Inox, Chefs Jon Mathieson and Jonathan Krinn in Tysons Corner - Closed

[zoramargolis]

I wonder if the 2.5 stars is kind of a baseline on account of it being new, with an eye to a steady rise. I seem to recall Eve, Komi and CityZen coming in relatively low and climbing.

I remember well TS's first review of BlackSalt, wherein he gave it two stars and badly dissed the pastry chef, who is still there. He has since upgraded it to 2 1/2*s (and given Black Market Bistro 3*s IIRC) and praised the desserts. TS's initial lukewarm review did nothing to dampen BlackSalt's success--it's been pretty much packed every night since it opened. There's just a snippy archness to his writing at times that gets on my last nerve.

[Joe H]

I actually thought the review read pretty well and that the point about the economy -- given the death of Il Fiamma and transfiguration of Citronelle -- was a valid one. And, as irked as some people are about the three-figure Burgundy crack, Tom also pointed out that Monsieur Le Sommelier reccommended a wine less expensive than he had initially considered.

I wonder if the 2.5 stars is kind of a baseline on account of it being new, with an eye to a steady rise. I seem to recall Eve, Komi and CityZen coming in relatively low and climbing. Or maybe stars just fell in late trading on rumors that the Chrysler-Fiat merger was off.

At any rate, the review was to me a tasty reminder that Inox needs to be the next big night out.

(Washingtonian review seems not to be on line)

"Straining for Perfection" is the title of the review in the Washingtonian which also gave Inox two and one half stars.

[Waitman]

"Straining for Perfection" is the title of the review in the Washingtonian which also gave Inox two and one half stars.

I'd suggest that the Post review is a virtual tongue kiss compared to Washingtonian.

"By the time [the waiter] was done [describing the dishes], I felt like I'd listened to some kind of fine-dining parody (malted mustard emulsion?)... corporate air...forbidding menu...Is it possible to toy with food to death?"

Another interesting thing is that the Washingtonian specifically bitch-slaps two duishes that Tom singled out for praise: the skate and the pipierogi.

If the Post is a two-and-a-half that reads like more, Washingtonian is a two-and-a-half that reads like less.

[JPW]

Dear Todd,

How can you have a review of a restaurant like Inox and not have one mention of any beverage whatsoever?

[Ericandblueboy]

There are 26 restaurants on Washingtonian with 3 or more stars. The only 1 that I really disagree with is 4 Sisters. I haven't been to Inox but 2.5 stars is a slap in the face? I suggest you people check yourselves. Adour only gets 2 stars, where's the bitching? Another forum favorite, Black Salt, only has 2 (which doesn't deserve 1 as far as I'm concerned). Where's the righteous indignation?

As for the Post, the only restaurants with better rating are (based on Fall 08 dining guide):

CityZen

The Inn at Little Washington

Komi

Restaurant Eve's Tasting Room

Minibar

Rasika

Buck's Fishing & Camping

Central

Jaleo

2941

Citronelle

Obelisk

Palena

Proof

The Source

So Inox should be in the top 15? Maybe it is, may it isn't. I just don't see 2.5 stars being all that bad. If anything, Monterey upstairs deserves some serious recognition. They do fish better than Hook, Black Salt, and DC Coast.

[NotQuickDraw]

I've often mentioned my dislike for Seitsma <'s columns - don't know the guy >, pretty much since he started, and I haven't warmed to him at all in all that time. If I want social commentary, i'll stick with...oh, never mind. Not worth it.

FAIL.

[Pat]

I just want to know...if the economy suddenly rebounds, is Tom going to re-review the restaurant? It seems odd to hang so much of an evaluation on an external factor. Obviously, they planned the restaurant before the economy collapsed. Why should they be punished for that?

[agm]

As for the Post, the only restaurants with better rating are (based on Fall 08 dining guide):

The "dining guide" does not list all the restaurants the Post has reviewed, or even all the good ones. It's a heavily edited list. Don posted on the page 2 a list of quite a few restaurants given better ratings than Inox, and many given the same rating.

The outrage (at least in this household) comes from two sources. One, that rating really is a slap in the face to Inox, which is simply better than that.

Two, is the review and rating as a whole. Several paragraphs of raves for the food, the wine program, the bread, the water and the service, plus mention of a couple of lesser dishes, do not reasonably equal a 2 1/2 star rating. The math just doesn't add up. Ah, but in the rest of the review (four paragraphs before we get to the food) we have the explanation: TS doesn't think this is a good time to open an upscale restaurant.

Who the FUCK cares!?!

2 1/2 stars in the Post can be the difference between a restaurant that caters to the Tysons Corner business crowd only - convenience for those who still have expense accounts - and a destination restaurant that draws people from throughout the metro area. Inox got screwed, and its business potentially harmed, not because it didn't perform in the kitchen or in the dining room, but because a restaurant critic decided to branch out into a bit of social/economic commentary.

[jparrott]

I haven't read Kliman's review

It wasn't Kliman. And the review did not mention any aspect of the beverage program.

[Dave Pressley]

Still, I didn't start slamming the character of the person who reviewed it/them nor did I assault the integrity of anyone who felt differently from me.

Yet that is now happening. And this is outrageous.

For once, I agree with you completely, Joe. Krinn, Mathieson and Wabeck are execeptional restaurant professionals and anyone who won't dine at Inox because of two people's "less than mindblowing" reviews are simply missing out.

I have yet to dine at Inox, but I will soon and it will be awesome.

[agm]

This has become a joke. The two principal reviewers in the D. C. area give a restaurant two and one half stars. A small group of people on here rail against those who disagree with their opinions.

I withdraw my final comment about Sietsema, and any mention of Kliman. My objection, however, is not just that I disagree with Sietsema's review, but that, in however long it's been that he's given star ratings, he hasn't - to my mind - established any identifiable criteria for those ratings, or provided any way for readers to understand how he relates a written review to a rating. A minor point, perhaps, but he's writing for the Post, and he knows full well that many people will glance at the stars and write off a restaurant without bothering to read what was, in this case, actually a very favorable review overall. This has annoyed me for years - and this week he potentially hurt a restaurant I truly hope will thrive, and reading that review I can't attribute it to anything that should be in any way relevant to a restaurant review. So I spoke up now, simply because I care more now, but this is a long-standing complaint.

On a related note, I actually agree with 2 1/2 stars for The Source. But that's because the one meal I've had there, the food started out great, but the main course was bland and quite boring, and the service was laughably bad (one example: we were presented with a roast chicken, told that it would have been carved tableside but nobody with the necessary skill was available, watched as the chicken went back to the kitchen for carving, and laughed when an obviously different bird was served to us). Others may disagree, perhaps strongly, but at least my opinion is based on food and service. I don't remember the review, or what Sietsema thought of it.

[Craig Erion]

[This is what happens when I take Matt to Sushi-Ko for a late dinner. Okay, everyone: NO PERSONAL INSULTS. Please clean up your posts by the time I wake up tomorrow or I'll have to delete them. I can't selectively edit them, because they're not my intellectual property - that means either leaving them intact, or deleting them completely. Once again, no personal insults. That's anything of the form "x is a y," and x can be Tom Sietsema, EricandBlueBoy, or any other human being. Criticizing the CONTENT OF PEOPLE'S WRITING is fair game, please feel free to do so as vigorously and passionately as you wish ... but the person behind the words must remain untouched.]

While some of you are taking shots at each other and calling names. Yes, calling names. This is like junior high-school but with better vocabularies. There are people, actual people, that will be affected by this review long after you all find something else that has no bearing on your everyday life to get worked up about. So if you care about this restaurant and the individuals who have been working like champs since day one, keep making reservations and keep supporting Inox. If you don't care what happens, shut your computer off and shut the fuck up.

-Craig

[lion]

I stopped reading Tom Sietsema's reviews years ago, though there was a brief period of time after his predecessor left, when his online chats were interesting to me. For the record, I have no beef with Tom nor do I know him in any way other than a reader of his reviews and chats back in those days, but in my opinion, he's just never been a good fit for me as the de facto reviewer, via the WP, of the metro area. And I'll be the first to admit, perhaps I judged him to harshly as I still miss Phyllis Richman's finesse.

Now, I appreciate various posters at Don Rockwell, Chowhound, and even places like yelp.com to get a full range of culinary reviews on a restaurant. Of course, some are experts and others are just regular people who enjoy eating a good meal, yet in the diversity of opinion, you can get a sense if quality arises.

To this degree, the reviews about Inox have all substantiated a high level of food, service and more importantly, foundation for the future. The pieces all seem to be there for good success. At the end of the day, I'm a big believer in word of mouth.

So, even though, I have not visited Inox, personally have mentioned it as the place to check out in Tysons Corner to at least five different people. Soon, one of my friends or I will have a review that I trust.

[RJ Cooper]

Its fantastic that everyone on board has this passion of defence about Inox. However for the restaurant to grow the community needs to support it. They cook and serve for the daily guests not for one food writer.

[FunnyJohn]

"If I owned an Astin Martin, I might be a little reluctant to let a stranger drive it too...." Well I'm sorry that Tom wasn't amongst those present when I took my daughter to Inox (see my post above). We pulled up in her Toyota Solara (she being the designated driver) which doubles as a dumpster/garbage skow. Yes, I too was reluctant to have the valet parking attendant park it, since he needed to clear debris in order to get to the gas and brake pedals

I spoke to John Wabeck shortly before Inox opened and raised the same concerns as Sietsema about the poor economic climate for an opening of a restaurant such as Inox. He said they were ready and had time and warning to prepare for the environment in which they were opening.

[themeatguy]

I'm gonna pour more gas on the fire and ask if anyone has seen the wonderful piece of journalism in the Washingtonian?

Oh...your not refering to that second rate writer that decided to some sort of personal attack on Inox? Setting forth not one mention of the Wine Program or the fact that there are 2 chefs there! Ann limpert isn't a bad writer, but Todd should have written that review. He should have been there, and if family reasons prevented him from doing it.....he should have waited!

[Todd Kliman]

You all have a good understanding of the ins and outs of the restaurant business, and I know you're vitally concerned that quality wins out and good places succeed, and that's wonderful.

The reason many of you understand those ins and outs so well is because you're either in the business or connected to it in some way.

I suggest respectfully that you try to learn the ins and outs of writing and editing and reporting and magazines and newspapers before you try to speak out about these things, even if it's just on a message board.

There's a lot of bemoaning of things that a publication or writer got wrong about a restaurant, or didn't include, or didn't understand, etc. But I see it on the other side, too.

Little things. Like, for example, the suggestion on another thread right now that I "promote" restaurants. Does Yardley promote Peter Taylor by writing about him so often, and with such obvious enthusiasm?

There's misinformation, too, or oddly skewed interpretations of things. I let them go. I don't have the time to respond to everything, and especially now.

And then, this thread. All these speculations.

Ascribing motives is the most dangerous of all. Does anyone know me well enough to speak with certainty and insight about my motivations? Charges of agendas -- and not for the first time. I admit to having a point of view, which is different. Without one, it's just the doling out of information.

I'd also like to know who knows enough about me and my "family reasons" -- the very particular circumstances I now find myself in -- to bring this into any discussion.

I didn't come on here to begin a long and involved dialogue, or to explain my views or justify my decisions -- or to do the same for Tom Sietsema. And I didn't come on to squelch the conversation. Just to ask for the same understanding and benefit of the doubt you extend to the restaurants.

[Cornbread]

Very well said. One of the things I've enjoyed the most about this site is the fact that the members always seems to look for the positive even in a negative experience. That same courtesy and respect should be given to professionals such as yourself without question. We don't have to agree but show respect for other’s hard work.

[jrichstar]

Thank you, Todd, for your excellent reply. It seems that folks sometimes get carried away with speculation and innuendo, though I suppose that's the nature of people, especially in a public forum like this. Unfortunately, guys like you and Tom don't have the time to keep up with all of this stuff so it generally goes undefended. Nice to see you defend.

[themeatguy]

You all have a good understanding of the ins and outs of the restaurant business, and I know you're vitally concerned that quality wins out and good places succeed, and that's wonderful.

The reason many of you understand those ins and outs so well is because you're either in the business or connected to it in some way.

I suggest respectfully that you try to learn the ins and outs of writing and editing and reporting and magazines and newspapers before you try to speak out about these things, even if it's just on a message board.

There's a lot of bemoaning of things that a publication or writer got wrong about a restaurant, or didn't include, or didn't understand, etc. But I see it on the other side, too.

Little things. Like, for example, the suggestion on another thread right now that I "promote" restaurants. Does Yardley promote Peter Taylor by writing about him so often, and with such obvious enthusiasm?

There's misinformation, too, or oddly skewed interpretations of things. I let them go. I don't have the time to respond to everything, and especially now.

And then, this thread. All these speculations.

Ascribing motives is the most dangerous of all. Does anyone know me well enough to speak with certainty and insight about my motivations? Charges of agendas -- and not for the first time. I admit to having a point of view, which is different. Without one, it's just the doling out of information.

I'd also like to know who knows enough about me and my "family reasons" -- the very particular circumstances I now find myself in -- to bring this into any discussion.

I didn't come on here to begin a long and involved dialogue, or to explain my views or justify my decisions -- or to do the same for Tom Sietsema. And I didn't come on to squelch the conversation. Just to ask for the same understanding and benefit of the doubt you extend to the restaurants.

Todd,

First let me start off by saying that I had no slight in what I said. Never did I mean to plunge into your personal business in a negative manor, or claim to know you! I have never spoken to you or even emailed you on your chats!

During a Chat that took place on Tuesday, a chatter said “Sorry about your father; being Vietnamese, I will definitely try Present to honor your last meal with your father”…..

Knowing that these reviews must take some time to write, do multiple visits as you have all suggested in the past, I just assumed that with the tragedy in your family may have led to you not writing the review.

Never did I mean to drop into a personal diatribe or attack you about you or your family….It was me trying to put two & two together and make an assumption. – Sorry I did that.

That said Todd, I do think that the mistakes that were made, not just by Ann, but by TS also. It is hard for me to believe that a Food Editor at the Post or the Washingtonian, would let a staff food writer do a big review on someone like Citronelle or Citizen on their own.

And as we saw in the reviews of most if not all of the 4 star reviews, you were involved. In most of the 3 Star reviews you were involved. In fact, in most cases where there is a restaurant that is opening that there is a big buzz around, you are involved somehow and your name tends to be on the Review…….Just like Inox, the review of Bourbon….It was not.

Now, No offense, but these were the last two reviews, correct? So one, that might do his research might say, that because of the mentioning of your father passing, that perhaps she was given the task of review these restaurants because of the above reason.

I understand if it is a personal matter, but you did talk about it on your chats, Right? So it might be natural for one to offer the thought, that perhaps, that is the reason why!

Todd, Like I said, I don’t know you except for what you write and your chats on Tuesdays. But I do know this; If I was an owner of a restaurant like Inox, or Vidalia, or Citizen, or Citronelle / Central, or 2941, or Restaurant Eve, or one of the other BIG NAME CHEF, Restaurants…..I would want to know that the review that was going to be done on my establishment was going to be done by the most seasoned writer of the publisher that he works for! Especially when the Food editor does a review on so many other BIG names in the city, and lets be clear…..Jon Krinn, Jonathan Mathieson, John Wabeck…It’s a big story and lots of people were excited about it. Then this half looking review comes out and all the people that I have told it was great to, asked if my standard were that low. Are you kidding me?

The Washingtonian did a best bites blog on Wabeck…..How do you not include the wine service in the Review Todd? As the Food Editor, how do you let that happen? Again, I don’t know them either….But I know that if your heating the crowd up for fantastic wines, then you say nothing about the wine service, You’re going to piss people off..!

I don’t know the restaurant industry like you Mr. Klimann, I just like to eat at places that have good reputations for taking care of their customers, and serving the best dishes. Having imbibed twice at Inox, I can say I honestly disagree with Ann Limpert and her review.

That is My Opinion, and that is what these message boards are for. So you may be upset with me for saying what I said, but in the end it all looks like that is a reasonable explanation.

I didn’t see a response from you on the other blog where someone said “Perhaps Ann’s Father the editor of the Washingtonian, made Todd step away so his daughter could do the review”?

Again I didn’t mean to offend you, just offering my own review of what I see as a troubling review of a restaurant I enjoy immensely.

A guy who loves meat!

[DonRocks]

[i'm monitoring this discussion carefully, and it's very hard for me to do nothing, not only because I helped to initially stir the pot, but because I also have multiple friendships on both sides of this equation (including Ann, whom I like, respect, and admire) - but for the time being, I'm stepping back from this dialogue. Carry on as you wish.]

[Joe H]

Meatguy, we had an interesting thread going a week or so ago before CH deleted it. I did not go into any detail for my opinion of Inox other than to say that I thought Citronelle, at its best, was a better restaurant. My wife and I had dinner on the second Saturday night Inox was open. Sitting at the same table we had entirely different experiences: John Wabeck told me that they were out of the first wine that I ordered. Out of it on their second Saturday night of operation! This is what I wrote to a friend of mine about our experience that night:

"We just returned from dinner there this evening. It was interesting....I will not be posting on a board about it. (Second weekend-totally unfair.) Absolutely outstanding vanilla ice cream (serious, best I've ever had in a restaurant), superb strip steak with an 18+ hour reduction for the onions (incredibly delicious), haritcots vert as a side to equal superb frito misto at Al Covo, superb side of mashed potatoes topped with a cheese "crust," interesting lobster app, imaginatively conceived and delicious salad, grouper that sat in a refrigerator for a good while, mediocre pasta and three or four more courses that just didn't "wow" us for the $310 price for two. (We had four first courses.) Much of this was "precious and beautiful" with prix fixe size portions for $18-20 for apps and $30-35 for entrees (steak was worth every penny-a "GREAT" dish; grouper I wanted a refund but didn't ask); imaginatively presented but, honestly for me, overall just not, well, consistently delicious. Extremely AMBITIOUS, excellent wine list.

Overall, we left somewhat disappointed. We also thought about our first visits to Citronelle, Komi, MiniBar, Charleston, etc. and a bunch of places overseas and our expectations for those. All of these had been open longer. This was Inox' second weekend. My guess is that I expected too much. I expected Maestro part II. And, this wasn't it. Inox is an excellent restaurant on its own and sorely, desperately needed in western Fairfax County. It WILL grow into something special with time and with polish and with fresh fish (if the economy doesn't take it under-I understand that they were almost empty midweek; tonight they were slammed. A VERY good thing! Although it also explains my truly disappointing grouper).

For myself, Inox has a lot of potential and it's new, but for this price there are other places I like more."

I thought a number of the comments in both the Washingtonian review and Tom Sietsema's review were accurate and perceptive, at least as far as my own experience was concerned. At our table, if I had ordered the strip steak, lobster appetizer and vanilla ice cream I would have left believing this seriously challenged for four stars. Nobody could have told me these weren't incredibly delicious-they were! But I didn't order them. My portion of grouper was slightly more than half the size of the portion served to the table next to us at almost the same time. It was overcooked and really, for me, tasted like it really had sat in a refrigerator for several days. Other courses were good but not "that" good. Nobody could have told me the fish was delicious-it was no better than Red Lobster-and it wasn't! It wasn't, no matter how prettily it sat on the plate. All of the plating was exquisite. But this is the point and I believe that Washingtonian was accurate: for myself and what I was served the emphasis seemed to be on presentation and not on taste. While several of the dishes were absolutely outstanding, others were actually disappointing. Factor in portion sizes and I was disappointed in what I thought was the inconsistency.

From Washingtonian: "Is it possible to toy with food to death? It's hard to escape the impression that dozens of hands have been styling and restyling some dishes in a dull reach for perfection. Pumpkin pierogi, even with truffled bouillion and bacon, taste totally flat. The much-vaunted skate is crusted in ground pretzels, but you wouldn't know it from taking a bite. The beets on the same plate are roasted and marinated-yellow in vanilla oil, red in cinnamon oil-before being chopped and tossed with pickled mango, celery, and blood orange. But here's the thing: both times I had the dish, there was barely a whiff of flavor beyond the beets. When it comes to other fish on the menu, overcooking has been an issue: roulades of salmon, tied together with chives, are bland taken to pale dryness. A fish knife is no match for a tough-edged filet of red snapper, which is nearly hidden under a blanket of micro-cilantro."

There is a point here: over the past thirty years I have eaten at perhaps a hundred or more Michelin starred restaurants in Europe during my business travel. (Kliman, forgive me, but please don't say a word about this-I've also eaten at a hundred bbq'd rib, fried chicken and pizza joints in the U. S., too!) I believe that I have an opinion of what-at least for myself-constitutes a great restaurant. Part of this is consistency. Not just creativity, imaginative plating and "deliciousness" but also very basic consistency. For myself and, it would seem for Washingtonian, this is lacking at Inox. I am sincerely hoping that someone will read what I am writing and instead of attacking myself or Washingtonian or Tom listen to our words: consistency. And, it has to taste good. Really good. Not just really pretty but it must also taste really good.

The economy is another issue. In our CH dialogue I questioned the ability of Inox to survive if Michel Richard opened in the nearby Ritz, at least in this economy. I also questioned the wisdom of opening another Citronelle, believing that a version of Central would be a "safer" investment. I thought Tom's comments were entirely appropriate: the economy is weak. I believe that even Maestro would be challenged if it were still open; note that Maestro was $159 prix fixe on weekends when it closed in August of '07. That was a $450-500 dinner for two which could be the potential range for Michel Richard. I'm suggesting the market for this is really limited. Inox is not on that level right now.

But it could be. The potential is most definitely there for a GREAT restaurant, one that I strongly believe will develop with time.

I didn't post for several reasons: it was new and my critical comments, I thought, would have been unfair. But there's another reason, perhaps equally important. I didn't want to be attacked by a number of people on this board. I went through this with Michael Landrum when I criticized his 90 minute time limit and reservations policy. There is a true affection for those involved with Inox here, one that seems to often discount any criticism. Not only was Tom attacked but also Washingtonian. Yet I thought both had valid comments yet no one is focusing on them. Rather the arguments have at times been ad hominum.

I must also point out that I love The Source. I raved about it soon after it opened believing it was the second coming of Chinois where I had my wedding dinner (after a stop for a serious chili burger at L. A.'s Tommy's!). I also raved about Black Salt, even organized a dinner for 50 there one night because I thought (and think) it is that good. But The Source was given two and one half stars and Black Salt was given two. I was reminded of this when the reviews of Inox came out. If this were a different economy, if there weren't ten or more steak restaurants in a similar price range competing for similar dollars at Tyson's, I would feel that Inox, a year from now, easily will have three stars, maybe a fourth. But today, @$300 for two, there's not a lot of room for error, especially when two such very different dinners are served at the same table. This is what is REALLY unfair. It's not the reviews, it really IS the economy. When people have one dinner every two weeks and spend $300 or more for two it is one thing. When they have one dinner every two months and spend less they are far less tolerant of a mistake or misstep. That is what Inox is up against: it must be perfect from day one. And it hasn't been. Not to myself and from what I read, not to either the Washingtonian or Tom Sietsema. It really is unfair.

I believe that more attention should be given to several of the criticisms; Inox will be a better restaurant with the new focus. In conclusion I am sincerely indebted to the principals and the investors who have brought Inox to western Fairfax County where I live. With polish and consistency this can be a Great restaurant. But there are short steps to be taken first...

[B.A.R.]

Well said Joe.

[Ericandblueboy]

How do you not include the wine service in the Review Todd?

More than 1 person feel the review is lacking because it did not discuss the wine service. I always thought restaurant reviews should address the food, the service, and the decor. I didn't think a restaurant's availability of beverages should factor into its review since not everyone drinks and more importantly, not everyone drinks wine. So should a review mention the beverage program and factor that into the rating, just mention the beverage program without taking that into account for the rating, or not mention the beverage program?

[synaesthesia]

More than 1 person feel the review is lacking because it did not discuss the wine service. I always thought restaurant reviews should address the food, the service, and the decor. I didn't think a restaurant's availability of beverages should factor into its review since not everyone drinks and more importantly, not everyone drinks wine. So should a review mention the beverage program and factor that into the rating, just mention the beverage program without taking that into account for the rating, or not mention the beverage program?

it depends on if the wine service is an integral part of the experience at some restaurants who set out to be somewhat more winecentric. Inox is one, and Proof is another. It should be taken into account when that is clearly part of the restaurant's purpose. For instance, I don't expect a Chinese or Thai restaurant to have a good wine list, nor do I care so that won't be a part of the review. Or if it's a seafood restaurant that champions sustainability, but serves some fish that aren't sustainable, then that should count as well. So let's say Proof has a wine list that's all boxed wine and Yellowtail, then that should sure as hell should factor into the review and rating. Or at least bear more mention.

[treznor]

More than 1 person feel the review is lacking because it did not discuss the wine service. I always thought restaurant reviews should address the food, the service, and the decor. I didn't think a restaurant's availability of beverages should factor into its review since not everyone drinks and more importantly, not everyone drinks wine. So should a review mention the beverage program and factor that into the rating, just mention the beverage program without taking that into account for the rating, or not mention the beverage program?

While not everyone drinks, for those that do (which is most people at higher end restaurants), it's a very large portion of the overall consideration of a restaurant. I'm not going to want to go to Eve or Citronelle or CityZen or wherever that costs what those restaurants do and drink Little Penguin or Yellowtail. All parts of the restaurant experience are important and should be factored in. That would particularly be true at a restaurant where it appears (as I can't say definitely, not having gone myself yet) that they put forth effort to differentiate themselves based on their wine program.

[deangold]

More than 1 person feel the review is lacking because it did not discuss the wine service. I always thought restaurant reviews should address the food, the service, and the decor. I didn't think a restaurant's availability of beverages should factor into its review since not everyone drinks and more importantly, not everyone drinks wine. So should a review mention the beverage program and factor that into the rating, just mention the beverage program without taking that into account for the rating, or not mention the beverage program?

Eric

I think your comment slights what good wine and spirits professionals do. Creating a good wine list or a cocktail list is not simply going thru the catelogs of various distributors and ordering (although that is what may restaurants do, or go thru Parker ot the WS etc). Do the wines fit the cusine? Are there selections to fit a range of tastes. Are there just 100 version of the same wine (ie young over oaked overly alcoholic cabernets on many steakhouse winelists) or is there a real selection of distinctive choices.

I have yet to dine at Inox and am not willing to make any judgements based on the food I tasted at a wine tasting. I did not have time to look at John's list. So if I were planning a visit, I would like to know about his beverage program. Just as I want to know about their desserts, although I rarely order them if at all in restaurants.

A review of the opera Siegfried with no mention of the performance of Erda or Gunther is not a complete review. A review of a restaurant so obviously devoted to wine with no mention of wine is simply not a complete review. THis in and of itself makes no statement on the quality if the rest of the review, just a statement that the review is certainly not complete.

[treznor]

Joe,

While many of your points are quite valid, and I do agree that based on your experience and the experience of others that have posted here it appears that that many of the reviews' points are valid, do you not also see the other side that many of the critics of the reviews' points are valid?

Knocking a restaurant's rating for opening in a poor economy (if that is what happened)? There's no reason for that. A brief mention in the review, sure, as people that are reading the review already have the context. But for people looking at the rating only, as surely many people out there do, there is no context to understand that.

I think a large part of the discussion here comes from Tom's overall rating system and the way he employs it and the fact that many people here do have a personal interest (due to friendships, past dining experiences, etc) to see Inox succeed and thus the frustration with the rating system has boiled over.

As Ericandblueboy pointed out, there are only 15 restaurants from Tom's ratings that have a rating higher, 3 to 4 stars. Tom also rarely hands out 0 or .5 stars. That means that the bulk of the restaurants in the Metro area are covered by 4 "buckets", 1, 1.5, 2, and 2.5 stars. It is already difficult to differentiate restaurants based solely on 4 possible different ratings for "normal" restaurants (i.e. not the truly atrocious and not the truly stratospheric) and given the fact it is difficult to match Tom's written reviews to his star ratings at times it becomes very difficult and frustrating considering the inevitable weight that the star rating gets compared to the written review.

[Todd Kliman]

Only doing this once more.

But I just want to say that I think many of you are missing something important here. You have an insider's perspective of your biz, and a very, very outsider's perspective of this biz.

(And enough, please, with the speculation about my father and Ann's father, and the armchair quarterbacking of every move and every decision.)

A review in the daily newspaper -- a newspaper of record -- has a greater responsibility to cover all the bases. Not an obligation, but a greater responsibility. A review in a monthly magazine, which comes out after the tweets and the Yelps and the bloggers and many times after the daily newspaper, is different. It has to be different. We could write about a restaurant without ever talking about the food. Or talking only a little about the food. We could spend most of a review writing about the neighborhood, as we've done. Or about a family. As we've also done. The monthly, in this new age, is not there to tick off check boxes. Completeness is not the aim.

(And is completeness even possible? Restaurateurs want the brand of flooring to be mentioned in a review, or the source of the high-backed chairs from a carver in the Amazon, etc., etc., and spend gobs of money to have their p.r. firms get the word out. But completeness would also mean talking about the neighborhood, and the culture of that neighborhood, wouldn't it? And the mood of the moment, etc. And whether that new place is incongruous or congruous with its environment, etc. I am very interested in these things, but this is something you seldom see in reviews, most of which concern themselves only with what goes on within the four walls of the restaurant.)

What I hope we do in our longer reviews, is capture something. Or illuminate something. A new perspective. A connecting of the dots. When I wrote a long piece about Komi last summer, I don't think I ever brought up wine. I barely touched on the decor. Was it a review? It had review elements. It also had elements of a profile. And elements of a personal essay. My only goal was to try to go deep and to try to capture something about the place that I thought hadn't been captured before.

Again, as I said yesterday -- I wish some of you would take the time to learn the ins and outs of this world the way you so obviously have learned the ins and outs of the restaurant world.

[Ericandblueboy]

I think your comment slights what good wine and spirits professionals do.

A review of a restaurant so obviously devoted to wine with no mention of wine is simply not a complete review. THis in and of itself makes no statement on the quality if the rest of the review, just a statement that the review is certainly not complete.

I did not intend to slight anyone by my post so if anyone's feeling is hurt, I apologize. I'm just asking what are the essential requirements of a restaurant review? As a counterpoint, let's say a restaurant has a superb collection of wines but only so-so food and it receives a rave review largely based on its wines. How does that do justice to those who don't drink wine? Doesn't your point require a reviewer's subjective determination whether a restaurant has devoted effort to its wines?

[youngfood]

I'm not going to want to go to Eve or Citronelle or CityZen or wherever that costs what those restaurants do and drink Little Penguin or Yellowtail. All parts of the restaurant experience are important and should be factored in. That would particularly be true at a restaurant where it appears (as I can't say definitely, not having gone myself yet) that they put forth effort to differentiate themselves based on their wine program.

I don't disagree that wine and cocktail program can be an important part of a restaurant and of its review, but I think this conversation is getting a little carried away. By comparison, if you look at the Washingtonian's Top 100 reviews for the three very top restaurants cited in the quote above, only the piece on Eve mentions either wine or cocktails. I think that is appropriate -- I don't know how much Todd Kliman, Tom Sietsema or the Washingtonian's other food writers know about wine, so if I am going to look for an expert opinion on comparing top wine lists, I am going to look to the wine columnists in those publications. When I've seen comments about wine lists in the one page restaurant reviews that these publications typically produce, I tend to find them not-so-helpful, e.g., "the wine list is strong in Bordeaux and Burgundy."

[Ericandblueboy]

While not everyone drinks, for those that do (which is most people at higher end restaurants), it's a very large portion of the overall consideration of a restaurant.

I think you're right that most people that go to high end restaurants do drink wine but is that who the reviewer should gear the review toward? Many people who read restaurant reviews don't go to high end restaurants on a regular basis and yet they still read restaurant reviews.

[themeatguy]

Meatguy, we had an interesting thread going a week or so ago before CH deleted it. I did not go into any detail for my opinion of Inox other than to say that I thought Citronelle, at its best, was a better restaurant. My wife and I had dinner on the second Saturday night Inox was open. Sitting at the same table we had entirely different experiences: John Wabeck told me that they were out of the first wine that I ordered. Out of it on their second Saturday night of operation! This is what I wrote to a friend of mine about our experience that night:

"We just returned from dinner there this evening. It was interesting....I will not be posting on a board about it. (Second weekend-totally unfair.) Absolutely outstanding vanilla ice cream (serious, best I've ever had in a restaurant), superb strip steak with an 18+ hour reduction for the onions (incredibly delicious), haritcots vert as a side to equal superb frito misto at Al Covo, superb side of mashed potatoes topped with a cheese "crust," interesting lobster app, imaginatively conceived and delicious salad, grouper that sat in a refrigerator for a good while, mediocre pasta and three or four more courses that just didn't "wow" us for the $310 price for two. (We had four first courses.) Much of this was "precious and beautiful" with prix fixe size portions for $18-20 for apps and $30-35 for entrees (steak was worth every penny-a "GREAT" dish; grouper I wanted a refund but didn't ask); imaginatively presented but, honestly for me, overall just not, well, consistently delicious. Extremely AMBITIOUS, excellent wine list.

Overall, we left somewhat disappointed. We also thought about our first visits to Citronelle, Komi, MiniBar, Charleston, etc. and a bunch of places overseas and our expectations for those. All of these had been open longer. This was Inox' second weekend. My guess is that I expected too much. I expected Maestro part II. And, this wasn't it. Inox is an excellent restaurant on its own and sorely, desperately needed in western Fairfax County. It WILL grow into something special with time and with polish and with fresh fish (if the economy doesn't take it under-I understand that they were almost empty midweek; tonight they were slammed. A VERY good thing! Although it also explains my truly disappointing grouper).

For myself, Inox has a lot of potential and it's new, but for this price there are other places I like more."

I thought a number of the comments in both the Washingtonian review and Tom Sietsema's review were accurate and perceptive, at least as far as my own experience was concerned. At our table, if I had ordered the strip steak, lobster appetizer and vanilla ice cream I would have left believing this seriously challenged for four stars. Nobody could have told me these weren't incredibly delicious-they were! But I didn't order them. My portion of grouper was slightly more than half the size of the portion served to the table next to us at almost the same time. It was overcooked and really, for me, tasted like it really had sat in a refrigerator for several days. Other courses were good but not "that" good. Nobody could have told me the fish was delicious-it was no better than Red Lobster-and it wasn't! It wasn't, no matter how prettily it sat on the plate. All of the plating was exquisite. But this is the point and I believe that Washingtonian was accurate: for myself and what I was served the emphasis seemed to be on presentation and not on taste. While several of the dishes were absolutely outstanding, others were actually disappointing. Factor in portion sizes and I was disappointed in what I thought was the inconsistency.

From Washingtonian: "Is it possible to toy with food to death? It's hard to escape the impression that dozens of hands have been styling and restyling some dishes in a dull reach for perfection. Pumpkin pierogi, even with truffled bouillion and bacon, taste totally flat. The much-vaunted skate is crusted in ground pretzels, but you wouldn't know it from taking a bite. The beets on the same plate are roasted and marinated-yellow in vanilla oil, red in cinnamon oil-before being chopped and tossed with pickled mango, celery, and blood orange. But here's the thing: both times I had the dish, there was barely a whiff of flavor beyond the beets. When it comes to other fish on the menu, overcooking has been an issue: roulades of salmon, tied together with chives, are bland taken to pale dryness. A fish knife is no match for a tough-edged filet of red snapper, which is nearly hidden under a blanket of micro-cilantro."

There is a point here: over the past thirty years I have eaten at perhaps a hundred or more Michelin starred restaurants in Europe during my business travel. (Kliman, forgive me, but please don't say a word about this-I've also eaten at a hundred bbq'd rib, fried chicken and pizza joints in the U. S., too!) I believe that I have an opinion of what-at least for myself-constitutes a great restaurant. Part of this is consistency. Not just creativity, imaginative plating and "deliciousness" but also very basic consistency. For myself and, it would seem for Washingtonian, this is lacking at Inox. I am sincerely hoping that someone will read what I am writing and instead of attacking myself or Washingtonian or Tom listen to our words: consistency. And, it has to taste good. Really good. Not just really pretty but it must also taste really good.

The economy is another issue. In our CH dialogue I questioned the ability of Inox to survive if Michel Richard opened in the nearby Ritz, at least in this economy. I also questioned the wisdom of opening another Citronelle, believing that a version of Central would be a "safer" investment. I thought Tom's comments were entirely appropriate: the economy is weak. I believe that even Maestro would be challenged if it were still open; note that Maestro was $159 prix fixe on weekends when it closed in August of '07. That was a $450-500 dinner for two which could be the potential range for Michel Richard. I'm suggesting the market for this is really limited. Inox is not on that level right now.

But it could be. The potential is most definitely there for a GREAT restaurant, one that I strongly believe will develop with time.

I didn't post for several reasons: it was new and my critical comments, I thought, would have been unfair. But there's another reason, perhaps equally important. I didn't want to be attacked by a number of people on this board. I went through this with Michael Landrum when I criticized his 90 minute time limit and reservations policy. There is a true affection for those involved with Inox here, one that seems to often discount any criticism. Not only was Tom attacked but also Washingtonian. Yet I thought both had valid comments yet no one is focusing on them. Rather the arguments have at times been ad hominum.

I must also point out that I love The Source. I raved about it soon after it opened believing it was the second coming of Chinois where I had my wedding dinner. I also raved about Black Salt, even organized a dinner for 50 there one night because I thought (and think) it is that good. But The Source was given two and one half stars and Black Salt was given two. I was reminded of this when the reviews of Inox came out. If this were a different economy, if there weren't ten or more steak restaurants in a similar price range competing for similar dollars at Tyson's, I would feel that Inox, a year from now, easily will have three stars, maybe a fourth. But today, @$300 for two, there's not a lot of room for error, especially when two such very different dinners are served at the same table. This is what is REALLY unfair. It's not the reviews, it really IS the economy. When people have one dinner every two weeks and spend $300 or more for two it is one thing. When they have one dinner every two months and spend less they are far less tolerant of a mistake or misstep. That is what Inox is up against: it must be perfect from day one. And it hasn't been. Not to myself and from what I read, not to either the Washingtonian or Tom Sietsema. It really is unfair.

I believe that more attention should be given to several of the criticisms; Inox will be a better restaurant with the new focus. In conclusion I am sincerely indebted to the principals and the investors who have brought Inox to western Fairfax County where I live. With polish and consistency this can be a Great restaurant. But there are short steps to be taken first...

Joe,

in most cases, I agree with most of your posts, and I have read lots of your post over the years. I think that you are a great foodie with many important points. I do think that having went to Inox within the first two weeks of them opening, that you were bound to run into issues. You always will with new restaurants. I have dined 2 times at Inox and will be enjoying my 3rd Very Soon, and never have I had anything close to what the reviewers wrote about. That Said…If, the fish was overcooked, then they deserve to get knocked for it. I am sure that most restaurant owners take their fare share of lumps from the customer all the time, so what one little review might knock them, I would hope they learn from it and move on. But when you get into these reviews, both questioned the restaurant because of the Economy and not solely how the restaurant performed!

Last night, I went to Macaroni grill….(DON’T HATE ME FOR IT) …… The Bartender and I started talking about food reviews, and before long he started talking about the Inox review in the Washington Post. “I didn’t get why it sounded like a good review of the restaurant and then the critic went into a long drawn out process of questioning the timing of the opening?” he said. I asked if he felt that the review was hampered by the economy and if the critic may have held back on the rating because of the economy, and his response was profound. “When a new restaurant opens, I think it is important to talk about the restaurant and its pros and cons. Not, what is going on outside of the restaurant walls. Knowing that these guys probably started planning this venture a year or two before this economy started tanking, you can’t knock them for what the economy is doing, but instead, what they are doing inside the walls of their restaurant to accommodate those guests coming in.”………..

I think that it is important to remember this:

We are living in a historic time. Not since 1929 has the economy really ever been this bad. Where the separation of Rich and Poor is so drastic that the middle class continues to shrink because of the loss of jobs and homes. So we have never really seen reviews that have a spin on the economy like these two did. So because these are historic times economically, we should spend our time bashing them for opening a fine dining restaurant? So when two small business, big time talents like these two guys open a business, that creates jobs and brings competition to the market place, they should be bashed for their entrepreneurial spirit and for opening a white table class place? Hey, wakeup call…There are still people that enjoy eating out and spending money for good food.

Ann Limpert did the same thing to Bourbon saying - “All of which might lead you to ask: Are Mina and the Four Seasons insane to open this place in a recession? And does Washington really need another steakhouse—a knockoff of the ones Mina runs in Scottsdale, Miami, and . . . Detroit?”

Serious? A knock off? Is Ann Limpert a Business writer or a food writer and reviewer? When I read a review of a restaurant, I don’t want the reviewer to hold back from talking about the dishes, but to base a review what appears to be mainly on the economy is unprincipled and cruel!

When you look at the Washington Post’s Review, one has to ask themselves whether or not the review was solely based on the restaurants performance or if the reviews knocked the restaurants for being what it is, in this economic environment also. We had the same economy that we did last month when TS did a review of Bourbon. Not One Mention of the recession or the economy in that review. Why? Because they are bigger and in a hotel? Or was it because Mina is a accomplished chef/owner? Oh wait, he called Inox Accomplished too! And the Washington Post, Bourbon review, got as someone said earlier in this blog, Bitch slapped much of their steaks? TS went on and on about the downs of Bourbon, then gave them 2.5 stars. He knocked two, maybe three things (the overcooked fish, the homemade pasta) at Inox, Talked about how bad the economy was and gave them 2.5 stars. So what does this say about Tom’s reviewing?

Reading TS review of Inox, you could tell right off the bat where he was going. Title - “Hard Sell - Even a restaurant as accomplished as Inox might have trouble winning over diners in this economy” So they are accomplished but I am going to give 2.5 stars because of the economy? Wow… I really don’t know what to say about that.

I don’t want to sound like a homer for Inox. I am not. I would go this route if they had done this to Three Sisters too, but the point is I just think that food editors and reviewers need to stick to what the facts are. Maybe the chatter on Toms Wednesday chat was right when they said it was time to do away with the Star system? But something needs to change.

About Todd Kliman; I am sorry if it appeared that I was basting him for him not doing the review himself. After further thought, I guess how I said what I said, may have come out sounding pretentious and callous. I did not intend for that. I think Todd is a fantastic writer, but I do think that when it comes to important reviews, the ones people are looking forward too, and the ones that can make or break a restaurant, he needs to be the one to review.

I went online last night after reading Todd’s reply and looked at how vocal he was about his father’s passing. I was stunned by his march 3rd post on his canceled chat. How his writing touched me I can’t deny. That he was able to talk about that, so soon after his passing is so touching.

That said, since that post, it is clear that he continues to talk about it and mention it in his chats. If his sharing of that information, can’t be touched in thought, about perhaps the reason why Todd didn’t do the last 2 Reviews, then what would the reason be, that the one person we look to for outstanding reporting and reviews of the places we love to go to, didn’t do the last 2? As a subscriber of his publication I expect the most vibrant, truth packed articles available coming from the most seasoned veterans of the publication I am reading.

All I am saying is that when semi public people (media types, reporters, professionals in the public eye) share personal stories about their family or personal life with the public, and are not seen for a few weeks, people might start putting things together like what I suggested. Did it come out wrong? Maybe, but it was an honest thought.

[Waitman]

I did not intend to slight anyone by my post so if anyone's feeling is hurt, I apologize. I'm just asking what are the essential requirements of a restaurant review? As a counterpoint, let's say a restaurant has a superb collection of wines but only so-so food and it receives a rave review largely based on its wines. How does that do justice to those who don't drink wine? Doesn't your point require a reviewer's subjective determination whether a restaurant has devoted effort to its wines?

This is a fairly specious line of reasoning. Any number of people don't eat red meat, fish, pork, organ meat, cilantro etc. while any number of restaurants get their rating boosted by being particularly good at red meat, fish, pork, organ meat. cilantro etc. particualry well -- without announcing that particular specialty in their name. A quick re-read of Sietsema's Bourbon Steak review, for example, suggests that its 2.5 star rating was boosted by its seafood preparations -- how does that do justice to people who don't eat fish?

Or, putting it another way what the heck does "How does that do justice to those who don't drink wine?" even mean. "Doing justice?"

I agree with Dean, that in many restaurants -- like his -- the wine program is married pretty closely to the food program and seems to merit mention whether or not that does justice to non-wine-drinkers. [Assumes snooty French accent: "it is only you provincial Americans who separate the two anyway -- we Europeans understand that food and wine are simply two sides of the same coin"]

On the other hand, critics work on deadlines, have limited space and many subjective decisions to make. There will be disagreements with wording, priorities, judgments, emphases etc. While people may disagree passionately with this review or that one, nothing the Three Tees and their various teams have written over the years makes me doubt that they are anything but professionals trying to do a decent job in the public eye. If there is any evidence that their motives or "agendas" are in doubt, I would be curious to see it.

[Joe H]

Joe,

While many of your points are quite valid, and I do agree that based on your experience and the experience of others that have posted here it appears that that many of the reviews' points are valid, do you not also see the other side that many of the critics of the reviews' points are valid?

Knocking a restaurant's rating for opening in a poor economy (if that is what happened)? There's no reason for that. A brief mention in the review, sure, as people that are reading the review already have the context. But for people looking at the rating only, as surely many people out there do, there is no context to understand that.

I think a large part of the discussion here comes from Tom's overall rating system and the way he employs it and the fact that many people here do have a personal interest (due to friendships, past dining experiences, etc) to see Inox succeed and thus the frustration with the rating system has boiled over.

As Ericandblueboy pointed out, there are only 15 restaurants from Tom's ratings that have a rating higher, 3 to 4 stars. Tom also rarely hands out 0 or .5 stars. That means that the bulk of the restaurants in the Metro area are covered by 4 "buckets", 1, 1.5, 2, and 2.5 stars. It is already difficult to differentiate restaurants based solely on 4 possible different ratings for "normal" restaurants (i.e. not the truly atrocious and not the truly stratospheric) and given the fact it is difficult to match Tom's written reviews to his star ratings at times it becomes very difficult and frustrating considering the inevitable weight that the star rating gets compared to the written review.

I do not believe he "knocked it for opening in a poor economy." Rather, this is a paragraph from his review that is quite specific and explains his two and one half stars:

"When even BET co-founder Sheila Johnson is pinching pennies, few of us are willing to gamble on big-deal meals with uncertain payoffs. Particularly these days, the higher the tab, the higher the bar for the restaurant. (Entrees average $30 at Inox, but it's easy to spend more than $100 a person if you order three courses and like to drink.) After taking a bit of my halibut, I'm a little grumpy. Why is the fish overcooked? There's a reason a bowl of saffron-tinted cavatelli is barely touched after three companions have had a go at it: The pasta is bland and doughy, and the vegetables lend more color than flavor to the equation. While I've felt mostly pampered here, it's annoying to see plenty of open tables and hear the hostess say, "It will be a few minutes. Would you like to wait in the lounge?"

"why is the fish overcooked" "barely touched" "bland and doughy" "more color than flavor" "see open tables...would you like to wait"

His point is very simple: "few of us are willing to gamble on big-deal meals with uncertain payoffs" which is exactly what I am saying. Washingtonian was far more critical but both noted many flaws. Neither were just abstract ratings stuck on a new restaurant. If you go back and look at the reviews for The Source and Black Salt from Tom they will read like his review of Inox. Almost all of both were very complimentary yet criticism was noted in the body of the review as it is for Inox. His introduction to Inox is an important one: it opened in the middle of an economy where top end dining is going through a real test. His point is very simple: to succeed in this environment there is no room for error. Not one single misstep. A brand new restaurant, any brand new restaurant that is expensive is being challenged right now-anywhere. D. C., New York, London, Munich-anywhere. It is as if Inox had a handicap from the day it opened. As any new restaurant, at any level, it needs time. Just as here, The Source and Black Salt needed time. They got it. I hope Inox gets it. It has the potential to be a great restaurant, one that is truly needed by Western Fairfax County. If you will, it can be The Eve of the West.

[themeatguy]

More than 1 person feel the review is lacking because it did not discuss the wine service. I always thought restaurant reviews should address the food, the service, and the decor. I didn't think a restaurant's availability of beverages should factor into its review since not everyone drinks and more importantly, not everyone drinks wine. So should a review mention the beverage program and factor that into the rating, just mention the beverage program without taking that into account for the rating, or not mention the beverage program?

Washingtonian magazine did an article about John Wabeck being the sommelier. I would again say, if your going to hype a crowd of people, talking about all of the fabulous wines that a restaurant is housing, Then Yes….I think they should be writing about the wine.

Especially if the restaurant specializes in wine!

Also, I think that with fine dining places, yeah, we should get a review of the wines. I mean, most people visiting a fine dining place drink wine, and it always sucks to go and find out that a place has a crappy selection of wine.

[DonRocks]

Did it come out wrong? Maybe, but it was an honest thought.

[i'll let your comments stand, but by now your point has been exhaustively established, so I cannot allow any more discussion of personal issues, at all, by anyone.]

[alan7147]

A restaurant serves food. Red meat, fish, pork, etc. are all food. Most people go to restaurant to eat. Many people don't go to restaurants to drink. My reasoning is specious? Your reasoning makes no sense.

Couldn't disagree more. Why have I been to West End Bistro only once? Not because of the food, but because of the inexcusably poor and pedestrian wine list that not only does the cuisine no justice, but IMHO makes the experience an unenjoyable one.

[adamgetz]

I wouldn't even BEGIN to know how to turn this behemoth of a thread around....maybe we could play the alphabet game with things we might of seen at Inox? Starting with A? lol

[synaesthesia]

I wouldn't even BEGIN to know how to turn this behemoth of a thread around....maybe we could play the alphabet game with things we might of seen at Inox? Starting with A? lol

I've posted this one before, but it seems apt here... hehe... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhJQp-q1Y1s

[DonRocks]

What happens when John Wabeck gets pushed too far? Click.

[demandalicious]

Duuuurrrrrr....

[zoramargolis]

Couldn't disagree more. Why have I been to West End Bistro only once? Not because of the food, but because of the inexcusably poor and pedestrian wine list that not only does the cuisine no justice, but IMHO makes the experience an unenjoyable one.

There was a time when the Los Angeles Times used to send two critics to review major new restaurants: a food writer and a wine writer. The reviews would be published in tandem, giving a more complete picture from two well-informed perspectives. It does seem that a less-than-complete review of a major new establishment was published in Washingtonian, although TK seems to be reluctant to acknowledge this appropriate critique in this particular public forum. The fact that Washingtonian is a monthly publication and not a daily one is entirely beside the point. Readers form strong initial impressions of restaurants based on the reviews provided by major publications in this community, and Washingtonian is one of them. We do not know the circumstances for the decisions made about that particular review, although being bright and inquisitive, we tend to speculate. In the spirit of our new administration, which is willing to say "We screwed up" when an irrefutable gaffe has been pointed out to them, I respectfully suggest that Todd and maybe another food writer AND the wine reviewer who has replaced Dave McIntyre revisit Inox and provide a review that includes Inox's wine program, which is apparently every bit as ambitious as is the kitchen. And while they are at it, since food and wine must seen as a culinary equivalent of the body-mind continuum in the high-end restaurant world, provide another perspective on the food.

If you will indulge me a little trip down memory lane--and I promise in advance that there is a relevant point here--back in the late 1960's I was working as a waitress at The Village Gate while pursuing a career in show business in NYC. A brand new musical theater piece called "Jacques Brel Is Alive and Well and Living in Paris" was preparing for its world premiere at The Gate. Even those of you who are less than half my age have probably heard of "Jacques Brel is Alive and Well" because it has had multiple productions over many years all around the world. But it almost died completely before anyone had a chance to see it. The dress rehearsals and previews were exhilarating, it was a beguiling show and the all of the small preview audiences gave it standing, cheering ovations. On opening night, the New York Times, since the show was being performed in a cabaret not a theater, sent its night club reviewer to write the NYT review. He hated it. Trashed the concept. Mocked the singers. Made no mention of how obviously moved and enthusiastic the audience was. It was impossible to believe that he was seeing the same show that the rest of the audience saw. Was it a perfect show?--maybe not--is any production? Did he have some unacknowledged enmity to someone involved? Eat some bad oysters? It didn't matter--the day that his review was published, advance ticket sales died. The devastated producers begged Clive Barnes, the NYT head theater critic at the time, to come and re-review the show. Barnes initially refused and "stood by" the reviewer. But eventually he heard from enough influential people that the show had gotten a raw deal, relented, and came in person to see a performance. Clive Barnes loved it, wrote a rave review, and the rest is history.

Now obviously this is not exactly the same situation. At that time, The New York Times had much more power singularly to determine the fate of a theatrical production than is true for any one publication reviewing a new restaurant in D.C. However, together, the Post and Washingtonian can chill the broader dining community's potential enthusiasm for a worthy effort. That isn't to say that shortcomings shouldn't be pointed out. But in this uncertain economy, clearly an "A-team" from both publications needs to be choosing its words with great care. And in the case of Inox, that means including an informed review of its wine program.

(I haven't eaten there--can't afford it, frankly. And I have no relationships with the principals, other than a superficial acquaintanceship with Rissa. I have no agenda regarding Inox, other than some life experiences with the power of critics and a belief that they have an almost sacred duty to treat artists and their efforts with great care.)

[KMango]

Finally made it out to Inox out last. I do not have much new to add beyond what has already been shared by others, except an emphatic recommendation to "go for the wine". This menu aches for pairings, it’s perfectly aimed to target the oenophile. Circumstances prohibited wine consumption last night, which I believe seriously diminished my ability to absorb the chef’s intentions. Minus activation from masterfully matched wine, neither my companion nor I felt bowled over by the flavors and textures.

Space: Friendly and free valet service softens the otherwise harsh entry to Tyson’s Corner. Although seemingly inconsequential, I was pleased to note the valets wearing bright orange jackets. The impression I garnered is that the restaurant cares about valet safety, which makes me care more about the restaurant.

The inside is surprisingly graceful. Photos on the restaurant’s website worried me, seeming to portray a bleak and unremarkable environment. Not so. The stained glass accent, subdued place settings, and soft acoustics make for overall elegance. We sat near the front window area, and were immune to any noise from the sunken kitchen. Every now and then, I heard mellowing, soft music, so the speaker issues mentioned by others have been resolved.

Service: Service was highly attentive, but for our meal and preferences, too intrusive. Dishes were cleared immediately, and I mean instantly, upon course completion. The motions of clearing were all classic fine dining (tight angles, specific direction, quickly as possible), but my companion and I found the sudden swooping of the rapidly-moving clearing staff a jarring interruption to our relaxed conversation. This is our personal style, however, others may revel in the rapt attention and immediate clearing.

As also noted by others, bread service is by the slice. I tried both the roasted garlic and the sunflower seed varieties. The textures were outstanding, but found the flavors less remarkable. Also, we were asked four times if we wanted bread. This is an important component for some tables, but I wish there were a way to denote such preferences without interrupting dialogue.

Flavors: All day, I had planned to order the tasting menu. Once seated, however, exhaustion kicked in from a long day chasing Trillium. My companion and I each ordered an appetizer and an entrée instead.

The house made sparkling water was a novel offering. However, I blame our affinity for the palate-diluting water as a potential source of the lackluster flavor experience that followed.

The amuse bouche was a carrot ginger soup, smartly colored and evenly textured, but begging for an acidic perk from a complementary wine.

I went with the scallop appetizer, followed by hanger steak with veal cheek and crispy sweetbreads. My companion ordered the lobster appetizer and halibut entrée. The slightly smoked scallop, sliced razor-thin around minced scallop, coupled with caviar and a sea urchin vinaigrette, offered a well-conceived starter. The dish could have used more of a chill, the brininess a tad muted at the temperature served. The sear on the sweetbreads was remarkable, and the veal cheek nearly melting with tenderness. The rich flavors quickly overwhelmed my palate, but I am confident the right wine would have sent these and other flavors of the evening through the stratosphere. My companion reported that the quality of the lobster and halibut seemed high, but outside of divine plating, the overall flavors and textures devoid of high notes. This surprised me, given the raves about the butter-poached lobster, but everyone's palate varies.

The dessert I thought I had ordered (Warm Yuzu mousse, including flavors of shiso) and the one that arrived seemed very different. I was distracted when the waiter announced what it was, so I missed out on the description. Regardless, the dessert was a delightful, multi-layered whim of a treat, with passionfruit gastrique and impossibly airy meringue crisps. The crema on the cappuccino was top-notch perfection, a remarkable cup of coffee. Complementary sweet bites followed. Although none were show-stopping, lychee gelee is always welcomed and the bacon-infused “original oreo” offered a fascinating concept.

So, in a nutshell, I left Inox Restaurant feeling as if I had missed something. And I did! The wine.

[apicius]

I never been to Inox and I will not judge the restaurant by itself but I would like to bring several points:

First: two and a half stars is not a bad review and in fact it is a good one.

Second: both publications gave the same rating!!!!!! I would understand if some people are upset at one reviewer but both had the same evaluation of the place.

I will add that among my friends there was different opinions about the level of Inox and we make a poll of let's say 10 different people who have been there we are close to a 2 1/2 stars rating.Some raved about it and some were not very enthusiastic.

Third:For many years the Post was criticized for not giving any ratings in their restaurant review, now they get criticized for giving one; the review is more important and people should take time to read it and see the positive side of it.

Fourth: Consistency is one of the top quality of a restaurant; Usually a guide or a reviewer gives a lower rating and wait to see if the restaurant is consistent and improves.

For instance the Washingtonian never gave four stars at the opening of a restaurant.

So be patient if Inox is good and consistent they will get the stars.

[FunnyJohn]

Bien sur, Chef

[jpbloom]

Continuing the effort to try to bring this thread back to the restaurant itself rather than the reviews . . .

Dinner at Inox last night was a little disappointing. Don't misunderstand, it was very good, but a few service lapses and a few weak spots from the kitchen (overcooked beef, flavor combinations that didn't quite work) left me less than wowed. That being said, now that the tasting menu has been reduced to $68, I'm more forgiving.

It's been mentioned before, but John Wabeck is a great sommelier. It's a joy to deal with someone who has really interesting wines on the list at a variety of price points, knows how the wines are drinking currently, and discusses the wines with patrons, rather than talking down to them.

[Lydia R]

Dinner at Inox last night

Next time, say hello! Wabeck poured some special wines last night [Clos de Vougeot Grand Cru 2001].

I'm happy there's also a nerd-friendly bar with an excellent Manhattan [whisky barrel-aged bitters and Overholt Rye], Ardbeg single malt, the Wabeck wine list, a few good food selections and familiar faces [staff & patrons] relaxed and clicking in the new space.

[jparrott]

Roast poussin, sweetbreads, crawfish, asparagus, sauce Nantua. I could've sworn I was in Clancy's on Annunciation St. in Uptown New Orleans. Yum.

[ktmoomau]

We went to Inox probably week two of its inception. Friends took us as a wedding present. Overall it was really good.

I was extremely happy when I pulled up my junker of a car to the valet and asked them if there was somewhere I could self-park as I had not $1 on me that day and hubby wasn't there yet for me to go inside and steal cash from. They laughed said it was free and to pull right up.

Had a cocktail inside at the bar, the bartenders were really nice, very helpful and informative and our drinks were very good.

Moved onto dinner and I remember a couple minor details I would have changed, my entree just salted a tad too much, I would put a tiny bit more veg on the plate. But all in all for the second week a restaurant was open it was really good. And the wine service was excellent. Desserts were incredible. The walnut financier made me happy I didn't get a chocolate dessert which is really rare.

We didn't pay so I am not sure what the damage was, but I think even at week two it was excellent. So I can't wait to go back now that it is cheaper and they have had some time to work on things and evaluate feedback.

We were a little shocked that it got reviewed so quickly and like it was, but we will gladly go back, so oh well.