Confessions of a Michelin Star Inspector

> The difference would be completely lost on them.

I've definitely heard the life advice to avoid trying this kind of thing in case you do like it, then everything less is permanently tainted with the knowledge that it's not as good.

However, western super-high-price dining tends to be one or both of "demoscene for food" or "NFTs for food"

- demoscene: a series of increasingly elaborate and labor-intensive techniques for showcasing skill in a constrained environment. The Heston Blumenthal/molecular gastronomy approach.

- NFTs: the process entirely about conspicuous consumption; the value of the food is determined by how many resources were expended in the process, not what it actually tastes like. Wines in particular have a value determined by rarity and the secondary market.

The best compromise is probably found around the "twice as much as a chain restaurant" price point; enough to find quality ingredients and staff who aren't too rushed off their feet, not enough that you start getting weird stunts.

(a fun read: Jay Rayner's negative review of the Polo Lounge https://www.theguardian.com/food/2021/aug/15/the-polo-lounge... )

I think it often comes down to personal preference from a consumers view. The second best food experience i have had was a Hilton evening buffet, the best was a Marriot a la carte dinner, by far. The Michelin rated restaurants I felt don't come close. But I am not a big foodie or expert, but all i know a lot of this is pretentious marketing, who's is to guarantee that the meals will be the same when the inspectors are not there? And there are many food places who never "enroll" into such programs.

There was once a degustation event for wines where all the so-called experts went to try wines with closed eyes and they could tell apart the cheapest off the supermarket shelf bottles from the "best".

Eat what you like, not what someone else tells you is good.

Every supermarket I remember visiting in the US describes the hamburger patties they sell, as well as just the bulk ground meat, as "hamburger".

I was raised in a family that didn't really go to fancy restaurants, my father would scoff at waisting money on fancy meals when you could go to a cheaper restaurants multiple times for the cost of one meal at a fancy place.

Then, I grew up, eventually traveled around, tried a lot more restaurants and grew a passion for dining out. I can say that my taste changed, when I try things that I have nostalgia for but haven't eaten in years, I'm often disappointed. The tastes I liked from my childhood and early 20s are now things I often consider mediocre, too sweet, not enough complexity, boring.

I think a palate like anything is something that can be trained, so far I derive a lot of enjoyment from eating out so the trade off is worth it but there's a trade off for sure. If I suddenly no longer had the money to afford those restaurants, I'd have cravings for expensive food that I wouldn't otherwise have.

Side note, while Michelin Guide is a useful resource, I frequently disagree with them. I think they tend to place too much emphasis on service and atmosphere and give stars to restaurants that are all flash but no substance. I tend to prefer the Gault et Millau (at least in France), they have more focus on food and will give good ratings to restaurants with great food but bad service. As someone who goes to restaurants to enjoy the food, the freshness and quality of the ingredients and the cooking skills but who doesn't care about atmosphere at all this fits me better. You'd find small tiny mum and pop eateries in Gault et Millau but they wouldn't be in the Michelin Guide or if they are, they'd only get a bib gourmet.

Sometimes I wonder if the Michelin inspector in two of the restaurants I know here who do not deserve a star were served other dishes. It's either that or the inspector rated the interior design and service.