My daughter works at a restaurant in NYC. It has one Michelin star (continuing from last year). I’ve eaten there once. It was okay. (But I rarely eat out and so have limited food-critic skills.) My daughter tells me what are probably typical horror stories about the management. So, food is okay, service can be uneven, management isn’t great. Why even one star?
I’ve eaten at various Michelin-starred restaurants. Personally the stars don’t signify much to me. Sometimes the meals are good, sometimes not as good as expected. I used to also look for James Beard winners, but that was hit or miss too so I gave it up.
These days when I’m traveling I’d rather hunt down a gem of a gastropub or casual chef-owned restaurant via Yelp than seek out Michelin stars. I’m a West-coaster though; things tend to be a bit more formal in the NE where the stars might mean more.
In Europe they mean a lot. A Michelin 3 * is almost certainly going to be a spectacular experience and a 2 * is not going to be too far behind. A 1 * will also be quite special. Food, wine list. atmosphere and service are all going to be impecable, most likely.
I ate at this fairly new 2 * a couple of weeks ago in Paris and it was beyond sublime. Truly extraordinary.
http://www.jeanfrancoispiege.com/fr
But you don’t go to one of these places for a quick bite; meals are long, extended experiences where diners are intensely focused on the food abd wine.
In the US, Michelin has evaluated restaurants and awarded stars only in four cities/ metro areas: NYC, San Francisco/ Bay Area (including Napa/ Sonoma), Chicago, and DC (new this year), so they are not as big a factor in US dining as in Europe.
We used to go out a lot in Manhattan and for us, the New York Times giving a restaurant 3 or 4 stars was what we paid attention to. I don’t remember noticing if any of them had Michelin stars.
I’ve eaten at a half dozen or so 3 star restaurants. You aren’t just paying for food. You are paying for art and an entire experience which as notelling says can last for hours. Every meal I’ve had has been unforgettable except the one in NYC at Daniel where I was underwhelmed. Though sometimes I thought the food was more interesting than tasty. For a while foamed food for example was all the rage at these places. All the one star restaurants in NYC I’ve been too have had great food, but not the creativity. I’ve always had great service which if you’ve read Ruth Reichl - you know isn’t exactly guaranteed if you are a nobody. (I think after her two reviews review - one as herself and one in disguise - restaurants have gotten better.) http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/29/arts/restaurants-065093.html?pagewanted=all
I agree with you mathmom about Daniel. Definitely underwhelmed. Jean Georges is always great; recent fave is 11 Madison. But most of the time unless it’s a special occasion I just can’t eat all the food that comes with the prix fixe menu.
In NYC I typically use the Zagats guide or online blogs if I’m trying to find a new restaurant in a specific part of the city. There aren’t a ton of Michelin rated restaurants. Here is one list I found. (and not to pick on Daniel but I have had hit or miss experiences there – my most recent meal there was excellent).
http://foodtravel.about.com/od/Michelin-Stars/fl/2016-New-York-Michelin-Starred-Restaurants.htm
I concur with mathmom and nottelling–you are paying for a food experience when you go to a 3-star restaurant, not so much IMO with the 1-star restaurants.
My H is a great cook, gardener, and enjoys food experiences. We have been to all of the 3-star Michelin restaurants in NYC except for Chef’s Table at Brooklyn Fare. There are only 6 or 7 restaurants in NY with 3 stars. My favorite was LeBernadin. My least favorite was Masa. This year PerSe (which has had a 3-star rating for a number of years) received a scathing review from the NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/13/dining/pete-wells-per-se-review.html
My experience – which is far from comprehensive – is that a single Michelin star is a pretty reliable indicator of quality and creativity, but that there are plenty of non-starred restaurants whose food quality, interest-level, and service are absolutely at the same or higher level than the ones that have earned stars. In other words, a single star is rarely a false positive, but the lack of one means little or nothing if the restaurant generally has a current reputation for high quality.
The gap between one-star and two- or three-star restaurants is pretty significant – in terms of price, in terms of elaborateness, and in terms of the balance between merely excellent, creative food preparation and high theater. I’m not certain I can really tell the difference between the two-stars and the three-stars, or that I want to acquire that kind of refinement. I am lucky enough to have been able to have had meals in 5-6 two- or three-star restaurants, and they were all wonderful in any objective terms, but the only one I think would be worth the price to go back to is The French Laundry in the Napa Valley.
I am also lucky to live in a city with a great restaurant critic. For restaurants locally, that’s much better than Michelin.
I rarely get jealous… but this thread has me envious… some of you guys eat really, really well! =D>
I agree that a Michelin 1 star, in Europe at least, is going to be a reliable indicator of quality. And the food, service and atmosphere is likely going to be much less elaborate/ innovative/ formal/ overwhelming / pretentious than a 2 or 3 star.
Some of my favorite meals of my life have been lunch at a Michelin 1 star in the French countryside, at a place with a stunning view, and absolutely perfect renditions of regional classics, with minor twists or embellishments. These tend to be more relaxed – though still exacting – experiences. You could bring a very well-behaved kid to lunch at a one-star; not so much to a 2 or 3-star.
The trip I mentioned above was with a group of intense foodies and we went to several Michelin starred restaurants over the course of 10 days. It was way, way too much. And by far the best meal of the trip – far and away the best, by a mile – was at this non-starred place:
It was also by far the hardest reservation to secure (at least at the height of white truffle season).
One of my coworkers is a super-intense foodie, the kind of person who plans vacation travel around getting to certain restaurants. I’ve really enjoyed looking through their photo feeds on social media–that’s how I got to “go” to e.g. Alinea (actually liked my friend’s picture deck better than the “Chef’s Table” Alinea episode). Yes, my friend seeks out Michelin starred places, especially the two and three star restaurants, but a bigger part of the “chase” is following interesting chefs as they move from restaurant to restaurant. There’s also trying to find places which are local classics. If you’re looking for, say, great deli or BBQ, those places aren’t going to have stars.
The LA Times restaurant reviewer, Jonathan Gold, started out writing about hole in the wall places for a SoCal free weekly. His reviews now run from tiny places in grungy minimalls to Fancy Places, some of which have Michelin stars. Gold’s annual list of his top 101 restaurants in SoCal is the same kind of mix. For him, it’s all about the food. For Michelin, it’s about the food and the service. I like both approaches.
So much wonderful food in the world, so little time. 
I completely agree about Jonathan Gold. He is a true treasure who has made life immeasurely better for millions on Angelenos who need a little push to get out of their comfort zones. The little hole-in-the-wall ethnic places that he reviews are my favorite kinds of places, more than the fine-dining restaurants we are discussing here.
Some of the best meals I’ve eaten have been in a mom and pop Korean restaurant that’s located just outside a former army base not too far from my house. I love finding those hole in the wall places. I don’t really have a favorite type of eatery. I like them all!!
Oh year, when we aren’t eating at three star restaurants we are on the hunt for perfect barbecue.
The best three star restaurant I’ve been too was the
Gästehaus Klaus Erfort in Saarbrucken, Germany of all places. We were there for a free rock concert.
You missed Las Vegas, which has a number of 1, 2, and 3-star restaurants (Joel Robuchon being the most notable). I also swear I ate at a a place somewhere in SoCal that billed itself at the time as the only 3-star restaurant in the area (maybe 6-8 years ago), around the Del Mar area IIRC.
As others have noted, with the 3-star places it’s a significant experience. You go with your significant other on an anniversary. The 2-star places I think of as more “everyday nice”, a white-tablecloth restaurant also suitable for date night but not a once-a-year experience.
I’ve been to enough of the starred places to last me a lifetime, honestly. Now I much prefer a more casual experience focused on the food. The exception being when I’m taking customers out for dinner on the expense account, then I’ll call up the 1- and 2-star places for reservations.
I think they used to award stars in Vegas and LA, but they stopped doing it a number of years ago, for whatever reason.
The 2 star restaurants I’ve been to are well betond “everyday nice,” unless your concept of everyday nice includes 3 hour, $250 lunches with 4 or 5 courses, and extra amuse bouche, petit fours in addition to dessert and the like.
The LA restaurants that used to have 2 stars are the fanciest and among the most expensive in town.
At the one-star restaurant where my daughter works, I spent approximately $30 on brunch for me and my other daughter. (The manager comped us dessert when she found out who we were. I felt so important! Ha ha.)
Wow I can’t imagine spending so little!
It might have been a little more than $30 (not including tip; I was very generous with that, as usual).