Scott

Maybe I'm naive, but I presumed that this was a PR stunt to get the name of the restaurant in the papers. ← No I can assure you that it's genuine. Thierry Tomasin is one of very few MCA's in this country (Master of Culinery Arts), an award that is earned and bestowed on only very few recipients. Certainly one thing that Aubergine could not be accused of since Ramsay left in 1998 is trying to pose PR stunts. Cheers, Howard ← agree with that. Aubergine, are almost the anti-pr curiously when I had the 1978 & 59 La Tache's recently, there wasn't a great of development difference between the two. presume the richebourgs, being a little more 'muscular' will be in just as good a state. if you go - enjoy.

It's a point often expressed, but one that can't be expressed often enough: a good restaurant is universally agreed to be one that delivers good food in a pleasant atmosphere at a fair price. Yet we've all come to accept that such qualities are neither sufficient nor essential to win the favour of Michelin, which somehow remains the industry's own benchmark. Absurd. ←

sounds like a bit of cost cutting gone wrong

Well Matt, went along last night, and I disagree that it is serving michelin star quality food. BUT, it was blooming fantastic nonetheless. loved it. the price is unbelievable, £25 for 3 course. giddy up! can't be arsed going into too much detail, but I enjoyed this meal more than any I ever did at putney bridge, but that's just me. fuck the side plates. Soupe Pistou: fragrant, textured, and fresh. superb. Chicken: could've been a bit warmer sure, but I talk a lot, so am used to food being a bit cold. otherwise, lovely firm texture, well balanced and precisely judged seasoning. very good. Cherries - hell i was pished by this stage, but it was fine. a mate loved the meaty pigs head, as did I when he wasn't looking. the rabbit cottage pie, a panoply of textures and rich flavours. choc soup - not for me. but hey. the wine, there are some dodgy markups. but there often are in london restaurants. Domaine Hauvette cotes du Provence was £53, I had it last week at midsummer house for £30. as an example. but there was range, and interest across 85 bins, and I think they've done a bloody good job. the carafe thing is brilliant. all 85 bins available by the 250ml carafe. gives a nice pour for 2 people. anyway, got so enthused we had 6 of them. may explain how the bill got a little out of control. well there were 2 of us, and it was a monday super place, will be back. don't think it will be long before the prices creep up though.

whoa. steady on there. until you establish "who" should be paying the service, and the manner in which it is applied, the debate can't progress any further. ← Here's 700 words from AA Gill on Galvin's tronc policy. And obviously, the employer should pay a living wage which would be reflected in the customer's bill, rather than rely on a supposed act of gratuity or charity by the customers. Can it progress any further now? ← nope. you just ended it right there, on an entirely different point to the one you started with

whoa. steady on there. until you establish "who" should be paying the service, and the manner in which it is applied, the debate can't progress any further.

I was at the greenhouse on Tuesday night, and whilst not having been before I'd be surprised if it was much different. very annoyed at having predessert served with coffee overall, exactly what you expect with the bonus of a truly historic cheese board and a heavily marked up wine list sans bargains.

indeed. on Tuesday night it was historic. the 2002 comte was spot on

I feel the need to misquote Dr Johnson. It may be expensive but you are suprised to find it done at all... ← you are of course right. it's a surprise they'd do it. but why? When did scene restaurants get such a hold on us, we expect to not get what we want?

4 of us ordered the menu, and lots of vino. regrettably our bill was considerably higher still, and we agreed very similarly with your impressions. I didn't get it. Some of the dishes were great,some weren't. who cares. what I couldn't work out, was where or what is the underlying construct behind the menu? It just struck me as small servings of normal haute dishes. what's the point of that? Honey I shrunk the degustation menu! I was hoping/expecting to see a better constructed, more thought out cuisine. it seemed a bit gimmicky, and a sideshow without a point. some of the dishes very good, clear flavoures and interesting and well balanced textures. but we left feeling there wasn't anything more to know.

I never said it did. My suggestion (between the lines) was that we live and let live. In pubs people drink. Sometimes they laugh. Sometimes it is noisey Sometimes it is spicey. (That's why pubs are for adults) If it's not your cup tea - stay at home. ← Sorry I didn't make myself sufficient clear. I was trying to say that we were talking about different things, that the sort of thing you were saying was ok, was not the same as what I was objecting to. I agree that sometimes, as you say, things get a bit loud and spicey, what I was trying to say - not especially clearly it seems - was that if you go too far - the fault lies closer to home, and not with those around you who take offense.

No it's not. It's called having a laugh, having some fun, having a life! It might not always seem so funny to an onlooker, but it does not make you a twat. Lighten up - or we'll all be in danger of becoming dul, souless, boring gits. ← I think we're talking about different things. We've all been the annoying drunken table/party at various times, that behaved badly. No doubt, we will again - and have fun doing it. but lets not think we're being wacky, cool, and risque. which seems to be the point, it's one thing to get carried away, it's another to think it makes you cool.

it's ALWAYS twat behaviour. the thing is when you're drunk you think it's the funniest thing in the world. I've been guilty of this myself.

The set lunch with a couple of glasses of wine used to be brilliant value. I'd heard that it had been really pared down with only a couple of choices per course and thus have not been for a while. A lovely dining room, especially if you have a view of the park. What is the deal now? ← Same. anyone who complains about £7 for 2 large glasses of wine (choice of 3 white / 3 red / 1 sweet) is simply insane. £3.50 for a decent glass of wine, that's as much as a weatherspoons, and here in a place of this standing?? brilliant value. in short £32 for 3 courses, with amuse, inc 2 glasses of wine. ← Sorry - I think you may vave mis-understood - I meant how many choices of courses for the food are there now. It went from about 7 per course to 3 - I was just wondering what the deal was nowdays. Are they still trying the old VAT trick? I'm really not insane. ← lol, I thought you'd "heard" it wasn't as good, I had figured in the voices in yoour head just kidding. but yes I did misunderstand you, I thought you meant the wine choices. the food is still 3 choices, and there is certainly no VAT trick in the 3 or 4 years I've been going. 7 choices per course for a prix fixe lunch doesn't like anything I've ever heard of. not in this context. are you sure you're not confusing the ala carte available at lunch time, with the set menu?

The set lunch with a couple of glasses of wine used to be brilliant value. I'd heard that it had been really pared down with only a couple of choices per course and thus have not been for a while. A lovely dining room, especially if you have a view of the park. What is the deal now? ← Same. anyone who complains about £7 for 2 large glasses of wine (choice of 3 white / 3 red / 1 sweet) is simply insane. £3.50 for a decent glass of wine, that's as much as a weatherspoons, and here in a place of this standing?? brilliant value. in short £32 for 3 courses, with amuse, inc 2 glasses of wine.

London-eating can occassionallybe worthwhile, but you have to take some of what is written with a grain of salt. Like the neighbourhood italian, which is the best food in all of london etc. but as vox populi, it has some merit. Mind you, they seem to have censored a perfectly reasonable review of the greyhound of mine, and have not answered emails about it so they're not in my good books at the moment...

For Lunch, try Foliage: absolutely superb.

it's funny, because I really do feel that this place has the right mindset and intention, I think they do mean well. Normally I find a sense of deceit and dishonesty in really crap places, but not here. I think they mean well, but my gut feeling is that are feeling the pinch, and as a result they are sliding down a slippery slope where someone's thought "oh, I know, people come for the wine, we need to make more money, lets put up the prices..." That and a lot of corner cutting, and it's all starting to seem a bit raggedy. Which is not the customers problem, if you offer poor value for money, they won't come, or stop coming as the case may be. I think they genuinely believe they are offering a comparable experience to Chez Bruce, but with slightly cheaper food. 1. they're not, it feels cheap, and the staff are a bit all over the place 2. it's cheaper and noticeably inferior (I don't love Chez Bruce either) 3. the wine list is not better and much more expensive Bottom line: I'd bet anything that the owners are feeling the pressure, and the greyhound is no more in 12 months.

also forgot to mention the wine list. meh, meh and double meh. the markups are astronomical. consider Suckfizzle a pretty good WA semillon blend. it's about £14 a bottle. it used to be on the list at £43 - which is extortionate. then, it seems they needed to make more money, so up went all the prices. Now the same bottle is £51!!!! that's what, >70% GP? Ramsay is softer than that. similar continues throughout. they have some cheap bins, and that's because the wine is cheap, didn't see much value. another example while i think, they have a dauvissat 'montmains' grand cru 1994, which has 2 concerns 1. I didn't think Montmains was a grand cru (but who cares, I might be wrong) secondly at not much less tha £100, it's Jean Dauvissat, and not Rene and Vincent Dauvissat. what's the difference? well it's like comparing Joel Robuchon, with his long lost half brother jeremy Robucon who works the truck stop. Shame, but i think these are representative examples of a good intentioned place, that is feeling the heat. Which leaves the customer out in the cold.

I dunno. Whenever I've been with her, I always thought her Jimmy Choos and Manolos with the disco lights were a right give away. ← hers or yours?

Had an awful meal here about 2 weeks ago. dreadful, looked the part but where was the flavor. I was also pleased to see Andrew Sachs has revived his career in a new reaity show, "the greyhound on tuesday night". well intentioned, but dreadful based on one visit.

Nothing annoys me more than being offered Champagne by the glass and the waiter not knwoing how much it is (or feigning not knowing). In this instance I asked 3 times and each time was answered with the year before finally getting "Its around £20 a glass". I wonder how much "around" really was. ← of course they know, and they are being 'evasive' or it's even worse and the sommelier is not bothering to tell them. Around £20 probably means £22 -23, which is outrageous. let's call it £45 + service for 2 glasses of fizz. no, no, no! it's not an issue of having money, it's a matter of prolifigacy.

how rude! I'd have been inclined to express my displeasure to them there and then. to my mind, even if it were true that you were stretching for the meal, that would have made you more important customers than the obnoxious and overprivileged who are eating somewhere like that, because it's the capital don't you know people who go for the food, outrank all others. furthermore, there is a good reason they never tell you the price of the aperitif champagne until the bill comes (i'll bet bolli 97 was no less than £20 a glass) , who'd order it if you'd known?

sorry to but in, but that makes no sense. why would anyone go cap in hand to someone who doesn't own a shop, begging them to open one? that might be the way someone likes to tell their side of the story, but it seems a bit far fetched.

I use time out for the wider coverage, but I don't agree that the quality of the judgements are very good. I mostly rely on Hardens which I find more in tune with my preference.