things that don’t surprise:
-delays in opening restaurants
-craig laban 3 bell reviews for Stephen Starr restaurants
-craig laban 3 bell review for Jose Garces restaurants

There’s an extra http in the link to the review, FYI.

Didn’t Philadelphia Magazine give a similarly good review? I haven’t read anyone, besides on this site, who DOESN’T like the Dandelion. This is what gets so annoying about haters on this site – Garces/Starr/Vetri/Turley sites get good reviews. It may be because they spot critics and work really hard at impressing those critics or it may be because those four have a lot of experience and know how to open a great restaurant.

MOST of the time when someone opens up a 2nd restaurant that’s not a chain, it’s because a lot of people went to the first restaurant and enjoyed it. It shows that the owner has some skill in doing this. At some point a chef and/or owner gets overextended. I’m sure that happens. But it sure seems like there are haters that don’t like those people having success and are dying to call out at any (false) sign of perceived failure.

I’m not a Turney or Garces or Vetri hater, and I appreciate what Starr brings, though I generally find myself underwhelmed by his places.

I hate reviewers, however, who aren’t equitable, and Laban isn’t equitable here at all. I’ve NEVER before seen him give 3 bells to a place that disappointed him the first visit (and one in which he had negative things to say about more than 2 menu items). I’ve never seen him consider how Starr (and many others) have identified him and look out for him.

One of the problems of the philly food scene is the criticism. Laban’s alright, but he’s not pushing the food scene forward with his reviews. I mean, he said the burger is ok, the pasta is oversalted, the fish cakes mealy, and the salads are fine but not up to snuff (I’m sorry, but if you’re going to get a great review, you better be able to feed someone not looking for heartiness on top of heartiness as well as someone looking for braised meat).

That was blatantly a 2 bell review had there not been a big name behind it.

I can see what you mean about re-staffing. That could be a definite point to consider when making dining plans.

But having read Laban for 10 years, he’s anything but a big-name groupie (Would have used starr-fucker but didn’t think it appropriate). I think he’s giving you his honest opinion and really likes the food he’s having. I think his integrity is as strong as anyone else’s. I’d also argue that this familiarity you have is good for you. If you “know” you can subtract a * from a Laban rating for some of the bigger names, then that consistency is basically as good as someone else giving Dandelion the more appropriate (to you) two bell response.

Finally, and this just purely comes down to perception, but I came away from that review DYING to eat there. It seemed like there were 10 or so different dishes I would love. You came away thinking it’s mediocre. I see the mistakes he mentions but most of them came with the earliest visit when you can’t really judge a place and then another prominent one regarded the pasta dish. I’d note that his feeling on the pasta dish was consistent, even with the throwaway joke, with what Philly Mag said. But like both of them said, why on earth would I go to Dandelion for pasta?

I actually really like Dandelion, though I’ve been twice and on my second visit had a couple dishes that were not very good, the welsh rarebit was one. I just don’t understand (as Rory doesn’t) how Laban can pretend to be objective about the service when he’s the biggest critic in the city and he KNOWS that the Starr organization has his photo plastered up in all the restaurants in case he comes in.

If you do go, get the beet-cured salmon dish. The fries are very good, too.

What a lot of people on these food blogs and whatnot tend to forget is that going to a restaurant is not just about the food. It’s mostly about the food, but it’s also about the service and atmosphere. Starr consistently delivers on the latter two, and I think that is what pushes him up a notch.

I agree with Buckethead that Laban should be factoring in his recognition, but a place with good food and great service and atmosphere is a three-beller for much of the population, especially those that don’t eat out that much.

I don’t get it, Rory. You say one of the problems with the Philadelphia food scene is the lack of criticism that “pushes the food scene forward.” Okay. That’s a fine proposition — though an example of the sort of crit you yearn for might be helpful (or else Philly’s blog posting scene isn’t doing its full part to push the crit scene forward, right?). But even without an example, I’m down with this idea of higher-level, food-pushing-forward criticism.

But then all you seem to be fixated on is the number of bells, and how bells should be adjusted depending on the owner of the restaurant, and how to correlate bells with the number of dishes that Laban criticized. What’s the obsession with the bells, man? Why not get your sweetheart to rip that little box out of the Sunday paper, so that you can focus on the actual review? That way this whole bell thing wouldn’t torture you so terribly. I mean, the review’s probably a thousand words long. I’m guessing that it will give you a fuller picture of the critic’s likes, dislikes, and reactions than his choice between two bells and three bells. Which, since there are no half bells, is the LEAST POSSIBLE DIFFERENCE. In terms of data richness, the difference between two bells and three bells can be described with a single word. Meanwhile, there are those thousand up there in the review.

Two bells, three bells, blue bells, hell’s bells! Rory, dear, you’re looking in the wrong place! Maybe if you pull your eyes away from those confounded bells, you’ll realize that Laban is the restaurant critic you’ve been yearning for all along!

And even if he isn’t, at least your ears won’t still be ringing so long after the infernal bells have tolled.

Rory, why are you looking to large, successful restaurant groups to push the scene forward? Starr and Vetri have winning formulas that made them rich–why would they change that? You’re barking up the wrong tree, I think.