If the Times is Wrong

[tommy]

Therefore, the categories of stars is meaningless.

ya think?

[Ron Johnson]

think?

yes

[g.johnson]

As I've mentioned before Grimes was meant to be more parsimonious with his stars. He certainly started that way and I'm not sure he become more generous. I think you'll find lot of the more dubious 3 stars are from Reichl's days. I know someone will quote Otto at me but I think that's a special case -- a one star restaurant that has a three star wine list.

[Wilfrid]

At first glance, I thought the list of three stars looked reasonable; the problems start further down. I attach the list below. There are some I've not been to, but the only ones I'd strongly feel should be demoted are JoJo (post-refurb), Pico and 57 57. There are others I'm in two minds about, but I'd hardly throw out the list and start again.

Aquavit

AZ

Babbo

Café Boulud

Chanterelle

Craft

Danube

Felidia

Fiamma Osteria

Fifty Seven Fifty Seven

The Four Seasons

Gotham Bar and Grill

Gramercy Tavern

Honmura An

Ilo

Jo Jo

Judson Grill

Kuruma Zushi

La Caravelle

La Côte Basque

La Grenouille

Le Cirque 2000

March

Montrachet

Next Door Nobu

Nobu

Oceana

Olica

Park Bistro

Patria

Peter Luger

Picholine

Pico

San Domenico

Sushi Yasuda

Tabla

Town

Union Pacific

Veritas

Edited March 5, 2003 by Wilfrid (log)

[Ron Johnson]

There are some I've not been to, but the only ones I'd strongly feel should be demoted are JoJo (post-refurb), Pico and 57 57.

Are there any that you feel should be promoted?

[Steve Plotnicki]

None. But some of them should be demoted.

[Bux]

There are some I've not been to, but the only ones I'd strongly feel should be demoted are JoJo (post-refurb), Pico and 57 57.

Are there any that you feel should be promoted?

Promoted from three to four, or ones that should be promoted to three from whatever they are listed as?

[Ron Johnson]

None. But some of them should be demoted.

Right, Wilfrid already said that, thats why I was asking if there were any for which the converse was true.

Which do you feel should be demoted other than those already specified by Wilfrid?

Edited March 5, 2003 by Ron Johnson (log)

[Bux]

As I've mentioned before Grimes was meant to be more parsimonious with his stars. He certainly started that way and I'm not sure he become more generous. I think you'll find lot of the more dubious 3 stars are from Reichl's days. I know someone will quote Otto at me but I think that's a special case -- a one star restaurant that has a three star wine list.

But it's a three star gelateria.

I believe Reichl was criticized for distributing her stars on a bell curve. Most restaurants got two stars.

[Ron Johnson]

Promoted from three to four, or ones that should be promoted to three from whatever they are listed as?

Well, aren't all the ones listed in Wilfrid's post currently 3 star restaurants according to the Times?

I didn't think any in that list were less than 3 stars.

[Bux]

Promoted from three to four, or ones that should be promoted to three from whatever they are listed as?

Well, aren't all the ones listed in Wilfrid's post currently 3 star restaurants according to the Times?

I didn't think any in that list were less than 3 stars.

Sorry, I wasn't clear, I meant listed as in "when reviewed" and presumably listed somewhere as two, one or no stars. There's a wide variety of places and quality of foods on that list. There are probably a few I'd demote and probably some not on the list, I'd put on the list, but surely this is true of any rating system including the venerable Michelin star lists. I'm not even sure if the committee that reviews for Michelin makes their list any more solildly defendable. That restaurants reviewed by the NY Times maintain their rating, at least until reviewed again is ver peculiar when there's a change in reviewers.

[g.johnson]

There are a few 3 star ratings I'd question. Ilo, Union Square Cafe (not on your list but 3 star, I believe), Veritas, La Caravelle (based on Yvonne's report). Plotnicki and the Johnsons have had Very Bad Experiences at AZ, but others like it.

That's quite a lot given I've only eaten at about half of them

Edited March 5, 2003 by g.johnson (log)

[AndrewG]

Having tried all but a few of the 3 stars, I would definitely agree that there is a wide variety of quality here. This list makes a good case for the usefulness of half stars. There are places that I think are capable of 4 star food but can't qualify due to lack of consistency or inventiveness, service, ambiance, etc. These would obviously be the 3.5 stars (i.e. Cafe Boulud, Picholine, Chanterelle). Then there are those that are solidly 3 stars (Babbo, Grammercy, March, Veritas, etc.) There are a bunch that I think deserve at most 2.5 if not 2 stars (AZ, 5757, Honmura An, JoJo, Judson, Pico).

BTW, did Aureole get downgraded to 2 stars? It's better than a lot of the other restaurants on the list.

Of course, I just realized having reread my post that though unintentional, the further I got from French food, the fewer the stars. I guess I'm as biased as everyone else.

[Wilfrid]

The list is indeed the current list of three stars from the Times site. I haven't double checked Union Square Cafe, but I shouldn't be surprised if that's another example of editorial untidiness at the web-site.

I agree I would have doubts about that being a three star, and I also agree about Ilo. La Caravelle and Veritas I would defend, on the basis of several meals at each. They're a significant step above most of the two stars.

Now, if we could have half stars, we could certainly make some distinctions here - but if we take the NYT system as a given, I still don't think this is a bad list overall.

AZ I ain't been to.

[marcus]

People seem to have forgotten about L'Impero, Asimov's distinguished contribution to the 3 star list, and a possible candidate for least deserving, although I also was intensely unimpressed by AZ.

[g.johnson]

La Caravelle and Veritas I would defend, on the basis of several meals at each.  They're a significant step above most of the two stars.

A significant step above Fleur de Sel or Tocqueville?

[Wilfrid]

First, Marcus's post sent me back to double check. Union Square Cafe and L'Impero do indeed have three stars, but they are not on what one might assume to be the NYT's list of three stars - see for yourselves. So the list I posted earlier in the thread is deficient. Blame them this time.

L'Impero - I hadn't read that review before, and I thought less of the restaurant than Asimov. But then, if Asimov thinks the kid dish tastes like lamb, even "in overdrive", I despair.

GJ: Good examples. I repeatedly said that Fleur de Sel was comparable to Veritas in the first year of it operation, with Renaud in the kitchen every night - for cuisine, anyway. I need to go back and check Veritas, but I would say F d S has, sadly, slipped. Veritas was always more luxurious. Tocqueville? It's close, I agree. I did say "most of the two stars". I'll stick by La Caravelle being a big step up from F de S or Toqueville in cuisine, setting and ambitions. I'm aware that most members who've posted about it seem to have had a miserable time, but I can only go on my own experiences.

Edited March 6, 2003 by Wilfrid (log)

[Wilfrid]

Of course, if we want to get onto the one or two stars (yes, I was just looking again), those lists do seem to be moronic.

Orsay, Solera and The Tonic

better than

Della Femina, Osteria del Circo and The Tasting Room?

You could just reverse that opinion without anyone blinking an eye.

[marcus]

I don't think that there's anyway to come up with an end to end sensible set of ratings when every restaurant gets a score. The genius of Michelin is that they don't attempt to distinguish among roughly 85% of the restaurants listed in the guide, giving all of these no stars. In the every restaurant gets a rating scenario, what inevitably happens is that the best restaurants are judged top down and the others bottom up and you end up with a collection point full of anomalies. In the NYT this has typically been 2 stars. Grimes has actually been tougher and has been moving this collection point towards one star, which to my mind is his greatest contribution, because on the nuances he doesn't have a great palate.

[ballast_regime]

the problem with asking this question is that a lot of three-star restaurants are incomparable in so many ways to the four-star establishments. i.e., gramercy tavern is arguably operating at a four-star level night-in, night-out in terms of consistency, but it lacks the dress code, decor, service, ambience, and so on, that one normally finds at most of the four-starred french places, with only one notable exception (bouley, which is decidedly the most casual of the bunch). there are a handful of candidates that straddle the fence very well, like atelier and maybe the now-defunct cello. additionally, how does one compare the food at lespinasse--while admittedly good, it is very boring (to me)--to the likes of aquavit, wherever paul liebrandt cooks at, and a handful of others? i cannot make such a comparison, but i'm also a heretic that fails to see the genius of nobu or union pacific.

ian

ballast/regime

[vengroff]

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.

[Pan]

I feel somewhat offended by what you report, Vengroff. If a restaurant resents patrons who aren't formally dressed, shouldn't the reservationist mention that they suggest formal attire?

But I'm also glad you reported on this because if I decide to go to Bouley for a prix-fixe lunch, I'll be sure to wear a suit, whereas I might possibly have come in a less formal though still at least semi-dressed-up outfit otherwise. (Truth be told, I probably would have worn a suit, regardless, just as I did to every formal restaurant I ate at in France last summer.)

[GordonCooks]

My experience with the "old" Bouley was that I was dressed "So" casually - they must have thought I was "somebody". It was kind of funny to be fawned over and not have them realize I was some neophyte from Upstate.

Edited March 7, 2003 by GordonCooks (log)

[marcus]

There are very significant inequalities of treatement at Bouley, but I don't think that it has anything necessarily to do with dress. I think that it has more to do with how you relate to your captain. I have been on both sides, sometimes being rushed through a meal and other times being comped with numerous dishes superior to those on the menu.

[yvonne johnson]

the problem with asking this question is that a lot of three-star restaurants are incomparable in so many ways to the four-star establishments.  i.e., gramercy tavern is arguably operating at a four-star level night-in, night-out in terms of consistency, but it lacks the dress code, decor, service, ambience, and so on

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.)