Sparks

[steflink]

We were in New York in mid-March and made a reservation at Sparks well in advance. I must admit, I was disappointed. It was a mob scene and we had to wait 45 minutes for a table.

When we finally received our food (my husband ordered lamb and I had a steak) it was practically inedible due to the salt content--and I like salt more than the next person. ???

[rockefeller666]

Thanks for the info.  I was dying to try Sparks.  I will keep it in mind.  I've been to smith & wollensky's twice, and it was great both times. Ben Benson's has also been fantastic.  MarkJoseph is supposedly the new hit now too.

[tommy]

i didn't have to wait for my reserved table, but i felt that this restaurant was not operating at the level that i would have expected it to, or that it probably should.

the decor has seen better days. when you go to the Palm, around the corner, you appreciate worn out wood floors. when you go to Sparks, the carpet looks like something that you should have helped your father pull out of your parents' basement 10 years ago. i felt guilty and fully expected my father to call me to remind me that i didn't help him, ruining my night. he didn't, thankfully. but i'm sure he's never seen that carpet.

lots of very nice people were dining here. lots of locals, no doubt, with families. people on expense accounts with their town cars, taking out clients way too young to care (i was one 10 years ago, so i can say that). and lots of people getting dressed up. lots of people visiting from other cities and countries (some might call them "tourists", i call them "me", but in a different city), and that's all cool. but that, for some reason, added to the whole feel of the place, which seemed a bit chaotic, and not terribly interesting, to me.

the strip, IMO, doesn't compare to the Palm around the corner, and the rest of the place doesn't even compare to S&W, which i wouldn't even put in the top tier of NYC steakhouses.

the host was cold. the server was OK if not a bit too busy and preoccupied. i ordered a bottle of wine and it was presented to my guest. don't waste my time, please, and don't make my guest feel uncomfortable: i'm good at that all on my own.

who cares about this place anymore? am i missing something? certainly the 300 people in the new Ruth's Chris around the corner weren't thinking too much about Sparks. not to compare the two, because i'm not prepared to compare steak-to-steak, but the people at RC looked like they were having a much better time.

edit: reviewing the first post on this thread, i feel that i should say that i thought the steak and the hash browns were incredibly salty. and i smoke, so i have no taste buds, a fact proven by a few posters over the years, so that says something right there.

Edited May 22, 2004 by tommy (log)

[Todd36]

Has anyone tried the seafood at Sparks? Say the lump crab meet and bay scallops? Or any other seafood item?

[MichaelZ]

Has anyone tried the seafood at Sparks?  Say the lump crab meet and bay scallops?  Or any other seafood item?

←

Yes. Generally, we've ordered several of the broiled shellfish items as starters and have been pleased. The fish entrees - principally grilled salmon, swordfish etc are also of high quality, but can't imagine ordering them unless you aren't a red meateater. My non-carnivore friends or business associates generally choose another spot, but haven't been disappointed when Sparks has been the destination.

[mjs]

I've frequently ordered one of the huge lobsters for the table as an appetizer. They do most of the work (i.e. cracking the claws and removing meat from tail) and I've found it usually quite good. Also thought the lump crabmeat and shrimp cocktail was good.

I once dined there with someone who ordered sole and it looked very good but I didn't try any. As the above poster said, I wouldn't really recommend going there for the fish as a main course.

[oakapple]

I had dinner at Sparks last night, and like Tommy (above) I was underwhelmed. The décor and servers come straight out of Central Casting. I suppose that somebody needs to act out the part of the cliché steakhouse, but because it's a cliché there's not a whole lot to distinguish it.

My unscientific survey of the surrounding tables suggests that most Sparks patrons do as we did, and order the prime sirloin steak ($38.95). You get a thick hunk of meat, which the kitchen prepared it to a perfect medium rare. However, I found it a slightly tough, and as Tommy noted, also a bit too salty. The steak also didn't have much char on the outside. It was, in short, not the kind of world-class steak you expect from a high-end steakhouse.

I knew a huge steak was coming, so my colleague and I decided to split a shrimp cocktail rather than order separate appetizers. Without prompting, the kitchen divided the portion onto separate plates. That was a nice example of going the extra mile: not many restaurants would do that, particularly when it was unprompted. I have no complaints about this dish, except that $17.95 is awfully expensive for four shrimps (two apiece).

Sparks is known for its deep wine list. We shared a bottle of the 2001 Cakebread Cellars, which I mention only because it was terrific: an exceptional cabernet, at least to my untutored taste.

Not a bad evening, but with so many other steakhouses to choose from, I won't be rushing back.

[tommy]

i wolfganged down yet another steak at wolfgang's tonight. all things considered, and from my perspective, sparks is a non-player in manhattan. wolfgang's serves the best steaks, to my liking. there's no culinary reason, in my mind, to return to sparks, and very little reason to return to the Palm (for lunch, they've started serving what appears to be scraps), S&W (which continues to excel at mediocrity), and the various other manhattan steakhouses which have yet to make an impression on me vis-a-vis a nice minerally dry-aged piece of tender lovin'.

then again, maybe it's the butter.