Tom Sietsema's Online Chat

[Heather]

I understand the concern over restaurant size - in a bigger restaurant the GM has more ground to cover, the chef is going to have less time on every plate, food crossing more distance between the kitchen and table, and a bigger staff means it's harder to find enough good people.

Well sure. But the commenter seemed to be comparing Johnny's to the Olive Garden solely on size, not the service or quality of the food.

[Joe H]

Well sure. But the commenter seemed to be comparing Johnny's to the Olive Garden solely on size, not the service or quality of the food.

I believe that as the number of tables and seats go up there is a greater likelihood that a bit will be lost in the overall experience whether it is food, service or certain ambience.

[Heather]

I believe that as the number of tables and seats go up there is a greater likelihood that a bit will be lost in the overall experience whether it is food, service or certain ambience.

It would have been nice if the commenter made that point. He (or she) did not, just bitched about all large restaurants make them feel like they are in the Olive Garden.

[Escoffier]

So, there have been a lot of questions recently in Tom's chat (Today's Chat) about whether he is recognized when he does his restaurant visits. Prompts, in my mind, a few questions:

1. Does it matter to those reading the reviews whether he was recognized? How much do you discount a review if you think the person got special treatment?

2. Is he really as recognized as people think?

At a few places we patronize, he's recognized and pointed out to the staff as "that person over there". Maybe he's unrecognized at Leroy's House of Lampreys but at most restaurants, they know who he is.

[Barbara]

. . .I will say it's evident to me that there are rockwellians who are recognized at certain restaurants and do get particularly good service at those restaurants. (I have no idea if they get better food and I wouldn't for a second argue that the head chef is in the kitchen plating 6 different steaks to choose just the right one that goes out to them!) I don't even comment here about my perception, because the restaunts tend to be sacred cows and I'm not interested in fighting that battle. But my perception certainly colors my decisions on whether I'm going to go to these restaurants, because I doubt the experience I have will be the same as the experiences I read here.

This is true, of course, for anyone who is a regular at a favorite restaurant. Especially when the staff KNOWS you tip well. I like going to a place where I know I'm going to get something really good to eat and will be tended to well by the staff. I like having everybody who works there know my name and smile when they see me. If you become a regular patron at a particular place (or two), tip well, and write positive things about the place and its people on forums like this, then you are going to get the extra-special treatment, too. There it is.

[Heather]

If you become a regular patron at a particular place (or two), tip well, and write positive things about the place and its people on forums like this, then you are going to get the extra-special treatment, too. There it is.

This has come up before, and there are those of us who will argue passionately that restaurants should treat all of their patrons as equally valued guests. That doesn't seem to be the way the works works though. Especially not if you're a well-known food critic.

[smokey]

This is true, of course, for anyone who is a regular at a favorite restaurant. Especially when the staff KNOWS you tip well. I like going to a place where I know I'm going to get something really good to eat and will be tended to well by the staff. I like having everybody who works there know my name and smile when they see me. If you become a regular patron at a particular place (or two), tip well, and write positive things about the place and its people on forums like this, then you are going to get the extra-special treatment, too. There it is.

I questioned even posting what I posted, because I knew this was the response I would receive. "I'm just a regular and I get treated like a regular. If you were a regular, you would be treated the same way." I've got nothing against restaurants treating regulars well. I don't begrudge DR.com posters or non-DR.com posters being treated particularly well by restaurants because they're regulars. This isn't about sour grapes. It's about how the reviewer's experience is colored by who they are (regular diner at the restaurant, influential restaurant critic, average Joe on the street) because that colors how they're treated by the restaurant staff.

I am drawing an analogy between whether Sietsema's reviews are reliable to an average Joe if Sietsema is identifiable, and the reliability to an average Joe of the sometimes glowing reviews of restaurants I read here that are posted by individuals who are regulars at a restaurant.

[Escoffier]

I am drawing an analogy between whether Sietsema's reviews are reliable to an average Joe if Sietsema is identifiable, and the reliability to an average Joe of the sometimes glowing reviews of restaurants I read here that are posted by individuals who are regulars at a restaurant.

Your point is well taken. I know that Grover and I are well known at a couple of local restaurants and we do get little extras. Sometimes those extras are something a chef might be experimenting with, sometimes it's a dessert that's comped, and sometimes it's just a conversation with the chef. Now, it's true that the average person who walked in off of the street wouldn't get the same thing but (at least at places we go), we get the luck of the draw for waitstaff (unless we ask for someone specifically), our service is no better or worse than anyone else's and the check comes at the end just like everyone else as well. Do we get upscaled food or special treatment, I don't think so. We don't expect it, we don't really want it. Once you become beholden to a place, you can no longer be neutral and equitable and can't write that scathing review if something is not good or the place is having an off-night. YMMV, but as I said, I think you have a very valid point.

[mdt]

This is true, of course, for anyone who is a regular at a favorite restaurant. Especially when the staff KNOWS you tip well. I like going to a place where I know I'm going to get something really good to eat and will be tended to well by the staff. I like having everybody who works there know my name and smile when they see me. If you become a regular patron at a particular place (or two), tip well, and write positive things about the place and its people on forums like this, then you are going to get the extra-special treatment, too. There it is.

I think restaurant frequent eaters can be treated like airline frequent fliers without too much trouble, but to give extra treatment because you write positive things on a food board? I have trouble with that part.

To get back on topic, I think Tom has enough experience to know if he is getting different treatment than other guests. Do you think he does not look around at other tables to see how they are treated? In my limited experience I can notice when service is not the same for me as other tables. And for the food, as Don stated, there are many things that they can do in the kitchen before that plate goes out.

I really wish the sacred cow bullshit would drop. If you have an issue with a place bring it up. Discussions like that are what we should be discussing. Sure there needs to be some level of maturity on both sides of the argument, as we all can think of a few folks that will never accept anything negative about ceratin places. But reading 500 posts about how excellent a meal is at the same damn places makes for pretty boring reading. Doesn't it?

[Heather]

I really wish the sacred cow bullshit would drop. If you have an issue with a place bring it up. Discussions like that are what we should be discussing. Sure there needs to be some level of maturity on both sides of the argument, as we all can think of a few folks that will never accept anything negative about ceratin places. But reading 500 posts about how excellent a meal is at the same damn places makes for pretty boring reading. Doesn't it?

You will get no argument from me; the board would be far more interesting if people refused to pull their punches. That said, the heckling gets tiresome. There just seem to be some posters who will not accept that everyone doesn't love their particular sacred cow.

And while there is a great benefit in being able to interact with industry professionals, the fact that they hang out here is a powerful disincentive to posting negative reviews of their businesses.

[Camille-Beau]

And while there is a great benefit in being able to interact with industry professionals, the fact that they hang out here is a powerful disincentive to posting negative reviews of their businesses.

Why? What would be the consequence of such a post? Fear of being banned from the restaurant in which they had a bad experience or that negative commentary will add 'extra special' ingredients to a dish upon the next visit? I think the restaurant professionals that browse these posts are just that -- professionals -- and I don't think they would have a problem whatsoever with someone returning after a negative experience. In fact, they might like the opportunity to turn that opinion around. That being said, there are also people who post negative commentary just to see how others will respond. Things like "I think XYZ is overrated" without actually posting anything constructive as to why the experience was bad. As for the whole 'sacred cow' issue, if someone is allowed to post their opinions, be they positive or negative, about any restaurant and in particular the so-called sacred cows (whatever they are), then someone else who might disagree with that post should still be allowed to voice their own opinion which may be an opposing view without being jumped on as defending their 'cow'. That's just annoying and useless.

This is still the best forum around for talking about the local dining scene.

[DonRocks]

This is still the best forum around for talking about the local dining scene.

[Appreciate the sentiment, and hopefully you'll think so five years from now too, but let's not stray too much from the thread title (Tom Sietsema's Online Chat) here. There must be a thread on sacred cow tipping somewhere here (or something related), so maybe we can continue the discussion there? Cheers, Rocks.]

[mame11]

Okay back to Johnnys... I really was disappointed with the review of the restaurant. I don't have it in front of me but 2/3 or 3/4 of the full page review seemed to be about the size. I don't think you can begrudge a restaurant for size as long as the food is good. Plus there is a need for large spaces on Capitol Hill where everyone from tourists to Senators can dine...

Done.

[Barbara]

I questioned even posting what I posted, because I knew this was the response I would receive. "I'm just a regular and I get treated like a regular. If you were a regular, you would be treated the same way." I've got nothing against restaurants treating regulars well. I don't begrudge DR.com posters or non-DR.com posters being treated particularly well by restaurants because they're regulars. This isn't about sour grapes. It's about how the reviewer's experience is colored by who they are (regular diner at the restaurant, influential restaurant critic, average Joe on the street) because that colors how they're treated by the restaurant staff.

I am drawing an analogy between whether Sietsema's reviews are reliable to an average Joe if Sietsema is identifiable, and the reliability to an average Joe of the sometimes glowing reviews of restaurants I read here that are posted by individuals who are regulars at a restaurant.

This kind of reminds me of the adage that "good service is the kind you don't even notice." When everything goes well and you get your check and tip appropriately and are out the door.

I.e.: we were at one of our favorite places a couple of weeks ago. I was very disappointed to see that what I came for was not on the menu that day. SOB! So, I ordered the steak frites. Now, I only care about fried potatoes in a place like this and really see no need, whatsoever, to dunk such tasty things in something as proletarian as CATSUP. OK, so sue me. A pair of gentlemen right next to us ordered the same thing and the roasted chicken. The chicken here is brined and some people (Waitman, are you reading this?) don't care for that type of preparation AT ALL. My platter arrived with the obligatory ramekin of ketchup. Our neighbor's arrived sans ketchup and I promptly handed him mine. I got a steak knife and he didn't.

When the waiter came around to check on things, I whispered to him that we were just fine but the people next to us needed some attention. Which they promptly got. They declared everything fine, eventhough one of them didn't seem to like the chicken. Whatever. You either choose to speak up or not.

So, here is an example of people being perfectly happy with their meal, and newbies who weren't--judging from the comments we overheard. The difference was service. We had one waitperson and the people next to us had another, less experienced (?) one. Such things matter a whole lot.

All this to say that the more expensive an outing is, the less tolerance I have for mistakes. In my favorite places I have no compunction about telling the GM or Chef that something has gone terribly wrong to their faces. 'Cuz I know they will appreciate the input.

Getting back to Sietsema: he has his own likes and dislikes. As do we all. I can't imagine the circumstance where you will see me in Sushi joint eating raw fish. There it is. He gets paid to eat out and we don't. I hate paying for mediocre food and awful service. Fortunately, I have found a couple of places to get ethereal food and very good service. Without taking out a loan. Which is an enormous improvement over what this town used to offer.

BUT, if your experience at these places doesn't meet your expectations, I'm not going to argue with you.

[Heather]

Why? What would be the consequence of such a post? Fear of being banned from the restaurant in which they had a bad experience or that negative commentary will add 'extra special' ingredients to a dish upon the next visit?

No, I was thinking more of the fear of hurting the feelings of people who you have come to know a little and respect.

In Tom's case I find his reviews of Buck's inexplicable but for the fact tht he is recognized. The sheer number of negatives from posters on the web (here and elsewhere, anonymous and not so) make me very suspicious of his judgement.

[cjsadler]

In Tom's case I find his reviews of Buck's inexplicable but for the fact tht he is recognized.

And he's not paying for it (I find the prices at Buck's startling for what they are offering), probably doesn't mind the sometimes miniscule portions (since he eats out so much, I believe he's stated that he usually only eats part of things... as would I), and might enjoy the more home-cooked nature of the food more than the rest of us (as a break from fine dining fare). Not impugning Tom here (I think he's usually on target and does a fine job)-- just thinking that my tune about Buck's would certainly change if these factors came into play (recognition, free meal, desire for something home-y and simple*, etc).

*There's an interesting discussion about this issue with food critics in the book "The Perfectionist".

[Waitman]

And he's not paying for it (I find the prices at Buck's startling for what they are offering), probably doesn't mind the sometimes miniscule portions (since he eats out so much, I believe he's stated that he usually only eats part of things... as would I), and might enjoy the more home-cooked nature of the food more than the rest of us (as a break from fine dining fare). Not impugning Tom here (I think he's usually on target and does a fine job)-- just thinking that my tune about Buck's would certainly change if these factors came into play (recognition, free meal, desire for something home-y and simple*, etc).

*There's an interesting discussion about this issue with food critics in the book "The Perfectionist".

Actually, I quite enjoy Bucks, and in three meals there have never had anything other than tasty food and solicitous service, down to the nice touch of the bartender filling up a gratis glass of good cabernet for me (because "we're closing and we're just going to pour it out, anyway"). The food may be simple, but the ability to properly cook a whole fish is far too rare to go unnoted, and the lamb dish I had there one night remains a memorably enjoyable feast.

That said, I think it's the interior design -- Sietsema being a well-know decor fetishist -- that pushes it from two stars to three.

And (he free associated), while we're on decore, why the hell is Zatinya -- with it's mock-stucco stuck on wallboard walls -- considered such a triumph of design? All it is is Yanni's writ large.

[Jason]

No, I was thinking more of the fear of hurting the feelings of people who you have come to know a little and respect.

In Tom's case I find his reviews of Buck's inexplicable but for the fact tht he is recognized. The sheer number of negatives from posters on the web (here and elsewhere, anonymous and not so) make me very suspicious of his judgement.

I have never seen a published, professionally written review of Buck's that was negative, I am more suspicious of the anonymous online reviews. The Washingtonian has also given it consistently positive reviews, so Tom is not alone.

[Heather]

I have never seen a published, professionally written review of Buck's that was negative, I am more suspicious of the anonymous online reviews. The Washingtonian has also given it consistently positive reviews, so Tom is not alone.

Not exactly anonymous. I was thinking more of people I know from egullet and dr.com.

[giant shrimp]

And he's not paying for it (I find the prices at Buck's startling for what they are offering), probably doesn't mind the sometimes miniscule portions (since he eats out so much, I believe he's stated that he usually only eats part of things... as would I), and might enjoy the more home-cooked nature of the food more than the rest of us (as a break from fine dining fare). Not impugning Tom here (I think he's usually on target and does a fine job)-- just thinking that my tune about Buck's would certainly change if these factors came into play (recognition, free meal, desire for something home-y and simple*, etc).

*There's an interesting discussion about this issue with food critics in the book "The Perfectionist".

just call me an old homeboy, but buck's is my idea of fine dining. this place has a lot of character, and because it's quirky, that makes it an easy target. i just don't think that tom likes it because they know who he is, he gets a free meal and he's stuffed. it's a good restaurant from where i stand (at least when carole greenwood isn't over at comet, somewhat ironically, sweating over the food, where there hardly is any.)

[cjsadler]

this place has a lot of character, and because it's quirky, that makes it an easy target.

I do like the quirk and character of the place, but I'm still left wondering how items such as $8 deviled eggs (for two eggs, plain) and passable $9 (!) pineapple upside-down cake can add up to the same star level as Corduroy. Maybe I've just ordered the wrong things on my visits here...

[giant shrimp]

I do like the quirk and character of the place, but I'm still personally left wondering how items such as $8 deviled eggs (for two eggs, plain) and passable $9 (!) pineapple upside-down cake can add up to the same star level as Corduroy. Maybe I've just ordered the wrong things on my visits here...

corduroy and buck's are two different animals, but the prices for dinner at the two places are roughly comparable, which i think is fair. there is a lot of sophistication in the cooking at buck's, which is not to be underestimated, though it is not as far-ranging, nor as consistent as corduroy. (i've been burned on the rabbit at buck's two out of four times, once because it was just bad and the second time, recently, because the portion was pathetic. never had the deviled eggs and doubt they could beat ray's. the steak has been up there the few times i've had it, and i know people love to complain about the gristle that hasn't been trimmed, though even subtracting what you probably aren't expected to eat, it's a lumberjack portion. as for the desserts, maybe it's trifling, but this kitchen will win in almost any whipped cream contest, and if you really look for them you can pile on examples in which carole greenwood makes seemingly ordinary things extraordinary.)

buck's is a wilder ride than corduroy, less traditional, and i guess not to everyone's taste. i'm just saying that tom siestema's endorsement of this place makes sense to me.

[dinwiddie]

I've enjoyed Bucks the couple of times I've gone, but I'd have enjoyed it more if I could have gotten my first choice for an entree the second time I went. I think that when Bucks is on, it is really on, but judging from the number of comments about lack of choices and running out of things, both of which Tom has commented on negatively, is telling.

[giant shrimp]

I've enjoyed Bucks the couple of times I've gone, but I'd have enjoyed it more if I could have gotten my first choice for an entree the second time I went. I think that when Bucks is on, it is really on, but judging from the number of comments about lack of choices and running out of things, both of which Tom has commented on negatively, is telling.

i think the supply problem is behind the inconsistent portions. i would prefer not having the option of ordering the rabbit rather than receiving a paw-sized portion just to help keep it on the menu for the balance of the night. but that's the way it is and if you're going to buck's it's just something you have to learn to live with. tom sietsema bemoans the short menu, and buck's did receive something of a reprimand this year by losing one-sixth of its glimmer.

[Heather]

I've enjoyed Bucks the couple of times I've gone, but I'd have enjoyed it more if I could have gotten my first choice for an entree the second time I went.

What causes this? Just not anticipating/projecting orders?

[cjsadler]

i've been burned on the rabbit at buck's two out of four times, once because it was just bad and the second time, recently, because the portion was pathetic.

Being recognized could be very useful at Buck's then.

(I'm just kidding-- I don't know whether they recognize Tom there or not).

[Heather]

Being recognized could be very useful at Buck's then.

(I'm just kidding-- I don't know whether they recognize Tom there or not).

He said he knows Alefantis, so yes they know who he is.

[TSE]

He said he knows Alefantis, so yes they know who he is.

Seriously. If there's any place in this town where being known would help, I'd imagine it'd be buck's. I can imagine that they'd manage to "find" a couple of menu items that they had been out of for other patrons. I love the place, btw!

[Heather]

Seriously. If there's any place in this town where being known would help, I'd imagine it'd be buck's. I can imagine that they'd manage to "find" a couple of menu items that they had been out of for other patrons.

Maybe, although he's apparently been subjected to their underordering too so I guess it doesn't always help.

[Pat]

As famously proved by Ruth Reichl. (Surprisingly hard to find a good link for that story!)

I just finished reading Mimi Sheraton's Eating My Words, and she says definitively that the food improves when a critic is recognized (and goes into an explanation of it).

[StephenB]

I do like the quirk and character of the place, but I'm still left wondering how items such as $8 deviled eggs (for two eggs, plain) and passable $9 (!) pineapple upside-down cake can add up to the same star level as Corduroy. Maybe I've just ordered the wrong things on my visits here...

I have come somewhat late to this dialogue. I went to the Buck's Hunting and Whatever place on Connecticut and Nebraska recently. Is that the one we're talking about? I am not a professional restaurant reviewer, but in my amateurish way, I hated it. It was dark, crowded, noisy and the menu was quirky and laughably short. I ordered iced tea, but there was sugar in it. The waitress said it was "lightly sweetened." I said "No, thank you." I then ordered the deviled eggs and a margarita. That was two, count 'em, eggs, not interestingly prepared, and a drink. The waitress balked at giving the three of us separate checks, perhaps because it was too dark for her to see. But we figured out that my bill was in excess of $20. The fact that Siestema gave this restaurant the same rating he gave Ray's the Classics does not correspond to my experience, not by a long shot.

[Stretch]

What causes this? Just not anticipating/projecting orders?

Anecdotally, the delivery drivers are so scared of Carole Greenwood they won't risk stopping, so her orders are simply slung off the backs of various trucks as they speed past up Connecticut Ave. And some days, the hobos living behind the nearby CVS just get there first.

[giant shrimp]

I have come somewhat late to this dialogue. I went to the Buck's Hunting and Whatever place on Connecticut and Nebraska recently. Is that the one we're talking about? I am not a professional restaurant reviewer, but in my amateurish way, I hated it. It was dark, crowded, noisy and the menu was quirky and laughably short. I ordered iced tea, but there was sugar in it. The waitress said it was "lightly sweetened." I said "No, thank you." I then ordered the deviled eggs and a margarita. That was two, count 'em, eggs, not interestingly prepared, and a drink. The waitress balked at giving the three of us separate checks, perhaps because it was too dark for her to see. But we figured out that my bill was in excess of $20. The fact that Siestema gave this restaurant the same rating he gave Ray's the Classics does not correspond to my experience, not by a long shot.

you may not like the murky premises, but it would be hard to judge the food at buck's lodge based on ice tea and two deviled eggs. i would agree with you that ray's is better at deviling its eggs, only because i can't imagine any better and have never ordered them at buck's because i'm always in the mood for heartier fare after a day of rising before dawn to wade in rock creek to catch trout with my bare hands and climb the hills in pursuit of squirrels and other dumb animals to wring their necks for the pot, the area being under a pistol inderediction with which i happily comply. seriously, though, sounds like you are long overdue for a vociferous tongue lashing from the kitchen, so you had best haul yourself in there before they figure out who you are.

What causes this? Just not anticipating/projecting orders?

why does buck's run out of things? parsimony, i would hazard. leftovers can really add up.

Maybe, although he's apparently been subjected to their underordering too so I guess it doesn't always help.

when they say they are out of something, you had better believe it.

[Waitman]

why does buck's run out of things? parsimony, i would hazard. leftovers can really add up.

Parsimony? You are perhaps unaware of the number of small businesses and independent restaurants that fail each year, and the way wasted food eats up restaurants' narrow profit margins.

[blakegwinn]

I have never seen a published, professionally written review of Buck's that was negative, I am more suspicious of the anonymous online reviews. The Washingtonian has also given it consistently positive reviews, so Tom is not alone.

I had been kind of busy at work I was avoiding this topic because I knew I would want to write a dissertation but I have a few thoughts on Tom that I definitely want to throw out.

First of all I completely don't understand any statements that you can't trust his reviews due to lack of anonymity or that he gets better food service etc. than everyone else. He is a professional food reviewer so maybe he does but who cares??? Is this different with any other (professional) food reviewer anywhere in the country? Their job is to dine out and write about it in a paper read by hundreds and thousands of people. A good/bad review could seriously impact business. So if you were a chef or waiter and recognized Tom wouldn't you go that extra mile? It doesn't make sense not to. I understand the whole "they should treat everyone with that quality" argument but you are telling me you can't find a little extra gear to push it into? There are always a few more stops you could pull out. I'll bet if the president came they would even find more stops that they didn't pull out for Tom. I do a great job at my office but I know if I knew the CEO would be personally looking over a report I did I would probably go over it 5 times instead of just 2.

So on the flip side what is Tom, or any critic, supposed to do about it? If they stay in a city for more than a year then they are going to get noticed and in turn get a little better experience at some places. The only way I see to have completely unbiased reviews is to have a lottery drawing and a new anonymous person is selected each week to do the reviews. But I like the continuity and it gives him credibility. After years reading I feel like I know his tastes and where they differ from mine. So its either that or to just do away with reviews all together.

I think Tom does a FANTASTIC job at trying to remain anonymous. I feel like some of you want him to live in a bubble jar and not make a single industry friend and get plastic surgery every 6 months or something. (I actually like the insider gossip and info he is able to bring to the table from his industry friends) I feel like a lot of restaurant critics don't even try to remain anonymous and develop huge egos about their status and would demolish a restaurant who didn't treat them like a celebrity. I feel like Tom is extremely bright and has some serious scruples. It almost seems more likely to me that he would tear up a restaurant that treated him fantastic when he came as himself and then gave him poor service in disguise.

Ok a quick note about "amateur" critics. I could care less. I am sorry but as a server I just could really care less. I love coming on this board because I love the restaurant industry and dining out so I like talking about it with other people and I think most of you are the same way. I feel like there are some people, however, who take this thing and their status as a board member WAY too seriously. I did a quick search for Cafe Deluxe on here and came up with pretty much nothing. Yet somehow the place has managed to survive and expand without glowing reviews on this board. I feel like as far as effecting the bottom line of a restaurant this place is a drop of water in a pond. Before joining this board if someone would have identified themselves as a member or talked about posting something I probably would have given you worse service just for being a douche bag.

As far as the anonymous posts on the Post that Tom always discounts, I don't trust those at all. Response is voluntary so obviously you will get bad results. The only people who would go through the trouble to get on and report would probably have a very positive or very negative view. The thousands of people who have decent meals would never be compelled to go on there. I have seen too many people who have gotten into it at a restaurant and been ridiculously rude to the management and staff when they try to fix things. After the staff has finally had enough and stops responding the person feels disrespected and on the ride home they get themselves so worked up they decide to get back at the restaurant by running upstairs to the computer and posting a horrible review online. (or as was the case a few nights ago googling email addresses of owners and sending a scathing email out asking for mass firings. Sorry got carried away for a second. WOW. That is all I can say about the incident. WOW)

I think the heart of the problem is people wanting quantitative measurements and reviews of a COMPLETELY qualitative experience. From one server to the next, one plate to the next, from sitting at 8:15 to 8:45, two completely different experiences could be had at the same restaurant. And that is before even taking into account personal tastes and preferences. There is no right or wrong answers on restaurants even though I feel like a lot of you feel there are. My cousin and his wife love Red Lobster and go there on special occasions. Eh, What are you going to do. I think for such an inexact science Tom does an extremely good job at reducing the independent variables and during his chats really trys to get into the minds of the poster and recommend something THEY would like.

P.S. I have some more thoughts on the previous posts about regulars, preferential treatment, self proclaimed amateur critics and the incident the other night etc. but will save those for another day, another string.

[smokey]

<snip>Before joining this board if someone would have identified themselves as a member or talked about posting something I probably would have given you worse service just for being a douche bag. <snip>

This begs the question: now that you've joined this board, what kind of service would you give to somebody who identified themselves as a member of this board?!

[Waitman]

Is it worse to constantly run out of items on a limited menu, and thereby piss off customers to the point where they might not come back, or to build some waste into the food budget? I dunno.

I have never had the desire to subject myself to the food artistry at Buck's. Now I feel compelled to give it a shot at least once.

She's still in business, and opening a new spot, so the numbers are apparently adding up. Having lost two, (three?) restaurants before this one, I assume that Chef Greenwood has a pretty good idea how to answer the question you pose.

[Waitman]

She's still in business, and opening a new spot, so the numbers are apparently adding up. Having lost two, (three?) restaurants before this one, I assume that Chef Greenwood has a pretty good idea how to answer the question you pose.

Yeah, I know that.

She's also smart to open two places on that stretch of Connecticut, where the options are few and far between. So much money, so much crappy food.

I'm trying to find the post where tell us what you ate when you were there, before you started slagging the joint.

[B.A.R.]

To summarize, Buck's Fishing and Camping is not for everyone. There are many fans and detractors.

The only restaurant I can think of that IS for everyone is the Cheesesteak Factory. It's not for me.

Can we move on?

[brr]

No, I was thinking more of the fear of hurting the feelings of people who you have come to know a little and respect.

In Tom's case I find his reviews of Buck's inexplicable but for the fact tht he is recognized. The sheer number of negatives from posters on the web (here and elsewhere, anonymous and not so) make me very suspicious of his judgement.

it never ceases to amaze me how worked up people get over Bucks! Is it expensive? Sure....do they run out of menu items....yes, but as someone pointed out, inventory management is a tricky business in a small business that can dramatically affect your bottom line.

If you read the thread on Bucks, many of the reviews are positive....and many of the negatives are from people who have never even dined there....this old canard that the place has been trashed by everyone on DR.com/egullet wherever but Sietsema still likes it is irritating and plain wrong.....has everything I've head there over the course of 5/6 visits been sublime....no, but alot of it has.....her soft shell crabs are amazing, the steak can be fantastic (although overpriced at $38) as is the home-made mozz salad and the desserts...

If it was that bad, people wouldn't go....other restaurants have failed in that area, while she is opening another one.....if you think its going to be that bad, don't go...

oops, and I just realized that BAR wanted everyone to move on

[blakegwinn]

ALright I know it is one of you pestering Tom about the star system today. Fess up who is it?

[The Hersch]

The poor Portuguese chatter begging to know of other Portuguese restaurants in the area besides Tavira...all Tom would say is that none that he's tried are as good as Tavira. With A Caravela gone, I think the only other Portuguese place in the whole area is the peculiarly named Espresso Portuguese Grill in Manassas. I love Portuguese food, but I think Manassas is farther than I'm willing to travel for it (barring travel to actual Portugal), although this place looks as if it has more appeal than the stuffy, bland, and weirdly generic Tavira. I'm not sure why Tom promotes that place; it sure hasn't impressed me much on my two visits. Nova Europa doesn't still exist, does it? It was a Portuguese restaurant in Wheaton/Silver Spring once upon a time. I get a zillion hits when I google it, but none looks current.

[CrescentFresh]

I haven't followed this that closely, but here are some thoughts. I read his chat today, and believe he implied he was going to trash a 'name chef in a well-trodden area,' but he didn't imply that it would be this week. So, given that, here's my handicap, listed in ascending order of probability:

7. Comet Ping-Pong - Too soon, pizza is great (see next week's Lettres), not a candidate for trashing.

6. Johnny's Half Shell - Too soon, certainly a candidate when its time comes.

5. Montsouris - Too soon, not a big-name chef (who is the chef here?)

4. PS7 - Peter Smith not yet a big name (sorry), recently lost their GM (sigh)

3. Bastille - Christophe Poteaux not a big-name chef, but remember the "Don't count your poulets before they're hatched" comment in one of Tom's chats.

2. PX/Eamonn's - Important, great, cannot be trashed with any degree of credibility, but smart money has a review coming out very soon.

1. Lia's - Geoff Tracey, Friendship Heights ... take a guess where I'd place my bet.

Cheers,

Rocks.

At 1 1/2 stars I think we have our answer with PS7. Although I thought the review read more like a very severe thumping rather than a Le Pigalle trashing, and Don's assessment about the weight of the Peter Smith name has validity, I would have to think this is it. And when you consider the rather high concept and high price point for PS7, this rating has got to sting.

[lackadaisi]

My guess is PS7 (just a guess - I haven't been).

What's the prize? I finally went last week, but was not able to order food as the bartender was to rude to waste an evening there.

[Jason]

At 1 1/2 stars I think we have our answer with PS7. Although I thought the review read more like a very severe thumping rather than a Le Pigalle trashing, and Don's assessment about the weight of the Peter Smith name has validity, I would have to think this is it. And when you consider the rather high concept and high price point for PS7, this rating has got to sting.

I thought that it was the 1/2 star Tony & Joe's review.

[Stretch]

I thought that it was the 1/2 star Tony & Joe's review.

What the hell is a "point fairy"?

[dinwiddie]

The poor Portuguese chatter begging to know of other Portuguese restaurants in the area besides Tavira...all Tom would say is that none that he's tried are as good as Tavira. With A Caravela gone, I think the only other Portuguese place in the whole area is the peculiarly named Espresso Portuguese Grill in Manassas. I love Portuguese food, but I think Manassas is farther than I'm willing to travel for it (barring travel to actual Portugal), although this place looks as if it has more appeal than the stuffy, bland, and weirdly generic Tavira. I'm not sure why Tom promotes that place; it sure hasn't impressed me much on my two visits. Nova Europa doesn't still exist, does it? It was a Portuguese restaurant in Wheaton/Silver Spring once upon a time. I get a zillion hits when I google it, but none looks current.

I haven't eaten there in years, but it was still there when I drove by a couple of months ago

[CrescentFresh]

I thought that it was the 1/2 star Tony & Joe's review.

Oh, you're probably right. I didn't even see that one, what, with it being hidden behind the potato peels and used fryer oil at Mendocino.

[Heather]

Is it just me, or is Tom becoming less of a food critic and more of an interior design critic?

I think he's been hearing this a lot lately. From today's chat:

Your question makes me chuckle, because I'm sometimes accused of posing as an architecture critic in my reviews.

[Waitman]

The preferred phrase is "decore whore."

In Tom's defense, there are a boatload of restaurants opening up that talk as much about their design as their food. He is a reflection of the problem (if there is one) as much as a cause of it.

Personally, when I'm paying $12 for a serving the size of a soupspoon, I'd prefer to think that I'm paying for the ingredients, not the darpes, but that isn't apparently what draws the beuatiful people to Penn Quarter any more.