Peter Luger Steakhouse (2001-2003)

[tommy]

nina, just because rich's foolish opinions are foolish doesn't mean that *he's* coming off as looking foolish. jeesh.

[LaNiña]

nina, just because rich's foolish opinions are foolish doesn't mean that *he's* coming off as looking foolish.  jeesh.

I'm sorry, but that's what I think. Anybody who can say that PL's steak is "not good" doesn't know from good meat. And yes, I sound like Plots. So be it.

[tommy]

everyone is entitled to nina's opinion, which, by the way, is never foolish.

[Ron Johnson]

Rich, when you have an opportunity, and if you are comfortable, please consider taking a moment to tell us if you think Bern's steaks are better than those served at Peter Luger.

[LaNiña]

He already said that loud and clear, Ron.

Oh, were you kidding?

[Ron Johnson]

Yes I was, but don't let that stop you.

It obviously didn't stop Rich, see below.

[rich]

Rich, when you have an opportunity, and if you are comfortable, please consider taking a moment to tell us if you think Bern's steaks are better than those served at Peter Luger. 

Before I answer, let me say that I've been foolish for years (actually since 1973). There's nothing wrong with being foolish as long as I'm not a fool.

I don't think I said good food, but quality food - there is a difference, especially compared to what their quality once was.

In my opinion, the quality of Bern's meat is unmatched. The taste is fuller, and has more texture. The Delmonico cut is the best I've ever had - it's tender and chewy and the same time - almost an oxymoron. (Yes, I know some people will say the last five letters describe me.) They "never" miss with respect to cooking instructions. The presentation is better and the accompaniments are outstanding.

PL may have gone to a lesser grade over time - though I have not been able to confirm that. I have no problem with people thinking PL is the best in the world (and at one time it was), everyone is entitled to an opinion. But as a client for the past 34 years, I have noticed the difference.

[rich]

Yes I was, but don't let that stop you. 

It obviously didn't stop Rich, see below.

I figured as long as you asked...

[Fat Guy]

In my opinion, PL stopped serving quality food about 10 years ago, but most reviewers are intimidated to say so - thus the legend (unfortunately) continues.

Most reviewers? Can you point to a single serious reviewer who says Peter Luger isn't great? This kind of unanimity doesn't come easy. When such uniformity of opinion exists, it can sometimes be wrong, but one has to come up with a pretty compelling explanation of motive in order to dismiss the consensus of experts. Intimidation just doesn't cut it as a theory in my book. I can tell you from a personal standpoint that I'd love nothing more than to dislike Peter Luger -- many reviewers thrive on going against the consensus. From whence does this alleged intimidation derive? What reason could someone like David Rosengarten, whose review I referenced above, have for saying anything other than what he believes in this instance?

[Wilfrid]

Maybe they put the frighteners on him?

[rich]

Most reviewers? Can you point to a single serious reviewer who says Peter Luger isn't great? From whence does this alleged intimidation derive? What reason could someone like David Rosengarten, whose review I referenced above, have for saying anything other than what he believes in this instance?

FG - You're correct, no one to my knowledge has ever given PL a bad review. And that's the problem as I see it. I only said "most" because I'm sure I haven't read every PL review and didn't want to state an absolute.

As far as intimidation. It seems to me, the prestige of the restaurant has a lot to do with it - no critic wants to go that far out on a limb (credibility). Years ago, Parioli Romanissimo fell into this category.

I know PL isn't as good as it once was and there have been enough similar comments here to at least make that possible. So why don't critics see that? Intimidation seems to be the only logical answer - unless you can think of something else.

[macrosan]

What reason could someone like David Rosengarten, whose review I referenced above, have for saying anything other than what he believes in this instance?

OK, if there's a prize for the most credible answer, I'll give it a try

Rosengarten ? Now that is German for "rose garden" (of course, of course), which is Country & Western rhyming slang for "I beg your pardon" (courtesy of Lynn Anderson) so "David Rosegarten" is a cunning cover name for an apologetic German (see the connection? German...Luger...) stooge, a sleeper inserted into the media by Peter Luger himself, no doubt, as long ago as 1887 for just this eventuality. Rumors start to circulate about a drop in quality, and up pops the sleeper to write "I beg your pardon....I never promised you a Rosengarten....but those steaks are as great as ever ....". Simple, really, when you have a total command of the German language and C&W Rhyming Slang.

[Wilfrid]

Macrosan's been on the Mackeson.

[Charles Smith]

I've been following this thread with fascination as a confirmed PL lover- heck, I've never been to S&W- why go?

I actually think PL is the perfect opportunity for a new reviewer to pan it- chance to make a name, etc. I just don't see it happening- the place is simply too good.

Cheers,

Charles

[Steve Plotnicki]

You have to be suspect of the opinion of a person who believes that the 1978 vintage in Bordeaux (this is Rich I'm talking about) is a better vintage than 1982 or some other good years. It's kind of like saying the '69 Mets were a better team then the '27 Yankees. Except the '69 Mets were a good team and the '78 vintage in Bordeaux was not a particularly good vintage. So like someone here said, everyone here is entitled to their opinion. But that doesn't mean their opinion isn't wrong.

Now, I've never been to Bern's Steak House but I've had many a friend who has been and to a person they proclaim it fine but kind of mediocre. But even worse then that, to be able to go to Peter Luger's and not be able to tell that they have something special going on there, one should check into a food college and take steak 101. Whether you like the taste or not, it is a totally unique approach to steak all the way from the aging process to the cooking method. It's a one of a kind steak and there ain't nothing else like it. Fartig. But to prefer Smith & Wollinksy, a totally indistinguishable steak to PL is meshugah. And anyone who has that opinion knows bubkas about steak. In fact the meat council should ban them from eating the stuff.

[Charles Smith]

food college?

now that's something I might be able to handle.

But I imagine you don't grade on a curve ;-)

[rich]

Except the '69 Mets were a good team and the '78 vintage in Bordeaux was not a particularly good vintage. So like someone here said, everyone here is entitled to their opinion. But that doesn't mean their opinion isn't wrong.

But to prefer Smith & Wollinksy, a totally indistinguishable steak to PL is meshugah. And anyone who has that opinion knows bubkas about steak. In fact the meat council should ban them from eating the stuff.

Steve - thanks for the vote of confidence. Personal attacks are always welcome.

If you think the '78 vintage wasn't particularly good, I feel sorry for you. Kindly accept my condolences.

I'll try and matriculate, but I doubt they would accept a fool like me. As far as the meat council is concerned, I'll suggest that next time they're gathering at Bern's.

[LESider]

you don't like Luger's? Good. Don't go. one less person to compete with for the best steak in NYC.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Sorry Rich But I haven't said anything about your person. Just your opinion about PL's, Bern's and the vintages of wines you have posted on. And while it's easy for most people here to judge for themselves about Luger's because they have been, most people don't know what I'm talking about when I say 1978 vs 1982 vintage in Bordeaux. Let me try and make a good analogy. Okay, it's like saying Ray Ordonez is better than Derek Jeter. Or maybe that John Starks is better than Michael Jordon. Or that the Chrysler Building is taller than the Empire State Building. Or that the speed of sound is faster than the speed of light. I can make a million of them.

[tommy]

as subtle as a high colonic.

Welcome.

[Wilfrid]

I have met avowed steak-fanciers who didn't like Lugers. I recall one - an attorney who lived for steak houses - who used to pull a face when they were mentioned and mutter "They have a different way with steak". I admit, he didn't say their steak wasn't good, but he was clearly uncomfortable with their approach.

I am going to have to go one day, aren't I?

[rich]

Let me try and make a good analogy. Okay, it's like saying Ray Ordonez is better than Derek Jeter. Or maybe that John Starks is better than Michael Jordon. Or that the Chrysler Building is taller than the Empire State Building. Or that the speed of sound is faster than the speed of light. I can make a million of them.

The only problem with your analogies (please don't post the other 900,000+) is that they all can be measured through statisitics or accurate measurements. My opinions about '78 Bordeaux or PL are in the minority but can't be definitively measured through any mathematical scale.

I'm sure everyone one of us has a minority opinion about something - it allows debate.

[tommy]

I'm sure everyone one of us has a minority opinion about something - it's allows debate.

you're an idiot and you don't know anything about anything.

[rich]

[you're an idiot and you don't know anything about anything.  ™

That's the first thing anybody has said that makes sense.

[Steve Plotnicki]

"My opinions about '78 Bordeaux or PL are in the minority but can't be definitively measured through any mathematical scale."

Well since you're the only person in the whole f*cking universe who thinks that I beg to differ that it can't be mathematically quantified.

Wilfird's attorney friend has it right. You might not like the Luger style, but there is no denying it isn't there.