Django, Philadelphia

[dbrociner]

Katie, thank you for the clarification. I understand your point. It is disturbing and perhaps naive on my part to think that the star (bell) system is based partly on the critic's fondness for the owner as opposed to the quality of the dinning experience. Puts everything that critic writes into question in my opinion.

Thanks again. I hope you didn't feel like you were under attack because that wasn't my intention.

[philadining]

re the 30-day reservation thing,

I'm sure no place, not even Per Se, has a hard and fast rule that one MUST book 30 days out, but the design of that system to not allow booking a table 3 or 6 months from now, and perhaps, as Vadouvan suggests, not actually booking every saturday night table at first, can create an even greater sense of scarcity , which gets people to book less-desirable days. You can always call people on your waiting list, who feel blessed to benefit from that "unexpected cancellation".... If you're able to create a sense that it's impossible to get in there, it's more likely that people will book further out, and actually show up.

Of course it's a dangerous game, if people decide there's just no hope, they might not even try. In fact I hadn't bothered with Django in its heyday for that very reason, figuring it was just too much of a pain. I ultimately went, on a weekend, with only a couple of days advance call, but at a very late hour. I'm sure I couldn't have gotten a prime time on fri or sat calling that close, but my perception had been that there was no chance of getting anything. And that's a neat trick, creating the perception that it's really hard to get in, in order to fill slower days, but I'm sure it can be done.

I've had that scarcity-desperation experience myself out here with the Birchrunville Store Cafe, they're booked so far out on weekends that I found myself feeling darn lucky to get a wednesday at 8pm, when it might have been the other way around, that they were lucky to be able to fill that table at the time.

And just ask Percy, getting a reservation at Per Se is NOT an easy thing, it takes a lot of redialing and a bit of luck. One would assume from the hoops one jumps through that all tables go the second that they are available, 30-days out. But in fact it turns out, it's not impossible to change a reservation once you have it, so, obviously not all tables are booked instantly.

It's a perplexing equation, and I doubt anyone that hasn't worked as a reservationist would quite get it, but I have no doubt at all that if a place is pretty hot, some saturday night reservations might be turned down in an attempt to help weekdays, especially if there's some confidence that you could always pull someone from a waiting list, or get a walk-in to fill that saturday night table you just said was gone.

Now, how we as diners game that system... I'm not sure...

[KatieLoeb]

Katie, thank you for the clarification. I understand your point.

←

David:

No problem. It was quite clear to me you weren't getting the specifics of what I was saying.

It is disturbing and perhaps naive on my part to think that the star (bell) system is based partly on the critic's fondness for the owner as opposed to the quality of the dinning experience.

Think about this for a second. Reviewing is an attempt to codify a SUBJECTIVE thing like taste. Unlike the cursed decibel meter, Mr. Laban can't place himself in the dining room of a restaurant and quantify something OBJECTIVE, like the noise level, that is measured in specific repeatable units. Mr. Laban, like any reviewer, is human. He can have an emotional reaction to the decor, the food that reminds him of something his grandma used to make him, or the ownership, especially in a tiny place like Django where the owners are front and center. A restaurant review is not a calculation, it's an impression of someone with (hopefully) some expertise in food, wine, and good service. If you like someone, don't you say nicer things about them than if you don't?

Puts everything that critic writes into question in my opinion.

No more so than any other reviewer, unless the reviewer has revealed themselves to be unqualified in some other way. Merely realizing that the reviewer's taste is NOT similar to your own may not make them "unqualified" but renders their opinion less useful to you. I find this quite similar to the Wine Spectator and Robert Parker ratings (on a 100 point scale). If you know your own wine palate is calibrated similarly to Mr. Parker's then his "ratings" are useful to you.

Thanks again. I hope you didn't feel like you were under attack because that wasn't my intention.

No, but you certainly made me think this through and explain myself more clearly. My final statement on this whole matter is that it seems that the initial 4 Bell rating of Django means that someone now has to "suck it up" and deal with the unforeseen consequences of that lofty rating in light of the change of ownership. I think it should be Mr. Laban since he created the environment in which it existed. I hardly think the new owners of a short 16 weeks should have to suck it up and deal with the repercussions that have now been created. It isn't right, it isn't fair and most of all it isn't true.

[dbrociner]

I am still disturbed by the notion that a critic's review would be influenced by his feelings for the owners in the same way I would be disturbed to find out that Robert Parker gave a higher score to a wine than it deserved because he liked the wine maker.

[CherieV]

I am still disturbed by the notion that a critic's review would be influenced by his  feelings  for the owners in the same way I would be disturbed to find out that Robert Parker gave a higher score to a wine than it deserved because he liked the wine maker.

←

It's a know fact that there are winemakers that go out of there way to make sure they make wines in the style and taste profile that is most appealing to Parker.

I am in the middle of reading his biography.

[philadining]

I think small BYOBs are a special case when it comes to owners' personalities influencing one's perceptions of a place. Many times the owner/chefs are a big presence in the restaurant, and once can't help but be charmed by someone's devotion and passion for what they do.

I think it's rather unfair to suggest that LaBan upped his rating simply because he liked the owners. Or dropped it merely because those people are gone. Having pleasant interactions with owners and chefs certainly can enhance an experience, especially at a small neighborhoody place, so I can see it being worth noting that he liked them, but I see no indications from any of LaBan's reviews that he overlooks bad food if the owners are sooooo nice...

If the diner has no interaction with the owners of a place, of course, it makes no difference if it's owned by Attila the Hun (who might have been a nice guy, for all I know) but if the owners' personalities impact on the dining experience, I think it's relevant. And that certainly is the case in many small BYOBs.

I'll agree that liking the winemaker has nothing to do with whether the wine is good, but there's another level to restaurant dining, it's not only the food on the plate.

[rlibkind]

. . . Merely realizing that the reviewer's taste is NOT similar to your own may not make them "unqualified" but renders their opinion less useful to you.

←

Actually, it's just as useful when a reviewer's taste is different from one's own, so long as the reviewer is consistent applying those tastes in his or her reviews.

[Buckethead]

My final statement on this whole matter is that it seems that the initial 4 Bell rating of Django means that someone now has to "suck it up" and deal with the unforeseen consequences of that lofty rating in light of the change of ownership.  I think it should be Mr. Laban since he created the environment in which it existed.  I hardly think the new owners of a short 16 weeks should have to suck it up and deal with the repercussions that have now been created.  It isn't right, it isn't fair and most of all it isn't true.

←

The new owners should have to suck it up and be reviewed as if it was a different restaurant, because it is. The change in ownership also entailed a change in the executive chef and his wife, the two people who had far more impact than anyone else on the quality of the place. You can't buy a restaurant, keep the name, change the menu and the exec. chef, and expect to keep the 4 bells. And I still don't see how you can say it isn't true when you haven't been back there since the place changed hands, and LaBan has been there (probably) twice.

[Greg Salisbury]

Hey, everybody,

Sorry I'm late. It was a little too much for me to think about posting - or even reading - this thread for the last few days.

I wouldn't exactly say I am over it, but I am no longer in the fetal position, and have spelled out my feelings about the review to Craig and in a letter to the editor. Not as cathartic as I would have liked, but it helped.

When we bought Django from Bryan and Aimee, one of my biggest concerns was not just the four bells, but how Craig felt about the previous owners. I never thought Django was a four-bell; the best BYOB, yes, but to see a 42-seat BYOB lumped in with Le Bec, Susanna Foo, Vetri, Fountain and Striped Bass is laughable. Do an omnibus review of the best BYOs and I like our chances, though.

I have been a fan and supporter of Craig since he started writing reviews here. His reviews of Rx may have hurt a little, but they were right on the money, for better and for worse. I cannot really defend his review this time, and I am not speaking solely as someone with his professional life on the line as a result of the review. I do not think we got a fair shake; I think we were penalized for the sin of usurping, and I think that Craig's annoyance/displeasure shows through a bit in the review. There is no reason to ignore the many improvements made by a casual dismissal of "new wine glasses." Picking nits? Maybe, but the fact remains that we have said time and again that Django wasn't broke; the only thing people ever said they wanted was good wineglasses, so we brought in Riedel.

I also think that reviewing us after eight weeks was a tad unfair. It takes three months to fully establish systems and procedures in a restaurant, as anyone in the biz will tell you. But that's done, now. That said, there is no denying there were problems with some of his meals, and for that, we deserve the criticism.

Finally, I think that Craig is a decent person despite this, and I think that he will come back with a more objective demeanor when some time has passed. I don't believe that Django under our stewardship is half the restaurant it was under Bryan and Aimee, and I am sure that, in retrospect, Craig doesn't believe it either. We'll see.

Now, some replies to some posts:

Peter, I am very sorry you did not enjoy your meal. I wish you had told me while you were still here, so I could have done something about it. Please, please, pm me when you come back to visit so you can give have a more typical Django experience.

And please, just because I post here does NOT mean any censoring should be going on. One of the many reasons I love eGullet is because the unvarnished truth and strongly held, informed opinions are never in short supply. Constructive criticism will help us get better and stay in business.

As to the comments re: the Starr-ization of BYOBs, I don't think that is possible. One of the great things about a BYOB is its intimacy and the tangible imprint of its owner. It is what makes them unique. BYOs are not about executing concepts - they're about sharing love of food and dining with like-minded people. And trust me - there is not enough money in it to entice an investment guy into opening up a few.

The 30-day reservation policy: oh, how I would love to kill off this misconception. Here is the deal: we will take reservations up to one calendar month ahead. Today is February 16; you can make a reservation for any day Django is open, up to and including March 16. Fridays and Saturdays do, indeed, book up one month in advance, but the rest of the week you have always been able to call as little as a few days in advance to get a table. It is just that the vast, vast majority of people want to go out on the weekends, despite my exhortations to enjoy the better experience of dining on a weeknight. So they call for a reservation, are told nothing is available for that day, and then begins a little "Whisper down the Lane." Pretty soon, you have accusations of artificially inflating reservation books. Hello, NewGirlinTown? Yes, I am talking about you.

The bottom line is, we want to seat you; we don't want to piss you off by making you wait, and we do everything we can to find a table for you. Honest.

Thanks to everyone for their honesty, and I hope to see you down at Django on a Tues or Sun (when I work at night). And while we are booked this Sun we do have plenty of availability on Tues.

Edited February 16, 2006 by Greg Salisbury (log)

[Holly Moore]

Greg, if you care to comment, how has Laban's review impacted Django? Not sales, which is none of our business, but customer reaction in the dining room, staff morale, impact on business decisions, that sort of stuff.

[Jeff L]

Now, some replies to some posts:

Peter, I am very sorry you did not enjoy your meal. I wish you had told me while you were still here, so I could have done something about it. Please, please, pm me when you come back to visit so you can give have a more typical Django experience.

And please, just because I post here does NOT mean any censoring should be going on. One of the many reasons I love eGullet is because the unvarnished truth and strongly held, informed opinions are never in short supply. Constructive criticism will help us get better and stay in business.

←

This is a touchy subject for most people, hopefully not most people who post here. I have on ocassion returned dishes to the kitchen with specific complaints about the food, not just "I don't like it". This is difficult for many people I know who would rather endure a bad meal instead of making a scene. I wouldn't hesitate to speak up because I know I will do so properly and offer constructive critique.

I thank you for your willingness to make it right, it says a lot about who you are and your concept of running a successful restaurant. I look forward to trying Django again under your ownership, if it was anything like the RX Chairman's dinner, I know I'll be happy.

Jeff

[Vadouvan]

The 30-day reservation policy: oh, how I would love to kill off this misconception. Here is the deal: we will take reservations up to one calendar month ahead. Today is February 16; you can make a reservation for any day Django is open, up to and including March 16. Fridays and Saturdays do, indeed, book up one month in advance, but the rest of the week you have always been able to call as little as a few days in advance to get a table. It is just that the vast, vast majority of people want to go out on the weekends, despite my exhortations to enjoy the better experience of dining on a weeknight. So they call for a reservation, are told nothing is available for that day, and then begins a little "Whisper down the Lane." Pretty soon, you have accusations of artificially inflating reservation books

Greg,I actually brought this up upstream in a general context not accusing you of doing it but discussing the practice and how it works for new or desirable restaurants.

My context of it was that it does happen and some of the notable restauranteurs in the city do it.

I tried to go to the old Django but just as Philadining said, the perception of unavailability made me not bother.

It wasnt directed at the previous owners or the new ones.

I have actually never been to Django period new or old owners.

Hello, NewGirlinTown? Yes, I am talking about you.

I understand this is a former owner of a restaurant named after a seasoning agent on

Rittenhouse who hates Rx but I am pretty sure he doesnt post here, you arent suggesting a connection are you ????

The new owners should have to suck it up and be reviewed as if it was a different restaurant, because it is. The change in ownership also entailed a change in the executive chef and his wife, the two people who had far more impact than anyone else on the quality of the place. You can't buy a restaurant, keep the name, change the menu and the exec. chef, and expect to keep the 4 bells. And I still don't see how you can say it isn't true when you haven't been back there since the place changed hands, and LaBan has been there (probably) twice.

I agree with the first half. Though Katie hast been there, I think her and Philadining's perception is that people whom we all know have gone and had excellent meals post old ownership. I have known Mcduff personally for years and he isnt easy to please. Based on that, the two bell demotion seemed Harsh.

At the end of the day, this is what it comes down to:

Anyone who opens any byob restaurant should be happy with 2 bells. I am not saying BYO's dont deserve more(in fact I agree they do), but the baseline of doing a great job is two bells and then one improves.

I think a lot of the shock and anger about the subject of the New Django getting 2 bells is that in fact most are looking at it as a demotion.

As Buckethead said, it basically a new restaurant with new staff and owners. It is a double edged sword to buy a restaurant and keep it's name and concept.

The name recognition that keeps the client base also works against you in the sense that a critic who has previously reviewed it feels a drastic change because his previous expectation is different. I dont know Brian well but I know and worked with Aimee Olexy and i gotta say, that senora is super efficient and one of the most food and people savvy restaurant people I have ever met. Restaurant reviews arent just about food, they are about people too .

While everyone seems to agree that the old Django wasnt worth 4 bells and maybe 3 (I think a solid 3), then we are all getting what we asked Laban for.

If the contention is that the original place was overrated, should the new place be overrated too ?

Again, this are not my personal opinions or specifics to the case as i havent been there but the initial outrage cannot be consistent with the current outrage without bodering on inconsistency.

Who know's maybe had Django not been sold, the same thing could have happened.

Its all subjective and you just roll with the punches.

[Peter Johnson]

Peter, I am very sorry you did not enjoy your meal. I wish you had told me while you were still here, so I could have done something about it. Please, please, pm me when you come back to visit so you can give have a more typical Django experience.

←

Thanks, Greg--I appreciate your efforts. Please check your PM's!

[MarketStEl]

I think small BYOBs are a special case when it comes to owners' personalities influencing one's perceptions of a place. Many times the owner/chefs are a big presence in the restaurant, and once can't help but be charmed by someone's devotion and passion for what they do.

←

I know that was certainly the case when I walked up to the window at Cheryl's Southern Style last Friday.

This little place is clearly an expression of the owner's personality and so is the food.

And while I agree with the rest of what you said, as Cheryl's is mainly a takeout, it will rise or fall almost entirely on the quality of its food.

Which happens to be quite good.

[Bobby 2 Shakes]

The other day I was listening to Bill Wine on KYW talking about how disappointed he was that someone as talented as Steve Martin would sink to making a remake of a Peter Sellers movie. He gave "Pink Panther" two out of four stars simply (I extrapolated from listening to the review) because this ruined his theater experience. As it turns out, it's not really the same movie, but a new screenplay using Steve's take on the character Peter Sellers made famous.

Bill is entitled to his opinion, but I expected him to overlook his personal feelings and evaluate the movie based on technical merit, much like evaluation of the chefs who take the Certified Master Chef exam.

I guess it comes down, in the end, to being able to read between the lines. At least Bill stated his misgivings in the course of the review, so folks could do just that.

[Vadouvan]

You present an excellent analogy BOB.

I think part of Bill Wine's point (though not entirely similar to Laban) was that certain characters are so attached to a particular person ie Inspector Clouseau/Peter Sellers. For those who come to appreciate it, any change is viewed with trepidation sometimes even before viewing.

The same thing happened in the 1st changeover of 007 Bond.

Certainly one would hope food critics would see past that and rate a restaurant for what it is not what it isnt any more.

On a sidenote, the whole business of Chef certification CMC,CEC,CPC isnt taken seriously in the restaurant business and is strictly in the realm of hotel chefs and "culinary olympians".

In fact any rudimentary top 15 list of the best chefs in America, i would be supried if any of them were certified.

[KatieLoeb]

My final statement on this whole matter is that it seems that the initial 4 Bell rating of Django means that someone now has to "suck it up" and deal with the unforeseen consequences of that lofty rating in light of the change of ownership.  I think it should be Mr. Laban since he created the environment in which it existed.  I hardly think the new owners of a short 16 weeks should have to suck it up and deal with the repercussions that have now been created.  It isn't right, it isn't fair and most of all it isn't true.

←

The new owners should have to suck it up and be reviewed as if it was a different restaurant, because it is. The change in ownership also entailed a change in the executive chef and his wife, the two people who had far more impact than anyone else on the quality of the place. You can't buy a restaurant, keep the name, change the menu and the exec. chef, and expect to keep the 4 bells. And I still don't see how you can say it isn't true when you haven't been back there since the place changed hands, and LaBan has been there (probably) twice.

←

I haven't been there but have had the new exec chef's cuisine and found it to be equal or superior to anything I had at Django under the previous ownership at any point in their tenure. Other folks here whose palates I trust implicitly and who I know understand good food and service have also agreed. I went back in time and searched long and hard for anyone that agreed with the initial four bell rating and came up completely empty. There doesn't seem to be anyone that ever agreed with that lofty rating - even years ago in Django's heyday. By the time the review came out the slide in service and quality that has been well documented here and on other review boards had already begun. And that was under the old ownership.

I know that Greg and Ross are far too professional to allow the sort of slide into the ghetto in two short months that the two bell demotion implies. There would have to be a complete meltdown and I know that hasn't happened. Almost all of the staff were retained. The new proprietors are being punitively held to a standard they couldn't possibly hope to live up to in such a short time. If a demotion was deserved then it should have been only one bell.

[Greg Salisbury]

Holly, thanks for asking about the effect of the review on the staff. They actually took it much, much better than either Ross or I did. They were, to a person, expecting three bells. Their attitude is, "so it didn't happen - so what? We still believe in what we're doing." Good foxhole people, to be sure.

Vadouvan, you and I both know whom I was referring to with my comments about the res policy. Definitely not you; just someone who, for some unknown reason is no longer allowed to post on another board after getting busted for one too many shills. And finally - if I can make time to get to your place, it is about time for you to get to mine!

And Bob, that was a first-class analogy. You must have done all right on your SAT verbal!

[Mano]

As it happens, the week prior to LaBan's review I was chatting with one of his associates about the legal system, judges and then was given a heads-up that LaBan would be reducing Django by two stars. The connecting thread to these seemingly disparate topics is that LaBan is a judge, and that judges, no matter how qualified or objective, sometimes make subjective decisions that are at variance with the facts. LaBan's original four bell review and his two bell revision are cases in point. LaBan is a fine restaurant critic who does his homework, but these reviews were colored by his emotions and some subjective beliefs about the former owners.

In my (limited) experience, Django was Philly's best BYOB, bar none, and I enjoyed some personal recognition from the owners. Nevertheless, the sound level and other factors would never qualify it as a four bell restaurant. To me, a four bell restaurant should be inviting and pleasant in every way. The fact that it was such a loud room made it unpleasant at times. Moreover, during the year before it changed hands, it was less consistent. Several people whose opinions I respect have had excellent meals at Django in recent months.

Two bells is still "very good" and a two bell BYOB is smack in my sweet spot.

[Sfuffy]

I've always found the whole bell system somewhat incomprehensible–how can you use the same scale to compare a white tablecloth fine dining establishment with an ethnic mom-and-pop? Should one use the bells only in comparison to similar restaurants or across the whole dining universe?

But if you're going to use such a system at least lay out the criteria so readers can better evaluate LaBan's judgments. (And I think a 5-bell system would be much better, as it would allow for finer distinctions among establishments and the loss of a bell wouldn't necessarily be so catastrophic.)

[MarketStEl]

I've always found the whole bell system somewhat incomprehensible–how can you use the same scale to compare a white tablecloth fine dining establishment with an ethnic mom-and-pop? Should one use the bells only in comparison to similar restaurants or across the whole dining universe?

←

LaBan has said that the system is relative. The attributes that make the Mayfair Diner (or whatever the name of that diner he gave four bells was) a four-bell establishment are those that place it head and shoulders above other diners and diner-like restaurants, which is not the same thing as saying that the Mayfair Diner is the equivalent of Le Bec-Fin--obviously, it isn't.

No one I know goes out to dine looking for a Le Bec-Fin experience every time. Besides, most of us couldn't afford that. But we may go out looking for a finer diner or a superior sandwich shop, and we can recognize excellence within those categories when we run across it.

I don't think it's too difficult for the average reader to pull out the appropriate mental yardstick for judging a LaBan bell rating under those circumstances.

[Mummer]

I think it was the Country Club Diner in the Northeast that received three Laban bells. Following a change of ownership - perhaps there's a pattern here - the bells assessment was revised.

My recollection could be faulty, of course, due to extensive ringing of my bell.

[TarteTatin]

Okay, let's talk about last night. Thursday, Feb 16th. Five of us for dinner.

I arrived alone, first. It's such a pretty restaurant. Our table was at the very front. They were playing Pink Martini; which is perfect, because we were on our way to the concert after dinner. One of the waitresses knew that, and said she was glad I noticed they were playing it.

Hubby came in. We immediately got served water and the amuse bouche. Personally, I would have liked until all five of us had arrived before serving the amuse. Even though it was a cold one. It was beef carpaccio with a touch of truffle oil and a bit of frisee, I think. (forgive all of my food explanations-I forgot to pick up a menu, so there will be lots of descriptive items I'm missing) There was a pot of brioche type bread and a cute little butter bell (love those).

I think what I liked best about the evening was that they took chances. They were creative, and the flavors worked. It wasn't too busy with too many tastes, but perfectly balanced.

The wine glasses are absolutely perfect, in my opinion. They are little Riedel degustation (tasting) glasses. The perfect size for swirling to see the legs, and the perfect size to fit the nose completely into. The only problem is the temperature of the hand warms the wine. And whether it is red or white, this is an issue. But they are really unique and fine tasting glasses.

I had the Cape May Oysters which tasted of the sea-but not fishy-just perfect-served with a cucumber something. Really refreshing, I wanted more of them. Small, as I like, but if they are so small, then serve six.

Hubby had a Kasmir platter-3 types of vegetarian Indian items. There was a samosa, and something eggplanty-I think-and then this outrageous sort of Indian guacamole. It was spicy, but not in the Mexican sense, so good!

Other apps around the table: Salt baked (poached) bosc pear with other items, short rib tart (which I'll get to later), and tuna carpaccio.

For an entree, I had two more appetizers. This is great when you want to taste a lot of items! I had gnocci with pulled pork and a million more items. Tasty, light gnocci, little ones, with lots of absolutely delicious pork on the bottom layer. I think there were little fried shallots? It's hard to go out with others, because I had to concentrate on talking, even though they are also food lovers. I can't remember what else was in the dish, and I don't give justice to my description. I also had that Short Rib tart. A little tart with short rib slices and more. Good. I liked the pastry, another dining partner thought it didn't go with the meat.

Hubby had tender duck breast. He didn't like his layered sweet potato mille fleuille, I loved it. Others had Venison, it actually had some taste to it, mostly we don't order it anymore-it doesn't taste of anything. The dining partner that ordered the diver scallops wasn't impressed at all. It was quite a few large gorgeous scallops, served with two whole (with the head on-that's great!) large shrimp. But I guess you can't get it fresh with the head on, he thought it should have been crispier, it was almost mushy. Someone else had the short rib tart for their entree.

We had one cheese plate served for the table. She warned us that she usually serves 4-5 pieces of their 11 cheeses they had, but would give us a tiny taste of it all. So, it was barely the minutest piece of all 11, therefore only two people could barely get a bite of each cheese. Nice idea to let us try them all, but it didn't really work. I remember a nice cheese from Champagne (of course!), and a couple of good sheep's cheeses...

For dessert we had: Vanilla Tasting Plate. This was three items, a mini creme brulee, a mini parfait with mascarpone and raspberry, and an ice cream sandwich. Good, but not overwhelming tastes of vanilla, as I had hoped for. Also, we had the Banana Split, which wasn't really a banana split and hubby scarfed it down and didn't really share. I do know the pieces of banana on top had been dipped in chocolate. I think there was another dessert too. Something Chocolate.

We went at 6:00 and were out at 8:00 for the concert. It was packed by the time we left, with some reservations waiting on the street. This was a Thursday night. Service was good, a bit rushed, but then they had to get us out. We split the bill five ways, and it came to $54 a person including tip. We brought our own wines, an Auxey-Duress was the hit of the night.

To sum it up, I agree with Greg's earlier post: This is a VERY GOOD byob! Who cares about the stars or bells. I think they take creative chances, and its probably the best BYOB in town. No, its not the Fountain. And that's why I like Le Comptoir in Paris; rather than La Tour D'argent. I think people lately, are generally into good, bistro food, in a relaxed atmosphere, where the food is taken just as seriously as the four stars.

[Mottmott]

Last night, I didn't want to cook, so made a 5:30 res by stopping in at 4:30 on my way to Tower records. There was plenty of room at the 5:30 sitting! I fully enjoyed my meal. And there were few tables free when I left about 6:45.

There are often questions about how a single woman diner is treated. And to some extent I judge a restaurant by how I'm treated when alone. If I'm not treated well then, I don't go there in company, either. Both at Django (under both mgmts) & Rx I have always received very good service. Indeed, if anything, they seem more solicitous when I'm alone.

I agree with those who feel Django represents a very fair value for a very good meal when compared with other restaurants in it's price class - and a better value than many. What more can we ask for? good food and good service at a fair price satisfies me. Could it be better? What restaurant couldn't be? And how much do you pay for that.

I'd be interested in hearing which other restaurants offer more. I'm not being snide, I'd really like to find them. (StudioKitchen doesn't count as it's not a restaurant as such.)

[philadining]

Maxine Keyser says the new Django is better than ever in The City Paper.