star ratings

[feedthegut]

Hmm, more points not to agree with. 

I would never come out and say restaurant A is better than restaurant B. Never. I might say certain restaurants serve the same style of cuisine, but that's as far as I'll go.

Disagreement is the spice of life.

Why not do it by way of comparison? Is it out of respect for the restaurants being compared? Is it because experiences at any one restaurant may vary from time to time?

From my point of view, a comparison would give me a good idea of what it is I should be looking forward to.

[Lesley C]

Is it out of respect for the restaurants being compared?

Yes, absolutely.

It would be like saying one child is cuter than another. Every restaurant has its own personality.

[mastermatt78]

serving the general puplic that is what it is all about,lesley ...i agree because people or good customers----and i know a lot of them--- follow your review no matter what,i remember after i had my SO NEGATIVE one,for more than a month people only want to eat what LESLEY CHESTERMAN eat and liked...meantime i think the star system gives the puplic an idea of what to expect and i wish every one else would follow................................matteo

[identifiler]

You basically have to know the reviewer. I find it similar to music reviews. They are really 3 matrix to consider a restaurant, actually 4. The star system, the cost of food, the ambience filter (BYOW, sandwich spot, type of food, restaurant de quartier, urban chic, etc.. ) and finally the text itself.

I would rather see stars than none. I always read Kayler's review in LaPresse, of course I know that she is a conservative old lady and that she is not very warm to restaurants with a DJ. That is expected. However, she really masters the description of the plate, rarley speak about anything outside the plate. Different styles I guess. When I started reading her, I could never understand if it was a good or bad restaurant she reviewed...

[Lesley C]

One thing I hate is when a reviewer neglects is to name the chef in the restaurant in a positive write up. It's like a bunch of fairies are doing all the cooking and all this food just turns up on the plate. I say commend the people doing good work, get them out from behind that kitchen door. And name the good pastry chefs, restaurateurs, sommeliers and waiters as well. Give credit where credit is due.

[Walnuts]

I went to Cavalli tonight for the first time and just had to post in this thread. I had heard mixed reviews and had to see what everyone was talking about.

I loved the new decor and was impressed that the owners made all those changes, especially since Mondo Saks was already a beautiful restaurant. (I guess the only way to reopen a dead restaurant is to completely change everything.)

The service was excellent at first, but our waitress virtually disappeared after our main course was finished. We had to wait a strenuously long time for a dessert list and for her to pick up our credit cards. (This was especially annoying since I was in a rush to get somewhere after the meal).

As far as the food was concerned, it was very good, but unfortunately fell below the standards I expected for a 3.5 star rating in the Gazette. I am not saying that the food was bad, but it was not in the same league as the 4 star restaurants, let alone many of the 3 star spots I have tried as of late.

The atmosphere is excellent and I would definitely return as an alternative to some of the Saint-Laurent eateries. The owners have definitely come up with a great concept and should earn points for the all-around experience, but I cannot see how a Chèvres, for example, can be rated lower than Cavalli. I guess I agree with Food Dwarf that the star system can induce one into error.

Regardless, I must agree with LC on the Cavalli thread that it is definitely an exciting restaurant. Good job guys.

[Lesley C]

As I said before, the star ratings aren't really about me comparing one restaurant to another. It's more about whether or not a restaurant is fulfilling its potential.

I had two meals at Cavalli that couldn't have been much better, and yes, they do get "points" for all-around experience.

I had two meals at Les Chevres in the spring that could have been better, proof being the near perfect meal I had there a month ago.

I also had -- somewhat -- slow service at Cavalli, but I was having such a good time people watching that I hardly cared.

Walnuts, what did you order? Also, at what 3-star resto did you taste better food?

[SteveW]

One thing I hate is when a reviewer neglects is to name the chef in the restaurant in a positive write up. It's like a bunch of fairies are doing all the cooking and all this food just turns up on the plate. I say commend the people doing good work, get them out from behind that kitchen door. And name the good pastry chefs, restaurateurs, sommeliers and waiters as well. Give credit where credit is due.

Going only by memory, from checking your positive review of Cavalli when it first came out several Saturdays ago, I can`t remember you mentioning the name of the head Cavalli chef(I could be mistaken).

I agree star ratings are very useful in restaurant reviews. Gives me a clear idea from the reviewer, where he/she rates a certain restaurant(sometimes I can`t tell from reading a review). Personally I would like for all the fine dining reviews in the major publications, to be based on at least 2 visits.

----------

Steve

edit: Going back checking the Cavalli review again. Now I noticed that Cavalli chefs are named in photo caption(& you name the chefs in the writeup). Sorry Lesley.

Edited September 27, 2003 by SteveW (log)

[Walnuts]

Although I agree with you Lesley that the star system should not be used as a ranking guide, I think that many people use it as a reference when comparing two possible choices. The problem I see with using the stars as a measure of whether or not a restaurant has fulfilled its potential is that not every restaurant is getting judged at the same scale. While your column covers only fine dining restaurants, the spectrum of different types of restaurants is still very wide. Therefore, there can be restaurants that have much higher standards of quality, service, ambiance, wine selection, etc. versus other restaurants that are very good, but not at the same level of gastronomy. The way I see it, it is much easier for the second type of restaurant to score well even if it may not be up to par with the first type.

All this being said, I am simply not a big fan of star systems in any domain. I do not think that 4 or 5 stars gives a critic enough room to classify a large number of establishments. The perfect example is the hotel industry. Simply take a look at what is being considered a 4-star hotel in Montreal right now, and then tell me if that rating really means anything. But I guess, for lack of a better system, we have to live with it.

As far as my meal at Cavalli is concerned, I started with the mixed mushrooms, lardons and parmesan, which I loved. Definitely, my favourite course of the night. I then had the rack of lamb with feta cheese crumbles, which was recommended to me by our waitress over the veal chop. I thought it was very well prepared, but I just was not that impressed, keeping in mind that I was going in with high expectations. Finally I had the Illy mousse, Earl Grey (I think) Crème brulée and Mascarpone ice cream.

The restaurants I was referring to are Chèvres, Brunoise, Cube, Épicier and a few others. And keep in mind that I am referring only to food.

[Lesley C]

Don't forget cost comes in there also. More and more I find myself evaluating the all-round experience over the food, which was my focus when I started out. But I'm beginning, after four years at this, to find all this fussy food served in dreary surroundings a real bore compared to a night at a restaurant like Cavalli or Rosalie. And as soon as you throw cold service in the mix, you just lost me (as was the case with this week's review). Can excellent food make up for indifferent service? Not in my books.

And concerning the limitations of the star system, why do you think I requesting going with half stars as well.

As for the food at Cavalli, if you go back, try the macaroni with Fontina and the beef carpaccio with the truffled baby peaches. Two big wows.

[Walnuts]

I definitely agree that it has to be a total package, but I think we both agree that all the places I mentioned, along with Cavalli, have excellent service and very nice atmosphere.

The macaroni with fontina caught my eye last night, but I was in the mood for meat. Next time...

[thomasein]

This thread has been somewhat excruciating but I cannot help but add to it. Clearly, price has to be factored into the rating of any restaurant. For example, if I go to Essex House it better be close to the best meal I ever had in my life if not it is a disappointment. Consider an analogy with wine. It is easy to chose a good wine if money is no object. If a bottle of wine that costs $100 a bottle is equally as good as a bottle that costs $20 should they be rated equally? I bet most people would have no difficulty in chosing between these two "equal" wines.

[identifiler]

Lesley, I read your review this week. I was at Area recently. I also found that the menu description to be a bit off the top compared to the plate. I still think he has one of the best duck ravioli. I had the foie gras and was pleased but not blown away.

However, I can certainly appreciate the review of the service. They have zero communication skills, not a smile, not a feeling. It is if they are all asexual or something... cold,cold,cold. They had no problem of execution but they never said one word, even when I tried to break to ice, the girl looked at me as if I was a total dumbass (yet they didn't seem to be to silent when ganging up behind the bar describing their patrons...), that vibe as nothing to do with Perreault...

[Lesley C]

Identifiler, I am happy to hear that I wasn't imagining the cold shoulder. I wasn't thrilled to drop the restaurant to two stars, but the service really rubbed me the wrong way. I was dying to get out of there and I entered in a great mood. It's as if they were doing me a favour.

Regarding the foie gras, what did you think of the marmalade served alongside? I could hardly swallow the stuff.

[identifiler]

Well, recently was a couple of months and I see the menu has changed. The foie gras I had came with respectable onion and port marmelade, that was quite good actually.

The tombinambour potage was on and that was realy good also, extremely rich (the one I had at Chevres was better).

I had the beef as main and everything looked fine except the medium rare I got was served as what I describe as american medium (ie, overcooked) instead of the requested medium rare. Again, nothing major. But when taking into account that it was very bad weather that evening and the place wasn't packed at all, I think the kitchen should be even better in such time.

When we realised how cold the service was and that every patrons left, we decided to act as if we would make our own atmosphere in the place, and turned it inside out, making fun of the pretentious looks we got... I don't have a lot of respect this kind of treatment and I hope we shocked them as much as they did. At the end of the evening, we bullied our fun on them, we left smiling and they didn't... I hope it's a lesson but they seemed to basically write us off anyways. It wasn't as if it was bad service, it just seemed that we started off getting the cold shoulder from the get go, worst was that we didn't even hold back on expenses... I really didn't expect this kind of atmosphere in the gay getto. When we got a description of stuff of the menu, it was declined quite coldly, as if we weren't worthy of the food. When we left, I felt like walking out of a morgue.

I really think this place has tons of talent in the kitchen. I believe if Perreault had twice the space in the room (to bring a bit more volume to the menu) and got a more cheerfull team, he would be really shinning. Also, the kitchy looks of the space as seen it's days now. Still nice but definitely needs something fresh.

[montmartre]

how does the michelin guide hand out macarons?

why not have a guide that follows one line of judging and that's it.

example: a caprice de nicolas should be aiming at 3 macarons because the "package" is there: fine linens, amuse gueules, somelier on board etc.

but a rosalie or an express getting 1 macaron would be phenomenal considering they are either bistros or brasseries: no linen, simple menu, etc.

and finally the byow, sandwicheries, etc . just getting a good review and in no way could they get a macaron and in no way would the owners expect one would be just fine.

here in this situation for a rosalie to have 1 macaron would be exactly what they aimed for and getting 3 macaron would be misleading and eventually a failure for the owners 'cause all they really wanted was a solid one macaron 'kinda restaurant. And getting 3 macarons misleads clients.

but when we arbitrarly give stars to the type of restaurants or the potential that they reached .....this is where the gray zone begin

[Lesley C]

You are absolutely wrong to place BYOW restaurants in the same category of a snack bar. Go to Les Infideles or Le P'tit Plateau and then we'll talk.

Also, the macaron system is the macaron system, developed for a style of restaurant, primarily the French restaurant. The Michelin guide has problems as well, I would think especially at the one macaron category. Do you really think any one macaron restaurant in France is not aiming for two -- or three.

[Culatello]

She's right the resturants in Europe work very very very hard to get 1 macaron and ten times harder to keep it & it's easier to lose three than get one.

When I worked in europe I had a friend working in a 2 macaron resturant and he would tell me what they would do to keep it for example the Kitchen was so clean you could literly eat off the floor ,the piano was scrubed every shift with sandpaper ,the dining room floor was buffed & waxed every night the cutlery was cleaned properly before being placed on the table,the Bathrooms had delicate towels to dry your self with.and many more things that are not coming to mined right now.

My point is it's pretty hard to rate Montreal Restos like the Michlin guide , if you get what I mean.

[montmartre]

this is exactly what i mean... a balthazar in new york city is on its best day a 1 macaron type restaurant and given the product that mcnally intended to put out it is an extreme success to get 1 star. but on the other if mr maccioni, boulud, ducasse, ripert et als. open a restaurant "a la essex house" getting 1 sta woulb be a disaster.

even better example would be the ducasse and the boulud's of the world who have different concepts of restos out there. i guarantee you that boulud or ducasse do not aspire to get 3 macarons at their cafes or spoon's. they want solid restos that at most are one star restos that bang out good solid food at more modest surroundings and at more marketable prices. they have their 3 star restos amd know what it entails but they also know that there arent that manu foodies around and therefore are opening concept restaurant.

check out a very interesting article in last months W magazine, they discuss the future foodies food mart that is being opened at the AOL building on columbus circle, and i believe they mention the difference between 3 star restos and all the others.

moreover one of the nicest critics Leslie gave was the 4 star review of Dan Medelsi's resto. and you clearly mention that in order to get 4 stars you have to consider the sommeliers en salle concept, the amuse-gueule at the onset of your meal , the surroundings etc.

all this to say that i enjoy 1 star restos that are meant to be 1 star restos and also know that when i'm dining at a 3 star resto the experience is totally different at all levels.

[Lesley C]

Hmm, I didn't enjoy the one-star restos and that is why they are rated Fair.

I think it's a mistake to compare rating systems. I'm rating within the Montreal arena. When it comes down to it, readers should follow the rating grid:

* Fair

** Good

*** Very good

**** Excellent

[SteveW]

Hmm, I didn't enjoy the one-star restos  and that is why they are rated Fair.

I think it's a mistake to compare rating systems. I'm rating within the Montreal arena. When it comes down to it, readers should follow the rating grid:

* Fair

** Good

*** Very good

**** Excellent

Lesley is it still your [private] policy, that no matter how bad the restaurant is, you at least give the restaurant one-star(I think you made one exception, when you gave one Montreal restaurant no stars)? That`s what you told me several years ago.

----------

Steve

[Lesley C]

I only gave one restaurant no stars, and that was the St-Amable in Old Montreal, a horrible restaurant that appears to draw tourists based on very very old press clippings from the old owners.

I like to keep the no star ratings for such a place, pull it out when you really want to slam a place for being awful and in this case, dishonest.

[montmartre]

i think we are talking in circles.

but do you believe that an essex house or le cirque can be playing at the same level of a spoon or an osteria del circo.

they are two products from the same groups, but yet one is aiming to be a three star resto and the others are aiming for another type of market and hence rating.

i don't think spoon or osteria del circo not being rated are failures by the maccioni's and the ducasse's of the world, their mission is to make solid restaurants that have an excellent backbones and structures in a more fun affordable lighter way. yes, a 4 star resto should be a white glove experience and yes, there are enormous amounts of good restos that don't aim to be 4 star restos. my only peeve is when we try rating restos on different levels. les infideles, cube, globe, rosalie, red thai etc all at 3 stars.

les infideles chooses to be a BYOW resto and getting a star is huge because of their setting but cube or Queux getting 2 or 3 stars is maybe a let down.