A Grimes Retrospective

[tim olivett]

The Michelin Guide has to cover all of Europe and the UK, so they obviously need more than one reviewer.

By the way, FG, correct me if I'm wrong but I"m pretty sure Grimes gave Lespinasse under Christian Delouvier (sp!) 4 stars. I worked there under Gray Kunz when we got 3 stars and was always surprised that after his departure it would receive more. I think Christian had come from Les Celebrites, but like Daniel Boulud (and many other great chefs) he was smart to higher very strong sous chefs whom he listened to. This allowed him to update and lighten his cuisine. It's an irony of the kitchen that you begin your career by being mentored by chefs who have more experience than you but when you become a chef you rely on the young upstarts to expand your knowledge. A smart chef, since he is no longer working for others who can teach him, needs people who have learned from up and coming chefs to impart their knowledge back to him. I always thought Gray Kunz's cuisine wasn't well suited to the stuffy Edwardian room and service at Lespinasse while CD updated classic French was a better fit.

Anyway, this is about William Grimes. I never really liked his reviewing, there I said it. I thought he lacked some of the joi de vivre of Ruth Reichl. Also, he seemed a little shaken by some of his early critics whereas Ruth let you know that her reviews were an opinion. Grimes seemed like he had to justify his reasons for whatever rating he was giving. Like the review of Atelier, he didn't seem to trust his gut feeling and just take a chance and give them 4 stars if he thought it was the best French restaurant in New York. I remember reading the review and the way he raved about everything made you wonder why it got 3 stars. One thing I like about Philly's critic Craig LaBan (besides giving us 3 bells!) is that he rates places based on his opinion and what they're going for (that's why a bar or diner can get 2 or 3 bells and somewhere that might have better food but puts on pretentious airs or inflated prices will suffer for it whereas Grimes gives Ducasse 4 stars and for a price that is 2 to 3 times as much as anybody else it would have to be 6 stars to justify it.) Also when Craig LaBan reviews someone in a given year he revisits them at the end of the year and will sometimes add a bell or take one away, a practice I wholeheartedly agree with, that way a restaurant that may have had great potential gets the opportunity to take his criticism to heart and work to fix it, so that reviews reach a role where they not only function as a preview or recommendation for guests but a legitimate forum that creates a way for restauranteurs to truly see what they've been missing and in a perfect world, work to fix it.

Edited January 4, 2004 by tim olivett (log)

[Fat Guy]

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.

I think if the Times went from 52 to 104 full-length reviews per year, you'd see things really start to thin out by review number 70 or 80. The 52 number actually seems to work quite well: it forces the critic to make every review and every choice count.

The Diner's Journal, which allows for an additional 52 mini-reviews without stars, is a resource that could easily be utilized to fill the gap between the 52 allowable full-length reviews and the 20 or so additional reviews that would be desirable. For example, there's no reason to devote full-length reviews to so many one-star restaurants. Give them a Diner's Journal write-up and leave it at that. The Diner's Journal can also be used to look in on the older four-star and three-star places: You don't need a full review to say "Gramercy Tavern still deserves three stars."

[Fat Guy]

By the way, FG, correct me if I'm wrong but I"m pretty sure Grimes gave Lespinasse under Christian Delouvier (sp!) 4 stars. I worked there under Gray Kunz when we got 3 stars and was always surprised that after his departure it would receive more.

Tim, I'm pretty sure that Lespinasse has only been reviewed twice in the New York Times (once when Kunz was the chef, and once when Delouvrier was the chef), that both reviews were by Ruth Reichl, and that both reviews awarded the restaurant four stars.

Unfortunately I have no way to check this directly with the Times because the first Ruth Reichl review of Lespinasse would (I think) have been before 1996, and the Times archive only goes back to 1996. However, Peter Kaminsky's recent article about Kunz and Keller in New York Magazine does make reference to Ruth Reichl's four-star review of Lespinasse when Kunz was chef:

Brought up in Singapore and Switzerland, educated in cuisine in Bern, and apprenticed under one of the greatest European chefs, Fredy Girardet, Kunz exudes courtliness and a sense of old-world decorum reinforced by Asian-inspired reserve and propriety. Similarly, his food is the product of two worlds, marrying classic French technique with a mastery of the flavors and ingredients that he first acquired during his childhood in the Pan-Asian food culture of Singapore, and then broadened during five years as a chef in Hong Kong. His cuisine is not so much fusion as the product of a man fluent in the food languages of Europe, India, China, and Southeast Asia. When Ruth Reichl gave her first four-star review in the New York Times, it was to him.

-- http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/food/features/n_9682/

Here's the four-star review she gave to Lespinasse under Delouvrier, for reference:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...751C1A96E958260

[Fat Guy]

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.

I definitely agree with that, and I also agree with Tim Olivett when he says that some degree of spot-checking is necessary to ensure that four-star restaurants aren't resting on their laurels. The Times critics know that when they award four stars to a restaurant, tens of thousands of people will head there to spend their hard-earned money on meals that cost $150 per person or more. As a result, I think the Times critics have an obligation to stay on top of the situation. Perhaps William Grimes felt there was no reason to re-review Le Bernardin, Jean Georges, or Lespinasse because he felt they were all still performing at the four-star level. If that's the case, a Diner's Journal mention might have been sufficient to satisfy the monitoring obligation -- though it still wouldn't satisfy the need to establish an oeuvre.

[Andy Lynes]

Re: Lespinasse. On page 228 of "Mastering Simplicity", Delouvrier says "Gray Kunz approached me in 1998 to replace him at the 4 star Lespinasse in Manhatten's St Regis Hotel...I met with the hotel's manager who expressed his confidence in my ability to not only retain the rating but also take the dining room to new heights"

How you go beyond 4 star cooking, I've no idea however.

[SethG]

I may be wading beyond my depth here, but as a regular reader of the NY Times food section (and sometime eater at the establishments reviewed) it seemed to me that Grimes made it his mission to reverse the grade inflation that he felt existed at the paper before this arrival. Where Reichl could almost casually award three stars to a restaurant like Soho's Barolo, even while describing the food as inconsistent at best, Grimes could rave about the quality of the food at an establishment and then award one or two stars, implicitly arguing that this is nothing to be ashamed of. His review of Amma is a recent example of this-- I would not have been at all surprised to see another critic award at least three stars based on the superlative terms used to describe the food there.

This practice marked him early on as a sourpuss in my view. And he always seemed to prefer traditional formality to fun. But after a while, I came to see his approach as more rigorous and consistent than Reichl's, and therefore a bit refreshing.

On the subject of keeping up: what if he visited Lespinasse, found that nothing of significance had happened since Reichl's review, and decided he agreed with Reichl? Did he have an obligation to inform his readers, or could he simply let her review stand?

[tim olivett]

Like FG said, he could use the "diner's journal" to casually state as much. Also when I was at Lespinasse, believe me I distinctly remember getting 3 stars since we were all so let down. I hazily remember one more review before Gray left but I thought it was an upgrade but I could be wrong.

[Fat Guy]

Seth, I agree that Grimes was probably brough in with the mission of putting a stop to Reichl's star-inflation problem. And he was pretty good at that in the early days. Several of those early reviews -- Chanterelle, Le Cirque, Aureole -- were important correctives. However, the failure in so many years of reviewing to revisit the other four-stars and some of the other key three-stars meant the project of getting the star universe in order was never really accomplished.

[Pan]

On the subject of keeping up: what if he visited Lespinasse, found that nothing of significance had happened since Reichl's review, and decided he agreed with Reichl? Did he have an obligation to inform his readers

I would answer that with one word: Yes. But I'd like to see a counter-argument, if anyone can muster one.

[SethG]

Pan, I think the counterargument would posit that the New York Times speaks with one voice, at least in theory, and that the public should assume that the paper's opinion of a particular restaurant remains the same until the paper chooses to change its position. At that time, the paper will inform readers through a review or other article. But until then, it would be redundant for the paper to inform readers that Lespinasse (for instance) is still good. The readers should know that by the paper's silence on the issue.

I'm not saying that this is my argument, although it appeals to me as a lawyer. We see courts maintain this fiction all the time. Different judges are expected not to speak on issues of settled law, maintaining the fiction that each "court" remains the same even as all its personnel change.

[Fat Guy]

That hypothesis, however, is disproven by all the intact star-ratings that no sane person would maintain are in any way accurate today. For example, Sammy's Roumanian was given three stars by Mimi Sheraton and has never been re-reviewed. In addition, I believe William Grimes has spoken on the issue of getting star inflation under control, which would tend to support the position that the critics view their work as independent not part of a corporate or judicial precedent-based tradition. (The New York Observer's search engine is on the fritz right now, as is often the case, so I'll have to find the quotes from Grimes's interviews another time.) Finally, I'd love to know if Grimes really thinks 5757 or Park Bistro should be maintaining a three-star rating.

[Pan]

To me, the simplest rejoinder is that if we don't know the current NYT critic has ever been to a restaurant, there's no way to know how s/he'd review them.

And I don't think concepts of legal precedent are really relevant because the law doesn't change extremely frequently because of staff turnover and leases running out.

Edited January 5, 2004 by Pan (log)

[tim olivett]

Pan, I think the counterargument would posit that the New York Times speaks with one voice, at least in theory, and that the public should assume that the paper's opinion of a particular restaurant remains the same until the paper chooses to change its position.  At that time, the paper will inform readers through a review or other article.  But until then, it would be redundant for the paper to inform readers that Lespinasse (for instance) is still good.  The readers should know that by the paper's silence on the issue.

Given the fluid nature of the restaurant business, where not only chefs change but their sous chefs, cooks, pantry guys, the front of the house waiters, sommeliers etc, I think that not renewing the review of the upper echelon of restaurants would not only not be redundant but necessary. When Bouley Bakery got 4 stars, I was working next door at Danube and 6 weeks after getting 4 stars Bouley's chef de cuisine Brian Bistrong left, a perfect example (Brian is now chef at Citarella restaurant).

Believe me, as a restaurant professional, I can say that one of the exciting and demanding aspects of the job is that everyday is a judgment of your performance. I can never take down time and get ahead. Every day I need to make fresh sauces, fresh prep (some people freeze everything but they are not going to be getting 4 stars anytime soon). If you were to award 4 star status to a dry cleaner, then yeah, I could see not having to return to make sure they've maintained a standard of quality. That's why I like the analogy to sports I made earlier. If a team wins the world series that doesn't mean they get to hold onto that title without being retested and challenged over and over, and if you've ever been in a professional kitchen, it's pretty much a sport or athletic event. Every chef is essentially the coach of his team, if you took Joe Torre (the Yankee's manager & gave him the Pittsburgh Pirates, they might not make it to the playoffs the next year, let alone the world series).

I'm sure we've all had the experience where you have a dish twice and each time it is either better or worse than the last time you had it. That's why when people get the "ultimate" recommendation that is a 4 star review, I think you'd be remiss to not make sure it's not getting worse.

Edited January 6, 2004 by tim olivett (log)

[JosephB]

Wow, Grimes on the cover of the Sunday NYTimes TV guide. "From Emeril and Sara to Dweezil and Lisa." (I don't see a link for this.) Grimes surveys the Food Network's offerings, with a few Grimes' insights thrown in. Where do you think this will lead?

[docsconz]

Depending on how he treats them - his own show ?

[JosephB]

Depending on how he treats them - his own show ?

I don't think he has the cheekbones for that. Maybe he can be a guest judge on "Iron Chef"?

[docsconz]

Depending on how he treats them - his own show ?

I don't think he has the cheekbones for that. Maybe he can be a guest judge on "Iron Chef"?

[docsconz]

Maybe he could be The Chairman!

[Bux]

It's got to be interesting to any NY diner to learn more about the thoughts and opinions of anyone who's completed a stint as restaurant reviewer for the Times, but apart from his role at the Times, I still don't sense he has enough deep interest in food or respect for cooking to say much. Nevertheless, with the time spent reviewing restaurant for the NY Times behind him, he has the credentials to get more work in that line. Credentials are a valuable commodity. If the guy doing any hiring has to ever justify his decision either to a boss or stockholders, credentials are his best excuse.

Picking up on what Fat Guy said earlier--"there's no reason to devote full-length reviews to so many one-star restaurants"--the French GaultMillau guide provides an interesting example. They rate restaurants on a scale of 20, although they only use 10 through 20, and have only used the rating of "20" once. What's important is that the text review of each restaurant varies in length according to the importance of the restaurant and what they have to say about it. Naturally the low teen ratings are usually accompanied by a short paragraph while the highest rated restaurants get considerably longer reviews. Reading reviews of two restaurant both rated as 19, one can often gleam a sense that although the food is equally good at both, it's more interesting at the one with the longer text.

It's probably reasonable for the Times to have less to say about a satisfactory restaurant, or even a one star restaurant than a three or four star establishment. It wouldn't be unreasonable for the weekly restaurant review column to vary in the number of restaurants reviewed except for one thing. It's not reasonable for one reviewer to cover more restaurant in a year as thoroughly as is done now. To allow reviews of say a two star and one star restaurant to run simultaneously would require additional staff or a lowering of the number times a restaurant is visited. It may be that a no star place doesn't need to be visited more than once or twice once it's decided a single paragraph will suffice. It may also be that additional restaurant coverage may bring more readers and more advertising and that an additional reviewer could be hired. It could also make sense to combine the under twenty-five dollar reviews in the same column. A restaurant that offered particularly good value might escape the star rating altogether and just get a special icon for its price/quality rapport.

[Pan]

The problem with your suggestion, Bux, is that you're dealing with different price levels a lot of the time. I love the detailed reviews Asimov writes for the "$25 and under" category, and I'd resent it if those reviews were butchered into tiny little paragraphs on the basis that these are "no-star" restaurants. Likewise, there's an argument to be made that a good 1-star restaurant that costs $30-40/person deserves as much or almost as much space in a newspaper as a 4-star review of a restaurant that costs $200/person. Gault-Millau may have a different audience from the Times. And though the ads in the Times and many of their Travel Section features sometime make it seem like the Times is really targetting millionaires only, I think they realize that lots of their readers can't spend hundreds and thousands of dollars at the drop of a hat and need coverage and reviews of some less expensive alternatives.

This would all change if the Times decided to give 4-star reviews to $30/person restaurants.

[bpearis]

There are rumors flying around that Jay McInerney may be the next NYT critic. Is he going to have plastic surgery beforehand? He's appeared on Molto Mario numerous times. Seems rather silly to me.

[Fat Guy]

Most everybody in the business knows what the Times critic looks like within about 11 minutes of the position being filled. There are exceptions, but for the most part the critic is recognized. So I don't think it really matters that the person has been on TV, or has had a photo on his book jacket. The Times does what it can to fuel the myth of its critic's anonymity, but it is indeed a myth. I hope the paper picks the best person for the job regardless of such nonsense. McInerney would be a bold and interesting choice.

[Suzanne F]

There's always Sam Sifton. Remember, he filled in for Asimov when Asimove filled in for Grimes.

But this is all idle chatter.

[jogoode]

Suzanne,

Is Sifton the section's editor? If so, would taking on the position be possible, given the grueling eating schedule?

[Suzanne F]

This was our gossip about Sifton before. I'm not sure what is post is, where, now.