Having begun the quest of 50 before 50, I realized that it would be good to have a way to rate each of the restaurants that we go to. Between the dozen or so Michelin-starred restaurants and the now handful of restaurants on the World’s Best list, differing factors have revealed themselves.
I’m finding a number of ways that these restaurants differ from each other:
- drinks, and
Experience is about how the meal is presented. Is it just a bunch of dishes presented one after the next or is there something special? How is the pacing of the meal? How is the ambiance of the restaurant?
Value is straightforward and aligns with how good all the other factors are. Keeping in mind that most of the places are expensive, this isn’t about rating which is cheaper but rather whether you get what you pay for.
The food is, of course, about how good the food itself is. How many Ratatouille moments did I have? That kind of thing.
The drinks is about how good the drinks paired with the meal and if there were any surprises along the way. With every meal, I’ll try a wine or drink pairing, if it’s offered. If it’s not, how well did the sommelier do in recommending something for the meal?
Lastly, is the service. Service is about the staff. Were they friendly? Were they helpful? Were they as excited to be there as I was?
I’ll rate each on a scale of one to three stars. Like Michelin stars but, uh, not. Snichelin stars? One star means it didn’t meet expectations. Two stars means it met expectations. Three stars means it exceeded expectations.
I thought about making it more complex with 4 or 5 stars or make it a rating out of 10 but realized that that creates a lot more subtlety that is difficult to explain.