Restaurant Top 50 2004

[Gary Marshall]

Andy -

where can we find the complete list? And do we know what Gary's 'Hot Picks' were?

Obviously it's a little anglocentric - were it French or Spanish (or possibly American), I'd be surprised to find eith Ramsey or L'Atelier or Nobu in the top ten.

I can't find my email reply but think pretty much the criteria were what had you enjoyed for whatever reason. I haven't had chance to pick up the mag yet.

I also embarassingly can't remember exactly what i went for in the end after deliberating, but i definitely had atelier robuchon in, Gordon Ramsay, Hibiscus, new tayyab and probably number 3 york place.

as with all of these things, no doubt i'd change it again if i were asked today!

cheers

gary

[Andy Lynes]

Chris Maillard, editor of Restaurant Magazine offers the following points of clarification on how the list was compiled:

<UL>

<LI>The list is not our own choice, but that of more than 300 people

worldwide.

<LI>They were critics, chefs, restaurateurs & gourmets

<LI>They were all asked to pick their favourite five restaurants.

<LI>The criteria was 'which restaurant did you enjoy most'. It wasn't purely

about food, cost, service or Michelin stars - it was the overall experience.

Which brings in places like Felix in Hong Kong (make sure your correspondent

who berated it for not including any from HK reads our list again) or The

Cliff in Barbados. Maybe the food's not of an Adria degree of cleverness,

but you have a great time anyway.

<LI>The voting panel does change from year to year; every time we do it, we

try and expand it further, particularly internationally. As a sideline, this

may well account for the preponderance of big city restaurants; the more

international people tend to know London/Paris/NY/Sydney, but not, say Devon

(Michael Caines was disappointed not to make it in, as were Three Chimneys

in Skye). I'm not sure how to combat this, but if anyone wants to put

together a list of the 50 Best Unjustly Overlooked Restaurants in the World,

they're very welcome. In fact, one of your people is probably starting on it

now.

<LI>I hope that helps clear up some confusion. If anybody's got

further questions, feel free to e-mail me at:

editorial@restmag.co.uk.</UL>

[Suzi Edwards]

<LI>They were critics, chefs, restaurateurs & gourmets

<LI>They were all asked to pick their favourite five restaurants.

<LI>The criteria was 'which restaurant did you enjoy most'. It wasn't purely

about food, cost, service or Michelin stars - it was the overall experience.

Which brings in places like Felix in Hong Kong (make sure your correspondent

who berated it for not including any from HK reads our list again) or The

Cliff in Barbados. Maybe the food's not of an Adria degree of cleverness,

but you have a great time anyway.

]

there's a disconnect between the criteria of the voting, most enjoyable/favourite and how the poll is reported in the media, best in the world 2004.

still, it's the magazine's yearly piece of the publicity pie, so we shouldn't deny them that!

Edited April 22, 2004 by tarka (log)

[Andy Lynes]

there's a disconnect between the criteria of the voting, most enjoyable/favourite and how the poll is reported in the media, best in the world 2004.

I don't see a disconnect, surely "most enjoyable/favourite" = best. Its not often that you'll hear someone say "I didn't enjoy it, and I would never return, but its the best restaurant in the world."

I may have said something similar last time around, so apologies if I'm repeating myself, but: I'm sure that you could assemble a panel of "experts" who could draw up a list of criteria that they believed the best restaurants in the must meet, and then have them identify those restaurants currently trading that met the criteria. Points could be awarded for how well a given restaurant performed in each area in order to produce a prioritised list. But then all you would do is shift the debate to the credentials of the panel, the validity of the criteria and the manner in which the assessment was conducted.

A survey of 300 restauranteurs, chefs and gourmets is a reasonable sample and to report that a restaurant is the best in the world based on their collective opinion is not in my opinion misleading. It's as valid as, say, the winner of the best picture Oscar.

[Suzi Edwards]

I don't see a disconnect, surely "most enjoyable/favourite" = best. Its not often that you'll hear someone say "I didn't enjoy it, and I would never return, but its the best restaurant in the world."

[Gary Marshall]

  The real downside is that gullible people might make real dining decisions based on this list.

i went to alle testiere in venice and cecchino dal 1887 in rome on the back of last years survey.

as has been said even if you used in isolation as a guide i don't think you'd exactly suffer food wise

cheers

gary

[marcus]

It's as valid as, say, the winner of the best picture Oscar.

Not so. Every voter for the Oscars is required to see all of the nominated pictures. The fact that some restaurants in this survey were visited by significantly fewer judges than others, is truly a fatal flaw.

[marcus]

as has been said even if you used in isolation as a guide i don't think you'd exactly suffer food wise

Suffering isn't the issue, it's truth in advertizing. If you tell someone that a restaurant rates 3 stars, and they go, but it only rates 1 star, they may not have suffered, but they didn't get what they were after, and you didn't do them any favor.

[thom]

Afternoon all,

People always debate lists such as these (which is of course a good thing for our exposure and awareness) but I think some good points have been made here and Chris's background explanation makes things clearer.

The fact is that if something can't be empirically measured (height, weight, volume, speed) then it is always simply a matter of opinion, and we can argue whose opinions are worth more/more educated till we are blue in the face. The fact remains that 300+ restaurant critics, experts, chefs and restaurateurs (and Andy and Gary of course) is not a bad panel.

Personally I think 'Best' lists for restaurants are similar to those for music (see virtually any issue of Q magazine). If you did a '50 Best albums' list should it be ranked dependent on technical aspects such as 'quality of composing' or 'musicianship'? If so, you would probably end up with a list of 50 classical albums, which is fair enough but it does render the list pointless to anyone wanting a useful guide to the worlds greatest albums. No Sergeant Peppers? No Pet Sounds, No Kind of Blue? No Nevermind? No Blue Lines? No Bob the Builder?

The fact is that although both restaurants and albums can be measured on technical aspects this does not do the whole experience justice and you can actually have much more meaningful discussions by talking about the albums/restaurants that you love and then discussing why.

That's my two-pennoth worth anyway...

Cheers

Thom

[Lady T]

A list that includes Spago and omits Trio just plain doesn't have a lot of credibility for me -- however they got the list compiled. IMHO.

[thom]

Yep,

That's opinions for you.

Cheers

Thom

[oakapple]

Every voter for the Oscars is required to see all of the nominated pictures. The fact that some restaurants in this survey were visited by significantly fewer judges than others, is truly a fatal flaw.

"Fatal" to whom, exactly? Really, you're taking this far too seriously.

If you tell someone that a restaurant rates 3 stars, and they go, but it only rates 1 star, they may not have suffered, but they didn't get what they were after, and you didn't do them any favor.

The star rating system also has very well known flaws and limitations. Perhaps I should say it has flaws that ought to be well known by any sensible person. You have to do your own due diligence, and it's nobody's "fault" if you have a one-star experience at an establishment that somebody thought worthy of three. It has happened to all of us.

This poll is merely another way--among many--of highlighting restaurants worthy of recognition. Of course, in such a list some errors are inevitable, but it is human nature to make lists, and no economically feasible process could produce the degree of scientific precision that you're hungering for.

[marcus]

If you did a '50 Best albums' list should it be ranked dependent on technical aspects such as 'quality of composing' or 'musicianship'?

This is a straw man argument, no one is suggesting that a set of rating criteria needs to be restricted to one or the other, they should include both. The issue isn't the quality of the panel, but the lack of guidance that they were given. And, to repeat myself, that no adjustment was made for the fact that the panel had far more experience with certain restaurants than with others.

My contention is that the overall methodology for this survey was so weak, that the results have little validity, and the list provides, on balance, a disservice to those who may choose to rely on it.

[marcus]

"Fatal" to whom, exactly? Really, you're taking this far too seriously.

The star rating system also has very well known flaws and limitations. Perhaps I should say it has flaws that ought to be well known by any sensible person. You have to do your own due diligence, and it's nobody's "fault" if you have a one-star experience at an establishment that somebody thought worthy of three. It has happened to all of us.

Fatal to the methodology and any thought that the results have any validity. Let me provide an example. Assume that 2 restaurants in the survey are exactly equal in quality and the judges rate them exactly the same. In this case assume that 20% of the judges that have eaten in each restaurant will put it on their top 5 list. The restaurant that is more visited, will get twice as many votes.

Your second argument essentially states that because no subjective methodology is perfect, therefore all are equally bad. Just because we don't have perfect, doesn't mean that aren't important differences between good, fair and poor.

[thom]

Yes but isn't that an inherent weakness in any large scale or global survey?

It's (logistically/financially) impossible to make sure all people have 'experienced' all possibilities and equally it would be stupid to have a vote where no people have experienced no possibilities. I do believe though that their is a constructive middle-ground which is interesting, useful and valid.

Hold on, this is that bloody 'opinions' thing again...

Cheers

Thom

[marcus]

Yes but isn't that an inherent weakness in any large scale or global survey?

It's (logistically/financially) impossible to make sure all people have 'experienced' all possibilities and equally it would be stupid to have a vote where no people have experienced no possibilities. I do believe though that their is a constructive middle-ground which is interesting, useful and valid.

There are many ways around this problem. I suggested a normalization approach in a previous post that would work quite simply. Another approach would be to have the judges score the restaurants, even based on a very simple set of criteria. These scores could be used to create averages which are independent of the number of visitors to each restaurant.

I am only addressing here the "fatal flaw" in the methodology, which remains extraordinarily weak, even when this "popularity" problem is fixed.

[thom]

That certainly is an opinion.

Cheers

Thom

[Andy Lynes]

In my view, as long as the process is a known and transparent one, then people should be left to judge the results for themselves. I'm sure you may argue that when the results are quoted out of context e.g. "The French Laundry, the world's No 1 restaurant according to the UK's Restaurant Magazine", the issue is clouded somewhat, but no more so than when an establishment is quoted as having 3 Michelin stars or rated 4 stars by the New York Times. In fact, Restaurant's Top 50 criteria are a hell of a lot clearer to me than either Michelin's or the NYT's.

[Andy Lynes]

Every voter for the Oscars is required to see all of the nominated pictures.

With 50 nominated films, it's highly unlikely that actually happens however.

[thom]

A fair point Andy, particularly now the aggressive marketing practice of sending personal copies of each film to all the Academy members has been deemed illegal (Miramax in particular will be gutted).

Can you see the more doddery members of the Academy zimmer-framing it down to their local multiplex to watch 50 nominated films? Particularly those in the foreign language section, which always inlcudes some teeth-grindingly sincere subtitled Latvian film about a man who's lost his hat? Or the lastest Tarentino for that matter.

Cheers

Thom

[marcus]

In fact, Restaurant's Top 50 criteria are a hell of a lot clearer to me than either Michelin's or the NYT's.

You've got to be kidding!

[Andy Lynes]

No, I'm not. Although I am now familiar with Michelin's broad criteria as outlined by Derek Brown at Le Manoir (which I reported on in this thread) I have absolutely no idea of the details of the inspection process, or what exactly "worth a detour", "worth a special trip" equates to in terms of the quality and preperation of the food.

Similarly, I have no idea how the NY Times ensures the consistant application of its star rating by its various reviewers, an issue which has led to the contraversy over Amanda hesser's recent review of Spice Market (see this thread). With Restaurant Top 50 it's simply "name your 5 favourite restaurants", what could be more clear than that?

[marcus]

  With Restaurant Top 50 it's simply "name your 5 favourite restaurants", what could be more clear than that? 

or more irrelevant?

Edited April 22, 2004 by marcus (log)

[Opson]

Every voter for the Oscars is required to see all of the nominated pictures.

With 50 nominated films, it's highly unlikely that actually happens however.

What are you talking about?

Movie people like movies; they eat drink and sleep them. Movie people don't watch movies in order to vote at the academy, they watch them because it's their business to watch them.

[Opson]

In my view, as long as the process is a known and transparent one, then people should be left to judge the results for themselves. I'm sure you may argue that when the results are quoted out of context e.g. "The French Laundry, the world's No 1 restaurant according to the UK's Restaurant Magazine", the issue is clouded somewhat, but no more so than when an establishment is quoted as having 3 Michelin stars or rated 4 stars by the New York Times. In fact, Restaurant's Top 50 criteria are a hell of a lot clearer to me than either Michelin's or the NYT's.

The fact that restaurant magazine have managed to get together some of the big names for its awards gives the top50 a veneer of respectability. Nevertheless, from a methodological perspective the results are meaningless, because there is NO methodology. Therefore, when the Daily Mail report that Fat Duck is the 2nd best restaurant in the world they are basing their claims on what is essentially an unsound straw poll of 300 individuals who cannot be in a position to answer the question "what is the world's best restaurant", because, as everybody knows, the only answer is "I don't know, I haven't eaten in all of them". Consequently, the Daily Mail is perpetuating an untruth generated by Restarant Magazine's misleading (50 best restaurants in the world) choice of name for their feature. In fact, if it was called, "50 restaurants collated from a list of 300 foodie top 5s", I don't think there would be any argument here today. Of course, it sounds shit though, and I doubt it would tempt T.Keller to cross the Atlantic .