Thursday, September 01, 2011
A Matter of Opinion
Has someone moved the silly season?
It seems the only explanation after a cursory reading of the list that is purported to be the top 100 restaurants in Australia as published by Gourmet Traveller.
Publishing such a list is always going to be controversial, every restaurateur worth their salt wants to be aboard and some worthy contenders inevitably miss out. Not to mention ongoing interstate rivalries, which seem to dog this particular restaurant award year after year and have now drawn the attention of two leading food critics.
In Epicure, their chief reviewer, Larissa Dubecki wrote "...Last week's Gourmet Traveller honours caused their annual consternation with the Sydney-centric nature of the rankings...According to the magazine, Sydney has seven of the top 10 restaurants in the nation..."
But there's more, scan down the next 10 spots and another seven of them are also occupied by Sydney restaurants. That's a whopping 70% of the nation's top twenty restaurants located in the Harbour City. To be clear, that's the top twenty for ALL of Australia.
However, there was one listing that ought to be causing red faces amongst the organisers, Melbourne's Attica.
The Age Good Food Guide have just crowned Attica the best restaurant in Victoria and a few months prior, the respected S.Pellegrino world's best restaurant list named them as the 53rd best in the world, with only one other Australian restaurant above them. Gourmet Traveller felt very differently though, placing them not even amongst the country's top ten, but a paltry 12th on their list, in what can only be described as a mark down by comparision.
As John Lethlean, the restaurant reviewer for The Australian, tweeted in the social media, "Pleasing to see Attica getting recognition Gourmet guide didn't find warranted".
How is it possible to be so out of kilter with not one, but two respected publications? How do Gourmet Traveller justify their positioning?
I asked Lethlean for his thoughts on the matter and this is what he had to say.
"The trouble with guide books is that they rely to an unhealthy level on contributors. As someone who gets about the country, eating in restaurants, more than most, I can definitely say that some of Gourmet's contributors are way off the mark, which is in no way to diminish the effort Pat Nourse puts into the Gourmet Guide. These things are huge work. But when someone in Perth, for example, tells Pat a place like Kitsch should be in the guide, the vulnerability of the editor is exposed. I should know, I've been in that position."
To have credibility, lists like these need to appear impartial. Yet, it almost seems like Gourmet Traveller and a few Sydney restaurants are just one chesterfield short of being some sort of cosy little club.
Having a national list is a worthwhile endeavour, but perhaps it's time for a rethink on how it's compiled with a greater consideration for transparency.
It seems the only explanation after a cursory reading of the list that is purported to be the top 100 restaurants in Australia as published by Gourmet Traveller.
Publishing such a list is always going to be controversial, every restaurateur worth their salt wants to be aboard and some worthy contenders inevitably miss out. Not to mention ongoing interstate rivalries, which seem to dog this particular restaurant award year after year and have now drawn the attention of two leading food critics.
In Epicure, their chief reviewer, Larissa Dubecki wrote "...Last week's Gourmet Traveller honours caused their annual consternation with the Sydney-centric nature of the rankings...According to the magazine, Sydney has seven of the top 10 restaurants in the nation..."
But there's more, scan down the next 10 spots and another seven of them are also occupied by Sydney restaurants. That's a whopping 70% of the nation's top twenty restaurants located in the Harbour City. To be clear, that's the top twenty for ALL of Australia.
However, there was one listing that ought to be causing red faces amongst the organisers, Melbourne's Attica.
The Age Good Food Guide have just crowned Attica the best restaurant in Victoria and a few months prior, the respected S.Pellegrino world's best restaurant list named them as the 53rd best in the world, with only one other Australian restaurant above them. Gourmet Traveller felt very differently though, placing them not even amongst the country's top ten, but a paltry 12th on their list, in what can only be described as a mark down by comparision.
As John Lethlean, the restaurant reviewer for The Australian, tweeted in the social media, "Pleasing to see Attica getting recognition Gourmet guide didn't find warranted".
How is it possible to be so out of kilter with not one, but two respected publications? How do Gourmet Traveller justify their positioning?
I asked Lethlean for his thoughts on the matter and this is what he had to say.
"The trouble with guide books is that they rely to an unhealthy level on contributors. As someone who gets about the country, eating in restaurants, more than most, I can definitely say that some of Gourmet's contributors are way off the mark, which is in no way to diminish the effort Pat Nourse puts into the Gourmet Guide. These things are huge work. But when someone in Perth, for example, tells Pat a place like Kitsch should be in the guide, the vulnerability of the editor is exposed. I should know, I've been in that position."
To have credibility, lists like these need to appear impartial. Yet, it almost seems like Gourmet Traveller and a few Sydney restaurants are just one chesterfield short of being some sort of cosy little club.
Having a national list is a worthwhile endeavour, but perhaps it's time for a rethink on how it's compiled with a greater consideration for transparency.
