Lord Michael Lewis

Typical self-contradictory laissez faire nonsense. The irony is, or perhaps sardony, is that 'quality' no longer figures in the success equation being, as it is, unmarketable. Few would dispute that Koffman has been offering dining of the highest quality up to, almost, the present day. His problems are more a result of the devaluation of anything to do with 'quality' in favour of marketability. In short his most marketable feature has become unmarketable.

The truth of the matter is that Koffman gives the food press nothing to write about except for his food. His popularity would no doubt rocket if he were to allow a TV company to broadcast him dunking a commis' face in the fat fryer, etc.

Tee Hee! But seriously, What Koffman needs is a gimmick. Some easy copy to grease those column inches. Any suggestions?

What, like Cornish pasties and cream teas?

You can't consign Koffman to the shit-heap on the basis of a bad meal, however awful. Tante Claire has been going for twenty+ years and all that time at the top.

Given Rayner's key position in the marketing spintriae, it would be interesting to hear his perspectives on this topic.

It seems to me that the self-effacing Koffman has been made a victim of his own integrity. His one chef - one restaurant policy, his belief that what mattered was on the plate and his admirable reluctance to clown for the press have converted him into a square peg in a market of round holes. I find this especially sad as, firstly, this would never have happened in his native Gascony, and secondly because it deals a death blow to anyone who just wishes to cook. A humiliating episode in the career of someone who for many years has been, arguably, the best chef in Britain.

I had lunch there last week and, while nowhere near as bad as Matthew Grant's experience, the food was good but the service fell yards from the mark. As for a return visit; I'd rather wait until Koffman re-establishes himself elsewhere. All very depressing.

Although it's probably lost him an awful lot of business, I support the Jacket & Tie policy. It seems to put off the coked-up party people.

I don't know if Koffman is being pushed or if he's jumping, but either way this is a great loss for gastronomic London. It is also confirmation that food is below funny haircuts and marketing on the list of key qualities that ensure a restaurant's success in Britain. I blame the press.

Cabrales, if you're going to Mugaritz, I suggest you phone and check that the "Foie Gras Asado a la Parrilla de Carbón con Consomé de Atún Ahumado y Seco y Cerezas"* will be available, it is truly stupendous. *Translates, roughly, as: Charcoal Grilled Foie Gras with Conomé of Smoked & Dried Tuna and Cherries.

I'm not interested in the Good Food Guide's opinions of top-end places; everyone knows well enough who they are and what they're doing. They recieve so much media exposure, in fact, that I can't see how this guide's opinion informs potential diners. On the other hand, the guide has the potential to be a valuable resource for the diner seeking lesser known provincial restaurants. Indeed, it is these lesser know places that make up the bulk of this publication, and it is these places to which the guide does a great disservice. I feel that Jim Ainsworth's attempts to claim a slice of gastronomic celebrity by aligning his editorial focus onto himself and his relationship with a select group of already sufficiently well known chefs does not allow the guide to function as it should in this respect. Viz Basildog's rehashed entries. So your supposition regarding the Fat Duck is as wrong as it is inane.

I always stick to Spanish wines in Spain not least because non domestic product is virtually non existent on wine lists, except for the omnipresent Möet Chandon. When in the Basque country one can limit one's self further by only drinking Basque wine from la Rioja Alavesa which is the southernmost part of Euskadi. Your question about hake is an interesting one about a not very interesting fish. Hake, or Merluza is an immensely popular and extremely bland white fish, the Chris O'Donnel of the sea. It is the kind of foodstuff indicated for those confined to bath-chairs and is best avoided as a waste of time.

Quite, but the Good Food Guide is not what it once was, and the reason for this is that the current editor spends far too much time being chummy with media chefs and not enough time berating them for taking the piss out of their clients.

If you don't see the contradiction then there'll be no explaining it to you. Furthermore, God (the Biblical one) is not typically thought of as being objective.

Does the guide actually have any credibilty? For many, what was once a consumer guide has become "My favourite restaurants" by Jim Ainsworth. A less than objective editor who is alarmingly keen to chum up with media chefs.

For traditional Basque food in Donosti, try El Bodegon de Alejandro or Urbano. Arzak is on the up again since the daughter has taken over the kitchen. Martin Berasategui's protegés are cooking some very exciting food at Mugaritz. Zuberoa remains a favourite of mine. My first meal at Martin Berasategui since his third Michelin Star was a bit flat.

Shaun Hill, a chef whose work I rate highly, said, on the topic of Molecular Gastronomy:

A "pat" answer, but perhaps a good answer?

Deacon, Plotinki is correct, there are people, plenty of people, who have educated their taste organs to this canine level. I don't doubt that you or I could do the same with enough time and effort. And, indeed, Plotinki is correct that the identification of flavour and odour by the taste organs is objective. How could it not be? Apples taste like apples and not anchovies. The problem is that Plotinki stubbornly insists that, a) 'good' taste (i.e. a comprehensive set of superior preferences) exists, and b) that the trained palate constitutes 'good' taste rather than a pre-condition of 'good' taste (were it to exist at all). The difficulty I have with all this, although I may share many preferences with Plotinki, is that I can't say I, or he, has 'good' taste. We don't. Like everyone else we have our own idiosyncratic taste, because taste is the value system one employs when pleasing oneself. Should this value system be subordinated to the preferences of others it is no longer be 'taste' as personal preference, but rather a form of communication.

This is it. What do you need to know before you can innovate?

Although he was probably tripping at the time, he had a good point. A similar concept might apply to taste.

Norman Davies' 'Europe a History', for the third time. Like painting the Forth Bridge, once you get to the end you have to begin again.

Did he ever create that new art? His extensive use of "artificial sweeteners in the desserts of this book went a long way towards making me believe cuisine minceur was diet cooking rather than a revolutionary approach to cooking. I'm not even sure this food was ever served in his main restaurant. Okay, whatever. I'm loathe to let this thread go off topic so soon, so I'll just rephrase my original post: To what extent is innovation important and at what stage of a chef's career is it appropriate to innovate?

As I understand it, and I am not an expert, Cuisine Minceur, with it's concessions to healthy eating, eliminated flour thickened sauces, and the reliance on cream and butter. Albeit, perhaps, unintentional, the resulting product had more pronounced flavour, etc. As far as other U.K. offenders go, there is John Campbell, the fusion chap at Provedores, and, ironically, lots of Blumenthal imitators.