Reader: Should restaurants that have been reviewed be reviewed again?
The big new kitchen at Squeaky Bean.
Yesterday Gretchen Kurtz offered a taste of her review of the new Squeaky Bean that will be posted here later today: a look at the "eggplant & plum" appetizer that is one of the most difficult dishes to plate, according to exec chef Max MacKissock.
But Steveville isn't hungering to learn more. "It would be nice to read a review of a restaurant that hasn't been reviewed yet," he writes. See also: - Presentation matters at Squeaky Bean - Chef and Tell with Max MacKissock - Laura Shunk Review: Happy Days are here again at Squeaky Bean
We're not sure if Steveville is referring to Laura Shunk's review of the original Squeaky Bean, which closed in summer 2011, or reviews of the new restaurant that have already appeared in other publications -- before the expiration of the three-month waiting period we generally observe for new restaurants.
Here's Denver Dave's response:
I'm fine with reading a review of a restaurant that has been reviewed before especially since I wasn't a huge Laura Shunk fan. Maybe Gretchen has a different point of view and can offer a fresh perspective. I particularly appreciate this in high end dining spots like the Squeaky Bean. A lot of initial reviews have not been all the flattering and before I go laying out $100+ a head I'll take all the input I can get.
You can read Gretchen Kurtz's full review of Squeaky Bean later today on westword.com. In the meantime, what other restaurants would you like to see reviewed? Post your suggestions below. And while you're at it, what do you think of the three-month rule that many reviewers observe?
Get the Dining Newsletter
The week's top local food news and events, plus interviews with chefs and restaurant owners, dining tips, and a peek at our print review.