Varietal

[Nishla]

Last Saturday my husband and I shared the dessert tasting at the bar, and thought it tasted wonderful. While some of the combinations were certainly unusual, I thought everything was extremely good. We had the following:

sweet potato ice cream--great flavor and textures

white chocolate cubism--loved the chrysanthamum with the beer

milk chocolate with shredded wheat, oat sorbet and sassafras--really good, toasty flavors

wolfberry dessert--the wolfberry was less sweet than I expected, and went great with the citrus sabayon

chocolate/pear dessert--again, nice combination of flavors. I was actually too full to thoroughly enjoy this one.

One odd thing about the experience is that we asked the bartender for wine recommendations to go with dessert, and he couldn't give us an answer. He got the sommelier, who also seemed a bit confused that we were asking for something to drink with dessert. I was particularly surprised by this reaction since a) it's a wine bar, b) they have a pretty good selection of dessert wines and c) there are apparently wine pairings available in the dining room. Also, for a couple desserts the server just plopped the plate down with virtually no explanation.

Anyway, I'm really glad we went since we definitely haven't had this type of dessert before, and we enjoyed ourselves very much despite a few minor service issues.

[FoodPassion]

Last Saturday my husband and I shared the dessert tasting at the bar, and thought it tasted wonderful. While some of the combinations were certainly unusual, I thought everything was extremely good. We had the following:

sweet potato ice cream--great flavor and textures

white chocolate cubism--loved the chrysanthamum with the beer

milk chocolate with shredded wheat, oat sorbet and sassafras--really good, toasty flavors

wolfberry dessert--the wolfberry was less sweet than I expected, and went great with the citrus sabayon

chocolate/pear dessert--again, nice combination of flavors. I was actually too full to thoroughly enjoy this one.

One odd thing about the experience is that we asked the bartender for wine recommendations to go with dessert, and he couldn't give us an answer. He got the sommelier, who also seemed a bit confused that we were asking for something to drink with dessert. I was particularly surprised by this reaction since a) it's a wine bar, b) they have a pretty good selection of dessert wines and c) there are apparently wine pairings available in the dining room. Also, for a couple desserts the server just plopped the plate down with virtually no explanation.

Anyway, I'm really glad we went since we definitely haven't had this type of dessert before, and we enjoyed ourselves very much despite a few minor service issues.

←

Well, I've waited for everyone to respond regarding Mr. Cuozzo's "informal" crticism, and I've read a lot of your comments - some I agree, others I disagree. I wholeheartedly agree with the comment that just one negative comment (wether formal or not) can tryly taint a new restaurant's reputation to the point of harm.

I disagree again, with the critic who believes that the two menus are disjointed. Again, I want to point out that the newness of the idea maybe what's troubling some. Think of when El Bulli started - what an idea?!!! A restaurant that would have a laboratory? Was it "weird" or innovative? Well, the rest is history. I just read that El Bulli is the #1 restaurant in the world! It beat all the "classical cuisine" restaurants with "conservative and well-match" menus. So I guess quite a few people in the world agree me and Varietal - that new and different is not necessarily "weird" or "bad" or "negative" in any way.

Although I do agree with doc that the dinner dishes are very tasty, I "personally" would prefer a little more involved and creative dishes. I still think that Chef Kahn's dishes are highly creative, super tasty and just awesome!

[oakapple]

One odd thing about the experience is that we asked the bartender for wine recommendations to go with dessert, and he couldn't give us an answer.

←

When we did the same, we were seated at a table, and our server made a very suitable wine pairing recommendation.

Again, I want to point out that the newness of the idea maybe what's troubling some.  Think of when El Bulli started - what an idea?!!! A restaurant that would have a laboratory?  Was it "weird" or innovative?  Well, the rest is history.  I just read that El Bulli is the #1 restaurant in the world!  It beat all the "classical cuisine" restaurants with "conservative and well-match" menus.

←

This always happens when anyone tries to break with tradition. On the other hand, tradition isn't easy to overcome, and those who try to innovate take bigger risks. Just ask Paul Liebrandt, who has flamed out more than once. Edited January 30, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[JohnL]

Last Saturday my husband and I shared the dessert tasting at the bar, and thought it tasted wonderful. While some of the combinations were certainly unusual, I thought everything was extremely good. We had the following:

sweet potato ice cream--great flavor and textures

white chocolate cubism--loved the chrysanthamum with the beer

milk chocolate with shredded wheat, oat sorbet and sassafras--really good, toasty flavors

wolfberry dessert--the wolfberry was less sweet than I expected, and went great with the citrus sabayon

chocolate/pear dessert--again, nice combination of flavors. I was actually too full to thoroughly enjoy this one.

One odd thing about the experience is that we asked the bartender for wine recommendations to go with dessert, and he couldn't give us an answer. He got the sommelier, who also seemed a bit confused that we were asking for something to drink with dessert. I was particularly surprised by this reaction since a) it's a wine bar, b) they have a pretty good selection of dessert wines and c) there are apparently wine pairings available in the dining room. Also, for a couple desserts the server just plopped the plate down with virtually no explanation.

Anyway, I'm really glad we went since we definitely haven't had this type of dessert before, and we enjoyed ourselves very much despite a few minor service issues.

←

Well, I've waited for everyone to respond regarding Mr. Cuozzo's "informal" crticism, and I've read a lot of your comments - some I agree, others I disagree. I wholeheartedly agree with the comment that just one negative comment (wether formal or not) can tryly taint a new restaurant's reputation to the point of harm.

I disagree again, with the critic who believes that the two menus are disjointed. Again, I want to point out that the newness of the idea maybe what's troubling some. Think of when El Bulli started - what an idea?!!! A restaurant that would have a laboratory? Was it "weird" or innovative? Well, the rest is history. I just read that El Bulli is the #1 restaurant in the world! It beat all the "classical cuisine" restaurants with "conservative and well-match" menus. So I guess quite a few people in the world agree me and Varietal - that new and different is not necessarily "weird" or "bad" or "negative" in any way.

Although I do agree with doc that the dinner dishes are very tasty, I "personally" would prefer a little more involved and creative dishes. I still think that Chef Kahn's dishes are highly creative, super tasty and just awesome!

←

I fear you are missing the point of most of the criticism.

You note "the newness of the idea"--well what is the "idea" behind Varietal?

Much of what posters here and even Cuozzo are critical of is Varietal seem to be confused in its overall concept.

Is it a wine bar a restaurant a desert bar? all three?

Is the cuisine --New American, experimental, avant garde, wine friendly? all of the above?

Does one go for wine? wine plus food? a full meal? a wine tasting? just desert?

The problem with the wine bar and food combination is clearly apparent. Does one eat at the bar?

--what?--appetizers, entrees, deserts--a full meal.

does one enjoy flights of interesting wines? with food?

can all this be done comfortably in the space alloted?

A "wine bar" that serves food (desert) can not recommend a wine to accompany the deserts then there is a serious problem! with--service, a wine list that has no matches for the deserts, deserts for which there are no wine matches--you can look at this from every angle--there is a problem somewhere.

To use your analogy, say El Bulli offered a simple conventional flan for desert? Or say the desert menu at WD-50 consisted of conventional apple pie or a piece of Junior's cheesecake?

Regardless of the quality of these desert offerings do you thing that diners would be at least mildly confused and/or disappointed?

It is clear that varietal has a problem in who they are or are trying to be. people--consumers and critics are confused. In fact based upon Nishla's comments--it appears the staff is confused as well!!

[FoodPassion]

Last Saturday my husband and I shared the dessert tasting at the bar, and thought it tasted wonderful. While some of the combinations were certainly unusual, I thought everything was extremely good. We had the following:

sweet potato ice cream--great flavor and textures

white chocolate cubism--loved the chrysanthamum with the beer

milk chocolate with shredded wheat, oat sorbet and sassafras--really good, toasty flavors

wolfberry dessert--the wolfberry was less sweet than I expected, and went great with the citrus sabayon

chocolate/pear dessert--again, nice combination of flavors. I was actually too full to thoroughly enjoy this one.

One odd thing about the experience is that we asked the bartender for wine recommendations to go with dessert, and he couldn't give us an answer. He got the sommelier, who also seemed a bit confused that we were asking for something to drink with dessert. I was particularly surprised by this reaction since a) it's a wine bar, b) they have a pretty good selection of dessert wines and c) there are apparently wine pairings available in the dining room. Also, for a couple desserts the server just plopped the plate down with virtually no explanation.

Anyway, I'm really glad we went since we definitely haven't had this type of dessert before, and we enjoyed ourselves very much despite a few minor service issues.

←

Well, I've waited for everyone to respond regarding Mr. Cuozzo's "informal" crticism, and I've read a lot of your comments - some I agree, others I disagree. I wholeheartedly agree with the comment that just one negative comment (wether formal or not) can tryly taint a new restaurant's reputation to the point of harm.

I disagree again, with the critic who believes that the two menus are disjointed. Again, I want to point out that the newness of the idea maybe what's troubling some. Think of when El Bulli started - what an idea?!!! A restaurant that would have a laboratory? Was it "weird" or innovative? Well, the rest is history. I just read that El Bulli is the #1 restaurant in the world! It beat all the "classical cuisine" restaurants with "conservative and well-match" menus. So I guess quite a few people in the world agree me and Varietal - that new and different is not necessarily "weird" or "bad" or "negative" in any way.

Although I do agree with doc that the dinner dishes are very tasty, I "personally" would prefer a little more involved and creative dishes. I still think that Chef Kahn's dishes are highly creative, super tasty and just awesome!

←

I fear you are missing the point of most of the criticism.

You note "the newness of the idea"--well what is the "idea" behind Varietal?

Much of what posters here and even Cuozzo are critical of is Varietal seem to be confused in its overall concept.

Is it a wine bar a restaurant a desert bar? all three?

Is the cuisine --New American, experimental, avant garde, wine friendly? all of the above?

Does one go for wine? wine plus food? a full meal? a wine tasting? just desert?

The problem with the wine bar and food combination is clearly apparent. Does one eat at the bar?

--what?--appetizers, entrees, deserts--a full meal.

does one enjoy flights of interesting wines? with food?

can all this be done comfortably in the space alloted?

A "wine bar" that serves food (desert) can not recommend a wine to accompany the deserts then there is a serious problem! with--service, a wine list that has no matches for the deserts, deserts for which there are no wine matches--you can look at this from every angle--there is a problem somewhere.

To use your analogy, say El Bulli offered a simple conventional flan for desert? Or say the desert menu at WD-50 consisted of conventional apple pie or a piece of Junior's cheesecake?

Regardless of the quality of these desert offerings do you thing that diners would be at least mildly confused and/or disappointed?

It is clear that varietal has a problem in who they are or are trying to be. people--consumers and critics are confused. In fact based upon Nishla's comments--it appears the staff is confused as well!!

←

Yes, to all of your questions. It is all of the above, and why not? Why can’t they have a wine bar along with a dining room. Who set the rules? Where is the problem? Is it more difficult for the restaurant to achieve perfection in all? Yes! Is it impossible? No! Is it challenging? Yes! Why not the challenge? Is it because some people believe that traditional styles should never be altered? Is it because some people’s palate remains their entire life in a monotonous circle and they are afraid to step outside of the circle?

There are lots of questions one can answer and not everyone will agree. “Generally”, I think restaurants like El Bulli or Varietal are for the more sophisticated palates and the artsy foodies who want to step outside the box. Just like Picasso’s and Dali’s are not for the “average bear”!!!!

I don’t see the problems you see as to where should one eat – at the bar? at the restaurant? It’s a matter of personal opinion and probably time! One should feel free to try all and experiment with different styles and flavors; and of course go to where others have not gone yet. That’s what’s exciting. I think “doc” understands this concept very well. I personally don’t even like leftovers, not because they are leftovers, but because my taste buds require change and arousal.

I feel bad for what happened to Nishla. I don’t think it has anything to do with “people being confused”, unless the people you are talking about are unacquainted and uncultured in foods. I’m talking about people who make it their business to learn about and enjoy varieties of foods and styles – people who view food as an art. I “personally” had a pairing of wines suggested by the somaliere for desserts only. So, I’m not sure what happened – maybe the bar tender was sick and a new person took over – I don’t know. All I know is that they do have the pairings and they are darn good!

[Sneakeater]

I like Chinese food. I like French food. If I went to a French restaurant that offered only Chinese desserts, I think I'd probably find it disturbing and unenjoyable as a dining concept. To be sure, it could conceivably work. It could conceivably be a stroke of genius rather than a misguided mistake. But if I tried it, and didn't like it, I would say so. And, to be frank, I wouldn't be surprised if I didn't like it.

You seem to be assuming that anything new and different is good for that reason alone, and anyone who doesn't like something that's new and different is just missing the point.

You're wrong. "New and different" things get judged on their merits, just like anything else. They can work, or they cannot work.

I'm here to tell you that, in my opinion, the combination of "left-of-center-but-basically-traditional" savories and "avant-garde" desserts at Varietal doesn't work. Not because it's new and different, but because for a meal to be satisfying, in my opinion, the chef and the pastry have to be working from the same asthetic.

This is not because I'm a hidebound traditionalist. I loved Sam Mason's desserts at WD-50. I love Will Goldfarb's desserts at Room 4 Dessert. But I want meals to make sense. The ones at Varietal don't.

This is not because I'm unadventurous. It's not because I don't "get it". It's because I have a good-faith criticism of the structure of the menu here.

[FoodPassion]

I like Chinese food.  I like French food.  If I went to a French restaurant that offered only Chinese desserts, I think I'd probably find it disturbing and unenjoyable as a dining concept.  To be sure, it could conceivably work.  It could conceivably be a stroke of genius rather than a misguided mistake.  But if I tried it, and didn't like it, I would say so.  And, to be frank, I wouldn't be surprised if I didn't like it.

You seem to be assuming that anything new and different is good for that reason alone, and anyone who doesn't like something that's new and different is just missing the point.

You're wrong.  "New and different" things get judged on their merits, just like anything else.  They can work, or they cannot work.

I'm here to tell you that, in my opinion, the combination of "left-of-center-but-basically-traditional" savories and "avant-garde" desserts at Varietal doesn't work.  Not because it's new and different, but because for a meal to be satisfying, in my opinion, the chef and the pastry have to be working from the same asthetic.

This is not because I'm a hidebound traditionalist.  I loved Sam Mason's desserts at WD-50.  I love Will Goldfarb's desserts at Room 4 Dessert.  But I want meals to make sense.  The ones at Varietal don't.

This is not because I'm unadventurous.  It's not because I don't "get it".  It's because I have a good-faith criticism of the structure of the menu here.

←

I think you completely missed my point. You are agreeing with me, whether you believe it or not. What I said was, don’t judge the different styles until you try them. If you try it, and you don’t like it, it’s ok. You have the right not to like something. My big objection to JohnL is that he said people where he worked would describe the food “weird”. This is when I said that one should not describe something weird just because it’s different. Go and try it with an open mind and see if you enjoy the difference. (Cuozzo, on the other hand is "supposed" to be a professional and he should not use those words.)

You also said you would not like Chinese food in a French restaurant. Well, isn’t that what “fusion” is all about? Don’t Chinese restaurants offer ice cream for dessert? Well, the Chinese restaurants I visited in China did not offer ice cream. By the way, did you know that McDonald’s in China is different? The hamburger is cooked differently and it has soy sauce, fish sauce and MSG. Did you know that McDonald’s in Russia serves “French Fries” in a bowl of oil? It’s all about what you are used to, and one’s ability to try something new. Don’t like it? It’s ok! But don't negatively judge it until then.

I am glad you finally made the distinction between fact and opinion in your third paragraph. You are 100% entitled to your opinion. I, on the other hand, believe that satisfaction does not necessarily come from the aesthetic, but from the flavors. I felt extremely satisfied at the end of the meal at Varietal (although, I would probably agree with you if the menus were reversed). I think that ending it with Chef Kahn’s amazing desserts is like ending the meal with a big bang!!!!

[Sneakeater]

I felt extremely satisfied at the end of the meal at Varietal (although, I would probably agree with you if the menus were reversed). 

←

That's an interesting point. Because as troubling as I find the menu concept at Varietal now, I agree with you that I'd find it a lot more troubling if it were reversed. Why do you think that is?

[docsconz]

I also think that it works better in the order that it has than the reverse. Assuming the relative quality was the same, the reverse would seem a letdown not because it wasn't good, but because by that point people would either expect more or if they weren't into the more modern style in the first place, would have already been sour. I think that more people who enjoy creative cuisine at least tolerate and appreciate well done traditional cooking than the reverse. That is, I think people with a primary sensibility for the creative cuisine more likely to enjoy well done cuisine - period, than an ardent traditionalist is more likely to enjoy the creative.

[Sneakeater]

You also said you would not like Chinese food in a French restaurant.  Well, isn’t that what “fusion” is all about?

←

BTW, just for the record, traditional French main dishes and traditional Chinese desserts is NOT what "fusion" is all about.

Indeed, the very flaw that some of us are pointing to at Varietal is a lack of "fusion" between different parts of the menu.

Edited January 31, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[johnder]

For me, the term "fusion" cuisine does not mean having one dish that is Asian, one that is French and one that is Mexican. For me it is more about blending the cultures, either in technique or ingredients.

An example of something along the lines of fusion would be taking a classic Poulet Roti and serving it alongside some ponzu flavored long beans and coconut milk green curry eggplant. Not that I am advocating that, but that is taking a classic french dish and pairing it with asian accented accompaniments.

[Sneakeater]

Indeed, if a "fusion" restaurant served only traditional French desserts, I'd consider that a flawed menu.

[Nathan]

hmmmm....Atelier is not fusion in the strict sense, but there are certainly world accents in the cuisine. but the desserts struck me as being quite traditional.

[FoodPassion]

hmmmm....Atelier is not fusion in the strict sense, but there are certainly world accents in the cuisine.  but the desserts struck me as being quite traditional.

←

Here I go again with my two cents (or five!). I completely agree with doc! The reason I think desserts work better is because of two reasons.

1. Just like doc said, it ends your meal with a creative upbeat sense – like the “grand finale” in a performance, or like in wine tasting – you begin with the mildest working you way up to the boldest.

2. I “personally” feel that desserts should be creative and fun. There is a certain vivacious, cheery, and frisky playfulness in desserts that lends itself to the ingenuity of a pastry chef. For example, Chef Kahn can create a beautiful masterpiece putting together flavors that go really well together, but no one else has ever done. It makes me think of the Pastry Olympics I have seen on TV (never in person-although that would be awesome), and observe what the international teams can do with sugar, chocolates, statues, etc. I don’t think you can do much of that with meats, fish and vegetables!

Oh, and just one last reason – I have a sweet tooth & just love desserts. I think if I go to a new restaurant and they serve me another “molting chocolate cake” or “cheese cake – in any form”, or any custard/crème brulee “French or Spanish” I will probably barf! Most of the restaurants take the boring-traditional or desserts, add some kind of couli, (a berry or tropical fruit) a liqueur or sauce, and then they call it gourmet! I don't think so!

[Eatmywords]

Sorry to say this week's Time Out slams Varietal pretty hard......3 of 6 stars (reads more like 1 of 6). For the most part, they echo much of what John L and Sneak have been saying. It lacks direction and execution (mostly on the savory side). Prices for both food and wine are not justified.

[johnder]

Here is a link to the Time Out Review, and a few passages.

You know the expression too many cooks spoil the broth? Sometimes too many highfalutin concepts spoil the broth, too. Varietal is a prime example of a restaurant that, despite having qualified people at the helm, doesn’t know what it wants to be: a wine bar, an artisanal ingredients haven or a mad-science laboratory. If the eatery is this unfocused, imagine how confused the diners must be.

For wine geeks, the 12-seat quartz-and-glass bar can be a ton of fun. Owner Greggory Hockenberry, a trained sommelier, has selected 225 unusual bottles, mostly from small, well-regarded New World producers, such as Argentina’s Archaval Ferrer and California’s underrated Navarro in Anderson Valley. Seventy-five wines are available by the glass or in tasting flights, and Hockenberry provides notepads so patrons can keep track of what they consume.

...

Wine turned out to be the restaurant’s strong point, especially in contrast with the food, which was esoteric, bordering on ridiculous. Despite a glut of local farm shout outs that signaled chef Ed Witt’s dedication to fresh produce, simple dishes were hard to find on his $75 six-course tasting menu. The baby octopus (pictured) was the best, and least complicated, of the starters—poached in olive oil and then served on a bed of pestolike salsa and sunchokes. In less successful appetizers, flavor took a backseat to concept and presentation. An unfortunate tube of lamb mousse looked like a hot dog and tasted like liverwurst.

[oakapple]

Sorry to say this week's Time Out slams Varietal pretty hard......3 of 6 stars (reads more like 1 of 6).  For the most part, they echo much of what John L and Sneak have been saying.  It lacks direction and execution (mostly on the savory side).  Prices for both food and wine are not justified.

←

What it does not say is that the savory courses are too "conventional" to be paired with Jordan Kahn's outlandish desserts. Rather, it says that they are experimental—and the experiments don't work.

By the way, TONY's absurd six-star scale is really incomparable to anyone else's star scale. They've given four and five stars to some pretty humble restaurants, so three is indeed a slam.

Edited February 1, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[JohnL]

Here is a link to the Time Out Review, and a few passages.

You know the expression too many cooks spoil the broth? Sometimes too many highfalutin concepts spoil the broth, too. Varietal is a prime example of a restaurant that, despite having qualified people at the helm, doesn’t know what it wants to be: a wine bar, an artisanal ingredients haven or a mad-science laboratory. If the eatery is this unfocused, imagine how confused the diners must be.

For wine geeks, the 12-seat quartz-and-glass bar can be a ton of fun. Owner Greggory Hockenberry, a trained sommelier, has selected 225 unusual bottles, mostly from small, well-regarded New World producers, such as Argentina’s Archaval Ferrer and California’s underrated Navarro in Anderson Valley. Seventy-five wines are available by the glass or in tasting flights, and Hockenberry provides notepads so patrons can keep track of what they consume.

...

Wine turned out to be the restaurant’s strong point, especially in contrast with the food, which was esoteric, bordering on ridiculous. Despite a glut of local farm shout outs that signaled chef Ed Witt’s dedication to fresh produce, simple dishes were hard to find on his $75 six-course tasting menu. The baby octopus (pictured) was the best, and least complicated, of the starters—poached in olive oil and then served on a bed of pestolike salsa and sunchokes. In less successful appetizers, flavor took a backseat to concept and presentation. An unfortunate tube of lamb mousse looked like a hot dog and tasted like liverwurst.

←

I hope we are not going to see some posts slamming the critic and/or questioning his credentials.

I think that there is a general consensus that Varietal has a problem in its concept and executing that concept.

As for the food. There is always an element of subjectivity.

I would expect to see agreement regarding the concept and execution with some disagreement more likely regarding the food.

The key to Varietal's success in a very competitive restaurant environment is to draw people who will tend to appreciate the style of the food and the dining and drinking experience they offer. If they are not clearly conveying what they are all about they will not reach these people. If the experience is not successfully delivered the people they do reach will not return.

This is important--I am not even talking about the food. Some will like the food some will not.

I believe that the reason that WD-50 has been so successful where Paul Liebrandt has had problems is that Wylie understands the need to have a clear vision and to have the environment where he can execute that vision. The experimental and avant garde nature of their cooking (I am not talking about quality) means that their universe of potential repeat customers is limited in size. WD-50 in its location, its size, its service, its ambiance, its pricing presents a clear and harmonious vision. Its customers go to it. Were WD-50 to move to a large space in the Time Warner Building raise prices to cover the overhead--I believe it would fail unless Wylie changed his approach to cooking and/or its execution dramatically.

Liebrandt would IMOP be better off if he found a smaller space downtown--a better environment for his vision.

As for the cooking--avant garde is always controversial by its very nature. I believe that it is extremely difficult to pull this off. It is not that difficult to shock and suprise diners with unconventional technique, exotic ingredients and unconventional combinations of flavors/ingredients. To move beyond the shock and awe to the point that a large number of people return over and over, to offer an experience that creates a following/repeat business is difficult enough.

I always thought that Grey Kunz at Lespinasse was a master at understanding his audience and introducing a certain wonderment into his food. Was he experimental? Yes. To the degree that Dufresne is? No. But each worked in the perfect stage/setting for their talents.

So can Varietal overcome the difficulties in their vision and its execution? Maybe. I won't comment on the quality of the food--I haven't tried it. I can say that while the wine bar seems like it has some potential--I doubt that the owners would be happy being successful as a wine bar only. Attempting to be too many things at once is a problem--to me, a good restaurant is when the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. The whole being the totality of the experience a diner walks away with. So,I suppose if one approaches Varietal as three (or more) separate and distinct concepts: Wine bar, wine friendly restaurant, patisserie, some elements avant garde some less etc--sort of a whatever one wants it to be--then ok. I doubt this is the vision.

Looks to me like a wine guy, a chef and a desert chef each decided to operate their own place under one roof.

Avant garde concept? Or misguided adventure? Time will tell.

[Sneakeater]

I'll even give Varietal some free advice:

If you want the wine bar to succeed as a wine bar (as opposed to part of the restaurant), you've got to do what every other restaurant that's carved out a separate identity for its bar area has done: treat it as a whole separate entity. (I'm thinking mainly of the Danny Meyer places, of course.) That means that, inhospitable as it may seem, you've got to stop allowing patrons to order from your main menu at the bar. You've got to FORCE patrons to stick to the bar menu, and thus to concentrate on the wine rather than the food. If you don't do that, people will continue to treat it as a normal restaurant bar (i.e., a place for solo diners and walk-ins to eat the main menu), rather than a wine bar.

(I'd even give it a separate name. Have the bar menu say something like "The Wine Bar at Varietal" instead of just "Varietal".)

This may lose you some revenue short-term. But it's the only way to build a separate long-term identity for the bar.

Edited February 1, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Sneakeater]

(I'll note that, even of the Danny Meyer restaurants, EMP features a bar menu. But the bar does not have a separate name, and they also allow you to order the main menu there. So nobody thinks of the bar at EMP as a separate dining destination, as they do the Tavern at Gramercy,* the Bread Bar at Tabla, or The Bar Room at The Modern.)

___________________________________________

* Actually, it's never occurred to me to try to order off the main menu at the Tavern, so I'm not positive that you can't do it there. I don't think I've ever seen it done. I know you can't at the Bread Bar or The Bar Room at The Modern.

Edited February 1, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Sneakeater]

[OT][Oops. This was supposed to be the edit of the last post.]

Edited February 1, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[FoodPassion]

Here is a link to the Time Out Review, and a few passages.

You know the expression too many cooks spoil the broth? Sometimes too many highfalutin concepts spoil the broth, too. Varietal is a prime example of a restaurant that, despite having qualified people at the helm, doesn’t know what it wants to be: a wine bar, an artisanal ingredients haven or a mad-science laboratory. If the eatery is this unfocused, imagine how confused the diners must be.

For wine geeks, the 12-seat quartz-and-glass bar can be a ton of fun. Owner Greggory Hockenberry, a trained sommelier, has selected 225 unusual bottles, mostly from small, well-regarded New World producers, such as Argentina’s Archaval Ferrer and California’s underrated Navarro in Anderson Valley. Seventy-five wines are available by the glass or in tasting flights, and Hockenberry provides notepads so patrons can keep track of what they consume.

Well, JohnL, I disagree with you.  That’s the concept of the supermarket vs. the old grocery store, the superstores vs. the supermarket and the department store, department stores vs. the separate stores, and the malls, vs. going to a shopping to the downtown area – It’s all under one roof.  And guess what, those ideas made it!

One more thing, although you have the right to your opinion, I find it really difficult for you to judge without even evaluating the place yourself.  Not everyone’s taste and experience is the same.  I suggest you try it first, and then reassess your ideas with some facts.

I do agree it is a different concept, but I find that many of you are so extremely solidify to the old and so objectional to change, I’m pretty shocked!  I personally hate routines, and any thing that makes me step outside the box, I find fascinating and entertaining – as long as the quality is not compromised!  If the restaurant would have a four page menu, I would tend to agree a bit more with you.  Because experience has taught me that quantity decreases quality.  But in this case, their menu is not huge.  Granted that eating at the wine bar will not allow the bar tender to tend the diners as well as in the restaurant.  But, perhaps if one chooses to eat at the bar, just expect different service!

...

Wine turned out to be the restaurant’s strong point, especially in contrast with the food, which was esoteric, bordering on ridiculous. Despite a glut of local farm shout outs that signaled chef Ed Witt’s dedication to fresh produce, simple dishes were hard to find on his $75 six-course tasting menu. The baby octopus (pictured) was the best, and least complicated, of the starters—poached in olive oil and then served on a bed of pestolike salsa and sunchokes. In less successful appetizers, flavor took a backseat to concept and presentation. An unfortunate tube of lamb mousse looked like a hot dog and tasted like liverwurst.

←

I hope we are not going to see some posts slamming the critic and/or questioning his credentials.

I think that there is a general consensus that Varietal has a problem in its concept and executing that concept.

As for the food. There is always an element of subjectivity.

I would expect to see agreement regarding the concept and execution with some disagreement more likely regarding the food.

The key to Varietal's success in a very competitive restaurant environment is to draw people who will tend to appreciate the style of the food and the dining and drinking experience they offer. If they are not clearly conveying what they are all about they will not reach these people. If the experience is not successfully delivered the people they do reach will not return.

This is important--I am not even talking about the food. Some will like the food some will not.

I believe that the reason that WD-50 has been so successful where Paul Liebrandt has had problems is that Wylie understands the need to have a clear vision and to have the environment where he can execute that vision. The experimental and avant garde nature of their cooking (I am not talking about quality) means that their universe of potential repeat customers is limited in size. WD-50 in its location, its size, its service, its ambiance, its pricing presents a clear and harmonious vision. Its customers go to it. Were WD-50 to move to a large space in the Time Warner Building raise prices to cover the overhead--I believe it would fail unless Wylie changed his approach to cooking and/or its execution dramatically.

Liebrandt would IMOP be better off if he found a smaller space downtown--a better environment for his vision.

As for the cooking--avant garde is always controversial by its very nature. I believe that it is extremely difficult to pull this off. It is not that difficult to shock and suprise diners with unconventional technique, exotic ingredients and unconventional combinations of flavors/ingredients. To move beyond the shock and awe to the point that a large number of people return over and over, to offer an experience that creates a following/repeat business is difficult enough.

I always thought that Grey Kunz at Lespinasse was a master at understanding his audience and introducing a certain wonderment into his food. Was he experimental? Yes. To the degree that Dufresne is? No. But each worked in the perfect stage/setting for their talents.

So can Varietal overcome the difficulties in their vision and its execution? Maybe. I won't comment on the quality of the food--I haven't tried it. I can say that while the wine bar seems like it has some potential--I doubt that the owners would be happy being successful as a wine bar only. Attempting to be too many things at once is a problem--to me, a good restaurant is when the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. The whole being the totality of the experience a diner walks away with. So,I suppose if one approaches Varietal as three (or more) separate and distinct concepts: Wine bar, wine friendly restaurant, patisserie, some elements avant garde some less etc--sort of a whatever one wants it to be--then ok. I doubt this is the vision.

Looks to me like a wine guy, a chef and a desert chef each decided to operate their own place under one roof.

Avant garde concept? Or misguided adventure? Time will tell.

←

[FoodPassion]

[OT][Oops.  This was supposed to be the edit of the last post.]

←

Well, JohnL, I disagree with you. That’s the concept of the supermarket vs. the old grocery store, the superstores vs. the supermarket and the department store, department stores vs. the separate stores, and the malls, vs. going to a shopping to the downtown area – It’s all under one roof. And guess what, those ideas made it!

One more thing, although you have the right to your opinion, I find it really difficult for you to judge without even evaluating the place yourself. Not everyone’s taste and experience is the same. I suggest you try it first, and then reassess your ideas with some facts.

I do agree it is a different concept, but I find that many of you are so extremely solidify to the old and so objectional to change, I’m pretty shocked! I personally hate routines, and any thing that makes me step outside the box, I find fascinating and entertaining – as long as the quality is not compromised! If the restaurant would have a four page menu, I would tend to agree a bit more with you. Because experience has taught me that quantity decreases quality. But in this case, their menu is not huge. Granted that eating at the wine bar will not allow the bar tender to tend the diners as well as in the restaurant. But, perhaps if one chooses to eat at the bar, just expect different service!

[oakapple]

My friend and I had dinner at Varietal on Friday night (illustrated report here).

There are a number of problems with the concept. The savory courses just weren't that good, particularly in relation to the price (most entrees >$30). The desserts are stunning, but the place wasn't designed to just serve desserts.

When we sat down, we were handed a little printed card listing champagnes by the glass. The cheapest of them was $17. As a point of comparison, we had a fine glass of champagne at The Modern a week ago for $15. Overall, everything but the desserts is just too expensive.

The dining room was only about half full, surely not a good sign on a Friday night. The bar was full, but it's not a large or especially comfortable space, and the owner won't cover his monthly nut on bar tabs. Most people in the dining room seemed to be twenty-somethings, and it's hard to imagine many of them ordering the $800 bottles of wine. My friend said, "I can't believe this is the demographic he was looking for."

While we were there, a photographer from the New York Observer was in the room. The owner told us that reviews from the Observer, the Sun and New York are coming out this week. Frank Bruni has been in three times, so his review can't be far off. Unless the reviewers have a vastly more favorable take on it, I am not optimistic for the restaurant's future. Jordan Kahn's desserts might not be enough to save the place.

Service was friendly and polished. You really want this restaurant to succeed. So far, I don't think it's working.

Edited February 12, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[Nathan]

one quick note on the champagne glass prices.

when I was there, it was a list of "grower" champagnes (the cheapest was $21 I think)....if that's still the case, I don't know that they could serve a glass for cheaper. But since this specific complaint has come up a number of times now...it may make sense for them to add a $12 glass of some major house NV.