Lost in the Stars      12/10/2008  

A Chef Speaks Out Against the Starry Menace

A three-and-a-half star restaurant? Photo courtesy New York Times

The city’s chefs have been in an uproar this past week, seething in private at the three stars given to Ssam Bar in its re-review. They can’t decide what they hate worse: that a restaurant that is already overlauded and wildly successful got a re-review, or the fact that what is essentially a lunch counter was given the same rating as Gramercy Tavern, Alto, and so many other restaurants that actually make coffee and have busboys. One such chef speaks out to the Feedbag, but, cowed by fear of reprisal, has insisted on staying anonymous.

Hi, I am a chef in the city and would like to remain anonymous for obvious reasons. However, I would like to voice my opinion on the Times Star system for reviewing restaurants. I think the Times needs to consider adding a half point system or a fifth star. The grading of restaurants lately does not make sense. How can a restaurant as refined as Eleven Madison Park, Picholine and Corton fit on the same level as restaurants as casual as A Voce, Scarpetta and the very baffling Momofuku Ssam? I am not saying they aren’t all great restaurants in their own right, but they are not equals. By installing a half star, one could differentiate between them. In my opinion, Blue Hill, Scarpetta and Craft should be 3 stars, Corton, Picholine, and Eleven Madison, 3 and a half, and Momofuku Ssam, 2 and a half. By grouping all of these establishments under the same 3 stars, they are misleading patrons. Isn’t that supposed to be the idea of these reviews? By awarding three stars to restaurants so disparate, they’re making the Times review system meaningless, and that hurts everybody.

Comments

9 Responses to “A Chef Speaks Out Against the Starry Menace”

  1. Aloysius on December 10th, 2008 1:25 pm

    We all need to remember the small print:

    WHAT THE STARS MEAN Ratings range from zero to four stars and reflect the reviewer’s reaction to food, ambience and service, with price taken into consideration. Menu listings and prices are subject to change.

    So refined, elegant restaurants are evaluated versus other refined, elegant restaurants, casual v. casual, etc. A street cart could get four stars. That doesn’t mean it’s equal to Per Se, it means it is the ideal hot dog cart.

    Not a perfect system, but I think it’s fair.

  2. chankonabe on December 10th, 2008 2:03 pm

    For the system to work better they should add a second modifier. and the stars should labeled not “awarded” by the prices the restaurants charge. The reviewer comes up with a price range that each makes sense for the cost of dinner at a one, two, three star experience and a second modifier (good, great, ugly, whatever) enables the reviewer to tell the reader what kind of job the restaurant did in providing that experience. Grammercy Tavern is always going to be a three star restaurant, is it doing an excellent or poor job at being a 3 star is the question.

  3. anonymous on December 10th, 2008 2:11 pm

    I think the anti-Chang backlash is now more tiring than the pro-Chang gushing.

  4. WhoMe on December 10th, 2008 2:31 pm

    Refined? you mean, “cheaper” food can’t be refined and just as good tasting? Because Momofuku isn’t “re-fined” means it’s not as good as Jean-George?

    That’s a bunch of B.S…

    Giving the same “star rating” system does NOT mean you are comparing a hot-dog cart to Jean-Georges….it means you are evaluating the food, service, and atmosphere for what it is (and what the food, service, and atmosphere SHOULD be for that particular restaurant)

    If the reader of reviews is ignorant enough to see a hot dog cart get 3 star and a so-called “refined” restaurant get a 2 star, and infer and compare the two equally, well, they are ignorant and it’s not the reviewers fault. No one in their right mind would say “oh, well insert “refined” restaurant got 2 stars, but hotdog cart got 3, let’s go there instead!”

    I think these “refined” chefs and owners are just getting pissy they dump loads of money, work, and effort into something and getting the same “end result” as others who don’t and have different priorities.

  5. Sneakeater on December 10th, 2008 3:49 pm

    The star system is retarded.

    If you added half stars, then it would be retarded but with half stars.

  6. Sneakeater on December 10th, 2008 3:52 pm

    Also, I think Ssam Bar is its own special case, but the confusion arising from places like Scarpetta being “three star” restaurants is the fault of the current Times reviewer, not the star system. As much as I hate the star system, it is possible for it to be applied a lot more sensibly than it currently is.

  7. New York Journal on December 10th, 2008 4:40 pm

    If Bruni had applied the star system more sensibly, then a special case for Momofuku Ssäm Bar might actually mean something. When you give two stars to Double Crown the previous week, then all three stars means is “better than Double Crown,” which ain’t saying much.

    It’s notable that some people thought the original two-star review for Ssäm Bar was an insult. I don’t think he meant it that way. But when you look at the way he has handed out two-star reviews like candy, they almost have a point.

  8. Sneakeater on December 10th, 2008 5:10 pm

    I couldn’t agree with you more.

  9. grewish on December 11th, 2008 11:59 am

    always like to hear Paul Liebrants opinion

Leave a Reply