Mori had a star before - so he likely gets special dispensation and attention. And it’s hardly a surprise he got a star for his new joint. He’s clearly in the L.A. pantheon of great sushi chefs.
Okay, fine, points taken. But WHO needs to chill here, eh?
2 Likes
It’s interesting that these systems are always scrutinized for their legitimacy, when others with comparable flaws have historically been accepted so broadly: Oscars, Grammys, etc…
I think the system, in general, adds more to the food industry by being in LA. We all want our favorite (or your own) places to get recognized, but I don’t think anyone is much worse off because they didn’t receive a star.
I think efforts to delegitimize/humanize Michelin (or any rating system) come from an understandably defensive position. I see that as another facet of the discussion. On the flip side, I do think the people that tout Michelin the most are the ones with stars. It’s just being a human.
Warrior: Yeah, it’s interesting how Michelin finds so many off-the-radar places. I wonder whether Michelin avoids boards like this in an effort to maintain neutrality. On the other hand, I think listings of restaurants like Mariscos Jalisco and Badmaash are influenced by food media, because it is hard for me to imagine the inspectors going to those restaurants independently and thinking the food is truly good and worthy of inclusion in the guide (while omitting, say, Gjelina).
At the end of the day, they make good tires (or if you prefer, tyres).
Warrior: Well, I am going to respectfully disagree. For example, I would say Providence is objectively overwhelmingly superior to every single Mexican restaurant in Los Angeles. If you run down the Mexican restaurants that were on Jonathan Gold’s 101 list, you will find over and over again sloppy preparations (e.g., chicken overcooked to the point of rubber) and inferior ingredients (e.g., bland Mexican factory cheeses). Cave aged gruyere is objectively far superior to Queso Oaxaca, and it reflects far greater effort and historical refinement. I reject any notion that if I weren’t for my cultural bias I’d realize that, say, Guelaguetza is as good as Providence. In addition, I’ll submit the observation that Providence is putting way more time and effort into its food than any Mexican restaurant you can name.
1 Like
I agree with Warrior here.
Californios in SF is an example of a Mexican restaurant with two Michelin stars.
Taco maria has a star too! It’s unlike any other Mexican restaurant in Socal.
2 Likes
I just had Taco Maria’s a la carte menu a couple of weeks ago and it is fantastic. They also have desserts now.
The aguachile is still the best i’ve had, the addition of the watermelon jam just gives it that nice, slight sweetness.
AGUACHILE
MX bay scallop crudo, persian cucumber, serrano, lime, watermelon jam
15 Likes
It’s no longer tasting menu format there?
Nope, at least not for now and they are also not serving lunch.
Seating is mostly on the patio, no indoor dining.
1 Like
I’ll take TM over Providence most days. And sure, say what you will about the cheese, but the historical refinement in TM’s tortillas (and in heirloom blue corn tortillas as a whole) speaks to some level of obsession/competence that you seem to not believe can be found in Mexican food?
With that being said, I do agree that Providence is better than, say, Guelaguetza. I think an odd downside of LA dining is that, perhaps because of the sheer amount of exemplary, authentic “ethnic” food, there aren’t as many high-end Thai or Korean or Mexican places as you’d expect. How is it that for elevated, tasting menu Thai you might be better off in Portland and for expensive Korean you’d probably rather be in NYC?
It seems a Mexican version of Providence would be among the most in-demand spots in the city, but it doesn’t even exist. I’ve always wondered why that is.
You took the words right out of my mouth… fingers.
If only that were true. Their narrow-minded evaluations fuck up the high end of the restaurant business.
1 Like
I’ve had delicious food at Badmaash, which is way more original than Gjelina, which is great for that kind of restaurant but there are lots of other places that do the same style.
Damn, I wish I wasn’t a six-hour drive from that lamb burger.
2 Likes
A “Mexican” restaurant that serves only a $267 20-course tasting menu. To me it’s a Michelin restaurant first and Mexican third or fourth.
I do not understand. What’s price got to do with the type of food they serve?
1 Like
What do caviar, black truffles, saffron, wagyu, or foie gras have to do with Mexican food?
At least in California, an ambitious chef who wants two or three Michelin stars has to serve a long tasting menu with French technique, international luxury ingredients, and elaborate plating. Or do traditional Japanese food at an exceptionally high level.
2 Likes
There’s Broken Spanish, Taco Maria and Damian. But the more stars it gets, the more French it becomes. And then you’re serving a clientele that’s drinking chablis with their caviar tacos.
That’s exactly it. For the most part, Mexicans food in LA are serving a clientele with Mexican backgrounds. So they’re less willing to conform to a French format, which makes the cuisine more palatable to a tasting-menu following clientele that’s never had tacos off a street cart. You don’t need to be in a city with a large clientele well-versed in the cuisine if you have a tasting menu.
You make interesting points. Does Michelin have a guide for Mexico or Mexico City? What would Michelin say about an establishment like (I’m dating myself) Hacienda de los Morales