sizzleteeth
-
Posts
382 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by sizzleteeth
-
-
Au contraire, they worked on it over a full year. It is well documented that the typical Michelin inspector eats about 240 fine dining meals a year, and prepares a detailed report on each. How many of us can say the same?
A full year for an entire city is a relatively short amount of time and at 240 meals a year times X number of inspectors divided by Y Number of restaurants - how many meals do those inspectors eat at the same place and how often? (edit: and is that 240 meals a year total? not just for NY but for the world?)
The logical conclusion would be that opinions on any "soft subject" are never worth paying for. It would also imply that eGullet (even though most of us don't pay for it, although somebody does) is equally worthless."Paying for" really has no relevance to my argument, indeed people's opinions here and anywhere else are valuable though I would not take any "singular" or any small subset of the whole of the opinions expressed here as an indication of much of anything. The difference between a guide such as this and Egullet is Egullet is all-inclusive of anyone who wishes to comment and nothing is really ever left to balance upon the opinion of any single person or entity.
Your grade, A through F, is subjective. But it counts.In general teachers provide a guideline - a set of known criteria that your project must fall within
at each level to obtain each level of grade. In creative environments such as an art critique or creative writing class - these criteria when based upon comparison to existing works as a measure can actually cause bias - but regardless - knowing the criteria - if you choose to step outside of that you can expect that your grade will diminish.
In fact, experienced people and knowledgeable people won't differ all that much. Nobody here has said that there's a rational candidate for 3 stars that Michelin overlooked. Nobody has said that any of the 3-star places should have been one or zero.I consider a great many of the members here to be experienced and knowledgable people - and man do they differ. My comments aren't on the list itself but on the methods.
But then, if you launch an eGullet or Chowhound thread asking for recommendations, you will also get some ridiculous advice; indeed, you'll get it in far greater abundance, since no qualifications are required to post on a website.Give us an example of ridiculous advice - if you would please.
Are you suggesting you cannot perceive that Per Se is more luxurious than The Spotted Pig?Having never dined at either I cannot accurately answer that question even based on my own perceptions - I can only look upon the "category" that they are perceived to occupy - and my personal criteria would be different than yours most likely. If I received equally good service, equally delicious food made from equally high quality ingredients in an equally enjoyable - yet obviously different - style - then small details would have to round out that assessment. I'm not saying that would happen. I can only say that based on the images they portray to the outside world that I would initially perceive one to be more luxurious than the other. A hypothesis that would still have to be proven to myself through my personal experience. But taking into account the vast number of opinions by the many many experienced and knowledgable people on this forum - I would venture to guess that Per Se may be quite the experience.
{edit} :SP
-
That is why to me a critic' or organization's body of work is of utmost importance because then it can be calibrated to one's individual tastes.
A very valid point Doc, I'm not saying that I don't ever put any stock in any type of rating system - for instance I believe something like the Ebay rating system to be a very good one - one in which the consumer gets to rate and comment on the performance of a particular seller - every consumer who buys from said seller has the same opportunity - and I believe that such a rating system among others can be very reliable in their overall, collective assessment.
The same is true when you can do as you suggest and "fix a critic to a point", I believe this argument has been made elsewhere - that by guaging the opinion of someone over time you can relatively measure your personal opinions against them - you know their criteria and you know yours so you know if they rate something high - how it is relative.
In the case of the Michelin guide neither of these things exist - there is no input by the general public and there are no readily identifiable personalities to track and not only that but the huge gamut of locations and diversity of types of restaurants covered in the same pages without those things begs the question as to whether such a thing under those circumstances can be done fairly and impartially - given the number of reviewers - time and the number of restaurants to be reviewed.
It would be beneficial at least to be made aware of the detailed criteria.
It is as if you are left to simply "trust" that an establishement with such a long and illustrious history is doing things the "best way" - which I call into question. Kodak has been making cameras since 1888 but they certainly lost the ball when the digital aged surfaced.
So by your own measure, if I do not "know" the reviewer, there are not a substantial amount of reviews to compare and contrast within the same instrument and I am unaware of the criteria by which the instrument makes it's assessment - it's worthless.
Edit: SP
-
With 3, 3-star Michelin restaurants Ducasse can say whatever he wants.
Oh that wasn't a stab - I'm serious - it's really refreshing to see someone of his public stature relinquish credit, especially for something that bears his name.
Though I think “he can say whatever he wants” especially when it is in relation to how many star rated restaurants he has by any guide is both missing the entire point of my post and elevating someone whom has such a repertoire above accountability for their words and actions – which is ridiculous.
-
Something that is important to remember here is that these ratings weren’t made by the “Michelin Guide” – they were made by, at best, a few individuals over a relatively short period of time.
Really any rating that is based on intangible, subjective criteria is barely worth the paper it’s printed on.
It’s one thing to rate whether Hondas are reliable or not because data can be gathered as to how many have been sold, what the frequency of their need for repair over a certain amount of time has been etc…
How do you determine if a restaurant is, in reality and not in your opinion, 3 stars, 1 star, no stars?
What is luxury? Is a luxurious ingredient a scallop recovered by a diver that you paid big $$ for and had flown in – if so is that same scallop luxurious when it’s served for 1/8 the price by the little seafood joint near the dock? Is it a mushroom I went out and scavenged for free and then charged you and arm and a leg for?
Is luxury bone china, white table clothes, crystal stemware and classic French décor?
Or is it Asian influenced minimalist contemporary design?
Is it both and if so which is preferable?
If I get that stuff from T.J. Maxx down the street on clearance – is it still luxury?
It’s all relative to your personal taste, experiences and preferences, one man’s luxurious is another man’s gaudy and pretentious. One man’s ideal is another man’s ridiculous.
So who are these inspectors anyway and what qualifies such a small group of people to make a blanket assessment of an entire city – much less an entire country – I’d like to know – they should have first-name only profiles of each inspector with a short biography so we can see some of what those tastes are relative to.
Or maybe they should just give up that entire non-sense, put the guide online and let the people who dine at the restaurants make those assessments – even if you took it so far as to provide an ID number on a guest check so that only actual diners could register and rate.
But then – I believe we would see an entirely different situation.
Alain Ducasse
"I'm not here enough to say I earned it entirely on my own".Although it really makes no difference to me "who Alaine Ducasse is" - so far as he represents the immaculate chef in white - I'm glad to see one say something like this to the press.
{edit}: SP
-
At a Kaiseki meal in Kyoto one of the courses was covered in a bowl,
you took off the lid and it was nothing but a fish head (I didn't
recognize the variety, but I think it was small Yellowtail) - the idea was to eat the cheeks.
Delicious - but I thought the people I was with were going to die.
Except one guy - who ate the eyeballs.
I couldn't help but think of this song.
Edit: Very similar to this Sea Bream dish - but without the garnishes.
I have eaten many a cheek from larger fish, Monkfish, Red Snapper and usually
dig them out when I'm served a whole fish - and I know of fish head curries
and stews - but this was the first time I had ever been served a lone, boiled,
more or less unadorned fish head as a main item.
-
Do you suppose that your friend Tony Bourdain hasn't left some unflattering things about himself out of his books, or indeed any items that others familiar with the various situations described might consider significant omissions?
The question wasn't asked of me but I have an opinion to offer on this, my last words here.
Bourdain is unique in that he is amorphous.
He's simultaneously associated with royalty, commoners and criminals at the same, which means he can be on any side or all sides without much detriment to his support from the collective whole.
There's not much you could say about him that he wouldn't say about himself and laugh, trying to cut him is like trying to cut water.
The near unimpeachable position that he described earlier upthread.
If you'll turn the knife on yourself of your own free will then threats on your life
aren't going to do much good.
If you call someone a fuck but admit that you are also a fuck, just maybe in a different way - then what can be said?
That being said - even though I live only a few blocks from the Merchandise Mart,
I still wouldn't pay 50 bucks to lay eyes on him, unless he's real pretty under all that makeup.
As was said earlier - and I haven't and won't read the book - people say
that the man paints himself without fault - I dunno if that's true or not.
But I read a quote today that reminds me of the situation:
"The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues."
-
If he was also bound by the agreement would it not have been wiser to omit the whole FL chapter? Or was the better choice to change history, publish a book, and reap the rewards of the public's money?
I am convinced there are those here who feel as though Doug boosted his credibility by omitting the hand slapping incident in the book and disclosing it here after he sensed the jig was up.
Personally this thread was a blessing for Doug. If I had not started this thread I'm sure the book sales would have been nowhere near where they are now.
Mind has to be made up one way or the other...
Do you want full disclosure of everything that can legally be disclosed?
Or do you want cherry picked omissions to preserve the honor of the brotherhood?
Makes more sense now why there aren't any straight answers coming from anyone
that was there to witness (edit: the reason for his departure) - they are all under non-disclosure agreements.
-
he's not bound by anything, as he's already shown.
If it is a standard agreement then it most likely covers trade secrets and terms of employment/departure.
I doubt that the state of order of walk-ins is covered.
Though what the fuck do I know?
I don't own a restaraunt and I'm not a published author.
Edit:
Being bound by honor isn't a legal matter - whether I agree with you or not.
-
If he actually wrote about the incident in the book and said he didn't leave TFL on his own terms, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It all has to do with his credibility, not whether or not he actually hit anyone.
To me it is simple. If he didn't come clean in the book about the circumstances surrounding his leaving TFL, everything else he says is automatically suspect.
this is the only relevant point in this too-long conversation.
If that is the case, then as stated by his employer who cited a confidentiality agreement as the reason for not being able to discuss those items - one can deduce that he is also bound by the terms of that agreement which would preclude his ability to disclose such a thing.
That employer also stated that he was "there during a difficult time" - which translates to "shit was fucked up" or at least "Things were not in the normal order they would have been in so it is possible that things existed at that time that no longer exist."
These two items are the only pieces of evidence I see regarding that particular issue.
-
-
huh?!! This makes no sense what so ever. Who ever said that there are people with no flaws? Psaltis made soem statements in his book and some people are refuting those statements. No one as far as I can tell said that Barber is a perfect human being.
?
There are people here who assume one side or the other is telling the truth
and that their reputations precede them.
My comments go for either side and are not aimed at any particular person.
-
How is it that making good food, creative or not, and running a successful restaurant and gaining
a good reputation for both of those things makes you a good person whom performs the same
way in every other aspect of your life and therefore the same respect should be paid to the
statements you make in other areas or about other people?
Why is it if you've made a name for yourself in some small sliver of the expansion of life
and that small sliver happens to be the focus of attention of other people - that it is assumed
that you must be a good and truthful person?
I've known people, that are very successful and may be described as "one of the best" at what
they do - who are otherwise highly flawed, and in some cases complete fucks in other aspects of
life - especially in the propensity to be honest and really give a damn about anyone else - the
later of which, at times in my own life, could be applied to myself, may still be in the future and
possibly even in the present - which I may be blind to.
Why is it if you can make a good sauce, get some fucking raves about it, you are all of a sudden
elevated above normal human beings and think you can verbally and physically abuse people
without getting popped in the mouth? Say what you wish and it is taken as fact by default?
If nothing can be believed on face for one side - it cannot be believed on face for the other.
Period.
Until someone provides physical evidence to support or discount any claim made here - no one
has a valid argument for or against.
I personally find the assumption that those at or near the top, with good reputations for cooking
and/or running a business - must be good people - and not people just putting on a smile and
a show for on-lookers, pretty ridiculous.
They may go home and drown kittens for fun... for all we know.
-
or David vs Goliath
Or Godzilla Vs. Space Godzilla
This review is particularly helpful.
Reviewer: human beingthe monsters were great but the people stunk. I do not like the language of those two clowns flying the robot. I was not happy to see that man's tush. spacegodzilla should have been (toupher) and should have been able to grow back the crystals that were shot off.
Signed,
Smelly Person #16,286
-
I don't know Doug Psaltis but I've met Thomasa Keller enough times to know not only the type of restaurant he commands but the respect he has for food. Fast forward to Per Se as I was invited into the kitchen from my dining table (and given a tour) on the eve of his published NYT review, it was the most immaculately clean space I have seen in my 30 years in the restaurant business. This work ethic comes from only one place...the top...Chef Keller. Surprised would be an understatement if TFL was any different.
But what baffles me is why a chef would even break the code of silence and brotherhood that exists among line cooks and chefs..it could only result in a future of schucking oysters once again..in Montauk!
Does your house remain as clean and organized as it is when you are expecting guests - or do you do "a little" extra cleaning - maybe put on some clean clothes and brush your hair?
Have any places where things are shoved in drawers, closets, attics just to keep them out of sight? What's it look like under your kitchen sink?
When conducting a tour of your home, is it safe to say that - given enough time and freedom to examine the place more closely - that maybe it's not quite as immaculate as it appears?
Do you tend to take extra care of things when they are brand new and slack off with time, especially if something else brand new commands your attention?
Bought your wife/girlfriend any flowers lately?
Think there are people and places these things don't apply to?
There are some who would prefer, even seek out, a future shucking oysters in Montauk.
Even some who would place such a thing in a category equal to that of being indentured
to "the brotherhood", or dimiss the real value of belonging to the "the brotherhood" beyond that of monetary gain, critical acclaim and being remembered after you're dead... by strangers.
Or possibly strength in numbers.
"Codes and manuals tend to create patterned behavior and patterned behavior tends to go unquestioned."
-
Nice to know it's basically worthless
Well maybe not anymore. Looks like some of the old boys got caught with their pants down.
I would advise though - if you happen to see on a menu anywhere, "Tossed salad, blindfolded, tableside."
You might want to consider ordering something else.
-
One does not typically get paid to blurb a book, and a blurb is not exactly journalism. It's basically advertising, generally done as a favor for a colleague, editor, agent, friend, etc. Most book blurbs are based on uncorrected proofs or sample chapters and the standard is to skim and blurb. Blurbing a book based on one chapter is not unusual. Retracting a blurb when the entrenched interests close ranks is.
Thanks for that.
Book blurbing isn't something I ever really thought about.
Nice to know it's basically worthless*, but can't say I'm surprised.
*Unless, if what he says is true, Jason Perlow happens to be the person blurbing.
-
If people will blurb a book without reading it, how can stock be put in anything else they have to say?
Isn't it presumable that any other statement they make is potentially equally as insightful?
That the statements are made on blind presumption and partisanship rather than complete first hand experience?
Do they get paid?
Was just to pocket the $$, (without actually doing the work)??
Hmmm.
Makes it even more interesting who is on trial here.
-
Who says that you have to be a towering figure, or one exuding gravitas, in a field to write a memoir/first-person expose?
You don't... and it's my guess that you would see much more forthcoming from many more people to either confirm or deny or possibly even bring to light other items if it weren't for one thing.
They need to protect their investments in their potential careers - and/or other relationships
with the places and people in question.
"You catch more flies with honey...", etc. etc.
This man seems to have already earned his spot in the, "Worked the stoves at the highly acclaimed (insert name here), served as Chef de Cuisine at (insert name)'s eponymous restaurant and even spent time in the kitchen of (insert name here).", paragraph club.
The cement on his foundation of human bricks is already dry, so now if he chooses
pound on it a bit - it doesn't matter - because it will most likely withstand it.
For most out there - the cement is still wet, bricks can still easily be removed and the entire structure dismantled - their positions are not solid enough to withstand a direct hit.
Few, if any, are going to take the chance of going up against a "heavyweight" with factual, verifiable information that could cause them personal loss.
-
Here is the bit from NY Metro. And here is a brief quote:Alain Ducasse’s spokesperson says that many of the book’s most colorful anecdotes never occurred: Ducasse never threw a chair during a meeting at the Essex House, and he was not unrecognized and locked out of Mix by staff.
And we all know rich, famous highly influental people with interests and empires to protect - always tell the truth.
-
The major benefit to being independent in anything is that you have the complete freedom to do whatever you wish,
depending on what your goal is. If your primary goal is to make money then you are more or less indentured to
the marketplace that surrounds you, if money and possibly recognition are not your primary concerns, then you can
have a 4 room inn in the middle of nowhere that seats 8 - serve whatever your heart desires - and be happy
if you fill those tables every now and then.
Unfortunately, money and the need for it is what often destroys independence... though conversely,
when money is not a concern (as in you have enough to run whatever you are running more as a hobby
than a business) - then money fosters independence.
It is anywhere in between where things can be most difficult.
I think most people would like to just do what they do and have it embraced
so that they could continue and make a living doing exactly that, to do what they
love and make money at it but not to do what they love FOR money, there is
a very clear line between these 2 things - one implies that you would continue
to do whatever it is you are doing regardless, the other implies that if
you cannot make money - then you would change what you are doing.
Independents often morph into chains when they are heavily embraced,
the entire mentality of the United States is grow, grow, grow - get bigger,
make more money.
This often results in what was once an organic environment becoming
a mechanical environment - scanning what has made the concept successful
and attempting to bottle it, clone it and reproduce it exactly - stripping the soul
from it completely as it becomes an environment calculated to make money,
created for the purpose of profit.
A chain is like a machine that makes knives, it can stamp them out
one after the other, the last exactly the same as the first - all shiny
with perfectly sharp edges and a screen printed logo - technically
just as useful as any other knife but completely emotionless, cold
and devoid of character that was not intentionally targeted and
applied..
It finally comes to the point where no one cares so much
about the knives anymore, rather how to make
them cheaper in order to increase the profit margin in order to beat
last year's sales.
Like anyone, I'll use one of those knives when necessary,
but if I have a viable alternative - I wouldn't choose to.
-
The point is, and I hesitate to even post any further, that the book no doubt contains both accurate and inaccurate information and that both the accuracy and inaccuracy are to varying degrees and subject to the perception of multiple parties.
All parties have their particular interests in mind and there is significance to why whom is on what side.
There is more to it being written than for it's sake alone and there is more to the reactions of defense than meets the eye - regardless of these specific instances are true or not - the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of something similar being true - whether experienced by this particular person or not.
edit:
I digress.
-
It's so sobering to see that things follow a cycle so closely that you could almost sit back and set up Dominoes and watch them fall in a predictable pattern in every direction.
I didn't read the book and I could really care less, any person in their right mind has to understand that beneath the shiny surface of any spotless facade there is shadow and darkness and secret - the very things held back to ensure that facade stays shiny and clean in the first place - on all sides.
To assume that it is that way by default and no scrubbing is done to make it shine, is ignorance.
Support the system and the system supports you, attack the system and the system tries to destroy you... it's like clockwork... almost like a law of nature.
Is it really rational to believe that that walk-ins in any place don't get messy or that in any situation, especially high pressure situations, that tempers don't flare and things that should not be said get said and things that should not be done get done, or that there are any flawless characters or flawless restaurants devoid of all the human inadequacies that exist in everyone?
I'm always surprised to read or see that anyone tolerates any kind of verbal or physical abuse from anyone, famous chef or not, it must be extremely important to some to be able to keep the bridges and affiliations that ensure their ability to evoke said things in the future in order to use them to their benefit - no matter what the cost.
-
Just got an email asking and realized I forgot to post where I stayed - so here you go:
Kinuya Hotel in Ueno - Tokyo
Asunaro Ryokan - Takayama
http://japaneseguesthouses.com/db/takayama/asunaro.htm
Kameya Ryokan - Osaka
http://www.jpinn.com/inn/12-2.html
Ikawa Ryokan - Hiroshima
http://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotel_Review-g2...ma_Chugoku.html
Heianbo Ryokan - Kyoto
-
It really comes down to freshness and lack of processing.
If you eat anything fresh enough, and if it is handled correctly, you can eat just about anything raw with only the risk of the parasites and/or pathogens it might be carrying.
In Japan at Imaiya Honten I was served chicken sashimi and chicken tataki (seared outside-raw inside) as part of sort of a "head-to-toe" progression of Yakitori.
They are one of the few restaurants to serve "Hinai Jidori" - a special breed of almost wild chicken from Hinai - the birds are "processed" by the cooks at the restaurant.
I have to say that one, it was delicious, and two - there were no adverse affects what-so-ever.
Edit:
Tataki of Hinai Jidori Chicken
Michelin Guide to New York est arrivé!
in New York: Dining
Posted · Edited by sizzleteeth (log)
I'll step back and agree with you there - perhaps "worthless" is too strong a word - and even in saying it I was making it apply to me personally - not to imply it is worthless to everyone.
So "take it with a grain of salt" and there are perhaps better, more accurate, impartial and reliable methods.
I suppose in fact, the Guide in conjunction with Egullet in conjunction with X number of critical forums makes it somewhat of a valuable asset - to either confirm or discount it's findings.
Edit:
I suppose also it's not so much it's usefulness as a guide that makes me call it's methods into question - but rather it's ability to elevate a restaurant in the mind of a person (or the opposite) based on its singular assessment and application of stars (or not). In other words - if it wasn't perceived as such an important thing to be given or not be given stars in the minds of many people then, though my opinion would remain the same in general, I wouldn't find it so important to "measure the measurer".