I recently re-reviewed No. 9 Park, which the Globe hadn't reviewed since it opened.
I just stumbled on this Chowhound thread, in which No. 9 does not get a lot of love.
A few points in the discussion struck me. But I'll stick to one: the assertion that there was no real reason for me to re-review the restaurant.
I'm curious what you think about this. Personally, I'm a firm believer in re-reviews. When a restaurant opens, the folks operating it know critics will be visiting for the first few months. But after more than a decade without a review, what's to keep a restaurant on its toes? This is precisely when reviewers should be dropping in to assess whether a restaurant that charges a lot of money has any right to still be doing so.
Should reviews exist solely to critique new restaurants or ones that have recently undergone tangible change? To re-review or not to re-review: What do you think?
What's cooking in the world of food.
ContributorsSheryl Julian, the Globe's Food Editor, writes regularly for the Food section.
Devra First is the Globe's food reporter and restaurant critic. Her reviews appear weekly in the Food section.
Ellen Bhang reviews Cheap Eats restaurants for the Globe and writes about wine.