Wolfgang's Steakhouse

[Pan]

I didn't like this review either. We heard more about his arteries than anything else. At first, it seemed slightly funny, but not the nth time. And I didn't learn anything very useful about either Wolfgang's or Luger from this review. Several eGulleteers have done much better reviews of steakhouses.

Wolfgang's is probably pleased with the positive aspects of the review and the 2-star rating, but the main thing I learned from this review is that Bruni probably shouldn't be reviewing steakhouses and should leave that to a special guest reviewer.

I'm not writing Bruni off as a critic on that basis, however.

[otello]

The review does touch on a pet peeve of mine: the extent to which steakhouses miss the mark on doneness. It happened a couple of weeks ago with me at Gallagher's. Got the bone-in strip and it wasn't even close. I got the classic "did you cut deep into the meat?" Yes, sir, I did, and it was medium WELL. Nothing like a brown center in a steak. In their defense, they did get the replacement right. Haven't been to Wolfgang's, but my experience with Luger's has been generally positive on this score. I know every piece of meat is different, but it's a steak house's raison d'etre. Get it right.

I reserve the balance of my time.

[oakapple]

A steakhouse is all about the quality of the steak, the skill of the aging of the meat and the attention to preparation, as well as the quality of the sides -- none of which got much detailed coverage in this article.

The quality of the steak was sufficiently covered:

Best of all was the beef. A rib-eye steak (not on the Luger menu) yielded striations of color and texture: the black, crisp exterior gave way to soft red pinpricks in the center. A sirloin had similar virtues, and so did the porterhouse, arguably the raison d'être of Wolfgang's and Luger.

... ... ... ...

The meat was many wonderful things at once, or in rapid succession: crunchy, tender, smoky, earthy.

... ... ... ...

The Luger porterhouse demanded awe. It was, amazingly, even better, chiefly because the steak had been cut about an eighth of an inch thicker (we measured), which allowed for more contrast between the exterior and interior. Luger also hewed to our medium-rare request. Wolfgang's had overbroiled.

[picaman]

This review is too "cute" by half, lacks salient detail, and assumes an inappropriate level of knowledge on the part of the reader. I realize that the review must be entertaining, but a writer should effectively weave the dryest of necessary detail into the narrative in an interesting fashion.

To me, this review is woefully inadequate. The few opinions included don't come across as being particularly informed. Not that mine always do either, but I'm not the Times food critic.

Jamie

Edited June 30, 2004 by picaman (log)

[rich]

This review is too "cute" by half, lacks salient detail, and assumes an inappropriate level of knowledge on the part of the reader. I realize that the review must be entertaining, but a writer should effectively weave the dryest of necessary detail into the narrative in an interesting fashion.

To me, this review is woefully inadequate. The few opinions included don't come across as being particularly informed. Not that mine always do either, but I'm not the Times food critic.

Jamie

I think you're being kind. As I mentioned on the other thread, I thought this review was more about Luger (mentioned 21 times in the text) and the American Heart Association than about Wolfgang's (mentioned 20 times in the text).

Again as I said on the other thread, the NY Times has some issues to settle with its reviews. Maybe a hiatus until after Labor Day would be the remedy. It could start fresh with a different persepctive and purpose.

Bottom line, I thought the review totally sophmoric from a journalistic view and largely uninformative from a dining point of view.

However, the thought of the reviewer and his dining mate sitting there measuring the thickness of the steak and coming up with an 1/8 of an inch difference is humorous. Where did they hide the rulers when they weren't in use? Isn't that what school boys did in a high school locker room?

As an aside, I know my steak at Sparks was 1/32 of an inch thicker than the one I had at Luger. No wonder why it tasted so much better.

[oakapple]

Again as I said on the other thread, the NY Times has some issues to settle with its reviews. Maybe a hiatus until after Labor Day would be the remedy. It could start fresh with a different persepctive and purpose.

As I said on the other thread, I thought the review was inspired. Let there be more like it. The chances of the Times taking a hiatus till Labor Day are about equal to the chances that I will be the next reviewer.

[rich]

Again as I said on the other thread, the NY Times has some issues to settle with its reviews. Maybe a hiatus until after Labor Day would be the remedy. It could start fresh with a different persepctive and purpose.

As I said on the other thread, I thought the review was inspired. Let there be more like it. The chances of the Times taking a hiatus till Labor Day are about equal to the chances that I will be the next reviewer.

Or even worse, about the same chances of me being the next reviewer.

[Pumpkin Lover]

This is what made the review unbelievable for me:

We walked all the way to Williamsburg.

That had me scratching my head!

[mikeyrad]

However, the thought of the reviewer and his dining mate sitting there measuring the thickness of the steak and coming up with an 1/8 of an inch difference is humorous. Where did they hide the rulers when they weren't in use? Isn't that what school boys did in a high school locker room?

My problem with this review is that although Bruni may have visited Wolfgang's twice or more, his comparison to Luger was based on one meal at each restaurant. Obviously, this is not a large enough sample size to draw any reliable conclusions.

[mikeyrad]

Again as I said on the other thread, the NY Times has some issues to settle with its reviews. Maybe a hiatus until after Labor Day would be the remedy. It could start fresh with a different persepctive and purpose.

As I said on the other thread, I thought the review was inspired. Let there be more like it. The chances of the Times taking a hiatus till Labor Day are about equal to the chances that I will be the next reviewer.

oakapple, there are some of us who think that you just might be Frank Bruni.

[oakapple]

This is what made the review unbelievable for me:

We walked all the way to Williamsburg.

That had me scratching my head!

It is not an unreasonable distance. I reckon it would take under an hour if you walk briskly, which a man of Bruni's age should be able to do.

My problem with this review is that although Bruni may have visited Wolfgang's twice or more, his comparison to Luger was based on one meal at each restaurant. Obviously, this is not a large enough sample size to draw any reliable conclusions.

Bruni didn't say that this was his only experience with Luger's. He just happened to mention this particular occasion when he did both on the same day. Wolfgang's is obviously trading on its Luger roots — no reviewer has failed to mention it. Bruni simply took the idea to the next logical step: performing the closest he could come to a side-by-side taste test, and reporting the results.

Edited June 30, 2004 by oakapple (log)

[Nathan]

I felt the same-evening comparison was a creative and appropriate framing device.

As for the walking, it's definitely plausible.

I'm not quite sure why there's an issue with his failing to discuss the creamed spinach, etc., unless you have some Platonic view of what a steakhouse must be like...he was reviewing a restaurant and paid attention to various portions of the menu before culminating with the main focus, the steak.

Edited June 30, 2004 by Nathan (log)

[Jason Perlow]

A steakhouse is all about the quality of the steak, the skill of the aging of the meat and the attention to preparation, as well as the quality of the sides -- none of which got much detailed coverage in this article.

The quality of the steak was sufficiently covered:

Best of all was the beef. A rib-eye steak (not on the Luger menu) yielded striations of color and texture: the black, crisp exterior gave way to soft red pinpricks in the center. A sirloin had similar virtues, and so did the porterhouse, arguably the raison d'être of Wolfgang's and Luger.

... ... ... ...

The meat was many wonderful things at once, or in rapid succession: crunchy, tender, smoky, earthy.

... ... ... ...

The Luger porterhouse demanded awe. It was, amazingly, even better, chiefly because the steak had been cut about an eighth of an inch thicker (we measured), which allowed for more contrast between the exterior and interior. Luger also hewed to our medium-rare request. Wolfgang's had overbroiled.

I guess I am expecting more of an eGullet-type analysis then. My standards have been set too high. That isn't enough detail in my book.

[slkinsey]

Just a note: Please keep in mind that this thread is for discussion of Wolfgang's Steakhouse. Any discussion of the recent Times review in this thread should be within the context of what it tells us about Wolfgang's, whether we agree with what it tells us about Wolfgang's and other things directly relating to... wait for it... Wolfgang's. If you would like to talk about the review as a piece of writing, whether or not you think it has anything valuable to say, what you think about Bruni's style and overall views... there is a thread for that in Food Media and News.

[rich]

So now that Bruni has reviewed Peter Luger, does anyone think he will review Wolfgang's anytime soon?

[oakapple]

So now that Bruni has reviewed Peter Luger, does anyone think he will review Wolfgang's anytime soon?

It's funny you should ask that. If I'm Wolfgang, I'm pretty happy with this review. Bruni praised the steaks highly ("many wonderful things at once" — "induced a kind of euophoria"). While he doled out a bit more praise for Luger's steaks, Bruni gave quite a few good reasons for diners to choose Wolfgang's: a more varied menu; a more convenient location; acceptance of credit cards; a beautiful main dining room.

And lastly, Bruni gave it two stars, and there is no steakhouse in Manhattan with a higher NYT rating than that. Luger's is three stars, but not without some drawbacks. Wolfgang was clearly trying to open a Manhattan outpost that would be a credible alternative to Luger's, and this review says he succeeded.

[rich]

So now that Bruni has reviewed Peter Luger, does anyone think he will review Wolfgang's anytime soon?

It's funny you should ask that. If I'm Wolfgang, I'm pretty happy with this review. Bruni praised the steaks highly ("many wonderful things at once" — "induced a kind of euophoria"). While he doled out a bit more praise for Luger's steaks, Bruni gave quite a few good reasons for diners to choose Wolfgang's: a more varied menu; a more convenient location; acceptance of credit cards; a beautiful main dining room.

And lastly, Bruni gave it two stars, and there is no steakhouse in Manhattan with a higher NYT rating than that. Luger's is three stars, but not without some drawbacks. Wolfgang was clearly trying to open a Manhattan outpost that would be a credible alternative to Luger's, and this review says he succeeded.

I agree OA. Wolfgang should be very happy. With all the Luger mentions, there wasn't enough space to write much criticism about the Wolf.

Seriously, I'm sure Wolfgang's is a fine place and I will eat there in the near future.

[wesza]

This time I'll attempt to mention some observations about both "Wolfgangs" and

'Lugers" that may be interesting to fellow eGulleters.

My daughters whose office is at 1 Battery Plaza is a regular customer at both Restaurants, in fact she still uses her "Luger's' account that I established in the late 1960's.

She generally is dining with Client's and is treated as a regular at both places, she does like "Wolfgang's" larger menu choices, but acknowledges that the Beef, while tender doesn't have the finesse or character acquired Thur aging equal to the various cuts from "Lugers". Her palette is very experienced, especially since she lived in England and acquired a fondness for Gamy aged meats and poultry.

She prefers the Bacon, Lamb Chops, Potatoes and Veggies and Porterhouse Cuts from Lugers, especially the way they are finished from the Broiler. It could be due to the Skill or the Broiler Man or the actual Broiler being used, also at Lugers often Steaks are cut from the Shortloin to order.

She originally brought the NYT review to my attention since she was appalled by it's fluff. She remembers the meals she enjoyed growing up in the Hampton's and on 57Th Street in NYC with her honorary Uncle who worked at the NYT as a reviewer and Cookbook author and felt that this was a disappointment of the high standards of the vernable Newspaper.

I hope that during my visit this fall to NYC I will have the opportunity to try many of the newer restaurants and explore the older familiar places.

NYC is lucky to have more of the best to compare, review and enjoy.

Irwin

Edited July 1, 2004 by wesza (log)

[picaman]

NYC is lucky to have more of the best to compare, review and enjoy.

Very true. And, though I thought Bruni's review was lacking in detail, it did make me want to try Wolfgang's. My inspiration comes, however, from wanting to investigate the missing detail myself; for me, this is an inappropriate result for any restaurant review.

Jamie

[oakapple]

I paid my first visit to Wolfgang's last night and ate at the bar. The Gustavino ceiling is priceless, but it makes Wolfgang's noisy (and I was there before they really filled up). Carpeting, rather than hardwood floors, would probably make a big difference, but peace and quiet are clearly not the idea here.

Like Peter Luger, Wolfgang's signature entrée is simply labeled "Steak for Two," "Steak for Three," or "Steak for Four." It's a porterhouse, but they don't say so. I was alone, so my options were the ribeye, the NY sirloin, the filet, or the lamb chop. They're all $36.50, so it's just a matter of preference.

I ordered the ribeye, which was a hefty size and thickness, a perfect medium rare, and had heavy char on the outside. I was fully sated after finishing it. About four hours later, I had a distinct craving for another. One small strand of gristle was all that stood between my steak and perfection. It was still damned good.

Also like Luger, Canadian Bacon is on the menu. It's $2.50 a slice, and you wonder why more appetizers aren't offered with that kind of flexibility. I knew I was in for a large steak, so I ordered just one slice. Oh my, but was that superb: thick, crispy on the outside, gooey on the inside.

Like many folks, I found the medical advice in Frank Bruni's review ("Eat up, but don't tell your cardiologist") of dubious value. It doesn't bother Wolfgang, though. A copy of the Bruni review is very prominently posted.

There are plenty of FOH staff roaming around, although it can be hard to get their attention. As I was leaving, I was looking for someone to fetch my coat, and quite inadvertently I ended up presenting my claim check to Wolfgang himself. Momentarily flustered, he said, "One of zee girls!" (Any girl would do, I suppose.) A couple of minutes later I had my coat and was on my way. Until next time.

[jrichman]

Any wesbite on this place, what about the dress code?

[oakapple]

Any wesbite on this place, what about the dress code?

←

The website is here:http://www.WolfgangsSteakhouse.com/

You'll see a lot of people there in business attire, but "smart casual" is ok too.

[jrichman]

Made it out to Wolfgangs recently with a large group.....we started with the traditinal seafood appetizer consisting of lobster, crab meat, huge shrimps with a great sauce. Next, the waiter brought each of us the thickest slice of bacon that I have ever seen. Then came the porterhouse steaks and sides - all were excellent and I highly recommend this place. Enjoy!

Any wesbite on this place, what about the dress code?

←

The website is here:http://www.WolfgangsSteakhouse.com/

You'll see a lot of people there in business attire, but "smart casual" is ok too.

←

[WHS]

We were a table of 5 on Saturday night . Wolfgang was at the front of the room, greeting guests. He laughed when I mentioned I'd been reading about him on the internet. It was a hot weekend night, so dress tended to be on the casual side (though I saw a few suits). Service was bullet-fast. Our drink order came back within 3 minutes. I was afraid we were going to be rushed, but we ended up spending over 2 hours at the table. We had the seafood platter, which was impressive-looking. Flavor was good, not great. The lobster and shrimp had a water-logged texture though the sea came through. Lump crabmeat was delicious. Four of us had the porterhouse, one order rare, and one order medium-rare. The fifth had filet mignon. Porterhouse steaks were perfect--as good as Peter Luger. Filet mignon was very good--if you like filet mignon. We had the German potatoes, creamed spinach and asparagus as sides and shared plates of cheesecake mit schlag.

Yes, it's Peter Luger Lite. It will never have the cachet of the original, but it's in Manhattan, the service is old school professional, and if I could afford it, I'd be eating the porterhouse every night!

[oakapple]

This news is a couple of weeks old, but still worth mentioning here. There's a new law in New York that any new or renovated public space must have twice the number of ladies' toilets as men's toilets. Some people have called it the "potty parity" law.

Anyhow, according to the New York Post, the new branch of Wolfgang's Steakhouse at 407 Greenwich St (between Hubert and Beach Sts) will be the first establishment in New York to comply with the law. "The result is that the eatery will have four stalls in the ladies room and two stalls and three urinals for the men."

The space, which is about a block from my office, was once a spice warehouse (according to the Post). It was recently a restaurant called Shamballa, which didn't last long. Before that, I believe it was a lunchtime deli/buffet place. The restaurant will be 6,000 feet and will seat 200—making it, I believe, larger than the original Wolfgang's at 4 Park Avenue.

I walked by yesterday. I was able to peer inside, and it looks like they still have a few months of work to do. Located just across the street from the HQ of the Citigroup Corporate and Investment Bank, I suspect the new Wolfgang's won't lack for patrons. It's probably not good news for Dylan Prime, which is just two blocks away.