Restaurant Top 50 2004

[AdrianMcgill]

Perhaps it is because I am new to this site, but the discussion in this thread has only served to bore me. Any list of this sort is going to face sampling and methodological problems. That is a fact. It is impossible to formulate a definitive list of the best 100 restaurants in the world and any attempt to do so will ultimately fall prey to the very problems that are being endlessly discussed in this tread. What a list like this is useful for is as a basis of comparison. What makes The French Laundry the "Best restaurant in the world", or why is Fat Duck considered better than Louis XV? In other words, how do we qualify greatness and what characteristics do these restaurants exhibit that make them great? And if they are not, why not? Does the list provide us with a compelling expression of what makes a world class meal? And if so, what constitutes a top restaurant? If not, what is it not expressing about the culinary world today?

Perhaps it is selfish of me, but criticism and comparison of the restaurants on the list seems to be more exciting than debating the nature of the list itself. After reading through dozens of responses, I still have no idea what separates the restaurants on this list from others. Apologies if I come off as ignorant or condescending, but we all know the list is flawed, now lets talk about the restaurants.

[marcus]

Any list of this sort is going to face sampling and methodological problems. That is a fact. It is impossible to formulate a definitive list of the best 100 restaurants in the world and any attempt to do so will ultimately fall prey to the very problems that are being endlessly discussed in this tread. What a list like this is useful for is as a basis of comparison.

To address your second point first, essentially all of these restaurants have been discussed on eGullet at length and comparatively as well, over the last few years. The names of the best reputed restaurants in the world are largely well known, and listing them in an unordered list does not provide any new information.

What Restaurant Magazine purports to do that is new and valuable, is to list these restaurants in rank order. If you believe that this ranking is largely invalid, then they have added essentially nothing, and their exercise was meaningless.

The fact is that they attempted to accomplish a meaningful ranking. The evolution of this thread has been primarily to discuss the validity of their methodology, which is a legitimate subject of discussion. There are many, many, other threads on eGullet that discuss these restaurants in detail, and if that is your interest, you can seek them out.

In my view, you are making the same mistake that others have made on this thread, to whit, that because all methodologies are flawed, they are all equally invalid, and thus equal, and it doesn't matter what methodology you may choose to employ. In fact, although no methodology is perfect, some are much better than others and will yield better results. There are well developed principles of survey design including, sample selection, statistical analysis, that need to be employed to get reasonably valid results. In this case, the methodology was, for many of the reasons that I stated in previous posts and do not intend to restate, egregiously poor.

[Andy Lynes]

Any thread that analyses the methodology employed for compiling a list is, almost by definition, going to be fairly dry. However, I think a broad range of views have been represented, including those of the organisers themselves, and that some interesting points have been made.

I agree with Adrian and Thom that the debate should move on to the restaurants that made the list, and maybe try and identify some that we think should have been in but didn't make the cut for whatever reason.

[degusto]

I agree with Adrian and Thom that the debate should move on to the restaurants that made the list, and maybe try and identify some that we think should have been in but didn't make the cut for whatever reason.

What possible interest could it have to discuss the restaurants on the list and those that did not make the cut? Any such discussion must inevitably also include an analysis why they did make it or why they did not make it and that is a pointless exercise. As has been concluded in this thread the reasons why certain restaurants get votes are obscure. In fact, so obscure that this list must be criticised because of that.

It was stated by Andy Lynes earlier in this thread that, 300 people were asked the question which five restaurants ‘did you enjoy most'. It was pointed out that “It wasn't purely about food, cost, service or Michelin stars - it was the overall experience”. What is the overall experience? But ok let’s say that it is clear for the 300 people voting what the overall experience is all about.

The problem is just as Marcus so correctly have pointed out that the restaurants that will be up for voting are basically the ones that these 300 people dined at over the last year. It is likely that the restaurants that had most visitors among the 300 are likely to get a larger number of votes. Maybe the cumulative number of restaurants - that would reasonably be considered to go onto a list - that these 300 people have visited amount to only 100 or 150. In that case the list is a list of the fifty best of the 100-150 restaurants visited during the year. I would doubt it is that many more considering what small duck’s pond it is that the voters come from.

Furthermore, no one has any idea why these 300 people voted on a particular restaurant or why they have ranked those five restaurants each. What liaisons or financial motivation have influenced the voting? Since the criteria was the best overall experience, the field is open to speculation.

From a consumer point of view I cannot see anything positive with this list. It is a PR and marketing gimmick and nothing else. I actually question how serious food writers can participate in this type of event when the reasons for the votes are so obscure and the whole result list gives a wrong impression to the restaurant eating public. It has been claimed in this thread that the rules are clear. Maybe so but the list is used in the wrong purpose and it is deceiving people and the major motivation for it is to give the restaurant magazine and certain chefs publicity. Even on the restaurant magazine website do you get the impression that it is a much more comprehensive list than what it actually is.

I am mainly interested in the food when I eat at restaurants. If I was to be presented with a top list of restaurants I would certainly like it to have an emphasis on the food aspect. But since l’Atelier comes out as number 4 on the list and votes went to other places with at best average food, the list lacks any credibility from a food point of view. The list should go down the trash bin. It has no interest whatsoever.

[Andy Lynes]

It was stated by Andy Lynes earlier in this thread that, 300 people were asked the question which five restaurants ‘did you enjoy most'.

I was passing on comments offered to me by Restaurant magazine editor Chris Malliard as I indicated it the earlier post to which you refer, they are not my words.

Maybe the cumulative number of restaurants - that would reasonably be considered to go onto a list - that these 300 people have visited amount to only 100 or 150.

Perhaps someone at restaurant can confirm the total number of restaurants voted for. My guess is that it woud be a great deal higher than the number you suggest, thereby allowing anomolies like The Wolseley to slip into the lower reaches of the list on the basis of a few votes.

Even on the restaurant magazine website do you get the impression that it is a much more comprehensive list than what it actually is.

Are you able to clarify what you mean by how the website gives the impression of a "much more comprehensive" list, I'm a little unclear what you are getting at here.

votes went to other places with at best average food

Which are...

[oakapple]

It has been claimed in this thread that the rules are clear. Maybe so but the list is used in the wrong purpose and it is deceiving people....

Once again, the writer is falling into the same trap as Marcus and a few others. You think that the typical reader is too dumb to understand what the survey is really about. Since you've figured out exactly how the survey was done, why do you assume that most others can't do the same? The survey is "deceiving people" only if they are too stupid to understand where the data came from. You figured it out. So can other people.

I am mainly interested in the food when I eat at restaurants.

Most rating systems, including Michelin and the New York Times, consider other factors (décor, ambiance, service). Is the phrase "overall experience" really so unclear to you? It simply means everything that you see, hear, feel, smell, and taste, from when you walk in the door, to when you leave.

[marcus]

You think that the typical reader is too dumb to understand what the survey is really about. Since you've figured out exactly how the survey was done, why do you assume that most others can't do the same? ....

Most rating systems, including Michelin and the New York Times, consider other factors (décor, ambiance, service).

It is not a question of intelligence, but interest level. Many people are reading this information through secondary sources such as a newspaper reporting on the top 10 for example. Most people even reading the article directly are not as focused on this as people are here. Also, what some of us are saying is that when you really look at the survey and its methodology you realize that the results are worthless. Is this what you mean when you say that people have figured out how the survey was done?

With regard to rating systems factors, you are correct regarding NYT, but Michelin and Gault Millau as well claim that their rating systems relate only to the food. Michelin provides the additional caveat that for one star restaurants the standards may be adjusted based on the available level of cuisine in a particular geographic area.

[Opson]

It has been claimed in this thread that the rules are clear. Maybe so but the list is used in the wrong purpose and it is deceiving people....

Once again, the writer is falling into the same trap as Marcus and a few others. You think that the typical reader is too dumb to understand what the survey is really about. Since you've figured out exactly how the survey was done, why do you assume that most others can't do the same? The survey is "deceiving people" only if they are too stupid to understand where the data came from. You figured it out. So can other people.

Can please stop telling everyone what they 'think'?

You must realize that nobody is calling anybody stupid, neither is anyone claiming superiority over anybody else (expect perhaps the telepaths).

To give you an idea of how the results of these polls are promulgated here's an extract from Heston Blumenthal in the Independent:

TUESDAY

It's the day of the awards. I find it difficult to get away from the restaurant, and wonder if it's worth going. When I'm on my way my assistant calls. Channel 4 want to interview me because we've been named second best eaterie in the world and first in Europe...

WEDNESDAY

My tiny restaurant is packed with film crews from Channel 4, ITN, Sky News and London Tonight [as a result of the poll]

Notice that there's no mention of either the method or medium, only the result. Do you think the camera crews who further disseminate the results were any more attentive to detail? Very unlikely since what news editors are interested in are the results and little else.

So to repeat this again, Restaurant Magazine's ranking should not be called 'The 50 Best Restaurants in the World', prinicipally because IT IS NOT 'The 50 Best Restaurants in the World'.

Is the so terribly difficult to understand?

[AdrianMcgill]

Opson is clearly right, this is not a list of the "fifty best restaurants in the world". I really don't think that anyone here would disagree with that. The list is flawed; the methodology was sloppy. But it is far too easy to simply throw out the list. Although Marcus claims that I am making the mistake of assuming every methodology to be equally invalid, I am not. I have sat through the pain of enough stats classes to avoid that mistake. Instead, I am making the admission that the methodology used to construct THIS list is faulty and am trying to move past it. Once we admit that, which hopefully we all have by now, we can move the discussion in one of two ways: either we can discuss the food related questions that the list raises (and I tried to raise in my last post) or we can discuss how to make a better list.

As has been illustrated, it is impossible for 300 people to eat at every restaurant that has a claim to be top 50 in the world. Perhaps Restaurant Magazine should nominate a group of 20 or so restaurants based on a variety of criteria; say, Michelin rankings, New York Times, etc. Then have its judging panel eat at each restaurant and evaluate it based on a more structured rubric (what should this include?). Of course, this proposal is problematic as well. But I don't believe that a "top restaurants in the world" list is a wholly futile exercise. Jellybean said it right when he said that from a consumer point of view there is very little positive about the list. Now how can we change this?

[robyn]

Why didn't Trio make the list at all, I wonder?

It's not a "destination" restaurant - and it's in Chicago - which isn't a "destination" city.

I happen to love Chicago - and the eating there (and the architecture and the art!) - so don't blame it on me. Robyn

[robyn]

I beleive that Atelier is certainly one of the best restaurants in the world and if someone made a booking based on its place in the list they would have no grounds for complaint.

Atelier doesn't take reservations. Robyn

[robyn]

If anyone in the UK uses this list to decide where to eat in New York, they'll be pretty ill-served.  Balthazar is the only out-and-out laughable choice of the restaurants selected, but even the other selections, while great restaurants, are out of date.

Although I agree with you - perhaps I can shed some light on how Balthazar got on the list. I had one of the most fun meals in my life at Balthazar. A very late afternoon late lunch/early dinner before theater. Walk in. No waiting. The huge tower of seafood. With fries. And a snappy bottle of white wine. Terrific service. Everything was first rate. Was it great food? No. But it was an excellent example of the kind of food it was serving. Robyn

[Andy Lynes]

Atelier doesn't take reservations. Robyn

Yes, it does.

[marcus]

Atelier doesn't take reservations.  Robyn

Yes, it does.

half and half. Atelier takes reservation for its first seatings at 11:30AM and 6:30PM only.

[Opson]

Atelier doesn't take reservations.  Robyn

Yes, it does.

half and half. Atelier takes reservation for its first seatings at 11:30AM and 6:30PM only.

Half and half?

Either it takes reservations or it doesn't take reservations. If it takes reservations for first sittings then Atelier does take reservations, and Robyn is mistaken.

[marcus]

Half and half?

Either it takes reservations or it doesn't take reservations. If it takes reservations for first sittings then Atelier does take reservations, and Robyn is mistaken.

Robyn is clearly mistaken, but that's not the complete answer. We don't speak to each other in terms of formal logic which is sterile and lacks utilityy. There is an assumed context of common understanding that allow us to communicate in a useful manner. If I told someone that Atelier takes reservations and did not provide the qualification, but only for first seatings, although it would be a logically correct statement, it wouldn't provide them with the information that they really needed. If they learned that I had known that, but didn't inform them as part of my answer, they would correctly view my response as having been misleading.

[Opson]

Half and half?

Either it takes reservations or it doesn't take reservations. If it takes reservations for first sittings then Atelier does take reservations, and Robyn is mistaken.

Robyn is clearly mistaken, but that's not the complete answer. We don't speak to each other in terms of formal logic which is sterile and lacks utilityy. There is an assumed context of common understanding that allow us to communicate in a useful manner. If I told someone that Atelier takes reservations and did not provide the qualification, but only for first seatings, although it would be a logically correct statement, it wouldn't provide them with the information that they really needed. If they learned that I had known that, but didn't inform them as part of my answer, they would correctly view my response as having been misleading.

However, A. Lynes said that Atelier does take reservations, and Robyn felt the overwhelming, and unecessary (given the context) need to correct him. As it transpires Robyn was wrong, and therefore not half right, and the above, whilst being generally sound, has no bearing on this.

[robyn]

I got my information off more than a dozen internet websites. E.g., The Wine Enthusiast. Perhaps all of this web information is out of date and someone can point us to the most recent policy? Robyn

[Andy Lynes]

Robyn, if you follow the ink in my post you'll see that Gary Marshall reserved a seat at Atelier on Easter Sunday this year.

[marcus]

The original concept of Atelier was no reservations, and they followed this for the first few months that they were open, beginning just about a year ago. The then changed there policy and started accepting reservations for the first seating for lunch and dinner only. I personally made a dinner reservation at Atelier for the last Saturday in November 2003 for the first seating at 6:30. As an aside, I found the food highly variable in quality, and every single person sitting on my side, the right hand counter, was English speaking. I am personally confident that Atelier is not the 100th best restaurant in the world, let alone the 4th.

With regard to Robyn's post regarding Atelier not taking reservations, this is out of date. I don't know how other people feel, but I believe that eGullet is best served by posters writing about what they know directly. We can all Google the internet and find out for ourselves what's there. Using this kind of information as the sole basis for a posting doesn't seem to me to be generally useful.

[niterider]

Why didn't Trio make the list at all, I wonder?

It's not a "destination" restaurant - and it's in Chicago - which isn't a "destination" city.

I happen to love Chicago - and the eating there (and the architecture and the art!) - so don't blame it on me. Robyn

I have to strongly disagree with you here. Have you been to Trio? Have you been to Moto? Charlie Trotters? Chicago restaurants are much further advanced than any other major city in the world. I have just named 3 tasting menu only restaurants, there are 2 others........no other city in the world can even come close to that. Unfortunately, many diners take chicago for what it use to be. Look at it from an unbiased standpoint. For many years chicago has had a label as a "fast food town", I can tell you personally I know many chicago diners that are tired of that and support restaurants like Moto and Trio a lot. You cant come close to experiences like these anywhere else in the US. Chef Achatz & Cantu will lead Chicago to a very new level of dining. As far as Trio not being a destination restaurant - I think this makes me want to cry.

Edited April 26, 2004 by niterider (log)

[Gary Marshall]

Robyn, if you follow the ink in my post you'll see that Gary Marshall reserved a seat at Atelier on Easter Sunday this year.

and voted for it too in the survey

gary

[Winot]

Interesting thread. Recalls the "good old" Plotnicki days. Really seems to come down to how cynical/idealistic you are about marketing.

So is The French Laundry the Citizen Kane of restaurants?

[Opson]

No, of course you may not.

You are though without doubt the 'Best' indignant and outraged person I have seen on eGullet since the heyday of Steve, LML, Simon et al bless 'em.

Good for you.

Cheers

Thom

A question: Is your list actually a definitive list of the 50 best restaurants in the world?

A yes or no answer will suffice.

It seems that Thom is not willing to go out on a limb and say that his Magazine's Top 50 either is or isn't a definitive ranking of the '50 best restaurants in the world.

I'm going to take it upon myself to suggest why: Thom hasn't answered because because he knows his list is not the '50 best restaurants in the world', and it is not able to form a compelling argument to the contrary.

Therefore, before moving on, as so many wish to do, only one question remains to be answered: If Restaurant Magazine's ranking of the '50 Best Restaurants in the World' is not actually a ranking of the 50 best restaurants in the world, then why is it called the '50 Best Restaurants in the World'?

Thom?

[Andy Lynes]

If Restaurant Magazine's ranking of the '50 Best Restaurants in the World' is not actually a ranking of the 50 best restaurants in the world...

...in your opinion.

Opson, the only way you will convince me is be providing me with your own list of the 50 best restaurants in the world, telling me how you arrived at your list and why your results and methodology are superior to that of Restaurant Magazine's. Then we might have something further to debate.