Originally Posted by
stimpy
First of all, OC is part of greater LA as far as anyone who doesn't live there is concerned. And the others fall into the bucket I wrote about above where I said "I'm sure you can find a few here and there...". But that is a tiny, tiny number compared to continental Europe and even if you just chose just France and Belgium.
The total of all excellent restaurants of comparable Michelin quality in the USA will far exceed the total of excellent restaurants of Michelin level in Europe. We can argue about service, since that is likely the biggest variable between European and American restaurants which is most easily open to perspective--but even that difference has narrowed as Michelin now includes a wider variety of "restaurant styles" even in Europe.
Oh, I'm intimately familiar with small town America. No ignorance here. But you see I come from, more recently, a much higher standard of dining in Europe. That's why I consistently see faults in these "great" US restaurants you mention. Maybe you can't see these faults, but some of us do. But that isn't the end of the world. I can still enjoy a fine meal at these places. I just don't lump them in the same bucket as the top Michelin restaurants in Europe. Or even many of the great restaurants in Europe that are not in the Michelin guide.
I am including 1 and 2 star Michelin restaurants for purposes of this discussion. I am not sure if you're making the same distinction or if you are only discussing the "top Michelin restaurants" as being 3 star. It is not uncommon on these threads for people to actually be in agreement but not realize it because they are making assumptions that are different!
If you are only counting 3 star restaurants, then I agree that Europe has an advantage, and that France has an even bigger advantage. Of course, Michelin was started in France and has a bias towards a French manner of doing things IMO. Michelin puts more emphasis on a degree of formality in service that is inherently less American. That IMO contributed to the demise of the Michelin guides in Los Angeles (one of the most relaxed major cities in the world) and Las Vegas.
If we are considering Michelin 1, 2, and 3 star restaurants, then I disagree that Europe or France wins in a contest with the US. If Michelin actually rated restaurants throughout the US, the US would swamp Europe. There is no single country in the world with more restaurants representing the many varied types of ethnic cuisines at the highest levels than the US. There would a larger number of American 1 and 2 star restaurants compared to Europe if all the major US cities were included...and even larger number if the small resort/university towns that don't match up with a major city were included.
Of course, the US is a much larger country than France or any in Europe--so per capita I'm sure all of the European countries would kill the US! But in absolute number, the US would win hands down.
Excellent means what? Good tasting food? If that is the only qualifier, then sure the US has more. After all it is a vastly larger country than France. But good tasting food isn't the sole qualifier for a great restaurant or a Michelin rated restaurant. And when you add in all the other characteristics that make a great restaurant, 90% of your great American restaurants fall short of their European counterparts.
This is the crux of the question...and one of the reasons that outside Europe and some of the biggest cities, Michelin has failed to find traction (and therefore has stopped rating those cities and beyond).
We all can agree that excellent food is part of the equation. Creativity and novelty in method/approach is also part of that equation, I think you'd agree. And service would be the final element of the equation. Obviously, all are subjective.
It is in service that we likely find the most stark differences between Old World (Europe) and New (everywhere else). This is likely why you find dining in Europe to be so much better and why I find dining in Europe to NOT be so much better.
I find European fine dining to be inherently more European...and I find American fine dining to be inherently more American. The service standard can be equally high for both, but there still are differences in style. Michelin doesn't respect the differences; it expects and rewards most those that approach only the French standard. In some cases outside of Europe, it does permit a little flexibility--but not much.
I suspect this is why Noma has only 2 stars despite its obviously incredible meal quality and creativity. Noma just isn't as formal or "French" in many ways as most of its top European counterparts--and Michelin therefore sees it as unworthy of 3 stars. I, however, disagree vehemently. Service at Noma was easily the equal to that at Guy Savoy...but with less that is inherently French. Noma service was Danish with French flair. Guy Savoy was inherently French.
The same can be said for American restaurants--which obviously are less French! But that in no way defines their service as somehow inferior to that of the best French restaurants. Therein lies the biggest challenge with Michelin ratings and the reason why they haven't been able to permeate markets that don't blindly accept the French standard as being superior.
As I said before, Michelin is to fine dining as France is to wine.
The French have great wines...but the French also think they have the best of all of the world's wine. It has been a tough lesson for the French to discover in blind tastings that there are many regions and producers throughout many regions of the world that can compete with or surpass in blind tasting evaluations almost every region in France (except for Burgundy; New Zealand comes closest for reds, and Central California/Sonoma have a few that come close for whites, but no region in the world can truly match Burgundy insofar as I've yet discovered!)
The French similarly have great dining...but the French standard, especially with service, is being applied as superior to all other styles. Just as we've discovered amazing Japanese and Italian and Peruvian cuisine that is as exciting to the palate as French food can be, it seems that Michelin has not learned that Japanese or American or Danish or Peruvian styles of high end service can be just as exciting IMO.