Myth (SF) – We’re Too Cool to Cook

(I am still in France eating truffles but here’s another lost review.)

Myth is the sort of restaurant I really dislike. It’s not cheap but the food is haphazard and careless. I would rather not eat at a Myth for 3 weeks in a row and put it into a Manresa dinner – the economics come out the same but your stomach will be a lot happier.

Ate here right after the New Year with the All In crew. We ordered a variety of dishes, shared a few bites here & there, no notes or camera:

1. Wild Burgundy Escargots with Baby Octopus, Garlic, Pernod and Fennel Salad
They forgot to mention the “butter lake” it was sitting in. Escargot were good, nothing revelatory, pretty decent texture, but the dish was sloppy. Ok.

2. Garganelli Pasta with Foie Gras Cream, Maitake Mushrooms and Marsala
The pasta was overcooked and the cream was very marsala-focused w/ just the slightest foie flavor on the finish. It definitely sounded better on paper – they should add some more foie to the sauce. Ok.

3. Risotto with Patty Pans, Butternut Squash Puree, Parmesan and White Truffle Oil
I only had a bite but this was my favorite of the night. Risotto was cooked well and the squash flavors were sweet and bright w/ a nice crisp parmesan ting. Good.

4. Seared Scallops with Abalone Mushrooms and Potato Puree
I only had one but they were fairly pedestrian – on the cooked side in the middle (probably preferred by most eaters), slightly sweet, but nothing revelatory. Ok.

5. Half Pound Kobe Beef Grilled Hamburger on Housemade Focaccia with French Fries
Nothing on the entree menu really stood out and I knew how this would turn out. I asked that it be as rare/med-rare as possible w/o being mushy (a kobe beef burger problem.) When i got it, it was just too mushy to be enjoyable. It also had a surprising lack of flavor. Of course, the juices quickly soaked the bottom bun. The fries were quite good. Not Good.

The sommelier was one of those stereotypes that turn people off of wine – don’t ask him for Burgundy suggestions because he will lead you astray and act surprisingly condescendatory when questioned about his selection.

In summary - who cares.

Is this review noise? As a reader, do you care about sub-par efforts? Or would you rather just read about restaurants/food-products that are potentially world class?

- chuck

Official Site:

  • Rory

    I find this very useful, although I wouldn’t get any more detailed than what you’ve put above. Pictures might be nice, but I wouldn’t bother with getting too detailed of discriptions if all you want to say is “Not good”.

    [evil English major comment: the word is "haphazard" not "half-hazard" - a careless mistake to be sure ;-) ]

  • Rory

    Ah, crap. Right after hitting submit I noticed that I misspelled “descriptions” and misplaced the period after “good.” Sloppy, careless and haphazard…

  • Dan Lyke

    I think that reviews like this are helpful both to warn us away from certain places (although my budget doesn’t allow exploring too much right now), but also to give a better perspective on what your likes and dislikes are. A good critic isn’t necessarily one that I always agree with, it’s someone whose prose tells me enough about the subject that I’ll know if I’ll like it. That partially comes from knowing more about the tastes of the critic.

    So, yeah, I find this useful as well!