Michelin Guide to New York est arrivé!

[JohnL]

In an article in Le Monde, Wednesday Nov 2, Jean-Claude Ribaut, their food and wine critic, wrote about the release of the Red 2006 NYC Michelin in an article that essentially said there were no surprises at the top and Michelin was proceeding cautiously in New York before tackling Los Vegas and Los Angeles.

←

I wonder why LA and Las Vegas? Not Chicago and San Francisco? Not to diminish the restaurant scenes in La and Vegas but seems to me Chicago and SF would be a bit more "interesting" and "diverse" in terms of their culinary import. L.A certainly has many fine restaurants and deserves to be included but right after NYC?

Also Vegas strikes me as the city of clones when it comes to restaurants--would be fun to see if some of these "clones" receive more (or fewer) stars than their originals.

My only thought here is Michelin may be more concerned with the status of cities as tourist destinations.

In that case, I suppose I answered my own question.

[rich]

This is getting tiresome, but there's something that must be said before I retire from this thread.

The Michelin Guide is simply another guide to restaurants that is purely based on a business plan that hasn't changed in 100 years. Unfortunately for them, the rest of the world has. That it warrants this much attention is frightening.

For any person who has dined in NYC over the last ten years, the mere fact that the Tasting Room was omitted from its "Top 40" list should have immediately rendered this guide as virtually useless except as a phone directory. If it didn't, then there's nothing more that anyone can say - it's time to turn out the lights and go home.

The Tasting Room could arguably serve the best food in NYC with a wine list that is far and away better than anything in this country outside of Bern's. Yes, it's cramped, at times uncomfortable and very tiny, but I defy anyone to say they have tasted significantly better food anywhere in this city on a consistent basis.

Granted, I don't care much for ambiance and I know there are many who do, but to leave the Tasting Room out of the top 40 is pure nonsense. Any guide on any subject needs credibility to gain acceptance and survive.

Michelin NYC has no credibility and doesn't deserve this kind of space. Maybe it has a place in Europe where it's operating with a home field advantage, but it's first attempt as a visiting team has been a complete failure.

I have left the building.

[oakapple]

For any person who has dined in NYC over the last ten years, the mere fact that the Tasting Room was omitted from its "Top 40" list should have immediately rendered this guide as virtually useless except as a phone directory.

←

What one asks from such a guide are reasonable choices, not necessarily the precise set of choices I would personally have made. Is Tasting Room's non-starred status reasonable?

Tasting Room is in Zagat's top 50, but not in the top 32. (You can't get more precise than that, since there are ties.)

Tasting Room is not in Gayot's top 50; there, it has a food rating of 14, five notches below the highest food rating they've assigned in New York, which is 19.

The New York Times rated Tasting Room one star, which means merely "good." (It is certainly arguable that William Grimes didn't 'get' Tasting Room, but there are 44 three or four-star restaurants per the Times. Even had Grimes allotted two stars to Tasting Room, it wouldn't be in the top 40.)

These data points, coming from three different media sources, demonstrate that Tasting Room is arguably on the cusp of the top-40, but not so clearly worthy that a reasonable guide must rate it that highly.

There are other restaurants that have a much more solid case. Take Chanterelle. It has three stars from the Times, and had four not so long ago. It is in Gayot's top 10, and it's the only restaurant on that list that didn't get at least one Michelin star. It has the second-highest Zagat food rating (a point higher than Tasting Room). I believe it also won the James Beard "Best Restaurant in America" award just a year ago. Based on ratings from other sources that rate restaurants, you'd have to say Chanterelle has a lot more cause for complaint than Tasting Room.

Edited November 4, 2005 by oakapple (log)

[akwa]

where does the anti michelin sentiment come from

remnants of freedom fries to me

how can a guide whose sole purpose is to advise voyagers be criticized for pandering to tourists

nyc is in for an awakening; yes it is a very good food city, but it is well behind the times,

michelin actually appears to be the team that is embracing global economy; what ny restaurant businesses/apart from jg are making money in europe right now?

[lambretta76]

what ny restaurant businesses/apart from jg are making money in europe right now?

TGI Fridays. First one was at 1st and 63rd.

[Pan]

I wonder why LA and Las Vegas? Not Chicago and San Francisco?[...]

My only thought here is Michelin may be more concerned with the status of cities as tourist destinations.

In that case, I suppose I answered my own question.

←

Yes, I believe you did.

But is LA dining truly less interesting than San Francisco dining? Well, I suppose we'd be best off not getting into that discussion on the New York forum...

[JWest]

This is getting tiresome, but there's something that must be said before I retire from this thread.

The Michelin Guide is simply another guide to restaurants that is purely based on a business plan that hasn't changed in 100 years. Unfortunately for them,  the rest of the world has. That it warrants this much attention is frightening.

For any person who has dined in NYC over the last ten years, the mere fact that the Tasting Room was omitted from its "Top 40" list should have immediately rendered this guide as virtually useless except as a phone directory. If it didn't, then there's nothing more that anyone can say - it's time to turn out the lights and go home.

The Tasting Room could arguably serve the best food in NYC with a wine list that is far and away better than anything in this country outside of Bern's. Yes, it's cramped, at times uncomfortable and very tiny, but I defy anyone to say they have tasted significantly better food anywhere in this city on a consistent basis.

Granted, I don't care much for ambiance and I know there are many who do, but to leave the Tasting Room out of the top 40 is pure nonsense. Any guide on any subject needs credibility to gain acceptance and survive.

Michelin NYC has no credibility and doesn't deserve this kind of space. Maybe it has a place in Europe where it's operating with a home field advantage, but it's first attempt as a visiting team has been a complete failure.

I have left the building.

←

If the Michelin Guide was merely rating on food alone, half of the restaurants on the 2006 list would be streetside cooking. The satisfaction of eating comfort food will always remain higher than any 50 dollar entree of gastronomical enlightenment. But this guide is for everything that goes on with dining. Food doesnt taste the same if you are in a freezing cold dining room sitting on super modern metal furniture. Nor does it taste the same sitting on an out of date wooden booth saturated in grease and sugar. When you are treated the very best by the front of the house in the restaurant, you become much more joyeous and when you eat, the food will be much more pleasing than if you were angry. When I want to have a full experience in dining, I look to the Michelin Guide. Otherwise I ask the locals for the best street side malaysian food or where I can get the cheesiest pizza.

Don't criticize the Guide based off your own needs. The guide is superb when it comes to there goals of guiding tourists to find the best Overall Gastronomical Experience. If you're just looking for what tastes the best, the guide isn't for you.

[akwa]

what ny restaurant businesses/apart from jg are making money in europe right now?

TGI Fridays. First one was at 1st and 63rd.

←

where is tgis in europe

either way

touche kyle, touche

[TrishCT]

Sometimes things are a matter of perspective.

From my point of view, as a visitor to New York, the Michelin Guide ratings are one more tool in a traveler's arsenal to use to decide the simple question--Where should I eat?

In that regard it as helpful as E-gullet, Chowhound, Menupages, Opentable, Zagat's, Gayot's, and other NYC dining resources.

The restaurants listed in the guide are not a bad representation of New York dining. Yes, there are some surpises here and there, a few omissions and places that shouldn't be there. So what? It's not perfect. Neither are the meals at these places all the time, are they?

It's kind of sad that some people feel personally insulted or affronted by a restaurant guide. Those who find it helpful will use it.

Edited November 4, 2005 by TrishCT (log)

[ulterior epicure]

Is anyone else a little disppointed/surprised that Sushi Yasuda didn't even make the one star list?

Based on my experience - not surprised AT ALL that Daniel was snuffed from the three star category. I wouldn't even give it two...

U.E.

Edited November 4, 2005 by ulterior epicure (log)

[robyn]

For example, I don't think there's anybody who has dined at Michelin three-star restaurants in Europe who seriously thinks Le Bernardin is a Michelin three-star restaurant.

A question since I've never been to a Michelin three-star in Europe...are all 3 stars created equal? In other words, would a 3 star in France be comparable to a 3 star in all other European countries in which Michelin publishes a red book? I guess the real question is, do they "grade on a curve" in all countries outside of France?

Just curious.

←

I don't think the concept of "grading on a curve" is the right concept. It's more like Michelin just does better grading French food in France - and it tends to favor French food outside of France. Sometimes with good results (our French food at the *** Gordon Ramsay in London last year was ***) - sometimes with comical results (I recall a *** French restaurant in Madrid years back that was really a dreadful parody of a French restaurant).

From a personal point of view - I have found the Michelin guides to be most useful in: 1) finding places - some really excellent - in smaller cities or towns; and 2) alerting me to new places on the way up - i.e., a place that starts as a 1 star but you have a hunch (after reading more about it) that it is destined for 2 or 3 stars down the road.

That is something that is unfortunate about looking at the 1st edition of the Michelin guide to New York. There's no continuity - no sense of history. You don't know whether the place with one star or two is on the way up (in which case it's likely to be better next year) - or on the way down (in which case it's likely to be worse). The guide will only prove its worth (or lack of it) down the road.

By the way - the only *** star in New York I've never been to is Le Bernardin. However I was a regular customer at its branch in Miami (which closed quite a few years ago - after Gilbert Le Coze died). Its hallmark was excellent fish - prepared simply. I liked the food a lot - but I'd give it one star at best. Robyn

[mascarpone]

Perhaps they are deliberately creating a controversy in oder to get attention.

[Fat Guy]

Michelin has gotten away with much in Europe that it won't likely get away with here. Because Michelin is so well established and widely respected in Europe, and has little in the way of serious competition or detractors, the embarrassing incidents have been few and far between. But the warning signs are there: remember in February when Michelin was caught red handed (no pun intended) rating a restaurant in the Benelux guide, L'Ostend Queen, that hadn't yet opened? Likewise, fallout from Pascal Rémy's book exposing many of Michelin's practices, L'Inspecteur se met à Table (in which we learn that Michelin visits restaurants far less often than it implies, has only five full time inspectors for all of France, engages in political favoritism and more -- you can read the seven main contentions summarized in paulbrussel's post here), has been minimal, but unless Michelin has turned over a new leaf it's only a matter of time, now that Michelin has shown up with its grand claims in New York, before investigative journalism catches up with the American Michelin operation. That Ducasse and Michelin share the same publicist, for example, is the sort of thing that spurs reporters to ask more questions. Right now, Michelin has the PR momentum on account of its lavish launch effort. It's also, like the Beard Awards, insidious in the way it coopts the chefs to whom it gives good rankings. But too many of the New York restaurant elite have been snubbed by Michelin -- the code of silence won't be nearly as rigorous here.

In terms of Michelin's substantive weaknesses, 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. That is to say, French restaurants in France that are trying to earn Michelin stars are easy for the Michelin inspectors to get their arms around. But the system was not designed to accommodate Sush Yasuda, or even Pierre Gagnaire. That Michelin has managed to give three stars to a few obviously world-class non-French restaurants like El Bulli doesn't mean the system is working for contemporary Spanish cuisine or contemporary anything.

[Pan]

I may be wrong, but I feel like there's an overemphasis on the star ratings in the guide. Michelin guides have never been just about star ratings; mere inclusion in the book is a recommendation. So how about if we have more and more detailed discussion of this:

[...]But leaving aside the question of which places got stars and how many, just looking at the restaurants I know something about, I don't feel like ridicule of the guide -- because it was produced by a tire company, or for some other reason -- is warranted. It seems to me, they did a lot of work and produced a credible list of restaurants.

←

Forgetting the star ratings for a moment, do you or do you not find the sum total of included restaurants to be a pretty credible list?

Also, which restaurants do you think shouldn't have been included, and which do you think absolutely should have been included and weren't?

Finally, I think it will be interesting to see how they rate hotel restaurants.

[nhconner]

I add to this having read only half the posts, and I feel the same as many who have posted.

Le Bernardin is the only *** spot on the list I have eaten at over the years, so I will speak to that. It is my favorite in NY, but only because I have enjoyed all my meals there and some have been fantastic. I am from Greensboro, NC and do not get the chance to try all the local spots that could outshine what was a great meal. I have had meals at all the other * associates, but know there is so much more out there. Next trip WD-50 etc.

I have dined at Arpege, Taillevent, Le Cinq, and Ducasse in Paris, and so on, so I feel I have some light gauge on what a three star is in comparison to NY. While I have not eaten at Per Se, I have dined at at the French Laundry, so the cuisine is familiar to me.

New York is not Paris, France, or Europe. It is the finest dining destination in America next to DC, Chicago, and Northern California. Therefore it is worthy of the Worlds most prestigious rating system.

I have had highs and lows durring all my meals by design, but the meal, as a whole establishes itself as a work in my mind. Considering this, Le Bernardin is a place that succeeds preparing perfect seafood tasting as is should taste, if you will. The fish is always right and the shellfish is always sweet, and all the food is cooked correctly. Considering this, the menu is creative but not intimidating. The service has evolved, and is constantly evolving into something extraordinary.

Does Le Bernardin check up to my favorite three star dining experiences? No, not actually, but on second thought maybe close. Place and quality, yes, there is something there. Does it rank with my best meals, well hmmm, it does kind stand out from my 50 or so high meals in NY over the last few years.

I am only 32, and that is not an excuse, but all I really care about is wife, child, food, wine, and here I stand, and I guess a *** review for Le Bernardin is not that out of line for this spot like that in NY.

Nate

man, Im thinking of so much more..

Edited November 5, 2005 by nhconner (log)

[Pan]

With all the discussion of rating systems and stars here, I think that some of you would be interested in the Culinary Historians of New York's upcoming event on "The History and Impact of Restaurant Reviews on the New York Dining Scene". From this PDF file:

What impact does the New York Times, the Michelin Guide, Zagat, weekly magazines and newspapers have on restaurants' business and the New York dining public?

[Andy Lynes]

A person expecting a Michelin three-star experience is going to be pretty surprised by Le Bernardin.

Why is that?

←

Can you flesh that statement out a little bit for us Steven? What would you say would be the main differences?

[John Talbott]

Michelin was proceeding cautiously in New York before tackling Los Vegas and Los Angeles.

←

I wonder why LA and Las Vegas?

My only thought here is Michelin may be more concerned with the status of cities as tourist destinations.

In that case, I suppose I answered my own question.

←

That is my understanding; Los Vegas is a primary destination for many French tourists and LA = Hollywood. Maybe #4 will be Graceland/Memphis.

[Fat Guy]

A person expecting a Michelin three-star experience is going to be pretty surprised by Le Bernardin.

Why is that?

←

Can you flesh that statement out a little bit for us Steven? What would you say would be the main differences?

←

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.

[Andy Lynes]

I can see where you are coming from on this now, thanks.

[Fat Guy]

By the way, I don't mean to dis Le Bernardin. Eric Ripert is a superb, talented chef. Maguy Le Coze is a great restaurateur. I love the food there and it's one of the best restaurants in New York, and certainly the best seafood restaurant. I'm sure if Ripert and Le Coze wanted to have a Michelin three-star restaurant, they could make it happen. But Le Bernardin just isn't a Michelin three-star restaurant. It's a restaurant that makes money -- and deservedly so -- according to a formula that doesn't allow for a three-star approach. Except, it does have three Michelin stars, so it is a Michelin three-star restaurant.

[Bux]

A person expecting a Michelin three-star experience is going to be pretty surprised by Le Bernardin.

Why is that?

←

Can you flesh that statement out a little bit for us Steven? What would you say would be the main differences?

←

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.

←

That makes me wonder about the extent of your three star dining experience in France. I've had simpler dishes at Michel Guérard and that's in his main restaurant, not in any of the lesser venues on his campus in the southwest. I recall a meal where both Mrs. B and I had arrived at Guérard's gastronomic temple with a hankering for something more robust than haute cuisine. As I recall, I had a pastry stuffed with duck (and foie gras, but peasants eat foie gras in that area of the world) and she had spaghetti bolognese. Even without that experience, I'd disagree with you. I've randomly selected Troisgros and La Côte St. Jacques as offering menus representative of three star restaurants in France. Reading the English menus, I don't find they read significantly less casual, more labor intensive or strikingly more minimalist. There's a wide range of styles among the three star restaurants in France. The menu at le Bernardin reads as if it could fit in based on my experiences in France where I've often eaten better at two restaurants than at three star establishments anyway.

As for the character of the dining room, I'll go back to Guérard where I found too great a bustle of waiters, waitresses and runners moving between the tables, although real estate in the Eugenie-les-Bains, being what it is, the spaces are far greater than you'll find in any Mnahattan restaurant including all of the Michelin three star dining rooms. I haven't been to le Bernardin this past year, so I can't comment on whether it earned its stars or not, but based on my experiences in France over a period of some 45 years, I don't find the arguments you offer, to be compelling.

[Fat Guy]

I've dined at eight of France's Michelin three-star restaurants one or more times, including at La Cote St. Jacques six times (I've also attended Jean-Michel Lorain's cooking classes there). I've also been to several two- and one-star restaurants. The last time I dined at La Cote St. Jacques, about a month before it was demoted from three stars to two, my entree was lobster in three services, each more refined, labor-intensive and Michelin three-star-worthy than anything I've ever had at Le Bernardin, a restaurant I've been to at least a dozen times. When you get back to Le Bernardin, please do let us know whether you think it's a Michelin three-star restaurant.

[Bux]

On several occasions, I noted that I had eaten better food at two restaurants with two stars each than I had had at la Côte St. Jacques. Lorain seemed to be floundering that season, and the dishes seemed forced. My notes say "the meal was creative, but without the focus we found at Gagnaire." It was back in October of 2001 while the restaurant still had two stars. If I recall correctly, that food regained the third star in the next edition. Taste, after all, is very subjective and what I've finally come to understand, the opinions of the Michelin guide are no less subjective than other guides.

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. All I am saying here is that Ripert's menus and his creations are not out of line with the complexity and creativity demonstrated at many a three star restaurant and that sometimes, one man's labor intensive food can be seen as overwrought by other diners. In reference to any guide, my opinion is not as important as the publishers. I'm merely acknowledging that it sounds as if it could be three star food. Does it taste like three star food? That's the most subjective question.

[johnsmith45678]

If you were Michelin, how many stars would you have given Rocco's Union Pacific?