CJ: Four stars for Jack Fry's

[Robin Garr]

Marty makes good use of a rather tight 544 words to render a fine, glowing review of Jack Fry's, bestowing a well deserved four-star rating on this long-time Bardstown Road favorite.

[url=http://cityguide.courier-journal.com/fe/RestaurantReviews/Profile.asp?businessid=47447]Jack Fry's: simply flawless
Feel is casual, food is serious[/url]

<B>Jack Fry's</B>
1007 Bardstown Road
(502) 452-9244

I love Jack Fry's and have no doubt that they rightfully earned the four star rating but.....why does Marty have to use such big words to describe a place or a particular entree?? "Trans-substantiation" Damn!! I'm a smart dude but I had to look it up myself. "Big" words tend to scare people and I wonder if his reviews have become an exercise in verbiage as opposed to a genuine and straightforward picture of the venue and the food. Not to sound like a kiss ass but you tend to be a little less inclined to throw out the obscure words like Marty and I wonder if he needs to simplify just a touch for the benifit of the dining audience? Just a thought........

[Robin Garr]

I wonder if he needs to simplify just a touch for the benifit of the dining audience? Just a thought........

I think Marty does an excellent job, I just wish he didn't do it for those pirates at Gannett Corp. He does have a distinct style and sometimes comes across as a bit professorial or erudite. I don't see anything the matter with that, but it might be a bit off-kilter for the CJ's current demographics, which seem to be more along the lines of Velocity.

I like Marty's style, and I like too that he doesn't write down to his readers. The man writes well, has a wide-ranging vocabulary, and he isn't afraid to use it. Transubstantiation?... For me? Good (well, lapsed) Catholic girl?.... Yeah, I know what to expect, and that can only be a good thing (um, channelling Martha Stewart for a minute, but anyway).... We enjoyed dinner at Jack Fry's for the first time last weekend and were really pleased. Loved it. The only quibble, their espresso which was simply bad. Everything else? Wonderful.

I dined there a couple weeks ago after a long hiatus. It was firing on all cylinders and remains one of my favorites in town. Not to restart the debate on the star system, but to me Jack Fry's is the perfect example of a 3.5 star restaurant. Everything is great, but they aren't quite attempting the same degree of difficulty and the same super-luxe atmosphere at Corbett's, 610, or Oakroom.

[Robin Garr]

Not to restart the debate on the star system, but to me Jack Fry's is the perfect example of a 3.5 star restaurant. Everything is great, but they aren't quite attempting the same degree of difficulty and the same super-luxe atmosphere at Corbett's, 610, or Oakroom.

Nothing wrong with debate, as long as it's civil.

I see your point, but to me this simply illustrates why a four-star system is too coarse-grained to be effective in a sizable restaurant community. On a 1-100 (or even 50-100) point system, everything falls into place when a 610 or a Corbett's ranks in the high 90s (or even 100) while a Jack Fry's ranks in the low 90s. Both "four stars," but you've got room on the scale to distinguish among them.

a four star system is too imprecise when it is expected to span everything from terrible to outstanding restaurants. That's why I prefer the NY Times system, where stars one through four denote only good to extraordinary restaurants. In this system, most restaurants covet a one star rating and very few even attempt to soar to a four star rating. Then there is plenty of room in between to accurately rank all of those that are turning out great food in a variety of styles and atmospheres. And, that is as it should be.

Here is an example of how I think some well known Louisville restaurants would rank in the NY Times star system. And, keep in mind that one star means good.

1 Star: Cafe Lou Lou, Baxter Station, Uptown cafe, Vietnam Kitchen, Palermo Viejo
2 Star: Havana Rumba, Seviche, L & N, Lilly's,
3 Star: Equus, Le Relais, Jack Fry's, Proof
4 Star: Corbett's, 610, Oakroom

Here is an example of how I think some well known Louisville restaurants would rank in the NY Times star system. And, keep in mind that one star means good.

1 Star: Cafe Lou Lou, Baxter Station, Uptown cafe, Vietnam Kitchen, Palermo Viejo
2 Star: Havana Rumba, Seviche, L & N, Lilly's,
3 Star: Equus, Le Relais, Jack Fry's, Proof
4 Star: Corbett's, 610, Oakroom

That's more reasonable for a place he size of NYC metro area, where there are 100's of top flight restaurants. Even with a vibrant scene in Louisville, there would be only a handful of restaurants that would be rated.

a four star system is too imprecise when it is expected to span everything from terrible to outstanding restaurants. That's why I prefer the NY Times system, where stars one through four denote only good to extraordinary restaurants. In this system, most restaurants covet a one star rating and very few even attempt to soar to a four star rating. Then there is plenty of room in between to accurately rank all of those that are turning out great food in a variety of styles and atmospheres. And, that is as it should be.

Here is an example of how I think some well known Louisville restaurants would rank in the NY Times star system. And, keep in mind that one star means good.

1 Star: Cafe Lou Lou, Baxter Station, Uptown cafe, Vietnam Kitchen, Palermo Viejo
2 Star: Havana Rumba, Seviche, L & N, Lilly's,
3 Star: Equus, Le Relais, Jack Fry's, Proof
4 Star: Corbett's, 610, Oakroom

What happens if the critic does not believe the place warrants even one star? Do they not bother publishing a review or publish the review text but with no stars?

[Robin Garr]

What happens if the critic does not believe the place warrants even one star? Do they not bother publishing a review or publish the review text but with no stars?

Unstarred reviews get a "good," "fair" or "poor" rating.

I think Ron is agreeing, sort of - a finer-grained system is needed to allow better differentiation at the top of the scale. I just don't see the advantage in The Times' system, which starts with an arbitrary decision whether a place fits into "fine dining" (and thus competes for stars) or if it doesn't.

Now that Robert Parker and Wine Spectator have made the world of wine geeks familiar with the concept of a 50 to 100 point scale for ratings, it seems to me obvious to extend it to restaurants.

What happens if the critic does not believe the place warrants even one star? Do they not bother publishing a review or publish the review text but with no stars?

I just don't see the advantage in The Times' system, which starts with an arbitrary decision whether a place fits into "fine dining" (and thus competes for stars) or if it doesn't.

This is not the case. Many non-"fine dining" restaurants have been awarded stars. One, Momofuku Ssam Bar, was named on the Time ten Best Restaurants of 2007.

There is no arbitrary decision made prior to the review. Restaurants are reviewed and then awarded stars based on the overall quality of the experience. It is not the case that the paper must first determine that a restaurant be "fine dining" before it gets reviewed. It is true that typical "fine dining" restaurants tend to recieve higher ratings because they are created with the specific purpose of providing the best possible experience in terms of service, food, wine, and setting, whereas a bar may have the best burger in the city, but have no wine list, no tablecloths, etc.

[Robin Garr]

I just don't see the advantage in The Times' system, which starts with an arbitrary decision whether a place fits into "fine dining" (and thus competes for stars) or if it doesn't.

This is not the case. Many non-"fine dining" restaurants have been awarded stars. One, Momofuku Ssam Bar, was named on the Time ten Best Restaurants of 2007.

Okay, point taken, but the real-world result is that they use a two-tier system that's confusing to many readers (including me). Why split between restaurants worthy of stars and those who aren't? It seems to me that this merely adds a complication, and still doesn't fully address the issue of a "fine-grained" as opposed to a "coarse-grained" rating system.

What (other than that Parker and the Spectator do it ) is the problem with a simple, one-size-fits-all point system <i>as long as it has sufficient divisions to allow fine distinctions among close competitors</i>?

I agree that The Times' system is more effective than The CJ's at differentiating among the best restaurants because it allows a more specific breakdown among the players in that niche. But it still permits only a limited number of ratings.

I like Marty's style, and I like too that he doesn't write down to his readers. The man writes well, has a wide-ranging vocabulary, and he isn't afraid to use it. Transubstantiation?... For me? Good (well, lapsed) Catholic girl?.... Yeah, I know what to expect, and that can only be a good thing (um, channelling Martha Stewart for a minute, but anyway).... We enjoyed dinner at Jack Fry's for the first time last weekend and were really pleased. Loved it. The only quibble, their espresso which was simply bad. Everything else? Wonderful.

I never said I didn't like Marty's reviews (indeed, I think he is spot-on)......I just came across a word I didn't know and it vexed me. I don't want him to "dummy down" but I do think his command of the English language is being flaunted just a touch. (disclaimer: I don't read or subscribe to the CJ and get all the news I need from NPR and KET) On a side note, I'm with Ron on the rating system though I would probably plunk Seviche up in the second or top tier as one of the vanguard.....(degree of difficulty should mean something)JMHO

I don't think the NY Times is a two tier system, unless you are speaking about the Under $25 Column that it does in addition to the regular restaurant reviews.

[Robin Garr]

I don't think the NY Times is a two tier system, unless you are speaking about the Under $25 Column that it does in addition to the regular restaurant reviews.

No, I'm talking about the Frank Bruni reviews. I don't see how you can call it anything but "two-tier" when only some restaurants qualify for stars while the rest drop into a good/fair/poor hierarchy. Two completely different hierarchies depending, it seems, on whether a place chooses to "go after" stars, which means that the stars come down, mostly, on high-end spots.

Add the Under $25 column and you've really got a THREE-tier hierarchy.