Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2006)

[oakapple]

In a post today on Bruni's blog, he goes into more detail about what the stars mean. The latest comments were prompted by "several readers" who felt that he had underrated Telepan, the subject of last Wednesday's review.

Bruni's comments aren't revelatory, though it is helpful to have them publicly acknowledged, including:

— Obviously, ratings are a matter of opinion, and there are always going to be some readers who disagree.

— Bruni visits four or five times and samples a majority of the menu. If you've only been there once or twice, you simply may not have as broad a base of experience as he has.

— There's a big difference between restaurants that are just barely better than one star, and those that are just barely worse than three, but two stars is the result in either case.

Lastly:

I also hope that the full reviews of these restaurants, as opposed to a necessarily reductive star rating, gives readers a more complete sense of my thoughts and a better idea of whether it’s a restaurant that they would enjoy.

He also mentions that he is well aware that he is recognized, "especially on second, third or fourth visits and especially in new, vigilant restaurants that make concerted efforts (rounding up old photos, eavesdropping on table conversations, etc.) to know I’m there." He says that, to the extent he can, he tries to compensate for any special treatment that he may be getting. Edited February 21, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[ulterior epicure]

wouldn't you think that with this kind of hype, bruni would be asking for it (ie. walking into a "trap") by going now? i wouldn't be surprised if he "lies low" on del posto for a while... as a reader, i would certainly appreciate a more accurate read of when things have "normalized" - if that's ever to happen at this restaurant...

u.e.

Edited February 21, 2006 by ulterior epicure (log)

[peteswanson]

It would be nice if he gave a restaurant going for 4 stars some time, just like he did with Gilt...oh wait that didn't happen....

[rich]

  i wouldn't be surprised if he "lies low" on del posto for a while

←

I think he's forced to review Del Posto very soon. It's been reviewed in a few places and since he reviewed Gilt after seven weeks, it wouldn't be fair to give Del Posto more time - he would appear prejudiced. Del Posto is now eight weeks old.

In fact, it wouldn't shock me to see a Del Posto review tomorrow. Look for two stars with an outside chance for three since he's obviously a Batali fan. He just may give him the benefit of the doubt.

[oakapple]

I think he's forced to review Del Posto very soon. It's been reviewed in a few places and since he reviewed Gilt after seven weeks, it wouldn't be fair to give Del Posto more time - he would appear prejudiced. Del Posto is now eight weeks old.

Before Gilt, Per Se was the last Frank Bruni review of a restaurant with clear 4-star aspirations that hadn't previously been reviewed by another critic.

After the fire, Per Se re-opened on May 1, 2004, and Frank Bruni's review didn't appear until September 8th — four months later, and three months after Bruni's first published review on June 9, 2004. I would therefore disagree that there is some standard amount of time for him to wait before reviewing a place, or that there is a fundamental fairness rule that obligates him to allow the same amount of time in every case.

Because of the landlord/tenant issue at Del Posto, prudence would counsel waiting to review it. I mean, if Bruni awards four stars, the landlord's leverage goes way up; vice versa if he awards two stars. There's no assurance Bruni will be prudent, but that's what I would do.

[rich]

I think he's forced to review Del Posto very soon. It's been reviewed in a few places and since he reviewed Gilt after seven weeks, it wouldn't be fair to give Del Posto more time - he would appear prejudiced. Del Posto is now eight weeks old.

Before Gilt, Per Se was the last Frank Bruni review of a restaurant with clear 4-star aspirations that hadn't previously been reviewed by another critic.

After the fire, Per Se re-opened on May 1, 2004, and Frank Bruni's review didn't appear until September 8th — four months later, and three months after Bruni's first published review on June 9, 2004. I would therefore disagree that there is some standard amount of time for him to wait before reviewing a place, or that there is a fundamental fairness rule that obligates him to allow the same amount of time in every case.

Because of the landlord/tenant issue at Del Posto, prudence would counsel waiting to review it. I mean, if Bruni awards four stars, the landlord's leverage goes way up; vice versa if he awards two stars. There's no assurance Bruni will be prudent, but that's what I would do.

←

Understood Marc, but I don't see the landlord issue being relevant. As you stated earlier, the current landlord has no obligation to honor a handshake agreement with the former landlord. So two, three or four stars shouldn't have any effect. The place is not doing "land office" business now. A Times review won't help or hurt that much either way.

Futhermore, while I agree there is no rule that obligates him to review restaurants in a similar timeframe, the similarities between Gilt and Del Posto make it necessary in my opinion. Both opened at roughly the same time, both were going after four stars and both were run by chefs with reputations on the line. To review one in seven weeks and the other, in say, four months smacks of favoritism.

When he reviewed Per Se, he was the new kid on the block with no real history of past performances to be studied. Now he does. In lawyer "speak" - he opened the door with the Gilt review, now he needs to play fair by doing the same with Del Posto.

[docsconz]

Where did the bleu cheese sauce come from? 

Morimoto South in philly has a rock Shrimp Tempura with Roquerfort cheese, I am assuming its the same dish.

The average middle America tourists who stream into NYC 24/7?

Ding Ding Ding Ding......correct answer.

So I am curious why supposedly food knowledgeable people go out and order a dish that is the only food combination that has never been pulled off by any chef on the planet.

Bleu Cheese/Shellfish.

Ewwwww!

←

That is certainly not how she described the dish. She made no mention of bleu cheese at all.

Strong has certainly received a lot of grief both here and elsewhere and for all I know much of it is deserved. However, we will see what the preponderance of opinion is as more people experience the restaurant for themselves and report back. At this point, Augieland and Andrea Strong IMO cancel each other out. There have been both positive and negative reports posted here. It almost sounds like the restaurant may have some consistency issues. When it is good it sounds as if it is really good, but when it is not....

[oakapple]

I don't see the landlord issue being relevant. As you stated earlier, the current landlord has no obligation to honor a handshake agreement with the former landlord. So two, three or four stars shouldn't have any effect. The place is not doing "land office" business now. A Times review won't help or hurt that much either way.

Here's what I meant: The most likely resolution to the Del Posto lease dispute is that the restaurant will pay some more money, and in exchange they'll get a modified lease that allows them use of the extra space. I mean, the landlord doesn't really want to evict Del Posto; they just want to make more money, and the lease violations they purport to have found are merely the 'hook' that will allow them to do so.

Now, if Del Posto is a four-star restaurant, that space suddenly becomes a helluva lot more valuable. By publishing his review now, Bruni gives negotiating leverage to one side or the other. He becomes, in effect, part of the story. That's an angle that simply didn't exist as he was preparing the Gilt review.

Mind you, I am not predicting what he'll do. I am only saying that I wouldn't review Del Posto just yet. A reasonable case can be made for waiting that does not smack of favoritism.

Edited February 21, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[peteswanson]

I'm sure we've all had to get a project done at whatever job you have, and have dealt with personal issues at home, with your family, with whatever. We are expected to do our jobs regardless. The same should be with this restaurant. Yes, they are dealing with issues, but they have an obligation, which as they so boldly stated was to deliver 4 star food. ...the Period was taken out

Edited February 21, 2006 by peteswanson (log)

[ulterior epicure]

Because of the landlord/tenant issue at Del Posto, prudence would counsel waiting to review it. I mean, if Bruni awards four stars, the landlord's leverage goes way up; vice versa if he awards two stars. There's no assurance Bruni will be prudent, but that's what I would do.

Mind you, I am not predicting what he'll do. I am only saying that I wouldn't review Del Posto just yet. A reasonable case can be made for waiting that does not smack of favoritism.

←

As would I (refrain from reviewing for the time being...). I suppose to clarify on my previous post, this is what I meant when I ended by saying:

...as a reader, i would certainly appreciate a more accurate read of when things have "normalized" - if that's ever to happen at this restaurant... 

While I agree with oakapple that no critic is per se obligated (no pun intended) to wait a certain time... I also agree, (especially as a reader), I'm not sure how much stock I could put into a review that followed so quickly on the heels of disaster, as in the case with the Per Se fire, or possible closures due to landlord/tenant disputes, as with Del Posto.

u.e.

[Edited to ask: Exactly how long has Del Posto been open to the public? ie. How long has it technically been "fair game" for Bruni evaluation? I'm a little unsure because there were reports of "soft openings" and then preview dinners - and then the "Grand Opening," which was highlighted at the end of the Food Network Special when Bastianich personally stood at the door to keep an eye out for Bruni...]

Edited February 21, 2006 by ulterior epicure (log)

[rich]

Now, if Del Posto is a four-star restaurant, that space suddenly becomes a helluva lot more valuable. By publishing his review now, Bruni gives negotiating leverage to one side or the other. He becomes, in effect, part of the story. That's an angle that simply didn't exist as he was preparing the Gilt review.

Mind you, I am not predicting what he'll do. I am only saying that I wouldn't review Del Posto just yet. A reasonable case can be made for waiting that does not smack of favoritism.

←

I'll agree it's a reasonable position in certain cases but I don't agree that's the case here. A reviewer (any reviewer) knows their review will have some overall say about the business a restaurant will/won't do. A landlord squabble is part of the cost of doing business and I don't see anyone holding back a review on that basis.

As you know, these things could get dragged out for months or longer if lawyers get involved. So how long should you wait? And the critic would probably need to keep going back to update notes, pricing etc. A reviewer should just review. By purposely holding back (and if he does that, it will become public knowledge - we all know about leaks) he actually may become a bigger part of the story.

Besides, it's almost a certainty Del Posto won't get four stars. No review to date has been totally positive. It's going to come in at two or three and those "numbers" won't measureably enhance or hurt business. Ultimately, the success of Del Posto will be determined by the cost/value ratio. It's the one factor that has been mentioned in every review I read.

[oakapple]

I'm sure we've all had to get a project done at whatever job you have, and have dealt with personal issues at home, with your family, with whatever. We are expected to do our jobs regardless. The same should be with this restaurant. Yes, they are dealing with issues, but they have an obligation, which as they so boldly stated was to deliver 4 star food. Period.

←

I love when people close posts with "period," implying no other conceivable interpretation is possible.

Yes, of course restaurants that are charging full price are morally obligated to deliver full value—not necessarily four-star food, as no one knows precisely what that is, but fair value for the outsized prices they are charging. If you want to know how they're doing in real time, there are resources like eGullet and Chowhound, where the posts accumulate continuously, and where one can track long-term trends in a restaurant's performance.

The Times, unfortunately, does not have the resources to publish a new review every month—or even every year. Because of this, the critic tends to wait a while before publishing a rated review. That's why the NYT review of a restaurant doesn't appear in the opening week. There may be reasonable scope for debate about how long a wait is prudent, but nobody advocates rushing into print with a rated review immediately—even though your comment, read literally, would seem to imply that they should.

[rich]

I'm not sure how much stock I could put into a review that followed so quickly on the heels of disaster, as in the case with the Per Se fire, or possible closures due to landlord/tenant disputes, as with Del Posto.

u.e.

[Edited to ask: Exactly how long has Del Posto been open to the public?  ie.  How long has it technically been "fair game" for Bruni evaluation?  I'm a little unsure because there were reports of "soft openings" and then preview dinners - and then the "Grand Opening," which was highlighted at the end of the Food Network Special when Bastianich personally stood at the door to keep an eye out for Bruni...]

←

I don't see how a one-day closing (last Saturday) should affect a review. Per Se was closed almost 2 1/2 months. It was necessary to wait since the restaurant was only open six days before the fire. Del Posto opened Dec. 21 to the general public (according to press releases), which means eight weeks - Gilt was open seven weeks when the review appeared.

[ulterior epicure]

I don't see how a one-day closing (last Saturday) should affect a review. Per Se was closed almost 2 1/2 months. It was necessary to wait since the restaurant was only open six days before the fire. Del Posto opened Dec. 21 to the general public (according to press releases), which means eight weeks - Gilt was open seven weeks when the review appeared.

←

To be sure, rich, neither do I (see how one day closing would affect a review). To clarify, I meant, if the landlord/tenant dispute were to wreak further havoc.

u.e.

Edited February 22, 2006 by ulterior epicure (log)

[Eatmywords]

I wrote to Andrea Strong today to see if she had an opinion as to how her review was being discussed. This was her reply:

hi xx

thanks for your note and for defending me. as far as getting online and

dealing with all the fall out from the review, i dont really want to

get involved with what people are saying about me -- if my credibility

is on the line, i am sorry to hear that, but i know what i ate and it

was pathetic, and very expensive. i was with a very well respected chef

that night and she felt the same way. i realize that i made a math

error in my review -- i am admittedly not the brightest bulb in that

area -- so that has been corrected. anyone who wants to write to me and

tell me what they think is welcome to, but i have a day job writing for

magazines and newspapers and if i responded to every remark made about

me, i'd never get any work done.

you are welcome to post the above as my reply.

thanks again for your help

andrea

She later added:

hi again

so, i saw the thread -- there are very nasty people on that site, wow.

i am not a member so i cannot post a reply...but you can add this to

the last email i sent if you dont mind

i think my credentials speak for themselves and my review did critique

each dish based on taste, technique and presentation. i am not sure

what the problem is with my review at all. it was an honest expression

of a very disappointing meal. i am not the final arbiter of the

restaurant world -- what i wrote was one person's experience and one

person's opinion and in this world we have many opinions -- that is

what makes the world go round. i think it's unfortunate that people

have to bash my credibility because they don't agree with what i have

said in a review. that just doesn't make any sense to me. i have worked

in this business (i ran restaurants for two years) and i am in this

business. i write about food for a living -- this writing thing that i

do is what pays the rent. obviously there are people out there who

agree that i am credible. The New York Times, New York Magazine, New

York Post and Knopf publishing among them. But I welcome the dissent.

It's part of the process. Some people like overpriced food that tastes

bad. I am not one of them. Happy eating. andrea

andrea strong

food writer, reviewer, eater

andrea@andreastrong.com

the strong buzz: read it and eat

http://www.thestrongbuzz.com

On Feb 21, 2006, at 11:42 AM,

[docsconz]

I'm glad we had a chance to see a response from Ms. Strong, although it would have been even better if she responded directly. Ms. Strong, if you read this, please note that becoming a member is not difficult. I, for one, would welcome your direct input on this and other topics. Comments on your opinions and style are fair game, while comments directed at you (or anyone else) are not.

[Sneakeater]

Just for the record, I neither agree nor disagree with what Andrea Strong said in her Morimoto review. I've never eaten there.

As for her reviews of places I have eaten, sometimes I agree and sometimes I disagree. Because unlike her, sometimes I don't like restaurants I eat in.

[oakapple]

In fact, it wouldn't shock me to see a Del Posto review tomorrow. Look for two stars with an outside chance for three since he's obviously a Batali fan. He just may give him the benefit of the doubt.

←

There was no Del Posto review today. Instead Bruni reviewed The Orchard, which has been open since November, although Gilt and Telepan (the last two restaurants reviewed) both opened in December.

It's pretty hard to discern a pattern.

Edited February 22, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[rich]

In fact, it wouldn't shock me to see a Del Posto review tomorrow. Look for two stars with an outside chance for three since he's obviously a Batali fan. He just may give him the benefit of the doubt.

←

There was no Del Posto review today. Instead Bruni reviewed The Orchard, which has been open since November, although Gilt and Telepan (the last two restaurants reviewed) both opened in December.

It's pretty hard to discern a pattern.

←

Marc, don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating a specific time period for restaurants. The point I was making was between Gilt and Del Posto and the similarities I mentioned above.

I still don't think it's ethical (I know that's a strong word but I think it's appropriate here) for there to be a significant time lapse in reviews for two places vying for four stars. Since both opened at virtually the same time, they should both be reviewed within a similar time frame.

[oakapple]

I still don't think it's ethical (I know that's a strong word but I think it's appropriate here) for there to be a significant time lapse in reviews for two places vying for four stars. Since both opened at virtually the same time, they should both be reviewed within a similar time frame.

←

I can definitely see where you're coming from, but I don't think there has ever been a standard of fairness concerning which restaurants were reviewed, and when. All you could expect is that the critic exercises his judgment to choose the best subjects at the right times.

Mind you, the lack of a standard does not mean that the critics' behavior has been ethical; perhaps they should have been held to a higher standard all along. But if there is an ethical rule, it's got to be something more broad than "if two restaurants vying for four stars open within X amount of time of each other, then they must be reviewed in a comparable time frame." That's too rare an occasion to warrant its own special rule.

Perhaps the folks at Telepan are grousing today that The Orchard had three months to shake out the bugs before getting reviewed, while Telepan was granted only two. Both received 2 stars. If there is such a rule, why not apply it to all rating categories?

Edited February 22, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[akwa]

not to take anything away from telepan and the orchard

i think the people that are really grousing are the team at gilt

even for a futurist it is hard to compare in any way

thoughts?

[rich]

Perhaps the folks at Telepan are grousing today that The Orchard had three months to shake out the bugs before getting reviewed, while Telepan was granted only two. Both received 2 stars. If there is such a rule, why not apply it to all rating categories?

←

I don't really disagree with that, though I think Del Posto and Gilt fall into a different category since both places let it be known four was the number they were seeking, plus the other similarities I've mentioned above.

However, Marc, your point is well taken about all categories of restaurants being judged within a similar time frame. I guess that's one of the inherent problems with the star system - sorry couldn't resist.

[herbacidal]

Just for the record, I neither agree nor disagree with what Andrea Strong said in her Morimoto review.  I've never eaten there.

As for her reviews of places I have eaten, sometimes I agree and sometimes I disagree.  Because unlike her, sometimes I don't like restaurants I eat in.

←

I post about some of my meals. I don't post about others.

Why isn't she allowed the same leeway?

[Sneakeater]

Just for the record, I neither agree nor disagree with what Andrea Strong said in her Morimoto review.  I've never eaten there.

As for her reviews of places I have eaten, sometimes I agree and sometimes I disagree.  Because unlike her, sometimes I don't like restaurants I eat in.

←

I post about some of my meals. I don't post about others.

Why isn't she allowed the same leeway?

←

1. Because she writes about just about every significant new place that opens. So it's hard to see what leeway she's exercising.

2. If you want to be of use as a critic (of anything), I don't see how you can post only favorable reviews. How can anyone else gague their tastes against yours if they don't know what you don't like, and why? (I think this goes even for posters on message boards, let alone pros like AS.)

And don't you sometimes (often?) find unfavorable reviews to be even more useful than favorable ones?

Edited February 28, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[herbacidal]

I post about some of my meals.  I don't post about others.

Why isn't she allowed the same leeway?

←

1. Because she writes about just about every significant new place that opens. So it's hard to see what leeway she's exercising.

2. If you want to be of use as a critic (of anything), I don't see how you can post only favorable reviews. How can anyone else gague their tastes against yours if they don't know what you don't like, and why? (I think this goes even for posters on message boards, let alone pros like AS.)

And don't you sometimes (often?) find unfavorable reviews to be even more useful than favorable ones?

←

1. That doesn't mean she shouldn't be allowed to leave some out. Just because her selection of restaurants includes all the hot/cool/important/new/whatever places doesn't mean she should be required to comment on all of them.

2. There's some merit to this, but that doesn't mean that she should be drawn and quartered for not giving out negative reviews. While they would add and strengthen her overall credibility, their relative paucity just means that she is less of a voice than she might be otherwise. For my purposes, still one voice out of many that I listen to.

Yes, I sometimes find the unfavorable reviews useful in their own way. But I can't criticize anyone for not posting/publishing them. At least not anyone who is not making a direct profit off the posting/publishing. I have little doubt her emails and the reviews help her get more writing assignments, but that's indirectly profiting in my mind.

As opposed to a certain magazine which only seems to publish positive reviews of restaurants in the Philadelphia area, yet accepts advertisements for many different things including restaurants. I'm not personally put off by this, the business being what it is. But I'd prefer it were different.

Perhaps this should be split off into a separate thread.

Edited February 28, 2006 by herbacidal (log)