Originally Posted by
CGRA
Seems that the food war is officially declared.....that's very laughable
I simply defend that which I believe to be true based on my own fairly extensive dining around the world. I love French food/cooking, and I love the Michelin restaurants in Paris and around France. I also love the many non-Michelin restaurants in many other cities and countries outside the Michelin coverage. I don't believe Michelin 3 star always means the very best, though I concede there aren't many Michelin 3 stars that I didn't love. But that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of worthy Michelin 3 star restaurants in areas not rated by Michelin, let alone 1 and 2 star restaurants.
Unfortunately we are poor in france and michelin doesn't have the money to open much more guides (reason they closed vegas)
The reason Michelin stopped rating places like Los Angeles and Las Vegas had nothing to do with people in France. It had everything to do with the fact that people outside of France and in those locales (or who visit those locales) weren't buying the guides. The guide has an obvious bias, which would be most apparent to those who live in these cities, and that bias was contributing to insufficient demand. When you dine often enough at the restaurants that Michelin either dismisses or lauds too easily, it's easier to witness the bias--especially when you're introducing a new ratings system to a new area. Michelin didn't match up so well with the consensus of reviews of most food critics and important sources in Los Angeles and Las Vegas, either--by ignoring some great restaurants entirely or including others that weren't nearly as worthy by local accounts. That doesn't happen so easily in France/Europe. It showcased a major flaw in the Michelin consistency and methodology.
That same obvious bias is on display in this discussion IMO.
Anyway a 3 michelin stars in france is usually better than a 3 stars outside of france (requirements are differents)
On this, I wholly disagree.
Our meals at Saison (San Francisco), Meadowood (Napa), Alinea (Chicago), Le Bernardin (NYC), Gordon Ramsay (London), Le Calandre (Rubano, Italy), and DiverXO (Madrid) were all comparably excellent to those we had at Guy Savoy, Le Meurice, and Pierre Gagnaire (Paris). French Laundry (Napa) we didn't enjoy as much due to its formality and pretension, but I doubt that would impair enjoyment from most 3 star Michelin diners. Daniel (NYC) we did think overrated, with disappointing wine service/pairing, and this year it lost its 3rd star. Lung King Heen (Hong Kong) was very good but not worthy of 3 stars IMO, based on service and creativity issues. Alain Ducasse (Paris) was disappointing to us as a 3 star in the 2000s, and it lost its 3rd star a few years after we dined there.
We will be dining at 3 star Benu and 2 star Atelier Crenn (San Francisco) next weekend, as well.
Amber (Hong Kong), Noma (Copenhagen), Geranium (Copenhagen), and Cyrus (Sonoma, now closed), are among the 2 star restaurants that we believed to be worthy of 3 stars. Hostellerie de Plaisance (St. Emilion) is a good example of a 2 star French restaurant that we believed to be more worthy of 1 star.
There are many restaurants that would earn 2-3 Michelin stars that are not in areas covered by Michelin: Central and Astrid y Gaston (Lima, Peru), Pujol, Biko, and Quintonil (Mexico City), The Test Kitchen (Cape Town), The Tasting Room at Le Quartier Francais (Franschhoek), Mikla (Istanbul) chief among them. I've dined at all of those FWIW.
Btw pellegrino is a water not a food guide, very laughable
I'll assume that was sarcasm. I'm laughing...but not with you:
http://www.theworlds50best.com/