NYT correction re: Spice Market review

[Pan]

Ah, I see.

Well then, if only Eric Asimov were the interim critic.

Agreed, except in that case, we'd lose his $25-and-other reviews.

[Steve Klc]

After reading the piece by Cynthia Cotts, I came here looking for more anonymous snark and all I found was this:

"as the pomposity of a certain strand of food elitism (represented heavily in certain parts of egullet) wears on me more"

Where was the "ad feminem attack"--cute turn of phrase, that--where was the "anonymous snark from critics who didn't want to hear any exculpatory evidence?" Mostly I find an examination of the "evidence" which is becoming more detailed and cutting comments on the record from decidely not anonymous sources. You can't get much less anonymous than Shaw and Bourdain--who both make sense here and make even stronger cases for there being plenty of blame to go around. Amanda deserves to get nailed somewhat, but she's getting nailed for the wrong reasons in too many other media circles. I suspect the Times management decisions and editorial mis-direction will become the lasting story.

Cotts did a quick search and compiled a Hesser/J-G timeline of worship--but Hesser would hardly be unique in this even if it were true. There's temptation all around and a fine line between worship and attentiveness. The Chefs of the Times column assured familiarity. Bittman has written how many books with Vongerichten and pocketed how many very large outside paychecks? And I seem to recall reading Hesser criticism of previous Vongerichten restaurants, Mercer Kitchen maybe, if not of the eponymous J-G itself? Cotts writes "No one disputes the four-star review his flagship restaurant, Jean-Georges, received from the Times in 1998"--well, maybe more people should have wondered why Jean-Georges was last reviewed in the Times by Ruth Reichl in 1998? You don't have to be an elitist to realize restaurants changed just a little bit over the course of the past 6 years. 6 months in restaurant terms is an eternity--but 6 years? How is it that Grimes was hired, pursued the stated goal of re-establishing more strict standards in the Times star system and resigned without filing an update--yet managed to apply such scrutiny--and screws--to Boulud and Ducasse? The "get off to a slow start, chef makes key changes after the first review" angle didn't apply? Once you go down this road--you may also wonder why the most recent Times review of Le Bernardin dates to 1998 as well.

I wonder if Amanda as interim reviewer has to be let off the hook, somewhat, for even the three-star rating--it's not like there was a clear cut distinction between two and three stars over time that we could have expected her to adhere to.

[mongo_jones]

After reading the piece by Cynthia Cotts, I came here looking for more anonymous snark and all I found was this:

"as the pomposity of a certain strand of food elitism (represented heavily in certain parts of egullet) wears on me more"

anonymous? my name's on every post!

as for snark--you mean the e in egullet doesn't stand for "elitist"?

edit to fix html

Edited April 8, 2004 by mongo_jones (log)

[Bux]

i'm not entirely sure that we aren't better served by food-writers who approach the objects of their writing (as opposed to the writing itself) in the spirit of amateurishness. do i as a reader really need you to know the last detail of what is going on in the kitchen or which chef at restaurant a. sleeps with which sous-chef at restaurant b., or what their views on global food culture are, in order to know whether you think i'll like the food at a particular restaurant?

I'd take issue with that. Knowing about a chef's private life is the very essence of amateur information. Know how a chef thinks and what motivates his thinking and cooking is where a professional's interests would lie. And yes, I think insight into the latter would help in understanding the food. Then again I think the least part of a reviewer's job is to tell me if I'd like the food. It's far more important for him to help me appreciate the food and get the most our of my meal should I go there.

[mongo_jones]

i'm not entirely sure that we aren't better served by food-writers who approach the objects of their writing (as opposed to the writing itself) in the spirit of amateurishness. do i as a reader really need you to know the last detail of what is going on in the kitchen or which chef at restaurant a. sleeps with which sous-chef at restaurant b., or what their views on global food culture are, in order to know whether you think i'll like the food at a particular restaurant?

I'd take issue with that. Knowing about a chef's private life is the very essence of amateur information. Know how a chef thinks and what motivates his thinking and cooking is where a professional's interests would lie. And yes, I think insight into the latter would help in understanding the food. Then again I think the least part of a reviewer's job is to tell me if I'd like the food. It's far more important for him to help me appreciate the food and get the most our of my meal should I go there.

bux, you've almost convinced me. but what exactly is the difference in your mind between "liking" and "appreciating" the food? i'm not saying there isn't one but i'm wondering what it is for you. me i'd rather like food than appreciate it any day, but i take the point that a reviewer can't really predict whether i, as an individual, will or won't. i may have used the wrong examples but i still stick with my assertion that food writing, and reviews in general, would be better served by a spirit of amaterishness. in fact, i think most things would be. the way in which you are reading "amateur" is not the way in which i intend it, but such are the hazards of communication. i think the overweight male got the sense i meant.

[Pan]

Mongo, are you using "amateur" in the original sense of someone who loves something? Because in that sense, many amateurs were definitely professional-level performers on musical instruments, for example. Just look at the level of difficulty of music that Beethoven, for example, wrote for amateurs! Similarly, a dilettant was someone who took delight in something. And in those original senses of the words, I would always strive to be an amateur and a dilettant; however, words change meanings, and there's no question that, under normal circumstances, if someone claimed my musicianship was amateurish or dilettant, it would be a cutting (or, rather, laughable) insult.

[mongo_jones]

Mongo, are you using "amateur" in the original sense of someone who loves something? Because in that sense, many amateurs were definitely professional-level performers on musical instruments, for example. Just look at the level of difficulty of music that Beethoven, for example, wrote for amateurs! Similarly, a dilettant was someone who took delight in something. And in those original senses of the words, I would always strive to be an amateur and a dilettant; however, words change meanings, and there's no question that, under normal circumstances, if someone claimed my musicianship was amateurish or dilettant, it would be a cutting (or, rather, laughable) insult.

yes, pan--pretty much the way you describe it. one of the effects of professionalization is a drifting towards the marks of expertise and recognition. which in the world of food-writing may often be the marks of "access"--i'm reminded of lester bangs' advice to the kid in "almost famous".

[jogoode]

Nobody agrees with the three-star assessment of Spice Market. Not one single person has stepped up on eGullet and tried to defend it, nobody I've spoken to in the industry thinks it makes any sense (I wonder if Vongerichten himself thinks it's a three-star restaurant)...

I've heard that JG is upset with the 3-star rating because he thinks it will make some diners less likely to visit Spice Market.

I think this might be the case in the long run, when the buzz about the Hesser's review dies and the restaurant become just one of the 38 or so 3-star restaurants. If people aren't up for a 3-star dinner -- at Atelier, Oceana, Babbo etc. -- then they may turn down a Spice Market recommendation and opt for a place like Hearth.

[Lesley C]

I think it's a shame the Times doesn't consider adding half stars to their rating system, as they do at the Post. Considering the many styles of restaurant in New York these days, four categories seems too limited. If Spice Market had been awarded three stars, but there were two categories above that ranking, I don't think this brouhaha would have ensued.

OK, I can see the problems with the Jean-Georges blurb and not mentioning Kunz. But considering how much she enjoyed the food, wouldn’t it have been just as wrong to top that review with a two-star rating?

[Jinmyo]

If Spice Market had been awarded three stars, but there were two categories above that ranking, I don't think this brouhaha would have ensued.

OK, I can see the problems with the Jean-Georges blurb and not mentioning Kunz. But considering how much she enjoyed the food, wouldn’t it have been just as wrong to top that review with a two-star rating?

Um, I haven't been there so there's that as caveat.

That said:

Out of a five star rating could such a "chicken wing joint"* be more than two stars? Or out of a ten star system perhaps four? Or three? Or two? Or one?

Surely if the rating system is expanded should that not make room for more nuance rather than merely make the differences less meaningful?

Increase the options by extending the schema as much as one might, while she might have enjoyed the food, that seems to indicate something of her palate and standards for environment and context rather than the restaurant. Or she was just feeling really great and all's-right-for-Mandy-today and spilled her bliss into the review instead of doing a critical review.

Whatever the reason, adding or subtracting stars or half-stars or quarter-stars to the target does not change how bizarre her aim was.

____

* By this I mean that much of the menu is based upon very easy to make, very easy to serve items (as Fat Guy has discoursed upon in detail) as well as but similar to the wings that Mandy Hesser pins to such supernal heights.

[marcus]

But considering how much she enjoyed the food, wouldn’t it have been just as wrong to top that review with a two-star rating?

Considering that no credible reviewers seem to have as high an opinion of the Spice Market food as Amanda does, and we have seen many additional opinions by now, I see three possibilities.

1-She really didn't like the food that well, but felt that she owed it to JG as a returned favor. This is the unethical possibility.

2-She has so internalized her high regard for JG, that she was unable to judge the food objectively. This is the she doesn't have what it takes to be a reviewer possibility.

3-She really honestly thought that it was great. This leads to two possibilities:

A-She lacks critical judgment.

B-Her critical judgment is superior to the rest of us.

Take your pick.

[oakapple]

Um, I haven't been there so there's that as caveat.

I've been there, but only looked around, so there's that as caveat.

Out of a five star rating could such a "chicken wing joint" be more than two stars? Or out of a ten star system perhaps four? Or three? Or two? Or one?

Even the less enthusiastic reviews give it considerably more credit than a mere "chicken wing joint." It may be "inspired" by Asian street food, but as Steve Cuozzo said in the Post (in a 2 1/2 star review), "I'd love to know the corner where folks stand around slurping acidic citrus soup combining tuna and tapioca pearls ($11)."

New York Magazine this week gushes over the place as much as Amanda Hesser did, and Cuozzo's balanced review (here) has many positive things to say. Even in the Post, 2 1/2 stars ain't chopped liver.

In short, while Hesser's ethics may be dubious, other qualified critics have had the same favorable reaction to the food, sans Hesser's conflict-of-interest. She's not so far off-the-map (if she's off it at all) that her reaction can only be attributed to a lack of taste or a lack of integrity.

Spice Market is like a play that gets mixed reviews. Those who love it can't understand why others hate it, and those who hate it can't imagine why any discerning person would love it. But you have to at least acknowledge that Hesser wasn't the only critic who loved it.

I wouldn't mind adding half-stars to the Times's system, but I doubt that would have made the anti-Spice Market faction any happier with the restaurant's three-star status.

[Lesley C]

Chicken wing joint? OK, well if you put it in the category of chicken wing joint, it must be a four-star chicken wing joint.

[Pan]

In that case, DiFara's has to get four stars for pizza...

[Bux]

Then again I think the least part of a reviewer's job is to tell me if I'd like the food. It's far more important for him to help me appreciate the food and get the most our of my meal should I go there.

bux, you've almost convinced me. but what exactly is the difference in your mind between "liking" and "appreciating" the food? i'm not saying there isn't one but i'm wondering what it is for you. me i'd rather like food than appreciate it any day, but i take the point that a reviewer can't really predict whether i, as an individual, will or won't.

Truthfully, a reviewer can't tell you if you'd like the food or not, but he can offer some clues so that you can make an educated guess. Definitely a part of a reviewer's job. To really know if you like the food, you have to taste it. Oddly enough you don't have to taste the food to begin to appreciate it. Appreciation has a mental or intellectual, if you will, aspect to it. Tell me the chicken is good and the lamb is not and I will know enough to order the chicken and not the lamb, assuming they're both on the menu when I get there. Tell me the fried chicken is over cooked and greasy, but the brasied lamb shank is perfection and I may know that I might be wise to order the short ribs over the filet of sole, because I have some understanding, or appreciation, of where the chef's talents or capabilities lie.

Perhaps you've pinpointed a difference in attitude between us. I'm always unhappy when I'm doing something I don't enjoy doing, but I'm absolutely miserable when I can't figure out why I'm doing it. Or to put this back in food and restaurant terms, years ago on an early trip to the south of France with my wife, I ordered a certain dish. My wife asked what I had ordered. I told her what was in the dish and she asked why the hell I ordered a dish that was composed of things I had never eaten together with things I didn't like. I told her it was because it was a traditional dish of the region. The plain and simple fact was that I could have stayed home and had food I liked, or even food I enjoyed. I was a third the way around the world, (which at the time, was as far away from home as I had ever been, more or less) why not take advantage of that and why let myself be stopped by not liking what I was going to eat. The long(er) version of that story would also include some moralizing to the effect that I eventually developed a taste for tripe and even somewhat for lambs feet, if they are well prepared. Anyway, appreciating that I was eating a dish I might not find far from where I was, gave greater meaning to my voyage. There's no end to what a reviewer might say to expand my appreciation for food, if not life, but that's only what I look for in a review.

[Pan]

I have often found that I liked dishes critics didn't like and didn't like dishes they did like, so I'm careful about not ordering something just because a critic panned it. But like Bux, I like to order specialties of the house even if I haven't liked them elsewhere. When I was at Grand Vefour, I asked for Roquefort although - or even because - I had never liked that cheese before. Sure enough, I loved the Roquefort at Grand Vefour. I figured that they would have the best example, or at least a really high-quality example of that cheese, and they did. But that seems to go beyond critics to an intuitive appraisal of what to order in a given situation. Also, I was less lucky with my main course, Tete de Veau, another specialty, which was among other things too salty for my taste. But since it was clearly a specialty of the house, I considered it worth trying. Why not? Perhaps if I win the lottery, I'll go there for lunch some other time and order something different.

Edited April 13, 2004 by Pan (log)

[mongo_jones]

Perhaps you've pinpointed a difference in attitude between us. I'm always unhappy when I'm doing something I don't enjoy doing, but I'm absolutely miserable when I can't figure out why I'm doing it. Or to put this back in food and restaurant terms, years ago on an early trip to the south of France with my wife, I ordered a certain dish. My wife asked what I had ordered. I told her what was in the dish and she asked why the hell I ordered a dish that was composed of things I had never eaten together with things I didn't like. I told her it was because it was a traditional dish of the region. The plain and simple fact was that I could have stayed home and had food I liked, or even food I enjoyed. I was a third the way around the world, (which at the time, was as far away from home as I had ever been, more or less) why not take advantage of that and why let myself be stopped by not liking what I was going to eat. The long(er) version of that story would also include some moralizing to the effect that I eventually developed a taste for tripe and even somewhat for lambs feet, if they are well prepared. Anyway, appreciating that I was eating a dish I might not find far from where I was, gave greater meaning to my voyage. There's no end to what a reviewer might say to expand my appreciation for food, if not life, but that's only what I look for in a review.

bux,

i am not sure how you've used my posts in this thread to arrive at this as a difference in outlook between us. when i say i am not interested in fluff in restaurant reviews (in the details of the stove in the kitchen, the chef's views on the pace of life under late-capitalism etc.) i don't mean for it to translate to "i will eat only what the reviewer recommends". when i say i would rather "like" food than "appreciate" it i mean that eating for me is a sensual experience first, and only much later an intellectual one. getting the information for the intellectual "appreciation" is a supplement to sensual pleasure, not a necessary criterion for it. it is on this point that we may differ. i want a reviewer to tell me if they liked eating what they ate or not, and on what basis (which should preferably not comprise only or largely the chef's position in some personal hierarchy of iconoclasticism or what have you).

in the meantime, it may alarm you, or at least disturb your location of our differences, to discover that i actually have the exact same attitude to eating while travelling that you describe. i don't just like to eat the things i can't get at home (and, by the way, i find this is better located by talking with waiters and owners of restaurants than by reading reviews) i also like to eat very simple things first. one of the most revelatory experiences for me on my one long trip to italy was eating basic preparations of pasta and tomato sauce and so on.

regards,

mongo

[mjr_inthegardens]

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/food/r...167//index.html

Hal Rubenstein review of Spice Market manages to mention Kunz and Wong.

-mjr

[Bux]

bux,

i am not sure how you've used my posts in this thread to arrive at this as a difference in outlook between us. when i say i am not interested in fluff in restaurant reviews (in the details of the stove in the kitchen, the chef's views on the pace of life under late-capitalism etc.) i don't mean for it to translate to "i will eat only what the reviewer recommends". when i say i would rather "like" food than "appreciate" it i mean that eating for me is a sensual experience first, and only much later an intellectual one. getting the information for the intellectual "appreciation" is a supplement to sensual pleasure, not a necessary criterion for it. it is on this point that we may differ.

Okay.

i want a reviewer to tell me if they liked eating what they ate or not, and on what basis (which should preferably not comprise only or largely the chef's position in some personal hierarchy of iconoclasticism or what have you).

And I am less concerned about whether they liked it or not, but I'll refrain from saying that's a difference. I suppose this depends on who they are and how well I understand their taste, for me.

in the meantime, it may alarm you, or at least disturb your location of our differences, to discover that i actually have the exact same attitude to eating while travelling that you describe. i don't just like to eat the things i can't get at home (and, by the way, i find this is better located by talking with waiters and owners of restaurants than by reading reviews) i also like to eat very simple things first. one of the most revelatory experiences for me on my one long trip to italy was eating basic preparations of pasta and tomato sauce and so on.

regards,

mongo

I am not alarmed and think of it not as disturbing the location, but as shifting it to a more accurate spot. Waiters are like people. Some are reliable and some are not. The definition of a good restaurant should include having reliable waiters, however. I am looking forward to having what has been touted as Madrid's, or maybe Spain's, best tortilla de patatas. Can't get too much more basic than that, I think.

[Sparkitus]

an idea i had years ago would be to have a "siskel and ebert" approach to the restaurant review or even a "he said, she said" review format. two people go eat at least twice, but separately and they compare and contrast their experiences at each restaurant. you could have a one thumb up and one thumb down, but they'd have to qualify their opinions in their review.

an idea i had years ago would be to have a "siskel and ebert" approach to the restaurant review or even a "he said, she said" review format.  two people go eat at least twice, but separately and they compare and contrast their experiences at each restaurant.  you could have a one thumb up and one thumb down, but they'd have to qualify their opinions in their review.

Actually, I've seen this approach, exactly as you've described. It was a husband and wife team and it didn't work any better at all. They wrote with one voice and were, frankly, more catty and nasty than just about any other reviewer I've read since. By the way, this was the 80's in Hartford and their names were Jane and Michael Stern, writing for the Courant. They gave one restaurant such a hideous review that it closed 6 months later and the outcry was such that they soon after stopped reviewing for the Courant altogether.

[Suzanne F]

The Sterns were recently part of a panel on "The Persona in Food Writing" and brought up that story. Actually, Jane said that almost all the negative criticism about their reviews began "That bitch Jane Stern . . ." as if Michael had nothing to do with it. Hmmm.

[Andy Lynes]

Given that it been assumed during this discussion that Amanda Hesser has praised Jean-Georges Vongerichten repeatedly over time, in the interest of fairness we performed a search for any arguably critical comments that Amanda Hesser may have made about Jean-Georges Vongerichten or his restaurants. We found a few.

In addition to the comments about 66 and Mercer Kitchen in the recent Spice Market review, we found two comments in older pieces about the high price of the Valentine's Day menu at the restaurant Jean Georges. In all, we found 20 articles by Amanda Hesser that made mention of Jean-Georges Vongerichten or his restaurant Jean Georges in the New York Times between June 1998 and the time of the Spice Market review. Here is a complete rundown:

EN ROUTE: FRANCE; Now Boarding: The Turbot, A True Fish Out of Water (Published June 10, 1998, Wednesday).

Live fish does not come cheap. In the United States, it costs more than twice as much as dead, freshly caught fish . . . .But, says Jean-Georges Vongerichten . . . the difference in taste is remarkable.

"When it's alive," he said, "it's like a raw oyster. It has an algae flavor. It's totally different." . . . . So far, he has used black sea bass, fluke and sea robin. . . . .Diners eating the fluke, Mr. Vongerichten said, "thought it was Dover sole because it was so firm."

A Ravenous City Dines All Through The Night (Published August 12, 1998, Wednesday)

"Even the new Mercer Kitchen, a restaurant run by Jean-Georges Vongerichten, a four-star chef, plans in September to serve a condensed dinner menu until 2 A.M."

Too Many Cooks? Not Nearly Enough(Published October 25, 1998, Sunday)

In a simpler time, succeeding as a chef was primarily about talent and the ability to endure the long hours and physical demands. Today, though, rising to the top of the profession -- becoming the next Sottha Khunn or Jean Georges Vongerichten . . . involves much more. It takes careful planning and networking, years of sharp-elbowed ladder-climbing in the kitchen and, usually, a large financial investment on which the return will probably be slow. . . . When these men made the move to chef and owner, both investors and faithful diners followed.

The Tool That Chefs Love, And Home Cooks Barely Know (Published

January 27, 1999, Wednesday)

The mandoline is even more convincing, though, when it is used to transform conventional dishes. Jean-Georges Vongerichten, the chef at Jean Georges, uses it to make a typical fennel and apple salad. But by slicing the fennel and apple as thinly as possible on a mandoline, rather than having the usual texture of coleslaw, the fennel and apple are more like tissue paper -- gossamer sheets that melt on the tongue. The flavors blend more subtly and the salad looks like a glistening tangle of opaque ribbon.

The Envelope, Please: Cooking En Papillote (Published May 19, 1999, Wednesday)

". . . Vongerichten . . . uses the technique. . . .He brushes a piece of foil with olive oil, and then assembles a pyramid of spring vegetables . . . and a neat square of black bass. Over it he lays asparagus and ramps, and seasons the stack with salt, enriched chicken stock and vin jaune . . .. He folds it up firmly but roughly . . . . He heats a saute pan brushed with oil, and then lays the foil package directly on top. It inflates like a balloon . . . .  Vongerichten calls it "Jiffy Pop for black bass."

. . .Vongerichten cut into his dish, it was certainly no Jiffy Pop. It was something divine."

TEMPTATION; There's a Fish in My Buttermilk (Published September 29, 1999, Wednesday)

Jean-Georges Vongerichten, the chef and an owner of Jo Jo, discovered this pairing one night when he tried a stuffing for poussin with the fish and buttermilk. It worked. The combination of fish and buttermilk, he said, was a natural.

"If you look at poached fish in classic cooking," he said, "they're always being cooked in milk." The chef found that buttermilk kept the flesh of the fish white and added a desirable touch of acidity.

Using the Plate As a Blank Canvas; The art of presentation is essential to fine cooking, and not just in restaurants. (Published December 1, 1999, Wednesday)

Hesser begins the article with Vongerichten "doodling" a presentational idea for a dish of sea bass as an illustration of how " Chefs are increasingly conscious about how they present food, and today's restaurants can serve as advanced courses in postmodern plate design." She states that "Mr. Vongerichten's spare style reflects the clean, pure flavors of his cooking." And uses the sea bass dish as an example: " By placing the triangle fish off-center on a plain white plate, it brought attention to it . . . The coarse salt crystals dotting the top of the fish added texture, and the free-form curve of green sauce surrounding the fish set it off . . . ."

She uses a second Vongerichten dish of foie gras terrine and brioche toast to illustrate her point further "there is more negative space than positive. A slice of truffle lies on a half circles of terrine and toasted brioche. They are sprinkled with fleur de sel and coarse pepper. There is nothing else on the plate. The presentation is modern and stark, but not merely stylish. Its simplicity has a way of making the dish more welcoming than cool, complex, architectural formations."

Finally, she cites a third dish by the chef to argue that "chefs design dishes that invite diners to get involved . . . . . Mr. Vongerichten places caraway crisps between mounds of crab salad and has the waiter instruct diners to spoon it onto the crisps."

A Whisper Of Spring In a Sprout (Published February 23, 2000, Wednesday)

Lee Jones, an owner of the Chef's Garden in Huron, Ohio, which sells vegetables to chefs like Thomas Keller, Charlie Trotter and Jean-Georges Vongerichten, grows his vegetable sprouts in compost at low temperatures. The slower the sprouts grow, Mr. Jones said, the better their flavor.

Need a Chef? Have Your People Call My People (Published April 12, 2000, Wednesday)

Mr. Farnabe's path represents just what has happened in the restaurant world in recent years. Chefs have gone from being essentially blue-collar workers to true professionals, as much in demand as athletes. Top players, like Daniel Boulud, Jean-Georges Vongerichten and Alice Waters, have become brand names, and their proteges, like Mr. Farnabe, use those brands as springboards.

What Peppercorns Only Dream of Being (Published May 3, 2000, Wednesday)

As I was cooking, I realized that using black pepper had become a reflex. I had to be more thoughtful with grains of paradise; their gentle flavors could be easily overpowered.

I later learned that Jean-Georges Vongerichten is one of the very, very few chefs who have begun experimenting with the spice. He crusts halibut with the crushed grains, adds them to mignonette sauce for oysters and stirs them into tomato juice with balsamic vinegar and lime juice to make a startlingly peppy bloody Mary.

How the Cookie Should Crumble (Published July 19, 2000, Wednesday)

HE cookie was round, about as thick as a plate and the color of sand. It was perched on a neat circle of raspberries. Its controlled perfection was just what you expect at Jean Georges. . . . .Vongerichten, gave me the recipe, which he calls petit beurre . . . .  A standard almond cookie dough is mixed, then shaped into a cookie the size of a Frisbee and baked.

Mr. Vongerichten came across the recipe in "Nouvelle Cuisine Bourgeoise Pour La Ville et Pour La Campagne," a 19th-century cookbook by Urbain Dubois . . . .

Where the Fieldworkers Wear Lab Coats (Published August 16, 2000, Wednesday)

The herbs the woman was harvesting were just one of more than 600 plant varieties on the 70-acre farm. In less than 24 hours those herbs, meticulously cleaned and gathered in bouquets -- clean, vibrant, impossibly perfect ones -- would be shipped overnight to one of the country's top kitchens. For years, Charlie Trotter has been buying from this farm. More recently, Jean-Georges Vongerichten and Alain Ducasse have begun ordering. Even Thomas Keller, whose restaurant rests in what many consider to be America's fertile crescent, the Napa Valley, orders vegetables from here.

The Celestial Cauliflower: Earning a Spot in the Sun (Published January 17, 2001, Wednesday)

Chefs are not innocent. If it weren't for Jean-Georges Vongerichten, who christened the concept of caramelizing cross sections of cauliflower -- glistening, amber-rimmed trees -- it might never have been on menus. (It is now, of course, there are dozens of Jean-Georges facsimiles around New York.) You'll see the occasional puree or gratin, as well. But mostly, cauliflower is overlooked, treated with less reverence than a hot dog.

Home Is Where The Party Is (Published March 28, 2001, Wednesday)

. . . . while . . . the prices in good restaurants are so high your meal ends with a punch to the gut -- it is probably time to recall an antidote to it all: home entertaining. Dinner parties where friends pitch in, where the food is good but not overworked and where the table is never turned.

. . . . a recent break-the-bank experience at a restaurant made it all the more appealing. (Valentine's Day. Jean Georges. More than $600 for two. We split the check.)

. . . . .

. . . . I'm not in denial. Dinner parties, though much less expensive than Jean Georges, are not cheap, and they take work.

In From the Fields, An Elegant Partner (Published July 18, 2001, Wednesday)

A few years ago, Jean-Georges Vongerichten started serving blocks of red and yellow watermelon in a stack like crisscrossed logs, with goat cheese, fleur de sel, cracked white pepper and olive oil sprinkled around.

Beyond Quiet Dining Rooms, A Quiet Crisis in the Kitchen (Published October 10, 2001, Wednesday)

Last week, Peacock Alley in the Waldorf-Astoria closed for good. So did Virot, a promising new restaurant run by an acolyte of Jean-Georges Vongerichten. Daniel, perhaps New York's most revered restaurant, stopped serving lunch for lack of business. Charlie Palmer cut prices 10 to 15 percent at Alva, his casual restaurant in the Flatiron district. Abajour, an Upper East Side bistro, sent out 30,000 cards offering free dessert.

The Farthest Thing From Pressure Cooking (Published January 16, 2002, Wednesday)

Jean-Georges Vongerichten braises carrots with cumin and orange juice and beef brisket smothered in onions, while Mario Batali braises beef cheeks in red wine before filling ravioli with them.

In the New Dinner Theater, The Kitchen Comes to the Table (Published March 27, 2002, Wednesday)

Consider. . . what happens when you ask for a plate of fresh fruit at Jean Georges. When I did last week, a whole pineapple was presented to me on a silver tray for inspection. . . . .Vongerichten, caressed it like a rare bottle of wine. "It's a pineapple from Costa Rica," he said seriously.

There is nothing necessary about Mr. Vongerichten's technique, and he admits as much. "In France," he said, "to carve a pineapple is a big tradition. But there, they cut it in half and do it on a board. . . .I found a way to put the forks in it and lift it up."

An Enchanted Evening, If You Have the Right Attitude (Published February 12, 2003, Wednesday)

"Jean Georges that (Valentines) day was not the restaurant I knew. . . . the restaurant had an army of servers . . . . Everyone was treated like a V.I.P. The floral arrangements were superb. We ate a year's share of truffles, foie gras and chocolate . . . .

Valentine's Day dinners do come for a price. It was not printed on the menu, and I had failed to ask when I called for the reservation . . . . two tasting menus and an $80 bottle of wine added up to more than $600.

The good news is that this year Jean Georges has gone back to its regular menu. . . . "

RESTAURANTS; Fancy Street Food, but What a Street (Published March 24, 2004, Wednesday)

Hesser begins her review by noting the "the stench of blood and offal from the surrounding meatpacking district" on the approach to Jean-Georges Vongerichten's Spice Market restaurant and muses that, "given Mr. Vongerichten's capacity for taking pains, the stench could well be part of his plan".

She notes that Vongerichten's Mercer Kitchen "serves good food with nods to Asia, but it is dark and unforgivingly loud." and continues "Mr. Vongerichten made a breakthrough with Chinese cooking at 66. . . . But the dining room at 66 is like a hip morgue, and it has failed to woo serious diners."

Hesser observes however that "Mr. Vongerichten seems to have had an epiphany. . . . And at Spice Market, he has hit on something new: casual, exotic luxury and food that people want to eat." She describes the restaurants food as street food "reworked and polished. Egg rolls stuffed with mushrooms gleam under Mr. Vongerichten's touch.". . . . "Vietnamese spring rolls stuffed with pork, mushroom and shrimp" deliver "a succession of stimulating textures and vivid flavors" that "flutter on your palate."

In Hesser's opinion "No detail eludes Mr. Vongerichten's experimental mind. Even the ginger ale is homemade. An extract of ginger, sugar and lime is blended with club soda -- a drink with perfect zip."

For Hesser, a dish of Thai jewels "explains why Spice Market is such an extraordinary pleasure". She concludes the three star review claiming that "There's more to say but no room to write it." and urges the reader to go to the restaurant but to "suspend disbelief and save room for the Thai jewels."

[oakapple]

Andy Lynes wrote:

Given that it been assumed during this discussion that Amanda Hesser has praised Jean-Georges Vongerichten repeatedly over time, in the interest of fairness we performed a search for any arguably critical comments that Amanda Hesser may have made about Jean-Georges Vongerichten or his restaurants. We found a few.

It seems like practically none at all. Prior to the Spice Market review, the only thing she said that was arguably critical, was her comment about the $600 tab for two on Valentine's Day at Jean Georges---a comment she made twice. In the Spice Market review itself, she has some slightly negative comments to make about Mercer Kitchen and 66, but this is just the on-ramp to her 3-star review of Spice Market. Andy quotes about 20 articles that mention him.

Wasn't Vongerichten quoted recently as saying he had only met Hesser once, and that about 5 years ago? The articles Andy quoted give the distinct impression that they have met more often than that.

[Fat Guy]

There only seems to be one article in which she gives an account of a face-to-face meeting. That is consistent with Vongerichten's claim that he only met her once. As for not remembering what she looks like . . . whatever.

Andy, thanks very much for that rundown. We appreciate the work you and the "research department" put into it, and also the non-judgmental presentation.

[oakapple]

There only seems to be one article in which she gives an account of a face-to-face meeting.

A good deal of them are ambiguous, but it's almost impossible to believe she met him only once.

She

quotes

JGV on June 10, 1998. The quote sounds conversational, though it could have been a phone interview.

On May 19, 1999, she wrotes: "Vongerichten cut into his dish...." That sounds like an observation in person. The article suggests she watched him make the dish, not that she was quoting from a recipe: "Over it he lays asparagus and ramps, and seasons the stack with salt, enriched chicken stock and vin jaune . . .. He folds it up firmly but roughly . . . . He heats a saute pan brushed with oil, and then lays the foil package directly on top. It inflates like a balloon . . . . "

She quotes him again on September 29, 1999. Again, unclear if she saw him in person.

An article on December 1, 1999, describes JGV as "doodling" --- a difficult observation to make without meeting him in person.

An article on July 19, 2000, says that JVG gave her a recipe. Not absolute proof of a meeting, but had it come through the mail she'd more likely have said sent, rather than gave.

No question that they met on March 27, 2002, when she describes JVG personally delivering a carved pineapple on a silver tray.

All in all, it sounds like more than one meeting to me, although it's quite possible that Vongerichten only remembered one. Winsome she may be, but I would imagine he meets many like that.