If the Times is Wrong

[Steve Plotnicki]

Okay I agree. But what about them makes them fall short? Or looking at it the other way, what makes the four star places special?

Edited March 1, 2003 by Steve Plotnicki (log)

[Elissa]

Do you think of March as 3or4?

[Steve Plotnicki]

3 1/2.

[yvonne johnson]

Okay I agree. But what about them makes them fall short? Or looking at it the other way, what makes the four star places special?

The four star places are special because they're French!

Alain Ducasse

Bouley (going this month)

Daniel (x1)

Jean Georges (x2)

Le Bernardin (x2)

Lespinasse (x1 for breakfast and it sucked)

I've got pretty limited experience at the 4 star-end and what follows seems a no-brainer, but of the 75% of places I've been to on Steve's 3-starred list below, I think the only one that comes close to 4 stars is Union Pacific. It's ambitious, but at times too much so.

As for the others, they're not in the league of 4 stars on grounds of a) general inconsistency (e.g., GB&G, Patria--not to say I've not had some great meals there); b) inconsistency across courses (e.g., Babbo--despite being one of my favorite restaurants, the main courses are not of the same calibre as the appetizers or pastas or desserts; c) blandness (e.g., Gramercy Tav's main dining room, Veritas) and d) harder to pin down, but failing to present a conceptual whole (Tabla, and possibly Craft though I do like it).

Overall, I don't think there's real gap between the 3 and 4 starred places in terms of service. I’ve found the service at Babbo very, very good, but I think Babbo tires to mimic, in some respects, the service at 4 starred establishments (e.g., by clearing up every so often every single crumb from the table cloth, and I just find that to be going over-board).

[Steve Plotnicki]

Let me take a different crack at why they are 4 stars. I think the restaurants on the 4 star list attempt a more difficult cuisine then the ones on the three star list. When I say that I mean they use a higher standard as to what is acceptable. Everything has to be perfect. But for example, Douglas Rodriguez's famous Swordfish Chop on Sugar Cane served atop, gee I can't remember now, a mofrito? Whatever, it was a great dish, but not a four star dish because it wasn't refined enougn. And I'm not saying that the dish couldn't have been four stars. But I am saying that the kitchen was more accepting of a lower standard when sending dishes out to tables. But if they wanted to, they could have cut the swordfish more perfectly (which means discarding less then perfect examples, which means the price goes up,) and they could have made the puree more refined. Whatever, to me that is the basic difference between the levels. And I agree that Union Pacific comes very close at times.

[Elissa]

Thom might qualify as an American 4, or a close runner. Perhaps we need an 'Almost Four' category?

[tommy]

and should 4 star restaurants be labeled as when even though they shoot for perfection they fall short? they do, obviously.

[foodboy]

For overall enjoyment, I would put Gramercy Tavern ahead of Le Bernardin, Bouley and Jean Georges, all 4-stars. This is based on the food first, but also on service and atmosphere. Maybe the food there is not as ambitious as some other restaurants, but I still think Tom Colicchio is a genius.

Just Saturday night, in the less formal Tavern room, I had an appetizer of octopus with shaved fennel, sweet peppers and lemon. It was as good as anything I've ever eaten.

[Bux]

For overall enjoyment I might choose some really inexpensive place. The joy of leaving with a heavy wallet makes for great enjoyment. As one approaches the extremes on most scales, there is a point of diminishing return. I don't expect twice as much measurable improvement when I pay twice as much. We all pick our own points at which we are unwiling to pay for the small differences in food and service.

The tavern at GT has always represented one of the best bargains in food value and I don't discount the reward of pleasant and informed service either. Unfortunately they don't take reservations. Nevertheless, the food is not up to the food in the main restaurant exactly in the terms set by Steve Plotnicki above. The food is more simply prepared from less costly ingredients, although it may be as tasty.

Yvonne, did you actually have breakfast or brunch at Lespinasse in their dining room. I ask not because I question your veracity, but because years ago we made a brunch reservation there. We called the Lespinasse number and were told they were open for lunch or brunch on a weekend and when we got there, the restaurant was closed and we were seated in the Astor Court in front of Lespinasse. It was not what we wanted or expected, but it was too late to go eslewhere. I don't remember the food, but the meal was severely hampered by unprofessional hotel restaurant service.

[yvonne johnson]

Yvonne, did you actually have breakfast or brunch at Lespinasse in their dining room. I ask not because I question your veracity, but because years ago we made a brunch reservation there. We called the Lespinasse number and were told they were open for lunch or brunch on a weekend and when we got there, the restaurant was closed and we were seated in the Astor Court in front of Lespinasse. It was not what we wanted or expected, but it was too late to go eslewhere. I don't remember the food, but the meal was severely hampered by unprofessional hotel restaurant service.

I considered it breakfast. This was an informal job interview at around 10AM a few years back in the large dining room with (I guess) faux Louis XV furniture (I didn't like the room). The service was very poor: no butter for toast despite asking twice.

[Wilfrid]

I just had a chance to ponder the list of four star "contenders", to which I'd certainly add Le Cirque and March (I haven't been to Bayard's or Lutece since the chef changes - I wonder?).

Two aspects where they fall down, in my view: limited ambition in the cuisine and/ or setting. By the first, I mean they are trying to serve you a good meal, but not the "best meal you could possibly eat in NYC"; by the second - and I am agreeing with Bux and others here - they fall short on the comfort, luxury and ease of a four star.

Lacking culinary ambition: Craft, Gramercy Tavern, La Cote Basque, Veritas, Le Cirque

Lacking the right setting: Babbo, Kuruma Sushi, Union Pacific, March

Lacking both: Aquavit, Eleven Madison Park, Gotham Bar & Grill, Montrachet, Patria, Picholine, Tabla

I am not sure Babbo and Union Pacific - although ambitious - achieve consistency, although in the case of Babbo I am relying largely on reports. I haven't been to Nobu, or to Chanterelle in recent memory.

None of this is to say the above are bad restaurants. They just haven't entered (with the possible exceptions of Le Cirque and Nobu) this particular race.

Edited March 4, 2003 by Wilfrid (log)

[Steve Plotnicki]

I am not sure Babbo and Union Pacific - although ambitious - achieve consistency, although in the case of Babbo I am relying largely on reports. I haven't been to Nobu, or to Chanterelle in recent memory.

Let me say this in a much more controversial way. I don't think an Italian restaurant can be four stars no matter what they do. At least in my experience with them. And I say that not having been to the best examples of Italian haute cuisine like Gambero Rosso or Vissani. The closest I've seen in NYC is San Domenico in the old days. That Raviolo rocked. It still does. But cuisine has moved quite far since then and the cuisine at San Dominico has stood still.

But in general your assessment of why the restaurants on that list fall short is correct. But you can really reduce it down to one issue. They don't aspire to four stars. Because all of them, aside from Le Cirque, would have to make changes in everything from the scope of the cuisine (90% of it) to their suroundings.

[Ron Johnson]

A few questions for Ron.  First of all, do you mean "fine dining" establishments, or does your desired version of "the best" recognize that something can be the absolute best of its type but not measurable on the same scale as a fine dining experience?  In this vision, is there such a thing as a four star hamburger, which exists on a different plane, or is everything absolute?

BTW: I'd like Ron's take on this FIRST to gauge his intentions with this question.  I already know that the Plotnickis and tommys of the world will be on opposite sides of this.

Similarly, Ron, do you envision all aspects of a restaurant to be included within a single rating, or is the gauge you desire only for the absolute quality of the food?

EDIT - Ron, because this whole discussion seems to be veering from your intention about discussing actual restaurants that are the best in New York, I've created another thread about the actual mechanics of restaurant rating.  I, of course, give you full credit. 

I will leave it to each individual as to whether they feel that non "fine-dining" restaurants should be included. But, for me I would say that the restaurant which makes the perfect hamburger as their only dish would not rank as high as the restaurant that makes the perfect (insert your favorite fancy fine-dining dish here).

Its why a person who makes a perfect dive in a competition will always lose to the person who makes a perfect one and a half dive. Degree of difficulty.

Second, because I want to know how people here differ from the Times on giving 3 or 4 star to restaurants, it should include service, ambience, etc. because those things are taken into account in a Times review and corresponding star score, presumably.

I guess my question really was: if the Times has the wrong places getting 3 and 4 stars, which are the right ones?

[Wilfrid]

What's emerging so far is that there's little disagreement about which restaurants are in the race. I need to go to March again, but from memory, even after the remodelling, it was a fairly tight-packed space. But we really seem to have only one or two contenders in mind (and I've also wondered allowed whether Lespinasse isn't due for a downgrading). I'm not sure the NYT does have it wrong at this level - the two star category is a disaster.

Steve, are there not Italian restaurants with three Michelin stars?

[Steve Plotnicki]

Wilf - I think there are three of them. Don Alfonso near Sorrento used to have one but they were downgraded. And there is a new one this year near Venice. The only one I've been to, Al Sorriso in the Piemonte, in no way, shape or form deserves three stars in my opinion. And I hear that dal Pescatorre is unremarkable.

[Ron Johnson]

What's emerging so far is that there's little disagreement about which restaurants are in the race.

Right, thats what I was hoping for. I figure that the consensus list created here will be a far more accurate reflection of which restaurants in NYC are worthy of 3 or 4 stars than anything the Times has done in recent memory.

[tommy]

Let me say this in a much more controversial way.

LOL!

[Peter Rodgers]

Putting stars aside, apologies in advance, here is the way I think about eating in Manhattan:

* The places I fantasize about: Daniel, Babbo (and every once in a great while, Il Mulino)

* The places that are great for a big deal night out, but do not make me feel like I need to wear a blue suit: Gotham Bar and Grill, Nobu

* Where I feel utterly comfortable while eating/drinking very well: Ouest, Veritas, Montrachet, Chanterelle

* If I am looking for a few pretenses as possible: Piccolo Angolo, El Farro, Barney Greengrass

* If I just won the lottery: Kuruma Zushi

And I avoid as overated: Jean-Georges, Le Bernadin

[foodboy]

For overall enjoyment I might choose some really inexpensive place. The joy of leaving with a heavy wallet makes for great enjoyment.

Bux, I'm only referring to absolute enjoyment, rather than enjoyment per dollar. Again, this begs the question of criteria in rating restaurants. Has value traditionally been considered in the star rating system?

As for considering the refinement of the cuisine or the ambition of the cooking in a rating system, I think this is valid. If one person's idea of enjoyable food is something that is simple to prepare or requires simple ingredients, that's fine, but it wouldn't take an extraordinary restaurant to please such a person. I think the 4-star designation should require the ability to achieve something that most restaurants cannot.

[Wilfrid]

What's emerging so far is that there's little disagreement about which restaurants are in the race.

Right, thats what I was hoping for. I figure that the consensus list created here will be a far more accurate reflection of which restaurants in NYC are worthy of 3 or 4 stars than anything the Times has done in recent memory.

Problem is, there's not much disagreement between us and the Times. Picking the three and four star places is the easiest thing to do.

[Bux]

Lacking both: Aquavit, Eleven Madison Park, Gotham Bar & Grill, Montrachet, Patria, Picholine, Tabla

I don't think any of those ever really aspired to be a four star restaurant. Eleven Madison Park is a favorite of my mine and we dined there several times last year, eagerly introducing it to friends, so I mean no ill will when I say it aims at being a very good to excellent brasserie. I also think it is one of the finest restaurant spaces. It's georgeous in fact, and a space that contributes to the pleasure of dining. Its name shouldn't even come up when discussing four star restaurants even though it's hardly the furthest from one of all on that list.

[Wilfrid]

I agree, it's an excellent space of its kind.

[Ron Johnson]

Problem is, there's not much disagreement between us and the Times.  Picking the three and four star places is the easiest thing to do.

I'm not so sure based on what I have seen about places such Lespinasse, Le Bernadin, Jean Goerges, Atelier, and Babbo. Some eGulleters seem to feel that these places are very overrated. Not to mention the Craft debate of last year.

I do agree that more disagreement exists re: 1 and 2 star places.

[Wilfrid]

I wonder. I've had uneven meals at Craft, but assuming the validity of the NYT system, I wouldn't argue to downgrade it to two stars. I'd only argue to downgrade Lespinasse if the meal I had there was representative. The NYT ratings are so constrained that I think you could have quite a poor experience in a restaurant without disagreeing with its star rating (or vice versa). It's not like saying Babbo should get 23 for food in Zagat and not 25 (or whatever). With the NYT, above the 1/2 star distinction, you're really saying a restaurant is radically different from what it holds itself out to be if you want to take a star away.

That's supposed to be a prompt for discussion, not an assertion that I'm right - just my first thoughts.

[Ron Johnson]

I agree and that is one thing that I like about the Times star rating system. One star means "good". In my paper one star means terrible, even two is construed as bad. As a result way too many restaurants are clumped together in the three star category. Therefore, the categories of stars are meaningless.

Edited March 5, 2003 by Ron Johnson (log)