Who do you think are the 4 stars in NY

[rich]

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.

Okay we're two powerful guys, we're on the same side, let's get it done.

[tommy]

Why do you ask?

sorry for the delay. i wanted to get a feel or an understanding for your sensibilities as far as decor goes because a big part of this discussion revolves around decor. as i expected, your taste seems to lean towards practical. mine too.

[MonsieurSatran]

So, what does everyone think about Bouley being docked from four to three stars?

[robyn]

So, what does everyone think about Bouley being docked from four to three stars?

That apparently it detracts from the "class" of a restaurant if the patrons are snapping pictures. I can't disagree with Bruni there. Guess the moral of the story is if you love a restaurant - leave your camera at home. Robyn

[robyn]

...(because food is so important to me, I would never choose a place like Le Cirque)...

I thought the food was fabulous at Le Cirque 2000 but it's been about 5 years since I was there. Has it gone downhill? Robyn

[robyn]

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

In my opinion - it's of the utmost importance whether you're talking 4 stars or a pastrami sandwich.

My husband and I plan our eating carefully when we travel (in terms of research - reservations - bringing the right clothes - spacing the big meals - whatever). And I simply don't want to hear that a restaurant I looked forward to very much is great 3 times out of 5 - and I happened to be there on one of the off days. No matter what it is - if it isn't consistent - it's garbage in my book.

And I think that's the case in many countries we've been to. Last month in London - every restaurant but one we went to lived up to its billing - even when the chef wasn't in the kitchen (and I think in the case of the one - the reviews that we'd relied on were out of date - I found out later the place has a new chef). There were some dishes we liked better than others to be sure. But we didn't get things that were overcooked or overcooked or prepared poorly - and the service was stellar.

We've had this discussion before - and all I can tell you is when I spend the kind of money I spent eating in London - I don't want to hear apologists for inconsistency. Robyn

[robyn]

You're correct. But my observation was that Andrew overlooks a room he hates and still gives it four stars (I assume because of the quality of the food)...

When people say they hate the room at JG - all I can think is they must dislike contemporary decor. The decor is to my taste - and I happen to think it's one of the most stunning rooms I've ever been in. On the other hand - I don't think anyone can argue that the room isn't posh (even if the style isn't to their liking). Robyn

[robyn]

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.

I like the Michelin system better. Few restaurants get any stars. A one star is excellent - a two star is even better - and a 3 star is to die for. In Michelin green book terms - a 1 star is interesting (the bottom level of excellence) - a 2 star is worth a detour - a 3 star is worth a journey. If you wouldn't stop at a restaurant in New York on a trip from Philadelphia to Connecticut - it's not a 2 star. If the restaurant isn't a "destination" restaurant - it isn't a 3 star. In Michelin - other (sometimes very) fine restaurants have knives and forks in various numbers. The restaurants with many knives and forks remind me of some of the places being mentioned here with great affection. Robyn

[Pan]

I more or less agree with you, Robyn.

[Fat Guy]

I don't want to hear apologists for inconsistency.

There is no apology for reality. It just is. Every restaurant in the world, no matter how good, can have an off night. However much we wish otherwise, to believe anything else would be to live in denial. Of course, when dining at the highest levels, no consumer should accept less than an excellent meal. Consumers don't take statistical samples; they pay to eat and they deserve the best. But critics are not consumers. They make multiple visits to restaurants for the purpose of providing consumers with a variety of types of information, and they do so by comparison to other restaurants. While a bad meal cannot be overlooked by a critic, a single screwup should likewise not necessarily destroy a restaurant's rating. You can be sure that at every Michelin three-star restaurant, at least one of the inspectors has had a sub-par meal. Yet those restaurants maintain their ratings based on the overwhelming ratio of good to bad and the heights they reach when they are performing at their best. Or because of politics and letter-writing campaigns, but that's a different issue.

[GordonCooks]

Bouley 3 stars

I felt Bruni's review captured my own experiences to the tee.

[gmi3804]

Bouley 3 stars

I felt Bruni's review captured my own experiences to the tee.

Same here. I've posted about the snafus of my recent meal there elsewhere on the Board.

Whether or not opening up old wounds (the Red Cross incident) or commenting on the shutterbug diners is appropriate in a restaurant review is beside the point. Bruni reviewed the Experience of several meals; inasmuch as all reviews are subjective to a degree, he was true to his craft.

[Brooklyn]

(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.)

I live about 1 block away, and I have no plans on returning! I could not imagine someone taking either the Staten Island ferry, or the BQE to eat at this restaurant. Why it ever showed up on this thread baffles me - just because someone puts fiddlehead ferns and morel mushrooms on thier menu outside of Manhattan, you think it deserves four stars? There is about as much "ambiance" as a TGI Fridays, and about as high a quality of service.

A four star restaurant is not just about food, it is about coming as close to perfection as possible, in all aspects of an experience. While food is certainly a huge part of this, restuarants who strive for excellence in the "total package" should be rewarded and recognized on a higher level.

I think my hamburger the other day at the Parker Meridian was simply the finest burger I have ever had in my life, but do I think the New York Times should give Burger Joint 4 stars because of it? I am not that unrealistic..

[Bux]

Frank Bruni chose to focus on questions of setting when he explained why Babbo is clearly not a four-star restaurant. This does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Babbo's cuisine served in a nicer setting would have or should have received four stars from Frank Bruni.

It seemed inescapable to me that Bruni was crediting Babbo with 4* food. He wrote:

At present, five restaurants in New York City have four stars from The Times. All are French in pedigree or predilection, and that rightly prompts notice as well as debate, at least around the tables where restaurant lovers huddle and feast.

Can the list be complete without Japanese restaurants, so wildly in vogue? Will it ever accommodate Italian restaurants, so many and beloved? Why not Babbo?

To the last question, there is a short, emblematic answer: the music.

For goodness sakes. The music is emblematic about the style of the restaurant and the style and execuction of the food.

[Pan]

Frank Bruni chose to focus on questions of setting when he explained why Babbo is clearly not a four-star restaurant. This does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Babbo's cuisine served in a nicer setting would have or should have received four stars from Frank Bruni.

It seemed inescapable to me that Bruni was crediting Babbo with 4* food. He wrote:

At present, five restaurants in New York City have four stars from The Times. All are French in pedigree or predilection, and that rightly prompts notice as well as debate, at least around the tables where restaurant lovers huddle and feast.

Can the list be complete without Japanese restaurants, so wildly in vogue? Will it ever accommodate Italian restaurants, so many and beloved? Why not Babbo?

To the last question, there is a short, emblematic answer: the music.

For goodness sakes. The music is emblematic about the style of the restaurant and the style and execuction of the food.

I don't see how anyone has a basis for concluding that the music was emblematic of anything whatsoever having to do with the food. You folks are just too lawyerly.

(Are you a lawyer, Bux? I forgot.)

[Bux]

The music is emblematic about the style of the restaurant and the style and execution of the food.

I don't see how anyone has a basis for concluding that the music was emblematic of anything whatsoever having to do with the food. You folks are just too lawyerly.

(Are you a lawyer, Bux? I forgot.)

Some days I forget what I'm supposed to be doing and spend too much time here, but I'm not a lawyer. I've never been a lawyer and I've never gone to law school. Some of my best friends are, or have been, lawyers though.

The music sent a signal to those who walked through the door that this isn't meant to be a four star restaurant. What I believe Mr. Bruni was suggesting is that all along the course of his meals there, he kept getting the same signal that Babbo is not supposed to be a four star restaurant. I have no reason to believe he didn't get that same signal from the food or he would have said the music is not what I'd expect to hear when served four star food. Instead he said the music was emblamatic of the reasons Babbo wasn't a four star restaurant. I don't think I was making a lawyer's interpretation of what Bruni wrote.

[Pan]

We shall have to agree to disagree on that, and I will quote relevant portions of his Babbo review in support of my argument:

Babbo provides a clear example of what separates an absolutely terrific restaurant, which it is, from a wholly transcendent dining experience, which it is not. It traces one of the dividing lines between three and four stars, a stratum that makes demands well beyond the perimeter of the plate.

He's specifically talking about something other than the food here.

At present, five restaurants in New York City have four stars from The Times.[...]Why not Babbo?

To the last question, there is a short, emblematic answer: the music.

This slightly ragtag quality is Babbo's limitation, not because it bucks classic formality, which matters less than ever, but because it undercuts the kind of coddling that restaurants can also provide.

This again is not about the food. So what does he say about the food?

They can be easier on the ears and elbows.

They cannot be much better to the belly. Mr. Batali makes sure of that.

Other Italian (and, for the matter, Asian) restaurants take a less discordant tack, and one may break the French monopoly [on 4-star restaurants]. But I suspect that Mr. Batali means to be where he is: a backbeat away, in orange sneakers, serving food as delicious as anybody else's.

I continue to believe that anyone who's convinced Bruni doesn't believe Babbo's food is 4-star is counting on semi-legal technicalities and grasping at straws. All the evidence points to non-food elements (the selection and volume of music, crowding, the speed with which the waiters recite the specials and reset vacated tables, and perhaps the footware of the Executive Chef) as the reason for the restaurant receiving a 3-star and not 4-star rating. The food comes in for nothing but high praise. So while a lawyer like Fat Guy is right that there's no "legally" airtight proof Bruni considers Babbo's food 4-star, there certainly is no evidence that he doesn't, unless you want to make the argument that the 3-star rating necessarily reflects a less-than-4-star food quality, and I think that the entire content of this review shows that that is a pretty weak argument.

[Bux]

Let's for a moment accept for argument's sake that Babbo serves the best food in NYC, or perhaps North America. It may still be that it's not four star food. The "best" may be highly subjective, and in another thread, or was it this one way back when, I thought it was established or at least a case was well presented that four star food was as much about being about style as it was about quality.

Babbo doesn't serve four star style food. Four star food doesn't aim for the belly. It aims for the senses. It must be visually stimulating as much as it is a belly full of satisfaction. Perhaps more so. Many people don't find four star food very satisfying. Four star food needs to be as elegant as it is delicious. Nowhere in his review does Bruni imply Babbo does anything in a four star way and that includes the preparation of the food, but we can argue about this until we're both blue in the face if we don't agree on what four star food is, or if one of us believes four star food tastes better than three star food. It doesn't, it's just more elegant and requires more finesse in preparation. Neither of those things necessarily affect the taste directly although they can serve to heighten your expectation perhaps.

[Pan]

I think the key point isn't what you or I think 4-star food is, but what Bruni thinks 4-star food is. It's evident that you don't consider Babbo's food 4-star, but not evident to me that he doesn't. But I'll accept that we don't yet know what he thinks 4-star food is. Maybe once he's handed out his first 4-star review, we'll know more.

[robyn]

I think the key point isn't what you or I think 4-star food is, but what Bruni thinks 4-star food is.

Let's see. The guy is (judging from his name) Italian - and he's spent the last X years of his life in Italy. Now I've had some mighty terrific food in Italy (and I also happen to be a pretty decent cook when it comes to Italian food - I even make stuff like my own pasta and pesto from time to time) - but I think when it comes to NYT and Michelin stars - "the Best of Italian Cooking" isn't what pops into your mind when it comes to definitions of those star ratings in the higher range.

Perhaps it should. I went to a restaurant in London (1 Michelin star) where the basic construct was French with a big heavy dose of Italian. It really worked. And my husband and I were happy campers.

By the way - I have never been to Babbo - but I went to Felidia's a while back. At least for the meal I ate there - I thought it was probably about 1 Michelin star in terms of food/service. I'd ask for comparisons about Felidia's/Babbo - but those comparisons would be talking about today - and my experience isn't current. Robyn

[dccd]

Just my humble opinion ...

I have been fortunate to be able to eat at many wonderful restaurants and experience the many varied plateaus of dining. Being a cook, I lean towards deriving an opinion of a restaurant, or any eatery for that matter, from the quality and flavors of the food.

HOWEVER, when it comes judgment time for an establishment, ALL things must be considered. One must remember that a rating from the NYT, or ZAGAT or many other of these systems is not solely intended for the likes of me (and many of you, I assume) whose primary focus centers around what is on the plate.

The point of these ratings systems, I believe, is to introduce diners to a restaurant which they may have never been, or maybe even to re-introduce them if they have - ALL diners. It is intended to acclimate them with all aspects - food, atmosphere, service. This way they can have a frame of reference when deciding which one for which occasion, on whatever the chosen merit.

-----------------

In recent posts, writers have repeatedly used the phrase "4-star food". That, being a phenomenal accolade from gourmands like yourselves, is not substantial enough for Matthew Alibaster Diner III whose evening plans require quite a bit more soignee than for average Joe Diner. Matthew III is seeking a 4-star RESTAURANT, not just 4-star food. What he will seek out, or recall is a RESTAURANT review, not just a food review. Things relevant to the restaurant, are also relevant to a restaurant review, ergo the rating, ergo affecting the options for the Diners. Of course, I will agree that the rating of food is subjective. However, room colors, sound levels (music, or otherwise), proximity of tables, level of service quantified by time and timing, informativeness and the like are all not subjective. If I am told one cannot hear his dining partner, there is little room for doubt, in my mind. I think the same holds true for the Diners who are also review-readers.

I say it is possible the eat "4 star food" even without being in a "4 star RESTAURANT". The opposite however, should never be true. I guess that's why I continue to religiously read those damn reviews....

D

Edited June 27, 2004 by dccd (log)

[Pan]

Well said, dccd, except that you may have seen some people post that they do indeed believe there are "4-star restaurants" serving 3-star food.

[Bux]

... some people post that they do indeed believe there are "4-star restaurants" serving 3-star food.

There are "4 star restaurants" serving 3 star food and worse, but there are no 4 star restaurants serving 3 star food. The difference is in the qualifying quotation marks. The function the same was as in the vegetarian "duck" in a Shanghai restaurant. That is to say there are restaurants serving less than fine food that take on the appearance of a four star restaurant and mimic it in some ways. Many of these may actually believe they are superb restaurants, but they are on no better grounds than tofu thinking it's duck.

Others have already said that four star cuisine is a genre and thus it's possible to speak of a "four star" restaurant that fails to live up to the promise as it's possible to speak of a "Chinese" restaurant that serves chop suey and other less than distincly Chinese food and which fails to live up to one's expectations of what a Chinese restaurant should deliver. Inflection and tone of voice serve better than quotation marks perhaps to convey the sarcasm that should accompany such descriptions.

NB:

I rather enjoy "mock duck" at Shanghainese restaurants. I don't think of it as imitation duck as much as a visual play on the form of duck breast.

I have, over the years, come to appreciate and enjoy the trappings of an elegant meal in an elegant restaurant with fine service rather much like great theater and other art forms. Not only do I believe cooking can be an art, but there is a certain "art" to running a lgorious restaurant. I believe there's a place for formal restaurants serving mediocre foods in the world, but not in my life. I find them personally revolting and hollow. Casual restaurants serving great food, be it robust or haute cuisine in nature, are a blesing to us all. Great food is always welcome in any form.