Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2007)

Mayur · May 30, 2007

In what reviews did Bruni prioritize "refinement of cuisines, service, atmosphere, or wine cellar?" He has given less priority to those attributes than any of his predecessors. That does not, of course, mean zero priority.
←

My point is that Bruni *fails* to do his job properly at either end. Presumably, one star for Katz means that his reviews take into account service, refinement, etc. (The bathroom comment re: GR at the London being a case in point.) However, he doesn't get that part right either. (Hence my comment about the Modern.)

IOW, we agree. My point was that Bruni seems to fail to appreciate the refinement associated with restos like the Modern, while at the same time he sometimes downrates restos on the expectation of certain minimum refinements. It's a losing proposition either way.

Nathan · May 30, 2007

First off, what sort of cretin goes to Katz's and orders a cheesesteak?
And assuming one orders with appropriate gusto, who has room for dessert?
Except for these ever-so-minor, irrelevant objections, this is a rave review deserving of more than one measly star. The pastrami is "among the best in the land." The service from the slicer guys is impeccable. The ambiance is extraordinary.
Knock off a star for the leaden knishes and questionable latkes, and we are still talking two stars at least.
Is there a better deli in New York? In the United States?
←

I don't think you understand the NY Times system. 1 star is a rave review for a deli.

Holly Moore · May 30, 2007

I don't think anyone really understands the NY Times ever-evolving rating system.

The Times declares that one star is good, two is very good, three is excellent and four is extraordinary. No stars means poor to satisfactory.

Beyond that the Times explains "Ratings ... reflect the reviewer's reaction to food ambiance and service with price taken into consideration."

Since Katz's ambiance and service are above reproach, and since Bruni for the most part raves about the food - especially Katz's raisons d'être: pastrami and brisket - price must be the determining factor in Bruni's myopic and evidently pompous limiting of Katz's to a solitary star.

Edited May 30, 2007 by Holly Moore (log)

Nathan · May 30, 2007

I don't think anyone really understands the NY Times ever-evolving rating system.
The Times declares that one star is good, two is very good, three is excellent and four is extraordinary. No stars means poor to satisfactory.
Beyond that the Times explains "Ratings ... reflect the reviewer's reaction to food ambiance and service with price taken into consideration."
Since Katz's ambiance and service are above reproach, and since Bruni for the most part raves about the food - especially Katz's raisons d'être: pastrami and brisket - price must be the determining factor in Bruni's myopic and evidently pompous limiting of Katz's to a solitary star.
←

this is news to anyone who's been reading Bruni's reviews. lower prices cause him to raise a restaurant a star!

this is the same guy who two-starred Sri, S&T, LO, Resto etc. etc. and gave only two to The Modern and GR.

the pastrami and the brisket make up about 5% of Katz's menu.

if Bruni had two or three starred Katz's he would have been lambasted by 95% of the posters on the NY egullet. read through this thread if you don't believe me.

he's also about the only Times reviewer who would actually review a deli.

Edited May 30, 2007 by Nathan (log)

Holly Moore · May 30, 2007

Fortunately for we provincials the NY Times reached Philadelphia's newsstands long ago. As the NY Times seems to go particularly well with La Columbe espresso, savoring the words of Mr. Bruni (and of those before him) between sips of my triple latte has become somewhat of a Wednesday morning ritual.

Interesting spin on the pastrami and brisket. 5% of Katz's menu. 5% of their tonnage, too? Would that it were. The lines at the slicers would be 10 percent of what they are now.

Katz's is arguably the best at what they do. And while it may be pushing it to award Katz's four stars - a three star rating, which the Times defines as "excellent", seems appropriate.

if Bruni had two or three starred Katz's he would have been lambasted by 95% of the posters on the NY egullet. read through this thread if you don't believe me.

Word has it that 95% of eGullet NY posters also floss after brushing.

Edited May 30, 2007 by Holly Moore (log)

Nathan · May 30, 2007

Fortunately for we provincials the NY Times reached Philadelphia's newsstands long ago. As the NY Times seems to go particularly well with La Columbe espresso, savoring the words of Mr. Bruni (and of those before him) between sips of my triple latte has become somewhat of a Wednesday morning ritual.
Interesting spin on the pastrami and brisket. 5% of Katz's menu. 5% of their tonnage, too? Would that it were. The lines at the slicers would be 10 percent of what they are now.
Katz's is arguably the best at what they do. And while it may be pushing it to award Katz's four stars - a three star rating, which the Times defines as "excellent", seems appropriate.
if Bruni had two or three starred Katz's he would have been lambasted by 95% of the posters on the NY egullet. read through this thread if you don't believe me.
Word has it that 95% of eGullet NY posters also floss after brushing.
←

no pastrami is that good. period.

this is proposing an outcome worse than Zagat. talk about grade inflation!

there are literally hundreds of restaurants in NY that all have one food item which they perform better than anyone else in the city. by this logic they all should receive three stars. that's inane. or one could propose to privilege pastrami above all other foodstuffs I suppose.

furthermore, this accusation: "price must be the determining factor in Bruni's myopic and evidently pompous limiting of Katz's to a solitary star." could only be made by someone utterly unfamiliar with Bruni's reviewing history.

or at least, by someone completely unfamiliar with the restaurants that he's reviewing..such that they don't realize it was rather groundbreaking (and anti-formal dining) for him to two-star Sri or S&T etc...

this is probably the first (and last) time in human history that Bruni has been accused of being biased against downmarket and cheaper restaurants. that's not hyperbole either.

JohnL · May 30, 2007

Just more evidence that the Times Star system presents problems.

A skilled and respected reviewer could overcome these problems by "establishing" his or her criteria and applying it fairly with support in his or her review copy.

Once again the Zagat's system offers more accuracy. (even with all their problems)

Katz's gets 23 points for food (very good to excellent) 9 for decor and 12 for service.

(I am using the 2006 book, I can't find my 2007 at the moment). The comments they selected do a good job as well.

Nathan · May 30, 2007

First off, what sort of cretin goes to Katz's and orders a cheesesteak?
And assuming one orders with appropriate gusto, who has room for dessert?
Is there a better deli in New York? In the United States?
←

um, that sort of cretin is known as a professional restaurant critic doing their job.

Is there another starred deli in NY? in the U.S.?

Dave H · May 30, 2007

Fortunately for we provincials the NY Times reached Philadelphia's newsstands long ago.
←

Then don't pretend to be reading your first issue today.

That is not how the NY Times star system works. Period. If the Inquirer wants to give the same rating to Tony Luke's and Le Bec Fin that's their prerogative, but it's not how it works here, and with very good reasons that have been hashed over interminably in this thread.

JohnL · May 30, 2007

Amazingly, the star system is still being debated.

Just how does the star system work?

Nathan · May 30, 2007

Amazingly, the star system is still being debated.
Just how does the star system work?
←

whether the star system works or not (and whether it should be altered -- I don't care so long as the rules are explained) is a separate matter from the two contentions I see above:

A. that Bruni has a bias AGAINST (!!!!!???!!!!) informal and cheaper restaurants.

B. that NY should have hundreds of three and four starred restaurants (the problem with this is obvious I think)

Holly Moore · May 30, 2007

First off, what sort of cretin goes to Katz's and orders a cheesesteak?
And assuming one orders with appropriate gusto, who has room for dessert?
Is there a better deli in New York? In the United States?
←
um, that sort of cretin is known as a professional restaurant critic doing their job.
Is there another starred deli in NY? in the U.S.?
←

Ordering something as obscure as a "Philly Style" cheesesteak at a New York Deli the caliber of Katz's, and passing over a multitude of more normal deli fare is a not restaurant critic being professional (meaning thorough I assume). Rather, to be kind, it is a restaurant critic being idiosyncratic.

Edited May 30, 2007 by Holly Moore (log)

Nathan · May 30, 2007

First off, what sort of cretin goes to Katz's and orders a cheesesteak?
And assuming one orders with appropriate gusto, who has room for dessert?
Is there a better deli in New York? In the United States?
←
um, that sort of cretin is known as a professional restaurant critic doing their job.
Is there another starred deli in NY? in the U.S.?
←
Ordering something as obscure as a "Philly Style" cheesesteak at a New York Deli the caliber of Katz's, and passing over a multitude of more normal deli fare is a not restaurant critic being professional (meaning thorough I assume). Rather, to be kind, it is a restaurant critic being idiosyncratic.
←

you do realize that he went at least three times with a variety of companions and ordered most of the menu?

(there is a legitimate criticism of Bruni that he generally doesn't talk enough about the food at restaurants but it's understood here that he doesn't by any means mention every dish he tries)

Holly Moore · May 30, 2007

Fortunately for we provincials the NY Times reached Philadelphia's newsstands long ago.
←
Then don't pretend to be reading your first issue today.
That is not how the NY Times star system works. Period. If the Inquirer wants to give the same rating to Tony Luke's and Le Bec Fin that's their prerogative, but it's not how it works here, and with very good reasons that have been hashed over interminably in this thread.
←

Alas, the Philadelphia Inquirer has not given Tony Luke's the same rating as Le Bec-Fin. Nor do I think that the New York Times must give Katz's the same rating as Daniel.

But a rating system that is incapable of acknowledging four star, one dollar sign restaurants is both pompous and flawed.

Nathan · May 30, 2007

Fortunately for we provincials the NY Times reached Philadelphia's newsstands long ago.
←
Then don't pretend to be reading your first issue today.
That is not how the NY Times star system works. Period. If the Inquirer wants to give the same rating to Tony Luke's and Le Bec Fin that's their prerogative, but it's not how it works here, and with very good reasons that have been hashed over interminably in this thread.
←
Alas, the Philadelphia Inquirer has not given Tony Luke's the same rating as Le Bec-Fin. Nor do I think that the New York Times must give Katz's the same rating as Daniel.
But a rating system that is incapable of acknowledging four star, one dollar sign restaurants is both pompous and flawed.
←

it appears that you've made this argument before....and there's nothing inherently wrong with making that argument (I think it's wrong because it would a. result in mass confusion...and b. give us 50 restaurants with the highest ranking)....but what has this to do with Bruni? he didn't create the system. yet, he's been called a "cretin" and "pompous" and "myopic" for following a system that he didn't create (and probably doesn't have the power to change).

Edited May 30, 2007 by Nathan (log)

Nathan · May 30, 2007

as for the traditional deli items that Bruni didn't mention...there might be a reason, Ed Levine (a regular dining companion of Bruni's) writes:

"awful french fries (when I was growing up Katz's fresh french fries were legendarily delicious), the pretty dreadful matzo ball soup, the terrible potato pancakes and knishes, and the generic cole slaw not made on premises that is identical to the cole slaw found at Smiler's and hundreds of other faceless delis and coffee shops in New York."

http://www.seriouseats.com/required_eating...urant-crit.html

oakapple · May 30, 2007

But a rating system that is incapable of acknowledging four star, one dollar sign restaurants is both pompous and flawed.
←

Let's assume that that's true, for argument's sake.

Your complaint, nevertheless, is not with Frank Bruni. For all of Frank's flaws, he is still following the system he inherited—at least to that extent. None of his predecessors ever awarded four stars to Katz's, or any "Katz-like" restaurant. Indeed, it appears that none of them issued a rated review to Katz's at all, even though the restaurant was there the whole time, and I'm sure they knew of its existence.

It's therefore rather ironic that, after three years of Frank Bruni reviews, you choose this occasion to get so animated about one of his ratings, when he has just paid Katz's the highest compliment any NYT critic has ever given it.

I'm not sure what your system would look like. As far as I know, among media outlets that award stars, none has given—or would give—its highest rating to a place like Katz's. Maybe they're all pompous and flawed, but at this point we're talking about a much larger and more pervasive problem, for which no one has put a solution into practice.

Let's talk about Katz's Zagat rating of 23 for food. Zagat claims that anything from 20-25 is "very good to excellent." That is a statistical obfuscation. A couple of years ago, I very tediously tabulated the Zagat ratings by number. It turns out the average Zagat food rating is around 20-21. Viewed in that perspective, Katz's 23 is somewhere above average, but not dramatically so.

Edited May 30, 2007 by oakapple (log)

chetlemon · May 30, 2007

Let's talk about Katz's Zagat rating of 23 for food. Zagat claims that anything from 20-25 is "very good to excellent." That is a statistical obfuscation. A couple of years ago, I very tediously tabulated the Zagat ratings by number. It turns out the average Zagat food rating is around 20-21. Viewed in that perspective, Katz's 23 is somewhere above average, but not dramatically so.
←

That's the average of the places that made it into Zagat, which (presumably) tend to be the better places in the city. It sounds reasonable to me that the average place found in their guide would be at the bottom end of the "very good" range.

Not that I disagree with the larger point ... Zagat's "very good to excellent" (20-25) clearly something very different from NYT's "very good to excellent (2-3 stars).

Fat Guy · May 30, 2007

Just a note on the Zagat statistical point: recent computations by SmartMoney magazine indicate that Zagat's average rating has gone up nearly 5 points since 1983, and that the bottom has dropped out of the ratings: "Just over a decade ago 189 out of 1,300 New York restaurants rated 15 or below; today only 23 do, despite the fact that the guide now rates more than 1,500 restaurants."

Nathan · May 30, 2007

Let's talk about Katz's Zagat rating of 23 for food. Zagat claims that anything from 20-25 is "very good to excellent." That is a statistical obfuscation. A couple of years ago, I very tediously tabulated the Zagat ratings by number. It turns out the average Zagat food rating is around 20-21. Viewed in that perspective, Katz's 23 is somewhere above average, but not dramatically so.
←
That's the average of the places that made it into Zagat, which (presumably) tend to be the better places in the city. It sounds reasonable to me that the average place found in their guide would be at the bottom end of the "very good" range.
Not that I disagree with the larger point ... Zagat's "very good to excellent" (20-25) clearly something very different from NYT's "very good to excellent (2-3 stars).
←

Zagat is not Michelin. my understanding is that any restaurant that meets a minimum vote threshhold is included. (regardless of whether the ratings are positive or negative.)...Zagat rates over 2000 restaurants in NY.

but a specific problem (one of many) with Zagat is that there is no "average" score that a voter may assign.

Holly Moore · May 30, 2007

We pause for a minute while I savor a bit of crow. I just took a look at Katz's paper menu and, as many times as I have eaten there, I never realized that Katz's features its Cheesesteak as "This would make Rocky leave Philadelphia." While I still consider ordering a cheesesteak at Katz's to be idiosyncratic and a waste of good stomach capacity, it is not fair of me to take Bruni to task for ordering and reviewing a cheesesteak if Katz's is foolish enough to boast about it.

While I'm at it, one personal insigt - though I occasionally use smiley faces in my posts, I do my best to avoid them. My original comment on Bruni's review intended "cretin" as an exaggeration - in jest. I just don't see myself ever calling someone a cretin with malice aforethought. In fact I hope I don't hang out with anyone who would employ such dated insults.

As to the Time's rating system, though Mr. Bruni did not create it, he is using it. I consider all rating systems - stars, liberty bells, toques or grease stains - inane and short cuts for those too lazy to read a review or at least its opening and closing paragraphs. A rating system that can never consider a one dollar sign restaurant, using the NY Times scale, capable of being "Excellent" or "Extraordinary," is both myopic and pompous.

Edited May 30, 2007 by Holly Moore (log)

Holly Moore · May 30, 2007

Just a note on the Zagat statistical point: recent computations by SmartMoney magazine indicate that Zagat's average rating has gone up nearly 5 points since 1983, and that the bottom has dropped out of the ratings: "Just over a decade ago 189 out of 1,300 New York restaurants rated 15 or below; today only 23 do, despite the fact that the guide now rates more than 1,500 restaurants."
←

Could this verify that there are indeed kinder, gentler souls hidden within New Yorkers legendary gruff exteriors? Is New York City going warm and cuddly?

oakapple · May 30, 2007

I consider all rating systems - stars, liberty bells, toques or grease stains - inane and short cuts for those too lazy to read a review or at least its opening and closing paragraphs.
←

I don't quite understand the notion of complaining that rating systems are inane, and then complaining about the rating that was actually assigned. If it's inane, then any rating—be it one star, two, three, or four—would have been a meaningless shortcut for the lazy. So why the fuss?

Pan · May 30, 2007

[...]Since Katz's ambiance and service are above reproach[...]
←

Dunno about that. I happen to love the ambiance there, but it's not for everyone. Some people would find it "grungy."

Holly Moore · May 30, 2007

I consider all rating systems - stars, liberty bells, toques or grease stains - inane and short cuts for those too lazy to read a review or at least its opening and closing paragraphs.
←
I don't quite understand the notion of complaining that rating systems are inane, and then complaining about the rating that was actually assigned. If it's inane, then any rating—be it one star, two, three, or four—would have been a meaningless shortcut for the lazy. So why the fuss?
←

Restaurant rating systems, be they insipid or inspired, are inevitable. The least one can ask is that there not be inequity in their inaneness.