Mainly for French food?
 

I have thought of this also, and to me, it also seems to mirror my experience. Perhaps it isn't French cuisine per se, but France. I do think the USA Michelin guide was probably thrown together in haste because of deadlines. Thus, I don't think it's as good of a good as France. Although I have limited experience of Michelin in europe outside of france, I would tend to think that it would also be similar: accurate ratings for french places, less so for non-french.

While there's a clear focus on french cuisine in the Michelin guide(s) the michelin men themselves come in all nationalities.

Completely untrue.

Perhaps not exact measurements
 

Perhaps not the exact measurements, per se. However, I have noticed the difference between a 3-star and a 2-star restaurant really has to do with the ambiance and the "experience". The food, to be honest, is not that much different, I don't think. In fact, there are many 1-star restaurants which have food that is actually better than some 3-star restaurants.

However, one thing I have noticed in the limited number of 3-star restaurants that I have been to: they all have great ambiance. White linen, multiple utensils, large number of waitstaff, fresh flowers, opulent decor and chandeliers, etc. I think the 3-star cut off is really the whole "feel" and dining "experience" which sets it apart from a 2-star.

from the michelin site:

For restaurants, Michelin stars are based on five criteria:

* The quality of the products
* The mastery of flavor and cooking
* The "personality" of the cuisine
* The value for the money
* The consistency between visits

Michelin stars are awarded to restaurants offering the finest cooking, regardless of cuisine style. Stars represent only what is on the plate. They do not take into consideration interior decoration, service quality or table settings.

two different 3* restaurant owners, and two 2* and a bunch of 1* guys(all in france) said essentially what i stated. by the way, is there a single 3* in france that does not have the accoutrement mentioned above by me? all complained that the cost of the plates and the linen and the decor were not worth the third star.

Hmmmm...
 

Seems like you are contradicing yourself with these two different statements...

I've never been to a 3*, but if I did I would expect a perfect evening. (I'm sure the price would justify that expectation.)

I've enjoyed a few 1*, mostly in Paris and I've always enjoyed my experience. But to my palate there are vast differences between the various restaurants and it's hard to quantify why the food deserves the star. To be sure, all the starred restaurants I've been to have been uniformly good and the overall dining experience does not disappoint. But for the $$$ spent (i.e. bang for the buck) I've had great meals and fantastic times at un-starred restaurants in various corners of the world.

I very much agree with a previous post that the Michelin Guide is a guide. After all, as the saying goes, chacun son gout!

I just returned from Tokyo (home to more Michelin stars than any other city in the world) and Hong Kong. I am now of the opinion that Hong Kong suffers from "Michelin inflation" compared to Tokyo. Our Michelin-starred Tokyo meals were fabulous. Our Michelin-starred Hong Kong meals ranged from average to great. A two-star HK meal was great, but no where near as good as a one-star Tokyo meal.

Chicago will be getting a Michelin guide in November. I'll be curious to see what standard they apply. For example, Sun Wah -- my favorite Chinese BBQ joint in Chicago -- is far superior to Yung Kee, known for its roast goose in Hong Kong. Yet I'd be shocked if Sun Wah gets a Michelin star. Hutong in Hong Kong serves pretty good food with a great view (and has one star). Michelin would lose all credibility with me if the Signature Room on the 95th floor of the John Hancock gets one star.

it is a direct contradiction. one quote is from the michelin web page specifying how the restaurants are judged.

the other quote is from my personal experiences with chefs and owners in french michelin starred restaurants.

after reading the michelin site, have you ever been in a 3*(at least in france) that does not have fine china, crystal, large cloth napkins, etc, etc.

good to know
 

I will be going to Hong Kong later this year. This is good to know.

I wonder if Alinea will be a Michelin 3 star...

My most recent Michelin Star Restaurant visit: Tim Ho Wan in Mong Kok, Hong Kong, 1 star rated. Phenomenal dim sum, great signature dish but still maintains that traditional dim sum restaurant appeal (no upscale dining and such). Their executive chef once led front of the house for one of the Four Seasons restaurants in Hong Kong. Overall, this blew several other higher rated Michelin star restaurants out of the water. I wouldn't miss out on this if you are in Hong Kong, but be sure to get there early!

No first-hand experience from 3* places, but have gone to 20+ 1* and 2* restaurants.

I have the best perspective on the Helsinki scene; have been to every starred place for the past 10+ years several times.

A new award generally seems to correlate well with quality and rising standards in the kitchen. With most places, the awarding of the first star seems to stop their development - they get very busy and there is little reason to strive for even higher standards, especially since an additional star is often quite costly and does not really correlate with prices they can charge (Chez Dominique being the exception, but even they are highly unlikely to get a third star).

Quite often after getting a star, the chefs start getting anxious and perhaps thinking of opening their own places (the chef-driven restaurants still being a relatively new phenomenon in Finland). And once the original star-winning chef has gone, the restaurant quite often loses their star (Palace, Savoy, Sundmans, George). Demo, which was one of my favourites early on, has become very conservative, Postres is regressing IMHO. Carma I have never really liked.

What is quite new in Helsinki is restaurants earning their star in a very short time. Postres got theirs in two years as did Carma. Luomo (the newest one in town) got theirs in less than a year. And it was actually predictable: two ex Chez Dominique guys opened a new place and it seemed they had read their "How to earn a Michelin star in record time" manual very well indeed. They opened in mid-2009 and got their star in the Spring of 2010. I went there in July 2009 for the first time and predicted after that evening that they would get their star this year. For once I got something right ;-)

Overall, I've only twice left a starred restaurant truly dissatisfied: the first was Neichel in Barcelona (2* at the time) - the food was technically badly prepared and service perfunctory. They have lost one star since. The second occasion was Nahm in London. That was a pity as I really would have liked to enjoy a Thai place with a star. However, the food was mediocre at best (and poor at worst) and grossly overpriced. There have been times when I've been indifferent, but that is another story.

To me, a Michelin star does not necessarily mean the restaurant has the best food around, but it is typically a good indicator of quality and dependability. Furthermore, most of the ones that I have tried serve excellent lunches at fairly affordable prices.

Cheers,
T.

Would echo your observation on Nahm. I was there about two months ago. I prefered my local Thai takeaway :) I just wasn't used to the type of Thai fusion food or whatever they have at Nahm.

On the other hand I would recommend The Reading Room at Claridge's. I prefer it to the Gordon Ramsay in the same hotel (note this is not the flagship Gordon Ramsay). The food was superb (the foie gras tasting was sublime) and the staff were very pleasant and well-manered (reminds me of flights on British Airways First Class!). It is also a lot less pretentious than Gordon Ramsay and you get to people watch as it is next to the foyer where the afternoon tea crowd lingers.

We have been to five 1-star restaurants, all in the Bay Area. I would rank them as follows -

Michael Mina
Redd (Yountville)
La Folie
Masa's
Bouchon (Yountville)


As far as just food in concerned, Michael Mina was the best restaurant meal we ever had. We went to Redd twice, the first time was nearly as good as Michael Mina but the second time was certainly good but not something to get excited about. The other three were all good but I would not race back to any of them.

There is a small French bistro in Santa Cruz called Au Midi. It is very casual and much less expensive than any of the above, but, except for Michael Mina, the food is as good or better than those other 1 star places - and we have been there at least once/month for the past two years.

If you are ever in the Santa Cruz area, I really recommend you try Au Midi. It has a relatively limited menu (4-5 appetizers, 6-8 entrees), 3-4 desserts, so it is always possible someone may not find their favorite dish available, but if you do, I think you will be pleased. Check the website before going -

www.aumidi.com

sounds like these are kind to the waistline, no?