PrintWhy is the price gap between the truly great NYC restaunts and the merely good NYC restaurants narrowing so much?
I feel as though a prefix at a top NYC restaurant has hovered at the $85 - $100 range (excluding Masa, Ducasse and Per Se) whereas the cost per person to eat at an average/good restaurant in NYC has become nearly as high over the past 10 years. I now pay about $150 for 2 people no matter which good/avergae restaurant I eat at for dinner.
Add a comment:
Previewing your comment:
HTML Hints
Some HTML is OK: <a href="URL">link</a>, <strong>strong</strong>, <em>em</em>
Comment Guidelines
Post whatever you want, just keep it seriously about eats, seriously. We reserve the right to delete off-topic or inflammatory comments. Learn more at our Comment Policy page.
If you see something not so nice, please, report an inappropriate comment.
Start Talking!
Need a question answered? Have advice to share? Start a Talk topic now!
Sign up to get your questions answered and share advice.
Recently Commented On in Talk
Sponsored Link
Recipe
Mango Bean Salad
Fresh fruit and hearty beans make a refreshing side for our Morningstar
Farms® Southwestern Style Veggie Cakes.
Get this recipe »
5 Comments:
Considering the food at those 'lesser' places can certainly rival a medicore-yet-esteemed sub-$100 tasting/ prix fixe, seems fine to me. Less an issue of quality:cost ration, more about the type of experience and meal you're after. Cost aside, most nights I'd rather have a 4-course with drinks at Little Owl or comparable than a tasting of the same price at a 'top' (whatever that means) restaurant. I think that's the reason - there's no difference in the economic means of the clientele for each that would drive them to one or the other, it's more a matter of taste and mood.
Certainly no need to pay $150 for an average meal - that's a different problem atogether! Plenty of great $50, and even great $15 meals to be had if you're diligent.
chrisbarr at 1:06PM on 12/04/06
hate to be controversial, but maybe (?) it's what this site needs????
"chrisbarr"'s response is indicative of the problem & is so incredibly naive, it's not worth pointing out its/his discrepanies. the original post was asking a responsible on-point question, & deserves a more thoughtful reply, not one that clearly did not understand the nuance, or the subtlety!!!!
baruch at 12:11PM on 12/06/06
Let's try and keep responses on topic and respectful of all the contributors to Serious Eats. Rather than point out the problems with a response, Baruch perhaps you could offer a solution and answer the poster's question?
We'd like Serious Eats to be, as Ed has said many times, inclusive. Insulting fellow members of the community is not appropriate here.
megnut at 12:32PM on 12/06/06
Baruch - safe to say, my response certainly addressed the original question more directly than yours.
Looking forward to hearing your ever-thoughtful (and I'll be so disappointed if not sufficiently nuanced and subtle as well) reply to said question.
chrisbarr at 4:53PM on 12/06/06
And just to put in the most obvious answer to the question: because you're paying it.
chrisbarr at 4:58PM on 12/06/06