I always had a fascination on what the Europeans have thought of our restaurants in Los Angeles. Since last year, the famous Michelin Guide would designated one to three stars for restaurants that have met their approval of excellence in "culinary achievements".
Supposedly, they do not judged the restaurants by decor, interior designs, service, or table settings. The stars rating allegedly given by the Michelin Guide are strictly graded base on what it is on the plate. In other words, it's only the food that get noticed and nothing about the restaurant would mattered.
If you get one star, you are one of the best. Three stars being extremely superior and put on the pedestal of a legend for a year. Of course, LA does not have a three stars restaurant for the first two edition. However, they did increase from three to four restaurants for the 2 stars rating.
My only question was that if the place is super ghetto with crappy service and if the food is awesome, would this kind of place get a Michelin Star? Too bad I didn't see Pink's Hot Dogs on the list. Just kidding!
Without a Further ado, here are the ratings:
|CUT||Beverly Hills Reviewed on 3/23/09|
|Dining Room at the Langham||Pasadena|
|La Botte||Santa Monica|
|Ortolan||Hollywood Reviewed on 3/10/09|
|Los Angeles Reviewed on 4/3/09|
|Trattoria Tre Venezie||Pasadena|
|Mélisse||Santa Monica Reviewed on 7/20/09|
Not a big shock since it's based off some European guy's expectations. It's too bad I have only been to Hatfield's for my one and only Michelin stars experience. It is expected in that it's mostly French fare with a few sushi places thrown in there. No Middle Eastern. No Chinese. Definitely not any Mexican either. An example of LA's finest?
Updated: Since the dawn of the new year, I have visited a few to scratch some of these restaurants off the list. I'll revisit Hatfield's soon to update a review for that place. Stay tuned to find out which other restaurants I have visited.