Michelin Guide to New York est arrivé!

[smgarsh]

I don't remember what channel I flipped to but there is some sort of French news show with english sub-titles. I don't know how much of the segment I missed but it caught my eye because the word "Michelin" was in the sub-title.

They were talking about the Michelin guide for NY and mentioned how only 500+ restaurants were "worthy" to be included in the guide. They flashed to a quick segment with Ducasse and then a quick blurb about Wylie/wd-50.

[oakapple]

The NY Times covers reactions here:

Mais oui, precious few New Yorkers have even seen the first Michelin guide that will rate city restaurants: it goes on sale tomorrow for $16.95. But already, in the inbred petri dish that is Gotham's foodie mélange, the new guide is a cause célèbre.

[picaman]

Just one very quick point--I had dinner at Fleur de Sel a couple of weeks ago and found it adequate but overpriced; none of the dishes passed my "spontaneous giggle" test. For it to receive a Michelin star while a place like Blue Hill does not is mind-boggling. Keeping in mind my limited experience with many of these restaurants, I still think that such an example highlights the limited utility of this new guide.

Jamie

[R Washburn]

.  Keeping in mind my limited experience with many of these restaurants, I still think that such an example highlights the limited utility of this new guide.

Jamie

←

I can't say that until I see the reviews. This is not Zagat where you have to go by the numbers.

[sizzleteeth]

Something that is important to remember here is that these ratings weren’t made by the “Michelin Guide” – they were made by, at best, a few individuals over a relatively short period of time.

Really any rating that is based on intangible, subjective criteria is barely worth the paper it’s printed on.

It’s one thing to rate whether Hondas are reliable or not because data can be gathered as to how many have been sold, what the frequency of their need for repair over a certain amount of time has been etc…

How do you determine if a restaurant is, in reality and not in your opinion, 3 stars, 1 star, no stars?

What is luxury? Is a luxurious ingredient a scallop recovered by a diver that you paid big $$ for and had flown in – if so is that same scallop luxurious when it’s served for 1/8 the price by the little seafood joint near the dock? Is it a mushroom I went out and scavenged for free and then charged you and arm and a leg for?

Is luxury bone china, white table clothes, crystal stemware and classic French décor?

Or is it Asian influenced minimalist contemporary design?

Is it both and if so which is preferable?

If I get that stuff from T.J. Maxx down the street on clearance – is it still luxury?

It’s all relative to your personal taste, experiences and preferences, one man’s luxurious is another man’s gaudy and pretentious. One man’s ideal is another man’s ridiculous.

So who are these inspectors anyway and what qualifies such a small group of people to make a blanket assessment of an entire city – much less an entire country – I’d like to know – they should have first-name only profiles of each inspector with a short biography so we can see some of what those tastes are relative to.

Or maybe they should just give up that entire non-sense, put the guide online and let the people who dine at the restaurants make those assessments – even if you took it so far as to provide an ID number on a guest check so that only actual diners could register and rate.

But then – I believe we would see an entirely different situation.

Alain Ducasse

"I'm not here enough to say I earned it entirely on my own".

Although it really makes no difference to me "who Alaine Ducasse is" - so far as he represents the immaculate chef in white - I'm glad to see one say something like this to the press.

{edit}: SP

Edited November 3, 2005 by sizzleteeth (log)

[BryanZ]

With 3, 3-star Michelin restaurants Ducasse can say whatever he wants.

[sizzleteeth]

With 3, 3-star Michelin restaurants Ducasse can say whatever he wants.

←

Oh that wasn't a stab - I'm serious - it's really refreshing to see someone of his public stature relinquish credit, especially for something that bears his name.

Though I think “he can say whatever he wants” especially when it is in relation to how many star rated restaurants he has by any guide is both missing the entire point of my post and elevating someone whom has such a repertoire above accountability for their words and actions – which is ridiculous.

[docsconz]

Really any rating that is based on intangible, subjective criteria is barely worth the paper it’s printed on.

It’s one thing to rate whether Hondas are reliable or not because data can be gathered as to how many have been sold, what the frequency of their need for repair over a certain amount of time has been etc…

How do you determine if a restaurant is, in reality and not in your opinion, 3 stars, 1 star, no stars?

←

Any one review taken away from a general context certainly fits into your criticism as one person's taste may not be another's. That is why to me a critic' or organization's body of work is of utmost importance because then it can be calibrated to one's individual tastes. Frank Bruni's tastes are obviously different than many here on eGullet. To me that is ok if he is consistent and writes well about it (which is another question). I recently learned that John Mariani's and my taste regarding avant garde cuisine don't jibe. As a result I will not take his criticism of those restaurants seriously.

It is not a question of right or wrong. It is simply what works for you. It is often easier to gauge consistency with written commentary rather than a number based guide, though it is possible for the latter to still be consistent and therefore useful. For all the put-downs of Zagat, it is still relatively useful on that basis. All I ask out of a critic or guide therefore is consistency. I do not have to agree with particular reviews so long as there is some sense of order and predictability based upon that review. That is also why I am not fazed by the issues of comps or anonymity. So long as the reviews and ratings are consistent, they will help me decide if a particular restaurant is likely going to be to my taste. If there is entertaing writing and good photos to go with it so much the better.

[sizzleteeth]

That is why to me a critic' or organization's body of work is of utmost importance because then it can be calibrated to one's individual tastes.

←

A very valid point Doc, I'm not saying that I don't ever put any stock in any type of rating system - for instance I believe something like the Ebay rating system to be a very good one - one in which the consumer gets to rate and comment on the performance of a particular seller - every consumer who buys from said seller has the same opportunity - and I believe that such a rating system among others can be very reliable in their overall, collective assessment.

The same is true when you can do as you suggest and "fix a critic to a point", I believe this argument has been made elsewhere - that by guaging the opinion of someone over time you can relatively measure your personal opinions against them - you know their criteria and you know yours so you know if they rate something high - how it is relative.

In the case of the Michelin guide neither of these things exist - there is no input by the general public and there are no readily identifiable personalities to track and not only that but the huge gamut of locations and diversity of types of restaurants covered in the same pages without those things begs the question as to whether such a thing under those circumstances can be done fairly and impartially - given the number of reviewers - time and the number of restaurants to be reviewed.

It would be beneficial at least to be made aware of the detailed criteria.

It is as if you are left to simply "trust" that an establishement with such a long and illustrious history is doing things the "best way" - which I call into question. Kodak has been making cameras since 1888 but they certainly lost the ball when the digital aged surfaced.

So by your own measure, if I do not "know" the reviewer, there are not a substantial amount of reviews to compare and contrast within the same instrument and I am unaware of the criteria by which the instrument makes it's assessment - it's worthless.

Edit: SP

Edited November 3, 2005 by sizzleteeth (log)

[oakapple]

Something that is important to remember here is that these ratings weren’t made by the “Michelin Guide” – they were made by, at best, a few individuals over a relatively short period of time.

Au contraire, they worked on it over a full year. It is well documented that the typical Michelin inspector eats about 240 fine dining meals a year, and prepares a detailed report on each. How many of us can say the same?

Really any rating that is based on intangible, subjective criteria is barely worth the paper it’s printed on.

The logical conclusion would be that opinions on any "soft subject" are never worth paying for. It would also imply that eGullet (even though most of us don't pay for it, although somebody does) is equally worthless.

By the way, did you ever take a 'soft' subject in school? (English, History, Philosophy, Political Science.) Somehow a teacher grades each assignment, as well as the entire term. Your grade, A through F, is subjective. But it counts. Trained and experienced teachers generally won't differ all that much on grades. If one teacher gave your English paper an A, it's doubful that another would have given it D. On the other hand, it's quite possible that another would have given it a B, because some uncertainty is inherent in a soft subject.

How do you determine if a restaurant is, in reality and not in your opinion, 3 stars, 1 star, no stars?

In fact, experienced people won't differ all that much. Let's take the eight restaurants that Michelin annointed with 2 or 3 stars. As a whole, I haven't heard anyone say that it's a ridiculous list. At most, there's some grumbling that one or two of the 3-stars should have been 2 stars. That's like the English paper that could receive an A from one professor, and B from another.

Nobody here has said that there's a rational candidate for 3 stars that Michelin overlooked. Nobody has said that any of the 3-star places should have been one or zero. The argument is merely at the margins, which one must accept as natural in a 'soft' subject. (Occasional mistakes are inherent in hard subjects, too; it's what they call "experimental error.")

Among the one-star places, since there are 31 of them, you have to allow a certain number of Mulligans. If you ask anybody whatsoever to name 31 restaurants according to any criteria you choose, there will be some choices that others find inexplicable. But then, if you launch an eGullet or Chowhound thread asking for recommendations, you will get a wide variety of advice, much of it quite good, and some of it ridiculous; indeed, you'll get the latter in far greater abundance, since no qualifications are required to post on a website.

What is luxury?

Are you suggesting you cannot perceive that Per Se is more luxurious than The Spotted Pig?

Edited November 3, 2005 by oakapple (log)

[sizzleteeth]

Au contraire, they worked on it over a full year. It is well documented that the typical Michelin inspector eats about 240 fine dining meals a year, and prepares a detailed report on each. How many of us can say the same?

←

A full year for an entire city is a relatively short amount of time and at 240 meals a year times X number of inspectors divided by Y Number of restaurants - how many meals do those inspectors eat at the same place and how often? (edit: and is that 240 meals a year total? not just for NY but for the world?)

The logical conclusion would be that opinions on any "soft subject" are never worth paying for. It would also imply that eGullet (even though most of us don't pay for it, although somebody does) is equally worthless.

←

"Paying for" really has no relevance to my argument, indeed people's opinions here and anywhere else are valuable though I would not take any "singular" or any small subset of the whole of the opinions expressed here as an indication of much of anything. The difference between a guide such as this and Egullet is Egullet is all-inclusive of anyone who wishes to comment and nothing is really ever left to balance upon the opinion of any single person or entity.

Your grade, A through F, is subjective. But it counts.

←

In general teachers provide a guideline - a set of known criteria that your project must fall within

at each level to obtain each level of grade. In creative environments such as an art critique or creative writing class - these criteria when based upon comparison to existing works as a measure can actually cause bias - but regardless - knowing the criteria - if you choose to step outside of that you can expect that your grade will diminish.

In fact, experienced people and knowledgeable people won't differ all that much. Nobody here has said that there's a rational candidate for 3 stars that Michelin overlooked. Nobody has said that any of the 3-star places should have been one or zero.

←

I consider a great many of the members here to be experienced and knowledgable people - and man do they differ. My comments aren't on the list itself but on the methods.

But then, if you launch an eGullet or Chowhound thread asking for recommendations, you will also get some ridiculous advice; indeed, you'll get it in far greater abundance, since no qualifications are required to post on a website.

←

Give us an example of ridiculous advice - if you would please.

Are you suggesting you cannot perceive that Per Se is more luxurious than The Spotted Pig?

←

Having never dined at either I cannot accurately answer that question even based on my own perceptions - I can only look upon the "category" that they are perceived to occupy - and my personal criteria would be different than yours most likely. If I received equally good service, equally delicious food made from equally high quality ingredients in an equally enjoyable - yet obviously different - style - then small details would have to round out that assessment. I'm not saying that would happen. I can only say that based on the images they portray to the outside world that I would initially perceive one to be more luxurious than the other. A hypothesis that would still have to be proven to myself through my personal experience. But taking into account the vast number of opinions by the many many experienced and knowledgable people on this forum - I would venture to guess that Per Se may be quite the experience.

{edit} :SP

Edited November 3, 2005 by sizzleteeth (log)

[docsconz]

That is why to me a critic' or organization's body of work is of utmost importance because then it can be calibrated to one's individual tastes.

←

A very valid point Doc, I'm not saying that I don't ever put any stock in any type of rating system - for instance I believe something like the Ebay rating system to be a very good one - one in which the consumer gets to rate and comment on the performance of a particular seller - every consumer who buys from said seller has the same opportunity - and I believe that such a rating system among others can be very reliable in their overall, collective assessment.

The same is true when you can do as you suggest and "fix a critic to a point", I believe this argument has been made elsewhere - that by guaging the opinion of someone over time you can relatively measure your personal opinions against them - you know their criteria and you know yours so you know if they rate something high - how it is relative.

I know I have in several topics, I believe most recently here in the Mariani thread.

It is as if you are left to simply "trust" that an establishement with such a long and illustrious history is doing things the "best way" - which I call into question. Kodak has been making cameras since 1888 but they certainly lost the ball when the digital aged surfaced.

If it works for you great, if not don't buy it or read. That applies to any guide. There are anumber of people who have found a consistency to the Michelin Guides. If it works for them...it's a wonderful thing. I do think that there are some organizational consistencies that may have bearing here. They are at least starting with a methodology that may or may not be known to most of the general public. Whether it is ultimately consistent or not to a particular person's taste and therefore valuable, i believe is a more personal thing.

So by your own measure, if I do not "know" the reviewer, there are not a substantial amount of reviews to compare and contrast within the same instrument and I am unaware of the criteria by which the instrument makes it's assessment - it's worthless.

Edit: SP

←

I wouldn't say it is "worthless" as it may be the first of a subsequent body of work to which to refer and get a sense for consistency and style. I would say that I would take it with a grain of salt.

[sizzleteeth]

I wouldn't say it is "worthless" as it may be the first of a subsequent body of work to which to refer and get a sense for consistency and style. I would say that I would take it with a grain of salt.

←

I'll step back and agree with you there - perhaps "worthless" is too strong a word - and even in saying it I was making it apply to me personally - not to imply it is worthless to everyone.

So "take it with a grain of salt" and there are perhaps better, more accurate, impartial and reliable methods.

I suppose in fact, the Guide in conjunction with Egullet in conjunction with X number of critical forums makes it somewhat of a valuable asset - to either confirm or discount it's findings.

Edit:

There are anumber of people who have found a consistency to the Michelin Guides. If it works for them...it's a wonderful thing.

←

I suppose also it's not so much it's usefulness as a guide that makes me call it's methods into question - but rather it's ability to elevate a restaurant in the mind of a person (or the opposite) based on its singular assessment and application of stars (or not). In other words - if it wasn't perceived as such an important thing to be given or not be given stars in the minds of many people then, though my opinion would remain the same in general, I wouldn't find it so important to "measure the measurer".

Edited November 3, 2005 by sizzleteeth (log)

[RobinsonCuisine]

<<<So "take it with a grain of salt".........>>>>

But this is the context everyone should take when considering any critics review. My experience will not be the same as yours etc. Tim Zagat is well known to most of the high ranking restaurants in his guide experiencing perks etc that the rest of us don't and there is no way you can tell me this doesn't influence the rankings and reviews in his book. Likewise, Bruni is a well known face and receives service/dining experience far and above the rest of us. Look at the divergence on this forum from the posters known to the chefs/owners and the unknowns. Its all subjective.

[docsconz]

<<<So "take it with a grain of salt".........>>>>

But this is the context everyone should take when considering any critics review.  My experience will not be the same as yours etc.  Tim Zagat is well known to most of the high ranking restaurants in his guide experiencing perks etc that the rest of us don't and there is no way you can tell me this doesn't influence the rankings and reviews in his book.  Likewise, Bruni is a well known face and receives service/dining experience far and above the rest of us.  Look at the divergence on this forum from the posters known to the chefs/owners and the unknowns.  Its all subjective.

←

It is subjective, which is why I think it helps to get to know the style and preferences of the particular critic. Then it might be useful. Informative and entertaining are important also, but those are really different areas. I have never known the Michelin Guides to be particularly informative or entertaining. They have, however, on occassion been useful to me.

[oakapple]

Au contraire, they worked on it over a full year. It is well documented that the typical Michelin inspector eats about 240 fine dining meals a year, and prepares a detailed report on each. How many of us can say the same?

←

A full year for an entire city is a relatively short amount of time and at 240 meals a year times X number of inspectors divided by Y Number of restaurants - how many meals do those inspectors eat at the same place and how often? (edit: and is that 240 meals a year total? not just for NY but for the world?)

My understanding is that the inspectors are based in New York; it's not a team that works mostly in Paris and flies in for a dinner or two. They've reviewed 507 restaurants in one year, visiting each of them at least once, and some up to twelve times. The awarding of stars was a consensus decision, and not based on the word of any one inspector. Do you know anyone else who's done that?

Your grade, A through F, is subjective. But it counts.

←

In general teachers provide a guideline - a set of known criteria that your project must fall within at each level to obtain each level of grade.

I don't know your experience, but as I recall there usually aren't crisp criteria in 'soft subjects'. The professor might say, "Your grade depends on the clarity and organization of the ideas, the depth of the analysis, the originality of the thesis, and how well it is supported." It's a bit like saying that the rating of a restaurant is based on the quality of the ingredients, the skill of preparation, the attentiveness of the service, and the surrounding ambiance.

In fact, experienced people and knowledgeable people won't differ all that much. Nobody here has said that there's a rational candidate for 3 stars that Michelin overlooked. Nobody has said that any of the 3-star places should have been one or zero.

←

I consider a great many of the members here to be experienced and knowledgable people - and man do they differ.

They differ at the margins. It's like the weekly College Football poll, which is followed by far more people than this list of restaurants, and is the source of many more arguments. But if you ask a dozen knowledgeable people who avidly follow the sport to name their top 10, there'll be considerably more agreement than not. Naturally, if you give them the chance, they'll argue all day about the relatively small differences between them. That's what's happening here.

Are you suggesting you cannot perceive that Per Se is more luxurious than The Spotted Pig?

←

Having never dined at either I cannot accurately answer that question even based on my own perceptions....but taking into account the vast number of opinions by the many many experienced and knowledgable people on this forum - I would venture to guess that Per Se may be quite the experience.

←

I'm inferring from the comment that you agree it is possible to recognize that Restaurant A is more luxurious than Restaurant B, even if it's not an exact science.

Edited November 3, 2005 by oakapple (log)

[BryanZ]

Tim Zagat is well known to most of the high ranking restaurants in his guide experiencing perks etc that the rest of us don't and there is no way you can tell me this doesn't influence the rankings and reviews in his book.

←

I'm not explicitly defending Zagat, but its rating system has nothing to do with Tim or Nina or anyone in the company. Trust me, I know. Zagat is fundamentally a survey company, relying on the opinions of anonymous and numerous others to create some numerical rating.

The Zagat system is actually be similar to Michelin's. Zagat uses the same 0-3 scale for its respondents, only averages it out to include decimals so that there may be a greater continuum of scores. This continuum, and its easy to read format, is what makes Zagat accessible to the greater public. Where Zagat fails, however, is that its ratings system is not at all normalized. The same individual who rates Union Square Cafe is not necessarily the same individual who rates Masa or ADNY. With that said, this lack of normalization is the weakness of the Zagat system, not the subjective influence of Tim Zagat, as RobinsonCuisine claims.

The Michelin NYC Guide is by no mean perfect and is, in my opinion, disappointing, but it still presents the most trusted and ambitious collection of NYC restaurants available.

[rich]

Well, I can assure you, they got three out of four wrong on Staten Island.

←

What do you mean?

←

If those were the four Staten Island restaurants Michelin choose worthy to include, they missed the boat with three. I can think of many more that are more worthy than three they chose.

The Michelin people probably looked at a local Chamber of Commerce list and made a random selection.

[rich]

That's why baseball and horse racing are the two greatest games on earth - no classification. You either put up the numbers or go home.

Very funny you should say that. No sport has more ways of breaking down and classifying things than baseball. Baseball, of course, breaks down its classifications to numbers. So does Michelin (so-many stars, so-many knives and forks). Baseball gives out highly subjective awards (MVP, Cy Young, player of the month, rookie of the year, selection to the All-Star Team); so does Michelin.

I can assure you, they got three out of four wrong on Staten Island.

...and...

Just as an aside, how could anyone take seriously any list of the top forty or so restaurants in NYC that doesn't include the Tasting Room?

Those two comments suggest that you, too, are classifying restaurants. Otherwise, on what basis could they be right or wrong?

←

Totally off the mark. Baseball players must produce "real" numbers to be considered for those awards, not subjective menus. There can be statistical oddities, but generally speaking the top numbers get the top awards.

I classify by what I like not with stars, which mean nothing unless you know my (or anyone's) very subjective tastes and preferences. I classify with words not stars or forks or boats or pleated skirts or thongs or pillows or drums or kidney pies or even frequent flyer miles.

Edited November 3, 2005 by rich (log)

[johnsmith45678]

How many stars do you think Windows on the World would have received?

[sizzleteeth]

My understanding is that the inspectors are based in New York; it's not a team that works mostly in Paris, but just flies in for a dinner or two. They've reviewed 507 restaurants in one year, visiting each of them at least once, and some up to twelve times. The awarding of stars was a consensus decision, and not based on the word of any one inspector. Do you know anyone else who's done that?

←

Again I would say, what is the criteria? Why don't they just publish it? Seems like it would lead to many more restaurants attempting to aspire to it and understanding why they were given what they were given in the end - even if it is subjective. Consensus of how many people and who are they? If it is indeed a consensus why isn't each individual review included? I'm not familiar enough with the internal operation of any printed guide to be able to say if anyone else is doing it - I still stand by the Ebay model of allowing regular people (who have actually had the experience) to rate things on their experiences and averaging the total to determine the overall rating - which can run into the hundreds - if not thousands of individuals. I'm sure there's a hell of alot more than 507 restaurants in NY, how is that they determine where they go and where they don't? Press? Public opinion? Again - publish the criteria.

"Your grade depends on the clarity and organization of the ideas, the depth of the analysis, the originality of the thesis, and how well it is supported."

←

Those criteria are pretty clear to me - if I keep my ideas clear and organized, dig deep into my subject without ripping off another work and site all of my sources I have a pretty damn good chance of getting a good grade. Those don't seem like soft criteria and the only thing that would make them so is the teacher's own idea of what each of those things means - so as Doc says, if you know your reviewer, you can taylor your work to his or her ideas of what those things are

if you want to do such a thing to obtain a good grade.

Tayloring your work to someone else's ideas of what is "good" is what creates all the patterns of repetition and why when someone does something a different way - they stick out. Then people accept that idea as "good" and the cycle starts all over. "Innovation has always been directly linked to segregation, most people tend to fear what they don't understand - but when balance comes from what was initial disorientation - what was once 'insane' all at once becomes 'in demand'...".

There's a difference between doing what you want to do and giving people what they want to see- as most people are going to inteperet anything they don't like as bad - regardless of whether it is in reality or not. I have friend who loves good food, but hates Indian food because she says it "tastes like dirt" - sentiments such as this is why you see so many restaurants taylor their food to the american palette - is that a good thing or not - I dunno - in some ways yes - in some ways no, but I certainly don't want her rating Indian restaurants for me.

Re-read what I said. Has anyone said that there's a rational candidate for three stars that Michelin overlooked? Has anyone said that any of the 4 three-star restaurants should be one or zero? No, they haven't. Despite all the arguments, there is actually considerable agreement that the guide got quite a lot right.

←

Since no one knows the criteria the assessment is based upon, no one has the ability to challenge that assessment based on the criteria - all they have is their personal opinion and whether or not they agree - and the vast vast vast majority of those who would have even that ability - are not here to do so.

It's like the weekly College Football poll, which is followed by far more people than this list of restaurants, and is the source of many more arguments. But if you ask a dozen knowledgeable people who avidly follow the sport to name their top 10, there'll be considerably more agreement than not. Naturally, if you give them the chance, they'll argue all day about the relatively small differences between them. That's what's happening here.

←

First off - things like that are based numbers, on stats and "who is winning" - most people aren't going to have a losing team in their top 10 - even if the team itself is a good team. I'll probably get murdered for saying this but it's like here in Chicago - all of a sudden everybody loves the Whitesox - because they won. People who had their Cubs memorabilia up switched it out with White Sox banners - I don't think it's a bad thing to support the winners - but that is a game - this is not (or it's not suppose to be) - but I would be profoundly more satisfied to see the criteria and the stats - just like I was happy when they started showing the scores on Iron Chef - instead of just saying - "And it's the Iron Chef....".

Are you suggesting you cannot perceive that Per

I'm inferring from the comment that you agree it is possible to recognize that Restaurant A is more luxurious than Restaurant B, even if it's not an exact science.

←

I wouldn't agree with recognize - I would agree with perceive.

Edited November 3, 2005 by sizzleteeth (log)

[JWest]

Michelin also critiques wine lists, service, comfort, sanitation, and even subjects like having no more than 4 people at a table that go into the ratings, correct?

Something to think about, Michelin isn't going to be absolutely 100% perfect. Nothing will as long its being done by humans. It's pretty close though. Also, You must realize that, we have no idea how their experiences at these restaurants were like. Just because you had a great time doesnt mean someone else who comes on another day, another time, with a different server, that had a different menu than you did is going to esperience the same way as you did. We have no idea. Think about it this way, I know a chef who absolutely loved WD-50 and then I knew another chef who wasnt all that impressed. When you talk to friends about restaurants, everyone has different experiences. By looking at Michelin, you can almost garauntee that almost everyone will have the same great experience at Per Se. When you look at Babbo, with its 1 star, you know its going be great but not as many people will agree because its not as perfect as Per Se is.

Another note,

The Fat Duck, usually acknowledged as the best restaurant in the world hasnt had its third star for very long, in fact had its one and two stars a lot longer. Whats really going to be interesting is to see the changes for next years ratings.

[Eatmywords]

I classify by what I like not with stars, which mean nothing unless you know my (or anyone's) very subjective tastes and preferences. I classify with words not stars or forks or boats or pleated skirts or thongs or pillows or drums or kidney pies or even frequent flyer miles.

←

[rich]

One more point to continue with the baseball analogy. Leaving the Tasting Room out of the top 40 is similar to leaving Lou Gehrig out of Baseball's Hall of Fame.

[rich]

I classify by what I like not with stars, which mean nothing unless you know my (or anyone's) very subjective tastes and preferences. I classify with words not stars or forks or boats or pleated skirts or thongs or pillows or drums or kidney pies or even frequent flyer miles.

←

Rich,

If there is a guide or site that classifies/rates by "thong" I would be very curious to see what the subject matter is. Pls divulge.

←