This may be the 3 blind men and the elephant but my experience has been that a restaurant that has 3 michelin stars can be disappointing. It is my theory that once a restaurant has had 3 stars for many years, with the same (famous) chef, they are very reluctant to remove stars. I already posted a while ago on two such restaurants I went to recently - Paul Bocuse and Pierre Gagnaire (see my posts) which were both terrible. They removed a Bocuse star as soon as he passed away. When I told friends working in a well connected Parisian restaurant the next night about my experience at Gagnaire they high fived me because they knew it was true. L’Ambroise was also disappointing. Maxim’s was a more extreme example. When I lived in Paris 45 years ago I had to deliver bread in the morning to many of the great restaurants. They would be opening deliveries of fresh arrivals but at Maxim’s they had a lot being taken out of the freezer or leftovers from the night before. The French had long since stopped going and the tourists there did not know the difference.(See my Bocuse post). Maxim’s got so bad that Michelin told them they could no longer give them 3 stars. The fact that they had a conversation with them first is telling. Maxim’s opted to be taken out of the Michelin guide completely.
I agree about Maxim’s decor. In fact I think I will consider going to the bar after Opera Garnier next month. Looked at the website. The food is incredibly cheap for such a place.Could get foie gras, saumon cru and a bottle of champagne for less than $200
But- does anyone know how bad the food is there?
I have only been to “current “ 3-star (or 2 for that matter). But this doesn’t surprise me. Our “star” experiences have all been great albeit far too few.
I wonder if it’s compounded by unrealistic expectations, from visiting an idols’s restaurant.
I agree. I enjoyed my meal, but compared to other 2 or 3 stars it felt kind of stale and they were resting on their laurels a bit.
And I agree with your premise - they absolutely can be disappointing. It’s hard to get a third star, but it’s also very hard to lose a third star after many years.
I’ve had many memorable 3-star experiences (eg, Troisgros, Arpege). But too many disappointing ones for sure.
I tend to prefer 2-star or even 1-star places, as they are often still trying harder to innovate and ascend. Too many 3-star places rest on their laurels or are just terrified of losing their star. That said, there are a lot of WTF 1- and 2-star places out there. Every 3-star spot I’ve been to I at least grasped the grandeur.
Sorry to hear of these experiences but I have to reluctantly agree. Maybe we have just evolved here. Two and Three star restaurants are exceptional, but increasingly about a chef’s “vision”. I’m eager to go to Bocuse, but I totally expect it to be food like I enjoyed in the 1970s because that is what he was known for. Fish in a cream sauce, Chicken in a bladder with creamed morels, all classics but dated to the point of being called bad food maybe? I still go to Tour d’Argent every time I’m in Paris…don’t expect great food but expect to drink well. And the view!
But in today’s two and three star environment, it’s a tasting menu for $300-$400, expensive “supplements” that should have been part of the menu to begin with, and $1K for wines I could easily get at home for $200 or $300 and sommeliers who “recommend” that everyone starts out with a $150 class of Dom Perignon. It’s not a meal, it’s a soaking.
. Steve.