Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2006)

[rich]

SE - Do you really think the Tea Room appproaches four starts in food? Your review didn't appear to rise to that level.

Nathan - do you think he docked them TWO stars because of the service problems? That's a lot, I'm not sure any service error warrants a two-star docking.

Normally I look at places with four-star food and little ambiance as a "find" and Nathan is right, most of the time the prices are moderate. The Tea Room would fall into and entire different category. By all the accounts the ambiance is there, but the service (at least according to the Times' critic) is severely lacking.

The wine issue he described seems weird. In all my years of dining out, that has never happened. If a wine wasn't available, the steward or manager/owner would offer another at a comparable price.

I have been asked to consider something at a higher price before a bottle was brought to me, but that's a totally different story.

It is possible they recognized the Times critic and purposely gave him a hard time? Afterall, the Tea Room is probably critic-proof anyway and there are people who just don't like critics.

Besides, as a few have mentioned, this review was too soon; and I trust SE/Nathan more than the Times regarding service/ambiance issues (food too).

So far my five places for the New Year will be: Mas, Varietal, Russian Tea Room (I'll bring my own bottle of Burgundy), the "Owl" and Ramsay. I think I'll skip Robouchon based on the reviews and comments.

[Eatmywords]

Wow!  Bruni essentially just docked the Russian Tea Room two stars for service (its clear that he thinks the food is three star quality)....especially service v. price.  I do have to say that the service he describes is inexcusable. 

Looks like this is an especially egregious example of the front of the house hurting a great kitchen.

I guess one thing is clear, this is one case where he certainly wasn't recognized.

←

Nah, he found enough inconsistencies with the food that they weren't getting anywhere near three:

"More than a few dishes weren’t so successful" and "In terms of food and all else, the Russian Tea Room doesn’t add up neatly or quite make sense".

Overall, I liked the review very much. For a change he really sticks to the food, menu, service and atmosphere providing for what appears to be (I've never had the pleasure) to be an accurate take on RT.

Is your boy evolving?

[oakapple]

Wow!  Bruni essentially just docked the Russian Tea Room two stars for service (its clear that he thinks the food is three star quality)....especially service v. price.  I do have to say that the service he describes is inexcusable.

←

I think he docked one star for the inconsistent kitchen and one star for service. Even if the service had been perfect, he had too many issues with the food to award three stars.

I have to think that wine bottle incident lost them a star by itself. it received over a paragraph (and it was pretty damning). wonder if that sommelier will have a job tomorrow.

It was clearly more than just the sommelier. Remember, it began with the waiter saying "It's not my problem." He also mentioned "outdated menus," "ludicrously slow" service for food and drinks, and that servers "responded dismissively to complaints" (suggesting more than one).

The wine issue he described seems weird. In all my years of dining out, that has never happened. If a wine wasn't available, the steward or manager/owner would offer another at a comparable price.

It has indeed happened to me on a couple of occasions, although I do consider it tacky. This was an egregious example of it.

...as a few have mentioned, this review was too soon....

I don't think this review was very far out of line with the current norm. Maybe the critics should wait longer, but these days they usually don't.

[Nathan]

"It is possible they recognized the Times critic and purposely gave him a hard time?"

absolutely not. no restaurant in NY would ever do that. ever.

I don't see any reason to doubt Bruni's word as to what happened service-wise. and it was pretty catastrophic.

There's no question in my mind that it was three star review for the food. The entire first page was euphoric. Yeah, he didn't like the caviar service....that doesn't knock you down to two stars -- not after some of the most positive food comments Bruni has ever made in any review. When I was reading that I assumed that the one-star was a misprint. Then I got to the service stuff. And the way he led with the food, it was clear that Bruni was pointedly saying that the food is not an issue. Its everything else.

As for why service would knock a restaurant down two stars? -- one word: Price. Bruni is suggesting that if you charge four-star prices (which RTR arguably does for a full meal) but have "Poor" (not even one-star) service...you're going to get killed. You can disagree with that, but it's not illogical.

" "In terms of food and all else, the Russian Tea Room doesn’t add up neatly or quite make sense"."

I think this is saying that RTR doesn't add up because the food is great and everything else sucks. That's why it doesn't "make sense."

[Nathan]

"I think he docked one star for the inconsistent kitchen and one star for service. Even if the service had been perfect, he had too many issues with the food to award three stars."

Read just the first page of the review. That is a three-star food review. Compare it to the Robuchon review. The only real food issues he found were with the caviar service.

"It was clearly more than just the sommelier. Remember, it began with the waiter saying "It's not my problem." He also mentioned "outdated menus," "ludicrously slow" service for food and drinks, and that servers "responded dismissively to complaints" (suggesting more than one)."

Never said it was. Said I thought the place got knocked two stars for service (in the context of the price point). I think the sommelier episode was good enough for one right there -- the rest of the poor service only exacerbated matters.

I think RTR was unlucky in the sense that if the sommelier episode hadn't happened (if they hadn't been out of the bottle thus precipitating it) -- they might have walked away with two stars. That's what I'm saying. I don't see how it wasn't a three-star food review. But service/price was going to knock them down to two (the price justified the food but not the service) and then the sommelier episode caused a (perhaps not unjustified) tantrum.

[Sneakeater]

Rich, I was joking.

But, for the record, of course you're right: no way is that four-star food. If I were a star kind of guy, though, I'd call it three-star.

[Nathan]

quick revision:

he didn't like one dish -- the sturgeon. the chicken kiev (which isn't even on the menu) hardly counts.

btw, Eater has bizarrely misread the review. an absolutely completely wrong reading. he seems to think it was food that was the issue and that Robbins will soon be looking for new employment.

he didn't read the same review I did. the review was very clear that the front of the house was the issue...(I doubt Robbins is even responsible for the caviar service)

[Sneakeater]

Also, I think all this confusion about whether Bruni thought the food at RTR was "three star" or "two star" points to a lack of writing ability (about food) on his part. On the one hand, as Nathan said, he sounded as enthusiastic about this food as he ever has. On the other hand, as oakappple said, Bruni did mention inconsistencies and find fault with a few dishes. I guess I'm saying that Bruni should be able to make it clearer what he thinks.

Of course, if the service problems hadn't been there to muck it up, we'd look at the star rating and say either, "it was a strong two-star" or "it was a mixed three-star". This is another example of how mixing everything up into one definitive small-number numerical rating at least in my view encumbers rather than enhances communication.

[Sneakeater]

The thing is, Robins could be looking for a job even if the review didn't find any real BOH problems.

[Sneakeater]

As for "making sense", I think the problem -- which Bruni sort of touches on but doesn't really develop -- is that the whole current concept of the RTR doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense to hire a famous fusion chef with no background in Russian cooking to revitalize this traditionally highly traditional restaurant. I happen to think the food works. But I think the whole concept is sort of silly.

[Nathan]

I'll put it this way:

when I compare that review to other three star reviews (and every three star review mentions inconsistencies with the food -- that's how you justify not giving four), I come away convinced that with perfect service the RTR would have gotten three stars.

just line the review up side by side with other three star reviews and you'll see what I mean.

Robins is an immensely talented chef...I remember the Biltmore Room fondly (although I had a service issue there as well -- but it ended up being handled much better). he deserves a restaurant worthy of his skill.

[Eatmywords]

Dude, which part of "More than a few dishes weren’t so successful" equates to three stars?......price pt considered or not......c'mon bro.

Edited December 20, 2006 by Eatmywords (log)

[Nathan]

"It doesn't make sense to hire a famous fusion chef with no background in Russian cooking to revitalize this traditionally highly traditional restaurant. I happen to think the food works."

Your second sentence explains why it does kind of make sense. Robins is exactly the kind of guy who could pull it off.

[Nathan]

"Dude, which part of "More than a few dishes weren’t so successful" equates to three stars?......price pt considered or not......c'mon bro."

That line was a meaningless throwaway to help justify the demotion. He only had one actual dish complaint (the off-menu chicken kiev doesn't count).

Read the first page again. I haven't read Bruni that rhapsodic about food since the Per Se review.

[Sneakeater]

Dude, which part of "More than a few dishes weren’t so successful" equates to three stars?......price pt considered or not......c'mon bro.

←

But the trouble with the review is, he says that. But then you read the review, and all he really complains about (apart from the caviar service) is the sturgeon (and I guess an incidental-seeming mention of some inconsistencies in preparation).

I don't doubt that Bruni thought that "more than a few dishes weren't so successful." But the review doesn't illustrate it. Instead, the review makes the food sound pretty great. (I admit I have a potential problem in that I've eaten there a couple of times and found the food pretty great.)

I came away from the review pretty confused about what Bruni thought about the food.

Edited December 20, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Nathan]

"I don't doubt that Bruni thought that "more than a few dishes weren't so successful.""

I doubt it.

I think he really, really loved the food. But was absolutely poisoned by the front of the house.

[rich]

"It is possible they recognized the Times critic and purposely gave him a hard time?"

absolutely not.  no restaurant in NY would ever do that.  ever.

←

Logic says to agree with that, but these aren't logical times in the restaurant world. One major restaurant goes out of its way to publicly call for four stars - then gets overall mediocre reviews; a place opens with a grossly over-priced wine list, is forced to reduce the prices and then the chef is run out of town; a seemingly no brainer of a steak house opens with one of the hottest and most successful chefs at the helm in a prestigious location and closes within 6-7 months; a long-standing European survey publication takes on NYC and is met with litttle more than indifference.

An up and coming chef writes a book severly critical of established, widely successful chefs; the biggest, most successful TV food personality has never worked in a restaurant or been formally trained (that's not a criticism, just stating the facts); a respected and successful high-end chef sells his reputation to Reality TV and loses everything; one of the most highly recognizable chefs stars in his own sitcom, then gets cancelled after three weeks, others hawk for low-end food chains; most consumers get restaurant information from the web and the best selling guide is not written by an expert, but is compiled from reader surveys.

Finally, what was once the country's most prestigious paper and most influential food section hires a food novice as its chief restaurant critic. The person is not respected by many in the business, according to printed articles and discussion groups.

So who's to say a restaurant will not take the novel, unique and controversial step of purposely giving said critic a hard time? Maybe it's their way of saying we don't need you, or care what you write about our place - kind of "sticking it to the man." Now granted it could backfire, but if anyplace could get away with it, the Russian Tea Room would be it. Their major patrons couldn't care who writes for the Times or any other publication - just bring them caviar, champagne and a few warm blinis. In fact, they could think it serves the person right for ordering such a mundance little bottle of wine - keep the peasants out.

Just saying.

[Sneakeater]

"It doesn't make sense to hire a famous fusion chef with no background in Russian cooking to revitalize this traditionally highly traditional restaurant. I happen to think the food works."

Your second sentence explains why it does kind of make sense.  Robins is exactly the kind of guy who could pull it off.

←

I don't think it does, though.

As I said in my RTR review post, the best analogy is Danube in its glory days. But Danube was a new place in a hip neighborhood. If Danube had simply taken over Vienna 79 (or whatever the number was), I don't think it would have had such a good reception. All it would have gotten were a bunch of uptown traditionalists complaining about how the food had been changed.

I'll also note that I think the criticism RTR is receiving -- all of which seems to focus on the service -- is hitting them exactly where it hurts most. Despite what I said in the last paragraph, maybe maybe maybe the audience for this place would tolerate unconventional food if it were reviewed well enough to reassure them -- but they would never tolerate the risk of bad service.

Edited December 20, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Fat Guy]

Though I'm not aware of a Times critic getting hassled at a New York restaurant, major newspaper critics have been kicked out of restaurants in other cities in several well-publicized instances. Stephen Downes, who I believe is the leading Australian critic, was recently kicked out of Jamie Oliver's restaurant in Australia, and reports that there are half a dozen places where the staff have standing orders to keep him out.

[Nathan]

That's laughable. Sorry.

It's a business. There are financial people behind it. When a positive NY Times review can still mean a 40% upsurge in business (and that's a fact), unless the RTR expects to sell out every night for the next five years (yeah right)...no such business, no matter how egotistical, would go out of their way to intentionally garner a bad review.

Bruni can make or close a restaurant. It's that simple. No one else can say that. And if you don't believe that you might want to start talking to restaurant owners. Cause they believe it. That's why his expertise (or lack thereof) is such a topic of conversation...because he matters.

Adam Platt is a pretty awful critic. No one cares. Cause he can't make or break a restaurant. Bruni can and does.

Grimes gave RTR a Satisfactory a few years ago. You don't think that wasn't a factor in its closure (not long after)? I do.

[Nathan]

FG:

Sure, it happens in the UK and Australia. But their food reviewers don't even write about food (and they generally know less than Bruni)...it's a game.

Ramsay famously kicked a critic out. But you know what? Ramsay never would have kicked a Michelin inspector out.

And he made it very clear in the Bourdain interview that he understood that the NYT critic was a different story.

The idea that someone would do it in NY is absurd.

Edited December 20, 2006 by Nathan (log)

[Sneakeater]

Remember that scene in The Producers where Max Biolistock tries to bribe the Times critic on opening night precisely in order to get a bad review so his show would flop?

Edited December 20, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Nathan]

Well, I suppose the only possibility for Rich's scenario would be such an eventuality -- someone needs the restaurant to close.

Somehow I don't think that's the case here.

[oakapple]

"I don't doubt that Bruni thought that "more than a few dishes weren't so successful.""

I doubt it. 

I think he really, really loved the food.  But was absolutely poisoned by the front of the house.

←

This isn't complicated.

Sturgeon "had an acrid aftertaste." Chicken Kiev "did a rubbery impersonation of airline food." Several of the caviar choices "had an excessively pasty texture."

Buckwheat blini were "golden and fluffy one visit were charred and leaden the next." The kitchen was "bedeviled by inconsistency," which suggests this is merely an example, and there were numerous others.

I think you would struggle to find very many three-star reviews where the critic's reservations about the food were as severe as this. And yes, the Chicken Kiev does count.

[Sneakeater]

If the chicken kiev counts, I think that proves my point about the current concept of this restaurant not making sense.

Edited December 20, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)