I think that’s kinda the point of this thread…
I understand the great beauty that the Michaelangelo statue is, but the fact of the matter is when I was standing next to it, it looked like the other replicas in the city, just a helluva lot cleaner.
The fact that we DO understand the history is what makes the moment of actually seeing this great object such a letdown.
I bought a cheeseburger at that McDonalds because after a week in Rome, I was so desperate for recognizable American food that I was there the second the place opened. It was the best cheeseburger ever.
I went to Fenway wanting to be impressed by it, but my first impression was “This is crappier than most minor league stadiums I’ve been to.” Yankee Stadium the building didn’t wow me, but when I came out of the tunnel and saw the field for the first time I was blown away.
Show up? I lived in China for quite awhile and knew quite a bit about the Forbidden City before showing up. Despite that, it was not as impressive as one might imagine, due to the lack of artifacts inside. It’s mostly empty.
I don’t think anyone in this thread expected Indiana Jones or naked dancers.
We’re intelligent, informed people who can admit that even with prior knowledge, sometimes the real thing can be a slight let down compared with the image of them we’ve built up in our mind.
Why did you think our experiences indicated lack of research or knowledge? Makes us sound like country bumpkins.
:dubious:
I though Monticello was pretty neat, with all the interesting stuff in it and the random contraptions he devised (like the clock that goes through the floor). I thought the bed that is in the wall between the study and the living room was especially neat.
I’ve never been to the Roman Forum, but heck, that place was disappointing in picture. Chefguy, knowing the history behind them doesn’t change the fact that they are ultimately unimpressive piles of rock.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
Hey, no fair! You took a picture of one of the most impressive parts of the forum without putting the rest of it in view! 
Mission Control in Houston. The place was a lot smaller than I thought it should be. They must photograph it through special lenses or something, because I always thought it was gigantic.
I saw the Mona Lisa 12 years ago before they protected it, and it was awesome.
As for Colonial Williamsburg, my wife went to William and Mary when we first met, and I saw it while visiting her, so I appreciate its natural wonders. 
Another vote for Mt Rushmore’s meh-ness. Ditto for the Crazy Horse monument. You get there, you spent about 15 seconds taking it all in and then realize it looks exactly the same as any picture you’ve even seen. The rest of the Black Hills region made the trip worthwhile.
The White Sands in New Mexico. Some visually very pretty moments with plants and the white dunes and blue sky. But all there is to do is see the dunes, which are blindingly (no understatement) bright and white. Walking the dunes, even on a slightly overcast day, meant being baked by the heat reflected off the sand (the gypsum sand crystals absorbed no heat at all and were themselves quite cool). You hike to the top of a dune and beyond that, you see more non-descript dunes streching off into the distance, ad nauseum.
Agreed, it seems much smaller in person, and inside the head is so tiny!
Also tiny - Dali’s melting clocks picture. When you see it in art books they don’t mention that it’s actual size.
At least they got to see it. When I was there the mirrors were being renovated. Only a few of them were visible.
I have to add: The Trocadero fountains across from the Eiffel Tower. I have been to Paris three times, and have never seen the fountains working. Just pools of water. Trip #4 will be next July. They’d better be working!
Did they catch whoever threw it at you?
You do realise that the London bridge in London is actually a fairly recent construction? If it had been the original, with tons of buildings actually on it and a major pedestrian thoroughfare like it was a couple of centuries ago, it probably would have looked a lot cooler. Tower bridge is way more impressive.
The first London Bridge was taken apart and moved to Arizona in the 60s where it stands today. The joke is that when they bought it they thought they were buying the tower bridge.
It’s a massive joke considering that for the amount of money that purchase cost you’d think someone would have checked what it was they were getting before they signed on the dotted line.
Disneyland
I went there in 1972, when I was 7 years old, and again a few months ago. I remember certain things from the first trip, many of which are still there. But I was struck by how closed-in it all seemed this time. It’s Disneyland, it should be visible from miles away; you should just drive towards Anaheim and be sucked into a vortex that pulls you right to it. But it seems shoehorned in, go past the apartment building, take a left at the gas station, and it’s the third on your right; and if you see the Bed, Bath & Beyond, you’ve passed it.
It was still fun. The sense of nostalgia was incredible, I really did remember the Autopia (although I’m pretty sure it wasn’t “Presented by Chevron” before), and the Matterhorn bobsleds. Sticking a couple of plastic clown fish in the submarine lagoon does not make it “Disney’s newest attraction!” I finally got to ride Space Mountain (it wasn’t even built in 1972) and I didn’t have to worry about being tall enough. It was fun, but it wasn’t “oh my God, it’s Disneyland!” anymore.
(I know that the sprawl around L.A. has led to lots of “it’s not there anymore” moments. After Disneyland, I met a friend for dinner in Riverside and couldn’t help but wonder where the old racetrack had been. I wonder if even Disneyland could get squeezed out, someday.
But right there in the middle of the city, the La Brea Tar Pits, which were kinda cool.)
Neuschwanstein Castle!:
It’s a waste of time and money to bother with the inside tour. Very lame and unimpressive. I also didn’t think it’s such a big deal considering it’s little over 100 years old. Quite modern as castles go. That’s like looking at a theme park castle in aww and amazement. The inside tour is complete with electronic ticketing, turnstyles, snaking line queues… just like a theme park. Seriously, going near that thing just ruins it.
However, the view from the bridge up the mountain is breathtaking and totally worth the trip. But I recommend just viewing and admiring the castle from a distance. Once you get near it, the magic is ruined.
Sedlec Ossuary in Kutna Hora, Czech!!
Lame! If you’ve seen more than three unique pictures of the inside of that place, you’ve seen all there is and shouldn’t bother with the trip. Totally lame.
Prague Orloj!
It’s hilarious to watch all the tourists start cramming around this clock near the top of the hour. From about 15-20mins til the hour, they start congregating en masse to view the magical spectical that is the Orloj!! Ha ha ha, then after about 2-3 minutes of watching a couple garden gnomes and trolls rotate around the little view windows and some unimpressive little bells clanging… they always, always give off a sigh of dissappointment in unison. Seriously it’s hilarious. They get all quite when the first bell clangs and the windows open up. They’re ready for something AMAZING… then, together with one voice, they let out an “uggghhhhhhmmm??” and slowly walk off mumbling.
This also for me. A best friend of mine is a serious Romaphile(?), and obsessed with all things of the Empire. He can rattle off the names of emperors and periods in order, knows the details of the battles and politics, etc. He came back and raved about the forum ruins, it was his holy grail, so I was quite eager to see them.
There, in the middle of the smelly, noisy, dirty traffic of rome, are some scattered rocks in a nondescript quarry. Worst. Tourism. Ever.
The Colisseum blew me away though.
Try Disney World instead. All 45 square miles of it
The Hope Diamond. It’s beautiful, but it’s… just a big blue rock. I think one reason it isn’t more impressive is because of the color- your mind defaults to “it’s a sapphire” and there’s nothing that unusual about a blue sapphire, and only really accepts the stones around it (in the setting) as diamonds. The emeralds on display in the same room are far more beautiful. (On most computer screens,this image is roughly actual size IIRC.)
