Tom Sietsema's 2003 Dining Guide

[John W.]

Tom's "new" dining guide here.

[Malawry]

Woe betide Two Quail and Taverna Cretekou, who both earned no stars to their names.

What do ya'll think of the new star ratings?

[vengroff]

What do ya'll think of the new star ratings?

I think Two Quail deserved every star it got...

[vengroff]

Perhaps I missed something, but what are the criteria for being included in the guide in the first place?

[John W.]

Ask Tom. He's the only one that knows.

I think I kind of like the stars. I was looking at a few other places on the wash. post website not included in the guide, no stars as of yet.

Tom, if you're lurking, do you have plans to annoint stars to all previously reviewed places?

Edited October 16, 2003 by John W. (log)

[sara]

I'm sorry to rant, but how in the world does Kinkead's deserve even two out of four stars, especially when accompanied by a negative review that laments rude service, inconsistent entrees, and inept wine service?? When will the critics stop giving Kinkead a pass--and draw Washingtonians' attention to the simple fact that this place is a has-been?? My hard-earned money was completely wasted there two months ago, when my friend and I suffered through nearly inedible food and embarrasingly awful service, to the tune of over $100. Yes, the place used to be good--5-10 years ago!

Two stars puts Kinkead's in the same league as Bardeo--which got a positive review?? And Firefly? (Well, admittedly, I haven't been there YET... )

(By the way, I'm very aware that this is a major hazard of allocating stars, points, whatever to restaurants...but how can the disconnect between review and stars be so great?)

Edited October 16, 2003 by sara (log)

[Malawry]

The link John provided has a little paragraph at the top, which itself links to a lengthier explanation of the new star system, why Tom's using it, and how he arranged the guide. He basically says he included a few no-star restaurants in the guide this year to give readers a baseline as to what he regards as no-star quality in a restaurant (so to speak).

I have always imagined that star assignment is one of the most annoying things about reviewing restaurants for papers that require them. I'd hate to assign a value to a restaurant, just as I'd hate to assign a grade to a paper. I also don't see how stars will make dining choices easier or simpler for people, given the criteria which seem strikingly similar to NY Times and Michelin star assignments (whereby it is extremely difficult and expensive to earn the highest ranking). I look forward to Monday's follow-up washingtonpost.com chat, when I bet a lot of these issues will be teased out by reader questions and Tom's responses.

[bilrus]

Two stars puts Kinkead's in the same league as Bardeo--which got a positive review?? And Firefly? (Well, admittedly, I haven't been there YET... )

My guess is that the level that the restaurant is striving for also weighs in the grading.

If Kinkead's is trying to be a four star place and falls short, should they get downgraded all the way to a zero or one star?

Likewise - if a restaurant is trying to be a good solid restaurant, but has no airs about being four star, even it is the best possible restaurant in its category, should it be a four star?

[bilrus]

Ask Tom. He's the only one that knows.

I think I kind of like the stars. I was looking at a few other places on the wash. post website not included in the guide, no stars as of yet.

Tom, if you're lurking, do you have plans to annoint stars to all previously reviewed places?

And to add to the "boyish-looking fellow" John W's question -

Do you plan to use the star system for the upcoming book as well?

[Al_Dente]

My guess is that the level that the restaurant is striving for also weighs in the grading.

If Kinkead's is trying to be a four star place and falls short, should they get downgraded all the way to a zero or one star?

Good point. My local watering hole, Southside 815, made it to the guide with one star. It's just a great place for a tasty meal-- ain't no fine dining experience. It's striving to be exactly what it is. It seems to me, making it to the "guide" is it's own reward. There's no shame in being a one star restaurant when they're not pretending to be anything else.

[sara]

I appreciate this nuanced understanding of the star system, which essentially mediates restaurant success with restaurant aspirations--I suppose it's analagous to measuring college student achievement based not on whether they complete a bachelor's degree, but rather whether they complete what they set out to earn--an AA, BA, certificate, whatever.

But, this logic has problems as well--just as we know that social straification is increasingly predicated on bachelor's degree completion, well, restaurant stratification is influenced by these star ratings. The stars are one of the main 'credentials' of note. And you simply can't count on the average joe to read through the fine print, assess the other restaurants' ratings in comparison, etc--they just look at the number of stars and say (as I've heard members of my own family do dozens of times) "Oh, it's only a 1 star place--forget it," while others will be very impressed that Kinkead's got "2 whole stars!" (forgetting to measure it against its aspiration of 4 stars). This ignorance of the subleties is prevalent--you all know that, I'm sure.

Maybe all restaurants should aspire to the 4 star rating, and should be able to achieve it, measured against others in their same 'category.' If a place is the best little cafeteria around, why not give it 4 stars?

Thoughts?

Edited October 17, 2003 by sara (log)

[vengroff]

Perhaps the solution is to always post the price range directly adjacent to the star rating. Then certain places with four star aspirations will be clearly shown to be nothing more than overpriced two stars. They won't look good in the ratings unless they improve their food or lower their prices so that that offer value consistent with their competitors.

[bilrus]

I think Vengroff has it right. Would someone rather go to a two star place where they spend $40 or a two star place where they spend $150?

I know that I would much rather have a good reasonable meal at two star Firefly than at two star Kinkeads.

Edited October 17, 2003 by bilrus (log)

[Mark Sommelier]

Most interesting are the places that were not reviewed or given stars: Marcel's, Gerard's Place, Prime Rib, Tosca, to name just the most obvious ones.

[Malawry]

Actually that there was only one steakhouse listed, and that steakhouse was the Palm, seemed noteworthy to me.

But then this clearly wasn't supposed to be a "best of the best" guide, or even a comprehensive guide. We'll have to pony up for Tom's book if we want that.

[Steve Klc]

This is a great media coup on Tom's part--now instead of just talking about the reviews, whether Tom gets out into the burbs enough (which he does) whether he focuses too much on ambience and decor (which he does not) people can talk about the ranking system behind the review, a la Biff Grimes and the New York Times. THAT discussion is still going strong years later. Personally, I never appreciated the Post habit of a "Favorites" list as much as others--too vague, too much wiggle room, to easy to overlook some people doing the best work in town. I'd rather have an annual "Best" list--and read about who is currently doing the best work around town and why. Like how in Chicago every year Chicago Magazine ranks their best 20 restaurants in order--so last year Chicago diners could read that the magazine critics selected Tru as #1 restaurant overall, best wine program and best service--then this year while Tru garnered best service again, Grant Achatz got best chef, that Everest and Jean Joho got best restaurant, that Trio got best wine program, etc. And we locals and tourists alike could read all about why.

That would also help rectify the glaring problem, as witnessed with Grimes and the NY Times, that certain 4 star restaurants are still 4 stars on paper yet haven't actually been reviewed since 1998--meaning his predecessor's reviews for those restaurants are still on the Times website!

In addition to some sort of modified Favorites/Best and the new number of stars, whatever the stars actually turn out to mean, I'd also like Tom to select the chef, pastry chef, bread baker, sommelier, wine program and service program who he thinks has been the best in any given year--so we all can read about who he thinks has consistently created, surprised, surpassed expectation and moved our local dining scene forward the most--and why.

It goes without saying I like the Magazine cover choice--I believe it is Jose's third Post magazine cover in the past 10 years.

[pastramionrye]

i dont understand the point of putting out a dining guide that is very limited in its inclusion, and at the same time putting restaurants that get 0 1 and even 2 stars...

last years guide was so much better, having restaurants of all prices and all genres that tom recommends.

[bilrus]

I did like last year's better. But if this is a jumping off point for future reviews, etc. Then I can see how it works.

[Mark Sommelier]

i dont understand the point of putting out a dining guide that is very limited in its inclusion, and at the same time putting restaurants that get 0 1 and even 2 stars...

last years guide was so much better, having restaurants of all prices and all genres that tom recommends.

Tom has a book coming out soon that will include 175 restaurants with his reviews and stars, I hear.

[tjaehnigen]

Stars will give people more reasons NOT to read the actual reviews. 'Hey it's got # stars, it must be good/suck'.

[morela]

Reminder:

Tom's chat is today at 1, rather than Wednesday.

He prolly has lot of people asking the same question over and over and over again.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/liveo...line/?nav=hptop

[Malawry]

I suspect he will chat today AND Wednesday. The Post Magazine main feature writer almost always has a chat on the subsequent Monday, but it doesn't supplant regular chats. In the past I'm pretty sure Tom has chatted twice the week after publishing a dining guide.

[bilrus]

I suspect he will chat today AND Wednesday. The Post Magazine main feature writer almost always has a chat on the subsequent Monday, but it doesn't supplant regular chats. In the past I'm pretty sure Tom has chatted twice the week after publishing a dining guide.

That was the case last year.

To bring in an idea from another thread - how "geeky" am I that I remember that there were two Ask Tom Chats 365 days ago?

[morela]

Spoke preemptively...

You may well get two chats, but maybe Wednesday doesn't focus on yesterday's mag so much.

I don't really know cause I'm still cultivating the geekiness.

[Malawry]

Hang around with us a little while longer, Meaghan, and it'll be second nature.