Michelin Guide to New York est arrivé!

[Nathan]

Rich, I don't even comprehend your point.

If we did a poll of egullet regulars on the top 37 restaurants there is no fricking way that we would end with more agreement than on the Michelin list. the amazing thing is how few clunkers there are on it.

I don't know what you're smoking but I want some of it.

[oakapple]

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.

←

As the Michelin folks have explained it, a restaurant can get one star for being exemplary in its category. This explains the stars for places like Spotted Pig, Etats-Unis, Peter Luger, Jewel Bako, etc. I am not saying those would have been my choices—only that that's the meta-theory on which they were selected. But a restaurant can also get one star if it's "haute cuisine," but not "haute enough" for two or three. Hence: March, Gotham Bar & Grill, Gramercy Tavern.

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

←

The Spotted Pig has expanded since last year's rating, and some people say they haven't kept up the quality. I think Spotted Pig is high on the endangered list to lose its star; Jewel Bako for similar reasons.

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".

←

You can look at other media outlets that rate restaurants on a numerical scale. There are NY Times stars, NY Mag stars, Gayot.com, and Zagat. All of them have flaws. But if a restaurant is rated very highly on all four, you could say there's a consensus about that restaurant. Those existing ratings, taken together, are a benchmark against which Michelin can be judged. It's not a perfect science, but you can get a rough idea whether the Michelin ratings make sense.

When last year's ratings came out, Rich tried to argue that Tasting Room serves four-star food, and any guide that fails to award it a star is unreliable. It turned out, if you looked at the sources mentioned above, there was no such consensus for Tasting Room. This doesn't mean that TR's zero-star status was correct. It only means that, based on a consensus of existing media criticism, it was not incorrect. I trust the difference is clear.

There were other restaurants that failed to get starred that probably had a more serious complaint, such as Union Square Café, Chanterelle, Blue Hill, and L'Impero.

Edited October 3, 2006 by oakapple (log)

[robyn]

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.

←

I don't have time to look through a lot of old threads tonight - but isn't Zuni the "roast chicken" place in San Francisco? More or less comfort food? If it's the place I'm thinking of - I recall that we crossed it off our list of places to dine last year because most (or at least a lot) of people here didn't understand what all the fuss was about.

On an unrelated note - I've never seen the NY Michelin guide. Does it have both "stars" and "knives and forks"? The combination of the 2 always gave me an idea what a restaurant was about when I used the guide in France (1 star - 5 knives and forks usually amounted to overpriced so-so "luxury" place etc.). Robyn

[rich]

I guess since Michelin prides itself as being the definitive restaurant "critic" in the world, I expect more from them.

Anyone can error at times, but in my opinion Michelin misses a lot more than it should based on its own standards.

And yes Marc, I stand by my comments last year about the Tasting Room (the old Tasting Room). In my opinion, they served some of the best food in the city. It was their ambiance issues that ruined it for many of their critics. (Yes, I know you didn't care for it SE.)

Let me make this analogy since several here are lawyers. If your expert witness was correct or perceived to be correct 80% of the time, that person wouldn't be your expert witness very long.

My wife is probably the national authority on child-abuse and its prevention in the country and testifies and many trials. If she was right 80% of the time, her credibility would be challenged.

Based on what I've seen and read, I certainly challenge the credibility of Michelin NY & SF.

[Nathan]

that makes no sense whatsoever.

there's a heck of a lot more individual taste involved with cuisine than with testimony that could pass Daubert scrutiny. that's why the Michelin ratings for NY are remarkable.

[dan.]

Uh, I think you're confusing a few things. A critic can make a number of correct objective observations about a restaurant (just like your expert witness) and still not agree with you about its subjective worth.

Let me make this analogy since several here are lawyers. If your expert witness was correct or perceived to be correct 80% of the time, that person wouldn't be your expert witness very long.

My wife is probably the national authority on child-abuse and its prevention in the country and testifies and many trials. If she was right 80% of the time, her credibility would be challenged.

Now if the guide was getting information wrong (which it was if I remeber correctly) you have a point, but that analogy makes no sense on the grounds you're arguing.

[Aurore]

I guess since Michelin prides itself as being the definitive restaurant "critic" in the world, I expect more  from them.

Of course it does ! How do you intend to sell a guide saying "we are bad critics" ?

I don't really understand what the problem is here. If all the guides and newspaper reviewed restaurants the exact same way, there would be no point in having several reviews. Isn't it good to have different points of view to help you make your own opinion rather than following blindly one advice ?

[Sneakeater]

And yes Marc, I stand by my comments last year about the Tasting Room (the old Tasting Room). In my opinion, they served some of the best food in the city. It was their ambiance issues that ruined it for many of their critics. (Yes, I know you didn't care for it SE.)

←

Not just me, but William Grimes (I realized recently when I (re)read his review, which I didn't otherwise remember, as linked in the eG "Tasting Room" thread). And Adam Platt said the same thing about the food in the old place in his very recent New York Magazine review of the new place.

I'm not arguing that Grimes, much less Platt, was/is infallible. Only that my lowish opinion of the food at the old Tasting Room was no more of an outlier than your high opinion. Of course, I'm not arguing that your opinion was "wrong", or doubting your basis for having it. Only trying to show how your argument that the old Tasting Room should have been starred, to me, shows the bootlessness of any argument that the Michelin list was "incorrect".

[Sneakeater]

My wife is probably the national authority on child-abuse and its prevention in the country and testifies and many trials. If she was right 80% of the time, her credibility would be challenged.

←

I don't know what "right" means in this context.

An expert witness is "right", first of all, if he or she supports your client's position. You won't retain an expert who doesn't.

An expert witness is then "right" if he or she can persuade a jury of the correctness of your client's position. But that has nothing to do with any objective truth.

As for challenging her credibility, you could do that if she was inconsistent. Or if her views did not fall within the accepted norms of her profession. But that's really saying the same thing that Oakapple said: that the way you judge the "correctness" of a list like Michelin's is with reference to the consensus of professional opinion in the area.

But again, how could anyone in any field be said to be objectively "right" 100% of the time. What does objectively "right" mean? In every contested litigation, where there's one qualified expert arguing one thing on one side, there's another qualified expert arguing the opposite on the other. Is the losing side's expert "wrong"? Or did he or she only fail in persuading the jury in that instance? If an expert is on the losing side a lot, he or she will have hard time getting hired, not because he or she is "wrong", but because he or she is ineffective.

I'd add, though, that if Michelin did nothing but summarize or mirror the already existing judgments, then it would be deemed useless by the market, as not contributing anything "new". So of course their list is going to differ slightly from the conventional wisdom (have some "surprises"), just to show they have their own viewpoint, and hence some value added. But it can't vary too much.

So, again, 80% correct is correct.

Edited October 3, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[rich]

Everyone who's debating this whole scenario with me is forgetting one very important fact. I didn't assign Michelin the number of 80%. In fact I never gave it any number - that would be illogical based on my hatred for the current star system. I just picked up on what someone else wrote.

Personally, I don't think the Michelin guide has much value - period, not 80%, not 70%, not anything. In my opinion they are not the definitive guide to NYC dining nor are they an important piece of the puzzle. It's just another company selling a guide hoping to make money off its name in Europe.

Saying that, I still think my analogy is accurate and credible. If an expert witness is successfully challenged and proved to be inconsistent (I used "wrong" earlier because I was playing off the word "correct" used elsewhere by others) 20% of the time, then said individual would not be considered the definitive expert for long.

When I was writing network news and sports, if my source(s) was inaccurate, wrong, inconsistent, etc., 20% of the time, I wouldn't use them again. Because if my information was inaccurate 20% of the time, I wouldn't have a job.

[glauer]

I am from Boston, and very much hoping we will get a red guide soon as well. And people here will be even more surprised about the ratings (as they will be on the lower side.....I very much suspect we will not see anything beyond a single star).

Coming from Europe I am puzzled about the discussions regarding what a disappointment it is for many places that they only got a single star (Babbo in NYC maybe the most vocal example). Maybe it is inevitable because people here are so much used to the newspapers' star ratings, which have not much in common with the Michelin stars. The newspapers' ratings are the equivalent to grade inflation at Harvard. In the Michelin a star is something extraordinary (and don't come with the Spotted Pig again......this was one of the things they did to pander to the local crowd...trying to be not too elitist....I guess they failed on that one).

Most importantly, being in the red guide alone is a solid recommendation, and many places with one or two stars for example in the NYT fall perfectly in that category. This is no insult such as getting zero stars at NYT. And a single star is far from something trivial. I enjoyed a contribution to the SF board today from one of the chefs of a newly starred restaurant. Previous posts had suggested that there would be a lot of bad blood in the places "only" getting a single star. Just the opposite he said, there will be celebration. And he is right, it is a great accomplishment, nothing less. And do not forget, there are no half stars. So yes, some places just barely made the cut, while others almost got two. So there are significant differences within one category.

Also, and here it becomes a bit more complicated.....price and luxury play a role and don't play a role at the same time. Any place in any category can get a star, if the food is excellent. However, a starworthy meal in a 20$ entree place usually looks very different than that in a place charging double, or more. The quality needs to be excellent in both places, but the ingredients can be cheaper, the preparation simpler and the service more casual in the less expensive place. The question is whether a place distinguishes itself at the top of its category. As someone said above, the combination of forks (=luxury) and stars (=food) is often indicative of what kind of place you are looking at.

And finally...yes, the guide is often off by a star + or - in my opinion. I think it is inevitable. But when I consider my experiences over the last 25 years I have to say that I had very few meals in Restaurants with one or more stars that were not special in some aspects. And finding a place without a star but equally excellent food is double the pleasure. The whole affair would be half the fun if we all agreed.

[chefboy24]

Personally, I don't think the Michelin guide has much value - period, not 80%, not 70%, not anything. In my opinion they are not the definitive guide to NYC dining nor are they an important piece of the puzzle. It's just another company selling a guide hoping to make money off its name in Europe.

←

I think you are incorrect. Maybe you don't work in the restaurant business so you don't know... but...

The Michelin star status of New York restaurants, now, affects business of these restaurants by hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions of dollars.

You can guarantee that business has improved at restaurants with a michelin star, like BLT fish, anissa, spotted pig, cru, jo jo, oceana, wallse, etc.

real new yorkers buy and read this guide and now think to themselves, "i want to have a nice elegant dinner...let's check the michelin guide.... hey, honey, we haven't been to wallse, let's check it out."

the fact remains that all the new york restaurants with a michelin star pride themselves on this fact. it goes on the resume of EVERY single cook and waiter and sommelier and manager employed by that restaurant. it becomes part of the mantra and pride of a restaurant. "We are a michelin star restaurant."

And restaurants without? You can damn well be sure that L'Impero, Union Square Cafe, are trying to get one this year and Daniel and Bouley are trying to get 3.

In fact, I think the Michelin star system and the New York Times system, taken together, give a very accurate way to look at the quality of a restaurant.

I'd take those 2 together over anything else..... Everything else is meaningless. NY Mag, Zagat, Time Out, Gayot, Crain's, whatever...

it boils down to the michelin star and the nyt star. that's how restaurants advertise, that's what's going on your resume,those are the ratings that matter. Fact.

[rich]

Personally, I don't think the Michelin guide has much value - period, not 80%, not 70%, not anything. In my opinion they are not the definitive guide to NYC dining nor are they an important piece of the puzzle. It's just another company selling a guide hoping to make money off its name in Europe.

←

I think you are incorrect. Maybe you don't work in the restaurant business so you don't know... but...

←

I think you're 100% percent correct, not just 80%. I don't know anything. I haven't known anything for years. I am in awe just being here.

Just for the record I was voted as the most stupid person on eGullet the last three years running and the second most ignorant person in NYC for the years 1975 through 1988, finally capturing the title in 1990-94.

So just read what I post with a grain of salt, a dash of hubris and hefty dose arrogance. Nothing I say has a measure of truth, an ounce of common sense or a milligram of experience. It's merely anecdotal.

The one thing I've learned in these halls, don't voice your opinion if you're not part of a clique - mob mentality rules.

It's been a pleasure.

[Sneakeater]

I laughed very hard at the beginning of that post. But then when I got toward the end I begin to get this strange idea that you weren't joking. I hope I'm wrong about that.

[oakapple]

The Michelin star status of New York restaurants, now, affects business of these restaurants by hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions of dollars.

You can guarantee that business has improved at restaurants with a michelin star, like BLT fish, anissa, spotted pig, cru, jo jo, oceana, wallse, etc.

←

I'm not in the restaurant business, but that sounds right to me. Especially with out-of-town tourists, the Michelin guide is surely influential. I've no doubt at all that chefs do indeed put it on their resumés if they've worked at a starred restaurant.

I'd take those 2 together over anything else.....  Everything else is meaningless.

There's a lot of anecdotal evidence that Zagat ratings do matter to a restaurant's bottom line. (Their accuracy is a whole other ball game.)

[docsconz]

That Michelin is influential is not IMO in dispute. Whether it deserves to be as influential as it is is the crux of this discussion as far as I can tell.

My own opinion is that it is a guide like others and so should be taken with a grain of salt and calibrated to one's own taste. If an individual has had good results following it, then by all means that individual should continue. If the record does not appear to conform with one's own experience than that should speak for itself.

[Nathan]

"Saying that, I still think my analogy is accurate and credible. If an expert witness is successfully challenged and proved to be inconsistent (I used "wrong" earlier because I was playing off the word "correct" used elsewhere by others) 20% of the time, then said individual would not be considered the definitive expert for long."

huh? wtf? I can assure you that an expert witness who has been on the winning side 80% of the time (or has had a jury accept their damages calculation 80% of the time -- which would never happen by the way) would be in incredibly high demand.

(how do I derive that 80% figure for the Michelin Guide? let's just say that it tracks NY foodie consensus remarkably well -- when criticisms can be reduced to literally only a couple outliers (La Goule/Spotted Pig) and that it didn't mention Katz's for its pastrami (that critique I've never understood) and questions as to whether LB and JG should have gotten 2 instead of 3 stars....that's a pretty darn high batting average.

(the criticisms coming out of SF right now appear to primarily stem from a complete misunderstanding of what a Michelin star means)

[Nathan]

as to whether Michelin deserves its influence.

yes. for one simple reason:

if a non-foodie or someone unfamiliar with NY asked for recommendations as to the "best restaurants in the city" I could either go into a long spiel; or I could refer them to the Michelin Guide which dovetails quite accurately with what I would have told them in a couple hours.

its purpose is not to tell us anything we don't know. (though the Saul pick was interesting)

In other words, the Guide is written for someone unfamiliar with the NY dining scene. And it serves that purpose better than any of its analogues. Much better actually.

[Vadouvan]

The Michelin star status of New York restaurants, now, affects business of these restaurants by hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions of dollars.

You can guarantee that business has improved at restaurants with a michelin star, like BLT fish, anissa, spotted pig, cru, jo jo, oceana, wallse, etc.

real new yorkers buy and read this guide and now think to themselves, "i want to have a nice elegant dinner...let's check the michelin guide.... hey, honey, we haven't been to wallse, let's check it out."

Was that a joke ?.......

Are you kidding me ?

Real new yorkers ?

or

Real Tourists from Japan ?

[Nathan]

well, I agree that NY'ers aren't buying the Guide. unfortunately, they're using Zagat instead.

[oakapple]

well, I agree that NY'ers aren't buying the Guide. unfortunately, they're using Zagat instead.

←

My girlfriend and I both bought it, and while it's not the primary reference for either one of us, we don't own Zagat.

[Nathan]

I'm not sure what your point is.

You post on egullet so you're representative of NY dining consumers how?

[bechamel]

chefboy - How, in fact, are the other guides (Zagat, TimeOut, et al.) meaningless? I could have sworn I read a piece in the NY Times a few years ago about what it means to be a top restaurant in Zagat. From what I recall, being a top dog in Zagat can translate into millions of dollars. (That may have been a quote from Clark Wolf.) And as far as the NY Times influence, it's important to note that it has a limited effect on the overall dining scene. Of course, it's power cannot be disputed when it comes to the early life of a restaurant, but after that? I would argue that Michelin and Zagat are in their own right more influential than the Times, since both books come out every year.

My main contention with the Michelin guide is not necessarily its (much debatable, much maligned) content; it's with the way the book is organized. Maybe I'm an idiot, I just find it too hard to find a restaurant. Perhaps that's another reason why New Yorkers aren't buying it.

[chefboy24]

Personally, I don't think the Michelin guide has much value - period, not 80%, not 70%, not anything. In my opinion they are not the definitive guide to NYC dining nor are they an important piece of the puzzle. It's just another company selling a guide hoping to make money off its name in Europe.

←

I think you are incorrect. Maybe you don't work in the restaurant business so you don't know... but...

←

I think you're 100% percent correct, not just 80%. I don't know anything. I haven't known anything for years. I am in awe just being here.

Just for the record I was voted as the most stupid person on eGullet the last three years running and the second most ignorant person in NYC for the years 1975 through 1988, finally capturing the title in 1990-94.

So just read what I post with a grain of salt, a dash of hubris and hefty dose arrogance. Nothing I say has a measure of truth, an ounce of common sense or a milligram of experience. It's merely anecdotal.

The one thing I've learned in these halls, don't voice your opinion if you're not part of a clique - mob mentality rules.

It's been a pleasure.

←

i still don't know anything about you or what you do or who you are, but it doesn't really matter, because

by the way you talk about the new york times review and the michelin review makes you seem ignorant.

it doesn't matter if you don't agree with the times or michelin, but these ratings and reviews can cause a restaurant to make or loose hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars. fact. and that is where we disagree.

[chefboy24]

(the criticisms coming out of SF right now appear to primarily stem from a complete misunderstanding of what a Michelin star means)

←

I agree with you completely.

It doesn't matter what Chez Pannisse and Union Square Cafe have done for cuisine in America.

The star is about the food quality at these restaurants now.

I do agree with you regarding your earlier post too. I think the 38 nyc Michelin starred restaurants with stars are very fair.....with a few surprises (no chantrelle, no l'impero?)