"So, who are Porter and Frye?", I asked the hostess last night. "Do they really exist?" She smiled, then said that various legends about Porter and Frye certainly did exist, and then got straight to the point: no, they were not real. The name was invented by a restaurant consultant. She said it's supposed to suggest a dining experience that is high quality without being fancy, or something like that.
Porter & Frye is the new restaurant inside the Hotel Ivy, described in the Star Tribune as the Twin Cities first five-star hotel. I am not sure how a hotel can have five stars the day it opens - but it doesn't really matter - I used to be in the business of handing out stars myself, and I can tell you that they really don't mean much.
Well, the name sounds very waspy/British to me, and I don't usually associate the cuisine of New England or Olde England with culinary creativity - more with cucumber sandwiches and roast beef and Yorkshire pudding and overcooked peas. But the two British names strung together do have a sort of uppercrust ring, as in Currier & Ives, Crabtree & Evelyn, Smith & Hawkens, Abercrombie & Fitch. But I have noticed lately, while shopping the bargain bins, that a lot of companies have gotten wise to this strategy, and there are a lot of off-brands of made-in-China merchandise that carry names like Cholmondeley &Fflolkes, designed to suggest the upper-crust.
Too bad, because it gives the restaurant a bit of a wannabe aura before you even walk in the door. And it clashes just a bit with the image of talented chef Steven Brown, who has crafted a reputation as a sort of culinary Diogenes in search of real food and honest flavors - and has a repertoire that goes well beyond roast beef and Yorkshire pudding.
Appetizers to share are priced by the half-pound - from $18 for a sausage plate to $25 for charred ahi tuna and $26 for Alaskan king crab with lemon, capers, brown butter and a cocktail sauce. Entrée prices range from $10 for a medium portion of gnocchi in marinara sauce, and $13 for a vegan preparation of squash and broccoli rabe in a maple tofu sauce, all the way up to $49 for a dry-aged bone-in ribeye and $65 for a surf-and-turf of lobster and New York steak.
We only sampled a few dishes - a beautifully presented arugula salad ($7) with golden baby beets and sliced kumquats in a black pepper and citrus vinaigrette ($7), a very rich and elegant ham hock and rock shrimp chowder, the aforementioned vegan squash entrée (tasty but insubstantial), and a delightful parmesan-crusted walleye ($16), very fresh and moist, and perfectly complemented by a savory lobster risotto. The real highlight of the evening was the dessert - a silky and sensuous panna cotta ($8), served over coconut and passionfruit creams.
I'm not going to offer up any sweeping judgments about the place because it's too early, and I didn't same enough different dishes, but my first general impressions are that the quality is very high - as you would expect from Steven Brown. Some of the prices also seem quite high but if you choose carefully, there are affordable options. I wish I had known about the bar menu, which offers gourmet burgers and pizzas in the $10-$12 range, before I ordered dinner. It's available in the bar and adjoining first floor dining room, but not in the lower level dining room.
Kathy Jenkins of the Pioneer Press reviewed Porter & Frye right after it opened and trashed it, which sparked a lively discussion on MinnSpeak. Is it fair to rate a restaurant so soon? .
I don't think so. (Jenkins has done this before - I spoke to another local chef recently, who complained that she showed up right after he opened and gave him the same treatment.)
When I reviewed restaurants at the Strib, the policy was to write a short just-the-facts Now Open piece as soon as possible after opening, but to wait at least a month before running a real review with positive or negative judgments. Actually, I don't see much harm in running a positive piece based on a very early first impression, (as Rick Nelson did in his Now Open piece on Porter & Frye), but a negative piece can be unfair and damaging.
But this is a case where I am a firm believer in a double standard. Because newspaper critics still have a lot more influence, they need to be a lot more careful - and to hold their fire until the restaurant has had a chance to work out the snafus. But a blogger like little old me simply isn't going to have the same impact, so there is less reason to hold back - and a critical review early on from a blogger can actually serve as a valuable wake-up call for a newly opened restaurant - here are some issues you had better work out before the big guys show up at your door.
I am glad some light is finally dawning on the travesty of "reporting" coming out of the St Paul paper. Whether it is her gentle reference to avoiding fish special sheets featuring things like Copper River Salmon - because special sheets are a restaurant's way of trying to sell "old" product. Or her completely ignorant comments about Stones in Stillwater when it opened criticizing the Baked Alaska because it had not been truly baked, but merely bruleed on the outside with a torch. (Do you know what baked ice cream looks like?) Or the countless, myself included in this batch, restaurants she showed up on opening day to review a restaurant that focuses on its diner business - only to review the lunch. I digress. I am excited about Porter & Frye, and not just because of Brown - he has (rightly or wrongly time will tell) assembled a culinary team unlike any in my mind's eye's time to get this place up and running - seasoned chefs are leaving posts at pretty good restaurants to simply cook on the line for Stephen. I am a firm believer in a collaboration of ideas in a kitchen, but I hope the epitaph of this restaurant doesn't read "too many chefs, not enough cooks." All that being said, I am off to dine at Porter & Frye (and I agree it sounds like it should be followed with "Fish 'n Chips House" or "Now featuring home made malt vinegar.") tonight.
Zimmern had a rant about Kathie's "review" in his blog yesterday called "Mistaken Identity and a Brain Dead Moron". I think you can guess who he thought the moron was.
Megan,
In the interest of fairness, that Brain Dead Moron reference was in regards to Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schaefer. The Farm Bill has been a passion of Andrew's for quite some time and if you go to the bottom of his blog post, you'll see he attacks Mr. Schaefer rather vociferously.
However, you do have a point in that it could have been applied to both Ed and Kathie.
I do find this funny that when she does this to Steven Brown, the whole foodie community is going nuts. She did the same thing to Russell at Meritage and most of these blogs wouldn't even accept my posts attacking her. I'm not saying what Ms. Jenkins did was right either time, just that it's interesting to see the different level of outrage for Steven versus Russell and Minneapolis versus St. Paul.
I think it really just comes down to Kathie's ideology. I'm not sure if she writes the "truth" of her experience or what she perceives that her readers will think if they ate there. But over the past year, her aversion to anything related to fine-dining has reached a point that it's laughable. I don't understand why, but Kathie hate fine-dining and everything associated with it. It's a weird thing for a food-critic to rally against, but she's decided she's the one to do it.
Her long-running "feud" with Lenny Russo was the start.
She pulled this act on the Chambers too. She showed up on their test night and then ripped the place
She took the poison pen Meritage after dining at their opening lunch.
Either way, it's becoming a bias that her editors need to become aware of and start editing against or find another person who can review this type of restaurant and experience without such preconceptions.
Where the hell is Mitch Omer in all of this? You want to go after somebody Mitch, Ms. Jenkins ought to be right up your alley.
I am a bit curious as to how all this information about Porter & Frye is turning into a discussion of how to review a restaurant. All the food writers in this town have a job: write about food. It is 100% subjective, and it is their opinion, it is up to the general public to read the article and judge for themselves. Simple right?
Well, I guess not, you have to consider who you are reviewing, and their status as a chef, when they opened, and what is the focus. When did the restaurant industry get this much attention? Why? Those are real questions. In a time when the farm bill is being finally discused, and what is in our food, health problems, recalls of food for both vegetairan and carnivores, and all that gets discussed is who a chef cooked for, or who they are cooking with, or is one critic better than another?
Seems like a silly conversation to be having. Just one opinion.
(sorry, getting off the soapbox)
I think all of us have to remember that food writers in the twin cities are just that, writers, just like we are, if you don't like them, don't read them, if you do, follow and go where they recommend. As far as the "rules" of when to go and write about a restaurant. If they are open and they are charging full price, they are open to review. The idea that the writers should allow them "to work things out" is silly. Do you go to a garage to have your car fixed, charge you full price, if they don't do it the first time, do you go back and let them do it again, charge you full price, and then see if it is ok? If the restaurant is ready. They open. If not, get ready. I do remember AZ talking about all the things that SB was doing to get this restaurant "trained". Has the training paid off? Go and decide for yourself.
A restaurant is only as good as the last meal that it served.
In response to those who think a restaurant should be ready from the start...have you ever opened a restaurant? More importantly, has any random person ever walked into your job on your first day and reviewed your performance? Just wondering...
I will say that I am a former restaurant manager.