Will it matter?
2 Likes
Interesting. I do browse Michelin Bib Gourmand recommendations when visiting destinations in Europe, so I have a hypothesis that visitors to Boston could find those useful if Bib Gourmand will be part of the coverage here.
I have mixed feelings. I’ve never really figured out how to interpret the Michelin ratings. We had a more delicious and memorable meal at a 1-star in Lucca than at a 3-star in Florence. The service wasn’t as polished, but the 3-star seemed performative. A multi-page water menu gave us an early indication.
1 Like
I have a theory on the higher end, having eaten at a fair number of 2 and 3 star places in the US and Europe. I have found almost without exception that the 2 star places were better and more interesting than the 3 star places. I think it comes down to effort/rest: The 2 star places are trying hard to get that third star. They’re pulling out all the stops and making absolutely certain that everything is perfect. The 3 star places are resting, having already gotten there. They’re just phoning it in at that point. 1 star, probably much of the same, but I do think there’s an appreciable gap between at least newly-awarded 1 star and 2 star places I’ve personally visited. I think by and large Michelin knows what it’s doing and its ratings are a bit more trustworthy and consistent than other systems, e.g. Worlds 50 Best.
As for Boston, I can’t think of many places that in my mind might qualify for even a single star; and certainly not two. The city has just never cultivated that kind of food scene, for better or for worse.
I haven’t been to that many, but I wouldn’t say that Azurmendi, Lameloise, or Le Bernadin are phoning it in. Enoteca Pinchiorri isn’t phoning it in, but the effort is so over the top it seems like a caricature.
I agree there probably aren’t any three star candidates in Boston, not that I truly understand what distinguishes a three star. I can think of quite a few that I think might earn one star. But again, my understanding is …fuzzy.
1 Like
In the Boston Globe article about this (sadly, there are no gift links), Tracy Chang of Pagu states “In Asia and Europe, I’ve seen one-star spots in basements and food stalls— accessible and humble. That model hasn’t appeared in the US yet. Will Boston’s local flavor, from mom-and-pops to Fenway franks, be evaluated with the same cultural nuance?”
I would giggle so hard if they gave a Bib Gourmand or star to Fenway’s Sausage Guy.
2 Likes
Maybe “phoning it in” was the wrong general term. And I certainly didn’t mean to imply that all or even most 3-star places are less than stellar. I’ve visited one of those on your list, and had a really excellent meal there. I don’t have nearly enough sample size to come to any real conclusion, but what I was trying to say is that I’ve managed to have far deeper disappointments at some 3 star places than I have at any 2 star places. This is probably luck of the draw and of course I also went into the 3 star experiences with much greater expectations. (And spent way more money, which adds to the disappointment when half of the tasting menu misses the mark, or whatever.)
Been thinking about this a lot for the past week and while I was somewhat timidly excited for this, the more I think about it, the more I kind of hate this. It’s far too late for them to come here in my opinion and I cannot imagine many places getting 1 star let alone any getting 2 or 3 stars. Restaurants here and the dining scene just don’t cook that way. Only a handful of spots really stand out and could contend for some recognition: O Ya, Deuxave and Sarma. Maybe Craigie on Main back in the day and even then. There’s just so much that goes into these stars not just the food but the decor, the service, the bathroom. I remember reading Frank Bruni’s “Born Round” book a while back and reading about how he reviewed restaurants for the NYT and it was rough; Michelin has even higher standards.
I am however more enthusiastic that we’ll see a few rounds of Bib Gourmand awards handed out but stars? Few if any.
2 Likes
Yes, been giving thought to this. I posit there are quite a few 1-star candidates. Ostra, La Padrona, Toro, Mooncusser, Fox & the Knife, in addition to those you mention. And a host of Bib Gourmand possibilities.
Michelin tends to work with different states/cities together to get funding for their guides and so if they are planning to start one in Boston they most likely will make sure to also include stars in the book. In general, restaurants outside of Europe tend to get easier stars and it also seems that they lowered the standards in the US recently (based on inclusions in different cities). Of the restaurants @MaxEntropy mentioned we had only visited Fox & Knife and based on that visit it shouldn’t be even close to a one star restaurant - for example SF has a much higher quality level for Italian restaurants and there is not a single Italian Michelin star restaurant in SF (beside Quince which has more some Italian influences).
1 Like
I took a look at Denver’s guide (I think that’s the newest one at the moment?) and they only have four 1 star places, eight Bib Gourmand, and 12 Selected. My cousin in Denver insists that the city is a total joke when it comes to food (not something I agree with; I’ve had some great meals when visiting), so I hope we can do at least that well 
I think the biggest problem in Boston is not food quality but rather service and consistency. Fox & Knife is a great example; food quality when it’s on is really on (IMO), but it’s somewhat inconsistent there, and the service level is not at all up to par. But from @MaxEntropy’s list: Ostra and Mooncusser both have consistently excellent food and service (I’ve visited each 3-4 times). Sarma, I’ve visited twice and I think it’s close but maybe slightly off the mark service-wise. And O Ya seems strong, although it’s been several years since I’ve been there.
I agree with @JeremyK that this overall feels like a bad (very forced) idea, but perhaps there’s a positive light at the end of the tunnel: It could compel places to up their game a bit? The question of course is whether diners in the Boston area are willing to play here. “Upping the game” probably means upping the prices and it seems like a lot of places are already struggling to fill seats. Either way, it’s going to be very interesting to watch from the sidelines.
3 Likes
I also find many of the places that are modest and offer good food, try to cater to everyone and often will stick boring or klunkers on their menu. These items seem like after thoughts, and don’t seem to have been inspired by any good chef’s imagination. It’s like sticking that one non-steak option on a steak house menu in the plainest and simplest form. I think this is particularly true of several ethnic food places.
I think our city’s expanse on the breadth of food available has been so much better the last decade, but having that super high-end service perhaps not so much.
1 Like
I think the service is actually quite good in Boston in average and it is more the food. Fox & Knife is a good example - good food which might be on Bib level but if we compare it to a one star place like Osteria Mozza I don’t see the quality of the pasta, creativity and execution of the dishes. Osteria Mozza can compete with one star places on Italy, I don’t see that for Fox & Knife
To add to this there’s also something just magical about a modest, hole-in-the-wall with average or good service and excellent food when compared to a high-priced, pompous spot that’s trying too hard.
I’d much rather have a meal at Pho So 1 in Randolph than at Rochambeau for example - it just hits different and is just way better overall based on my experience. It feels way more genuine and authentic and who’s to say who really deserves recognition vs. not
2 Likes
Yes! I like splurging on a fancy restaurant every once in a while too, but so often the fancy ones come across as too formal. I much rather the service be accommodating and attentive, and do away with perfectly folded napkins or place settings. Also, have you seen me eat? I want everyone to know I’m enjoying the food. 
I don’t want to be self conscious about whether I’m using the right utensil.
This came up in the recent restaurant wars episode of Top Chef, where a chef was chided for being too casual because he knelt down at a table. Maybe this was to ingratiate himself more with the judges (he’s prone to that in this season), so it was frowned upon. But I’ve seen that in real life and it was often to hear better, make it less awkward for me (short) when the server was tall. I don’t think there should be hard and fast rules around that, when it is in the spirit of serving the customer. I don’t need to see my flambe lit on fire at the table, but I do want it to be at the right serving temperature, timed appropriately for the meal, and delicious when it arrives.
Tend to agree, though I do cherish the time the captain at Maitre Jacques (anyone remember?) set the table on fire while preparing crĂŞpes Suzette
1 Like
