A comparison between the results of Harden’s annnual survey of restaurant-goers and the recent Michelin UK results clearly suggest the strength and extent of Michelin’s bias, long suspected, in favour of chefs who already hold Michelin stars. ‘Independents’, it appears, do not compete on a level playing field with establishments run by their more famous bretheren.
How can we tell? Well look at the pattern in the following table. (You may find it easier to print this article out!) It ranks the food results from Harden’s most recent survey (8000+ participants) for the top-price (£80+) restaurants in London, and shows the Michelin stars* awarded. Establishments associated with mutliple-Michelin-starred chefs appear in bold.
1 Marcus Wareing at The Berkeley **
2 Umu *
3 Le Gavroche **
4 Rasoi *
5 Pied à Terre **
6 Roka
7 The Square **
8 Nobu *
9 Atelier de Joel Robuchon **
10 Foliage
11 The Greenhouse *
12 Nobu Berkeley *
13 Hibiscus **
14 Gordon Ramsay ***
15 Wiltons
16 Tom Aikens *
17 Kai Mayfair
18 Ritz Restaurant
19 Gordon Ramsay at Claridge’s
20 Dorchester Grill
21 Alain Ducasse ***
22 Asia de Cuba
23 Nahm *
24 L’Oranger
25 Hélène Darroze at the Connaught *
26 Rhodes W1 Restaurant *
27 Apsleys at the Lanesborough *
28 Blakes
29 Sketch *
The most obvious point is that, according to our survey, restaurants associated with celebrities appear towards the lower end of the ranking: they aren’t generally particularly good. But that’s by the bye. Much more interesting is where the Harden’s and Michelin views of the world diverge.
They emphatically do not diverge when it comes to non-celeb restaurants. When it comes to judging what’s ‘on the plate’ – uninfluenced by celeb-assocations – it appears that Michelin’s inspectors comes to pretty much the same view as Harden’s survey participants do. (Or, if you prefer, you could say that our survey validates the views that Michelin’s inspectors reach.)
Look at the Michelin exalted 2-star level, for example, which comprises five £80+ independents. Two of these five figure in Harden’s top three restaurants, and four in our top seven. When it comes to judging food without a celebrity aura, the democratic view and the inspector-led view lead, for all practical purposes, to the same conclusions.
Why, then, do views so sharply diverge when it comes to celeb-restaurants? Look at the bottom end of our ranking. These are the restaurants which, on the views of ordinary restaurant-goers, are of no particular note. Michelin, however, has garlanded many of them with stars. And – here perhaps is the clue – almost all of these ‘over-starred’ operations are outposts of multi-starred chefs.
It’s a simple fact that, then, that Michelin appears to see particular virtues in the establishments associated with celebrity chefs which are just not apparent to ordinary restaurant-goers.
There are only two possible explanations for this: either survey reporters under-rate such establishments or Michelin over-rates them.
Let’s consider the former. Each survey participant is simply asked to rate each restaurant against others charging similar prices, so quite why there should be some systemic tendency among a large body of people to punish individual establishments simply for being outposts of celebrity chefs, it’s very difficult to see.
It is also true that Michelin appears to be as much at variance with the local newspaper critics as it is with local survey participants. Reconciling the views of press critics on Alain Ducasse at the Dorchester, for example, with the three stars it now holds, is pretty much impossible.
As to why, on the other hand, there should be a tendency for Michelin to over-rate such establishments, there are, however, a number of realistic explanations, not least that the Michelin is – in the last analysis – a promotional device for a tyre company. Its main interest is to generate as much publicity for the Michelin name as possible, and the simplest way to do this is to ensure that its name is twinned with those of celebrity chefs as often as possible
For this latter conclusion, there is also some supporting hard evidence: it is entirely consistent with the jaundiced account of the workings of Michelin set out by former inspector Pascal Remy in his 2004 exposé, L’Inspecteur se met a table.
Notes
1. We excluded from the analysis a small number of restaurants which closed or changed chefs between Harden’s publication and Michelin’s.
2. We suspect a similar analysis in New York would yield very similar results. Gordon Ramsay’s restaurant there provides a particularly striking example. It has been indifferently reviewed by the leading local critics, and has never – amazingly – even made in into the top 50 for food in the leading local survey guide, Zagat. Yet the New York Michelin’s two star award, recently renewed, puts it in the top 10 restaurants for food in the Big Apple.
Follow hardensbites Follow hardensparty
Become a Harden's fan
