|
Seeing Stars
By Tom Sietsema
Washington Post Magazine
Sunday, October 19, 2003
|
|
| |
Lobster tzatziki at Zaytinya.
(Photo by Sang An)
|
|
Welcome to a brand-new way of looking at restaurants in The Washington Post Magazine. Beginning with this issue, I will be supplementing my regular reviews with star ratings, from no stars to four. And what better time to introduce the new approach than with this Dining Guide? Here readers can see, in a single sweep, examples of a full spread of Washington-area restaurants and how they stack up against one another.
Not since 1976, when the magazine was called Potomac and the symbols were smiley faces, has this section employed a graphic device to rate restaurants. So why stars, and why now? Because stars provide readers with an immediate take on a restaurant. They are simple and direct. Stars are also as close as we get in this country to a universal grading system for dining venues. And frankly, as much fun as I've had writing reviews these last several years, I wanted to give readers something more. The local dining scene is richer, more varied -- and changing faster -- than ever. Stars allow me yet another way to guide you to the best and steer you from the dross.
In my rating system, zero stars means I think the overall experience that the restaurant provides is poor. One star stands for a satisfactory experience; two stars means good; three stars is excellent; and four stars is superlative. I base my ratings primarily on the quality of food, but also take into account service and ambience. Just keep in mind, a restaurant review is not an exact science, but rather, an educated opinion.
In the Washington area, restaurants are all over the map, from down-home to upscale, from French to Brazilian to Japanese. It's impossible to compare a pupusa against a curry. Yet those restaurants sharing the same ranking probably have a lot in common. Poor restaurants are generally disappointing on many levels. One-star restaurants are nice to know about if you live or work nearby; they may have only a handful of notable dishes or a single quality (a view, a scene) to distinguish them. Two-star restaurants have a few more frills and generally appealing cooking; they are worth driving across town for. Three-star establishments tend to be rewarding destinations, no matter where you're coming from; they typically blend high-quality cooking with environs and service to match.
To achieve four-star status, a restaurant doesn't have to spend a fortune on flowers or serve food on gold plates. It simply has to do what it does extraordinarily well -- to the point of taking your breath away. No restaurant is perfect all the time, but a four-star venue is perfect more often than not. It adds up to an unsurpassed experience.
Since this guide is an attempt to illustrate the scope of the new star system, you will find some negative reviews mixed in with positive ones. Some, but by no means all, of my favorite places are included. I figure, with the rise in restaurant prices and plenty of places to choose from, it's as helpful to know what to avoid as what to spend your money on. I visited more than a hundred restaurants -- prominent venues as well as obscure ones, oldies along with newcomers -- before deciding which to include; my goal was to bring you as wide a range as possible in terms of cuisine, location and cost.
Here's what I found, the lofty along with the low. May all your meals have stars in them.
Tom Sietsema is The Post's food critic. He will be fielding questions and comments about this issue at 1 p.m. Monday on www.washingtonpost.com/liveonline. His new book, The Washington Post Dining Guide, will be published next month.
|
|
 |
|
