hellooo - michael bauer of san francisco chronicle? talk about recognizable critic... most people in restaurants know what most critics look like. grainy photos of bruni? puuhleeze, even i can find a good photo of him online

Posted by: reader at August 14, 2007 9:56 AM

Freeman does have a point that Bruno is recognized by anyone who is looking. The last restaurant I worked at had his picture as a screensaver before he wrote his first review. We had surveillance tapes from another restaurant sent over once he did start doing reviews.

The point is that restaurants do everything they can to make sure that the critic has the best of everything. This is totally understandable from the restaurant's point of view. However, it does produce an experience that the restaurant is unlikely to provide for the majority of its patrons. Anonymity, while not critical to the reviewing process (a restaurant can only put its best foot forward, not an entirely new foot), is the only way to get a truly accurate picture of a resataurant.

This is part of the reason Grimes was such an effective reviewer. He was the most ordinary looking man. He was the type of person you could serve dinner to, he could come back in a few days, and you might never remember him.

Another place I worked that was being re-reviewed by Grimes layed a trap for him. Our sommelier learned that he always would order a certain Champagne if it was on the list. We listed it even though we never had it in stock. Sure enough, when the server put the order through to the bar, I came out and checked and it was Him. Alas, despite being very satisfied with a very similar bottle I sold him in lieu of what he ordered, the restaurant lost one of its two stars.

Finally, who reads the Daily News for restaurant reviews anyway?

Posted by: deepyarn at August 14, 2007 10:55 AM

I'd love to know what Robin Reisfeld or Rob Patronite of New York Magazine look like... anyone??

Now they are sneaky!

Posted by: Hungry Carly at August 14, 2007 11:03 AM

Non-issue in her case. She looks like every other dime a dozen JAPS in this town. She'll be guaranteed anonymity wherever she shows up.

Posted by: Mel at August 14, 2007 11:32 AM

Sounds like a problem to me.

Posted by: not a critic at August 14, 2007 11:35 AM

I have been a food reviewer for a daily newspaper. I kept my anonymity carefully guarded (watch me do it here!) but once in a while my cover was blown at a restaurant. When that happened, the change was dramatic. Suddenly free drinks and extra dishes started arriving. If my dessert order didn't happen to include the dessert that the chef knew was best, he'd send that one along with the others, perhaps discreetly pretending "he made an extra one by mistake, but why don't you keep it," thus ensuring that the incredible souffle or whatever makes it into the review alongside the dull sundae.

And the service -- which readers of reviews say is one of their main criteria for liking or disliking a restaurant -- instantly skyrocketed in attentiveness, politeness, and quality. As you point out, they can't change chefs but they can sure change who's waiting on me.

Restaurant Girl's claim to fame is that she goes to restaurants the first night they open, which is fine for her sort of gossipy reportage and PR parroting. I notice that the restaurants she covers on her web site are exactly the ones that have been pushed most heavily by NYC PR companies. Her site looks embarrassingly much like the glossy contents of my paper recycling bin. She certainly doesn't seem to do any investigation of restaurants that aren't promoted to her.

That's fine. Her perspective is useful and her writing style is catchy, although it's not clear how well informed she is about food. But to lump her in with objective critics muddies the well and makes it that much harder for readers to get useful information.

Posted by: S at August 14, 2007 11:40 AM

C'mon, it's for the Daily News. Who cares?

Posted by: w at August 14, 2007 2:36 PM

Clearly, RG is not interested in integrity or giving a fair assessment of what a restaurant is doing-- and this makes what she writes totally useless.

Plus, the woman cannot write. Just cannot write. That is more important than whether or not she is spotted.

Posted by: Brechen at August 14, 2007 5:42 PM

Actually, Our Man Sietsema is excellent at rocking the anonymity thing. I've been out with him dozens of times, and he's never been spotted - whether he happens to be at Daniel or at an Uzbek joint in Rego Park.

Posted by: j gold at August 16, 2007 3:30 PM