theskinnyduck wrote:First day of service (not counting the test run):

For the sake of everyone involved, I hope they got better at this one quickly.

Virtuosity doesn't cross all subject matter. Jordan couldn't hit a curveball.

JeffB wrote:

theskinnyduck wrote:First day of service (not counting the test run):

For the sake of everyone involved, I hope they got better at this one quickly.

Virtuosity doesn't cross all subject matter. Jordan couldn't hit a curveball.

Thats the green curry,not fat. I loved the buns, very light and flavorful! I dont really understand your point!

Who said anything about fat?

Objectively, and in the context of the many exquisite "steamed buns" so carefully documented here on LTH, those are a shonda.

Everything else looks swell, though.




+

=

0

JeffB wrote:Who said anything about fat?

Objectively, and in the context of the many exquisite "steamed buns" so carefully documented here on LTH, those are a shonda.

Everything else looks swell, though.

I was gonna say, the in-focus bun looks mangled. I'm sure it still tasted great, and wouldn't raise an eyebrow if it had been made at lightning speed by some Chinatown joint for a couple bucks a pop...but considering the provenance of the bun in the picture, it was surprising to see.

JeffB wrote:Who said anything about fat?

Objectively, and in the context of the many exquisite "steamed buns" so carefully documented here on LTH, those are a shonda.

Everything else looks swell, though.




+

=

0

Normally I would stop commenting, everybody has their own opinions. However I feel is a little unfair to assume the steamed buns were bad without trying them. I was just trying to point out that the filling inside the buns was not as solid as in most other steamed buns. I have had my fair share of really good steamed buns and liked them. You might decide you hate the steamed buns once you go to Next, and that is perfectly fine, but being so harsh based on apparence alone is a little unfair (I think).

theskinnyduck, you are new and haven't figured out that the essence of LTH Forum is to make bold statements based on little or no actually information.

The essence of this forum is to discuss food, the good the bad and the ugly. My statement was based on the completely objective appearance of the bun, including its apparent structure, the number and irregularity of its pleats, the thickness of the skin, and its lopsided sag. I'm sure it was delish, but from a technical standpoint, it looks like a hot mess. I'm not "assuming" they were entirely "bad." I have no reason to think Skinnyduck lacks (or has) a splendid palate, but I am happy to assume the buns tasted great. There's obviously an art to making world-class buns, and the above pic from Dom presents an example of a great bun from a place that's nearly universally regarded to be a top XLB maker. And those buns are filled with soup, so the solidity or not of the contents isn't the issue. If the juxtaposition doesn't speak for itself, I'm at a loss and thus I'll shut up.

If the reaction to my observation is going to be the time-worn "who cares what it looks like if it tastes good," great. But in the specific context here -- one of the top 2 or 3 chefs working in the world today, his staff noted for their dogged pursuit of technical perfection, taking on the past and future of food -- that answer would strike me as low comedy.

Like I said, I love what Achatz did and does and I think the other items all look great. I hope it's not unfair for me to say so, having not eaten them.

Not that my opinion matters, but I think you make a perfectly sound argument, JeffB.

Even if you thought they tasted and looked terrible, who are you to judge the kitchen? You are just one man, with one opinion. Perhaps your palette, visual or otherwise, is simply out of tune with that of the chef? If Next were not perfect and above criticism of any sort, it wouldn't be sold out, now would it?*


*Infallible logic

JeffB wrote:If the reaction to my observation is going to be the time-worn "who cares what it looks like if it tastes good," great.

That wasn't my reaction.

My reaction was to note the absolute certainty with which your judgment is made. No room for any interpretation of the photo other than your own.

JeffB wrote:The essence of this forum is to discuss food, the good the bad and the ugly. My statement was based on the completely objective appearance of the bun, including its apparent structure, the number and irregularity of its pleats, the thickness of the skin, and its lopsided sag. I'm sure it was delish, but from a technical standpoint, it looks like a hot mess. I'm not "assuming" they were entirely "bad." I have no reason to think Skinnyduck lacks (or has) a splendid palate, but I am happy to assume the buns tasted great. There's obviously an art to making world-class buns, and the above pic from Dom presents an example of a great bun from a place that's nearly universally regarded to be a top XLB maker. And those buns are filled with soup, so the solidity or not of the contents isn't the issue. If the juxtaposition doesn't speak for itself, I'm at a loss and thus I'll shut up.

If the reaction to my observation is going to be the time-worn "who cares what it looks like if it tastes good," great. But in the specific context here -- one of the top 2 or 3 chefs working in the world today, his staff noted for their dogged pursuit of technical perfection, taking on the past and future of food -- that answer would strike me as low comedy.

Like I said, I love what Achatz did and does and I think the other items all look great. I hope it's not unfair for me to say so, having not eaten them.

I think you make a valid observation. Call it technical perfection or "plating," but no doubt it's one of the measures of a great restaurant and something I'm sure Next tries to achieve. We've all seen the pictures from the Paris menu, and the dishes are plated beautifully. As I read it, Jeff is not commenting at all upon the taste of the dumpling, but solely on its obvious appearance in the photo, which shows a dumpling lacking in the appearance/plating category.

Darren72 wrote:

JeffB wrote:If the reaction to my observation is going to be the time-worn "who cares what it looks like if it tastes good," great.

That wasn't my reaction.

My reaction was to note the absolute certainty with which your judgment is made. No room for any interpretation of the photo other than your own.

So, basically..."Will you believe me or your lying eyes?"

That bun looks atrocious. And, given the quality that Next aspires to (and the price it demands), I would expect far better presentation. I can say that, definitively, without having set foot in the current iteration of the restaurant.

What other interpretation of that photo is there? Unless the diners mangled the bun after it was set on the table...but that certainly hasn't been professed to be the case.

It looks like someone punctured it and set it back down, hence the flattened, lopsided appearance and the pool of filling underneath.

This could be the most scrutinized bun in the history of buns.

kl1191 wrote:What other interpretation of that photo is there? Unless the diners mangled the bun after it was set on the table...but that certainly hasn't been professed to be the case.

I don't know, but rather than make a bold, know-it-all pronouncement that Jordan couldn't hit a curveball and GA can't make a bun, I'd show a little humility.

Look, I'm not defending the bun. For all I know, the thing tastes worse than it looks. I'm just saying that the leap from the picture to "Virtuosity doesn't cross all subject matter. Jordan couldn't hit a curveball." seems arrogant. Based on the other pictures, which seem to look very good, does virtuosity cross subject matter sometimes?

I'd chime in with my two cents, and hopefully soon with a picture to back it up. The bun in question looks like it was punctured and deflated, the ones we had last night looked nothing like that.

The bun was delicious, but since we're only judging one image... Then yes, it doesn't look appetizingl. I'm sure this was more a fluke than the standard.

Darren72 wrote:

kl1191 wrote:What other interpretation of that photo is there? Unless the diners mangled the bun after it was set on the table...but that certainly hasn't been professed to be the case.

I don't know, but rather than make a bold, know-it-all pronouncement that Jordan couldn't hit a curveball and GA can't make a bun, I'd show a little humility.

Look, I'm not defending the bun. For all I know, the thing tastes worse than it looks. I'm just saying that the leap from the picture to "Virtuosity doesn't cross all subject matter. Jordan couldn't hit a curveball." seems arrogant. Based on the other pictures, which seem to look very good, does virtuosity cross subject matter sometimes?

Totally agree. It is that comment that made me come back to reply. Judging of just the appearance would have been fine, assuming the overall quality was a little too much! Also thanks for the heads up on "you are new and haven't figured out that the essence of LTH Forum is to make bold statements based on little or no actually information. LTH Forum is to make bold statements based on little or no actually information."

I'd like to point out the XLB are Chinese, not Thai, so there are other issues besides the imperfect technique to make one question why they are even included in the dinner, not that they probably weren't delicious.

stevez wrote:I'd like to point out the XLB are Chinese, not Thai, so there are other issues besides the imperfect technique to make one question why they are even included in the dinner, not that they probably weren't delicious.

There is a lot of Chinese influence in all of southeast asia. Chinese style steamed buns (with thai flavors) like that can be found as street food so often in thailand or vietnam. This was also pointed out at the restaurant.

I meant to be provocative; so did Next, no?

Look, the bun looks like hell and was served on opening night. Punctured or not, it doesn't reflect good technique. That shocked me, because I and lots of others have come to expect near-perfection, especially technical perfection, from the Achatz team. This isn't it. Not close. My Jordan curveball analogy was a joke. It's not wholly apt because with enough skill and practice, (relatively) lots of competent chefs can likely make a delicate bun. Jordan was never going to hit a curve. But the bigger point that the superfans miss was my hyperbolic compliment to Achatz. If anything was presumptuous or arrogant about my comparison, it was placing "GA" in the same pantheon as "MJ" -- the best there ever was at his game. I'll stick to my opinion.

jesteinf wrote:This could be the most scrutinized bun in the history of buns.

I think that honor goes to Jennifer Lopez.

I'm also a little mystified by this statement on Next's facebook page:

I have been told by legal counsel that we have every right under the TOS to void any tickets owned by people who advertise them commercially, including but not limited to Craig's List, ticket brokers, etc. based on that alone... regardless of the legal argument about the legality of selling 'restaurant' tickets above face value vis a vis a concert or sports game.

First, this seems like a concession that the legality of selling above face value is unclear (perhaps because it is unclear whether Next qualifies as "amusement" under the Illinois statute) even though Next also claims that it is clearly illegal. More importantly, I take this statement as saying that you can't advertise them on craigslist (assuming that qualifies as doing so "commercially") even for face value or less. (But somehow you can do it on facebook, although perhaps this is simply a gift from Next.) I can't see anything in the TOS that would cover this in any clear way. This seems like a fairly drastic change in policy (although I acknowledge I didn't keep track very closely of what went on with resales for the Paris menu).

Chris, he has since responded to his own post with the following:

Actually that is not true at all: IL Law:
(Sec 1.5(a)):
it is unlawful for any person, persons, firm or corporation to sell tickets for baseball games, football games, hockey games, theatre entertainments, or any other amusement for a price more than the price printed upon the face of said ticket

Registered ticket brokers are the exception.

Back with two pictures, the first is of some better looking buns, I thought I had a better shot, but I guess the misses didn't snap a better picture...




The second is the beef cheek curry, but the item i wanted to point out was the green chili condiment that is at the side of the bowl. Unfortunately, I wasn't savvy enough to take pictures of the extra condiments provided. And only noticed that this one was documented on accident. Feel free to ask your server for any of the extra ones.



As far as the scrutinized bun, it does look bad, but considering the short turn around time and it being opening weekend. It shouldn't be so quick to judge. The flavors were good, and subsequent buns were made better. As the kitchen gets in tune with the menu, we'll be seeing plenty of good looking buns.

Khaopaat wrote:Chris, he has since responded to his own post with the following:

Actually that is not true at all: IL Law:
(Sec 1.5(a)):
it is unlawful for any person, persons, firm or corporation to sell tickets for baseball games, football games, hockey games, theatre entertainments, or any other amusement for a price more than the price printed upon the face of said ticket

Registered ticket brokers are the exception.

So the moral of the story is to use StubHub to sell Next tickets and you're all good?

This was posted on craiglist

To Everyone Selling NEXT Restaurant Tickets - especially SCALPERS

We will be enforcing our Terms of Service (TOS). If you advertise or sell tickets for more than face value (best offer, OBO, etc) they will be voided. We will be reviewing all the ticket selling sites (craigslist, eBay, etc) and will be voiding tickets that are advertised above face value.

What this means for our customers is that if you buy from a scalper for more than face value they will still be voided and your ticket is worthless.

I understand this is hard to enforce, but I'm all for it.

I really enjoyed the Paris menu and am excited to try Next's take on Thai, but It seems pretty clear that although well-intentioned, Next's threats to void tickets sold over face value are just bluster and posturing to try to tamp down scalping.

Under the law that Next cited on Facebook (the Ticket Sale and Resale Act), registered ticket brokers and Internet auction sites (as well as charities) are exempted from the prohibition against selling tickets over face value. The part of Next's TOS that might support their right to void tickets is this sentence: "Unlawful resale (or attempted resale), counterfeit or copy of Next Ticket is grounds for seizure and cancellation without compensation." (emphasis mine) Since sales through ticket brokers or internet auction sites are exempted from the law and therefore entirely lawful, I don't see how Next would have any basis (let alone a clear and solid basis) for voiding tickets sold through those types of outlets.

But, that's not the most important point here. Nick posted on Facebook that he has been advised that Next can "void any tickets owned by people who advertise them commercially... regardless of the legal argument about the legality of selling 'restaurant' tickets above face value vis a vis a concert or sports game." Regardless of that argument? Really Nick? A lawyer told you this?

By its clear terms, the Ticket Sale and Resale Act applies only to the resale of certain categories of tickets, specifically, tickets for baseball games, football games, hockey games, theatre entertainments, or any other "amusement." As Chris pointed out above, the key term here is "amusement," and it is far from clear whether Next is an "amusement." In fact, it seems most likely that as a restaurant, Next would not be considered under the law to be an amusement. The term "amusement" is not defined in the Act, but is fairly consistently defined elsewhere in the law, most relevantly with respect to amusement taxes. In that context, Chicago Municipal Code §4–156–010 contains this definition:

"Amusement" means: (1) any exhibition, performance, presentation or show
for entertainment purposes, including, but not limited to, any theatrical,
dramatic, musical or spectacular performance, promotional show, motion
picture show, flower, poultry or animal show, animal act, circus, rodeo, athletic
contest, sport, game or similar exhibition such as boxing, wrestling, skating,
dancing, swimming, racing, or riding on animals or vehicles, baseball,
basketball, softball, football, tennis, golf, hockey, track and field games,
bowling or billiard or pool games; (2) any entertainment or recreational activity
offered for public participation or on a membership or other basis including,
but not limited to, carnivals, amusement park rides and games, bowling,
billiards and pool games, dancing, tennis, racquetball, swimming, weightlifting,
bodybuilding or similar activities; or (3) any paid television programming,
whether transmitted by wire, cable, fiber optics, laser, microwave, radio,
satellite or similar means.

What's missing from that definition? Restaurants. Know why? Because restaurants are not amusements, subject to amusement tax, they are restaurants, subject to the restaurant tax. I'd bet a misshapen bun that Next is paying restaurant taxes, but not amusement taxes.

There's another problem with Next's threats to void scalped tickets. How will they know for certain which tickets to disappear? Scalper posts dinner for two on July 22 at 8pm for sale on Craigslist. Best offer. One alcoholic drink pairing and one non-alcoholic pairing. How could Next possibly know which tickets to void? They look for a matching reservation and take a guess? They hire someone to be their Scalping Investigation and Enforcement Director? I doubt it.

I'd be very surprised if Next actually voids any tickets because they were resold, whether sold through Craigslist, brokers, or otherwise. For them to do so just doesn't mesh with the legal and practical realities of the situation. Next's threats to the contrary appear to be a well-intentioned response to the ethical grey area of scalping, but one without any real teeth if you take a closer look.

--Rich

RAB wrote:What's missing from that definition? Restaurants. Know why? Because restaurants are not amusements, subject to amusement tax, they are restaurants, subject to the restaurant tax. I'd bet a misshapen bun that Next is paying restaurant taxes, but not amusement taxes.

If restaurants were amusemants, they would have to have a separate amusement license and, like Rich said, be subject to amusement tax.

A few comments:

On the change in tax billing. The city of Chicago requires that we charge tax on the service charge because it is not a voluntary gratuity. Last time around we charged only food and wine and ended up having to eat the difference in paying the proper tax. So that is a change, but I assure you that we neither wanted to do it, nor am I happy about it -- and we don't keep the money.

Regarding scalping. I find it hilarious to read all of the differing opinions on scalping and defense of the practice while so many people complain on the other side -- everyone is correct, basically. Obviously, there are a million ways around any system we have and if someone does a cash transaction privately we have no way whatsoever to know how much anyone paid. That said, we do have a right to void tickets that violate our TOS blatantly and obviously. Clearly legal ticket brokers are legal in every respect and there is nothing we can do about that. We try to encourage in every way possible (same night tickets, walk ins late night through Aviary, FB community trades etc) the resale or trade of tickets at fair value. And finally, the quote in the NYT where I said "it will be interesting to see what the secondary market brings" was taken in the context of spending an entire day with a reporter months before Next opened. "Interesting to see" does not equate to -- yeah, scalping is great and pretty cool. "Interesting to see" in my context means that it is a huge gray area that poses tons of problems.

That bun does look like crap. I have watched hundreds of those go out of the kitchen and can't say that I have seen anything that looks much like that -- and I have eaten plenty of them as well and they are indeed delicious. I suspect that they sat a long time at the table and were not eaten in a timely manner and over steamed at the table.

Regarding the declined Credit Cards on our site: we process all payments through the Authorize.net gateway and store all of the CC info there for security reasons. If Authorize declines a card for any reason (typo, bad cvv, over limit) we can't process the payment. 99% of the emails we got from people complaining that they hit the 'purchase' button 10 times and it didn't go through were declined cards tried over and over again. It does give a message that the card was declined, but apparently we need it in 20 pt type.

Finally, we load tested the server for a million hits in a half hour and it worked just fine. The site was hosted on a scalable cloud based system that should have handled the load easily.... and when it does the system works fine -- click a table, hold it, complete transaction. In the real world, however, the system broke down not from a software standpoint but from a query distribution standpoint. We are working with the company to figure out why it got so slow and won't do another sale until we can fully understand and fix that problem. I will say that the company has admitted to us that it did not work as it should have and is working with us to fix the issue.

Anything else, feel free to ask.

-- nick

Nick,

Thanks for all of the honest information. I have to say I did try for tickets for the Thai menu and got close, but just couldn't seem to snag an actual date without someone getting it before me (I only got into the system towards the end when only about 150 tickets were left). From the number of people on FB trading or selling tickets, it seems that the way to actually get tickets was to just click on any table at all as fast as possible, and deal with the consequences later.

Luckily I think I have managed to get some tickets by joining a completely random couple for dinner. This may even be a new and unique way of developing relationships with strangers; call it the Next socializing network. The husband of the couple is reportedly originally from Thailand, so it will hopefully only add to our experience!