The Tasting Room

[BryanZ]

Stopped by the new Tasting Room tonight with my family and came away quite satisfied if not overly impressed. I find myself drawing comparisons between here and Blue Hill, finding the latter to be more communicative, as Sneakeater alluded to several posts back, and admirably subtle in flavor delivery.

The vibe is definitely downtown casual and friendly. Lots of people eating at the bar, sharing plates, and even conversing between tables. I'm kind of sad to see the "taste" part of the menu go, as this may have been a more fun way to experience the cuisine. Service was amiable but we found ourselves waiting for long stretches of time to get our apps and mains. It wasn't a painfully long wait but bordering on annoying and based on our early seating and a 2/3 full restaurant, this shouldn't have been the case. Perhaps the kitchen staff is still getting used to the new kitchen and greater number of covers.

The food itself is very tasty and clean, with obvious strong market influences. In fact, many of the accompanying salads and produce-based condiments stole the show, as was the case all three of our appetizers. This is by no means a bad thing but makes one wonder how appropriate it is for the accompaniments to consistently outshine the main player. Besides the clean and clear flavors, the dishes didn't leave me begging for more. They were all good, sometimes very good, but lacked a certain pop or wow factor. Again, think Blue Hill lite.

Edited August 13, 2006 by BryanZ (log)

[Sneakeater]

Blue Hill is a very interesting comparison. I think something that has hurt the Tasting Room, at least for people like me, has been the (to my mind) overly positive reviews it's gotten. If you read through this thread, for example, you'll see that people were constantly saying that the original incarnation wasn't just great for what it was, but great absolute, as if the Tasting Room were one of the best restaurants in New York. Even in its new improved incarnation (the more I think about it, the more I'm really convinced that they must benefit from vastly improved kitchen facilities), it's not that. The food at a place like Blue Hill rewards concentration; the food at the Tasting Room is just good to eat, in an everyday sort of way. It's near the top of that category -- which is a genuine achievement -- but still, it is what it is.

Not to psychoanalyze the posters, but I think the (to me) overly enthusiastic response the Tasting Room has received is attributable to the friendliness of the owners, Colin and (especially) Renee, which their staff, either by instruction or inclination, mimics. There are very few places that give you as warm a welcome as the Tasting Room. I don't want to minimize the importance of being made to feel good in what is essentially a social activity. But I think it can have unforeseen negative consequences if it causes people to overrate the food. It can raise false expectations that lead to disappointment in subsequent diners. That's certainly what happened to me, at least in the old place. (As I've said repeatedly, I find the new place materially better.)

I think Landmarc is a good example of this. I always thought Landmarc was good, but I never understood the highly positive write-ups it got here. Finally, recently, one of its enthusiastic supporters acknowledged that at least his enthusiasm for that place was attributable in large part to the warmth of the owners.

My point in all this is to say that, difficult as it is, it would be nice if reviewers could try to separate their feelings for the owners of a place, and how they're treated there, from their feelings about the food. I'm not saying we shouldn't say we like places on that basis; only that we should try to be clear why. I know its hard. But in the end, it prevents you from doing a place a disservice by raising false expectations about food quality. (Of course, I do it, too, and I'm sure I won't be able to follow my own advice any more than anyone else will.)

Sorry for the presumptuousness of the foregoing.

Edited August 13, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[docsconz]

I haven't been to The tasting Room yet so I can't comment on the food or anything else directly relating to that restaurant, however, I do believe that the overall experience does affect one's perception of the quality of the food at a restaurant. A feeling of genuine warmth can go a long way in smoothing over some blemishes just as a cold reception or poor service can ruin an otherwise good meal. It is important to distinguish in a review between an overall great restaurant vs. simply great food. In a lot of respects if I had to choose between them, I would choose the former unless the food at the latter really was that good.

[Sneakeater]

You know, just to be clear, I don't even disagree with that. In fact, I agree pretty strongly.

[Nathan]

I'm afraid that I had a very mediocre meal here on Saturday. (Eatmywords was along as well and will no doubt chime in at some point.)

Collectively, we tried a good deal of the late summer menu so I feel comfortable in saying that we had a reasonable sampling.

It may be that the culinary aesthetic of The Tasting Room is simply not conducive to the appetizer/entree format, in which case they should have stuck to their old "Tastes" format.

Almost every dish was missing something...a sauce, an emulsion, something to bind the ingredients together. something to demonstrate artistry (especially at the price point...in ambience and location The Tasting Room is a "neighborhood restaurant"...heck, I literally live a block and a half down the street...unfortunately, with $15 apps and $30 entrees (on average)...its prices evince a stronger ambition).

The stuffed chicken breast app was the best dish of the night. I believe SneakEater discussed this at length before.

The braised turbot entree was also quite good.

Every other dish was composed of excellent ingredients, cooked well enough but with no creativity whatsoever. Frankly, with some effort, I could have made them myself.

The smoked eel app was, well, that. There was some sort of fowl terrine (guinea hen?), it wasn't foul but wasn't interesting. The pork entree was overcooked and had 20% of the taste of the chop at Little Owl but was significantly more expensive. We had some sort of striped bream or bass entree that was absolutely forgettable. There was another app which I've completely forgotten.

The wine list is, of course, notable and different.

It's a shame because I really want to like this place...ingredient-driven restaurants are exactly in-keeping with my palate. But when it's simply ingredients cooked well enough, tossed together on a plate, and then charged at prices which can get you a meal at Perry Street (with the same quality ingredients but with real culinary mastery as well)....I simply feel fleeced. Nothing was bad, but with one or two exceptions, nothing was really good.

[Daniel]

Wow.. that sucks.. Sorry you guys had that experience. The last time I went there, they over cooked a dish of mine too.. It was a veal dish.. They took it back and brought us out a porkchop cooked sous vide with out me asking..

But you wrote "Almost every dish was missing something...a sauce, an emulsion, something to bind the ingredients together. something to demonstrate artistry (especially at the price point...in ambience and location The Tasting Room is a "neighborhood restaurant"...heck, I literally live a block and a half down the street...unfortunately, with $15 apps and $30 entrees (on average)...its prices evince a stronger ambition)."

Well that goes passed overcooking some veal.. I can only hope its just opening problems and the Fall menu will be stronger.. I still am looking forward to trying it..

[Sneakeater]

I think it's all a question of expectations management.

I went into the old Tasting Room expecting to love it, fueled by the reviews here. I thought it was mediocre.

I went in to the new Tasting Room expecting to think it was mediocre, on the basis of my experience with the old Tasting Room. I didn't love it, but I quite liked it.

Now Nathan and Eatmywords, having read reviews like mine of the new Tasting Room, are disappointed. Probably, I think, because the food is so modest it only has an impact if you approach it with lowish expectations.

I think BryanZ got it exactly right:

Besides the clean and clear flavors, the dishes didn't leave me begging for more.  They were all good, sometimes very good, but lacked a certain pop or wow factor.  Again, think Blue Hill lite.

←

I would argue -- well, not really argue, maybe just "say" -- that sometimes you don't want a "wow" factor. You just want to eat. I agree with Nathan that most of the stuff at the new Tasting Room is stuff you either could or almost could make yourself (if you had the time and connections to get such good ingredients). But what with work and posting on the internet and chasing potential new life partners and everything, I (for one) don't have time to cook like that. So there's a place for a place like this.

That then brings us to the problem of the price. I didn't notice the prices here approximating those at Perry Street. It gives me pause to think of it that way. Because Nathan is certainly right that Perry Street is a whole level above the Tasting Room in terms of culinary sophistication and mastery. I always thought of the food at the new Tasting Room as being a pretty fair value, because even without any "wow" factor, the ingredients are so good.* Maybe I'll have to reconsider that.

But are we SURE it's REALLY as expensive as Perry Street?

____________________________________________________________

* Tasting Room = less tasty, better ingredients.

Little Owl = more tasty, worse ingredients.

It never offended me that the Tasting Room charges more than Little Owl.

Edited September 11, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Nathan]

the prices aren't modest. for me, a restaurant's prices, in and of themselves, are a direct indicator of a restaurant's ambitions.

That's why Little Owl overperforms and why I see Tasting Room as under-delivering (by a large margin).

[Sneakeater]

I think that's a very valid point.

[Nathan]

"But are we SURE it's REALLY as expensive as Perry Street?"

absolutely. average entree price at The Tasting Room on Saturday night...$30...and I'm not exaggerating. one was $26, some were $32.

entrees at Perry Street are at exactly the same price point.

apps are also similar.

[Sneakeater]

What do you think of Blue Hill?

[Nathan]

alas, I haven't eaten at Blue Hill yet. I've been meaning to.

according to menupages, the prices at Blue Hill are exactly the same as at The Tasting Room:

http://www.menupages.com/restaurantdetails...d=0&cuisineid=0

Edited September 11, 2006 by Nathan (log)

[Sneakeater]

I wonder if you'd like Blue Hill. (I myself am agnositic.) It may be that, as much as you like ingredient-driven cooking, you don't respond to really simple cooking (at least in restaurants that charge more than a minimum).

(Although in the end the cooking at Blue Hill might be more superficially simple-seeming than truly simple: I haven't eaten there enough to find out, but suspect that based on what people like Bux have written.)

[Nathan]

I don't want to speak for Eatmywords but I think it's fair to say that he disliked The Tasting Room more than I did but has had superlative things to say about Blue Hill. I found that telling.

[Sneakeater]

Just to be clear, I agree that Blue Hill isn't in the same category as the Tasting Room. It's clearly a higher life form.

[Nathan]

but it is in exactly the same price category. and that's my problem with TTR

[Sneakeater]

As I said, that's a very valid point.

[daisy17]

My point in all this is to say that, difficult as it is, it would be nice if reviewers could try to separate their feelings for the owners of a place, and how they're treated there, from their feelings about the food.  I'm not saying we shouldn't say we like places on that basis; only that we should try to be clear why.  I know its hard.  But in the end, it prevents you from doing a place a disservice by raising false expectations about food quality. (Of course, I do it, too, and I'm sure I won't be able to follow my own advice any more than anyone else will.)

←

Visited the Tasting Room two weeks ago in the dining room, and last week at the bar. It's interesting to me that Sneakeater's comment regarding service vs. food is on this thread - he could have made it in a number of places - but I find it especially appropriate here. I've been thinking about my meals since I had them, and I'm kind of conflicted. What I may just need to accept is that it's difficult for a restaurant to be all things, and that's ok.

The front room/bar area is warm and inviting. On my first visit, I went a little early with the intention of having a cocktail before the others arrived, and I was well-rewarded. Michael, the bartender, made me my new favorite summer cocktail - the Iced Tea Italiano, with lemon, sparkling wine and Meletti amaro. Perfection. I will be back at that bar very often.

On my first visit we sat in the back room. As described earlier, the front bar area is connected to two dining rooms by a brick passageway. My impression was that the space became less inviting as you went further back. Not a fan of the decor in the back room, kind of sterile.

The menu is very eclectic - we had lots of questions for our waiter, who was patient, informative and helpful. The menu is a clear reflection of the restaurant's laudable intentions to cook with carefully sourced, locally grown, seasonal ingredients, which I applaud wholeheartedly. I sampled the heirloom tomato salad with ricotta (beautiful tomatoes!) and the escabeche of butterfish (with small pieces of vinegar-soaked bread). I am completely blanking on the name of my fish - but it was overcooked. The preparation was satisfying - creamed corn and tiny heirloom tomatoes - but the fish itself missed the mark. I tasted the braised kid goat - it was flavorful but didn't seem to fully satisfy those who ordered it. Desserts were fantastic - peach cobbler with ice cream, brioche bread pudding, and cheesecake. The food on my second visit was good, definitely good, but I wasn't floored. It was a shoulder night - lamb shoulder with feta to start (very tasty but the meat was a little tough) and pork shoulder for a main. Desserts and cocktails were again terrific - can't remember what the cocktails were (this was not our first stop and I have gimlet issues), and peach cobbler and bread pudding.

The service was exactly what I expected: warm, welcoming, attentive. Intentions were in all the right places and the waitstaff showed a deep interest in ensuring that our meal was satisfying, from helping us select a wine to explaining preparations. Our waiter repeatedly referred to not "the kitchen" or "the chef," but "Colin," which I think exemplifies the approach of the restaurant (and perhaps speaks to Sneakeater's point?). The few minor missteps we encountered I attributed to a new restaurant still getting the kinks out. On my second visit we were recognized as returning customers and were warmly greeted. Hospitality at its best.

So I was very impressed by the approach, the cocktails, the philosophy, the service. But. I wanted to be blown away by the food and I wasn't. I'm optimistic though, and I still have high hopes for being blown away, in part because I liked so many other things about the restaurant. I am a firm believer in what docsconz describes above about hospitality, and I know that my impression of many a meal has been greatly swayed by the service. Here, my impression was so favorable that I know I'll be back.

[Nathan]

This post exemplifies what may be the real problem. Virtually none of the dishes daisy17 mentions were on the menu last week (I would have ordered that goat or either of the shoulders in a heartbeat if they were)...I question whether a kitchen that small can really put out that many constantly changing dishes and have them work.

[daisy17]

This post exemplifies what may be the real problem.  Virtually none of the dishes daisy17 mentions were on the menu last week (I would have ordered that goat or either of the shoulders in a heartbeat if they were)...I question whether a kitchen that small can really put out that many constantly changing dishes and have them work.

←

Nathan, you make a really good point. The menu had completely changed on my second visit, exactly one week after my first.

[Sneakeater]

I've been there on occassions one or two business days apart when the menu had completely changed between visits.

[Nathan]

Well, that explains why their culinary aesthetic appears to be:

let's take some really great vegetables (whatever we got in today) and cook those while throwing a simple a fish fillet into a pan and searing it. then we put them together on a plate and charge $32 for it. nice work if you can get it.

[Nathan]

not to keep whipping a dead capybara, but here is the menu for Perry Street:

http://www.zagat.com/verticals/Menu.aspx?V...7&HID=500002003

with the exception of the lobster and caviar...Perry Street is no more expensive than the Tasting Room.

[Sneakeater]

What I think is amazing is that you somehow managed to find a JGV menu online.

[Nathan]

its the second time ever.

I once found a Jean Georges (the eponymous restaurant) menu in pdf form on Amazon before eating there.

but yeah, google is a wonderful thing.

unfortunately, I can't find a sample menu for the new Tasting Room with prices

Edited September 13, 2006 by Nathan (log)