Blue Hill (NYC)

[jaybee]

On Union Pacific, that is on my list of preferred restaurants. I like that restaurant quite a bit.

And my first (and only) meal there was a ho-hummer.

[jordyn]

Cabrales -- Is there a reason that Annisa is no longer one of your preferred restaurants, or did you simply get distracted by other restaurants?

[cabrales]

jordyn -- The latter. I will continue investigation of Annisa.

[Bux]

Far too many covers crammed into this basement area, so once again every time any one wanted to go to the bathroom the whole row of tables had to take part in The Piss Waltz.  The room was well fitted out but the lighting was way too low.

I happen to agree about the lighting and it's better again than it was at one time. It's a NY thing and I don't get it either. I like very bright restaurants, especially when the crowd is good looking. Then again, I shouldn't overlook the possibility that they lower the lights when they see me or Simon coming through the door. As for the basement thing, it's few steps down, but there are front windows on the street. Most NYer's would find it quaint and charming and rather not what "basement" might imply to us.

The initial impression of the service was also not favourable.  If misery truly loves company, our waiter must be the most popular man on campus.  He barely cracked a smile all evening.  Most disconcerting.  I felt he really didn't want to serve us.

He probably showed up for work thinking he would be serving diners not pissers that evening. I'll have to ask my wife if the staff smiles at her. I only flirt with the distaff staff when I dine out.

Scott's duck breast was not a great ingredient

The crux, or should I say "meat" of the matter. Please clarify this. Was the meat "off" as in spoiled--not a good ingredient--in which case it should have been returned, or are you saying that it's not a good ingredient. That would be an even greater criticism of Scott. While the restaurant offered several ingredients, Scott chose this one above all the others. There remains the possibility that you found fault with the way it was cooked, although we have no information on that.

I have to note is that this is one of our personal benchmark restaurants. I've never stopped to count how small a best group would have to be for me to include Blue Hill and I find it hard to rate straight sushi restaurants with western ones. Nevertheless, I'm not surprised to hear anyone include it in their "best" list.

Samantha, I have been speaking to them about doing an eGullet Q&A with us and have pretty much arranged for both Dan and Mike to field questions next week. We should be able to get the forum up and running for questions from members next week. I mentioned this thread when I spoke to Dan this morning and he said he thrived on criticism.

[jaybee]

I'd take all 100 at Ducasse because it's the most expensive of the top restaurants, and I'd pay for other meals myself.

So for you, the most expensive is the best? Or do you choose less than the best to eat free at the highest priced place?

[Steve Klc]

I do agree completely that there is a difference between "best" and "favorite" and appreciate all those members who attempt to make a conscientious distinction.

[cabrales]

Steve Klc -- Subjectively best can be the same for some diners, as in my case, as preferred/favorite, no? If a restaurant does not deliver on the cuisine, it would not be on my own preferred list.

[Fat Guy]

I'd take all 100 at Ducasse because it's the most expensive of the top restaurants, and I'd pay for other meals myself.

So for you, the most expensive is the best? Or do you choose less than the best to eat free at the highest priced place?

Jaybee: Not at all. I'm just thinking of how I'd get the most money out of the dummy who offered me 100 free meals.

[Bux]

As I read this thread, it appears that favorites lists may be far more reliable than bests lists. As much as Shaw and I have mostly disagreed on individual restaurants, I am still really surprised by his groupings below the very top. Come to think of it, we may differ about the top as well. There are too many restaurants in which I've never dined and too many at which I've dined to infrequently to want to rank them in either subjective or objective terms however.

Eleven Madison Park is a restaurant I love, but I've never felt the food is in quite in a class with Blue Hill. It's harder for me to make that same distinction between Cafe Boulud and Blue Hill. One thing that stays on my mind is that my regard for certain chefs is not always in line with how I rank their restaurant(s). I should say that it's not always in line with how I rank the food served at their restaurant as it's often not the service, but the food that doesn't live up to the chef's abilities. Not having enough money to eat around, means I am only a regular at certain restaurants and this may affect the fact that I see little inconsistency at these places--or maybe I go back because it's consistent, but after a while it becomes difficult to see one as the chicken and the other as the egg.

[Fat Guy]

Bux, I'm talking in terms of bests and not favorites. For example I don't particularly enjoy the style of food served at Eleven Madison Park, but that doesn't prevent me from acknowledging its place in the hierarchy of New York restaurants. Likewise, even were Blue Hill one of my favorites (which it isn't), I'm not sure I'd see any way to get it into a top twenty list no less a top eight.

[jaybee]

Jaybee: Not at all. I'm just thinking of how I'd get the most money out of the dummy who offered me 100 free meals.

We're talking restaurants, not banks. Will you eat the money or the food?

[cabrales]

Steven & Bux -- What are your eight favorite restaurants in NY, and the eight restaurants you deem presently best in NY? For me, the two lists are the same (taking into account the subjective nature of "best" restaurant assessments), and are as set forth above.

[Fat Guy]

From time to time I publish lists of my favorite restaurants, usually sorted by category. I've never done a list of eight, but it would be easy enough to use some specific examples to prove the point: Le Bernardin is without a doubt one of the top restaurants in New York, but I rarely eat there because the food just doesn't do it for me. I understand why the food is great, but I don't enjoy eating there. So I don't. I recommend it to people for whom I think it would be an appropriate restaurant, but I don't apply that advice to myself. Sripriphai in Woodside is one of my favorite New York City restaurants but I don't think think it deserves mention on any list of best restaurants. It's just a place and a style of food that floats my boat. Ducasse's style of cooking is not one I prefer, but I think his restaurant is the best in New York because it's a legitimate style and he does it better than anybody else does any other equally legitimate style. And I happen to like eating there because the service is so much better than anywhere else, so when I want to have a real escapist experience that's where I'd go before I went anywhere else. Another of my favorite restaurants is Sally's Apizza in New Haven, because the pizza there is the best I've ever had and pizza is one of my very most favorite foods. Again, I wouldn't put it particularly high in any ranking. I don't believe all restaurant assessments are subjective; I think some are subjective and some are objective (or, if not objective in the absolute sense as Wilfrid might demand, at least objective in terms of an overarching agreed upon set of criteria applicable to the relevant subculture). I try to separate the two categories. If I didn't like Italian food, that wouldn't prevent me from choosing Babbo as one of the best restaurants in New York. If I didn't like Japanses food, that wouldn't prevent me from making the assessment that probably half of the top ten restaurants in New York are Japanese, in terms of the quality of their ingredients, the skill of their chefs, and the excellence of the end result coming out of the kitchen. I like really good fresh unadulterated seafood, like at the Grand Central Oyster Bar when it's not in sucky mode, but I don't think for a second that Grand Central Oyster bar is a better restaurant than Le Bernardin even though I enjoy it more than I enjoy Le Bernardin pretty much every time I go.

[Wilfrid]

In fact, "...objective in terms of an overarching agreed upon set of criteria applicable to the relevant subculture" is the only sense I can attach to the word "objective" in this context. I must say, Steven, I do not always think you are right, but at least you are usually sensible. That is not always guaranteed around these parts.

There does seem to me to be a distinction between one's evalution of the respective merits of restaurants, and one's personal preferences. San Domenico must be one of my favorite restaurants in New York, just looking at how frequently I've been. I think it's one of the better restaurants too, although I am hesitant to recommend it; it has a style which would irritate many people, and it certainly helps to be a regular. Similarly, I can readily see why the cooking at Blue Hill is superior to the cooking at L'Absinthe. But I think I would more frequently have a meal which suited my own tastes at the latter.

Craft would be so many places higher on my list if they would plate the food and serve it hot. Or have we discussed that before somewhere?

[Fat Guy]

I must say, Steven, I do not always think you are right, but at least you are usually sensible.

I aspire to be the sensible wrong guy.

[jordyn]

I would have a hard time describing a restaurant with a cuisine that I did not enjoy as one of "the best". This probably reflects some deep selfish tendencies on my part.

[Fat Guy]

Well that's fine but if your job is going to be that you review restaurants for a living (or lack thereof) you've got to split your personality. And I'd split my personality anyway because my academic and legal training demand it. Surely, though, you could imagine hating foie gras but still being able to acknowledge that it is one of the great foods and moreover you could probably train yourself to discern better from worse foie gras. Plenty of people don't like urchin but only ignoramuses say it's bad. I don't like mackerel very much but I taste it and I know good from bad and I can tell you if a dish makes intelligent use of the ingredient. You can extrapolate that kind of thinking to restaurants and entire cuisines, etc.

[Bux]

I aspire to be the sensible wrong guy.

Number one in my book. I follow your lead. I just end up in a different place.

[jordyn]

To a certain extent, if we don't actually like a food, but we say that it's "good" or "the best", isn't there a chance that we risk some sort of mass delusion in which everyone thinks something is "supposed" to be good? Isn't this, to a certain extent, where the Zagat effect comes from?

If a reviewer doesn't like the way the food at a restaurant tastes, I'd rather read a statement like "Le Bernadin's food was not to my taste, but the fish was of excellent quality and the technique seemed to be exceptional as well" than "Le Bernadin is one of the best restaurants in the city."

For me, the most important characteristic of food is how it tastes. Other factors, such as texture, color, technical wizardry that does not exhibit itself obviously in the flavor, and even Cabrales' humor, can contribute to my enjoyment of a dish, but are not sufficient to make eating it worthwhile. I can objectively report on these other factors, but I can only subjectively report on taste, and this is something that I would hope any person discussing a restaurant would do. Those of us digesting the reviews can learn how closely various reveiwer's pallates match our own and make intelligent dining decisions as a result.

Finally, at the best restaurants, I often find myself enjoying food that in other contexts I have not enjoyed the flavor of. For example, foie gras is not something that I usually enjoy, but recently I have had foie gras at various places (Susur, Masa's, Les Loges de L'Aubergade, and Michel Bras stand out in my memory) where I thought it was very good. I usually dislike salmon as well, but salmon at Nobu and at the French Laundry was extremely good. Obviously, even at the best restaurants, individuals are going to encounter foods that they don't subjectively enjoy. At times this is neither the fault of the restaurant or the diner, but the experience is no less valid just because other people may happen to enjoy the same food.

[tommy]

I aspire to be the sensible wrong guy.

i wish you'd aspire to form thoughts into paragraphs.

[Bux]

Steven & Bux -- What are your eight favorite restaurants in NY, and the eight restaurants you deem presently best in NY?   For me, the two lists are the same (taking into account the subjective nature of "best" restaurant assessments), and are as set forth above.

I guess my eight favorite restaurants would almost by definition be the eight at which I most often dine. Would that be true? I might be reluctant to name them as some may not be very good at all. I can think of restaurants I've frequented soley for convenenience and which I'd be loathe to name as favorites. We don't eat our all that much in NYC and by the time I've reached the eighth last restaurant in which we've eaten, I will likely find that I've changed my mind. So many personal considerations go into choosing restaurants that I wouldn't even find my list necessarily advisable for other people.

As for best, I haven't been to some of the restaurants that might qualify and I've not been to others in two years, but I am sure they still quality for inclusion. It would be dishonest for me to include or exclude too many that belong on such a list. I must decline although I understand that those far less qualified than I, are repeat contributors to Zagat. Zagat surveys are not on my list of very useful publications.

Daniel, Cafe Boulud, Eleven Madison Park and Blue Hill are places I've really enjoyed and I suppose they belong on my favorites list. Would they all be in the top eight if I had more recent dining experiences or a bigger budget? I really can't say, but I suspect not. Then again I liked Ducasse very much, I just found it a bit too expensive to hold a place on my dance card. Daniel may push my budget as well, but as I've earned some of his money, it's easier for me to justify spending it there. Cop out, I know, but no one's perfect.

[Fat Guy]

Jordyn, I think the examples I already gave were more than sufficient to answer your objection.

Bux, no I don't agree that the restaurants you go to most often are by definition your favorites. Why would that be true? Many of us default to whatever is close, convenient, cheap, whatever, more often than we go out of the way to get what is our favorite. That's just life.

[Steve Plotnicki]

"Comparing Blue Hill with Japanese restaurants is like comparing pork loin with sea urchin. But then, sea urchin is pricier than pork loin, so it must be better. "

Jaybee - I see you've grasped the concept. Now if we can only get Fat Guy to do it.

Although they are comparable, it is difficult to compare a place like Blue Hill with a place like Gramercy Tavern. Blue Hill is more easily compared to restaurants that are on the same scale like 71 Clinton, Annisa, Fleur de Sel. Blue Hill scalewise is more like Cafe Boulud than it is Gramercy Tavern or Eleven Madison Park. The main problem with comparing food at these restaurants is that a place like Blue Hill is trying to make a short and concise statement with each dish. Places like Gramercy and Eleven Mad are more expansive.

This point is best decribed through a analysis of the types of dishes they serve in each place. And though I haven't sat down and analyzed it in detail, it seems to me that the food at Blue Hill revolves around a small number of ingredients in each dish and the essence of the restaurant is to squeeze flavor from the ingredients using the most modern of techniques. I think Gramercy and Eleven Mad offer a bit more complexity, meaning from the perspective of what goes into each dish, not from the aspect of success which I am saving for later. 71 Clinton when Wylie was there was very similar in approach. That dish of smoked salmon that Wylie served that was wrapprd around mashed avocado that was formed into a ball was a stroke of genius from every perspective. Flavor, texture, creativity, etc. But it was a small statement with two ingredients and a little spicing. Tom or Kerry would never serve such a small statement. It doesn't jibe with the philosphy of the way they cook nor does it express what their restaurants are about. They think restaurant, Dan and Mike think bistro.

As for how successful they are, I think Blue Hill is the top of the scale for what they set out to do. If I were to score everything on a curve, and discount the built in factor that the food you get at a restaurant is a step up from what you get at a bistro, I would give Blue Hill a 9/10 or even a 10/10 for certain dishes. I think they nail the whole moden bistro concept perfectly. But rating the place among all restaurants, places like GT have a built in additional level of quality and technique and one needs headroom to rank them. And then of course, if the GT's of the world are scoring 8/10-9/10, where are you going to put Jean-Georges who is in the 9/10-10/10 category?

But I think that Blue Hill in the 6/10-7.5/10 range is perfect for them. In Paris there are 15-20 places to eat at that are doing what they try to serve you at Blue Hill. I'm just sorry that there are only 3-4 of those places in NYC. Because who wants to go to Gramercy Tavern every night. Some nights you want a smaller meal.

[cabrales]

. . . it seems to me that the food at Blue Hill revolves around a **small number of ingredients in each dish** and the essence of the restaurant is to squeeze flavor from the ingredients using the most modern of techniques. I think Gramercy and Eleven Mad offer **a bit more complexity**, meaning from the perspective of what goes into each dish. . . .

Steve P -- I think there may be more ingredients in a BH dish than one readily detects. But it is appealing to me that there are a smaller number of ingredients that express themselves clearly in a dish there, very generally (with the preservation of subtlety and the nuances that are appropriate). As I have indicated in the context of other restaurants, too many discernible, "strong" ingredients in a dish is not subjectively preferrable for me.

[Mao]

Fat Guy-

As a food critic, how do you actually go about discerning the different qualities/capability of preparation and execution for those food items which you genuinely dislike? I am asking the question, because while I will eat almost anything, certain things in a dish would preclude me from objectively assessing it or making comparisons. The presence of blue cheese or Chinese sea cucumber, the only two food items I can actually say will render a dish inedible to me, would make it impossible for me to form an opinion.