605 replies to this topic

[Wilfrid]

No, of course not, it was a point worth making - which he made.

I didn't notice the print critics making it. I've not been to this place, and you can add it to a lengthy list of Italian restaurants I've not visited, but I find the oakapple diagnosis profoundly plausible.

[Anthony Bonner]

No, of course not, it was a point worth making - which he made.

I didn't notice the print critics making it. I've not been to this place, and you can add it to a lengthy list of Italian restaurants I've not visited, but I find the oakapple diagnosis profoundly plausible.

you miss what I meant - his theory seems so obviously correct it would seem not worth debating as any reasonable person would agree.

[Lex]

his theory seems so obviously correct it would seem not worth debating as any reasonable person would agree.

Come on. This is Mouthfuls.

[Anthony Bonner]

his theory seems so obviously correct it would seem not worth debating as any reasonable person would agree.

Come on. This is Mouthfuls.

I know - that's how obvious it is.

[Wilfrid]

you miss what I meant - his theory seems so obviously correct it would seem not worth debating as any reasonable person would agree.

I haven't seen it enunciated in other reviews, but I don't suggest we debate it either.

[oakapple]

It's not just the price, though, is it? As pointed out elsewhere, SHO serves a three course lunch for $30 with a full choice of dishes for each course. Its $69 dinner price is only a moderate step up from Torrisi's no choice menu. It has a lot to do, surely, with the style and attitude of the place.

I think Oakapple makes a telling point: if the same food was served at a conventionally appointed Italian restaurant like Locanda Verde, would it get the same attention?

The thing is, at Locanda Verdi just one antipasto, one pasta, and one entrée, will set you back around $60. Here you get five antipasti, a pasta, and entrée, and dessert, for $50. So yeah, if Carmellini started serving all of that for $50, it would get the usual "game changer" attention from eater.com. But Carmellini's kitchen is better, and his overheads are higher. He can't serve all of that for just $50.

For what it's worth, the blog post with photos is now up.

[Wilfrid]

Of course. And again I'm reminded of a conversation I had, last fall I guess, with a very good chef who despaired at the attention given to restaurants who simply weren't spending the money which he considered appropriate on ingredients, good kitchen staff, service, etc. Nothing to do with Torrisi, I emphasize, just a general complaint.

[taion]

Of course. And again I'm reminded of a conversation I had, last fall I guess, with a very good chef who despaired at the attention given to restaurants who simply weren't spending the money which he considered appropriate on ingredients, good kitchen staff, service, etc. Nothing to do with Torrisi, I emphasize, just a general complaint.

It's pretty clear that there are some elements like decor that most people here seem to believe that it's okay to cut, such as with the Momofukus. Obvious professionalism of service likewise, given the tolerance of hipster waiters. Elaborate platings seem to be okay to drop, too. Lots of these things skirt awfully close to the boundaries of the things you mentioned that chef noting. Where's the line?

[oakapple]

It's pretty clear that there are some elements like decor that most people here seem to believe that it's okay to cut, such as with the Momofukus. Obvious professionalism of service likewise, given the tolerance of hipster waiters. Elaborate platings seem to be okay to drop, too. Lots of these things skirt awfully close to the boundaries of the things you mentioned that chef noting. Where's the line?

I don't mind a lower standard of service, at a restaurant that's priced appropriately—which this is. I wouldn't go there on Mother's Day, but it has its place.

But then there's the prose in Sifton's review: "terrific new restaurant." "[T]he dishes are no longer humble. They are edible paintings, comestible short stories." "[T]he restaurant shows itself to be towering in its ambition."

And so forth. The Momofukus, at their best, really do/did "tower in their ambition." This place does not.

[Stone]

Of course. And again I'm reminded of a conversation I had, last fall I guess, with a very good chef who despaired at the attention given to restaurants who simply weren't spending the money which he considered appropriate on ingredients, good kitchen staff, service, etc. Nothing to do with Torrisi, I emphasize, just a general complaint.

I know there are a lot of restaurants out there, so it's hard to generalize, but I thought the whole schtick nowadays was making basic food with really expensive "sourced" ingredients?

[TaliesinNYC]

It's not just the price, though, is it? As pointed out elsewhere, SHO serves a three course lunch for $30 with a full choice of dishes for each course. Its $69 dinner price is only a moderate step up from Torrisi's no choice menu. It has a lot to do, surely, with the style and attitude of the place.

I think Oakapple makes a telling point: if the same food was served at a conventionally appointed Italian restaurant like Locanda Verde, would it get the same attention?

The thing is, at Locanda Verdi just one antipasto, one pasta, and one entrée, will set you back around $60. Here you get five antipasti, a pasta, and entrée, and dessert, for $50. So yeah, if Carmellini started serving all of that for $50, it would get the usual "game changer" attention from eater.com. But Carmellini's kitchen is better, and his overheads are higher. He can't serve all of that for just $50.

For what it's worth, the blog post with photos is now up.

Fully agree with the closer in your review.*

In some ways Torrisi is even more difficult to get in than Ko. To get a first seating, I'd have to arrive by 4:30 it sounds like and wait for 90 minutes. Fat chance I'll be doing that on any day of the week.

And I'm not going to wait for 4 hours to experience food that may or may not be a crap shoot. (Which is the impression I received from reading NYJ's entry. You *might* have aces in every hole or, more likely, it'll be six of one and half a dozen of the other.) Hell, I might as well just go to Lupa instead and call it a night.


* I have never been (nor will I willingly go) to Torrisi. I'm just not that patient, especially when my stomach demands instant gratification.

[Lex]

In some ways Torrisi is even more difficult to get in than Ko. To get a first seating, I'd have to arrive by 4:30 it sounds like and wait for 90 minutes. Fat chance I'll be doing that on any day of the week.

Actually, it's 5:30 and that's on a Friday night. Oakie:

If you want to dine here, your best option is to show up at around 5:30 p.m. Your margin for error is slim. On a Friday evening, there were already about a dozen people in line at that hour.

I bet on a Tuesday or a Wednesday that 5:45 would work. You still may not want to go but I thought you'd want to know that.

[Sneakeater]

That was a great review. Maybe your best.

[TaliesinNYC]

In some ways Torrisi is even more difficult to get in than Ko. To get a first seating, I'd have to arrive by 4:30 it sounds like and wait for 90 minutes. Fat chance I'll be doing that on any day of the week.

Actually, it's 5:30 and that's on a Friday night. Oakie:

If you want to dine here, your best option is to show up at around 5:30 p.m. Your margin for error is slim. On a Friday evening, there were already about a dozen people in line at that hour.

I bet on a Tuesday or a Wednesday that 5:45 would work. You still may not want to go but I thought you'd want to know that.

4:30 so I can have a reasonable chance of being within the first dozen parties. I seriously doubt folks converge at 5:30. If I showed up at 5:30, that might already be too late.

This is New York. People who would rather do something else elsewhere wait in line here, because it's the thing to do.

[nuxvomica]

4:30 so I can have a reasonable chance of being within the first dozen parties. I seriously doubt folks converge at 5:30. If I showed up at 5:30, that might already be too late.

oh, i wouldn't demonize it. between 5-5:30 should be perfectly fine - i doubt anyone is camping out there 90 min before the opening