Since we gave it our first solid run-through back in December, Owen Kamihira’s El Camino Real has become a Phoodie go-to staple. This has been for two reasons: One, geography, and two, Camino’s excellent, amazing, nothing-quite-like-it-in-town Waygu Brisket. But in the last week, two significant reviews of El Camino Real have surfaced: Trey Popp’s evisceration of the place in last week’s City Paper, and today’s review in Philadelphia Weekly by Adam Erace, where nary is heard a discouraging word. How could two reviews, written by writers of a more or less equal caliber and for more or less the exact same audience, be so divergent? It doesn’t happen all the time, but it’s not uncommon, either. And in the alt-weekly world, conspiracy theories abound regarding what happens in the food sections — who gets reviewed in the first place is dictated by who’s advertising, competing reviewers like to fashion contrary opinions, and so on. Most of this is usually bullshit (and we should note that Popp’s review sparked a lot of it, if friends in the business that we’ve spoken with in the last week are anything to go by). What’s true is that, even in its present wounded state, an alt-weekly can still either ruffle a lot of feathers or win a lot a friends with a well-timed review of a buzzworthy spot. Which would explain exactly why CP and PW’s reviews of El Camino Real appeared within seven days of one another.
But to the most utilitarian question raised by all of this: Which review is right? Here, we’ll wisely bunt and say they both are. Kinda. Popp is correct in saying that, for a place that prides itself on Tex-Mex, the margaritas could use some work. We detect the same heavy-handed simple syrup pour that plagues this drink from coast to coast. He’s also right in alluding to Camino’s aloof service — on each occasion we’ve visited, we’ve witnessed the kind of Asperger’s-Lite vibe that we used to think was entirely a myth fashioned by posters on NorthernLiberties.org upon which to project one’s own sexual and cultural insecurities. But at El Camino, this vibe is really, really real. On the other hand, we agree with Erace’s assessment of the kitchen itself: The pit-style BBQ — and especially the aformentioned Waygu — is pretty much without peer in the city. The dishes are inventive, the portions are generous and the price is right-on-time. But it’s true what they say: Beauty, and its close cousin BBQ, are in the eyes of the beholder.
El Camino Real, 1040 N. 2nd St. (215) 925-1110
i did not have a good time there, and it was my birthday, to boot.
http://foodzings.blogspot.com/2009/01/el-camino-real-real-dissappointing.html
Interesting. Gotta tell you, I’ve eaten there three times and I’m still waiting to be wowed. Can’t say I love it, but I wish them well. I’ll stick to Bar Ferdinand.
“How could two reviews, written by writers of a more or less equal caliber and for more or less the exact same audience, be so divergent?”
Well, unless they ate together, they weren’t eating the same food. So there’s the possibility that Popp’s meals were actually bad, and Erace’s were actually good, and both reviews would be correct.
One other catch here is that alt-weekly’s budgets rarely provided the ability to visit a restaurant more than once. One visit leaves a lot more to chance: a shitty restaurant can have a good night, likewise, a good one may stumble once in a while. And an average spot can go either way.
“Wagyu”, not “waygu”. Just like in the restaurant business, it’s all about the details.
My own experience at Camino Real have been middling. With Dos Segundos a drunken stumble away, I see no reason to care, though.