Y’all might enjoy this.
“Devout foodies are quieting their delirium of joy at having scored a reservation—everyone and everything here is living up to the honor of adoring this extraordinary restaurant … Uni with truffle-oil gelée and brioche expresses the regret that we have but three stars to give.” That’s not a review of Chef’s Table at Brooklyn Fare—it’s a handjob.
This is magical, thank you
Did this for NY just today. 2 restaurants had nothing on RESY for dinner. Suspicious. Called, no problems.
It’s very common for restaurants not to put all their tables online. Maybe more common than not.
That’s been my experience. Especially the more desirable times
The cost of bringing Michelin to CA:
I know, but the part about a bunch of restaurants offering tasting menus is funny.
This is what I’m talkin’ about! Condescending and insulting to L.A. one day, capitalizing on it’s success the next day!
I believe the CA’s state tourism board was the one that reached out to Michelin and funded them to cover the whole state.
And also the Sacramento tourist agency.
At no cost to taxpayers in either case.
I’m kind of generalizing about food people in general who were once dismissive of California. But are you saying it isn’t Michelin’s choice to come here? Or are they always funded by a tourism board?
Question: Does Michelin judge based on a cities unique dining scene or do the cities’ chefs have to conform to their guidelines (fussy tasting menus and such) in order to get a star?
In the Bay Area, all the two- and three-star places have Thomas Keller-style tasting menus, and I believe all but one offer no other option. But that’s not true everywhere in the world.
Stars aside, it’s one of the best restaurant guides for the area.
Seems like it. CA asked them to come do a guide and they’ll fund them as did Thailand and South Korea.
No. Michelin chose to publish their guide at many places on their own dime (like NYC, Chicago, Washington DC).
Looking at the guide in various countries, Michelin has been trying to cater to specialties of the local dining scenes. For example, the Hong Kong guide included a recommended list for street food which Michelin never did before. Also, the guide also gave one star to many hole-in-the-wall places that are highly specialized (ex. wonton noodle, Cantonese BBQ, dim sum) that would’ve never gotten a star based on the old standard.
On the other hand, tasting menus, for the most part, still reigns supreme in terms of gaining 3 stars (for a Western restaurant). However, I do feel that of all the 3 stars that I tried in Macau and Hong Kong, the quality, creativity, and attention to detail of the food is undeniable and unmatched by the one star / popular local places.
Also, another thing to note for the Hong Kong guide is the fact that many locals often rail on how Michelin’s rating is done by “gwai lo”, which translates to Westerners, so it’s biased and can’t be trusted. But little did they know that the guide has been done by locals since 2013 (whether they get it right or not, that’s an entirely different discussion)…
Do you have an opinion about them coming back to L.A.?
The stars are supposed to be for consistently good food. That has never changed.
It makes the thought of a visit from them kind of intriguing. I wonder which way will they go - judge based on our own dining scene or on comparisons to other big U.S. cities with more fine dining restaurants and froofie tasting menus.