Jump to content


Photo

Alan Richman 10-Best List


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#31 oakapple

oakapple

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 04:22 PM

Has everyone really been tricked? Daniel has: 3 Michelin Stars, 4 NYT stars, is one of NYMag's top ten NYC restaurants, in Richman's top 10, is 16 on the Plotz list ("experience" diners), and is number 2 on Zagat (anyone who fills out a survey), and oakapple has rated it highly. While I'm not disputing what people here are saying, I trust MF more than most other sources (even on pastrami), it can't be an unreasonable choice.

That's sorta what I'm getting at. When Daniel gets that many good reviews, it can't be "as close to objectively indefensible as possible for a professional reviewer."
Marc Shepherd
Editor, New York Journal

#32 Rich

Rich

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,774 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 04:29 PM


Has everyone really been tricked? Daniel has: 3 Michelin Stars, 4 NYT stars, is one of NYMag's top ten NYC restaurants, in Richman's top 10, is 16 on the Plotz list ("experience" diners), and is number 2 on Zagat (anyone who fills out a survey), and oakapple has rated it highly. While I'm not disputing what people here are saying, I trust MF more than most other sources (even on pastrami), it can't be an unreasonable choice.

That's sorta what I'm getting at. When Daniel gets that many good reviews, it can't be "as close to objectively indefensible as possible for a professional reviewer."

Disagree unless the professional is an ostrich.

#33 Anthony Bonner

Anthony Bonner

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,954 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 04:32 PM

One thing to consider would be the uproar if Pete Wells two-starred Daniel. And anyone who panned it who wasn't in the top echelon would immediately be dismissed as an attention seeker.
Why not mayo?

#34 Rich

Rich

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,774 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 04:38 PM

And anyone who panned it who wasn't in the top echelon would immediately be dismissed as an attention seeker.

Very true AB and I think even the top echelons would be dismissed - politics and poker.

#35 oakapple

oakapple

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 04:48 PM


When Daniel gets that many good reviews, it can't be "as close to objectively indefensible as possible for a professional reviewer."

Disagree unless the professional is an ostrich.

But because practically all of them have said the same, you're basically saying they're all ostriches, which is a very different thing than criticizing one reviewer in particular (Richman).
Marc Shepherd
Editor, New York Journal

#36 Wilfrid

Wilfrid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 69,673 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 04:48 PM

There are enough people speaking highly enough of Daniel to make it a sensible choice. It isn't wrong for this list, just because you or I personally wouldn't have chosen it. It's not an objectively indefensible choice, the way (for example) "One if By Land, Two if By Sea" would be.


All I said was that Del Posto was "more plausible."

#37 Wilfrid

Wilfrid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 69,673 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 04:54 PM

Having eaten at Daniel three times*, I'm convinced it's not a top tier NYC restaurant. It's not terrible, but simply a good restaurant that is overpriced, full of itself and leaves one with an uncomfortable experience.


Not sure how often I've eaten there: at least four times. It's not that it's bad. There are good things about it, as there should be at that price. But every time there's been poorly prepared ingredients, or plates which appeared to have been left sitting around before delivery, or distracted or unwilling service, or other stuff.

It doesn't offer a four star experience across the board, although I am sure it does to some guests.

I certainly am not saying it's an "indefensible" or "unreasonable" choice. Based on one meal, I found Del Posto more enjoyable with less of a production line feel.

#38 Wilfrid

Wilfrid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 69,673 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 05:11 PM

One thing to consider would be the uproar if Pete Wells two-starred Daniel. And anyone who panned it who wasn't in the top echelon would immediately be dismissed as an attention seeker.


Well I think it's a three star; it just can't operate at the same level as its comparatively smaller competitors.

#39 Rich

Rich

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,774 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 05:28 PM



When Daniel gets that many good reviews, it can't be "as close to objectively indefensible as possible for a professional reviewer."

Disagree unless the professional is an ostrich.

But because practically all of them have said the same, you're basically saying they're all ostriches, which is a very different thing than criticizing one reviewer in particular (Richman).

But there are many, many people here who have contradicted those thoughts. Remember, ostriches do mingle in herds - not alone.

#40 Rich

Rich

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,774 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 05:31 PM


One thing to consider would be the uproar if Pete Wells two-starred Daniel. And anyone who panned it who wasn't in the top echelon would immediately be dismissed as an attention seeker.


Well I think it's a three star; it just can't operate at the same level as its comparatively smaller competitors.

If we're applying those ridiculous stars, my thoughts aren't far from yours - 2.5/3, but nowhere near a four.

#41 Wilfrid

Wilfrid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 69,673 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 05:38 PM



When Daniel gets that many good reviews, it can't be "as close to objectively indefensible as possible for a professional reviewer."

Disagree unless the professional is an ostrich.

But because practically all of them have said the same, you're basically saying they're all ostriches, which is a very different thing than criticizing one reviewer in particular (Richman).


Surely you're not forgetting the result when the restaurant famously failed to spot William Grimes: "A duck confit, one day's ''plat classique,'' arrived tough, dry and overly salty." Three stars.