LPShanet

Well, if it's better than the Times or Zagat, then it's the best we have. The worst you can say is that it could theoretically be better, but you're comparing it to an abstraction that does not exist. ← Yes, it is the best we have, in my opinion, especially when discussing the two and three star picks. My issue isn't how good they are, but how easy it would be to for them to be SO much better. It's not just theory, it's easy practice and manpower. And I chose to voice my opinion not to slag off Michelin, but because there is a major and obvious fix they could make. That's what discussion groups are for.

Nope, says just about every expert on Japanese food on the planet, both here and there. Try to find a book on Japanese cuisine that DOESN'T say this. Arguing this point is kind of like arguing against the idea that the French like butter. ← right. but: a. that doesn't mean Michelin agrees. b. doesn't mean that they're part of this supposed "consensus" as to Japanese restaurants in NY. yes, Michelin is idiosyncratic (I mean, the Spotted Pig with a star but not Babbo? that's absurd). what I don't get is how you assume that because they differ with Egullet that therefore they're acting in bad faith. ← If the entire world food community agrees on something and Michelin does not agree, doesn't that seem to suggest that Michelin is either clueless or not very familiar with the restaurants in question? I'd say it's more likely that they haven't been to these places as recently as they say than that they're totally unfamiliar with how Japanese food works as a category. That would be a MUCH larger conspiracy theory. I completely agree with you on their idiosyncrasy, although I personally feel that they intentionally try to achieve it to seem "hip" or clued in locally, rather than it being the product of the actual idiosyncrasies of their judges. I don't feel that they are hedging on some of their reviews because they differ with eGullet. I feel that way because there seem to be empirical signs that they haven't recently visited some of the places they claim to with the frequency they claim to. While I wasn't aware that the prose was written by different people than the reviews were done by (as has since been pointed out by oakapple), it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see why I feel that way. Harder to figure is why you're so determined to defend the indefensible aspects of their operation, regardless of whether it's the product of bad taste or incomplete journalism. More to the point, it seems odd that they wouldn't employ the information gathered by their reviewers or at least have the reviewers (or someone at all) fact check the incorrect and/or outdated info in parts of the guide.

Nope, says just about every expert on Japanese food on the planet, both here and there. Try to find a book on Japanese cuisine that DOESN'T say this. Arguing this point is kind of like arguing against the idea that the French like butter.

Thanks, Daisy...had almost forgotten about Cru...not sure why. Is Shea G. still the chef?

Thanks. Good choices.

Nope, as I pretty clearly stated, I used the Japanese food category as one strong example of a larger tendency because it is easier to make an objective analysis of it. It is a cuisine based more on differences in ingredient quality and sourcing rather than more subjective measures such as technique, seasoning, etc, so relative quality is much easier to get a consensus on. On purely objective bases, there are at least 10-15 sushi places than ANY serious sushi eater would rate above the level of Jewel Bako now, even though that wasn't true years ago. This is because of the ways they get their ingredients, the level of experience behind the counter, etc. As I suspect Raji (our resident expert on things Japanese) will attest, the choices in the Japanese realm are very confusing unless you look at them in the light of being chosen based on getting a few recommendations from people who eat there more often than the reviewers. (Otherwise it's also hard to explain the inclusion of Gari, which is virtually indistinguishable from Seki, as they both feature the same sources, ingredients, chef training, etc. Similar things can be said for assorted robata and yakitori places. Jewel Bako isn't the problem. It's a symptom.) There are dozens of things they disagree with me on at the one star level and below, and to some extent that's to be expected, as you and Sneakeater have already eloquently put. And yet, most foodies seem to agree to some extent on the inclusions at the 2 and 3 star levels. Obviously, inclusions are easier to discuss than exclusions. Please note, I'm not suggesting it's a crap list overall. On the contrary: I think it's the best list we have to work with of its kind in NYC...better than Bruni's cumulative opus and far better than Zagat. Still, I wish they would devote more manpower and were as meticulous and thorough throughout as they were at the two and three star levels. I think you'll find that there is information (or lack thereof) in the paragraphs about JoJo, Del Posto and Etats Unis that suggest they may not have been to them very often (in the case of Del Posto) or at all (JoJo and Etats Unis) in the last year. Add those to the list of places already discussed at dubious.

For the record, I wasn't suggesting anything like a conspiracy theory. Rather, I was suggesting that it's impossible for them to thoroughly visit all the restaurants that they claim to with the frequency that they claim is used for their reviews, so they simply aren't doing it. As a result, some of their reviews at the lower star levels are based on very old or less complete data. Kind of like writing a book report based on the Cliff Notes instead of actually reading the entire book. And by the way, they aren't eating at nearly the numbers you suggest. The average restaurant reviewer eats far fewer "work" meals than that, and apparently not all of their reviewers are full time. ← ← Not sure what bullcrap you're accusing me of. However, there are pretty specific reasons to not believe them about the number of visits in several cases, simply based on information in the prose paragraphs, which in multiple cases is more than two years out of date. And we're not talking about the non-starred restaurants...we're talking about those with one star, which by their own definition are supposed to be visited more than once a year.

Totally agree. Was looking for places that especially shined on the standard front. All of them should be good, but in some cases, it's much more fun to do a tasting and you miss out if you don't. At others, you get a very similar experience.

Well...yeah, it seems you are suggesting a conspiracy—that is, to claim one thing while doing another. By the way, where exactly have they published the "claim" that you are now saying is fabricated? ← The claim is certainly implicit in the very existence of a new guide each year: that they actually visit the restaurants each year to confirm their assessments. Further, this from their website: <<If our inspectors are impressed by a restaurant or hotel, they visit the establishment again. And again. It is this sort of obsessive research that makes the Michelin Guide such a reliable source of recommendations. >> Clearly, this hasn't happened with some of the restaurants on their list, though I do fully believe it in the case of those ranked 2 stars and up. I think we can take it as read that they are "impressed" with any establishment they choose to award a star to. Yet they clearly haven't visited some of the places again and again. It's not a matter of subjectivity...it's clear they haven't been there. Just saying one thing and doing another isn't a conspiracy. The difference between what they are doing and a "conspiracy" is that using the term "conspiracy theory" suggests that they are intentionally and willfully deceiving people for some ulterior motive. By contrast, I think they fully intend to be accurate, but simply don't have the manpower or ability to be totally thorough. After all, Zagat uses the entire general population as potential reviewers and still doesn't get to everyone. Michelin's food expertise is why they tend to be better than Zagat with the places they DO go to, but they have much less depth in terms of multiple visits to the lesser places.

I'm being taken out tonight for a meal at a place of my own choosing. However, some of the others involved will almost certainly not want to do a whole tasting menu (they tended to be intimidated by the sound of them in past experiences) , so unless the place allows participation from just part of the table, we'll be doing either a la carte or the standard prix fixe offered. Most of my experiences with my fave places in town (Jean Georges, EMP, L'atelier de Joel Robuchon, Masa, WD-50, etc.) have been only with their degustations in the past, so any thoughts on which of the top places happens to shine with their "regular" menus, and which ones tend to be less appealing unless you can go whole hog would be greatly appreciated.

For the record, I wasn't suggesting anything like a conspiracy theory. Rather, I was suggesting that it's impossible for them to thoroughly visit all the restaurants that they claim to with the frequency that they claim is used for their reviews, so they simply aren't doing it. As a result, some of their reviews at the lower star levels are based on very old or less complete data. Kind of like writing a book report based on the Cliff Notes instead of actually reading the entire book. And by the way, they aren't eating at nearly the numbers you suggest. The average restaurant reviewer eats far fewer "work" meals than that, and apparently not all of their reviewers are full time.

I happen to agree with you about Yasuda and Soto. But I would venture a guess that if anybody made a similar list with 42 restaurants on it (that's the number of places with stars this year), there'd be a number of them that some people take issue with. It's funny to read the Eater thread, where various people opine on which missing or included restaurants invalidate the list. For Mimi Sheraton, it's La Grenouille. For another, it's Union Square Café; still another says Chanterelle.Sorry to reply in two blocks, but my facility with the site is obviously lacking, since I still don't know how to break things up like you just did! The point here is not that there are subjective forces at work. I specifically chose sushi because there are so many objective factors you can use to judge quality, that aren't present in many other types of cuisine. Further, I used the example of Jewel Bako and 15 East because there is a direct relationship. Jewel Bako was only worthy of any interest at all while the sushi bar was manned by Masato Shimizu. He left three years ago, and has been at 15 East for quite some time. Jewel Bako's subsequent decline is both marked, and easily verifiable in objective terms. Meanwhile, 15 East has been getting a better version of what Masato-san used to do at Jewel Bako. So clearly, even if they had a clue and liked Jewel Bako back when it was serviceable, they would like 15 East even better. But signs point to their not having visited either in the last two years. Further, Jewel Bako hasn't even made an effort to replace Shimizu with an itamae of equal caliber, preferring instead to employ various journeymen, assistants and the like. A proper reviewer would certainly know this. So what I'm getting at is that I understand that we can argue till the cows come home about the relative merits of EMP (I happen to agree that it should be starred), The Modern and dozens of other inclusions and omissions on a subjective level. But the examples I chose allow a slightly greater degree of objectivity to be applied to their work. My conclusion is that I don't believe subjectivity is the only factor at work in the Michelin Survey. I happen to think they do a much better than average job at the high end (even with EMP omitted), but I still have NO reason to believe that they really visit places as comprehensively or often (or recently) as they claim in the one star and no star categories. I still maintain that there is hugely sloppy journalism going on in large part at the sub-two star level.

Actually, there are a number of surprising choices that suggest exactly the opposite. For instance, would someone "phoning it in" have come up with a star for Kyo Ya—a restaurant all of the major critics ignored? I have no idea whether Kyo Ya deserves its star, since I've never been there. I am just pointing out that it's clearly not a choice that someone "phoning it in" would have come up with.A fair point on the surface of things. But I think I was a bit incomplete in expressing exactly what I meant, as it was stated ages ago in last year's Michelin thread. It often seems like they intentionally pick a few "surprise" or "obscure" places (just as they did with Spotted Pig the first year and Dressler in the last survey) to give the (I believe false) impression of really having their fingers on the city's pulse and having been to more restaurants than they have. However, when you look at things overall, the reality seems to be that they are really late to update many of their reviews. And many of their choices (and some of the information contained in the prose of the book) below the 2 star level make it clear they haven't been to some of the places in ages. If I were cynical and skeptical, I would say they ask around what some of their friends favorite under the radar places are, and just visit enough of them to have a few of these "insider" places on the star listings.

As I and others have mentioned on this topic before, it seems like they really phone it in and can be VERY imcomplete beyond the two * level to some extent. Even more so with respect to Japanese food. There is absolutely no way to justify leaving Jewel Bako in the 1* category, and to leave out places like Yasuda, Soto, 15 East, etc. I dare say that Jewel Bako wouldn't currently make any sushi fan's top 10 list, let alone be the best sushi place in town other than Masa. They can't have been back to Jewel Bako in the last three years. I don't think there's any level of sushi expertise or lack thereof that could lead you to that conclusion. The removal of Kuruma's * is less surprising, as one hears mixed reports, and their service can vary according to ethnicity, their familiarity with a guest, etc. But it's an embarassment to their credibility to have Jewel Bako on there.

Thanks, Raji. While I'm at it, where have you had the best gyoza experiences? And I'd like to second the hurry up on Santouka.

There has been quite a bit of discussion about the relative merits of Setagaya, Santouka, Minca, Ippudo, etc. as the top ramen joint in the area. However, a friend of mine who spent quite a bit of time in Japan is interested in having the best miso ramen he can find in NYC, and I wasn't sure which place to lean towards, as I've mostly had the shio at Setagaya, and the tonkotsu (akamaru modern) at Ippudo. Would love to hear whom anyone feels has the best iteration(s) of miso ramen in NYC.

When did Sosa take over? I'm trying to figure out if I ate there when he was in charge or prior. Either way, I found the food better than average, and had a number of the dishes you depicted.

My guess is that they exaggerated the demand for lunch at that price which doesn't involve Thomas Keller. ← Having now been to both myself, I would have to say that I think many foodies (presuming they could afford it) might be more likely to return for lunch than dinner, if they were to try both. Everyone in my group uniformly preferred lunch, both for the menu structure and the amount of food. While it's more expensive, the value is comparable or better than dinner. Now, if they were to offer both menus at dinner, or even switch the two, they might have something:) I think Americans are much more used to eating the big meal late in the day. When I left the dinner, I had enjoyed everything, but was honestly still hungry, and wished there had been more food or the option to add courses. At lunch, I found myself much more satisfied, and really enjoyed starting the meal with the flights of raw items. Either way, this many free lunch reservations suggests that they may need to rethink the approach.

Reminds me of all the variations Mas (Farmhouse) went through...and they only have three letters!! (Note: that doesn't include punctuation variations for the second word.)

Not that I need agrarian Socialism crammed down my throat during an otherwise pleasant meal, but I do think that the staff at BH@SB achieved and maintained a nice balance between preaching and boasting about their products and produce on my visit. That "joy and investment" was the highlight of my experience. I'm sorry that pride didn't come through to you. ← Me, too, as I was certainly expecting it, and often get much more of that sense from various places in the city that deserve it less.

A further and more detailed review will follow, but just wanted to note a few things about my visit last night, as some things I experienced differ from most of the postings here. Most notably, the service last night was really questionable. While we started off fairly well, we only saw our original waitress once or twice again after our initial ordering (we got the Farmer's Feast). We also had a little problem with the plates during the amuses. We certainly didn't mind the logjam created by having three or four plates of amuses placed in front of us in quick succession. However, we were really surprised that they made little effort to clear any of the stuff after it was done for quite a while. As a result, we had a series of empty plates cluttering up the table, and even when new ones arrived, they failed to take away the old ones. Reminded me more of a dim sum outing than an elegant meal. The majority of the dishes were placed in front of us by runners, who then jetted off after quickly saying what they were (sometimes in heavily accented voices), giving us no opportunity to ask for elaboration or clarification (or even repetition!). The joy and investment in the product that someone described above wasn't anywhere to be found. No one was rude to us by any stretch of the imagination, we were just left feeling slightly cold overall. Then there was the gap between courses. While most proceeded at a comfortable pace, there were two gaps in the middle of the meal that were really unacceptable. At one point, we went almost 30 minutes while waiting for the next thing to arrive, even though the wine pairing for that course had been sitting there since right after the previous plate was collected. Not only did this happen twice, but we didn't see any sign of a wait person in those gaps, and there was no effort to apologize for the delays. Weird. I'm also pretty sure we were shorted at least one of our wine pairings, as both we and the staff were clearly confused during some of the gaps. The food itself was mostly excellent, though I think a few dishes would have been better off if they hadn't adhered so closely to the localvore manifesto. Both the raw bluefish (described above) and a subsequent cobia dish would have benefited from a more appropriate fish choice, based on the flavors that accompanied them. Bluefish is a tough one to make really sing, and while the dish was somewhat pleasant and the tomato at its base was perfect, it certainly didn't stand up to the best stuff BHSB has to offer. The cobia was just slightly tired/fishy tasting. But on to the good. Anything involving their tomatoes was really spectacular. From the simple tomato amuses at the start to the mini tomato sandwiches, to a great salad that featured them, to a tomato sauce on simple, perfectly prepared al dente pasta, these flavorful beauties were really memorable. A dish featuring many types of pork cuts was interesting and varied, if a bit less luxurious sounding than some of the meat courses I've seen described in this thread. And a deep fried egg dish was really wonderful. Desserts were very pleasant, though not life-changing, but at this point we were quite full (and a bit tipsy). The tisanes we ordered were aromatic, unusual and really restorative. While I'm very glad we got to try them, and they certainly express the ethos of the restaurant very well, I was surprised at how expensive they were. $15 for one serving of herbal tea is pretty steep, even in Tokyo. In upstate New York, it's unheard of. We also didn't receive any of the mignardises mentioned above, nor were there any "parting gifts", although this may have been related to the fact that our cab was supposedly on its way shortly, and we didn't want to miss our train. More about that below. Then there was the matter of getting out of there. We had taken the train from NYC so that we could imbibe without worry. When we asked to have a cab called, they quickly obliged us, and said one would be waiting for us in about 10 minutes. This seemed fine, since our train wasn't to leave for another 35 minutes. When paid the check, we went outside. No cab. We waited 20 minutes. Still no cab. We went inside, and were told that it was supposed to be on its way. 20 minutes later still no cab. At this point, we had missed our train and there was only one more still to come that night. Multiple calls to multiple cabs were placed, and still none came. Finally, we (and another couple that had been stood up by their cab, too!) were lucky enough to get a lift with one of the waiters who had just gotten off for the night. Overall, the tone of this posting is far more negative than our actual experience, which was a first rate meal in many ways. Still, the lapses really made us wonder whether it would be worth the effort to head out there again, as food and service of equal and better levels can be had in Manhattan. Part of me really wants to give them a chance to right the things they fell down on, though.

Thanks, FG...you're my hero!!!! I'd been trying to get into Ko for months with no luck. Suddenly, I was able to do dinner and lunch in the same week. I'm a very happy eater. For those still hoping to get in, I've definitely had more luck checking at random hours for cancellations than trying to beat the 10am traffic jam.

There are plenty of non-spicy options at Thai and Salvadoran places, so both are still within the parameters you set. None of home-cooked Salvadoran foods I've had have even been remotely spicy, but I guess spice-factor depends on one's frame of reference. ← I appreciate that, as I often eat both cuisines. However, imagine what it would be like to send a group of older women there who asked for a restaurant recco, and specifically asked to avoid spicy/exotically ethnic cuisines, to just such a place. That wouldn't make me much of a friend...just someone who didn't listen. I won't be there to guide them through the menu, and all it will do is piss them off. Take some perspective here. Rather than my having an argument with them or trying to convince them to go there, why does everyone not just give me one of the MANY top restaurants in DC that happen not to be in those categories. Sheesh! If someone asked me the same question about NY with the same specs, I'd tell them to go to Jean Georges, or Eleven Madison Park, or Daniel, or any of DOZENS of others of that type rather than fighting with them about trekking out to New Jersey, or going to a hidden random Thai place, or recommending my favorite pupuseria in Brooklyn. Why am I having so much trouble with a basic question here? Only one usable answer so far.

Finally got in, and going tonight. Any other EGers on the res list tonight?

Thanks, Beto...will check it out!