Monday Morning Quarterbacking: Pairings Bistro
I got a couple of e-mails from people who were upset about my review of Pairings Bistro in Bel Air that appeared in yesterday's paper. I feel for them. It's a nice restaurant, and most of my review was very positive. But not all.
If it weren't for the stars, I don't think anyone would be complaining. On the other hand, I can only imagine the fuss if I gave the food 3 stars after saying that the crab tasted fishy; really that was the only thing that dropped it to 2 1/2 stars.
And even if I went back, as one reader suggested, it would be hard to ignore my first meal. I wonder what she would have done in my place.
Then another reader felt that my ratings, particularly for atmosphere, should be more consistent:
An objective (non-narrative) system of ratings must be self-consistent. Three stars must mean approximately the same thing in every case. I believe that Pairings was short-changed in this way. I'm an engineer and a professor and find consistency in ratings to be paramount. ...
I hope he's not holding his breath. He may wish that the stars were objective, but they are no more or less so than the review itself. They are simply shorthand for my own likes and dislikes, which I express at length in the review. I do think I'm pretty consistent in that regard from restaurant to restaurant, but if his experiences were different from mine at restaurants I've reviewed, he's not going to see it that way.
Both these e-mails had points to make and argued them intelligently. Then I got this one from Dowgoup. I have no idea who he or she really is. Of course, it could always be Owl Meat trying to make me crazy:
I'm shocked Lizzy. When I asked you a year or 2 ago if my daughter and I could join you when you review a restaurant, you said you don't take people with you that you don't know. Now I see you have your TOP 10 THINGS TO EXPECT WHEN DINING OUT WITH A RESTAURANT CRITIC (Taste 7/15/09). What gives?
(Barbara Haddock Taylor/Sun photographer)
Categories: Monday Morning Quarterbacking
Comments
I suspect you are cursed with a job everyone thinks they could do better, until they actually try to do it.
Posted by: Lissa | July 27, 2009 11:25 AM
Your ratings are extremely consistent. The places that get 3 1/2 stars consistently close.
Excellent point. :-) EL
Posted by: It's Me | July 27, 2009 11:30 AM
Hey! Why you pic\king on me again? You know I would never mess with you without an audience.
An objective (non-narrative) system of ratings must be self-consistent. Three stars must mean approximately the same thing in every case. I believe that Pairings was short-changed in this way. I'm an engineer and a professor and find consistency in ratings to be paramount. ...
I not only LOL'd but guffawed and choked a little on that one. The whole stars thing is weak because it gives the appearance of an objective metric when no such thing is possible.
I think that guy should get together with Donny B who has a good objective system for tipping. I'm sure he could guide our engineer. I'm not being facetious; I would love to see a model for restaurant reviewing that was purely objective to the extent that it can be (disregarding the fact that it is opinion based and all opinions are subjective.)
Someone once slagged by saying that I thought I was a restaurant critic. I am. Everyone is. The unexamined meal is not worth eating.
Posted by: Owl Meat Gravy | July 27, 2009 12:24 PM
If I was a restaurant critic, here's what I would substitute for "stars" (or similar) ratings:
Based on my experience at this restaurant, I would:
a) dine there again with someone I want to impress
b) dine there again
c) dine there again only in an emergency
d) never dine there again under any circumstances
e) recommend it only to people I hate.
Posted by: Bob | July 27, 2009 12:42 PM
"I'm an engineer and a professor and find consistency in ratings to be paramount."
I'm an architect. Pay no attention. Engineers are like that. ...
Posted by: Brother Bim | July 27, 2009 12:45 PM
An objective (non-narrative) system of ratings must be self-consistent. Three stars must mean approximately the same thing in every case. I believe that Pairings was short-changed in this way. I'm an engineer and a professor and find consistency in ratings to be paramount. ...
This guy is a real Nazi. I envision his class as Seriouly Boring.
Posted by: Eve | July 27, 2009 12:57 PM
Ask an engineer what time it is and he will build you a watch.
Build us an objective evaluation tool, Professor Gadget.
Come on, Eve, no calling people Nazis.
Posted by: VoodooPork ■|:o) | July 27, 2009 1:03 PM
I have problems with restaurant stars and numerical ratings for wine. I am also an engineer (civil/structural). Therefore I am a Nazi? Eve, please explain how these things are related.
Posted by: Elite Elephant Lover | July 27, 2009 3:03 PM
Ok, let's come to a truce. EL won't design any bridges if engineers stay clear of reviewing restaurants.
Posted by: Robert of Cross Keys | July 27, 2009 6:52 PM
for a claimed elephant lover, you sure have thin skin!
Posted by: sheesh (unrelated to eve just an onlooker) | July 28, 2009 12:08 PM
Sheesh, they're figurative elephants, not literal ones.
Posted by: Hal Laurent | July 28, 2009 12:21 PM
After one visit to Pairings (which I reported on toward the end of the "Cream of Crab Soup" posting) I generally concur with EL's review. We do, however, have very different takes on the asparagus and ham in mornay sauce. Here's what I said about it: "Small plate of 'country ham wrapped green and white asparagus in cheddar mornay' seemed intent on a high score on the calories to carbs ratio. The asparagus was underdone, and interest faded with each bite."
My hunch is that the asparagus needs to be undercooked a little bit so that the wrapping ham and the hot mornay and a little time under the salamander would bring it all together, and it was all a little off on the dish I was served for a 2:00 lunch. I got terrific service at that time of day, not surprisingly.
I'm looking forward to a return trip. A small plate makes all the lunch I need.
Posted by: Canon | July 29, 2009 9:09 PM