Jump to content

Washingtonian "Best Restaurants" Issue


Sudhir Seth

Recommended Posts

What I found particularly interesting were the major jumps... Restaurant Kolumbia in at #42 and a new addition to the list, David Craig Bethesda #54, Butterfield 9 #63. While I personally agree with them (though I haven't eaten at David Craig Bethesda) it does looks odd to see new additions to the list entering this high when they aren't new restaurants, and from what I can tell the cooking hasn't drastically changed at either place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand the former, but how so the latter? I can't see DC diners neglecting a restaurant simply because the chef is a woman...Ris wasn't exactly hurting for fans, was she? Greenwood has her detractors, but not because of her food.
Nah, not the diners, just the scene - this town still had a lot of old school frenchy French places 20 years ago. Not as dynamic or interesting as now.

Part of it's probably just numbers. I'm a little older than most of the cover pin-ups and my culinary school class in 1985 was at least 5/1, men to women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, not the diners, just the scene - this town still had a lot of old school frenchy French places 20 years ago. Not as dynamic or interesting as now.

Part of it's probably just numbers. I'm a little older than most of the cover pin-ups and my culinary school class in 1985 was at least 5/1, men to women.

I would kill to be your age!!!! Although D. C. had L'ion D'or, Chez Camille (L'auberge today) and Le Pavilion (and, to really date myself, La Salle Du Bois with Donald Dresden reviewing it thirty + years ago!) it also had Jean Louis who was truly creative and inspired and still missed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well sure, Jean Louis was here (I had the "pleasure" of assisting him once as a student, that's in quotes because I was nervous as hell) and he was inspiring. So was Nora Pouillon, ditto. But there was no rock star environment that draws the chicks. :D

Good for Kliman for giving Addie's the boot. I can't think of another place on the "out" list that deserves it more. Anyone suprised by Pizzaria Paradiso being dropped? And 2941 ranking higher than Komi? Acadiana making the list at all? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like 2941 and am not especially fond of Acadiana. I've never liked Pizzaria Paradiso although Obelisk was an annual stop. I like Black's and Black Salt but have never cared for Addie's. Kliman however really seems to have it in for Jeff Black.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paradiso sure used to be a fave of critics once upon a time.

I'm not sure what you mean by "has it in for" Jeff Black. When you've expanded to several restaurants, and one of the places flat-out sucks, like Addie's, then you deserve whatever gets laid on you. Especially at Black's price point.

Ceiba is a puzzler. Here's some of the adjectives: underseasoned, gluey, dry, boring, overcooked, and "less sparkling." :P Good tomato broth and beef empanadas are pretty slim pickins at an place where entrees are $17-29.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've only been to Addie's once, ten or so years ago, and never went back. I've also had slow, unresponsive service at the Bethesda Black's. Twice, both times sitting at the bar by myself. Having said this both Black Salt and Black's in Bethesda have some of the best seafood dishes in the D. C. area. Either, along with Garrett Park, is better-I think MUCH better-than a subjective ranking of 60+. Remember, that Black Salt was voted the "best new restaurant" in D. C. for 2005. That honor seems to be curiously overlooked in this ranking as are some of the dishes which are served. A number of them, by the way, are a Helluva lot better than a myriad of places he ranks higher. Black's is the best restaurant in Bethesda. Period. I say this having experienced disappointing service but NOT disappointing food. I also say this as someone who cooks and knows what it takes to compose and serve food like this. Black's has several absolutely outstanding dishes which I think cannot be dismissed as easily as he seems to want to. Both Black's and Black Salt have exemplery frying, outstanding carpaccio and stews worthy of one's grandmother with real stocks for the base. And, correctly prepared fresh fish whose taste and texture tastes among the wharf's best.

For me, that's worth something. At least a ranking higher than 60 or whatever number he put on it.

Let's not even talk about trying to rank 100 restaurants in order....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having said this both Black Salt and Black's in Bethesda have some of the best seafood dishes in the D. C. area. Either, along with Garrett Park, is better-I think MUCH better-than a subjective ranking of 60+.

I'm with Joe on this one. I can't see any way that there are 60 restaurants in town better than both Black's or Blacksalt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to have a discussion thread about this article. Nothing defamatory or inflammatory, nothing to deliberately upset anyone of course, just wanted to solicit general opinions about the ratings and reviews.

In the interest of fairness, perhaps our fearless leader should recuse himself from the discussion? No need to provoke retribution from the hand that feeds you, Don! :P

I know that I always find this annual article interesting. It's a nice round-up of what places have closed, what has opened and who is "hot" at the moment. I'm always happy to read of friend's restaurants which are well-reviewed, and sad for friends who may have lost a star or received less-than-effusive commentary.

I like how the "star" ratings are described, and that the lowest of the 100 Best is two stars, meaning "Worth the trip". That's what it all boils down to, isn't it? You can recommend a place to someone without expounding at great length about the pros and cons by simply stating that it is worth the trip. In our increasingly busy lives, that may be the most succinct of praise after all.

Talk amongst yourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with most of the star ratings and generally have a great deal of respect for his opinions. But Kliman runs into real trouble when he tries to rank 100 restaurants in order. I just don't take it seriously and what I think are "gaffs" such as his ranking of Black's really stick out. Individually he may be right on but saying such and such is better than so and so-ONE HUNDRED TIMES-is, for me, ridiculous.

Of course there's an English magazine that attempts to rank the 40 or 50 best restraurants in the world-in order. And Playboy has done this also-in order. Still, I thought both of those attempts were publicity plays and that's how I read Washingtonian's. I'm sure the two magazines sold more copies and received a great deal of outside press. I know the English magazine was noted all over the world because of their attempt. A great deal of word of mouth.

I'm certain that was the attempt with this issue of Washingtonian. Anyway, they need to sell magazines and maybe I'm wrong for criticizing his efforts. I still think it hurt their credibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with most of the star ratings and generally have a great deal of respect for his opinions. But Kliman runs into real trouble when he tries to rank 100 restaurants in order. I just don't take it seriously and what I think are "gaffs" such as his ranking of Black's really stick out. Individually he may be right on but saying such and such is better than so and so-ONE HUNDRED TIMES-is, for me, ridiculous.

Of course there's an English magazine that attempts to rank the 40 or 50 best restraurants in the world-in order. And Playboy has done this also-in order. Still, I thought both of those attempts were publicity plays and that's how I read Washingtonian's. I'm sure the two magazines sold more copies and received a great deal of outside press. I know the English magazine was noted all over the world because of their attempt. A great deal of word of mouth.

I'm certain that was the attempt with this issue of Washingtonian. Anyway, they need to sell magazines and maybe I'm wrong for criticizing his efforts. I still think it hurt their credibility.

Hurt their credibility? Why? Just because you don't agree with it? Have you eaten at all the places on the list recently enough to disagree with the ratings? As in the past you have gotten in a tizzy when others have not liked one of Black's restaurant. Is that the only one that you think is a "gaff"?

There seems to have been a good deal of work done to say that it was just a ploy to sell more magazines. And just because something gets a lower ranking does not mean it is horrible or X times worse than a higher ranked place. I am sure it involved some interesting discussions, and should provoke some here. I for one need to re-read the rankings with a little more care before I make any ranking statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is a fun concept becuase it encourages discussion about restaurants which I (and I assume most of us here) find entertaining and interesting. The same thing goes with every end-of-year "Best of 2006" ranking in every category conceivable.

That said, there is also always a sense of absolutisim when you rank thing numerically like this. But that absolutisim is part of what spurs on the conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Giving acclaim to three of Jeff & Barbara Black's four restaurants in his Top 100 isn't exactly an insult...but I see where you're coming from. no matter the critics' opinino, each of their concepts supremely suit their neighborhoods and their dining style, which is what I love about them. (Granted, after this summer, I have proudly "drank the BRG kool-aid" (its delicious with hangar vodka), so perhaps I'm biased.)

(**Barbara told me last week that Black Market Bistro is now taking reservations! Get thee a beautiful Bistro Burger whenever you'd like!)

Overall, I thought it was a fair and thorough assessment from Todd and crew. A few notable surprises (Johnny's still needs some work. Some of the new kids were ranked higher than I would expect. Hanks is underrated! Capitol Hill - my neighborhood - got some top-notch credit - God bless Montmarte). I'm the first to understand that its all a matter of taste, and to each palette his/her own.

On another posting note, I would love someone to put the Readers Poll winners next to the Critics Top 100 list. It's always amusing.

I'm hopeful that the latest concepts coming to DC will please the palettes of all shapes and sizes - they're coming fast! :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There seems to have been a good deal of work done to say that it was just a ploy to sell more magazines.
To be a cynic or anything, but I think we be sure that the participants didn't make the decision purely for the thrill it. It will generate interesting discussions, sure, and it must have been an intellectually challenging project, but the ultimate goal behind the "interesting discussions" is selling more magazines. That's what they are getting paid for.
And just because something gets a lower ranking does not mean it is horrible or X times worse than a higher ranked place.
If it doesn't mean that place X is better than place Y then what is the point of ranking them?

Like any review, it's a useful guide to one person's taste, that may or may not coincide with yours. YMMV, as they say on the intertubes. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hurt their credibility? Why? Just because you don't agree with it? Have you eaten at all the places on the list recently enough to disagree with the ratings? As in the past you have gotten in a tizzy when others have not liked one of Black's restaurant. Is that the only one that you think is a "gaff"?

There seems to have been a good deal of work done to say that it was just a ploy to sell more magazines. And just because something gets a lower ranking does not mean it is horrible or X times worse than a higher ranked place. I am sure it involved some interesting discussions, and should provoke some here. I for one need to re-read the rankings with a little more care before I make any ranking statements.

I stand by my post #52.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be a cynic or anything, but I think we be sure that the participants didn't make the decision purely for the thrill it. It will generate interesting discussions, sure, and it must have been an intellectually challenging project, but the ultimate goal behind the "interesting discussions" is selling more magazines. That's what they are getting paid for.If it doesn't mean that place X is better than place Y then what is the point of ranking them?

Like any review, it's a useful guide to one person's taste, that may or may not coincide with yours. YMMV, as they say on the intertubes. :P

Of course they are ranked in order from #1 to #100, but that does not mean that 100 is horrible. Nor does it mean that #80 is 10 times worse than #8.

I am actually more surprised that only one person has thought that a particular place has been ranked too low or too high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paradiso sure used to be a fave of critics once upon a time.

Since the December issue is still on the racks here in central VA, I haven't seen the issue yet. Interestingly enough, of the five casual places we visited on our last trip up to DC (PP in Georgetown, 2 Amys, Dino, Jaleo and Bourbon), all were very good but Paradiso was the only one to really wow us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course they are ranked in order from #1 to #100, but that does not mean that 100 is horrible. Nor does it mean that #80 is 10 times worse than #8.
I didn't think it meant 100 is horrible. This is the "very best restaurants" issue. But, as for the #80 not being ten times worse that #80...don't you think some readers are going to take it that way? Ranking imples a heirarchy, whether or not that's what the author intended. #10 is better than #20, and much better than #40, and a whole lot better than #80. If I had a place listed in the bottom 20 this year I might be a little pissed.

As for the only one person - I think we were all expecting that. :P I am in agreement with Andrew that the ranking isn't very useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course there's an English magazine that attempts to rank the 40 or 50 best restraurants in the world-in order. And Playboy has done this also-in order. Still, I thought both of those attempts were publicity plays and that's how I read Washingtonian's. I'm sure the two magazines sold more copies and received a great deal of outside press. I know the English magazine was noted all over the world because of their attempt. A great deal of word of mouth.

I'm certain that was the attempt with this issue of Washingtonian. Anyway, they need to sell magazines and maybe I'm wrong for criticizing his efforts. I still think it hurt their credibility.

Something just occurred to me: how is this different than what Wine Spectator does with their wine ratings? I guess they have to sell magazines too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a silly excercise really. I haven't seen the list yet. Can someone tell me what #37 is? Tonight, I feel like going to the 37th best restaurant in the DC area-- not 36th or 38th-- but 37th would be perfect. :P
That would be Poste. Not a bad choice. I lunched at the 67th best yesterday.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I don't neccesarily agree with ranking systems, I know that this one has definately caused the response that TK had hoped it might. The Washingtonian ranked restaurants on a subjective basis that causes debate and conversations about the restaurants ranked various merits ie: why is my fav #32 and not #27? The point though, IMO, is that these are restaurants, 100 of them, that you can walk into and get a reliably great meal anytime. Not just sometimes, all the time. I think that even though they are ranked, depending on your viewpoint, there is very little room between the groupings. The top restaurants are just that, the best in the city; the middle-bottom tier are probably all very close in quality in their respective realms. It all comes down to subjectivity. TK did say in his chat that they did it, "well because they could" and to cause a little "mischief". Which it has in more circles than this :D In the restaurant biz, we always point to these various rankings, stars, sporks etc with pride (when they're good :P ) because they are tools that people use to decide where to go, especially when they are not experienced diners or don't have another avenue such as DR.com to help them decide where to spend their hard earned loot. In a sea of 300+ restaurants in the area, the restaurantuer looks furiously for ways to differentiate his produce from the next. One of the easiest and smartest ways is to cook good food and give good service, but trust me when I say this, even these two key things sometimes are not enough. You can slave away in relative anonimity for months giving both and unless the people come through the door in masse then a restaurant can go from a dream to a nightmare quickly. Most restaurants open with very little margin for error, to little acclaim. Usually you are forced to open before everything is perfect because you've sunk more money than planned into a project that took longer to finish than thought, and you don't have anything left; you either have to earn money now or lose everything you spent thus far. Then, once open, you need to WOW from the getgo, best foot forward and all that and if you stumble.....lot's of pressure there. While there isn't room for everyone in a top 100 or top 50 or whatever, there are always places like this and word of mouth to spur debate and increase recongniton for those restaurants "slighted". We in the business depend on the rankings and stars and press and all, but word of mouth from folks like yourselves is worth more than all that. Satisfied customers always mean more than these other subjective things. Why? Because, when I cook you a great meal and the server gives you great service and you say so, it's immediate. Also, you guys seem to realize that your favs are your favs no matter what TK or TS say :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something just occurred to me: how is this different than what Wine Spectator does with their wine ratings? I guess they have to sell magazines too.

Now you're on to something. And WS isn't the really egregious sinner on this one; it's the charlatan Parker, that self-appointed "expert," who started the claptrap 100 point wine scale business in the first place. There's something about a numerical rating that appeals to something hard-wired into the human brain. Parker got rich due to whatever that is, not to his tasting ability. But I digress. To take such fine distinctions seriously says more about the foolishness of the crowd than of those who publish such twaddle.

As to TK, he knows his food, and he also knows how to engender discussion and sell magazines. Witness this thread. Everyone surely must know that any such ranking is only one person's opinion, and in addition is based on a highly imperfect sampling process. No two people, no matter how expert, will ever come up with the same ranking, nor will one's own opinion match any expert. Except at the very highest level, these ranking could go 10-20 slots or more either way. To take them as being meaningful in any range finer than that goes way beyond credibility, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you're on to something. And WS isn't the really egregious sinner on this one; it's the charlatan Parker, that self-appointed "expert," who started the claptrap 100 point wine scale business in the first place.

Here you've struck upon the greatest danger of the 100 Best list, which is that numerologically-fixated consumers cannot have more than 100 choices on the current list. Parker, for whatever his flaws may be, can assign 90+ point scores to thousands of wines if he sees fit; there is no glass ceiling. Kliman can only choose exactly 100. The next 30, marginally different than the preceding 20, are S.O.L. until next year.

In comparable US cities, you'd be lucky to find 100 good restaurants. In the greater DC area we have easily that many, thanks in large part to an unusual diversity of ethnic cuisines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here you've struck upon the greatest danger of the 100 Best list, which is that numerologically-fixated consumers cannot have more than 100 choices on the current list. Parker, for whatever his flaws may be, can assign 90+ point scores to thousands of wines if he sees fit; there is no glass ceiling. Kliman can only choose exactly 100. The next 30, marginally different than the preceding 20, are S.O.L. until next year.

In comparable US cities, you'd be lucky to find 100 good restaurants. In the greater DC area we have easily that many, thanks in large part to an unusual diversity of ethnic cuisines.

Ah. You've pointed us to the next phase of the silliness. Soon Sietsema, or Rockwell, or I, or who knows whom, will start the new 100 point rating* system for DC restaurants. Here's the scenario. Maestro, Citronelle, and CityZen will all get 98 points, while the Inn will get only 97, thus proving at last and beyond a doubt that the Inn is just no damn good. Meanwhile, 17 places including Oohhs and Aahhs, Starbucks, and Sushi Kappo Kawasaki will be duking it out at the 89 point level.

*Note: rating, not to be confused with ranking as was done by Washingtonian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah. You've pointed us to the next phase of the silliness. Soon Sietsema, or Rockwell, or I, or who knows whom, will start the new 100 point rating* system for DC restaurants. Here's the scenario. Maestro, Citronelle, and CityZen will all get 98 points, while the Inn will get only 97, thus proving at last and beyond a doubt that the Inn is just no damn good. Meanwhile, 17 places including Oohhs and Aahhs, Starbucks, and Sushi Kappo Kawasaki will be duking it out at the 89 point level.

*Note: rating, not to be confused with ranking as was done by Washingtonian.

And so why not? In an inexact world that's as effective a way of saying (in a concise way) that the Inn is pretty darn spectacular, but not as spectacular as CityZen. I'm pretty happy with the star system myself, but then people get their knickers in a twist over ranking within the same galaxy -- "2 Amy's and Marcel's, both three stars....?"

Always struck me as very inside the Beltway to get all knicker-twisty over the methodology by which some critic chooses to say: "these are pretty good, these are really good, and these are better than sex." This is the line of wonk-type thinking process obsession that turns people like Mike Dukakis and Al Gore into footnotes instead of presidents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to TK, he knows his food, and he also knows how to engender discussion and sell magazines. Witness this thread. Everyone surely must know that any such ranking is only one person's opinion.
I don't think you can ever assume the reading public takes it that way. Many people take something in magazine print as gospel and cannot even think about anything else.

However, even given that I would rather see TK (or TS for that matter) give a ranking of the top 100. If you want scary - Think about what would happen if Washingtonian invited the general public to vote and rank the votes 1 - 100.

Anyone care to guess who would win if they tried that? (Do I hear Outback?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you can ever assume the reading public takes it that way. Many people take something in magazine print as gospel and cannot even think about anything else.

However, even given that I would rather see TK (or TS for that matter) give a ranking of the top 100. If you want scary - Think about what would happen if Washingtonian invited the general public to vote and rank the votes 1 - 100.

Anyone care to guess who would win if they tried that? (Do I hear Outback?)

Few questions are more easily answered.

"...chosen for 18 consecutive years as the area's best special-occasion restaurant in the Washingtonian readers' poll. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have lived in DC for more than 20 years and I have never purchased a Washingtonian. Who the heck buys this thing, anyway?

Signed,

Curious on Kalorama

I always thought it was Maclean housewives, Potomac attorneys, Kalorama Kave-dwellers and those of us picked up a couple or three food cover issues a year (Top 100, Chep Eats and, since it's summer, Readers Choice). I note that it's for sale at the checkout line at Whole Foods and the Social Safeway, but not at the Adams-Morgan Safeway or the Brookville.

And, of course, the kind of people who think L'Auberge is Washington's finest dining destination.

ETA: Some of us are buying a lot more often since the dawn of the Kliman era. Also, if you ever really want to know who's reading it, check the personals section.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't think for a minute this hasn't already been considered.

Not only has it been considered, it is being done, for example by Robin Garr in Louisville (as an aside, I think Garr is one critic who really knows his business).

http://www.louisvillehotbytes.com/?page_id=9

The point isn't whether or not to use a 100 point scale; it has its strong points. The problem is that so many "foodies" will take differences as small as one point seriously, as if they were meaningful. Same with the Washingtonian rankings. Same with Parker and Wine Spectator. Personally, something more than 4 stars but well less than 100 points seems right to me--maybe a 10 point scale, 20 at most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, something more than 4 stars but well less than 100 points seems right to me--maybe a 10 point scale, 20 at most.
How about a 20-point scale that had 5 points for each of 4 categories (food, decor, service, etc), sort of like Iron Chef or Zagat. That way people could get a more meaningful picture of what a restaurant is like from the score, without having to read the fine print.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about a 20-point scale that had 5 points for each of 4 categories (food, decor, service, etc), sort of like Iron Chef or Zagat. That way people could get a more meaningful picture of what a restaurant is like from the score, without having to read the fine print.
I agree that Zagat's breakdown is a much more helpful system; it would be great to add reliability to it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that Zagat's breakdown is a much more helpful system; it would be great to add reliability to it.

My favorite ratings are from the SF Chronicle, which gives an overall rating, and also breaks it down. It also includes a noise rating. Here is how a typical rating looks:

Overall: TWO STARS

Food: TWO AND A HALF STARS

Service: ONE STAR

Atmosphere: ONE AND A HALF STARS

Prices: $$

Noise Rating: TWO BELLS

Pluses: Unique South Indian dishes from the state of Tamil Nadu make this

modest restaurant a destination for adventurers.

Minuses: Service can be frustratingly disorganized.

__________________

RATINGS KEY

FOUR STARS: Extraordinary

THREE STARS: Excellent

TWO STARS: Good

ONE STAR: Fair

(box): Poor

($) Inexpensive: entrees $10 and under

($$) Moderate: $11-$17

($$$) Expensive: $18-$24

($$$$) Very Expensive: more than $25

Prices area based on main courses. When entrees fall between these

categories, the prices of appetizers help determine the dollar ratings.

ONE BELL: Pleasantly quiet (under 65 decibels)

TWO BELLS: Can talk easily (65-70)

THREE BELLS: Talking normally gets difficult (70-75)

FOUR BELLS: Can only talk in raised voices (75-80)

BOMB: Too noisy for normal conversation (80+)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theoretically, Sietsema is already using a 9 point scale with his stars list. 4, 3.5, 3, 2.5, 2, 1.5, 1, 0.5, 0.
I cant' get my panties in much of a bundle about the star system. I'm not crazy for it, but I think it's ok. But if I were to admit to one pet peeve, this would be it. Why not put it on a 10 pt. system? Since he gives half points, it's effectively a 10 pt. system, why not explicitly make it one? :P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cant' get my panties in much of a bundle about the star system. I'm not crazy for it, but I think it's ok. But if I were to admit to one pet peeve, this would be it. Why not put it on a 10 pt. system? Since he gives half points, it's effectively a 10 pt. system, why not explicitly make it one? :P

I wasn't arguing for or against stars/points - just pointing out that you weren't going to get that much more information going to a 10 point scale, as he already has almost that many gradiations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call me a hopeless dreamer, but this sort of thing always saddens me a little bit (just a teeny-tiny bit)...

Ratings, stars, reviews... granted, these sorts of devices seem necessary. However, it's taking an unquantifiable, indescribeable experience, and trying to squeeze it into three inches of text.

For me, it's just another way that we objectify people. When someone tells me about a chef and says, "He's a 2 Michelin star chef," I have flashbacks to getting report cards in fifth grade, wondering my worth as a human being is truly "C+."

While eye-for-an-eye isn't really productive, I'm curious nonetheless... is there anything out there that rates the reviewers?

Heck... maybe we should start rating our customers. "That 4-shot-small-Americano guy... he's 2.5 stars."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...