NYT Articles on Food, Drink, Cooking, and Culinary Culture (2002–2005)

[Steve Plotnicki]

Yes I would agree that Lespinasse serves four star cuisine. Whether or not they actually execute at a four star level is a different question and I can see arguing for three stars if you think they don't. As for weinoo and his favorite pizza place in Rome, the Italian guidebooks wouldn't rank a pizza place at two stars. They would give it the equivelent of "recommended." We are just asking for the same level of consistancy here.

[Wilfrid]

Are you saying the restaurant isn't capable of delivering a four-star dining experience when everything goes right? If so, that's a ridiculous contention.

Obviously it would be "ridiculous" to contend that Lespinasse cannot serve a four star meal when everything goes right; in fact, it would be a formal logical contradiction. Give me credit for some intelligence.

My pithy post was a reminder that the question was raised on eGullet about whether everything can "go right" at a restaurant capable of the food and service which Nick, Nockerl and I, and some other very aware people experienced. I even PM'ed you directly to ask your view. No-one as I recall showed up to say that our meal was out of the ordinary and that they had recently enjoyed a four star experience at the joint.

If you want to contend that the eGullet membership is ill-informed, unrepresentative or unresponsive on such matters, go ahead. It's not my view.

[Fat Guy]

the question was raised on eGullet about whether everything can "go right" at a restaurant capable of the food and service which Nick, Nockerl and I, and some other very aware people experienced.

The answer to that is yes. Every restaurant in the world serves a clusterfuck meal from time to time. The point is that William Grimes is not likely to be the recipient of that meal in a four-star restaurant where multiple members of the staff know his face.

Obviously it would be "ridiculous" to contend that Lespinasse cannot serve a four star meal when everything goes right; in fact, it would be a formal logical contradiction.

Plenty of restaurants, if everything goes right, would be offering three-, two-, one-, or no-star cuisine. Very few people open a restaurant with the intention of getting four stars.

[Wilfrid]

The answer to that is yes. Every restaurant in the world serves a clusterfuck meal from time to time. The point is that William Grimes is not likely to be the recipient of that meal in a four-star restaurant where multiple members of the staff know his face.

Petitio principii. It simply begs the question of whether Lespinasse is capable of serving a four star meal. If your contention was correct, no restaurant would ever lose four stars, because the NYT critic would never be the recipient of a less than four star meal. A ridiculous contention, indeed. In fact, it's obvious that what was once a fourt star restaurant can cease to be one. Is that the case with Lespinasse? I'd be intersted in people's opinions; not necessarily on this thread.

Plenty of restaurants, if everything goes right, would be offering three-, two-, one-, or no-star cuisine. Very few people open a restaurant with the intention of getting four stars.

Since Lespinasse intends to be a four star restaurant, it will serve a four star meal if everything "goes right". The denial of which would be, as I said, a formal contradiction.

Edited February 28, 2003 by Wilfrid (log)

[La Niña]

Today William Grimes writes about Moutarde, a bistro on my corner which has only been open a few weeks. No idea why he's paying attention to it - I don't think it's special or interesting. I don't get it. I also think it should probably be in $25 and under. He talks specifically (and very favorably) about the tarte tatin - which wasn't so good, in my opinion.

[Fat Guy]

If your contention was correct, no restaurant would ever lose four stars, because the NYT critic would never be the recipient of a less than four star meal.

Has any New York Times critic reduced his or her own four-star rating to three?

[Wilfrid]

I assume not. One would hope that it would be a possibility. I guess you're saying that it's implausible a four star restaurant would ever fall so far it couldn't raise it's game for a Grimes.

[Fat Guy]

Not totally implausible, just highly unlikely absent a chef change or other major restructuring.

[Wilfrid]

Now I hear you. I did check to see if any of the old four star ratings pre-dated a chef change, but no. I can see Tommy's point that a yearly review would be too much; on the other hand, I still think a five year gap is pushing the limit.

I wonder if having one or two anonymous "inspectors" periodically re-visiting these places would make sense, given the value placed on the NYT rating? Or should we assume that if a restaurant does slip severely, Grimes has plenty of ways of finding out?

[Steve Plotnicki]

Petitio principii. It simply begs the question of whether Lespinasse is capable of serving a four star meal. If your contention was correct, no restaurant would ever lose four stars, because the NYT critic would never be the recipient of a less than four star meal. A ridiculous contention, indeed. In fact, it's obvious that what was once a fourt star restaurant can cease to be one. Is that the case with Lespinasse? I'd be intersted in people's opinions; not necessarily on this thread.

I think this sort of misses one of the points (which I made so there .) A four star rating is dependent on many different elements. And while executing well is at the cornerstone of the ranking, I think that they are 75% of the way there just because all of the necessary elements are present. In fact I think it is kind of hard for them to screw it up and get anything less then four stars. Restaurants like Lespinasse, Daniel, Le Bernadin are expected to get four stars because the elements are present. And the issue for them is managing their downside so they don't end up with a demotion.

[tommy]

I wonder if having one or two anonymous "inspectors" periodically re-visiting these places would make sense, given the value placed on the NYT rating?  Or should we assume that if a restaurant does slip severely, Grimes has plenty of ways of finding out?

they read egullet.

besides, these aren't health inspections for cryin out loud. they're restaurants reviews, presumably to entertain the reader.

[Wilfrid]

It's interesting that there haven't been any demotions - if my assumptions correct. Obviously it can happen with Michelin, so I assumed it was a possibility with the NYT too.

What about Lutece, for example. The Solltner days were before my time, but did it never have more than two stars? Maybe it was never a four.

[Deacon]

The point is that William Grimes is not likely to be the recipient of that meal in a four-star restaurant where multiple members of the staff know his face.

But I thought that you've said in the past that anonymous reviews were unnecessary and that if a reviewer is known to the restaurant it makes no difference because a good reviewer can tell the difference.

[Fat Guy]

Deacon, as I wrote above:

A reviewer can detect preferential treatment on the order of special dishes, suck-up service, and larger portions of luxury ingredients. A reviewer at Grimes's level is not likely to be influenced by that sort of thing -- it may even backfire. What a reviewer can't detect is a poorly executed dish that he wasn't served.

I don't think it's possible to sum up my position on restaurant reviewing in a sentence. I've posted a lot about the subject and I think I've always been pretty consistent. I have a personal concept of what restaurant reviews should be, and on many threads I speak about it. But here, I'm participating in a discussion that assumes the New York Times reviewing framework. I do not accept that framework, but I'm always happy to discuss it on its own terms.

[ajay]

Didn't Ruth Reichel (sp?) once demote le cirque because of its supposedly shabby treatment of non regulars and super celebreties only to (re)award the fourth star in a review where she implausibly claimed to have successfully disguised her true identity through the use of an elaborate costume?

[Wilfrid]

If Le Cirque had a fourth star in either its previous or current incarnation, it's been demoted now.

[yvonne johnson]

Cheesey site

http://www.lecirque.com/

[ajay]

Yes I believe Grimes took away Le Cirque 2000's fourth star (as he did with Chanterelle) .

[Wilfrid]

And both of those, I assume, had four stars before he came along.

Looking again at the list, I think it's the two star category that's the mess. The four, three and one star listings don't seem far off the mark, although one could quibble here and there. But with two stars, you have a range of restaurants of utterly different levels of ambitio and achievement, not to say cost. Where shall we go tonight?

Lutece or Shaan of India?

Atelier or Chelse Bistro and Bar?

Blue Hill or Joe's Shanghai?

Bayard's or Eight Mile Creek?

Seems to me this is the heart of the nonsense in terms of outcome, if not process. If this category was divided into three or four - so they'd be giving ratings of, say 0 to 7 stars, then the ranking might be of some use.

[ngatti]

Would allowing half stars work? effectively doubling the number of rankings

edit for spelling

Nick

Edited February 28, 2003 by Nick Gatti (log)

[Wilfrid]

Spot-checking with Zagat, I see that the restaurants I'd put at the bottom of that category generally get a 22 for food, while the ones I'd put at the top get a 25. That's quite a difference in the Zagat context. Ergo, Zagat does the ranking job better for the NYC mid-level. Which is a way of saying, Nick, I think the top and bottom are more than one and a half stars apart.

[rozrapp]

What about Lutece, for example.  The Solltner days were before my time, but did it never have more than two stars?  Maybe it was never a four.

Lutece had 4 stars for many years. I believe that dates back to when Craig Claiborne was doing the reviews and continued through the Mimi Sheraton and Bryan Miller periods. The first time we ate there more than 20 years ago, it was definitely in that higher firmament.

ajay Posted on Feb 28 2003, 12:41 PM

Didn't Ruth Reichel (sp?) once demote le cirque because of its supposedly shabby treatment of non regulars and super celebreties only to (re)award the fourth star in a review where she implausibly claimed to have successfully disguised her true identity through the use of an elaborate costume?

When Ruth Reichl demoted Le Cirque from 4 stars to 3, her review was very unusual because it was in two parts. She wanted to see how an average Joe or Jane would be treated, so she had several meals there dressed in dowdy disguises. The first part of the review described the less than stellar treatment she received, which even included food that she found sub par. She then ate there, still in disguise, but this time dressed as someone with means. Both the food and the treatment she received were far superior to that of her more ordinary counterpart -- in line with what one would expect from a restaurant of 4-star caliber. This Jekyll-and-Hyde-type treatment is the reason she demoted the rating. As I recall, Sirio had a hissy fit and even placed an ad to try and counter what he considered a sneaky approach to reviewing. She did replace the fourth star eventually, but it didn't happen for quite a while.

[Fat Guy]

But when she gave Le Cirque 3 stars, had she previously given it 4, or was that Bryan Miller's rating? That's what I'm having trouble remembering.

[GordonCooks]

How about a 5 star system ?

[Fat Guy]

Michelin does just fine with three stars and some non-star categories. I don't think there's a problem per se with the number of available stars.