Michelin Guide to New York est arrivé!

Bux · November 9, 2005

Historically, it has been much easier to get a New York Times star than a Michelin star. This isn't a new phenomenon. It's true that there are some similarities between the two systems, given that every restaurant that got 2 or 3 stars from Michelin carries 3 or 4 from the Times. But in general, the Michelin system is simply more stingy. The Times rates 52 restaurants a year, and almost all of them get at least one star. Michelin awarded stars to just 39 restaurants in total.
. . . .
←

Historically, there's been no basis for a comparison as the two publications have never rated any restaurnants in the same venue. What you're speaking of is perception. It's certainly going to be eaiser to get "a" star in a systen that has four levels of stars than in one that has only three levels. A side by side comparison might place inclusion in Michelin with one star in the NY Times. The Times reviews unsatisfactory restaurants. The Michelin guide recommends all listed restaurants relative to their price and location.

Bux · November 9, 2005

. . . .
The Cuozzo piece is, standing alone, amusing for the way it exposes Michelin's shortcuts. Maybe, instead of spending so much money on a publication party at the Guggenheim, Michelin should have hired a fact checker. The question that remains is whether this is just the beginning. Journalists and eGullet types have only had the book for a few days so far. It will be a few weeks before a significant number of people have a chance to read it cover to cover.
←

Amusing and maybe even more significant at that, especially in light of the shortcuts exposed in the rating system in Europe. I won't detail the incidents you and others have already noted in this thread. They've also been covered in great detail elswhere in the appropriate forums. Whatever one may think about the ratings based on one's own experience in rated restaurants, errors of the factual kind do a lot of damage to the integrity of the guide as a whole. They undermine credibility and it carries over from the text to the ratings. My only defense of Michelin is very left handed, it's competing with Zagat Reviews and a collection of old, often out or date, reviews, often by different reviewers with different standards. This doesn't mean to say that I think all of the Michelin ratings hand together. I have a clear impression that not all the reviewers went to all of the same restaurants.

As for NY Noodletown, I supsect that if pressed, many of us could come up with places listed in some of the European Michelin guides that are just as "divey." It's also worth noting that Michelin does list tapas bars in Spain. The symbol used for a tapas bar in Spain is used for a couvert-less designation of simple comfort in France--"cheap eats." Inconsistencies of inclusion plague other Michelin guides as well and are probably one of the pitfalls of trying to publish a guide to so many disparate restaurants.

I've yet to see a guide, and that includes any bunch of NY Times reviews, that goups restaurants very close to the way I'd order my favorite restaurants and I haven't seen one that doesn't overrate a few of the restaurants at which I've been terribly disappointed. [insert appropriate French and Latin aphorism here.]

Faith Willinger · November 13, 2005

It seems that the Michelin feels that great food has to be French, or styled like French food. Even in Italy. I have a hard time taking their efforts outside France seriously.

oakapple · November 13, 2005

It seems that the Michelin feels that great food has to be French, or styled like French food. Even in Italy. I have a hard time taking their efforts outside France seriously.
←

I don't think that conclusion squares with what's in the guide itself.

Five of the eight restaurants that received two or three stars are French restaurants (ADNY, Bouley, Daniel, Jean Georges, Le Bernardin). But these five restaurants tend to dominate most lists of the city's best places to eat, no matter who is doing the judging. And that still leaves three restaurants in the top eight that are not French, including a very rare (by Michelin standards) two-star Japanese restaurant.

By my count, seven of the thirty-one single-star restaurants are French, which hardly supports the proposition that "Michelin feels that great food has to be French, or styled like French food." As I mentioned upthread, in the guide overall, the dominant cuisine is (surprisingly) Italian.

Indeed, it can be argued that the guide graded French restaurants on a rather harsh curve. Many people were surprised that long-admired French restaurants like Chanterelle, La Grenouille and Montrachet were left unstarred.

Edited November 14, 2005 by oakapple (log)

Todd36 · November 15, 2005

It seems that the Michelin feels that great food has to be French, or styled like French food. Even in Italy. I have a hard time taking their efforts outside France seriously.
←
I don't think that conclusion squares with what's in the guide itself.
Five of the eight restaurants that received two or three stars are French restaurants (ADNY, Bouley, Daniel, Jean Georges, Le Bernardin). But these five restaurants tend to dominate most lists of the city's best places to eat, no matter who is doing the judging. And that still leaves three restaurants in the top eight that are not French, including a very rare (by Michelin standards) two-star Japanese restaurant.
By my count, seven of the thirty-one single-star restaurants are French, which hardly supports the proposition that "Michelin feels that great food has to be French, or styled like French food." As I mentioned upthread, in the guide overall, the dominant cuisine is (surprisingly) Italian.
Indeed, it can be argued that the guide graded French restaurants on a rather harsh curve. Many people were surprised that long-admired French restaurants like Chanterelle, La Grenouille and Montrachet were left unstarred.
←

I haven't thought that either Chanterelle or Montrachet were particullary good----had many, many recruiting lunches at Chanterelle over the last five years.

Bux · November 15, 2005

It's perhaps worth noting that on the France board, I was reminded that our most disappointing and overpriced meal in Paris last fall was in a restaurant with a star. It was not a terrible meal, just not as good as others at the price and more expensive than some that offered better meals.

chefboy24 · November 16, 2005

bux - exactly.

i have definitely have had disappointing 1 and 2 star meals in paris, alsace, and london.

the ones on this thread who seem to believe that they do it better in france certainly do not work in new york restaurants.

new yorkers as diners are certainly critical enough for the best restaurants to rise to the top, regardless of the zagat effect, new yorkers are just as likely to think for themselves (if not more) then the french

new york line cooks and sous chefs and chefs are certainly just as talented, creative, brilliant, and hardworking as the french.

be fucking proud of your city and its cuisine. christ.

Bux · November 16, 2005

bux - exactly.
i have definitely have had disappointing 1 and 2 star meals in paris, alsace, and london.
the ones on this thread who seem to believe that they do it better in france certainly do not work in new york restaurants.
new yorkers as diners are certainly critical enough for the best restaurants to rise to the top, regardless of the zagat effect, new yorkers are just as likely to think for themselves (if not more) then the french
new york line cooks and sous chefs and chefs are certainly just as talented, creative, brilliant, and hardworking as the french.
be fucking proud of your city and its cuisine. christ.
←

We're drifting from the unreliability of Michelin regardless of where it's rating restaurants and beyond the point made (in small print) by mutual funds that past performance is no guarantee of future results. In fact, a previous disappointment at a Michelin starred restaurant was one we sought out not for its Michelin star, but because we tasted their rillettes de lapin at a Salon du Chocolat the year before. Right there was dark chocolate in it. The chef had great word of mouth from his previous restaurant and he wowed us with the rillettes but we found the menu banal and the food rather average when we finally got there.

As for your last statement, I've been going to France on an irregular basis since 1959 and on a limited budget in the beginning. In the sixties, it was so depressing to return to NY from France that I dreaded leaving in the first place simply because the memory of a short trip left a lasting memory I couldn't match, certainly not at the price I could afford to pay. The food was just universally better in France at every level we experienced and the dollar was strong enough for me to afford a level or two up as well. In the past decade and a half perhaps, things began to improve here, while France has seen some decline particularly in the middle cuisine. After too long a hiatus, we began to travel again in the late eighties. The change had started, but by the mid nineties I began to notice the differences. Lately, I find myself comparing touted restaurants in Europe, unfavorably with ones I know in NY where I can eat better and sometimes for less money. I posted many stories and examples illustrating the phenomenon. I don't hold with absolutes and I wouldn't argue we're the greatest food city in the world, but the credibility of our restaurants, chefs, sous chefs, line cooks, etc. is world class. There was a time I'd urge a young cook or culinary student to go to Europe to understand food. Today, I'd do it to encourage him to broaden himself, but we understand food here in the states today and European chefs understand that we do. The better I eat in Europe, the more likely it is that the chef who's prepared the food is likely to speak highly of the talent in American kitchens. I probably wouldn't have said that as recently as ten years ago.

Bricktop · September 16, 2006

Resurrecting this thread after reading Raymond Sokolov's piece in the WSJ Weekend Edition on Michelin's notations in the French edition of those up-and-comers who may be upgraded. It was interesting reading and was critical of Michelin's errors and omissions. (While we're at it Mr. Sokolov, Bernard Loiseau tragic suicide was not because of a Michelin demotion - they kept him at ***. He was afraid of losing a star from Michelin, but it didn't actually happen. It was a Gault Millau demotion. He likely saw that as an omen.)

Anyway, back on topic. It got me thinking about the next edition for NYC. I really can't see them making any substantial changes for 2007. I doubt any new three stars, and very little change in the other ranks, deserved or not. I'm not suggesting the ratings will be preserved in amber, but any changes will be at the margins.

oakapple · September 18, 2006

I really can't see them making any substantial changes for 2007. I doubt any new three stars, and very little change in the other ranks, deserved or not. I'm not suggesting the ratings will be preserved in amber, but any changes will be at the margins.
←

Well, the Michelin system in general is fairly conservative (in more ways than one). Stars are neither given nor taken away lightly. And frankly, that's the way it ought to be.

I agree that there are unlikely to be changes at the three-star level. Changes at the two-star level would not surprise me, especially given the odd anomaly that the number of two and three-star restaurants was identical last year (four).

There will almost certainly be several new one-star restaurants, and I wouldn't be surprised if a restaurant or two had a star taken away (not counting the obvious cases of restuarants that closed).

LPShanet · September 21, 2006

While we're on the subject, when is the new New York Guide (2007) due out?

I really can't see them making any substantial changes for 2007. I doubt any new three stars, and very little change in the other ranks, deserved or not. I'm not suggesting the ratings will be preserved in amber, but any changes will be at the margins.
←
Well, the Michelin system in general is fairly conservative (in more ways than one). Stars are neither given nor taken away lightly. And frankly, that's the way it ought to be.
I agree that there are unlikely to be changes at the three-star level. Changes at the two-star level would not surprise me, especially given the odd anomaly that the number of two and three-star restaurants was identical last year (four).
There will almost certainly be several new one-star restaurants, and I wouldn't be surprised if a restaurant or two had a star taken away (not counting the obvious cases of restuarants that closed).
←

iheartoffal · September 21, 2006

I'd assume it would be out during the first week of November--same as last year.

bechamel · September 26, 2006

One of the substantial changes I hope they make is to seriously overhaul the design of the book. Although we can all argue the distribution of stars to certain restaurants, few will dispute the book is miserably organized.

Nathan · October 3, 2006

interesting explanation of what a single star means from the Michelin director here:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...MNGSULH7QL1.DTL

in other words, price matters

oakapple · October 3, 2006

One of the substantial changes I hope they make is to seriously overhaul the design of the book. Although we can all argue the distribution of stars to certain restaurants, few will dispute the book is miserably organized.
←

What would you change?

Edit: According to http://snack.blogs.com/snack/2006/09/hotsnack_michel.html, this year's edition will eliminate the recipes, printing full menus instead. No other changes are mentioned.

Edited October 3, 2006 by oakapple (log)

oakapple · October 3, 2006

interesting explanation of what a single star means from the Michelin director here:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...MNGSULH7QL1.DTL
in other words, price matters
←

He implies that price (along with a bunch of other factors) matters at the one-star level. Basically, a restaurant gets one star for being exemplary in its category. This explains how Babbo and Spotted Pig could both be one star. The printed book doesn't really explain that, and you can understand why the average reader would be perplexed.

The two and three-star ratings seem to be more "absolute," and there's no indication that price is taken into account at those levels.

Nathan · October 3, 2006

that's why I said it was an explanation of "what a single star means"

docsconz · October 3, 2006

It would seem odd then for an expensive haute cuisine restaurant to receive a one-star rating. if it is "exemplary for its category" then it should be in the two to three-star range. If it is not, it cannot be "exemplary for its category" or so it would seem to me.

rich · October 3, 2006

It would seem odd then for an expensive haute cuisine restaurant to receive a one-star rating. if it is "exemplary for its category" then it should be in the two to three-star range. If it is not, it cannot be "exemplary for its category" or so it would seem to me.
←

Maybe the entire star system is archaic and should be ignored.

Slightly off topic, but I read the San Francisco Michelin didn't include Zuni in any of its star levels. How can anyone take them seriously?????

These Michelin people may serve a purpose though - they make the NY Times look good and that's not an easy task.

Nathan · October 3, 2006

I don't know about that:

as I noted way up this thread...what was remarkable was how much they got right...I'd say that easily 80% of their picks can't be criticized. you're grading on a very tough curve then. (I'm referring to NY, not SF)

rich · October 3, 2006

I don't know about that:
as I noted way up this thread...what was remarkable was how much they got right...I'd say that easily 80% of their picks can't be criticized. you're grading on a very tough curve then. (I'm referring to NY, not SF)
←

I guess you're right Nathan - 80% is much more acceptable these days than 20 years ago. Times change, people have learned to accept mediocrity as the norm.

Pan · October 3, 2006

interesting explanation of what a single star means from the Michelin director here:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...MNGSULH7QL1.DTL
in other words, price matters
←
He implies that price (along with a bunch of other factors) matters at the one-star level. Basically, a restaurant gets one star for being exemplary in its category. This explains how Babbo and Spotted Pig could both be one star. The printed book doesn't really explain that, and you can understand why the average reader would be perplexed.
The two and three-star ratings seem to be more "absolute," and there's no indication that price is taken into account at those levels.
←

They gave Spotted Pig a star? I was really underwhelmed with it when I went there with my cousin a few weeks ago.

Nathan · October 3, 2006

"I guess you're right Nathan - 80% is much more acceptable these days than 20 years ago. Times change, people have learned to accept mediocrity as the norm."

oh come on! I defy you to find any food critic's list of any era where you agree with more than 80% of their list.

rich · October 3, 2006

"I guess you're right Nathan - 80% is much more acceptable these days than 20 years ago. Times change, people have learned to accept mediocrity as the norm."
oh come on! I defy you to find any food critic's list of any era where you agree with more than 80% of their list.
←

It's not whether I agree with an individual critic or not since we all have personal preferences. This book is a compilation of many expert critics and claims to be the most definitive guide in the world (chefs have been known to do strange things for a star and stranger things if they lost one.) They supposedly follow strict guidelines and a singular format.

So for Michelin to be 80% correct (and that's your number, another might say more or less) is a travesty in my opinion. And if this thread is any type of barometer, it would appear 80% is a very generous number. And let's remember, there are a goodly number of restaurants that are no-brainers as they appear on everyone's top lists. No one needs to be a expert to give Per Se three in New York and the French Laundry three in SF. Or to award stars to places such as GP, JG, ADNY, Daniel, LB, Cru, Babbo, etc....

Sneakeater · October 3, 2006

How could a set of subjective ratings ever be "correct"? What would you judge its "correctness" against?

To put it another way, to me, if I agree with 80% of such a list, to me, that IS "correct".

Sign In

Michelin Guide to New York est arrivé!

Recommended Posts

Similar Content

Recently Browsing 0 members