Jump to content


Welcome to the eG Forums!

These forums are a service of the Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, a 501c3 nonprofit organization dedicated to advancement of the culinary arts. Anyone can read the forums, however if you would like to participate in active discussions please join the Society.

Photo

Michelin Guide, Great Britain & Ireland 2013

Reference

  • Please log in to reply
92 replies to this topic

#91 PSmith

PSmith
  • participating member
  • 170 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 04 April 2013 - 01:16 AM

Haha, or maybe it's just not that good?

 

Or their food hygiene is a bit lacking?


http://www.thecriticalcouple.co.uk

Latest blog post - Oh my - someone needs a spell checker


#92 Gaston

Gaston
  • participating member
  • 5 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 04:04 PM

So, to clarify, you have actually been to the FD?

Yes, I have. On several occasions when it was rather charming brasserie and once as 2*. This latter visit was great, interesting food, well cooked with many of the well-documented surprises and tricks. However, it was amateurish, sometimes inconsistent, slightly arrogant and self-important and certainly not world class by a country mile -- in fact, not even comparable to 2* in France.Anyway, before this thread goes completely off-topic, I'd like to restate my argument that Michelin's elevation of the FD was strategic rather than based on merit; that it was a reaction to the the 50 best list and the power of buzz in nations with weak culinary traditions, and that subsequent Michelin operations in the UK and US have tended to follow this reactive methodology, which, in gastronomic terms tends to make the guide of diminishing worth the further it strays from its French roots.
If they're following trends set by 50 best why are so many top 50 restaurants, Noma included, only 2 star? Noma's topped the list almost as many times as El Bulli, the fact it's only 2 star puzzles me. I can only imagine it has to do with the more informal setting, which goes directly against Michelin's claim that the stars are solely for the food.

It is likely that the criteria for three Michelin stars is different to getting enough votes to feature on the top 50 best restaurants of the world. There are numerous three-star restaurants that are not even on the 51-100 list. There are more than 100 restaurants with 3 stars. On the 1-100 on the 50 best, without counting properly, less than a third of the entries have three Michelin stars.  So, since three Michelin stars does not guarantee entry on the list, it seems that the criteria and circumstances required for getting enough votes differs from getting (three) stars from Michelin.

The argument that Noma is too informal to get three stars is not very convincing since there are numerous restaurants that have been awarded three stars despite very informal service and despite not possessing the setting normally associated with three Michelin stars. Brooklyn Fare and l’Astrance to name two.

I frankly find it hard to get upset. Some of my favourite restaurants, Michel Bras and Olivier Roellinger to name two were awarded three stars quite late. I thought the meals I had there were some of the best I had ever had but I could understand why Michelin held back with the third star. 

#93 Matthew Grant

Matthew Grant
  • participating member
  • 2,261 posts

Posted 05 April 2013 - 12:21 PM

I'm not sure why we're even debating why some 3 stars aren't on the top 50 list why some on the top 50 don't have 3 stars. The Michelin guide is ....wait for it.....a guide. The Top 50 is a PR exercise which occasionally has some correlation with some of the best restaurants in the world.
"Why would we want Children? What do they know about food?"





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Reference