The Rating System

Some of my posts include ratings of food and restaurants. These ratings are by necessity highly subjective, and are also a reflection of the time and place. My visit might have been on a "good" or "bad" day (for the restaurant or for me), my dining companions might have been delightful or grating. And all restaurants evolve over time, so a couple years can make a huge difference, for better or for worse. And there is a limit as to how well a single meal can "evaluate" a restaurant, which is why professional reviewers generally make multiple visits.

Dishes and restaurants are rated on a 1-20 scale. At the top end, the scale mirrors Michelin's ratings system:

20 = high end of 3-star Michelin, the best in the world
19 = solid 3-star Michelin
18 = on the border between 2 and 3 stars
17 = 2-star Michelin
16 = on the border between 1 and 2 stars
15 = 1-star Michelin
14 = very good cooking

Sometimes, I use "19+" as a rating, which is just a shorthand for "19, but really close to 20”.

To be clear, any meal rated at 15 or above will be very enjoyable, so a Michelin 3-star restaurant rated, say, 17 is not actually "bad". However, it might not meet the expectations created by Michelin and the restaurant's price tag.

As a last note, I'm generally trying to rate "just" the food, and not the ambiance. But there are a few exceptions, for example Ultraviolet in Shanghai or The Kitchen in Sacramento where trying to rate the food independent of the experience would miss the point entirely. This is noted in those cases.