New York Times and CT restaurants

[iheartoffal]

I'm not quite sure how it works. Is an "excellent" rating the rough equivalent of a 3 star rating? Anyone know how that works?

[jeffperez62]

I don't know, but I certainly do not agree with some of their ratings. They gave Relish (in South Norwalk) an Excellent. While it is good I must question some of the reviews.

[Weissman]

I'm not quite sure how it works.  Is an "excellent" rating the rough equivalent of a 3 star rating?  Anyone know how that works?

←

NY Times Rating System goes like this (at least it is in Jersey's NYT reviews): poor, fair, good, very good, excellent, and extraordinary.

Maybe poor = 0 stars

Fair = .5 star

Good= 1 star

Very Good = 2 stars

Excellent = 3 stars

Extraordinary= 4 stars

Too many selections!! It's very iffy.

In Jersey, there is only one "extraordinary" restaurant and that is Ryland Inn. It's expensive, and it sucks. I'm not sure, but I would bet Thomas Henklemen's place in Greenwich is also "extraordinary", according to my mom and her boyfriend when they visited there last year.

NYC's Restaurant Reviews tell you the bottom line in stars, which is better!

[fchrisgrimm]

Wasn't Ibiza (or was it Meigas) given an Extraordinary rating by the NYT Connecticut section?

[Daniel]

I'm not quite sure how it works.  Is an "excellent" rating the rough equivalent of a 3 star rating?  Anyone know how that works?

←

NY Times Rating System goes like this (at least it is in Jersey's NYT reviews): poor, fair, good, very good, excellent, and extraordinary.

Maybe poor = 0 stars

Fair = .5 star

Good= 1 star

Very Good = 2 stars

Excellent = 3 stars

Extraordinary= 4 stars

Too many selections!! It's very iffy.

In Jersey, there is only one "extraordinary" restaurant and that is Ryland Inn. It's expensive, and it sucks. I'm not sure, but I would bet Thomas Henklemen's place in Greenwich is also "extraordinary", according to my mom and her boyfriend when they visited there last year.

NYC's Restaurant Reviews tell you the bottom line in stars, which is better!

←

I have been to the Ryland Inn on several occasions and found it fantastic.. Most recently for a wedding.. What do you base your "it sucks" rating on? What did you get there..

[Fat Guy]

I don't think it's really possible to equate the adjectives used to describe the regional section restaurant ratings with the stars given by the New York City reviewer. There are several key points of differentiation between the two types of reviews. For example, the New York City reviewer is a solo reviewer, his full-time job is to review New York City restaurants, he operates in one of the top restaurant markets in the world, and he dines out ten times a week (or more). The regional section reviewers, for their parts, usually share the burden so there isn't really an oeuvre to look at, they are typically doing it as a side gig, they operate in mostly suburban markets where most of the better restaurants wouldn't even get reviewed in New York City, and they dine out maybe once or twice a week. Presumably, these are some of the differences the Times editors have looked at when determining not to assign stars to restaurants reviewed in the regional sections. So I would simply say that "excellent" means "excellent for this market; comparable to the other best restaurants in the state." Otherwise, you're going to get into trouble when you try to compare restaurants on a star basis. When you consider that Alain Ducasse and Bouley have three stars, and that Cafe Gray has two, and that it's hard to come up with names of New Jersey and Connecticut restaurants that play in that league, you're left with mostly one-star and no-star equivalent restaurants with the occasional two-star and maybe a couple of restaurants in the whole state that could be considered for three. Which is not to say you can't get delicious food in New Jersey, Westchester, Connecticut, et al. You can. There are some categories, such as several of the Asian cuisines, where the food in New Jersey is arguably better than in New York. But those are places that aren't shooting for stars. On the whole -- with possible exceptions for Ryland, Nicholas, and maybe a couple I haven't heard of -- even the most ambitious places aren't offering the level of experience of a luxe place in the city.

[Weissman]

I'm not quite sure how it works.  Is an "excellent" rating the rough equivalent of a 3 star rating?  Anyone know how that works?

←

NY Times Rating System goes like this (at least it is in Jersey's NYT reviews): poor, fair, good, very good, excellent, and extraordinary.

Maybe poor = 0 stars

Fair = .5 star

Good= 1 star

Very Good = 2 stars

Excellent = 3 stars

Extraordinary= 4 stars

Too many selections!! It's very iffy.

In Jersey, there is only one "extraordinary" restaurant and that is Ryland Inn. It's expensive, and it sucks. I'm not sure, but I would bet Thomas Henklemen's place in Greenwich is also "extraordinary", according to my mom and her boyfriend when they visited there last year.

NYC's Restaurant Reviews tell you the bottom line in stars, which is better!

←

I have been to the Ryland Inn on several occasions and found it fantastic.. Most recently for a wedding.. What do you base your "it sucks" rating on? What did you get there..

←

I thought that the food for an Easter Sunday was high at $85 for 3 prix fix three years ago. We were a table of two and servers attitude reminded me of the country club scene at Caddy Shack with Rodney Dangerfield. The food was good, but it wasn't outrageous. The decor of the was very boring. The garden was the only nice looking part of the restaurant.

Believe me, Nicholas was much better food and service, and less expensive. Their attitude reminded me of my signature for egullet. It really was their pleasure to serve you verses who the heck are you!

[JohnL]

I don't think it's really possible to equate the adjectives used to describe the regional section restaurant ratings with the stars given by the New York City reviewer. There are several key points of differentiation between the two types of reviews. For example, the New York City reviewer is a solo reviewer, his full-time job is to review New York City restaurants, he operates in one of the top restaurant markets in the world, and he dines out ten times a week (or more). The regional section reviewers, for their parts, usually share the burden so there isn't really an oeuvre to look at, they are typically doing it as a side gig, they operate in mostly suburban markets where most of the better restaurants wouldn't even get reviewed in New York City, and they dine out maybe once or twice a week. Presumably, these are some of the differences the Times editors have looked at when determining not to assign stars to restaurants reviewed in the regional sections. So I would simply say that "excellent" means "excellent for this market; comparable to the other best restaurants in the state." Otherwise, you're going to get into trouble when you try to compare restaurants on a star basis. When you consider that Alain Ducasse and Bouley have three stars, and that Cafe Gray has two, and that it's hard to come up with names of New Jersey and Connecticut restaurants that play in that league, you're left with mostly one-star and no-star equivalent restaurants with the occasional two-star and maybe a couple of restaurants in the whole state that could be considered for three. Which is not to say you can't get delicious food in New Jersey, Westchester, Connecticut, et al. You can. There are some categories, such as several of the Asian cuisines, where the food in New Jersey is arguably better than in New York. But those are places that aren't shooting for stars. On the whole -- with possible exceptions for Ryland, Nicholas, and maybe a couple I haven't heard of -- even the most ambitious places aren't offering the level of experience of a luxe place in the city.

←

I would agree.

I live in Manhattan have a weekend home in Brewster NY which is near the CT Border and I am frequently in NJ.

So I have some familiarity with NJ, Connecticut, Westchester and Putnam counties in NY.

I do find it interesting why many people get "worked up" over the Times (maybe it is because they are the Times).

I believe that when reading a review of anything it is important to know where the reviewer is coming from and, of course any good reviewer will be consistent!

At the moment, I believe the reviewers for the suburban editions, Pat Brooks, CT; MH Reed, Westchester/Putnam (I forget who has NJ and I don't get that edition often enough to really "know them.) are more reliable than Frank Bruni (the reviewer for the main edition of the Times).

They have a track record where he does not, and people still seem to be trying to figure him out.

So good or bad one really needs to "know" the critic in question.

I never rely upon one reviewer --they can pique my interest--but I usually rely on other review sources, on line critiques (Gullet.com for eg), Zagats, local magazines NJ Monthly etc, and the restaurant's own website and best of all --word of mouth from trusted friends etc.

Interestingly, you commented about the quality of NJ restaurants--I have eaten at a number of good ones. Recently, some good friends of ours who live in NJ commented that they thought the quality of the restaurants we have taken them to in NY and Westchester was better than that overall of the NJ restaurants they were familiar with.

I also agree that Manhattan's very top restaurants have few if any equivalents in the suburbs.

But I have eaten very well in the hinterlands!

[iheartoffal]

I would have to agree that Patricia Brooks seems more qualified as a reviewer, IMO. She actually seems to really know food, whereas Bruni ostensibly BS's his way through that part of his reviews.

[fchrisgrimm]

Patricia Brooks lost me when she described (as I best recall) "well seasoned" vegetables at Thali. I mean, what the f does that mean? Does that give you any idea what the vegetables tasted like? Were they burnt to a crisp, but with just the right amount of salt? Grr....