I once had been in the habit of making a concerted effort to comment on the various things that I would read on the Internet, I can not recall how long it has been since this phenomenon last occurred. Well it is happening today.
This article by the New York Observer goes into the issue of why restaurants deserve, and receive the the types of reviews and corresponding stars that they do, in the context of the NY times.
An issue that is explored is the validity of giving a 4 star rating to a restaurant like MASA, which routinely will set you back 1,000$ for a two person dinner, the argument goes that at MASA the spectacle is not so much the food, but rather the display of the patrons ability to waste their money. Similarly, recently at the Essex house, which is another of the cities most expensive restaurants, there four star rating was degraded to a three stars, with the complaint being that the consistency of the pleasure of the meal was not consistent with the amount of money it all cost, the result of the downgrade in stars was the removal of the head chef.
What I am interested in is the concept that the best service and food accompanies the highest price, and moreover which comes first. While not always the case I think that it is true that the best things in life are quite often the things you pay the most money for, or at least that is the way that it is in ny city. I think that the level of service in a restaurant like Per Se (Thomas Keller’s new restaurant in the Time Warner center) which is four stars, and the level of service at the finest restaurant in Colorado, Frasca (opened last August in Boulder by four French Laundry neophytes) is not substantially different, but clearly Frasca’s prices are substantially lower than those at Per Se, and on the same note Frasca will never receive a four star rating from the times. I guess what I am getting at here is the fact that since restaurants exist in a specific time and place, how they are evaluated has to be explicitly linked to that time and place, and since the amount of money a chef can charge is a function of that time and place in which her restaurant exist, it follows that the price of the menu must be consideration in the overall evaluation of the restaurant. Which to me means that a reasonably priced place like Frasca comes much closer to the a plane of the NY elite in terms of overall quality, but it can not be evaluated on in the same terms because the place where they exist are so vastly different. The only thing that this says about Frasca is that it does not deserve a NY times 4 star rating, but it also begs the question as to why would it want one?