Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ryanlol 2684 days ago
Both of these look pretty nice, but after some tripadvisor-sleuthing I'm not really convinced that they're quite "michelin-quality". One strong clue would be the apparent lack of a sommelier.
2 comments

Which doesn't necessarily mean the food isn't "Michelin-quality," it just means that the whole experience isn't "Michelin-quality."

A Michelin star doesn't just come from the literal taste of the food (or the presentation), it comes from every aspect of the restaurant and staff - down to the very cleanliness of the curtains.

Well, Moghul is maybe a little boisterous for Michelin style. Because the bar and restaurant are contiguous. But I don't recall anything negative about Mehndi.

And then there's Nirvana in Manhattan, at penthouse level on on Central Park South. Beautiful cityscape at night. But it's really Bangladeshi, and they don't do Vindaloo.

I'm not sure how relevant that is for traditional Indian. But then, I'm not Indian.
It's relevant for the michelin guide :) I'd also argue that most michelin starred restaurants are hardly traditional.
Wines don't seem like a major aspect of traditional Japanese, Indian or Chinese food. So what would a sommelier do?

Or are you arguing that Michelin just wouldn't rate traditional Japanese, Indian or Chinese restaurants highly?

I've seen sake sommeliers, most of the upscale Indian places in London have not just a wine sommelier, but they also offer excellent cocktails.

Unfortunately I'm not super familiar with nicer Chinese food, but I'd presume that it's not incompatible with drinks either.

I'm not saying that you need to have a sommelier, I'm just saying that the lack of a sommelier is usually a pretty good sign that a restaurant isn't even trying for a star (extremely few restaurants are!).

I don't think Michelin would tend to rate any "traditional" restaurants very highly, to get stars you need to offer the specific Michelin experience.