Bux

I have noticed that. I also think it is part of the general Americain over-romanticizing about French stuff, on the principle that the stronger and runnier it is, the Frenchier it is. It actually is not so, as far as Frenchness is concerned. Liking it that way or another is a different matter. . . . . ← I think you're right. More than a bit of romaticizing probably comes into play when it comes to those of us who like France, or any foreign culture. When it comes to strong flavors, I suspect there's a bit of machismo involved as well. In a way, it's probably not all that different from the reasons some people decide to develop a taste for chili peppers as hot as can be. I have to wonder if the taste for offal, among those who weren't raised with that taste isn't part of the same syndrome. This isn't meant as a put down of anyone, but more of soul searching. I developed a taste for boudin and andouillette as an adult well into my twenties and a taste for some other things even later. (Clarification for Americans reading here. The vrai andouille and andouillette is not a hot cajun sausage, but sausage made from chitlins and often with a resulting barnyardy aroma.) I would be as guilty as the next person for simply deciding I'm going to like this stuff and eat it until I develop the taste for it. Blood and guts is more a part of my wife's food culture than it is mine, but marriage accounts for some of my exposure and consequently to my taste for dishes that are gutsier and more unctuous that those of my childhood comfort foods and I still take pride in converting American friends.

De gustibus non est disputandum. I think you've touched on an important subject for a web site that brings together people whose only shared interest is a love of food. I may not llike my meat as well done as my friend does, even if we share the same taste in wines and restaurants. To a great extent, taste is developed. Few people claim to love olives the first time they've had them. Caviar, thank goodness, also seems to be a taste one has to learn. One generally "learns" one's tastes from the group one belongs to or the group in which one would like to belong. When it comes to cheese, I've met people who will swear a properly aged camembert should be a little chalky in the middle and others who swear by runny camemberts. I don't want to make national generalizations, but I've only heard a Frenchman say it was ideal when still a bit chalky in the center. I think Americans tend to overemphasize ripeness largely because the kinds of cheeses that ripen have traditionally been rare here. We are best known for "American cheese," a "dead" product that doesn't age and has remarkable shelf..., sorry, I can't bring myself to say "shelflife" in the context of a product that is really the zombie of the cheeseworld--a form of cheese that lives an artificial afterlife. There's no value judgment here. I like horror films. Even zombies have their place. I tend to like my Vacherins riper than average, as long as there's no hint of amonia. I trust gastronomes are in agreement on that. Once a cheese offers a whiff of amonia, it's over the hill and that's an absolute, with the possible exception of chèvres. I've been told by connoisseurs of cheese that for some, goat cheeses are never over the hill. There are those who will argue with good reason, that the taste of Frenchmen, and women, should prevail here. I'm glad that Ptipois doesn't. Her information and point is valid however. When enjoying food by yourself, your taste is king. When serving food to others, it's good to have some idea of their tastes and perhaps a better ides of an accepted standard, assuming there is a valid and widespread standard. The French people I know, don't seem to mind runny Vacherin, but they are not local to the region in which Vacherin is made. It may well be that even in France the standard is regional. Robert Brown's points are well made as personal--"he didn't deem it ready" and "I like it unctuous"--and not as absuolutes although speaking of respected gastronomes. Chac'un a son gout.

On several occasions, I noted that I had eaten better food at two restaurants with two stars each than I had had at la Côte St. Jacques. Lorain seemed to be floundering that season, and the dishes seemed forced. My notes say "the meal was creative, but without the focus we found at Gagnaire." It was back in October of 2001 while the restaurant still had two stars. If I recall correctly, that food regained the third star in the next edition. Taste, after all, is very subjective and what I've finally come to understand, the opinions of the Michelin guide are no less subjective than other guides. We can easily get into the kind of discussions that used to grace this site about exactly which kind of cooking is more refined and more complex than all others, and we can go the opposite route that says there are no objective standards. I'd like to avoid both discussions. My point would be to say there are numerous standards with validity. As you yourself have so often noted, Michelin's reputation was built at a time and in a place, where there was a single standard and it was followed by almost everyone at all levels of service. All I am saying here is that Ripert's menus and his creations are not out of line with the complexity and creativity demonstrated at many a three star restaurant and that sometimes, one man's labor intensive food can be seen as overwrought by other diners. In reference to any guide, my opinion is not as important as the publishers. I'm merely acknowledging that it sounds as if it could be three star food. Does it taste like three star food? That's the most subjective question.

Why is that? ← Can you flesh that statement out a little bit for us Steven? What would you say would be the main differences? ← Start with the menu: http://www.le-bernardin.com/menu_dinner.html This is relatively casual food by three-star standards. It's what you'd expect to see at the one- or maybe low two-star level. On the plate, it is equally limited: these are not the labor-intensive creations of a three-star kitchen, nor are they examples of minimalist brilliance or the avant garde. They're just good fish dishes. We're talking about a restaurant that puts out a lot of food quickly in any given evening. In the three-star universe, it's more like a luxe brasserie than a temple of gastronomy. It's crowded, noisy and rushed by three-star standards. The service is good but basic. ← That makes me wonder about the extent of your three star dining experience in France. I've had simpler dishes at Michel Guérard and that's in his main restaurant, not in any of the lesser venues on his campus in the southwest. I recall a meal where both Mrs. B and I had arrived at Guérard's gastronomic temple with a hankering for something more robust than haute cuisine. As I recall, I had a pastry stuffed with duck (and foie gras, but peasants eat foie gras in that area of the world) and she had spaghetti bolognese. Even without that experience, I'd disagree with you. I've randomly selected Troisgros and La Côte St. Jacques as offering menus representative of three star restaurants in France. Reading the English menus, I don't find they read significantly less casual, more labor intensive or strikingly more minimalist. There's a wide range of styles among the three star restaurants in France. The menu at le Bernardin reads as if it could fit in based on my experiences in France where I've often eaten better at two restaurants than at three star establishments anyway. As for the character of the dining room, I'll go back to Guérard where I found too great a bustle of waiters, waitresses and runners moving between the tables, although real estate in the Eugenie-les-Bains, being what it is, the spaces are far greater than you'll find in any Mnahattan restaurant including all of the Michelin three star dining rooms. I haven't been to le Bernardin this past year, so I can't comment on whether it earned its stars or not, but based on my experiences in France over a period of some 45 years, I don't find the arguments you offer, to be compelling.

Click here for the discussion of Barça 18 (Barca 18 for the search engine) on the NY forum already in progress. My long comments were postedhere last week.

No two restaurants in the world are equal. I've eaten in two star restaurants in Spain that out performed three star restaurants in France. Between those two countries alone, there's a decided inequity, but it's also true that I don't necessarily agree with the ratings of those two and three star restaurants in which I've eaten in France. Understand that ratings are someone's opinion. Change the judges and you may well get different opinions. There are different inspectors in each country. More specifically, do they grade on a curve? I'd say the opposite in Spain where it appears they simply repress the scores or delay rewarding a third star for years longer than it might take in France, lest Spain appear gastronomically superior or perhaps in a more charitable vein, because they don't understand the food. Of course we don't know if the Spanish inspectors are French or Spanish, but their prejudice seems obvious to me. Then again, one of my favorite meals in Spain was at a three star restaurant. Another member here, whose opinions I respect, thought his meal was a disaster. He found a three star meal in Italy to be one of the best of his life. I found it excellent but less successful than many a two and three star meal in Spain. We each have our own perspective. Spelling

Having a NY Michelin guide at hand is much like having a new translation of a work I've only read in the original language and learning that I may not have understood that work as well as I thought I did in the original language. The flaws in the NY guide serve largely to help me understand the shortcomings of the original. I will also note as I may have before, that the flows in the Spain and Italy guides also helped my better understand the France guide. I do not believe it will be of great intellectual interest "to see what we learn when the system is placed under the magnifying glass by American media," as Fat Guy suggests. I suspect most of the American media is too clueless in regard to the strengths or weaknesses of the European Michelin guides to have much to say that is really interesting. That there's a decided anti-French attitude towards France, the French and the French press in particular in the American media makes for the kind of "interesting" reading that says more about American prejudice than anything else.

It's hard to argue with that. Actually, it seems to be easy as so many are doing so with nothing more than corporate ad hominem attacks. What I mean to say is that I defy anyone to show more a more valid list, other than my own. Of course, it goes without saying that surely none of you would have the kind of problem with my list that I have with Michelin's. Michelin's list may not be fair to the chefs, it might not be of much help to the sophisticated NY diner, but as I've long ago discovered by using the Michelin guide in Spain, by and large with no other information, you'll do better choosing a listed restaurant than picking one at random and the restaurants with stars are generally better than ones without stars. Where Michelin fails utterly in Spain is by not recognizing talent soon enough. My chances to eat in Spain are limited to a few weeks a year and yet I've found numerous two star and one star restaurants that are better than the average restaurant holding one more star in France. In NY, there are some serious ommissions and misplacements in my opinion, but they are fewer than in Spain where Michelin has been long established and where restaurants may not change as quickly as they do in NY. How many changes of chef has ADNY had in the year it's been under examination? In France, normally a change in chef might impose a drop in rating for a year. The long distance tourist in NY will be helped in choosing where to eat, although a few of the noteworthy places may escape his attention (all the better for us natives) and he may be led astray by some of the one stars, especially if he doesn't understand why they might have been awarded the star. I haven't read any of the review texts which hopefully offer a better interface than the European guides. Will it replace other guides such as the Time Out NY annual guide, for me? Probably not. Will it supplement it? Maybe. -- Michelin has, on occasion, noted that it doesn't publish its criteria because it doesn't want to influence restaurateurs and chefs into changing their styles. I believe that's a valid position to take. The problem is that Michelin has succeeded too well in establishing it's voice and position. That's our fault. Let's not blame Michelin for being too influential because we pay too much respect to it. Point well taken, even if I would assess the year differently. Not what Michelin has ever said and thus I find that an irresponsible post, more than I find it a sarcastic post. Michelin is one of dozens, if not hundreds or thousands of entities that publish restaurant guides, with and without rankings, each year. It's no more arrogant than any other guide and Michelin has been quite solicitous when responding to suggestions we've made. Their power comes not from their attitude but from our collective need to have someone to tell us what we should learn by our own experience, but don't have the time or money to do. Michelin is not the evil empire simply because you or I don't agree with its list. Had I a financial investment in a restaurant they didn't properly award enough stars, I might however refer to them as the evil empire. Perhaps I see Michlin as Chrchill saw democracy. Michelin fails as a guide, just not as badly as all the others.

I thought I've been quite clear that I've restricted my posting to comments I can defend. I believe I already posted that the article in question stated that Doug Psaltis was sous chef and we can assume he was introduced as sous chef, or that he introduced himself as sous chef and no one corrected him on that. Whether it was a tilte in lieu of a better salary, a position of respect or what, we can o nly speculate and I've avoided speculation and innuendo as much as possible. Better than most, I think. What I may not have posted is that when I recently asked my daughter about meeting Doug Psaltis during the day she worked at Blue Hill as research for her article which was on ramps, not on the restaurant. In fact, I seem to recall she neglected to mention the restaurant's address or phone number, but Dan still talks to her. He's quite understanding of mistakes made by novices. My daughter at the time was working freelance in several positions at another restaurant and one of the reasons she chose Blue Hill to feature rather than one of the restaurants featured in the side bar with name, address and phone number, was that she didn't know anyone connected to the restaurant. To make a long story shorter, the article was written in 2000 and when I spoke to her last month, she had no memory of Psaltis, which may show how important a role he appeared to play in the restaurant when she was there. Anyone who reads the article will notice immediately that Doug handles some of the prepwork with Alex and Dan and that he's cooking. It's Dan who works the pass and performs the job of chef on that day. Her article however, focuses mostly on Alex Urena. His background is the one given in some detail. He and Rick Bishop, the picker and seller of the ramps, are the two featured players. The interesting quote to me is about Alex. "Six months ago, he teamed with fellow Bouley Alum Dan Barber, who had lauched his own catering company in 1997 and was planning to expand into the restaurant business." Rocketman, my life is a pretty open book and I sign all my posts with my real name. my posts are truthful, whether or not you find them negative. I won't ask you to indentify yourself as a gentleman or state your connections with anyone involved in the book as you have done to me, but my question to you is why do you say I long ago posted that I knew Doug had been introduced as a sous chef. But in a Time Out New York article published in 2000, Doug Psaltis is specifically referred to as the sous-chef: Also: The story is available online here: http://www.timeoutny.com/eatout/240/240.eat.ramps.html -- this, at least, would seem to be a bit of homework the New York Times didn't do. ← You know I read that article, several times over the years. I have a couple of copies in my library. What it says is that Doug was sous-chef, not Alex's co-chef as he says in his book. It goes on to say that Dan is the chef chef since he’s calling out the orders and working the pass, which is what the top chef in any kitchen does, and that Dan clearly knows his way around the kitchen if he’s breaking down vegetables, fish, and meats. Even the title sous-chef may be questionable in a new restaurant opening on a tight budget. It's often easier to give a title than a salary to boost the ego of one of the guys in a new kitchen. The author of that article was one of the few people who would talk to me at all. What she had to say is that she didn't have much memory of Doug. It seems to me that he wasn't one with much responsibility or input into the restaurant that took off big, quickly. Alex apparently did have much to do with the origninal success, but even there I have some questions. You and I never shared the same opinion of the restaurant. I felt it was a destination restaurant from early on and you didn't. More to the point I seem to recall that when Alex left, your predictions were negative and you expressed the view that Alex was the talent. I wondered why you had that misapprehension then. I better understand that today. ← I would define negativity not so much just as refuting someone else's statements, but as doing so without bothering to read what they've said or follow their statement. I would define negativity as putting words in someone's mouth, or worse yet, implying in public they've not said something they are already on record as saying. Why are you so intent on posting so vehemently on one subject on a site on which you never registered until this thread had long been underway? I have a track record here that speaks for itself and I put my reputation on the line with every post I make by signing them

Perhaps John, Alex is correct and Moby really thinks Ambroisie is a slam dunk no brainer choice. It's hard to keep up with young British mind.

Surely even Jordi would not be offended by the idea that Can Roca is a more accomplished restaurant than Cinc Sentits. Amèlia, however, may be unmatched as a hostess. Although their wine list is also not as deep as that at Can Roca, it is far more than serviceable and the advice is good. I'm not surprised that it's popular with Americans. I think it's popularity here would ensure that and Jordi and Amèlia's fluncy with English gained living and working in the U.S. also helps. I'd be surprised if it didn't catch on, or even if it hasn't caught on with locals. At any rate, I feel a sense of friendshhip with Jordi and Amèlia which unfortunately for them and for those reading here, that rather works against my praising them too highly lest I be seen as less than impartial. What can I say? I think most visitors will feel the same way after one visit.

The ability to make you leave feeling you've still misssed something after you've wined and dined with full satisfaction is not the worst thing one can say about a restaurant. On our first visit, my only regret was that we hadn't ordered the longest menu. On my second visit, I thought my appetite gave out before the meal had ended, but nevertheless, I wiped clean every dish that followed my loss of appetite. As for wine, we simply asked for a pairing and requested they all be Spanish wines. We were pleased. I'd like to go with a group only to be able to order bottles and still taste several wines. If I have a complaint it was that when we asked for more information about the red dessert wine we were served on the first visit, we were told we'd not be likely to find it in a shop and thus didn't look very hard for it. Several years later, actually the week after our second visit, we found a lone bottle in the bins at Lavinia. We grabbed it, brought it back to NY and served it (Dolç de Mendoza) to some worthy French guests (fans of food and thoroughly lacking any chauvinism) with local berries at the height of season. It was a simple and perfect dessert combination.

That's a most interesting comment and I suspect a number of my favorite chefs may share the same trait. It's a strength and a weakness, or at least potentially both of those. How a chef handles his own personality is important in relation to the food served at his restaurant, but I also suspect how the diner reacts to this personality is going to have an even greater effect on his opinion of the restaurant and his interest in returning. Budget and proximity to the restaurant will also play a part, it's easier to take risks in a restaurant one hasn't saved up all year to visit and it's easier to take risks close to home than when planning one's dance card for a visit of a week or less. Reading in your next post about Ganbara and Alona Berri does more to make me want to be in San Sebastian than all the starred restaurants, at least on some days. Victor couldn't leave Ganbara, but he's more familiar with the competition in the neighborhood. We pulled ourself away after only a more than average indulgence, but it was the first place I revisited on the following night. Aloña Berri is well worth the trip to the barrio de Gros, partially just to get away from the old city and see another facet of bar life in San Sebastian removed from the tourist center, but also for the quality and inventive offerings. The relative calm of the setting also enables a little conversation with the staff, although I only get the second hand translation. These were two of our favorites, but by no means head and shoulders above some other places. La Cuchara de San Telmo was particularly satisfying among those others I mentioned over a year ago.

While I believe your opinions on food and restaurants deserved some consideration simply on the basis of your demonstrated taste and culinary talents, would you share some of the details behind this opinion with us? I see that Vedat Milor, who I also respect, and who I also disagree with from time to time, has rated his April meal there at 19.5/20, up a half point from the 19/20 he gave his January meal. It's been many years since we've been there.

At risk of appearing like a complete idiot to you, I'd like to point out that more than one chapter has been criticized for what some people consider to be the lack of a complete account or a lopsided account of event all the way up to what some people consider complete and malicious fabrications. I have no need to repeat the comments I made earlier, but I dislike the attempt to bury criticism that was about more than the French Laundry incident by pretending it hasn't been made.

← Those couverts, crossed forks and spoons if they're using the same icons as all over the rest of the world, signify comfort and luxury. I read them to know whether to consider wearing a tie, for instance. So in a sense you may be correct if you assume less luxury means a lesser restaurant, but the difference in forks and spoons doesn't signify a lesser food quality. As for requests to be included, I imagine Michelin gets a lot of those and they come from new restaurants and restaurants that were excluded the previous year, but a restaurant doesn't have to request inclusion to be considered. In fact, some restaurants have asked to be excluded for one reason or another. Diners also write to Michelin sugggesting a local restaurant be included. Of course I imagine they get some anonymous requests from friends and relatives of the chef.

I've already posted that I believe the big gap is between one star and above and that the difference between the best two star and the least deserving three star is negligible at best and probably indiscernible. I think ambience and wine lists are important, but I'd sincerely doubt that each is related to a specific star level. Certainly there are restaurants that have risen without changing the ambience. I might place some faith in the idea that size matters. I suspect Daniel suffered simply because of the number of covers they do in a night and would suffer in Michelin's opinion no matter how consistent the food may be. Just speculation on my part, but it's worth noting that I agree with the idea that the best experience at Daniel is the most expensive tasting menu. For us, it beat out Per Se at about the same price. Perhaps Daniel gets a special mention for democratic service offering both two and three star experiences at appropriate prices and Michelin is afraid of sending the erroneous signal that one can match the top Per Se experience at Daniel for half the price, or maybe they are just offended at seeing tables reset. In some ways, Daniel Boulud the French chef, has the most original American restaurant in the 2 and 3 star group. Well, I'm an old fan of Daniel's and had the good fortune of having the original restaurant open just after I'd put enough money in my daughter's account to pay for her college tuition and found myself with pocket money for the first time in several years.

Michelin sees its guides as travel related. In Spain one of the major gastronomic guides is published by Campsa, an automobile fuel (gas, in the U.S.) company. It awards "soles" or "suns" rather than stars, but then again the sun is just a local star. At one time Campsa used fuel pumps to rate the various restaurants listed. Not an ideal image in my mind although it conjurs up the old roadside signs of my youth that read "EAT HERE, GET GAS." Come to think of it, Mobil prides itself on its travel guides to hotels and restaurants. The original Michelin guide back in 1900 was very much a guide for the chauffer on the road with ads for autombiles and mechanics as well as lots of information on tires. There was even a chapter on law pertaining to driving. Emphasis on restaurants came much later. in the beginning they were simply seen as adjunts to hotels. One of the most important functions of the current guide for France is the inclusion of maps for the centers of most cities showing one way streets as well as zones restricted to pedestrians. I suspect those maps were why the US military reprinted the most recent edition after the liberation of France. Anyway, Michelin got into the restaurant guide business pretty much by popular demand and set the pattern for other motor related guides. I might include the AAA guide.

Likewise, I find your post gratifying. It's proof of the relative strength of this medium.

If we understand the limitations, I think we can all comment and sometimes even on the abstract concepts involved without having eaten at the restaurants. That said, I guess I've eaten at all of the two and three star restaurants with the exception of Masa, but I haven't eaten at most of them in the last year, so the Michelin guys have later experience even if they don't have a superior palate. Early this year I noted that a meal at one of the three stars got off on a rocking start, but that the composed meat, fish and salad dishes that followed didn't hold a candle to similar dishes on a long tasting menu at one of the two star places. Again, although I've only had a few meals (2 or 3?) at one of the other three stars, I found inconsistency and severe service errors. A receptionist was rude to me and to our party which inclulded an infirm gentleman celebrating his birthday. I was a bit embarrassed to have participated in recommending the restaurant to his wife, but as it wasn't my first choice, I didn't feel too bad. A waiter and captain argued loudly behind my seat and I was aware of a waiter in noticeable need of a bath, but it was years ago and hopefully that's been worked out even if it then tempered the place of the restaurant on my short list of restaurants I can only afford once in a while. As much as I don't agree with the list, the Michelin guys have the advantage of position. Nevertheless I may have more to say about the restaurants I know from recent experience when I've thought more about my meals. The problem with the guide is not that it's ratings are wrong, it's just that they are no more than the ratings of five people whose standards and prejudices are not necessarily in step with mine, yours or the next guys. They are not the singular opinion of some one person such as the NY times critic, nor are they the collective average of an unqualified group such as it published by the Zagats, but they are not necessarily much more reliable than either. There is simply bno reason to believe they are the five most qualified people to advise me on where to eat, or that their collective wisdom is superior to any of their individual opinions. As a panel, they suffer a few of the Zagat weaknesses. That actually seems to me a pretty reasonable defense. Michelin was introducing an existing system to New York, not inventing a new system. A reasonable defense of why they did it here, but not necessarily of the system. It's not a bad system, but it's not understood. In fact, it's widely misunderstood and thus not an effective system. On the Q&A that Andy Lynes pointed to, Michelin's UK editor said that a restaurant can earn one star by preparing a traditional cuisine extremely well, but that two and three stars require originality (in addition to other things). ← Andy and I are not in disagreement here. Not that I don't enjoy a good disagreement, but it's true that good old fashioned cooking can earn a star and I suspect good old fashioned French cooking will earn a star faster in the Uk than in France. That originality is required for two or more stars doesn't negate the fact that it may be helpful in getting the first star either. For all that, I do suspect than in the UK an allegiance to old French is helpful, but that it's less necessary in France itself.

I simply don't believe that based on long experience of traveling in France and repeatedly making the mistake of going out of my way for a disappointing one star meal, often in a simple place with a selection wines that didn't match that of many an unstarred neighborhood restaurant in Manhattan. I don't believe any of the brasseries have a star, but it would be a mistake to think that brassseries offer a low level of comfort or even formality. They are by far not the most informal places to eat in Paris and actually many are more than a bit formal. By and large, they fall in the two fork and spoon grouping. Crossed forks and spoons are Michelin's way of noting level of comfort, or ambience as we might put it. The rating goes from one (low) to five (high). I don't have the 2005 France guide, but in 2004, there was a restaurant in the 16th arr. that had a star and one fork and spoon.

Where do you live? In France, one would not usually leave an area loaded with multistarred restos simply to visit a one star restaurant in a less star infested region. If true to Michelin's own standards in France, the award of a star in Brooklyn, may be expected to be based on lower standards than one awarded in Manahattan. By a similar token, the award of one star for a restaurant alone in its class might also not a suprise even if restaurants in other classes were better values and did not get a star. Two and three star awards may be thought of as absolute and that's why Michelin notes they are worth a detour or a special journey. In either case, that seems to meet the basic definition of destination restaurant. Someone should publish a guide with the simple numerical award of how many blocks out of one's way one should go for this food. You factor in your address and get your personal score.

Even though many avant garde restaurants hold Michelin stars? ← It's been my experience when traveling in France that innovative cooking may be a faster way to gain a Michelin star than simply preparing classic cuisine. If anything, Michelin has bent over backwards to at least look for the avant garde, especially when awarding a first star. An avant garde style has never hurt Marc Veyrat or Pierre Gagnaire either. They're far more honored by their Michelin rating than by diner's recent comments. If Steven is saying Michelin can't recognize creativity when they find it, or if they can't tell the successful from the unsuccessful, that's another story, but not one I can confirm at this point.

Can you think of any similarly non-luxe restaurants in any other place that have gotten a star from Michelin? I tend to think that luxury is too important to their set of criteria for such an informal place to ever get a star, but please correct me if I'm wrong. . . . ← Are you referring to Sripthathai as the non-luxe standard or to the restaurants that got a star? I've been in a number of non-luxe Michelin one star restaurants in France and some of them were rather simple places. Even in Paris, some could have been described as little more than neighborhood places and sometimes not the most appealing looking place on the block. In Michelin's defense, I would note that even in France the one star listing is a hodgepodge group. (A left handed defense, I will admit.) In fact, in France, Michelin notes that one stars are a good place to stop on your journey--not a destination or reason to go out of your way. That four out of five inspectors were French might make the guide of more use to a traveling Frenchment than to a sophisticated New York diner. La Goulue has always been a upper east side enclave far less democratic than Cafe Boulud for instance, but a place where Frenchmen have always received first class treatment, or so it's always seemed to me. The difference in France between one star and two is far greater than between two stars and three. A single star is relative. A single star in a region knot known for food is less significant than one in a food rich area. Likewise, one star is relative to the price in spite of there also being a bib gourmand classification. Took the words right out of my mouth. In retrospect, I suggest you will also understand why in spite of our willingness to accept Michelin's rating as almost above reproach, we had trouble with so many ratings. Certainly Roellinger in Cancale and Amat outside of Bordeaux put huge cracks in our faith. Amat, who lost a star, lost his place to creditors unlike Veyrat who with three stars was too great an asset for the bank to lose. The guy eating in Peter Lugar's quoted by Florence Fabricant as saying "he had never heard of the Michelin guide," is humorous, but one wonders if the net effect of the publication of the NY guide will be to influence tourists as much as it will be to have traveling New Yorkers question the stars in the France guide.

I see cartons marked with tri-state locations in the shops in NY's Chinatown. I am not aware of any organic farmers growing Chinese vegetables in the region, but I'm not in a position to know much about those things. I also see cartons from California and South America, but it's an overstatememt to single out anyone source. If there are organic farmers of Chinese vegetables, my guess is that they command a premium price and won't be found in the average markets. In fact, they may be selling to organic and health food stores serving a non-ethnic market. There are some Chinese vegetables (as if vegetables have a nationality) selling in the Greenmarket and there are more than a few organic farmers there, but I haven't tried to put the two together.