Michelin Stars, who "owns" them?

[Fas1975]

Have been addicted to Masterchef recently and with all of these Michelin starred chef's everywhere, got me thinking. Who own's the star? The Chef or the Restaurant?

I.e. Take Michel Roux Jr. Le Gavroche has two stars. For whatever reason, the restaurant closes. Do the stars disappear as they were linked to the restaurant, or does MRJ "take" them with him to Le Gavroche Deux and he opens the new establishment as a 2 star from day 1?

[mattdaniels]

It's the restaurant who "owns" them.

[BoRED S2upid]

The Restaurant. So a Chef can be taken on and automatically be a 2 star chef. Likewise you would have noticed from last night that a few of the chefs who didn't have stars were listed as Ex Restaurant (probably jumped ship to set up their own).

[Fas1975]

BoRED S2upid said:

Likewise you would have noticed from last night that a few of the chefs who didn't have stars were listed as Ex Restaurant (

Precisely that which triggered my question. Many thanks.

I guess a followup question is, if a restaurant has 2 stars, the chef that actually got them the accolade (aware it's a team effort, but you get my drift), leaves and a not-as-great chef joins. How long does it usually take for the restaurant to be re-assessed and potentially lose the star?

[calibrax]

Fas1975 said:

Precisely that which triggered my question. Many thanks.

I guess a followup question is, if a restaurant has 2 stars, the chef that actually got them the accolade (aware it's a team effort, but you get my drift), leaves and a not-as-great chef joins. How long does it usually take for the restaurant to be re-assessed and potentially lose the star?

I remember reading that assessments only take place roughly every 3.5 years, as there are a limited number of inspectors and a hell of a lot of restaurants.

[tontoro]

I was always told that if the head chef changed then you would automatically lose one star. I on't have an example to back this up though.

[Dblue]

The Chef changes the stars are re-assessed and often changed.

In fact this has happened to lots of places over the years.Most recently to Pied A Terre (Down from 2 stars to 1 after losing Shane Osbourne )

But a chef who has stars doesn't take them automatically to his new place. Claude Bosi for example moved Hibiscus from Ludlow to Mayfair and initially lost a star in year one though regained it the following year

On the whole Michelin are rather slow to give stars and slow to take them away but a head chef change always triggers an inspection.

[Fatbloke]

exactly what happened at Stockcross
Chef Jon Campbell left the 2 stared location and Daniel Galmiche took over

it losts its stars within the year

[vescaegg]

Fas1975 said:

Precisely that which triggered my question. Many thanks.

I guess a followup question is, if a restaurant has 2 stars, the chef that actually got them the accolade (aware it's a team effort, but you get my drift), leaves and a not-as-great chef joins. How long does it usually take for the restaurant to be re-assessed and potentially lose the star?

My cousin got a star as the head chef of a place in Dublin. He left not too long after to start his own restaurant. His old place lost its star within a year of him leaving.

[DoctorX]

Is it purely down to the food or are the fixtures and fittings, service etc also assessed when grading?

[vescaegg]

DoctorX said:

Is it purely down to the food or are the fixtures and fittings, service etc also assessed when grading?

Only whats on the plate which I found surprising.

You could serve the food in a McDonalds and still get a star

[w00tman]

DoctorX said:

Is it purely down to the food or are the fixtures and fittings, service etc also assessed when grading?

There were always expectations that it was the whole package that was taken into consideration for three stars (i.e. one and two were all about the food, but to get to three you needed the fripperies) but: a) they introduced the knives & forks rating (which is a rating for how comfortable the restaurant it - one to five, and "red" if particularly good for their level - so like an extra half mark); and b) the Fat Duck, amongst others, won 3*, and it is not an especially luxurious room..

If you want to see ultra-lux, perhaps something like Ducasse's Louis VX or Le Meurice..

[mattdaniels]

DoctorX said:

Is it purely down to the food or are the fixtures and fittings, service etc also assessed when grading?

Yes it's purely down to the food.

[calibrax]

vescaegg said:

DoctorX said:

Is it purely down to the food or are the fixtures and fittings, service etc also assessed when grading?

Only whats on the plate which I found surprising.

You could serve the food in a McDonalds and still get a star

In the Michelin Guide, the star is the review for the food (ingredients, presentation, consistency). On top of this, there is a "fork & spoon rating" from 1 to 5, which covers "comfort" (whatever that means!).

[Dblue]

Its the food they're assessing but the level of service and the experience are part of that.
But one of Michelins strengths is the lack of real knowledge of exactly what does and doesn't count.

But a 1 fork establishment can theoretically have 3 rosettes.

In reality the Guide is good at classic european cuisine being the absolute standard for that sort of establishment (and despite grumblings, every chef aspires to its recognition) but its less reliable with ethnic cuisine. The very best Indian restaurants for example whilst in the Guide itself don't receive the rating they deserve and the fancy Indian, Chinese and Thai restaurants in posh locations get stars they probably don't deserve.