If the Times is Wrong

[Wilfrid]

If one laid a menu from GT side by side with a menu from Daniel or Jean-Georges, I think the different level of ambition would be apparent. Assuming each of those three restaurants execute their menus well, I think the difference in star ratings is fair. Or, in a nutshell, GT dishes generally have fewer components and fewer things going on - which doesn't, of course, make them less satisfying for many people.

[g.johnson]

which doesn't, of course, make them less satisfying for many people.

Only tourists.

[Bux]

i cannot make such a comparison, but i'm also a heretic that fails to see the genius of nobu or union pacific.

We should all be heretics if we're passioned in our interest about food. Of course even a bit of heretical passion will render a set of numbers less useful as an impartial standard. Should we expect such a standard from any list? Is a panel of jurists more likely to come up with an objective list or is it likely, as Frank Lloyd Wright always claimed, to throw out the worst and the best before ranking the accpetable medicority?

The NY Times list is a work of fiction in that it's presented as standing NY Times ranking while it is really a collection of individual rankings by at least three different reviewers (Riechl, Grimes and Asimov) over a rather too long period of time. Would anyone care to guess when the earliest surviving star rating on list was awarded? I suspect there are no ratings that go back before Ruth Reichl, but I'm not even sure of that. The list appears to be less than 100% accurate even on that account.

[Bux]

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.)

No one should ever confuse the tavern and the main dining room at GT. They aim at different markets, or I should say they aim at providing different dining experiences, perhaps for the same audience. Food and service are far superior in the restaurant, although it's the tavern in which I've eaten many more meals.

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 understand the inherent contradiction in that statement and don't know how to explain it in a satisfactory manner. There are those who have said the food is dumbed down and I don't believe that's accurate. I do believe there's a definite policy of reducing the challenge to the diner and that's why I think of it as a three star place. I go back to one of the most reliable recommendations I have ever had on where to eat and what to order. I was told I "had" to get the chicken by someone who knew I would be unlikely to order a simple sounding chicken dish that night. The suggestion was not based on any belief that I might enjoy the chicken more than say lamb or pigeon, but on the basis that if I wanted to understand how fine a bird was still available commercially in America and how well it could be cooked, this was my opportunity. In "modern times," i.e. the last 20 years, I have only run across three examples of white meat breasted birds offering the same gastronomic quality--from Loiseau at la Côte d'Or in Saulieu and at Blue Hill in New York.

Edit: Wilfrid and g.johnson have posted while I was composing my last messages. Both posts are quite apt and in line with what I was thinking, although I suppose Glynn's comments need to be understood in context of some long standing eGullet experience. In fact these dishes may be aimed at the tourists.

Edited March 7, 2003 by Bux (log)

[yvonne johnson]

No one should ever confuse the tavern and the main dining room at GT. They aim at different markets, or I should say they aim at providing different dining experiences, perhaps for the same audience. Food and service are far superior in the restaurant, although it's the tavern in which I've eaten many more meals.

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 understand the inherent contradiction in that statement and don't know how to explain it in a satisfactory manner.

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.)

[Wilfrid]

... people wantto believe it's really (or could be with a little stretching) 4 starred. 

Not wishing to cause offence, but is it the case that Americans who like GT wish they had a four star American restaurant in New York?

(I'm sure my compatriots entertain similar wishes about things British - I am not "'aving a go" at anyone.)

[Bux]

( I am not "'aving a go" at anyone.)

Ya wanna step outside and discuss this.

I suspect you are correct and the reasons range from positive ones to defensive ones. In terms of service, many New Yorkers are put off by the formality of French luxury restaurants and wish to separate that which has traditionally been the hallmark of a top restaurant from what they see as necessary to have a great meal. In some ways GT has been thoroughly successful in providing the same level of service you may get at Daniel or le Bernardin, but in a manner that's less informal and more comfortable to a greater cross section of New Yorkers. As a result though, those who are comfortable in a four star restaurant do not recognize it as four star service. The cooking too is as good as if gets, but it's less intricate and in a way less obviously complex, or shall we say less formal and less recognizably four star.

I don't know how many will support me when I say one should want to fee as if they should dress up to eat in four star restaurant and GT is a place that prefers diners be comfortable rather than well dressed. A four star restaurant has traditionally been a formal restaurant. There's a contradiction in terms when one wants an informal restaurant to be a four star restaurant.

To take this a step further, the cooking at Craft may be better than that at GT, but it's further away from providing a four star experience in my mind.

Yvonne, I'm a great fan of the tavern room, but I can't agree that either the food or the service is better than in the main dining room. In terms of servers, those in the tavern are as good and knowledgeable as the servers in the restaurant, but my guess is that there are fewer per diner and that their tasks are simpler. Service, nevertheless, goes beyond the actual waiter. There are linens on the table in the dining room and much more space between diners as well as more amply sized tables. None of this may be meaningful to many of us and even less of interest if it means a pricier tab, but it's part of the service that's better in the dining room. As for the food, it's not the same menu. GT cuts costs over all by buying a side of lamb or a whole salmon. The choice pieces, the loin of lamb for instance is featured in the restaurant while a cheaper cut is served in the tavern. This is a trickier area, but a stew or less expensive cut is generally going to command a lesser price than a loin chop. Then again it may be the bargain as it often requires as much skill and greater effort to cook. "Better" can be too subjective for me to argue that the food in either part of GT is better, let's just say the more expensive food is in the restaurant. A reasonable standard might hold that less expensive is better, though I'm not sure all reasonable standards will support the tavern room as serving the better food.

[Beachfan]

Bouley may be more casual than some, but I have repeatedly noticed that how one is dressed as a guest affects the level of service there.  In the bakery days, they used to routinely seat those less formally dressed in the bakery room to the right.  I also had an experience where we were wisked past two couples who came in just ahead of us with reservations for the same time, and taken straight to a lovely corner table.  One of the other couples was not seated for another 30 minutes.

Based on past experience, I would never think of going there without putting on a suit.

I've always gotten great service in a sport jacket. Ties about half the time. But they've shown an uncanny knack for recognizing me even though I don't dine there frequently (but i going back to the old days).

[yvonne johnson]

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.

[Bux]

But I agree that Daniel, JG and le Bernardin should be rated higher. I think you're putting words in my mouth. I said"The cooking too is as good as if gets, but it's less intricate and in a way less obviously complex, or shall we say less formal and less recognizably four star." A simple roasted chicken at GT will be cooked as well as a simple roasted chicken at Daniel, but Daniel doesn't serve a simple roasted chicken nor does one normally go to a four star restaurant for a simple roasted chicken. That said, it may be as difficult to roast the chicken perfectly each time than it is to add the very complex garnishes you'd find at Daniel or JG. Perhaps I'm yet clear in my meaning. When I said it's less recognizably four star I meant that few people would rate it with four stars. These stars are man made and awarded on how reviewers (in the case of the Times, it's one reviewer) see the restaurant. I did not mean it was a four star restaurant in three star drag. My point was that in trying to create a four star restaurant (now why did I say that? I don't think Danny Meyer was necessarily trying to create a four star restaurant.) that didn't act like a four star restaurant they created one that isn't recognized as one by most people in spite of its strengths. As for the difference between the tavern and dining room, I suspect it's a matter of personal taste, but the food there, while very tasty, is a step further away from JG.

[yvonne johnson]

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"

[Steve Plotnicki]

The cooking too is as good as if gets, but it's less intricate and in a way less obviously complex, or shall we say less formal and less recognizably four star." A simple roasted chicken at GT will be cooked as well as a simple roasted chicken at Daniel, but Daniel doesn't serve a simple roasted chicken nor does one normally go to a four star restaurant for a simple roasted chicken.

But all you are saying is that sometimes the differences between the three and four star restaurants are too subtle to notice. For example, if you have the roast chicken at Ducasse, it will be a more carefully chosen chicken, a more carefully butchered chicken, the method of cooking it will be more particularized, and the sauce it is paired with is likely to be a more complicated preparation that is both more time consuming as well as more demanding to make perfectly. This philosophy will even extend to how they present and serve the food.

Theoretically they have done the best that it is possible to do with these ingredients. But then of course, none of that has to be true. It can all be a bunch of hype. But obviously enough of it is true because we all leave places like Daniel and Ducasse feeling that they are four stars and Gramercy Tavern as if it is three. I don't think it is our imaginations although the fact that Gramercy isn't as formal as the other two must create some type of bias in our minds. But I imagine that if you ate in one of those three restaurants every week for three or four months, you would learn how to easily distinguish the differences.

[Bux]

Yvonne, clearly I have some mixed feelings about GT and send mixed signals, which you've highlighted. How do I separate the degree of execution from the degree of difficulty? Without reading back through the thread, I think it was in this thread that someone made an excellent comparison to judging high diving or figure skating. Four star dining should represent the highest quality experience in New York. The issue may be that some us expect to be challenged at that level, while others expect to be satisfied. Or put another way, some people are not satisfied unless they are challenged while others regard challenge of any kind as a less than satisfying experience.

GT aims for a different audience perhaps than the four stars do. Nevertheless, I have seen diners at some of the four star restaurants who appear to be uncomfortable in the restaurant, while I've never seen that at GT. I am convinced the staff at the four star restaurants in question are not to blame and that they do all they can to make every diner feel at home. I am also aware that I will be accused of projecting and that's a reasonable accusation, but I believe I am correct. Should I award extra points to a restaurant that makes everyone immediately comfortable or should I accept the fact that some of the responsibility for being at ease in any situation has to rest with the diner? Much of the food we eat is an acquired taste and so are the restaurants in which we choose to eat.

[Ron Johnson]

Ok, based on what has been written in this thread, I have decided that I am going to either Daniel or Jean Georges for dinner.

The question now is which one should I choose?

[Wilfrid]

As they each have the same number of stars, no rational decision is possible. Heads or tails.

[tommy]

i find daniel a bit more formal (read: stuffy).

[Ron Johnson]

As they each have the same number of stars, no rational decision is possible.  Heads or tails.

Where would I be without eGullet and this type of hard-hitting, no nonsense advice?

edit: Which one is more relevant?

Edited March 18, 2003 by Ron Johnson (log)

[Wilfrid]

I have had good meals and disappointing dishes at each of them. I agree Tommy - Daniel is a little more stuffy and old-fashioned. The other big difference is that Daniel is a huge dining room, and can feel more than somewhat impersonal. Jean-Georges is small, sleek, stylish. I like the feel of the place better. I can't pretend to choose between them based just on the merit of the cuisines. Anyone else?

(My real advice is go to ADNY, and if cost's a factor, get drunk first . )

[g.johnson]

My one meal at Daniel was better than my last meal at Jean-George. Then again, I prefered Nougatine* to either. Go figure.

*Ron: Nougatine is Jean-Georges less formal restaurant at the same location, if you didn't know.

[Liza]

I vote for JG. We've dined at both within the past two months and found the service much much much better at JG. We loved the food at Daniel, but left feeling ignored much of the time.

[Wilfrid]

Yes, and if you want to be ignored, I recommend Le Cirque over Daniel.

[Ron Johnson]

Being ignored might make me feel right at home.

How much more per person would ADNY run than JG or Daniel?

Edited March 18, 2003 by Ron Johnson (log)

[Wilfrid]

That was debated on the second page of this thread recently. The Ducasse web-site has been down for a week or so, so I have to go by memory. I believe it's $160 for four courses including dessert, but there's a possibility of two courses plus dessert at a slightly lower price (there are also stratospheric tasting menus).

Edit: their telephone still works. Three course dinner is $150.

For your $160, you get an appetizer, fish, meat, dessert, plus at least two amuses, petits fours, chocolates, a visit from the lollipop trolley and a cake to take home.

Daniel is $85. For that you get an amuse, appetizer, entree and dessert, and I expect some petits fours and/or chocolates too.

Comparing like with like, I don't think the difference is as outrageous as it appears. (OKay, maybe it is.)

Edited March 18, 2003 by Wilfrid (log)

[tommy]

Comparing like with like, I don't think the difference is as outrageous as it appears.

considering tax and tip, and equivalent wine prices, the difference translates to about 100 a person. seems significant to me.

edit: comparing 160 to 85.

Edited March 18, 2003 by tommy (log)

[Wilfrid]

Yeah, but that's you.

(No, okay, fair enough...)