"stars" news and stories

No one would question the fact that the French Laundry deserves all three of its Michelin stars, but what about the rest of the ratings? Michael Bauer, restaurant critic for the San Francisco Chronicle, described the French Laundry as a ringer, a restaurant so good that no other establishment - on either coast - can really stand up to it. Bauer wonders whether the other area restaurants are being handicapped by the fact that the French Laundry sets an impossibly high standard for comparison that the 3-star restaurants in New York could not live up to, either.

He says "the list lacks many of the places that go to the heart of Bay Area dining and define who we are" and considering that the restaurant scene in the area has more high-quality restaurants than just about anywhere in the country, if not the world, it would seem that he has a point. While a great honor for Thomas Keller, the Guide's ratings do not seem sufficient for Bay Area restaurant scene. Does Chez Panisse only deserve 1 star? Does Manresa only deserve two? And how many were left off entirely?

Michelin-starred chef, Marcus Wareing of the Pétrus restaurant at the Berkeley hotel, in the UK, said that the standards in airline fare were higher than that of the average pub. While many pubs rely on canned soups and old sandwiches with little sign of improvement orver the years, the airlines are constantly trying to "up their game." Wareing takes a rather optimistic view of the recent discontinuation of food service on many airlines, however, seeming to imply that the reason they have done this is because they don't want to serve sub-standard food in an effort to cut costs.

Does anyone agree with this? Granted, some of the airlines do try to serve quality foods, but they know that people will eat just about anything on planes and readily take advantage of that fact. The quality of the food may be better from a freshness and food-safety standpoint, but that doesn't change the taste.

It sounds like Wareing needs to frequent some different pubs.

Source

Sometimes restaurant reviews seem to skew towards the negative - so why bother reading them when you can get the gist from the headline? The Seattle Post Intelligencer critic stepped up to try and answer that very question this week. The headlines are only a glimpse of what the review was about and a half dozen words, except in very rare cases, is hardly capable of conveying the full experience that a review offers. Another potentially misleading element of a review is the number of stars or the numerical rating it received. A subjectively determined numerical value will give you even less information than the headline alone because you can't get a sense of the criteria used to justify the rating.

Newspapers tend to review new restaurants, which are more likely to be hit-or-miss on any given day during their infancy than a meal at a long lasting neighborhood favorite. Their kitchen might not be fully synched or perhaps they haven't settled on a menu of their best dishes. Time can change a restaurant for better or worse, and an early review may not tell the whole story.