Psst... We're working on the next generation of Chowhound! View >
HOME > Chowhound > Not About Food >
Oct 4, 2006 04:34 PM

Nook's Health Inspection Rating [moved from L.A. board]

Last night I went to Nook for the third time and had a fabulous meal but was a little disappointed when I noticed the 'B' health inspection rating in their window. I had not noticed it on my prior two visits as I did not even think to even look for the rating.

Have other's noticed it?

Does it bother you?

Do you know why the poor rating?

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
  1. They're rated as an A (supposedly) -- go to and check it out for yourself (list of violations are revealed at the site...)

    1. Why would you consider a "B" a poor rating?

      Even the Department of Public Health describes a "B" as "Generally good in food handling practices and overall food facility maintenance."

      2 Replies
      1. re: wakko11

        I've just moved to Los Angeles from San Diego and I have never seen so many restaurants with 'B' and 'C' could be that LA has more stric rules that restaurants have to follow.

        Ultimately the way I look at it is why bother with anything below an 'A' rating when there are restaurants that can maintain that rating.

        BTW looking at the site mentioned by Joe Blowe it does show an A rating but if that is the case why are they displaying a 'B' rating?

        1. re: iLoveFood

          Because certain kinds of restaurants will never have an A. You'll never see an A on any decent (authentic) Chinese place, on a dim sum house, or on a banh mi shop -- there is so much food out at any time that they end up with holding penalties. (Five yards!)

          On the other hand, I require sushi restaurants to have an A. We're talking about raw meat here. I don't care if you can get a B for storing plastic-wrapped stacks of cups on the floor; a sushi restaurant had better have an A, because if they're meticulous about everything, then they're more likely to be meticulous about the fish.

          The site isn't updated every day. It's updated once a week, or it was... so the food police were probably there and downgraded the restaurant (they replace the card before they leave) but it hasn't hit the system yet.

      2. iLoveFood -- Regardless of the many responses you will receive that think a "B" is truly fine, I don't. Yes, I have eaten in a few "B" rated places, but I really do not think they are working hard enough to clean up -- whatever that might be. This past weekend we just visited the #1-rated Thai restaurant by a reputable critic, and we were surprised to see their "B" health rating; when I tried to go wash my hands before dinner, there was a bucket of dirty water with a mop sitting in front of and blocking the restroom door, permanently stored there, I think...hmmmmmmm!

        There are so many restaurants that put forth the effort to "clean house," I would rather patronize those. And yes, I do understand the health rating system, and I know that some of the "B's" might actually be cleaner than the higher rated places, but I do believe in some type of system that will monitor restaurant health/safety practices.

        I am pretty certain that Nook did have an "A" rating awhile back, and I really do think they will make the necessary adjustments to return to that status.

        1. One thing I can say as told to me by a friend who managed a fast food restaurant for a number of years is that some of the inspectors are just more picky than others and I'd hate for that to have ruined Nook's "A" rating.

          2 Replies
          1. re: compucook

            It's too easy to get sloppy. "Picky" is good; I think they're on our side!

            1. re: compucook

              The other way of looking at it is that some inspectors can't be bothered to do a thorough inspection.

              I was in a restaurant recently when an inspector came in, looked around the dining room, stuck his head in the kitchen for a look around but didn't actually go in, pulled out a "report card" and wrote "96" on it, handed it to the manager, and walked out. Spent MAYBE 2 minutes in the restaurant, tops.

              I guaran-dam-tee that the manager of that restaurant is going to call any inspector who does anything more than that "picky."

            2. I remember when Koo Koo Roo at Sepulveda and Santa Monica got a "B" (this was 5+ years ago, before I stopped eating at KKR) -- they had a big old letter from the manager in the front window stating how aghast they were, that it was unacceptable, and that they had already fixed all the violations.

              OTOH, I also remember eating at Yashima in the Olympic Collection, with a client, having just ordered sushi; the inspector came out from the kitchen, took down the "A", scribbled "58" on a placard, and replaced it... and then the sushi was delivered.