Maybe it is just my opinion, l am used to being the only one on a page. l am in San Francisco this week and the last two nights have returned to a restaurant that provided on of my best meals last year and a new one that has been lauded as the Fergus Henderson style of cooking rarely seen in US.
While both restaurants served nice food with good service in amiable surroundings, neither lived up to their old menu or old press reports. The food was frankly boring, nothing l could not have cooked for myself and thus no real reason to go to them.
Is it that restaurants as they get more well-known then become more mainstream and are then visited by patrons who are not as food motivated as we chowhounds might be and therefore do not care if the menu consists of salmon, lamb chops, and half a chicken as zillions of other restaurants l avoid do as well.
Must l go to a new daring place within a month or two or miss the original reason the place appealed to me.
These two lovely places on the last two nights when leaving made me feel l had wasted my time and money and the research l did was useless as was vastly outdated. As l spend a lot of time in europe and find changes are slower to occur if at all and many restauranteurs take what their initial concept was and rarely if ever change it, boy not here. Then again l might just be unlucky, but three places on the west coast l loved, loved, loved, last year were IMHO mediocre in both their menu selection and the now lack of edgy presentation.