tng11

As one of the chefs explained it to me, Rene Redzepi will be re-opening at some time, just in a different setting and with a modified concept.

Noma is truly the granddaddy of the modern Nordic cuisine movement. It has been the source of inspiration for most of the other modern Nordic establishments in Copenhagen. I've had the fortune to dine at AOC, Studio, Relae and Amass, and in retrospect they all pay great respect to the concept launched by Noma.

However, I think that Noma was the one meal out of them that had the serious "Wow" factor beyond the rest of them. They push the boundaries in terms of flavours and innovation much further than their competition in the city, and really have a young, dynamic and passionate crew behind the establishment. I just think you have to be prepared to not enjoy every single bite of the meal, since they often challenge your tastes in a way that can't possibly please every single person.

So the longwinded summary is: if you have an idea of what modern Nordic cuisine entails, then no question, you should arrange a trip around Noma. The more I think about the meal, there is a reason for its legendary status in the culinary world. On the same trip, I'd also highly recommend trying Studio to compare and contrast.

CGRA

Not correct :
- 79 michelin restaurants in Paris and 75 in NY..... (i.e probably more in NY than in Paris factoring the size / number of people)
- and 226 in Tokyo
- and 99 in Kyoto
- 594 michelin restaurants in France vs 516 in Japan

These numbers clearly confirmed that Europe and especially France is "over represented"

source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ed_restaurants

IMHO Michelin guide is fair in France and rarely outside.

Anyway, there are some great restaurants all over (as French chef start to relocate..... )

bhrubin

Michelin includes restaurants in France, especially, and throughout all of (Western) Europe that are not in the big cities; outside of Europe, Michelin rarely includes restaurants not located in the big cities. Your data is correct, but I would argue the conclusion you draw is therefore seriously flawed.

About 494 of the 516 Michelin restaurants in Japan are located in the big cities of Tokyo, Kyoto, Osaka, and Hiroshima. About 98 of the 595 Michelin restaurants in France are located in the city of Paris and smaller "cities" of Lyon and Marseilles. (Even counting Lyon and Marseilles as big cities here seems laughable, but I'm including them to make my point even more obvious.)

The fact is that Michelin includes small town/village and resort location restaurants in France and in Europe as a whole--but does not do that in North America or Asia to even a remotely comparable degree. The only big exception might be the Napa Valley!

The net effect is that Michelin ignores whole regions of "countries" like the USA, Japan, etc. while including whole regions and small towns of France and most European countries. That pretty much makes it fairly easy to conclude that Michelin over-represents France and Europe. It also ignores whole continents like South America and Africa despite the obvious gourmet dining presence in both, which is an even greater reason to question Michelin when discussing the "best" restaurants in the world.

I used your source, by the way.

source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ed_restaurants

I would clarify to say the Michelin guide is exhaustive in France and rarely outside. Again, Michelin over-represents France and, to a lesser but still significant degree, all of Europe. The numbers speak for themselves...especially when you critically examine the numbers.

If Michelin ever fairly considered US cities like Los Angeles, San Diego, Houston, Miami, Boston, Washington, Charleston, New Orleans, Seattle, etc, let alone the resort destinations like Carmel/Monterey, Santa Barbara, Hawaii, Las Vegas, etc, the USA likely would crush France and perhaps all of Europe.

If Michelin ever fairly considered countries like Mexico, Peru, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Thailand, Indonesia, Canada, etc, the rest of the world might very well crush Europe--or at least make far more people aware that Europe isn't quite the center of the culinary universe as it pretends and craves to be.

Michelin includes off-the-beaten but tremendous restaurant locations like Rubano and San Sebastian and Modena, but somehow misses Lima, Buenos Aires, Mexico City, Sao Paolo, Medoza, Bogota, Bangkok, Singapore, Cape Town, Los Angeles, Houston, Sydney, Melbourne, Auckland, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Anchorage (just kidding!), etc. It isn't because Michelin can't find amazing restaurants.

Like I said, Michelin is to fine dining like France is to wine: not quite the epicenter that it always craves to be.

stimpy

You know, there is a reason for this anomaly. Small town in France (and Belgium, etc) have examples of top level restaurants. For me the best restaurant in France is in the town of Chagny. However in small towns in the US the best restaurant is usually Cracker Barrel. Yes I'm sure you can find some good examples here and there, as you say Napa Valley. However the vast majority of the geography in the US is served by fast food restaurants, diners, and the occasional decent restaurant that isn't quite up to Michelin standards of quality.

CGRA

Seems that the food war is officially declared.....that's very laughable

Unfortunately we are poor in france and michelin doesn't have the money to open much more guides (reason they closed vegas)

Anyway a 3 michelin stars in france is usually better than a 3 stars outside of france (requirements are differents)

Btw pellegrino is a water not a food guide, very laughable

bhrubin

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.

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.

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.

I'll assume that was sarcasm. I'm laughing...but not with you:

http://www.theworlds50best.com/

CGRA

Le bernardin couple of weeks ago and it was as usual good. I'll probably gave him 1 to 2 stars as it's french and it's most of the times available without reservation so it was a good "fish snack" on my way...,
At least they serve their full menu at their lounge unlike the "mandarin tower" one where they require a jacket in the lounge as well (forgot the names....)

Amber yes they deserved their 2 stars despite the horrible manager (ex robuchon)

I'm impressed by the list of restaurants you have been to. You have been to some great places and some less great.

I confirmed san pellegrino is a water (there is a large thead concerning this water list)

CGRA

Very true
Glad that we are coming back on earth

op487062

Doesn't arguing which country has the "best" food--according to a commercial rating guide--seem a bit silly? Isn't this debate about best restaurant?

bhrubin

We must agree to disagree. We've been twice to Le Benardin and had spectacular tasting menus on both occasions. We easily agree with the 3 stars they have.

We didn't deal with their horrible manager. We had a tremendous truffle tasting menu in Jan 2014, my first true truffle experience from start to finish. Tremendous food and service, amazing wine pairings, and just a very polished evening mixed with an ease of service due to our own penchant to enjoy that. We absolutely preferred 2 star Amber to 3 star Caprice.

Thanks. We save a lot of money by using miles for our airline tickets (almost always) and points for our hotels stays in many (but not all) cities, so that makes it easier for us to spend more on dining. Our upcoming SF dining trip includes a free stay at the StR SF and free airline tickets (very short haul for us).

bhrubin

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.

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.

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.

CGRA

Few corrections:
- Caprice is only a 2 michelin stars for few years and this is still overrated ( but the cheese is nice and the view as well)
- One of the two tasting menu at Bernardin is only the regular menu plus one dish (price is similar anyway) so it's just marketing ... . after a few times you know what you prefer and you can choose but a tasting menu is usually a good introduction to the chef leftover , sorry chef cuisine.
If you want to try seafood, La Palme d'or in Cannes is a different league (despite the chef has an "interesting" personnality)
- Amber : yes they're able to source some white truffles, can't remember if they're from alba or from other parts of Italy .
Make me think of "Les Tablettes" where the chef put truffle on numerous dishes to make it feel "luxury" but the taste is not there (not sure if he still do that)
- Yes Michelin guide does adapt to local markets,
---- otherwise NONE of the NY 3 stars restaurants will have 3 stars (maybe Brooklyn .. as I have not been there).
---- otherwise NONE of the Japan / NY / HK restaurants counter style restaurants will have 2 or 3 stars in France. The only exception in France is Robuchon because it's Mr Robuchon.

Yes it's great to exchange ideas and to disagree based on real experience in several countries .....

bhrubin

OK, let's do it!

Caprice was downgraded from 3 to 2 stars. I got the date wrong for our visit. We dined in Jan 2013. It was downgraded later that year. http://blogs.wsj.com/scene/2013/12/0...n-restaurants/

OK...but not sure what that has to do with its Michelin 3 stars.

If I'm ever in Cannes, I'll consider that. Thought Cannes is not one of those destinations I'm likely to visit soon. Not my kinda scene.

Regardless, it was a divine meal with superb food, creative combinations, and extraordinary wine pairings...and spectacular service.

I'd say Michelin has adapted in a few places in a few circumstances. But I don't believe they've adapted much at all--those are all restaurants with more French style service than others. I present Noma to you as evidence that Michelin only goes so far...and IMO isn't remotely far enough. The Michelin guide is entitled to whatever biases it wants...but too much bias will simply cause more diners (myself included) to look beyond Michelin when they don't get the job done.

The newer diners are not like the Michelin diners of old...even in Europe. There's a reason there now are Michelin 2-3 star restaurants (even in Europe, and even in Paris) which don't require a jacket, whereas that was a rarity only a decade ago. The younger customer base is more casual, and Michelin fine dining has had to adapt a bit. But not enough. The fact that there is no dress code at Noma must infuriate Michelin raters because it dares that in Europe...but even I got away with no jacket at Guy Savoy and Alinea (but made my request and was confirmed in advance).

CGRA

you're correct
silly but fun so far

CGRA

Except few exceptions, jacquet is not required in michelin star restaurants.