The Pete Wells Wars
Last Update: November 23, 2016
Pete Wells, the latest New York Times restaurant critic, has been in the saddle for almost five years. How’s he doing?
Early Assessment: Wells is being extremely lenient on casual restaurants, but he has his knives out for upscale ones. Shake Shack got a star, despite inconsistent burgers and terrible fries. Parm got two stars, when it is basically a $25 & Under sandwich place. Il Buco Alimentari e Vineria got three stars, when it is in essence a slightly over-achieving neighborhood trattoria/grocery.
But Crown received one star, in a review dripping with contempt for its affluent clientele. Jungsik received just two stars, along with some condescending comments about Korea.
Wells’s grade inflation has doomed his tenure from the very start. One star supposedly means “good” in the NYT star system. In a world where Shake Shack (with all its faults) gets one, and Parm gets two, nobody will ever feel good about a one-star review, ever again.
We will have to wait and see whether Il Buco A&V’s three-star review was just a mistake, or if he intends to start handing out three-star reviews like Christmas candy. (This post will be updated periodically.)
The table below shows every starred (or star-eligible) restaurant review that Wells has filed, his rating, and what I consider to be the “correct” rating. Those Wells over-rated are highlighted in red; those he under-rated are highlighted in green.
The correct rating is based on a consensus of sources I trust. Sometimes, it is different than the rating I gave the restaurant when I visited. Where there’s not much to go on, I give Wells the benefit of the doubt. If you disagree, I am happy to refund your money. Oops! I forgot; you didn’t pay anything. Forget the refund, then. But feel free, to weigh in (with civility) in the comments.
As a point of reference, in my view one star ought to be a compliment, two stars a high compliment, and three stars an exceedingly high compliment fairly rarely bestowed. At any given time, there shouldn’t be more than about 50 three-star restaurants in NYC, and restaurants receiving that rating need to have it all: not just extremely good food, but the service, wine list, and atmosphere to go with it. (Three-star atmosphere needn’t imply crisp white tablecloths and Limoges china; by the same token, restaurants that take this approach shouldn’t be docked a star for it.)
|
|
Wells |
Correct |
01/04/2012 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
01/11/2012 |
★★ |
★ |
|
01/18/2012 |
★ |
zero |
|
01/25/2012 |
★★ |
★ |
|
02/01/2012 |
★ |
★★ |
|
02/08/2012 |
★ |
★ |
|
02/15/2012 |
★★★ |
★★ |
|
02/22/2012 |
★ |
zero |
|
02/29/2012 |
★★ |
★★★ |
|
03/07/2012 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
03/14/2012 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
03/21/2012 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
03/28/2012 |
zero |
zero |
|
04/04/2012 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
04/11/2012 |
★★★ |
★★★ |
|
04/18/2012 |
★ |
★ |
|
04/25/2012 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
05/02/2012 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
05/09/2012 |
★ |
★★ |
|
05/02/2012 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
05/23/2012 |
★★★★ |
★★★★ |
|
05/30/2012 |
★★ |
★ |
|
05/30/2012 |
zero |
★ |
|
06/06/2012 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
06/13/2012 |
★ |
★★ |
|
06/20/2012 |
★★★ |
★★★ |
|
06/27/2012 |
★★ |
★ |
|
07/04/2012 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
07/11/2012 |
★ |
★ |
|
07/18/2012 |
★★★ |
★★★ |
|
07/25/2012 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
08/01/2012 |
★ |
★ |
|
08/08/2012 |
zero |
zero |
|
08/15/2012 |
★ |
★ |
|
08/22/2012 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
08/29/2012 |
★ |
★ |
|
09/05/2012 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
09/12/2012 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
09/19/2012 |
★ |
★★ |
|
09/26/2012 |
★★★ |
★★★ |
|
10/03/2012 |
★ |
★ |
|
10/10/2012 |
★ |
★ |
|
10/17/2012 |
★★ |
★★★ |
|
10/24/2012 |
zero |
zero |
|
10/31/2012 |
★ |
★ |
|
11/07/2012 |
NO REVIEW |
|
|
11/14/2012 |
zero |
zero |
|
11/21/2012 |
★★ |
★ |
|
11/28/2012 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
12/05/2012 |
★★ |
★ |
|
12/12/2012 |
★ |
★ |
|
12/19/2012 |
★ |
★ |
|
12/26/2012 |
NO REVIEW |
|
|
01/02/2013 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
01/09/2013 |
★ |
★ |
|
01/16/2013 |
★★ |
★ |
|
01/23/2013 |
★★ |
★ |
|
01/30/2013 |
★ |
★ |
|
02/06/2013 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
02/13/2013 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
02/20/2013 |
★ |
★★ |
|
02/27/2013 |
★ |
★★ |
|
03/06/2013 |
★★ |
★ |
|
03/13/2013 |
★★ |
★ |
|
03/13/2013 |
★★ |
★ |
|
03/20/2013 |
★ |
★ |
|
03/27/2013 |
★★★ |
★★★ |
|
04/03/2013 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
04/10/2012 |
NO REVIEW |
|
|
04/17/2013 |
★ |
★ |
|
04/24/2013 |
★ |
★ |
|
05/01/2012 |
NO REVIEW |
|
|
05/08/2013 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
05/15/2013 |
★ |
★★ |
|
05/22/2013 |
zero |
zero |
|
05/29/2013 |
zero |
zero |
|
05/29/2013 |
★ |
★ |
|
06/05/2013 |
★★★ |
★★★ |
|
06/12/2013 |
★★ |
★ |
|
06/19/2013 |
★★ |
★★★ |
|
06/26/2013 |
★ |
★ |
|
07/03/2013 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
07/10/2013 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
07/17/2012 |
NO REVIEW |
|
|
07/24/2013 |
★★★ |
★★★ |
|
07/31/2013 |
★★ |
★ |
|
08/07/2013 |
★ |
★ |
|
08/14/2013 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
08/21/2013 |
★ |
★ |
|
08/28/2013 |
★★★ |
★★★ |
|
09/04/2013 |
NO REVIEW |
|
|
09/11/2013 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
09/18/2013 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
09/25/2013 |
★★ |
★ |
|
10/02/2013 |
NO REVIEW |
|
|
10/09/2013 |
★★ |
★★★ |
|
10/16/2013 |
★ |
★ |
|
10/16/2013 |
★ |
★ |
|
10/23/2013 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
10/30/2013 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
11/06/2013 |
★ |
★ |
|
11/13/2013 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
11/13/2013 |
★ |
★★ |
|
11/20/2013 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
11/27/2013 |
★ |
★ |
|
11/20/2013 |
★ |
★★ |
|
12/11/2013 |
★★★★ |
★★★ |
|
12/18/2013 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
12/25/2013 |
NO REVIEW |
|
|
01/01/2014 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
01/08/2014 |
NO REVIEW |
|
|
01/15/2014 |
zero |
zero |
|
01/22/2014 |
zero |
zero |
|
01/22/2014 |
★ |
★ |
|
01/29/2014 |
★ |
★ |
|
02/05/2014 |
★★★ |
★★★ |
|
02/12/2014 |
★★ |
★ |
|
02/19/2014 |
★ |
★ |
|
02/26/2014 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
03/05/2014 |
NO REVIEW |
|
|
03/12/2014 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
03/19/2014 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
03/26/2014 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
04/02/2014 |
★ |
★ |
|
04/09/2014 |
★★★★ |
★★★★ |
|
04/16/2014 |
NO REVIEW |
|
|
04/23/2014 |
★ |
zero |
|
04/30/2014 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
04/30/2014 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
05/07/2014 |
NO REVIEW |
|
|
05/14/2014 |
★★ |
★ |
|
05/21/2014 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
06/04/2014 |
★★★ |
★★★ |
|
06/11/2013 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
06/18/2014 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
06/18/2014 |
★ |
★ |
|
06/25/2014 |
zero |
zero |
|
07/02/2014 |
NO REVIEW |
|
|
07/09/2012 |
NO REVIEW |
|
|
07/16/2014 |
★★ |
★ |
|
07/23/2014 |
★★ |
★ |
|
07/30/2014 |
★★ |
★ |
|
08/06/2014 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
08/13/2014 |
NO REVIEW |
|
|
08/20/2014 |
★ |
★★ |
|
08/27/2014 |
★★★ |
★★★ |
|
09/03/2014 |
★★ |
★ |
|
09/10/2014 |
★ |
★ |
|
09/17/2014 |
★ |
★ |
|
09/24/2014 |
★ |
★ |
|
10/01/2014 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
10/08/2014 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
10/15/2014 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
10/22/2014 |
★ |
★★ |
|
10/29/2014 |
★★★ |
★★★ |
|
11/05/2014 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
11/12/2014 |
★ |
★ |
|
11/19/2014 |
NO REVIEW |
|
|
11/26/2014 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
12/03/2014 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
12/10/2014 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
12/17/2014 |
NO REVIEW |
|
|
12/24/2014 |
★★ |
★ |
|
12/31/2014 |
NO REVIEW |
|
|
01/07/2015 |
zero |
zero |
|
01/14/2015 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
01/21/2015 |
NO REVIEW |
|
|
01/28/2015 |
★ |
★ |
|
01/28/2015 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
02/04/2015 |
★★★ |
★★★ |
|
02/11/2015 |
★ |
★ |
|
02/18/2015 |
★★★ |
★★★ |
|
02/25/2015 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
03/04/2015 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
03/11/2015 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
03/18/2015 |
★★★★ |
★★★★ |
|
03/25/2015 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
04/01/2015 |
NO REVIEW |
|
|
04/08/2015 |
★ |
★★ |
|
04/08/2015 |
★ |
★ |
|
04/15/2015 |
★ |
★ |
|
04/22/2015 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
04/29/2015 |
★ |
★ |
|
05/06/2015 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
05/13/2015 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
05/20/2015 |
zero |
zero |
|
05/27/2015 |
★★★ |
★★★ |
|
06/03/2015 |
NO REVIEW |
|
|
06/10/2015 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
06/17/2015 |
★★★ |
★★★ |
|
06/24/2015 |
★ |
★ |
|
06/24/2015 |
★ |
★ |
|
07/01/2015 |
NO REVIEW |
|
|
07/08/2015 |
NO REVIEW |
|
|
07/15/2015 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
07/22/2015 |
★★ |
★ |
|
07/29/2015 |
★ |
★ |
|
08/05/2015 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
08/12/2015 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
08/19/2015 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
08/26/2015 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
09/02/2015 |
★★ |
★ |
|
09/09/2015 |
NO REVIEW |
|
|
09/16/2015 |
★★★ |
★★★ |
|
09/23/2015 |
★★★ |
★★★ |
|
09/30/2015 |
★★ |
★ |
|
10/07/2015 |
★★ |
★ |
|
09/16/2015 |
★★★ |
★★★ |
|
10/21/2015 |
zero |
zero |
|
10/28/2015 |
★ |
★★ |
|
11/04/2015 |
★★ |
★ |
|
11/11/2015 |
zero |
zero |
|
11/18/2015 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
12/02/2015 |
★ |
★★ |
|
12/09/2015 |
★ |
★ |
|
12/09/2015 |
★ |
★ |
|
12/23/2015 |
★ |
★ |
|
12/30/2015 |
zero |
zero |
|
01/06/2016 |
★ |
★ |
|
01/13/2016 |
★★ |
zero |
|
01/20/2016 |
★★ |
★★★ |
|
01/27/2016 |
★ |
★ |
|
01/27/2016 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
02/03/2016 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
02/10/2016 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
02/17/2016 |
★ |
★ |
|
02/24/2016 |
★★ |
★ |
|
03/02/2016 |
★★★ |
★★★ |
|
03/09/2016 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
03/16/2016 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
03/23/2016 |
★ |
★★ |
|
03/30/2016 |
★★★ |
★★ |
|
04/06/2016 |
★ |
★ |
|
04/13/2016 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
04/20/2016 |
★ |
★ |
|
04/20/2016 |
★ |
★★ |
|
04/27/2016 |
★ |
★ |
|
05/04/2016 |
NO REVIEW |
|
|
05/11/2016 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
05/18/2016 |
★ |
★ |
|
05/25/2016 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
06/01/2016 |
★★ |
★ |
|
06/01/2016 |
★ |
★ |
|
06/08/2016 |
★★ |
★ |
|
06/15/2016 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
06/22/2016 |
★ |
★ |
|
06/29/2016 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
07/06/2016 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
07/13/2016 |
★ |
★★ |
|
07/20/2016 |
NO REVIEW |
|
|
07/27/2016 |
★★ |
★ |
|
08/03/2016 |
★★★ |
★★★ |
|
08/10/2016 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
08/17/2016 |
★★★ |
★★★ |
|
08/24/2016 |
NO REVIEW |
|
|
08/31/2016 |
NO REVIEW |
|
|
09/07/2016 |
NO REVIEW |
|
|
09/14/2016 |
★★ |
★ |
|
09/21/2016 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
09/28/2016 |
★ |
★ |
|
10/05/2016 |
★ |
★ |
|
10/12/2016 |
★★ |
★ |
|
10/19/2016 |
★ |
★ |
|
10/19/2016 |
★ |
★ |
|
10/26/2016 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
11/02/2016 |
★★★ |
★★★ |
|
11/09/2016 |
★★ |
★★ |
|
11/16/2016 |
★ |
★ |
|
11/23/2016 |
★ |
★ |
Reader Comments (9)
You give the New York Times the benefit of the doubt. You assume that they actually have an interest in objectively reviewing restaurants of note (and a few selected others). That is naive in the extreme. The Times has given up on any sort of objective reporting, and has moved to a personal, subjective model that changes with the personality of the current reviewer. It is no different than their news reporting, on which they pay much more attention.
Why are you surprised?
Thanks for the comment. Where did you read the word “surprise” in my post? I never said I was surprised. After three critics in the row who suffer from similar faults, nobody who follows the subject could have expected any different.
I do not “naively” assume that they have any interest in doing the job any differently. That interest is mine, not theirs.
Hello - Can you point out for us where the condescending comments from Mr. Wells were in his review pf Jungsilk? I read the few paragraphs backward and forward and can't see anything resembling 'condescending comments about Korea.' Thank you.
@CMoss: The Jungsik review contained this comment: “All of this put the food of Korea on an equal footing with that of Europe and the United States, a forceful statement of national pride.”
Some of us (I wasn’t the only one) found this condescending, as it implied Korean cuisine wasn’t already on an equal footing until the chef started making it look and taste more Western.
FYI, I believe Wells gave Le Cirque 1 star.
@Matt: Yes, correct. Thanks for the catch. It’s fixed now.
The correct rating is based on a consensus of sources you trust? I don't see how you can define that as a correct rating in any sense of the word. That you generally trust a rating doesn't mean that it's "correct" in any individual case. I generally trust Amazon ratings, does that mean that their average rating is correct and any other rating is wrong? I don't even see that you identify these trusted ratings, so we don't know what you're basing the "correct" rating on.
Please explain to me the point of this column, maybe I'm missing something.
@rnh: You are taking this far, FAR too seriously. I think every sensible person understands that there is no such thing as a "correct" rating. I am being facetious. Most readers seemed to have realized that, as I've been doing this a long time, and you're the first to have made such a comment.
No, I do not state the other "trusted" ratings I've relied on. It will vary depending on the restaurant (some are reviewed a lot more than others), and anyhow that is not the point. Even if I provided scholarly footnotes for each entry, it wouldn't be any more persuasive, since there is no such thing as a truly "correct" rating.
The point of the post is just to catalogue what Pete Wells have done and provide one man's assessment of how well he has done it. Some people find it entertaining; apparently you do not, which is fine.
I wouldn't have complained if all the "correct" ratings were based on your own judgments. I do appreciate your responding.