Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2007)

[Nathan]

Bruni expounds some more on pizza here:

http://dinersjournal.blogs.nytimes.com/200...nions/#more-245

in sum....it's clear he's not approaching pizza (right or wrong) from a parochial NY-style mindset.

[oakapple]

it's clear he's not approaching pizza (right or wrong) from a parochial NY-style mindset.

←

The clearest thing to me is that he'd really be happier as the $25 & Under critic.

[ulterior epicure]

it's clear he's not approaching pizza (right or wrong) from a parochial NY-style mindset.

←

The clearest thing to me is that he'd really be happier as the $25 & Under critic.

That, and/or a re-assignment back to the Rome bureau.

[Dave H]

I somehow neglected to check this thread for a few days (difficult as that is to comprehend), and I come back to find that apparently none of you has opened a Zagat in the past five years. To refresh your memories, some selected food ratings from the current (2007) guide:

Union Square Cafe - 27

Gramercy Tavern - 28

Chanterelle - 27

Aureole - 27

La Grenouille - 27

Tasting Room - 27

The Grocery - 27

Tomoe Sushi - 27

There are four or five other bizarre 27s, but perhaps things settle down a bit once we move outside of the 30 restaurants voted to have the very best food in New York City. Ah, here's a perennial audience favorite:

wd-50 - 22

Ok, so the food at wd-50 may not be as worthy as at Blue Water Grill (23). Or at Woo Lae Oak (23), or Gennaro (24), or Pio Pio (23, yes the take-out chicken place). Clearly Wylie's wacky food science wizardry is no match for the soy protein alchemy of fake meat Korean powerhouses Hangawi and Franchia (both 24). I mean, wd-50 is alright, but foodwise it's no DeGrezia (23) or Erminia (25) or Hasaki (24) or Vong (23) or Perbacco (24) or Royal's Downtown (24) or Ivo & Lulu (23), or Itzocan (24) or OIBLTI--no, let me write that out for you: One If By Land, Two If By Sea; foodwise wd-50 is no One If By Land, Two If By Sea (23). Obviously it's no Mr K's (24), but how can it be when Mr K's is tied for best Chinese food in all of New York City (24)? Certainly it is not anywhere near in the same league as Blue Ribbon Sushi or Caviar Russe or Four Seasons (all 26).

But I think we can all agree that wd-50 about as good as Mr. Chow (22). And at least as good as "Yuka," the "Yorkville Japanese" where we are enjoined to, "'beware the buttons flying' as patrons partake of the '$18 all-you-can-eat' sushi deal" (22).

And maybe even a smidge better than Carnegie Deli (21)!! I mean, just a hair.

But of course this is comparing apples to oranges, something that, as we've discussed before, numerical ratings have some difficulty with. So let's look at three restaurants that share the same genre, price point, and first four letters of their names (they also happen to be on the same page in Zagat):

Frank - 23

Frankies Spuntino - 23

Franny's - 23

In actual point of fact, on a scale from 1 - 30 the food quality at these establishments roughly corresponds to:

Frank - 12

Frankies Spuntino - 15

Franny's - 26

(And I'm giving Zagat voters the benefit of the doubt that their experiences were different than mine.)

Look, I could do this all day. Even if you grant the bizarrely top-heavy rating scheme where a scale from 1-30 is somehow compressed into a scale from 15-30, Zagat ratings are basically only accurate to +/- 5 points, and occasionally not even that. This is without even mentioning the complete absence of legitimate ethnic restaurants from the guide (at least until around the time they get a starred review in the Times), like Ushi Wakamaru (not listed, but judging by how some other sushi restaurants do it would rate about a 37), or basically anything in Flushing other than Spicy & Tasty, or anything in Jackson Heights other than Jackson Diner. Sure, these places don't get very good coverage from Michelin or Bruni, but they aren't reviewing 2000 restaurants every year. I mean, there's a place called Salute in Zagat and it's the wrong Salute!

Yes, there are anomalies in the Michelin guide--at the one star level, and mainly as a result of its misguided mission to compile all the "very good restaurants for their category." Yes, Frank has made some mistakes as well...but I won't hold my breath waiting for the day he three stars Tomoe Sushi.

This is all pretty far off-topic for this thread, so I'll bring it back home: Once again, if you subject any other particular source of restaurant reviews and ratings to the scrutiny we give Frank, he generally comes off looking pretty good. In the case of Zagat, very good.

[Nathan]

wow...I didn't realize it was that bad (what I get for not even bothering to own a Zagat).

that was pretty definitive.

(btw, I think I would take Michelin over Bruni by a hair....and certainly Richman but after that there's no competition among published rankings)

[ulterior epicure]

So, three stars for Chef Anthony and the venerable Gramercy Tavern.

One thing of note:

"It doesn’t scale peaks as high as those at Eleven Madison Park, currently the most exciting restaurant in Mr. Meyer’s collection."

Does Bruni hint that Humm is of a higher constellation?

Edited June 6, 2007 by ulterior epicure (log)

[DutchMuse]

He doesn't 'hint' he outright says it. And it comports with my experience. Still, congrats to GT! Great for them.

[ulterior epicure]

... And it comports with my experience. Still, congrats to GT! Great for them.

I've not been to GT, but I will say that EMP was rather impressive on my one visit (save the desserts, which were ho-hum).

[weinoo]

My feeling is that Bruni got it pretty right on this one and it's even a pretty well written review.

[docsconz]

Based on the comments in this topic on Provence, the restaurant, it sounds like Bruni's photograph in time of this restaurant was accurate, however, I have to question his reviewing a restaurant 2 months out from opening that he described as improving. If the restaurant showed no signs of improvement or got worse it would be one thing, but to give a mediocre review to a new place that seemed to be getting better just doesn't seem fair. He probably should have waited until it reached a plateau.

[oakapple]

Based on the comments in this topic on Provence, the restaurant, it sounds like Bruni's photograph in time of this restaurant was accurate, however, I have to question his reviewing a restaurant 2 months out from opening that he described as improving. If the restaurant showed no signs of improvement or got worse it would be one thing, but to give a mediocre review to a new place that seemed to be getting better just doesn't seem fair. He probably should have waited until it reached a plateau.

←

This is especially remarkable, given the comments in last week's Gramercy Tavern review. He'd had a bad meal there in January, but decided it was his journalistic duty to wait it out, to see if Meyer and Anthony would get their act in gear (which they did).

But the journalistic clemency granted to GT was a rarity. Most new(*) restaurants are reviewed roughly 2 months after opening, and there doesn't seem to be much the management can do about that. I can't recall another case where Bruni appeared to have waited, because the quality was on an upward (or downward) arc and hadn't yet stabilized. I'm sure Leonard or Nathan will produce a counter-example, but it's clearly a rarity.

The closest comparable case is Sfoglia, but it's slightly different. In that case, after an early mediocre meal (which got the Diner's Journal treatment), the restaurant apparently got scratched off the review list indefinitely, and it was only after a comparatively long interval—after he heard reports of an improvement—that it got a second look.

(*) I realize Provence isn't strictly new, but with almost everything changed except the name, it might as well be.

[docsconz]

I just found it odd that Bruni would comment on the fact that it has been improving, but continued to review it now anyway. I would think that for a new restaurant in flux, it would be fair and pruent to wait until it stabilized. If it continued to just be uneven that would be one thing, but I would think the more pertinent and useful review would be when the restaurant shook out and declared itself. That could have been one month, two months or one year.

[Nathan]

I agree that it was early.

but...bizarrely enough, I think he did them a favor.

this past weekend reservations were available at Provence at all prime times (8, 8:30, 9, 9:30) on both Friday and Saturday. that's not a good sign. the review was positive enough that it should help.

[foodhunter]

I actually buy into the idea that critics provide diners a valuable service by reviewing restaurants in their (relative) infancy. I dined at Provence a month ago and was sorely disappointed. My opinions of the place pretty much reflected the sentiments expressed in Bruni's review. As I posted in the Provence thread, I thought it was a place that relied too heavily on the restaurant's history and its admittedly attractive physical space to draw in the crowds -- at the expense of interesting food and acceptable execution.

From early reports in the blogosphere, these were already my initial suspicions of the place. But I wish I had read Bruni's review first, to save myself a wasted evening at a restaurant that is evidently not as interested in providing the food of Provence as it is in mimicing the atmosphere of one of its many bistros.

I suppose Provence would make a perfectly decent neighborhood joint. But its pedigree ensures its status as a 'destination' restaurant. So in my opinion, critics who come out with relatively early reviews of much-hyped spots might save a lot of people a fair amount of trouble. New York dining is a somewhat high-risk proposition, in that the opportunity cost of picking a bad restaurant comes at the expense of a potentially much better one.

I don't buy into everything that Bruni writes. But I think he nailed his review of Provence -- it could get better, but not fast enough for his (and New York diners') expectations. I would even go so far as to say this one should have been a goose egg.

[docsconz]

I think that this is a better role for the internet and sites like eGullet that are able to give a more dynamic picture of a restaurant at any given time. The problem with a review of a new restaurant by a meedium such as the NYT is that becomes its set opinion unless and until it is reviewed again. A restaurant may be terrible, but if it is making solid progress it should be given a chance to stabilize in that context.

[foodhunter]

I generally agree, except for two things:

(a) Many food bloggers aren't as well-versed in food, dining, and the NY restaurant scene as a professional critic from one of the local publications is. So at least to me, their opinions tend to carry much less weight.

(b) Even those bloggers who possess a deep knowledge of eating and eating out tend to post their reviews after just one visit.

On the other hand, it's often said that the traditional model of weekly food reviews (in print) is fast becoming obsolete in the face of more real-time forms of information dissemination like the Internet and the blogosphere. (Case in point: for those of us who follow these things closely, Fabricant's 'Off the Menu' column seems strangely behind the times). In addition, restaurants these days seem much more responsive to drastic change in the face of a particularly bad review -- either on the Internet or in print. So even a well-researched Times piece could be obsolete the week after it goes to print.

Thus, I would almost propose ditching the once-a-week review altogether. I think the Times should adopt the Diner's Journal model and have its food critics post regular updates of their dining experiences in a more thoughtful and detailed manner than Bruni does on his blog now. This would give readers the benefit of more real-time information on what's going on in the restaurant scene, with that information coming from well-funded critics who can afford to eat often, eat plenty, and eat well. Basically, it's taking the current world of food blogging and turning it pro.

[docsconz]

I generally agree, except for two things:

(a) Many food bloggers aren't as well-versed in food, dining, and the NY restaurant scene as a professional critic from one of the local publications is.  So at least to me, their opinions tend to carry much less weight.

(b) Even those bloggers who possess a deep knowledge of eating and eating out tend to post their reviews after just one visit.

On the other hand, it's often said that the traditional model of weekly food reviews (in print) is fast becoming obsolete in the face of more real-time forms of information dissemination like the Internet and the blogosphere.  (Case in point: for those of us who follow these things closely, Fabricant's 'Off the Menu' column seems strangely behind the times).  In addition, restaurants these days seem much more responsive to drastic change in the face of a particularly bad review -- either on the Internet or in print.  So even a well-researched Times piece could be obsolete the week after it goes to print. 

Thus, I would almost propose ditching the once-a-week review altogether.  I think the Times should adopt the Diner's Journal model and have its food critics post regular updates of their dining experiences in a more thoughtful and detailed manner than Bruni does on his blog now.  This would give readers the benefit of more real-time information on what's going on in the restaurant scene, with that information coming from well-funded critics who can afford to eat often, eat plenty, and eat well.  Basically, it's taking the current world of food blogging and turning it pro.

←

You make excellent points and may have hit upon something. The value of the internet in general though is not necessarily the opinion of any particular individual as that is still pretty subjective, but the general sense one can get over a range of opinions. Individual opinions are good in so far as they are calibratable to one's own tastes and experiences. The best of the critics are such not necessarily because their taste is superior, but because they are able to convey their positions accurately and clearly and one can get a good sense of the food and a restaurant through the critic's experience.

[foodhunter]

Definitely agreed. In no way am I implying that Bruni's position as the Times' lead critic makes his palate or opinion of a restaurant inherently superior to the average diner. All I'm saying is that he enjoys the benefit of multiple visits, multiple dishes, and a knowledge of dining that supercedes that of the average diner because it's his job. He eats on someone else's dime, which allows him to eat out often and eat well. If only we could take that advantage and transfer it to the real-time reporting format that is the Internet food world. With that source of information -- in addition to the purely non-professional opinions already prevalent in the food blogosphere -- I think we would all be better informed and better able to sift through the PR hype of a lot of new (and old) places.

Your point about taking a large sampling of many opinions on the Internet -- in essence, polling the market consensus -- about a place is certainly valid. But that only works if the market is composed of a diverse set of opinions. That is, from people of different backgrounds, different tastes, and different economic means. As it is, I still find most food blogs are written as hobbies, by authors with scant credentials to opine too authoritatively on the quality of a restaurant beyond his/her own happiness/satisfaction with the experience. These are usually good reads, but don't provide much useful information for the more serious diners among us. This argument is along the same lines used in Mario Batali's recent rant on Eater.com about the food blogosphere, though we don't necessarily arrive at the same conclusion.

[oakapple]

Definitely agreed.  In no way am I implying that Bruni's position as the Times' lead critic makes his palate or opinion of a restaurant inherently superior to the average diner.  All I'm saying is that he enjoys the benefit of multiple visits, multiple dishes, and a knowledge of dining that supercedes that of the average diner because it's his job.  He eats on someone else's dime, which allows him to eat out often and eat well.  If only we could take that advantage and transfer it to the real-time reporting format that is the Internet food world.

Yes, I've often thought the same. When the Diner's Journal was converted from a weekly newpaper column to a blog, Bruni promised that it would give him more space to write about restaurants that don't get reviewed. But the Diner's Journal has largely failed at that. He hardly ever posts "meal reviews" on the blog any more. We know he's eating at tons of places that never get reviewed, but he never tells us about them.

Your point about taking a large sampling of many opinions on the Internet -- in essence, polling the market consensus -- about a place is certainly valid.  But that only works if the market is composed of a diverse set of opinions.  That is, from people of different backgrounds, different tastes, and different economic means.  As it is, I still find most food blogs are written as hobbies, by authors with scant credentials to opine too authoritatively on the quality of a restaurant beyond his/her own happiness/satisfaction with the experience.  These are usually good reads, but don't provide much useful information for the more serious diners among us.  This argument is along the same lines used in Mario Batali's recent rant on Eater.com about the food blogosphere, though we don't necessarily arrive at the same conclusion.

←

Batali's rant aside, I think you can get a pretty good feel for a restaurant if you sample all of the Internet sources. Yes indeed, most food blogs are written as hobbies, and many of them aren't that well informed. But collectively, the bloggers are at least as reliable as Bruni, and possibly more so, assuming the restaurant has been widely written about.

[foodhunter]

Marc, your comment about Diner's Journal was timely. Bruni often laments the limited space he has to review restaurants (only 52 columns per year, just one or two restaurants per column, in a city with over 13,000 restaurants, etc etc). But it's hard to sympathize when faced with another of his irrelevant blog entries -- his latest on the Top Chef 3 premiere is a complete waste of time. Add to that entries that simly reiterate what he's already written in the Wednesday paper, his random musings on the Philadelphia dining scene, and his multiple updates on a pointless survey about diners' attitudes towards reservations. It almost feels like New York restaurants are the last thing he wants to talk about these days.

[ulterior epicure]

Frank Bruni, NY Times Restaurant Critic cum Movie Critic.

[Nathan]

Bruni used to write movie reviews.

the formal review of Ratatouille was done by A.O. Scott in the movie section (he absolutely loved it...a verdict I concur with).

Bruni ruminates more on the movie and its relationship to the responsibilities of a restaurant critic on his blog.

Edited July 10, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[ulterior epicure]

Bruni used to write movie reviews.

the formal review of Ratatouille was done by A.O. Scott in the movie section (he absolutely loved it...a verdict I concur with).

Bruni ruminates more on the movie and its relationship to the responsibilities of a restaurant critic on his blog.

←

Yes, I knew that, I just thought it was interesting that he got to do both with "Ratatouille." I've only seen previews, but everyone who's seen it (not you, included) highly recommends it.

u.e.

[Leonard Kim]

Many of you probably know this, but Pete Wells is up this week on the NYT's "Talk to the Newsroom" feature. I'm sure you folks can do better than the questions that've been asked so far.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/business...?pagewanted=all

[oakapple]

Many of you probably know this, but Pete Wells is up this week on the NYT's "Talk to the Newsroom" feature.  I'm sure you folks can do better than the questions that've been asked so far.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/business...?pagewanted=all

←

Well, he's not going to say anything truly provocative about the reviewing policy.

Among the questions answered so far, the one surprise was that Peter Meehan and Florence Fabricant are freelancers. I mean, both of them have what appears to be a near full-time job, and FloFab has been there forever.