Every review ends with a Final Score; the average of four categories:
Palate, Atmosphere, Service, and Identity
Scored out of 5.0, in 0.1 increments.
Rare. A benchmark meal or experience. Singular in execution and unforgettable in detail.
Exceptional
4.7 - 5.0
A standout by any measure. Worth planning around and worthy of return visits.
Highly Recommended
4.3 – 4.6
Consistently good with notable highlights. Not absolutely perfect, but easy to love.
Recommended
3.9 – 4.2
Solid and well-executed. May lack a high level distinction, but has merit and a solid future.
Notable
3.5 – 3.8
Some strengths, but uneven or unmemorable. Perhaps a worthwhile try, once.
Mixed Feelings
3.0 – 3.4
More effort than experience. Not currently recommended.
Unremarkable
Below 3.0
maison dane
ratings
I try not to just eat out. I try to observe. I try and listen to the hum of the room, and pay attention to plating and service pacing. I try to get a sense of the flavor arc of each course. This isn’t Yelp.
With this, I have devised a foolproof (lol) four-pronged, consistent, and unapologetically personal way to rate the places I dine. Every restaurant I review is scored in four categories, each out of 5.0, to give you a clear and complete picture of the experience.
Maison Dane: The Ratings
How did it taste?
I look for technical execution, depth of flavor, balance, and creativity. This isn’t just “good” or “bad" because I want to know if I’m still thinking about the dish days later.
5.0 – A revelation. I’ll compare things to this.
4.0 – Thoughtful, flavorful, beautifully made.
3.0 – Competent with some highlights.
2.0 – Unbalanced or dull.
1.0 – Something went wrong.
Palate
1
What’s the vibe?
Perhaps my favorite part of the dining experience, I gague the design, sound, lighting, layout, and crowd. A restaurant should feel like something; i.e, a scene, a mood, a moment.
5.0 – Transportive. A full-sensory experience.
4.0 – Elevated and cohesive.
3.0 – Comfortable, yet cliche or forgettable.
2.0 – Clashing, unwelcoming, or chaotic.
1.0 – Actively unpleasant.
Atmosphere
2
Did I feel taken care of?
It's a shame the Michelin Guide doesn't rate service. Service can make or break a night. It’s not always about fine dining formality. I feel like it’s about warmth, pacing, and confidence.
5.0 – Intuitive, effortless, unforgettable.
4.0 – Professional, warm, and smooth.
3.0 – Standard, fine.
2.0 – Rushed, awkward, or inconsistent.
1.0 – Poorly handled or absent.
Service
3
Does it know what it is?
Restaurants with a point of view stand out. It doesn't matter if it's a three-starred experimental tasting room or a nostalgic diner either. I’m looking for intention and alignment between concept and execution.
5.0 – Singular and unforgettable.
4.0 – Confident and well-defined.
3.0 – Familiar or trend-following.
2.0 – Conceptually confused.
1.0 – Trying too hard or offering too little.
Identity
4
MAISON DANE HOUSE RULES
If it's franchised or built for scale, it’s out. I’m not reviewing Nobu Malibu. But if it’s part of a small, chef-led group (think Jean-Georges) it's fair game.
No chains.
If I didn’t sit down and get handed a menu, or if it came in a bag, box, or plastic, I’m not reviewing it. Counter service, ghost kitchens, delivery apps… all off the table unless the concept genuinely elevates the format.
No takeout or counters.
Restaurants deserve time to settle in. If I go during a soft open or within the first 30 days, I’ll wait and revisit before making a review.
Not in the first month.
Every review here is self-funded. No invites, no comps. If I’m ever hosted, I’ll disclose it.
No free meals.
I only write about the places I have something to say about. If a review exists, it means the experience stuck with me in one direction or another.
Not every meal.
A bar review includes the lighting, the glassware, the crowd, the music, the menu design, the way the bartender moves. I will rate bars as long as they deliver a full experience, not just a drink.