Raccoon wrote:Where did the "toss peanuts on the floor" thing come from? Have you actually been to Twin Anchors in the last 10 years? Be honest.

I reviewed Twin Anchors for the Reader in 2005, been a few times since, and a bunch of times before when I lived closer. I'd go more often for burgers and a drink if the parking wasn't so horrid.

Cool G Viv.

Was just asking because i've been there quite a few times over the last few years and i've never seen a peanut in the house, or peanuts being thrown on the floor.

I do agree wholeheartedly w/ the burger and beer thing though. In fact, their beer selection is wonderful w/ lots of great rotating handles from some well-respected micros. This is a big change over the last few years when they were more of a Miller/Bud kind of place. All that stuff is still there, but now you've got some Laguanitas, Bells, Great Lakes, Stone, Half Acre, etc.

Some interesting choices here: http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magaz ... lin-Stars/

I ate a Longman & Eagle last Thursday - a great meal but I was surprised that they received a star. The omission of some perennial favorites was bit of a surprise, e.g. Les Nomades, North Pond, Le Titi de Paris...

ronnie_suburban wrote:My fascination with Michelin and the outsiders' perspective is definitely tempered by the fact that they really didn't seem to "get" Chicago or its dining scene as much as I'd hoped. I say this mainly because I feel like the overall list is very short and leaves a fair amount worthy places out. Yes, there are also a couple star recipients that I believe shouldn't be there at all but I'm guessing that'd be true for any of us...about any similar list.

The silver lining is that many great places in town won't now be swarmingly busy with tourists!

So, I thought I would be more caught up in it than I have been. I tend to agree about the failure to 'get it' which is a part of what's putting a damper on it for me. I also can't stop thinking about how short-sighted some of the decisions are in light of the fact that it's a BOOK that will be out forever. I know it's a business and they had to draw a line in the sand somwehere, but the prefabricated twitter feed that doesn't just openly acknowledge that there are already changes to be made (K&K, L20), the exclusion of avec because of the timing of their closure, etc...these things make me feel there's an inherent issue. The picture that's coming together in my mind is that they wanted to come, do research, and then sort of leave and I can;t reconcile that with my own my personal understanding of the landscape as a living breathing organism that constantly responds to changes. Anyway, naive/insane to begin with or not, some of the admiration that I had reserved for Michelin (I saw it as this venerable institution) has been lessened.

I wanted to be so excited about the book period and so excited about the stars awarded really carrying WEIGHT, but the feeling's just not there in the way I had hoped. I was probably buying in waaay too much, as I suggested above. Anyway, I'm going to see chefs kahan, elliot, and izard at chicago live tomorrow and really hoping it helps pump the wind back into my sails about what the book means. I had been planning to buy a bunch of these bad boys as xmas gifts for my friends that have relocated from chicago to show them what they're missing, I'd like to hear them say positive stuff about what it will do/what it means/ how it will positively impact other food media and even restaurants that are not getting any recognition. Any buzz is good buzz sort of thing...

gastrique wrote:I know it's a business and they had to draw a line in the sand somwehere, but the prefabricated twitter feed that doesn't just openly acknowledge that there are already changes to be made (K&K, L20), the exclusion of avec because of the timing of their closure, etc...these things make me feel there's an inherent issue. The picture that's coming together in my mind is that they wanted to come, do research, and then sort of leave and I can;t reconcile that with my own my personal understanding of the landscape as a living breathing organism that constantly responds to changes.

Such is the nature of any hard copy based publication. That's whay the Internet has caught on with the young folks.

stevez wrote:

gastrique wrote:I know it's a business and they had to draw a line in the sand somwehere, but the prefabricated twitter feed that doesn't just openly acknowledge that there are already changes to be made (K&K, L20), the exclusion of avec because of the timing of their closure, etc...these things make me feel there's an inherent issue. The picture that's coming together in my mind is that they wanted to come, do research, and then sort of leave and I can;t reconcile that with my own my personal understanding of the landscape as a living breathing organism that constantly responds to changes.

Such is the nature of any hard copy based publication. That's why the Internet has caught on with the young folks.

I agree. The dead tree medium is fine for relatively unchanging things, like cookbooks or history books, but not really appropriate for covering a lively, dynamic scene.

I also can't stop thinking about how short-sighted some of the decisions are in light of the fact that it's a BOOK that will be out forever

I think the NY guide is updated every year, maybe every other year. Is the Chicago guide a one shot deal?

rickster wrote:

I also can't stop thinking about how short-sighted some of the decisions are in light of the fact that it's a BOOK that will be out forever

I think the NY guide is updated every year, maybe every other year. Is the Chicago guide a one shot deal?

Only if sales are terrible.

gastrique wrote:

ronnie_suburban wrote:My fascination with Michelin and the outsiders' perspective is definitely tempered by the fact that they really didn't seem to "get" Chicago or its dining scene as much as I'd hoped. I say this mainly because I feel like the overall list is very short and leaves a fair amount worthy places out. Yes, there are also a couple star recipients that I believe shouldn't be there at all but I'm guessing that'd be true for any of us...about any similar list.

The silver lining is that many great places in town won't now be swarmingly busy with tourists!

So, I thought I would be more caught up in it than I have been. I tend to agree about the failure to 'get it' which is a part of what's putting a damper on it for me. I also can't stop thinking about how short-sighted some of the decisions are in light of the fact that it's a BOOK that will be out forever. I know it's a business and they had to draw a line in the sand somwehere, but the prefabricated twitter feed that doesn't just openly acknowledge that there are already changes to be made (K&K, L20), the exclusion of avec because of the timing of their closure, etc...these things make me feel there's an inherent issue. The picture that's coming together in my mind is that they wanted to come, do research, and then sort of leave and I can;t reconcile that with my own my personal understanding of the landscape as a living breathing organism that constantly responds to changes. Anyway, naive/insane to begin with or not, some of the admiration that I had reserved for Michelin (I saw it as this venerable institution) has been lessened.

I wanted to be so excited about the book period and so excited about the stars awarded really carrying WEIGHT, but the feeling's just not there in the way I had hoped. I was probably buying in waaay too much, as I suggested above. Anyway, I'm going to see chefs kahan, elliot, and izard at chicago live tomorrow and really hoping it helps pump the wind back into my sails about what the book means. I had been planning to buy a bunch of these bad boys as xmas gifts for my friends that have relocated from chicago to show them what they're missing, I'd like to hear them say positive stuff about what it will do/what it means/ how it will positively impact other food media and even restaurants that are not getting any recognition. Any buzz is good buzz sort of thing...

Very well put. I wish I could have articulated that as well as you did.

=R=

Phil Vettel made an astute observation - there were fewer starred restaurants in both the NY and the SF guides in their first year of publication. Perhaps the number of starred Chicago eateries will increase over the years (assuming that the Chicago guide is not a "one-and-done" deal).

rickster wrote:

I also can't stop thinking about how short-sighted some of the decisions are in light of the fact that it's a BOOK that will be out forever

I think the NY guide is updated every year, maybe every other year. Is the Chicago guide a one shot deal?

They are already evaluating restaurants again, in preparation for the 2012 edition. The new edition will reflect changes (chefs coming and going) and expand the base of restaurants that the evaluators visit.

I think the idea that anything is permanent is more in one's interpretation.

Good point, 'permanent' is silly. I'm still happy I pre-ordered.

And in other heartbreaking news...anyway, though it hurts to lose his talent to NY, I wish Chef Gras all the best and hope Mr. Melman/Chef Brennan will be able to maintain/continue to grow & develop the exceptional creation without him.

http://chicago.eater.com/archives/2010/ ... w-york.php

Yes, Chef Gras is gone. I'm not surprised as readers will recall my controversial review some time ago. Too bad Chef Gras presents it as a disagreement with Mr. Melman. Ultimately, in a hospitality industry, the customers (not Michelin inspectors) were unsatisfied. I'm looking forward to even further improvements to the 3 macaroon establishment.

Wouldn't it be interesting if Chef Bowles returned to serious cooking? Just a thought. (If, in fact, his cuisine at Avenues could be considered serious - but it was terrific).

Or maybe Jazzfood?

DutchMuse wrote:Too bad Chef Gras presents it as a disagreement with Mr. Melman.

You mean too bad he spoke diplomatically rather than lobbing direct insults via the press?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not above schadenfreude over a good public spat. But if you're going to criticize somebody's public statements here, it seems odd to me to criticize the the party that seemingly attempted to take the high road over the party that came out swinging with some rather nasty insults.

DutchMuse wrote:Yes, Chef Gras is gone. I'm not surprised as readers will recall my controversial review some time ago. Too bad Chef Gras presents it as a disagreement with Mr. Melman. Ultimately, in a hospitality industry, the customers (not Michelin inspectors) were unsatisfied. I'm looking forward to even further improvements to the 3 macaroon establishment.

Hi,

I think the issues between Gras and Melman were real. I fully recall reading somewhere months after it opened, Lettuce Entertain You had sent bean-counter types to L2O making comments/suggestions/criticisms on how the restaurant was managed.

Regards,

Here are the details as recounted by Mr. Melman: http://leisureblogs.chicagotribune.com/ ... l#tp%20url

From the Stew:

"And there were issues with how he treated the front-of-the-house people; he was dismissive and not interested," Melman said. "And I told him, 'I want you to be much more open about these things.' I had a customer call me, upset, because he'd made a special request, and nothing outrageous, and he (Gras) refused."

L.20 Restaurant

Hmmmm.

I saw the ratings and was curious about Trotters. Any reason why 2 stars and not 3?

I haven't eaten there in over 4 years so I am curious if the experience is still what it once was?

Trotter seems to be coasting a bit and most of the best chefs he had have gone on to other things.

Anyone who has eaten there lately want to comment and why no third star?

Garibaldi wrote:I saw the ratings and was curious about Trotters. Any reason why 2 stars and not 3?

I haven't eaten there in over 4 years so I am curious if the experience is still what it once was?

Trotter seems to be coasting a bit and most of the best chefs he had have gone on to other things.

Anyone who has eaten there lately want to comment and why no third star?

I don't think anyone, but the Michelin team, can satisfactorily answer the question "why doesn't restaurant X get Y stars". Of course, anyone can speculate, but speculations never really have much weight anyway.

Well put onix.

I'll also add that my impression was that Trotters always had a lot of young chefs who worked for a limited amount of time and then moved on. I wouldn't interpret this as "he's lost his best chefs." I'd interpret as "a lot of really good young chefs have worked at Trotters."

I think if you read the reviews of Trotters here and elsewhere, you'll see a lot of positive reviews and a handful of negative ones. I think the restaurant has been remarkably consistent. While it isn't the cutting edge restaurant it was 20 years ago, it isn't stale either and has remained very popular.

Garibaldi wrote:Anyone who has eaten there lately want to comment and why no third star?

See this post:

viewtopic.php?p=200985#p200985

Based on this experience, even 1 star would have been generous.

=R=

Darren72 wrote:I'll also add that my impression was that Trotters always had a lot of young chefs who worked for a limited amount of time and then moved on. I wouldn't interpret this as "he's lost his best chefs." I'd interpret as "a lot of really good young chefs have worked at Trotters."

I was mainly refering to Giuseppe Tentori (worked there 9 years), Matthias Merges (probably around 10 years) and Guillermo Tellez (probably 15+ years, not sure) when I said some of the longer term guys worked there. Not young people and not short timers. All have moved on from Trotters.

Trotter's whole philosophy revolves around excellence. He even has a series of books on the subject about "being the best" etc... He even applied for the Malcolm Baldridge quality award a few years ago if I recall correctly.

Considering Trotter's entire brand revolves around excellence, being the best and raising the bar higher than it ever has been, his two stars were a bit surprising to me to say the least. I would venture to guess that in the past Trotter would have killed someone to get 3 stars. Trotters seems to be coasting a bit on its past reputation. Maybe Charlie has lost interest?

I know what you mean. My first thought was that CT is probably extremely upset to get 2 stars.

Garibaldi wrote:Considering Trotter's entire brand revolves around excellence, being the best and raising the bar higher than it ever has been, his two stars were a bit surprising to me to say the least. I would venture to guess that in the past Trotter would have killed someone to get 3 stars. Trotters seems to be coasting a bit on its past reputation. Maybe Charlie has lost interest?

Here's the whole problem with this Michelin cr@p. Why on earth does it matter if it's 2 or 3 stars if the meal is good and satisfies your expectations? Regardless of whatever standardization a business (and it's all about Michelin's business, not Trotter's or anyone else's) like Michelin tries to implement, it's still a subjective opinion, just like any other analysis of creative expression. So now some random arbiter designates Trotter's as "middling" relative to top-level Chicago restaurants and we, as armchair quarterbacks, sit in judgment of Trotter's motivation?

There are plenty of omissions from this publication and possibly some missteps in rankings, but it's ultimately meaningless.

spinynorman99 wrote:There are plenty of omissions from this publication and possibly some missteps in rankings, but it's ultimately meaningless.

I agree in principle, but it's not meaningless in that it can drive traffic to well-starred restaurants from otherwise ill-informed but well-heeled tourists to our city.

nr706 wrote:I agree in principle, but it's not meaningless in that it can drive traffic to well-starred restaurants from otherwise ill-informed but well-heeled tourists to our city.

I somehow think that people will find Alinea and the others without yet another guide, but business is business.

spinynorman99 wrote:Here's the whole problem with this Michelin cr@p. Why on earth does it matter if it's 2 or 3 stars if the meal is good and satisfies your expectations? Regardless of whatever standardization a business (and it's all about Michelin's business, not Trotter's or anyone else's) like Michelin tries to implement, it's still a subjective opinion, just like any other analysis of creative expression. So now some random arbiter designates Trotter's as "middling" relative to top-level Chicago restaurants and we, as armchair quarterbacks, sit in judgment of Trotter's motivation?

There are plenty of omissions from this publication and possibly some missteps in rankings, but it's ultimately meaningless.

Your opening comment reflects a decidedly local perspective and I think it's valid on that level. But in many cases, especially for visitors, Michelin stars actually create the expectation. For better or for worse, these guidebooks are the end-all-be-all for many international travelers. For years, they've been a respected and credible source of information. So, I don't think it's meaningless when a place's Michelin rating doesn't line up with the local, conventional wisdom about it...allowing for some margin of subjectivity, of course. But by the same token, I don't believe that any incongruity -- perceived or actual -- means nearly as much to us locals as it does to travelers who come to Chicago. For us, it is essentially armchair quarterbacking, which isn't to say it isn't earnest. But we're not going to use this guidebook to find places to eat. For visitors, though, perhaps a it's a blown opportunity to have eaten somewhere really special while they were here (or avoid an overrated place).

Trotter's was the Chicago restaurant about which I was most curious in regard to Michelin. My last meal there, about a year and half ago, was disastrous on a few levels. I wondered if they'd receive 3 stars but figured that if my experience was at all typical, they wouldn't. Looking back at that meal, I almost feel like even the 2 stars they received was a bit of a consolation prize. I do think the bloom's off the rose there and that the stars they received were a) an apology from Michelin for taking on Chicago 10 years too late and b) an obligation of sorts felt by Michelin's to include a restaurant that many around the world have heard of, just so they wouldn't appear out of touch in the eyes of non-locals who don't know any better.

With Michelin, the 2's are the most interesting to me. Are they former 1's that are up and coming? Are they former 3's that are in decay? Or are they eternal 2's that aspire to be something more than they are but can never get there?

=R=

ronnie_suburban wrote:With Michelin, the 2's are the most interesting to me. Are they former 1's that are up and coming? Are they former 3's that are in decay? Or are they eternal 2's that aspire to be something more than they are but can never get there?

I agree with you but would include the 1 stars as well.

I would much rather go to a kitchen where the original chef is in the kitchen day in and day out busting his ass trying to gain another star rather than visit an old stalwart where the chef who made the place what it was rarely visits the kitchen.

For example, I visited Blackbird two weeks after it opened and Paul Kahan quickly became one of my favorite chefs. Now he has Publican and all his other projects and I rarely see him in the Blackbird kitchen anytime I get to visit. So Blackbird isn't really in my rotation any longer due to this. It is still good but not the same as I remember it.

I see that Grant Aschaltz is opening a bunch of new "concept" restaurants as well to build his empire. Guess which recent three star is likely to fall off my radar screen next? I give him about a year before his presence becomes a rarity in Alinea's kitchen due to his new found fame and projects. It is inevitable.

I would much rather visit a place like Schwa were they are just trying to blow people away on a nightly basis than keep going back to restaurant simply because it was awarded 3 stars for work it did several years ago.

I haven't seen the Chicago book, but the France books indicate up-and-coming restaurants. So in principle you could have one star and be up and coming, or not up and coming.