Goldee’s BBQ near Fort Worth invited to Michelin ceremony https://t.co/xbZ1udp2tR
— Bud Kennedy's Eats Beat (@EatsBeat) October 17, 2024
jwoodmd said:
Most of these places announcing invites will get Bib Gourmand classifications.
Quote:
Houston First paid a total of $270,000 $90,000 a year for three years to bring the Michelin Guide to the city, which allows full-time Michelin employees, also known as inspectors, to assess local restaurants and choose which of them deserve Michelin recognition.
FTAco07 said:
Only one star in all of DFW. I didn't expect as many as Austin or Houston but thought we would get 4 or 5.
so for the dummies like myself does that basically mean you have to pay people to come eat at your restaurants in your city and hope they consider the place worthy? Sounds like a crock of **** to me if soBSD said:
Interesting tidbit from the Eater article:Quote:
Houston First paid a total of $270,000 $90,000 a year for three years to bring the Michelin Guide to the city, which allows full-time Michelin employees, also known as inspectors, to assess local restaurants and choose which of them deserve Michelin recognition.
I had no clue how that worked. Now I do.
AustinCountyAg said:so for the dummies like myself does that basically mean you have to pay people to come eat at your restaurants in your city and hope they consider the place worthy? Sounds like a crock of **** to me if soBSD said:
Interesting tidbit from the Eater article:Quote:
Houston First paid a total of $270,000 $90,000 a year for three years to bring the Michelin Guide to the city, which allows full-time Michelin employees, also known as inspectors, to assess local restaurants and choose which of them deserve Michelin recognition.
I had no clue how that worked. Now I do.
Quote:
The fact that Orlando and Colorado got guides before Texas tells you all you need to know.
I've been to a couple of two stars (Guy Savoy, Picasso, and the now-defunct Alex, all in Vegas), and one three star (Robuchon in Vegas). I can't tell what they're looking for in a difference between a two and a three star. Personally, I think Guy Savoy should have a third star. For reference, there are 13 three-star and 33 two-star across the US.Tksymm7 said:
Yeah, the second and third stars are few and far between, and worldwide.
HTownAg98 said:I've been to a couple of two stars (Guy Savoy, Picasso, and the now-defunct Alex, all in Vegas), and one three star (Robuchon in Vegas). I can't tell what they're looking for in a difference between a two and a three star. Personally, I think Guy Savoy should have a third star.Tksymm7 said:
Yeah, the second and third stars are few and far between, and worldwide.
Damn...this guy eats.steve00 said:
I think the difference between a 3 and a 2 is subtle, but noticeable. I've been to 11 3s and 7-8 2s. Several 3s that were my least favorite lost a star within a year or two. A 2 that I thought was amazing got a 3rd within a year or two. I have my eye on a couple of other 2s that I think will move up within a few years.
It is hard to describe the exact difference, but I think you know it when you see it.
Maybe I am looking at it wrong, but how do you "legitimize" your restaurant when it requires people spending money in order to get them to even be eligible for a list that proclaims the place the best of the best?schmendeler said:AustinCountyAg said:so for the dummies like myself does that basically mean you have to pay people to come eat at your restaurants in your city and hope they consider the place worthy? Sounds like a crock of **** to me if soBSD said:
Interesting tidbit from the Eater article:Quote:
Houston First paid a total of $270,000 $90,000 a year for three years to bring the Michelin Guide to the city, which allows full-time Michelin employees, also known as inspectors, to assess local restaurants and choose which of them deserve Michelin recognition.
I had no clue how that worked. Now I do.
You could consider it an investment if you're trying to legitimize your city (and state) as a world class dining destination. Michelin is the gold star (pun intended) when it comes to restaurant ratings. Not to say they are perfect, but they have international reach.
AustinCountyAg said:Maybe I am looking at it wrong, but how do you "legitimize" your restaurant when it requires people spending money in order to get them to even be eligible for a list that proclaims the place the best of the best?schmendeler said:AustinCountyAg said:so for the dummies like myself does that basically mean you have to pay people to come eat at your restaurants in your city and hope they consider the place worthy? Sounds like a crock of **** to me if soBSD said:
Interesting tidbit from the Eater article:Quote:
Houston First paid a total of $270,000 $90,000 a year for three years to bring the Michelin Guide to the city, which allows full-time Michelin employees, also known as inspectors, to assess local restaurants and choose which of them deserve Michelin recognition.
I had no clue how that worked. Now I do.
You could consider it an investment if you're trying to legitimize your city (and state) as a world class dining destination. Michelin is the gold star (pun intended) when it comes to restaurant ratings. Not to say they are perfect, but they have international reach.
It would be like Texas monthly having a top 50 bbq list, but it only featuring places inside the major metros because they would be the only area that could afford it. It really wouldn't be the 50 best places in the state.
The payment is for the cost of the Michelin evaluators to set up shop in your region. But it (at least in theory) doesn't buy stars or preference certain restaurants over others. Basically, Michelin takes the position that they will do unbiased, professional reviews, but that costs money so certain locales have to cover those costs. And then the results will be what they are (most notably by Dallas only getting 1 1-star despite presumably kicking in money for this).AustinCountyAg said:Maybe I am looking at it wrong, but how do you "legitimize" your restaurant when it requires people spending money in order to get them to even be eligible for a list that proclaims the place the best of the best?schmendeler said:AustinCountyAg said:so for the dummies like myself does that basically mean you have to pay people to come eat at your restaurants in your city and hope they consider the place worthy? Sounds like a crock of **** to me if soBSD said:
Interesting tidbit from the Eater article:Quote:
Houston First paid a total of $270,000 $90,000 a year for three years to bring the Michelin Guide to the city, which allows full-time Michelin employees, also known as inspectors, to assess local restaurants and choose which of them deserve Michelin recognition.
I had no clue how that worked. Now I do.
You could consider it an investment if you're trying to legitimize your city (and state) as a world class dining destination. Michelin is the gold star (pun intended) when it comes to restaurant ratings. Not to say they are perfect, but they have international reach.
It would be like Texas monthly having a top 50 bbq list, but it only featuring places inside the major metros because they would be the only area that could afford it. It really wouldn't be the 50 best places in the state.
WES2006AG said:Damn...this guy eat$$$.steve00 said:
I think the difference between a 3 and a 2 is subtle, but noticeable. I've been to 11 3s and 7-8 2s. Several 3s that were my least favorite lost a star within a year or two. A 2 that I thought was amazing got a 3rd within a year or two. I have my eye on a couple of other 2s that I think will move up within a few years.
It is hard to describe the exact difference, but I think you know it when you see it.
HTownAg98 said:
I swear half the bib gourmand places were bbq joints.
Dai Due, Emmer & Rye win a green star for sustainability.
