Michelin 2007 Results for SF

[saulbass]

"I mean lets talk about , the fat duck, les manoir, louis xv, michel bras, au crocodile, guy savoy , robuchon, do we really have that in san fran?"

Not in SF, but French Laundry in Yountville deserves the ***. Also, was at Fat Duck less then a month ago and in many respects, Manresa is a very-good/better comp for Fat Duck in terms of ambiance, service standards, food creativity and location around an hour outside of a major food-centric city. However, across every metric, Manresa provided the better dining experience. Most importantly, the food quality and consistency at Manresa were far above Fat Duck.

[Nathan]

although this menu looks interesting enough, it certainly doesn't seem to compare with the Fat Duck in creativity.

http://www.manresarestaurant.com/menu/Menu.pdf

is the menu misleading in terms of how the food is actually prepared?

[robyn]

although this menu looks interesting enough, it certainly doesn't seem to compare with the Fat Duck in creativity.

http://www.manresarestaurant.com/menu/Menu.pdf

is the menu misleading in terms of how the food is actually prepared?

←

I don't think you can tell a book by its cover. When it comes to food - I think creative writing on the menu takes second place to execution in the kitchen.

I haven't been to the Fat Duck - or Manresa (missed the former because my husband and I were lazy about traveling "out of town" last time we were in London - and the latter because I was sick the day we had our reservation last month) - but I have been to restaurants which looked better on paper than in person - and vice versa - particularly "creative ones". I don't judge restaurants unless I've eaten at them - and I don't think anyone else should either. And sometimes I don't write up places at which I've had mediocre or bad experiences for personal reasons (although I'll almost always write something when my impressions are positive). But I don't say anything unless I've at least sampled what a chef has to offer.

One thing I can say is that I've dined at 3 of the restaurants that got 1 star in the last year - Quince - La Folie - and Chez Panisse - and - with the possible exception of La Folie - where the food struck me as too rich and too old fashioned French - that might be a plus in Michelin's eyes but it isn't in mine - I thought Michelin was on the mark. I will note that we did dine last month at a new place called Tanglewood in San Jose on Santana Row - owned/operated in part by the La Folie chef - Roland Passot - and we thought it was excellent (and a lot more 21st century than La Folie). If it is lucky - and San Jose winds up on Michelin's radar screen - perhaps it will get one star (our meal might have been worth one star - but definitely not two). Robyn

[jackbr4]

michael bauer from the chronicle had a entry about this (read it here) - the gist of it is that having the french laundry in the bay area pretty much ruins everyone else's chances of getting a 3 star ranking. it's an interesting thought (i expound on it more in my own blog posting) - if the french laundry is a 3, and it is far better than every other restuarant in the bay area (i am not saying it is true, just putting it our there for discussion), then maybe it makes sense that most other restaurants are a 1. . .

[robyn]

I mean lets talk about , the fat duck, les manoir, louis xv, michel bras, au crocodile, guy savoy , robuchon, do we really have that in san fran?

←

No, we don't - that's why there aren't any three star restaurants in San Francisco. I agree that the list is longer than it should be, but over all they did a fantastic job. Next year some of the restaurants that were passed over will surely move up, and some of the over-rated places will move down. One star restaurants are certainly to be taken in the context of what they are trying to accomplish. There are no three star bistros but there are several one star restaurants under the impression they are serving three star food. All that said - what other restaurant guide has assembled a list half as accurate as this one?

←

Agreed.

I don't think anyone can talk intelligently about Michelin stars without some dining experience in Europe. At the very high end. Admittedly - most of my dining in that arena is ancient - but we still get there from time to time. And I can assure most people that the food we had at one star places in London (most recent trip to Europe) was - for the most part - food that we can't get in the US.

If anything - based on my most recent trips within the US - and to Europe - and to Japan - I think that Michelin is inflating its ratings somewhat in the US.

OTOH - I happen to love "California cuisine" - the lightness - the freshness - the depth of taste in local products - even if a restaurant that serves that cuisine doesn't warrant 2 or 3 Michelin stars (by Michelin's standards). You guys are very lucky to have an incredible bounty in terms of raw ingredients - and doubly lucky to have chefs who know when those raw ingredients should be allowed to speak for themselves. Suits the way I prefer to dine these days - leaving a meal satiated and not stuffed. Felt the same way dining in Japan earlier this year. Michelin isn't the final say in food - it is simply another guide - and you can't use the guide intelligently unless you know what ground rules it's following. Robyn

[melkor]

The ratings aren't relative to other restaurants in the area. Bauer is well off the mark with his comments that the French Laundry prevented anyone else from getting three stars. The Michelin system is not to compare restaurants to each other within a region but to compare them to a more global standard. It's easy to argue that the Michelin guides in the states are handing out stars too easily - Aqua for example would never in a million years earn two stars in France. Just think what sort of fit the press would be having if Michelin only gave stars to a 10 or 12 restaurants.

[Dave H]

if the french laundry is a 3, and it is far better than every other restuarant in the bay area (i am not saying it is true, just putting it our there for discussion), then maybe it makes sense that most other restaurants are a 1. . .

←

Having Arpege in Paris doesn't prevent eight other restaurants in the city (or 25 others in the country) from earning three stars. The reason The French Laundry is the only three star restaurant in the Bay Area is because The French Laundry is the only three star restaurant in the Bay Area.

[RDCollins]

Yeah, yeah yeah!

The French Laundry is SOOOOOO cool!

Bull!

The service is arrogant and rushed, the room stark, the portions miniscule, the prices unjustified (especially the wine list), and some of the dishes are best described as "interesting!"

It's so odd to watch the hype perpetuate itself.

[robert40]

Yeah, yeah yeah!

The French Laundry is SOOOOOO cool!

Bull!

The service is arrogant and rushed, the room stark, the portions miniscule, the prices unjustified (especially the wine list), and some of the dishes are best described as "interesting!"

It's so odd to watch the hype perpetuate itself.

←

Jeez...My meal was 6+hours. Would hate to see unrushed service.

[melkor]

Yeah, yeah yeah!

The French Laundry is SOOOOOO cool!

Bull!

The service is arrogant and rushed, the room stark, the portions miniscule, the prices unjustified (especially the wine list), and some of the dishes are best described as "interesting!"

It's so odd to watch the hype perpetuate itself.

←

I think you'll find yourself in the minority if you are suggesting that you've left the French Laundry hungry. The restaurant may not be to everyone's taste but I've not heard anyone suggest the service was rushed or that they were hungry when they left. My experience has been quite the opposite. I haven't been back to the French Laundry in a bit over a year, but the previous dozen or so visits have all been excellent. The value of a meal is a very personal thing - the Michelin guides don't award stars for the value a restaurant offers. Would it be a two star in Paris? Perhaps, but taking into account the stars awarded in the NY edition there is no question that they deserve three stars in the SF edition.

[Nathan]

"Would it be a two star in Paris?"

Maybe. But there would appear to be worse French three stars than FL (and better).

In NY, the clearly overrated three star was LB...JG was also a subject of debate but I think it's a lot easier to make the case for JG deserving three than for LB.

[dragonflychef]

"Would it be a two star in Paris?"

Maybe.  But there would appear to be worse French three stars than FL (and better).

In NY, the clearly overrated three star was LB...JG was also a subject of debate but I think it's a lot easier to make the case for JG deserving three than for LB.

←

here here, simply too easy to get stars in the US

[jackbr4]

The ratings aren't relative to other restaurants in the area.  Bauer is well off the mark with his comments that the French Laundry prevented anyone else from getting three stars.  The Michelin system is not to compare restaurants to each other within a region but to compare them to a more global standard.  It's easy to argue that the Michelin guides in the states are handing out stars too easily - Aqua for example would never in a million years earn two stars in France.  Just think what sort of fit the press would be having if Michelin only gave stars to a 10 or 12 restaurants.

←

i think in principle the ratings aren't relative to other restaurants, but i can't think for a moment that the people putting together the final list don't think about it - it's human nature.

also, i think part of the problem is that we aren't in france - we are in the bay area, where the food culture is much different. I have eaten both here, and in france, quite a bit, and the food here is much more diverse. let me be the first to say that i love french food - i grew up on it, my dad was a french trained chef - but the michelin guide was created to judge french cuisine, and when you apply those standards to the cuisine of northern california, i don't think they work quite as well.

[melkor]

i think in principle the ratings aren't relative to other restaurants, but i can't think for a moment that the people putting together the final list don't think about it - it's human nature.

also, i think part of the problem is that we aren't in france - we are in the bay area, where the food culture is much different. I have eaten both here,  and in france,  quite a bit, and the food here is much more diverse. let me be the first to say that i love french food - i grew up on it, my dad was a french trained chef - but the michelin guide was created to judge french cuisine, and when you apply those standards to the cuisine of northern california, i don't think they work quite as well.

←

The bay area food culture is dominated by home cooking - if you can't duplicate the dishes served at Zuni, you can't cook. Home cooking isn't what the Michelin guide is about, nor is it about ethnic dives. The local and organic movement most certainly didn't start in the bay area - the movement is only noteworthy here because it's different from what people have been doing in Podunk Arkansas. It's taken for granted across Europe. The biodynamic movement is based there, countless multi-star restaurants across France are as ingredient driven if not more so than bay area restaurants.

There are dozens of restaurants in the bay area I love to visit that didn't get stars, that doesn't mean they aren't worth visiting. The Slanted Door is no more deserving of a star than Zuni or Delfina - none of them got one, none of them should.

[jackbr4]

i think in principle the ratings aren't relative to other restaurants, but i can't think for a moment that the people putting together the final list don't think about it - it's human nature.

also, i think part of the problem is that we aren't in france - we are in the bay area, where the food culture is much different. I have eaten both here,  and in france,  quite a bit, and the food here is much more diverse. let me be the first to say that i love french food - i grew up on it, my dad was a french trained chef - but the michelin guide was created to judge french cuisine, and when you apply those standards to the cuisine of northern california, i don't think they work quite as well.

←

The bay area food culture is dominated by home cooking - if you can't duplicate the dishes served at Zuni, you can't cook. Home cooking isn't what the Michelin guide is about, nor is it about ethnic dives. The local and organic movement most certainly didn't start in the bay area - the movement is only noteworthy here because it's different from what people have been doing in Podunk Arkansas. It's taken for granted across Europe. The biodynamic movement is based there, countless multi-star restaurants across France are as ingredient driven if not more so than bay area restaurants.

There are dozens of restaurants in the bay area I love to visit that didn't get stars, that doesn't mean they aren't worth visiting. The Slanted Door is no more deserving of a star than Zuni or Delfina - none of them got one, none of them should.

←

i see your point, the tough reality is that people will look to the guide to give them the best of they bay area, and i don't think it accomplishes that in many different regards. it's not so much about what guide is intended to do, but more what people perceive it to be.

[robyn]

The ratings aren't relative to other restaurants in the area.  Bauer is well off the mark with his comments that the French Laundry prevented anyone else from getting three stars.  The Michelin system is not to compare restaurants to each other within a region but to compare them to a more global standard.  It's easy to argue that the Michelin guides in the states are handing out stars too easily - Aqua for example would never in a million years earn two stars in France.  Just think what sort of fit the press would be having if Michelin only gave stars to a 10 or 12 restaurants.

←

I've never been to Aqua in SF - but I dined there once in Las Vegas when Michael Mina was in charge. And the meal was exquisite. Might have been up to 2 star Michelin standards. Is Aqua in San Francisco a lot different from the one in Las Vegas - and has it changed a lot since Mina left?

BTW - I agree with your statements about Michelin and global standards. Robyn

[docsconz]

The ratings aren't relative to other restaurants in the area.  Bauer is well off the mark with his comments that the French Laundry prevented anyone else from getting three stars.  The Michelin system is not to compare restaurants to each other within a region but to compare them to a more global standard.  It's easy to argue that the Michelin guides in the states are handing out stars too easily - Aqua for example would never in a million years earn two stars in France.  Just think what sort of fit the press would be having if Michelin only gave stars to a 10 or 12 restaurants.

←

I've never been to Aqua in SF - but I dined there once in Las Vegas when Michael Mina was in charge. And the meal was exquisite. Might have been up to 2 star Michelin standards. Is Aqua in San Francisco a lot different from the one in Las Vegas - and has it changed a lot since Mina left?

BTW - I agree with your statements about Michelin and global standards. Robyn

←

I loved Aqua in Las Vegas. I found it ho-hum in S.F.

[melkor]

I've never been to Aqua in Vegas but I've never had a meal at Aqua SF that I thought was at that level. From my experience they aren't that focused on the details - maybe things have changed in the past year. I'll go back sometime soon and see.

For as long as I can remember the city itself has been mediocre at the high end without any of the diners seeming to mind - hopefully the guide will be reason enough for the good restaurants to work to become great restaurants.

[robyn]

I loved Aqua in Las Vegas. I found it  ho-hum in S.F.

←

That's interesting. Usually it would be the other way around in terms of "original place" and "outpost". Robyn

[docsconz]

I loved Aqua in Las Vegas. I found it  ho-hum in S.F.

←

That's interesting. Usually it would be the other way around in terms of "original place" and "outpost". Robyn

←

I was surprised. I had high expectations for S.F. after my wonderful meal in L.V. especially for the reason you mention. Frankly, based on my one experience there in S.F., I'm surprised it got a star. But then, maybe my experience was an aberration. It wasn't bad, just nothing special.

[robyn]

I've never been to Aqua in Vegas but I've never had a meal at Aqua SF that I thought was at that level.  From my experience they aren't that focused on the details - maybe things have changed in the past year.  I'll go back sometime soon and see.

For as long as I can remember the city itself has been mediocre at the high end without any of the diners seeming to mind - hopefully the guide will be reason enough for the good restaurants to work to become great restaurants.

←

I guess it depends on what the city is trying to be.

Quite frankly - I think that San Francisco is too small to support really high end dining on its own. And the tourists aren't - for the most part - high rollers. Even a city like New York has a hard time of it. Except with regard to perhaps a handful of destination restaurants - New Yorkers and visitors to New York are really fickle - and don't tend to patronize places regularly over a long period of time. It doesn't surprise me at all that the highest end dining in the US these days is apparently found in Las Vegas (haven't been to Robuchon or Guy Savoy there - but I have no reason to doubt the reviews). There's a constant influx of new big money in Las Vegas.

When you look at 3 star restaurants - a lot tend to be "destination restaurants". Many are in at least out of the way - if not downright strange - places. Many in various countries are restaurants with rooms. You go out of your way to dine and spend the night there. French Laundry - Fat Duck - El Bulli - Troisgros- etc. - these are not center city places.

Also - there is perhaps the indelicate issue of money. The Las Vegas places make New York look cheap. You're talking probably $750-1000 for 2 for dinner with modest wine. And I think that's probably what it costs the restaurants to put out a meal - more or less. No huge profit margin given the ingredients and the labor intensity of the meal. How many times - if any - are people going to dine like that? I can tell you that as I age - and I become less tolerant physically of huge rich meals - no matter how delicious - somehow I'd rather eat 10-20 lunches at a place like Tanglewood in San Jose or Chez Panisse than once at Robuchon in Las Vegas.

I guess this is a rather round about way of saying that I don't find anything wrong with the dining scene in the San Francisco Bay area. What it is at its best is almost always consistently simple - with an emphasis on fresh regional ingredients - and extremely good. I am not sure that if I lived in the area - that I would worry about this. I just wouldn't necessarily expect to wind up getting a whole lot of 2-3 Michelin star restaurants. Robyn

[melkor]

Oh, you misunderstand, we've got the price point covered - you can easily spend big dollars for a meal in SF. Gary Danko is a bargain if you ignore what they are charging for wine. My point is that the quality of the food isn't at the same level as the prices, though much of that can be attributed to the higher labor costs. There are a handful of places in the city that didn't get any stars where you can spend $500 for two going light on wine.

I don't expect to see a huge number of three stars in the area, but in a few years I'd be surprised if one or two of the two stars don't move up.

What I'm most curious about are the restaurants that didn't earn a star and have been coasting on out of date Chronicle reviews and Zagat scores. Bauer has long had too much power in the bay area - how is it that La Toque has never been reviewed? Maybe Michelin will send him a copy of the guide, they have the address listed. How many more reviews do we need for the mediocre bistros that make the food section time and again? What will he review this week? Whatever it is, you can be sure they serve a beet salad. The Michelin reviews will hopefully draw some chefs back into their kitchens and reinvigorate some of these stagnant menus. We can hope anyway.

[dvs]

looks like the chron is still pretty annoyed about the whole thing... this is like the 5th piece about the guide...

IS MICHELIN MISGUIDED?

At least 10 significant errors found in first Bay Area edition of restaurant handbook

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...MNGPULK6VQ1.DTL

[hapacooking]

These rating systems should be used as guidelines only. Obviously none of these rating systems can be taken literally.

I ate at Range two nights ago and no way could this restaurant be compared to Danko, Fleur de Lys, or Ritz-Carlton Dining Room in terms of food, service or decor.

Ratings are nonsense. Michelin, Zagat or SFChronicle should be guidelines only

[melkor]

I ate at Range two nights ago and no way could this restaurant be compared to Danko, Fleur de Lys, or Ritz-Carlton Dining Room in terms of food, service or decor.

←

Correct. One star is awarded to "a very good restaurant in its category" - clearly Range is in a different category from the others you list. I think a fair amount of the uproar over the guide comes from people who have never seen the inside of a Michelin guide.