AdrianMcgill

Opson is clearly right, this is not a list of the "fifty best restaurants in the world". I really don't think that anyone here would disagree with that. The list is flawed; the methodology was sloppy. But it is far too easy to simply throw out the list. Although Marcus claims that I am making the mistake of assuming every methodology to be equally invalid, I am not. I have sat through the pain of enough stats classes to avoid that mistake. Instead, I am making the admission that the methodology used to construct THIS list is faulty and am trying to move past it. Once we admit that, which hopefully we all have by now, we can move the discussion in one of two ways: either we can discuss the food related questions that the list raises (and I tried to raise in my last post) or we can discuss how to make a better list. As has been illustrated, it is impossible for 300 people to eat at every restaurant that has a claim to be top 50 in the world. Perhaps Restaurant Magazine should nominate a group of 20 or so restaurants based on a variety of criteria; say, Michelin rankings, New York Times, etc. Then have its judging panel eat at each restaurant and evaluate it based on a more structured rubric (what should this include?). Of course, this proposal is problematic as well. But I don't believe that a "top restaurants in the world" list is a wholly futile exercise. Jellybean said it right when he said that from a consumer point of view there is very little positive about the list. Now how can we change this?

Perhaps it is because I am new to this site, but the discussion in this thread has only served to bore me. Any list of this sort is going to face sampling and methodological problems. That is a fact. It is impossible to formulate a definitive list of the best 100 restaurants in the world and any attempt to do so will ultimately fall prey to the very problems that are being endlessly discussed in this tread. What a list like this is useful for is as a basis of comparison. What makes The French Laundry the "Best restaurant in the world", or why is Fat Duck considered better than Louis XV? In other words, how do we qualify greatness and what characteristics do these restaurants exhibit that make them great? And if they are not, why not? Does the list provide us with a compelling expression of what makes a world class meal? And if so, what constitutes a top restaurant? If not, what is it not expressing about the culinary world today? Perhaps it is selfish of me, but criticism and comparison of the restaurants on the list seems to be more exciting than debating the nature of the list itself. After reading through dozens of responses, I still have no idea what separates the restaurants on this list from others. Apologies if I come off as ignorant or condescending, but we all know the list is flawed, now lets talk about the restaurants.

I agree with Culatello about La Colombe, which is easily my favourite BYOW place in Montreal. The atmosphere is warm and homey, and the prices are more than reasonable. The ostrich in a bluebarry sauce and duck with port sauce are two of the best dishes I've had in this city. Also, the soup that starts the meal is always excellent.