A Food Critic’s Journey Through 25 Years of Disguises
Tom Sietsema, a seasoned food critic for The Washington Post, has made a name for himself by maintaining an air of mystery around his identity. For over two decades, he has donned various disguises to ensure that his reviews remain unbiased and authentic. Now, after 25 years in the field, he is stepping down from his role, signaling the end of an era.
Sietsema’s approach to reviewing restaurants has always been unconventional. From wearing fat suits to using fake teeth, he went to great lengths to keep his identity hidden. His commitment to anonymity was driven by the belief that it would allow him to experience restaurants without the influence of his celebrity status. This dedication led him to write more than 1,200 full restaurant reviews and dine at approximately 10 establishments each week since taking on the role in 2000.
Despite his efforts, Sietsema admitted in his final column that maintaining anonymity has become increasingly difficult. He noted that technology and the mobility of restaurant staff make it nearly impossible to remain unnoticed. “It’s almost impossible to review anonymously for any length of time, especially now given technology, but also the reality that owners, chefs, managers and servers move around and are quick to spot anyone whose job might affect theirs,” he said.
The Art of Disguise
To stay under the radar, Sietsema experimented with various disguises. He found that the most effective were fake teeth or a convention badge, which locals would never be caught wearing outside a meeting. These subtle changes allowed him to blend in without drawing attention.
In addition to his physical transformations, Sietsema used credit cards under aliases and avoided being photographed whenever possible, even with family and friends. During meals, he was careful not to take photos or discuss anything that might reveal his identity as a critic.
His efforts often paid off, leading to some of the harshest reviews in the industry. In 2018, he wrote a scathing review titled: “La Vie on the Wharf is so bad I’m only writing about it as a warning.” Another review gave a popular DC restaurant zero stars, stating: “The temptation to finish an order is zero.” In 2006, he wrote about a now-closed French restaurant: “At least the water is cold.”
Balancing Criticism and Appreciation
While some critics argued that Sietsema focused too much on upscale dining, he maintained that he enjoyed eating at places like Popeye’s and snacking on Fritos with peanut butter just as much as gourmet meals. He gave one-star reviews sparingly and praised generously, keeping restaurateurs on their toes for decades.
Even if he disliked a place initially, Sietsema was not above giving it a second chance. His reviews were known for their unpredictability, which kept the restaurant world guessing.
A New Chapter
Although Sietsema is stepping away from his role as a critic, he has no plans to leave the world of food entirely. He plans to cook more, travel more, and stay connected with fellow food enthusiasts. More importantly, he will no longer have to worry about wigs and fake teeth when going out to eat.
He acknowledged his reputation, saying, “Love me or loathe me, I’ve learned from you all.”
Reflections on a Legacy
As Sietsema prepares for this new chapter, his legacy as a food critic remains intact. His unique approach to anonymity and his ability to deliver honest, impactful reviews have left a lasting impression on the culinary world. While the restaurant industry may miss his sharp insights, his journey serves as a testament to the power of authenticity in criticism.
