GaultMillau 2003, the results

[marcus]

I just received my 2003 GM and wanted to add a few observations. I approve of the way that they are taking a more stringent and rigorous approach to rating restaurants and in my view they are gaining credibility although certainly one can pick arguments. The 20 rating that they awarded is only for the Auberge de L'Eridan and the Ferme de Mon Pere continues to receive a 19. This seems strange. Overal they are awarding 17 restaurants a score of 19 or 20 versus 20 restaurants receiving 19 in 2002. At the 18 level, the number has been reduced from 26 to 18 and the 18 include 3 restaurants that fell out of last years 19 group, so this category has been particularly heavily pruned. In Paris there are 4 restaurants receiving 19, Pierre Gagnaire, Arpege, Ambroisie, Guy Savoy. There is a listing of the best chef by region, which indicates that they consider Pierre Gagnaire to be the best in Paris. Helene Darrozze continues to receive a 15 which in my judgment is most appropriate.

[Bux]

From a little reading in the guide, I came away with the impression that many, or all, of their ratings are based on a single meal. I miss any report on a restaurant in Langogne, we discovered in last year's guide and enjoyed very much. We had a lovely meal there and I'm surprised to see it dropped from the guide. Last year it had a 15 and a heart. Fewer high scores based on fewer visits may just mean they are les generous rather than taking a stringent and rigorous approach. I assume Paris restaurants are getting more than a single visit and I'd expect that to be the same for the high ranked restaurants across the country.

[marcus]

Bux, I have some difficulty following your analysis. I have no idea as to whether your surmise that they are only visiting restaurants once is correct. However, I don't see how that affects scoring one way or the other, they seem like two independent variables to me. I also don't see how generosity, a mushy term, enters into this process. They have taken a significant number of their most highly rated restaurants, and on balance lowered their ratings. I don't believe that there has been a significant overall decline in quality in the last year, so I infer that they are either raising their standards (stringent), and/or applying their standards more strictly (rigorous).

[Bux]

A single visit affects scoring only to the point that the score is a lot less reliable if the restaurant has any inconsistency. In a highly rated restaurant, inconsistency would be grounds for lowering the ranking all by itself. I don't have my 2003 Guide handy, but didn't someone mention that they awarded that score on the basis of one perfect meal? It's absurd to rate a restaurant perfect on the basis of a single meal, in my opinion.

Generosity may be a mushy term, but I hesitate to use the term rigorous when the low marks are accompanied by fewer visits.

[marcus]

I agree that rating a restaurant based on a single meal is wrong. For Auberge L'Eridan, they are giving it a 20 for one year based on a single perfect meal, I believe because its the only perfect meal that they've ever had. I actually expect them to put it back to 19 next year and they may or may not give a different restaurant a 20, we will see. I see no implication that they had only a single meal at L'Eridan or that they are in general rating restaurants based on a single meal. In reading through the guide, I was generally impressed with their lower ratings with which I largely agreed. The total number of restaurants receiving 18 and above has been reduced from 46 to 35 which is huge for a single year.