Varietal

[Sneakeater]

It wasn't a review. It was an article about how weird the food at Varietal is.* I don't see how it would make anything clearer to his expected readership to refer to an even weirder restaurant that they've never heard of in a city halfway across the country.

_____________________________________________

* His point -- not mine. I did think the desserts were pretty weird, though. Not that I (unlike Cuozzo) necessarily think that's bad -- although I tend to be closer to JohnL than to docsconz on that subject.

Edited January 17, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[docsconz]

I'm not wanting to be an apologist for Cuozzo, but in the context of writing for the Post, I'm not sure that a reference to Alinea would have been appropriate.  And FWIW, I'll bet money Cuozzo has heard of Alinea and knows Kahn has worked there.

←

I am sure that you are right, but his picking on Jordan Kahn and his new restaurant is somewhat disingenuous. If he doesn't like that style of dessert fine - it is not for everyone, but Jordan's work is outstanding in the genre and in a class with Mason, Stupack, Goldfarb and others working in that vein. My issue is not that he didn't like it, but the very poor way he assassinated it or at leat attempted to.

[Sneakeater]

We're talking about the Post, aren't we?

[docsconz]

It wasn't a review.  It was an article about how weird the food at Varietal is.*  I don't see how it would make anything clearer to his expected readership to refer to an even weirder restaurant that they've never heard of in a city halfway across the country.

_____________________________________________

* His point -- not mine.  I did think the desserts were pretty weird, though.  Not that I (unlike Cuozzo) necessarily think that's bad -- although I tend to be closer to JohnL than to docsconz on that subject.

←

It is in fact his use of the word "weird" and its denigrating connotation with the way he used it that makes me think he has no business in the food journalism business. I suppose that he could be seen as representing the "common man", but that is condescendng and stereotypical in its own right.

[docsconz]

We're talking about the Post, aren't we?

←

...and that is supposed to give him a pass?

[rich]

As for denigrating the wine list, unless one has experienced the wines with the food (especially in a creative restaurant), it is my experience that it is difficult to really have an idea as to how well the wines will work and whether the list is well constructed or not. I agree that obscurity for its own sake is not a particular benefit, but if the obscure wines do in fact work well with the cuisine, it adds an additional element of fun, especially if the wines are priced reasonably and fairly.

←

Not sure I agree with that in its entirety Doc. Some wines just won't work with or without food. From years and years of drinking wine (a lot, I might add ), I have found that some, albeit a small number, of wines just don't cut it. If those wines are added to a restaurant wine list (and especially one named after the best wine grapes in the world), then there's a problem - and that's not fun at all.

It seems at that point a restaurant just wants to say I have this wine that no one else has. Well, my answer would be - maybe there's a good reason for that.

Edited January 17, 2007 by rich (log)

[JohnL]

Most folks would be suprised at the demographic of the Post.

Neither that or Steve Cuozzo's credentials are really all that important.

He asked some interesting questions.

He also is not trashing the restaurant--my sense is that he has some problems with the deserts and the wine list and my impression is that his impression of the place is that it is at this early stage a bit disjointed in terms of the overall concept and execution.

I haven't eaten there but from what I can see from the posts and from the menu etc Cuozzo has a very valid point.

One can certainly disagree--Doc Sconz does a nice job in presenting his own more favorable perceptions in the original post.

Bashing the Post or discrediting Cuozzo ignores the points he is making. if Cuozzo were doing a full review it would be one thing but Cuozzo obviously ate there and his experience raised some larger issues and questions about restaurants and dining in general.

I am just as leery of people from the Dennis Miller school of writing and criticism who lard their prose with obscure references to show their "qualifications" --see Elvis Mitchell.

Cuozzo made it clear that he is going to try to focus on a broader issues oriented coverage and that is what he is doing.

[Sneakeater]

We're talking about the Post, aren't we?

←

...and that is supposed to give him a pass?

←

It's more like, why start and stop with him? Believe me, Sean Delonas's cartoons are a lot more offensive than some real estate reporter (sorry rich) calling food "weird".

Edited January 17, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Nathan]

"He asked some interesting questions."

Questions that would have made more sense in a restaurant that's been open for more than a month....like WD-50 or Room4Dessert.

btw, I kind of see Elvis Mitchell as a populist...but anyway...

agreed that there are some misconceptions as to the Post's readership...

[Sneakeater]

It's not their readership so much as their approach. They're gonna adopt a whole different attitude for their food writing?

[JohnL]

It wasn't a review.  It was an article about how weird the food at Varietal is.*  I don't see how it would make anything clearer to his expected readership to refer to an even weirder restaurant that they've never heard of in a city halfway across the country.

_____________________________________________

* His point -- not mine.  I did think the desserts were pretty weird, though.  Not that I (unlike Cuozzo) necessarily think that's bad -- although I tend to be closer to JohnL than to docsconz on that subject.

←

It is in fact his use of the word "weird" and its denigrating connotation with the way he used it that makes me think he has no business in the food journalism business. I suppose that he could be seen as representing the "common man", but that is condescendng and stereotypical in its own right.

←

from Webster:

weird--unearthly, mysterious, magical, odd, unusual.

Doc--IMOP you are reading into Cuozzo's piece. This happens a lot here. People seem to take sides and if someone disagrees--then that person (especially if a professional) is attacked as incompetent to hold their views or worse.

Cuozzo says some complimentary things and notes clearly this is not a formal review.

You seem to miss this.

again

maybe we should forget who is asking the questions Cuozzo asks and simply deal with them.

The fact is a lot of chefs are using a lot of odd, strange, weird ingredients in their cooking today. It ain't all good. You used, I believe the use of chocolate in mole as a case for using savory with sweet in deserts. I would say the chocolate in a mole should never be present--it makes the mole as a whole greater than the sum of its parts. The use of ketchup and savory items in the deserts at Varietal as seen in your excellent photos and in the menu descriptions looks like things are not subtle but rather disjointed--tossed together. Now I will go there and try them for myself but--safe to say Cuozzo is put off,you can disagree but tha't what makes the world go round!

[Nathan]

mole poblano uses chocolate pretty forcefully.

other moles use a whisper of it.

most moles use no chocolate whatsoever.

mole is essentially Aztec for "sauce"

any statements as to how much chocolate should be present in a "mole" are equivalent to statements as to how much butter should be present in a "sauce"

[JohnL]

mole poblano uses chocolate pretty forcefully.

other moles use a whisper of it.

most moles use no chocolate whatsoever.

mole is essentially Aztec for "sauce"

any statements as to how much chocolate should be present in a "mole" are equivalent to statements as to how much butter should be present in a "sauce"

←

I am hip to moles and chocolate.

My point was chocolate is integrated into the sauce to one degree or another.

I have no problem with conceptual deserts--when they work they work, when they don't....

I would also say Varietal wasn't the focus of the Cuozzo piece--I think the headline is unfortunate. However, this should not detract from the issues Cuozzo raises and certainly does not warrant attacks on his credibility. Agree or disagree--it is pretty simple.

Back to Varietal--even Docsconz notes the dichotomy at play. It seems that the restaurant may not be a cohesive effort. I personally think the savory dishes sound pretty interesting. The deserts? I am very skeptical--but as I noted--if these combinations work then they work.

[Nathan]

"My point was chocolate is integrated into the sauce to one degree or another."

Except that this point is false.

As for Varietal, at this point the desserts are more consistent (in being good) than the savories. Have you been to any of WD-50, Room4Dessert, Moto, Foodbar or Alinea?

[docsconz]

Not to go too much further of-topic, but with chocolate and moles, I agree with JohnL. Chocolate in mole poblano when used most effectively is an integral but not necessarily identifiable part of the sauce. To bring this back on-topic, that is exactly what Jordan Kahn does with his desserts. The disparate parts form a unified and generally amazing whole. The ingredients are not strewn willy-nilly on the plate nor are they combined without significant thought.

Unfortunately, the chocolate-mole question is about all I agree with JohnL in this particular phase of the discussion. Sure, it wasn't an official review, but it is just as or potentially even more damaging than an official review. As for "reading into" what he wrote - we all do that to varying degrees to whatever we read as we interpret the words on the paper. You may take the view that he was using "weird" in a neutral way and didn't mean anything derogatory, but I think that view would be naive, something I do not believe you are.

As to why his credibility should not be questioned - I have to seriously doubt the credibility of someone who claims to be so inexperienced with these ingredients (at least the tonka beans). If he said that he doesn't like them and never has no matter how many times he's tried them and that in addition he was concerned about their potential health effects I would not have been nearly as irritated by the piece as I have been. He is a professional restaurant critic eating regularly at some of the best restaurants in the world and is inexperienced with this? I'm sorry, but that does make me question his qualifications for reviewing this restaurant professionally. If he is competent and gives it a por review that would be acceptable, but to damn it with faint praise as he did based on his apparent ignorance is bad journalism IMO. As for the other questions, John, that you wish to talk about - fine, they are fair game though I don't think that he did anything to improve the discussion.

[JohnL]

"My point was chocolate is integrated into the sauce to one degree or another."

Except that this point is false.

As for Varietal, at this point the desserts are more consistent (in being good) than the savories.  Have you been to any of WD-50, Room4Dessert, Moto, Foodbar or Alinea?

←

I'm sorry--you are saying that most moles that do involve chocolate consist of chocolate sprinkled over top? I am not aware that deconstruction has taken hold of Mexican cuisine yet.

But again, you seem to confirm my point. Rather than deal with larger issues, a lot of folks here (ok I am sometimes guilty too) get immersed in minutia.

As for Varietal and its deserts --that's your opinion. Not having been there I really can't argue (or agree). My guess is when dealing with these bold and off beat combinations people will be quite divided.

From your list I have only been to WD-50.

[docsconz]

As for denigrating the wine list, unless one has experienced the wines with the food (especially in a creative restaurant), it is my experience that it is difficult to really have an idea as to how well the wines will work and whether the list is well constructed or not. I agree that obscurity for its own sake is not a particular benefit, but if the obscure wines do in fact work well with the cuisine, it adds an additional element of fun, especially if the wines are priced reasonably and fairly.

←

Not sure I agree with that in its entirety Doc. Some wines just won't work with or without food. From years and years of drinking wine (a lot, I might add ), I have found that some, albeit a small number, of wines just don't cut it. If those wines are added to a restaurant wine list (and especially one named after the best wine grapes in the world), then there's a problem - and that's not fun at all.

It seems at that point a restaurant just wants to say I have this wine that no one else has. Well, my answer would be - maybe there's a good reason for that.

←

Rich, I don't disagree with you in general here, but as far as the wine list at varietal is concerned, I didn't have a problem with it and thought it was fine for having been open four days. Are all their wines interesting and excellent? Maybe, maybe not, but despite my years of drinking wine and maybe because of them I have experienced some very pleasant matching surprises in the past.

[Nathan]

"I'm sorry--you are saying that most moles that do involve chocolate consist of chocolate sprinkled over top?"

You didn't limit your point to moles with chocolate. My point was that many do not incorporate chocolate at all.

I do agree with your general description of the way mole poblano and mole negro are designed to work.

(Although I have had a very assertive mole poblano in a "dive" restaurant with an entirely Mexican clientele....)

as for the "big picture" questions you raised -- I do think they are worthwhile. but perhaps it would make more sense for you to raise them in the context of a restaurant you've been to -- i.e. WD-50

Edited January 18, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[JohnL]

"I'm sorry--you are saying that most moles that do involve chocolate consist of chocolate sprinkled over top?"

You didn't limit your point to moles with chocolate.  My point was that many do not incorporate chocolate at all.

I do agree with your general description of the way mole poblano and mole negro are designed to work.

(Although I have had a very assertive mole poblano in a "dive" restaurant with an entirely Mexican clientele....)

as for the "big picture" questions you raised -- I do think they are worthwhile.  but perhaps it would make more sense for you to raise them in the context of a restaurant you've been to -- i.e. WD-50

←

Doc and Nathan

I think we are on the same page re: moles!

This is an interesting thread. Since I have not eaten at Varietal I have several resources upon which I have questions. Note I have questions and thoughts I do not have any firm opinions of the restaurant specifically.

I refer you to Foodpassion's well written (and passionate) post which goes to great lengths to "explain" the restaurant, mostly by touting the chef. then to fauxtarga's post which introduces Cuozzo's piece into the thread. This post indicates that fauxtarga's concern is that people won't "get" varietal and will criticize it. (people like Cuozzo).

Herein lies the crux of the debate. There is a group of people who are struggling to "get" varietal.

By "get" I mean understand what varietal is trying to be as a dining experience in terms of food, decor, beverage service, overall ambiance etc etc etc.

After a bit of research here's what I believe:

Varietal is the brainchild of a wine guy Greggory Hockenberry. It features a wine bar with options to have flights as well as a cute "master of wine" deal where if one guesses the wines in question the flight is free. The wines are sourced from small producers and a wide range of varietals.

The dining room features food by a chef (experience Il Buco) that, based upon my reading of the menu--is slightly daring (a personal vision/creativity is at play) a bit eclectic but certainly not anywhere approaching experimental or cutting edge.

The desert menu is definitely daring and very cutting edge (the chef is from Alinea).

Ok here goes.

My guess is there are three very different experiences to be had here. A wine experience, a food experience and a desert experience. Each is different enough to be somewhat confusing to many people. Looking at the savory dishes on the menu, I have a problem seeing food that begs for wine. Most dishes are not very wine friendly IMOP. A wine geek would have fun trying to match the somewhat complexity of the dishes.

Also, many people (non wine geeks) having a dining experience here will have some difficulty with what is probably an eclectic wine list--these are folks who pass the wine bar experience and go to the dining room.

Then one gets to desert. This is a departure from the savory dishes--we are in very experimental territory--while the main courses are creative and complex the deserts are a substantial leap in terms of pushing the envelope. Contrast this with how these deserts would be an easy and understandable transition from the cuisine at Alinea.

So, I see this place as being somewhat confusing--it does not have a clear execution of its vision leading to a cohesive dining (and drinking) experience for someone who is looking for a nice dinner, nice wine, and nice deserts that all come together and make sense.

It is also not a place where someone looking for cutting edge experimental cooking would be totally happy either. Who would it appeal mostly to?

Wine geeks who like experimental deserts! (not suprising because the restaurant is a vision of a wine geek!).

I would suggest that if they do not do this already--the menu include wine pairings for the food.

It seems the flavors are tricky enough that most people would require some assistance. This is a bit odd--IMOP-because in keeping with the theme, the food should showcase the wines. This menu would be a struggle to find appropriate wines to not clash with the food.

In the end--I see the whole operation as a bit disjointed: three very interesting elements that just don't seem to be in synch. The responses are like those from the blind men describing the elephant.

[Nathan]

Varietal has five sommeliers.

When I had the tasting menu I went with the proposed pairings...

others would certainly be proposed as well...they have no shortage of wine knowledge on staff...

[Sneakeater]

I think JohnL pretty much nailed it. But I would add one thing. Contrary to their clear intention to have the bar function as a wine bar in the manner JohnL describes, at least the time that I ate at the bar there, everyone at the the jam-packed bar was clearly using it the way restaurant bars are typically used in New York these days: as a place for solo diners and walk-ins to take meals. You could see the sommelier/bartender's frustration, since he wanted to deal in flights and esoteric by-the-glasses, and everybody at the bar just wanted to eat.

So I'd say there's another layer of confusion on top of the ones JohnL has identified.

Edited January 18, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Sneakeater]

I should also say that the time I used the wine bar as a wine bar (it was a night during Christmas weekend, and we had the bar pretty much to ourselves), it was a very good experience. We had flights, the bartender/sommelier was engaged and engaging (and very informative) in discussing them -- it was fun.

[Nathan]

Yes it was.

I think any wine snob could have fun there....

I agree the concept is a little disjointed...but here's hoping it all works out...

[docsconz]

JohnL, I canot disagree with your last post. The conclusion to the post with which I opened this topic stated as much:

I enjoyed this marriage of disparate styles, but I have to wonder how well it will go over with most people. Will people who want a more approachable, haute bistro style of meal embrace the vanguard desserts of Jordan Kahn and conversely, will those on the prowl for the most cutting edge, be satisfied with Ed Witt's creative, but ultimately comfortable cuisine? Time will ultimately answer this question, but in the meantime I enjoyed satisfying both my Slow Food side and my vanguard side in the same meal.

While everyone is very talented, the place will have a difficult time as it stands making everybody happy. I happen to be comfortable in each of the styles that they represent, but I know many people who while finding something to be happy about will find just as much that they will be displeased with for the reasons you mentioned. I think this view, as you presented it is very reasonable and criticism along these lines justifiable. This is not what Cuozzo did, though. Whether or not his piece was an official "review", it was in fact a review. The problem is that it was a poor excuse for one, based on an "ew, this is icky" mentality rather than solid criticism.

I admire the talent in the kitchen of Varietal, but have no stake in the restaurant. I don't mind it being criticized for valid reasons. I hate to see any restaurant butchered the way Cuozzo did to this one.

[JohnL]

Yes it was.

I think any wine snob could have fun there....

I agree the concept is a little disjointed...but here's hoping it all works out...

←

Unfortunately, my guess would be it probably won't.

(without some reworking)

First--trying to be a wine bar and a restaurant is difficult at best--one has to be somewhat sublimated to the other. Logistically, you can't serve a full menu at a wine bar and combine complex food with tasting flights of wine. I personally, would be hard pressed to focus on tasting various wines and eating complicated food at the same time while sitting at a bar.

second--IMOP the menu has to make sense. The style and execution of the savory dishes needs to be carried through in the deserts.--the vision needs to be in synch. You can't successfully pair a great chef and a great desert chef unless they have the same vision.

third--same for wine--the list needs to flow from the food or vice verse.

it all has to come together for a patron and make sense. the pricing, service and ambiance also come into play and coalesce into a dining experience.

This sounds like (and again I haven't been yet) several concepts that taken individually, are well executed (the wine bar especially,sounds like a lot of fun) but that do not come together well as a whole. That is, this may be a case where the whole is less than the sum of the parts!