Some buzz, after all, about the Bay Michelin. SF Chronic's Michael Bauer respectfully dissents:
Fair enough, and sharing my own bemusement in re Zuni, but he wraps like this:
This conclusion gets at the essential problem with the US Michelins vs. the French Michelin. The original point of the original Michelin guide was to reward outstanding acheivement in the field of excellence. Encouraged by the narrower regional scope of the US Michelin, Bauer conflates distinctive with distinction. Zuni may well "define the Bay Area sensibility," but that is not what makes it a great restaurant. Bad restaurants ignore place, good restaurants celebrate place, great restaurants transcend place. I'd still argue Zuni warrants a star, but not for the reasons Bauer gives.
Although I haven't scrutinized the ratings (not that it would matter since I go out so little), they appear to confirm both the accuracy and irrelevance of Michelin. A real 3 star in this town would go broke in a month. Which doesn't mean that the food isn't better than ever other american city's.
I love how the natives are always surprised when confronted with their own provincialism.
Posted by: max | Tuesday, 03 October 2006 at 05:16 PM
Also, the original point of the original Michelin was to ecourage the French to waste gas (and tires).
Posted by: max | Tuesday, 03 October 2006 at 05:18 PM