How a Food Critic Plots His Pans

Plots his pans....I get it. great headline to accompany a great article about a great review. Although, Mr. Wells, the all-question review was your best....and a great read to boot.

I do not live in Ny and will probably never eat at any of the restaurants Mr. Wells reviews but I very much enjoy his writing. Based on his descriptions I would take Peter Luger over Vespertine any day. At least there is no hum mentioned at Peter Luger and you don't have to stay for three hours. or guess what you are eating.

I’m glad he did that for Peter logger is on the East Coast, now if you would just do that for Duartes in Pescadero California — the place used to be good and is real popular but the management there just has this attitude; “just open your doors and people will come because of reputation“, no matter how much cumin the immigrant cook added to the spaghetti sauce (the quotes are mine)

Pete--i appreciate your reviews and this explanation gave me a window into your thinking. But here's what i think you often miss. The restaurant reviews i find the most valuable recognize the social experience that is happening. It's more than what's on the plate. Peter Luger is a kind of NYC institution and that means something, although i couldn't really tell from your review. There is a bit of a blind spot to social context in this--the people who go there are not exactly the foodies who one finds at abcV, for example. This is why your review of Locol, in Oakland, was so disappointing--you missed something important that chefs are still struggling to address, and punished them for trying. With respect from Seattle.

We tend to start with our prejudice, and then accept only information that supports our prejudice. When it comes to restaurant reviews, I have long avoided sites I suspect accept cash for comments. And have preferred Google Maps reviews. Until recently when I see the same flooding of fake reviews. When I open reviews and see the first page is mostly 5 star reviews I assume they are fake - I know some 'muricans like to assign 5 star to anything that wasn't bad - maybe it's the mandatory tip culture there. But I don't. Mine average 2-3 starts - with 1 for terrible and 5 for blown-away. Similarly many 1 star reviews I assume are fake and paid for by rival vested interests. Now in Google Maps reviews I tend to see lots of 1 star 'Worst ever' comments by people showing a history of only 1 comment - hmm. Fake or ? So these days when it comes to trusting online reviews, I 'definitely recommend everybody' should view them with some questions. And/or use the Olympic Scoring Method - ignore 5 and 1 star reviews as presumed biased by vested interests for or against the business - and then average the rest. I tend to sort the reviews by ‘lowest rating’ and then ignore all except Google Guides with many reviews, preferably more than a hundred, and read their comments thoughtfully as most likely to contain some truth.

I fondly remember reading Roger Angell in the New Yorker, even though I am not a sports fan, because the writing was so elegant, thoughtful, and laced with subtle humor. I read Frank Rich for the same reasons. I care very little about Peter Luger. My briefcase would taste good if I broiled it in butter, and there is no reason to schlep to Brooklyn to eat there. But reading Mr Rich is always a joy, without the calories or the cholesterol.

Thank you Mr. Wells for the time, thought, editing, effort and consideration that went into writing your review. I think I read most of the comments. Those who are still steadfast in their support reminded me of voters who cannot admit they made a mistake in voting for a particular candidate. Their choices in candidates and restaurants reflect their values and their tastes. I can't imagine what it's like to be caught in the verbal crossfire! I read all your reviews and certainly look forward to the next one!

Honest feedback is the most valuable information any business can get from us. It takes skill and a certain finesse to give both negative and positive feedback that is constructive and meaningful and is un-vague so that it targets specific behaviors, trends, strengths, and weaknesses. But it also takes a special skill to receive that information and not only to see which areas need serious attention and to spell out a plan to work on them but to also recognize what is working well so that resources aren’t wasted in those areas. As for the review, those colorful adjectives are absolutely necessary. Critique of restaurants is especially challenging because eating taps into almost every single sense and it can be very personal because it can evoke memory and experiences so yes, I want to know every delicious detail of the good, bad, and ugly. This was a great critique. Let's see if Peter Luger Steak House believes it has something useful to learn.

FYI: 99% of swarming Honey Bees would not enter a place with "doors" or "windows". The "swarming bee" metaphor is entomologically inaccurate: subsequently erroneous. Hornets, and Yellow Jackets, both Wasp family members, are more appropriate. Even the pesky Mosquito (in the Fly order) would fit the metaphorical context more aptly. Enjoyed the article!

Pete, here's where I think you were off. If you did a review of New York steakhouses, and compared and contrasted Peter Luger to Smith & Wollensky, Uncle Jack's, Palm, Wolfgang's, The Old Homestead, etc., and did a steak-by-steak, sides-by-sides, waiters-by-waiters, ambiance-by-ambiance comparison, that would have been valuable. In my opinion, Peter Luger comes out on top. Also, if you did a review of other dishes at steakhouses for non-steak eaters in the group, and ranked the best places for non-steak dinners, a take-down of Peter Luger might have been fair. But a standalone Peter Luger is not what it used to be review based on what seemed like non-steakhouse criteria seemed to miss the point of why Peter Luger is always so busy, despite the incredible inconvenience of its all cash policy. Bad restaurants, or restaurants that have lost their luster, not to mention take credit cards, fail all the time. The NYC highway is littered with them. But why not Peter Luger? It is not only tourists. It is a New York institution among New Yorkers for a reason. It is very good. That being said, some of your criticisms were valid. The bar area should be better. Reservation times should be honored. But otherwise, it feels as if you were trying to kill something that is still beloved by many, and in doing so, were saying to those who have gone for decades you are being hosed. We are smart enough to know that ourselves if we believed it were true.

Amazing insight, thank you. Feedback, especially well thought considerate feedback is a blessing. Lugers should be humbled and should welcome the critique. It may sting in the short term, but could save and improve the business.

Despite living in both places where there are Peter Lugers (Great Neck and Williamsburg). I've never eaten there. Love food, but never into steak houses. Did go to Old Homestead once, in the meat packing district back when it was the meat packing district. I'm lucky enough not to live in the city anymore, so I can occasionally afford to go out to a really nice restaurant. When I did live in the city, 20 years ago, I could do it there, but as far as I can tell that's not possible anymore - if you want to go out to a fancy place you have to be rich. I remember going to Montrachet for my first anniversary in 1989, my wife and I saved up and rolled coins. That was a great meal.

I enjoyed what was a sincere effort to explain what must have clearly been a difficult effort at taking on an institution. As a non-New Yorker I’ve only eaten there once, years ago, and the steak was great, but institutions deserve to know the truth. Hopefully they will listen. That said, and the comment about sole notwithstanding, this review still takes second place to the best restaurant review ever, the Guy Fieri Times Square review.

Thanks for a good review and an even better follow up article about being a food critic. I've been to Peter Luger's twice, once in 2002 and once in 2012. Both meals were good, not great. I had the porterhouse steak on both occasions and I found it on par with other steakhouses. The service both times was a bit gruff (yes, I know it's supposed to be part of the charm) but I felt the act was a bit tired the last time I went. The all-cash policy didn't really bother me and the wait times were decent, but I remember that it felt like the bartender was doing me a favor by making my martini (which was a good one). All in all, I think PL was a two star in 2002, a one star in 2012. Maybe Pete's review will reverse that trend.

Of all things, I felt relieved by your Peter Luger review. As a native New Yorker who left in 2008, it was still at the top of the list of dining experiences, and the only steakhouse that made that list as I feel steakhouses are as uninspired as the can be great. In the years since, I had questioned the point of Peter Luger when you can now get equally great steak in the same style (2, 3 or 4), with the same sides, as well as others, all of which are better that Lugers, with better drinks, in a nicer atmosphere in Manhattan. But Peter Luger was still Peter Luger. Without even a star, I feel relieved that I can go with my gut and eat at Wolfgangs, or better yet, go for a restaurant with an innovative chef that cooks food I cannot equal, at least easily, at home. If and when it earns its reputation back, I will feel equally relieved that I can return. Please make sure to let us know.

Thanks for the honest and thoughtful follow up. I studied journalism in college and then freelanced as a very bad film critic and entertainment reporter. This is a very difficult balancing act but I think you manage it well. In my freelancing, I discovered that writing a positive review was much harder than writing a negative one. It is far too easy to complain, to shred or to eviscerate someone. With age came some wisdom and I jumped over to film production. But I keep thinking of that wonderful line from Truffaut's L0ove On The Run when Antoine Doinel tells his child to practice hard at music camp or he will grow up to be a music critic...

Hooray. I’ve always felt that PL was the “Emperor’s New Clothes” of steakhouses. I agree it’s better to be a positive cheerleader but this place’s sins were many and of long-standing and they deserved to be called out. Taking a negative stand isn’t easy. Bravo for the courage to call it liked you saw it.

It’s definitely useful to let people know that they might be wasting a lot of money at a place like Peter Lugers. I wonder however if it might be more productive to write something very brief about all of their problems to make room for highlighting far better alternatives and other great places.

Thanks for candor. It’s always the correct approach and contributes to better experiences for all of while providing the restaurateur a compelling case for change.

It's interesting that the negative reviews that drew rage from fans were of very expensive restaurants ($125+ for Peter Luger; three times that for Per Se). People don't like to be told they've wasted their money and want to kill the messenger.

Great follow up to your review Mr. Wells. It's interesting that Thomas Keller had the opposite reaction to your review of Per Se. He apologized and stepped up to improve his restaurant. Whereas Luger's response was indignation. Come to Las Vegas! Strip restaurants need to up their game. That would included Mr. Keller's Bouchon, which as become very stale. Trapped tourists make for easy targets.

Thank you for your insights. Your self-awareness is refreshing and appreciated.

I think Pete Wells does a very good job as NYT Restaurant critic. He is to Restaurants what Ben Brantley is to Theatre. After reading Mr. Wells' review I have an excellent idea of what it would be like to eat at that restaurant. That is a critic's job and he does it well. I am 72 and grew up in Queens. I have eaten at a lot of NYC's best restaurants and have barely made a dent.

What took so long? PL has been like this for 20+ years. I removed my # 1700 +/- PL credit card from my wallet and it's been in my dresser drawer since the 20th century.

Pete Wells is the best writer on the staff of the NYT at this time. It’s great to know that he has integrity and heart to match his writing skill. This is as honest a piece of writing as I have encountered in a long time. I count myself among those glad that Mr. Wells had the honesty to (fairly) call out how undeserved Peter Luger’s reputation is. I’m waiting anxiously for Mr. Wells ‘ next review. It’s always the high point of my week.

i whiff a lawsuit threat, and a proactive justification.

The ones who have never had a bad meal at PL are like Little Rock passengers who don’t understand why their tiny plane has been cancelled due to weather when it’s sunny in Newark.

When I was living in New York City a few years back we had a couple visit us from another state. We took them to Peter Lugers for a special dining experience. My friends wife while eating her steak said “ my goodness this steak is as good as Sizzlers”. That says it all about Peter Lugars now.

Thank you for your recent critique in the Times- Really ought to head to that other steak house and talk to them about what Prime meat really means.

I am grateful that Mr. Wells wrote this piece as I am curious about his process being someone who reads restaurant reviews both to learn about a dining destination and to appreciate the craft of the critique. I would like to share two articles by another restaurant critic that I enjoy reading everytime a review is published. His name is Jay Rayner and he is published in The Guardian. The first is a review about a restaurant that is as hallowed as Peter Luger: https://amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/apr/09/le-cinq-paris-restaurant-review-jay-rayner The second is, like Wells’ article, the critic’s take on his reviews: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/sep/22/jay-rayner-bad-restaurant-reviews-some-just-deserve-it Enjoy, fellow enthusiasts of the dining experience and the written word!

I really appreciate the effort food critics seem to make in their effort to be balanced. Another way to review the pseudo greats is in somehow finding enjoyment in the odd, or not great. I used to go Jean George frequently and always ate in the bar. The service was always excellent and friendly but sometimes the food was the result of trying to too hard to be creative. Still, the enjoyment of being able to be honest with the staff and still enjoy the meal was really great...

I posted a comment to the original review largely agreeing. What I didn't say is that Wells might have emphasized how great Luger's steaks were when they were great. A lot of readers lauded all the me-too look-alikes. That is because, from my 73 year perspective, they had no basis of comparison. They had never tasted the world's best steak. Luger's steak was a difference of kind, not of degree. There was nothing like it in the world. So what Wells missed was the passing of a unique food item, not an experience. I could put up with the wait, the prices, occasional rudeness (to be distinguished from simple gruffness) at Luger's because the steak was unavailable anywhere else in the world. Now, as Wells accurately observed, it's not even available there. I grieve. I once had a guest who ordered the fish. I never spoke to him again.

We live in a world of reviews where almost everything is above average, and when a review is critical, fans rush to defend their favorite product, serivice or company as if these things were people who've been injured. I don't take joy in negative reviews (ok, a little) but when something is supposed to be exceptional and priced accordingly, that's fair game.

Totally off-topic, but I used the review as an occasion to comment nostalgically about Sheepshead Bay's Lundy's the long-lost (indeed especially so: I'm kosher now, so no filet mignons even if Lundy's still existed!) ultimate carnivorous delight of my youth. Integral to that experience was the end of the meal experience, of my parents buying me a roll of Regal Crown sour cherry candies at the register. That too is a thing of the past in the same way: It was the absolute favorite of my youth, now defunct, and not kosher even if it still existed. Like Lundy's (and like Peter Luger), those candies were fixed in my imagination as an irrecoverable ideal that everything else in its category is measured against. Like Lundy's an attempt to revive it triggered hordes of nostalgic hopefuls to delight at the prospect only to be disappointed at the pale results, a mere shadow of what was. Peter Luger seems to loom similarly in the imagination and memories of so many. Food memories can be such a formidable form of nostalgia, and sometimes you're even forced to speculate, as in a line from "I, Claudius," maybe "It never was what it was." But sometimes on the other hand the loss or decline is quite palpably real. On those occasions there's the comfort of recognizing that it's only food.

Writing a good critical article, regardless of the subject, is always difficult and never more so than in the current era. Social media has made it possible for everyone to "flame" commentary that they disagree with and that attitude has certainly spilled over into the non-online culture. Yelp reviews generally reflect the view of the person who goes to a restaurant once and posts either a love it or hate it commentary. The true critics, like Pete Wells, will establish their views based on multiple visits over extended periods of time. For an institution like Luger's, that extended period may be 10, 20 or 30 years. I was there once and thought the food wasn't all that good and was spectacularly overpriced. Perhaps if I had been there more than once, say four or five times over a period of years, my comments could be more reflective, which I believe Pete's were.

This was a fascinating insight into the critic's mind. Thank you for sharing. It sounds almost as thought you really didn't WANT to pan the place, but felt compelled to. Thank you.

I agreed with you on Per Se and agree with you more on Peter Lugers. Good Job!

For the rest of us, spectators who will never dine at Peter Luger's, we can be reminded of how disproportionate and raucous is the reaction to Mr. Wells's review by the line, "the Lady doth protest too much, methinks."

What I loved was one readers comment that when he proffered his PL card and the particularly bad waiter said that if he had known they had one of those he would have treated them better.

Oh my gosh this column was possibly more enjoyable than the first. As is so often the case these days, we must refrain from criticism about anything "sacred." Good for you, Pete, for having the courage! It may never come to pass; however, if Luger remains beholden to some bygone era, it's next headline could read: "Kings County Steakhouse Has No Clothes!"

Look, here's a thought. Mr. Wells knows of which he speaks. How about the management of Peter Luger's take this as a call to action, an opportunity for a rebirth, to make Peter Luger's a really top tier steakhouse on food, not longevity. What a GREAT story that would be and I'm certain Mr. Wells would review a rebirthed Peter Luger's with fairness. Could be a happy ending all around, no?

Well said Pete!

Peter Luger's reminds me of my Aunt Sally (now dead). Aunt Sally was from the era of hand cranked phones and buggies. She never moved beyond this era in thought, dress, or food, or furnishings. As she aged, she became more withdrawn and depressed. Always pining for and living in a bygone era. So goes Peter Luger with an unhealthy dose of hubris.

I appreciate this follow up, as I did what seemed to me a carefully written original review based on past enjoyment vs. current decline. I think it sometimes can be overlooked just how many return visits can go into the research and writing of a review. When, as in this instance, the critic's perspective is reinforced by of multiple experiences over several years, I think it becomes much harder to dismiss.

Loved learning Pete Wells' rationale for printing a bad review and loved even more his rationale for not printing a bad review. Been to Luger's a handful of times and appreciated the clubby atmosphere (though never felt I particularly belonged), but wasn't a huge fan of the food. Then again, I'm one of those fish-eating jerks so what do I know?

One of the things I admire about your writing is the emotion that can be a part of the review. One example is your legendary review of the late, unlamented Guy Fieri Times Square restaurant (I got roped into eating there once and your review was balm for my bruised palate). There was incredulity woven into your piece, that someone thought these dishes were a good use of food and that someone else thought this was worth investing in. I didn't get meanness or elitism from this review. I got a sense of sadness and disenchantment.

Pete, you are right about Lugers. Was there 30 years ago...iconic and good...strange, but good. Was price worth it, probably not, but didn’t feel abused (except by staff, not too unusual in NY...though less so in recent years). Went 5 years ago and all the ‘strange’ was really stale now and the food was miserable for nearly any comparison...but with the price, it was disgusting. I appreciate your review writing philosophy ( I think it matches most reasonable people’s) and honesty (Luger’s review).

Beautifully put, Mr. Wells. I've already commented on "social media" about my years and years of experience eating at Peter Lugers, and I'll say it again here: My parents -both native New Yorkers-introduced me to Lugers when I was fairly young, and I grew up loving the ambiance, the rough, genuine "New-Yorkness" of it...till it became the pale, watered down, rip-off, overpriced tourist trap you noted it now is. I was last there about 4-5 years ago and it was already on a downslide; was thinking about going again soon but your review cemented my feeling that I'd be better off enjoying a great meal elsewhere. Thank you for always making me think, laugh, consider and mouth-water (when it's warranted!).