Andy Lynes

Agree about the background music, although I think I'd prefer a spot of Norah Jones to John Coltrane honking and squawking his way through something like Ascension while I'm eating. And I'm sure early Ornette Coleman would give me indigestion.

Is that Anthony Flynn or is there an Anthony at the Box Tree as well?

I'm sure that changes from restaurant to restaurant. A proportion of front of house staff aren't going to have a clue who a lot of the critics are. Fay Maschler mentions from time to time that she has been spotted and notes that she has been given preferential treatment in the body of the review. Other times it obvious that she has gone unnoticed and has been given a bad table and suffers clueless service. When people in the trade find out that I have met Marina O'Loughlin, they always want to know what she looks like as she has been very successful in hiding her identity (I always tell them, "Imagine Jay Rayner in a dress and you've got it.") so there's no chance of preferential treatment there.

I certainly do. Its doubtful if many people would care very much even if that disclaimer were published. I imagine there are far more casual readers of restaurant reviews than there are those of use which take them "seriously", but it would at least deflect some of the potential criticisms from fellow professionals such as Mr Maw. Its certainly true that someone like Jay Rayner who writes articles and features about chefs and restaurants is going to have a very hard time remaining anonymous. For example, Ramsay has a couple of places opening up soon, and there was a recent interview by Rayner with Ramsay in Hollywood. He's hardly likely to be able to slip into Maze undetected is he? Its equally unlikely that he's not going to review such a major opening, so what's he to do?

No, the critic can provide full, plain and true disclosure, but only about that one visit. I wonder if there ought to be a caveat published at the end of each review to say something like "Our critic dines incognito and always pays the bill. Reviews are based on one visit to the restaurant and should therefore be viewed as a snapshot in time. The review is however a fair and accurate reflection of the food and service provided on that day."

Also completely impractical for someone like Jay who covers the whole country, and does mainstream journalism as well (quite apart from writing novels of course. Say, isn't his last one due out in paperback around about now?)

That may be true, but I was told recently by someone in the trade that a certain London critic well known to us all here on eGullet can make a significant difference to a restaurant's business, at least in the short term. And no, it's not Jay Rayner.

I should say that I'm broadly in agreement with Jamie's general point. I have not been backward in coming forward about the shortcomings of British restaurant criticism in the past on these forums (here for example), but I wonder though how much fault we should lay at the editor's feet. Surely they are the ones demanding light, jokey and gossipy reviews with a large measure of added spite, just too keep things really interesting?

That is a very tempting proposition. I've never visited Oriental City Shopping Centre and have been meaning to for some time. Keep us posted.

From the Amazon synopsis: "Terry Durack takes you through the tradesman's entrance..." I think they could have found a better way of phrasing that, no?

Yes, you are. I believe the arguement is that the review will reflect the experience of the average diner who may only visit a restaurant once, or that it will at least reflect the experience of a customers first visit to that restaurant. The critic takes his chances just like any other mug punter and reports what he finds. I have no real problem with that, its just a different approach from the New York Times, whose reviews read more like feature articles about the restaruants that reviews as such. I think its entirely reasonable to judge a restaurant on a single visit. I think I can tell if a place is worth a punt just by looking at it, let alone reading its menu or stepping through its doors. A single visit is the icing on the cake! I have read reviews by Fay Maschler in the Evening Standard and Jan Moir in The Telegraph where they mention that they have had lunch and then gone back for dinner. Maschler now has a column where she re-reviews restaurants she has visited in the past so its not always just a one off. I think its a given that restaurants can be inconsistant. They're run by humans after all (well, some of them are). I'm not sure how useful or surprising it is to learn that some nights are better than others, some dishes more appealing than the rest, some members of staff a bit crap and others wonderful. If you intend to make that restaurant a regular haunt, then you'll find all that out over time yourself. Unless the chef or ownership of a restaurant changes, things won't be that much different night after night, and a single visit for the purposes of a review is adequate in my view. Maschler claims to eat out around 8 times a week for her column, and considering she has been at it for nearly three decades, I would imagine that she has developed a sort of second sight when it comes to restaurants. In defence of British criticism, I would say just read any of Terry Durack's reviews in the Independent (leaving aside for a moment the small point that the man is a bloody Aussie.)

I think we should allow them the benefit of the doubt. Small, busy restaurant with about 100 better things to do than update their website. I imagine this is an oversight rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead. They have done the intelligent thing now which is to remove the prices, although a rough indication of average spend per head would not go amiss.

How about Browns? I went to the one on Brighton recently and had a reasonable meal there which was definately within your price range. Its not stunning, but it's more than adequate food and the restaurants have a certain style about them.

Savuer featuring Jay Rayner seems like the sort of product that would enrich my lifestyle. I'd like to purchase a copy of Savuer featuring Jay Rayner, but I'm not sure how to go about it. Could someone answer the following questions for me: What UK stores stock Savuer featuring Jay Rayner? How much is Savuer featuring Jay Rayner? When is Savuer featuring Jay Rayner published? Thanks! Now, to address Jamie's question. Looks like you'll have to purchase a copy of Savuer featuring Jay Rayner to answer that one!!!!

If you don't keep the website up to date, you might as well not have one. I was quite shocked at the increase, I thought the opening prices were high enough.

The Belverdere could be a possibility if Holland Park isn't too far west. Forty quid a head at lunch for the menu according to the website, but I think thats out of date now as my understanding is that Marco is no longer involved and that since Billy Reid took over the prices have actually gone down.

I only found the recipe today so have not had the chance to try it, but tomato puree does have a strong flavour and 220g is quite a lot so I would guess that this version does have quite a pronounced tomato flavour.

A Cook's Tour is finally being aired in the UK on UK Food TV. The full schedule for the show is here. I caught four episodes in a row last night that covered Tokyo, rural Japan, Russia, the Mekong and Cambodia. I could have watched another four. Absolutely riveting stuff. I loved the fact that Bourdain is happy to show his emotions on screen. If he's tired and hungry and pissed off at having to follow the local guide around a Malaysian market in Singapore while she show's him every product available, then he doesn't waste energy trying to look interested. Conversely, later in the same show, he genuinely seems to be having the time of his life at a seafood restaurant, tucking in with relish to giant crab claws and spotted grouper. Although he's undoubtedly the star of the show, the really appealing thing is his obvious respect for food and those who prepare it. It's not "look at me, aren't I wonderful" but "look at this, isn't it amazing."

Haven't they heard of spellchecker?

We were discussing the availability of buffalo wings in restaurants in the UK and I came across this recipe. I know its from a UK restaruant and therefore probably doesn't count, but its another variation on the theme. maui420 - I would never use margarine for anything. Ever. It sounds like your sauce is splitting. I would use butter and not boil the sauce, just cook it over a gentle heat.

Not listed on the menu as such, but as there is this recipe on their website, I would have thought the answer would have to be yes.

You would think so wouldn't you, but Jay's experience is compelling evidence that that is obvioulsy not always the case.

I don't know whether to be flattered or appalled, but it's nice to know I'm in your thoughts.

In an ideal world I think you are correct. But the reality of the situation is that, once a restaurant service is set up in a particular way, its often quite difficult for a customer to change that to suit them. I have for example on one memorable occasion seen a sommelier rush over to a table and take a bottle out of a customer's hand because he had dared to pour his own wine. Even if you do explain yourself at length, you don't always get what you want, (and not only in the UK as my recent meal at Aux Lyonnaise demonstrates.), but all I'm suggesting is that the compromise of explaining oneself might result in the desired service experience, rather than a battle.

Rather than simply say that he wanted to pour the wine himself, he could have explained his reasons to the staff and given them the chance of providing the service he really wanted, which is to have the bottle of wine poured equally between himself and his guest. However, as we now know, Jay was not dining with his wife on this occassion, but Gary Marshall, so the rate of consumption would probably have been about even anyway, therefore negating the requirement to pour the wine himself. If that is true, then this was in fact a test for the sake of it and carried out for the purpose of the review alone.