Del Posto

[docsconz]

docsconz, I read your review from December just now and I agree with the portions being small and prices obscene, although I suppose now you get two or three ounces of meat instead of one ounce for the same price. And I'm glad the hostesses were more courteous. I can't see why they wouldn't try to be more useful, or try to seat us when the restaurant is near zero-capacity. One did nothing all night but walk back and forth from the back each time with a new hairstyle. Six times, and with short hair, that's not easy. But all the servers were pleasant, prompt and overall excellent. It did strike me as absurd after reading your review, to learn that the lounge tables were forbidden from receiving anything from the main dining room, 1. because it's such a thin line seperating the two and 2. because it's a waste of a kitchen who's not cooking for anyone else. I'm sure we could have spent $400 easily last night if more dishes were available to us, we just didn't want to surrender the more casual atmosphere. I think that's a huge mistake on part of management and one that should be flexible with the capacity of the room.

Having gone once now the memory will stay with me, a positive one, and eventually I'll go back. And I think come a year from now after everyone eats there once, it'll pass or fail on repeat business but I think Del Posto did an excellent job for better or worse in defining itself and seperating itself from other Batali restaurants, italian restaurants, other three or four star restaurants and I don't mind overpaying for a stark, defined experience. I do that at Cafe Gray too. Although no one seems to like that either and they manage to give you huge portions.

←

I suspect that the lounge policy was based on expectations that they would be busier than they appear to be. I agree the policy appears to be a silly and counterproductive one.

[ingridsf]

Sorry if this overlaps with a previous post - but I haven't read upstream far enough to see if anyone has posted about this Food Network show in the past week. 

Tomorrow night, (Saturday, Feb. 18), the Food Network is doing a show all about Mario Batali and the prepping and opening of Del Posto.  9pm ET/PT.

U.E.

←

I saw this. It wasn't just about Del Posto, it was about Mario's jam-packed (and fun-filled -- thank you Lily Tomlin!) life. There was a moment when one of the chefs asked Mario point-blank about how they could justify charging so much for a certain pasta dish in this restaurant than they did for the same dish elsewhere.

Without missing a beat, Mario says it's because the place cost them $10 million.

Ouch! See, that's where "behind the scenes" is not always a good idea. If I'm going to pay significantly more for a plate of pasta I want to at least pretend it's because it's better pasta. Like the design, the linens, the service, etc. are better.

Anyway, too much candor is a problem it's probably good to have.

[ulterior epicure]

Sorry if this overlaps with a previous post - but I haven't read upstream far enough to see if anyone has posted about this Food Network show in the past week. 

Tomorrow night, (Saturday, Feb. 18), the Food Network is doing a show all about Mario Batali and the prepping and opening of Del Posto.  9pm ET/PT.

U.E.

←

I saw this. It wasn't just about Del Posto, it was about Mario's jam-packed (and fun-filled -- thank you Lily Tomlin!) life. There was a moment when one of the chefs asked Mario point-blank about how they could justify charging so much for a certain pasta dish in this restaurant than they did for the same dish elsewhere.

Without missing a beat, Mario says it's because the place cost them $10 million.

Ouch! See, that's where "behind the scenes" is not always a good idea. If I'm going to pay significantly more for a plate of pasta I want to at least pretend it's because it's better pasta. Like the design, the linens, the service, etc. are better.

Anyway, too much candor is a problem it's probably good to have.

←

Yep. I was pretty shocked at the honesty and matter-of-factness with which Batali stated this (and many other comments in this 1 hour show - very revealing).

There seemed to be not a hint of hesitation or shame in the orange-clog toting Italianophile for upcharging simply based on the fact that the restaurant cost more to build. While I understand that economics and profits drive businesses, his attitude was off-putting to me, as a potential customer... I do think there are limits on how much proprietors can get away with, and without having gone, if the reports are true, then I think Del Posto have exceeded my prudent interest.

Regardless, I thought that the editors of the Food Network special were awfully generous (perhaps a little careless?) with the footage they chose... I'm a little surprised that some of the soundbites were included - "Bastali" boasting a number of times that they intend the restaurant to be a 4-star (ie. Bruni 4-star) establishment and Batali asserting, quite confidently, that the reason Italian restaurants haven't gotten 4-stars from NY Times thus far is because Italian food is usually "simpler."

There's a whole discussion about this happening on the "Bruni and Beyond..." forum. Read downthread from the link.

u.e.

[oakapple]

Eater confirms (not stating his sources) that Frank Bruni will review Del Posto tomorrow:

Anything short of four stars will be a major disapointment for Molto Mario and Co....

Bottom line is that the safe money is on three stars. The betting man takes 50-1 odds on two stars and 100-1 on four.

Eater's rationale is that Bruni is already on record as a Batali fan, making three stars more likely than two; but enough of Bruni's colleagues have found serious faults to make four stars a remote long-shot. I basically agree with Eater's reasoning, but I think a two-star slap is significantly more probable than just 50-1.

To get four stars, Del Posto's cuisine needs to be better than Babbo's; moreover, it needs to be consistent, and that's hard to do with such a long menu. Every four-star restaurant in town has a far more limited menu than Del Posto's. They change frequently, but at any given time, they aren't trying to be all things to all people. While I do not predict Bruni's rating, I do predict that Bruni's review will comment on the length of the menu, and will suggest (in some fashion) that it wouldn't hurt to edit some dishes out of the picture.

Edited February 28, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[bpearis]

three stars.

[Sneakeater]

AT LAST: Somebody acknowledges the bollito misto cart.

Edited March 1, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[oakapple]

I wrote:

While I do not predict Bruni's rating, I do predict that Bruni's review will comment on the length of the menu, and will suggest (in some fashion) that it wouldn't hurt to edit some dishes out of the picture.

←

I got the Gilt prediction wrong, so I'll crow about getting this one right. Here's Mr. Bruni:

In fact there's a bit too much. At a restaurant this self-regarding and pricey — the veal rack, for two, is $95 — you pay in part to submit to expert judgment and you want more guidance. You don't want to hear a server say unbidden that the menu can be overwhelming, a concession that should clue the restaurant into the need for more scrupulous editing.

Edited March 1, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[Pan]

It's a positive review. The partners who own the establishment should be happy.

[tan319]

Guess their wines the right price,

thank god

[oakapple]

It's a positive review. The partners who own the establishment should be happy.

←

As they had so publicly announced their intention to go for four stars, the verdict of three has to be somewhat bittersweet. However, the tone of the review is overwhelmingly favorable (the best they've received so far), and it should be good for business. The review also very much leaves open the possibility of a promotion to four stars later on, if some of the kinks can be worked out, and the menu edited down to a more sensible length.

[rich]

At least he likes the music.

Edited March 1, 2006 by rich (log)

[mikeyrad]

To get four stars, Del Posto's cuisine needs to be better than Babbo's; moreover, it needs to be consistent, and that's hard to do with such a long menu.

oakapple, I am extremely impressed.

[rich]

I wrote:

While I do not predict Bruni's rating, I do predict that Bruni's review will comment on the length of the menu, and will suggest (in some fashion) that it wouldn't hurt to edit some dishes out of the picture.

←

I got the Gilt prediction wrong, so I'll crow about getting this one right. Here's Mr. Bruni:

In fact there's a bit too much. At a restaurant this self-regarding and pricey — the veal rack, for two, is $95 — you pay in part to submit to expert judgment and you want more guidance. You don't want to hear a server say unbidden that the menu can be overwhelming, a concession that should clue the restaurant into the need for more scrupulous editing.

←

You nailed that one Marc - are you sure you don't have a secret identity?

[Nathan]

It's a positive review. The partners who own the establishment should be happy.

←

As they had so publicly announced their intention to go for four stars, the verdict of three has to be somewhat bittersweet. However, the tone of the review is overwhelmingly favorable (the best they've received so far), and it should be good for business. The review also very much leaves open the possibility of a promotion to four stars later on, if some of the kinks can be worked out, and the menu edited down to a more sensible length.

←

heck, he told them how to get four stars.

[rozrapp]

In an article in the New York Observer about the landlord problem, the very last line quotes the reaction to the 3 stars:

“We’re ecstatic,” said Mr. Bastianich. “We’re going to spend another year working to try and get four. It’s an opportunity and a responsibility.”

[rich]

In an article in the New York Observer about the landlord problem, the very last line quotes the reaction to the 3 stars:

“We’re ecstatic,” said Mr. Bastianich. “We’re going to spend another year working to try and get four. It’s an opportunity and a responsibility.”

←

He couldn't say anything else, he had to put a positive spin on this to avoid alienating the critic. Afterall, he still hopes to eventually get that fourth star. But there must be disappointment since the group openly said (many times and to anyone in earshot) that Del Posto was geared and supposed to be the first four-star Italian in NYC. Three stars (and I still maintain what I said before the review was published - that the third star would be because of the critic's fondness for all things Batali) just puts it at the level of some of their other places.

But I do have a question. Has Del Posto received a top ranking by any other critic? I don't think so, but I'm sure I haven't seen all the reviews.

[oakapple]

He couldn't say anything else, he had to put a positive spin on this to avoid alienating the critic. Afterall, he still hopes to eventually get that fourth star. But there must be disappointment since the group openly said (many times and to anyone in earshot) that Del Posto was geared and supposed to be the first four-star Italian in NYC.

←

Plenty of restauranteurs have let it be known publicly that they were dismayed with a review. I see no reason to doubt that the Del Posto guys' reaction is genuine. Eater quotes an inside source, who says that "mario partied even more than usual to celebrate last night." Eater also knew the review was coming before anyone else did, so I think his inside sources are pretty good.

(At Gilt, they said nothing publicly, but they fired the lunch brigade the next day.)

Obviously they would have partied with even greater abandon had they received four stars, but this is a pretty good outcome, not just because of the number of stars, but because of the specific things Bruni said about the place. I mean, he could have just said, "it's a fancier Babbo." For that matter, he could have done what he did to Paul Liebrandt (Gilt), Scott Conant (Alto), Gray Kunz (Cafe Gray), Gabriel Kreuther (The Modern), David Bouley (Bouley), or Christian Delouvrier (Alain Ducasse), all of whom received withering reviews.

Three stars (and I still maintain what I said before the review was published - that the third star would be because of the critic's fondness for all things Batali) just puts it at the level of some of their other places.

The difference is that Bruni has pretty clearly laid out that Del Posto has four-star potential, which puts it in a different category than other restaurants that have maxed out at three.

By the way, all critics have "fondness" for certain things—critical biases, in other words. As long as it's for the right reasons, I see nothing wrong with this. They are paid to have opinions, so why should it surprise us that they have them?

But I do have a question. Has Del Posto received a top ranking by any other critic? I don't think so, but I'm sure I haven't seen all the reviews.

I am aware of only one other formal review: Adam Platt in New York, who was considerably less enthusiastic than Bruni. Edited March 2, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[Fat Guy]

It's certainly the most defensive New York Times review I've read. Language like "That's a parochial response, and a largely unjust one," is bound to raise a few eyebrows.

One has to wonder whether, if Batali had no involvement in the venture, Bruni would have gone to such great lengths to mount this defense. Or would he have simply dismissed it as "soulless and spurious."

As he said about Alto, when giving it two stars, "Alto presents an entirely different Italy, all haute and bothered."

[rich]

I'm sure they partied, as they realized two stars was a real possibility. But I don't think they were "ecstatic" as the report quoted. And yes, he laid the groundwork for four stars, but who's to say when it will be reviewed again or if he will be the reviewer. I don't think he can (fairly) review Del Posto again for more than a year - not when so many other important places haven't been reviewed for much longer than that. That would be too much of a bias.

I don't think there's anything wrong with a critic having biases - we all do. But I believe that particular bias is what saved Del Posto from falling into the Gilt trap.

It's interesting that the NY Times critic chastises other critics and some of the public as not getting or not having an open mind (paraphasing) toward Del Posto. Yet, it's the same thing most of Gilt supporters said of him after the two-star review. This is where the bias plays out. But I agree with you Marc, that's what he and every critic is being paid to do (their critical bias). As long as the public is aware of the bias - no harm, no foul.

Edited March 2, 2006 by rich (log)

[Fat Guy]

I don't think lumping all preferences and judgments together under the heading "biases" gives conscientious critics their due. A bias is more than just a belief. The hallmarks of biases are that they are unreasoned, personal and closed-minded.

[oakapple]

One has to wonder whether, if Batali had no involvement in the venture, Bruni would have gone to such great lengths to mount this defense. Or would he have simply dismissed it as "soulless and spurious."

As he said about Alto, when giving it two stars, "Alto presents an entirely different Italy, all haute and bothered."

←

It's certainly reasonable to ask what makes this attempt at Italian luxury a success, but Scott Conant's a failure. In the Del Posto review, Bruni defends his case well. That doesn't mean he's correct, because we could argue that till the cows come home, but the argument is well stated. The Alto verdict, like many of Bruni's reviews, did not strike me as well-argued, although that doesn't make it incorrect.

I don't think lumping all preferences and judgments together under the heading "biases" gives conscientious critics their due. A bias is more than just a belief. The hallmarks of biases are that they are unreasoned, personal and closed-minded.

←

A very fair statement. Rather than biases, I should have said inclinations, or leanings.

I don't think he can (fairly) review Del Posto again for more than a year - not when so many other important places haven't been reviewed for much longer than that. That would be too much of a bias.

←

As far as I know, Alain Ducasse is the last relevant precedent. William Grimes awarded three stars on November 1, 2000, and four stars just barely over a year later, on December 19, 2001. A similar precedent is Daniel, which received two stars from Marian Burros on July 30, 1993, and four stars from Ruth Reichl on November 11, 1994.

Critics choose their review subjects based on newsworthiness. A new four-star restaurant is simply more newsworthy than a neighborhood trattoria. Jean Georges hasn't had a rated review since June 6, 1997, but we can find any number of restaurants that have had two, and even three reviews since then—Ducasse being one of them. That doesn't necessarily reflect a bias against Jean-Georges Vongerichten. It could simply mean that Reichl hit the nail on the head in 1997, and none of her successors have seen the need to revisit the topic.

Edited March 2, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[Fat Guy]

Having dined at Alto but not Del Posto, I can only argue that the Alto verdict was wrong, not that the Del Posto verdict was right. But I hope to check out Del Posto soon. The thing is, when you say "all haute and bothered," as Bruni did in the Alto review, you're making more than a statement about the restaurant. You're making a faux-populist argument in general. This has been an unfortunate theme in Bruni's writing, which puts him in an odd position when he comes out swinging in defense of just such a restaurant.

I'd argue that the most on-point precedent for re-reviewing involves Union Pacific. Ruth Reichl gave Union Pacific two stars on November 26, 1997. She then re-reviewed it on August 5, 1998, giving it three stars. That's eight months. The review was titled "A Short Trip From Promising to Polished."

[rich]

I'd argue that the most on-point precedent for re-reviewing involves Union Pacific. Ruth Reichl gave Union Pacific two stars on November 26, 1997. She then re-reviewed it on August 5, 1998, giving it three stars. That's eight months. The review was titled "A Short Trip From Promising to Polished."

←

I guess he'll "have to" go back and re-review Gilt as well. "What's good for the goose...."

[oakapple]

I guess he'll "have to" go back and re-review Gilt as well. "What's good for the goose...."

←

That presumes he'll find a dramatic improvement. A lot of his objections to Gilt seemed to be fundamental, and if that's the case, there's probably not a lot they can do to make him a fan without totally changing the concept.

Del Posto's problems, on the other hand, are the kinds of things a restaurant could rectify without fundamentally changing what they're about.

There's a long list of places that would like a second chance. Most of them probably aren't going to get it (not from Frank, anyway). The Times reviewing system just can't accommodate second looks on a regular basis.

The Union Pacific re-review is remarkable. In her eGullet Q&A, Ruth Reichl mentioned that there were other places she wished she could have re-visited, but there just wasn't enough time/space in which to do it.

[docsconz]

I just hope that if DP does get four stars on a re-review it is because it is truly deserved and has made changes to justify a bump-up. From what i saw of the place it has far to go, but then that was awhile ago now and perhaps they have made some of those changes to justify even a three-star. I love great food and I love luxury, but I hate pretentiousness. That is what I saw when I was there in its early days. I hope that attitude and its trappings are gone, although based on what I am reading currently about the place it appears that there is a lot more room for improvement in this regard.

I did get the impression that Bruni has cut Mario and friends a lot of slack that he doesn't generally give to other restaurants.