Michelin Red 2005 out a week early in Corsica

[John Talbott]

The Michelin Red Guide 2005 for France is officially out in March but insiders have known who moved in which directions for several weeks and yesterday, a Corsican newspaper Corse-Matin got the jump on everyone else by acquiring a copy which went on sale in Calvi a week ahead of schedule. The stories are in today's Figaro.

In brief, Regis Marcon of St Bonnet le Froid went to three stars and Les Ambassadeurs + l'Astrance are the Parisian restos that went to two, there are nine others in France. But now the embargo has been broken, it all seems out in the open and the TV Telematin this morning is running a piece on Marcon.

I won't go farther since you can easily check it out if interested.

Edited by John Talbott Feb 26th to correct typo.

Edited February 26, 2005 by John Talbott (log)

[Gary Marshall]

Saw the official press release yesterday.

there's a new espoirs category also for restaurants on the verge of climbing a category.

cheers

gary

[Ptipois]

Saw the official press release yesterday.

there's a new espoirs category also for restaurants on the verge of climbing a category.

←

Which must be a new variation on Chinese torture, putting some restaurants in anxious limbo at different levels. This really looks like Michelin searching for new and subtle ways to strenghthen its power through new and subtle kinds of blackmail, as a "we'll show you who's boss" reaction to recent attacks on its credibility (and big mistakes like the latest Belgian joke).

Edited February 24, 2005 by Ptipois (log)

[John Talbott]

Saw the official press release yesterday.

there's a new espoirs category also for restaurants on the verge of climbing a category.

←

Which must be a new variation on Chinese torture, putting some restaurants in anxious limbo at different levels. This really looks like Michelin searching for new and subtle ways to strenghthen its power through new and subtle kinds of blackmail, as a "we'll show you who's boss" reaction to recent attacks on its credibility (and big mistakes like the latest Belgian joke).

←

Not only “Espoirs,” this year’s version will have notations for handicap access and no smoking.

There was more to the story(ies) that I should convey. First, everyone’s pointing fingers at everyone else (what’s new?); the Corsicans say for 20 years they’ve gotten their copies a day late; the Michelin folks say that’s why they sent them a week early, the Calvians say there were no instruction on the palettes as to when to open/distribute them, the mainlanders say the French equivalent of “Duh, it’s always the beginning of March.” Needless to say, this “scandal,” coming on top of the Benelux gaffe and the Pascal Remy book, has prompted an “inquiry.”

Francois Simon had an article (which I suspect was “in the can” for release next week) about putting the release of the Michelin 2005 in perspective. First, he notes that while its release in gastronomic circles is a big deal, for most folks, it’s used for the maps, coordinates, “Bib Gourmands” and hotel info. Second, the Michelin is no longer the law, French food and it are a bit diminished. Third, it’s sort of like advice from your old aunt, what’s reflected there was known by everyone in the know, except the Micheliners, for quite a while (e.g. that the Freres Pourcel did not deserve three stars but Regis Marcon did). Fourth, geopolitics: Michelin’s head says “we only judge the food” but often the places that are technically good are boring and places like those by the Pourcel brothers get three stars because there’s no competition around them (eg in the Languedoc-Roussillon.) Finally, he’s somewhat cynical about the “Espoirs” category, attributing it to “marketing” and political and gastronomic “correctness” and an attempt to be more current vis a vis other guides which are quicker in recognizing good “little places.”

[Ptipois]

Third, it’s sort of like advice from your old aunt, what’s reflected there was known by everyone in the know, except the Micheliners, for quite a while (e.g. that the Freres Pourcel did not deserve three stars but Regis Marcon did).

←

Er, please read again, John. He's actually writing that (according to him) Régis Marcon does not deserve three stars either. ("Tout le monde savait (sauf le Michelin) que les frères Pourcel ne valaient pas les trois étoiles, pas plus que Régis Marcon, à Saint-Bonnet-le-Froid (désolé, c'est néanmoins une très bonne table)")

That is unfortunately one of Simon's weak points, atttributing to common knowledge ("everybody knew") what is nothing more than his opinion or personal dislikes. His line about the Pourcels is, IMO, catty. About Régis Marcon I cannot tell, having never been there.

Edited February 25, 2005 by Ptipois (log)

[oldschooltie]

only eaten once at pourcels (2003) - thought it the least impressive 3 star we've eaten at anywhere.

have eaten many times at marcon (since 1989) and the most recent (four nights in 2003) was the best yet. worth 3 stars? at least, "very nearly".

[Ptipois]

only eaten once at pourcels (2003) - thought it the least impressive 3 star we've eaten at anywhere.

Yes, but some people would share this thought, some not. Personally I do not. That the Pourcels may not be worth three stars is a possibility, not a universal agreement. All I mean is that "tout le monde savait...", "everybody knew", is not the kind of judgement I expect from a journalist. I only wish he had taken personal responsibility for it.

[John Talbott]

Er, please read again, John. He's actually writing that (according to him) Régis Marcon does not deserve three stars either. ("Tout le monde savait (sauf le Michelin) que les frères Pourcel ne valaient pas les trois étoiles, pas plus que Régis Marcon, à Saint-Bonnet-le-Froid (désolé, c'est néanmoins une très bonne table)")

←

Sorry for the mistranslation, I knew I shouldn’t have fallen asleep during the “ne….que” lesson.

Following up on his reactions Thursday, Francois Simon in today’s Le Figaro’s Croque Notes, not yet on their website, also takes issue with a few other Michelin decisions. He critiques the loss of one of Eric Briffard’s (les Elysees de Vernet) two stars; relating that for “bizarre” reasons, e.g. to better understand what Michelin did, he went to the restaurant the very night (Wednesday) that he learned that Briffard’s star was taken away and found the food still good to very good. He also takes exception with the Michelin’s continuing non-elevation of Stella Maris to star status and thinks that Michelin sends the wrong message by rewarding places like Helene Darroze with two stars, not say Stella Maris {my liberal and I hope generally correct read.}

Also, on a personal note, regarding the Pourcels, I've never been blown away by their food in either of their venues.

[pim]

only eaten once at pourcels (2003) - thought it the least impressive 3 star we've eaten at anywhere.

Yes, but some people would share this thought, some not. Personally I do not. That the Pourcels may not be worth three stars is a possibility, not a universal agreement. All I mean is that "tout le monde savait...", "everybody knew", is not the kind of judgement I expect from a journalist. I only wish he had taken personal responsibility for it.

←

I agree with Ptipois, resorting to tout le monde savait is a dig that's rather uncalled for. I've never been to Régis Marcon, but I have heard good things from someone whose palate I trust. I'll be at Bras in a few weeks, and perhaps will make a detour to try it for myself.

I agree with Simon's astonishment about Darroze though, I've had wildly inconsistent meals there that at times made me wonder about the 2-star status.

PS. Here's a copy of the press release. I blogged about it a couple days ago.

Edited February 26, 2005 by pim (log)

[pim]

Saw the official press release yesterday.

there's a new espoirs category also for restaurants on the verge of climbing a category.

←

Which must be a new variation on Chinese torture, putting some restaurants in anxious limbo at different levels. This really looks like Michelin searching for new and subtle ways to strenghthen its power through new and subtle kinds of blackmail, as a "we'll show you who's boss" reaction to recent attacks on its credibility (and big mistakes like the latest Belgian joke).

←

Perhaps, but I could also see that it is some sort of response to the long standing demand for Michelin to have more classes than simply 1-2-or-3 stars. Adding the espoir designate seems like a gentle way to introduce more detailed delineation between these classes.

[Ptipois]

Perhaps, but I could also see that it is some sort of response to the long standing demand for Michelin to have more classes than simply 1-2-or-3 stars. Adding the espoir designate seems like a gentle way to introduce more detailed delineation between these classes.

←

I agree, Pim. This is very probably what it is meant to be, but I remain pessimistic about the possible effets pervers it may breed. When you know what kind of pressure the Michelin award system puts on all restaurateurs that lend themselves to it (theoretically they don't have to. But recently I heard that some who had requested not to be in the Guide found themselves there anyway, and were very upset by that), I'm afraid this new semi-classification will include more nice restaurants into a dangerous zone of anxiety (which personally I find pointless and perhaps harmful to the diversity of French gastronomy). And there, for once, I will agree with François Simon: when your name is Michelin, and you claim to have 80 enquêteurs roaming through France, then you should know what the place is worth or not. He points out, quite rightly, that the criteria for an extra macaron are not necessarily food-related: he gives Régis Marcon's new ultramodern dining room and Guy Savoy's refurbishings as examples. I'm only concerned that this way of putting some restaurateurs on a waiting list will not do any good to their spontaneity and creative freedom.

[Bux]

I'd love to see Regis Marcon's new dining room. Were it not for experiencing the worst wine service I could imagine there, I'd have an even fonder regard for his inn. As it was, the superb cooking was enough to draw us back a second time although I was rather more anxious the second time than I'd care to admit, even to myself. Service however, on the second visit, was flawless, gracious and most endearing. It was everything the food and three star dining deserved. Having had his two most touted specialties à la carte, on the first visit, we had a moderate menu the second time. Thus it would be difficult to comment about any change in the quality of the food. There was a stunning array of amuses the first time and a few less, but still more than one should expect, at the second visit. Those hors d'oeuvres alone set a meal there apart. Truthfully, although it was a nice enough room, I was not a fan of the decor of the dining room, so I'm even more curious about the new room.

We've eaten very well on three separate occasions at the Pourcel's Jardin des Sens. At least two of those dinners were strikingly good, but we haven't had the opportunity to dine there since they got the third star and reports have been mixed at best. I suppose there's a great difference between running a single restaurant with two stars and running a far flung operation and possibly taking the home base for granted.

GaultMillau successfully carried off a rating system that combined "toques" and numbers. Within each level of "toque" there was a high number an a lower one. On the one hand there seemed to be a smooth progression between 10 and 19, (or 19.5 or 20) while at the same time, at the upper levels, there seemed to be a more distinct break focusing on the toques. The separation of a 17/two toques and an 18/two toques seemed less dramatic than between am 18/two toques and 19/three toques. In much the same way, three stars will be seen as significantly better than 2 stars with "espoir," while two stars with "espoir" will be seen as slightly better than 2 stars without. Hmm, I trust that really won't mean the two stars without "espoir" are really sans espoir. I wonder what the signal will be to the chef, or rather how it will be taken. No one will believe that the message is simply what Michelin says it is in public.

Food and dining are changing rapidly, both inside France and outside it's borders. France itself may no longer be France. Last year the NY Times asked if Spain wasn't the new France. It's not surprising that even the most staid of food guides should be changing and questioning it's methods and motives, not that everyone else has beaten them to the punch on that score and I mean "everyone."

[Bux]

I've moved a few posts commenting on Francois Simon's Op-Ed piece in the NY Times to the topic entitled Guide Michelin comes to NY in the NY forum.