The guide has its quirks but I can assure you that there’s not a single Chinese restaurant in the city that should get a star. Not even Bistro Na by a long shot.
1 Like
+1
Mr. Jiu’s in SF Chinatown has a star.
Inconceivable. Though I like Chef Brandon’s ethos, I found his food at Mister Jiu to be simply ordinary.
Definitely! Considering some of the ones that got stars.
is it possible the inspectors didn’t know about kaneyoshi? besides a mention in the la times about their takeout, nothing has been written up about their dine-in.
If I think of Michelin as a guide, instead of some sort of award competition, I find it quite useful. Recently we were in Loire Valley, and in the absence of FTC for Loire Valley, relying on Michelin was very helpful and generally accurate. On the other hand, in LA I have no use for it whatsoever.
4 Likes
Ding ding ding. That’s the way to do it…useful for a tourist for sure since their choices are generally decent at the very least in terms of quality.
3 Likes
Seems more than possible.
If that’s the case, then the inspectors sure aren’t doing their homework! It’s not like sushi lovers in-the-know have been silent about Kaneyoshi, which is deserving of a star if anyplace is. The inspectors need to be perusing FTC and similar on-line discussions and reviews, not just the LA Times.
2 Likes
The inspectors do a pretty good job of finding new places. I’m often surprised at how many of their new listings are off the Yelp / Eater / etc. foodie radar.
1 Like
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