Derek Bulmer

That being said I believe that anyone with a good education and a passion for the subject could be trained to do the job. ← Where do I apply? ← The address is on the back of the guide but I'm afraid I don't have any vacancies at present.

I'm sorry if I appear to be ducking the issue but your questions are quite profound and I simply don't have a sufficiently in-depth knowledge of the French restaurant scene to be able to give you informed answers.

Hello David I remember the name, if not the face and I've just been reading an article about you in this week's 'Restaurant' magazine written by Andy. I afraid I can't give you any concrete answers about North America just yet, other than to confirm that a study is currently being carried out in New York. An announcement regarding our future plans should be made during the coming months so keep your eye on the eGullet site as they are sure to cover any story as soon as it breaks.

It's interesting to hear you say that Michelin's prestige results from its secrecy. Most people say the opposite and we have been criticised in the past for not being more open. Anyway we feel the time is appropriate to give our readers, and anyone else who is interested, an insight into how we work and what influences our decisions. We haven't revealed everything however, and some details will always remain secret! There are certainly not quotas relating to stars and if I could find 10 more 3 srtar restaurants in GB tomorrow I would be delighted. However the reality is that 3 star restaurants are rare beasts indeed and new ones don't come along very often. It's what makes them so special. Whilst I am not able to comment on either of the specific cases you mentioned I am naturally disappointed when I read such negative publiity about any of our Michelin guides. I hope some of my answers this week have reassured eGullet members of our thoroughness, professionalism and total dedication to the job in hand.

As I've spent all of a couple of days in the UK over the past decade let me continue to ask questions, but first, I realize I didn't thank you for coming here and subjecting yourself to this for our pleasure. Thanks for the insight you're offering here. I'll suggest it would be naive to believe any guide, especially one with scores, be they numerical or the award of stars, doesn't have an effect on the very things it rates, if it is a successful guide. We've all heard of French wineries that attempt to "parkerize" their wines. In fact it was a winemaker from the UK working in France who first used that expression in speaking to me. Do you, the corporate Michelin "you," take any responsibility in this regard and is there really anything you can do about it. You have your standards and certainly it would seem as if anything an establishment did to meet your standards would be good for the consumer if you believe in your standards. Thus my question might better be phrased as do you worry that establishments will misconstrue your standards and do the wrong thing in a misguided attempt to gain a star and is that your problem? Would it serve any purpose to be more explicit about the ratings why they were given? Has any thought ever been given to the idea of offering full blown text critiques of the multistarred establishments? ← Our responsibility is primarily to our readers but if the standards we set lead to a general raising of standards in the industry then we would regard this as a bonus for everyone. We are however concerned that chefs sometimes misunderstand our standards and cook what they think we would like rather than what their customers would like. This can be a recipe for disaster and we would always advise chefs that any decisions they make should be for sound commercial reasons. I take your point about greater transparency in our ratings and it's something we will certainly consider in the future as is your suggestion of full blown text critiques for our multistarred restaurants. ← Surely Michelin must have SOME idea that Michelin starred restaurants, at least in France, don't operate deeply in the black, if at all. And that to meet the Michelin criteria for stars is an expensive business. Do you see the contradiction in this? Advising decisions on the basis of sound commercial reasons while at the same time setting forth criteria that are becoming increasingly costly ($$$$$$) to meet? ← No one at Michelin has ever told a chef or proprietor that they must do things in a certain way. Remember that stars are awarded for the restaurant's cooking , and for that alone. As for the comfort and style of the surroundings, there are two important points to bear in mind: 1. It is the restaurateur who makes decisions about the restaurant, based upon what he thinks the customers expect and appreciate 2. The restaurateur naturally wants a setting and a level of comfort which best enables customers to enjoy their food and sets off the food to best advantage It has often been the case that restaurants have invested heavily after they have gained their third star.

What would be the situation if a chef said to an inspector that he wanted to know what he would need to do to improve his rating, say from 1 to 2 stars? ← The inspector would tell the chef that 2 stars requires an greater degree of finesse and some originality in the cooking and he would suggest the chef try some existing 2 stars restaurants to see the level required. ← Have you ever really found the need to offer such feedback? In France at least, there is a process to becoming a Michelin starred Chef. I'm not implying that it can be attained by just anyone following the process or that there is a single trajectory. Nonetheless, it doesn't happen incidentally. By the time a chef is at the level of being considered for a Michelin star he has a grasp of what the criteria is. And he also knows the exhorbitant costs involved in such entreprises. .. By the way welcome to the forum. I didn't notice this chat untill a short while ago. I'm glad I caught it. ← The one time we do provide feedback - if it is requested - is when a restaurant loses a star. We feel it is only fair to explain the reasons behind our decisions but we still stop short of giving advice.

To date we have stuck with candidates from the industry simply because it cuts down on the training necessary. If they already have a degree/HND in hotel and catering and good relevant experience then they would already know what makes a hotel or restaurant tick and just need training in Michelin's methods (up to 6 months). That being said I believe that anyone with a good education and a passion for the subject could be trained to do the job.

I've only one at present although in the past I've had as many as four. ← 1 woman . Why is this? ← We simply don't get as many woman applying as men and they tend not to treat it as a career as some of the male inspectors do. You may be interested to know that the GB guide was the first Michelin guide to employ female inspectors at a time when it was very much a male dominated professional.

You must remember that we have been making Michelin guides for over a century now and our current system is both understood by our readers and respected by the industry. We would not change it lightly. Please remember also that the definition of one star is, and always has been, 'A very good restaurant (or pub in the case of the GB guide) in its category' and we actually warn our readers not to compare the star at a deluxe restaurant with that at a simple one.

Michelin judge food not people so the most important consideration for us is how well we have eaten rather than if the chef is in attendance. If we ate poorly and knew that the chef was away it would still be a valid experience because we would have paid the same price irrespective of who was doing the cooking. Would we return? yes certainly because stars are awarded and deleted or several experiences in order to judge the consistency.

Styles in cookery are changing all the time but the fundamentals of good cooking stay the same - good products prepared with skill and care using compatible ingredients etc. When properly understood and executed molecular gastronomy can be very exciting and rewarding and it's growing in poularity throughout Europe at present. It's true, however, that it doesn't appeal to everyone and we use our short descriptive text after each entry to tell our readers about the style of cooking in a particular restaurant, leaving them to make an informed choice. Global trends affect the food cooked in reataurants and Michelin simply reports on these trends to inform its readership. It therefore follows that we must be indirectly affected by such trends.

The fundamentals in assessing the originality and innovation in a chef's cooking is included in the list I posted in answer to Matthew Grant's question below. Assuming the quality of products and technical skill in the preparation are in place it is the compatibility of ingredients used and the resulting flavours that help us judge the originality in the cooking. We ask ourselves questions like: has this been done before; do the ingredients used complement each other and enhance the overall enjoyment of the dish; is it truly memorable... Anyone can be different for the sake of being different but there are precious few who really understand flavours and textures in order to create new dishes that are truly successful.

The process is as follows: Inspectors eat in a restaurant to decide whether or not it is recommendable - based on the quality of the food, the cleanliness, service etc. If it is recommendable they would then decide the clessification it should be listed under based on the comfort and style of the restaurant. At this point the food is not an issue. Is this what you mean? ← yes, sort of! what i mean is the food is being rated somewhere in the equation? I'm sure you wouldn't rate a lovely looking restaurant with a poor kitchen, but no overt mention is made in the guide, that a one knife and fork for may be a simple bistro - and you would expect to get simple bistro dishes prepared with care for example. i suppose what i'm getting at is if the knife and fork ratings do not account for the food then there's a huge gap between restaurants rated as bib gourmand and the stars, and surely they merit a ranking of some sort? thanks for your responses cheers gary ← I don't see a huge gap at all. Starred reataurants are not 'better' than Bib Gourmand restaurants, simply different. Some of our readers actually prefer the simplicity and excellent value for money they offer.

As I've spent all of a couple of days in the UK over the past decade let me continue to ask questions, but first, I realize I didn't thank you for coming here and subjecting yourself to this for our pleasure. Thanks for the insight you're offering here. I'll suggest it would be naive to believe any guide, especially one with scores, be they numerical or the award of stars, doesn't have an effect on the very things it rates, if it is a successful guide. We've all heard of French wineries that attempt to "parkerize" their wines. In fact it was a winemaker from the UK working in France who first used that expression in speaking to me. Do you, the corporate Michelin "you," take any responsibility in this regard and is there really anything you can do about it. You have your standards and certainly it would seem as if anything an establishment did to meet your standards would be good for the consumer if you believe in your standards. Thus my question might better be phrased as do you worry that establishments will misconstrue your standards and do the wrong thing in a misguided attempt to gain a star and is that your problem? Would it serve any purpose to be more explicit about the ratings why they were given? Has any thought ever been given to the idea of offering full blown text critiques of the multistarred establishments? ← Our responsibility is primarily to our readers but if the standards we set lead to a general raising of standards in the industry then we would regard this as a bonus for everyone. We are however concerned that chefs sometimes misunderstand our standards and cook what they think we would like rather than what their customers would like. This can be a recipe for disaster and we would always advise chefs that any decisions they make should be for sound commercial reasons. I take your point about greater transparency in our ratings and it's something we will certainly consider in the future as is your suggestion of full blown text critiques for our multistarred restaurants.

Essentially it has two roles to play in our decision making process. Firstly it is one of the elements we judge in order to decide whether or not a restaurant is recommendable (along with the quality of the food, the cleanliness and upkeep of the premises and the value for money offered). Secondly - and assuming everything else is recommendable - it helps us decide on the classification the restaurant will be listed under. The more detailed and professional the service, the higher the classification usually is.