters into Yasuda so they can complain that the fish isn't cooked.
I have to say that this attitude seems more than a little patronizing. I would never think of changing what I wrote about about a bar out of the concern that I might be encouraging people I was too cool to hang out with to go to my favorite bars. Talk about your ethical quandarys! Disclosing a comp pales in comparison to writing with the background motivation of keeping out the rubes. I assume you didn't mean for it to come out that way.
-
(As far as disclosing comps go, I just put a note at the end of every write-up I do, marked "COMP DISCLOSURE." It's inelegant, but it's easy.)
Really? You've made any number of posts in the Pegu Club thread, as well as on various other cocktail bars and cocktail bar-related threads. I don't think I've ever seen you disclose a comped cocktail in a single one of these posts. Does this mean you never get buybacks?
-
I think the hot girl and the person with a keen interest in mixology got disclosable comps.
Working in the performing arts as I do, it has been my privilege and duty to spend time and work in the company of any number of uncommonly beautiful women over the years. Without fail, most of them got preferential treatment in a wide variety of contexts. Almost without fail, they took full advantage of these oportunities. And almost without fail they did not fully appreciate that they were getting special treatment because of their looks. All of which is to say that, how is the hot girl to know that her 2 buybacks out of 4 are exceptional and therefore disclosable, presumably because "most people" would only get 1 buyback out of 4?
This is merely an example, but it's one of any number I could make in which distinguishing special treatment from SOP in a bar is not as easy as one might think.
-
Meaning, it's possible -- in this case highly unlikely -- that your review without disclosures is of 0% value to nonmembers of the "cocktail club". I don't say that as an accusation; I just think it's a possibility you have to consider.
Well, perhaps the value isn't zero percent. But the value approaches zero percent relative to the volume of text it would take to explain all the various connections and potential sources of bias I might have with respect to any number of NYC cocktail bars.
Getting back to the topic of the thread, what is a comp, even if you go by your standard of "something that isn't given out generally to most or all customers, as a matter of course" it is still difficult to nail this down. What's "normal" for some people is not normal for others. A good looking young girl is likely to get more comps than weatherbeaten older man in many bars (unless the man is, say, Tom Jones). Is her experience "normal" or not? Someone who has a keen interest in mixology and who knows something about cocktails is likely to have certain interactions with bartenders that are more likely to lead to certain kinds of treatment. Normal? Or a "disclosable comp""? Some people are simply more gregarious (or more brazen) than others, and are therefore likely to have a different kind of experience at a bar than another person. Should this be disclosed? Meanwhile, if it's the kind of bar that is built for repeated business, perhaps it's not meaninful to write about the bar from the perspective of an entirely neutral stranger who just walked in the door for the first time and don't know nothin' about mixin' no cocktails.
Again, I think it's a lot more clear-cut in a restaurant, where free anything is clearly exception and not SOP, and plenty of people may go an entire lifetime without getting anthing comped at a restaurant.
There are too many places I've been to . . . where it was apparent to me that I was misled by overpraise from a claque or coterie, who were having an experience I just wasn't. I resented that, as a reader. So would you.Or... now I know this is a radical idea... or, you were misled by people who did not know what they were talking about, or who were easily led into fawning fandom.
-
In that case, I have trouble imagining that any of us would write a review of a bar as though we were purely analyzing the contents of the cocktails, and I think it would be disingenuous (i.e. unethical) to omit the fact that we were sitting at the bar chatting up the bartender the whole time. Or to omit the fact that we helped develop a new drink by tasting several varieties, or that we were provided with samples of a half dozen vodkas, etc. It's not so much that these things are "comps" per se as that they are things that a reader would be legitimately concerned might bias a review.
Who cares if it would be disingenuous? And screw the "biasing the reviewer." Include these things in your writeup of the bar because it's something great about the bar that you want people to know about, and your report would be meaningfully incomplete without it because this is what bars are all about. The "freeness" of it, unless it really goes far above and beyond what would be possible for most any customer in terms of buybacks, etc. seems like a red herring to me. The idea of "purely analyzing the contents of the cocktails" seems nonsensical, impossible and irrelevant to me.
Meanwhile, there are plenty of things that could bias a report I write about a bar far more than any free drink. For example, I was hanging around engaging in drunken banter with some bartenders after hours a few weeks ago. One of them mentioned how he got a bit nervous when his mentor from a previous bar came to visit and wanted to make sure they were really on their "A Game." Then he turned to me and said something like: "honestly... Sam, you know a lot of people and you've known us for a long time. . . I get a little nervous and want to make sure we're on our A game when you come in here, too." Now, besides being a flattering and sweet to say, because I can't even see the ballpark his mentor plays in, it does make me wonder whether it's possible for me to go into most any of the cocktail bars I'd want to go to and have a "typical experience." I'm sure this is true for a lot of people.
So, the question is whether I go through all the tedium of disclosing that when I write about a cocktail bar, as well as documenting every discount I might receive and the circumstances in which I received it. It doesn't seem useful or worth it. If I did all the disclosing about possible sources of bias in my recent writeup of Dutch Kills the post would have been 50% longer with 0% added value. I even used to work a day job in the nearby Citicorp building years ago!
-
The reality is that, even though buybacks are SOP in most bars, there is some discretion involved and the extent to which one gets buybacks will depend on the "rapport with the bartender." I don't know of any bar that has a policy of "every fourth drink is on the house." Buybacks are not exceptional in the way that restaurant comps are. But they're not given equally either.
-
With respect to #3 - I can certainly see, that if a bartender were having a discussion about differences in vodka with a customer, he might taste that customer on very small pours of several different brands and bottlings. This is exactly the sort of thing that happens at better cocktailian and/or spirits-focused bars.
Totally. But I view that as a comp. For one thing, the bartender probably doesn't "have conversations" like that with every single customer, or even most customers.
That really depends on the bar, which illustrates just how hard it is to nail this sort of thing down definitively. We all seem to agree that the occasional "buyback" based on number of drinks purchased is more or less standard practice in most bars.
So, if the 50something guy gets 1 out of 5 drinks "on the bartender" and the hot 20something girl gets 2 out of 5, they're getting unequal treatment. But I would still say that a buyback isn't the same as a comp in a restaurant. On the other hand, if a bartender is the sort of guy who might put out a "micro-flight" or vodka for a customer with whom he is engaged in a pertinent conversation, every customer, more or less, who might be the bartender's counterpart in such a conversation has an "equal chance" to get similar treatment. Certainly a more equal chance than the 50something guy and the 20something girl.
#4 is perhaps less probable, but again it's not impossible that if a customer is having a conversation with the bartender about a concept or odd combination ("I'm telling you, gin and Irish whiskey is a match made in heaven!"), the bartender might riff something off and present it gratis to most any customer. It must be said, however, that this is more likely with a customer the bartender knows or with whom the bartender has friends in common than with "the average customer." But it's not at all improbable even for a brand new for a customer who demonstrates some interest and knowledge about cocktails and spirits, and who is simpatico with the bartender. Then again, by the time that rapport has formed and the discussion well underway, it's likely that this cocktail will fall under the general practice of "one out of every four is on the bartender."To me, that kind of selectivity makes it a comp.
Again... in some cases and in some ways, yes -- in others, no. Let's suppose that you and I each drink 4 cocktails at a bar, and the third cocktail is free for both of us. You get your free cocktail in the form of a buyback ("this one's on me, Sneaky my good fellow"). I get my free drink because we're in a conversation about mixing gin with Irish whiskey, and the bartender riffs something up but doesn't put it on the bill. My drink is a comp and yours isn't? The only way I can see my drink being a comp is if it wouldn't also qualify as an SOP buyback.
#5, tasting the customer on an unfinished cocktail still under development and soliciting feedback is unlikely to happen with just any customer. I've done a lot of this over the years, and in my experience, this sort of thing is likely to consist of little tastes of several iterations of the cocktail with discussions about impressions and possible adjustments in between iterations. Unless one of the iterations happens to hit a "eureka!" moment and hit on something so good that you have to finish the drink (I had one of these with Del Pedro at Pegu a few weeks ago that left us both laughing), there is usually no expectation that you will have more than a few sips of each iteration. I've got myself into deep, deep trouble doing this a number of times. Two or three sips of 15 iterations of a cocktail can really add up after a while, especially when you've already had a few cocktails before getting started. I remember (or more precisely, don't quite remember) sipping through way too many iterations of Erin Williams' brilliant-but-lethal Kill Devil cocktail with Audrey at Pegu. Ironically, wouldn't you know it, the original formulation turned out to be the best one. But we did discover all the different ways you can light a drink on fire.I guess we're in agreement that this constitutes a comp -- although we're also in agreement that it's not an unqualified good.
Again, it's more complicated than that. If I have two sips each of three iterations of a Mai Tai variant, what am I really getting. It's like the chef at a restaurant letting a customer try three teaspoons full of some sauce he's working on. If you have the whole drink, and if that whole drink wouldn't also qualify as an SOP buyback, then you have a comp.
This is, I think, a good bit more complicated and grey in the case of a bar than a restaurant.
-
It's funny you'd say that. I'd think at least "3", "4", and "5" are comps by that standard.
Hard to say, exactly -- and it depends a lot on the bar. All of these things might reasonably happen at certain bars (and perhaps not in others) depending on the rapport the bartender has with the customer.
With respect to #3 - I can certainly see, that if a bartender were having a discussion about differences in vodka with a customer, he might taste that customer on very small pours of several different brands and bottlings. This is exactly the sort of thing that happens at better cocktailian and/or spirits-focused bars.
#4 is perhaps less probable, but again it's not impossible that if a customer is having a conversation with the bartender about a concept or odd combination ("I'm telling you, gin and Irish whiskey is a match made in heaven!"), the bartender might riff something off and present it gratis to most any customer. It must be said, however, that this is more likely with a customer the bartender knows or with whom the bartender has friends in common than with "the average customer." But it's not at all improbable even for a brand new for a customer who demonstrates some interest and knowledge about cocktails and spirits, and who is simpatico with the bartender. Then again, by the time that rapport has formed and the discussion well underway, it's likely that this cocktail will fall under the general practice of "one out of every four is on the bartender."
#5, tasting the customer on an unfinished cocktail still under development and soliciting feedback is unlikely to happen with just any customer. I've done a lot of this over the years, and in my experience, this sort of thing is likely to consist of little tastes of several iterations of the cocktail with discussions about impressions and possible adjustments in between iterations. Unless one of the iterations happens to hit a "eureka!" moment and hit on something so good that you have to finish the drink (I had one of these with Del Pedro at Pegu a few weeks ago that left us both laughing), there is usually no expectation that you will have more than a few sips of each iteration. I've got myself into deep, deep trouble doing this a number of times. Two or three sips of 15 iterations of a cocktail can really add up after a while, especially when you've already had a few cocktails before getting started. I remember (or more precisely, don't quite remember) sipping through way too many iterations of Erin Williams' brilliant-but-lethal Kill Devil cocktail with Audrey at Pegu. Ironically, wouldn't you know it, the original formulation turned out to be the best one. But we did discover all the different ways you can light a drink on fire.
-
For a place as busy as D&Co, why don't they just remove their vodkas altogether and stop serving dumb drinks to people that ask? It seems like they can afford to turn away business.
Because this is just not how you run a genteele, service-oriented business such as a high-end cocktail bar. I think it's fine, and indeed a good idea, to limit the vodka selection at a cocktail bar. But it seems mean-spirited to eliminate vodka from the bar altogether.
What if I bring a cocktail-culture neophite to the bar who is "afraid" of gin and "only likes vodka"? First of all, I believe that many "no vermouth in my Vodka Martini" and "Stoli Elit in my Vodka Tonic" drinkers insist on this because, as Sneakeater mentioned upthread, they think it's cool and sophisticated to do so. Maybe, when they find themselves in a place like Death & Company where an entirely different and more "leading-edge" and possibly (ooh!) more "exclusive" group's aesthetic says that drinking ye whiskey and 50/50 Martinis with gin and Dolin Dry is cool, maybe they will change their minds about vodka. Second, maybe it takes a Vodka Soda or so for my friend to become impressionable enough that the bartender and I can pitch him on a different kind of drink.
Also, if you're going to refuse to serve "dumb drinks" because you feel that they spoil the feng shui your temple to mixology, why not stop serving wine and beer as well? And what do you do when someone wants a Tequila Sunrise or an Orange Blossom? Tell them that, even though you have those ingredients, you refuse to make the drink because it's dumb?
-
'Compte', from the French for account. When something is 'comped' the manager is putting it onto their account. It's not free, just someone else is paying for it.
Interesting idea, but inaccurate I think.
From Merriam-Webster:
compPronunciation: \ˈkämp\
Function: noun
Etymology: short for complimentary
Date: 1887
: a complimentary ticket ; broadly : something provided free of charge
-
I do draw the line, however, at
. -
Right. Most restaurant "bars" (which are really, in NYC these days, simply less comfortable dining areas with bottles on the other side of the bench) are not the same as proper bars.
-
I agree. I've always thought it was odd to see a customer in a bar such as Flatiron Lounge order a vodka on the rocks, or a glass of wine or a beer. I feel like saying, "don't you know you're in one of the top cocktail bars there is? Order a cocktail!" But it happens, of course, every night. And they have to be prepared to accomodate these customers with style and a smile.
The problem is that there are people who end up in those bars because the bars are well-known or because the people were dragged to the bars by friends but who don't have a clue that the Serious Cocktail Movement even exists.
This is one reason why it is sometimes useful for bars that don't wish to serve a certain species of cocktail to simply not stock the ingredients necessary for making them. It prevents certain awkward moments, and it also provides certain opportunities for selling the customer on something better. But, ultimately, if the customer who wanted a Cosmo would rather have a Vodka Soda than a Corpse Reviver #2, then you make them a great Vodka Soda with a smile.
Last night I took two (female, I feel constrained to point out for reasons that will become apparent) friends to Pegu, and it was all I could do to stop them from ordering Lichi Martinis. They thought that would be a cool and sophisticated thing to order. They didn't know from Serious Cocktails. It was hard for me to explain to them why you wouldn't order drinks like that in a bar like Pegu without sounding like a snobbish prat, too.I don't know about that. A snob is someone who imitates or seeks to be associated with those who he or she deems socially superior. Someone ordering a Lychee "Martini" in a serious cocktail bar would hopefully not be made to feel by the staff as though they were inferior in any way, but rather served the drink they had ordered, or in the case where those ingredients were not available, pitched on something else he or she might like in a way that both enlightened and uplifted. Looking down one's nose at a neophyte ordering a Lychee "Martini" seems more emblematic of snobbery than ordering it.
Edited to add: Upon re-parsing Sneakeater's post, it seems clear that he was trying to explain to his date why there were better choices at Pegu without making himself look like a snobbish prat to her in the process of making this explanation. I agree that this can be difficult in some circumstances. My going-in strategy is usually to let the bar staff handle it. I've known too many cocktailian friends that offended a companion by trying to pre-educate them on this sort of thing.
-
Looking at some of the various "ethics" threads on comping, while I think it makes some sense to "disclose" a comped dessert in a write-up of a restaurant, I'm not so sure it makes the same sense to "disclose" it when the bartender buys your 4th drink out of 5.
It make not be the same sense, but I think it still makes sense to disclose. Why don't you?
Because I don't think it is relevant. I don't think it is relevant because I think it is commonplace in bars to comp most any customer, on average, perhaps one drink out of every three or four. This is unexceptional and familiar to everyone who spends times in bars. In restaurants, on the other hand, it is still exceptional. If I'm writing about a bar I've visited for a "friends and family" kind of event, it's taken as read that everything is gratis as it usually is for these kinds of events at both restaurants and bars.
Beyond that, I make no bones about the fact that I have a lot of friends and relationships in the NYC cocktail world. It's simply not practical, reasonable or valuable for me to qualify every post I make about bars, spirits, cocktail designers and/or bartenders by saying that "I am friends with so-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so (etc.), and I am recognized in the following bars where I may be likely to get some preferential treatment and am sometimes discounted anywhere from 20% to 100%." This, again, is pretty much true of most anyone who is a part of this relatively small and tightly-knit community -- it's by no means special for me. I suppose that, if I maintained a blog about NYC cocktail bars, I might have a disclaimer page to that effect.
-
Somehow I don't think that comps at a bar are the same as they are at a restaurant. "Buybacks" and "tastes of this and that" are a firmly entrenched part of bar culture in a way that they are not in restaurants. For example, even in dive bars, it's commonplace for the bartender to "buy a round" after the customer has had 3 or 4 beers. It is not so commonplace for a restaurant to bring a free plate to a customer who has ordered 3 or 4 small plates, or even on his 3rd or 4th visit to the restaurant. So a comp in a restaurant is more exceptional. Looking at some of the various "ethics" threads on comping, while I think it makes some sense to "disclose" a comped dessert in a write-up of a restaurant, I'm not so sure it makes the same sense to "disclose" it when the bartender buys your 4th drink out of 5.
-
...and maybe I'm a slut, but to be honest, when I'm bar-tending I don't view "spirits evangelist" as near the top of my list of priorities.
The two things I see as my primary tasks are ensuring the guest has an enjoyable experience at our bar and, if they order a cocktail, that I make as good a cocktail for them as I can.
If it's a lemon drop, I like to hope it's the best damn lemon drop that they've ever had.
Virtually every top professional cocktailian I know would serve any vodka drink that they can make at their bars, with a smile and to the best of their abilities.
That said, one way that these people can (i) put themselves in a positition to evangelize from time to time, and (ii) reasonably reduce the number of vodka drinks they have to serve is by limiting the vodka selection to one or two brands of unflavored vodka only, by not featuring (m)any vodka drinks on their menu, and by having a firm policy of not substituting vodka for another spirit in any of the drinks on the menu (things such as a Vodka "Martini" are fair game).
It's one thing to give someone a hard time if they come into your bar and order a Cosmpolitan. That is a bad idea. It's another thing to simply not stock any flavored vodka and cranberry juice. That gives the bartender the ability to say with a smile, "we actually don't have the ingredients for a Cosmo here... but tell me what you like, and I bet I can come up with something you're going to like. If you don't like it after you try it, I'll be happy to make you something else."
You're in a bar known for its cocktails and you're ordering a Sex on the Beach and an Apple Martini and it's not 1987? (This happened to me at Flatiron a few months ago.) Open the menu! Ask for a suggestion! There doesn't have to be attitude in making a suggestion to a patron. I've seen it handled beautifully again and again, and almost always the customer is happy to be introduced to something new.I agree. I've always thought it was odd to see a customer in a b such as Flatiron Lounge order a vodka on the rocks, or a glass of wine or a beer. I feel like saying, "don't you know you're in one of the top cocktail bars there is? Order a cocktail!" But it happens, of course, every night. And they have to be prepared to accomodate these customers with style and a smile.
25 Most Important Restaurants of the Last 30 Years
in Restaurant Life
Posted
Opened 1979. Just makes the cut! And definitely belongs on there. Is there any other restaurant that did more to bring Cajun cooking into the American consciousness?