JoelF wrote:

boudreaulicious wrote:Only three 2-star restaurants and one will be gone by 1-1-15. Forgive me but this list just seems so silly.

I think it's an issue of Chicago dining philosophy: There seems to be an emphasis on quality of food rather than starched tablecloth and starched wait service. We've got innovation and technique out the wazoo... but there are perhaps not as many places designed for investment bankers in suits.

Who would you push from 1 to 2 if you were writing the guide? Tru, probably, but I'm not sure after that.

I think there are a few contenders; Moto and El Ideas would be my top picks but TRU, Acadia, Elizabeth, Goosefoot, Boka and Senza all deserve consideration.

I think Michelin's review system is anachronistic. I think they likely don't have enough reviewers in Chicago and those they have could well be factoring in opinions of others, some of which seem a bit dated. They just always seem to be a bit behind the times when it comes to our places--and maybe that's because their target audience tweets and raves over these places and they're just responding in kind.

Regardless, they always seem to be just a bit irrelevant--the 2 stars remaining at L20, even though the writing was on the wall that they were going to re-concept and with a number of places that could've ascended, particularly if they could handle the somewhat alternative fine dining experience at 42 grams. One thing's for sure--the chefs and restaurant owners seem to take it very seriously and believe there's value, at least publicly. So congrats to the winners and condolences to seemingly deserving places like Vera and Vie that were overlooked again.

Gonzo70 wrote:

Indianbadger wrote:I know that Next does not fit the criteria that Michelin uses for its rating; but what would be the rating if it got one?

It cannot be a Bib as for the Bib criteria price; you can probably get a glass of ultrapure, triple-distilled, Himalayan glacier water from a hunk-of-ice that was flown here last Tuesday at Next. So what is the forum-guess-rating? 2 Star?

I think Michelin has been spot on with awarding Next zero stars. Overpriced, inconsistent and at times disappointing.

Bib-level service for 1-star food at 2-star prices.

boudreaulicious wrote:I think Michelin's review system is anachronistic. I think they likely don't have enough reviewers in Chicago and those they have could well be factoring in opinions of others, some of which seem a bit dated. They just always seem to be a bit behind the times when it comes to our places--and maybe that's because their target audience tweets and raves over these places and they're just responding in kind.

Regardless, they always seem to be just a bit irrelevant--the 2 stars remaining at L20, even though the writing was on the wall that they were going to re-concept and with a number of places that could've ascended, particularly if they could handle the somewhat alternative fine dining experience at 42 grams. One thing's for sure--the chefs and restaurant owners seem to take it very seriously and believe there's value, at least publicly. So congrats to the winners and condolences to seemingly deserving places like Vera and Vie that were overlooked again.

I would have agreed with you completely two years ago, but last year I think Michelin adjusted and started recognizing some of our gems that are non-traditional fine dining venues (i.e. Elizabeth and El Ideas) as well as some venues outside of the River North/West Loop/Downtown area (i.e. Goosefoot and Senza). While I do not think their current list is perfect, I think the past two years they have overall done a fairly good job at starring a variety of our best venues. Hopefully next year they significantly expand the number of 1* venues as I do agree that many have been overlooked and are as good (or better) than some of the current 1* venues - as well as bump up a couple deserving venues from 1* to 2*. I am curious how many different inspectors cover Chicago, how often they frequent starred/potentially starred venues and if they do factor in feedback from non inspectors whose opinions they trust; would be nice to know this information.

This list remains one that is created by outsiders for visitors. It's a really strange skew of information and relevant only in the very loosest sense. Bravo to the places receiving stars and other acknowledegements but there are so many gaps, for folks who live here and/or genuinely care about finding the best places to eat, the list is just not very meaningful.

=R=

ronnie_suburban wrote:This list remains one that is created by outsiders for visitors. It's a really strange skew of information and relevant only in the very loosest sense. Bravo to the places receiving stars and other acknowledegements but there are so many gaps, for folks who live here and/or genuinely care about finding the best places to eat, the list is just not very meaningful.

=R=

Perhaps one of the most accurate and thoughtful analyses of the Michelin guide...

Does NYC or San Fran have its share of headscratchers, too? Conspicuously overlooked places or weirdly lauded spots? It's almost as if they are being too conservative in Chicago, or at least over-thinking when they should be going with their (sorry) gut. Starring restaurants like it's some scientific process - ie "we loved the food, but the numbers didn't add up" - is just wacky, regardless.

PopcornMegaphone wrote:I haven't been to all those restaurants, but I don't think the list is outlandish.

I agree. If you look at it as a list of the 24 "best" restaurants in the Chicago area - with the term "best" open to debate - I think it's perfectly acceptable. Granted, anyone can create his/her own list of "best" restaurants in the area, and those lists could vary considerably from person to person. Those aren't precisely the 24 I would name as "best" (or the 38 "essential" restaurants that Eater has named), but some of them are. Sure, there are things about the list that I would do differently (such as naming at least a few places in the 'burbs, and we have far more places worth recommending than are listed, and I'm not sure about segregating cheap eats into a separate list), but heck, each of us would probably have a different list, and yet we can still respect the lists of others even though they differ from our own. I don't have a problem with it, and I don't consider it "silly".

Calling B.S. on Michelin's Bib Gourmands in the dining blog at Crain's Chicago Business

The Michelin Guide has given Bib Gourmand awards to 59 Chicago restaurants for “good value—two courses and a glass of wine or dessert for $40 or less (tax and gratuity not included).”

While some of this year's Bibs are within the price guidelines—Mana Food Bar, Hopleaf, County and Jin Thai among them—at least half made us question how easy it is to dine for less than $40.

ekreider wrote:Calling B.S. on Michelin's Bib Gourmands in the dining blog at Crain's Chicago Business

The Michelin Guide has given Bib Gourmand awards to 59 Chicago restaurants for “good value—two courses and a glass of wine or dessert for $40 or less (tax and gratuity not included).”

While some of this year's Bibs are within the price guidelines—Mana Food Bar, Hopleaf, County and Jin Thai among them—at least half made us question how easy it is to dine for less than $40.

I agree that the Bib Gourmand $40 price limit is highly questionable for quite a few Bibs. Many are "small plate" venues where you certainly could order two plates and a drink and be under $40, but you also would leave quite hungry unless you have a tiny appetite. Definitely a nice variety of venues on the list (and most of the ones I have frequented are very good), but some fall in the cheap eat category and others tend to approach $100 per/person for a full meal.

Further proves the point that Michelin's "it's just the food on the plate" guideline (at least for the United States) is not strictly followed if at all. If they don't strictly follow the $40 parameter, what should make me feel/believe that other things aren't factored in in starring? People constantly argue that point to me, and it amazes me at how many of them believe Michelin when they say that..!!

Lists are to be taken with a grain of salt. Plus how many of you choose where to eat based on Michelin? I've learned that in the United States Michelin largely exists as a tool for chef recognition in the markets it has guides for - which is awesome. But it isn't very useful as a tool for picking where to eat if you're looking to really experience our nation's cuisine.

I found the Michelin guide very useful when I traveled to Japan and Europe. I had one bad experience at a Michelin 3-Star in Japan. I've also had amazing meals in France at no-star joints (no bib!) Otherwise the recommendations and ratings were spot on. For someone traveling to the United States from abroad, to examine the guide and pick restaurants, they would be sorely missing some great ones. We need a national guide here or at the very least, a rest of the United States guide. NYC is arguably even too small to have it's own guide, much less Chicago or San Francisco.

But at the end of the day Michelin's #1 goal isn't to rate restaurants and drive business to them, it is to sell guidebooks themselves. Always remember this.

Royal Lichter wrote:But at the end of the day Michelin's #1 goal isn't to rate restaurants and drive business to them, it is to sell guidebooks themselves. Always remember this.

I thought it was started to sell tires.

nr706 wrote:

Royal Lichter wrote:But at the end of the day Michelin's #1 goal isn't to rate restaurants and drive business to them, it is to sell guidebooks themselves. Always remember this.

I thought it was started to sell tires.

Yes. The earliest history of the guidebook is rooted in the early 1900's when the automobile was a nascent piece of machinery in Europe. The idea was sell guides, get people to buy cars and thus tires.

Today, I don't think Michelin needs much help selling tires. In saying "Michelin" I meant the guidebook section of the company.

nr706 wrote:

Royal Lichter wrote:But at the end of the day Michelin's #1 goal isn't to rate restaurants and drive business to them, it is to sell guidebooks themselves. Always remember this.

I thought it was started to sell tires.

See James Thurber's "La fleur des guides francaises", in My World and Welcome to It.