Originally Posted by kklems (Post 26828739)

Not sure about awful. My thought at the time was when I am paying so much for a meal it should be perfect. But you can't really complain that fish tastes "fishy". I have the same thing happen to me when I go fishing or go to down the local fish monger if I don't eat the filets in a day or two. It doesn't mean the fish is bad, just takes on a more fishy taste.

And in retrospect we are talking a land locked state that probably flies in its seafood and this was a holiday Monday so I would doubt they had a deliverly on Sunday and the holiday Monday. The fish likely was delivered on Friday or Saturday.

I just had in my mind a higher standard given the *** and the cost so it disappointed me at the time.

Originally Posted by stimpy (Post 26843721)

I gave Maze a try here in London. Ramsey lost a star, but it's still listed in the 2016 Michelin guide. It is a very trendy spot and hard to get a reservation, unless you are a single and sit at the bar counter. Which is a bit uncomfortable sadly. They are running a 20% off promo if you pay with Amex, through September.

The food was fine, but the service while good, is not up to Michelin star standards.

Originally Posted by eigenvector (Post 26846037)

My thought is if you cannot get the ingredients to do it right, don't serve the meal. A *** restaurant does not have to serve the same menu every day of the year if there is trouble getting certain ingredients at certain times. The guest should not have to compromise on taste because the kitchen is short of fresh fish.

Originally Posted by Kagehitokiri (Post 26843844)

seems amber @ LMO HK changed director recently

Originally Posted by PsiFighter37 (Post 26829216)

I would support this. The fact that only NYC, Chicago, and SF/Bay Area are Michelin-rated (with D.C. to follow) is a crime. There is so much good food in the U.S. that not having other areas rated widely is a bit criminal. I would suggest at a minimum adding:

-Los Angeles/SoCal
-Pacific NW (Seattle / Portland)
-Southwest US (with Vegas being the anchor)
-Rockies / Mountain West (with Denver as anchor)
-South (with Atlanta and one of the Texas cities as anchors)
-New England (Boston as the anchor)

Originally Posted by exerda (Post 26850354)

Adding, yes.

I tend to agree with the ratings that the WaPost food critic gave out to "top food cities," based on not just the restaurants but the markets, etc., last year, and the fact LA wasn't in the top 10--they have decent food, but IMHO Vegas is superior. Heck, Portland was IIRC Sietsema's top food city in the US, and by his criteria (which FWIW does not overlap much with the Michelin notion), they deserved it. Houston was up there, too, surprisingly.

But I do think that San Francisco, NYC, and Chicago will continue to lead the way in the US.

Originally Posted by Kagehitokiri (Post 26852788)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/sty...merica-ranked/

1 portland
2 san francisco
3 los angeles
4 new orleans
5 houston
6 philadephia
7 chicago
8 NY
9 DC
10 charleston

Originally Posted by sig05 (Post 26852865)

Rome
La Pergola - dinner (staying at the waldorf)

Originally Posted by offerendum (Post 26852891)

This list has nothing in common with Guide Michelin. There may be some restaurants on the list but it´s not focused on fine Dining restaurants.

Originally Posted by Kagehitokiri (Post 26852913)

i posted the article someone else mentioned while replying to someone else involved in a discussion about which cities should have michelin guides

Originally Posted by sig05 (Post 26852865)

So I am trying to finalize my honeymoon plans - posted here and got some great feedback. Having never been to Europe (we're doing London, Paris, Rome), any recommendations or changes to this plan:

London
Gordon Ramsay - dinner
Square - lunch
Dinner by Heston - dinner
The Ledbury - dinner
Alain Ducasse Dorchester - lunch

Paris
Guy Savoy - dinner
Le Cinq - dinner

Rome
La Pergola - dinner (staying at the waldorf)