Michelin NYC 2008 Rankings Announced

[oakapple]

the official NY Times guidelines say that that's exactly what they do.  nothing about "classes"....

←

The Times says that the critic considers food, service, and ambiance, with price taken into account. It does not say how, and it does not say that there is a formula with percentages. What on earth would it mean to say that the ambiance at Masa is X% better than the ambiance at Del Posto? To imagine any intelligent person saying so is to instantly recognize the absurdity of the idea.

Clearly, with both the Times and Michelin systems, one must presume additional processes and guidelines beyond those that are published, to arrive at the ratings they did. One can only imagine what they are, but a weighing system with percentages is not likely to be employed by anyone.

[Nathan]

the official NY Times guidelines say that that's exactly what they do.  nothing about "classes"....

←

The Times says that the critic considers food, service, and ambiance, with price taken into account. It does not say how, and it does not say that there is a formula with percentages. What on earth would it mean to say that the ambiance at Masa is X% better than the ambiance at Del Posto? To imagine any intelligent person saying so is to instantly recognize the absurdity of the idea.

←

You're being overly literal. Like I said, the Times itself claims to consider a rating as the result of the combination of four factors. That's it. No classes. No categories. I'm taking them (and him) at their word.

(No, I'm not suggesting that Bruni is using Excel.)

Edited October 10, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[oakapple]

You're being overly literal.  Like I said, the Times itself claims to consider a rating as the result of the combination of four factors.  That's it.  No classes.  No categories.  I'm taking them (and him) at their word.

←

Classes are only a meme, just like your percentages. I just think my meme is better, because I could imagine an intelligent person arriving at a rating by comparing restaurants to others with similar aspirations, but I couldn't imagine an intelligent person doing it putting percentages into a spreadsheet.

[Nathan]

You're being overly literal.  Like I said, the Times itself claims to consider a rating as the result of the combination of four factors.  That's it.  No classes.  No categories.  I'm taking them (and him) at their word.

←

Classes are only a meme, just like your percentages. I just think my meme is better, because I could imagine an intelligent person arriving at a rating by comparing restaurants to others with similar aspirations, but I couldn't imagine an intelligent person doing it putting percentages into a spreadsheet.

←

no! I'm saying that the Bruni does exactly what he says he does: balancing four different factors to come up with an overall evaluation. and all of those factors apply no matter what the purported aspiration of the restaurant.

I realize that several here (and elsewhere) believe that there are separate restaurant categories which somehow are roughly equivalent to Times stars. this leads to statements like ("its an underperforming four star" or "it's an overperforming one star"). I think this hypothesis owes much to the relatively common belief that that's how Michelin does things. maybe so...I don't know enough about Michelin to know. but I'm pretty certain that the Times (and especially Bruni taking him at his own words) doesn't operate that way. indeed such a system only makes sense in a very stratified dining structure today. purportedly NYC used to be that way. I don't know. I do know that it doesn't have that rigidly stratified dining structure today. And Bruni is certainly not a water carrier for such a structure. far from it! neither is Richman (and I've been reading his culinary oevre for a lot longer than Bruni has been writing about restaurants). these guys say that they don't walk into a restaurant and think: "Ok, its a three star category restaurant based on the prices, decor, menu and amount of white hair in the dining room....so let's see if that's what it is or if it underperforms and gets two or overperforms and makes me think about four"

they say they don't think that way. I believe them. obviously some do not but it seems to me to be more of an exercise in projection.

edit: and as a relatively intelligent person, who unlike a certain legacy admit blogger recently turned "professional reviewer", knows the (substantial!) difference between being "serviced" or being "served", understands that one can't rely upon shift-f7 to suggest words unless you actually know what they mean and who knows that ceviche is not a recent trend and doesn't involve boiling; I somehow manage to rate all restaurants on the same playing field: is the food really fricking good, is it pleasant, was the service proficient, and was it worth the money considering the first three. it's a really simple calculus. and you can apply it to all restaurants equally.

Edited October 10, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[LPShanet]

You're being overly literal.  Like I said, the Times itself claims to consider a rating as the result of the combination of four factors.  That's it.  No classes.  No categories.  I'm taking them (and him) at their word.

←

Classes are only a meme, just like your percentages. I just think my meme is better, because I could imagine an intelligent person arriving at a rating by comparing restaurants to others with similar aspirations, but I couldn't imagine an intelligent person doing it putting percentages into a spreadsheet.

←

It seems that many of us are saying the same thing: that, in effect, there is and has to be some way of putting restaurants of vastly different types and levels of ambition on the same big scale. Without some kind of "handicap", there would be a strong bias towards the more formal places, which is something that Michelin and Bruni both give at least some lip service to avoiding (either successfully or unsuccessfully). Another, albeit strange, way to look at it, would be like the scoring of certain sports in the Olympics that use "level of difficulty" as a factor. In other words, the best divey Thai spot in the world (a four star within its own type) would merit some lesser number of stars when compared with the difficulty of running a place with the ambitions of a Per Se or Jean Georges. No neighborhood Thai place is capable of attaining the same level, because they don't do certain things that would be required, and it wouldn't be fair to the Per Ses or Daniels of the world to award them the same top level, regardless of how good a place of its kind the joint was. This all needs to be taken as read to some extent.

The disagreements start to pop up when we begin to analyze HOW these handicaps are arrived at. I'm guessing that in many cases (both Michelin and Bruni, as well as others), the rating isn't a purely numerical thing. There's a subjective or instinctive component as well for the reviewers. Not much we can do except voice our respective opinions in many cases, since it's a mostly subjective argument.

However, I think the case of Jewel Bako is something different entirely. Michelin's inclusion of it at the level it was given shows either a lack of OBJECTIVE expertise in the sushi area, or the inclusion of a place based on outdated word of mouth, etc. rather than actual current visits. While many can argue the relative merits of the top gourmet destinations in town (Daniel, Jean Georges, Per Se, Le Bernardin, etc.), I don't think anyone would say that the stars those places earned were WAY off. Maybe some would demote a three to a two, or promote a two to a three, but by and large they're close, and most people who are considered experts in that type of cuisine would probably agree that all are in the top 10 or so restaurants in the city. In Jewel Bako's case, however, it is being included on the list in seemingly random fashion, alongside two places that DO turn up in every sushi geek's top 10. Meanwhile, Jewel Bako is a place that most of the sushi cognoscenti wouldn't even go anymore (and haven't for at least 3 years) due to a precipitous decline in quality that makes it absolutely no better than DOZENS of other places. It literally is just another neighborhood place now, and I'd dare say there isn't a sushi expert in town who would still put it in their top 5, let alone top 3. So to single them out for a star is very strange indeed, and suggests that someone did their work for them rather than it being a result of the purported Michelin review process. The problem here seems not to be subjective disagreement, but an actual lack of proper procedure, which to me is much more troubling.

[Nathan]

what handicaps? they're not necessary...it's absurd.

Sripaphai makes really great food. it's not quite intellectually stimulating or balanced enough to be the very best think you'll ever eat...but it's still fricking good. but it has no service to speak of, no ambience or wine program. on the other hand, it's fricking cheap. so it ends up being on the border between two and three stars.

if Sripapahi served the same food with decor, wine and professional service...at higher prices, it'd be a three star. if it somehow served that same food with decor, wine and professional service at the same low prices. it'd be a four star. but that'd be impossible to do. so three stars would be the limit for that food.

Jean Georges is a four star cause it serves even better food than Sripaphai with decor, wine and professional service, at high prices. but the prices are justified by some of the best food on the planet. so it gets four stars.

same playing field. no handicaps.

Edited October 10, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[Leonard Kim]

Terrible day at work, so I'm quite behind here, but I suppose it's my assumed duty to point out Nobu 57 has *** from Bruni. Even including Masa, he doesn't reach 15% of *** and **** being Asian restaurants.

[LPShanet]

what handicaps?  they're not necessary...it's absurd.

Sripaphai makes really great food.  it's not quite intellectually stimulating or balanced enough to be the very best think you'll ever eat...but it's still fricking good.  but it has no service to speak of, no ambience or wine program.  on the other hand, it's fricking cheap.  so it ends up being on the border between two and three stars.

if Sripapahi served the same food with decor, wine and professional service...at higher prices, it'd be a three star.  if it somehow served that same food with decor, wine and professional service at the same low prices.  it'd be a four star. but that'd be impossible to do.  so three stars would be the limit for that food.

Jean Georges is a four star cause it serves even better food than Sripaphai with decor, wine and professional service, at high prices.  but the prices are justified by some of the best food on the planet.  so it gets four stars.

same playing field.  no handicaps.

←

I know this sounds strange, but in essence you're actually agreeing with me. Maybe I wasn't making myself clear, but part of the thought I was trying to convey was that a restaurant can be loved by a critic (including Bruni or those at Michelin) as much as they can imagine possible, and be the best of its kind without having the top rating (4 NYT stars or 3 Michelin) overall. For that reason, a place with seemingly inferior food might merit the same overall rating because of its higher level of service, decor, wine, etc. To someone only concerned with food, this would seem unfair, but really isn't. Also, the relative weights assigned to the "non-food" areas may vary among the reviewers, further leading to bias.

NB: the real point of my post, however, was to draw attention to the OTHER type of controversy with the list...the indefensible type that points to error, sloppiness or lack of expertise.

[Jesikka]

if Sripapahi served the same food with decor, wine and professional service...at higher prices, it'd be a three star.  if it somehow served that same food with decor, wine and professional service at the same low prices.  it'd be a four star. but that'd be impossible to do.  so three stars would be the limit for that food.

Jean Georges is a four star cause it serves even better food than Sripaphai with decor, wine and professional service, at high prices.  but the prices are justified by some of the best food on the planet.  so it gets four stars.

same playing field.  no handicaps.

←

I love Sripraphai, but I find this statement completely absurd. You're completely ignoring ingredient quality and cooking skills and you're also implying that every dish at Sripraphai is as good as the 5-10 dishes that they do (incredibly) well. If you'd ever been there with people who aren't familiar with the menu or who aren't big fans of spice, you know that it can be completely mediocre.

I've had every dish at Jean Georges, and I haven't had a single mediocre dish, though I've certainly had some I've liked less than others. The food is subtle, the cooking skills are impeccable and the flavors are really complex and sophisticated. There's no way that you can argue that Sripraphai achieves that in more than a few of their dishes, much less the vast majority.

It's not an issue of Asian versus French, it's simply about the complexity, cooking and ingredients of four star restaurants. Decor, wine and service are not going to turn Sripraphai into a four star by any means. Which is not to say that Mrs. Sripraphai isn't capable of cooking at that level- it's just that she's not doing it now.

I do think that you can walk into a restaurant and accurately judge the likely star category, even before tasting the food. Value definitely counts for something, but no restaurant as cheap as Sripraphai is making it into the four star category. A restaurant simply cannot provide food of that quality (and the appropriate complimentary service and wine to go with it) for those prices. At the end of the day, though, it really comes down to the quality of food and how that meshes with the quality of experience.

Edited October 11, 2007 by Jesikka (log)

[Mikeb19]

That's nonsense. Ravioli will remain Italian, no matter how mainstream it is.

←

Just curious, is a gyoza also Italian? How about a perogy/vareneky?

Theres tons of pastas out there, and many are certainly not Italian... Is any square stuffed pasta Italian? If I were to stuff a ravioli with liver, onions and cabbage, and serve it with a mushroom gravy, is it Italian?

The fact of the matter is, generic stuff like dumplings can't be claimed by any one nationality. Sushi may have originated in Japan, but it's becoming international - you can walk into many sushi restaurants and order stuff like the California roll, BC roll, Cowboy roll, etc... The west has also influenced change in the way Japan eats. Nowadays you can find many 'international' foods, it's pretty close-minded to say a ravioli can only be Italian, or sushi can only be Japanese...

[Nathan]

Jessika and LPshanet:

I think we're in agreement.

[oakapple]

no!  I'm saying that the Bruni does exactly what he says he does:  balancing four different factors to come up with an overall evaluation.  and all of those factors apply no matter what the purported aspiration of the restaurant. 

I don't recall any statement by Bruni to that effect. The statements you are quoting are part of the standard "infobox" at the bottom of the reviews, which I believe is unchanged since before Bruni arrived. When asked what the stars meant to him, I believe Bruni said something like "they chart ever-increasing levels of excitement." I am fairly certain he never gave any explanation resembling the one you attribute to him.

Now, I do accept that the critic is bound very loosely by what's written in the infobox. But there is very clearly a change of attitude when a new critic takes over, even when there's no change in the infobox. So critics must have additional "rules" (whether published or not, and whether conscious or not) that lead them to their rating decisions.

I realize that several here (and elsewhere) believe that there are separate restaurant categories which somehow are roughly equivalent to Times stars.  this leads to statements like ("its an underperforming four star" or "it's an overperforming one star").  I think this hypothesis owes much to the relatively common belief that that's how Michelin does things.  maybe so...I don't know enough about Michelin to know.  but I'm pretty certain that the Times (and especially Bruni taking him at his own words) doesn't operate that way.  indeed such a system only makes sense in a very stratified dining structure today.  purportedly NYC used to be that way.  I don't know.  I do know that it doesn't have that rigidly stratified dining structure today.  And Bruni is certainly not a water carrier for such a structure.

←

He actually is, to a very considerable extent. All of his four-star awards, and the vast majority of his three-star awards, have hewed to that traditional structure. Bruni's contribution—if you could call it that—is a willingness to considerably relax the traditional structure at the two-star level. He has never yet done it at the four-star level, and at the three-star level he has done it precisely once: The Bar Room at The Modern. To account for the fact that he is still more-or-less following the tradition at the three and four-star levels, you need to assume the existence of additional "rules," beyond those he has publicly admitted.

The Michelin folks do a very similar thing. At their one-star level, they are willing to recognize non-traditional places (Spotted Pig), but at their two and three-star levels they insist that the full package be there. Unlike Bruni, they have publicly stated that this is the case. (Sorry...don't have the time to look up the reference, but I know they did say this.)

[Nathan]

Now, I do accept that the critic is bound very loosely by what's written in the infobox. But there is very clearly a change of attitude when a new critic takes over, even when there's no change in the infobox. So critics must have additional "rules" (whether published or not, and whether conscious or not) that lead them to their rating decisions.

Not at all. The weightings just vary depending upon the individual critic (i.e. Bruni clearly weighs price more heavily than some of his predecessors). But the factors don't change.

[oakapple]

Now, I do accept that the critic is bound very loosely by what's written in the infobox. But there is very clearly a change of attitude when a new critic takes over, even when there's no change in the infobox. So critics must have additional "rules" (whether published or not, and whether conscious or not) that lead them to their rating decisions.

Not at all. The weightings just vary depending upon the individual critic (i.e. Bruni clearly weighs price more heavily than some of his predecessors).

←

Bruni never said that.

[Nathan]

Now, I do accept that the critic is bound very loosely by what's written in the infobox. But there is very clearly a change of attitude when a new critic takes over, even when there's no change in the infobox. So critics must have additional "rules" (whether published or not, and whether conscious or not) that lead them to their rating decisions.

Not at all. The weightings just vary depending upon the individual critic (i.e. Bruni clearly weighs price more heavily than some of his predecessors).

←

Bruni never said that.

←

I didn't say "Bruni said that he weighs price more heavily"...I said "Bruni clearly weighs more price more heavily"....cause he does.

[oakapple]

Interesting comment today from Frank Bruni:

Meanwhile he and others in the restaurant business are keeping an especially careful watch for inspectors for the Michelin Guide, trusted by Europeans and more important to New York restaurants now than when it started rating restaurants here three years ago. They’re sweet-talking concierges, since so many diners are coming from hotels.

If you really want to be sure of that 7:30 p.m. table, ask for it with a French, Spanish or Italian accent. It will brand you as a potentially bigger spender, the kind helping New York’s restaurants outlast a weak dollar and a wobbly Dow.