In the last couple of months my wife and myself have been visiting a couple of Michelin star restaurants in Luxembourg and now I am wondering or doubting just how relevant the starring mechanism actually is.
We first went to a 2 Michelin star restaurant and quit frankly found it rather mediocre. The dishes were very traditional and any inventiveness was lacking altogether. I don't mean to say that we did not enjoy the dinner and the food was really good, however we expected more.
Some time later we went with friends to a 1 Michelin star restaurant and while again we had a lovely evening, the dishes were lacking inspiration, innovation, were lacking the touch that would in my opinion justify the Michelin star.
And our latest dining experience was in a restaurant so innovative, inspired by a cook that seems to put efforts in bringing a variation of dishes that could surprise us in the ways it was composed and which we could appreciate more and are praising higher than the 2 star restaurant that lacked any originality.
This just made me wonder how the Michelin stars get attributed. This was not the first time I have visited Michelin starred restaurants and have done this in Belgium, France and Luxembourg before and have always enjoyed it. Where you could say that the extra bit was put to have earned the star. But this was the first time really that we noticed when having our dinner that the stars don't seem well earned.
So how do these stars get attributed ? Have criteria changed ? As it is only since this year we actually notice this. I am not naive and know that restaurants pay to get mentionned in listings, publications etc. but the Michelin guide has for myself always been a reference and something you check and blindly trust.
Hell, could it be that we got too used to gourmet dining ? That would be panic. No, we enjoyed a zero star restaurant more than a 2 star !
I am confused.
KDM
