Gilt

[oakapple]

I would argue that the Times is, in fact, attempting to be a "national" newspaper vs a "metropolitan" paper. I do not think this is a case of "consumerism" infecting the approach to restaurant reviewing.

If anything, the paper is losing relevance to NYers--hence its decline in local readership.

The Times has been a national newspaper for many years now. The decline in local readership is not attributable to that. Newspaper readership has been under pressure for decades, due to the rise of alternative information sources (CNN, the Internet), and various other factors.

Bruni's reviews are lacking in gravitas. They do not provide a context and perspective based upon knowledge and experience for readers.

I agree. Bruni has not persuaded me that he has the background to write knowledgeably about this type of cuisine.

This review IMOP--proves that Bruni never should have used Gilt as a prime example for the earlier story about restaurant pricing practices. That story is rendered almost moot--Gilt obviously was a restaurant in progress at the time and hanging the pricing issue story on Gilt --which has subsequently changed its pricing--means the story now has little relevance.

This is why, for example, previews of theatrical performances are not reviewed or used as ammunition to make points about larger theatrical issues.

←

Restaurants usually have "soft openings," which are the culinary equivalent of theatrical previews. A critique at that point would have been inappropriate. But when Bruni's earlier piece appeared, Gilt was not in a "soft opening." It was fully open to the general public. Once a restaurant has formally opened, it is fair game for critics. Indeed, Steve Cuozzo and Gael Green also had writeups on Gilt within about a week of Bruni's. You may believe (as I do) that Cuozzo and Green are better critics, but that's a whole other matter than whether it was appropriate for Bruni to write about Gilt at the time that he did.

You observe that Gilt "has subsequently changed its pricing," implying that it was unfair for Bruni to make these points when the restaurant was "obviously...in progress" (i.e., evolving). But Bruni himself may have brought about the evolution to which you refer. It is probably not a coincidence that the Times complains about pricing tactics, and shortly thereafter those tactics are changed. It doesn't seem to have done them any good, but clearly they were trying to respond to the criticism.

One point I do agree with is that, in a piece that purported to discuss broad trends in restaurant pricing, there was a bit too much emphasis on just one restaurant.

Edited February 8, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[Sneakeater]

I don't see how anyone (by which I mean Batalli and Bastianich) could reasonably think that a restaurant that fits the descriptions we've all heard of Del Posto could be a candidate for four stars.

[JohnL]

Oakapple,

we do agree on most of this.

As for the Times and its "National" appeal. A few years ago that appeal was a result of the Times coverage and quality--a more "organic" result.

Recently, the Times has been consciously making an effort to be National.

I would agree with your comments about other media (internet eg) having an impact--but--there is no question that the Times is losing local readership while the Post (for eg) has seen its readership growing. I would suggest that the relevance issue is a factor.

As for the article on pricing. I disagree with you.

If the issue is restaurant pricing practices then Bruni would have been advised to use

examples from well established places--more reliable sources if you will.

Or he could have used a number of newer places to show a trend.

He certainly could have mentioned Gilt--which would have been fine--however he used Gilt has the main source upon which to hang his hat.

The piece was practically a mini review of Gilt.

I would also question whether Gilt "responded" to the Bruni criticism. A number of eGullet posters wrote about Gilt with very different "takes" on pricing than Bruni indicated. I am not sure Bruni really got the pricing situation at Gilt correctly in his article--he certainly fails in providing any context (value,amuses, food quality etc) for the prices. Actually I 'trust" the eGullet posters on Gilt more than I "trust" Bruni.

IMOP-Bruni's article on pricing would be more compelling had he only mentioned Gilt and provided some more solid support for his thesis.

Read now--the article is practically worthless.

[oakapple]

I would also question whether Gilt "responded" to the Bruni criticism. A number of eGullet posters wrote about Gilt with very different "takes" on pricing than Bruni indicated.

←

I'm not sure what "very different take" you're referring to. No one has disputed that Bruni's comments about Gilt's prices were factually accurate at the time he wrote them.

In today's review, Bruni says, "When Gilt opened, many dishes came with supplemental charges, and wines by the glass were ludicrously exorbitant. Now the supplements are fewer and the wines slightly less expensive."

Since those were precisely the points he complained of, I think it's practically inconceivable that his comments did not have an influence. I would fall off my chair if someone in management at Gilt said, "We would have reduced our prices in any case, and it's just our bad luck that Bruni wrote about them before we got around to it."

IMOP-Bruni's article on pricing would be more compelling had he only mentioned Gilt and provided some more solid support for his thesis. 

Read now--the article is practically worthless.

Whatever the merits of the earlier piece, it was meant to be ephemeral. Today's review will be accessible on the Times website for free, and it's fair to guess that people will be reading it for a long time to come — that is, until another review comes along to supplant it.

[akwa]

reminded of a scene from amadeus

"too many notes"

which ones would you like me to remove?

god forbid the actual food should interrupt the critic's state of blissful unawareness/selfimportance

[IML]

Problem is, Will, he'd be the type of critic that would tell you, with a straight face nonetheless, which notes to remove, and think nothing of it.

Todd36: You should cancel your dinner, and instead go to a swanky three-star establishment, such as BLT Fish, Bolo or Spice Market.

il

Edited February 8, 2006 by IML (log)

[pedro]

I don't have the time now for a thorough post about Gilt, but I had dinner at Gilt less than a month ago. The dinner ranks amongst the top meals I've had in the city.

I believe I described the food at Gilt as being somewhere between Blue Hill and WD-50. Certainly, Liebrandt doesn't take as many bold risks as Wylie Dufresne, specially in the main course, but the touch and winks to the hypervanguardists of the world are there, including an elBulli 2003 snack. On the other hand, there's the respect for the ingredientts that you find at Blue Hill, rendering their natural flavor, though it's difficult to find a place (within my limited experience in NY's dining scene) with the quality and pureness of ingredients displayed by chef Juan Cuevas at Blue Hill.

Probably not the right thread, but is there any critic out there in NY supporting the most risky propositions?

[IML]

And come to think of it, Papillon also got two stars. To say these two places are equals borders on lunacy.

[oakapple]

I believe I described the food at Gilt as being somewhere between Blue Hill and WD-50.

←

It's notable that Blue Hill and WD-50 are (per the Times) two-star restaurants. I would award three stars to both, but to date the paper of record has not done so.

And come to think of it, Papillon also got two stars.  To say these two places are equals borders on lunacy.

←

The Times judges restaurants against their peers — in Gilt's case, against other ultra-luxury restaurants. Gilt's two stars mean that Frank Bruni found the restaurant relatively disappointing compared to other restaurants in its category, like Bouley, Ducasse, Daniel, Jean Georges, Per Se, and Le Bernardin. I am not saying that this judgment is accurate, only that this is what it means.

It certainly does not mean that Frank Bruni thinks Gilt is in the same class as The Red Cat, Sripraphai, Spigolo, or Oriental Garden — all of which received two stars from him. I'll grant that the Times could do a better job of explaining its stars, but empirical observation supports no other conclusion.

Not long ago, Leonard Kim explained it this way on the Bruni & Beyond thread:

Historical practice suggests that **** and most *** are "absolute" ratings.  Restaurants may aspire to these ratings and fall short in the eyes of the critic and hence receive ** or *.  Other restaurants without such aspirations are clearly ranked on a separate scale, relative to their own set of peers, where ** restaurants exceed expectations and * restaurants don't (with the odd *** thrown in.)  Certainly a restaurant with ** on the former scale and one with ** on the latter are not comparable, and I don't see why that should bother anybody.

←

Edited February 8, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[Bux]

There seems to be a concensus, if not among all the posters, at least among the ones that see this as I do.

Bruni, as Oakapple says "has not persuaded me that he has the background to write knowledgeably about this type of cuisine," and maybe Vadouvan was more succint without getting into background when he said "He just didnt get it."

What troubled me was the obvious subjectivity of the review coupled with a tone of objective authority. It's all made worse by the accompanying comments of his companion, who I judge, from this review, to have been an objectively poor choice of a person with whom to dine at Gilt. The lasting impression I have of the restaurant from the review is one where everything is cooked to perfection. Indeed, every facet of the food than can truely be criticized objectively gets raves. I've noted before that I've had one meal at Liebrandt's hands. I did not like my meal, but I was able to discern the fact the Liebrandt can cook and I could not begrudge my companions their pleasure in the meal. Bruni can write about his taste as if it is an ideal. I disagree. I'd also note that Liebrandt's food seems far more developed than when I had it last and I'd like to try it again.

[Leonard Kim]

I'm not so sure I stand by my stars explanation any more, at least where Bruni is concerned, but I need to do a little more research before I post on the subject in the Bruni and Beyond thread.

Sorry for the following irrelevancy: in the context of the movie, I thought it was to be understood that Mozart *did* use too many notes, at least in "Martern aller Arten," in that he had composed essentially extraneous passages for the sole purpose of giving his singer the opportunity to show off, and that opportunity was paid for (not in ducats.)

[Todd36]

Problem is, Will, he'd be the type of critic that would tell you, with a straight face nonetheless, which notes to remove, and think nothing of it.

Todd36:  You should cancel your dinner, and instead go to a swanky three-star establishment, such as BLT Fish, Bolo or Spice Market.

il

←

Within the last year or so, I've had dinner at among other places Per Se and ADNY. I don't agree with many of Bruni's reviews. But two stars for something in this price range gives me pause. I've decided to keep my Friday reservation at Gilt. It's going to be an experiment. But the NYT can be right. Someone else on this thread mentioned Asiante as the last place that got really slammed by the NYT. I had dinner there shortly before the NYT review, and Asiante deserved the review it got, it wasn't very good. I also like Cafe Gray, but its expensive. I can spend almost as much on lunch at Cafe Gray as I can on dinner at Bouley, I think pricing has something to do with Cafe Gray's NYT review. Gilt is charging 4 star prices, it should be good to justify that.

[Bux]

. . . .  the NYT can be right.  Someone else on this thread mentioned Asiante as the last place that got really slammed by the NYT.  I had dinner there shortly before the NYT review, and Asiante deserved the review it got, it wasn't very good. . . .

←

I could say you are wrong, but then I'd fall into the trap that caught Bruni. Asiate appeared to be aiming at four stars and over reaching the afternoon I was there, which was before the review appeared, but it was very good and at times showed evidence of the potential to develop into a four star restaurant. It would have been easy for me to understand a two star or three star review, depending on the reviewer's focus. I believe it got one star. It deserved far better.

[IML]

Todd36: I never once flinched at Gilt's prices, even before the supplement overhaul, as I knew that many costs were built into the menu structure, especially those that appear to be free. I dare somebody to find another high-end meal in Manhattan whose amuse-gueule service comes close to matching Gilt's for sheer quantity or quality, and this is to say nothing of the side plates that accompany larger dishes or the bread service. What's more, there is a general consensus on all the food boards -- even from Bruni himself -- that as far as execution goes, Gilt should be considered in the same league as the top restaurants in town, and maybe even better than some of those. A person would have to be stupid to dismiss the level of this kitchen's craftmanship or the integrity of their foodstuffs, which isn't to say they do not have many kinks that need to be resolved. Even during its first week, I believe one could say Gilt came out of the chute, kicking some culinary ass, and operating at a three-star level.

Substantively I do not understand what Bruni faults Gilt for, other than a single fish dish (the sole) and what he sees as Liebrandt's culinary verbosity. As far as pricing goes, el Bruño himself seemed pleased that Gilt revamped its menu, pushing down the average check. If the restaurant couldn't get more technically sound than what he was fed, then the only gripe one could make was on a conceptual end, that he or she does not like Liebrandt's approach. Bruni more or less said this exact phrase, but, like Gagnaire, I believe one has to defer to the kitchen's approach if one is to have a pleasurable meal. Bruni got Gilt to bow to his pricing complaints; now maybe he'll have his simple, simple, simple cake and eat it too.

il

[BryanZ]

I wholeheartedly agree with the above post.

[docsconz]

Bruni's review in no way dampens my desire to try Gilt for myself. There are far too many positive remarks on this board from people I have come to trust to dismiss the restaurant based on his review. As for Gagnaire, though, my one experience there was a major disappointment although I could see the technical quality of the kitchen.

[Todd36]

Todd36:  I never once flinched at Gilt's prices, even before the supplement overhaul, as I knew that many costs were built into the menu structure, especially those that appear to be free.  I dare somebody to find another high-end meal in Manhattan whose amuse-gueule service comes close to matching Gilt's for sheer quantity or quality, and this is to say nothing of the side plates that accompany larger dishes or the bread service.  What's more, there is a general consensus on all the food boards -- even from Bruni himself -- that as far as execution goes, Gilt should be considered in the same league as the top restaurants in town, and maybe even better than some of those.  A person would have to be stupid to dismiss the level of this kitchen's craftmanship or the integrity of their foodstuffs, which isn't to say they do not have many kinks that need to be resolved.  Even during its first week, I believe one could say Gilt came out of the chute, kicking some culinary ass, and operating at a three-star level.

Substantively I do not understand what Bruni faults Gilt for, other than a single fish dish (the sole) and what he sees as Liebrandt's culinary verbosity.  As far as pricing goes, el Bruño himself seemed pleased that Gilt revamped its menu, pushing down the average check.  If the restaurant couldn't get more technically sound than what he was fed, then the only gripe one could make was on a conceptual end, that he or she does not like Liebrandt's approach.  Bruni more or less said this exact phrase, but, like Gagnaire, I believe one has to defer to the kitchen's approach if one is to have a pleasurable meal.  Bruni got Gilt to bow to his pricing complaints; now maybe he'll have his simple, simple, simple cake and eat it too.

il

←

When you dare someone......if you want to spend enough money, sure, I can find a place that probably does give more....go to Bouley and ask for the off-the menu $500 per person food and wine pairing. It's very good. Not sure its worth the $500 though and I don't know if its generally offered or not....a friend took me there who is wel known by Bouley. You will not leave hungry. And while ADNY is more expensive than Gilt, again, it delivers a lot of food, if that is your criteria. I'll have a better idea after dinner tomorrow night at Gilt. Heck, in pretty close to the same price range as Gilt Jean Georges delivers quite a lot of volume.

My take on Bruni's review is that the kitchen in Gilt can cook and that much of the basic food is very fine, but that they do combinations that just plan don't make sense or work very well together. In Bruni's mind, it may not matter how good the tuna tartar and creme brulee are, if they are on the same plate. Again, I'll let you know. But I also have to wonder how much of the thinking of the people writing on this thread is of the "everyone knows he can cook, therefore Gilt must be good" variety. He can cook and Gilt can still not be so good.

BTW, high overhead has zip to do with the stars a restaurant has. High overhead often has nothing to do with the food that sits on your plate. The high end rent at Time Warner compared to a ancient lease for the original Nobu.... do you want to make an allowance for Cafe Gray's rent as compared to Nobu when you do a review???????? I am quite sure there is little correlation between a Manhattan restautant's rent and how many stars it deserves. Want to compare the rent I suspect Bouley pays to what Gilt pays? Gilt chose to open in an expensive space....most of us are not willing to pay a premium over say Bouley just becuase of the high rent Gilt has to pay.

[ASM NY]

Todd36: I am no food critic, and know little about the restaurant business as a business. Even though I had a fantastic experience at Gilt, it's not worth it for me to try to convince you that it's a good place or that it's worth the money, I think you will form your own opinion for yourself tomorrow. Similarly, I would advise you against putting yourself at the hands of a restaurant critic, I think that from reading this thread you have a good idea of what the restaurant is about and what kind of food to expect.

I think $100-$200 pp meal is a lot of money. But it has little to do in my opinion on the "volume" of the food brought out, and what the rent of the place is. It has more to do on whether the restaurant can deliver a fine dining "experience".

I look forward to hearing how it went...

[oakapple]

But the NYT can be right.  Someone else on this thread mentioned Asiante as the last place that got really slammed by the NYT.  I had dinner there shortly before the NYT review, and Asiante deserved the review it got, it wasn't very good.  I also like Cafe Gray, but its expensive.  I can spend almost as much on lunch at Cafe Gray as I can on dinner at Bouley, I think pricing has something to do with Cafe Gray's NYT review.

←

Todd's comment adds an appropriate note of caution. Frank Bruni catches a lot of grief because he's not a culinary professional, and his writing is mediocre. But at the end of the day, many of his calls have been correct. His two-star review of Café Gray raised a lot of eyebrows, as Gray Kunz was an established four-star chef. Look at the latest comments on the Café Gray thread. It turns out that Bruni's two stars were right on the money. (I do think that Amanda Hesser got Asiate wrong, but that's a topic for another thread.)

[Sneakeater]

It has more to do on whether the restaurant can deliver a fine dining "experience".

If you want a fine dining "experience", you have to eat at Per Se.

[Sneakeater]

(That was a "joke".)

[JohnL]

I would also question whether Gilt "responded" to the Bruni criticism. A number of eGullet posters wrote about Gilt with very different "takes" on pricing than Bruni indicated.

←

I'm not sure what "very different take" you're referring to. No one has disputed that Bruni's comments about Gilt's prices were factually accurate at the time he wrote them.

In today's review, Bruni says, "When Gilt opened, many dishes came with supplemental charges, and wines by the glass were ludicrously exorbitant. Now the supplements are fewer and the wines slightly less expensive."

Since those were precisely the points he complained of, I think it's practically inconceivable that his comments did not have an influence. I would fall off my chair if someone in management at Gilt said, "We would have reduced our prices in any case, and it's just our bad luck that Bruni wrote about them before we got around to it."

IMOP-Bruni's article on pricing would be more compelling had he only mentioned Gilt and provided some more solid support for his thesis. 

Read now--the article is practically worthless.

Whatever the merits of the earlier piece, it was meant to be ephemeral. Today's review will be accessible on the Times website for free, and it's fair to guess that people will be reading it for a long time to come — that is, until another review comes along to supplant it.

←

\

By "different take" I mean that no one, save for Mr Bruni, seems to have expressed the view that "Gilt" should be singled out for its menu pricing practices. I find that odd.

Let's face it-the piece on "gouging" was not the best example of journalism. Bruni took a good topic and screwed his thesis up by too much focus on a newly opened restaurant he had not yet formally reviewed (not a good idea). We can debate this all day.

I find your use of "ephemeral" interesting because that is one problem with this type of journalism--it is "toss away" writing with little substance--it certainly had little or no context and perspective.

[Sneakeater]

Todd's comment adds an appropriate note of caution. Frank Bruni catches a lot of grief because he's not a culinary professional, and his writing is mediocre. But at the end of the day, many of his calls have been correct. His two-star review of Café Gray raised a lot of eyebrows, as Gray Kunz was an established four-star chef. Look at the latest comments on the Café Gray thread. It turns out that Bruni's two stars were right on the money. (I do think that Amanda Hesser got Asiate wrong, but that's a topic for another thread.)

←

I hate to resurrect this divisive topic, but that's kind of what I was trying to say when I inveighed against expressing "hope" that some restaurant you haven't been to will be awarded three stars. Gray Kunz has lots of fans, and when Cafe Gray opened they all wished him well. But why should you "hope" a place like that be given three stars, just because you like the chef, when eating there and thinking about it over time might reveal that it deserves less? Because you like the chef so much that you want him to get good publicity, even though you, when you've had the chance to think about it, don't think a particular venture of his deserves it?

Here's the only point I was tring to make (I'm going to put in bold for emphasis, since I seem to get it lost whenever I try to express it): Shouldn't your "hope" be that the public be given a valid evaluation (something you can't expect from Frank Bruni -- but that's another issue) -- whatever it might turn out to be -- rather than that a particular place you haven't tried be given a high rating, regardless of what you ultimately might think it deserves, just because you like the chef or like the way the place sounds?

I'm sorry if people think this is tiresome, or if any mention of this opinion annoys people. I hope you all see by now that I'm not trying to insult anybody. Since my probably inept expression of this opinion before seems to have turned people off, I just want to take another shot of explaining what I was trying to say -- expecially since Oakapple, who at least thought he disagreed with me, now seems to be saying something at least sort of similar. And I do think this points to a flaw -- a sort of over-identification with favorite chefs -- that I think you sometimes see on boards like this.

(PS -- None of this should be taken as meaning that I think Bruni's review of Gilt supports his two-star rating. Like everyone else who's commented, I think the review is overly subjective, technically clueless, and, in fact, makes Gilt sound, to an objective reader, like a three-star restaurant.)

Edited February 9, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[oakapple]

Whatever the merits of the earlier piece, it was meant to be ephemeral.

←

I find your use of "ephemeral" interesting because that is one problem with this type of journalism--it is "toss away" writing with little substance--it certainly had little or no context and perspective.

←

Before you could do on-line searches on the Internet, practically all newspaper articles were ephemeral. The Times, however, would periodically excerpt its restaurant reviews in an annual book, giving them a bit more permanence than most of the paper's food writing.

Today, you can look up any article on the Times website, but most articles are hidden behind a paid firewall after the first week or so. Bruni's "Critic's Notebook" pieces are in that category. If you want to read the piece on pricing trends that was so critical of Gilt, you need a subscription to Times Select. Even for those who have that, who will remember 5 years from now that the piece was ever written? Who, in other words, would even think to search for it?

In contrast, the Times makes its restaurant reviews permanently available for free. They offer a search engine that allows you to find restaurants matching various criteria, and you can click through to read the full review. Until Frank Bruni or a subsequent critic re-reviews Gilt, yesterday's review is what people are going to be reading for a long time to come.

Edited February 9, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[docsconz]

Todd's comment adds an appropriate note of caution. Frank Bruni catches a lot of grief because he's not a culinary professional, and his writing is mediocre. But at the end of the day, many of his calls have been correct. His two-star review of Café Gray raised a lot of eyebrows, as Gray Kunz was an established four-star chef. Look at the latest comments on the Café Gray thread. It turns out that Bruni's two stars were right on the money. (I do think that Amanda Hesser got Asiate wrong, but that's a topic for another thread.)

←

I hate to resurrect this divisive topic, but that's kind of what I was trying to say when I inveighed against expressing "hope" that some restaurant you haven't been to will be awarded three stars. Gray Kunz has lots of fans, and when Cafe Gray opened they all wished him well. But why should you "hope" a place like that be given three stars, just because you like the chef, when eating there and thinking about it over time might reveal that it deserves less? Because you like the chef so much that you want him to get good publicity, even though you, when you've had the chance to think about it, don't think a particular venture of his deserves it? Here's the only point I was tring to make (I'm going to put in bold for emphasis, since I seem to get it lost whenever I try to express it): Shouldn't your "hope" be that the public be given a valid evaluation (something you can't expect from Frank Bruni -- but that's another issue) -- whatever it might turn out to be -- rather than that a particular place you haven't tried be given a high rating, regardless of what you ultimately might think it deserves, just because you like the chef or like the way the place sounds?

I'm sorry if people think this is tiresome, or if any mention of this opinion annoys people. I hope you all see by now that I'm not trying to insult anybody. Since my probably inept expression of this opinion before seems to have turned people off, I just want to take another shot of explaining what I was trying to say -- expecially since Oakapple, who at least thought he disagreed with me, now seems to be saying something at least sort of similar. And I do think this points to a flaw -- a sort of over-identification with favorite chefs -- that I think you sometimes see on boards like this.

←

Sneakeater, your opinion is certainly valid if that is where the hope truly lay. I don't believe it is though. I hope Gilt is as good a restaurant as posters here have made it out to be and gets the recognition that it deserves. I would have liked it to have received three stars (or more), but only if it is truly deserving of them. Ultimately, I will have to see for myself. The other reason I hoped it would have received a higher score than it did from the NYT is it confuses me when there is a disconnect between opinions about a particular restaurant. Life is much easier when people are on the same page, though it might be more interesting when there are those disconnects