French food guides

[Bux]

Do they ever really trash a place? If not, then you know the reporters are not traveling anonymously and not paying for hotels and meals.

In general I'd rather read about where to eat, rather than spend my time reading about where not to go. Why waste space trashing places? The concept of traveling anonymously is pretty well discussed in Compromised food critics. Good points are made on both sides, and I'm not at all sure the most important thing about a critic is that he remain anonymous.

[robert brown]

Bux, in the case of "La Belle France" that does its reportage by regions, it should be necessary from time to time, if one wants to provide meaningful coverage, to be critical of an establishment, especially if it is one with a high recogition factor such as a member of Relais & Chateaux. Unwillingness to heavily criticize a hotel or restaurant that deserves it tells me that the people doing the writing are gilding the lilly and are not being forthcoming on what basis they are visiting the establishments in question.

[cabrales]

What does Graham do?

He posts here and has his own long standing site devoted to restaurants in France and the UK.

Bux -- What is Graham's user name?

[Steve Klc]

he's posted on this thread above.

[lizziee]

Robert,

I don't know if La Belle France reviews anonymously, but from their reviews, I have the impression that they do. They rate on a 10 to 20 scale, separately for cuisine, decor, service, wine list, value and then the total. Obviously a rating of 90 or higher is a must. Ratings above 85 are excellent and below 80, an iffy experience with some ups and downs. They have definitely trashed restaurants over the years, but the majority of their reviews are very detailed and so you have what dishes worked, what was a disaster, what the service was like, the depth of the wine list etc.

For example from a review of Les Grandes Marches, "Only the decor merits applause." From their review of L'O a la Bouche, "Unfortunately the cuisine is also divided into two camps: very good and not quite.... Dishes from this talented young chef remain problematical. The veal served with melted Roquefort cheese and sage was a gooey mistake." Their review of Maison Prunier," Maison Prunier manages to be just as ration conscious with the spaghetti as it is with the sevruga. We can imagine the conversations in the kitchen sounding like this: 'TWO sprigs of parsley?' ' Half a lettuce leaf is Fine!"

They gave Alain Ducasse a 94 out of 100 and devoted 2 full pages to an in depth review out of an 8 page newsletter. Again to quote them," When Michelin announces a new three star restaurant, La Belle France generally rushes to make a reservation. Yet when Ducasse won 3 stars for his new venture at Paris's Plaza Athenee in March 2001, we held back for several reasons. The first, quite simply was Ducasse fatigue.... Besides the Ducasse System has not consistently charmed us. We still adore the Louis XV in Monte Carlo, but feel indifference towards Spoon and hated Bar and Boeuf."

What I like most about La Belle France and for that matter most restaurant critics and guides is that I am given more than just a few catch phrases and then a rating based on a brief description. For me, the best critic/guide can really "put you there", help you to experience the restaurant, imagine the taste of the food. Given this much information, I can then make a decision if this restaurant is for me. I think this is the key - what restaurant works for me. I am not limited by what I am willing to try - I will try anything.

That is why I originally said that Michelin is always the starting place. The three stars are what I will always seek out and often plan an itinerary around going there. However, particularly on the one stars, I use as many sources as I can find.

[Bux]

from a review of Les Grandes Marches, "Only the decor merits applause."

I rather liked les Grands Marches. It's hardly a destination restaurant, but no one was displeased with the food at the price. Perhaps I was overjoyed that we got a last minute reservation anywhere for a Sunday lunch in Paris and just relieved that it was okay, but I really think it was more than okay.

La Belle France sounds nasty rather than unwilling to criticize. Then again I started writing about restaurants in France for a travel agent's newsletter and my only responsibility was to make travel sound appealing. I much prefer to comment on what I like, but then again I'm not paid, so I have that luxury.

[lizziee]

Bux,

I didn't mean to imply that La Belle France writes primarily bad or nasty reviews. They don't. I was refering to Robert's comment that they only write glowing reports. Their general tone is to give the reader a sense of what to expect.

I would much rather read the positive review. However, if there are a number of bad reviews from critics whose judgement I have respected in the past, I certainly tend to follow their advice.

[Bux]

I didn't mean to imply that La Belle France writes primarily bad or nasty reviews.

I didn't think you did. Perhaps I read too much into the style of the few critical comments you cited.