Rating system

I don’t see why a flawlessly executed Pizza, Crème Brulée or any other easy-to-make food item that is perfectlty executed  would not deserve a 10/10.  It has to, when it’s flawless and it stands out.  It is NOT about whether perfection exists or not.  It is about what is  interpreted  as the bar (or not) of what has been achieved in oneself’s perception.     Furthermore, if you can talk about the good, it implies you know the bad, if you know what’s  a 0/10,  you should know what’s a 10/10.  As for rating a food item, my intent behind it is not to patronize, nor to put down anyone. My sole intent is to ‘convey’  a constructive evaluation of what I am eating at a restaurant.  ———

All along my years of cooking practice,  I found important to enjoy two roles that are complementary and that all Chefs (and hopefully food critics , too)  would benefit from experiencing  :  sometimes cooking  in the kitchen,  sometimes enjoying your role as a diner.  As the diner, I spent years studying all kind of food rating systems (Michelin, Gault Millau,  methods used by food critics,  the ‘Good Food Guide’ and plenty others).  I came to the conclusion that, since food appreciation is anyways subjective,  the only rating that makes sense (to me) is what I think of what I am eating. I’ve adopted  a very simple rating system over 10 (ratings over 100 are a real joke as it essentially reveals how the person who tries to assess is afraid of …assessing. Seriously, why the need of a 96.2, 96.3, 96.9…lol. Do you really need to go through such extent to clearly segregate the good from the bad, the excellent from the very good? …there is really nothing credible about that  sort of rating)  since rating food does not need to be rocket science. Food is food, there’s no need for unnecessary intellectual complication,  and all that matters is what we think of what’s in our plates. The only thing you need to ensure is to be as accurate as possible and that can only be achieved by long years of educating your palate, knowing what you are talking about (never, never ever talk about food that you are not familiar with…that shows, as  food critics   complaining  about their food being  spicy … only to realize that  spiciness is the main feature of the cuisine he was covering..!), do lots of tasting with those in the know, learn from those in the  know before assessing food (a  common problem with  most food journalists and food critics) and of course, while you are at it, cook..cook..and cook, taste ..taste and taste ..so that you better understand the relevant  flavor combinations.

Rating food is a piece of cake when you are an ignorant who has no clue about assessing food, but an exercise that requires full concentration and lots of knowledge when you want to make it  seriously. Truth be told, when you look at how many food journalists in the west do assess food, you would think that it is not a serious exercise: they seem to know how to segregate  a benchmark western food item from an excellent, a very good, a good, an average and a below average one. But they can’t do the same with non western food. Which I gather is normal as they did educate their palate to adequately assess western food solely, but then…why do you assess non western food? I have to say, most food journalists in the western world did contribute to kill the credibility of food assessment, indeed.

One thing I wanted to ensure before I rate food was to ask myself if I have apprehensions? am I prone to preconceived opinions? am I  influenceable? close minded? If the answer to those questions would have been affirmative, I would not rate food. And that is why, to take an example,  I do not give two bollocks about an eatery being called a tourist trap …because what matters is whether you are good or not. Whether you are a tourist trap or not….that is none of my business  (you will be surprised by how many people are prompt to call many places that are cooking great food…tourist traps! …just because there are tourists going there….as if a place that is feeding tourists cannot cook good food. Absurd…)

That said, all food ratings will always be imperfect (though, this should NOT be  an excuse for the lame assessments of most of the food journalists of the west)  for a very simple reason:  while you are there reading what I’ve experienced, I was there eating.  The theory Vs practice clash is a first step of the imperfect nature of a review. You would have been eating what I was eating, at the same moment, and there could have been differences in both our interpretations of those same dishes.  So imagine what can be lost into the translation of it all.   I tried my best to  get  the rating numbers  as accurately representative of my overall impression of the food I eat.

Meals and food items at non-michelin starred ventures will be primarily scored in relation to their closest geographical competitors : for example, scores of a bistrot in Montreal should only be compared to scores of  an equivalent bistrot in Montreal and not to a fine dining destination in that same city nor to bistrots abroad.  If the score applies to comparative dining scene abroad, I’ll explicitly mention it.  Regarding Michelin star ventures, since it is a global standard, my scores encompasses cross continental comparisons : As an example, of a 2 star Michelin restaurant in Hongkong, I expect what I am used to at other equivalent 2 stars Michelin abroad. Whether I should not expect such comparison (of a 2 star Michelin standards in one place Vs the same at another location) — or not –is irrelevant to me since it (Michelin stardards) ‘s supposed to be a global standard in the first place.

Now, the details of my food rating:

Remember,  I am reviewing specific  dishes on a a given meal.  I am all about democratically  putting our rating systems to the test of popular criticism,  but given their subjective nature (whoever you are, the food item that you found spectacular is just that:  a food item YOU found spectacular AT THAT SPECIFIC MOMENT IN TIME…)  I believe that it is a nonsense to go over and over the meaning of a given rating system.  It will always never be perfect anyways, however you compose it and whoever you are!

The rating system that is covered by this post is the rating of the food solely.

There are two levels of ratings in my reviews: An overall rating as well as individual dish scores.

I. The overall  rating  – Overall food rating  HAS NOTHING TO DO with the arithmetic calculation
of the individual courses.  It is my personal subjective rating of the meal’s overall performance relatively to the highest standards I am used to at similar dining level/category.

10/10 (A meal that,  as a whole,  stood out — against the top standards I am used to find at the level of dining / cuisine category  in which the reviewed restaurant is competing. Examples of level of dining: 1/2/3 Michelin-star restaurant, Tier 1/2/3 fine dining restaurant, sushi shop, burger place, etc  in a specific  country or region). Examples of  dining category:  bistro, fine dining, poutine place, burger place, sushi shop, steakhouse, etc) Such  meal is, in relation to what is usually found  at its level and in its category,  a  benchmark meal in all aspects: refined work of the texture, sublime work of the taste, outstanding technique ( WHICH, BTW, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE RESTAURANT CONSISTENTLY DELIVERS 10/10 MEALS. U MIGHT GO THERE AND IT IS A DIFFERENT COOK COOKING IT FOR YOU. COULD BE THE SAME COOK BUT HE IS NOT IN THE SAME MOOD, ETC — SO ALWAYS BEAR  THAT IN MIND .  Some rare  reviews are tagged as “potential of benchmark food“, which means that the reviewed restaurant is capable, in its prime,  of food that would be exceptional even for the very best of their direct competitors. A meal of the highest order.  ; 9/10 (An excellent overall meal against the standards I am accustomed to in its category with flawless execution, excellent work of flavors and textures, excellent technique  but not a benchmark in comparison to what I have experienced at its level ; 8/10 (A very good / great overall meal in relation to what I am accustomed to in its category with great technique, great work of textures and flavors); 7/10 (A good, NOT great overall meal in relation to what I am accustomed to in its category. Although this is food of a meal that generally showcased potential to easily rise to higher levels);  6/10 (An overall just Ok meal  in relation to what I am accustomed to in its category. Without being particularly strong as an overall food performance, this is a meal that somehow managed to ”detach itself from the pack ” with a slight edge either for being technically a bit more consistent than the standard in which it is competing, or for standing out in a particular aspect which detail will be explained in the review of that meal. Either way, it is not an impressive meal, not a severely weak one neither  ).IMPORTANT EXCEPTION: if you see a meal or a dish that I found technically strong (for eg, great work of textures, superb control of the temperatures, great sourcing) and yet I still rated it with the “less than flattering” score of 6/10, that means the meal or the dish was not what it’s supposed to be (for eg, an Indian  meal or dish at an Indian restaurant that has … no Indian flavour profile. I won’t give it a zero, obviously, but it’s NOT what it’s supposed to be and that needs NOT to be encouraged neither…You tell me that you are cooking Indian food, then cook Indian food. You tell me that you are cooking Japanese food, then cook Japanese food. That is it…);  5/10 (An overall average meal in relation to what I am accustomed to in its category , and clearly the entry point to what appeared to me as an overall  close-to disappointing meal where technique/taste/texture  was lacking.);  4/10 (an overall below  average meal in relation to what I am accustomed to in its category.  A severely disappointing meal)

II.The rating of each dish – The following is how I rate each dish.  This dish per dish rating ‘s purpose being to try my best to convey my real personal appreciation of each of the sampled  dishes. I have been cooking for years and was lucky to be part of a family where many have cooking abilities that would put most top Chefs out there to shame, therefore it  is hard for me to go to a restaurant just for the excitement of discovering the next new eatery. While reading my reviews, you will need to remember that this is not a restaurant review website to try restaurants, not a traditional restaurant review web site at all, and that is the intent behind it . This is the result of long diligent searches about which restaurant might reach out to my personal expectations as a dining experience that I could perceive as  worthy of an effort  (to partake in) from my part.  It is like spending years finding that exact wine that really sounds to be the standing out  pick worthy of a try. As you might expect from such, you should not  find lots of bad scores on this web site (PS: do not get me wrong,  although a web site like this could make you think that I am picky or elitist, that is not the case at all. To the contrary, you might be surprised by how a simple fully-flavored juicy grilled lobster with a bottle of beer appeals to me way more than any of the best food items at those top world’s tables). Please find my dish per dish evaluation scale:

Exceptional (10/10) – Some evaluators believe that a mark of 10/10 should be omitted, arguing that perfection
does not exist. I am against that way of thinking.  Unless all you do is to force your imagination  into refuting reality, perfect food item does exist (naturally, relatively to our respective personal expectations)!  If to your palate, a given meal reaches the top marks, you should be honest about it!  A 10/10 of my standards means a dish that reached, as far as I’m concerned, one of /or the three following conditions:  (1) a level of deliciousness — to my palate — that would be hard to improve upon (2)cooking technique that is of the highest consideration (3) a level of creativity that is of the highest consideration, but it needs to be very tasty as well since my primary  focus is the pleasure of my palate after all.  A very creative dish with no taste will of course suffer from a poor rating, but I’ll insist on underlining its fortes. The quality of ingredients needs to also be superb on such dish.  Either way, a 10/10 is of benchmark material and also means the dish had sparks. A food item of the highest level of excitement (the excitement should  primarily be palatable, but it needs to be also technical:  for example, a superior  work of the textures, colors, temperatures, etc – Again,  meals  being variable by nature, I can only talk for what I had experienced at X given time.  Does not mean the same item will be cooked by the exact same persons, in the exact same mood when you will get to sample it). As a rule of thumb, if you see at least two 10/10 dishes in one of my reviews, consider the relevant restaurant as capable of true world class food relatively to what you will find in its category (regardless of what you will think of the other ratings of that review).

Excellent (9/10) -No benchmark material, but perfect (impeccable cooking technique, seasoning, mastery of the temperature, and superb taste) and inspired.  Quality of ingredient needs to be impeccable, too.

Very good (8/10 to 8.5) – Great (well cooked, tasty, technically superb). Quality of ingredient needs to be very high.  A food item of great  level of excitement.

Good (7/10 to 7.5 ) – Good.  A dish that remains   tasty,  the overall been well cooked, technique is  good (suitable cooking temperature as well  as a work of taste and flavors that are on point) too,  but that remains “standard / normal / safe/expected ” (although NOT ordinary at all) for the standard  of dining in which it is competing. A food item of good  level of excitement.

OK  (6/10 to 6.5/10) – A dish  with  a weak  level of excitement,  but still  acceptable to some extent.  Ordinary or close-to ordinary food item with regards to the comparative  standards I am accustomed to. IMPORTANT EXCEPTION: if you see a meal or a dish that I found technically strong (for eg, great work of textures, superb control of the temperatures, great sourcing) and yet I still rated it with the “less than flattering” score of 6/10, that means the meal or the dish was not what it’s supposed to be (for eg, an Indian  meal or dish at an Indian restaurant that has … no Indian flavour profile. I won’t give it a zero, obviously, but it’s NOT what it’s supposed to be and that needs NOT to be encouraged neither…You tell me that you are cooking Indian food, then cook Indian food. You tell me that you are cooking Japanese food, then cook Japanese food. That is it…)

Average (5/10 to 5.5/10) –  Average,  forgettable with regards to the standards  of dining in which it is competing.

Below average (4/10) – And anything below is what I perceived as simply bad with regards to the standards  of dining in which it is competing.

****The overall rating,  is the rating that you will see at the top of my reviews of Michelin star  restaurants, at the bottom of all my Non-starred Michelin reviews.   As for my reviewed  Michelin starred meals, you will not fail to  notice that whereas there’s usually a big difference betwen a top 3 star Michelin table and  a top 2 Star Michelin (usually in the refinement of the texture and the ability to push complexity –either in flavor combination or in technique — further without failing), there are virtually none among the average  2 Vs 3 stars (for ie, a  good 2  star can be as good as most standard 3 stars, a very good 2 star as good as a good 3 star and you of course have 2 stars that are simply better than most 3 stars as this applies to any level of dining as well, naturally).  I try my best to avoid comparing apples to grapes, so you should not compare my ratings of a progressive kitchen like the Fat Duck (gave my 2009 meal at the FT, an overall score of 9/10), for ie, to my rating of a classic one like L’Ambroisie (a score of 10/10 for my 2011 meal at L’Ambroisie). Both are simply different and since they perform at a very high level of excellence in their respective genre,  it is important to understand that my overall rating of their meals is  not an   observation that one is better than the other (at such level, those folks have reached a level of perfection that’s hard to fault anyways) , but that one catered more to my personal likings.

***What about two dishes  with same ratings? How to know which was better, to me ? Indeed, of  two similarly-rated dishes, there’s still that possibility that one dish was better than the other, in my view.  Answer: just ask!

***How come some reviews has a “pro” and “cons” section, whereas others do not? If there’s no “pros” and “cons”, it is because there’s no need for it. As simple as that.

***What does that mean when you mention that a dish is “interesting” or “pleasant”? And why are those dishes generally not rated? “Interesting” or “pleasant” simply means, in my food rating system, a dish that is not bad but not significant enough to be rated and to be considered in the overall rating of the food.

***How come some dishes are not rated? Because rating those particular dishes would mean nothing. What matters is that you will get, at the end of the day, my general opinion of the meal as well, as, for the most part, an overall food rating.

***Whether it is a Michelin-star table, a laid-back neighbourhood table, food on the street, etc: food is food (whatever goodies, effects, sensation that is propelled around it is irrelevant to its core purpose: it needs to be stunning in mouth!) , so there is no discriminating-rating:  it’s exceptional, excellent, very good, good or bad!

***Last but not least:  read between the lines….when I use words like “divine food” that obviously means it’s about food that blew away my taste buds, as an ie. If I write “pleasant”, that means it is not bad, but nothing special neither, etc.

In conclusion, here are what I value in a meal: the level of deliciousness / precision of the cooking/technicalities such as the proper temperature, cooking techniques/association between the elements/sparks in taste/ creativity, originality. Again, no creativity nor originality will be valued at the expense of taste! The quality and freshness of ingredients are of course very important, but you can have the best ingredients in hands and not knowing what to do with it…so it all lies in the talent of the Chef (in either transforming the product or in leading the product to express itself at its very best).

The restaurant world, as with most things in life, is of imperfect nature. It is meant, as you and I, to disappoint as many as it might rejoice.  It’s as frustrating for a diner to throw a lot of money on a deceiving dinner as it is stressful for a restaurateur to find his work being criticized. But such is the  nature of things:  when you pay for something, you do expect a return on your investment, nothing less but enjoyment in this case. Talking of impect nature,  even our best findings are condemned to sometimes let us down, which is why I won’t stop reminding  all of you that all I can guarantee is my  opinion on that specific  food I am eating at X time and that I am reviewing. The rest is completely out of my control.

No one will ever be in a position to recommend what’s  perfect for  you. But hopefully,  this can help.

Another article worth of reading: Learn to know your food reviewer.

Also:  My background as a diner -> http://tinyurl.com/8774sax

Bon appétit!