Jump to content

The Bruni Thread


Guest Aaron T

Recommended Posts

"It's a deli for crying out loud and should be under that price."

 

"I have never said that a deli shdn't charge more than $25."

 

"Food at a deli should be under $25."

 

???

 

Are you saying that in your opinion, delis should all be at a price point below $25? I understand of course that they have the right in the free market to charge whatever they want - but are you saying that the 2nd Ave Deli is overpriced because delis should not exist at this price point? What's a deli, as you see them? Do you think it's only one thing?

 

How much is a pastrami sandwich at Katz's, or Carnegie?

 

eta: they're all about 14 bucks.

 

But are you saying that only restaurants above a certain price point and that DESERVE to be above a certain price point, should be reviewed in the NYT star system?

I think you should read the thread. What makes you think I'm going to summarize the discussion for you?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 7.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

And I can tell you FOR A FACT that after its one-star review appeared, Ici had a lot MORE customers than before.

I guess there are not many NYT reviewed restaurants in Brooklyn to begin with; I guess any starred establishment will make some news. So what? Doesn't really refute my argument that a one starred place isn't of much merit in the grander scheme of things.

 

I guess I should cancel my subscription to the Times, because obviously it isn't written for such as me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And I can tell you FOR A FACT that after its one-star review appeared, Ici had a lot MORE customers than before.

I guess there are not many NYT reviewed restaurants in Brooklyn to begin with; I guess any starred establishment will make some news. So what? Doesn't really refute my argument that a one starred place isn't of much merit in the grander scheme of things.

 

I guess I should cancel my subscription to the Times, because obviously it isn't written for such as me.

Of the 222 restaurants that the NYT lists for Brooklyn, 5 have ** and 10 have *.

 

Given these stats, a starred review is newsworthy, but again doesn't make much of a dent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
...But it is a restaurant, with a full bar and table service and ingredients that would make it impossible to be $25 and under.

 

Have you been there, or read the menu?

 

I think you're really saying that it doesn't warrant a review because it's not haute cuisine. Does Sripraphai warrant a review, in your view?

 

Should reviews be done based on price, or what you perceive as what the price should be, or what?

I thought the ingredients were reported to be not very good.

 

Yes, I've been--to the original location. Yes, I've read the menu. (I've already mentioned the steak that's on the menu, upthread.) I've not said anything about 'haute'. As for Sripraphai, I can't say, never been. No, not based on price. No, re what I perceive the price should be.

 

Are you saying that in your opinion, delis should all be at a price point below $25? I understand of course that they have the right in the free market to charge whatever they want - but are you saying that the 2nd Ave Deli is overpriced because delis should not exist at this price point? What's a deli, as you see them? Do you think it's only one thing?

 

How much is a pastrami sandwich at Katz's, or Carnegie?

 

eta: they're all about 14 bucks.

 

But are you saying that only restaurants above a certain price point and that DESERVE to be above a certain price point, should be reviewed in the NYT star system?

 

Sandwiches at delis are around $14, as you say yourself. As I've said again and again, a 'restaurant' that serves sandwiches should be in the $25 and under (on the bases that they are not true restaurants in my book and in view of the price). I never said 2AD was overpriced. I never said delis shd not exist at 2AD's price point. What's a deli? I'd have thought that was obvious. Last question: My answer is no.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So then what are the criteria, in your view, that a restaurant would have to meet in order to warrant a review under the star system?

 

As for the 2AD, as far as I know, only Rose, Steve and I have been there (among the MFers) since it re-opened, which does not a significant sample make. And I thought the chopped liver and tongue (and gribenes!) were all excellent. More info on the 2AD thread, including a discussion of what is a deli, which is not so obvious.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A "proper" restaurant with one star is NOT necessarily serving mediocre food. An unprepossessing neighborhood place with a limited wine list and cheerful but rudimentary service with one star could be serving quite good food, but still only deserve one star.

Generally not, IMO.

 

What you really DO appear to be saying is that the star system should apply only to "$60 and Up" restaurants. That would have the advantage of making the star system completely consistent internally. It would have the extreme disadvantage of privileging one form of dining -- and, indeed, a minority form of dining, and even worse one whose enjoyment is limited by considerations of class and money -- over all others, for no apparent reason.

No. I want the one and two star "proper" restaurants to be reviewed. I personally would avoid them because I can do better at home but I realize that not everyone has the time or the inclination to cook.

 

What if I were to propose that the Times give stars for music reviews? And what if I were to say that, since you can't compare unlike things, only classical music should get stars, since only that music has the complexity and seriousness of purpose I deem starworthy? All other music can be reviewed, but stars would be reserved for only the form I deem worthy.* Music fans who don't appreciate classical music would accuse me of elitism. I don't see how your view of restaurant ratings is any different.

Maybe I haven't been clear. I do want cheap restaurants to be reviewed and rated just not on the same scale. Introduce a fork scale based solely on deliciousness for example. Katz's and Grand Sechuan would get four forks, Carnegie and Charlie Mom would get one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A "proper" restaurant with one star is NOT necessarily serving mediocre food. An unprepossessing neighborhood place with a limited wine list and cheerful but rudimentary service with one star could be serving quite good food, but still only deserve one star.

Generally not, IMO.

 

What you really DO appear to be saying is that the star system should apply only to "$60 and Up" restaurants. That would have the advantage of making the star system completely consistent internally. It would have the extreme disadvantage of privileging one form of dining -- and, indeed, a minority form of dining, and even worse one whose enjoyment is limited by considerations of class and money -- over all others, for no apparent reason.

No. I want the one and two star "proper" restaurants to be reviewed. I personally would avoid them because I can do better at home but I realize that not everyone has the time or the inclination to cook.

 

What if I were to propose that the Times give stars for music reviews? And what if I were to say that, since you can't compare unlike things, only classical music should get stars, since only that music has the complexity and seriousness of purpose I deem starworthy? All other music can be reviewed, but stars would be reserved for only the form I deem worthy.* Music fans who don't appreciate classical music would accuse me of elitism. I don't see how your view of restaurant ratings is any different.

Maybe I haven't been clear. I do want cheap restaurants to be reviewed and rated just not on the same scale. Introduce a fork scale based solely on deliciousness for example. Katz's and Grand Sechuan would get four forks, Carnegie and Charlie Mom would get one.

 

 

But what makes a restaurant "cheap?" Just the price? What about a Chinese restaurant that charges exhorbitant prices, for example?

Link to post
Share on other sites
To belabor this further, the problem is that you don't account for the fact that not all "proper" restaurants aim for four stars.

That is entirely irrelevant. All I want to know is the relative quality of a restaurant. I want to know whether Little Owl is better or worse than Hearth (not whether it's better or worse than Le Bernadin, usually). Because restaurants of that genre are rated on a four star scale, there is sufficient flexibility to draw significant conclusions from star rating. If the rating is the same they're of similar quality (not identical, of course). However, when all delis are rated one star because that's all that they can reasonably aspire to I have no way of knowing that Katz's is significantly better than Carnegie.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If someplace cheap and presumably relatively unambitious gets one star, that means that it must be very good for what it is.

 

If someplace expensive and presumably relatively ambitious gets one star, that means that it must be pretty bad for what it is.

 

one-star for a cheap restaurant means its pretty good while one star for an expensive formal restaurant means that it sucks.

And it really doesn't seem silly to you that the same rating can mean different things for different restaurants?

Link to post
Share on other sites
And I have to add, among the many reasons I think the star system is counterproductive and ought to be abolished, one of the foremost ones is that it discourages people from actually READING the reviews, as opposed to just looking at the star ratings. But that doesn't mean that that the review eligibility criteria should be changed from what they've always been in order to accommodate such laziness.

So I have to read 300 reviews before deciding we should go to Per Se for our next wedding anniversary?

Link to post
Share on other sites
So then what are the criteria, in your view, that a restaurant would have to meet in order to warrant a review under the star system?

For me, as I've said over and over again, it's a relatively formal restaurant with a largish wine list where one would expect to spend a couple of hours over a full meal.

 

And use a different instrument (a revamped and renamed $25 and under) for places that don't fall under that rubric.

 

The problem is that the star system is based not just on food but on service, ambiance and, though they don't state it explicitly, wine list. Therefore any place that serves excellent food but makes no effort in those other areas is not well served. I keep seeing these accusations of elitism but I think most of us on this side of the argument want to increase coverage of those other genres of restaurant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...