Andy Lynes

Perhaps someone at restaurant can confirm the total number of restaurants voted for. Restaurant Magazine editor Chris Maillard offers some futher background on the awards: "392 restaurants were named at least once, from 1880 at The Bentley to Zuni in San Francisco. However, we had to throw out a small but significant proportion of the responses due to the equivalent of spoilt ballot papers - the voter hadn't actually given us five, they'd misspelt something too badly to be trackable down, or we couldn't read it at all. These were actually the voters' choices from all of the restaurants they've ever been to - the question wasn't 'what is your favourite restaurant right now?' but 'what is your favourite restaurant?'. The use of the present tense, though, obviously suggests that the restaurant is currently operating (although the French Laundry wasn't for much of this year). And, coincidentally, the word 'favourite' actually means the most enjoyable, rather than the one with the most stars, the biggest truffles, the whitest tablecloths, the smarmiest waiters, or any other old-school measure. This has, I have to say, confused the hell out of a few traditionalists. But we'd gladly put a shed in Kettering in the 50 if enough people liked it. Quite a few of our respondents were critics, who may well eat out in excess of 300 times a year. Others were chefs and restaurateurs who one would suspect also get about a bit. Which gives you a potential list of places they've eaten just this year, based on a list of 350 people (rounded down a bit) somewhere in the region of 105,000. But in actual fact, God knows. We put our trust in very basic maths and building a good list of people in the first place, rather than retroactively applying mathematical rules that would probably confuse Stephen Hawking. One of the strengths of our 50 Best, I like to think, is its simplicity. There are various retrospective analyses you could apply to explain some of its quirks, but actually it's just a very straightforward sum, and trying to overcomplicate it misses the point slightly." Chris also supplied the following comments after having read this thread in its entirity: "Firstly, we're not completely satisfied with the list either. And we won't be until we have a contribution from every chef, restaurateur, critic and gourmet in the world, preferably nicely distributed across every continent. But we tried hard to get a good list, and enough of them to make it statistically fairly valid. Next year I'm hopeful we'll be able to double the size of our panel, so if anybody out there would like to send suggestions of voters (or nominate themselves), they'd be most welcome. Secondly, 'best' is of course a subjective term. If you want to make any decision, and you ask just one person which is best, you'll get a subjective answer. But if you ask 300 experts, while it's still subjective, there's considerably more chance that your answer will be useful. Or so we hope. And lastly, the reason we did this is twofold: We were fed up with the fuddy-duddy nitpickery of Michelin, Gault-Millau and the like. This list should measure simply 'most enjoyable'. And nobody else did a worldwide list, which in this international culture seems like an oversight. And yes, 'Best' is not exact terminology. But restaurant enjoyment is not an exact, measurable commodity. We say it's the 50 Best. If you don't like that, you're welcome to start your own list called 'The 50 Most Popular Restaurants in the World, Sorted According to Statistical Frequency and With some Caveats About The Selection Process'. I'd like to see you fit that on the cover."

I had exactly the same problem with the man with the cheese cart. He had a very pronounced French accent and spoke extremely quickly, I couldn't understand a word he said and so I selected the cheeses that I recognised by sight.

I was attempting to address dierctly the issue in hand i.e. the validity of the list. I am sanguine that we must agree to disagree on this and I'll therefore take my leave of this thread in the hope that it may flourish in my absense.

Moby, glad you've only experienced great service. Here's one example of why I was not 100% thrilled with it: Me to the sommelier: "I'd like some help with choosing some wine" Sommelier: "I do not understand" Me: "Um, I'd like some assistance with the wines?" Sommelier looks helplessly at collegue across the room. Me to another member of staff: "We don't know what wine to have with our meal" Member of staff: "So your having the foir gras, the bass, the langoustine and the veal. Maybe you would like wines by the glass?" Me:"Yes, that sounds like a good idea" Member of staff disappears. No futher consultation is offered on style, grape varieties or, most importantly, price. Very nice wines are enjoyed by me and my companion and are explained as they are brought to the table. Cue bill much larger than we expected. Not the sort of experience I expect from a one star with ambitions to be a three star.

...in your opinion. Opson, the only way you will convince me is be providing me with your own list of the 50 best restaurants in the world, telling me how you arrived at your list and why your results and methodology are superior to that of Restaurant Magazine's. Then we might have something further to debate.

Tom Aikens is worth dining at if you are interested in the London restaurant scene per se and want to know what all the fuss is about. There is a lot of technical ability in the kitchen and that is made apparent on the plate, sometimes to the detriment of the main ingredients. Service, whilst mostly efficient, is not at the level of most other establishments with similarly ambitious cooking in London and lacks warmth and personality.

In light of Gary's comments about how busy the place is getting, and, as I won't be up to Leeds for lunch in the very near future, perhaps I should eat my words in the meantime.

Its amazing what you can get in Leeds by mentioning Gary Marshall's name. Yin, thanks for sharing your lunchtime indulgences with us. I'm almost beginning to regret leaving BT before they had another chance to send me to Leeds. It sounds like the only thing wrong with Anthony's is that they were still decorating it the last time I was in town.

Robyn, if you follow the ink in my post you'll see that Gary Marshall reserved a seat at Atelier on Easter Sunday this year.

Yes, it does.

I like Clare McIntosh's comment "Being greeted by a champagne trolley was a brilliant idea!". I agree, it's bound to do a better job of it than Mrs Aikens if my recent experience is anything to go by.

I was passing on comments offered to me by Restaurant magazine editor Chris Malliard as I indicated it the earlier post to which you refer, they are not my words. Perhaps someone at restaurant can confirm the total number of restaurants voted for. My guess is that it woud be a great deal higher than the number you suggest, thereby allowing anomolies like The Wolseley to slip into the lower reaches of the list on the basis of a few votes. Are you able to clarify what you mean by how the website gives the impression of a "much more comprehensive" list, I'm a little unclear what you are getting at here. Which are...

Any thread that analyses the methodology employed for compiling a list is, almost by definition, going to be fairly dry. However, I think a broad range of views have been represented, including those of the organisers themselves, and that some interesting points have been made. I agree with Adrian and Thom that the debate should move on to the restaurants that made the list, and maybe try and identify some that we think should have been in but didn't make the cut for whatever reason.

This is not true, sometimes we have a donar kebab (or "gyro" for our American chums) which we eat off of paper plates and then feed the left-overs to the dog.

LINK. I think that stands up as a comment on the first awards where a panel of only 50 people were surveyed and whose opinions might not have been the most authoritative. This year, a panel of 300 plus last years Top 50 restaurants were canvassed, Restaurant Magazine's reputation is now quite firmly established and therefore I do not think those comments are germain this time around.

And how old are you now? Is this supposed to be funny? If so, can someone please explain it to me? I was simply trying to establish how long ago the experience you describe took place in order to assess if it still has any relevance.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary definition of "best" (you can always tell when an arguement is in terminal decline when someone reaches for a dictionary) is "of the most excellent or outstanding or desirable kind". What is excellent, outstanding or desirable to one person may well not be to another, hence it is perfectly possible to use the word to denote a subjective view.

There has obviously been some confusion as I thought it was recently opened Woleseley Fish and Chip bar in Scunthorpe, where Michael Winner pops in for a mushy pea fritter and pickled egg whenever he's in the vicinity. Now I realise its The Wolseley, I take it all back. Except for that extra "e", I'll keep hold of that for the weekend of you don't mind, I may be needing it.

And how old are you now?

Biggest "shock" for me was The Woleseley. I haven't been there so don't have a personal view as to whether it's inclusion is warrented or not. It's simply that it has been open such a short space of time I'm surprised it has been deemed to be world class already, despite the excellent track record of the key players involved. And despite the fact that Michael Winner loves it of course (where was he on Tuesday night by the way. No don't tell me, at The Woleseley).

But what about when they stick a big ariel on the top to get a few extra feet of height just to get to the number 1 position? That's cheating in my book. (Actually, does the French Laundry have a bloody great ariel on it's roof. Maybe that's how it got voted number 1. No, hold on, that doesn't matter for this does it?)

Opson your considered response is appreciated, thank you. Although you are correct in saying that I know some of Restaurant magazine's people, that I was part of the voting panel and was present at the ceremony, I would honestly not hesitate to criticise the Awards if I felt it was deserved. As it is, the names of the entire voting panel have been published, the criteria (such as it was) is known, as is the method for compiling the results. I think its perfectly valid to argue about what should and should not appear in such a list, but to say that the Awards are misleading is incorrect. I think the comparison with the Q Best Album lists us a useful one, particularly as it was in all liklihood Restaurant magazine's source of inspiration for their awards. Nothing on earth will convince me that St Peppers is one of the "best" 3 albums ever made. It is by turns mawkish, self indulgent, tiresome and largely free of truely memorable tunes. If Q magazine were ever to ask me for my top 5 albums, "Closer" by Joy Division would almost certainly top the list. Now you might say that it has a narrow musical range, the production is relatively crude, the consistantly mournful tone of the record is oppressive and that Ian Curtis can't really sing. And there would be some truth in all of that, but in my opinion it's a work of art and no one will dissaude me of that. My (not particularly original) point is that judging one restaurant, or album, against another to determine the "best" is intrinsically a subjective process, and that the results must be viewed on that basis. There is simply no point in trying to argue that a Top 50 list of this nature is incomplete, inaccurate or misleading in someway. There is no harm in Restaurant Magazine's 50 Best Restaurants in the World Awards. The weight and value afforded to them is up to the individual reader.

If we are to continue to debate this subject it will require that we remain civil to one another, not mis-represent the arguement as it has so far played out and not pre-suppose what others may or may not think.

Adrian York has won the eGullet.com Isola meal for two competiton by correctly answering the question "What cut of meat is traditionally used for the Italian dish Osso Bucco?" which is of course veal shin. Congratulations to Adrian and our thanks to Oliver Peyton and Gruppo Restaurants for offering the prize and Sarah Canet for her assistance in organising the competition.

No, I'm not. Although I am now familiar with Michelin's broad criteria as outlined by Derek Brown at Le Manoir (which I reported on in this thread) I have absolutely no idea of the details of the inspection process, or what exactly "worth a detour", "worth a special trip" equates to in terms of the quality and preperation of the food. Similarly, I have no idea how the NY Times ensures the consistant application of its star rating by its various reviewers, an issue which has led to the contraversy over Amanda hesser's recent review of Spice Market (see this thread). With Restaurant Top 50 it's simply "name your 5 favourite restaurants", what could be more clear than that?