Seeing Stars…and Then More Stars

12.01.06

Over on Grub Street, critic-in-residence Adam Platt takes the case against the Michelin Guide, which got me thinking. When it was announced last year that Michelin would be publishing a guide to New York restaurants, people went into hissy fits because NYC restaurants would now be able to earn two sets of stars: up to four from the New York Times, and up to three from Michelin. Not only could a restaurant earn two sets of stars, but those stars would have marginally different meanings. Three stars from the New York Times could actually equate to a "worse" rating than two stars from Michelin. But whatever, right? People who follow that sort of thing were comfortable with Michelin’s stars and the Times’ stars, and it wouldn’t be a problem. But then the floodgates opened.

New York Magazine decided they’d throw their stars into the mix, and now a restaurant could earn not just three, not just four, but an unprecedented FIVE STARS. And just when you thought that your head was spinning, Time Out all of a sudden started offering up to six of these sparkling babies. And when the meaning of a star had been all but eradicated, New York Magazine introduced its own second five-star ranking system. Pure genius. That second system is for "cheap" eats, but Thomas Keller’s Bouchon Bakery receives five "cheap" stars, and it’s hard to take seriously a ranking system that includes a restaurant with a $30 foie gras dish on the menu as cheap. Nonetheless, New York restaurants can now earn upward of 18 stars from the various review outposts, plus an additional five cheapies from New York Magazine if they’re at the right price point. But none of that really even matters, because a restaurant could, feasibly, get a combined 11 stars from New York and Time Out, but all 11 would mean bunk if the New York Times only awarded that restaurant two stars. Even though the Times’ critic wields fewer stars, his have way more clout than anyone else’s (Michelin’s included). This, of course, means that the other star systems in place only really serve to reinforce whatever the Times thinks. Masa and Daniel are two great examples. Both restaurants have been awarded four stars from the New York Times, and both received two stars from Michelin. The general consensus is that the two-star rating reflected worse on Michelin than it did on either of the two restaurants, which still pack ’em in night after night. Of course, let’s not even get started on Zagat’s

Subscribe to Gourmet