Michelin 2010

[sickchangeup]

"One Michelin star means a very good restaurant in its category."

[Ochowie]

"One Michelin star means a very good restaurant in its category."

Yeah I know, maybe I just have a personal dislike of Casa Mono from when I went there.

[oakapple]

"One Michelin star means a very good restaurant in its category."

Yeah I know, maybe I just have a personal dislike of Casa Mono from when I went there.

However, there are a lot of people who love Casa Mono. When Frank Bruni retired as restaurant critic, he was asked where he'd be dining, now that he's spending his own money. He named three places, and CM was one of them. That doesn't make it right (I disagreed with Bruni many times), but it's clearly not a ridiculous choice.

[Eatmywords]

Really? Rhong-Tiam? Seriously? *sigh*

Haha, and the only Thai to get a star. Surprising for sure but perhaps justifiable at least based on my experience. Srip should have gotten at least a Bib though.

[Pan]

I didn't think they gave bibs gourmands in the New York guide. Any other Thai restaurants mentioned in the guide at all?

[oakapple]

I didn't think they gave bibs gourmands in the New York guide. Any other Thai restaurants mentioned in the guide at all?

Yes, they did give Bibs Gourmands in NYC (about 60 of them), and I do not recall any other Thai places being mentioned. Sri had a BG previously, so it's not like they never heard of the place. For some reason, they took it away.

[LPShanet]

Seems like they used their usual procedure of exploring the potential 2 and 3 star picks MUCH more thoroughly than those that might only receive Bib Gourmand or 1 star status. And they've now thrown in one or two seemingly intentional "controversial" picks each year. Aside from the previously mentioned bafflers, it seems almost intentional that they avoid giving Yasuda stars. Obviously, they know about it. And weird that they love Ko enough to give it multiple stars, but Ssam doesn't even make the list.

[oakapple]

Seems like they used their usual procedure of exploring the potential 2 and 3 star picks MUCH more thoroughly than those that might only receive Bib Gourmand or 1 star status.

Jean-Luc Naret (Michelin head) said that they visited Daniel eight times this year. Given any level of reasonable budget, they simply can't give all 600+ listed restaurants (and probably hundreds more visited, but not listed) an equal amount of scrutiny. Those receiving the highest ratings naturally are explored much more carefully. There is simply no other way to do it.

And they've now thrown in one or two seemingly intentional "controversial" picks each year.

I suspect that if you posted your 55 favorite restaurants (that's the number with stars), there would almost certainly be a few that the rest of us considered controversial. Our tastes and interests are too widely varied for there to be a list of 55 that everyone else agrees is 100% reasonable.

I think it's kind of fun to see a list that isn't just the usual suspects recycled.

Aside from the previously mentioned bafflers, it seems almost intentional that they avoid giving Yasuda stars. Obviously, they know about it. And weird that they love Ko enough to give it multiple stars, but Ssam doesn't even make the list.

Their treatment of Ko is more sensible than Frank Bruni's decision to award both Ko and Ssam the identical three stars. Ssam does have a Bib Gourmand.

The lack of a star for Yasuda is one of the handful of decisions that I cannot rationally explain, but again, I suspect your list of 55 would have at least a few of those. Frank Bruni's certainly did.

Edited October 12, 2009 by oakapple (log)

[LPShanet]

Seems like they used their usual procedure of exploring the potential 2 and 3 star picks MUCH more thoroughly than those that might only receive Bib Gourmand or 1 star status.

Jean-Luc Naret (Michelin head) said that they visited Daniel eight times this year. Given any level of reasonable budget, they simply can't give all 600+ listed restaurants (and probably hundreds more visited, but not listed) an equal amount of scrutiny. Those receiving the highest ratings naturally are explored much more carefully. There is simply no other way to do it.

And they've now thrown in one or two seemingly intentional "controversial" picks each year.

I suspect that if you posted your 55 favorite restaurants (that's the number with stars), there would almost certainly be a few that the rest of us considered controversial. Our tastes and interests are too widely varied for there to be a list of 55 that everyone else agrees is 100% reasonable.

I think it's kind of fun to see a list that isn't just the usual suspects recycled.

Aside from the previously mentioned bafflers, it seems almost intentional that they avoid giving Yasuda stars. Obviously, they know about it. And weird that they love Ko enough to give it multiple stars, but Ssam doesn't even make the list.

Their treatment of Ko is more sensible than Frank Bruni's decision to award both Ko and Ssam the identical three stars. Ssam does have a Bib Gourmand.

The lack of a star for Yasuda is one of the handful of decisions that I cannot rationally explain, but again, I suspect your list of 55 would have at least a few of those. Frank Bruni's certainly did.

Fair comments all, Marc. But I still get the sense that they are trying to pique conversation and controversy a little bit. That, after all, is a very French thing to do. I'm sure we'd all have slightly different top 55 lists, as you said, but some of their decisions/selections are certainly intended to provoke....and I'm not saying that's a bad thing. Still, they need to get on a few of the gaps in their coverage (Yasuda, Jewel Bako, etc.), which they may have failed to do not because of the difficulty of visiting the spots, but because "correcting" some of their gaffes would be almost like admitting an error.

[oakapple]

Still, they need to get on a few of the gaps in their coverage (Yasuda, Jewel Bako, etc.), which they may have failed to do not because of the difficulty of visiting the spots, but because "correcting" some of their gaffes would be almost like admitting an error.

These errors are getting corrected gradually. La Goulue and Vong, among the most dubious stars in the first NY guide, no longer have them. Eleven Madison Park, one of the worst omissions, now does.

Obviously I would prefer that the errors never happened at all, but at least they do have a process for detecting and removing them. In five years, Michelin has demoted 19 restaurants (that is, taken one or more stars away). That's not counting restaurants removed from the guide because they closed. In five years as NYT restaurant critic, Frank Bruni never once corrected one of his ratings downwards. He did add stars to his own ratings, but no more than half-a-dozen times.

[LPShanet]

Still, they need to get on a few of the gaps in their coverage (Yasuda, Jewel Bako, etc.), which they may have failed to do not because of the difficulty of visiting the spots, but because "correcting" some of their gaffes would be almost like admitting an error.

These errors are getting corrected gradually. La Goulue and Vong, among the most dubious stars in the first NY guide, no longer have them. Eleven Madison Park, one of the worst omissions, now does.

Obviously I would prefer that the errors never happened at all, but at least they do have a process for detecting and removing them. In five years, Michelin has demoted 19 restaurants (that is, taken one or more stars away). That's not counting restaurants removed from the guide because they closed. In five years as NYT restaurant critic, Frank Bruni never once corrected one of his ratings downwards. He did add stars to his own ratings, but no more than half-a-dozen times.

Good point about La Goloue and Vong...I hadn't even noticed their removal! I think Michelin is doing a pretty good job overall, despite the expected disagreements, and a few "errors". And certainly there seems to be less individual bias and ego at work here than with Bruni (or any other Times critic). As usual, though, the nature of the beast makes the two and three star selections more useful than the rest. And despite the odd picks, there are no real duds on the list at all. Even the surprising picks (e.g. Rhong Tiam or Jewel Bako) can still provide you with a pretty good meal. Surprisingly, I think Jewel Bako may be improving slightly again. I had a "snack" there a few weeks ago while waiting for seats at Degustation and it was noticeably improved.

[LPShanet]

Still, they need to get on a few of the gaps in their coverage (Yasuda, Jewel Bako, etc.), which they may have failed to do not because of the difficulty of visiting the spots, but because "correcting" some of their gaffes would be almost like admitting an error.

These errors are getting corrected gradually. La Goulue and Vong, among the most dubious stars in the first NY guide, no longer have them. Eleven Madison Park, one of the worst omissions, now does.

Obviously I would prefer that the errors never happened at all, but at least they do have a process for detecting and removing them. In five years, Michelin has demoted 19 restaurants (that is, taken one or more stars away). That's not counting restaurants removed from the guide because they closed. In five years as NYT restaurant critic, Frank Bruni never once corrected one of his ratings downwards. He did add stars to his own ratings, but no more than half-a-dozen times.

Good point about La Goloue and Vong...I hadn't even noticed their removal! I think Michelin is doing a pretty good job overall, despite the expected disagreements, and a few "errors". And certainly there seems to be less individual bias and ego at work here than with Bruni (or any other Times critic). As usual, though, the nature of the beast makes the two and three star selections more useful than the rest. And despite the odd picks, there are no real duds on the list at all. Even the surprising picks (e.g. Rhong Tiam or Jewel Bako) can still provide you with a pretty good meal. Surprisingly, I think Jewel Bako may be improving slightly again. I had a "snack" there a few weeks ago while waiting for seats at Degustation and it was noticeably improved. If their usual correction lag holds true, they may finally take it off the one star list, only to find us clamoring to put it back! Well, either that or they'll sit on it long enough that their prophecy once again comes true...

Edited October 14, 2009 by LPShanet (log)