I was privileged to eat in three of Manhattan's 1-Michelin-Star restaurants this past week, and writing my reviews and comparing the restaurants (in addition to thinking back on meals at other 1, 2 and 3-star restaurants) has really gotten me thinking about what makes a dining experience great and star-worthy.
According to an article I found online, the Michelin system works like this:
"A very good restaurant in its own Category"
"Excellent cooking, worth a detour"
"Exceptional cuisine, worth a special journey.
One always eats extremely well here, sometimes superbly"
CRITERIA FOR AWARD OF STARS:
Commonly misunderstood, criteria like: table setting, number of waiters, quality of facilities or equipment are NOT taken into account.
There are only five criteria considered in awarding a Michelin Star;
1) Quality of ingredients
2) Skill in preparing them and in combining flavours
3) Level of creativity
4) Consistency of culinary standards
5) Value for money
Having read all of that, some (but not all) of the places in NYC that carry one star make a little more sense to me. However, I am still totally mystified as to how Del Posto and EMP can have only one star, while Daniel has three. Also, how can a restaurant like SHO have a star at all, if EMP has only one? And why would a place like Public get a star, while Tocqueville is totally ignored?
Here are links to my reviews of the three 1-Stars I visited last week, plus one from a couple of months ago:
And a link to my review of Tocqueville: http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/809282
Please share your thoughts and link your reviews! I look forward to some interesting discussion and debate.