Washington Post Dining Guide

[sandynva]

He hasn't stopped at all - the radio spots on WTOP over the weekend featured him proclaiming it the best Indian restaurant in the US. Granted, Rasika's very good, but even assuming that you choose to limit the comparison to fine-dining Indian, I'd happily argue the toss with Tabla, and Devi's in there as a strong contender as well.

that's depressing to hear. agree with you on tabla and devi, and if you take it out of fine dining you could easily add the mughal chain in nj, sukhadia's gokul, and really half the places in edison or jersey city.

[DonRocks]

More fodder ... click.

On Sunday, I picked up what appeared to be a very nice-looking copy of the Washington Post Magazine, sat back with a cup of coffee, and was prepared to spend a peaceful half-hour enjoying the issue.

I have nothing against Spike Mendelsohn in much the same way I have nothing against Warren Brown. I'm essentially apathetic toward both of them - not pro, not con, but apathetic. From my limited perspective (I don't watch television) they seem to be no different than any of thousands of people, in a wide variety of professions, who have somehow achieved notoriety without any obvious substance. (Again, I might have the wrong impression of them, but that is nevertheless my impression.) Whenever I hear their names, I just shrug my shoulders, and think to myself, 'more power to 'em.'

But when I opened the magazine, and the very first thing I saw was a full-page spread of this gentleman? I closed it, put it down, and began reading something else (I had already skimmed the issue online, so I didn't feel like I was missing anything). This was a very, very poor choice by The Washington Post.

Cheers,

Rocks.

[cajcaj]

On Sunday, I picked up what appeared to be a very nice-looking copy of the Washington Post Magazine, sat back with a cup of coffee, and was prepared to spend a peaceful half-hour enjoying the issue.

I have nothing against Spike Mendelsohn in much the same way I have nothing against Warren Brown. I'm essentially apathetic toward both of them - not pro, not con, but apathetic. From my limited perspective (I don't watch television) they seem to be no different than any of thousands of people, in a wide variety of professions, who have somehow achieved notoriety without any obvious substance. (Again, I might have the wrong impression of them, but that is nevertheless my impression.) Whenever I hear their names, I just shrug my shoulders, and think to myself, 'more power to 'em.'

But when I opened the magazine, and the very first thing I saw was a full-page spread of this gentleman? I closed it, put it down, and began reading something else (I had already skimmed the issue online, so I didn't feel like I was missing anything). This was a very, very poor choice by The Washington Post.

Cheers,

Rocks.

There were more than a few things that he said in this piece that irritated me, but I'm curious Don, if you were at best apathetic twds this dude before picking up the magazine, what was it that made you put it down when you saw the feature?

[DonRocks]

There were more than a few things that he said in this piece that irritated me, but I'm curious Don, if you were at best apathetic twds this dude before picking up the magazine, what was it that made you put it down when you saw the feature?

This was essentially a "Best Of" issue, dealing directly with an area that I not only consider myself an expert in, but also hold near-and-dear to my heart. When I saw this picture, the first thing that popped into my mind was Frank Ruta.

At the risk of stating the obvious, being an Editor or Art Director does not imply having dining expertise. I don't think any high crime has been committed here, but I would have done things differently.

Cheers,

Rocks.

[cajcaj]

This was essentially a "Best Of" issue, dealing directly with an area that I not only consider myself an expert in, but also hold near-and-dear to my heart. When I saw this picture, the first thing that popped into my mind was Frank Ruta.

At the risk of stating the obvious, being an Editor or Art Director does not imply having dining expertise. I don't think any high crime has been committed here, but I would have done things differently.

Cheers,

Rocks.

Oh, I gotcha - makes total sense. Having not seen the magazine in its print version I didn't get that effect - but you're right. Really poor choice.

[Pat]

I hate hate absolutely hate the newest incarnation of the Washington Post Magazine. (The last version I only hated.) I cannot tell the ads from the articles. They've done their best to blur them. My husband tells me that is to trick me into reading the ads. Well, all it's succeeded in doing is to cause me to skip the articles.

I'd already skimmed the dining guide online but prefer to look at it in print. They have an ad supplement right in the middle of the top 50. Maybe they've done that before (can't recall), but it made it hard to read the top 50 without seeing a lot of promos for restaurants that were paid ads and blurred right into the editorial content. I made it as far as to where the ad supplement started and tossed the whole thing into recycling.

ETA: I disliked the Spike piece too, but that's not what caused me to toss the magazine.

[jayandstacey]

I hate hate absolutely hate the newest incarnation of the Washington Post Magazine. (The last version I only hated.) I cannot tell the ads from the articles. They've done their best to blur them. My husband tells me that is to trick me into reading the ads. Well, all it's succeeded in doing is to cause me to skip the articles.

I agree. That would seem to be the trick for online advertising, where getting you to 'click' makes them the money. But in print - isn't the whole idea to sell the MOST copies? isn't that what drives ads? Maybe not anymore. Maybe studies of 'drift' of the eyes into the ads help sell ads, or sell ads for more $$$. Or maybe this is a continuum of a blur between print and online - which assumes some grand plan, and I think that assumes too much.

Either way, the print version has grown increasingly annoying in proportion to the increasing annoyingness of the online version.

They could go a long way to making the new incarnation more readable by simply making the masthead at the beginning of each editorial section (the column name) simply bigger. Same design, but bigger. The type of the articles is actually slightly bigger - but the quiet entrance into the column makes it seem smaller, and even lost in the ads.

Lesson - Never let a committee with many advanced studies degrees do what a 10 year old could figure out in 5 minutes.

I'd already skimmed the dining guide online but prefer to look at it in print. They have an ad supplement right in the middle of the top 50. Maybe they've done that before (can't recall), but it made it hard to read the top 50 without seeing a lot of promos for restaurants that were paid ads and blurred right into the editorial content. I made it as far as to where the ad supplement started and tossed the whole thing into

ETA: I disliked the Spike piece too, but that's not what caused me to toss the magazine.

In fairness, the supplement was fairly well 'set off' from the rest in type face and style, and had a very clear (though small) disclaimer at the end. And I don't believe this is something entirely new - haven't there been 'paid reviews' alongside the real ones in the past? Or am I thinking of Washingtonians' "100 best" lists?

[Pat]

In fairness, the supplement was fairly well 'set off' from the rest in type face and style, and had a very clear (though small) disclaimer at the end. And I don't believe this is something entirely new - haven't there been 'paid reviews' alongside the real ones in the past? Or am I thinking of Washingtonians' "100 best" lists?

As I said, I can't recall if they've stuck the ad supplement right in the middle of the editorial dining guide before, but the new layout made them harder to distinguish (at least for me), even though the insert pages had "Advertisement" written at the top.

And I misspoke (mis-typed?). I didn't toss the magazine as soon as I got to the ad supplement. It was when I realized that something I was going to skip over--Tom Sietsema's sidebar on desserts--wasn't actually an ad but "real" content.

[jayandstacey]

As I said, I can't recall if they've stuck the ad supplement right in the middle of the editorial dining guide before, but the new layout made them harder to distinguish (at least for me), even though the insert pages had "Advertisement" written at the top.

And I misspoke (mis-typed?). I didn't toss the magazine as soon as I got to the ad supplement. It was when I realized that something I was going to skip over--Tom Sietsema's sidebar on desserts--wasn't actually an ad but "real" content.

Agreed. It will be interesting to see if the new layout is actually bad, or if we're so used to the old one that it will seem OK once our eyes get used to it. It certainly doesn't seem like an improvement.

[dcs]

I find it interesting, and quite telling, that the Magazine's new formatting and font styles are generating more commentary than the content of the Dining Guide itself.

[TheMatt]

I find it interesting, and quite telling, that the Magazine's new formatting and font styles are generating more commentary than the content of the Dining Guide itself.

I find it interesting, and quite telling of the circles I run in that the most commented issue with the redesign among my friends was the removal of "Cul de Sac". Yeah, yeah, it's in some section, but it's in black & white rather than color like it was in the Magazine.

[The Hersch]

As I said, I can't recall if they've stuck the ad supplement right in the middle of the editorial dining guide before

They have.

I don't really care about the design of the WP magazine. The Post as a whole sucks so badly that I won't buy or read it any more. I don't know if Tom Sietsema has any more credibility than the editorial page, or the front page, but that question must be answered by those still willing to read the contemptible rag.

[dcs]

but that question must be answered by those still willing to read the contemptible rag.

Please stop suger-coating your opinions.

[MC Horoscope]

Surprised that Ristorante Tosca wasn't on the list! Was there a better place for pastas on the list that I missed?

Still, it's just a personal list of 50 favorites, and I appreciate Tom's descriptions. Nice to know that some of his favorites are in the inexpensive range.

[chuchelo]

From today's chat with Tom:

"Washington, D.C.: Wow -- NO restaurants in the Dining Guide from Capitol Hill? Why is that?? On the surface, it would seem to have the clientele and the location. Why do you think the Hill cannot attract or retain good restaurants?

Tom Sietsema: Why no inclusions from the Hill? Most of the places I tried for the guide there -- Cava, Matchbox and Montmartre, among others -- were just not that good or consistent this year. And Locanda closed, unfortunately."

I hope that will get Montmartre back on its game!

[Kibbee Nayee]

Maybe it's just me, but I find the 50 Faves by Sietsma to be subjective, boring, a bit self-aggrandizing, and not overly helpful.

For example, there is one and only one Thai restaurant on the list, up in Wheaton. No other Thai restaurants are worthy of his to 50? Are you kidding me?

There are no Middle Eastern restaurants on his list. Kibbee Nayee takes personal offense.

Was there a Chinese restaurant on the list, anywhere?

The GAR group is represented by Artie's...? GAR is the first syllable in "garbage" and appropriately so. But PassionFoods, and especially PassionFish, does not make the list? I would put PassionFish and Accadiana ahead of about a dozen places on this list.

Sushi-Ko and Kaz Sushi Bistro are nowhere to be found, and only Sushi Taro represents Japan on the list?

Palena is a full frikkin star beneath Komi?

2941 makes the list but Inox doesn't?

Color me very confused....

[Escoffier]

Maybe it's just me, but I find the 50 Faves by Sietsma to be subjective, boring, a bit self-aggrandizing, and not overly helpful.

and here I thought I was the only one who felt that way...at least Kliman seems open to trying new places.

[Waitman]

Maybe it's just me, but I find the 50 Faves by Sietsma to be subjective, boring, a bit self-aggrandizing, and not overly helpful.

In Tom's defense, that pretty much describes every "best of" list.

[porcupine]

Maybe it's just me, but I find the 50 Faves by Sietsma to be subjective, boring, a bit self-aggrandizing, and not overly helpful.

But it's a nice change from other lists that proclaim what's supposed to be best. Honestly, how can restaurant reviews not be subjectve? If nothing else it's helpful for calibrating your tastes against Tom's.

[mdt]

The GAR group is represented by Artie's...? GAR is the first syllable in "garbage" and appropriately so.

Can we please move on? This is getting rather old...

[alan7147]

Can we please move on? This is getting rather old...

Thank you!!!!!!!!!

[hmmboy]

Go INOX!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/gog/dining-guide-tom-sietsema-spring-2010.html

[Pat]

Go INOX!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/gog/dining-guide-tom-sietsema-spring-2010.html

I was glad to see he reconsidered his original review.

In case anyone from the Post is reading this, the rating for the Oval Room is wrong on the actual online review. It's correct in the listing of all of the restaurants, but its stars somehow were halved on the individual review.

[zoramargolis]

I wish I had seen this yesterday, so I could have congratulated Buck's new chef, our own DR friend Loire Lover. I was at Comet Ping Pong, picking up pizzas to go, and bumped into her coming out of Comet's kitchen and heading out to the parking lot.

[leleboo]

I wish I had seen this yesterday, so I could have congratulated Buck's new chef, our own DR friend Loire Lover. I was at Comet Ping Pong, picking up pizzas to go, and bumped into her coming out of Comet's kitchen and heading out to the parking lot.

(Pssst pssst .... year-long new and much deserved accolade, yeah?)

Hilarious the way you ran into her! Love it!

[genericeric]

Sietsema's Spring dining guide is now online: http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/then-and-again/2011/05/11/AFVgEEpG_story.html

[dcs]

Sietsema's Spring dining guide is now online: http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/then-and-again/2011/05/11/AFVgEEpG_story.html

Pizzeria Orso took quite the tumble from 2 1/2 down to one star.

[Pat]

Sietsema's Spring dining guide is now online: http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/then-and-again/2011/05/11/AFVgEEpG_story.html

Cashion's seems like the real winner there.

[RWBooneJr]

Some of these are fun to read. For example, Tom goes nuclear on Old Ebbitt and Peking Gourmet Inn. And it's unclear why, because he clearly regards their customer base to be cockroaches, upon whom the nuclear option is likely to have little effect.

[Waitman]

Cashion's seems like the real winner there.

And, I was pleased to see, La Chaumiere.

With Old Ebbit and Peking Gourmet, it almost felt like he was a teenage boy, liquored up on Bud, cruising the neighborhood and looking for prominent front-yard art to take a length of copper pipe to.

Though, as has been argued, if that many people are going to the place, it merits a review.

[Ericandblueboy]

With Old Ebbit and Peking Gourmet, it almost felt like he was a teenage boy, liquored up on Bud, cruising the neighborhood and looking for prominent front-yard art to take a length of copper pipe to.

Maybe he's as fed up with the Chowhound posts recommending these two joints as I am.

[B.A.R.]

Time to quibble.

I was curious as to the inclusion of Black Olive. The text of the review is overwhelmingly positive. Polished, knowledgeable servers? Check. Attractive dining room? Check. Well prepared seafood? Check. Well prepared non-seafood items? Check. Enticing beverage program? Check.

It reads FAR better than the Kinkeads review. By words alone, the two restaurants do not seem to be in parity. Yet there they are, each 2 Stars. A quick look at what a two-star rating means and you get:

" ** Good. Restaurants with generally appealing cooking, service and settings; they tend to be worth driving across town for. "

I want fish tonight, where should I go? Let me check the Dining Guide! If I just read the actual review, the words on the page, I am going to Black Olive 10 times out of 10. If I look just at the stars, it is a coin toss.

I guess the most important detirmining factor is, "Do I live in, or north of, Arbutus?"

[genericeric]

Time to quibble.

I was curious as to the inclusion of Black Olive. The text of the review is overwhelmingly positive. Polished, knowledgeable servers? Check. Attractive dining room? Check. Well prepared seafood? Check. Well prepared non-seafood items? Check. Enticing beverage program? Check.

It reads FAR better than the Kinkeads review. By words alone, the two restaurants do not seem to be in parity. Yet there they are, each 2 Stars. A quick look at what a two-star rating means and you get:

" ** Good. Restaurants with generally appealing cooking, service and settings; they tend to be worth driving across town for. "

I want fish tonight, where should I go? Let me check the Dining Guide! If I just read the actual review, the words on the page, I am going to Black Olive 10 times out of 10. If I look just at the stars, it is a coin toss.

I guess the most important detirmining factor is, "Do I live in, or north of, Arbutus?"

This may also be a result of his theme of comparing these places to their former selves (not that it makes it ok, I agree with your point). The reviews of places that used to be a higher star level read more harsh across the board in this guide - he seems to spend a lot of time justifying the reduction in stars. In the future it may be more accurate to have a second reviewer take a look with fresh perspective rather than defending what may be an adjustment to his previous opinion.

[Pat]

This may also be a result of his theme of comparing these places to their former selves (not that it makes it ok, I agree with your point). The reviews of places that used to be a higher star level read more harsh across the board in this guide - he seems to spend a lot of time justifying the reduction in stars. In the future it may be more accurate to have a second reviewer take a look with fresh perspective rather than defending what may be an adjustment to his previous opinion.

I agree. Either that or he should use his Sunday columns to revisit them (maybe 2 or 3 at a time). It really isn't much of a dining guide to find out (mostly) that certain places aren't very good anymore. On the other hand, I'm sure he doesn't want to give up Sunday columns for that, and readers might complain.

[DonRocks]

I guess the most important detirmining factor is, "Do I live in, or north of, Arbutus?"

Or, do you go to UCLA?

(University of Catonsville, Left of Arbutus).

[Sthitch]

It reads FAR better than the Kinkeads review. By words alone, the two restaurants do not seem to be in parity. Yet there they are, each 2 Stars. A quick look at what a two-star rating means and you get:

I am not the biggest fan of the star system, but it seems as if we are stuck with it. That being the case, I like the way that SF Gate does restaurant reviews, each element is assigned a star rating, with an overall score given at the end. If certain reviewers were forced to show their work in such a way I have a feeling we would see that some would weigh window treatments on par with the food.

[Bart]

Tom S's Spring Dining Guide is out (in the paper this sunday) and he's doing the thing he's done for the last few springs - - - checking back in with places he's reviewed years ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/spring-dining-guide-2013/we-meet-again/

[DonRocks]

Tom S's Spring Dining Guide is out (in the paper this sunday) and he's doing the thing he's done for the last few springs - - - checking back in with places he's reviewed years ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/spring-dining-guide-2013/we-meet-again/

I think this is the single greatest line I've ever read by Tom: "An Alp of overcooked spinach fettuccine festooned with a blizzard of shaved cheese."

Honestly though, I just can't shake the feeling of sadness that came over me when seeing that Lauriol Plaza got the same rating as Suna.

That aside, I enjoyed reading this piece, and there isn't much I disagree with. As soon as I saw the name "Argia's," I knew he was going to clobber it - that restaurant started going downhill long before Aimee sold it (she met the love of her life, and I think she just woke up and realized there was something better for her out there than slaving over a hot stove). I also want to thank her again for spending a day with my son in her kitchen several years ago - I'll never forget the kindness she showed him.

[SeanMike]

Some of the writing made me think "Tom, you're just trying too hard" but overall I liked it.

What I *REALLY* like is the way the Post has been doing some of their features now online. They look beautiful, and if they are going to use a paywall, it makes it more likely (come on, it was already very likely) that I'll pay for the content.

[DonRocks]

Some of the writing made me think "Tom, you're just trying too hard" but overall I liked it.

What I *REALLY* like is the way the Post has been doing some of their features now online. They look beautiful, and if they are going to use a paywall, it makes it more likely (come on, it was already very likely) that I'll pay for the content.

Yes, the aesthetics of some of the Post's pieces are markedly better.

[Bart]

Tom Sietsema's Washington post Fall 2013 Dining Guide is online now, and will be in the Sunday paper this coming weekend.

[DonRocks]

Tom Sietsema's Washington post Fall 2013 Dining Guide is online now, and will be in the Sunday paper this coming weekend.

No discussion?!

[mtureck]

No discussion?!

No suprises really. I don't the like the "my favorite restaurants" format of the guide...if you've been reading his reviews/chats you know pretty much what's going to be there.

[RWBooneJr]

The only Maryland restaurant in the guide is in Baltimore.

[Tujague]

No suprises really. I don't the like the "my favorite restaurants" format of the guide...if you've been reading his reviews/chats you know pretty much what's going to be there.

Well, yes and no. The fact that only 15 restaurants from last year's list are here is notable, and demonstrates that this last year has been something of a sea change in DC dining (and think of the places that got cut or missed out, besides those he notes: Fiola, Table, Atlas Room, Central, Marcel's, Zaytinya, Birch and Barley, etc.) The biggest controversy here, beyond the paucity of Maryland restaurants, is the extended piece on Range, which seems out of place and a bit self-justifying. I'd prefer that he run that as a separate review and add in another Maryland (non-Baltimore) place. (And I'm disappointed that he didn't do a full review of Casa Luca before now--it's certainly been open long enough to merit one, but he's been rather generous to Fabio on these matters in the past.)

But the comment about the "favorites" theme is worth talking about, because it does seem to enhance the imbalances here--the huge number of 14th Street restaurants, three by José Andres, etc. It's not that it's an illegitimate organizing principle, but why not something that speaks more directly to the changes--the rise of 14th Street, emerging neighborhoods, suburban destinations, etc.--and a handful of the "old reliables"? It's a fine list overall but a more creative organizing structure, even if some worthy places were omitted, would be welcome.

[DonRocks]

[Again, not "Liking" this because it's critical, but because it's thoughtful.]

[sheldman]

It is possible that I am very stupid this morning.

But I find it bizarre that I cannot easily find the 2013 Dining Guide on the Washington Post website.  In fact, I can't find it at all, in the time I am willing to allot to the project.  I find a link on the "Food" page to the 2012 guide.  I find links to the article about places that barely missed the list.  But the Guide itself has entered the dustbin of online history within a week.  Strange.  Unless I am very stupid this morning.

[Fishinnards]

It is possible that I am very stupid this morning.

But I find it bizarre that I cannot easily find the 2013 Dining Guide on the Washington Post website.  In fact, I can't find it at all, in the time I am willing to allot to the project.  I find a link on the "Food" page to the 2012 guide.  I find links to the article about places that barely missed the list.  But the Guide itself has entered the dustbin of online history within a week.  Strange.  Unless I am very stupid this morning.

You can always follow the above link from this thread. I too hate the post website.

[DonRocks]

It is possible that I am very stupid this morning.

But I find it bizarre that I cannot easily find the 2013 Dining Guide on the Washington Post website.  In fact, I can't find it at all, in the time I am willing to allot to the project.  I find a link on the "Food" page to the 2012 guide.  I find links to the article about places that barely missed the list.  But the Guide itself has entered the dustbin of online history within a week.  Strange.  Unless I am very stupid this morning.

FWIW, this is probably the exact feedback they need to hear.

[Pat]

It is possible that I am very stupid this morning.

But I find it bizarre that I cannot easily find the 2013 Dining Guide on the Washington Post website.  In fact, I can't find it at all, in the time I am willing to allot to the project.  I find a link on the "Food" page to the 2012 guide.  I find links to the article about places that barely missed the list.  But the Guide itself has entered the dustbin of online history within a week.  Strange.  Unless I am very stupid this morning.

The link is through Going Out Gurus.  If you look for that section under the food section menu, you'll find something that eventually takes you there.  Eventually, I suppose they will update the food page to put the direct link to the correct current guide, but since it's been longer than a week, who knows how long that will take.

They seem to be switching over formats on the site, particularly things in the magazine, and that may account for some of it.