Scott

What? you mean they didn't call you' mate', show you their tattoo's & piercings, ask if you'd brought any vinyl to play and want to 'explain the concept' to you? Madness, whatever next? sounds like you like duck soup as much as I do. maybe less if that's possible!

on service, had an interesting experience at Le Manoir Aux Quats Saison a couple of weeks back. they asked whether we wanted the dishes explained to us as they were presented, or did we want to be left alone? Basically they were asking how obtrusive did we want service to be? which I found a very welcome innovation. something I've never seen before. as it happened we did want them to explain the dishes, but I liked that they understood not everyone wanted the same experience.

I think my empirical observation & explanation is both obvious & sufficient. The only data insufficiency is the one that purports greater uncertainty. The respondents are not of fixed or expected number, the population scales in relation to the delta of the experience. Further this is a common and oft repeated outcome of the harden's methodology. For years Ramsay returned very similar results.

Makes perfect sense. It is one of the most mentioned and with the widest discrepancy between. No reason to expect consensus

a very honest and reliable review by Raymond Blanc, investor in Dabbous?

By the way, I don't think you have gotten full credit for what an outstanding find this is. Tip top.

God I sound like I hate bloggers with an enormous chip on my shoulder about it. I don't hate them at all, although I am suspicious of the way the medium and form is used. I think Jon Tseng's outstanding revelations about Dabbous, Raymond Blanc and Jori White are worth 75 random student food blogs .

Makes sense. In comparision with how many folk might read a review in a national newspaper, the number visiting most blogs must be tiny. But, I assume, most bloggers would not regard themselves as being in the same "business" as newspaper reviewers - for one it is a profession, for the other a hobby. I have no interest in starting a blog (although I gather it can get you freebie invites to places) and am content with posting my notes about meals we've had on egullet, Chowhound, local sites as the mood takes me, as well as sending them off to the Good Food Guide (which I've been doing for some time before I discovered internet discussion boards). I promise you, that many of these bloggers ABSOLUTELY think they are on a par with newspaper reviewers. you only need to see the genetic rejects trolling the saturday guardian reviews, to see how highly some people rate their views vis a vis a nationally published reviewer. and as for freebies, the early contestants on Big Brother have nothing on some new breed bloggers were it comes to expecting freebies. ** full disclosure, there are some excellent blogs out there, run by credible and knowledgable people but equally they can be drowned out by the noise and multitude of the masses of other blogs.

I think he's right, but I wonder how much of that is do with the surfeit of crap bloggers out there? which I don't mean to be harsh, but what I do mean is that plainly some are more prolifigate than they are knowledgable. Just because you have the time, and interest, you write something up without any real basis for your conclusions. it is a lot like the "every man" school of film criticism which basically says that someone is not reviewing as expert, or with any knowledge, they are just an every day joe. problem is, there is no such thing. I think in many ways, and it is a personal opinion only (and there are squillions of people more knowledgable than me), that the decline in internet forums is a bad thing for the quality of criticism. I mean this in the way that someone would post and write about their experiences somewhere, and they would hone and sharpen their skills in the cross fire. Without this refining and guiding process, what we have a disintermediated forum in the sense that every poster now has an untested blog. they write these blogs, cross promoting each others, in some sycophantic love in. at the heart of it, many of these people do not know very much. and in turn, I think people might read them as a form of food porn, but do they take them seriously when it comes to allocating their entertainment spend? I am not so sure. but then keep in mind, these are my views and they are worth about as much as you paid for them

OK, I don't think you were taken out of context at all. the words and implication are clear. I also think Hedone *IS* cheap. it is incredibly great value for the level of ingredient provided. Go for lunch if you like, the tasting is still available and is incredible value. Actually yes. that is the whole point, it is not just better, it is markedly and observably better. if I have one tiny criticism, is that sometimes Mikael serves his turbot too fresh, but hey, that's not the worst crime. and it is the teensiest of criticisms at that. if you want to know the difference between good, great, and passable turbot I would recommend passing on a couple of meals out, flying to Biarritz, hoping in a car for 35-40 minutes until you arrive in Gataria. stump up about 10eur for a bottle of the local txacolina, and order the turbot at Elkano. if you are feeling a bit extravagant, you could do worse that back to back meals at Mugaritz (all technique, passable ingredients), and Extebarri (cathedral to ingredient quality). between these 2 you have the finest technique, and the finest ingredients, and the borders of what each is capable of are illustrated beautifully. NB. I am aware of just what a load of pretentious toss that sounds but its still true. honest, guv. if you don't get ingredients, extebarri will fix that for you. Elkano is a masterclass in turbot. really. Go for the earliest table at lunch, when they have time to guide you through eating the damned thing. the 7 or 8 zones within the fish, the differences in flavours and textures between the flesh from the cheek, from the chest cavity, between the ribs, and dark vs sun side up. I think there is a mistake commonly made that there isn't a difference ingredient quality between one decent restaurant and another, but its just not the case. if you eat a tomato (or basic rendition thereof) at Louis XV in Monaco, 'L'arpege in Paris, and Mikael's sublime gazpacho (using finest sardinian tomatoes, home ripen, and macerated in their juices) and then take a look at something else in London you will be shocked at the difference. The vegetables on the riviera markets are still head and shoulders above what is farmed here. Now if someone goes to the effort of getting their hands on that, they are 1. taking sourcing to further lengths 2. providing a clearly higher quality product. I once had a really interesting conversation with Theo Randall about sourcing, when he opened his new place (good food, shame about the room). He was telling me that it took him 6 months before opening to get his sourcing in line, visiting people all over italy, and the UK, and how there wasn't a magic directory where people can just buy what they want. sourcing is an art, and it is very, very hard work. When I spoke to victor at Extebarri, I asked how his Spiny Langouste (god's own lobster) was so good, and so much better than what was served by the 3* restaurants around him, when the baseline quality all round was so good? his answer? with a smile "we try harder". before they settled on their milk supplier, they tried samples and visited over 60 dairies. people just don't do that, not unless you are a produce focused pyschopath you really should. ** also some of that pretentious, rambling nonsense was also in relation to Man's post below.

I don't spend much time here these days, read virtually any. but a search on hedone brought this up. one of the more wrong headed statements I have ever had the bemusement to observe. the turbot alone is on a level far exceeding any restaurant in this country. Far... anyhoo, carry on

Bruno is there every day.

ah... and the circle completes. let me see how is manning the pass at selfridges, its one Bruno Loubet (and Chavot of course). Now who used to own the site of arbutus, one Monsieur Loubet wasn't it? is there some sort of back story here Matt, we should know about?

fairly consistent theme in your postings on this venture and the man himself eh Matt? - its a publicity stunt - I've cancelled my table cause I heard it was rubbish - he can't get any backing, and he won't put his own money in etc now some of that is just simple make believe. I wonder why

we know what? he's always had the backing. what he doesn't have is the legs.

Or, FFS fish cakes, they're so easy to make, why not centralise the process so that quality and margins can be standardised and guaranteed across a number of venues? Why waste venue chef's time making everything, risking differing standards and potentially changing GP? You're completely mis-representing what has happened, and making unjustifiable claims for what Ramsay has been saying. He has always talked extenisvely about managing margins AND consistency, both of which he's doing in this case. IT simply isn't the same as buying in from an external supplier. I see no difference to what a company like us do--we have two kitchens, one on the ground floor, one on the fifth floor. Because the ground floor kitchen is bigger and less busy outside of core hours, we use that for pre-prep and some storage. Stuff is then transported all the way upstairs as and when needed. all very well to accuse someone of misrepresenting things, but feel free to point out what I have misrepresented? yes, you have also replicated brake bros premium range business model. buying demi glace is not the same as buying completed dishes, from an operation that serves you and OTHERS. nothing like the FD. nothing at all. not nearly, even close. the misrepresentation here is deciding to call it pre-prep. fish cakes and coq au vin is not pre-prep. more to the point if this was soooo upfront, why did they release a clarify the situation so quickly? GR holdings makes a point of not responding to every rumour or scuttlebutt out there, but this time they jumped straight away. which suggests strongly, they felt this information wasn't widely known, and they wanted their position to be made known. but again for clarity, and to avoid disingenuous suggestions of misrepresentation: 2 businesses buy completed dishes from company X. one advertises as from chef Z, the other does not. we do know this. it comes from their press release. now why would the second company buy this product, arguably at a higher price than the first company, if they did not, could not, chose not to use Chef Z's endorsement? unless you are very commercially naive, its primarily for 2 reasons: 1. you are not paying a higher price 2. chef Z's endorsement is not why you are buying it. so all we have a market place transaction. one where the shareholding chef's credentials are irrelevant, but one of the 2 purchasing companies is claiming otherwise. ps. that might be me done on this.

Hang on. If you outsource anything you no longer have direct control of it, you contract it out and someone else controls quality etc. You pay the bills and the supplier performs to the contract/SLA's etc. In this case Ramsay owns and "controls" GR Logistics. It isn't outsourced it is very much part of the overall company GR Holdings - as are the pubs restaurants etc. OK they sell to other companies - good for them - it doesn't mean Ramsay doesn't have any less control. i'm sorry, but if they sell to others then they are a standalone, business. they are exactly the same as brakes. brakes premium is what they call it. you're also making assumptions about ownership and profit motivation. as for Ramsay's control, why don't these other companies advertise as GR approved? perhaps because that is not what they are buying. if it had the GR stamp of approval, that would be a selling point would it not? they don't always own it at GR logistics either, now do they? ok, we're getting somewhere now. look at the assumptions you've had to make, for this to make any sense. brakes makes a profit, with a profit motivation. GR logistics, by virtue of their admitted external trade, also has a profit motivation. brakes premium sells complete dishes, so does gr logistics. what's more these external customers don't advertise it as GR sourced food - otherwise we'd know who they were, so that is purely anonymous, non-GR approved food supply. just like brakes. maybe a better question, is why this seems so uncomfortable. ok, sure thing.

but he IS buying stuff in. this facility supplies his places and others not owned by him. after all what is the difference between this facility and brakes, if it is available to all to purchase from? seriously, it is the same thing. it just becomes 'Ramsay at Brakes' what's more, it is 'alleged' these are complete dishes. this is however true. and I guess we'll all see in the end.

He's not outsourcing it though, is he? He's having it centrally prepared under his company's control at GR Logistics. The allegation isn't that he's bringing it in from a separate supplier like Brake's, but that he's benefitting from economies of scale and scope. Which seems simple economics. Given that one of his cardinal rules is consistency of output, this strictly follows that line. Its not hypocritical, it's absolutely to the letter what he preaches. And it doesn't stop the food being regional or seasonal. If he was centrally producing food that was flown around the world or sent to other parts of the country, the complaint might be valid, but he's not. Seems like GR can't win here. If he develops a chain of gastropubs, a good percentage of people will go to them knowing who owns them and expecting a certain quality and consistency of food. If the pubs are inconsistent, or lacking in quality, he'll get kicked. This story relies so much on the shock horror of most punters a) not understanding 70% GP as standard ('they're selling a £4 bottle of wine for £13, how dare they?') b) believing that all the food they get at pubs and restaurants is ALWAYS freshly prepared from scratch, which we all know (with a couple of exceptions in very small places) is patent nonsense. I'm with Tim on this one. THis story came out mid-week, so its possibly a spoiler for a story a competitor has got. Its fairly small beer, but it's part of a longer campaign. Look to the Sundays over the next week or so for the real story. ← i'm sorry but that's just semantics. yeah, I used 'outsource' slightly loosely, but the principle is still the same. these places buy in their food, or at least a solid proportion of it. and yes I get the idea that there is some sort of impression that anyone who is surprised by this "just doesn't understand the industry" which is nonsense. it is not what he does (or does not do), it is what his customers believe he does. if there is a mismatch there is a problem. these pubs are sold as stand alone operations where Gordon has waived his magic wand over them, instilling his basic value for what makes a restaurant work. he promotes these values all across the media, and his customers to these places no doubt expect that whatever simple food they are served is the result of his principles. FFS fish cakes? any moron can make fish cakes fresh, they do not need to be bought in. and again, this central facility apparently supplies many other non GR establishments too. so it can, and should, be seen as a standalone operation. I don't care which other operations buy in their fish cake or coq au vin or whatever - they are not promoting a different, quite explicit value system to all and sundry. I mean how many people know Manoir aux Quats saison outsources staff feeding to compass? makes financial sense, but still doesn't sit terribly well when you think about it. again, to reiterate its not what you do, its what you say you do. and I don't believe anyone who goes into the Narrow or Foxtrot Oscar believes their food is bought in from outside.

He is more involved with places that carry his name than MPW is, yet no one goes after him in the same way. ← 1. they certainly did in the day. 2. MPW is irrelevant these days, has nothing to do with him. plain fact is Ramsay is promoting his brand and his idealogy every week on TV, in his newspaper columns etc. he is trying to monetise them at these pubs, and Foxtrot Oscar. in order for people to buy into the ideology, you must first offer it and sell it. if you can show me a single example of him, on TV, suggesting people outsource food prep then I'll accept he is not guilty of hypocrisy. but he doesn't, he promotes his values all the time, and it appears he doesn't stand by his own words.

again, where does this come from???? they are individual establishments, not like giraffe or carluccio's. NO ONE goes into the narrow or the devonshire expecting them to taste the same, they have expectation of quality - but not the same menu, created identically. I know what to expect at carluccio's, because they don't pretend to be something their not.

fine, but that has got nothing to do with Ramsay he doesn't run a multi-location catering operation. each of those venues promotes itself as a unique destination.

are you saying you don't have a surprisingly high % of posts, all over the place, complaining about celebrity chef's, their success, and how it isn't fair? Jon's post was pretty spot on.

What do you wonder about the rating? From what you say I interpret they deserve Rising 2 stars or 3 stars! Which I would agree with but maybe I go there too often to be unbiased ;-) ← they other way round I think.

yeah, cause the guy who plagiarises someone elses thoughts, becomes the original source to be cited doesn't he? maybe you are working too hard incidentally what restaurant do you run?