A Grimes Retrospective

[SobaAddict70]

After picking up four stars, he opened a snazzy bistro, DB Bistro Moderne, and set off the kind of dining war that could happen only in New York. His $27 hamburger of foie gras and short ribs set off a race toward the $100 barrier, which picked up steam when the Old Homestead created a $41 kobe beef burger, which inspired Alan Miguel Kaplan at Salón México to put together a $45 filet mignon and truffle burrito. Mr. Boulud has come up with the reply valiant, a $50 upgrade of the now-classic DB Burger.

Of Criticism And Introspection (William Grimes) (from our year-end DIGEST update. You may have to scroll down for the appropriate link.)

Tomorrow's issue of the Times will contain William Grimes' last review as main restaurant critic for the Times. I'm sure y'all are waiting with bated breath.

I think a more interesting piece (not that this article isn't interesting), is the online audio presentation given by Grimes himself, as in this instance:

"...usually you feel like the hunted because everyone involved in the restaurant industry is absolutely determined to find out where you're going to be, what you look like, and every effort is expended to expose you.  I dismissed a lot of this as pure urban myth, until it turned out all to be absolute reality...."

What are your thoughts regarding Grimes' overall performance as a reviewer? Are you sad to see him step down from the podium? How does he compare to his predecessors? Do you have any bets as to who shall take his place? And finally, what are your thoughts regarding his assessment, both in terms of the evolution of the New York's restaurants during the past five years, and the dining public in general?

Soba

[rgruby]

As a non-NY'er I actually found Grimes to be pretty fair - at least to the extent one can judge that from afar. (And, his writing was and is far superior to many others around the US and Canada. Take that for what it is.)

Some of his non-spoken biases bugged me a bit - he was very obvious to me pro-Franco (maybe Italo as well) leaning, but these are the mother cuisines after all, and I didn't feel he necessarily slighted other cuisines when he visited. It just seemed he visited Italo-French places in a slightly (err, yeah, slightly) disproportionate frequency. But, given that, I feel he treated them fairly - the good ones got good reviews, the bad ones didn't. Fair enough. I felt that fancy surroundings got a bigger sense of importance than I would give them, but he was eating places where that counts for something more than I ever have. (And, perhaps, he and/or the editors felt that Asimov was covering the ethnic/ lower rent side of things. Which he was. Very well in my estimation. So there's a division of labout thing happening.)

Some have noticd an uptown vs. downtown bias. I'm not sure which way it supposedly worked. I just remember reading that criticism. Reading from afar, I didn't get that - but, well I'll let others pick up on that if they wish. Hey, you live there after all!

Some have also argued that they felt that Grimes was impassionate about his work. I dunno. I never felt he was Hemingway or anything, but I think he deserves more credit than some on this forum do. Did he ever get anything crazily wrong - like give something 3 stars that irredeemably sucked. Or are people quibbling because he gave something 2 stars that should have been 3 (or 1). I think NY was lucky to have him (check out the food writing in most of the ROW if you doubt me), and I wish him the best of luck in his future endeavours.

Cheers, and let the flaming begin,

Geoff Ruby

PS Happy New Year!

[tim olivett]

Well for one there hasn't been a 4 star review since Ducasse and Bouley several years ago. I know that by it's very nature it should be a rarity but he hasn't in five years updated Ruth Reichl's 4 star reviews of Jean Georges and Le Bernadin. My biggest problem with his reviews and it may not be his fault is the length of the review. Six years ago when you read Ruth's reviews, you really felt like you'd been there or at least half the menu would be discussed. Now it's 4 apps and maybe 4 or 5 entrees and a couple of desserts.

I never found him particularly eloquent but at the same time I never felt the venomous rage he seems to engender in many others (let's just say if I were him, I'd never want to see Charlie Palmer in a parking garage).

Edited December 31, 2003 by tim olivett (log)

[alacarte]

Poetic justice would be that all restaurant critics would have to end their tenures by running a restaurant.

[Pan]

Some of his non-spoken biases bugged me a bit - he was very obvious to me pro-Franco

That remark caused me to do a doubletake, as I imagined a bias for the late Spanish dictator!!

But you got your point across, and thank you for your remarks.

[Pan]

Oddly enough, though I'm a New Yorker, I feel like I don't know enough to have any strong opinions about Grimes. I just haven't been to enough of the restaurants he's reviewed. I do think he's a good writer, though, and I do have the feeling - justified or not, I don't know - that I have a decent sense of what each place he's been to is like, or at least was like for him.

Tim, I think 4 stars should be given out very sparingly indeed, as I've been disappointed in all three trips I've made to 4-stars so far (over a lengthy period though). However, your point about his not having reviewed Jean Georges and Le Bernadin seems unassailable to me.

I definitely don't think he's responsible for limitations on length. The Times needs space for all the paid advertising it runs.

[Fat Guy]

I strongly recommend listening to the audio presentation. It's substantially more interesting than the article it accompanies. Not only do you get to see a photo of Grimes, but also you get to hear some very candid observations from someone who has written 438 restaurant reviews over the past 5 years. Well, not really -- that figure would seem to include both real reviews and "Diner's Journal" previews. But it's still a lot.

[Lesley C]

Reading Grimes, I always was under the impression he was a portly man of 50 who wore a bowtie, ordered martinis and hung out with a chicken in his backyard. On the audio, he sounds like a hip 35-year-old. Does anyone know how old he is?

[bpearis]

Reading Grimes, I always was under the impression he was a portly man of 50 who wore a bowtie, ordered martinis and hung out with a chicken in his backyard. On the audio, he sounds like a hip 35-year-old. Does anyone know how old he is?

from his picture, he looks like he's in his mid to late 40s.

[Bux]

As a non-NY'er I actually found Grimes to be pretty fair - at least to the extent one can judge that from afar.

Are you saying you're a non-NYer who's eaten in a good number of NY restaurants or are you saying his reviews sound fair to someone who hasn't eaten the food or suffered the service? It's one thing for the star rating to match the food description, it's another for the description to match the food.

If you read about flaws in the food and than read a later review that describes improvement and results in a higher score, you're going to think the reviewer a fair judge, but if you're familiar with the restaurant and can discern no change, you might wonder about his agenda enough not to pay him much heed.

[rgruby]

As a non-NY'er I actually found Grimes to be pretty fair - at least to the extent one can judge that from afar.

Are you saying you're a non-NYer who's eaten in a good number of NY restaurants or are you saying his reviews sound fair to someone who hasn't eaten the food or suffered the service? It's one thing for the star rating to match the food description, it's another for the description to match the food.

I'm a non-Ny'er who has eaten in few of the places he reviewed.

I guess by "fair" I don't mean I agree or disagree with his evaluations - I can't mean that not having eaten in most of the establishments reviewed. By fair, I mean that I don't get the sense that he had an axe to grind, and I got the sense that he tried to give an honest and informative review of the food, decor, service. I felt he writes reasonably well - certainly better than most resto reviewers on this side of the pond - but he is not necessarily the most "entertaining" writer in this field. That can be a good thing. (I'm thinking AA Gill and a few others here) I just think he seems to get crapped on more than he maybe should - but again, I rarely get to eat where he and other Nyers eat, and maybe that just comes with the territory to a certain degree. I also wonder how much input the NYT editors have in deciding/influencing what gets reviewed - if any?

I am aware that some feel he may have had a bit of, maybe not an axe to grind, but perhaps a feeling of wanting to make his mark in his early reviews - the 3 star to Boulud in particular comes to mind. I've only been reading him regularly the last year or two though - so that may be a factor in my opinion.

And, he's my uncle.

No, he's not - but if he wanted to take me out to dinner next time I'm in NY, I'd let him critique the meal. Hey, he could even pick the place.

Cheers,

Geoff Ruby

PS - What do the NYers think of the resto selections over Grimes tenure. I understand a few of the 4 stars from Reichel's reign weren't revisited (or at least reviewed). Other than that - do you think he did a decent job of reviewing different cuisines and neighbourhoods. (I'm a Canuck - the u belongs there!) What should the next guy or gal (have they announced it officially yet?) do differently?

[Fat Guy]

What do the NYers think of the resto selections over Grimes tenure.

Of the 52 weekly reviews per year, I'd say around 40 of them are basically non-volitional on the part of the critic: new restaurants of a certain level of significance simply have to be reviewed. This is why you see such a close correlation between the restaurants reviewed by every major critic in the New York market. Once in awhile, during a slow time for new openings, the critic gets the chance to 1) revisit a previously reviewed restaurant for reevaluation, or 2) pick an off-beat place to bring into the star universe. In this regard, I do think -- like just about everybody I know -- that Grimes failed in his duty to keep tabs on the four-star restaurants.

[herbacidal]

Once in awhile, during a slow time for new openings, the critic gets the chance to 1) revisit a previously reviewed restaurant for reevaluation, or 2) pick an off-beat place to bring into the star universe. In this regard, I do think -- like just about everybody I know -- that Grimes failed in his duty to keep tabs on the four-star restaurants.

This part i am not so sure i am in agreement with FG.

You give the impression that you think Grimes had a duty to review these 4-star restaurants, despite not stating that fact.

I don't believe so.

I think it is Grimes' duty to review as diverse a range of restaurants as possible, and appeal to all parts of the NYT readership.

Accepting that Eric Asimov would be basically setting the floor for Grimes by taking those under $25, I would say that Grimes did an acceptable job.

Admittedly, this is also coming from someone not as experienced in the New York dining scene as you and many others, someone who I would speculate has tried none of the Grimes-reviewed restaurants.

[Fat Guy]

Herb, I agree that from week-to-week a restaurant reviewer should do what you say: "review as diverse a range of restaurants as possible, and appeal to all parts of the NYT readership." However, like a filmmaker or composer or painter (or film or music or art critic), a New York Times restaurant critic should also develop an "oeuvre" during his or her tenure. An essential part of the critic's oeuvre is the overall rank-ordering of the top restaurants in the city, especially those with four and three stars. There are only four restaurants with four stars right now. Two of them -- Le Bernardin and Jean Georges -- have in five years never been reviewed by William Grimes. Likewise, before it went out of business, Lespinasse had not been reviewed by him. It would not have been a major imposition, in five years of reviewing, to squeeze these three reviews into the system. There are also several three-star restaurants that push firmly up against the four-star envelope. I believe a critic has a duty to give some attention to the best of these places: Gramercy Tavern, Union Pacific, Veritas . . . it is important, to the reader, to understand what makes a great restaurant great in the eyes of the critic. It helps to inform our reading of every other review.

[SobaAddict70]

I thought it was fairly surprising when he says:

From Jean Georges, we've got Gabriel Kreuther in Atelier, which is probably the best French restaurant in the last couple of years...

which is all the more surprising given that Atelier merited only three stars in his review. (my emphasis)

The "best" French restaurant in New York only gets three stars?

That alone should be telling.

Soba

[Fat Guy]

All the current four-star restaurants are French. I think he means that it's the best of the new French restaurants of the past two years. The reality is that, with the economy the way it has been, there haven't been many big-budget French restaurant openings (Atelier being a notable exception) between 9/11 and now, whereas you'll probably see half a dozen of them open in the first half of 2004. It will be interesting to see how the new Times critic handles the emerging probability that the number of four-star restaurants in town could be about to double.

[SobaAddict70]

Any speculations as to whom that might be?

Eric Asimov? Florence Fabricant? Sam Sifton? R.W. Apple, Jr.?

El Gordo? (just kidding)

Soba

[bpearis]

Any speculations as to whom that might be?

Eric Asimov? Florence Fabricant? Sam Sifton? R.W. Apple, Jr.?

El Gordo? (just kidding)

Soba

Marion Burros seems to have the job, at least until they announce the real new critic.

[Pan]

I feel like Asimov does a good job on $25-and-under, though I have to admit I haven't been to lots and lots of the places he's reviewed, such that I could say I've really checked on how accurate his reviews seemed to me. But he's an excellent writer, in any case, and someone who I think clearly loves food.

He didn't want the job?

[Fat Guy]

The standard inter-regnum practice at the Times is to have Marian Burros and Frank Prial alternate weeks until the new reviewer takes over. It doesn't seem there has been a replacement appointed, and once that happens it will still be several weeks (or more) before that person starts churning out reviews (there is a certain amount of dining around and getting up to speed that has to occur first).

As for who it will be, well, I'm sure if Eric Asimov wanted the job he could have it. I think he has a real passion for $25 and Under, though, so I'm not sure he's going to want the fine-dining critic's job.

[tim olivett]

I think that when you attain 4 star status, it becomes an obligation to maintain it. That's one of the things I admire about the grand old chef-patrons of France. Notice the term patron, the old guard (once the revolutionary upstarts of nouvelle cuisine) like Trois Grois, Chapel, Oulthier etc were true representatives of their region and cornerstones of their communities. They received 3 stars almost waringly, knowing that they had a duty to their region, their country and their profession to ensure that it was deserved and they expected to be dropped a star if they didn't maintain it everytime the Michelin guide was reprinted. (In case you don't know, 3 stars is the ultimate designation in the guide, currently there are less than 50 in Europe, more than half in France, 2 in Spain, 2 in Germany, 2 or 3 in Italy and a couple in the UK).

To get that status and not have to defend it in 5 years is a bit like being the Heavyweight Champion of the World or the winner of the World Series and not having to prove it consistently. Like my hometown star, Jean Marie Lacroix (formerly longtime 4 Seasons now Rittenhouse Hotel chef), said "It's easy to be good one night, but to be good over time is a life's work.".

On another note, what Grimes said about the obsession with revealing his identity, it was absolutely true. The guy literally had a price on his head. I've known places that had composite sketches of him at the podium and rewards for anyone who spotted him (we're talking a thousand bucks or more). I've seen blurry black & white photocopies of pictures of him and they did have him, maybe ten years younger, but now I know for sure it was him. I'd still not go to Aureole if I were him, Chef Palmer was like a linebacker or something (Grimes famously upset a lot of people when he dropped Aureole to two stars, back in the beginning of his tenure).

Also, I'm wondering when they'll return to Bouley since the review was a 4-star when it was Bouley Bakery (how many 4 stars in the history of NYC could you go and get a ham & swiss sandwich during lunch?) and now after Bouley's much anticipated return to the stoves, I've been surprised at the leeway they've given him to get back on track before getting reviewed (Hal Rubenstein of NY magazine gave him a review were he seemed personally disappointed in the new Bouley).

Edited January 3, 2004 by tim olivett (log)

[Pan]

I think you make a lot of really good points, Tim. But let's keep in mind that Michelin has many inspectors, while there's only one of Grimes or whoever is the $25-and-over critic for the Times, so to speak.

[bloviatrix]

Considering the number of restaurants in NYC and the need to go back and re-review places, perhaps the Times needs two reviewers. Of course, that would mean devoting more space in the Dining section to reviews.

[Pan]

And that's very unlikely to happen, for the same reason that the Times hardly ever reviews debut recitals when they used to typically review most if not all debut recitals at Carnegie Recital Hall: Advertising space is how they make their money, and the more of it they've got, the more money they make. Which also means that to a greater or lesser extent, their Arts/Entertainment articles are ad-driven. But that probably effects music reviews more than restaurant reviews? (By the way, that question mark is intentional.)

[herbacidal]

An essential part of the critic's oeuvre is the overall rank-ordering of the top restaurants in the city, especially those with four and three stars...

It would not have been a major imposition, in five years of reviewing, to squeeze these three reviews into the system. There are also several three-star restaurants that push firmly up against the four-star envelope. I believe a critic has a duty to give some attention to the best of these places: Gramercy Tavern, Union Pacific, Veritas . . . it is important, to the reader, to understand what makes a great restaurant great in the eyes of the critic. It helps to inform our reading of every other review.

in that respect, you are basically saying something akin to:

It is necessary for Grimes to review four-star and three-star restaurants, because by doing so, not only will he be giving his impression of their food, service, and ambience, but he also will be educating readers as to his own rating criteria, what he values. etc. and giving further insight into the degrees, exactness, etc. of his rating system, and thus give more information on how his reviews are to be valued and judged by the readership.

Now, this I can accept and agree with; I just don't think he failed to the degree that I believe you were implying. As I said, I thought he did an acceptable job.

That does make me wonder how often critics nationwide review four-star and three star restaurants.