Skip to main content

The madness for perfection is also needed in bartending

Here is a quite controversial documentary about the obsession of chefs, when it comes to winning of one, two or even three stars of the veritable Guide Michelin.


Just to comment shortly on this video, I have to say, that you can't really make Michelin responsible, for the obsession, what people on all sides: journalists, chefs and guests show. It is just the point of reference, which everybody sees as "lightning house".

But really - I believe, that the Michelin is one of the best gauges, what a chef can have.
You can see the variance for example in the UAE, which isn't (yet?) covered by the Michelin:
You have TimeOut, which is highly subjective. You do have Zomato [very similar to Yelp], which is haunted by casual reviewers, which might be or might not be genuine [same applies for the reader reviews of TimeOut]. You have TripAdvisor, which sports definitely more genuine reviews, however it is still very subjective [and compares apples with oranges]. Non one of these reviewing sites, has a high influence into the quality of a restaurant. Sure, the restaurants, don't want to have a bad review - but all these reviewing "systems" don't set standards - the reviewing points are highly subjective from reviewer to reviewer [even if the reviewer is a professional journalist].

And this is the main difference between these "crowd reviewing" websites and the Michelin [besides of other similar restaurant guides] - the Michelin instates standards.

What do I mean with that?

First off all, it is the "meaning of the stars" which are almost poetic. Taken out of wikipedia:
  • one star: "A very good restaurant in its category" ("Une très bonne table dans sa catégorie")
  • two stars: "Excellent cooking, worth a detour" ("Table excellente, mérite un détour")
  • three stars: "Exceptional cuisine, worth a special journey" ("Une des meilleures tables, vaut le voyage").
You can always argue, if a restaurant deserves one star, if it hasn't one, or doesn't deserve it, if it has one- same applies for a restaurant which has two stars [does it deserve "only" one star? Or is it as good, that it deserves 3?] or even the amazing three star rating. 
However the stars don't only state, that this is a good, a better or a great restaurant. It states, that a three star restaurant is worth a special journey. And I find this big!

But more importantly is, the secret formula the Michelin has, to rate the restaurants. In fact it is not that secret, on which criteria the incognito restaurant critics of the Michelin are rating the restaurant. It is all about food quality [and taste], preparation quality and refinement, produce freshness, authenticity and style. Well - obviously it is not that simple - but simple enough, that chefs can set their standard, to "work towards" the quality, which would give them the opportunity to win a star.

And this is an achievement of the Guide Michelin, which even a venerable rating as the San Pellegrino top 100 restaurants cannot deliver.

And these obvious and rather straight forward standards are missing in the bar.
As previously exposed, www.worldbestbars.com is the better part of a joke. Sure, there are expert picks - but again, there are no common standards, which can be taken, to get on this list.
I had the feeling, that the Glenfiddich Award for Bar Culture was a good step into the right direction, to establish quality standards for the bar [and the award for them] - however this award was discontinued. 
There is also the Difford's Guide. But again - I don't see really unique standards, which are easy to follow for a bartender.

I have posted this already before [in the previous, but deleted incarnation of this blog] - but will do it again: which Non-Negotiables, we should have in the bar.

And I hope, that all of my readers, will join the discussion, on which are proper non-negotiables. 

Stay tuned...

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How to use citric acid - and why you might not want to use it anyway!

To be honest, I shied away of this topic, because I think, people can misinterpret this - big time.


I don't want to be part of the problem - I want to be part of the solution! But when Chris, over at A Bar Above discussed this subject- I literally could not resist to join into "the discussion".

Here is the video:





I - however take a bit slower approach than Chris.
What is citric acid?
Chemical Compound
Citric acid is a weak organic acid with the formula C6H8O7. It is a natural preservative/conservative and is also used to add an acidic or sour taste to foods and drinks.
Wikipedia Formula: C6H8O7
Molar Mass: 192.124 g/mol
Melting Point: 153C
Density: 1.66 g/cm3
Boiling point: 175C
Soluble in: Water
Why is it controversial?
In my "mixology world" it is controversial, as citric acid is the stuff, which makes the nightmarish sour mix [preferably in powder form] sour. Yeah - citric acid is the main ingredient in one of the most controversial [and in the modern craft bartending wor…

The "perfect" Whiskey Sour

After the high popularity of my Mojito post - as well as the also well liked post about the Diablo, I would like to highlight here, another bar staple: The humble Whiskey Sour.

Also: if you can make a proper Whiskey Sour, you can do a lot of other Sours - basically you can take any distillate and make a Sour out of it...

I call it the "perfect" Whiskey Sour to be obviously a bit provocative - but also, as you get often a less than perfect drink, when you are ordering one.

So what are the ingredients of a Whiskey Sour?

American Whiskey [yes - I say it: definitely no Scotch, also for sure no Canadian, no Irish and obviously no Japanese]Truth has to be told - there is definitely something like an adequate Scotch Sour. But it should simply not be called Whiskey Sour, as the character is totally different. Period!Lemon JuiceSugarOptional egg white Additional to the ingredients, these features are also important to consider: Balance between sweet and sourIngredient proportionsA prope…

Is Jack Daniel's a Bourbon Whiskey?

So Jack Daniels want to make us believe, that it is not a bourbon - but it meets all standards of a bourbon - only it is better?!

Half of it is true: Jack Daniels meets all qualification points for a bourbon. And yes it is true, that they add one more step - the charcoal mellowing. However this doesn't make it not a bourbon.

Well - point is, that the question is not really adequate. The answers to the rather vague question: "Is Jack Daniels a Bourbon?" is driven by semantics and interpretations.

What you could ask is: Can Jack Daniels rightly be called bourbon?
And the answer is: yes, it can. It meets all points to be even a Straight Bourbon [however please note the differentiation to Kentucky Straight Bourbon - as this is again a regional denomination, which Jack Daniels obviously doesn't meet].
The video is explaining exactly the laws. Before Jack Daniels also stated very proud, that they are sour mash. This was a bit... misleading, as most American Straight Whisk…