Jump to content

Tom Sietsema's Reviews


Meaghan

Recommended Posts

You really have to take these reviews with a grain of salt. It's just one persons opinion, nothing more nothing less.
Gee, really?

This is not life or death, man. I just think it's a damn shame that the Washington Post has a total of two restaurant reviewers, one of whom I may as well not bother reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was commenting on TS's glossy review, not the restaurant itself. I really don't give a crap about Jimmy's, I hope they succeed, and I hope Tom keeps reviewing for the Post so I know I'll always have something to rant about.

BTW, as a courtesy, I have always had my real name, picture, and pertinent affiliations listed in my Control Panel-in this and any other forum. It's a click away

How can you opine that the review is superficial or inaccurate if you have never stepped foot in the restaurant?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always had my real name, picture, and pertinent affiliations listed in my Control Panel-in this and any other forum. It's a click away
It does not seem to be on your profile. So, where to click?

On a more topical note, I actually appreciated the review a lot, despite not being a big Tom fan in general. I have dined at Jimmy's, and I think it was pretty accurate. I posted on it but without much detail because there were just so many problems. The service is almost offensively nice, while being simultaneously bad.

It is not one thing that is off here; it is the whole experience. It just doesn't add up. As picky as I may be, this is the only business meal that I have had all year where a bad restaurant experience made other conversation impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does not seem to be on your profile. So, where to click?
The website address is at the bottom of his profile.

It is not one thing that is off here; it is the whole experience. It just doesn't add up. As picky as I may be, this is the only business meal that I have had all year where a bad restaurant experience made other conversation impossible.
and yet it still got one star..
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I clicked there, and I still didn't get it. Maybe I am just missing something.
The point of Mr. Sietsema's review was clear (it takes more than a blustery front-of-the-house performance for a steak house to stand out in DC) AND his words provoked an emotional response. I call that a twofer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stand corrected. According to the teaser on WTOP this morning, we have a 3 star review to look forward to this evening. Any educated guesses?
It's Scossa Restaurant and Lounge in Easton, Maryland--but only two stars.

Tom hasn't been enunciating very clearly lately - unusual for a Minnesota boy! A couple of times I thought he said "three" when it was actually two ... it could be the radio station is editing it too closely ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom hasn't been enunciating very clearly lately - unusual for a Minnesota boy! A couple of times I thought he said "three" when it was actually two ... it could be the radio station is editing it too closely ...

Glad to hear that I'm not totally losing my hearing! :) Anyone want to speculate on what the next *** place will be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry to be the bearer of disappointing news, but "Gastronaut" is the title of a book by Britisher Stefan Gates, subtitled "Adventures in food for the romantic, the foolhardy and the brave." Published in 2005 by Harcourt, Inc.

Neologisms can be thought of by more than one person--I used to enter Bob Levey's monthly neologism contest in the Washington Post. On more than one occasion, I came up with the winning answer--but I wasn't the first one to send it in. Good one, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry to be the bearer of disappointing news, but "Gastronaut" is the title of a book by Britisher Stefan Gates, subtitled "Adventures in food for the romantic, the foolhardy and the brave." Published in 2005 by Harcourt, Inc.
The first time I saw the term "gastronaut" was on eGullet a couple of years ago (on a thread started by Don Rockwell).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess you are commenting on the fact that the chat for next week is available? Most chats are usually up early so that readers can submit questions before things start.

Interesting. Hadn't really noticed before since I've never tried to submit early (or at all really). Only found it when I went looking for last week's chat when I didn't see it on the Ask Tom page, though later found out he had cancelled for the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was the most "so what?" review I've ever read. When I (almost) finished, I said the hell with it and went to Washingtonpost.com to find something worthwhile to read.

I disagree. When I read the review, I found myself nodding my head in agreement with most every point Tom was making. Agraria is a restaurant that has been hyped in the national press for months. The review might not have been relevant to us, but for the Sunday Post's other 900,000 readers, I think it provided a perfectly lucid, well-written picture of the restaurant.

Cheers,

Rocks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was the most "so what?" review I've ever read. When I (almost) finished, I said the hell with it and went to Washingtonpost.com to find something worthwhile to read.
For people who have already been to a restaurant, reviews are there to agree or disagree with. For those who have not been, they provide information useful in deciding whether to go there in the first place. And having been to Agraria myself, I thought Tom did a pretty good job of summing the place up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe someone can explain this to me. I don't understand why you would have a 'star' system, and then give a place 2 AND A HALF STARS! You go to the trouble of having a little box EVERY WEEK defining what one, two, three, and four stars mean. If you're not going to give a restaurant one of those, why have the system? Or define what 2.5 stars means. Last week it was one AND A HALF STARS! Make up your freakin mind!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe someone can explain this to me. I don't understand why you would have a 'star' system, and then give a place 2 AND A HALF STARS! You go to the trouble of having a little box EVERY WEEK defining what one, two, three, and four stars mean. If you're not going to give a restaurant one of those, why have the system? Or define what 2.5 stars means. Last week it was one AND A HALF STARS! Make up your freakin mind!

Obviously you have a problem with Tom's reviews. Please give it a rest. Is the concept of the meaning of being between 2 stars that hard to comprehend? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, I loved his review of Blue Duck, so I'm not down on everything he does. That's just silly. Obviously, neither of you has an explanation. I believe in good writing, and like to be informed. If Tom is off-limits, say so. Your ad hominem attacks on me are petty and small-minded. You are delberately missing my point. Which is...Maybe, just maybe, if you are going to explain what 'one star' means, what 'two stars' means, etc. you should explain what 1.5 stars means, what 2.5 stars means, etc. It is only logical, that if you feel you must explain what 'whole' stars mean, same goes for 1/2 stars. Otherwise, why even explain what stars mean at all? I mean, four is the best, none is the worst, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sietsema isn't my boyfriend, so I don't actually give a shit whether you don't like him or not.

The BIG FREAKING DEAL in your post above just seemed a bit over the top. Is it really so hard to puzzle out? Let's see, 2.5 would be between 1 and 2, right? So a place that gets 1.5 stars was not deficient in all of the areas that would give a restau one star.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think of the half stars as the equivalent of a C- or a B+ (etc.). I'm not really all that fond of the way that rating system seems to be set up, so I tend to look at the content of his reviews rather than focusing on the star ratings. (Of course, management of the establishments reviewed cares about the stars.)

I suppose it was just some kind of wordplay, but I really did wonder how a 2 1/2 star experience translated into 3 star leftovers :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose it was just some kind of wordplay, but I really did wonder how a 2 1/2 star experience translated into 3 star leftovers :)
I took that to mean that the food was three stars but a couple of service lapses on the floor cost them the 1/2 star.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never understood the whole 1-star, 2-star, 3-star, etc. thing either, and now that there are half-stars, it's like, just,waaayyy too much for me.

So every time I see a star, I picture a smilie face. And if there are no stars, I picture a frownie face.

Two-and-a-half smilie faces are pretty good. Just not as good as three.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, there's always lively and insightful debate about the NY food critics. But simply have the slightest problem with TS, even in a semi-joking manner, and the knives come out. There used to be a lively debate about DC's food critics, pro AND con, in the not-too-recent past. Perhaps someone can tell me why there is barely a response to TS's reviews these days on this board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, there's always lively and insightful debate about the NY food critics. But simply have the slightest problem with TS, even in a semi-joking manner, and the knives come out. There used to be a lively debate about DC's food critics, pro AND con, in the not-too-recent past. Perhaps someone can tell me why there is barely a response to TS's reviews these days on this board.

Maybe because the last few reviews were pretty much in agreement with what folks think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps someone can tell me why there is barely a response to TS's reviews these days on this board.

Not to make the amps go to 11 but, for me, I don't comment on his reviews because they are so out of the realm of what I experience that I rely on them simply to show me a picture of the food and/or dining room. Or, sometimes perhaps to give me the phone number of the place or let me know what Metro stop it's near. Surely not because I trust how many stars, sheep or smilies he counts. I understand that there are others who do appreciate and agree with reviews. I'm not one of them. I have found, however, that his "foodie writing," like the piece he did for Mothers' Day, is much more to my taste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe someone can explain this to me.
This desperate existential gripe is half baked, or, if the Cartesians prefer, raw.

(Insert yawn)

BHL, Sartre, or Camus might have an assistant redirect such a query to how most people here order beef; Not quite medium, not quite rare...but somewhere in between? And if they like jazz. The late great mathlete Leonhard Euler would demonstrate that if the concept of 0 - 4 stars ½ star increments is confusing, a 0-8 whole number rating scale is the same.

0 ----- 0 ----- No good

½ ---- 1

1 ----- 2 -----Good

1½ --- 3

2 ----- 4 -----Gooder

2½ --- 5

3 ----- 6 -----Gooderer

3½ --- 7

4 ------ 8 -----Gooderest

In the free capitalist world, 5 points, a thumb or half star is the difference between getting more patrons and more monies than the next guy; whereas in a pass-fail society we would all be reading reviews of only okroshka and driving Trabants. A wider spectrum offers more accurate scores on wine, varieties of tooth paste and choice of an anaesthesiologist who earned 3/4 or 87/100 on their final

Though Mr. Sietsema’s traveling salesman pizzazz and soupy wit is like cold Sunday morning alphabet gruel, his editorial is a personal experience whose intent is not to take the wrinkles out of seersucker suits, but offer a general level of merit for the consumer on a subjective product that can not be clinically tested and rated like a lawnmower or toaster. Furthermore, the area food critic is (dis)approving fried chicken and pork chops, not dengue fever vaccines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All 1330 of them? All at once? I smell fear.

Check your sniffer, Danny--that's not fear so much as apathy.

As for me, I read the reviews, and if I agree with them, fine, and if I don't, I don't. They're information, but not the be-all and end-all. I'm not afraid to disagree with Sietsema, or anyone else for that matter. I just choose my battles.

In the case of RTC, I thought that it was a terrific review, especially considering the place had barely been open 2-3 months when it was reviewed. I didn't disagree with much that was said, although I was puzzled by the "3-star lunch" comment at the end. I'm one of those Virginians who has now crossed the river 3 times to dine at RTC, and look forward to future trips.

I don't have a problem with the half-stars he uses. It is his system, and he could use any symbols he wants. It's a quick reference, not an exact rating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the case of RTC, I thought that it was a terrific review, especially considering the place had barely been open 2-3 months when it was reviewed.
Actually, closer to 2-3 weeks when Sietsema was in the restaurant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree, its nice to read the rating but honestly who cares? I mean I basically look at it like a look at this board. Its another person who loves to eat out with who you can "talk" with about the restaurants you have been to. The reason we are all on this board is to discuss restaurants what dishes we liked, how the service was etc. etc. I read Tom for the same reason. See how his notes compare to my own. Something seems off though. Danny, we getting the whole story here? Someone seems to be a little more than angry with Tom and his rating system....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree, its nice to read the rating but honestly who cares? I mean I basically look at it like a look at this board. Its another person who loves to eat out with who you can "talk" with about the restaurants you have been to. The reason we are all on this board is to discuss restaurants what dishes we liked, how the service was etc. etc. I read Tom for the same reason. See how his notes compare to my own. Something seems off though. Danny, we getting the whole story here? Someone seems to be a little more than angry with Tom and his rating system....

Not angry at all, Blake. And you could say, 'but honestly who cares' about the whole review. And that's fine. In fact, in a half-joking way, (lighten up, people) :) I was just looking for a fun discussion on the most important food writer in this market, whom I believe is not up to the game. Since I work in the local DC media, although nothing remotely related to food, I'm curious if others share my opinions or not. I immediately get slammed. But at least I got a response, and I think a lot of good information...except from poivrot! :wub::)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:) I was just looking for a fun discussion on the most important food writer in this market, whom I believe is not up to the game. Since I work in the local DC media, although nothing remotely related to food, I'm curious if others share my opinions or not. I immediately get slammed. But at least I got a response, and I think a lot of good information...except from poivrot! :wub::)
I think you found that most people either don't care, or don't agree with you.

And a less hostile tone might might less to a more "fun" discussion. Just sayin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Danny, from my point of view your tone did come across as hostile, not half-joking, and not laying the foundation for a "fun discussion." This may be a classic case of the typed word not revealing the author's true intent.

Also, I believe most people here, myself included, feel that Tom is, in fact, up to the task. He just won the 2006 first prize for Restaurant Criticism given by the Association of Food Journalists (click here for the .pdf file). But more importantly, people here tend to like him, which makes some of your comments hard to, erm, digest.

[speaking as moderator, I don't want to quell open discussion about Tom's work, but I do think the points have been made, and perhaps it's time to move forward.]

Cheers,

Rocks.

[ETA: Five posts deleted. I won't lock the topic yet, but don't push it.]

Edited by DonRocks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Danny notes the intense criticism that NYC restaurant critics receive vs. the criticism (or lack thereof) that TS receives. As somebody who follows the Bruni-bashing up in NYC, I'd note one fairly significant difference: Bruni regularly gets slammed simply for the restaurants he chooses to review, let alone the actual review.

With the relatively infrequent occasion on which TS reviews something in Baltimore or in Front Royal (when, by the way, he does get an earful in his weekly chats), TS is rarely criticized for the specific restaurants he chooses to review. The pool of plausibly reviewable restaurants is simply smaller in DC. I can't remember there ever being a post on here along the lines of, "Can you believe he wasted a WaPo review on. . .?"

Tom's been growing on me lately. If you go back in this thread, I was critical of his writing. Still not a huge fan, but I'm coming around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Eamonn's and the PX are probably exceptions. Both opened in a fairly mature state and have little/few issues. The wait typically is to allow places to iron out any issues that have, but I haven't heard or seen any problems with Eamonn's at least at all (haven't made it to PX yet). 2 stars (maybe 2 and a half) is probably the best they could have done regardless considering Eamonn's is basically bar food (good bar food, but bar food nonetheless) and the PX has no food (as far as I've heard), which makes it difficult to get a high star rating from a food critic. Tom had nothing but glowing things to say for both places, with the exception of the batter burger which was basically the only slightly negative thing he had to say (their can't be an entirely positive review, can their?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it just me or has Tom been reviewing places sooner and sooner after they launch? Eamonn's hasn't even been open two months and PX even less.

I've noticed this, too, though I have no hard data to confirm this. On the other hand, two theories:

1) After a few years on the job, the backlog is cleared up, there aren't dozens of places he's "been meaning to get to" so he is at greater leisure to jump on the hot new thing as soon as it opens and;

2) Increased competition from blogs, the City Paper and an no-longer-staid Washingtonian :) means that he has to get his reviews into print faster to remain cutting edge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it just me or has Tom been reviewing places sooner and sooner after they launch? Eamonn's hasn't even been open two months and PX even less.
Yes. He wrote a weekly dish about his lunch at Jimmy's on K Street printed the Wednesday of their opening week, meaning he ate there the first or second day of operation. Review followed six weeks after opening. Blue Duck Tavern seemed soon. Urbana seemed soon. I was surprised he waited as long as he did for Agraria (2 1/2 months?)

I also seem to recall in a chat he waits a month before visiting, and then dines at the establishment several times over a few weeks. That paradigm seems to have changed.

I love Eamonn's, it's fantastic. I just can't believe it was reviewed-what a waste of space. I could name 100's of restaurants more deserving of a review, good or bad, than a 20 seat chipper. Eamonn's should have been a weekly dish mention at best. Come to think of it, I believe it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love Eamonn's, it's fantastic. I just can't believe it was reviewed-what a waste of space. I could name 100's of restaurants more deserving of a review, good or bad, than a 20 seat chipper. Eamonn's should have been a weekly dish mention at best. Come to think of it, I believe it was.
It was sort of a dual review; Eammons and PX.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was sort of a dual review; Eammons and PX.
True, but I still agree with Brian. If anything, PX should have shown up in the Weekend section and Eamonn's is probably a "Fare Minded" at best.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that the Eve gang got the pub, I just don't quite get it. I guess Tom felt he couldn't ignore a new outing from Cathal.

One of these days I need to drag my lazy butt down to Old Town to get some fish n chips.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that the Eve gang got the pub, I just don't quite get it. I guess Tom felt he couldn't ignore a new outing from Cathal.
I think you got it right, Joe. "Fare Minded" or "Worth the Trip" but not a full-blown magazine review.

Maybe we can make the scary river crossing for fish & chips sometime soon.

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...