Tom Sietsema's Reviews

[bookluvingbabe]

Yes. He wrote a weekly dish about his lunch at Jimmy's on K Street printed the Wednesday of their opening week, meaning he ate there the first or second day of operation. Review followed six weeks after opening. Blue Duck Tavern seemed soon. Urbana seemed soon. I was surprised he waited as long as he did for Agraria (2 1/2 months?)

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

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

He's always done the Weekly Dish sooner than the full blown reviews though. And emphasizes that these are first impressions not reviews.

[DLB]

PX has one page write up in the weekend section of today's paper.

[B.A.R.]

He's always done the Weekly Dish sooner than the full blown reviews though. And emphasizes that these are first impressions not reviews.

Yes. I just found it odd that he chose to write about a restaurant he experienced on either it's 1st or 2nd day of operation. My point about the full reviews is they do seem more rushed. It does not seem that he waits "at least a month" before a new place opens to visit. And it also doesn't appear that he works "4-6 weeks out" from publication date any more. I am not saying I disagree with any of the actual reviews either. They just seem to happen far more quickly.

As far as the Eamonn's and P/X reviews-I just don't get it. And the fact that there is a full page review of the bar in the Weekend section, plus a mini-review OF THE SAME BAR in the magazine by the award winning food critic of a place that serves no food????????????

[demandalicious]

And the fact that there is a full page review of the bar in the Weekend section, plus a mini-review OF THE SAME BAR in the magazine by the award winning food critic of a place that serves no food????????????

Personally, I think that zee PX is cutting edge for this city and is worth every bit of attention that it received in the Post. Why do people get so worked up about food reviews in the newspaper, though? Other than bitching about them on the internet, how would you improve them or do it better?

[bilrus]

TS has always said that his purview is any place that serves food that he thinks is worthy enough or important enough that the readers should know about it.

I think Eamonn's qualifies - it is a project of an important chef in this city. It was wildly anticipated enough that their soft opening was overrun by hoardes of diners. And they are serving what has to be the best fried fish in the area.

And I disagree with a previous poster who said they could name a hundred places more derserving of a review. Not to toot our own horn here, but if there were, don't you think we would know what they were?

[Tujague]

The Weekend section and the Magazine are totally different staffs; I doubt they consulted with each other at all about these articles appearing within a few days of each other. And Fritz Hahn's bar scene write-ups are of a totally different flavor from Tom's reviews. My guess is that all the Magazine columnists are working on shorter publishing intervals these days, as everything in it--Weingarten, Stuever, the dating column--seems a bit more current than previously. If so, Tom could still stick with his basic ethic, write the review, and have it appear much sooner than expected.

That said, I thought this week's review was a bit of a stretch, even combining the two operations; throwing in another limited-menu establishment to balance it out would have made more sense to me (I don't know what that might have been, though). On the other hand, Todd Thrasher is really a chef in his own right, so extending him this sort of space is not unfitting.

[Jacques Gastreaux]

And I disagree with a previous poster who said they could name a hundred places more derserving of a review. Not to toot out own horn here, but if there were, don't you think we would know what they were?

And don't you think the previous poster could have given a few examples out the hundredS he purports to know about.

Plus, Heather and JPW are just sour grapes that most of the new good places are down in Old Town and not up in Monkey County.

[Heather]

Not hardly, JG.

And Bill's point isn't too far off Joe's. Regardless of the excellence of the fish & chips, Eamonn's merits a full review because it's Cathal's place.

[JPW]

Plus, Heather and JPW are just sour grapes that most of the new good places are down in Old Town and not up in Monkey County.

What? You guys got a new Arby's? That ain't right!!!!!!

[Keithstg]

Plus, Heather and JPW are just sour grapes that most of the new good places are down in Old Town and not up in Monkey County.

I don't know, aside from Eve and Eamonn's, I would say that most of the good new places are still in the district.

As JPW mentioned, I think that Tom must have felt that any new outing from Chef Armstong deserved a write up - sort of like Bruni reviewing 'witchcraft, if that ever happened. However, to use a weekly review on a chipper, and a bar that serves no food seems like a bit of a waste. PX is cool, but the concept is nothing new. New to Old Town maybe, but it's basically Milk and Honey or Pegu.

[mdt]

I don't know, aside from Eve and Eamonn's, I would say that most of the good new places are still in the district.

As JPW mentioned, I think that Tom must have felt that any new outing from Chef Armstong deserved a write up - sort of like Bruni reviewing 'witchcraft, if that ever happened. However, to use a weekly review on a chipper, and a bar that serves no food seems like a bit of a waste. PX is cool, but the concept is nothing new. New to Old Town maybe, but it's basically Milk and Honey or Pegu.

The concept of PX is not just new to Old Town, but the entire DC area. Granted it is not a 'normal' restaurant, but I think it deserves the press Cathal or not.

[Keithstg]

The concept of PX is not just new to Old Town, but the entire DC area. Granted it is not a 'normal' restaurant, but I think it deserves the press Cathal or not.

I don't disagree on press at all. Written up in Express, Weekly Dish, a page in the WaPo weekend edition - those are all great. But in Tom's weekly restaurant review? PX isn't a restaurant.

[Camille-Beau]

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

Perhaps there will be something in the Nov. Washingtonian that might have an effect on the publishing date. I'm just sayin'...

[ScotteeM]

Perhaps there will be something in the Nov. Washingtonian that might have an effect on the publishing date. I'm just sayin'...

Indeed, there is. Nice photo of the fish & chips.

[Tujague]

One and a half stars for PS7's. Wow, this is like the third new "big deal" restaurant (following Agraria and Urbana) to get a less-than-(two)-stellar review recently.

[CrescentFresh]

One and a half stars for PS7's. Wow, this is like the third new "big deal" restaurant (following Agraria and Urbana) to get a less-than-(two)-stellar review recently.

Bravo to the South African unwooded chardonnay!

[DLB]

This is not a surprise to me.

[Capital Icebox]

This is not a surprise to me.

Episode 229: "I'm Homer Simpson, the most powerful food critic in town, who will never get his comeuppance! You hear me? [shakes fist at sky] No Comeuppance!"

[Heather]

This is not a surprise to me.

Most of the reviews by board members were very positive.

I did note that Tom did not like the booths opposite the kitchen but he didn't mention my annoyance - the street light that shines directly in one's eyes.

[jparrott]

Bravo to the South African unwooded chardonnay!

[CrescentFresh]

Most of the reviews by board members were very positive.

I did note that Tom did not like the booths opposite the kitchen but he didn't mention my annoyance - the street light that shines directly in one's eyes.

When asked by restaurant personnel shortly after PS7 opened what I thought, one of the comments I made was about that door across from the bar, which presents the exact same problem as the dining room door that Tom noted in his review. In fact, Tom's "operating room" reference was the exact same reference I made. One minute you're in a restaurant, the next you're in an operating room. Lobster Degustation! Stat!

I had recommended to the staff to do something - anything - to hide what's behind that door and, in particular, those blinding flourescent lights. Perhaps hanging some kind of drape to take them out of line of sight. It's a major league design flaw.

[jparrott]

the server's suggestion that you order two appetizer-size dishes as well as an entree. (Do I see a bigger tip dancing in his head?)

I'm sorry, but this is gratuitous. While I agree with many of the points in the review, this "server's suggestion" is precisely the concept of the restaurant--i.e., "build your own tasting menu," a concept, I gather, which the staff has not always communicated well.

Sure, PS7's needs a fair bit of work. But this particular bit of the review struck me as one-sided and misguided.

[Heather]

I'm sorry, but this is gratuitous. While I agree with many of the points in the review, this "server's suggestion" is precisely the concept of the restaurant--i.e., "build your own tasting menu," a concept, I gather, which the staff has not always communicated well.

Sure, PS7's needs a fair bit of work. But this particular bit of the review struck me as one-sided and misguided.

But if they aren't communicating it well, why is that remark gratuitous? Obviously that's not the idea that Sietsema walked away with.

And the portions didn't seem tasting-menu sized.

[jparrott]

But if they aren't communicating it well, why is that remark gratuitous? Obviously that's not the idea that Sietsema walked away with.

Good point.

And the portions didn't seem tasting-menu sized.

Well, certainly not eight-course-tasting-menu-sized, but pretty close to 4-course-tasting-menu-sized.

[Waitman]

Good point.

Well, certainly not eight-course-tasting-menu-sized, but pretty close to 4-course-tasting-menu-sized.

Speaking to the portion sizes, one of the things that struck me is that PS7 is a pretty pricy

spot, given the servings. It would be easy to rack up $65 or $75 on food and still not go home particularly full -- not that that's the measure of a restaurant's success (or I'd eat at the Cheesecake Factory) -- but there is a point at which returns appear to diminish. Throw in a couple of $13 cocktails and a bottle of wine and you're spending about what you'd spend for Marcel's and half again what you'd spend at RTC.

[youngfood]

I thought it was totally gratuitous. And its been publicized plenty. As early as Tom's own June weekly dish in June where he discussed the menu featuring small plates. While I don't disagree that the suggestion that you need to order any more courses when dining here than you would normally order elsewhere is off base or that the suggestion that you should is somewhat unnecessary (I made the some critique after eating there), but its hardly the fault of his server and more likely her responsibility to say so if that's the chef's concept in designing the 7 courses. Indeed, what would the point of seven different course categories be if you were supposed to presume that the first two were appetizers, the next three were entrees, and the last two were desserts?

The "bring sunglasses" line and the complaint about the noisy party of twelve that were there one night were also a little over the top. It seems like Tom caught onto some real imperfections with the place, but his tone in his write up makes me think he was determined to offer another low star review.

Maybe he's really taken past criticism of his consistent 2-2.5 star review run to heart?

[Waitman]

I thought it was totally gratuitous. And its been publicized plenty. As early as Tom's own June weekly dish in June where he discussed the menu featuring small plates. While I don't disagree that the suggestion that you need to order any more courses when dining here than you would normally order elsewhere is off base or that the suggestion that you should is somewhat unnecessary (I made the some critique after eating there), but its hardly the fault of his server and more likely her responsibility to say so if that's the chef's concept in designing the 7 courses. Indeed, what would the point of seven different course categories be if you were supposed to presume that the first two were appetizers, the next three were entrees, and the last two were desserts?

The "bring sunglasses" line and the complaint about the noisy party of twelve that were there one night were also a little over the top. It seems like Tom caught onto some real imperfections with the place, but his tone in his write up makes me think he was determined to offer another low star review.

Maybe he's really taken past criticism of his consistent 2-2.5 star review run to heart?

I'm hard pressed to find any evidence that Sietsema walked into PS7 or any restaurant pre-determined to prove the mass of his manhood by rating them sub-(two)-stellar. My takeway -- which one can agree with or not -- is that he saw the place as a triumph of form over substance: trendy dishes that don't quite work; cutesy menu formatting that's a bit irritating; expensively designed but unfortunately dysfunctional space. Thus the low-star review.

I've only eaten there once, and I can see someone taking that view away from dinner there, (and I can see someone enjoying it much more than Tom did). I can't see ascribing malicious intent to someone who is a pretty consistent and accurate reviewer and who is well-respected by his peers (that award and all) just because I disagree with him.

[Heather]

I thought it was totally gratuitous. And its been publicized plenty. As early as Tom's own June weekly dish in June where he discussed the menu featuring small plates.

It's not presented as a traditional tasting menu, so if that's the intent then the menu and the waitstaff need to make that clearer. I also found the portion sizes too large, and the prices to high, to work as "small plates."

[DLB]

I find it quite amusing that is only ok to criticize a restaurant after it gets bashed by the Post, none of the above comments appear on the PS7 thread. I was called everything but a child of God, by the manager when I wrote about PS7 after eating there opening night. Not much has changed from opening night.

ps7

[Heather]

You don't know what was discussed offline. In my case, Danny Boylen invited me to the soft opening, and didn't want to be rude online.

[Jacques Gastreaux]

I find it quite amusing that is only ok to criticize a restaurant after it gets bashed by the Post, none of the above comments appear on the PS7 thread. I was called everything but a child of God, by the manager when I wrote about PS7 after eating there opening night. Not much has changed from opening night.

ps7

I think most of the people on this board are loath to post negativity about a restaurant experience just after a place opens up. I emphasize "most."

[DLB]

You don't know what was discussed offline. In my case, Danny Boylen invited me to the soft opening, and didn't want to be rude online.

I assume you were not paying at the soft opening, so you should not discuss online. I know people disagree with me on this, but I think a restaurant is fair game when they open to paying customers. Service issues can be fixed, but the food is what it is in most cases.

[Jonathan]

i assume this is the restaurant that tom kept alluding to in his chat about a local chef who relocated and was telling people he has Tom eating out of his hand.

so maybe Tom gave him such a poor review as a way of saying "ah no you didn't...."

[DonRocks]

i assume this is the restaurant that tom kept alluding to in his chat about a local chef ... was telling people he has Tom eating out of his hand.

Nope!

[Jonathan]

Nope!

anh, no I didn't!

[Heather]

I assume you were not paying at the soft opening, so you should not discuss online. I know people disagree with me on this, but I think a restaurant is fair game when they open to paying customers. Service issues can be fixed, but the food is what it is in most cases.

I might have held off even if I had paid. Hard to say. Surely the pressure to open before everything is perfect is immense.

[crackers]

Several things struck me as unusual in this review, which, based on my one visit during a soft opening, I find to be generally accurate. First, Sietsema has broken from his usual mold of describing the architecture and décor in the first paragraph or three. In most of his longer reviews one must slog through those descriptors to get to the “meat” of the review, which for me is the food. (Take a look at his weekly - not Dining Guide - review of Black's Bar and Kitchen as a classic example.) While I would otherwise applaud this change in the formula, in the case of PS7’s, where the surroundings are so hard-edged and bold and obviously costly, an up-front comment on the décor would have been completely justified. Particularly because this assertiveness so starkly contrasts with the diminutive and fussy presentations and (IMO, and seemingly his as well) disappointingly bland flavors on the plates- a contrast that went surprisingly unremarked upon.

I also found it curious that he only obliquely made reference, via praise of the wine list’s “highly personal touch,” to the former GM Danny Boylen, whose early departure from the young restaurant would normally have merited at least passing comment.

Finally, no mention of the very swanky bar and lounge area? WaPo readers should know about it, particularly since the restaurant is so close to the Verizon Center and it is a nice alternative to the other options nearby.

[youngfood]

I can't see ascribing malicious intent to someone who is a pretty consistent and accurate reviewer and who is well-respected by his peers (that award and all) just because I disagree with him.

To be clear, that was absolutely not my intent. I do think its not hard to subconsciously start piling on when you decide you don't like something, just as it is to think everything about someone/something is perfect when you have a favorable initial impression.

Mostly, I don't think a server is to blame for recommending a certain amount of dishes at PS7 just as I don't think the servers at actual small plate/tapas restaurants are to blame for recommending a certain number of dishes. The point is that when you don't follow a tradition 3 course menu set up, some diners need some direction to determine how much or how little to order.

[Jeff Orel]

May 28 Ardeo: 2.5

May 21 Lima: 2

May 14 [No review]

May 7 [No review]

April 30 Viridian: 2

April 23 Willard Room: 1.5

April 16 Simply Home: 2

April 9 Birreria Paradiso: 2

April 2 100 King: 2.5

March 26 [Out of town restaurants-no stars given]

There is a new menu at VIRIDIAN as well as a new chef...I am not so excited about a 2 rating

[Jonathan]

Johnny's Half Shell

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?n...ies=Restaurants

[The Hersch]

"Where are the soft-shells coming from?" I asked a server one night. "Venezuela," she misinformed me.

Well? Where were they from, and how do you know?

[Heather]

Well? Where were they from, and how do you know?

Can we assume that this would be researched and fact-checked before making into the paper? Maybe a call to Johnny's the next day?

[The Hersch]

Can we assume that this would be researched and fact-checked before making into the paper? Maybe a call to Johnny's the next day?

Perhaps, but if he tells us the wrong answer, shouldn't he share the right answer with us as well? I find that very irritating.

[qwertyy]

Well? Where were they from, and how do you know?

Maybe it was written on the menu? I'd assume that questions like this are part of the tests he gives to gauge service.

Boy, I could really go one or two weeks without a protein being "lapped" in a sauce, though, or "tucked into" a roll. And "lashings of cider sauce"? A "sassy vinaigrette"? I wonder if he's sick of writing and that's why he scrapes for these (as he may say) "cringe-inducing" phrasings.

Weirdly, he doesn't seem to have this issue when he's writing about wine lists.

[Waitman]

Perhaps, but if he tells us the wrong answer, shouldn't he share the right answer with us as well? I find that very irritating.

When you're working with very limited space, you make your point and move on. Since the comment was about the service and not about the crabs, he probably banked a few words to spend on something he thought more important.

Maybe it was written on the menu? I'd assume that questions like this are part of the tests he gives to gauge service.

Boy, I could really go one or two weeks without a protein being "lapped" in a sauce, though, or "tucked into" a roll. And "lashings of cider sauce"? A "sassy vinaigrette"? I wonder if he's sick of writing and that's why he scrapes for these (as he may say) "cringe-inducing" phrasings.

Weirdly, he doesn't seem to have this issue when he's writing about wine lists.

I agree. But I also sympathize with someone who has to come up with dozens of food adjectives every week. And I like a sassy vinaigrette every now and again.

[qwertyy]

I agree. But I also sympathize with someone who has to come up with dozens of food adjectives every week. And I like a sassy vinaigrette every now and again.

Yeah but you know, it's, like, his job.

And I prefer a sassy cocktail.

[dmwine]

Boy, I could really go one or two weeks without a protein being "lapped" in a sauce, though, or "tucked into" a roll. And "lashings of cider sauce"? A "sassy vinaigrette"? I wonder if he's sick of writing and that's why he scrapes for these (as he may say) "cringe-inducing" phrasings.

Weirdly, he doesn't seem to have this issue when he's writing about wine lists.

As someone who writes about wine and has been reviewing restaurants for a major local but unheralded glossy the last eight months, I can tell you - you've hit the nail on the head. It is very easy to slip unawares into repeated phrasings and cliches.

So how about a new thread - cliches of the restaurant critics? (Or wine writers ...) Or devise their favorite meals based on what gets lauded repeatedly.

I'll start - my editor at DC wrote me last month, "Can we please not say he 'coaxes the most flavor out of his ingredients'? We've used that the last five months already!"

"Gee, chef, how DO you coax so much flavor out of your foie gras and those truffles?"

And I have sworn never to "nap" another sauce.

I once compared wine writing to pornography for Wine Enthusiast magazine - the piece is here.

[Waitman]

Yeah but you know, it's, like, his job.

And I prefer a sassy cocktail.

What I really like is a sassy waitress.

The reason I sympathize is that -- having written a few reviews for various boards and the kind of low-rent publications that pay by the word and fire good editors -- I think there's a finite, and not particularly large, number of food-friendly adjectives. That on-line thesaurus only takes you so far.

Also, I think that within the fairly strict strictures of a restaurant review, there is a tendency to have a little bit of fun and it comes out in a little bit of wordplay. Hence things are "lashed" and "tucked into" (or "nestled in"), when they could just be "squirted" or "served on." And verbs get created and abused; "lapped," for example. I read posts on this board and eGullet and (let me be clear) my own writing and wish more of us could summarize the results of a 40 or so courses, the decore, the chef and patisiere's family tree, and the wine list in 1200 readable words.

I like Tom, I think he's consistent, fair, generally accurate and a good writer, if not a culinary poet. My objection to this particularreview might be that he didn't give them enough time to quintuple in size before descending on them. But, as I think I did upthread, I wonder if forums like this and a newly vital (and on-line) Washingtonian are forcing him to get into print earlier than he might otherwise have, in order to maintain his/The Posts status as lead (if not top) dog.

[treznor]

I like Tom, I think he's consistent, fair, generally accurate and a good writer, if not a culinary poet. My objection to this particularreview might be that he didn't give them enough time to quintuple in size before descending on them. But, as I think I did upthread, I wonder if forums like this and a newly vital (and on-line) Washingtonian are forcing him to get into print earlier than he might otherwise have, in order to maintain his/The Posts status as lead (if not top) dog.

Even though the Internet food writing scene for DC seems to really be quite vibrant, I still doubt that we touch nearly the same market that WaPo or the Washingtonian do. However, I do think Washingtonian might be giving him that push to remain the lead food critic in DC. I think he's clearly their at the moment, but I think he might be able to turn around and see others on his tail.

[qwertyy]

The reason I sympathize is that -- having written a few reviews for various boards and the kind of low-rent publications that pay by the word and fire good editors -- I think there's a finite, and not particularly large, number of food-friendly adjectives. That on-line thesaurus only takes you so far.

Also, I think that within the fairly strict strictures of a restaurant review, there is a tendency to have a little bit of fun and it comes out in a little bit of wordplay. Hence things are "lashed" and "tucked into" (or "nestled in"), when they could just be "squirted" or "served on." And verbs get created and abused; "lapped," for example. I read posts on this board and eGullet and (let me be clear) my own writing and wish more of us could summarize the results of a 40 or so courses, the decore, the chef and patisiere's family tree, and the wine list in 1200 readable words.

Well sure--I write and edit for a living, too. (Not food, though, because I'm not particularly good at it.) But is it so hard to say it's "a pepper sauce" rather than--EVERY TIME--"a sauce enlivened by peppers"? (Add this one to the peeve list, dmwine!) And if you're just talking word count, I've found most of the painful descriptors actually add column inches anyway, so no juice there.

It's is indeed possible to do this without sucking all the life out of it--I mean, read Bruni or Bauer. These guys write engaging, terrific reviews with nary a lap, nap, or tuck to be found.

I don't want to pile on; I actually have very little problem with his reviews, opinion-wise. I'm just picky about professional writing and find them hard to read at times.