Michelin Guide to New York est arrivé!

[oakapple]

Amidst all this discussion of the stars, no one has talked about the book itself. I bought a copy last night. It's 480 pages, but printed on rather thin paper, so the book still appears to be pocket-sized — only a little thicker than Zagat. Inside the front cover is a fold-out map of the city, emphasizing neighborhoods and cross-referencing the section of the book where each is covered. Inside the rear cover is a fold-out subway map. Both fold-outs include a quick key to the guide's many symbols. Those flaps could also be used as book marks.

At the beginning, there is a brief history of New York City (2 pgs), an alphabetical list of restaurants (7 pgs), a list of restaurants by cuisine (8 pgs), a list of starred restaurants and a more detailed explanation of the stars (2 pgs), Where to Eat for Less Than $25 (1 pg, 58 restaurants), Where to Have Brunch (3 pgs), and Where to Have a Late Dinner (post-11:30pm) (3 pgs).

The restaurants are organized by neighborhood, and the neighborhods are listed in alphabetical order. For each neighborhood, there's a two-page spread providing history, geography, highlights of the area, and a map. Each starred restaurant in the neighborhood gets a two-page spread, with a photo of the dining room, a description, and a recipe from that restaurant. All other restaurants get 1/2 page, with the usual "phone directory" information (including e-mail and websites) and a one-paragraph write-up. The hotels are at the back of the book, in alphabetical order without regard to neighborhood.

The neighborhood maps have little numbers in red circles, indicating where restaurants are located. It is most peculiar that the restaurant write-ups don't indicate the number on the map to which they correspond. This must surely be an error; I've never seen a map with circled numbers, where there wasn't a listing of what the numbers stood for. Edit: I finally found the cross-reference to the numbers in the left margin of the restaurant pages, but it was awfully easy to miss.

No one knows for sure how many restaurants are in this fair city. The Guide itself says there are 17,300 of them. Eater thinks it's 23,000. Anyhow, it's tens of thousands. Any guide of reasonable size must necessarily exclude some gems. Eater offers a pretty good list of restaurants that didn't make the cut. Eater's case perhaps carries more force where a restaurant is historically important (Cafe des Artistes, Katz's Deli, Tavern on the Green), a particularly well known favorite (Florent, Norma's), or offers an under-represented cuisine (Dinosaur BBQ, Blue Smoke). I cannot regret the exclusion of unexceptional restaurants already well represented by other choices in the same category (F.Illi Ponte, Duane Park Cafe), or restaurants too new to judge (Bette, Perry St). I saw one restaurant in the guide that has already closed: Pace.

I wondered how the guide would describe restaurants that contended for a star, but didn't get one. Alas, there is no clue. Michelin writes as if all of the 507 restaurants listed are already winners, and there is no need to disparage any of them. There is none of Zagat's famous "Yes, but..." style. The write-ups emphasize the restaurants' assets, not their liabilities. However, there is enough information for a visitor to discern what type of restaurant they are reading about. For instance, of Great N.Y. Noodletown, the guide writes, "If you're looking for fancy décor, keep on walking....[it's] a casual place to say the least." The write-ups are informal, at times breezy, and emphasize décor as much as food.

There's been a lot of talk about stars, but the other dimension on the Michelin axis is the couvert (French for "cover"), which refers to the level of comfort, or luxury. Each restaurant is assigned between one and five of these. Every restaurant with five couverts received at least two stars. Most restaurants with four couverts have at least one star, but there are exceptions: Fives, The Four Seasons, La Grenouille.

If the couverts are red, it signifies an especially pleasant restaurant. Those with red couverts that are not starred (# of couverts in parentheses): Asiate (3), Bayard's (3), Blue Water Grill (2), Central Park Boathouse (2), The Grocery (1), Il Buco (1), Jack's Luxury Oyster Bar (1), Keens Steakhouse (3), Kittichai (2), Lure Fishbar (3), Ono (3), Pampano (2), River Café (3), Spice Market (2), Vatan (1), and V Steakhouse (3).

By the way, there are no Bib Gourmands.

A restaurant with an exceptional wine list receives a little symbol that looks like a clump of grapes. I suspect many users of the Michelin Guide are oenophiles, so I find it disappointing that there is no index of these at the front of the book. For the record, these are the restaurants so designated: ADNY, Alto, Aroma Kitchen & Wine Bar, Artisanal, Aureole, Babbo, Bayard's, Bistro du Vent, BLT Fish, BLT Steak, Bottega del Vino, Bouley, Café Boulud, Capital Grille, 'Cesca, Compass, Craft, Craftbar, Cru, Daniel, Danube, Della Rovere, Felidia, Fiamma Osteria, Fleur de Sel, Gramercy Tavern, Jean Georges, L'Absinthe, La Gouloe, La Masseria, Landmarc, Le Bernardin, Mark's, The Modern, Montrachet, Oceana, Ouest, Otto, Picholine, Roberto's, Rothmann's, Smith & Wollensky, Sparks Steakhouse, Tasting Room, Tocqueville, Veritas.

Roberto's in the Bronx is the only restaurant outside of Manhattan that Michelin praised for its wine list.

Complaints? I have a few. The alphabetical list of restaurants includes the number of stars and couverts, but the list by cuisine does not. If we take the guide on its own terms, I suspect the stars/couverts would be at least as helpful, if not more so, on the index by cuisine. It would offer a quick guide to the level of luxury and the quality of the food among restaurants offering a similar menu. Similarly, the indexes would easily have room for the price level, which Michelin signifies by two small coins (under $25), or $$ to $$$$.

There are many restaurants that are hard to classify. Even accepting that, Michelin's assignment of a "cuisine" to each restaurant is often unhelpful. These are the categories the guide uses: American, Asian, Austrian, Belgian, Brazilian, Chinese, Contemporary, Contemporary Asian, Contemporary French, Contemporary Japanese, Contemporary Mexican, Contemporary Thai, Cuban, Deli, Egyptian, European, French, Fusion, Gastro-Pub, Greek, Hawaiin, Indian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Latin American, Malaysian, Mediterranean, Mexican, Middle Eastern, Moroccan, Persian, Russian, Scandinavian, Seafood, Southern, Southwestern, Spanish, Steakhouse, Thai, Turkish, Vegetarian, Venezuelan, Vietnamese.

I have a number of complains about this list. First of all, the word 'Contemporary' should come after the primary cuisine, so that the 'Japanese' and 'Japanese (Contemporary)' would be next to each other in the index, instead of several pages apart. The distinction between ___ and Contempoarary ___ is often arbitrary. For instance, Nobu is Contemporary Japanese, but EN Japanese Brasserie is just plain Japanese. Spice Market is Asian, but Asiate is Contemporary Asian (the only one in its category). Kittichai is Thai, but the starred Vong is Contemporary Thai (the only one it its category).

The plain-old 'Contemporary' category is an 80-restaurant hodge-podge. It includes, of all things, Alain Ducasse, which is surely regarded by just about everyone else as a French restaurant. It also includes Alto (Italian to everyone else) and Tabla (Indian to everyone else). I can see the 'Contemporary' label for places like Five Ninth and WD-50, but not for Jean Georges and Daniel. The guide has a European category with just two restaurants (August, Schiller's Liquor Bar); why not put Café Gray there? Surely Dylan Prime is a Steakhouse.

Another strange category is 'Fusion', containing just four restaurants: Asia de Cuba, Chubo, Public, and Stanton Social. Anyone familiar with these restaurants, and the others in the guide, will immediately see how strange a grouping this is.

Those who think the guide is too Gallic should think again. There's a staggering 116 Italian restaurants, or almost 23% of the listings. By contrast, only 49 restaurants are classified as French or Contemporary French (although some of those in the 'Contemporary' category are surely mis-classified). Interestingly, Daniel and DB Bistro Moderne are listed as just plain Contemporary, but Café Boulud as Contemporary French.

Although only two Japanese restaurants were starred, Japanese cuisine is well represented with 49 restaurants listed in either the plain or the Contemporary variety.

Are any cuisines under-represented? Arguably Chinese is, with only 18 restaurants (12 of them in Chinatown proper). There are just two delis, with the famous Katz's omitted. There are five Korean, six Vietnamese, nine Thai or Contemporary Thai. The most significant omitted cuisine is barbecue. While some may question whether you can get truly authentic BBQ in New York, the growth of the category in the last few years certainly merits a mention in the guide.

A count of the number of pages per neighborhood gives an idea of the guide's geographical biases: Chelsea (10 pgs), East Village (16), Financial District (6), Gramercy/Flatiron/Union Square (28), Greenwich/West Village (40), Harlem (4), Little Italy (6), Lower East Side (10), Meatpacking District (8), Midtown East (46), Midtown West (48), SoHo/NoLiTa (18), TriBeCa (22), Upper East Side (40), Upper West Side (16), Washington Heights (4), Bronx (4), Brooklyn (20), Queens (10), Staten Island (4). I don't really have any argument with this.

By this time next year, I'd strongly advise the writers to figure out that Alain Ducasse is French, and Tabla is Indian. The strange categorization of the cuisines is the book's most serious weakness. But aside from that, I think it is a very reasonable restaurant guide for the visiting tourist who wishes to dine well, which is the audience I believe it was written for.

Edited November 6, 2005 by oakapple (log)

[sizzleteeth]

Needless to say Michelin does include plenty of non-French restaurants and French avant-garde restaurants in its guides. The issue is that Michelin's qualifications are not relevant when it comes to these types of restaurants. Michelin is very good (in the instances where they system is allowed to function rather than being overruled by the company's politics and marketing considerations) at categorizing and ranking French haute cuisine restaurants that operate within Michelin's universe. But the system was not designed to accommodate Sushi Yasuda, or even Pierre Gagnaire.

←

We can easily get into the kind of discussions that used to grace this site about exactly which kind of cooking is more refined and more complex than all others, and we can go the opposite route that says there are no objective standards. I'd like to avoid both discussions. My point would be to say there are numerous standards with validity. As you yourself have so often noted, Michelin's reputation was built at a time and in a place, where there was a single standard and it was followed by almost everyone at all levels of service.

←

So the million dollar question is – how do you take a guide who’s qualifications aren’t relevant to much of anything other than French Haute cuisine that has a model based upon a single standard that obviously measures everything against French haute cuisine and seems to be of the opinion that French cooking, French techniques and French or in a broader sense Western notions of luxury are the pinnacle standard – take it out of it’s homogenized element and apply it to a city with a diversity that rivals any place on earth?

Very gently I guess…. careful not to break it.

There is other food in France besides French food btw, as I’m sure you are aware – that Paris alone harbors all types. In fact one of my favorite meals there has been at Yugaraj, which I’m not saying is worthy of stars by whatever standard – but rather to use it as a tool to make the point that even if the criteria was published and Yugaraj checked every single thing off the list to meet it – what do you think the chances of an Indian restaurant in Paris getting 3, 2 or even 1 star? I’d say little to none –and do you want that same bias to be applied to New York, Chicago, San Fran? (Though I believe there is a 1 star Indian restaurant in England.)

It is this very point that I’ve been trying to make – that the implied and otherwise unknown criteria are irrelevant to NY and America as a whole, because it is so diverse - and I truly believe things would be seen in a whole different light should a detailed list of criteria be published. Which makes the guide exponentially less useful here than it might be in France – if useful at all.

[johnsmith45678]

Surely Michael Laiskonis counts for something in Le Bernardin's getting 3 stars.

[Pan]

Great post, oakapple; thank you so much for telling us all about the guide!

Why do you suppose they decided against bibs gourmands in this guidebook? By the way, I think the Eater list of venues they apparently would have included in the guidebook includes too much chaff, though there are certainly some well-respected names there.

[akwa]

Surely Michael Laiskonis counts for something in Le Bernardin's getting 3 stars.

←

all three?

[robyn]

Start with the menu:

http://www.le-bernardin.com/menu_dinner.html

This is relatively casual food by three-star standards. It's what you'd expect to see at the one- or maybe low two-star level. On the plate, it is equally limited: these are not the labor-intensive creations of a three-star kitchen, nor are they examples of minimalist brilliance or the avant garde. They're just good fish dishes.

We're talking about a restaurant that puts out a lot of food quickly in any given evening. In the three-star universe, it's more like a luxe brasserie than a temple of gastronomy. It's crowded, noisy and rushed by three-star standards. The service is good but basic.

←

Sounds a lot like Brasserie Le Coze (the name of the restaurant in Miami).

Yet - I've been thinking. Michelin doesn't jump into new fads feet first - but it does recognize changes in cuisine styles - culinary leadership - etc. (albeit slowly). Is it possible that by giving 3 stars to a place like Bernardin - it leaves the door open to award 3 stars to a place like Senderens? If a chef with Senderens' stature doesn't want to march to the old tune of Michelin's 3 star system - is it possible that Michelin will change its 3 star tune?

FWIW - I often don't mind that Michelin sometimes takes its time with things. In countries where it has been rating for a long time - it is frequently slow to award new stars - and to take away stars from venerable establishments (I mind the latter more than the former). There is the occasional meteoric rise (Jamin comes to mind) - they're few and far between and usually more than justified. As the cost of fine dining continues to go up - I don't think I'm the only diner who doesn't want to wind up in last month's restaurant of the year - and find myself paying through the nose for a mediocre meal.

As an aside to the person who mentioned the Indian restaurant in London - that was Zaika - and it did have one star last year. I ate there last year. Unfortunately for me - a month or so after it lost its original chef (didn't know that when I reserved). Certainly wasn't a one star restaurant when I ate there (the food looked great but it looked better than it tasted). And this year - Michelin took away the star. Robyn

[robyn]

Re "ethnic" food and Michelin. I don't think it's a valid criticism that Michelin can't evaluate "ethnic food." Based on my experiences with many "ethnic" foods outside their countries of origin (including everything from French food in Spain to Chinese food in France to Indian food in the UK) - the restaurants range from terrible to mediocre to sometimes pretty good (but certainly below 1 star Michelin standards). That is as true of Italian food as Indian food in New York. I find that the best of these places are generally really good neighborhood places. In New York terms - they are not worth a trip downtown if you're midtown (or vice versa).

I recall that someone in this thread mentioned Tabla in terms of "New York Indian food". I have eaten at many Indian restaurants in New York (some pretty good - although not Michelin star-worthy) - but not at Tabla. So I looked up Tabla. Here are some of the phrases from the review:

"...clean Goan-spiced Maine crab cake...exquisite pairing of seared foie gras with seasonal fruit...Tabla's Indian twist on the burger... Recommended Dishes: Goan-spiced Maine lobster...Niman Ranch pork chop..."

Now the review was positive - and perhaps the food is tasty - but this is not exactly what comes to mind when I think of Indian food.

By the way - the same could probably be said about BBQ. I suspect I got better BBQ today at our county fair (kind of average for here) than I could find in New York. Robyn

[Pan]

Robyn, have you been to Devi? I still haven't been there yet. Would anyone like to argue they merit a Michelin star?

[Fat Guy]

Granted there's no way to prove it, and there's probably no way to convince anybody on the point. Nonetheless, I feel strongly based on the sum total of my experience -- which is less than that of some people and more than that of most -- that Michelin lowered the three-star standard to include Le Bernardin. It's not that every Michelin three-star restaurant is the same, and it's not that I've been to all of them. But I've been to a pretty good cross-section, from the urban luxe places like Ducasse in Paris to Georges Blanc which I imagine is as bistro-like in feel as a Michelin three-star restaurant could possibly be without breaking the system. And the thing is, every one of those restaurants has been categorically different from Le Bernardin. Yes, it's possible to have three Michelin stars and be a bustling, energetic restaurant. Yes, it's possible to have three Michelin stars and serve simply prepared Bresse chicken the way Georges Blanc does. But those departures don't add up to an accommodation for a restaurant like Le Bernardin. Georges Blanc, for example, is arguably the ultimate expression of that sort of cuisine. The chef is the head of the whole Bresse chicken organization -- you're probably getting the best example of that product available in the whole world when you go to Georges Blanc, and it is prepared and served with great precision -- the kind of precision one almost never sees in the United States (not to mention, one rarely sees ingredients that good here). Le Bernardin, while it serves excellent fish, doesn't offer any ingredients that I'd consider revelatory -- it's more a question of Le Bernardin getting as good fish as anybody else gets, just more of it. And there's nothing about any dish I've had at Le Bernardin that feels ultimate, groundbreaking or definitive -- nor are there any particularly great renditions of the classics. I've had fish at Le Bernardin that shouldn't even have been served at a no-star restaurant. It's a terrific restaurant, but one to which I'd probably give one Michelin star. Maybe two. Definitely not three. Some may have other opinions. I think so far just one person has suggested that the three-star rating makes sense, and that struck me as a non-emphatic endorsement. I think we could probably get rough agreement that Per Se and Alain Ducasse at the Essex House are like Michelin three-star restaurants. Jean Georges is sort of like one -- I don't think it quite makes the cut but I wouldn't say it's so far off the mark from Arpege. But Le Bernardin? Well, I'd like to hear from those who think it's a Michelin three-star restaurant for real.

[johnsmith45678]

Is there still only one three-star restaurant in London? I'm amazed there's only one.

[Andy Lynes]

But only because the French hate the British more than they hate the Yanks!

[Chris Amirault]

Interesting review of Jewel Bako by Ya-Roo here. It's not pretty -- and it includes the following dagger:

Like a typical bourgeois that has hit it rich, Jack lamb flitted about the room, occasionally thumbing his copy of the Michelin guide.

Ouch! Makes me wonder how other starred restaurants are reacting to the big news. Any other reports from the field?

[sizzleteeth]

Re "ethnic" food and Michelin.  I don't think it's a valid criticism that Michelin can't evaluate "ethnic food."  Based on my experiences with many "ethnic" foods outside their countries of origin (including everything from French food in Spain to Chinese food in France to Indian food in the UK) - the restaurants range from terrible to mediocre to sometimes pretty good (but certainly below 1 star Michelin standards).  That is as true of Italian food as Indian food in New York.  I find that the best of these places are generally really good neighborhood places.  In New York terms - they are not worth a trip downtown if you're midtown (or vice versa).

←

Awww. c'mon Robyn - even the Michelin man himself is white - though he is a man made of tires.

I would like to have been a fly on the wall in that branding meeting all those years ago... "What we want is an illustration of a man made of tires as our mascot, but we can't have a big black man running around representing us - so..."

No offense to you but the word ethnic is so misused to lump things into a category, a use in which it loses it's definition of, "Of or relating to a sizable group of people sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage." - and becomes "anything that isn't made by white people".

Though, I suppose when you are on one side of something, everyone tends to describe it in a manner which implies things in this divisive nature - for instance I'm told that in Vietnam - it's "The American War".

The thing about this paragraph I've quoted is that, based on this theory, it nullifys the star ratings of all the French restaurants because they are serving "ethnic cuisine" - "outside of their country of origin" - so I guess "In New York terms - they are not worth a trip downtown if you're midtown (or vice versa)."

Stick to eating French food in the French neighborhoods.

Edit: BTW - before anyone says, "You are implying that only people of a given ethnicity are qualified to evaluate food of their culture".... no, I'm not - nor do I believe that - it's just a joke.

Edited November 6, 2005 by sizzleteeth (log)

[oakapple]

Interesting review of Jewel Bako by Ya-Roo....here. It's not pretty -- and it includes the following dagger:

Like a typical bourgeois that has hit it rich, Jack lamb flitted about the room, occasionally thumbing his copy of the Michelin guide.

←

I have a lot of respect for Ya-Roo's posts, but any restaurant can have an off night. Read the Per Se thread, and you find the occasional report from someone who had a bad experience there. Obviously if we see a few more like it, we'll have to start wondering if Jewel Bako has lost its touch.

I suspect that every restaurant that received an unexpected Michelin star has a very, very happy owner, and I put Jewel Bako in that category.

Edited November 6, 2005 by oakapple (log)

[Luckylies]

was there last week. sorry no food report (too legnthy, and i'm tired) but I will say this was pre star...and I was not as moved as i used to be when I ate there. I fealt a bit ripped off even. I had a few glasses of wine and my man drank water and the bill dfor omacase was 335.00. what the fuck? I've been to bako before and never felt this way, it sucked. There was a drunk asshole sitting next to me that kept calling me sweetheart. snd talking on his phone. The magic was just not there. I'll be back but will be ordering a la carte until I can trust their judgement and style again. For that kind of money, I need a bit of tenderness too.

[robb]

I guess I'm a little more open to the idea of another guide or restaurant rating system in New York. I often disagree with Zagat and I sometimes disagree with the NY Times. Perhaps my tastes are different from the mainstream. In fact, I'm sure of this. I personally welcome another perspective whether I agree with the ratings or not.

[Jmahl]

The Alain Ducasse website recognizing being "honored with 3 Michelin stars" and states:

'"Michelin's three star rating indicates "exceptional cuisine, worth a special journey," where diners eat extremely well, sometimes superbly. The wine list features generally outstanding vintages, and the surroundings and service are part of this unique experience."'

Whatever your position, pro or con, on whether they are on the money or don't got it, or whatever -- this is good news for the NYC restaurant scene. Have we forgotten the dark days following 9/11? This kind of noise brings in the customers and that's what it is all about, isn't it?

As recognized even by the great Alain, "superbly" sometimes happens - I've been there and you never forget -at a two or three star its perhaps more likely but certainly not guaranteed. Your very lucky when it happens and you can be disappointed even with the highest ratings. Remember those are humans back there sweating that order. When it happens its beautiful -- that's why we are here.

Bravo "le guide."

JSM

[cachan]

Michelin does cover what is referred to as 'ethnic' cuisine, which probably means non-European to most people. In London, there are a few non-European restaurants which have a star.

Chinese-based - Hakkasan and Yauatcha

Japanese-based - Nobu and Umu

Thai-based - Nahm

Indian-based - Tamarind and Zaika (up to 2004)

The rating is probably based not just on the food but on the whole experience. I've eaten in all these except Nobu and they were not disappointing at all.

I've also been to Spice Market and noted that it did not get a star.

[cachan]

Is there still only one three-star restaurant in London? I'm amazed there's only one.

←

There's only 3 *** restaurants in the UK and one of these is in London. Rather suspicious when there's 4 in NYC alone ???

[Jmahl]

Is there still only one three-star restaurant in London? I'm amazed there's only one.

←

There's only 3 *** restaurants in the UK and one of these is in London. Rather suspicious when there's 4 in NYC alone ???

←

Suspicious, Yes - French Yes.

JSM

[gwilson]

Jean Georges received eight visits, one of which included a two-hour inspection of the kitchen.

So can I get away with showing up in a suit and saying that I'm from Michelin to inspect your kitchen?

On a more serious note, I have a few questions.

Is Michelin geared towards tourists still? As in out-of-towners? So say you're visiting NYC and know nothing about the culinary scene. Is Michelin a good guide (without paying attention to number of stars, validity of number of stars, etc.) for a list of the best places to eat in NYC?

What do you think the next cities will be? I've heard Los Angeles, Las Vegas, San Francisco, and Chicago. Are any other US cities worth doing a guide for?

-Greg

[Pan]

Is Michelin geared towards tourists still?  As in out-of-towners?

←

Let me answer a question with another question: Do you think that New Yorkers are the main audience for a Michelin guide?

[...]I've heard Los Angeles, Las Vegas, San Francisco, and Chicago.  Are any other US cities worth doing a guide for?

←

I would think New Orleans, once it gets up and running again, and that Philadelphia, Boston, and Washington, DC would merit guides. And probably various other cities (I think we'll see arguments for Atlanta, for example, and perhaps Miami, and some Texan cities and so on -- St. Louis, Minneapolis, Honolulu, Seattle, Portland, etc., etc., etc.), but it's all about what the Michelin folks think their market will bear.

Edited November 7, 2005 by Pan (log)

[Fat Guy]

Oakapple, thanks for the rundown on the guide's presentation.

The photos and extended text (though not the silly recipes) are accommodations that make sense: Michelin knew that its vague, one-sentence proclamations would carry little weight with American audiences. So the fuller descriptions are a good move, and should eventually be incorporated into all of Michelin's guides. Needless to say, the decision to expand the textual descriptions speaks loudly about Michelin's intended audience for the New York guide: were the idea just to sell it to current Michelin users who may be traveling to America, they'd have made it just like all the other guides. Rather, Michelin sees this as the first step in establishing an American restaurant-and-hotel guidebook market.

[Bux]

. . . .

On a more serious note, I have a few questions.

Is Michelin geared towards tourists still?  As in out-of-towners?  So say you're visiting NYC and know nothing about the culinary scene.  Is Michelin a good guide (without paying attention to number of stars, validity of number of stars, etc.) for a list of the best places to eat in NYC?

. . . .

←

The best places eat? I don't think Michelin itself has ever claimed to be the ultimate word in regard to all the best places in any location. The original point of the guide was to insure the traveler would find an acceptable place. All of the places listed, whether at the high or low end of the price scale should be acceptable at their relative price points. They never claimed to have all the acceptable restaurants in town covered. They were a guide for the traveler, not a service to the restaurants.

To be sure, the total absence of a restaurant top rated by others, would be embarrassing. I think we can say that for a visitor to any town covered by Michelin, it's a relatively reliable way to find a satisfactory restaurant at all prices, even if it misses a few worthwhile restaurants from time to time. If you're in NY long enough to exhaust the list, you'll undoubtedly hear good reports about a worthwhile restaurant omitted from the list. The guide is more llikely to serve as the first step in the selection of a restaurant, rather the final arbiter of where to eat. The guide to NY may be better than Zagat and the NY Times in terms of reliability, but it you need better information, you can always ask me. That's not meant to be sarcastic or funny, it's just a comment about the subjectivity of taste. I disagree strongly with some of it's ratings. It's annoying perhaps, not to have one's tastes reinforced by authority, but that's life.

[Nathan]

I guess I'm not really sure I understand the basis of much of the criticism here of the Michelin guide.

The two consistent ones appear to be rather particularized -- that Michelin perverted its standards for marketing reasons to make one restaurant a 3-star (LB) and that it failed to give deserving restaurants a star (Rich is probably the most vocal in his critique regarding the Tasting Room -- but that's been his pet cause for a while ).

Both of these critiques, no matter how valid, appear to be red herrings.

I would suggest that the only appropriate question is, does the Guide "work" for the purpose for which it has been intended (indeed, the only purpose for which any such Guide can be intended) -- to guide visitors, as well as NY'ers who are not intimately familiar with the dining scene, into making solid choices.

I don't see anyone disputing that the Michelin list does that better than any equivalent published list or guide. In fact, I'd venture that it's a far better list. Among restaurant reviewers, William Grimes was probably the one who I trusted the most and who's palate was the most similar to mine own, but he wasn't reviewing 1,500 restaurants in a year.

Here's a wager, if we asked egullet members to put together a list of 39 1 to 3 star restaurants (as well as a larger list of 500) (requiring some sort of vote for each one (maybe 80% unanimity)?)....I would bet that it would be a slightly better list but having with 75-90% commonality with the Michelin list. Considering that by definition egullet has a far larger repository of food knowledge and experience (taken collectively) than any assortment of 8 people, I think that says a lot for Michelin. Quite frankly, there are far fewer clunkers than I expected and I was quite pleasantly surprised.