Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2006)

[Nathan]

hmmm...2 stars for Tocqueville.

1 for Tasting Room. unless he really decides to dock it for being drastically overpriced. (granted they did change their menu format back to the old one a couple months ago so they might have dodged a bullet there)

[oakapple]

hmmm...2 stars for Tocqueville.

1 for Tasting Room.  unless he really decides to dock it for being drastically overpriced.  (granted they did change their menu format back to the old one a couple months ago so they might have dodged a bullet there)

←

Tasting Room and Tocqueville carry 1 & 2 stars respectively today. Eater is predicting 1 star for both.

[Leonard Kim]

But the star system purports to do permanent consumer rankings.  As oakapple keeps reminding us, the stars are remembered (and consulted) long after the reviews are forgotten.  Since the star system purports to be a permanent consumer guide, it seems to me that the Times has some kind of obligation to update when circumstances change.  (At least at the upper end, where there are comparatively few restaurants and the high prices charged give more weight or import to the recommendations.)

←

Before the internet, and the Times search engine, how would the average consumer consult the star ratings (short of clipping and saving each review)?

You could have clipped and saved the guides that went under various names over the years: "Eating Out", "Dining Out Guide", "Directory to Dining" which would present weekly capsule reviews and information on several restaurants under some theme (like a type of restaurant, or a neighborhood, or a holiday, or something like that.)

In these guides, until 1985, not only was the star rating and the date of the last review given (as in the online guide now), but also stuff like "not reviewed in the past five years" or "re-visited in the past two [or three] years and the rating is still valid." In combination with frequent re-reviews, I can see how this might be useful: an up-to-date shorthand for the consumer. (I mentioned earlier the very first star ratings appeared in these directories, not in the review articles.)

I always suspected when Miller complained Reichl was destroying the system upheld by him and his predecessors, this was his real beef, not noodle shops, but changing the system into something less useful, because it was necessarily less up-to-date. The ratings become almost "permanent" as SE says. Reichl did do some rapid re-reviews as an admission of getting a rating wrong. But it's a problem. Bruni blogged that the trouble with ratings is that you had to come up with something that not only accurately represents your experience, but is likely to stay valid in the long-term future.

[Sneakeater]

There are two ways that Time star ratings could have been "consulted" in that paleolithic era.

First, the Times periodically published restaurant guides that contained a bunch of summaries of reviews, with star ratings. They're discussed in this thread: http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showtopic=89986&hl=.

Second, I am going to make the ridiculous anecdotal claim that many more restaurants then than now had placards advertising their Times ratings posted in their doorways or windows.

[oakapple]

Before the internet, and the Times search engine, how would the average consumer consult the star ratings (short of clipping and saving each review)?

I think that the initial "buzz" of the review itself, coupled with word-of-mouth, the Dining Out Guides, and of course reviews posted in restaurants' entry foyers.

How effective was it? I don't know.

Bruni blogged that the trouble with ratings is that you had to come up with something that not only accurately represents your experience, but is likely to stay valid in the long-term future.

←

Bruni hasn't always done a good job of separating factors that really count long-term, from those that do not. At ADNY, he complained about an out-of-order bathroom fixture. At The Modern, he didn't like the attitude of a coat-room attendant. Obviously, one must always use judgment, but I think it's a safe bet that ADNY repaired the bathroom fairly quickly, and that a Danny Meyer restaurant wouldn't tolerate a grumpy coat-room attendant for very long.

[Leonard Kim]

First, the Times periodically published restaurant guides that contained a bunch of summaries of reviews, with star ratings.  They're discussed in this thread:  http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showtopic=89986&hl=.

←

Thanks. That link links to two other discussions devoted to two individual guides and are really good reading. Just goes to show that everything really has been talked about before.

[Leonard Kim]

One basic question raised by those linked discussions: who have been the anomalous critics? Miller or Reichl? Miller invoked Sheraton and Claiborne in defending the "system" against Reichl. Reichl compared herself to Sheraton and Sokolov in defending her star choices (in Garlic and Sapphires.)

Funny thing is that, for all that, there haven't been a lot examples of critics changing predecessor's ratings over philosophical disagreements. Miller's Hatsuhana review is one (cited in the previous page.) I'll have to go back and read them, but Reichl did re-review some restaurants relatively quickly after Miller had. Sheraton's tenure was briefly interrupted by Moira Hodgson, and I get the impression that afterwards, a number of Sheraton's reviews served only to change the ratings back.

[oakapple]

Funny thing is that, for all that, there haven't been a lot examples of critics changing predecessor's ratings over philosophical disagreements.  Miller's Hatsuhana review is one (cited in the previous page.)  I'll have to go back and read them, but Reichl did re-review some restaurants relatively quickly after Miller had.  Sheraton's tenure was briefly interrupted by Moira Hodgson, and I get the impression that afterwards, a number of Sheraton's reviews served only to change the ratings back.

←

When Bruni changes a rating, he virtually always suggests that something has changed since the original review. I can't recall a case where he insinuated that the original rating was wrong to begin with.

He is probably just being respectful, because in most cases I don't think he was actually living in New York when the original reviews were written.

[Nathan]

well, I called this one.

money quote: "The Tasting Room is like a vegetarian restaurant that won’t come out of the closet."

that is seriously funny...and true.

[Eatmywords]

well, I called this one.

money quote: "The Tasting Room is like a vegetarian restaurant that won’t come out of the closet."

that is seriously funny...and true.

←

That was funny, but this one is better:

"The new space is a drag, but lost coziness isn’t the culprit. Found ugliness is".

Too bad his witty remarks don't add much to the scope and critique of the food. Re Tocqueville, he goes over only four dishes. I wouldn't mind hearing about a few more esp for a two star. Do they even serve apps? -Not one is mentioned. And I'm not a big sweet tooth but is more than one dessert offered?

He prefers to concentrate on their moves and the effect a new space might have on a successful operation. Sure it's worth a mention but really who gives a crap?

Looking frwd to next weeks tangents.

[BryanZ]

I enjoyed that quote, too. But then again there was the one about winning "America's Next Top Pharmaceutical Research" where I like, "umm, ok?"

Anyway, those reviews were fair I think. I'm surprised Eater tried to low ball Toqueville to one star.

[Eatmywords]

I enjoyed that quote, too.  But then again there was the one about winning "America's Next Top Pharmaceutical Research" where I like, "umm, ok?"

Anyway, those reviews were fair I think.  I'm surprised Eater tried to low ball Toqueville to one star.

←

Yea, I didn't get that either. Maybe insinuating they're risk takers? - Willing to take a chance on a new space? ehh, I don't know

Yea, I don't argue the ratings (even though we had a very disapointing meal at TR when it first reopened). Its the content, or lack of, that pisses me off.

[Nathan]

It was just a dig at shows like "Next Top Model" and the like. obviously, it fell flat.

I thought the content on Tocqueville was lacking (though this will always be an issue with double reviews). I thought there was enough on the Tasting Room -- a. the menu changes daily and completely every few weeks so it's not like you can recommend specific dishes (except to say that you should get anything with mushrooms -- which he did); and b. there really isn't much to say about the food.

[Sneakeater]

This is interesting.

The post on solo dining seems to have disappeared from the BruniBlog.

I wonder if it's because many readers appeared to have been offended by comments by Bruni that, fairly read, suggested he thought that solo diners ought to be pitied and their situation concealed.

Edited December 18, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Noodlebot]

It's there now: http://dinersjournal.blogs.nytimes.com/

[Sneakeater]

That's weird.

[Nathan]

that's not what he said, but I agree that it was worded such that it could be easily misconstrued (which some readers did)

[Nathan]

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.

Edited December 20, 2006 by Nathan (log)

[Sneakeater]

It's strange, because this week's RTR review in the the New Yorker also focusses on service problems.

Yet, the times I was there, service was sweet and attentive. Indeed, the exact same problem popped up for me as for Bruni -- the cellar was out of a bottle I'd selected -- but in my case, the sommelier notified me immediately and recommended a less expensive alternative.

I didn't experience any delays, either.

I'm obviously not denying that the reported services glitches -- in Bruni's case an inexcusable one -- happened. I'm just remarking on how different my experiences were.

(I do think that it's too early for this place to receive a full Times review.)

Edited December 20, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[Nathan]

yeah, its a little early. though it has been open at least two months I think...

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.

[Sneakeater]

It's too bad, because to me he seemed like a really good guy.

[Sneakeater]

Ya know, rich always asks about places with four-star food but one-star service. This appears to come close.

[Nathan]

yeah, but I think he wants them without four star prices too.

btw, who says it was the same sommelier?

[flinflon28]

(I do think that it's too early for this place to receive a full Times review.)

←

Perhaps this is what happens when so few noteworthy restaurants open in a season.

[Nathan]

true. I can't think of anything right now that clearly deserves a review. Klee and Varietal are even newer. I guess Ramsay should be preparing himself for one shortly.

you can only do so many re-reviews.