Tom Sietsema's Online Chat

[hungry prof]

I forgive the bulk of the fuzzy-wuzzy language in the chats because they happen on the fly. I'm talking about his columns, which he clearly thinks on for much longer. From an actual review: "draped in a midnight-colored sauce that reverberates with red pepper." Kill me now.

I'm with qwertyy on this one (though I also recognize this is stepping away from his online chats). How about this from his review of Faryab last weekend:

"Good thing I made a reservation, I think to myself when I show up at Faryab early on a Friday night to find a crowded foyer and tables that are being snatched up like lottery tickets before a big Powerball drawing."

Blech. He obviously thought about that simile before he used it, yet does it actually help the reader understand the situation any better?

[Michael Landrum]

The profound animus towards Ray's the Steaks and this current episode certainly raises some red flags regarding what, if anything, is going on in Sietsemas' alleged mind.  Are he and his staff totally lacking in good judgement?

To be fair--no matter how much I disagree with Tom airing the complaints about (not Ray's, but) the fairness of our reservation system (and its fairness is always the source of the complaints) and the amount of time I devote to answering the phones (previously over 30 hours a week, but not enough for many)--Tom in his chats is responding to the needs and concerns of his entire constituency and readership, which are often quite different from ours, as is often the starting off point of knowledge and sophistication.

I believe his chat is always the most frequently page, including news stories, when it is run live and the most frequently viewed chat by far.

He produces an astounding amount of copy--probably close to 2000 words, most of it thoughtful, witty, informative and pleasantly descriptive--in a very brief period of time. Further to his credit, he is also doing so in his pajamas. Try doing that.

Also to be fair, many of the egregious questions or assertions scan as reasonable and genuine at first glance. Tom is just too much of an optimist in not assuming the mal-intentions that inform many of the reports that we later take issue with.

[DLB]

Maybe Tom should start a blog. This is quite good.

http://dinersjournal.blogs.nytimes.com/

[B.A.R.]

To be fair--no matter how much I disagree with Tom airing the complaints about (not Ray's, but) the fairness of our reservation system (and its fairness is always the source of the complaints) and the amount of time I devote to answering the phones  (previously over 30 hours a week, but not enough for many)--Tom in his chats is responding to the needs and concerns of his entire constituency and readership, which are often quite different from ours, as is often the starting off point of knowledge and sophistication.

I believe his chat is always the most frequently page, including news stories, when it is run live and the most frequently viewed chat by far.

He produces an astounding amount of copy--probably close to 2000 words, most of it thoughtful, witty, informative and pleasantly descriptive--in a very brief period of time.  Further to his credit, he is also doing so in his pajamas.  Try doing that.

Also to be fair, many of the egregious questions or assertions scan as reasonable and genuine at first glance.  Tom is just too much of an optimist in not assuming the mal-intentions that inform many of the reports that we later take issue with.

Brown noser.

[Waitman]

This post isn't meant to jump on the band wagon, but I was a little irritated that he decided to do a review of Bazin's after one visit one week after it opened. He says it's not a real review, but it was. I've been there once and I felt it was worth checking out again. 75 minutes is absurd to wait, but I was there at the exact same time and there were empty tables being set up for the next seating. I'm guessing that Bazin's needs to work out their kinks. A Saturday one week after a decent restaurant finally opens in Vienna is probably a lousy time to get your first impression as a Post reviewer. I'm not seeing this as a consistent practice of his, and I wonder about the motive.

I think you're being a bit paranoid here. He's used that space more than once to send a message, letting restauranteurs know that the first visit is a "bye" but there are serious problems that should be addressed before I start gathering info for the columns.

I'm with qwertyy on this one (though I also recognize this is stepping away from his online chats).  How about this from his review of Faryab last weekend:

"Good thing I made a reservation, I think to myself when I show up at Faryab early on a Friday night to find a crowded foyer and tables that are being snatched up like lottery tickets before a big Powerball drawing."

Blech.  He obviously thought about that simile before he used it, yet does it actually help the reader understand the situation any better?

This is base kvetching. If you have to write the phrase "there were a lot of people in line" every third deadline for ten years, you'd look for a simile too.

[Barbara]

I dunno. I'm willing to cut the boy some slack. It must be harder than it sounds to eat two meals a day (at least!) in a restaurant with company and under circumstances where you have to try a lot of stuff you might not exactly feel like eating at the time. His writing may irk some people, but he generally tells me what I want and need to know about a place I've never been to.

Maybe my geezerness is showing, but I remember the WaPo restaurant critic before Phyllis Richman--Donald Dresden. What a pompous ass he was (R.I.P.). He only seemed to care about the venerable and expensive French places in town and a few Chinese Chop Suey palaces. Richman was such a blast of fresh air. She tried EVERYTHING, including sampling a bunch of fast-food, take-out places in Adams Morgan for a Sunday article--something Dresden wouldn't have done if his life (job?) depended on it. Sietsema is far more in Richman's mold than Dresden's and that benefits all of us.

It bears keeping in mind that the WaPo on-line discussions are a new entity. And, like certain websites which allow anybody to post comments, the commonally-agreed-upon rules and etiquette are still being sorted out. (Right, Rocks?)

It isn't difficult to understand why a restaurant reviewer would want and need to remain anonymous; but, eventually if a reviewer is around long enough that anonymity gets lost. What then?

[DLB]

I think you're being a bit paranoid here. He's used that space more than once to send a message, letting restauranteurs know that the first visit is a "bye" but there are serious problems that should be addressed before I start gathering info for the columns.

Should he really be giving a heads up? He even said in the chat that he would be back in a month for a full review. I don't understand? Is this objective?

Tom Sietsema: My item on Bazin's on Church was a sneak peek, which I do from time to time. I will, of course, go back after a month or so for a full review.

[hungry prof]

This is base kvetching.  If you have to write the phrase "there were a lot of people in line" every third deadline for ten years, you'd look for a simile too.

Call it "base kvetching," if you will. It's a newspaper column for one of the largest newspapers in the country. I don't think good writing is an unreasonable expectation (talking about his columns, not his chats). After all, the guy is paid to write, not to eat. If you think my comment was "base kvetching," take a look at what they do to Bruni over on eG.

[DLB]

Call it "base kvetching," if you will.  It's a newspaper column for one of the largest newspapers in the country.  I don't think good writing is an unreasonable expectation (talking about his columns, not his chats).  After all, the guy is paid to write, not to eat.  If you think my comment was "base kvetching," take a look at what they do to Bruni over on eG.

He is paid to eat, otherwise he would not be a FOOD critic, it goes with the job

[hungry prof]

He is paid to eat, otherwise he would not be a FOOD critic, it goes with the job 

Fine. But he's not paid just to eat. He's paid to write about what he eats. Eating is necessary, but not sufficient to do his job. And I guarantee you he wasn't hired however long ago because of his eating skills.

Edited for clarity.

[Mark Slater]

Call it "base kvetching," if you will.  It's a newspaper column for one of the largest newspapers in the country.  I don't think good writing is an unreasonable expectation (talking about his columns, not his chats).  After all, the guy is paid to write, not to eat.  If you think my comment was "base kvetching," take a look at what they do to Bruni over on eG.

Even funnier is what they do to Bruni over here: Bruni Digest

[B.A.R.]

Possible replacements for Tom

[Waitman]

"I think you're being a bit paranoid here.  He's used that space more than once to send a message, letting restauranteurs know that the first visit is a "bye" but there are serious problems that should be addressed before I start gathering info for the columns."

"Should he really be giving a heads up? He even said in the chat that he would be back in a month for a full review. I don't understand? Is this objective?"

Tom Sietsema: My item on Bazin's on Church was a sneak peek, which I do from time to time. I will, of course, go back after a month or so for a full review

A 75-minute wait is a pretty objective piece of information, assuming a quality timepiece was involved. And, not that he said nice things about other aspects of the restaurant. The piece was probably net negative, but hardly a slam. Are you saying he should have excused what was -- even for a new place -- an egregious delay, and merely planted puckered lips on the chef's bottom? Or that he is generally wrong to write anything beyond press release prose after dropping by a new place. Rather than quick look at the what's happening through his eyes, he could just post public service announcements telling name, address and credit cards accepted?

Call it "base kvetching," if you will.  It's a newspaper column for one of the largest newspapers in the country.  I don't think good writing is an unreasonable expectation (talking about his columns, not his chats).  After all, the guy is paid to write, not to eat.  If you think my comment was "base kvetching," take a look at what they do to Bruni over on eG.

I'm betting he's paid both to eat and to write. And, if he's no MFK Fischer, his prose is fine and largely illuminating. Of all the things one may or may not like about Tom, pulling the odd phrase out and waving it around like a smoking gun does indeed strike me as looking for something to complain about.

As to what they do to Bruni, that's gone beyond kvetching into near-psychotic obsession. Those people need a hobby.

[qwertyy]

I'm betting he's paid both to eat and to write.  And, if he's no MFK Fischer, his prose is fine and largely illuminating.  Of all the things one may or may not like about Tom, pulling the odd phrase out and waving it around like a smoking gun does indeed strike me as looking for something to complain about.  

As to what they do to Bruni, that's gone beyond kvetching into near-psychotic obsession.  Those people need a hobby.

Yes, he's being paid to eat AND write. And he's a bad writer. I used to read Phyllis every week even if I had no intention of going to the restaurant because, well, I'm a food nerd. Now I dread reading the reviews--even about restaurants I'm interested in!--because of his labored prose, senseless similes, and mind-boggling modifiers. It's not an odd phrase; it's every review, nearly every paragraph.

Sorry to be stern with you, son, but that's the way it is.

[hungry prof]

 

I'm betting he's paid both to eat and to write.  And, if he's no MFK Fischer, his prose is fine and largely illuminating.  Of all the things one may or may not like about Tom, pulling the odd phrase out and waving it around like a smoking gun does indeed strike me as looking for something to complain about. 

I used one example as an example, not as a "smoking gun." Sorry, I don't have an indexed account of his writing. And, if I did, you'd tell me I "need a hobby."

All I'm saying (seconding qwertyy above) is that Tom's writing sometimes leaves something to be desired. I'm not saying he's a terrible writer. He's a very good writer, but he writes some things (like the Powerball simile) that I can't believe get by an editor. He has a high profile job at a high profile newspaper. I don't think it's unfair to criticize his writing.

[mtpleasanteater]

Im not sure if this point has already been made on this thread, (i've read alot but not all of it), but the thing that makes Tom's chat so bad is that it's on the Washington Post website and not on Egullet, or this site. This gives the many inappropriate complaints that he answers a air of legitamacy they dont deserve. "I read on the Post's web site that this restaurant has bad service.." Part of a critic's job is to educate their readers, and he misses too many opportunitues to do so.

90% percent of the stuff thats not either "Whats a good ... restaurant in ...?", "How is this restaurant?" shouldnt get through. I think posting etiquette questions or complaints that involve specific restaurants where the restaurant doesnt have a chance to respond at the same time is irresponsible.

If I were the editors there I would have pulled him for the Old Homestead review alone.

[DLB]

Yes, he's being paid to eat AND write. And he's a bad writer. I used to read Phyllis every week even if I had no intention of going to the restaurant because, well, I'm a food nerd. Now I dread reading the reviews--even about restaurants I'm interested in!--because of his labored prose, senseless similes, and mind-boggling modifiers. It's not an odd phrase; it's every review, nearly every paragraph.

Sorry to be stern with you, son, but that's the way it is. 

You have to understand that his writing has to appeal to the masses. I am not sure what is so bad about his writing style.

[Waitman]

I used one example as an example, not as a "smoking gun."  Sorry, I don't have an indexed account of his writing.  And, if I did, you'd tell me I "need a hobby."

All I'm saying (seconding qwertyy above) is that Tom's writing sometimes leaves something to be desired.  I'm not saying he's a terrible writer.  He's a very good writer, but he writes some things (like the Powerball simile) that I can't believe get by an editor.  He has a high profile job at a high profile newspaper.  I don't think it's unfair to criticize his writing.

Naaaah -- you're not in the same league as the Bruni obsessives. The ones on Mouthfulsfood.com, by the way, make everyone else look like conflict resolution specialists.

I'm not putting Tom up for the Nobel or nuthin', but his reviews are generally accurate, he hits a wide variety of price ranges, styles and geographic areas, he writes perfectly good English, and he calls 'em as he sees 'em. I'll take that for my critic.

Like Barbara, above, I've been reading Post reviews since they gave out whisks and smiley faces instead of stars. I like Phyllis quite a bit, and have tremendous respect for her. But I don't wake up sunday mornings overwhelmed nostalgia for the Golden Age of Restaurant Criticism.

[Biotech]

I think you're being a bit paranoid here.  He's used that space more than once to send a message, letting restauranteurs know that the first visit is a "bye" but there are serious problems that should be addressed before I start gathering info for the columns.

Not paranoia, just unclear as to why he's adamant not to review a place until he has been there 3 times, but here he goes and discusses Bazin's before it has a chance to work out the kinks. I agree that 75 minutes is absurd. No one who has taken their business seriously would not see this as something that needs to be corrected (except doctors, like the one I went to today who kept me waiting over 75 minutes).

Maybe "motive" wasn't the right word. More like "purpose." I'll buy some of the PSA argument, but I still don't think it's fair to do more than a mention of any new place before it's been thoroughly reviewed. Then it's time to address all the good and the bad. If excessive waits for those holding reservations continues, then it won't be my first choice.

My visit wasn't perfect either. They need to fix their service path that runs through the middle of the restaurant. I was almost run over by 2 waiters on the way out.

[brendanc]

Not paranoia, just unclear as to why he's adamant not to review a place until he has been there 3 times, but here he goes and discusses Bazin's before it has a chance to work out the kinks. I agree that 75 minutes is absurd. No one who has taken their business seriously would not see this as something that needs to be corrected (except doctors, like the one I went to today who kept me waiting over 75 minutes).

Maybe "motive" wasn't the right word. More like "purpose." I'll buy some of the PSA argument, but I still don't think it's fair to do more than a mention of any new place before it's been thoroughly reviewed. Then it's time to address all the good and the bad. If excessive waits for those holding reservations continues, then it won't be my first choice.

My visit wasn't perfect either. They need to fix their service path that runs through the middle of the restaurant. I was almost run over by 2 waiters on the way out.

When a new restaurant that is expected to make an impact on the dining scene, or one that is created by a former chef from a popular or well known restaurant opens, Sietsema will be there to preview it for himself soon after it opens. In the past he has done a small write up in the Weekly Dish column. This first visit is the one where he evaluates the restaurant and makes his decision to move forward with a review, wait or not return. Sometimes the WD piece is good, sometimes it is not so good. It will always be honest.

This has been SOP for Tom in the past, and will probably continue. A lot of people out there have probably been asking him about the place incessantly and this was a way to serve his readership. Don't think for a second when a place as anticipated as RC opens he won't be there in the first week. I he publishes the blurb based on his visit, then he does.

When the WD appears if the talk is positive it seems great, but negative comments and everyone screams about fairness. Listen if you open a joint expect criticism in many forms, and when you start charging for food and drink it is open season from Tom, Todd or this entire board.

[jdl]

I'm not putting Tom up for the Nobel or nuthin'...

Save the world through food journalism! If you can survive the DR.com gauntlet, anyway.

It's kinda interesting that the James Beard Foundation likes Tom's work enough that he's been a journalism-awards finalist multiple times. And yet the newly deputized writing police here want him arrested on charges of ... what? Not being William S. Vollman? Where the hell do these expectations come from, anyway? It's a daily newspaper, for chrissakes, not McSweeney's or The New f'n Yorker.

By the way, Komi sucks because it's not French Laundry.

[Jacques Gastreaux]

When a new restaurant that is expected to make an impact on the dining scene, or one that is created by a former chef from a popular or well known restaurant opens, Sietsema will be there to preview it for himself soon after it opens. In the past he has done a small write up in the Weekly Dish column.  This first visit is the one where he evaluates the restaurant and makes his decision to move forward with a review, wait or not return.  Sometimes the WD piece is good, sometimes it is not so good. It will always be honest.

This has been SOP for Tom in the past, and will probably continue. A lot of people out there have probably been asking him about the place incessantly and this was a way to serve his readership. Don't think for a second when a place as anticipated as RC opens he won't be there in the first week. I he publishes the blurb based on his visit, then he does.

When the WD appears if the talk is positive it seems great, but negative comments and everyone screams about fairness. Listen if you open a joint expect criticism in many forms, and when you start charging for food and drink it is open season from Tom, Todd or this entire board.

I think this probably is the most insightful description of Sietsema's anticipatory piece on Bazin's. He expects it to make an impact on the local dining scene and is is giving eveyone a heads up that he expects great things to come.

[qwertyy]

It's kinda interesting that the James Beard Foundation likes Tom's work enough that he's been a journalism-awards finalist multiple times. And yet the newly deputized writing police here want him arrested on charges of ... what? Not being William S. Vollman? Where the hell do these expectations come from, anyway? It's a daily newspaper, for chrissakes, not McSweeney's or The New f'n Yorker.

If you like his writing, cool. Tell me why. But why are you so angry at the people who don't like it?

The expectation--and it's a reasonable one--is that a weekly column in a widely read, not-technically-national-but-may-as-well-be newspaper be well written. That's all. (I'm actually shocked that that's too high a standard for some.)

But he tends to get so wrapped up in inventing unique ways of describing food, decor, and service that he forgets that the reading public needs to actually understand what he's talking about. His phrasing tends to be cutesy, kitschy, and silly--and it also tends to be meaningless. I don't have any idea what a midnight-colored sauce is or tastes like, or whether it's good or bad. (And is it black? Navy blue? Sounds kind of gross, but he seems ambivalent, possibly positive.)

One of the main reasons good writers eschew cutesy, kitschy, silly phrases is that they're filler, largely unhelpful in informing the reader. And since part of his job is to paint pictures of places his readers may have never visited, with his limited number of column inches, I just wish he'd concentrate on the salient points and use language that can't be parsed into 10 definitions that span the spectrum.

[jdl]

Funny, by the way, that so many people were on my case about not outing the newly opened restaurant that so badly sucked upon my visit last year. And yet, when Tom writes of a bad experience at a newly opened place, the knives come out.

Different venues, different audiences. But still.

(Hey, pot; kettle calling. You're black! )

[JPW]

Funny, by the way, that so many people were on my case about not outing the newly opened restaurant that so badly sucked upon my visit last year. And yet, when Tom writes of a bad experience at a newly opened place, the knives come out.

Different venues, different audiences. But still.

(Hey, pot; kettle calling. You're black! )

No, I'm with you. I think that Tom's weekly dish on Bazin's was fine and in line with what he has done with other restaurants. Even for a new place, 75 minutes is kind of ridiculous.

[Spiral Stairs]

Funny, by the way, that so many people were on my case about not outing the newly opened restaurant that so badly sucked upon my visit last year. And yet, when Tom writes of a bad experience at a newly opened place, the knives come out.

Different venues, different audiences. But still.

(Hey, pot; kettle calling. You're black! )

Maybe I missed something in scanning that thread, but I did not see where you said it was newly opened when you described your experience. It turned out to be a newly opened restaurant, once the truth came out, but the people who wanted you to name names did not know that. It is quite possible that those people would not have clamored for the name if you had said it was a newly opened restaurant and that's why you didn't want to name it. No one thinks it is off-limits to criticize a well-established place.

[DonRocks]

I've just read through the dozens of postings that have been written here since Wednesday's chat.

Many people (some of whom are less than objective) didn't like the inclusion of the mock service question on the chat, and a couple people raised the point that the chats are being used as an ombudsman.

Biotech, DLB, and lackadaisi didn't like such an early, detailed mention of Bazin's on Church.

happyguy doesn't like Tom's methodology. His comments were thoughtful and detailed, and he made his affiliation with Dino clear.

And then qwertyy, jm chen, mtpleasanteater, and hungry prof have come out and said they don't like aspects of Tom's writing.

A flurry of rumbling about several topics, to be sure - some of it vicious, and too much of it hiding behind anonymity - but this doesn't qualify as any sort of mass revolt.

Tom has an excellent palate, he tries more restaurant dishes than anyone else, he cannot be bought off, he put together an excellent dining guide this year, he made himself available directly to his readership through his chats rather than sitting up in some ivory tower, he is a consummate professional, and I will add that this website would not exist in its present form if it weren't for Tom Sietsema.

Cheers,

Rocks.

[jdl]

Maybe I missed something in scanning that thread, but I did not see where you said it was newly opened when you described your experience.

Didn't say it outright, but the fact that I wrote (more than once) that it had never been mentioned/reviewed on DR.com should have been a pretty good giveaway.

[bilrus]

Funny, by the way, that so many people were on my case about not outing the newly opened restaurant that so badly sucked upon my visit last year. And yet, when Tom writes of a bad experience at a newly opened place, the knives come out.

Different venues, different audiences. But still.

(Hey, pot; kettle calling. You're black! )

Tom's pronouncements do carry a little more weight and authority than an individual post here does, so there is an expectation (that he has set for himself) that his reviews are based on multiple visits, etc.. An standard that we are not held to and rightfully so.

That said, I think his comments about Bazins may have been out of character, but not really out of line.

[Jacques Gastreaux]

Didn't say it outright, but the fact that I wrote (more than once) that it had never been mentioned/reviewed on DR.com should have been a pretty good giveaway.

I disagree that people should have suspected that the place you bashed was newly opened just because no one had discussed it on dr.com. There's lots of places that never get discussed because no one who posts here goes there. the "it must be a new place" light never clicked on for me when I read your post.

[B.A.R.]

If you don't like Tom's writing, or the way he turns-of-phrase, I really don't think it matters as to his effectiveness as a reviewer. What I admire about Tom is, that his reviews are consistent, and I can base my dining decisions based on his recommendations, because I have learned his palate, and how it relates to mine.

The chat has certainly gotten less a little more bitchy lately (last six months) but it is entertaining. What other major city's restaurant reviewer is so accessible? None.

And not just accessible to the general public, either. When I first started managing restaurants in DC, I sent the obligatory "Hi Tom" kiss-ass message. And he responded, and answered phone calls and e-mails. Truly rare.

I disagree with the Rustico/food sickness posting, but I don't think it was malicious. I think his BS detector wasn't quite functioning properly.

In short, he's human just like us, but, IMHO a great asset to the dining AND restaurant communities.

[brian]

That said, I think his comments about Bazins may have been out of character, but not really out of line.

I don't think it's too far out of character, as it's certainly not the first time he's used the Weekly Dish to cast a less than positive light on a new place. Remember Extra Virgin?

[Jacques Gastreaux]

The profound animus towards Ray's the Steaks and this current episode certainly raises some red flags regarding what, if anything, is going on in Sietsemas' alleged mind.  Are he and his staff totally lacking in good judgement?

I'm going to take back part of what I said here. On the assumption that Tom gets an inordinate number of posts from people who complain about the 90-minute limite at Ray's, he would be justified in letting one through once in a while. But my comment about the post complaining of the mock opening at the Alexandria restaurant that is a part of a restaurant group stands. That should never have seen the light of day.

[jparrott]

On the assumption that Tom gets an inordinate number of posts from people who complain about the 90-minute limite at Ray's, he would be justified in letting one through once in a while. 

No! Because none of them say anything new, and he doesn't use them to present the (completely reasonable) justification. Ergo, it comes across as a vendetta. And an old, boring vendetta, not a cool, hip, flavor of the month vendetta.

[Meaghan]

You guys are tough. This why I simply would never even consider being a food writer (not that I'm in the market). I'd be beaten up in the back alleys of the Internet.

[JPW]

I refuse to believe that some of these questions are serious -- e.g. Crofton, MD and Ashburn, VA

[Jacques Gastreaux]

I can't believe Tom has never seen/heard of bartenders checking the quality of a drink by tasting a bit using a straw. I see them do this this all the time. I can't imagine anyone objecting. The finger never touches the drink.

[DLB]

From today's chat, this is crazy who complains about chairs and gets a free meal? I think the restaraunt went way above and beyond on this. Discuss...

Arlington, Va.: Tom, just an update from my post a couple weeks ago about the uncomfortable chairs at Sette Bello. The management sent me a very generous gift certificate (I didn't ask for any freebies, by the way) and a nice letter, in which they seemed to take my comments seriously. It's good to come across a restaurant that is receptive to "constructive criticism" from their patrons.

[Jacques Gastreaux]

Tom Sietsema: Breaking news (but I'm sworn to secrecy): One of the Washington area's finest talents is poised to become one of Food & Wine's "best chefs." This is a very big deal for the chef and for Washington. We're talking magazine cover and national exposure -- plus a really, really fun trip to Aspen. The formal announcement will be made next Tuesday by the magazine, I'm told.

Well, let the guessing begin.....

[MelGold]

Well, let the guessing begin.....

Cathal Armstrong

[brr]

Cathal Armstrong

Well if its Cathal, it would be entirely appropriate.....make me glad our next tasting room adventure is for Monday night though, before it becomes even harder to get a ressie!

[Meaghan]

BIG NEWS...CAN'T SAY.

Poke. Poke. Tease. Tease.

[deangold]

Jose Andres or Michel Richard?

[bilrus]

Well, let the guessing begin.....

I thought I remembered Jose Andres already being featured on the cover of Food and Wine in the last year or so.

[DLB]

Jose Andres or Michel Richard?

I believe the category is "Best New Chef" so none of these guys would qualify. Eric Zeiblod form Cityzen made the cover last year along with other young chefs.

[Meaghan]

I'd like it to be Frank Ruta. I never get what I want.

[Jacques Gastreaux]

I believe the category is "Best New Chef" so none of these guys would qualify. Eric Zeiblod form Cityzen made the cover last year along with other young chefs.

I think they define "new" as having been in charge of kitchens less than 5 years.

[Meaghan]

I think they define "new" as having been in charge of kitchens less than 5 years.

Johnny Monis then.

[tfbrennan]

I refuse to believe that some of these questions are serious -- e.g. Crofton, MD and Ashburn, VA

I agree -- 21st century version of Yalies trying to get fake letters published by Ann Landers.

Crofton from today's chat: "His steak came out topped with a butter and parsley mixture. The menu had stated that the steak would have butter, but said nothing about the parsley. My friend doesn't like to eat meat with anything green on it, and just doesn't like parsley. He didn't want a steak covered in it, and because it was mixed with melted butter, he couldn't easily scrape it off. So, he sent it back, asking for a new steak without the parsley." (emphasis added)

And Rocks, I assume, will zap everything else in a post attempting to work in a lame reference to "Soylent ... poof!

[mdt]

Johnny Monis then.

That is what I was thinking. Can you imagine how hard a res would be then?!