San Francisco - SF Chronicle's Top 100 Restaurants 2012: Are you surprised?

Well, as we San Franciscans know, the top 100 came out this Sunday:

http://www.sfgate.com/food/top100/

I was surprised by a few:

1) Town hall. I was surprised to see this still in the top100. It's good food, but to me, lacks a "wow factor".

2) Fleur de Lys being out. I was disappointed, and a little surprised, but not totally shocked. The food is very good at Fleur de Lys, but I'll agree, it hasn't been the most avant garde.

3) Absinthe. I've eaten here a few times, and I've been very underwhelmed here.

4) Farallon. I'm very surprised this restaurant made it. I think it's totally over-rated, over-priced, and not very inventive cuisine.

5) Foreign cinema. Decent food, but I don't think this is top 100 worthy at all. I've eaten here 3-4 times, and each time, I say to myself, "I'm never coming back here again."

6) Water Bar. Beyond over-priced fish. Not very tasty at all. I've eaten here twice, and all I remember when I was done was, "I am so glad this was on someone else's dime."

7) Three others in my book that barely made it: Range, Prospect, and Boulevard. I've been to Boulevard about 7 times, Prospect 4, and Range 1. Boulevard has been consistently underwhelming food. Prospect is good, but I'm not rushing to go back there, and I had one meal at Range, which was completely forgettable (hence my going there only once and never again).

As one poster in another thread stated that "Michael Bauer's ratings are getting more and more bizarre". From this year's top 100, it almost seems like the Michelin guide: that Bauer never actually returned to these restaurants but rated them by memory, not how they're actually doing this year.

What do others think about the top 100 this year?

Sadly, I can't afford to visit the Top 100 as often as Michael Bauer is alleged to do, or even as the OP appears to.

The real problem with a Top 100 for the Bay Area is that there are simply not enough restaurants to make for a list of the truly great, but too many very good restaurants to reduce to 100. So the bottom reaches contain restaurants such as Absinthe which is very nice and really good fun, but hardly epic.

Then there's Claudine, or Bistro Aix both of which are better than Absinthe, IMO, but are essentially neighborhood restaurants with excellent food, but not worth a journey. And, if they are in, why is something like Cafe La Haye in Sonoma not in?

Then there's Range, which once was truly exceptional but is now no longer innovative and owes its place as much to its history as to its present incarnation.

Without doing too much research on the precise numbers, I think the listing should be revised to a Top 10 with a further 5 honorable mentions. Then, as a separate exercise, there could be a listing of many more restaurants all of which will cook you a very excellent dinner. In fact, this is the logic of the Michelin Guide, which is maturing into an superb resource.

So the bottom reaches contain restaurants such as Absinthe which is very nice and really good fun, but hardly epic.

Then there's Claudine, or Bistro Aix both of which are better than Absinthe, IMO, but are essentially neighborhood restaurants with excellent food, but not worth a journey. And, if they are in, why is something like Cafe La Haye in Sonoma not in?

Then there's Range, which once was truly exceptional but is now no longer innovative and owes its place as much to its history as to its present incarnation.

Without doing too much research on the precise numbers, I think the listing should be revised to a Top 10 with a further 5 honorable mentions. Then, as a separate exercise, there could be a listing of many more restaurants all of which will cook you a very excellent dinner. In fact, this is the logic of the Michelin Guide, which is maturing into an superb resource.

I'd agree with your assessment. I think it's right on.

Random thoughts:

100 is actually a good number, for the intent of the article. It is a tad more egalitarian than a "really best of the best" list and contains several places that are affordable by most, instead of all affordable by very few. For the readership of a major metropolitan newspaper, this is appropriate.

Everyone knows who he and his partner are, and yet they pretend to be secret diners, yet apparently if he is not treated like a special guest (in spite of the fact that he is "unknown"), it is reflected in the rating. Of course, I have no personal knowledge of this because I've never dined with him.

Innovative? I don't think that a restaurant needs to be innovative or cutting-edge to be on the list. Example - a traditional steak or prime rib house. But then, you better always be at the top of your game for what you do so well. I am reminded of this Chowhound post: http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/817191 Indeed, sometimes simple perfection is worthy of the top spot.

O'Chame - I'm baffled as to why this place has remained on the list for the amount of time that the earth's population has increased by over two billion people.

Finally - I think we are lucky to be having this conversation. How many places (and the vast majority of the 100 are within a relatively short distance of each other) can have this conversation? The "game" level is pretty high here, and is reflected even at the most basic level of neighborhood restaurant. How many times do we eat a "this is ok" meal that would likely be near the best game in town somewhere else? I take the Top 100 for what its worth - both entertainment, and an occasional reminder to eat at places I may have forgotten that I'd wanted to eat at.

That it only includes one Vietnamese restaurant and then that restaurant is the Slanted Door is the first clue as to how out of touch Michael Bauer is.

The second clue is the inclusion of Morimoto.