Who do you think are the 4 stars in NY

[MonsieurSatran]

I personally tend to agree more with Amanda Hesser's definition of a four star restaurant more than Frank Bruni's. A little appreciated section of her review of Masa was Amanda's definition:

"No matter how exquisite its food, a three-star restaurant does not have this power to transport you. What elevates a restaurant to four stars is the intangible delight occasioned by a chef's meticulously fashioned vision. At El Bulli in Spain, one of the top restaurants in the world, the room is casual, but the sense that you are on Ferran Adrià's planet, eating Ferran Adrià's creations never escapes you. The same sense pervades Mr. Takayama's sushi bar, where diners are cast under his spell. But it is missing from the tables. "

When you go to a four star restaurant, you see this totality of a chef's vision that you don't see otherwise. This is why Babbo is not a four star restaurant. Beyond the fact theat Babbo's decor and the such are not appropriate for a four-star restaurant , when you go to Babbo, you are not transported. Babbo is a great three-star, but not a four-star.

This is similarly why Bouley is a four-star restaurant. Apparently, many have had bad meals at Bouley. However, even at those "bad meals", David Bouley's vision shines through. There is something about the entire milieu that is differant; there is a unique gestalt about them., that pervades every pore of the restaurant. A four-star is more than a restaurant with great decor, great food and great service. They have emotion behind these qualities.

[Pan]

Remember we are not talking about personal preference.

What are you talking about, then? What do you consider the "objective" criteria of 4-stardom?

As it was stated in FatGuys first post, the 4 stars are appropriately awarded to the restaurants deserving them. I personally don’t care much about Daniel or Le Bernardin, Specifically their food. But that does not mean that they are not 4 star restaurants. They both operate as 4 star restaurants.

Please explain further. You haven't really clarified to me what it means to "operate as a 4-star restaurant," and I can't imagine how you'd award 4 stars to a restaurant if you don't think much of the food it's serving.

And to MonsieurSatran, no, nothing very profound shone through when my brother and I went to Bouley for lunch. It was no 4-star restaurant that day for us.

[Pan]

If Benno or Lee, masters by rote of Keller's cuisine, were to open a restaurant next door to Per Se, that served the exact same menu as Per Se, should it be awarded four-stars (granted that Per Se will soon be awarded four-stars)?

Benno is the Chef de Cuisine at Per Se (I think I'm getting the term right), so in practice, that's essentially what's happening, isn't it?

Keller is still responsible for the menu, and he splits his time between his two restaurants. The menu at Per Se is always changing, and it continues to reflect Keller's influence. If that stopped happening, at some point it would no longer be the place everyone is raving about.

It would be a somewhat different restaurant, but who's to say it wouldn't be just as good and deserve 4 stars just as much as Per Se does (or doesn't)?

[Fat Guy]

I'm not sure I can agree with the "transporting" view of four stars. I'm transported by plenty of food that shouldn't even get one star: pastrami at Katz's, pizza at Sally's, hot dogs at the Super Duper Weenie, Thai food at Sripra-whatever, burgers at White Manna, oysters at Bowen's Island, barbecue all over the South, fish camp in Gastonia, etc.

[Pan]

And maybe the very fact that it transports you is much more important than how many stars you'd give it.

[Jason Perlow]

You know, it sort of just dawned on me that it would be far more interesting to discuss what restaurants merit 3 stars but don't have them, as opposed to 4 stars. I mean, the restaurants that can be 4 stars are in a finite group, and its pretty rediculous to assume that there has been such oversight by the NYT that a restaurant which merits 4 didn't get them, considering how severe the requirements are for food, ambiance and service to fit that mold.

There must be a lot more restaurants that merit 3 that have been overlooked. Or two star restaurants, that border on 3, for that matter.

[dccd]

Speaking of reviews, I have heard it through the grapevine that Bouley will be the restaurant reviewed this upcoming Wednesday in the Times. True or not, time will tell.

My personal experiences lead me to believe it should not be on the 4-star list.

My humble opinion - I think that there needs to be an update to the rating system. Maybe 1/2 stars given or some other method.

Having said that Bouley is not 4-stars, however, (because of incosistencies, not faxing wine list, and several other reasons), it is certainly on a different playing field from Babbo, which received 3 as everyone here is aware.

It's a difficult ruler by which we measure these restaurants. I think with the advent of so many new places that are outstanding in different respects, the format has become antiquated.

[MonsieurSatran]

I personally can vouche only for the one time I visited Bouley, but I must say that that one time was extraordinary. It was perhaps the best meal I have ever eaten- revelatory. It will certainly be interesting to see what Frank Bruni has to say about Bouley this wedns.

[chopjwu12]

I can't help but think about how Dave will be rolling in from work after a long day in Bouley's kitchen and curious to see how this thread is coming along.

well its 3:10 am and ive just gotten home and showered. Sat down and saw all this. I think there is some very inteersting things going on here. The reason i started this thread is because yes BOULEY IS GETTIGN REVIEWED THIS WEDNESDAY!!!!!!!!!!!! I think i can be trusted to confirm that. I just thought it intersting on what everyone here thought about bouley and all the others. After the review comes out i will share some more opinions on how i feel about the whole thing. We are all hoping beyond hope to keep our four stars because i think we do have the kind of people right now that are truly wanting to keep it that way. But the ball is in mr. brunis court right now. Hopefully we have impressed him enough to put us above a place like spice market who i think we are much better then.

[Fat Guy]

Assuming Frank Bruni is with-it enough and has dined at Bouley enough times over a long enough period of time to embrace the consensus of experienced New York diners, he will conclude as so many others have that Bouley at its best is every bit a four-star restaurant and that Bouley at its worst is clearly not. He will also conclude that, while every restaurant in the world no matter how great can have bad days, Bouley has historically had a higher percentage of bad days than any other restaurant at that level.

The question then becomes what is the role of consistency in a restaurant review?

When you think about the number of visits critics make to restaurants -- even New York Times critics, with their virtually unlimited budgets -- it's never a statistically significant sample. Even 3, 5, or 8 visits can only tell you so much about the consistency level of a restaurant that does hundreds of covers a night and tens of thousands of covers a year. That's why you have so many people who have been to Bouley once or a handful of times and will offer such divergent testimony: my one meal there was awesome, my one meal there was terrible, my two meals there were flawless, one of my three meals there was disappointing. Indeed, one hears this about most every restaurant.

The Times critic, likewise, tends only to take a snapshot. All those visits occur during a short period of time. When you get up to numbers like 30+, which is probably how many times I've been to Bouley in its various incarnations, you're looking at history rather than any sort of current snapshot. Which introduces a sub-question: should four-star restaurants be held up to historical standards or should they be reviewed for how they're performing during the month when the reviewer makes the visits?

By asking those and related questions, a picture of fundamental randomness starts to come into focus. Especially for the reviews based on 3 visits, the random occurrence of 1 bad visit can totally change the review. And that just happens, even at the best restaurants in the world. This also dovetails with the anonymity issue: a restaurant that performs inconsistently can usually behave consistently when the presence of a VIP customer demands it. Presumably Frank Bruni is now recognized at most of his meals (if you keep an ear to the ground you can find out where he has been eating, as several people on this thread have already demonstrated), so he will experience more consistent results than the first-time customer. He will get the highest level of consistency a restaurant can provide. He might, then, only get 1 true random experience (his first) before the restaurant's mechanisms kick in. So even in the course of 5 or 8 visits, only 1 represents the true odds, and that's truly meaningless.

Even if he isn't recognized as a critic, he will likely be recognized as a repeat customer after visit number 2 -- the staff may think he's Mr. Smith not Mr. Bruni but he'll still be treated very well as a repeat client (although at Bouley you never know). Given that restaurants are so heavily oriented towards repeat business, and that so many of the most educated consumers especially in the local market are more interested in long-term relationships with restaurants than they are with trying every new place, should the critic be trying to write about the meal the first-time visitor will get or should he be focusing on what a restaurant is capable of?

A single-critic system has a lot of advantages, but judging consistency is not one of them. To judge consistency, a team system like Michelin or even Zagat is far more effective. To the extent one can find enough opinions collected online, that too is a more reliable measure of consistency than anything a single critic can provide. The size of the sample is so much higher, there's really no comparison.

So I think it's easy to say that lack of consistency is a reasonable basis for loss of a star, but it's much harder to figure out a fair way for a single critic to apply that standard. And if that is the case, perhaps critics shouldn't devote so much effort to measuring what they're not equipped to measure, and should focus instead on what restaurants are capable of at their best. After all, chopjwu12 makes a compelling point: it strains credibility to put Bouley and Spice Market in the same category, or even Bouley and Babbo for that matter.

[oakapple]

Assuming Frank Bruni is with-it enough and has dined at Bouley enough times over a long enough period of time to embrace the consensus of experienced New York diners.....

It's hard for me to imagine how he could have done this, given that till very recently Bruni was the Times's Rome bureau chief.

hould four-star restaurants be held up to historical standards or should they be reviewed for how they're performing during the month when the reviewer makes the visits?

Any change to the 4* list should be based on more than just a month's data. I presume the Times critic dines at all of the 4*'s periodically. At some point, he decides that XYZ should be re-reviewed, and he starts visiting a bit more often, culminating in several visits in the month before he writes the review.

Bruni was announced in April, and I would guess he started testing the 4*'s as soon as he got here. What made him choose Bouley now is anyone's guess. It's certainly not the only 4* that hasn't been reviewed in a while. I suspect he's aware of the importance of stripping a star (if indeed that's what he's going to do) and wouldn't take it lightly.

Fat Guy says that the Times reviewer is usually recognized. I'll take his word for that, but if he's right, it's amazing how often the reviews mention service lapses. Either the critics are recognized less often than he thinks, or restaurants are shockingly incapable of delivering the red-carpet treatment even when they know they're serving a reviewer.

And if that is the case, perhaps critics shouldn't devote so much effort to measuring what they're not equipped to measure, and should focus instead on what restaurants are capable of at their best.

Without some moderation, this could become ridiculous. You could reach the point where most of the reviews were based on VIP meals that practically no one else could get. However imperfect anonymity may be, I like the idea that the critic is at least attempting to give a realistic picture of what Joe Diner will experience.

After all, chopjwu12 makes a compelling point: it strains credibility to put Bouley and Spice Market in the same category, or even Bouley and Babbo for that matter.

Four stars is the only category that speaks for itself, which is perhaps a flaw of the system. At the more densely-populated 1, 2, and 3-star levels, you need to read the text to find out what is really going on. If Bouley gets demoted, you would describe it as a 4* concept that has been docked a star for inconsistency. Babbo, most people agree, is a 3* concept that gets almost everything right.

If you accept the Spice Market rating as accurate, you'd have to say it's a two-star concept that was awarded a bonus star for extraordinary execution. On the other hand, the Times rates 52 restaurants a year, and some of those ratings are bound to be wrong. That hazard is inherent in the system. If Spice Market's rating is wrong, we just need to wait patiently till Mr. Bruni gets around to correcting it.

I do think that half-stars could clear out some of the fuzziness. For instance, a 4* concept that's not hitting the mark consistently would be docked a half-star. Bouley, then, would be 3 1/2*, which would establish it as clearly above the Babbo category.

Edited June 21, 2004 by oakapple (log)

[Fat Guy]

It's hard for me to imagine how he could have done this, given that till very recently Bruni was the Times's Rome bureau chief.

I have no idea what his level of New York City dining experience is. In his past two reviews, though, I recall him making statements about dining overall that imply long-term familiarity with the New York dining scene. He has not always been Rome bureau chief, and it's not as though the Rome bureau chief isn't allowed to dine in New York once in awhile. The point being, there is only so much that we can conclude from his former job title.

Fat Guy says that the Times reviewer is usually recognized. I'll take his word for that, but if he's right, it's amazing how often the reviews mention service lapses. Either the critics are recognized less often than he thinks, or restaurants are shockingly incapable of delivering the red-carpet treatment even when they know they're serving a reviewer.

There are quite a few factors in play here, and there are rules, exceptions to the rules, and exceptions to the exceptions, but I think I'll avoid turning this into a thread about anonymity. Still, rest assured VIPs get more drinks spilled on them than any other category of customer. When waiters get nervous, they screw up.

Without some moderation, this could become ridiculous. You could reach the point where most of the reviews were based on VIP meals that practically no one else could get. However imperfect anonymity may be, I like the idea that the critic is at least attempting to give a realistic picture of what Joe Diner will experience.

Anyone can get a VIP meal by becoming a VIP, which happens as soon as you eat at a restaurant a few times. It's also worth remembering that, at most top restaurants, the average customer is a repeat customer, not a newcomer, so it becomes a bit more difficult to pin down exactly who Joe Diner is. Still, none of this is an issue if you order from the menu -- at that point, all the kitchen can do is work to insure that you get a good example of the dish. Given the availability of funds to visit a restaurant half a dozen times, my preference would always be to order the basic menu items, the tasting menus, and one or two off-menu VIP-tasting meals. This exposes you to the full range of the kitchen's abilities and allows you to present a review covering all those facets of a chef's expression

[Brooklyn]

Here are some others serving four-star food, but without sufficient consistency or ambience: Blue Hill, Gramercy Tavern, Grocery, Henry's End, Sparks and Union Square Cafe.

Henry's End? This is a good family, neighborhood "joint" - not a four star restaurant. The food is good, but to call it "four star" level is simply not accurate. Well, maybe the mud pie...

[oakapple]

Here are some others serving four-star food, but without sufficient consistency or ambience: Blue Hill, Gramercy Tavern, Grocery, Henry's End, Sparks and Union Square Cafe.

Henry's End? This is a good family, neighborhood "joint" - not a four star restaurant. The food is good, but to call it "four star" level is simply not accurate. Well, maybe the mud pie...

Try as I might, I simply can't divine Rich's theory of restaurants. For instance, after Rich visited Per Se, he wrote:

Suffice it to say, it was the finest meal I've ever had the pleasure to experience.

I'm presuming that the best meal he has ever experienced is a four-star meal. Is he saying that — ambiance aside — these other six places are in the same league? I just don't get it.

[chopjwu12]

the paper comes out tuesday night right? I need to get it on tuesday night. I rememeber when my friend was at oceana and they got the review neil went and got it on tuesday night and they knew tuesday. So where can i get the paper?

[rich]

Here are some others serving four-star food, but without sufficient consistency or ambience: Blue Hill, Gramercy Tavern, Grocery, Henry's End, Sparks and Union Square Cafe.

Henry's End? This is a good family, neighborhood "joint" - not a four star restaurant. The food is good, but to call it "four star" level is simply not accurate. Well, maybe the mud pie...

Try as I might, I simply can't divine Rich's theory of restaurants. For instance, after Rich visited Per Se, he wrote:

Suffice it to say, it was the finest meal I've ever had the pleasure to experience.

I'm presuming that the best meal he has ever experienced is a four-star meal. Is he saying that — ambiance aside — these other six places are in the same league? I just don't get it.

Per Se was the finest meal - on the whole (all nine courses). Places such as Henry's End and Grocery serve (on a consistent basis) food that I (and hopefully will continue to) consider four-star.

(As an aisde, I've eaten at Henry's End about 200 times over the last 25 -30 years - and I don't even live in Brooklyn - traveled there from Manhattan, Queens and Staten Island. And you haven't lived until you tried their game menu in the fall.)

For example, the Grilled Tuna with the fiddlehead fern pesto I had the other night at Henry's End was the best single dish I've had in years. It was better than anything served at Per Se, but on a whole the dinner at Per Se was much better. Henry's End and Per Se do no compete at the same level, but that's not to say both don't have four-star food.

Over the weekend I was thinking about this four-star issue and I realized that I was once like the majority of people who have posted here. I believed the four-star experience had to have the right combination of ambience and food, otherwise it didn't work.

When I was 28 years old (1979), I took my new bride to what was considered the newest and finest restaurant in Manhattan - The Palace. It was located on 59th Street, just under the Queensborough Bridge. We had four courses, wine, petit fours - all the "right stuff." The appointments were sublime, the servce was outstanding and the experience was breathtaking (as was the $375 bill). At the time, that's what I considered four stars. As the years passed, I went to places like Lutece, La Caravelle, Four Seasons, La Cirque, etc, etc. and these all matched the four-star experience.

Then somewhere in my 40's, these places began losing their appeal to me. (I also came to the conclusion I didn't need to impress people by taking them to "fancy" restaurants any longer.) I began to realize the ambience just wasn't that important and wearing a jacket and tie to dinner just wasn't that comfortable. I didn't need the expensive china, the "tuxedoed" waitstaff, the crystal goblets any more. All I needed was great tasting food in pleasant surroundings for a four-star experience. I guess you could say I mellowed and came to the realization that it was all about the food. After all, I couldn't eat the Degas hanging on the wall.

I don't expect anyone to agree with me or get it, nor do I expect to change anyone's mind. People may go through life believing that a four-star restaurant MUST have the corresponding ambience , and that's fine. Some may eventually (over time) come to realize that the food is the thing and that's fine too.

We all mature and mellow in different ways and now that I'm 53, I have experienced four-star food at restaurants that I didn't expect. I've opened my mind to the vast possibilities of the restaurant world and have enjoyed every second of it.

Edited June 21, 2004 by rich (log)

[sammy]

the paper comes out tuesday night right? I need to get it on tuesday night. I rememeber when my friend was at oceana and they got the review neil went and got it on tuesday night and they knew tuesday. So where can i get the paper?

The easiest way to see it is at NYTIMES.com. I think last week's review came out arond 9:00 PM.

[tommy]

rich, i'm curious. how would you characterize the decor in your home?

[bloviatrix]

the paper comes out tuesday night right? I need to get it on tuesday night. I rememeber when my friend was at oceana and they got the review neil went and got it on tuesday night and they knew tuesday. So where can i get the paper?

The easiest way to see it is at NYTIMES.com. I think last week's review came out arond 9:00 PM.

Furthermore, if you can't get online, but you're near a TV that has NY1, Bruni will do a live version of his review at about 9:20.

[rich]

rich, i'm curious. how would you characterize the decor in your home?

Eclectic. I have a new kitchen (six years old), designed by me and my wife that's completely open. It has a wrap-around marble counter and that seats six-to-eight and the dining room area is immediately behind the counter. The stove is facing the counter and dining area (I have an overhead exhaust hood hanging from the ceiling), so I'm facing the guests (and talking to them as I'm cooking).

As for the rest of the house, we don't buy expensive furniture, but comfortable. For instance, we'll buy a couch (the entire length of the wall type) for about $1500 and replace it after five or six years. We decided to buy a built-in Murphy bed in our bedroom, so we could use it as a sitting room when we have company. The other rooms are a television room (simple 20") and a guest room.

Why do you ask?

[docsconz]

Rich, it is clear that one can (and often does) get great food that strictly from a culinary point of view is as as good or in some cases maybe even better than in a four star restaurant or that the overall experience can be (and sometimes is) better than said four star restaurant. It is also often the case that the non-four star restaurant is a better value than the generally more expensive (usually significantly moreso) four star restaurant. When that happens, enjoy it. The problem here is the sense that because a restaurant is not four stars it necessarily means thaat it is not a great restaurant. This couldn't be further from the truth. Once again, the difference is that the four star has the blend of luxurious atmosphere, great food and grreat service all of which are consistently if not universally delivered. Four stars are a specific caliber of restaurant. It is extremely expensive to aspire to, which is why it is vitally important that those restaurants who do aspire to it achieve it. People do not want to pay four star prices for a restaurant that is not four stars. On the other hand paying one, two or three star prices for a meal of four-star food, but without the other accoutrements is a happy thing for those whose principle interest is the food. This is one reason why it is important to a restaurant like Bouley to keep that star and not so critical to a restaurant like Babbo to not get it. From a business point of view it is all relative.

[rich]

Rich, it is clear that one can (and often does) get great food that strictly from a culinary point of view is as as good or in some cases maybe even better than in a four star restaurant or that the overall experience can be (and sometimes is) better than said four star restaurant. It is also often the case that the non-four star restaurant is a better value than the generally more expensive (usually significantly moreso) four star restaurant. When that happens, enjoy it. The problem here is the sense that because a restaurant is not four stars it necessarily means thaat it is not a great restaurant. This couldn't be further from the truth. Once again, the difference is that the four star has the blend of luxurious atmosphere, great food and grreat service all of which are consistently if not universally delivered. Four stars are a specific caliber of restaurant. It is extremely expensive to aspire to, which is why it is vitally important that those restaurants who do aspire to it achieve it. People do not want to pay four star prices for a restaurant that is not four stars. On the other hand paying one, two or three star prices for a meal of four-star food, but without the other accoutrements is a happy thing for those whose principle interest is the food. This is one reason why it is important to a restaurant like Bouley to keep that star and not so critical to a restaurant like Babbo to not get it. From a business point of view it is all relative.

No argument with anything you wrote Doc. However, your post makes a very good case as to why the NY Times should revamp and separate their star system. Someone mentioned the SF Chronicle does exactly that - a separate rating for food, decor and service.

[docsconz]

I'm not sure that it really needs to be revamped. The distinctions are usually pretty clear from the reviews. People just need to keep the stars in perspective. A restaurant aspiring for four stars but winding up with only two is disastrous for that restaurant, because they will not be able to afford to stay open and continue with what it takes to aspire to four stars. On the other hand, a neighborhood joint getting two stars is fantastic and likely to be a boon for business because it is also likely to be a great though not overfancy restaurant.

The problem with the NYT review is when there is a disconnect between the content of the actual review and the number of stars given. For example, if Bruni did a full review on V Steak in the manner that he did in the Diner's journal and proceeded to give it four stars (or even three). If that were to happen on a consistent basis, I would lose all faith in the system. As it stands now, it is not perfect, but I do think it is reasonable when kept in persepctive.

[Pan]

John, I can only reiterate that the Times creates confusion because of what they say the stars mean:

WHAT THE STARS MEAN:

(None)|Poor to satisfactory

*|Good

**|Very good

***|Excellent

****|Extraordinary

Ratings reflect the reviewer's reaction to food, ambience and service, with price taken into consideration.

You can find this key at the end of every starred review.

I think that Katz's might possibly get one star, if that. Does that mean that it is not "extraordinary"? It is if you want a pastrami sandwich! Similarly, what do you do with DiFara's? Give it a "Fair"? One star? Is the pizza there merely "good"? In point of fact, I think there's virtually no chance that Katz's or DiFara's would even be reviewed by Bruni, because they'd be categorized as "Under $25" restaurants which can't get stars. Does that mean they're not "good" enough?

So first of all, the relative importance of food vs. ambiance and service is not explained in the New York Times' key (though Bruni has already done a fair deal to clarify how he as an individual views this). Secondly, they don't explain how price is taken into consideration. My impression is that, for the most part, the greater the price, the more likely it is that the restaurant will be highly rated. Is that just because more expensive dishes are likely to have more expensive ingredients? I hope so, because I wouldn't want to think that mere expense is a positive value for any serious diner. If it were up to me, I'd consider a high price as requiring high quality and seriously penalize restaurants that provide merely decent food at a high price and in some way give a bonus to restaurants that provide excellent food at a good value (do I hear a call for a New York Times bib gourmand?).

[oakapple]

I don't think the Times system is quite as confusing as Pan says. Readers quickly figure out that $25-and-under restaurants are ineligible for star ratings. This, of course, does not mean that these places are bad, only that they are out of scope. I would personally like to see the inexpensive restaurants rated somehow, but the existing system isn't confusing on this count — it just turns its nose on a vast swath of the dining universe.

While the Times has never said precisely how service, ambiance, and price figure into the rating, the de facto standard appears to be that the food primarily determines the number of stars. The other factors figure into the rating mainly when the food is on the borderline between two possible ratings. In an extreme case, a restaurant might get a bonus star or be docked a star if ambiance, service, or price are significantly out of line from what is typically expected for the type of restaurant that is being reviewed.

My impression is that, for the most part, the greater the price, the more likely it is that the restaurant will be highly rated.

I think that's because high ratings require a significant investment in food, ambiance, and service. This investment is then reflected in the price. Sometimes a restaurant gets it wrong — charging four-star prices, but delivering a two-star experience. This is not a good recipe for remaining in business! Last week's Megu review was a clear example of where a restaurant clearly had been docked for charging too much in relation to what it delivers.

I'm not sure how all of this can be captured precisely in a rating, unless the Times develops a system more complex than the scoring of Olympic figure skating. The star rating is a summary of the critic's overall impression, and you need to read the review to learn why. Hopefully, a good critic will write reviews that are rationally correlated to the star ratings he assigns. Bruni has had only two shots at it so far, and both times I think he's gotten it right.

I have said elsewhere, and still agree with Rich, that it wouldn't hurt to have separate food, ambiance and service ratings, in addition to an overall rating. This could be done quite easily, while still maintaining the historical context of what the Times star ratings have traditionally meant.