We give it three stars!
I have had the dubious 'pleasure' of using the Guide Michelin on several occaisons. It has not served me well. They have rated many things, but I have difficulty accepting their rating scheme. Their system allows for a maximum of two stars, except if the attraction has a relation to something French or is 2km across, in which case a third star will probably be given. However, the number of stars does not seem to be indicative of any sort of quality. In fact, they gave a whopping two stars to a slab of red rock which was barely visible as you drove past it. Their review raved about how it was 2km across, as if this was some huge merit. The fact that it was just a clump of rock that could only be viewed for two seconds did not seem to aversely affect their rating. They have also been known to give three stars to a bunch of old run-down buildings, on the verge of collapse. This attraction is otherwise known as Upper-Canada Village, and is one of the few three star sites in Canada. I can't quite figure out why. There are much cheaper ways to visit rickety sheds. I can't imagine how anyone who actually visited this attraction could take themselves seriously after giving it three stars. My conclusion is that the Michelin people must not have actually come to the attraction before rating it. After all, it is much cheaper to rate these places without really visiting them. You can begin to understand the absurd ratings when you picture the Michelin reviewers dining at a French restaurant and writing up their reviews based only on some brochures.
With the popularity of their restaurant and attraction guide, I figure it's only a matter of time before Michelin brings out several more cheap guides. I can't wait to see them giving a bunch of twisty roads three stars because they are at least 2km long and resemble some of the narrow roads you can find in France. Given the opportunity, I am also certain that they would stamp tiny Cubicles with a three star rating. After all, these tiny workstations closely resemble the interior of the Renault Cinq(spl?), a much beloved French vehicle which is incapable of breaking 120km/hr. And all these ratings would be done from the comfort of some high-class restaurant.
Note that I have no confirmation of any theories mentioned above. I can only speculate on the methods used to obtain the ratings found in the Guide Michelin. However, the examples I brought up in the second paragraph can actually be found within my edition of the Michelin book. Of course, given the chance, I'm sure the Michelin people would give this website zero stars. Coming from them, I believe that would be a rating worthy of pride.
Most people know that Michelin is a big french company that makes tires. Rumours suggest they have also created a man made of tires, otherwise known as the Michelin Man, to pitch their products. Surely tires that can form a living being are fit to be put on your car! However, they have another product which is in far wider use than their tires. That would be the Guide Michelin. To those few who are unaware, the Guide Michelin is a travel book that rates all attractions around the world. It's kinda like the Michelin Restaurant guide, which rates all restaurants (though it only gives high marks to French chefs...). For some reason, people decided to rely on the judgement of this tire company. Sure they can put wheels on your car, but does that really qualify them in any way to make arbitrary judgements about attractions and restaurants? Lots of people seem to think so.
Return to Jaridis Blade's Gallery of Quotes