Michelin Guide to New York est arrivé!

[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).

←

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.

←

A lot of the Michelin guides I have (only ones I have around now are the green guides) show the "white" Michelin man dressed in black and yellow clothes on a green background. Guess you could have made him yellow with black and white clothes - but I don't think the graphics would look as good .

As for "ethnic" - I think I pretty much followed your definition (e.g., I cited French food in Spain).

I really haven't eaten a lot of "French" food in the US (or New York) in recent years. I don't think of the cuisine at Per Se or Jean Georges as French. Not exactly sure what it is - contemporary high end American cuisine? - something like that. Even ADNY states that it serves "the best American produce prepared with French expertise". Does that make it a French restaurant? I don't think so. Robyn

[Nathan]

btw, Robyn, reading up the thread (I've been in Rome the last few days so I was catching up)....I noticed that you referenced Brassiere Le Coze....I've eaten at the one in Atlanta (I think it's still in operation) and should note that it's not really to be compared to LB -- they're very different restaurants...one is casual seafood at a low price point and the other is a much more upscale take.

[robyn]

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

←

Have never been to Devi. Most recent meals were at Dawat and Chola (mostly because they're reasonably close to Bloomingdales ). Robyn

[sizzleteeth]

A lot of the Michelin guides I have (only ones I have around now are the green guides) show the "white" Michelin man dressed in black and yellow clothes on a green background.  Guess you could have made him yellow with black and white clothes - but I don't think the graphics would look as good  .

←

Wow - strange - I'd like to see that - all the Michelin Green and Red guides I've ever seen have the blue and white Michelin logo with a "naked" Michelin man.

http://images.google.com/images?q=michelin...SO-8859-1&hl=en

http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&h...ide&btnG=Search

As for "ethnic" - I think I pretty much followed your definition (e.g., I cited French food in Spain).

←

Yes, yes you did - I read your post too fast.

BTW I can tell you from personal experience that the Michelin Man is a really nice guy - a friend of mine did a stint on a multi-state tour as the Michelin Man.

Despite my poking his ribs here, the Michelin Man (though very white) is partial to Indonesian and Cuban fare, has excellent taste in bourbon, makes mean Mojito - and smokes one hell of a pork shoulder.

[robyn]

btw, Robyn, reading up the thread (I've been in Rome the last few days so I was catching up)....I noticed that you referenced Brassiere Le Coze....I've eaten at the one in Atlanta (I think it's still in operation) and should note that it's not really to be compared to LB -- they're very different restaurants...one is casual seafood at a low price point and the other is a much more upscale take.

←

I've seen the restaurant in Atlanta (never dined there) - and the one in Miami was both fancier (the owners spent a fortune on the place - it was really quite beautiful) and more ambitious in terms of menu. It was the 80's in Miami - and Miami was flooded with money - not necessarily from legitimate sources. At the time - the restaurant and the city were a good fit. I think I read that the place in Atlanta was either closing or moving to another location in Atlanta - I'm not sure. Robyn

[sizzleteeth]

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.

←

From the Michelin Website - a Michelin Press release:

http://www.michelinman.com/difference/rele...a.html?source=5

MICHELIN SELECTS BEST RESTAURANTS AND HOTELS IN NEW YORK CITY

Premier edition of the Michelin Guide in North America features 39 star-rated establishments

The star ratings are as follows:

* A general listing in the guide indicates "a quality restaurant that stands out from others" in the same category of comfort, definitely worth trying.

* One star (*) indicates "a quality restaurant that stands out from others" in the same category of comfort, definitely worth trying.

* Two stars (**) denote "excellent cuisine, worth a detour," skillfully and carefully crafted dishes of outstanding quality.

* Three stars (***) reward "exceptional cuisine, worth a special journey." One always eats extremely well here, often superbly. Distinctive dishes are precisely executed, using superlative ingredients.

Stars are awarded according to five criteria, the quality of products, the mastering of flavors and cooking, the "personality" of the cuisine, the value for money and the consistency.

The decision to award a star is a collective one, based on the consensus of all inspectors who have visited a particular establishment. A written description of each establishment and a variety of other symbols will give readers further insight into an establishment's ambience, cuisine type, specialties and wine lists. These descriptions are customized to American tastes and needs.

Edited November 7, 2005 by sizzleteeth (log)

[Fat Guy]

Nathan, the core selling points of the Michelin guide are -- as best I can tell based on the vague marketing literature -- that it has great integrity, expertise and scope. It is hardly a red herring to point to attributes of the guide that contradict those claims. The seemingly lowered standards and Michelin's dodgy record of conduct in Europe (not to mention the contradiction between the high falutin' language of independence and the coziness and shared publicists with the chefs being rated in the New York guide) go directly to the question of integrity. The French restaurant choices are pretty solid, but the laughable categorization and randomness of inclusion with respect to other cuisines goes to the issue of expertise -- the people who put this guide together seem to know very little about, for example, Chinese food. In terms of scope, exclusions like Katz's deli -- widely acknowledged by a large cross-section of people who comprehend deli as having the best pastrami in the world -- indicate some pretty sad methodology, and what we've learned from the tell-all book published in France is that it's possible Michelin didn't visit Katz's at all or that only one possibly underinformed inspector did -- or maybe more did, but we have no way of knowing because Michelin keeps all it proceedings secret, all the credentials of its inspectors secret, and asks simply for our trust. So, if the core selling points turn out to be unsupportable, all we're left with is that the Michelin guide is not as good as a list that a bunch of people who dine out a lot could create in an evening.

[robyn]

Wow - strange - I'd like to see that - all the Michelin Green and Red guides I've ever seen have the blue and white Michelin logo with a "naked" Michelin man.

←

Some of the newer guides I have show that naked white man. But most of the older ones show the guy in garb which is stereotypical for an area (like the New England guide has him dressed as a pilgrim - the Spain guide has him dressed as a matador - the Dordogne guide has him dressed as a truffle hunter - complete with a yellow pig ).

To get back to another point - after I wrote a message a couple of days ago - I thought about the Le Bernardin issue a little more. Apart from Senderens - I wondered - what will Michelin do with a restaurant like Chez Panisse when it gets to San Francisco? It is certainly not a fancy place - but the food we had there last month was extraordinary (and we had lunch at the Cafe!). Best meal we had in San Francisco. Best meal we've had in a long time. Chez Panisse is not going to get fancier to accommodate Michelin. Will Michelin have to change to accommodate an institution like Chez Panisse - and similar places in the US?

Also - I took a quick look at the Michelin website tonight. For anyone who thinks that something like a Michelin print guide is out of date - you have to see the GPS and PDA items they have for sale. I think Michelin has entered the 21st century. Robyn

[sizzleteeth]

the Dordogne guide has him dressed as a truffle hunter - complete with a yellow pig  ).

←

Perfect!!! Now I already have my halloween costume for next year.

Now I just gotta find a yellow pig.

[borris]

The criteria used by the Michelin guide will remain an inscrutable mystery to me.

There's nothing wrong with your point of view, oakapple, were it not that it's not what the Michelin does in other countries.

Luger and Cru a Michelin star. Well, I suppose that a guide which just would warrant a handful of stars would be a complete sales failure.

←

If Luger and Cru were not on the list do you think that anyone would notice as much as L'impero not being on the list?

[M.X.Hassett]

In regards to Brassiere Le Coze and Le.B. they are apples and oranges.

BLC is just that a Brassiere Bistro whereas LB is certainly not that.

[TrishCT]

Steven, I treasure and value your advice, when it comes to meat, you are soooo the man. But the one time (and only one time) I visited Katz's it was dreadful. Sure they serve very good pastrami, but that's it. It's a one trick pony. And I don't believe it deserves a star. The rest of my party was disgusted and didn't finish their food. (I think they had corned beef, a hot dog...fries maybe...bunch of stuff).

Katz's calls itself a deli so it should be judged as a deli...and that's where it fails. Not all members of John Q. Public go to delis for pastrami. Many like corned beef, roast beef, big club sandwiches, pickles, deli stuff. Can you honestly say if you took the pastrami out of Katz's it would warrant a star?

Peter Luger's, which got a star, is also kind of a one-tricker. Luger's is a steahouse. Its main entree is steak (o.k there is a token fish du jour, and lamb chops... but whatever). So at Luger's you really gotta get the steak. Going in you know steak's the thing.

But to do a mediocre to lousy job on a whole menu except for one item? That doesn't make a deli.

[robyn]

Nathan, the core selling points of the Michelin guide are -- as best I can tell based on the vague marketing literature -- that it has great integrity, expertise and scope. It is hardly a red herring to point to attributes of the guide that contradict those claims. The seemingly lowered standards and Michelin's dodgy record of conduct in Europe (not to mention the contradiction between the high falutin' language of independence and the coziness and shared publicists with the chefs being rated in the New York guide) go directly to the question of integrity. The French restaurant choices are pretty solid, but the laughable categorization and randomness of inclusion with respect to other cuisines goes to the issue of expertise -- the people who put this guide together seem to know very little about, for example, Chinese food. In terms of scope, exclusions like Katz's deli -- widely acknowledged by a large cross-section of people who comprehend deli as having the best pastrami in the world -- indicate some pretty sad methodology, and what we've learned from the tell-all book published in France is that it's possible Michelin didn't visit Katz's at all or that only one possibly underinformed inspector did -- or maybe more did, but we have no way of knowing because Michelin keeps all it proceedings secret, all the credentials of its inspectors secret, and asks simply for our trust. So, if the core selling points turn out to be unsupportable, all we're left with is that the Michelin guide is not as good as a list that a bunch of people who dine out a lot could create in an evening.

←

Is it possible that Michelin viewed Katz's deli as primarily a place that sold food as opposed to a restaurant? After all - there are lots of places that sell food that also have tables. Does Michelin treat places like this in other countries (places like Harrod's food courts - Fauchon - etc.) as restaurants - or food stores?

Also - if this is the worst criticism of the guide - that it doesn't list the deli most people think is best (or the best hot dog place - or the best pizza place - etc.) - I don't think it's a very damning criticism. Robyn

[Fat Guy]

It's not a question of Katz's deserving or not deserving a star. Katz's isn't in the guide at all. It's such a glaring omission that, even standing alone, it would be a strong indication of cluelessness about the local restaurant culture. If you want to go to the dozen or so places that are ultimate New York dining experiences, you go to Peter Luger, you go to Papaya King (also not in the guide), you go to Katz's, you go to a few upscale European-derived places, you go to a few Asian places. This isn't a question of lowest common denominator popularity -- this is the guidance you're going to get from most knowledgeable, experienced observers of the New York dining scene who have international perspective and exposure. And while these places are, to be sure, informal, the guide includes NY Noodle Town, Jackson Diner, Sripraphai and other quite informal, downmarket places. The guide's claim is that it tries to find the best of a type of cuisine. Yet it can't even get the basic top places listed. Of course this omission is only one of many objections, which we've already gone through -- so it's hard to see how anybody, at page 8 of this discussion, could be saying this is the only or worst criticism that has been raised. For example, writing about restaurants that haven't opened yet is of course more serious as an institutional criticism, but that's a separate point.

[JWest]

If the Michelin Guide included every single person's favorite restaurant, it would not be as prestigious as it is today and it probably wouldnt be making so much attention on this forum.

The 2006 NYC Michelin Guide is only for the year 2006 and no year before. It guides people to eat where they think are the best restaurants. They do not guide people to eat where you think are the best restaurants (as much as you think they should). The Michelin Guide is a guide, not the end all be all book, like I said earlier.

[oakapple]

It's not a question of Katz's deserving or not deserving a star. Katz's isn't in the guide at all. It's such a glaring omission that, even standing alone, it would be a strong indication of cluelessness about the local restaurant culture.

Although I think Katz's should have been there, one omission out of 507 doesn't quite get me to total cluelessness. No contributor to this thread has listed more than a dozen or so restaurants that s/he felt very strongly are serious omissions; most have listed a lot less than that. In a guide of this size, it falls within the reasonable judgment that editors are supposed to exercise. Maybe the inspector(s) visited Katz's, had an experience like Trish's, and concluded the place is running on reputation, or is a one-ingredient restaurant (Pastrami).

Writing about restaurants that haven't opened yet is of course more serious as an institutional criticism, but that's a separate point.

←

Egregious as that error was, it has happened once in the company's 100+ year history (and not in New York).

Edited November 8, 2005 by oakapple (log)

[Todd36]

Japanese? Where's Kurma or Sugiyama? Are they even mentioned?

[Fat Guy]

Yes, both are listed. Not starred, but included.

[Fat Guy]

Oakapple, I think there are two ways to process the information. What we have here are quite a few convincing objections. There are ethical ones -- not just the fabrication issue, but also the various issues raised in the Remy book such as misleading the public about the frequency of inspections, and inappropriate political alliances with chefs (the shared publicist issue in New York would seem to track that). There are substantive ones -- specific restaurants that are not borderline calls but, rather, major screwups like the inclusion of Boathouse Cafe and the omission of Katz's (I would distinguish those from within-the-margin-of-error screwups like the failure to give a star to Blue Hill or Tasting Room). There are process ones -- mainly that we don't know the process, the qualifications of the inspectors or much of anything because it's all done in secret and we're just asked to trust Michelin (apparently, lots of people are willing to do that).

Now, we could take that information and, in every instance, say "That's just one objection and it's not enough to prove that the guide is worthless." Or we could say that, taken together, this is a pretty damning set of problems -- and this is only based on the early reactions; there hasn't been enough time yet to cross-reference and find out if there are any listings that contain factual errors that might trigger further investigation, there haven't been any reports of troublesome encounters with the inspectors, etc., and it's hardly unfair, given the already established record, to wonder about that. I don't see why we should be so eager to give Michelin the benefit of the doubt when Michelin hasn't done anything to earn it.

No, we haven't seen the kind of evidence that would indicate total cluelessness. And nobody said that. For me, the question is why should anybody listen to what "they think are the best restaurants"? They have no experience, no standing, no expertise in this polyglot market -- all they've ever done well is rate French restaurants in France -- and they haven't hooked into any knowledgeable sources. So what value does this sometimes random and other times derivative list, that includes second-rate restaurants like the Boathouse Cafe and omits first-in-class ones like Katz's, have? Are the inspectors particularly expert? We don't even know who they are. Is the process particularly rigorous? We don't even know what it is beyond the meaningless claim that there has to be some sort of consensus. Does Michelin hold the franchise on rigor, integrity or anything else? The indications are that it does not. So why should anybody take seriously what Michelin has to say about restaurants in New York?

[Bux]

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.

←

From the Michelin Website - a Michelin Press release:

http://www.michelinman.com/difference/rele...a.html?source=5

MICHELIN SELECTS BEST RESTAURANTS AND HOTELS IN NEW YORK CITY

Premier edition of the Michelin Guide in North America features 39 star-rated establishments

The star ratings are as follows:

* A general listing in the guide indicates "a quality restaurant that stands out from others" in the same category of comfort, definitely worth trying.

* One star (*) indicates "a quality restaurant that stands out from others" in the same category of comfort, definitely worth trying.

* Two stars (**) denote "excellent cuisine, worth a detour," skillfully and carefully crafted dishes of outstanding quality.

* Three stars (***) reward "exceptional cuisine, worth a special journey." One always eats extremely well here, often superbly. Distinctive dishes are precisely executed, using superlative ingredients.

Stars are awarded according to five criteria, the quality of products, the mastering of flavors and cooking, the "personality" of the cuisine, the value for money and the consistency.

The decision to award a star is a collective one, based on the consensus of all inspectors who have visited a particular establishment. A written description of each establishment and a variety of other symbols will give readers further insight into an establishment's ambience, cuisine type, specialties and wine lists. These descriptions are customized to American tastes and needs.

←

I'll concede that the title does seem to make the claim I say they don't make. The text is less emphatic about not missing places particularly noting that the guide "offers a broad selection of more than 500 restaurants and 50 hotels in each price and comfort category." This is the sort of language I've interpreted as meaning they don't claim to publish a complete of definitive list. I'm not sure you've won me over, but you make a good case.

Thanks for the link. There are even more interesting things to be read there. The last sentence you quote is one of them.

[Todd36]

Yes, both are listed. Not starred, but included.

←

Then the book goes straight into the garbage as far as I am concerned. Nobu and Jewel Bako one star, but zilch for Kurma? Sugiyama as well. Not to mention the six or so other Japanse places in town that almost all of us would agree are better than Jewel Bako or that machine that is Nobu. At least in my humble opinion, Michelin clearly doesn't know Japanese food.

I had dinner last month in London, at Tower 24, which is I think Michelin one star. It was fine, but nothing special. The Indoneson Fried Rice I had last night in a very modest London place was better than anything at Tower 24.

Note to readers.....new job means I don't have the chance to post so much, but I do fly to London about once a month. Flew back to NY this morning.

Another Michelin point is that their area gudebooks are dated and I don't think anyone takes them seriously.

[docsconz]

Another Michelin point is that their area gudebooks are dated and I don't think anyone takes them seriously.

←

This thread is a testament that some people obviously do

[Todd36]

Another Michelin point is that their area gudebooks are dated and I don't think anyone takes them seriously.

←

This thread is a testament that some people obviously do

←

I was talking about their guides to things like "the South of France", where they compete with Frommer's and the like. The main players in that market would seem to be Frommer's, Foder's, Lonely Planet, Rough Guide and Let's Go. Michelin seems to be a minor player. By the way, the last three are often not bad when it comes to food.

[TrishCT]

"In my opinion the best non-meat item at Katz's is the lox and onion omelette, served with bread, pickles, and steak fries. I agree, however, that your best bet might be to split your meal among multiple establishments: you nibble on some pickles at Katz's, and then go someplace else for a non-meat item, like a knish at Yonah Schimmel's, which will be quite a bit better than a Katz's knish. Unless you're going to schlep out to Coney Island and Mrs. Stahl's, I think Yonah Schimmel's serves the best knish you're going to get your hands on."

Quotation from a certain F_ t G_ y on the Katz's thread.

So maybe those Michelin reviewers ate the hot dogs and knishes.

Actually, I'm very happy you brought up Katz's omission. Because maybe it will inspire them to improve the quality of their other food, and get that star next time 'round.

[Pan]

If you think Katz's is worried about not being included in a Michelin guide, I suspect you have another think coming.

But you'd be incorrect if you think it's just their pastrami that's great. Have you tried their turkey?

And in any case, Michelin could have included the place and warned diners what things to avoid.