Review Preview: Saul

Record to date: 11–5

Tomorrow, Pete Wells of the Times closes out his short career as restaurant critic with a trip out to Brooklyn to review Boerum Hill’s Michelin-starred darling, Saul.

Saul received a Michelin star in the inaugural 2006 New York City red guide, and it has one still. This frustrates foodies who suspect the tire man uses a gentler grading curve on the other side of the East River. We dined at Saul about four years ago and liked it better than we expected to, awarding 2½ stars out of four.

Saul has never had a full review in the New York Times. In 1999, Eric Asimov gave it a favorable write-up in $25 & Under. The restaurant has dialed up its prices since then, with entrées now $28–30, which would be the rough equivalent of $35 and up in Manhattan.

Wells has been stingy with the stars, giving out two goose-eggs and a singleton in three weeks. We think this review will be positive, in the first place because Wells is overdue to actually like something; and in the second place, because outer-borough restaurants seldom get bad reviews in the Times. The trifecta would surprise us, because it would open Wells to the same accusation leveled at Michelin—grading Brooklyn on a different curve. But we think Saul is easily good enough for the deuce.

We predict that Pete Wells will award two stars to Saul.