Michelin Red Guide / Star System (merged topic)

[Andy Lynes]

I was lucky enough to enjoy a very nice dinner at one of Amsterdam's best restaurants "Christophe" this week. It has held a Michelin star for 13 years.

Whilst the surroundings, service, and for the most part, food were very good, I didn't think the restaurant was as good as 1 Michelin starred restaurants in the UK.

So, are stars allocated on the basis of the best restaurants in a given country, or on the basis of the best in Europe?

In my opinion, a star should indicate a certain standard which you can expect to find wherever that restaurant may be, otherwise it may be mis-leading.  

[Lord Michael Lewis]

Your sojourn outside the insular British Isles seems to have opened your eyes to a big problem that many are already aware of.

No, there is no consensus between the different guides published in the various countries of Europe, although there certainly should be. I feel very strongly about this, so strongly in fact that I have been in correspondence with Michelin head office to highlight the problem, and the resultant problem of crediting chefs in different countries, mainly Britain, with creations, that don't belong to them. Michelin have assured me that they are aware of the problem and that they are part of the way to solving it in Europe, but have problems in convalidating awards made in Britain due to the generally poor quality of potential inspectors and the obvious language barriers.

For the time being Britain remains an island.

(Edited by Lord Michael Lewis at 4:16 pm on Nov. 9, 2001)

[Andy Lynes]

I think it's very interesting that a European guide should apparently have no mechanism for ensuring that it's rating system is applied evenhandedly across all territories.

Accepting that's the case, do you know where the "best" starred restaurants are? France maybe? I would guess that the award of 3 stars would be very closely monitored across the whole of Europe, but that 1 star especially would be left more or less to the discretion of the individual guides.

Do you think that each territory wants to have, or even needs to have a starred restaurant, to prove that not only does it report on standards in the industry, but in fact influences and drives them up?    

[robert brown]

Andy, when someone threw candidate Bush a curve ball (a googly to you), i.e., a question he wouldn’t really know the answer to, he would often reply, “That’s a great question”. Your question IS a great one, and one which I have thought about from time to time. I believe the short answer is that the stars are awarded, up to a point, within the relative qualitative context of the country in question. However, I have to qualify my response because it is based on a comparison of France to Italy and a smattering of Central Spain, Belgium and Switzerland. Unfortunately I haven’t been in the British provinces in years and years, and when I am in London I never eat fancy-schmancy.

Probably the toughest call for Michelin to make is whether to give a restaurant one star or none at all. I would guess that in fringe gastronomic countries like The Netherlands, Michelin would give a star it wouldn’t otherwise give if the restaurant were in France or Great Britain in order to single it out as sort of a favorite in a maiden claimer. My suspicion about the two-star category is that one finds a certain amount of latitude best seen by there being restaurants that have no chance of ever receiving a third star and ones that are in the midst of ascending to ultimately obtain it. I find that lots of two-stars are strong in one particular area at the expense of another; i.e. elegant surroundings with really a one-star kitchen. One often finds this in major cities in France, Italy, England (just London, I suppose), etc.

In the three-star category, I’ll be interested to hear about Bux’s meal at Comme Chez Soi in Brussels. This would be a good indicator of the quality, vis-à-vis Michelin’s standards in France, of top-rated French restaurants outside France. In Italy at the moment there are three three-star restaurants, two of which I have patronized. To my mind the one meal each I had at these restaurants, both of whom have the wives doing the cooking, didn’t come close to being among my most memorable Italian meals. In fact there are a dozen or more one and two-star restaurants in Italy where I have had far superior experiences. How this observation of mine ultimately addresses your question I’m not even sure. Are the inspectors in the various countries different than the ones in France? (I would imagine so). Does Michelin award three stars outside of France using the same criteria in France? If you look at some of the other guidebooks published by Italians, there are several restaurants they give higher ratings to than the Michelin three-stars.

My best reply would be that you need to get a certain number of meals in a given country under your belt so that you can instinctively make a guess as to what one, two, and three stars might mean in the country in question and how stringent the criteria are. The whole question of reliability, which may seem to vary from one Michelin Guide to another, seems also to be a factor; so I’m not even sure it would be possible to have pan-European standards. If there were, we could be back to the days when Michelin  gave no three-star ratings to any restaurant outside of France!

Does any of the above do anything for you beyond hinting at how daunting your proposition is!!

(Edited by robert brown at 11:48 am on Nov. 10, 2001)

[Fat Guy]

Even within France, there are some hard-to-justify differences among regions. For example, restaurants in Brittany are typically underrated. Someone better steeped in the culture can explain this more thoroughly, but my understanding is that the rest of France views Brittany as a backwater. Roellinger's two stars would in my opinion be worth three anywhere else in France. The two other good restaurants I visited in Brittany both easily deserved an additional star as well.

[Andy Lynes]

I accept that it's a difficult task managing a guide for Europe, but it is one that Michelin have set themselves. They famously do not explain themselves further than the information printed in their books so the hapless punter can quite easily be led to assume that a star indicates the same anywhere it is awarded.

My conclusion is that stars can be taken as an indication of a certain degreee of quality, and that in all likelihood, a restaurant with 3 stars in any given country will be very good, but that you are slightly dodgy ground with 1 and 2 stars.    

This does lead me on to a wider point about the reliability of any guide book. Here in the UK, I have pretty much given up expecting to agree with the guides rating systems, having had shocking meals in hotel restaurants with 2 out of a possible 5 AA rosettes which should never have been in the guide at all, and fantastic meals in places that the Good Food Guide deems worthy of just 3 or 4 points out of 10. Has anyine had similar experiences, either UK, Europe USA or anywhere else for that matter?

[Bux]

Am I alone in this understanding? I'll check my Michelin guide later for some sort of verification. Right now I'm late for a dinner appointment. Anyway, in regard to one star restaurants, it's always been my understanding that the star is earned relatively. That is relative to other restaurants in the region and perhaps a bit towrds value as well. Thus a single star is far easier to earn in Picardy than it is in Gascony or Burgundy. I have dined in dreadful one star restaurants, but I suspect they may well have been the best in the town, if not the department in which they did business.

As for the multiple stars, the three star restaurants I've known in Spain were as good as those in France. Ditto for the two stars. One star restaurants varied from area to area. Back to France, I've dined in two star restaurants I was sure would be three stars in the next edition and in three stars restaurants that were perhaps a weak two star, in my mind.

Comme Chez Soi was not Ducasse, but I would be arrogant to assume I could adequately rate either on the basis of a single visit.

Okay, my wife's not ready to leave. My Michelin (for France) notes that one star is a good place to stop on a journey--that means not a destination restaurant by any means. It also warns against comparing an inexpensive one star to a deluxe one star.  Comparing one stars between counties is meaningless as there is no standard just within France. Comparing three star restaurants is another story and on the whole, I believe a consistent stadard is meant to apply. The problem is that few of us will agree with any set rating across the board. If I know of a three star restaurant in Vonnas that's better than one in Paris, why shouldn't I also know one that's better than another in Brussels.

[robert brown]

I think Bux has it just about right. I'm just curious about one concept that I'm not sure of where it leads or if anyone has any insights. But as someone who once took a statistics course (and had no idea what was going on from the start), I am wondering if the distribution of stars across a given country can be insightful. How many genuinely good starred restaurants are there in impoverished gastronomic areas such as eastern France (around Metz, let's say) or the Midlands perhaps, or even Amsterdam-the place that got this whole thing started. If you look at the France Michelin hotel and restaurant maps, you can see that most stars probably cluster the most from Paris heading southeast into Provence. (My France Michelin is in, of all places, France)  Could and should someone factor that into one's dining choices? However, as Steven pointed out, Michelin probably thinks Roelinger is relatively fine for a restaurant in Brittany, yet there are fans such as Steven and the Gault-Millau that think it is the top. I'm not sure that what I write here goes anywhere other than to put forth the proposition of using the Michelin in a broad-based way to decide whether to eat in a one star (and on rare occasions) or a two-star in a marginal gastronomic area as opposed to going simple and local. (I know: don't tell me about Michel Bras).

(Edited by robert brown at 11:24 pm on Nov. 16, 2001)

[Bux]

Michelin, an organization run by humans, gets it wrong sometimes, although they might say I'm wrong. Michelin is dependent on someone's judgement. You can't argue about the score of a baseball game (although you might well dispute a crucial call by the ump). The score in a gymnastics, or ice skating competition is another story. I don't care how objective a reviewer tries to be, or how well disciplined the Michelin staff may be, it's a subjective call to a great extent.

Michelin is also known to be conservative--slow to award and slow to remove a third star. They've also had a long history of operating in a climate where all the restaurants operated in a narrow framework of idea and standards. That's no longer the case and my guess is that all guide books will be less reliable for some diners if we move in the current direction. It's one thing to judge who makes the best quenelles in Nantua sauce, but it's another to decide if the scallops with chocolate tuilles at one restaurant are better than the quenelles in Nantua sauce at another.

As to your ultimate question, I think Michelin itself tried to answer that from the beginning. The rosettes were never designated as good, better and best, but as good for its type and location, worth going out of your way, and worth a special trip from anywhere.

I've only eaten once in Roellinger's, but I thought it was worth a longer trip than some three star restaurants. Roellinger was first mentioned to me by a Breton chef in NYC, who said, at the time, that he thought it would have three stars in the next Michelin. After eating there, I was inclined to agree. Several editions have appeared since. Roellinger is still two stars and I don't predict Michelin stars with any confidence.

When you speak of going local as opposed to chasing stars, there's yet another factor that comes into play. Satisfaction may often be more easily, and definitely less expensively, had outside the star chambers. As ethereal as dinner at Ducasse might have been, I can't say it was any more satisfying than an andouille at Le Balzar, a brasserie that was overrun by Americans and whose cuisine is probably not all that good overall, but it can still grill a sausage and I can't get andouille in the states. Eel in green sauce earlier this week in a venerable Brussels brasserie was another delicious dish that I will crave when I'm not in Belgium and I am likely to crave it more often than I will dinner at Ducasse. I doubt Ducasse will be insulted to learn that I would not look forward to dining at his restaurant when I am just tired and hungry and just want a good bowl of food I don't have to pay much attention to. Of course if someone came along and told me they'd pick up the tab if I joined them at Ducasse, I could probably change my mood quickly.  ;-)

[Steve Plotnicki]

Sorry for being late to this thread. This question is more one of context than it is solely about food. England and Belgium are great examples of French food, often superbly prepared, that does not rise to the same heights French food rises to when one is eating it in France. I only have to point out what should be the obvious. Restaurants like Comme Chez Soi and Le Gavroche are trying to replicate the French experience. I don't know about you but I like to have the French experience in France. Having it outside of France always seems a bit off to me. Like being at Paris in Disneyworld instead of really being in Paris. Okay that's a crass example but it makes my point.

I think this same problem exists, albeit to a lesser extent from region to region in France. In my experience, a 3 star restaurant is dependant on the classic dishes of their region. A place like Auberge d'Ill, while being a great place, suffers from being in an "Alsatian box." Troisgros suffers less from this syndrome because the food of the Loire is not as idiosyncratic as food from Alsace . Same with all the three stars (and top quality 2 stars) that are sprinkled around the autoroutes from Paris to Valence. Burgundian, Lyonaisse or food from the Rhone-Alpes isn't as uniquely regional in style as food from  the Alsace , Sud-Ouest. or food from Normandy is. That's why I can see people having a hard time understanding why a place like Roellinger gets a third star (I've never been, I'm just using it as an example.) It's like a place on the Maine Coast being worthy of 3 stars. The problem is, there is no foundation for it. The cuisine in Brittany is generally not worth of having  a member of that club. It can only be that he has created such a refined approach to Lobster, Oysters and Lamb that has been raised on the salt marshes that it springboards him to that rating.

I think evaluating whether restaurants in countries like Italy, where they do not mimic French culinary technique, are worthy of three star status is even harder. In my book they don't even come close. In fact, I have eaten at Al Sorriso and while I think it is worthy of 2 stars in scope, I didn't think the food is worth more than a star. And while I haven't eaten at most of the highly touted Italian restaurants, I would bet a meal at San Vicenzo that I would be hard pressed to find one that I thought deserved more than 2 stars.

Face it, the star system in Michelin is really based on stock based cooking techniques. When you are in a country like the Netherlands and culinary technique is not based on the use of stocks, Michelin loses their point of reference as to how to gague things. In France, Michelin will sometime award the occassional casual restauranta single star because they offer a definitive version of the local cuisine.  I'm speaking of places like Benoit, La Beaugraviere or La Tupina. But you will not find them giving a star to the German equivelent, one that has serves exquisite asparagus every spring. That's not really in their playbook.

[Steve Klc]

Though I think the case could be made that Michelin is adapting--albeit slowly--and let's use Spain as the case in point.  As has been mentioned elsewhere, elite-level Spanish cooking is now more than Ferran and Santamaria and Arzak, with Martin Berasategui just recently garnering a third star.

My chef sources in Spain tell me that there are at least three other restaurants in Spain that deserved a third star ahead of Berasategui--and should get them the next time around.

Could it be that Michelin seems to have adapted and gotten it right--they're recognizing creative, modern cooking--and are less dependent on local/regional context and French frame of reference.  In Spain, at least, Michelin doesn't seem to me to be so conservative, classic and Francophilic.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Steve-You are right about Michelin and Spain. But what seperates Spain from Italy are the cooking techniques developed and practiced there.  The Italian chefs never developed their technique to the extent the Spanish ones did. For Michelin not to notice they would appear idiotic.

Of the four 3 star restaurants in Spain, Arzak is the only one I've been to. And to me they really serve two star

food there. But I can see from looking at the cookbooks written by Santamaria and Adria that they are serious places.

[helenas]

Steve,

Do you mean "La Cocina de Santi Santamaria"? Do you know if it's translated to French or English? If not, it looks like i need to learn Spanish. So many important books are availably only in Spanish.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Helena-I'm not speaking about any book in particular. And although I collect cookbooks, I don't buy the Spanish ones as I don't speak Spanish or Catalan. But I do know that Santamaria has a brand new book out as I have flipped throught the pages.

[Bux]

We ate at Arzak several years ago. The setting may have been less elegant than I expect at three star restaurants, but with the full knowledge that I was eating at a three star restaurant practically a stone's throw from France, the food did not disappoint. Nor did the service, although it was also simple and somewhat homespun in style. The food was also simple, but in an extracted or reduced style rather than "country simple." It should be noted that I use "simple" to describe Ducasse's food as well.

What I've read about Arzak and the way he uses his kitchen as a laboratory to study food as well as his insistence on top quality provisions, (his squid are line caught, not netted) he is among the more serious and talented chefs in Europe. It may be that his daughter has now taken over the ktchens entirely. She's certainly well trained both at his heels and at some of the finest kitchens in France and Italy from what I understand. Of course you can imagine that she would have no problem getting into the kitchens of her father's friends. I cannot say if the quality has been maintained.

Santamaria's food may have been even more impressive, but it's hard to compare. The two meals were years apart and we spend more time at El Raco de Can Fabes, as well as more money on a longer menu. The Adria brothers may well be in a class by themselves. It's rather hard to compare a meal at El Bulli to that of most other places.

[Bux]

Steve, (Klc) it seems to be that Michelin has always been conservative, e.g. slow to acknowledge change. That's always been it's strength and it's weakness.

Spain is also a very particular case in point. Its food and wines have been evolving at such a rate that it may be seen more as revolution than evolution, except for the fact that no one seems interested in upsetting the applecart. I don't mean to overlook the chefs in Paris or the French provinces, but the geographic center of cutting edge food may lie in the Pyrenees halfway between Catlalunya and the Basque coast, unless what I've heard about points further west in the north pull it in that direction. At the same time, regional cuisine is Spain seems far less changed than it does in France and as sophisticated as the Adrias' and Berasategui's cooking may be, the "people" seem to be eating as they have for generations. Although there's been some hit and miss, I've had to adjust my palate and I've been dependent on personal recommendations far more than in France, I've been enjoying recent travels in Spain and finding unexpected gastronomic pleasure at many levels. It looks as if our next trip to France will probably take us into Spain once more which leads me to ask about those three less than two star restaurants. Where are they and who are they? I'll take asnwers here, in the Europe-other board, or by message as you see fit to post. I'd certainly like to drum up some interest in a public discussion of modern Spanish cooking beyond El Bulli on eGullet.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Bux-The food friends that I trust tell me that Zubaroa is better than either Adria or Santamaria. No personal experience there. As for Arzak, the highlight of my trip was a bottle of 1958 Marquis de Riscal Reserva for ุ. Ethereal stuff. But as for the cooking, I think it's limited. I didn't find any revelations on the menu. If you want a very refined version of Clams and Hake in Green Sauce, Arzak is a good choice for you.  But there certainly weren't any cutting edge dishes on the menu.

I think there is a split here between restaurants that are taking chances, and restaurants that pretty much cook a refined version of the local cuisine. There is the l'Ambroisie school of best ingredients, perfectly prepared (I'm not a fan, boring) and the more ambitious chefs. I am hard pressed to say a place with plain cooking really deserves three stars.

I think the 3 star marker changes all of the time, depending on where cooking is at. Michelin is all too slow to remove a 3rd star from a place like Auberge d'Ill or Moulin de Mougins when they become somewhat predictable. Not that they are bad places, Auberge is great and you can still eat a good Provencal meal at the Moulin on the best night. But Chibois, Willer and others cook better than Verge does these days. Problem is, Michelin has a difficult time of it drawing that distinction. And when they try to, they move too slowly.

[Bux]

Steve Plotnicki, I'd like to get back and discuss some of your first contentions, but Michelin is conservative. GaultMillau is much quicker to recognize creativity and new talent. It also rewards creativity to a much greater degree than Michelin. I still think that's a strength at least as much of a weakness in Michelin. As excited as new ideas are, I'd hate to see a time when a three star restaurant had to be on the cutting edge of creativity. When restaurants that are trying to chage the standards become the standard, we may have chaos. I'm not at all sure I haven't seen the signs of this in younger chefs who ape Adria's public image far more than they care to undergo his training or aspire to his expertise.

There's a level of finesse in some of what you appear to call "plain cooking" that's far harder to achieve, and perhaps much less obvious to the diner, than what I see in lesser creative cooks who are willing to bypass this finesse.

I know what you mean about l'Ambroisie, but I'd be hard pressed to say it didn't deserve three stars. Any complaints I'd have about the food along these lines would probably apply to Robuchon and Ducasse as well. I suppose I place a different line between predictable and exquisitely well done than you do. No doubt, three stars is not enough information for a real food lover to go on when trying to select one resturant. I don't know about you, but I may never get to eat at every three star restaurant and have to narrow my choice further based on more detailed reports. My own personal rating system may also place a few two star restaurants above some three star restaurants. I assume that's going to be true of anyone who seriously considers what he has eaten as well as where he will eat. Our discussion will have little meaning to those who feel the need to eat at three star restaurants beause others have rated them as such. Which is not to say that my curiosity is not sufficiently aroused as well. I may eat in a restaurant I know I won't like just to see what impresses, amuses or inspires others.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Bux - But there's a difference between three star cooking, and an entire experience that adds up to three stars. So while I'd agree that l'Ambroisie offers a 3 star experience, I think it's more about the entire experince than just about the cooking. The problem is, the Michelin guide doesn't differentiate between places like l'Ambroisie and places where they are cooking at the highest level of creativity.

This flaw in their rating system has little impact while restaurants are on their way up. So what if it takes them longer than it should to promote a place like Gagniere to three stars. But many people make a pilgrimage to a place like Bocuse or Auberge d'Ill only to be disappointed by the ordinariness of it all.

I find your comment about three star restaurants always being on the cutting edge somewhat telling. That's because up until the last 5 years or so, they *were* always on the cutting edge. So I can't imagine you would have made that comment 15 years ago, when it looked like there was an unlimited number of new and original ways to approach food. And as much on the cutting edge as the Spanish guys are, and I say this as someone who has observed their technique but hasn't experienced it, most of what you hear about it is a recount of the technique along with a description of the experience. I never hear anyone talk about it being as delicious as the way we used to talk about the top rated places in France from the 70's-90's.

[Bux]

there's a difference between three star cooking, and an entire experience that adds up to three stars. So while I'd agree that l'Ambroisie offers a 3 star experience, I think it's more about the entire experince than just about the cooking.

I disagree in that I don't think you can have a three star experience without three star food. I'll go so far as to say I believe that's Michelin's philosophy as well. While each and everyone of us may dispute the ratings on a subjective level, we should understand that when Michelin awards three stars, they're saying that the food meets their standards for three stars.

The very definition of three stars is "Exceptional cuisine, worth a special jouney." Two stars indicates "Excellent cooking, worth a detour." Fine wines, faultless service and elegant surroundings are only mentioned in the subtitle. Never is it implied that a three star restaurant made it inspite of the food.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Bux- I agree with you. For Michelin to award 3 stars the cuisine has to be at a certain level. But what I have found is that while a restaurant might qualify as to their technical ability and presentation, the food doesn’t necessarily merit 3 stars if we were gauging it by how delicious it is. You know it’s like a perfectly played violin concerto without soul. It doesn’t cut it. And I think there are a number of 3 star Michelin restaurants where if they served you the same food in a different environment, you would never think of it as 3 star food, and Michelin wouldn't give them 3 stars either.  And the opposite is true too. Until Ducasse in Monte Carlo, Michelin would not give a hotel restaurant 3 stars. Maximin never got his 3rd star  when he was at Chantecler because it was in the Negresco Hotel. And Maximin was cooking 4 star food at the time.

Sometimes a place with really solid food like Taillevent, but which doesn't offer food with the requisite flair I usually associate with a 3 star restaurant, has other qualities that make them deserving. But I've been in places like Auberge d'Ill and have been served what is really two star food, delicious two star food, but still deserving of that ranking nonetheless. And I was at La Pyramide this past May and we found the food basically inedible. If that chef were cooking in a place other than a gastronomic temple he definitely wouldn't have more than 2 stars.  And he might only have one!

Chefs are like baseball teams. They go through good years and bad years, or at least good patches and bad ones, but the guides don't really reflect that. For years I attended a business convention in Cannes every January and ate dinner at La Palme d'Or in the Martinez Hotel (2 star I believe.) Some years the food would be fantastic and some years it would be sort of ordinary. I didn’t even have to eat the meal to know. I could read the menu outside the entrance on the street and if it was interesting, it always turned out to be a great meal. And if it looked boring it always turned that way. But, and it's a really big but,  the Michelin rating *never* changed. This problem isn't unqiue to Michelin although by far they are the worst culprit.

It’s this aspect of Michelin, their conservatism and stodginess that makes their single star category virtually useless unless you are a)looking for chefs who are on the way up and will eventually be promoted to 2 or 3 stars and b) trying to spend less on a traditional meal. Their standard for awarding an unusual place like Nobu one star is far too rigid. But they are much quicker to award a star to a place like Roussilon, and indeed they have. They've got that backwards if you ask me.

[Bux]

So much of what you say is based on personal taste and preference. My opinion of a restaurant is often different than Michelin's. While I recognize that their inspector has eaten more meals in that restaurant then I have, I also recognize the fact that in the end, my taste is my taste and it may never agree with anyone else's. This is why no one should accept a single guide as the bible. That said, I find Michelin will lead me astray less often than a less conservative guide or critic. Michelin's biggest fault is the lack of any substantial text. Michelin lists a few special dishes for each multistarred restaurant. I find that valuable. More often than not, the first time diner should consider ordering those dishes if they're on the menu. GaultMillau has lots of text, but it is far lass inclusive at the ordinary level and I often wonder if Michelin's listing of the ordinary places is not one of it's strongest services. Sometimes I just want a reliable meal close to where I happen to be. Other travelers may care even less about starred food than I do, but still want a good ordinary meal.

Much has been said and written about how much value Michelin places on the environment. All that I've seen or heard, has been focused on whether or not Michelin withholds a third star from those chefs whose food is extraordinary, but whose restaurant and service is less than elegant. I hear of chefs and owners who think they can get a third star by improving their environment. Your's is the first opinion I've heard that a restaurant "earned" it's star on its environment. It doesn't make your claim invalid, just not one that seems to have many subscribers.

That Michelin will be as slow to remove a star as to award one, is rather widely acknowledged. Many critics believe a legendary restaurant may drop precipitously before Michelin takes away a star.

Let's take La Pyramid in Vienne as an example since you brought it up. It's been a two star restaurant for some time. Lately I've been hearing great press about Henriroux who's the current chef/owner. GaultMillau, a guide far less conservative than Michelin had it at 18/20 a few years and this year it's a 19/20. Although I haven't eaten there since Mme. Point ran the show, to me this indicates a restaurant on the way up, not one resting on it's laurels. There are gastronomic temples and Michelin may be guilty of preserving them, but I've seen no evidence that they take part in the restoration. It was a real fight for Loiseau to get three stars at La Cote d'Or in Saulieu after the restaurant went into decline.

As for the sinlge star category, I think that's already been explained. Michelin awards these in relation to a restaurant's local competition. One star is not worth going out of your way to visit. It's merely the best place nearby and a particularly good value for the price. A one star in Paris is going to be far better than one in the boondocks. Michelin does not pretend otherwise.

[Matthew Grant]

Plannig a brief trip to France, I was looking at some retaurants I might visit and wiped a couple off the list as they had lost stars (Roger Verge and Ducasse Monaco). It set me wondering whether any restaurant has lost stars and regained them under the guidance of the same chef?

[robert brown]

Matthew, Verge for one. He regained a second star in the 2002 Guide. Ducasse in Monaco is another over the past several years (very volatile, that one). It went 3-2-3-2. I am sure the phenomenon in question happened before at the three-star level. I will have a look later. Anyway, I wouldn't go to either restaurant now.

[wgallois]

Could anyone let me know whether the Michelin Red Guide to Europe is any good? Does it cover all the starred restaurants mentioned in the country-specific guides and, indeed, does its coverage of restaurants go beyond those countries which are served by specific guides?

Thanks a lot.