Ah, such a pleasure to see Patrick's name on a byline, indicating that I'm in for 15-20 minutes of an awesome PBJ (Patrick Berry Jam). It's also really neat that he's continually shaping, experimenting, trying new things with 66-70 word grids, introducing new patterns which will undoubtedly be copied by lesser mortals such as myself.
There's quite a bit of strong material here, highlighted by a quartet of nice long entries. 14s are notoriously hard to build around, and given that both of them are new to the NYT xw, I bet Patrick started by placing these two bad boys and arranging black squares from there. Most people would try to separate two 14s with more than just a single row — that wide open center is daunting as it is. To get the 14s strung through it all is an audacious undertaking.

It's interesting to me that PB takes more risks in this puzzle than usual. That center section is really nice with the SOFT SCIENCES and GRAMOPHONES running through everything as well. But I was a bit surprised to uncover the STEN gun, a piece of glue usually to be avoided. And then finding the odd duck, LONGIES … some trade-offs involved. Still, I applaud the master's desire to try something extremely challenging.
Similarly, it was great to see the three Xs, not something PB usually aims for in his puzzles. A great success in this regard, as they were all integrated so seamlessly. Love the striving for more Scrabbly goodness.
Usually PB's themeless flow so beautifully, but I felt like this one didn't quite do that, as the NW and SE were more sectioned off than desirable. It does allow the constructors to work on each piece individually, a huge boon, but it also can leave the solver stranded in an individual chunk.
Another aspect I've come to expect from the PB themeless is great cluing. The clue on WINE was a fantastic use of a fun quote, for example. And [Page with many views] pushing the solver to go down the road of a web page? Excellent. I did feel like a few uncharacteristically didn't hit squarely, though. [Letter's capital?] is a nice idea, hinting at a "capital letter," but it wasn't close enough for my taste. Same with [Stand-up guy Dave]. That one had a lot of potential to play on "stand-up guy," but the phrasing felt off.
So perhaps not the usual PBJ today, but I like his pushing of the boundaries.