Michelin and the Bay

Deep breath.  Here goes my thoughts on Michelin unveiling their stars in San Francisco.  Forgive my delay, cohesive thoughts take time!

Before I discuss further, here are the restaurants I've been to in France, Spain, & San Francisco that have earned Michelin stars.  You can look at my list, my discussion after that, and decide whether or not you agree with me.  I think context is very important here, especially some kind of experience with Michelin stars in France (the birthplace of it all) so that informed comparisons can be made.

1 Star:
Bistro Jeanty (SF)
Gary Danko (SF)
Chez Panisse (SF)
L'Atelier de Joel Robuchon (Paris)

2 Stars:
Michael Mina (SF)
La Table de Joel Robuchon (Paris)

3 Stars:
El Bulli (Spain)
Le Cinq (Paris)
Guy Savoy (Paris)
Ledoyen (Paris)

Here's my bottom line: Michelin is not the unbiased rating system that it purports itself to be.  They do not follow the criteria for rating restaurants that they have set up for themselves.  By not adhering to their own system, it makes it hard for me to trust them, especially outside of France.

With all this said, I think the Michelin stars are valid in France but not in the US.  Why?  In France, I understand the differences in the star levels.  I agreed with the star ratings for all the restaurants I was able to visit there.  The food matched the stars.  Service also matched the stars.

Which brings me to a big bone of contention I have with Michelin.  Looking at their press release and their guide, restaurants are NOT supposed to be rated by service.  They should only be rated by food: "Stars are awarded by the Michelin inspectors to restaurants offering the finest cooking, regardless of the style of the cuisine or level of comfort.  The stars judge only the by the quality of the cuisine.  Five criteria are used in determining a star rating: the quality of products used, the mastering of flavors and cooking, the "personality" of the cuisine, the value for money and the consistency."

What bothers me most about this is not the criteria itself.  It's up to Michelin to pick their criteria, and those reading the reviews can decide whether or not they value the things being rated.  This only works IF the standards for rating are followed by the reviewer.  In the same press release, director Jean-Luc Naret says, "San Francisco's cultural diversity distinguishes it from many other cities, and restaurateurs have shown great determination and ingenuity in developing high standards of gastronomy and service."

So the restaurants are not supposed to be rated on service, yet for some reason San Francisco seems to have high standards of service.  What does this tell me?  That their ratings are already inherently flawed.  Service IS evaluated, even in France.  I have no problems with them evaluating service, but they should say that they are doing it.  If they acknowledge it, then I would agree with a lot of the stars on the SF list: Chez Panisse has mind-blowing food, but not the mind-blowing service that the French expect.  I just want them to be honest about their criteria.

(Random side note: Chez Panisse should have been given at least two stars.  My heart aches that it is lumped in the same category as many of the other less-than-stellar restaurants.)

The next flaw is the bias of the guide towards French cuisine.  It is the cuisine earning the most stars, a quick count proves that.  In fact, all the 3 stars in the US are French!  Again, I look back at the press release, where it says, "regardless of the style of cuisine."  One might argue that maybe most of the good restaurants ARE in fact French and that this is a random coincidence.  Here's where my experience kicks in: If Bistro Jeanty was in France, there is no way it would ever earn a star.  I'm not saying that the food there is bad.  In fact, it would be one of my top choices for traditional French bistro food in the Bay Area.  But the important difference here is the context: Bistro Jeanty is commended not because it serves food at the level of a 1-star in France, but because it serves good French food outside of France and deserves a star just for doing that.  Honestly, can it live up to fellow one-star L'Atelier de Joel Robuchon?

Michelin said that they used some local reviewers, but again that causes problems: unless the local reviewers have visited rated restaurants in other places, they can never make accurate comparisons.  You want someone who has had experience reviewing all over the world so that his/her judgments are consistent.

With all these complaints and grumblings of mine, why do I think that the Michelin guide is still valid in France?  I guess I think so because there is more of a level playing field out there: the cuisine is mostly French (obviously), I keep in mind that they do evaluate service, and I trust the French to be the best ones to evaluate their own food.  I'm sure there are many flaws in my reasoning here, but that's how I think.  Go ahead and evaluate us the same way here in the US, just acknowledge it.

The icing to top this messy cake is the revealing of major inaccuracies in the guide.  Michelin, you should be ashamed of yourself.  I certainly won't trust you much outside of France.

Bon appétit!

Comments

[LPC]

Nice entry.
Apart from the Star restos, I don't think the Michelin Guide Rouge is right even in France... have had 3 tries and all are struck down.

[Peter Egger]

Unfortunately food and service is a marriage and you can not have one without the other. If the service is flawed, the experience becomes flawed and this contaminates the perception of the personality of the food and the perceived value