Why aren't restaurants that are inaccessible to the public rated highly?

Like, even 3 star Michelin restaurants are easily accessible to the public, as long as you reserve in advance and are willing to drop a grand for a meal. And I thought those were the best in the world. Yet I hear anecdotally there are places a normal person like me can’t even go to. What could be better than a 3-star and if such restaurants are so good, why don’t they have stars? And if they don’t have stars, why would they be so exclusive? Why would anyone want to go?

We should go for Happy Hour some time soon! :+1:


example of such a restaurant please.

Rao’s in NYC doesn’t have a star but is apparently impossible to get a table at. But why go there when you can go to a Michelin-rated place?

Trying to parse the thread title with the multi-negatives in it . . .

Also, I’m not sure that “impossible to get a table” as not being the same as “inaccessible to the public”.

Although, put another way, if the place is “inaccessible to the public” . . . why care about its “ratings”?

Momofuku Ko comes to mind

There was a sushi place in DC that is reservation only, and you can barely find it if you walked past it, because there’s no walk in allowed and they did little to make it appear like a restaurant.

Food was amazing though.

Probably for the same reason that you can’t find the restaurant in the first place.
To get a Michelin star the critics actually need to be able to find the place.

1 Like