Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2007)

[Nathan]

Rosanjin stands out precisely because it apparently was the one really good restaurant (assuming Bruni was right) that no one knew about.

←

I don't want this to sound like a "mine is bigger than yours" type comment, but I had certainly heard of Rasanjin before Bruni reviewed it. And my sources are almost exactly the same as yours. I think you just might not have been paying attention in that case (I want to emphasize that I don't mean that as a pejorative -- I mean, big deal, you didn't pay attention to some delivery place opening a small dining room). But I wouldn't universalize it.

←

fair enough, but that only further proves my point.

[Sneakeater]

That's certainly right.

[Nathan]

sure, I've found small, tiny tapas places that were acceptably decent (but not especially good) that haven't been reviewed. but if they were really good..they'd get buzz and they'd get reviewed.

even a fabulous niche place like Sabry in Astoria has gotten multiple professional reviews.

edit: ok, Tsukushi was basically hidden (from everyone besides Japanese aficionados) for a few years after it opened. but it still got a Times review in 05.

Edited May 2, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[Sneakeater]

I think there are three types of "hidden gems" that remain possible in the City.

One is outer-borough places that don't hire PR people (some do, many don't).

Two is Manhattan places that don't hire PR people (mostly these would be unprepossessing ethnic places and maybe the occassional pure neighborhood place, I think).

Three is places that are well-publicized, but in a way that would not make anyone expect them to have good food (think Buddhakan).

Edited May 2, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Sneakeater]

even a fabulous niche place like Sabry in Astoria has gotten multiple professional reviews.

←

Yeah, but SOMEBODY had to "discover" it (and then the rest followed).

And who knows how many places there are in, say, Western Queens that are worthy of "discovery" but haven't been yet?

[Nathan]

Sietsema and Meehan, between them, seem to cover the ethnic spots in both the outer boroughs and Manhattan pretty well.

there are a fair amount of decent neighborhood spots that don't get a lot of press (usually because they've been around for a while) that are decent enough....but it's no travesty that they don't get reviewed. people know of their existence..its just that they're not worth traveling too. for example, Vespa on the UES (full disclosure: I know some of the owners and management) is pretty good...but there are a number of "neighborhood restaurants" in my neighborhood that are just as good. If any one of them gets reviewed, fine. but it's not necessary, it's not a discovery. they're all good if you happen to be nearby.

[Nathan]

even a fabulous niche place like Sabry in Astoria has gotten multiple professional reviews.

←

Yeah, but SOMEBODY had to "discover" it (and then the rest followed).

And who knows how many places there are in, say, Western Queens that are worthy of "discovery" but haven't been yet?

←

sure...but I don't think oakapple, of all people, was claiming that it's Bruni's job to be trying every storefront place in Queens.

in fact, down the thread I deliberately limited my point to Manhattan.

[Nathan]

Three is places that are well-publicized, but in a way that would not make anyone expect them to have good food (think Buddhakan).

←

category three gets reviewed.

[Sneakeater]

Sietsema and Meehan, between them, seem to cover the ethnic spots in both the outer boroughs and Manhattan pretty well.

there are a fair amount of decent neighborhood spots that don't get a lot of press (usually because they've been around for a while) that are decent enough....but it's no travesty that they don't get reviewed.  people know of their existence..its just that they're not worth traveling too.  for example, Vespa on the UES (full disclosure: I know some of the owners and management) is pretty good...but there are a number of "neighborhood restaurants" in my neighborhood that are just as good.  If any one of them gets reviewed, fine.  but it's not necessary, it's not a discovery.  they're all good if you happen to be nearby.

←

No no. I meant the possibility that one of these "neighborhood" places is extraordinary. It's possible. THAT would be a "hidden gem".

[Nathan]

Sietsema and Meehan, between them, seem to cover the ethnic spots in both the outer boroughs and Manhattan pretty well.

there are a fair amount of decent neighborhood spots that don't get a lot of press (usually because they've been around for a while) that are decent enough....but it's no travesty that they don't get reviewed.  people know of their existence..its just that they're not worth traveling too.  for example, Vespa on the UES (full disclosure: I know some of the owners and management) is pretty good...but there are a number of "neighborhood restaurants" in my neighborhood that are just as good.  If any one of them gets reviewed, fine.  but it's not necessary, it's not a discovery.  they're all good if you happen to be nearby.

←

No no. I meant the possibility that one of these "neighborhood" places is extraordinary. It's possible. THAT would be a "hidden gem".

←

sure, it's possible. though I don't think you think there are "dozens" of such places.

but it's not like anyone has come up with one. we've had a long underrated restaurant thread here...nothing came up that hasn't been professionally reviewed.

[Sneakeater]

Part of the problem with discussing "hidden gems" is that they're hidden. You can't expect me to name places I don't know about.

[Nathan]

Part of the problem with discussing "hidden gems" is that they're hidden.  You can't expect me to name places I don't know about.

←

well, I guess the existence of "hidden gems" is unfalsifiable....which, by definition, ends the discussion.

[Sneakeater]

Of course. But the problem I'm having is that, while I'm saying something unfalsifiable, I think you're saying something circular.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that something can't be a "hidden gem" because once it gets identified by a professional reviewer, it's no longer "hidden". All I'm saying is that the place was "hidden" until the first reviewer found it. (We're talking about places without PR firms now.) And for every place that's "discovered" like that, there is probably some multiple number of worthy places that remain "undiscovered."

Edited May 2, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Nathan]

Of course.  But the problem I'm having is that, while I'm saying something unfalsifiable, I think you're saying something circular.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that something can't be a "hidden gem" because once it gets identified by a professional reviewer, it's no longer "hidden".  All I'm saying is that the place was "hidden" until the first reviewer found it.  (We're talking about places without PR firms now.)  And for every place that's "discovered" like that, there is probably some multiple number of worthy places that remain "undiscovered."

←

or rather, I'm saying something tautological.

but what I'm specifically disputing is that there are multiples of worthy places that remain "undiscovered". I think they all get discovered, rather quickly. and just because Bruni waits six months to write about a place doesn't mean he doesn't know about it.

2007 is manifestly different from say, 2000. today, the sheer number of amateurs writing about food necessitates that virtually every place has been visited and written about. in a sense, they've all been discovered before the pros get there. (how do you think the pros find out about them?) in fact, they're all discovered within days of opening.

[oakapple]

In the first place, there seems to be a fairly widespread consensus that Bruni wasted a reviewing slot here. Grub Street calls it "inexplicable," while Eater calls it "debatable at best."

To be sure, there have been goose-egged restaurants before, and there will be again. But you have to go pretty far back to find a review more irrelevant than this one. At the very least, a multiple review—contrasting Max Brenner to a place that does it well—would have made more sense.

To put it in perspective, Eleven Madison Park under Daniel Humm got 1/2 of a review, while Max Brenner (a chain restaurant where the only worthwhile item is chocolate) got a whole review to itself. Fallacy somewhere, I fancy.

So where should he go? There's no doubt in my mind that there are many dozens of restaurants that have never been reviewed, that would get at least a star. If you look at some of Bruni's past ratings, you quickly see that a place needn't be all that special to get a star, or even two. My own blog has several of them (usually one star), and remember: I'm not looking for them all the time, as he is (or is supposed to be).

Thalassa is the restaurant I've rated the highest (on my blog), that has never had a rated review in the Times. One could probably add many others that have been reviewed, but so long ago that they merit a fresh look.

Can you or I make a complete list of these restaurants? Of course not. But we have day jobs. We aren't paid to spend the entire working day (and usually, evening as well) focusing on nothing but restaurants. Someone who does surely ought to be able to find things that we can't. Nor do I think that the search ends with making a mental note of all the places featured on Eater and Grub Street

I mean: Nathan, Sneak: restaurants are a pretty passionate hobby for you, but you don't have all the time or money to spend that Bruni does. Wouldn't there be something wrong if the only places Bruni finds worth writing about, are the places we know about? If his perspective is no better than ours, then isn't he in the wrong job?

Edited May 2, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[Sneakeater]

I mean: Nathan, Sneak: restaurants are a pretty passionate hobby for you, but you don't have all the time or money for it that Bruni does. Wouldn't there be something wrong if the only places Bruni finds worth writing about, are the places we know about? If his perspective is no better than ours, then isn't he in the wrong job?

←

Actually, this is what I've been trying to say. But you said it better. Thanks.

[slkinsey]

The hidden gems in Manhattan, if there are any, are all above 96th Street. And they're hidden precisely because blogs like Eater (and most of eGullet, I should hasten to add) aren't paying attention to what's going on up there. Granted, there are good reasons for this (like the fact that there is much less of interest).

Edited May 2, 2007 by slkinsey (log)

[JohnL]

Thalassa gets a twenty three for food in Zagat's!

[Nathan]

I mean: Nathan, Sneak: restaurants are a pretty passionate hobby for you, but you don't have all the time or money to spend that Bruni does. Wouldn't there be something wrong if the only places Bruni finds worth writing about, are the places we know about? If his perspective is no better than ours, then isn't he in the wrong job?

←

most restaurants I know about...I've never been to. nor will I. there are only so many restaurant openings every week...and they get published...in multiple sources. aggregating these easily available sources, I highly doubt that there are significant openings that aren't showing up. Manhattan simply isn't that large.

[Nathan]

Thalassa's never had a rated review, but it was given a full Times piece here:

http://www.thalassanyc.com/nyt.html

[oakapple]

most restaurants I know about...I've never been to.  nor will I.  there are only so many restaurant openings every week...and they get published...in multiple sources.  aggregating these easily available sources, I highly doubt that there are significant openings that aren't showing up.  Manhattan simply isn't that large.

←

You seem to be limiting your perspective to the widely publicized restaurant openings, which any automaton can figure out. I suppose that if one's approach is to piggy-back on everyone else's publicity, and then follow the "buzz," that would be acceptable. In that case, I would retract my statement: Bruni has shown himself highly adept at trolling Eater and Grub Street, and that's all one needs to look at.

But with all the time and resources at his command, you don't think Bruni could ever discover anything? Heaven knows what the poor guy would have done in the pre-Internet days. Gosh, he'd actually have had to find restaurants for himself.

Thalassa's never had a rated review, but it was given a full Times piece here:

http://www.thalassanyc.com/nyt.html

←

I knew about that article. My perspective was "restaurants that have never had a rated review." If it's "restaurants the Times never noticed at all," obviously you land on a much more limited subset. Edited May 2, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[Nathan]

here's my point:

I would like just one example of a notable restaurant opening in Manhattan (below 96th street...though even uptown gets publicized now) that is not publicized.

in other words, I'm asserting that you're asking Bruni to do the impossible...to find restaurants that don't exist.

[Fat Guy]

A totally unknown opening of a potentially reviewable restaurant in Manhattan is certainly rare. The issue is more that there are hundreds of such openings in a year and the critic has to prioritize.

Some folks seem to think that the Max Brenner review was a failure of prioritization. I think that's a reductionistic view of how restaurants should be chosen for review. Saying he gave half a review to Eleven Madison Park and therefore shouldn't give a whole review to any restaurant that's not as good as Eleven Madison Park makes no sense. The reviews are about more than just the restaurants. In addition, they're a body of work. And yes, there are dozens of one-star-worthy restaurants that have never been reviewed. Does that mean there should never be a no-star review, so that we can have more and more reviews of mediocre one-star places?

[oakapple]

I would like just one example of a notable restaurant opening in Manhattan (below 96th street...though even uptown gets publicized now) that is not publicized.

←

I agree that nearly all plausibly reviewable restaurants that open in Manhattan below 96th Street are publicized.

I am suggesting that his beat includes not only those restaurants, but also:

* Restaurants that opened more than 3 years ago, but for whatever reason, were overlooked at the time. (I take 3 years as the reference point, because that's how long he's been on the beat.)

* Restaurants that opened more than 6 months ago, but less than 3, which, for whatever reason, he did not review at the time. One can make a pretty good list of restaurants that attracted a decent number of reviews...but not from him. Two of Steve Cuozzo's favorites are Piano Due and Brasserie Ruhlmann.

* Restaurants the Times reviewed years ago, but that are due for a revisit.

* Restaurants in New York City, outside of "Manhattan (below 96th Street)."

I am also suggesting that it is ludicrous, given the paucity of reviewing slots, to use one up on such an unimportant place as Max Brenner — a restaurant no other critic in town seemed to think required a review.

I assert that there were dozens of candidates more worthy. But there didn't have to be dozens. There only had to be one.

[Fat Guy]

So all critics should review the same restaurants, and deviation is unacceptable?