Michelin California

Day’s not over yet…

Love this quote from the NY’ker article

The result is a whole class of three-star restaurants that feel, more often than not, like they belong to a global franchise—the Cheesecake Factory with a caviar supplement.

5 Likes

Are we sure @robert didn’t write that article?!?! :wink:

“, the new state-wide list introduced no starred Korean restaurants to the guide” Maum, is Korean, isn’t it. I guess Nor Cal doesn’t count for you guys.

In all seriousness, it’s not possible to please everyone. The same people who decry the lack of diversity and inclusion of the guide complain that Bistro Na’s isn’t a worthy inclusion, and that Night+Market is out of its league when I suggest it may get a star. Had Sqirl gotten a star, I think there would have been a lot of commotion, and not in a good way. Which other Mexican place would you have given a star to? (Regardless of who it is, people will complain that Y in more authentic than that, why didn’t Y get a star?!?)

Interesting how both articles single out n/naka and Vespertine as innovative and artful, but the other 2-stars as culinarily bland. To me, I found Somni to be much more exciting, innovative, artistic, and delicious than either. In any case, n/naka and Vespertine follow the Michelin tasting menu Japanese, French or Molecular gastronomy format as much as the others, so I don’t know why are “excused” from the article’s critiques when Providence and Urasawa aren’t. The point is, giving out ratings is hard. There will always be things that people disagree with; no one is universally correct. Michelin is just one viewpoint.

1 Like

It’s Eleven madison park’s fault. Their caviar cheesecake is too good :joy:

1 Like

Who / what are you quoting?

The New Yorker: The Michelin Guide’s Not Entirely Welcome Return to L.A. | The New Yorker

1 Like

The Michelin backlash is so absurd. I think it’s based mostly on a lack of experience with or appreciation for fine dining. Does anyone really think that the chefs at [name your favorite food truck or taco place] are truly as talented as the chefs at the Michelin starred restaurants? It’s like saying that a fine music guide doesn’t understand the LA music scene because it’s focused on the LA Phil instead of some popular local bands.

You mean like Wes Avila?

I don’t agree with your assessment. Lot of great places in LA with refined cooking that didn’t receive any stars have chefs with backgrounds at Michelin starred restaurants. The Manzkes. Walter was head chef at Bastide which would have definitely received a star if Michelin was in LA at the time. Margarita worked at Spago and Melisse. There are many others.

3 Likes

I emailed a friend regarding the Sacramento place that got a *. He’s a former revered CH who’s a great cook and diner. His comment was : “I’m surprised. The format is fun and non-threatening, which is perfect for somebody who’s afraid of a “stuffy” experience. But IMO the food is very good but not great.”

1 Like

It doesn’t really matter if the chef is talented if the food they are producing isn’t good enough. A lot of chefs are very talented but don’t put their whole effort into the restaurant. At bastide, Walter was cooking there day in and day out. Republique is much more hands off for him which is great but that doesn’t mean it’s worth a Michelin star just because he has Michelin-star talent.

I sat next to Wes at the counter at Taco Maria one night and have had his food. I’m with you. He’s a really talented guy. There’s a ton of talent out there that isn’t associated with fine dining. I think assuming that true talent and great food is confined to fine dining is as absurd as any Michelin backlash.

You told me the same thing when I predicted the Kitchen would get a star two months ago. IMO, the Kitchen is one of the least surprising picks on the list.

talent =/= good food

Ya know, I thought it sounded familiar :slight_smile: But he really is a very discriminating food person.

In the case of San Francisco, without naming specific restaurants, some establishments either got lucky, or they figured out a way to cater to the inspectors, coupled with the fact that some inspectors have absolutely terrible barometers for particular fine dining (I can think of two that are not worthy and two that did not get stars, that should have gotten them instead). Of the ones that are not worthy, one is shady as F and the other isn’t that far behind (and what they did to get where they are is a total disservice and disrespect to where they were before, and to upholding a professional standard). Instead of bringing everyone else up, they actually demean the value of a star (by Michelin awarding them as such). This is the definition of some stars are more equal than others or some less deserving than others.

I’ll leave it at that.

In the end, it is what it is. So no, it’s not a matter of people not knowing fine dining in this case necessarily. For LA there could be similar or completely different sentiments but maybe not that far off.

With Michelin there seems to be a preference for dining that is “correct.” I think this is one reason so many sushi places are included on the LA list. A sushi restaurant done well has a certain formality to it. LA has many spots with great food, a number of which are listed on the LA Bib Gourmand list that are worthy of a star or two but for the failure to be correct. I’ve dined at a number of starred restaurants in France. I think a number of the one stars I dined at there were not up to the quality of unstarred and one starred restaurants in LA. I will readily concede that 3 stars in France are amazing and beyond virtually all California restaurants (of course, I’m not including Keller in this concession).

Could you be a little more specific? Or at least through PM if you don’t want to say the names? It’s kind of hard to follow your argument without specific examples.

From my experience the SF restaurants that have really “changed” to cater towards inspectors (and
not in a good way) are Atelier Crenn and Quince. Atelier Crenn is clearly the worst offender, their food has become completely unrecognizable in their quest for a third star. Like a terribly balanced snowman for dessert, seriously? I remember when you could get an actual composed dessert there instead of a fake imitation of some object. I remember when you got a delicious simple squab or wagyu main course, but no, Crenn removed the meat one month after Coi got three stars with no meat. But I am still thankful for the Michelin guide because without it, I’m not so sure a place like Benu, charging what it is for glorified Chinese and Korean cuisine, or SingleThread, far from San Francisco, would thrive.

I think it’s generally easier for a small sushi restaurant to be consistent and bang out great stuff since they aren’t in the weeds all the time and don’t have to prep for a million people.

1 Like

I’m not sure about SF.

In LA, I think there’s a culture of glorifying mediocre food because it’s made by less-well-to-do minorities and served in a gritty environment. For example, I am shocked by people suggesting that the food truck Mariscos Jalisco should get a star and the Michelin folks don’t understand what’s so great about it. Both the quality of the ingredients there and the quality of the cooking there are overwhelmingly inferior to that of any Michelin-starred restaurant. Indeed, the quality is overwhelmingly inferior to that of an uncelebrated restaurant like Water Grill. The oysters are the worst I’ve tasted in LA, and the ceviche tastes like something you’d get from the prepared food section of a Mexican grocery store.

Why am I being negative in this way? Because I think the chefs who truly devote their lives to perfecting their crafts and using the best quality ingredients to make the best food they can possibly make deserve more praise and respect. But the LA food scene criticizes such chefs for not being low-brow enough and not making “authentic” sloppily prepared ethnic food.

5 Likes