PhilD

Jay has already blogged in the comment section.

? Jadis, Table d'Eugene, Jeu de Quilles ? ← John thanks for these. We have booked into Jadis. We used to enjoy Guillaume Delage's food when he cooked a Gaya so it will be really interesting to try it in his own restaurant. I will report back.

La Giaconda have a cover charge, too. ← The post was meant to be read in the context of the other posts which discuss how both Corrigan and Merrony have cover charges. Thus they are the "exception" as cover charges are still quite rare in the UK.

I am a simple soul and tend to skim through menus noting that entrees are £X and mains are £Y, assessing whether the food will meet my needs. I do some simple mental arithmetic and then conclude the restaurant looks about right in terms of value/quality. I don't study all the small print when making these decisions, after all it is a meal not a mortgage. If I then get a hit with a cover charge, or charges for extras I didn't request (like bread/pappadums already on the table) I feel aggrieved. Transparency is achieved when menus state the full, inclusive price of the dish; including cover charges, vegetables and accompaniments and service. Anything else makes me suspicious. Excess information can simply disguise sharp practice. Corrigan and Merrony may be exceptions (I especially like Paul's fixed mark up of wine). However, as they are both recent openings I hope we are not seeing a trend.

We are planning our pre-Christmas excursion to Paris. Our current plans are: Thursday dinner - Le Regalade Friday lunch - Le Cinq (I trust Julot) Saturday dinner - looking for an interesting/challenging contrast...? As you can see: one old favorite; one emerging classic; and a space for something innovative, new and exciting (i.e. Spring is so 2006). We look forward to your recommendations. PS - we love El Bulli but hate Ze Kitchen Gallerie - is that a conundrum...?

The UK actually has 140 stars (107* 24** 3***). Japan has a population of 130 million compared to the UK of 60 million so you would expect it to be able to support more starred restaurants. Although I wouldn't take this logic too far as it means China should have 2,227 stars...! I agree with Prasantrin in his comment on the Japanese food culture. On the whole food quality seems to be taken a lot more seriously than the UK. The quality of most Japanese suburban restaurants (even holes in the wall) far exceeds most of what is found on the average British high street. Although Japan's obsession with Starbucks does take some explaining. The UK has a few good restaurants but I feel the overall quality is pretty dire especially given the amount of media coverage food gets. Take as an example the rash of Tapas bars in London (Brindisa, Barrafina ect). They are OK, in-fact compared to the high street they are very good, but in absolute terms are they good? How would the measure up in Spain? During a perfectly good, and enjoyable, 4 hour lunch at Barrafina I started to think about the sheer variety and artistry you get in Spain. Great food without the pretension and attitude (one waitress was especially bad on this visit), I suspect many of these bars would struggle to establish a reputation in Spain let alone gain all the plaudits they get here. If we really had a good food culture these types of places would be the norm rather than destination restaurants. If we had that sort or solid middle ground we would deserve more stars - at the moment we actually may have more than our fair share.

How do I get a job as a Chef? It obviously pays far more than my chosen career.

Ptipos makes very good points. I would add one other. If Michelin did not exist then some other guide would take its place. I find that Michelin isn't perfect but it serves its purpose. I tend to triangulate my restaurant choices with Michelin and lots of other sources. However I find Michelin usually proves quite reliable as a benchmark, with other sources of information adding colour and helping me narrow a choice to one that meets my tastes. It is not perfect, but neither are other guides, and nor would a substitute be if Michelin ceased to exist. I also suspect that any substitute would also be blamed by some chefs for their demise. It's not Michelin it is simply the challenge of running a business.

I was being sarcastic no one got it ← We have a Jamie's Italian in Bath and it is actually quite good in terms of reasonable food at a modest price. We went in it's first week and there were some glitches (over salted pasta and charred sausage) but on the whole the food was quite enjoyable. I am keen to go back to see how it has settled down. It is the sort of restaurant that is useful for a quick meal without compromising on too much on quality. Although some dishes are toned down for the 'great british public" i.e. Bresaola rather than raw beef in the Carpaccio salad. It is good to have it as an option after Fridays beers it makes a change from my local Indian and definitely a positive development and a real step up from what is already on the high street.

Thanks for all the advice. We have booked Martin Wishart for a long, long lunch - I assume they do full ALC and Tasting, we will check. Interestingly dinner was already full 6 weeks in advance (and no, not for NYE). Next question, recommendations please, for good but inexpensive meals. A good curry (Roti?), a steak (The Grain Store?), and decent pubs (good beer). We are also stopping at the Star Inn in North Yorks on the way up so don't need another top feed.

Check out this thread Mathew Grant tells you all you need to know about Tapas in SS - his reply to me has a good link.

We are heading to Edinburgh and wanted to go to The Kitchin but it is closed. Any recommendations for the next best? Is it Martin Wishart?

Why look for a subplot? From his message it sounds that he simply wants a change and is going to travel more and explore different options and broaden his understanding of his passion - food. Good for him. Psychologists often talk about three career stages, the first is usually a false start, the second where you find your vocation and your success, and the third where you explore areas which interest you. The second stage is often become a compromise, whilst you do something you enjoy, the success can become a constraint. A change often renews energy and renews passions. I am intrigued by the view a lot critics take of Michelin i.e. it isn't good for chefs. I have just read the introduction to Heston Blumenthal's new book "The Big Fat Duck Cookbook", his sheer joy, excitement and happiness of winning his first, second and third stars really comes through. I also remember watching Gordon Ramsay's first TV series "Boiling Point" which documents his quest for his third star. It is obvious that both these chefs view Michelin recognition as something to strive for, and as recognition of their cooking ability (rather than an opportunity to make more money). Putting the two ideas together, isn't it entirely possible that the Michelin represents the "success" in terms of independent recognition of what a chef has achieved in the kitchen? But, that really only satisfies the second stage of a career. After a couple of decades at the pass very successful chefs do go off at tangents in order to explore other ideas and directions. Roellinger travels, Ducasse grows an empire and perfects high quality, highly consistent food (Juliot derides it as industrial, but I think that misses the point), Senderens goes back to simpler cooking, others move into TV etc etc. There is nothing wrong with this, nor is there anything especially surprising. I am also puzzled by the binary debate. Does Michelin simply assess the food on the plate or takes other factors into account. I feel this is far to simplistic an argument. Food is a sensory experience and our enjoyment of food utilises all our senses. Lots and lots of subliminal factors and many overt factors influence our perception of food (including memory, mood, expectation, etc - Heston's book is good on this). I really believe that good food needs the correct setting, presentation to be good. That doesn't mean opulence and extravagance but it does mean all the elements need to come together to reinforce our psychological experience of food. Wine tastes better from a Riedal glass than a plastic cup: is the glass simply a better material? Does the plastic interact with the flavour of the wine? Or are we physiologically conditioned to expect it to be better? I suspect all three are important elements, and as a result none can be ignored. The same is true of a restaurant. My experience of the food (the proxy measure being taste) is determined by lots and lots of factors. Whilst Michelin may swear that they don't take these into account when awarding stars, they really do, because these elements all contribute to the psychological experience food. In fact we all do, we can't get away from it. Three star food tastes like three star food, because of all the elements that go together to deliver a three star experience. Every element has to match our physiological expectation of a three star experience, as a result three star restaurants need to look and feel like three star restaurants (and no that doesn't mean gilded palaces, or traditional versus contemporary, it simply means lots of attention to detail). So, in my opinion, Michelin clearly has to take these factors into account as they are intrinsic to the experience. A better question may be to ask whether the inspectors taste is sufficiently broad in terms or architecture, decor, music etc to be able to appreciate quality in what ever form it comes? For example if they hate the "Philippe Stark" contemporary decor of a restaurant will they enjoy the food....?

I notice that Gordon Ramsay has his Claridges and Maze restaurants open (plus his pubs) for Christmas. Maze is also in a hotel - the Mariott Grosvenor Square. It is tricky to tell which is open Christmas Day, but Claridges web site indicates they are doing both lunch and dinner - although dinner isn't in the restaurant. Lunch is £195 pp and it is turkey and goose.

I have always found Mela (152 Shaftesbury Avenue) to be very reliable. It does turn the tables a bit but the food is good.

Check out Andy's scoring system. A score of 5 or 6 is one star Michelin level. He says that 1/10 is probably in the top 1% of restaurants in the country, so it isn't a system that includes all restaurants, it starts high. Note: he gave Le Cafe Anglais 3/10 and Avista 5/10 - but obviously always good to make up your own mind.

For me it was that I ate in these two restaurants almost back to back. I had very high expectations of Hibiscus given the comments here and elsewhere. These were not met. On the other hand I had read far less about Foliage and was simply looking for a good, but well priced set lunch. As you can see from my previous comments my experience was the opposite to my expectations. Coincidentally Roger had written about Foliage and mentioned Hibiscus as a comparison.

Good to hear - I tried to get in for Sunday lunch and it was fully booked - I think it is popular. I plan to try it on my next visit.

We had a female sommelier to start, but the wine service was taken over by two gentlemen, one may have been the sommelier (Simon) but it wasn’t obvious. My comments on the wine are about the pacing, generosity and attitude. The individual wines were good, so no complaints about this, in fact they served a really fantastic Rully. The food did present a serious challenge to matching wines, twice we went from sweet whites to very dry whites, the worst change was from a Riesling (I think) matched with the foie gras, to a very dry white Bordeaux served with the fish dish. Each wine went really well with the dish it accompanied but they really didn't work at all well as a sequence of wines – sweet to dry, sweet to dry. More work is needed on this, I would expect a lot better at this level. Jon – no I don’t think Claire Bosi was FoH. There was a receptionist who stayed at the desk and then all male waiters apart from the female sommelier. We chose Hibiscus because of everyone’s positive comments. Has it slipped? Were we unlucky? Did it falter because Mrs B was absent? I noticed that Roger on the Foliage thread enjoyed Foliage more, and that mirrors our experience. It will be interesting to hear from others who have visited recently.

Oh theyve got that st hubertus guy back? He guested at foliage a couple of years back - we went and weren't that impressed. slightly strangled italian food trying to speak haute french - the usual lost in translation issues... ← His dishes are marked on the menu, if I remember correctly there was one available per course. Of the dishes we chose we probably had one per course in our selection. Overall they were similar in concept to the standard menu (and to many other meals we have tried at this level. The weakest dish was the pasta entree which was one of his, all the others were good. It is very impressive to have a 2* chef in the kitchen on a Sunday - he toured the restaurant so he was there. It is also great to be able to eat his food for £29 for four courses - must be the best value 2* in the UK this month.

Friday night a birthday dinner at Hibiscus for six of us, we chose the tasting menu at £75 and matching wines at £65. Given the rave reviews of the suckling pig we asked if his could be included and they obliged. Overall the food was good but it didn't really "wow" any of us. We all enjoyed the suckling pig, although the pastry on the sausage roll was over cooked — very brown and very crispy. The post match reviews the next day at lunch were fairly muted, in fact we all tended to chat more about our visit to Mugaritz a year ago than the meal the previous evening. Sarah (battleofthebulge - above) mentions the sweet elements of the dishes, and I tend to agree that there are quite a few - possibly too many. Two dishes with chestnuts, one with sweet-corn, the amuse, a Hibiscus cocktail with miniature (el bulli like) pineapple spheres, and obviously dessert. As a result I thought the meal lacked balance. The one element of the meal that was especially poor was the wine service. It was slow, out of synch with the food, and mean. The wine was poured after the dishes had been served, and so we had to watch out food cool as they explained and served each wine. Each pour was small, often far less than a full bottle (between six), and generally just enough to enjoy with the dish. Early in the meal we sat for long periods with empty glasses between courses - not a great start for a celebration meal. The sommelier said as she poured the first glass, "whilst the pours were small, they are not a mean restaurant and would top them up" - good. After my partner asked them to top up the wines glasses for a second time (after being ignored the first time) the waiter/maitre'd sniffily told us - "if you want more we would have to pay for it." We generally choose the wine/food pairing if available and are usually very happy with the choices and generosity. Unfortunately the FOH team at Hibiscus really messed this up; we spent £1,000 on dinner and all felt cheated.

I noticed the cook book in the window of Wild Honey and then saw that the menu was annotated to show which dishes were featured in the book. I assume this will continue.

Roger - one thing I forgot to say - your comment is spot on. We had eaten at Hibiscus on Friday, and Foliage on Sunday, Hibiscus was OK, if anything a little disappointing given the reviews/comments it has received. Foliage was far better in terms of both food and service - I wouldn't hesitate to return to Foliage but I would take some persuading to go back to Hibiscus.

Thank you to everyone for the recomendations. We chose Foliage and really enjoyed the meal - see comments on the Foliage thread. Howard - we are saving The Capitol for a romatic meal for two - it looks so nice. Also looking forward to the Bombay Brasserie reopening - we had a trip down memory lane before it closed and to my surprise the food was very good. It was tatty, but the refurb should fix this. I hear the Taj Group is going to import some of their top Indian team to re-launch the food.

Chrisp - I totally agree. Your post made up my mind and we went there for Sunday lunch. At the moment they have a visiting 2* chef (Norbert Niederkoffler from Restaurant St Hubertus at Hotel Rosa Alpina in Italy) and he has a number of his dishes on the menu. The good news was he was cooking on Sunday. The menu is £29 for four courses with extra courses at £7.50 each. Overall a really fantastic meal - the photos hopefully show this. Only two complaints: First, they do really up-sell the wines and the sommelier didn't settle at our level. For example after we had enjoyed a good Givry at £49 a bottle with our mains, we ordered two glasses of house Cabernet at £7 each for the cheese course (although he had suggested some very expensive Italian reds). My partner then asked for a glass of red, but before we could blink, he had suggested and delivered a £18 glass of Pinot Noir (without telling us the price). It leaves a bitter taste after an excellent meal - I will be communicating directly with the restaurant as I didn't want to raise it in-front of guest. Second, was my mistake. Extra course were £7.50, and the cheese board was a £7,50 supplement. We didn't realise this actually meant £15 each for cheese...! This is the meal for three people - five courses: Amuse Bouche COURSE #1 Pasta parcels stuffed with prawns and apple reduction Salmon tartare, tuna sashimi and wasabi ice-cream Foie gras with creme brulee and terrine COURSE #2 Scallops with squid ink risotto Sole Breaded sweetbreads with truffles COURSE #3 Monkfish, truffles and pearl barley risotto Lamb Beef cheeks, with a cannelloni COURSE #4 Stilton plate Cheese platter for two COURSE #5 Chocolate fondant Calvados soufflé and apple sorbet (yes the little apple is sorbet) An exotic trifle (I think)