Zoticus

Is it really 'shite-awful', or is this just Hayward-hyperbole?

You're mixing up a whole lot of arbitrary prejudices. Again, I repeat, regardless of who runs it/whether they make money from it/ what shoes or phones the clients use, it does not follow that Geales is 'crap'. It may be that you'd prefer a chippie run by deserving orphan Iraqi amputees, which is your prerogative, but Geales is neither poor quality nor over-priced even if it is run to model which you personally dislike. It's a chippie ffs.

I've nothing against this movement to save fish & chips from the depths of the kebab shop freezer. What I find offensive is this idea that the likes of Hollinhead and Aikens are somehow rescuing the form. They're not. They're just questing around for a scaleable business plan to push veblen food at aspirational markups. We're being played as brand-obsessed simpletons, and I for one hope they both crash and burn. ← This may be true, but it doesn't follow that this is: Fish and Chips is essentially simple to prepare, hence when it's done wrong it's obvious, and when it's done right it's obvious too. If there's one thing that a decent chef can bring to such simplicity is install a system whereby it's done right most of the time. Geale's got right before its new owners, and continues to do so now. I couldn't give a monkey's about who gets it right, just as long as it is right. Oddly, you seem to be more worried about who's going to get your money than what you're paying for.

Chez Bruce? The Square?

Geales in Notting Hill.

Somewhere in the Basque Country?

Midsummer House.

La Trompette/ Chez Bruce/ Glasshouse?

la Tupina, Bordeaux ← Yes!

St John? ← You deserve a slap for that. Cabecou?

Quite impressed, but it's a current menu, and in the old country.

Asparagus, Bean, and Pork Belly Salad. Leg of Lamb Cooked for Seven Hours. Chestnut Leaf Wrapped Goat's Cheese. Granny's Apple Tart. Clue: Not in the UK, but should be a lesson to all our 'simplicity is the new complexity' drones.* *I hope this whole thread doesn't break some eGullet rule about having fun.

Surely Michelin is either an authority, in which case if it says x deserves/doesn't deserve stars then it does/doesn't; or, on the other hand it is not an authority, in which case it hardly matters to whom they give/don't give their stars. Most of the recent comments here seem to be saying Michelin is an authority except when it isn't, and that is does matter who gets stars except when they don't .

i think it was bocuse who first said this but it has been accredited to many others since. Ramsay's take on it is 'do you think giorgio armani personally made your suit' ← Despite their glibness, Ducasse, Ramsay and Bocuse still skirt the main question, which asks, 'if you're so passionate about cooking, why don't you cook?'. It is undoubtedly true that these individuals have been able to reduce their food to a set of algorithms that can be processed by a competent brigade, and still have it remain of an exceptionally high quality. However, it doesn't follow from this that were they actually at the pass the food would not be better. Indeed, the division of labour necessary to do what they do effectively prohibits spontaneity, and that, for me at least is a significant measure of a chef's worth. So if they're not in the kitchen we not only lose a quality that any decent reputation relies upon, but we also have to doubt that they derive much enjoyment from cooking in a restaurant. With so many chefs directing operations from their media bunkers, I prefer to spend my money supporting those that demonstrate a bit of commitment to their craft and have the decency to actually cook, than on those who need to spin their absence with non sequiturs.

Is it like a partouze?

Thank you for being sane.

Or wank.

Fair-play unto ye, Camdan. I so wanted this to be good, but unfortunately CB seems to have been touched by HB of FD resulting in the whole being FO.

so is pizzaexpress, neither have pretentions towards 3* though do they? ← If Ducasse does get starred then presumably it will be for his food etc., not for how organizes his restaurants. If he does get starred and you then claim that this is unjust, then I don't see how you can use Michelin to support your arguments since you clearly don't have much faith in Michelin.

I think you're doing the right thing by concentrating on marketing in your local area since until you become established, I doubt anyone is going to travel to Streatham to visit you. However, fliers always smack of desperation when they're promoting restaurants. Perhaps you could organize some kind of foodie events mid-week to get people in, and hopefully make them interested enough to return. Speak to your wine supplier and see if he can't organize a tasting or something like that. Don't worry too much about the cliched language for the time being (you're going to get hammered about this), just make sure that whoever comes through the door gets looked after well enough to come again, and to tell their mates about you.

I still disagree. You can criticize the food and then attempt to put that criticism down to the corporate nature of it's conception, but not the other way around. Either Ducasse's food is crap, or it's not. If it's not, then the only gripe with centralized planning is that it goes against a romantic notion of how you would like to think that your food is prepared. If it is crap, the corporate approach is only one of several possible explanations.

Being one restaurant within an organization does not make a Ducasse restaurant a 'chain' restaurant. In fact, it patently isn't a chain restaurant, if it were I think we'd be crying out for more rather than bandying the term about as being pejorative. It seems far too neat to put all criticisms down to corporate soullessness. These places are run by talented professionals who, as Ducasse points out, are the same individuals who cook when Ducasse is in the kitchen. Any problems Ducasse is experiencing in London are likely to be of the same order as those that plague all the other London restaurateurs; namely staff and suppliers. Furthermore, the corporate criticism shows an alarming naiveté regarding what goes on in the kitchens of any renowned chef. If whoever wrote this imagines that all those well known chefs who do not head up a restaurant empire are either manning the pass, foraging for herbs or getting up impossibly early to persuade eccentric suppliers to part with their hand-reared crayfish, then he is woefully mistaken.

Strange, given all the moaning about London restaurants, that's it's almost as if some actually wanted Ducasse to fail.

"Wow factor", is beginning to grate.

Well that's just bollocks. ← Not so. Mr.Stevenson knows what he's talking about. ← Mr. Stevenson maybe correct because what he says is true, but he is not correct because it is him who says it's true.