Michael Landrum

What could be more original than a brand new word, "sorrid," a portmanteau I'm guessing of "torrid" and "sordid." Sounds like the kind of thing I'd like to get in on, if it didn't already pretty much describe my private life.

In Susan Orlean's article in the most recent New Yorker on the trend, pleasures and concerns of raising laying chickens in a backyard coop, she writes, "More worrisome was the fact that unless you are a professional chicken-sexer (a critical job in the poultry industry) it is nearly impossible to tell the sex of a baby chick..." In light of the likely interest of some members of this board in raising their own hens for fresher than farm-fresh eggs and the grave dangers of even one mis-sexed chicken in a group (trust me, gruesome would not even begin to describe the resulting carnage), I thought I should make known the fact that for a number of years I worked as a professional chick sexer--trained and highly-skilled in not only the standard alar method, but also the extremely difficult and highly specialized, but most accurate Japanese Anal Method--and will happily offer my chick sexing services to any and all in need. The above is completely true and will happily provide details to prove so, and Don, you dast not delete this thread unless you can prove otherwise.

I captured some hidden camera coverage of Scott's bachelor party. You may notice an appearance by our own Jacques Gastreaux about midway through the clip, when things started to get really out of hand. Congratulations to the soon-to-be-weds !!!

Actually, even with as little class as I do have, I've got more class than that...

I have always maintained that there is no better steak (or burger) than one cooked at home over a Weber grill fired with charcoal. I also have no doubt that Joe can cook a mean steak. I also always recommend Montreal seasoning. I'd say that his observations are perfectly valid and his results completely unsurprising. (For what it's worth, by the way, I'd love for the Ray's thread to not be the reason people don't feel comfortable participating in this forum).

Given the shift of Tom's presence on the Post's website from dominant to near-invisible, should we be reading more into this wistful sounding comment on today's chat?: Tom Sietsema: I've always only written about food. But the cool thing is, food encompasses just about everything: politics, fantasy, the media, literature, travel, public safety ... I've never once wished I had taken a different route. This career has been an amazing ride.

Tim Carman actually did a little thing called "reporting" and came up with this. The sad thing is that The Washington BJ's offices are no more than 250 yards away from Ray's Hell-Burger.

Let's be honest, if any number of acclaimed chefs here locally or nation-wide had come up with this idea, we'd be hailing them as visionary heroes.

Scratch that.

Much more honor than that is due the man.

Let me or Mark know if you want intros to any of the VA wine reps that'll take best care of you or the small ones that are hard to track down.

Edit that to say, "...whose sidemen, uncredited composers whose royalties he stole, and studio splicers just happened to also create some of the best music of the 20th century." Anything Miles did after '55 or so that was unsupported by more talented sidemen, unspliced, or live pretty much failed into a cringe-inducing embarrassment, or was only good because of who else was on it. It was just his trick of turning his back on the audience that fooled people into thinking otherwise.

Two pieces of information that never should have come together: First, from the July/August DC Modern Luxury article on Rachael Harriman entitled "Woman on Top": "We hope some guests will come to South by Southwest in shorts and flip flops," she [Rachael Harriman] says. Second, quoting Don Rockwell: "They will indeed serve breakfast." All I can say is that they had better have a very strict Body-Scratching-In-Public policy or they are going to have themselves some serious Michael Landrum issues on their hands. Be careful what you wish for, indeed.

I don't get it. How can anything associated with TV or celebrity be anything but fabulous?

Or you might want to consider the Protocolo at $15/bottle.

Sounds like they got a good bottle of wine in by mistake and HAZMAT was alerted.

I am obsessed with the aged Provolone at Taylor's. It makes for an unparalleled sub, with the perfect balance of high-quality ingredients properly and lovingly treated, and an amazing, intense flavor impact. Even if subs there are not of the overwhelming "gut-buster" variety, I find their deli subs (haven't had their meatball sub, and the chicken subs could be "wetter" to my taste) to be utterly satisfying as the quality of the ingredients forces me to savor each bite to the point where it takes me twice as long to finish one of theirs than my previous favorites, the Italian Store. Just the combination of the Sarcone's roll and the aged Provolone alone is enough to do it for me.

There is no chance of this project falling through. Infrastructure build-out is complete. Fixtures are in place. Furniture and equipment is all that is left. Two phone calls and I'm ready to go. It is really just a matter of the time and resources necessary to manage the insanity of Hell-Burger while maintaining some level of quality control (it would be so much easier to just let it suck for a while and then go back to normal, but then I'd have to hear about it from Don all day).

Duck wings

Actually, I posted the above commiserative reply (it seems like the hyper-entitlement directed towards restaurants is beginning to bleed over even into chats about restaurants) before I read the review, but I see your point. And, truth be told, all of your points are valid and insightful, and the potential for hypocrisy on my part is great enough that I deserve to be called on them. And, if I were soberer, I would respond in an intelligent (or at least with what passes with me as intelligent) fashion. But yes, I do believe that a major substantive review of record in a major news publication should be published no sooner than six months from the opening date of a restaurant, based on visits that occur no fewer than three months from that date. Unless, of course, the restaurant courts and manipulates that attention and depends on being a media event in and of itself, and whose raison d'etre is the status-driven and exclusionary nature of the restaurant, with little or no value otherwise. As for the possibility of me laying into Tom for a negative review, I most certainly would have had the basis for the negative review been service related, failing us for a type and style of service that we not only do not promise to provide, but announce that we assiduously do not provide, and whose opposite we DO strive to provide based on clearly explained principles. I have always only asked, in challenging others' perception or judgement on what we do, to be judged for what we do, and not what we don't do, and for what we claim to do, and not what we don't claim to do. Any failures, providing they do not involve personal attacks on members of my staff, I strive to correct with no regard to cost or pride. I'm not sure of what is hanging in my windows, but the only notices which I make a point of hanging, and the only press that I take any pride in, involve the social nature of my work (or pictures in which I find myself to be particularly Humbertianly attractive). Sometimes a review displayed publicly can be a source of pride and earned recognition to the memebers of my team who worked unimaginably hard to make it possible, so if charged--Guilty as Quilty am I! Last point--there have been times when all of the Ray's restaurants at one point or another have sucked, regardless of how recently or long ago they opened, or on any individual occasion or day. My job is to keep the guest from knowing this, or if he does, to find a way to make amends. To sum it up--and put this in whatever thread you want--with this review I really and truthfully feel like I have dodged a bullet, unlike Pushkin and Lermontov, and thank God for the team that allowed me to (even if it means I spend the rest of my time sprawled on the couch like a booze-addled Oblomov). The question for reviews in general is whether the critic can shoot on the count of three, but the restaurateur can only take aim after ten paces, unless he cheats.

You know, believe it or not, I actually felt sorry for Tom yesterday for how he was getting beat up. Not just the vegetarian thing either, he was getting it from all sides.

I worry I'd forget if it wasn't also Bastille's Day too and if this wasn't the first song I didn't remember... Strange that this is what made me remember it all. (Peace to J. Dilla too)

What could be especially interesting is that at the high-end, a great, well-run restaurant, with a great chef, exceptional food and an exceptional wine program such as Proof can afford to be so transparent. I know none of my competitors, on the steakhouse front, can afford to be; I wonder how many of Proof's can. Perhaps that is criteria that could come more into play when evaluating restaurants publicly--as shocking an idea as that may be. Who is actually fair and honest with their guests and can measure up to standards of transparency? To digress a bit, this reminds me of a fairly obvious truth that was brought home by a comment by Todd Kliman in his twittering from the opening night at V-2, err...J&G, yet another not-really-a-steakhouse-but-calls-itself-a-steakhouse-anyway. The fairly obvious truth is in answer to the question everyone asks every time a new steakhouse is announced, why do they keep opening more steakhouses by big name out-of-town chefs in DC, especially when it turns out that they really aren't steakhouses/don't serve great steaks. The answer, obvious to me at least, is that when you call yourself a steakhouse you immediately lose all accountability for your pricing and you can get away with all sorts of shit that no other restaurant could ever get away with and that's the only way there's enough for both the hotel and the chef-fronted conglomerate to glom onto. Not even Citronelle or Maestro can get away with an $80 entree--imagine what would be said of INOX if they even tried. But at a steakhouse? One that doesn't even serve a good steak? No problem, nothing wrong there, no gouging whatsoever!!! On the other side of the coin, Buck's gets a lot of criticism, rightly or wrongly, I don't know, for the price of it's $38 steak. But the same steak of a lesser quality at a steakhouse for $48 or $52? No problem!!! Plus the $10, $12, even $14 sides you need to order to avoid bare plates. Who else even gets away with that shit? But call yourself a steakhouse and it's all good, even if your steaks are not. I wonder if when I open Ray's The Catch and my fish and seafood sucks anyone is going to say, "Fish isn't the reason to go to Ray's The Catch, but there is a great steak or two on the menu, so by all means go!" No, the obvious question would be, "Why does he do fish if his fish sucks?" Ask that question to big name chefs about steaks, and the answer is obvious: "It let's us charge more for EVERYTHING and not have to work very hard to do it!" (Hee-hee, I kill myself--Vergeltungsgaststatte-2. Ha ha)

Waitman, Pool Boy, I agree with you both. Insightful, well-reasoned points.

Old topic, but I've been meaning to reply to this for a while. I hate to break it to you, but restaurants charge even MORE of a mark-up on food than they do on wine. In your typical restaurant, the chef is given a mandate of 30% food cost--meaning that a plate of food whose ingredients cost $10 will be priced on the menu for $33-$34 (a little leeway is figured in to allow for dropped plates and unwarranted send-backs). Particular food items that have a high perceived-value but in reality a low cost--scallops, filet mignon, lobster, at times--will have an even higher mark up, sometimes ridiculously so, as will the lower-cost menu items--chicken, salmon, pork etc. The small plates format is typically priced even more egregiously at a projected 25% food cost. Meaning that that cute $8 plate of mini-whatevers contains $2 of ingredients. Very often, with the 30% food cost mandate, a chef is expected to hit 28% to make bonus. A chef who finds himself with a food cost of 33-35% food cost will soon find himself bonus-less and out of a job. The typical wine cost is pretty much 33% across the board, except at the obvious exceptions, meaning that a bottle of wine that wholesales for $10 will sell for $30. For the record, at Ray's we work off a 55-60% food cost goal, meaning that, say, fresh jumbo lump crab that wholesales at $18/lb on average is sold as a 7-ounce Crab Royale, with sides having a plate-cost of $12, for $20.95 (the 10-ounce is 26.95). And our average wine cost is 40-45% (don't jump on me, mathematicians) , or a 2.2-2.5 mark-up--meaning that a bottle of wine that wholesales for $10 will be on the list for $25, rather than $30, and one that wholesales for $25 will be on the list for $55, rather than $75. Sorry to cross the line of self-promotion, Don, but the meaning of "value" in restaurants is so misconstrued and so misunderstood that I felt it would be ok to break it down in real world numbers.