I see that Charlie Palmer has quit Seabourn - I did check the user responses over at "the other board" and I didn't see anyone regretting this decision.
What does this tell us - that Seabourn cruises have lately been finding the dining on Seabourn about as exciting as I did.
I always thought my food was well-prepared with great ingredients, but I have to admit I just was not that thrilled about the menu selections onboard.
I thought there were too many somewhat boring salads, that the main entrees were good - but I just never felt fully satisfied after a meal on the ship. It's hard to explain but I also heard other cruisers onboard Sojourn saying the same thing - that the food was "light"
I think part of it is the fact that they only have two parts to the menu - starters and entrees. Of course you can order as much as you want - but many people don't think to do that when everything is bunched up into one section. They generally feel as if they should only order one item per category.
Then the entrees would come with not that much - a fillet steak with jus - that's it. hardly any side dishes.
I went through all my pictures before I wrote my Seabourn review and looked at food on other ships. Look at this entree...
Now look at this...
Looks pretty good right? THIS is HOLLAND AMERICA.
On Seabourn this steak would have been charred black on the outside (they really did not appear to be grilled, but pan-fried, like the fish, which is fine) - But this looks wonderful.
You also would not get the fries, spinach or anything else with this entree on Seabourn - just whatever starter you had ordered.
I hate to say this, but I was wondering if maybe I contributed to that change at Seabourn. Pretty egotistical, I know. I honestly don't think I matter that much, except for all the wonderful publicity a certain blogger has been giving me. He seems to think my opinion matters a lot.
But when I read the Seabourn boards at "the other site" I don't see any mention of me or of that certain blooger who shall remain nameless.
I am really relieved to be seeing most people saying "It was overdue" and even "maybe now the food on Seabourn will get back to the way it used to be..."
That says two things:
I had nothing to do with the internal decision at Seabourn (as far as I know, and if any it was small)
I was basically right in my assessment - although no one was saying it, people on Seabourn were thinking the same thing I said in my article, "this may be haute cuisine, but I don't see the appeal."
The only problem with that is this - why weren't people saying it before they let him part ways? Now that he's gone suddenly its OK to criticize the food at Seabourn, but before it was not allowed? Really?
At least I can say I had the courage of my convictions, and the events prove that I was basically on target in my conclusions.