Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2007)

[oakapple]

This was worse than the Ninja review.

ETA: Is this Bruni's first "Poor"?

←

This was Bruni's second POOR; Ninja was the first. It's hard to say which one was worse; they were both pretty bad.

Ninja survived getting pummeled by Bruni, and I suspect Cipriani will do the same.

[Nathan]

I actually figured on no stars...but I didn't quite expect a Poor.

but I guess since Bruni loves Italian so much...if he runs across a pathetic example then he's really going to let loose on it.

(I haven't eaten at Cipriani NY but I was at Harry's Bar in Venice on someone else's expense account, gosh, what a ripoff.)

Edited November 14, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[Nathan]

something amusing:

last night I was conversing with a civilian who thinks of herself as a bit of a foodie (her parents go to the Beard dinners, she's been to most of the four stars etc.)....her comment on Bruni: "Boy, he's curmudgeonly and harsh on restaurants!"

that's not the first time I've heard that sentiment. meanwhile we tend to think that he's a little easy on them...

[chefboy24]

i love it.

[oakapple]

I guess since Bruni loves Italian so much...if he runs across a pathetic example then he's really going to let loose on it.

←

On the whole, he has generally gone easy on the Italian genre—for instance, giving Del Posto a much more favorable write-up than most other critics did, and giving Morandi one star despite a review that sounded like zero. And of course, there's a boatload of earnest neighborhood Italian places that got two stars from him. Well, he likes earnest neighborhood places in general, but Italian ones especially.

last night I was conversing with a civilian who thinks of herself as a bit of a foodie (her parents go to the Beard dinners, she's been to most of the four stars etc.)....her comment on Bruni:  "Boy, he's curmudgeonly and harsh on restaurants!"

that's not the first time I've heard that sentiment.  meanwhile we tend to think that he's a little easy on them...

←

If you take the average across all of Bruni's reviews, he's neither harsher nor softer than the typical critic. He has dished out some delicious takedowns, and nearly all of his zero-star reviews are entertaining (as long as you're not the restauranteur being written about). But he can also be a real softie when he loves a place. For some reason, it is always easy to write memorably about failure, but to describe why something is excellent requires rare talent. Edited November 14, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[Nathan]

I think you're right that he generally gives Italian places a little extra...with that said, Del Posto does have two Michelin stars.

[oakapple]

I think you're right that he generally gives Italian places a little extra...with that said, Del Posto does have two Michelin stars.

←

Bruni didn't hesitate to point that out when last year's Michelin ratings were announced. It provided a degree of vindication for a rating that some readers thought was too generous. But the funny thing is that people take will pot-shots at the Michelin ratings, and yet, cite them with approval when it suits their purpose.

[Nathan]

of course. but it is a data point. I've heard of other people having fabulous meals there.

I think it's probably fair to say that Del Posto can produce an excellent meal...it's just that one's individual probability of having one isn't so high.

of course, I would surmise that Bruni was recognized at Del Posto (I doubt they repeated their mistake of not spotting him before the Babbo review)....conversely, they clearly didn't at Cipriani.

[Nathan]

on another note: since Eater has now publicly stated that Bruni and Platt have been to Tailor;

I was told that Bruni has been spotted three times and Platt once. both appear to have been since the introduction of the tasting menu...unlike Adams (as today's review illustrates). so it appears that Tailor will have the benefit of their presence since its reached some level of maturity.

[oakapple]

of course.  but it is a data point.  I've heard of other people having fabulous meals there.

I tend agree. I mean, any Mario Batali restaurant is going to be capable of delivering a great meal, at times.

My point about Michelin is that either they're reliable or they're not. If the stars given to Vong and Jewel Bako prove that the Michelin guys are nuts, then they don't suddenly get smart when they give out a rating that Frank agrees with, like Del Posto or Dressler. Either they're incompetent, and the ratings he agrees with are just a fortuitous coincidence. Or they're good at what they do, and the ratings he disagrees with are due to a legitimate critical difference of opinion.

of course, I would surmise that Bruni was recognized at Del Posto (I doubt they repeated their mistake of not spotting him before the Babbo review)....conversely, they clearly didn't at Cipriani.

←

Cipriani is the kind of restaurant where Bruni probably could have made multiple visits—indeed, it could have been all of his visits—without being recognized. The place is well off the foodie radar, hadn't been reviewed since 1991, and had no reason to think it would be reviewed now. And a POOR rating wasn't going to hurt their business very much. Edited November 14, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[raji]

My point about Michelin is that either they're reliable or they're not. If the stars given to Vong and Jewel Bako prove that the Michelin guys are nuts, then they don't suddenly get smart when they give out a rating that Frank agrees with, like Del Posto or Dressler. Either they're incompetent, and the ratings he agrees with are just a fortuitous coincidence. Or they're good at what they do, and the ratings he disagrees with are due to a legitimate critical difference of opinion.

←

IMHO

If the stars given to Vong and Jewel Bako prove that the Michelin guys are [inconsistent] - took more than those 2, but YES

then they don't suddenly get smart when they give out a rating that Frank agrees with, like Del Posto or Dressler - NO

THEREFORE

they're incompetent, and the ratings he agrees with are just a fortuitous coincidence - YES

they're good at what they do, and the ratings he disagrees with are due to a legitimate critical difference of opinion - NO

[LPShanet]

of course.  but it is a data point.  I've heard of other people having fabulous meals there.

I tend agree. I mean, any Mario Batali restaurant is going to be capable of delivering a great meal, at times.

My point about Michelin is that either they're reliable or they're not. If the stars given to Vong and Jewel Bako prove that the Michelin guys are nuts, then they don't suddenly get smart when they give out a rating that Frank agrees with, like Del Posto or Dressler. Either they're incompetent, and the ratings he agrees with are just a fortuitous coincidence. Or they're good at what they do, and the ratings he disagrees with are due to a legitimate critical difference of opinion.

of course, I would surmise that Bruni was recognized at Del Posto (I doubt they repeated their mistake of not spotting him before the Babbo review)....conversely, they clearly didn't at Cipriani.

←

Cipriani is the kind of restaurant where Bruni probably could have made multiple visits—indeed, it could have been all of his visits—without being recognized. The place is well off the foodie radar, hadn't been reviewed since 1991, and had no reason to think it would be reviewed now. And a POOR rating wasn't going to hurt their business very much.

←

I think that the idea of Michelin either being reliable or not would be a valid position if Michelin were a person. But as a large organization with a huge task, there is much room for inconsistency in the quality of their reviewing process. For example, it would seem that they hadn't even paid recent visits to some of the places they gave good marks (which would go a long way towards explaining Vong and Jewel Bako). On the other hand, at the high end (two and three stars), there don't seem to be any other resources that can be said to have greater accuracy (personal tastes aside). This is why many who hadn't been lately wondered whether maybe there was some merit to the seeming overratings of Del Posto and Gordon Ramsey, despite mediocre meals there early on. I think at least a few people thought it possible that the latter two examples had improved of late, while we all know Jewel Bako hasn't been good in several years. Since their review process at Michelin is less transparent than that at most of the major papers, we have no way to tell which reviews reflect due diligence and which don't, so it's more than conceivable that Michelin is both reliable and not. Some would argue semantically that being sometimes reliable means that you're not at all reliable (since you don't know when they are). But if you can recognize the patterns, it's still possible to cite them as a reliable source for some information and not for other. That said, I don't think you're going to hear a lot of arguing from foodie corners about the Cipriani drubbing.

[oakapple]

I think that the idea of Michelin either being reliable or not would be a valid position if Michelin were a person.  But as a large organization with a huge task, there is much room for inconsistency in the quality of their reviewing process.

For someone like me, Michelin's reliability is academic. I've been to most of those restaurants anyway, and have my own opinion. Where I haven't been to them, or where my experience is stale, I follow enough of the sources to have a decent sense of the prevailing consensus.

But for the book's target audience—the people who actually use the book for its intended purpose—reliability is pretty much a yes/no proposition. Any intelligent person will realize that a book of that scope probably contains some errors. The question is whether, on the whole, it's good enough to depend upon.

In my view, the answer is unquestionably yes. I don't know a single source of its kind that is more reliable. I trust Michelin's ratings more than Zagat. I trust them more than the New York Times, particularly because so many of the Times ratings are woefully outdated. I trust them more than the eGullet message boards, particularly because the interests of eGullet members cover the restaurant universe so unevenly.

On the other hand, at the high end (two and three stars), there don't seem to be any other resources that can be said to have greater accuracy (personal tastes aside).

←

That's right. Among those sources that assign ratings, there's a pretty broad consensus that places like Per Se and Le Bernardin (and a few others) are at the top of the pack. Edited November 15, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[Jesikka]

of course, I would surmise that Bruni was recognized at Del Posto (I doubt they repeated their mistake of not spotting him before the Babbo review)....conversely, they clearly didn't at Cipriani.

←

Are you suggesting that Cipriani could serve better food than they served to Bruni? Aren't you the one that always argues that there's not much a restaurant can do to change what they do for a critic?

[Nathan]

of course, I would surmise that Bruni was recognized at Del Posto (I doubt they repeated their mistake of not spotting him before the Babbo review)....conversely, they clearly didn't at Cipriani.

←

Are you suggesting that Cipriani could serve better food than they served to Bruni? Aren't you the one that always argues that there's not much a restaurant can do to change what they do for a critic?

←

hell no, that's Fat Guy.

(I've argued the complete opposite many times.)

Edited November 15, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[chefboy24]

of course, I would surmise that Bruni was recognized at Del Posto (I doubt they repeated their mistake of not spotting him before the Babbo review)....conversely, they clearly didn't at Cipriani.

←

Are you suggesting that Cipriani could serve better food than they served to Bruni? Aren't you the one that always argues that there's not much a restaurant can do to change what they do for a critic?

←

seriously? a restaurant can change everything when we spot bruni. from the best protein cuts (newest, thickest, center of the fillet), to larger portions, to fresher mise en place, the biggest mushrooms, to better flatware, stemware, china, to the best captain in the dining room.........to stopping all of service and fucking every other table in the restaurant to make sure bruni's table goes flawlessly, to EVEN seating friends of the restaurant in tables around bruni so he sees that those around him are having a great time.

i just interviewed at park avenue autumn and the gm told me they spotted bruni 5 times and every time it went flawlessly. which is why their review, albeit 2 star, was very positive (it sort of read like a 3 star)

http://events.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/dinin...ews/10rest.html

a restaurant can prevent inconsistancies but it really never rise above its class. not every restaurant concept is to be a 4 star or a 3 star after all.

[flinflon28]

seriously? a restaurant can change everything when we spot bruni.  from the best protein cuts (newest, thickest, center of the fillet), to larger portions, to fresher mise en place, the biggest mushrooms, to better flatware, stemware, china, to the best captain in the dining room.........to stopping all of service and fucking every other table in the restaurant to make sure bruni's table goes flawlessly, to EVEN seating friends of the restaurant in tables around bruni so he sees that those around him are having a great time.

When I was cooking at the Bar Room at The Modern in and Bruni came in (definitely a surprise as we had already been reviewed) the Bar Room Chef insisted NOTHING be changed from what typical service would have been like. Just asked everyone to make it with care but at no time were portion sizes changed, better proteins selected...even the server who ended up with the table wasn't even told it was Brunil till after the meal.

He trusted his kitchen crew and felt the food spoke for itself without any alterations.

[Nathan]

that's impressive.

on the other hand...see what Barber said about what they did when Grimes was spotted (or rather, who they thought was Grimes)

[flinflon28]

that's impressive.

on the other hand...see what Barber said about what they did when Grimes was spotted (or rather, who they thought was Grimes)

←

Yes...the other side of the coin there.

[LPShanet]

I think that the idea of Michelin either being reliable or not would be a valid position if Michelin were a person.  But as a large organization with a huge task, there is much room for inconsistency in the quality of their reviewing process.

For someone like me, Michelin's reliability is academic. I've been to most of those restaurants anyway, and have my own opinion. Where I haven't been to them, or where my experience is stale, I follow enough of the sources to have a decent sense of the prevailing consensus.

But for the book's target audience—the people who actually use the book for its intended purpose—reliability is pretty much a yes/no proposition. Any intelligent person will realize that a book of that scope probably contains some errors. The question is whether, on the whole, it's good enough to depend upon.

In my view, the answer is unquestionably yes. I don't know a single source of its kind that is more reliable. I trust Michelin's ratings more than Zagat. I trust them more than the New York Times, particularly because so many of the Times ratings are woefully outdated. I trust them more than the eGullet message boards, particularly because the interests of eGullet members cover the restaurant universe so unevenly.

On the other hand, at the high end (two and three stars), there don't seem to be any other resources that can be said to have greater accuracy (personal tastes aside).

←

That's right. Among those sources that assign ratings, there's a pretty broad consensus that places like Per Se and Le Bernardin (and a few others) are at the top of the pack.

←

Great points. I totally agree with each of your statements, but feel that we don't necessarily have to treat reliability only as a yes/no proposition. I think we could refine that a bit by allowing that Michelin can be relied upon in general (at least more than any other available resource) with respect to its two and three star choices, but that at the one-star level it becomes unreliable and somewhat random, as well as slipshod in its methodology and thoroughness, not to mention completeness. I'd say that applies to tourists as well.

Edited November 16, 2007 by LPShanet (log)

[oakapple]

Great points.  I totally agree with each of your statements, but feel that we don't necessarily have to treat reliability only as a yes/no proposition.  I think we could refine that a bit by allowing that Michelin can be relied upon in general (at least more than any other available resource) with respect to its two and three star choices, but that at the one-star level it becomes unreliable and somewhat random, as well as slipshod in its methodology and thoroughness, not to mention completeness.  I'd say that applies to tourists as well.

←

The reason I think it's a yes/no proposition is that there are probably very few people who are going to buy more than one guide. So either the guide you've bought is (mostly) reliable, or it's (mostly) not.

In any case, I think the vast majority of even the one-star ratings are reasonable. If you asked anyone else, they'd just make different mistakes.

[oakapple]

of course, I would surmise that Bruni was recognized at Del Posto (I doubt they repeated their mistake of not spotting him before the Babbo review)....conversely, they clearly didn't at Cipriani.

←

Are you suggesting that Cipriani could serve better food than they served to Bruni? Aren't you the one that always argues that there's not much a restaurant can do to change what they do for a critic?

←

I suspect there's nothing Cipriani could have done to keep two stars. In a rating system that takes price into account, there's no way to justify two stars for Cipriani, when places like L'Impero and Insieme—which are better, and far less expensive—are at the same level. But had they recognized him, I suspect they could have done better than POOR. Edited November 19, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[LPShanet]

Great points.  I totally agree with each of your statements, but feel that we don't necessarily have to treat reliability only as a yes/no proposition.  I think we could refine that a bit by allowing that Michelin can be relied upon in general (at least more than any other available resource) with respect to its two and three star choices, but that at the one-star level it becomes unreliable and somewhat random, as well as slipshod in its methodology and thoroughness, not to mention completeness.  I'd say that applies to tourists as well.

←

The reason I think it's a yes/no proposition is that there are probably very few people who are going to buy more than one guide. So either the guide you've bought is (mostly) reliable, or it's (mostly) not.

In any case, I think the vast majority of even the one-star ratings are reasonable. If you asked anyone else, they'd just make different mistakes.

←

Not sure I understand what you said. My point was that in the Michelin guides, it seems that the two and three star ratings have some semblance of reliability, while the one stars seem not to have any. Not only are they bizarre by many accounts, but they seem not to have been arrived at by the same process as the two and three star ratings. In fact, I maintain that if Michelin had the manpower and will to do so, they could get the one stars on the same level of reliability, but with their limited resources, they clearly don't make the effort.

[Joe Gerard]

Great points.  I totally agree with each of your statements, but feel that we don't necessarily have to treat reliability only as a yes/no proposition.  I think we could refine that a bit by allowing that Michelin can be relied upon in general (at least more than any other available resource) with respect to its two and three star choices, but that at the one-star level it becomes unreliable and somewhat random, as well as slipshod in its methodology and thoroughness, not to mention completeness.  I'd say that applies to tourists as well.

←

The reason I think it's a yes/no proposition is that there are probably very few people who are going to buy more than one guide. So either the guide you've bought is (mostly) reliable, or it's (mostly) not.

In any case, I think the vast majority of even the one-star ratings are reasonable. If you asked anyone else, they'd just make different mistakes.

←

Not sure I understand what you said. My point was that in the Michelin guides, it seems that the two and three star ratings have some semblance of reliability, while the one stars seem not to have any. Not only are they bizarre by many accounts, but they seem not to have been arrived at by the same process as the two and three star ratings. In fact, I maintain that if Michelin had the manpower and will to do so, they could get the one stars on the same level of reliability, but with their limited resources, they clearly don't make the effort.

←

I agree. The problem with Michelin's ratings at the one star level is that they appear to be determined by an entirely different mechanism that categorizes restaurants, and then selects those believed to be "a very good restaurant in its category". In other words, grading on the curve.

Thus, we are left to presume that Michelin believes Eleven Madison Park is not good upscale French, Felidia is not good upscale Italian and Sushi Yasuda is not a good sushi place, but The Spotted Pig is an above average gastro-pub, so it gets a star.

If the one star ratings were determined using the same methodology as the two and three star ratings we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

Having said that, Michelin is still hands down the best guide available.

[oakapple]

I agree. The problem with Michelin's ratings at the one star level is that they appear to be determined by an entirely different mechanism that categorizes restaurants, and then selects those believed to be "a very good restaurant in its category". In other words, grading on the curve.

The New York Times does the very same thing, as does just about every media outlet that awards stars. When Frank Bruni awarded two stars to Le Cirque and The Little Owl in consecutive weeks, could anyone argue that those two ratings were at all comparable? Le Cirque's two stars make sense only against the ratings given to other luxury French restaurants, and The Little Owl's only against other casual Italian restaurants.

The breakpoint between one and two Michelin stars? It's the same as the breakpoint between two and three NYT stars. That's why The Little Owl's two-star review sounded ecstatic, but Le Cirque's was the opposite. For casual Italian places, two stars is the maximum, which means that The Little Owl hit it out of the ballpark. For Le Cirque, four is the maximum, which makes a rating of two rather disappointing.

There are a few differences between the two systems. Frank Bruni awards more stars in a year than there are in the whole Michelin guide. The Michelin folks say that every restaurant with a star is at least "very good in its category," but Bruni very clearly did not think that Le Cirque was a very good luxury French restaurant. No one would read his two-star review, and believe he was enthusiastic. In that sense, the Michelin system feels more honest. Every one of their stars translates to an enthusiastic recommendation.

Thus, we are left to presume that Michelin believes Eleven Madison Park is not  good upscale French, Felidia is not good upscale Italian and Sushi Yasuda is not a good sushi place, but The Spotted Pig is an above average gastro-pub, so it gets a star.

←

All they're saying is that EMP, Yasuda, and Felidia are not very good (as opposed to merely good) in their respective categories. I might argue with some of those judgments, but I also argue with some of Bruni's judgments. Edited November 20, 2007 by oakapple (log)