IIRC (and Minnesotans can correct me IIRI), for a long time the St. Paul Pioneer Press had a food critic and columnist named "Oliver Towne." However, I seem to recall that this pseudonym was used by various staffers who reviewed restaurants over time (Gareth Hiebert did most of the reviews, but I *think* that others might have used that pseudonym). Oliver Towne was an inside joke for "All over town." That is one reason that I was prepared to believe that Phil Vettel (fill vittles) was a pseudonym as well.

I have heard critics -- for instance, Ruth Reichl --say that even if they're recognized, there's not much the restaurant can do to dress up or disguise the quality of their food and service, the claim that, in effect, a good critic can reliably 'see through' to a restaurant's real caliber. For both those who are supportive and those who are dismissive of the importance of critics' anonymity to their fair and reliable judgments of restaurants -- do you buy that claim? If so, then why worry so much about anonymity, after all? If not, then why not? What is it that chefs, servers, sommeliers and maitre d's can do to successfully improve the critics' impressions of their restaurant?

In this case however, the critic seems to think there is importance to remaining anonymous and the restaurant must have too, since they thought that this was a good way to hurt her. A low class move no matter how you slice it.

Critic, unveiled: Tribune's Phil Vettel shows his face for the first time in nearly 30 years
https://trib.in/2Llbo9n

Dave148 wrote:Critic, unveiled: Tribune's Phil Vettel shows his face for the first time in nearly 30 years
https://trib.in/2Llbo9n

Oy, such a punim!

=R=

he's got the look that's for sure

Anonymity or no, he's still probably the worst restaurant critic of any publication in any major US city.

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=43849