Gaston

Yes, I have. On several occasions when it was rather charming brasserie and once as 2*. This latter visit was great, interesting food, well cooked with many of the well-documented surprises and tricks. However, it was amateurish, sometimes inconsistent, slightly arrogant and self-important and certainly not world class by a country mile -- in fact, not even comparable to 2* in France.Anyway, before this thread goes completely off-topic, I'd like to restate my argument that Michelin's elevation of the FD was strategic rather than based on merit; that it was a reaction to the the 50 best list and the power of buzz in nations with weak culinary traditions, and that subsequent Michelin operations in the UK and US have tended to follow this reactive methodology, which, in gastronomic terms tends to make the guide of diminishing worth the further it strays from its French roots.If they're following trends set by 50 best why are so many top 50 restaurants, Noma included, only 2 star? Noma's topped the list almost as many times as El Bulli, the fact it's only 2 star puzzles me. I can only imagine it has to do with the more informal setting, which goes directly against Michelin's claim that the stars are solely for the food.It is likely that the criteria for three Michelin stars is different to getting enough votes to feature on the top 50 best restaurants of the world. There are numerous three-star restaurants that are not even on the 51-100 list. There are more than 100 restaurants with 3 stars. On the 1-100 on the 50 best, without counting properly, less than a third of the entries have three Michelin stars. So, since three Michelin stars does not guarantee entry on the list, it seems that the criteria and circumstances required for getting enough votes differs from getting (three) stars from Michelin. The argument that Noma is too informal to get three stars is not very convincing since there are numerous restaurants that have been awarded three stars despite very informal service and despite not possessing the setting normally associated with three Michelin stars. Brooklyn Fare and l’Astrance to name two. I frankly find it hard to get upset. Some of my favourite restaurants, Michel Bras and Olivier Roellinger to name two were awarded three stars quite late. I thought the meals I had there were some of the best I had ever had but I could understand why Michelin held back with the third star.

I have since moving to London last year been to the majority of the one stars, all the two stars and all the three stars. Most of the time I find Michelin's ratings totally mind boggling. One can take off a star from most places to convert to what they would have in France. Of the one stars that gained a star last year (not been to Hedone and Trishna) only Alyn Williams deserves a star and not by much compared to Michelin's standard in Paris for example. The star awards to St John Hotel and Medlar for instance are nothing short of a joke. Dabbous is a very lite and a not very good English version of Septime and Saturne, none of which have been considered worthy of a star in two respective three Michelin guides.

The chicken skin with mascarpone, jam and bacon is one of the worst things I have eaten in any restaurants with ambition. That people in this thread and elsewhere considers this one of the most important openings in London the last few years says a lot about both the openings and the eaters.

Question is if Heston's meat fruit is a hommage to (or a rip off of) Louis Outhier's pêche de foie gras.

Agreed about the Waitrose. Much stronger than the Sainsbury version.