Michelin Star Restaurants

A Michelin starred restaurant is one thing but what about the average place?

Even among Michelin star restaurants, there's a huge variance. Take for example The French Laundry vs Terrapin Creek. The French Laundry is an experience that spans hours. Terrapin Creek is a small cafe that locals can pop into for a sandwich. Both have great food, presentation, and service. But they are completely different experiences.

I've noticed this too about things deemed "the best." They often are susceptible to diminishing returns. For example, I go to a lot of Michelin-starred restaurants, but many of them are really not much better than I could make at home. Sure, they may have more exclusive ingredients, but the raw flavor potential is not significantly increased in Michelin-starred restaurants versus those outside of that group.

You’re not alone. Dining out at fancy restaurants is one of my few indulgences. I’ve been really fortunate to eat quite a few of the highest rated ones and I’ve come the the conclusion there’s a few different categories:- inventiveness & craft: these are chefs that are pushing the boundaries in terms of techniques, finding new ingredients, or trying to find new ways to turn a dish into essentially an art form. Noma, El Bulli, etc. would belong here. There’s every chance you will actually

On the whole, I think the burden of one would be enough. You have 2 to aim for. The burden of 2 would be that 3 might be unattainable. 3 would be a nightmare of failed expectations. I have read of 3 star chef giving one back rather than experience having it taken, but if the word was out that might be cover for reality of having it taken "in advance".I don't actually enjoy Michelin starred places. It's too stressful to balance the price:value equation behind the experience

Isn't this effectively what the Michelin guide was for (of Michelin Star fame)https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelin_Guide

> Doesn't SF have the highest concentration of Michelin star restaurants ?No, that's Tokyo.San Francisco is okay because of its access to high end seafood but no where near its costs based on a multitude of criteria if you've been (let alone cooked) outside the US, but its far from mediocre as many are portraying it here.Granted, I think guys like Patterson in SF were doing interesting work aesthetically, but as a chef/cook I'm more inclined to say the East

LOL. We've eaten at every 3-star Michelin restaurant in the Bay Area (we did Meadowood before they signed on to Tock) and four of the 3-stars in NYC (one of them lost a star since we were there). We're regulars at Manresa. We've eaten at four of the six two-stars in the BA (we won't do Atelier Crenn because Tock). (BTW, one of the two-stars was absolutely horrible. We didn't walk out, but we would never go back.) We ate at and fell in love with Gabriel Kreuther jus

From what I always heard, the Michelin Guide has very very particular demands on your service. It has to be so and so. It's not only how it tastes, but also the formality with which it is served. (This has to be checked though.)It's indeed strange about the hawking stall, but I suppose the standards are not the same abroad as domestically - or for a stall for that matter.Having been to 1-star restaurants thrice, and to gastronomic restaurants a few more times, I have to say the d

Almost every high level, Michelin type restaurant does this