No. More like 4.
8 Likes
I’m curious what the basis is for your view that Michelin criteria differ by country. I’m not expressing disagreement, as it’s something I’ve been trying to decide for myself.
1 Like
I think I’ve said this on FTC before but, when I went to Hayato, I came away thinking that it is hard to imagine a meal being significantly better than that. And I know that I’ve said this on FTC before: forget the meal, I’d pay $500 bucks just to eat that turnip again.
8 Likes
Best example I can think of off the top of my head is Jay Fai in Bankok…
Is there even a single street food vendor in California that has a star?
Why give a star to somewhere that makes a singular dish on the street in Thailand
but not in CA? Does a crab omelet require much more skill or finesse than lets say a birria taco? or a smash burger? or does novelty/specialty & location come into play at some point for Michelin?
If LA wasn’t as saturated with excellent sushi, would some of the rated places have more stars?
Or if Kaneyoshi was in a midwestern state that Michelin visits, would they be a two star? I would think so…
3 Likes
I am definitely receptive to your point about Michelin being more inclined to give stars if a restaurant is unique for the area. Yugo the Bunker in Madrid is a good example. There is no way that restaurant would get a star here.
Not sure about Michelin-starred street food vendors as I haven’t tried any of them.
It seems like a lot of these issues would be fixed if Michelin just went to four stars. For example, Kaneyoshi and Shin are both great. But they’re on different levels. The three-star system makes it hard to account for those different levels.
2 Likes
If you look at why Michelin stars first became a thing and what stars actually mean, it makes perfect sense as to why their criteria differs by country. By definition, one star essentially means “this spot is is cranking out high quality food”. Two stars means “IF you are already in the area, this spot is worth making a detour for” and three stars mean “Its worth a special journey to go to this spot”. Especially in the two & three star category, Michelin is indirectly talking about geography.
Lets not forget that Michelin is paid a good amount of money to go somewhere and put forth a guide, so one star spots don’t mean much to me personally since all that really means is that it’s a restaurant putting out quality food. By definition, shouldn’t they be giving out a star to Anajak? or to Dunsmoor? I know a lot of people like the secrecy behind the judging and the inspectors, but I don’t. It makes ZERO sense why Meteora would get a star but not some of the other high quality restaurants in our city.
I take any Michelin guide with a grain of salt, but I still enjoy seeing what they put out. I think most of us on FTC have a better outlook on the dining scene of LA than a tire company that was paid to send its employees out here to judge.
13 Likes
I Heard of Rebel Omakase all the time from my best friend. It turned out he’s right on the money.
1 Like
vespertine deserves it. The food is really damn good this iteration and service is the best service in fine dining in LA
4 Likes
there’s only ONE 2 star Michelin sushi in all of America and it’s sushi noz. I really enjoy kaneyoshi but it’s not at the same level as Noz. From what I can see there’s only 9 ** sushi restaurants in all of the world.
I always come back to this. And you’ve mentioned it yourself, One star spots are places putting out high quality food. It’s the ** and *** where the real comparisons should happen.
To me, LA’s ** restaurants are graded at a slightly lower curve than SF/NYC/Paris. It feels like LA western restaurants are a ** and the places I’ve gone in SF/Paris are a **.5.
3 Likes
From what I understand about these street stand Michelin stars, it has to be a food from originated in some way from the region/country.
I think it’s kinda silly as it really skews the one star field, but that seems to be their criteria. So LA is never going to get one for a taco place or ethnic food.
Ridiculous that Meteora would get one and not Baroo. So bought
I really enjoyed Baroo and I’ve gone a few times now. But I think Meteora is better food and service wise. I do think down the line, baroo could hit that point.
(they are both astrea clients, baroo uses our caviar at special events)
Re: Anajak - that’s my ride or die. If they stuck to more of their tasting menu experience they’d have * no question. It’s clear they are on the radar for Michelin by giving Ian somm of the year.
2 Likes
Chefs can announce that they’re rejecting their stars but that has no effect on Michelin’s ratings, which are for restaurants rather than chefs anyway.
2 Likes
You’re right, but then what makes these 9 places one star better? I get why Noz is one level above Kaneyoshi, but for what reason does Michelin deem four out of those 9 spots in Japan a two star restaurant over the 100’s of insanely excellent sushiyas there? It’s not ambiance or service according to them. Fish and rice quality are pretty even in the top high end spots. Prep and execution maybe? Or perhaps Michelin inspectors are all human and emotions, bias, subjective tastes, etc all play a role?
What’s your opinion on NOZ in NYC versus Sushi Sho in Honolulu? Sho is doing something very regional, original, delicious, and authentic there, and absolutely deserves to be visited if one is in the area; If I was an inspector that would warrant at least two stars. The fact that they don’t have a guide there is lame. There are restaurants that deserve to be on their lists, only to be omitted because the city gov’t can’t or wont pay Michelin hundreds of thousands of dollars. This pay to play model is bogus. Another reason why Michelin stars should never be the end all be all factor when deciding where to eat.
1 Like
While we’re at it, let’s make it five stars. Cuz we are a five star type of world right now.
1 Like
Definitely bullshit as far as California goes. Stars officially reflect only the food but only places with very expensive decor, furnishings, and service get two or three.
1 Like
I agree with you, but that’s the official word from the people who run this guide…
1 Like
On Anajak: They provided the worst, nastiest service I’ve encountered at any restaurant in LA. Made us wait 45 minutes past our reservation time and were belligerent and confrontational about it as opposed to apologetic and sympathetic. I’ll never forgive or forget. This was 2-3 years ago. It was the only argument we’ve ever had in a restaurant. That said, I did feel that the food was borderline one star and was surprised that Michelin didn’t give it the nod. I feel like Michelin sometimes refuses to make the sensible business decision when it comes to borderline local favorite restaurants, inviting everyone to attack them for being out of touch.
1 Like
I’ve been to both 4 times. The service at Baroo is definitely not exceptional, but it’s been fine for the casualness of the menu and space. I’d rather have a casual service than have incense blown into my face every 20 minutes, and not have to worry about service staff being screamed at for any misstep.
Yes, the soju drinks are too sweet for me in general, but I’d rather have them than the cocktails at Meteora. As of my last visit, I’d tried every cocktail there and not one tasted remotely close to a cocktail, and most like they barely even contained alcohol.
Maybe it’s more put together now, it was primarily in the first year or so that I attended, and some visits very early on (friends and family, bar revamp, etc). The amount of misses on that menu was wild. The utensils, abhorrent. Even worse when you consider they’re not cleaned any differently than regular silverware.
I can generally separate art from the artist, but Kahn’s treatment of staff under the elite-brooding-mysterious-chef guise is just bitch made. But he can seemingly do no wrong by Sprout, they seem to be fine with hemorrhaging money to support his vision, even the expense of more junior staff (big surprise)
3 Likes