The stated meaning of three stars is “exceptional cuisine, worth a special journey.” No barbecue, pizza, or tacos?
Majordomo is literally that for me since I booked my next trip to LA specifically to eat there.
1 Like
Easily agreed upon by whom? Not the Michelin inspectors.
Facts:
- 2006 SF Michelin guide 1 / 4 / 23 (*** / ** / *)
- 2008 LA guide 0 / 3 / 15
- 2008 SF guide 1 / 6 / 27
Original 2006 SF list:
three stars
- French Laundry
two stars
- Aqua
- Cyrus
- Manresa
- Michael Mina
one star
- Acquerello
- Auberge du Soleil
- Bistro Jeanty
- Bouchon
- Boulevard
- Bushi-Tei
- Chez Panisse
- Chez TJ
- Dining Room at the Ritz-Carlton
- Dry Creek Kitchen
- Farmhouse Inn & Restaurant
- Fifth Floor
- Fleur de Lys
- Gary Danko
- K&L Bistro
- La Folie
- La Toque
- Masa’s
- Quince
- Range
- Rubicon
- Sushi Ran
- Terra
That’s your opinion and that’s fine. But Majordomo isn’t it for me despite it being a very good restaurant. To me, it’s not anywhere near any of 3 star establishments I’ve been to.
As for pizza, BBQ, or tacos, different guides have different takes on what qualifies on their guide. It’s well known that Michelin focuses on finer dining establishments. So I don’t see a problem in not giving those places a star and placing them on the Bib instead.
That’s a whole lot of fancy fucking words that boils down to one word, IMHO - Bucolic!
Bucolic, for fuck’s sake.
5 Likes
Agreed, SF has always led the fancy dining scene on the West coast - even pre-Michelin. After all the early to mid 2000s was the dawn of TFL’s reign as the top dog in country and the realization that NYC was no longer the only fine dining destination in the US.
In reality, LA was the cooler dining city. You had to be in-the-know to enjoy the scene, very hostile to tourist and out-of-towners. Took me several years of living in LA to appreciate this.
2 Likes
My main problem is that they’re lying when they say the stars regard only the food when in fact they accept only one contemporary style of dining and exclude everything that’s popular and traditional, which is to say, pretty much all good food and anything anyone’s grandmother ever cooked. That’s downright evil.
In some places outside of the US maybe it’s different.
They are a private institution and can go by any rules they want. They don’t have to conform to what you think is fair criteria for greatness. They have a limited budget and can only visit so many restaurants per year and if they were to open it up to small mom and pops then the decisions would probably be even more divisive. You don’t have to take their rating system at face value you can go with the San Pellegrino’s World’s Best 50 list which IMO is more of a sham than the Michelin Guide.
It’s evil? Who are you to make that judgement, is anybody being harmed when they don’t receive a star? Sure some people may benefit unwarranted in your opinion but this is just food chillout.
The best example, which I always use, of why michelin doesn’t really matter in the larger picture is that of a city like Tokyo. There are estimated to be over 80,000 restaurants and many unknown because they are invite only. I’ve been to michelin starred restaurants there that did not impress me but I’ve gone out of my way to hole in the wall places that I think many would agree were michelin worthy if they tried it out too. There’s no way these inspectors can visit all of these restaurants in their lifetime and give a comprehensive and fair rating of all of them, all they can do is go where they hear about good food and try it themselves. Now please don’t say Majordomo deserves anything more than 1 star again or I’ll laugh too hard.
11 Likes
Most of these restaurants are not in San Francisco. I’m talking about San Francisco, not places that are well over 50 miles away in some cases. SF had 2 two stars restaurants and 12 one star restaurants on this 2006 list. LA had 4 two stars and 15 one stars. Now, SF has 4 three stars, 4 two stars, and around 25 one stars. LA will have far less. (unless you hilariously give Majordomo three stars) LA certainly has not seen as much development (you are using Michelin’s logic so I am playing along).
Also I find it hilarious that you are using Michelin to justify this when you complain about them. Even that is flawed. SFBA has 8x3+6x2+43x1=79 total stars, compared to 34 in 2006. That is more than a double increase. To match that growth, LA would need 50 stars. Good luck finding that…(there is no way there will even be close to that number).
Personally I am grateful for the development the SF dining scene has seen since Michelin. For instance, we went from not having any true edomae omakase sushi restaurants to having an influx of choices serving fish sourced overnight from Japan.
1 Like
The SF Michelin guide does include small owner-run places. Terrapin Creek, for example, got one star. The Bib Gourmand and The Plate lists include quite a few.
I’m talking about the guidebooks. Both cover large areas and each of those areas is essentially a single market.
I’m comparing them only to debunk your absurd claim that SF “didn’t really have any noteworthy restaurants at all” before Michelin showed up. I think Michelin is bullshit but which restaurants they gave stars to is a matter of fact.
My guess is the increase in first-rate Japanese restaurants in the SFBA is more about changes in demographics than anything to do with Michelin.
And those restaurants will never go past a one star, as we’ve seen in the past with Tsuta in Tokyo being a ramen restaurant, Tim Ho Wan being a humble affordable dimsum, and Jay Fai the street hawker in Bangkok. Michelin has probably decided none of those restaurants can go past one star unless they have a nice decorated dining room and immaculate service. I’m fine with that, that’s their idea of the pinnacle of dining but it doesn’t mean you have to take it as fact. I’m perfectly happy eating Carnitas El Momo off the street in Boyle Heights and to me very few meals, Michelin starred or not, come close to how good it is. We don’t have to be rich to enjoy amazing food and Michelin doesn’t have to form your opinion for you, its their opinion and you can choose to take it however you wish.
2 Likes
I think there would be more variety at the high end if Michelin weren’t around. They push greedy owners and ambitious chefs toward the TFL / El Bulli model.
I suppose we’ll see if I’m right by how their return affects LA restaurants.
On the bright side, I suppose it’s good for locals that gastrotourists are checking off stars instead of making it harder to get into the best places.
Which restaurant in SF was “worth a special journey” 12 years ago? Fifth Floor, Gary Danko, Fleur de Lys? Fine, but not that exciting. Michael Mina (the only chef to receive two michelin stars)? Sure, but I think the Michael Mina of today serving delightful Egyptian inspired cuisine is miles better.
LA is a very big city so it’s hard to compare. But whether you want to look at SF vs LA or the whole San Francisco Bay Area Wine Country vs Socal, it’s quite obvious which one has had more food development in the past 10 years. Growth of michelin stars are one form of evidence but if you just look at the quality of the chefs that are coming, the food that is coming out, the number of restaurants per capita, it is quite obvious. Though I agree it may not necessarily just be due to Michelin–SFBA has seen much more wealth due to startups and such.
Maybe you could be right but that’s conjectural. If Michelin didn’t exist some other publication would have stepped up to be that voice. Human nature has demanded that we create ranked list and that is unfortunately the world we live in today.
In any case, can we get back on topic…please start another thread to rant on Michelin…does anyone have predictions or feedback on mine?
I see where you are coming from with that statement, however the word Edomae is unfortunately being used too generically these days.
I think the right term is Edomae inspired and even some are so far from that path it’s not funny. So “sushi omakase” would be more acceptable to me (sorry for being anal on the terminology). Edomae sushi does not just mean “using fish from Tokyo Bay” or “nigiri sushi”, or someone who adds vinegar to sushi rice (and then ends up adding sugar) and kelp wraps white fish and calls it a day, or uses a blowtorch (and god forbid, overly sear the fish) and then drizzles lime wedge, truffle oil, and sous vide quail egg on top of something.
Of the star awarded lot in SF Bay Area, the closest representation to true Edomae is Sushi Yoshizumi; he applies a majority of the true Edomae style techniques and he has actually spent the time to research, study, and try out, and his style continues to evolve and improve, and you can actually taste the work that was put in. The rest of them either do their own style, or are just going through the motions (some are just looking to see which trends they can capitalize, make it look snazzy for the younger crowd, or copy and catch the customers attention, especially the instagrammers and social media influencer types because they will help generate more business). Some are delicious if they are lucky, and some are just plain atrocious because there is no passion and soul in the cuisine, though they please a set of demographics… but they are Michelin awarded still.
If I take examples of non Michelin and Michelin awarded sushi omakase restaurants in Tokyo that I have been to, if I do not take the quality of the fish and cost into consideration all things considered, with the exception of Sushi Yoshizumi, the star quality and measurement is not equal, let alone the huge gap in overall customer satisfaction. SY is the only place where he is on the level of Tokyo and perhaps other parts of Japan, and in a few cases even superior and I’m not the only one who is expressing this sentiment.
As great as Michelin has been for SF in some ways for the places I adore and truly deserve it, there is a lot of bad as well and of course mediocrity in between.
1 Like
It’s not obvious to me. I’m not even sure how to compare them. Both areas already had many, many restaurants serving a very wide variety of cuisines. The LA scene had the advantage of its diversity being celebrated and stimulated by Jonathan Gold while the SFBA’s diversity was ignored and inhibited by Michael Bauer. LA had and has the advantage of simply more of everything.
I think LA chefs have been free to create a wider variety of upscale restaurants. In the SFBA, chefs who want to do their own thing mostly have to open smaller places in cities with lower rents, in part because hiring and retaining good staff is very difficult given the way the tech sector has driven up the cost of living
Discussions here are pretty freewheeling, especially when people make tendentious, highly debatable statements.
I agree yoshizumi is my favorite. I had it pegged at two stars for a while but looks like it won’t happen. Maybe if they got rid of the normal menu and only served the extended one.
In any case, I’m not comparing with Tokyo, I’m comparing with SF ten years ago. Kusakabe, Sasaki, Wako, Hashiri, etc. are not Tokyo caliber but still much more top quality than ten years ago, when Sushi Ran was considered the best sushi restaurant in the area.
what do you think about the scene in LA then? By your standards I don’t think Urasawa and Sushi Ginza Onodera (widely considered contenders for 2 stars) would be considered “edomae” either.
Urasawa isn’t considered omakase - It’s sushi kaiseki.
SGO’s subpar shari (sushi rice) was not even a one-star in my book. The only thing about SGO that’s reminiscent of Michelin is its price.
LA or NYC? Or both?