3 star bias... ?

[roosterchef21]

Hey everyone. I've noticed in some posts that people regard some 3 stars as being of varying quality. For example, Paul Bocuse is rated by some people as being barely a 1 star place let alone 3 stars. (I understand why - respect for what was a great chef still being awarded 3 stars). Also Alain Senderens was rated by some as barely a 3 star along with Taillevent.

What are in your opinion the current "great" 3 stars, the current "good" 3 Stars and the "bad" 3 stars.

I'm kinda hoping this thread kicks on and keeps getting ratings from people in the future so when people come on here they can read this and go yep that's where I should go with some sort of accuracy. Save's trying to search for recommendations and starting new topics on it! Like what I did!

Edited April 9, 2008 by roosterchef21 (log)

[Bu Pun Su]

My top 5 current great 3-star would be (in order)

1. L'Arpege

2. Alain Ducasse Paris

3. Pierre Gagnaire

3. L'Ambroisie (tie)

5. Ledoyen

5. Chateau Robuchon Tokyo (tie)

Current 3-star places I've visited that I like the least (in order)

1. De Karmeliet

2. Paul Bocuse

3. Jean Georges

The current good 3-star would be (again in order)

1. Oud Sluis

1. Genyana Hamadaya Tokyo (tie)

3. Can Fabes

3. Calandre (tie)

5. Hof van Cleve

5. Troisgros (tie)

7. Sushi Jiro Tokyo

It would interesting to see what others would share

Edited April 9, 2008 by Bu Pun Su (log)

[julot-les-pinceaux]

Sticking to Paris, I'd say great: l'Ambroisie and l'Arpège. Bad: Alain Ducasse. I am also a big supporter of Paul Bocuse, which I'd have in the good category. Outside of Paris but staying in France, great would include Roellinger, Guérard and l'Arnsbourg (this last one based on people I trust as I haven't been). Outside of France my experience is limited but I would put Winkler forward, another one that common knowledge likes to consider not worth his three stars.

Also a word about Senderens: he is one of the greatest chefs alive. His new restaurant allows to taste that, but it needs an instruction manual, and it is anyhow not as great as Lucas-Carton used to be. And definitely it is a casual (and strange) place. Btw, I am organising a Lucas-Carton meal for nostalgics (at Senderens). Those who are interested can PM me. Taillevent on the other hand never had three star food but always was a great, an exceptional restaurant.

[ameiden]

Great

Pic

Vendome

Schwarzwaldstube

Good

Ledoyen

Bocuse

Troisgros

Georges Blanc

Haeberlin

L'Arnsbourg

Dieter Müller

Waldhotel Sonnora

Heinz Winkler

Schloss Berg

Enoteca Pincchiorri

Waterside Inn

Fat Duck

Gordon Ramsay

Not quite so good

De Karmeliet

Louis XV

[Simon_S]

I'm in no way qualified to comment on this thread, but I wouldn't be surprised to seem some pretty serious disagreement even amongst ourselves. In any case, there's NO WAY I could consider Bocuse in the "good" category, and I definitely wouldn't put it about Louis XV. Of course, this judgment is on the back of only one visit to each restaurant, but I left Bocuse feeling like I'd been had. It was, quite simply, a disgrace.

[julot-les-pinceaux]

Well that's very unfair -- No one in the World offers what Bocuse offers. There's no doubt that his food is not up to date, but it is made by four MOFs and has the best ingredients. Plus, it is remarkably affordable compared to the competition, and to the quantity and quality of food served. Of course it is too much, but still, calling it a disgrace sounds very unfair to me. I'm not saying anyone has to like it, of course. But in all objectivity, it is a unique place, and thorouhly enjoyable to many, many people.

[ameiden]

OK, dear friends, let me jump in here. I totally agree with Julot -- Bocuse is an outstanding restaurant to me in the sense that it is hosted by the only still active chef who came from the Fernand Point school. Alain Chapel, Raymond Thuilier, Pierre Gaertner and Francois Bise are all dead, Louis Outhier and Pierre Troisgros are retired. Bocuse nowadays is the only link we still have to the greatest French gastronomy of the 20th century.

I have been visiting his restaurant on a yearly basis throughout the past decade and found nothing less than consistency and perfection, both in service and on the plate. The great man himself was there to greet me every single time, and I got the feeling that the quality I experienced was directly linked to his presence. Yes, some of his marketing strategies are ridiculous, yes, the wine list could be better for this type of place, yes, the decor has seen better days. But I tremendously enjoy everything I get there, it's best ingredients, classic preparations and the best silver service imaginable under the magnificent Maitre d', Francois Pipala. My last visit is only four weeks ago and here is what I had:

Duck meat dodine à l’ancienne, stuffed with foie gras and pistachios

Filet of sole with noodles, à la Fernand Point

Beaujolais winemaker’s sherbet

Whole spit-roasted pigeon

Fromage blanc (unfermented cottage cheese) with double cream

Crepe as a pre-dessert

Traditional baba au rum with vanilla ice cream

And a view of the kitchen with the immaculate copper pans ...

As you can tell by my list, I am not against innovative cooking. In fact, tomorrow I'm off to Arzak, Berasategui and Akelare. But whoever has a sense of tradition, should go to Bocuse as long as the great master can still stumble his "Bienvenue".

[roosterchef21]

So so far Ledoyen, L'Arpege and L'Ambroisie are regulars in the great category and De Karmeliet is a regular in the bad. Keep it going guys!

[Frege]

Based on my dining experiences:

Deserving 3 stars:

Fat Duck

L'Astrance

Guy Savoy

French Laundry/Per Se

Jean-Georges

Getting iffy:

Pierre Gagnaire (based on my experience of the other day)

Defintely not:

Gordon Ramsey

Le Bernardin

Alain Ducasse at Essex House (closed)

[robyn]

One thing I get from this thread is that absolutely no one travels as widely and frequently as necessary to keep up with what's going on in terms of restaurants worldwide. And there is a curious thing about traveling in a country like Japan (at least for an English speaking person). I simply can't remember the names of any restaurants we dined at there (must have something to do with my lack of familiarity with the language). I have however bookmarked all of the ones I really liked - even if the only thing I can recognize on the bookmarked page is the name in English.

FWIW - Dieter Muller last year had the best cheese trolley I have ever had in my whole life (and I'm not very young!). Robyn

[roosterchef21]

One thing I get from this thread is that absolutely no one travels as widely and frequently as necessary to keep up with what's going on in terms of restaurants worldwide.  And there is a curious thing about traveling in a country like Japan (at least for an English speaking person).  I simply can't remember the names of any restaurants we dined at there (must have something to do with my lack of familiarity with the language).  I have however bookmarked all of the ones I really liked - even if the only thing I can recognize on the bookmarked page is the name in English.

FWIW - Dieter Muller last year had the best cheese trolley I have ever had in my whole life (and I'm not very young!).  Robyn

←

That was the point of his thread. It's a combined effort from everyone on here to give readers who haven't had a chance to go to a 3 star place some idea on where is worth it.

[Simon_S]

My comments on Bocuse were probably unnecessarily inflammatory. What ultimately made it a "disgrace" in my mind was a combo of mediocre/poor ingredients at times, and our treatment while there. You would expect the Truffle soup VGE to at least have the aroma of truffles when you break through the pastry. Ours didn't. The sole dish tasted only of cream. Even the Bresse chicken (which I had really been looking forward to) didn't seem to have anything to raise it above a "normal" chicken dish in any good restaurant. I've certainly had better Bresse chicken elsewhere.

This combined with the fact that we were routinely ignored by the staff, that our wine arrived at the end of our first course, that one of our party was treated with barely-disguised contempt when he asked for 5 cheeses from the trolley, not to mention the fact that the "great man" stalked around the restaurant without condescending to visit our table, and we were all left with a very poor taste. On our food tour of Lyon, it was definitely the low point.

Of course, whether you appreciate this food or enjoy this style of cooking is a completely different issue. I never expected to love it, but I did expect to get something approaching 3-star treatment while at this temple of gastronomy. Perhaps the fact that we ordered the Menu Grande Tradition Classique immediately labeled us as tourists, maybe the real action is to be had a la carte. There was also a definite sense that "regulars" were better treated by a significant margin. Certainly there was a very pure sense of "production line" the like of which I've never experienced at a restaurant of this calibre. Our experience may not, of course, be representative, but I won't be returning to give it another go.

[julot-les-pinceaux]

Well, that souds like a bad experience -- never heard such a report before.

[Laidback]

3 stars I rate very highly are Olivier Roellinger, Troigros, Astrance.

My least favorite would be Pierre Gagnaire.

It has been a few years since I visited 2 others which at the time were superb; Auberge de L'Ill and Les Crayeres.

[robyn]

That was the point of his thread. It's a combined effort from everyone on here to give readers who haven't had a chance to go to a 3 star place some idea on where is worth it.

←

I think a better way to phrase the question would be is the restaurant worth it to a particular person. For example - in the past - I might go to a place like Troisgros (great restaurant in dumpy out of the way town) just to dine at the restaurant. These days - I pretty much decide where I want to travel first (almost exclusively major metro areas) - and then decide where to eat second. I'm not saying one way to travel is right - and the other wrong - it's just that people have particular travel preferences - which can vary over the years. Like last year - I wanted to see Germany - Berlin - Munich and Cologne. I did choose to stay at the hotel where Vendome is located in a suburb of Cologne because of Vendome and Dieter Muller - but that's because it was easy to get into Cologne during the day by train. I don't think I'll ever dine in a restaurant like Troisgros again. Likewise - I don't think anyone is going to go to Osaka just to dine at a restaurant - no matter how fabulous it is.

Also - people have different tastes in food. Look at the disagreements here (I am in the camp that did not think Jean Georges or Per Se were worth 3 stars - while I thought that Gordon Ramsay RHR and Alain Ducasse at the Essex house did). Sometimes you have to try things once just to try them (like a high end kaiseki meal in Japan) - even if the type of meal doesn't wind up high on your list of things to eat again. But there is so much written about western higher end restaurants these days (professional reviews - amateur reviews - menus available on web sites - etc.) that unless you are very young - or very inexperienced - you should have an idea in advance whether or not you will like a particular kind of place.

I will note that I think people who are younger and/or inexperienced when it comes to high end dining tend to make a major mistake when they skip directly from not knowing much to 3 star restaurants. They don't know very much about food - and they wind up trying to measure things without a ruler. One really good thing about the Michelin Guide - at least in France - is it is very comprehensive. Three or four knife and fork restaurants can be very very good. One and two star places can be excellent. And you won't have a concept of what a 3 star restaurant should be unless you know what 1 star and 2 stars mean. In that regard - I think a guide like Michelin has done a poor job in the US by saying that a restaurant like Per Se is in the same class as Vendome. Simply stated - it isn't - and I don't think Michelin would give it 3 stars if it were in France or elsewhere in Europe. Robyn

[cmling]

OK, dear friends, let me jump in here. I totally agree with Julot -- Bocuse is an outstanding restaurant to me in the sense that it is hosted by the only still active chef who came from the Fernand Point school. Alain Chapel, Raymond Thuilier, Pierre Gaertner and Francois Bise are all dead, Louis Outhier and Pierre Troisgros are retired. Bocuse nowadays is the only link we still have to the greatest French gastronomy of the 20th century.

Am I wrong in thinking that Paul Haeberlin is also an ancien élève of Point's? (I know that his son is now the chef at the Auberge de l'Ill, but I think, and hope, that Paul H. is still alive and involved in some way or other.)

[Frege]

I think that a large part of the issue underlying this thread is that the Michelin system simply is not fine grained enough. If you ask whether of the restaurants at which I have eaten which I think are deserving of the exalted 3-stars are all of the same quality, the answer is obviously no. But all of them in my experience are a cut above, and so are, as a group, 3-star restaurants, as opposed to the others, which were, as a group, a cut below. So, for instance, at both Per Se and French Laundry there were dishes that were not successful, as opposed to The Fat Duck and L'Astrance, where all the dishes were excellent or better, but yet the overall dining experience at the former two restaurants was significantly better than, say, Gordon Ramsey. (But perhaps my experience at GR got off to a bad start when the maitre d' felt he had to tell me what "tartare" meant when taking my order!) Are The Fat Duck and L'Astrance "better" restaurants than Per Se and The French Laundry? Yes, they are, but not in a way that would be reflected by giving the former 3-stars and the latter 2-stars. So, if we wish to say what restaurants we have been to that met up to the expectations we have when walking in to a Michelin 3-star joint, then all of those I listed in my post above meet this requirement - I had immensely enjoyable, delicious meals at all of them, what I expect from a great place to eat. If we wish to discuss the virtues of any particular restaurant - why, for instance, I have had consistently enjoyable meals that made my palate very happy at Jean-Georges - that is another matter. But regardless we have to acknowledge, I think, that Michelin stars are a very coarse guide to restaurant quality; it is a useful guide as a touchstone of a broad notion of restaurant quality, but ultimately it is each of us that pays the tariff at the end of the meal, and as such we must each decide for ourselves how we rate the quality of the restaurant.

Edited April 11, 2008 by Frege (log)

[julot-les-pinceaux]

I think that there's something more than quality to Michelin stars. Actually, I think that one, two, three stars is not linear scale, but a qualitative approach. One star is a very good restaurant, two is a top restaurant, three is a unique restaurant. Three stars are not necessarily "better" than two stars, in terms of quality, less again in terms of preferences, which of course are personal. No one would say that there is quality control at Gagnaire better than, say, le Cinq. But you can have a very comparable experience to the one at le Cinq in many places, not a Gagnaire experience. Same with Bocuse, if you ask me: it is unique -- with top quality in my experience.

I agree with Robyn that experience is needed, though maybe not as much as she suggests. But I disagree that there is enough text out there to give people who don't know restaurants an idea of whether they would like it, how to best enjoy it, and what to expect. Maybe for a few restaurants in the spotlight. Even then most of the stuff you can find is unexplained ratings, superficial opinions and bad photos. Where in the world can you make yourself your own idea of such a major restaurant as Guérard without going?

This is why I think that we food reviewers of all sorts have a big job to do in making really useful information available about restaurants. Why would it be impossible to properly enjoy the best restaurants on the planet before you've tried them all? People go to one 3* and they like it, then they go to another one the next year and they are disappointed because they expected the same. We more experienced diners should be able to share our experience in a way that is useful to food lovers that are less experienced. And indeed the question is not only whether we like it, which is our problem, but why we liked, how we liked it, and what we liked there.

[Simon_S]

I will note that I think people who are younger and/or inexperienced when it comes to high end dining tend to make a major mistake when they skip directly from not knowing much to 3 star restaurants.  They don't know very much about food - and they wind up trying to measure things without a ruler.

←

In principle I don't disagree with this. Like much of the arts, appreciation comes with experience, and time must be taken to understand exactly what's going on. The current trend for "all opinions are equally valid" pretty much drives me mad (yet here I am espousing my views, oh the irony!)

That said, this is the sort of message that, while fine on eGullet, worries me when I hear it in wider circles. I don't think it should require special skills to enjoy a restaurant at any level, in much the same way that you don't have to understand the finer points of contrapuntal writing to enjoy how a Bach fugue sounds. Of course, you may get more from the experience the more you understand what's happening under the hood, but it's not a prerequisite. Even a limited amount of experience (and a curious palate) should be enough to let you know whether a restaurant is "good" or not, and while I agree that such knowledge is insufficient for reviewer/Michelin inspector status, nor should it be entirely discounted.

Among my peers I'm a bit of an anomaly in terms of my eating habits, but one thing that's sure to send me screaming from the room is a comment like "I probably wouldn't even enjoy the food at a restaurant like that". Actually, you probably would if you just got past the idea that this is elitist food for wealthy gourmets only. Humans are hard-wired to enjoy food, it's a pretty important part of staying alive, and experiencing food at the very highest level will probably speak to something innate as much as to your conscious mind. If an open-minded but inexperienced diner goes to a 3-star restaurant and doesn't enjoy the food, then I think there's something wrong somewhere.

Sorry, I'm straying OT here.

Regarding Michelin, I think it's the very coarseness of the grading system that makes it so solid, and I agree with Julot that it's a more qualitative grading than we're used to dealing with elsewhere. How many times do we read, especially at the one-star level, that "There' no way gastropub X is the same quality as linen-and-expensive-ingredients-restaurant Y"? The star system is not about equating restaurants, but this point is repeatedly lost (not accusing you of this, Frege, I suspect you understand the grading system very well!!) Anyway, I like it, and while it may be a relic of a former era that doesn't sit well with modern readers, I'd hate to see it changed.

Besides, with 3 gradings we have enough to argue about -- imagine if we had 20!

[Frege]

Regarding Michelin, I think it's the very coarseness of the grading system that makes it so solid, and I agree with Julot that it's a more qualitative grading than we're used to dealing with elsewhere. How many times do we read, especially at the one-star level, that "There' no way gastropub X is the same quality as linen-and-expensive-ingredients-restaurant Y"? The star system is not about equating restaurants, but this point is repeatedly lost (not accusing you of this, Frege, I suspect you understand the grading system very well!!) Anyway, I like it, and while it may be a relic of a former era that doesn't sit well with modern readers, I'd hate to see it changed.

Besides, with 3 gradings we have enough to argue about -- imagine if we had 20!

←

I don't think we disagree here. Michelin categories are supposed to encompass restaurants that diverge, and certainly all are not to be equated - that was my point. And, as we gain experience in the restaurants so-rated, we develop our own evaluations of what qualifies for being in the top echelon of world restaurants. So, as my views have developed I feel that some restaurants are pretenders to the 3-star category that others thing fall within - Gordon Ramsey, for example - and vice versa - Jean-Georges. In the end, what we personally do has nothing to do with ratings, but only with how we want to engage in our culinary pleasures. I want to go to a great restaurant - one that pleases me - in order to enjoy wonderful food, and also to take away inspiration and ideas for my own cooking. After all, for every meal I have at L'Astrance, I have 50 dinners I cook with great enjoyment at home, and I want to bring a little bit of L'Astrance, or The Fat Duck or Jean-Georges to each of those meals.

[PhilD]

That was the point of his thread. It's a combined effort from everyone on here to give readers who haven't had a chance to go to a 3 star place some idea on where is worth it.

←

I will note that I think people who are younger and/or inexperienced when it comes to high end dining tend to make a major mistake when they skip directly from not knowing much to 3 star restaurants. They don't know very much about food - and they wind up trying to measure things without a ruler.

←

I wonder if this is more of an issue at the lower end of the market rather than at the top end? Meals in two/three star restaurants tend to be good enough to impress. OK the less experienced may find it tricky to differentiate the best from the very best. However, it is a subjective art and much depends on individual likes and dislikes. I disliked Lameloise - but it was nothing to do with the food, it was simply too stuffy. So I would not put it on my list of top 3 stars, others I know disagree.

Like Simon I worry about the "all opinions are equally valid" democracy (and agree about the irony). It is fascinating that so many of the - "...we found this delightful bistro La Petite Erreur just down the hill from Sacre Coeur; we had the terrine de grandmere, steak frites, and wonderful profiteroles which the waiter told us are a speciality of the chef 'M. Picard'..." - become rallying points for amateur reviewers producing repetative, self reinforcing, closed loop reviews.

[pierre45]

I agree with the comment made by many that ones favorite in any restaurant is subjective,Therefore the views expreseed by an individual has merit if you share their values.

What's interesting is that cost of a meal was not brought up.

The average cost today is at least $300/person. For 99% of the people its unaffordable.So for the 1% its an opportunity to have a unique experience .Its pure theatre,created by the entrance ceremony,sumptious surroundings,the beautiful participants,the attentive service and 1st class food ,based on good ingredients served on fancy china and important visual content.THe cuisine definitely plays a role but what is important is the averall experience. So one does not go to a 3 star restaurant to simply eat but to have an experince that is different .

[julot-les-pinceaux]

I entirely agree with your last sentence. But I all the more disagree with your idea that top restaurants are unaffordable to 99%. They are scarily expensive indeed, but most upper middle class persons can totally afford one on special occasions, more often if it is a priority for them (as far as I am concerned, I much rather have almonds, rice and fruits as only food for weeks if I can keep beautiful restaurants in my life here and there).

People spend tens of thousands of euros on cars that lose 20% of their value the minute they cross the door of the car dealer with their new machine. They -- we-- spend thousands of euros on trips or holidays that can be disappointing as often as top restaurants are. See the price of theater, opera -- and since I agree with you that these are experiences of comparable nature, comparing their prices is not absurd.

Furthermore, for some of the more well-off people that I know it could be a casual experience but they have the wisdom to keep it something special.

[pierre45]

I entirely agree with your last sentence. But I all the more disagree with your idea that top restaurants are unaffordable to 99%. They are scarily expensive indeed, but most upper middle class persons can totally afford one on special occasions, more often if it is a priority for them (as far as I am concerned, I much rather have almonds, rice and fruits as only food for weeks if I can keep beautiful restaurants in my life here and there).

People spend tens of thousands of euros on cars that lose 20% of their value the minute they cross the door of the car dealer with their new machine. They -- we-- spend thousands of euros on trips or holidays that can be disappointing as often as top restaurants are. See the price of theater, opera -- and since I agree with you that these are experiences of comparable nature, comparing their prices is not absurd.

Furthermore, for some of the more well-off people that I know it could be a casual experience but they have the wisdom to keep it something special.

←

[pierre45]

I entirely agree with your last sentence. But I all the more disagree with your idea that top restaurants are unaffordable to 99%. They are scarily expensive indeed, but most upper middle class persons can totally afford one on special occasions, more often if it is a priority for them (as far as I am concerned, I much rather have almonds, rice and fruits as only food for weeks if I can keep beautiful restaurants in my life here and there).

People spend tens of thousands of euros on cars that lose 20% of their value the minute they cross the door of the car dealer with their new machine. They -- we-- spend thousands of euros on trips or holidays that can be disappointing as often as top restaurants are. See the price of theater, opera -- and since I agree with you that these are experiences of comparable nature, comparing their prices is not absurd.

Furthermore, for some of the more well-off people that I know it could be a casual experience but they have the wisdom to keep it something special.

←

I should clarify that by unaffordable i meant that people would have to cut on something else in order to pay for the event or that they don't have too much discretional income.Therefore I agree with you that if going to a 3 star restaurant for a special event is important than some people will economize in order to go.As you know that's the case with some french families