GaultMillau 2002 Guide France

[Margaret Pilgrim]

Hardbound, 850 découvertes, 300 coups de coeur.  The most obvious change is the conversion from alphabetical listings to descending numerical ratings ala Michelin, a little unnerving when you're looking up a specific restaurant. First glance shows L'Astrance garnering Grand de Demainstatus and rating of 16 pts., Les Magnolias (in the suburb of Perreux sur Marne), picking up coups de coeur and 16 pts.along with Paris' Table d'Anvers and Les Muses, old favorites Les Amognes and Repaire de Cartouche both coups de coeur at 15 pts.

[cabrales]

Margaret -- Thanks for the heads-up. I went onto the Website, and the link below summarizes top G-M assessments (with + signs presumably denoting upward changes?).

http://www.gaultmillau.fr/nframe.cfm?ctx=actualite

(Click on arrow denoted "Toques et Notes"; also note that the site can't even spell Roellinger's name correctly)

For me, more than 1/2 of the restaurants rated "19" do not deserve that rating (including Gagnaire and Georges Blanc). Note Nicolas Le Bec of Les Loges at Lyons was selected as chef of the year. That Le Bec, a relative unknown in my book, was so selected does not instill particular confidence in G-M assessments. Which members have even dined at Les Loges, let alone left there with memorable dining experiences?

Here's a translation of what G-M indicates about L'Astrance, which is justifiably rewarded with a 16: "A shockwave . . . has spread throughout [Paris]: in an area that is chic for cafe-style establishments, a rebellious young man allows himself to offer an haute cuisine at the price levels of brasseries. The laboratory was created on Beethoven Street, and a grand revolution was set in motion with this inventor-explorer, associated with his former accomplice at L'Arepge, Christophe Roy [this is another example of G-M clumsiness, as the last name is Rohat]. At 29 years old, Barbot's success has certain Robuchon-like qualities: 25 seats for lunch, 25 seats for dinner, and a one-month reservation policy; diligence and determination; a team that is young and quiet. A play by Paris on Paris, its stock is already very high."

[Danielle]

My understanding is that the G-M "inspecteurs" (that's what they call them at Michelin) do not visit restaurants anonymously, so I have my doubts about the grades they assign, especially to the not-so-well-known little places everywhere.  Michelin "inspecteurs" go anonymously, I think it is better, but they do not visit the middle range of restaurants.

I have been personally luckier with recommendations from family and friends, from the NYT, or from local residents.  Research helps a lot of course, but that has to be done way ahead of time.  In cities I did not know previously, i.e. Sidney and Melbourne, we asked around, whenever we could: whenever a name was mentioned three or four times by different folks and local guide books, we went.  Either we were very lucky, or it's a fullproof method.  In countries where I know the language, especially in small towns, we read menus posted outside; I find that the way a menu is presented tells a lot about the food: we have not made mistakes this way either.

Does anybody else have methods that work?

Danielle :

[cabrales]

Danielle -- I also prefer Michelin to G-M, although I have made use of both, as well as, for restaurants in France, (1) French websites (including those for persons in the restuarant industry as well as guide-type sites and restaurants' own websites), (2) Saveurs, Gault-Millau Magazine, Le Figaro and other French language magazines and newspapers, and (3) funnily, for new restaurants, the "Where" monthly magazine that one can find at many hotels. I collect out-of-print books on the history of French restaurants in France, and can get a limited number of ideas there. Also, for new restaurants, I rely a bit on where the budding chef has worked before (paying particular attention to the attainment of sous-chef positions, as chef de partie or lower positions are difficult to rely on).

For three and two star restaurants, I place significant reliance on Michelin with respect to a first visit. After that, I rely on my own assessments of the meal.

[Bux]

Margaret, thanks indeed from me too. The lists of 17s, 18s & 19s are fascinating. My guess is that everyone will have some bones to pick. Some will have a lot to argue with. Les Loges an 18 out of the blue and Nicolas Le Bec Cuisinier de l'Année also seemingly out of the blue, is an eye opener to say the least.

As haute cuisine becomes a more of a personal expression of a chef's creativity, I suspect varying guide books and critics are going to disagree more and more as to who's best.

I couldn't find a listing for Les Loges in Lyon for instance. I'd like to find more information about it than the GM lists on it's Cuisinier de l'Année page. Then again I couldn't bring up l'Astranace either, but cabrales did. The only places I could find were those already in the 2001 edition.

[Margaret Pilgrim]

I’ll add another layer to this discussion of GM vs M.  I agree that if we patronized three-star dining rooms throughout France, I would indeed be more interested in Michelin’s evaluations than in GM’s.  However, to be honest, we choose little dining rooms that are usually awarded 14 through 17 GM points.  I have always been frustrated with the lack of detail in Michelin’s listings at these levels.  GM, right or wrong in their point assignments, has always given me enough information regarding both food and ambiance to feel confident in making the nightly choices for our several visits a year.  So far, we have had excellent results by reading between the lines as intuitively as we can to pick restaurants in this range.  

Regarding other sources of restaurant review, I love the Figaroscope section of Le Figaro on Wednesdays.  We have enjoyed many wonderful evenings, squeezing in the unexpected special dinner by a rising chef months before the address became internationally known.

And then, because GM tends to be more inclusive, I find it is a more effective address/fax/phone book for restaurants and lodging throughout France.  Well, just being a better phonebook isn't all bad!  

[cabrales]

I couldn't find a listing for Les Loges in Lyon for instance. I'd like to find more information about it than the GM lists on it's Cuisinier de l'Année page. Then again I couldn't bring up l'Astranace either, but cabrales did. The only places I could find were those already in the 2001 edition.

Bux -- I had problems with the search functions for restaurants on the G-M site. There's a summary page from G-M from which I extracted the L'Astrance information.

http://www.gaultmillau.fr/nframe.cfm?ctx=actualite

(Please choose "Palmares" arrow, and scroll down)

On Nicolas Le Bec, G-M is gushing. Here are excerpts: "Like in 1981, when [various people arriving in Lyons' train station by TGV] discovered the speeds with which they could arrive to have lunch at Bocuse and to be able to say one day 'I was there.' This time, it's for young Nicolas Le Bec that they are making the journey. . . . He's a real creator (changing his menu every month), who isn't afraid to embrace 'terroir' products and lyonnaise cuisine, without relegating himself to pike 'quenelle' specialties and hot sausage. . . ."

Note that, even last year, L'Astrance was beginning to receive the favorable review from G-M that it deserves. G-M indicated, among other things, that L'Astrance was making Paris "blush with pleasure".  

[Scottf]

I'm pleased to see Les Magnolias gain a couple of points as I thought 14 was way too low.

Sam and I enjoyed it so much in January we're booking a return meal for our trip in May.

[cabrales]

First glance shows L'Astrance garnering Grand de Demainstatus

I wholeheartedly agree that L'Astrance is an "emerging grand restaurant".   It's already a great restaurant in my assessment.

Separately, I wonder how accurate, in hindsight, G-M has been in according this label to budding restaurants in the past.

[Bux]

A good first impression makes a lasting impression. The first time I recall using one of the restaurants featured in the front of the guide was when we first visited le Vieux Pont in Belcastel. It was touted as the "best value" in all of France. Such universal superlatives are hard to justify or support, but we agreed that it was an excellent meal and an excellent value in a charming location no less. Since our first visit, they've converted a small building in town to guest rooms. The rooms are simple, but of impeccable design and overlook the restaurant on the other side of the stream and connected by the "old stone bridge" that gives the restaurant its name. Yet, it's the food that charmed us even more than the site. The establishment is run by two sisters. One is the chef and the other runs the front of the house. It's unlikely to rise above its single Michelin star because of its simple rustic nautre, but GM has given it a 16 for a few years now, and that's a conservative rating in my mind. It's not far from Laguiole and my uderstanding is that the chef, although self trained, cooks in admiration of Michel Bras. I trust I'll have more to say about le Vieux Pont and Bras later in April.

Although we choose Pic in Lorient for other reasons, I'd say it lived up to it's choice by GM as one of the bistrots of the year. It's hardly a destination restaurant by any means, but it's the sort of place that you'd love to have around the corner from wherever you lived. It's the sort of place where your disappointment that they're out of your choice of wine on a very short and simple list is assuaged by a suggestion of a wine at the same price that ultimately pleases you more than you thought your first choice would have.

Le Bistrot d'Eygalières in the town of the same name, one of their hopes or finds for last year also pleased us very much. Our success with these recommendations is high and probably contributes greatly to our acceptance of GM as a whole. My suspicion is that they may not visit a restaurant as often as Michelin and someone said they don't visit anonymously. I wonder if the latter is true. It would contribute greatly to some skewed numbers. Although all restaurants operate under the same advantage, it would certainly help the inconsistent ones to know when they were being judged and possibly work against some who are offended that the inspector may expect special treatment.

[cabrales]

I don't have my 2001 G-M in front of me, but the composite score out of 20 is too mechnical for me. If I understood the G-M rating procedure correctly (and that's a big "if", as I have never put in real effort in that regard), the guide accords weight to different criteria and then uses a formula to get to the rating out of 20.

In my mind, at some places, the cuisine can be so inspired that the food aspects of the composite rating should not be restricted to the formula.

Also, I think it's confusing to have 19.5 ratings, when they are likely grouped with the 19 ratings on the Web pages with restaurant listings previously linked in this thread.

[Steve Plotnicki]

I picked up a copy while in Paris on Saturday. It seems to be the norm for GM although the book seems somewhat thicker. At first blush, the only thing that stuck out was Arpege's score of 17/20. That is down from 18/20 in 2001. Then on yesterday's flight back I flipped through the book and found that Gault Millau still does a few things better than Michelin, even though I think they are nowhere as reliable as they used to be.

My experience is they are a good source for places in the lower category, like anywhere between 10/20 and 14/20. There are quite a few places scattered around France that serve great regional cooking, or do simple things like grill up great steaks that GM do a good job pointing out where  Michelin does a poor job. Also, the fact that they rate on a 20 point scale allows them to frame a difference between places at the high end. Just the fact that they rate Michelin 3 star equivelents between 16-19 allows for a certain level of discirimination (whether one agrees with them or not,)

that Michelin doesn't have.

So I continue to buy it year after year. But I will be the first to admit that it was a better publication when haute cuisine was at its peak in the 80's and the founders were still there. In fact, the first year they went from 19/20 to 19.5/20 they made quite an exciting statement. But those were the days when haute cuisine was newer and fresher. It's too bad it isn't that way anymore. We ate better then. At least we did in comparison to what we know now.

[Bux]

I thought the 19.5 rating had a brief life span and that GM said they were dropping it. In any event, if we're rating, GM is in second place, or less. There are other guides like this in France and I'm not so sure what percentage of the market each has. I wonder as well which plaques on the front of restaurants affect the average Frenchman on the road in making a choice in a strange town. As number two, GM has to try harder and find ways to distinguish itself. The harder it tries, the more likely it will go out on a limb. I would agree that it's currently not at it's peak in terms of reliability, or respect, but I also agree that it's useful in supplement to Michelin.

Certainly the relative numbers are useful, but you can also quote me as saying it's absurd as well as unfair to judge restaurants by the numbers or even the stars. I've noted the usefulness of the Palmarès pages in the front. The blurbs for each restaurant are certainly useful in sizing up aspects of the restaurant, especially if you have to reserve in advance.

Bear in mind that it's changed hands over the years and hasn't been the toy of Gault and Millau for some time. I've always tried to match the numbers to Michelin's star ratings. !7, 18 & 19 are not one, two and three stars. There was a time when they awarded toques and had a scale of one to four toques which didn't match the three stars of Michelin either. If I'm not mistaken, 19-20 were four toques, 17-18 - 3 toques, 15-16 - 2 toques and 13-14 were a toque. At that time a rise from 16 to 17 seemed bigger than one from 17 to 18. I still tend to think of 15 as a star, and 19 as three stars with the rest falling in place. One of the reasons they may have been better at the middle rating, as Steve suggests, is that their ratings were absolute across France. Michelin acknolwedges that a single star is warded relative to the restauarants merits in its location and perhaps for its price. It also makes no distinctions below a star and offers almost no clue to the food although the forks and spoons may offer guidlines on how to dress.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Bux - The need for an alternative guide to Michelin is in direct correlation to how interesting cooking in France is at the time of publication. Gault Millau was in its heyday when the little differences between places really mattered. What made their 19.5 point score meaningful was that it catapulted 8 places ahead of the other top restaurants in France and Switzerland. Do you remember what they were? Maybe Robert Brown remembers? All I can remember was Robuchon and Freddy Girardet.

They were also good when it was interesting to see a place rise from a score of 17 to 19. Nowadays, so many places with top scores are resting on their reputations that the top scores are watered down and its somewhat less interesting. So in boring times Michelin wins. Bring back the good old days.

[robert brown]

Steve, what do you mean by "It catapulted 8 places ahead of the other top restaurants in France and Switzerland"?

Was Bruno being his pain-in-the-ass self? What about Guy Sammut? He's an arrogant, self-important asshole. I am getting an uneasy feeling about Guy Savoy. My friend, in a burst of ethnic pride, may have led me down the primrose path 25 years ago. I e-mailed him yesterday, but he has not answered. He's plastered a lot of the time. I used the time-honored research tool of looking up family names in the NYC phone book. There weren't a lot of Savoys, and one was a minister. I'm getting disheartened.  How's the food?

Keep up the good eating,

Robert

[Steve Plotnicki]

Robert - At the time that GM decided to elevate the rating of the 8 places to 19.5, that extra half point loomed large over the other restaurants that were mired at 19. It was a big half point if you know what I mean. It had far more impact than the difference 18.5 would have had compared to restaurants that rated 18. It was a clear statement by GM that these were the best 8 places in France, deeming Crissier as an appendage of France.

We didn't see Bruno because we cut our trip short by a day. But Guy Sammut was a bit formal at dinner, but was quite pleasant at breakfast time and was smiling away. In fact, he grabbed my bag out of my hand as he saw me carrying it to the car and carried it out himself. Maybe it was the 1989 Sauzet Batard Montrachet and the 1980 Vogue Musigny we ordered the night before  

I thought Guy Savoy was a good meal, but not exceptional. I think I would rate it three stars, but not by much. If they gave 5 stars instead of three, I would score it a 4 possibly 4 1/4. I thought the best dish was the artichoke soup with truffles and parmesan cheese. But it was funny because a number of people at the table thought the cheese was unneccesary. To me, it made the whole dish. Especially the gumminess of the cheese because it had somewhat melted in the soup.

As for chefs who are members of the tribe, just look for the one that makes the lightest matzoh balls.

[Tonyfinch]

Naaah.That's my mum.

[robert brown]

Steve, at what time are you talking about the eight establishments? I wrote as best I could what I remembered from when G-M started the 19.5 (c. 1980) until the early 1990s. However, in trying to paste it from word onto the site, I lost it and got the whole thread instead. I can redo it tomorrow or just try to stick to a certain period.

You got a better send-off from Guy Sammut than I did. While we were waiting on the roadside 20 minutes for a kid to being us our short, he was parading around the grounds in but his skivvies while walking his dog. I gather you're back?

[stephen wall]

another big difference between the two guides is that where Michelin  still has La Tour d'Argent and Paul Bocuse at 2 and 3 stars respectively,Gault Millau has relegated them both to "institutions", labelling La Tour d'Argent as "pathetique"...That can only be a good move as both are well past their sell by date.

[cabrales]

another big difference between the two guides is that where Michelin  still has La Tour d'Argent and Paul Bocuse at 2 and 3 stars respectively,Gault Millau has relegated them both to "institutions", labelling La Tour d'Argent as "pathetique"...That can only be a good move as both are well past their sell by date.

I bought a G-M over the weekend, and noted the discordant treatment of certain chefs who have historically played a role in shaping French cuisine:

-- Bocuse: As Stephen noted, Bocuse's restaurant is designated an "Institution", with no numerical rating assigned. The explanatory page on the utilization of the G-M guide indicates: "This designation is used for one world-famous restaurant that cannot enter into any category".  Some G-M commentary on Bocuse follows (rough translation): "To paraphrase [bocuse], we say that there are only two types of cuisine, the good and the bad. And that of Bocuse is good. It recognizes [food] products, the [method of] cooking is perfect and it's impeccable. . . . The personnel faithful to Bocuse are nice, well brought up and know that the restaurant is a celebratory place for those who choose to go there. And they nurture this joy of living."

-- Roger Verge -- Surprisingly, this newly-two-starred (and formerly one-, two- and three-starred) Michelin chef does not even have an entry for his restaurant at Mougins.  His hotel is listed as "Le Moulin de Mougins", but that would not ordinarily eliminate the restaurant from the receipt of a rating. See Ducasse's "La Bastide de Moustiers" on the immediately following page in G-M or Pourcels' Jardin des Sens in Montpellier, which have separate entries for the restaurant and the hotel facilities.  

-- Senderens -- This three-starred Michelin chef only has a 16/20. Some G-M commentary follows (rough translation): "Lucas Carton, la Tour d'Argent, Grand Vefour -- how many restaurants have given rise to such fantasy upon the mere mention of their magical names? . . . How many chefs have, like Senderens, made culinary history?  One wants to be able to sense again on the plate the 19.5/20 of fifteen years ago, but the current situation suggests this should be categorized as a historical monument . . . .  Reread the G-M of the 80's and be persuaded -- even though that does not affect anything today -- that Alain Senderens is a great chef."  (Note the numerical rating in G-M is indicated to be for the food alone. It might be another guide that accords weights as earlier suggested.)

Very harsh words for Senderens, given that his cuisine today is, for me, better than Bocuse's cuisine today.  :confused: If G-M is categorizing Bocuse as an "institution", it should not completely ignore Verge's restaurant and still be giving Senderens this type of abuse. Bocuse could be viewed as having a special place in French culinary history; however, the treatment of the three described chefs does not appear even-handed.