Michelin Guide to New York est arrivé!

[jamiemaw]

I've eaten in fewer than one-third of these restaurants in the past few years. But as someone who visits NYC fairly frequently, I'd be interested to hear local members' opinions as to where the greatest discrepancy exists between reputation (perhaps hyperbole-/celebrity chef-/TV exposure-driven) and this list.

Is it Babbo? Daniel? Another?

Edited November 1, 2005 by jamiemaw (log)

[sammy]

the omission of EMP makes sense considering that it's changing chefs.

←

Doubtful. It isn't a "chef driven" restaurant. And consider GT and The Modern both have only one, how can 11 Madison Park deserve one?

Edited November 1, 2005 by sammy (log)

[oakapple]

The Financial Times covers the story here:

"My standards are higher than that, but I’ll accept the rating," Mr Boulud told the FT yesterday, referring to Daniel’s two stars. "I think I know where I am."

But Mr Boulud was more disappointed about a one-star rating for his Café Boulud, the slightly less formal version of Daniel. "Based on the company, what the one star is, it is definietly a disappointment," he said.

...and...

Notable absences from the star list were Chanterelle, Montrachet and Union Square Café. The three restaurants are credited with revolutionising fine dining in New York and rate among the most popular in the annual Zagat Survey.

"Union Square Café has been a favorite of New Yorkers over the years; we look forward to one day appealing to Michelin as well," said Michelle Lehman, director of public relations for Danny Meyer’s Union Square Hospitality Group.

[oakapple]

I'd be interested to hear local diners' opinions as to where the greatest discrepancy exists between reputation (perhaps hyperbole-/celebrity chef-/TV exposure-driven) and this list.

Is it Babbo? Daniel? Another?

←

I've eaten in 15 of the 31 one-star restaurants. On the whole, it seems to me a reasonable list. Personally, I'd choose Chanterelle over Fleur de Sel. Then again, I've been to each once. I assume the Michelin inspectors had the luxury of a more thorough study.

If anything, the Michelin folks appear to have brought their own viewpoint, instead of just repeating the accepted wisdom. It would have been quite easy to include Union Square Café, Chanterelle, Montrachet, Balthazar, Aquavit, Felidia and so on. Instead, they left those restaurants out, and included some provocative choices, such as Spotted Pig, Saul, Etats-Unis, and Scalini Fedeli.

Obviously, many restaurants have a reputation for being good because they are good, so it's not surprising that a lot of the usual suspects are there. But it's not just Zagat/NYT redux.

[Fat Guy]

It's hard to imagine that the impending chef change is the reason Eleven Madison Park didn't get a star, given that Alain Ducasse at the Essex House just had its own chef change. I think the inspectors just didn't like it. And it's certainly the least star-worthy of the Union Square Hospitality Group restaurants. The omission of Tabla, however, is crazy -- it's the seminal establishment in its category and is superior to comparably positioned restaurants like Vong. Likewise, Union Square Cafe, while not a two- or three-star restaurant, is better and more important than most on the one-star list.

The list starts with absurdity at the top and moves on from there. There are only two restaurants in New York City that are even in the ballpark of real Michelin three-star restaurants in Europe: Per Se and Alain Ducasse at the Essex House. But to award three stars to either when both restaurants are either relatively new or have a new chef is not justifiable. Still, those picks make at least some sense. Jean Georges is probably the best of the remaining luxury restaurants, but three Michelin stars? I love Jean Georges and think the food is excellent, but it wouldn't get even two stars in Paris. And Le Bernardin? That's not even in the genre no matter how enjoyable the food. The blatant, patronising lowering of standards to include restaurants that would never survive the review process in Europe puts the lie to the guide's methodology and is indicative of a cynical, pandering marketing effort.

The two-star list is the most interesting and defensible, especially in its acknowledgment of David Bouley. And Danube especially has long been underrated by the standard sources. Still, in the context of the one- and three-star lists it doesn't make a lot of sense.

The one-star list is indicative of a confused, out-of-touch effort. The Italian choices are particularly amusing.

[Dave H]

I've eaten in fewer than one-third of these restaurantsin the past few years. But as someone who visits NYC fairly frequently, I'd be interested to hear local diners' opinions as to where the greatest discrepancy exists between reputation (perhaps hyperbole-/celebrity chef-/TV exposure-driven) and this list.

←

The largest surprises are probably those omitted entirely--by my count, that includes Alto, Aquavit, Atelier, Blue Hill, Chanterelle, Four Seasons, Karumazushi, Sugiyama, Sushi Yasuda and Tabla as a first cut. That, and the bizarre inclusions like Vong, La Goulue and Spotted Pig (the last of which I personally like a great deal, but come on).

Daniel rating a category below Jean-Georges and Le Bernardin is unexpected, as may be Danube's inclusion with the 2-stars. Mario was clearly unhappy that Babbo didn't make ** (see the NYT article), but it doesn't really hang with the restaurants in that category, Danube included. Obviously the 1-star category encompasses a wide range, but to say that Babbo or GT or Cafe Boulud is in the same category with Danube or Bouley doesn't follow.

Edited November 1, 2005 by Dave H (log)

[Eatmywords]

If Michelin was sending a message i.e "introducing the new, hipper and looser Michelin" with a Spotted Pig ref, then there are 200 more places that deserve a twinkler as well. Certainly more than one Japanese. Yasuda? Oh and La Goulue? How many French bistros blow this place away? Balthazar for one? Maybe it's me, but it just don't seem right.

[robert brown]

The problem is that we don't know how many times (and how many at a time) the Michelin people visited each restaurant, and with the remarkable inconsistency that characterizes every notable restaurant in the city, don't expect a lot of rhyme or reason to the hierarchy or that the hierarchy will come anywhere near to yours, whoever you may be.

[docsconz]

I've eaten in fewer than one-third of these restaurantsin the past few years. But as someone who visits NYC fairly frequently, I'd be interested to hear local diners' opinions as to where the greatest discrepancy exists between reputation (perhaps hyperbole-/celebrity chef-/TV exposure-driven) and this list.

←

The largest surprises are probably those omitted entirely--by my count, that includes Alto, Aquavit, Atelier, Blue Hill, Chanterelle, Four Seasons, Karumazushi, Sugiyama, Sushi Yasuda and Tabla as a first cut. That, and the bizarre inclusions like Vong, La Goulue and Spotted Pig (the last of which I personally like a great deal, but come on).

Daniel rating a category below Jean-Georges and Le Bernardin is unexpected, as may be Danube's inclusion with the 2-stars. Mario was clearly unhappy that Babbo didn't make ** (see the NYT article), but it doesn't really hang with the restaurants in that category, Danube included. Obviously the 1-star category encompasses a wide range, but to say that Babbo or GT or Cafe Boulud is in the same category with Danube or Bouley doesn't follow.

←

On first pass I didn't have too much of a problem with the restaurants that were included. Most of the questionable ones are ones I haven't been to. Looking at your list of exclusions, however, I have to agree, it doesn't really make sense. There appears to be a clear bias against Japanese restaurants in particular. I think they may have just shown that the book cannot really be taken seriously.

[dipardoo]

there's always a hoo ha when the new michelin guides come out in europe. isn't there an argument that new york at least got michelin's full attention for a year? we may not know who visited and when, but it's a pretty good guess that they at least visited each place once this year. this is surely the freshest results they will ever be.

[R Washburn]

I am interested in seeing how Michelin's standards affect the way the starred restaurants are run. Will Daniel change it's practices, even if it reduces profits, to earn a third star? Will Michelin be a tougher grader in the future and end up raising the standards here?

I had thought that the three stars would be ADNY, Per Se, and Masa. I am quite surprised to see Le Bernardin and Jeans-Georges included especially if Daniel was not getting a third star.

Now we have to see what is in the actual reviews to determine if this guide is more useful than the Zagat or NYT.

[Eatmywords]

The problem is that we don't know how many times  (and how many at a time) the Michelin people visited each restaurant, and with the remarkable inconsistency that characterizes every notable restaurant in the city, don't expect a lot of rhyme or reason to the hierarchy or that the hierarchy will come anywhere near to yours, whoever you may be.

←

Exactly, and that's why you and others can clear things up, exposing their inaccuracies to foreign/out-of-town foodies who'll rely heavily on the tire. If Goulue is in why not Grenouille, Montrachet, and a 150 others that have been around forever serving z'kick-azz french fare? And where's Esca? Aren't they supposed to have some decent fish? I'll stick to Menu-pages and yes, you can give me flack for this, Time Out.

[Nathan]

(I think that Balthazar is too crowded and not ambitious enough to be a one-star (and I really like it), it is a bistro after all. I'm not a

fan of the Spotted Pig but it is much more ambitious than Balthazar.) Yasuda is a notable omission.

I disagree on Union Square Café…I really like USC, but the menu has barely changed in years and the food is hardly innovative. It's comfort food. It is singularly important in terms of NY dining history but I fail to see why that would have any bearing on the Guide.

As for La Goulue, I have never heard of it. Agreed that the Italian choices are bizarre.

[M.X.Hassett]

The blatant, patronising lowering of standards to include restaurants that would never survive the review process in Europe puts the lie to the guide's methodology and is indicative of a cynical, pandering marketing effort.

←

I think you summed it up in that one sentence Steve.

Edit: removed an "it"

Edited November 1, 2005 by M.X.Hassett (log)

[Pan]

Well, Luger's is pretty informal, though heavily accoladed.

←

Point well taken, Dryden.

[akc1979]

Anyone consider that Hearth should have gotten a Star?

[Peter B Wolf]

...... It all feels like a big "So what?"

'So what' is right. Take the un-official eGullet list, with or without stars, created by real live reviewers, form an opinion on trust for these contribution eGulletiers and commit to another book to not read.

[Jmahl]

Ahhh, leave it to the French to stir the waters. Without them you'll would be doing something else tonight and perhaps not having as much fun.

[oakapple]

I have yet to see the method of classifying restaurants that is without flaw. The Times ratings are flawed. Zagat ratings are flawed. Gayot ratings are flawed. Michelin stars are flawed. What you read on eGullet is flawed. Jim Leff thinks Chowhound knocks them all out of a cocked hat, but his site is the most flawed of them all.

In tomorrow's NYT article, it says they visited every starred restaurant a minimum of three times, and some as many as twelve. Jean Georges received eight visits, one of which included a two-hour inspection of the kitchen. The article also says that the awarding of stars requires a consensus of multiple inspectors. On the whole, one gets the impression that this was a helluva lot more thorough than any other system out there.

Even if you say that The Spotted Pig doesn't deserve a star....well, there are 39 starred restaurant. When was the time any reviewer got 39 entries in a row correct, just the way you wanted them? It doesn't happen, folks. Reviews are a matter of opinion. I'll be interested to read the supporting text, but I doubt the Michelin folks were unaware that The Spotted Pig is a different kind of restaurant than Babbo.

[melkor]

I have yet to see the method of classifying restaurants that is without flaw. The Times ratings are flawed. Zagat ratings are flawed. Gayot ratings are flawed. Michelin stars are flawed. What you read on eGullet is flawed. Jim Leff thinks Chowhound knocks them all out of a cocked hat, but his site is the most flawed of them all.

←

I think Gayot is significantly more flawed than the rest, the Times and Michelin at least pay for their own meals...

[Fat Guy]

If you look at it the way Michelin seems to look at restaurants in France, the primary difference between Daniel on the one hand and Le Bernardin and Jean Georges on the other hand is size. Jean Georges is a tiny restaurant, and Le Bernardin while larger is still operating at a relatively small scale. Daniel is immense. It handles hundreds of covers on a busy a night, and that's not even counting the event space. Daniel also turns tables more aggressively than any of the other New York Times four-star places. Daniel Boulud, as a chef/restaurateur, is one of the greats. And the top-level meal you can get at Daniel is as haute as the top-level meal you can get most anywhere. And there are a lot of really nice touches at Daniel, including a great bread program. But the restaurant is not organized in such a way as to have a top-level Michelin three-star-like baseline. If you just go to Daniel and order three courses from the standard menu, you'll get excellent food but it won't be like Michelin three-star food. If you order a tasting menu, you may get closer to that sort of experience. Whereas, if you go to Jean Georges and you order three dishes from the menu you'll get something that, to me, seems a solid notch higher than at Daniel. And by that I don't mean it necessarily tastes better, but rather that in the hierarchy of formal Michelin-type haute cuisine the basic offerings at Daniel are not as haute as the basic offerings at Jean Georges or Le Bernardin. Likewise, the service at Daniel is not as refined and focused as at Jean Georges, though it is probably on par with Le Bernardin.

The thing is, Michelin just isn't attuned to New York. The whole rating system is inapplicable here because the restaurants that succeed in this community by this community's standards are not necessarily the restaurants that would succeed in France by French standards. Daniel isn't trying to be like a Michelin three-star restaurant. It's trying to be like the greatest party in the world, every night. It's a New York thing. I'm sure Daniel Boulud is disappointed by his rating, but he should bear in mind that he never for one second tried to build a Michelin three-star restaurant. He tried to build a great New York restaurant, and he did. There's nothing in Paris like it. It's apples and oranges.

None of that, however, makes Jean Georges or Le Bernardin a Michelin three-star restaurant. Though Michelin has now declared that they are three-star restaurants, that label says more about Michelin's marketing strategy than it does about those restaurants. I love both of them, particularly Jean Georges. In the past year, I've been to Jean Georges more than any of the other four-star-type places and I've had wonderful food and wonderful service, and I think the room is delightful. I have great respect for Jean-Georges the chef, and for Johnny the pastry chef. But Jean Georges is not a Michelin three-star restaurant. It comes close in places, but it's at best a near miss. Le Bernardin is even farther from the mark.

Now, Per Se and Alain Ducasse at the Essex House may be more reasonable as choices for a three-star rating. But I've got to wonder, if Ducasse's Paris or Monaco restaurant were across the street from the Essex House and Ambroisie were across the street from Per Se, and there were two or three other restaurants in town at that level, would Michelin seriously give three stars to Per Se and Alain Ducasse at the Essex House? I think it's more likely that they would be two-star restaurants and that Jean Georges and Le Bernardin would be one-star restaurants.

[RobinsonCuisine]

Eater has a press release detailing how the stars etc. are awarded which explains why Spotted Pig was included as the stars ONLY refer to what is on the plate with seperate ratings/symbols offered for comfort etc. Not that I agree with Spotted Pig being rated higher than some other not starred restaurants, but it makes more sense than if the stars were awarded on the entire dining experience.

[Fat Guy]

Yes, Michelin claims that "Stars are awarded by the Michelin inspectors to restaurants offering the finest cooking, regardless of the style of cuisine and the level of comfort."

And it's simply not true.

[Pan]

I have yet to see the method of classifying restaurants that is without flaw. The Times ratings are flawed. Zagat ratings are flawed. Gayot ratings are flawed. Michelin stars are flawed. What you read on eGullet is flawed. Jim Leff thinks Chowhound knocks them all out of a cocked hat, but his site is the most flawed of them all.[...]

←

The reason all rating systems are flawed is that none of them will fully coincide with any individual's own personal rating system or experiences. Of course, some are more flawed than others, and that has something to do with both the methodology used and the criteria the raters used vs. your own criteria.

Edited November 2, 2005 by Pan (log)

[ckkgourmet]

Now, Per Se and Alain Ducasse at the Essex House may be more reasonable as choices for a three-star rating. But I've got to wonder, if Ducasse's Paris or Monaco restaurant were across the street from the Essex House and Ambroisie were across the street from Per Se, and there were two or three other restaurants in town at that level, would Michelin seriously give three stars to Per Se and Alain Ducasse at the Essex House? I think it's more likely that they would be two-star restaurants and that Jean Georges and Le Bernardin would be one-star restaurants.

←

I'm wondering: my experiences in Paris at three star restaurants were not superior to the best food I've had in NYC. Would anyone agree with me on this? Or do I need to try again?

In general, my eating experiences at Michelin-starred restaurants in Europe have been a mixed bag. To take a recent example, I was in Rome for a few months recently and tried several of the best-starred restaurants in that city (no 3's in Rome, but 1's and 2's). Often I was profoundly disappointed, and only occasionally pleased by what I had.

This leads me to believe that the Michelin stars are biased and frequently wrong no matter what city you are discussing, whether it be Paris, NYC, Rome, or Whatever.

I also think it would be naive to think that Michelin doesn't want to prove the superiority of Paris over NYC. It seems likely that our consollation prizes are a sort of damnation with faint praise.

Edited November 2, 2005 by ckkgourmet (log)