Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2004)

[rich]

Henry's End, Chanterelle, Blue Hill, Nobu, Grocery, Aquavit and if continues it impress I would consider Landmarc. Sparks deserves a thought and I'm sure a lot of people (not me however) would include Luger.

And I'm sure there a quite a few more.

It would be easy to pick apart this list, and I'm sure someone will. Instead, I'd ask what are the criteria — in YOUR mind — for the lower star ratings?

I mean, you've included here three-star places like Aquavit, Nobu and Chanterelle. It is at least arguable that these places were serving four-star food at the time they were rated, and "other issues" prevented them from getting the fourth star. It is also arguable that even the food wasn't four-star quality at these places, and I suspect someone will make that argument.

Grocery, Sparks and Landmarc, however, are currently carrying one star. Are you suggesting that the Times docked them three stars apiece due to non-food issues? Or are you suggesting that the critic was that far off, even on the food component of the rating? If the latter, then the Times rating system isn't the problem; what you're really saying is that the critics are incompetent.

You say you're sure there are "quite a few more." What you're arguing for, fundamentally, is that the four-star rating should be a awful lot easier to get.

No, I'm arguing for text reviews or for separate food and ambiance ratings.

Of course it's easy to pick apart that list as it would to pick apart anyone's list. At least I went on record and posted some names.

I don't know why the restaurants recieved the stars they did. I would suggest you ask the reviewer.

As for me, these restaurants serve top quality food that I totally enjoy. Is there another criteria necessary?

[rich]

I forgot to add one more restaurant to my 4-star food list - Tasting Room.

[Pan]

Vong is a good example of a non-Japanese Asian restaurant that has at times operated near the four-star level in terms of overall experience.

Is it really? When I've posted that I've had meals there that caused me to consider Vong watered-down Thai food, the response has been that it's really Thai- (and Vietnamese-, etc.) influenced French food (or Vongerichten food, however that's defined). So which is it? If that's our standard for an non-Japanese "Asian" restaurant that could garner 4 stars, it sounds hopeless for any actual non-Japanese Asian restaurants to garner 4 stars in the foreseeable future in New York.

How about if Devi (Suvir Saran's and Hemant Mathur's new place) is a super-luxe experience? (Though I hope it isn't because I wouldn't be able to spend $300 for dinner.)

[Pan]

Seriously, at what point do we (the public, not the professional food critics) place more emphasis on the food than the surroundings?

When they're more like you and me. Clearly, many if not most people disagree.

[Pan]

I'm arguing for text reviews or for separate food and ambiance ratings.

I'd love separate food and ambiance ratings. I think it's been a long time since we've had a reviewer who would have been able to separate those things clearly, though - probably since Mimi Sheraton (she's the one who awarded two stars to New York Noodletown, right?). I've often felt that rave reviews with low star ratings reflected a reviewer's prejudice against less than extreme luxury, and probably affected their response to the food. And note how participants in this thread have themselves discussed a psychological effect of surroundings on subjective perceptions of food quality.

[russ parsons]

newspapers use star ratings for one reason: readers love them (obviously not e-gullet readers, but the vast majority). whether you're talking about restaurants, robert parker's wine scores or the seating arrangement at spago, most people are nuts about classifications (and other people are nuts because of them).

[sammy]

And note how participants in this thread have themselves discussed a psychological effect of surroundings on subjective perceptions of food quality.

But only one participant has chimed in with any suggestions of restaurants he thought were serving 4 star food but without a 4 star rating and they included a steakhouse and a bistro which I do not believe should ever garner 4 stars, even for the food.

[tommy]

newspapers use star ratings for one reason: readers love them (obviously not e-gullet readers, but the vast majority). whether you're talking about restaurants, robert parker's wine scores or the seating arrangement at spago, most people are nuts about classifications (and other people are nuts because of them).

probably because it's easier to remember, and relay, the amount of stars a restaurant got than it is to remember/relay an entire review and your interpretation of the author's words.

ratings, whether they be stars, points, or "unique visits", are a pretty big part of our culture.

Edited June 11, 2004 by tommy (log)

[rich]

ratings, whether they be stars, points, or "unique visits", are a pretty big part of our culture.

Very true Tommy. But sad that we've all been reduced to a number or decimal point.

[slkinsey]

I think star ratings are useful as a shorthand way of describing a kind of restaurant in terms of the whole package. If one says, "I ate at Cafe Pierre the other day... it's a three star seafood place" people can immediately begin to form some idea about the style of cooking, the setting and the price.

[Hest88]

I would in favor is add separate ratings for food and ambiance as well assigning an overall rating. My hometown paper, the SF Chronicle does that, with the addition of a rating for service.

Looking over this thread the majority of remarks have been geared towards ambiance. I realize I'm in the minority, but in my mind that's a "whole lot less important" than the food.

I know this was a page ago, but I think the point keeps being missed even though it keeps getting repeated over and over again by different people. So, I'll repeat once more: the food is already implied to be of top quality. It's the ambiance that moves the experience to a more exalted level!

[Pan]

And note how participants in this thread have themselves discussed a psychological effect of surroundings on subjective perceptions of food quality.

But only one participant has chimed in with any suggestions of restaurants he thought were serving 4 star food but without a 4 star rating and they included a steakhouse and a bistro which I do not believe should ever garner 4 stars, even for the food.

I bow out of that part of the argument, Sammy, because I've eaten at three restaurants that were at the time NY Times 4-stars (Lutece, Chanterelle IIRC, Bouley) and had seriously flawed meals at each one. I also had dinner at Le Bernardin when I don't believe they had been awarded 4 stars yet, and found it quite good but not as interesting as the old JoJo and was also put off by overly servile service. I'll say this, though: I don't think I ever had a restaurant meal in New York that was clearly superior to the one I had at Amma, which was rated 2 stars by Grimes. My other best New York restaurant meals have been at the old JoJo and the late, lamented Cena.

Overall, my best restaurant meal was at Grand Vefour, and I simply have never had a New York restaurant meal that approached the quality of that meal at any level. I'm tempted to say my meals at Amma were of comparable deliciousness, though much less elaborate and in a much plainer setting. I mean, who can compete against the Palais Royal?!

[rich]

I think star ratings are useful as a shorthand way of describing a kind of restaurant in terms of the whole package. If one says, "I ate at Cafe Pierre the other day... it's a three star seafood place" people can immediately begin to form some idea about the style of cooking, the setting and the price.

And I would reply - Is that the same Cafe Pierre that has four-star food but its chef is just 5' 3", so he wasn't big enough to get four stars.

[rich]

the food is already implied to be of top quality. It's the ambiance that moves the experience to a more exalted level!

But is the food better because of the ambiance as has been suggested or could it stand up to the true test - would it taste just as good if served in a trailer park?

Edited June 11, 2004 by rich (log)

[tommy]

i find it interesting that the Times' explanation of the rating system states that price comes into consideration as well. how, i have no idea.

[sammy]

the food is already implied to be of top quality. It's the ambiance that moves the experience to a more exalted level!

But is the food better because of the ambiance as has been suggested or could it stand up to the true test - would it taste just as good if served in a trailer park?

If I was served a Luger's steak, creamed spinach and German potatoes in Le Bernardin's dining room, I wouldn't consider the meal to be 4 star, if that is what you are asking.

Edited June 11, 2004 by sammy (log)

[Hest88]

But is the food better because of the ambiance as has been suggested or could it stand up to the true test - would it taste just as good if served in a trailer park?

Of course the food is great. That's the minimum standard. Isn't that what everyone's been saying?

Methinks this is just getting silly now.

[Pan]

i find it interesting that the Times' explanation of the rating system states that price comes into consideration as well. how, i have no idea.

Very good point. Does anyone think the Times would award 4 stars to a restaurant that charged less than $150 a head? Less than $100 a head? What about 3 stars? What's the likelihood of a restaurant that charges less than $100 a head getting 3 stars? Less than $75 a head? Less than $50 a head? I understand that certain ingredients simply cost a lot, but I don't think that's the whole story, and I have to wonder whether sometimes, people don't rationalize that high prices have to have a relationship with quality, just so that they avoid the cognitive dissonance of concluding that they may be wasting their money.

[robyn]

If stars are going to be awarded according to the strict neo-French model, then it is impossible for a restaurant operating under the Italian aesthetic to achieve four stars...

I'm not sure about that. I only went to Le Cirque 2000 once - and the food I ate was more Italian than French (although it wasn't 100% in either camp). And I think it got a 4 star rating - yes? Robyn

[robyn]

I think it was a different place, Uncle something or other. I'll look into it.

There's an Uncle Tai's in Boca Raton - and the owner was supposed to have run a terrific restaurant in New York. Don't know how many stars it had (if any). Robyn

P.S. After reading a little further in the thread - see you found the name of the restaurant. The Boca Center is in Boca Raton FL (perhaps there's another branch of this restaurant in Dallas). Uncle Tai's opened in Boca - I'd guess - in the 80's. It was very elegant then - and it's still fairly elegant. And the food is quite good - particularly in terms of Florida Chinese restaurant standards. It's certainly a far cry from your typical Chinese restaurant. On the other hand - it's not anywhere near a 4 star NYT restaurant (although perhaps it was in New York).

Edited June 12, 2004 by robyn (log)

[robyn]

Overall, my best restaurant meal was at Grand Vefour, and I simply have never had a New York restaurant meal that approached the quality of that meal at any level.

Neither have I (that restaurant almost made me - and my tummy - feel like royalty) .

It is difficult to explain to someone who has never experienced a real 3 star Michelin European dining experience how it differs from most of the best of what New York has to offer. So I won't try.

As for people who say ambience shouldn't count - I've been trying to come up with a good analogy. I'm not sure this is good - but here it is. I like to get a massage now and then - and say I find a masseuse who's terrific. Don't you think the quality of the massage experience will be different if I have the massage in the spa at the Breakers in Palm Beach - as opposed to the YMCA? The logical extension - albeit reductio ad absurdum <sp?> - of saying ambience doesn't count is rating take-out places and restaurants with the same yardstick. Robyn

[Dignan]

But is the food better because of the ambiance as has been suggested or could it stand up to the true test - would it taste just as good if served in a trailer park?

Of course the food is great. That's the minimum standard. Isn't that what everyone's been saying?

Methinks this is just getting silly now.

It sure is. Rich clearly thinks the ambience setting scene atmosphere whatever has no bearing whatsoever on whether a restaurant is 4 star or not, because there shouldn't be stars if this is an issue. The quality of the food is the issue for him.

I don't think many are willing to sever the ambience experience from the taste experience in this manner.

So there we are.

[Pan]

I think ambiance counts, but it's the icing on the cake for me. But I would tend to agree with those of you who said a 4-star establishment should be absolutely unquestionably outstanding at every level. I wonder whether there haven't been too many NYT 4-stars!

[oakapple]

I think ambiance counts, but it's the icing on the cake for me. But I would tend to agree with those of you who said a 4-star establishment should be absolutely unquestionably outstanding at every level. I wonder whether there haven't been too many NYT 4-stars!

What's the largest number of restaurants that have ever carried four stars at the same time? Right now there are five. If there are five thousand restaurants in New York (which is probably a low estimate), then that's just 0.1%, making four stars pretty exclusive territory. Even if there were twenty-five of them, which is never going to happen, the category would still represent well under 1% of all restaurants.

[Fat Guy]

The category of restaurants with any stars at all is always going to be small. There are only 52 reviews a year, and even when you factor in all the one-star-worthy places that get left off that list it's hard to imagine that there are more than about 250 places in business at any given time that could legitimately hold on to even one star. So what we're really looking at is the range of possibilities within a group of a couple of hundred restaurants.

Within that range, is the four-star rating simply the rating that we give to the best 5-10 restaurants in the category -- in other words is it grading on a curve -- or are we applying an objective standard that gives us the potential to say "there are no four-star restaurants in New York right now"? Or is it some kind of a mix, and if so what are the proportions?