nsxtasy wrote:Keep in mind that 3 stars is not the top rating, and not many places receive 4 or even 3.5.

But that's still no reason to hand out three stars like coupons for Subway. Four and even 3.5 stars, are theoretically reserved for those standard-bearer, world-class restaurants that define, in a sense, the culinary scene of a city. (Trotters, Alinea, Tru, etc.) So, of course, 4 stars are rarely given and should be. These restaurants are doing something exceptional, even comparing them to other restaurants nationally, or even internationally (especially in the case of Alinea).

Three stars, for me, used to be reserved for spectacular Chicago restaurants. By "Chicago restaurants," I mean, places that aren't necessarily making tracks nationally or are ground-breaking, but are exceptional in their own right for Chicago. The places you would frequent even after years of living here.

Therefore, for me, a three-star restaurant should be one of the top restaurants in Chicago. Lately, I wouldn't classify Vettel's three-starers as that. For example, I like Cafe Matou, but I wouldn't rate it as one of the top restaurants in Chicago.

jesteinf wrote:Didn't Metromix used to have a search feature where you could search by star ratings? I'd be curious to look at the full list of 3 stars to get more perspective.

I dunno, but here's a google search string to do it:

Code: Select all

"review by phil vettel: 3 stars" site:metromix.chicagotribune.com

n.b. you can change it to:

Code: Select all

"review by phil vettel: * stars" site:metromix.chicagotribune.com

and get all of his reviews. It's a shame metromix doesn't include the name of the restaurant in the title, though.

jesteinf wrote:Didn't Metromix used to have a search feature where you could search by star ratings? I'd be curious to look at the full list of 3 stars to get more perspective.

Sort of. On their "recommended page", they have links to restaurants with three stars and with four stars. However, the programming of their website is faulty, because those pages are not kept up to date as additional restaurants are reviewed. For example, Avenues was given four stars almost two years ago, but still does not show up on the link to four-star restaurants.

Thanks gleam.

Well, here's the breakdown in terms of # of hits on Google:

1 star - 9 hits
2 stars - 309 hits
3 stars - 309 hits
4 stars - 49 hits

Obviously there's some double-counting and other stuff going on here, but still interesting.

I have to say that I'm confused by all of this focus on a professional reviewer who works for a publication in a medium of rapidly waning influence. I'd say that the dining experiences of a professional newspaper reviewer like Vettel or Bruno rarely reflect reality.

We're all surrounded here at LTHForum by hundreds of skilled unpaid reviewers with impressive writing skills and excellent palates. Even better, our fellow reviewers are willing to engage, discuss, and interact.

I do care what Vettel and Bruno have to say, but not nearly as much as I do about the opinions of the people that I've been reading for years on LTHForum.

Best,
Michael

Another three star that struck me as odd: Quartino. I say it's odd, because Avec is only two stars. I'd place Quartino at or below the level of Avec, so I'm rather surprised to see it at three.

I think the whopping 9 restaurants with one star does attest to at least some grade inflation by Vettel.

And yeah, there's some double counting. If you search for 3.5 stars, for instance, you see the Ritz pop up twice.

From this thread and elsewhere it sounds like AD has a lot to offer (lamb, great desserts) but is also extremely inconsistent, and certainly consistency should be an attribute of an "Excellent" restaurant. Determining consistency, of course, would require several visits from a reviewer, and this may not be feasible given deadlines and such, although it does speak to the benefits of occasional re-visits to highly reviewed restaurants.

Nevertheless, the plating exposed in GAF's photos was just awful, and would not only cost AD a star in my book, but probably would've gotten them kicked off of "Top Chef" at a very early stage.

gleam wrote:And yeah, there's some double counting. If you search for 3.5 stars, for instance, you see the Ritz pop up twice.

Furthermore, although the Dining Room at the Ritz-Carlton was open at the time it was reviewed, it is no longer open. (It is only being used for private banquet functions.)

eatchicago wrote:I have to say that I'm confused by all of this focus on a professional reviewer who works for a publication in a medium of rapidly waning influence. I'd say that the dining experiences of a professional newspaper reviewer like Vettel or Bruno rarely reflect reality.

We're all surrounded here at LTHForum by hundreds of skilled unpaid reviewers with impressive writing skills and excellent palates. Even better, our fellow reviewers are willing to engage, discuss, and interact.

I do care what Vettel and Bruno have to say, but not nearly as much as I do about the opinions of the people that I've been reading for years on LTHForum.

Best,
Michael

I totally agree with just about everything here, except for the fact that I think a lot of people still put a lot of weight into Tribune, Sun-Times, Chicago Magazine, etc reviews. The people here on LTH represent a small (but vocal) part of the population that spends their dining dollars here in Chicago. For those who aren't part of the online food community a typical exchange will usually go something like:

"Hey, where should we go to dinner on Saturday night?"
"Let's go to [fill in restaurant here], Phil Vettel just gave it 3 stars"

As long as that conversation is still happening, it's important to hold professional reviewers accountable for their work.

Why all the talk about stars?? I poised objection to the three star rating for Lula Cafe and it seemed to bother a lot of people. Vettel and Bruno are in need of some perspective and some of the contributors of this board as well. Everyone is biased by there personal preference.

What are the qualities of a four star restaurant? does need to have valet? what type of china? Does food out weighs service or does service out weight food or are they equal? What is the criteria used by food writers? Below is a link that comments on the food writers of the Chicago area.

http://slammedmagazine.com/inthisissue/ ... dcrit.html

Eat Chicago wrote:

"I do care what Vettel and Bruno have to say, but not nearly as much as I do about the opinions of the people that I've been reading for years on LTHForum."

Me too, but there are a heck of a lot of people who still do rely upon these reviews.

I guess Vettel's comment regarding Chicago can be turned around on him. If we do want to become a respected food town, we need to have respected, independent and unbiased food critics. Can you see the New York Times or the L.A. Times writing something like that?

MAG wrote:If we do want to become a respected food town

We already are a respected food town. At least as much as Los Angeles, if not more so.

I very much agree - I was simply mirroring the last paragraph of Vettel's column, where he seems to suggest that we are not yet there.

mkiss wrote:Based on how AD was portrayed prior to the doors opening, they want to be in your grouping of the three stars. Do I rate it with your examples of the 2 stars...no...I for one would rather eat at Avec by far than AD.

And therein lies the star dilemma. Part of me wishes there was an "out of" qualifier, so maybe Alinea gets 4 out of 4 and Tru gets 3 out of 4; Blackbird gets 3 out of 3 and Aigre Doux gets 2 out of 3. It seems a bit awkward to have one "star standard" when there are so many elements of the place that are being evaluated.

Here in KC, at the Star, they don't give an overall star rating. Instead, they give three: one for food, one for service, and one for atmosphere. In some senses, I find that a fairer way of evaluating restaurants. It flies in the face of convention, however, and makes it a little more difficult to tell which are the "three star" restaurants.

For what it's worth, complaints about the Star's critic are legion, and often justified, in my opinion.

Not to breathe more life into a thread that wants to die, but Mr. Vettel did a segment on AD on WGN that can be seen here: http://wgntv.trb.com/
It is absolutely gushing with superlatives. I have not eaten there, so I do not know if his effusive praise is justified. However, some of the dishes shown in the segment do not look particularly well presented (as in GAF's photos). One would assume they knew the dishes were being shot for TV. I think the owners, who seem very charming and sincere when interviewed, may need to tweak their plating technique (PV:That last phrase rhymes, by the way). If I am paying fairly big bucks for short ribs in a nice restaurant, I would like the plate to look better than the short ribs I can get at the Greek coffee shop down the street. In fact, the only somewhat negative comment Vettel makes, is that one of the desserts "is not much to look at" (actually I thought that dish looked pretty good). Again, my opinion is just pure conjecture based on this one short video segment, and is not a comment on the quality of the food, just its appearance on television.

We went to Aigre Doux tonight. I thought it was good, but I don't think it lived up the hype it's been getting (3-stars in the Trib, Best New Chef in Chicago Magazine, etc.)

I started with an appetizer of white asparagus, truffle poached egg, banon, and brioche. The asparagus was wonderful and probably could have benefited from a more basic preparation. The truffle poached egg did give the dish a nice richness and mixed well with the vinaigrette that the dish is prepared with. I also had a few bites of the hamachi and avocado salad, which may have been a hair better than my asparagus appetizer.

For my main course I had the maple glazed duck breast. While the flavors were quite good (the maple glaze was excellent, and the various spices used in the preparation of the dish made for some interesting flavors), the actual cooking of the duck was poorly executed. The breast was cooked a bit past my desired medium-rare, but the fat hadn't really been rendered from under the skin and the skin itself was on the rubbery side. On the plus side, the duck came with some wild rice that was really good.

For dessert I had the much-lauded sticky toffee pudding. Meh. Sweets and Savories does a far superior version. In fact, I didn't find it to be all that sticky...really just a sweet cake type thing.

I'm probably being a bit more negative about this meal than it actually was. Don't get me wrong, overall I thought there were some pretty cool flavors going on here. Service was also very professional. I guess the thing is...I consider Blackbird and Naha to be the benchmarks of 3-star dining in Chicago. Not quite upper echelon, but still at the level appropriate for special occasions and guaranteed very good to outstanding meals. I also think the food at both are distinctive, which adds to the enjoyment factor. I think Aigre Doux is good, and may even get better over the next 6 months to a year. Chicago is such a great food town that I just don't think we need to be gushing quite yet about Aigre Doux.

Here is what I posted about Vettel on a different thread: http://lthforum.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=13258

Vettel's writing is more like reporting than true criticism, i.e. he simply lists what he ate, makes a few remarks and then assigns an (inflated) star rating. In that way, he's no different than most restaurant reviewers at most newspapers. However, a critic at a major metropolitan paper such as the Chicago Tribune should be held to a much higher standard that a critic at, say, the Daily Herald, i.e. the Chicago restaurant scene is diverse, rich and constantly changing and evolving and thus warrants first-class reviewers, and Vettel doesn't even come close to that caliber.

Compare Vettel's writing to that of Pulitizer Prize-winning restaurant critic Jonathan Gold of LA Weekly: http://www.laweekly.com/eat+drink/count ... ure/15880/

While I think that Tribune wine critic Bill Daley is also not a "true" critic, just a quotation-aggregator who does not provide any particularly personal insight, the Tribune does have some really terrific, literate and opinionated critics, e.g. Chris Jones (theater), Blair Kamin (another Pulitzer Prize winner for architecture criticism) and Greg Kot (one of the country's foremost rock and pop critics) - none of whom is afraid to write the occasionally scathing review.

That's a good point.

I don't think I have ever read a review by Vettel that was similar to my review of Zealous, i.e, "this place couldn't tell rare from medium rare and the chef needed to get back to his kitchen."

Just not his style, which does cast some doubts on his reviews.

That's right DML...Vettel writes at the level of a writer at Parade magazine or USA Today

Seems to me he administered a pretty serious whuppin' in the last year or so to some ambitious place that missed the boat. (No, I don't mean Matsumoto!) The main one I remember, though, was to one incarnation of the Pump Room in the 90s, which I think soon led to a change in management. Still, relatively rare.

Not to digress too much, but Bill Daley's wine column also is pretty bad. How many times can he tell people "You can get a similar wine anywhere." The Chicago Tribune could do a lot better. Get rid of Daley. See if someone like Brian Duncan can provide some of insights that he shares at Bin 36. Make the column interesting.

Interesting point, Mike G...I wonder if anyone recalls the place to which you are referring? I can't recall Vettel ever giving any place a review that was less than one star...at least not in living memory!

Daley writes like he is addressing an audience of yokels who don't know anything about wine, and plus he does not express any passion about the subject. Duncan, Alpanah Singh, ANYBODY but Daley.

You can also get rid of Wolfgang Puck's column too. Don't we deserve something better than stuff from a far-from-hot chef who is also syndicated in the...wait for it...the Howell Times of Howell, New Jersey.[/i]

111134ld wrote:Daley writes like he is addressing an audience of yokels who don't know anything about wine, and plus he does not express any passion about the subject.

He's soliciting your input.

Chicago Magazine's ratings seem to be a better judge with only 20 restaurants in the whole city getting 3 stars or more, and only about 40 getting 2 stars or more.

111134ld wrote:While I think that Tribune wine critic Bill Daley is also not a "true" critic, just a quotation-aggregator who does not provide any particularly personal insight...

Man, this is one thing that has always driven me nuts about his wine column. I really wanted to write at one point to the effect that I really don't given a damn what Shebnem Ince at Que Syrah thinks and I find it tedious to read through the usual suspects opinions week after week, never, as you say, getting the opinion of a true critic. I often wondered if this was a personal choice or an editorial mandate.

Of course, rather than addressing Bill personally, I never said a thing until now, piping up in an off-topic thread after I've moved out of the city and now longer read The Trib. Which says a lot more about me than Bill Daley. Sorry, Bill.

Dinner here last night was a real mixed-bag experience. It started with the generally unaccommodating tone set by the young host. While I didn't have reservations, I'm usually willing to cool my heels at the bar with a drink or two and wait for a table, or eat at bar tables if they're nicely set up. And it was Wednesday. Can't be too bad.

Here's how it went:

Me: Two for dinner.
Hostess: [Cue snooty tone] Name?
Me: I don't have reservations, but what's your wait time?
Hostess: Oh, we're fully booked.
Me: Do you serve a full menu at the bar? I don't mind sitting there.
Hostess: Yes. Oh, would you like to sit at a bar table? There's two available.

That I, the customer, had to coax an accommodation from the host was not only annoying, but right off the bat, set a tone that the service just wasn't going to have the sort of polish that you would expect from a place like this. A more polished host would have apologized and then offered to accommodate me at the bar without me asking. Alas.

By the way, the table in the bar was perfectly nice, provided a nice view of the street, and was preferable to being wedged in like sardines, as the diners at the formal dining room tables were. The noise level in the bar was not nearly as deafening, either.

The menu appeared to me to be a "play" on standard French bistro fare: duck, steak frites, roasted chicken, etc. Same with the decor, which had bentwood Bistro chairs, and the bistro-ubiquitous mirrors and tables along the wall. The space was halved, one area was the restaurant, and the other, the bakery. You entered through the bakery, which had cafe style tables, chandeliers (!) and empty bakery cases. I found the whole decor to be ill-conceived, unfinished.

We started with the complimentary focaccia, something which has been touted as exemplary. It had a tangy cheese (asiago? parmigiana?) crust but was otherwise bland and overly sweet. While the texture was wonderful, it just did not taste how you think (hoped) it would. That sort of set the tone for the food for the night.

First course: I had "white asparagus, banon [cheese], and a truffled egg." $11. This dish was a disaster. I wish I took a picture at the plating. I had four white asparagus spears in the middle, on the right a smidgen of soft cheese, and on the left, a poached egg sitting on toast -- essentially, a toad in the hole, all of which was sitting in a pool of warm vinagrette sauce. I didn't get it. It was like eating three separate dishes as nothing seemed to go together and couldn't be eaten together. The toast was unforgiveably burnt. But the truffled egg was actually the most tasty - it was perfectly poached and flavored aggressively with truffle. The banon, sitting uselessly off to the side was good, but couldn't really be eaten along with anything else. The asparagus had to also be eaten on its own, and was cooked a tad above raw and tasted bitter. It clashed with the viniagrette, which was extremely acrid and just unpleasant tasting. I would have much preferred the bistro standard which I think this was a play on (steamed/roasted asparagus in sauce gribiche).

My friend had "hamachi and avocado", which was a "patty" consisting solely avocado and hamachi. Like the sauce on my asparagus dish, the citrus dressing here was so strong and tangy that you couldn't taste the hamachi at all, which is, of course, the main ingredient. Disappointing.

Second course: These, thankfully, were more successful. I had "Steak Frites." $33. A very tender NY strip. No complaints there, nice peppery notes. The fries appeared to be overly fussed with that, while nice and crunchy like a fry should be, were overseasoned to the point where they lost all semblance of a potato. Still, they were tasty, technically, but not what you'd exactly want or expect from a frite.

My friend had duck, which she absolutely, loved - it was served medium rare and according to her, melted in her mouth. But the accompanying wild rice with dried fruit tasted like it had once been served for breakfast as it closely mirrored the taste and texture of a morning oatmeal with vanilla and raisins. A strange accompaniment.

Following up on some of the comments regarding the plating - I found the plating to be weird myself. It's funny because we disagreed so wholly on the plating of my friend's duck dish - one thought the duck was plated beautifully and the other found it to be kind of crude. My steak's plating raised practical issues as the steak was placed smack dab on top of creamed spinach; covering it, flattening it, and making the spinach taste just like -- you guessed it -- steak.

I'm surprised Phil Vettel rated this restaurant three stars because each time our dishes were brought out, the servers committed the Vettel cardinal sin of not knowing what dish belonged to whom, something I don't appreciate either. Also, our silverware was not set properly. I can honestly say I've never had that happen at a restaurant of this caliber.

The whole experience was, if you will, "clunky." The tables in the dining room were dissheveled, the chairs awry, the room was loud. The servers, with the exception of one, were well-meaning but unpolished. Worst of all, some of the dishes just missed the mark -- and terribly so. The prices were high (not a dessert below $10; appetizers safely into the double digits). As such, my expectations were set at a certain bar, and there was really nothing about the experience that would make me want to run back there.

Interesting review. Based on everything I've read so far, I thank you for taking one for the team. You dined there so that I don't have to.

Speaking of Vettel, he gave another place three stars today.

Maybe the place is good, but I doubt it.

Rather than a bell curve, Vettel seems to go for an even distribution -- as many four star places as one star.

DML wrote:Interesting review. Based on everything I've read so far, I thank you for taking one for the team. You dined there so that I don't have to.

Speaking of Vettel, he gave another place three stars today.

Maybe the place is good, but I doubt it.

Rather than a bell curve, Vettel seems to go for an even distribution -- as many four star places as one star.

If you look to my thread on coming in late in chicago (if you cant find it ill find it for you) which was completely opposite- our food was outstanding as was our service and I thought the prices while a touch high were reasonable for the level of cooking , plating and service coming out of the kitchen and FOH

jpschust wrote:If you look to my thread on coming in late in chicago (if you cant find it ill find it for you) which was completely opposite- our food was outstanding as was our service and I thought the prices while a touch high were reasonable for the level of cooking , plating and service coming out of the kitchen and FOH

Your report was in this topic.

I agree with you. I stand by my report of my dinner at Aigre Doux on page 3 of this topic (the topic we're on now). The dinner I had there was exceptional in every way, with exceptionally delicious food, knowledgeable friendly service, pleasant environment, and an experience that was thoroughly enjoyable in every way. My SO and I have had quite a few excellent dining experiences at various restaurants in the past six months, including some of the very best in the area, and Aigre Doux continues to be the place my SO brings up as wanting to return to. And I keep thinking of their wonderful sticky toffee pudding (which I still regret sharing with my dining companions).