Dinner for 4 at DGBG last night for New Years in NYC.
It reminds me of a restaurant from a very popular European chef in LA, where the chef is famous and his food is great, but his establishment's food where the famous chef isn't (very hip like the picture) is mediocre at best.
Reviews on the internet of the above eatery seem to shadow that of the famous LA eatery (which I won't mention but am sure you can guess). That being said, some of the dishes had favorable reviews but there wasn't much to be said of the service. Unfortunately, that happens in big cities if the demand far outstrips the seating and the establishment becomes a very hip place to go to. I also have been to a hip eatery with lots of guitars on the wall (SF, LA, and London), and the food is pretty much to be ignored, as is the price and noisy atmosphere, and I still like going there because of its cool decor.
Now I am curious as famous or really cool looking eateries with less than stellar reviews are usually never as bad as reviewers paint it to be. When it's a famous place, then the public expectation is too high and when it's not met, then the reviews rate a place lower than it deserves.
Even in my small town, there are a couple of places that are not that good but have tie ins with celebrities, and as long as the decor matches the glamor of the owner(s), then the service and food don't have to be good if they don't want it to be. Name alone keeps places like these in business.
Anyway, I hope your experience with the food and service was better than the internet reviews. It looks really cool, though.