The Mint gave my wife and I the best meal we’ve ever had. We had some unreal food at the 5-star Inn at Little Washington in VA, but the service and overall experience were better at The Mint.

I’d do about anything to see this place thrive. Naturally, that includes returning for more chef’s tastings.

When we returned to our Wilson home after our Mint dinner, I could barely go to sleep. I was completely overwhelmed by the food and the service. I have been to A LOT of high-end restaurants and have ever been so well taken care of as at The Mint. We felt very, very special and I was simply blown away.

Amazing, amazing, amazing. If you haven’t been you must go. I don’t know what else to say.

You’re probably absolutely right about the fact that I went after Greg with greater emotion because I thought The Mint was exceptional and he didn’t. But the difference between Greg being more critical of a high end restaurant and my being critical of his review of a high end restaurant is that I didn’t attach a star rating to my review. In a month or two or 12, that star rating will be the only thing left in the N&O by which to judge the restaurant. A 3-1/2 star rating could be the death knell of a high end restaurant. If he had just written the review, including the mistakes, with no star rating, I might have been less likely to attack the piece. If he had given it 4 stars or above, I would have probably pointed out the mistakes, but with less emotion. And if he had given it 3-1/2 stars without the mistakes, I may have written something that I disagree with his conclusion. I’ve said a couple of times that if Greg had a sub-par experience there, then I have no problem with him giving it a sub-par rating.

However, if he’s going to give a sub-par rating to such a high profile restaurant, then he and the N&O better get their facts right.

But for the umpteenth time, I think we’re damn lucky to have Greg Cox as our restaurant reviewer. I criticized him on this review, but I still give him worlds of credit on how hard he works. I wouldn’t want his job, that’s for sure. Especially when there’s bloggers like me watching him!

Of course, that implies that the fancy place automatically has better ambiance because of the nicer linens, etc. Rude service can undo this just as much as poor food. Oh, and BTW, I am completely speaking in general here and am not in anyway implying that the specific restaurant in question is guilty of this!

None the less, you’ll notice with wines, they sort of do both things. Wines are rated independent of price point so the consumer ends up doing the math. A $10 wine with an 89 is likely more impressive to him than a $50 wine with a 90. However, when the Speculator releases it’s top 100, they do take value into play which explains the likes of Columbia Crest Chard making the top 20 over many far more remarkable wines.

The thing is, it’s much easier to do this with wine than with restaurants. A critic can taste blind and evaluate the wine without any knowledge of how expensive or highly regarded it is. The same can’t be done for restaurants. Thus, even if Greg truly made a point of not taking expectation into account, it would be quite hard to do. I know that my standards change drastically depending on how seriously a restaurant takes itself (and of course, how much they’re charging).

Dean, think about it this way, your own ability to be impartial was compromised by the fact that you and Greg did not agree with how nice a place The Mint is. As a result, you attacked the sous vide mess up with much more fervor. I’m guessing that, had he loved the meal and the review simply included the misstatement about sous vide, you wouldn’t have been inspired to title or begin your piece in the way you did. However, you were stunned that a professional had less than glowing things to say about a place that had produced what may be the finest meal you’d ever eaten. Thus, for the same reason Greg was more critical of their missteps, you were more critical of his. It’s hard for any of us to completely distance ourselves from expectation.

Now, I understand that you have confirmed that Greg does evaluate places differently and, like you, I think that creates a confusing situation. However, that doesn’t mean a fish and chips place has no business getting the same score as a place such as The Mint (or any other place of that level). If the fish and chips place serves perfectly fried fish, great chips, and has great service in a pleasant environment (even if you order at a counter), it can certainly overcome the ambient head start that a higher end place has even if both are evaluated exactly the same. I mean, how many points do cloth napkins and heavy weight silver get you? Sounds to me like it’s worth a point according to Greg’s theory. I’ve had enough uninspired food brought to me by self-important pricks who didn’t know nearly as much as they led on at very fancy places to know first hand that one point handicap can easily be made up.

But I don’t really think I have a bias against cheap eats sort of places at all. Read the articles on this blog, and you’ll see that I’m as big of a fan of cheap eats as anyone.

To me, the issue ultimately comes down to this: what does the star system mean? For example, with Michelin, you have to have an over the top, deluxe, no expense spared restaurant to get its highest rating of 3 stars. With the New York Times, the only restaurants to get 4 stars are extremely expensive with formal service. Three stars for the Times is accomplished only by high-end restaurants. As far as I know, the only “cheap eats” restaurant to get 2 stars from the Times was Sripraphai, a Thai place in Queens, and there was an endless debate about whether such a place deserved two stars.

I talked to Greg Cox shortly after his review of The Mint came out, and he told me his method for giving stars. Generally, he grades a restaurant based on what it aspires to be and how well they attain that. One caveat: Greg said that under the 5 star system, the highest rating a cheap eats place could get is 4 stars. Only high end places can get 5 stars.

This is a problematic system and makes it nearly doubly subjective. First, Greg must make up his mind about what the restaurant is trying to be. Second, he must determine how well it reached its objective. So he’s established two subjective criteria to create what is intended to be an objective standard. Thus you get this type of process. Fish and chips place? OK. It can get 4 stars at most, and it was really, really good, so it got 3-1/2. The Mint? It’s a high end place, aspiring for elegance and luxury. It can possibly reach 5 stars. It didn’t do very well, so it got 3-1/2.

Ultimately, Greg is using two totally different systems. How are we to know which one he’s using? For example, what about mid-priced places like Poole’s Downtown Diner? What’s its highest possible rating, 4 stars or 5? Was the 4 star rating the best it could do? I don’t think so.

And again, I’ve never heard Greg say or write that the star system he uses is based on value.

Ultimately, a star-based system along the lines of what Michelin and the NY Times does makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than what the N&O uses. They use objective standards for the most part regarding service, ambiance, luxuriousness, and the like. Only the fanciest places get top marks.

Or, if we must, have separate food and service/ambiance ratings, sort of like Zagat (and please, I’m NOT saying the Zagat method is good), but their numerical system gives me a lot more information than a simple star method).

For what its worth I would trade Greg Cox for John Batchelor any day, though I suspect it is the N&R more than the reviewer

Go back and read my original post — and the only edit I’ve made is to add the provision regarding Greg’s post on correcting the improper definition of sous vide.

Here’s what I said, in summary:

1. I usually like Greg Cox’s reviews.

2. I believe Greg Cox varies his ratings depending on the price, something to which he’s pretty much admitted.

3. He gave the same rating to a fish and chips place with counter service as he did The Mint. I said that to call the two restaurants equally good is ludicrous.

4. I conceded that if Greg were to give The Mint 3-1/2 stars, then he’s entitled to do so. It’s his objective opinion, and I’ve disagreed with him before.

5. I then criticized him on the definition of “sous vide” and saying the egg was cooked sous vide. I also criticized him for not knowing the egg is supposed to be that way.

That’s it. The only thing I might have said differently in hindsight was to say that giving The Mint 3-1/2 stars was laughable. That might have been unduly harsh. But until the News & Observer formally comes out and says that under their star system higher-priced restaurants are held to a higher standard, then I’ll continue to offer my criticisms.

And when it comes to the factual errors, I thought they were big enough to challenge Greg, particularly in light of his ultimate rating. This wasn’t just a matter of fact checking. He wrote about the techniques used. And frankly, I was shocked to read them, which certainly gives credence to the copy editor gaffe. But when I read that review with those mistakes at 2AM, I felt compelled to write this piece.

With respect to the food I ate, the only things I truly believe were different for me than for any other person was the attentiveness of the staff (it wasn’t fawning, at least) and the two off menu dishes we received. The size of lobster we received was substantially smaller than what I tasted when I visited earlier in the week. The plating was OK, but it didn’t appear any fancier than what I saw going to other tables. Did I get the best pork chop they had in the place? Beats me.

In the end, I think this dialogue has been helpful to everyone involved. We all have a better understanding on how the N&O rates its restaurants. We know that mistakes are made, by restaurants, critics and bloggers. We know that everyone has an opinion, and they may not disagree.

But in the end, I stand behind what I’ve written and believe I had some important points to make. Well, at least as important as restaurant criticism ever could get!

Then, it is up to the consumer to connect the dots. If a very expensive place gets 3 stars, that’s quite frankly a bit of a failure. The fancy ambiance, the fine silver, the elevated service (if it, in fact, is so) got it as far as 3 stars but they failed to deliver what should be a 4 or 5 star experience for the money.

That said, Dean and Jason, you guys are a waaayyyy off base here with your outrage in this regard. Just because you paid, does not mean that your experiences aren’t going to be as good as possible at these places. Assuming Greg is still maintaining his cover (I still don’t know who he is) he may have gotten a different experience. I don’t make it Raleigh much and have only dined at the Mint once. It was during the soft opening so all bets are off. That said, they certainly had some work to do in every aspect of the experience. Now, that’s what soft openings are for so I am not passing judgment based on that.

I will say this, because I’m in the industry, I hear a lot of talk. I have heard people wax poetic about their meals there (though not to the degree you did) and I have also heard some less than glowing. Sounds pretty much like what many new places go through. However, I’ve heard enough to know that it is quite possible that Greg simply did not get the amazing meal that you did. Dean, you should know this.

Dean, I respect your opinion and love your blog but I must say I’m a bit surprised here.

Just like nobody should pan a place after one bad meal, somebody shouldn’t assume that anybody who doesn’t get the same amazing meal they did (especially if they didn’t spend a few hours in the kitchen with the chef prior to it) they must not know what they’re talking about.

It does seem that Greg needs to bone up on his molecular gastronomy. Hell, that makes a lot of us. I will say, however, that I’ve been reviewed by a number of critics in a number of cities and have never had somebody bother to fact check to the extent he does prior to going to press.

Exactly. If he had said in plain English “We dined at the Mint on four separate occasions and had an inconsistent experience with the food” and gotten his facts correct we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.

I also agree with VaNC’s comments, as she’s the one individual whose tastes come closest to mine. It’s unfortunate that she didn’t like the lobster dish, as I thought it was one of the best tasting things I’ve had in ages. But ultimately, it’s a completely different restaurant than Poole’s.

Ultimately, had Greg Cox given The Mint the same rating AND gotten his facts correct, I doubt I would have raised such a fuss. If he had inconsistent meals there, then he has a duty to give it the rating it deserves. But WITH the mistakes, it hurt his cause and makes it look as if he had an agenda. And although I’ve never met Greg, I’m pretty damn sure he doesn’t have agendas. He wants to like — no, love — every restaurant he visits. And then he visited The Mint four times and wrote about it, a review that was clearly not HIS best work.

I am amazed that Jason can defend a place by saying that for an “average diner” to be assured an “exceptional experience” they have to “load the deck” by ordering a degustation menu or telling the staff they are a foodie. I expect a high end, expensive restaurant to be a flawless experience for EVERYONE!

I was at the Mint last night for drinks outside and an appetizer with some friends before a show. The service was good (although the music of the DJ made it almost impossible to talk). We ordered the lobster dish with the caramel/popcorn and the beef tartare. I just did not get the lobster dish. I had been looking forward to it based on reviews on this and other sites. The lobster was tender, but it was totally submerged in the caramel sauce which made it impossible to taste the lobster. The caramel, for me, overwhelmed any other flavors on the dish. The beef was fine, just can’t say it was incredible. Neither dish would make me rush back to the Mint.

In contrast, after the show, we went to Poole’s for dinner. Each starter (quail/crostini) was perfect, three of us ordered halibut which was perfectly cooked and we all practically licked our plates. (We resisted picking them up, Varmint) The one person who ordered the chicken said it was great too (but admitted he liked the halibut better).

It is important to note that we had four people. At Mint, we ordered 8 drinks and two apps. At Poole’s we had 5 drinks, two apps, four entrees and two sides. The check totals were virtually the same. Comparing dining value, I say Poole’s rates WAY higher.

At Poole’s, we did not get there til after 10, there weren’t many people in the place, but the service was still attentive and the food was perfect. I did not have to tell anybody my expectations or that I was a foodie.

All of this is to say that I agree with Greg. When spending my “eating out dollar” I look at value, service, consistency and food. A place that can not deliver all those things most of the time, should not be rated highly. And it should deliver these things without me having to remind them to.

You presume correctly. All it takes is one bad review to put a restaurant out of business.

I spoke to Greg Cox at length this morning and I understand better where he is coming from. He has explained to me that he dined at the restaurant on four separate occasions, and that his experience has been inconsistent. Given the fact that the Mint was aware of by my and Dean’s dining experience, I have no doubt that the deck was “loaded”. Still, I believe it is possible for an average diner to have an exceptional experience at The Mint if a diner “loads the deck” by themselves and ask for a degustation menu and professes to be a foodie and asks for a special experience. I am certain Jeremy and Eric will bend over backwards to make it special, because that’s what they really want to do — they don’t want to have to dumb down their cuisine for the locals, they want to do more inventive stuff if given the opportunity.

Mr Cox does intend to revisit the Mint in his “Second Helpings” column in several months. I just hope the restaurant can stick around and gain the following it needs to achieve critical mass in that time. In New York, all you need is three bad months and you can end up shutting your doors. Maybe Raleigh is more forgiving.