Tom Sietsema's 2003 Dining Guide

[morela]

Malawry.

I'm only 1269 posts behind you...

[SWoodyWhite]

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

I find the star system doesn't affect reading of reviews in such a negative way. The people who already read the reviews will continue to do so; most of those who don't read reviews will only look at the stars. But there is always the chance that someone will see the stars and decide to read the review, out of curiosity. If the writing is interesting, they will read the next review as well, and begin to learn more about what they're eating. The only time star systems take over the reviewing process is when the writing is garbage to begin with, and that hasn't been the case with TS.

[Mark Sommelier]

The book is out. Quite a few surprises. 2 Amys and Inn at Little Washington both get 3 stars.

Edited November 29, 2003 by Mark Sommelier (log)

[DonRocks]

Tom should do a book signing; I'm sure lots of people would want his photo.

[Mark Sommelier]

Tom should do a book signing; I'm sure lots of people would want his photo.

Shocking that this is Sunday morning and no one but me has seen Tom's new book. Foodies awake!

[Malawry]

Hey, I've been out of town! I'll probably pick it up sometime this week.

[vengroff]

Where is it for sale? I searched amazon and came up with nothing but Robert Sietsema's New York ethnic food books.

[vengroff]

Tom should do a book signing; I'm sure lots of people would want his photo.

December 3rd is your lucky day, Rocks. Click-click.

[John W.]

Tom should do a book signing; I'm sure lots of people would want his photo. 

Shocking that this is Sunday morning and no one but me has seen Tom's new book. Foodies awake!

We flipped through it last night. My voice is still hoarse from yelling about various injustices.

And then there was the Dalmation Debate.

[Malawry]

We flipped through it last night. My voice is still hoarse from yelling about various injustices.

And then there was the Dalmation Debate.

Care to fill us in on some of these injustices?

Does the whole book use the star system, btw?

[John W.]

I think the omission of Butterfield 9 and Asia Nora were the first glaring items. That might be the chef change at Butterfield 9 speaking, and I recall Tom not being very high on the food, but do I think it deserves inclusion. Also, I think that Asia Nora not being in it was another big miss.

My biggest beef though? Two Amy's getting three stars. Sure the pizzas are good, but so's Alberto's. I had some pretty sketchy items the last time I was there. Without opening the pizza can o' worms again, I think that was generous.

But overall, I agreed with most of it. And at the end of the day, at the very least this Dining Guide is creating a bunch of controversy and garnering a lot of attention for DC.

Yes the book uses the star system. I can't recall if no-stars are in there. Probably not.

In addition to Kinkead's as a two-star, Galileo got two as well.

The Inn got three stars. That was the dalmation debate. Big debate. Lots of beer and lots of cursing.

There are a few places that I think escaped the "mail it in" two-star beat down. But hey, it's not my book.

Edited November 30, 2003 by John W. (log)

[John W.]

The most intriguing thing for me now, that the "stars" gauntlet has been thrown down, is how quickly Tom will re-review places worthy of promotion/demotion. And, in what format? In the form of another review? Annual dining guides? Another book? I look forward to these changes.

And this will certainly add to the conflagration at the weekly shouting matches that always ensue at BDC.

[DonRocks]

I strongly disagree with the star system, although I do understand the temptation for a critic to use it.

I have always said that points, stars (or whatever) are a shortcut used by lazy and/or busy writers for lazy and/or busy readers. They are an attempt to quantify the unquantifiable, and they render the text far less rich and meaningful, allowing both the writer and reader to take shortcuts when none should be taken. Unfortunately, it also tends to assign too much power to a single critic, giving him or her the power to "annoint" a restaurant rather than simply review it. Rest assured, the stars Tom is now assigning will be talked about in isolation, long after their corresponding text is forgotten, and restaurants will be trying to figure out what they need to do in order to angle for that extra star next year. That is not good.

In no way am I trying to single out Tom here, as he's merely the 517,641st critic in a long line to use some sort of rating scale. I like Tom's work very much, and consider him to be an outstanding restaurant critic, but I do wish he hadn't taken this small step over into the Dark Side, because there will be no turning back.

There's nothing worse than someone pointing out a problem without offering a solution, so here's an example of my best effort at reviewing something (Champagnes) without assigning a rating.

Cheers,

Rocks.

P.S. These notes are now several years old, so don't use them for anything other than an example of Reviews Without Ratings.

-------

I have recently been working my way through some RM (Récoltant-Manipulant) Blancs de Blancs, and here is my report, listed in ascending order of preference (not necessarily ultimate quality). None of these wines were tasted on the same day, so the preferences should be taken with that separated perspective in mind. However, several glasses of each wine were drunk over the course of at least an hour, so each was given a chance to aerate and develop in the open bottle. The factual information has been culled from Richard Juhlin and added for perspective.

Michel Turgy Blanc de Blancs "Cuvée de l'An 2000" Brut (Le Mesnil sur-Oger) - I had a wonderful naiveté coming into this bottle, as I had no idea whether this was Y2K fluff or something a bit more serious: it was the former, alas. A gaudy silver and blue label that you hate to like, but do anyway. This was a squeaky clean Champagne with nothing to offend the midnight toaster - especially if that person had been eating and drinking the entire evening. The defining characteristic of this wine was its sweet finish clearly intended for the sotted reveler. Without doubt, the liqueur d'expédition (final dosage) was added liberally. Turgy had to do something with his off-vintage grapes; now we know where they might have ended up. To the non-critical drinker, this wine is more neutral and perhaps less offensive than several of the wines immediately following, but I respected them more because they made some attempt to show some character. This tasted like it could have come from outside Champagne.

1989 François Billion Mesnil Grand Cru "Cépage Chardonnay" Brut (Le Mesnil sur-Oger) - Robert Billion has been associated with Salon in the past, and still sells them grapes. This is a fattish, overripe wine with a fattish, overripe nose. If you can hold your breath while drinking and overlook its tropical components, there are things in here to enjoy, terroir not being one of them. However, there is a nicely salty depth on the finish, and the flaws in this wine lie primarily in its bouquet - for now. Poured right out of the bottle, it's significantly better than if it's allowed to breathe for five minutes in the glass. I almost feel guilty for not giving this producer a fair shake: the NV Cuvée (reviewed below) was purchased from a dubious retailer, and this wine is from a dubious vintage, so even though I didn't particularly love either wine, I will not yet write off François Billion. Not expensive for a vintage wine; too expensive for what's in the bottle.

François Billion Grand Cru Cuvée de Réserve "Cépage Chardonnay" Brut (Le Mesnil sur-Oger) - Billion is a leading advocate of oak barrels within Le Mesnil sur-Oger, and that perhaps showed a trifle in this wine. The wine had aromas of smoked nut, and a pleasant if uneven mouth presence - the forepalate was the most impressive segment. The finish tapered off a bit earlier than I would have liked, and the overall impression was one of uneasiness rather than continuity. Despite these criticisms, it is not a bad wine, and I prefer it to the vintage 89 because it isn't trying to be something it shouldn't. It's also probably from younger, less (over)ripe vintages - hence it tastes fresher and with more snap.

De Sousa & Fils Grand Cru Blanc de Blancs "Cuvée des Caudalies" Brut (Avize) - This wine is overoaked. De Sousa takes their grapes from select parcels, vinifies them in oak, and makes this special cuvée. The label goes so far as to say Vielles Vignes - Plus de 50 ans, but I prefer their regular cuvée (see below) despite the clearly superior raw material that went into this wine. I feel "tres contrarian" for not liking this more: the wine is seamless, and the finish is very long and deep, but throughout the cycle, there is a nagging impression of oak that refuses to be thwarted. In 5-10 years, this will almost surely be the better of the two cuvées; I wonder how good it would become if it was done in stainless steel.

Lancelot-Royer Grand Cru Blanc de Blancs "Cuvée des Chevaliers" Brut (Cramant) - Lancelot-Royer is a small (2,500 cases) producer whose vines in Cramant, Avize and Le Mesnil sur-Oger average 25 years of age. This is their luxury NV cuvée - they also make a regular NV and a vintage champagne. Though it's hinted that this producer uses new oak in certain cuvées, it didn't seem to be a problem here. This is a large-framed, clean, fruit-driven wine that featured prominent acidity and an assertive finish of Charlotte aux poires. It is supposedly a blend of the 89 and 90 vintages. Not a lot of complexity here, but nothing to offend either. There seemed to be a touch of residual sugar left, and this really could have been a well-made (very well-made) sparkling wine from another region. Terroir-wise, it leaves something to be desired, but these fruit descriptors I'm throwing out are relative: this is a good bottle of wine, and one that I would enjoy again despite it not necessarily tasting like a Grand Cru Blanc de Blancs.

Pierre Moncuit Grand Cru Blanc de Blancs "Cuvée de Réserve" Brut (Le Mesnil sur-Oger) - This was one of the most challenging wines I've had in recent memory, and perhaps the fizziest Champagne I have ever tasted. There is a foam that simply will not go away on the palate, and it conjures up images of little Oscar Mazerath licking fizz powder in "The Tin Drum." I was reduced to pouring droplet-sized sips in the front of my mouth, and holding them there for several seconds before making my move. On top of that, the wine is seeringly acidic. I ended up carafing the second half of the bottle, and had it over the course of two nights. Part two painted a clearer picture: for the time being, the wine is angular and disjoint. A very knowledgable friend of mine described this wine as being "fruitless and mean." In fact, the fruit emerged only on the midpalate the first evening, but then became too sweet and unfocused the second night. Richard Juhlin questions the hygiene in this cellar, repeatedly stressing that he smells "lingonberries" in both the wines and the cuverie. I clearly smell pear in the middle of this wine, but the fruit - which is certainly there in one form or another - is so shrowded by noise that I am unable to make an intelligent guess as to this wine's future. Though I lean towards pessimism here, I know now what they mean by "judgment reserved."

Michel Turgy Réserve Sélection Blanc de Blancs Brut (Le Mesnil sur-Oger) - At $29.99 retail, this wine is a bargain. Michel Turgy passed away recently, and as a result, there is a temporary moratorium on vintage champagne here. The result? The older, reserve vines go into the NV blend, and that was obvious in this wine. There was a depth of penetration that the Billion simply lacked, and it was very characteristic of older vines. I believe this wine will improve in the bottle, and I suspect if I had it several years from now, it would be down closer towards the bottom of the page. A very fine effort. On a second occasion, the wine seemed very clean and forthright, and perhaps its most admirable quality is that it doesn't struggle to become a heavyweight when its frame is more suited to be medium-sized. There was the faintest hint of pineapple in the nose, but the endearing quality of this wine is its innocence. Based on the second tasting, my opinion dropped a bit.

-----> This is the dividing line between what I would, and would not, buy again. <------

De Sousa & Fils Grand Cru Réserve Blanc de Blancs Brut (Avize) - This firm was founded in 1986, and owns vines in Avize, Cramant and Oger that average thirty years of age. The nose of this wine captured me, and I thought it showed slightly greater depth than the Turgy - which I don't think is entirely Grand Cru. There could have been better complexity on the finish to accompany this full-bodied wine, but I get the feeling this producer may be underrated based on this one bottle.

Jacques Sélosse Grand Cru Blanc de Blancs Brut (Avize) - Jacques Sélosse is a fairly small grower (4000 cases) imported in the United States by Robert Kacher. Between Kacher's affinity for new oak, and Sélosse's reputation for using it, I approached this wine with skepticism. The strip on the neck proudly claims Vinifié En Tonneaux De Chene. What a pleasant surprise this was, however, as any new oak seemed to be completely integrated on the nose. This is a very hefty wine that emphasizes bold, fresh fruit without being overwrought or cloying. It has clearly seen some age in the cave as it displays beautiful aromas of roasted nuts to accompany its long finish. Anselme Sélosse has 35 Chardonnay locations, each vinified separately in barrels bought from Domaine Leflaive. This grower is apparently controversial because of his use of oak and his aim to produce dramatic wines, but this wine resonated, and did not seem worthy of any undue criticism. Despite its considerable size, it is balanced, and should age quite well.

Alain Robert Sélection Blanc de Blancs Brut (Le Mesnil sur-Oger) - Alain Robert holds back his wines a long time before releasing them, and the age of this wine is precisely what appealed to me the most. I believe this is his low-end release which consists of 60% Sézanne grapes (a Premier Cru Village), and if so, then it's all from the 1986 vintage. He is apparently a proponent of oak, but there wasn't any to be found in this cuvée. Just as it is at Ampeau, it is delightful to have this wine aged for me at the producer's expense. At $34.99, it seems priced steeply but isn't.

Guy Charlemagne Grand Cru Réserve Blanc de Blancs Brut (Le Mesnil sur-Oger) - A step up in quality all around (but expensive for an NV). This wine is made from grapes in Oger and Le Mesnil, but if Le Mesnil is typified by coffee and walnuts, then that is clearly the dominant village here. A powerful, dramatic nose which really did smell primarily like coffee with nuances of smoked nuts. The palate cycle was seamless, and the long, almost salty finish speaks confidently of older vines. This was a large-framed wine that also had nuance and elegance, and was Grand Cru quality all the way. Great non-vintage champagne.

Pierre Gimonnet & Fils 1er Cru "Cuvée Oenophile" Blanc de Blancs "Maxi-Brut" (Cuis) - Gimonnet has vineyards in Cramant, Chouilly (old vines) and Cuis, and this wine is mostly Grand Cru. It is a vintage 1990 despite the only evidence resting on the side of the cork (it is branded with the vintage). No dosage was done, but to say it is bone-dry can be taken only in the context of RM Champagne as it is vinous, complex and beautiful. The wine shows baked bread on the nose, and the magnitude of ripe Chardonnay only shares itself after 90 minutes of air. After sufficient aeration, the fruit flies (*). The ride is long, even and deep, and during the first hour, you can only find the pineapple of this vintage if you happen to burp. An interesting aside: Gimonnet also makes a "Cuvée Gastronome" which is deliberately less carbonated so it will go with food. Warning to American buyers: the current import of this is a pure 1993, and this "non-vintage" wine was imported in a previous year. In the low $30's, this is charity.

(*) Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.

Edited November 30, 2003 by DonRocks (log)

[Mark Sommelier]

What is one to think when 2 places have 3 stars and are as different as night and day? 2 Amys and Inn at Little Washington? How do they fit into the same classification? Great pizza and Great je ne sais quoi ? Would half stars help? Rocks, step up to the plate.

Edited December 1, 2003 by Mark Sommelier (log)

[morela]

Tom should do a book signing; I'm sure lots of people would want his photo.

Dude. He is doing one:

MEET THE AUTHOR NIGHT AND BOOK FAIR -- Wednesday, 5:30-8 p.m. About 50 authors, including Letitia Baldrige, Sidney Blumenthal, Rita Mae Brown, Tucker Carlson and Washington Post food critic Tom Sietsema, discuss and autograph their books. The University Club of Washington, DC, 1135 16th St. NW. Free. 202-824-1378

[John W.]

I wonder what disguise he'll be in. He'll probably send Michael Wilbon in his place.

[bilrus]

What is one to think when 2 places have 3 stars and are as different as night and day? 2 Amys and Inn at Little Washington? How do they fit into the same classification? Great pizza and Great je ne sais quoi  ? Would half stars help? Rocks, step up to the plate.

I think this gets back to what we were talking about at the top of the thread:

"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?"

In the case of Two Amy's and the Inn - I don't see that it is a problem with the stars themselves. I personally like both places. Both do a good job at what they do. Two Amy's is definitely one of the better casual places in town and the Inn is defintely one of the better upscale places in town.

The problem is that in isloation - if someone is just looking at the stars and not anything else, price, setting, food style - readers (or rather non 'readers') might look at the two as equals. But how many people put so much stock in just a rating?

If I am looking for a nice place to celebrate an Anniversary I wouldn't go to Two Amy's. Likewise, if I am looking for a nice casual lunch on a Saturday afternoon I wouldn't go to the Inn.

I haven't seen the book yet - did any other places get four stars in addition to the three (Laboratorio, Maestro and Citronelle) from the Annual Guide? If not that is a pretty high standard he is setting for Four Stars. I know it has its detractors, but I still think the Inn deserves a spot, even if it is as the fourth on the list.

Edited December 1, 2003 by bilrus (log)

[John W.]

I haven't seen the book yet - did any other places get four stars in addition to the three (Laboratorio, Maestro and Citronelle) from the Annual Guide? If not that is a pretty high standard he is setting for Four Stars. I know it has its detractors, but I still think the Inn deserves a spot, even if it is as the fourth on the list.

Bill,

Just the three four star places.

I am in favor of the star system. It might not have as much weight here on forward-thinking e-gullet, but for general consumption I think there has to be one. I get DonRocks' (and Don does in fact rock) point with the champagne reviews, but reviews can be taken the wrong way, the writing style can change ever so subtly from review to review, the choice of words and so on. All that can affect the reader's perception of a place. I think by having a quantatative system the mass market consumer can relate to, (let's face it, I gave up a long time ago trying to change society) is a good thing.

[cjsadler]

After having a look at the dining guide, I think the star system is a failure. With only four stars (and no half-stars given), there just aren't enough gradations. Looking at the index, I'd say at least 65% of the restaurants are given two stars. This kinda renders the star system meaningless, doesn't it? I'm not opposed to a ratings system, though, especially in Sietsema's case, as I often finish one of his reviews unsure of how he really he feels about the place.

[Al_Dente]

My copy is autographed

To Mike (aka Al Dente)

May all your meals have stars in them.

Bon Appetit

Tom Sietsema

[DonRocks]

I'm having trouble reconciling the following:

In Tom's Dining Guide book (from 2003), his review of Addie's says, and I quote, "Even striptease joints serve calamari these days...."

My question is, how does he know this?

Furthermore, the letters in "Tom Sietsema" can be rearranged to read "It's some meat!"

This is troubling,

Rocks.

[morela]

I'm having trouble reconciling the following:

In Tom's Dining Guide book (from 2003), his review of Addie's says, and I quote, "Even striptease joints serve calamari these days...."

My question is, how does he know this?

Furthermore, the letters in "Tom Sietsema" can be rearranged to read "It's some meat!"

This is troubling,

Rocks.

←

I think Tom might be short for Thomas. Rearrange again.

[DonRocks]

I'm having trouble reconciling the following:

In Tom's Dining Guide book (from 2003), his review of Addie's says, and I quote, "Even striptease joints serve calamari these days...."

My question is, how does he know this?

Furthermore, the letters in "Tom Sietsema" can be rearranged to read "It's some meat!"

This is troubling,

Rocks.

←

I think Tom might be short for Thomas. Rearrange again.

←

I shat some steam.

[John W.]

Slow day at work Rox?

[Al_Dente]

Dwell on cork.