Philadelphia 2 and 3 Star Restaurants

[Frege]

I know that Michelin hasn't been to Philadelphia, but I'm going to be. So, if you were the Michelin man, to which restaurants would you give 3-stars? 2?

[percyn]

Not sure about 3 stars, but the following would be contenders for 2 (or maybe 1 star):

Fountain at the Four Seasons

Le Bec Fin

Lacroix at the Rittenhouse

XIX

I am sure other have suggestions too...

[andanand]

Vetri. Don't know about Michelin (see: Babbo in nyc), but this is the best italian food I've had, and by far the best food I've had in Philly.

[gfweb]

Fountain

Vetri

Lacroix

[Vadouvan]

Michelin Stars as a whole are effectively irrelevant in the United States because the bar that was set in Europe was lowered to accommodate restaurants.

Michelin also focuses on trendy centers of commerce and skews its choices of cities to reflect famous chefs to give them (Michelin) commercial credibility.

It makes no sense to go from New York skipping the entire continental USA to San Francisco while ignoring Chicago and Boston unless you just want to get the French Laundry in your guide ASAP.

Furthermore to then skip Chicago for Los Angeles is absurd.

It has in essence become a commercial enterprise that lacks any logic within the continental USA.

Outside of the 3 Stars in Napa and New York, there is significant incongruity in the 2 and 3 star rankings.

New York Places like Anthos, Etat Unis, Jewel Bako, Jojo, Perry Street and the Spotted Pig would have zero stars in any European city.

Even if were were to make the case that Jewel Bako should have 1 star, clearly anyone who know's what they are talking about understands that Yasuda Sushi is a far superior restaurant in all respects than Jewel Bako.

Back to the original question, using the same barometer of ambition and excellence, there probably would be no restaurant in Philadelphia that would have 3 stars based on the original goals and standards that Michelin set in Europe.

Places like El Poblet, Mugaritz and Can Roca blow away anything in Philly and those are only 2 star restaurants.

Possible 2 Star in Philly would be Vetri obviously because of it's ambition and special chef driven nature of it's food.

One could not make a case that Vetri would have 3 michelin stars because again, places like Gambero Rosso eclipse Vetri in all respects.

Le Bec Fin would be a 1 star at best because both it's food and service are antiquated.

However with French-Bias which Michelin has shown in the past, it may get 2 stars but certainly wont be based on it's merits.

Same reason places like Jojo or Perry Street in NYC are on the list.

Really IF you had to choose another Jean-George restaurant by all means they should have chosen Matsugen.

Makes no sense.

The Fountain is an overpriced glorified hotel restaurant that is excellent with service but light on culinary creativity, again totality of ambition, 1 star.

Lacroix by Michelin's own philosophy would have no stars unless you believe in smoke and mirrors. The restaurant is named after a chef who currently has nothing to do with the restaurant(fact), the food does not even reflect the culinary vision and philosophies of Jean Marie Lacroix(fact), and in recent years has actually made a transparent attempt to infuse the techniques of Ferran Adria as it's main focus with mixed results at best(fact+conjecture).

The whole aspect of saying you are who you clearly are not hurts immensely add the fact that they now hand out $25 lunches and $35 dinners with wine discounts.

19 XIX on the other hand would make a case for 1 star precisely for the same reason.

The food is good enough as is the service and atmosphere and they are who the say they are with a named chef who can make his case as to his culinary vision.

At the end of the day, Michelin stars as I said are meaningless in the USA, it's all PR and Marketing which means $$$ for Michelin, all they are trying to do is sell as many guides as Zagat which is even more useless as a basis of picking restaurants.

There are excellent restaurants on both sides of the Atlantic with no stars but the bar should not be lowered for inclusion based on commercial gain.

If you are coming to Philly, eat at Vetri, Osteria,19, Matyson,Barclay Prime, Zento, maybe Amada.

Edited February 8, 2009 by Vadouvan (log)

[brescd01]

1) Oh my G-d Zagat! I have found an inverse relationship between Zagat ratings and quality, particularly agregious are ethnic restaurant reviews/ratings.

2) Vadouvan, have you actually eaten at all those restaurants?

3) I just went to XIX and it was terrible, someone replied going during Restaurant Week was the problem, perhaps true. I also thought it a little seedy (we were in the Rotunda).

I wonder where Table 31, Little Fish, or Tinto would fit into the Michelin scheme. I have been to the first and the last and I thought them excellent. But I have no means of comparison because I do not think I have eaten at more than 1 or 2 Michelin-rated restaurants in my entire life.

I wonder why someone like Starr (or Trump) does not specifically create a restaurant that would be competitive in the Michelin scheme.

[Holly Moore]

2) Vadouvan, have you actually eaten at all those restaurants?

←

I suspect he has.

Edited to add: Or maybe all but one.

Edited February 14, 2009 by Holly Moore (log)

[Vadouvan]

1) Oh my G-d Zagat! I have found an inverse relationship between Zagat ratings and quality, particularly agregious are ethnic restaurant reviews/ratings.

Sir.

That's quite simple.

First of all, since zagat is an aggregate review, it is only as important as the frame of reference of the reviewers.

The problem thus becomes the reviewers exposure to said cuisine based on authencity.

The authencity argument never gets traction because it's been difficult for those who have expectations of authenticity to explain the concept of western-dilution of ethnic food without coming of as elitists or labeling naysayers as Philistines.

It is however a legitimate argument, the message just needs to be crafted carefully.

First of all, if you go out to eat at the Olive Garden and you enjoy your Penne Arrabiata, fantastiic.

No one should be able to tell you under any circumstances that you did not enjoy your Penne.

YOU can not however say "Olive Garden makes the best Penne Arrabiata" because you take your opinion outside of personal satisfaction and opinion into the public domain where it's shot down quickly.

Now that is a fairly benign example, the same argument get's much more complicated based on the level of saturation and familiarity of said cuisine within the American context.

Say we move the argument to Indian or Thai, now it's a bit harder to tell someone who says Buddakan or China Grill makes the best Pad Thai or Tiffin makes the best Indian food that they are barely scratching the surface of a clue.

On the Buddakan issue, virtually all western interpretations of Thai, Vietnamese and Japanese Food are 30% sweeter than non-western versions.

Certainly enough to change the flavor completely without even getting into acidity or tartness.

Tiffin is even more complicated.

The benefit-value index with Tiffin has a lot to do with delivery.

If you are starving and anyone delivers passable to mediocre Indian food to you reasonably warm and you have a microwave, have never eaten Indian food in India, London or Murray Hill, you will be pretty happy.

It's not that the food is bad, it's Not bad.

It's just barely Indian as far as depth of flavor.

Now obviously I am not professing everybody fly to India, Thailand or Japan so they can claim to know what the real deal is, all I am saying is that it explains why an aggregate review like Zagat is useless for people with expectations of authenticity such as yourself if the reviewers are under the impression that what they are eaten is authentic.

Even a simple thing as Pho Dac Biet or Bon Bo Hue, people rave ad nauseum about vietnam,pho-cali, vietnam palace, all 3 places are like beef flavored water with noodles in comparison to Cafe Diem in South Philly.

2) Vadouvan, have you actually eaten at all those restaurants?

All but 1.

However I will be there wed night.

Matsugen at JG's Website

3) I just went to XIX and it was terrible, someone replied going during Restaurant Week was the problem, perhaps true. I also thought it a little seedy (we were in the Rotunda).

Correct.

You don't get anything you are not paying for.

While restaurant week is a good deal, it's basically a cost effective banquet from the restaurant's perspective.

You only truly experience a place when you cough up your dinars when it isn't restaurant week.

I wonder where Table 31, Little Fish, or Tinto would fit into the Michelin scheme. I have been to the first and the last and I thought them excellent. But I have no means of comparison because I do not think I have eaten at more than 1 or 2 Michelin-rated restaurants in my entire life.

Again there are fabulously delicious restaurants with no michelin stars, all those probably no stars because of comparative ambition.

Batali's place Casa Mono still makes the most compelling case for tapas in America's reviewed cities so far and it has no stars.

Perhaps Tinto would then need to be compared to The Jaleos in DC, Bethesda and Arlington.

I wonder why someone like Starr (or Trump) does not specifically create a restaurant that would be competitive in the Michelin scheme.

Not consistent with Starr's volumetrics as far as revenue.

As for Casino Developers, no reason to.

They can just fund and build it and lease to operators while taking percentages off the top rather than deal with the day to day BS.

That's what Vegas did with Guy Savoy and Joel Robuchon.

Edited February 14, 2009 by Vadouvan (log)

[Kim WB]

I'm not a ratings person..but my choices in Philly:

best place in Philly is Vetri, by far.

Barclay Prime is an above grade steak house.

[brescd01]

All I can say is wow, that is a lot of eating.

Just a few clarifications:

1) While I ate at XiX during Restaurant Week, I did not get the prix fixe menu.

2) I am not sure that I am always considering ethnic restaurants for authenticity. I think taste is more important to me. In general, inauthentic ethnic restaurants do not taste that good to me, but of course I am aware that my abilities to discern authenticity when I have never been to any of the most important homes of the best ethnic food (India, Thailand, China), is limited. So I could imagine excellent Chinese-American food, I just haven't had it.

Indian is a more straightforward proposition for me. There are I think 2000 Indian languages. I am not sure that for every language there has to be a cuisine, but cuisines follow ethnic lines and so there are a lot. I have tasted at most 2 Indian styles and most restaurants including those in Murray Hill serve no more than one. Tiffin, which I like but I do not think anything special, seems to prepare one style. I guess there is nothing wrong with that but it gets old.

So far as restaurants with Michelin stars, I wish there were a few restaurants hunting for them here, it is exciting and interesting. And Vetri aside, exciting Italian doesn't really happen here. I tried Osteria twice, I think I need to try it more to fully appreciate it. I wish Garces would get going on this (pursuit ofa star or two).

By the way (true story), my wife and I have a deal that if I ever take her to Olive Garden, either I have ben kidnapped by aliens and she should get help, or we are getting divorced.

Edited February 14, 2009 by brescd01 (log)

[deprofundis]

This is an interesting topic. According to Michelin's website, here are the critera for awarding stars (bold text added for emphasis. source: http://www.michelintravel.com/about/faq.html#10):

-------

What are the criteria for receiving Michelin stars?

Michelin employs a team of full-time professional restaurant and hotel inspectors who anonymously evaluate establishments according to a well-defined (but unpublished) set of criteria. All evaluations involve anonymous test meals or overnight stays at each establishment to assess the quality and the reliability of the experience.

The star symbols judge only what's on the plate, meaning the quality of products, the mastering of flavors, mastering of cooking, personality of the cuisine, value for the money and the consistency of what the restaurant offers to its customers both throughout the menu and the year.

One star indicates a very good restaurant in its category, a good place to stop on your journey.

Two stars denote excellent cuisine, worth a detour, with specialties and wines of first-class quality.

Three stars reward exceptional cuisine, worth a special journey, where diners eat extremely well, often superbly. The wine list features generally outstanding vintages and the surroundings and service are part of this unique experience, which is priced accordingly.

In addition to the awarding of stars, the Michelin Guide provides a written description of each locale and a variety of other symbols to give readers further insight into an establishment's ambiance, type of cuisine and specialties, and wine list, among other factors. In addition, the guide provides a comfort rating represented by the use of one to five forks and spoons for restaurants and one to five pavilions for hotels. These symbols take into consideration the decor, service, cleanliness and upkeep of the surroundings.

------

I find that the "we judge only what's on the plate" statement is in conflict with the statement that the "surroundings and service" are part of a 3 star restaurant experience.

Edited February 17, 2009 by deprofundis (log)

[Frege]

As the person who begat this thread, I thought I might weigh in. Although my stay was short, I did go to Vetri for the grand tasting menu. Here are some impressions:

The meal, overall, was very good, with some substantial highlights. There was an excellent scallop crudo and a marinated venison to start. An onion crepe with white truffle sauce was OK - the components were rather jumbled and indistinct, and there wasn't a strong enough truffle flavor. (As far as I'm concerned, if you are going to make something with truffles, I want to taste the truffles.) Spinach gnocchi was very interesting - simultaneously seeming very heavy, yet also very light and fluffy. Next were the two best courses - a black walnut agnolloti that I adored, and a veal breast canneloni that my daughter adored. We finished with the roasted pork, which was good, but not outstanding. Deserts were OK, not great. There was the only mis-step of the night - the meringues were served with frozen centers. This earned us another round, along with a glass of a recioto.

The wine pairing was very good. Nothing to knock your socks off, but one or two wines I would buy for myself, and it didn't detract from the food.

So, to the extent that folks like grades, here are mine:

Ambiance, B/B-. Small space with tables crammed in. Piped in music was horrible - way too loud. (I know of no 3* restaurant, here or abroad, that plays music.)

Service, A-/B+. Attentive. Very good sommelier.

Food: A-.

Michelin rating: * (Certainly by US standards, and also by European, if you think there is a difference)

Would I go again, sure.

Now a few observations with Vadouven's remarks. with which on the whole I completely agree. (I also agree with his observations about "ethnic" food - ugh, I hate that appellation.) But, to get away from Philly, I thought I would throw in a few observations based on my own eating experiences of the top of the Michelin food chain.

There are 3 star restaurants in the U.S. that would also be in Europe - French Laundry/Per Se and Jean-Georges would be. In my experience, some of the most delicious dishes I have ever eaten have been at Jean-Georges: I have gone back to lunch the day after dinner just to have the Turbot with Ch. Chalon sauce and his Corn Ravioli dish again, they were just so, so good.

In New York, I agree, any number of 1 star restaurants would have no stars in Europe, although I think that Daniel is appropriate at 2 stars. The meal I had at Le Bernardin I thought was inferior; maybe an off night, but then again, part of being a 3 star restaurant is not having any off nights.

Also, it is crazy that L.A. follow N.Y. - these simply are not eating/food cities in the same league - L.A. is simply pathetic, sporting only one superior restaurant - Providence (now that Bastide is closed again). All you can really hope for in L.A. is adequate.

Las Vegas just sports clones of restaurants from other places, although for the life of me I don't see how Guy Savoy has 2 stars in Vegas and 3 in Paris, since the food is the same. (Terrific meals in both venues.)

Bay Area: French Laundry, Cyrus, Manresa - all excellent, and properly rated, although Coi on a good night can be close.

And then there is Chicago, which sports what is unquestionably the best restaurant in America, indeed one of the best in the world - Alinea. Grant Achatz is truly gifted - may he have a long and prosperous life. I want to live at least until I can eat there again! Also, L20 was superb - is it a European restaurant with Japanese influences, or the other way round? Moto is garbage - what can you say when they put Beaujolais on the wine pairing and then insist on calling it "Boojolais." Ugh!

By the way, I think that British restaurants are treated even more easily than U.S. restaurants. Gordon Ramsey is the least interesting of all 3 star restaurants that I've eaten in.

Marcus Wareing is a disgrace at 2 stars - if Vetri is 1 star, then Wareing hardly deserved a star. Pied a Terre is very good at that level, however; Le Gavroche I thought uneven, but adequate.

Then, of course, there is The Fat Duck. While I had one of the most memorable meals in my life the first time I ate at The Fat Duck, the dinner I had there this past December had serious problems in execution, and had far and away the worst wine pairing I have had at a top restaurant, with cheap, poorly chosen wines - a 14.5% heavy, Parkerized, South African fruit bomb with quail??? Also the staff - it is like being served by a bunch of robots. Again, consistency is important at this level of restaurant, especially when the same meal is being turned out twice a day, every day.

OK, sorry - I've gone on a bit. Just got going to spewing out my reactions to some meals I've had. I've left out reactions to Parisian restaurants - although still the greatest eating city in the world, somewhat uneven at the top: Yes to L'Astrance, Guy Savoy; iffy to L'Arpege, Pierre Gagnaire. And don't get me going on Senderens . . .

Next stop: Barcelona and surrounds. Suggestions solicited and welcomed. (Reservations already in place at Can Roca and Sant Pau.)

Edited February 18, 2009 by Frege (log)