Scott

certainly one of my favourite restaurants. that said david, I am surprised that you're questioning its 2 star credentials. not that you're questioning them (hey, I disagree but its just an opinion), but it doesn't seem quite right to be making such calls on a reduced lunch menu. don't you need to eat from the menu proper in such cases?

um... that is certainly not something nicked from gary rhodes. it originally came from Robuchon, quite some time ago I believe.

both the Paris and London incarnations are truly excellent.

Do you? Perhaps you'd like to explain why you're so down on PRs with some concrete examples. You've made some fairly sweeping statements. I'm guessing you once hired some PR and when it couldn't turn a sow's ear into a silk purse you threw your toys out the pram. S ← Agreed!

the real question is, "will pied-a-terre be going up" I ate there last week and it is was the most amazing meal. Seldom do i find a meal so faultless, it must be a contender for 3 stars, it is the strongest of the two star restaurants ← Perfect, I am pleased, Egullet seems to agree. So you would agrue its stronger then Petrus. Sqaure for sure, Capital ...Close in my opinion. And regarding the space I dont think its smaller and more cramped then RHR or Fat Duck. Its not that tight, and the FOH has always been very strong when I have been for dinner, would not fault the service or food. But 3 stars.. why not! ← the comments about FOH come direct from the restaurant themselves.

i had lunch there two weeks ago and it was excellent. We ate on the lunch menu £18- outstanding value for well executed, well thought and beautifully presented food. I would urge you to try again on the lunch menu and give it a second chance. I think they will get a star in January, it is serious grub. ← you're right. it is a very serious restaurant, and tristan Welch is a star in the making.

the real question is, "will pied-a-terre be going up" I ate there last week and it is was the most amazing meal. Seldom do i find a meal so faultless, it must be a contender for 3 stars, it is the strongest of the two star restaurants ← they themselves know they cannot get 3 stars. not that the food could not achieve such heights, but that they are too limited in front of house. not enough space, and can't get that right enough. they took out something like 15 seats during the big makeover to try and make up for some of it, but it will always be a problem. unless your Arbutus or Wild Honey, Michelin cares heavily about FOH.

did you hear these things, or are you speculating on your own behalf? it's been as good as ever when I've been this year.

sorry, but that's silly. you're assuming that if you hire a good PR company then you get a good service. which is completely at odds with the general industry feeling. many people are very dissatisfied with the service they're getting - but there isn't much choice in the matter. it's a necessary evil, hell it's probably not evil, but you seem to be suggesting that everything is rosy and everyone believes they're getting good value. which ain't true virginia. Santa Claus does not work in restaurant PR. ← I'm assuming if you hire a good anybody, PR, car mechanic, rent boy, etc you get good service. I think one has to work on that assumption until proven wrong. Many people seem dissatisfied you say, well I don't know how many people you have talked to. Perhaps so, I don't know. Like any other service PR has happy and unhappy clients. I am not sure what Santa Claus has done to be dragged into this but as a small boy I was often dissatisified with his service but I kept on believing in him all the same. The alternative was too awful to contemplate. S ← which is a nice way of you saying, you don't actually have anything to go by.

Was there any American legal reason not to just pay the $4,000 and tell them to pursue the no-shows-ers for the $1,200? What would they have done, refused to serve you the $4,000 meal and lost this? ← I'm guessing, if it's anything like the places in London that charge no-show fees, that they pre-authorised their credit cards so if they'd all had left whoever's card it was would have been stung for $2000. ← that's nothing like London. the credit card companies refuse to authorise such charges in the UK. a challenge to the relevant card company will do the trick nicely. ← Do you mean they don't charge for no-shows, or they don't pre-authorise in the same way? ← it means if you ring up your card company and challenge it, they will not honour the charge with the restaurant. they are very legally dubious, and commercially sensitive.

Was there any American legal reason not to just pay the $4,000 and tell them to pursue the no-shows-ers for the $1,200? What would they have done, refused to serve you the $4,000 meal and lost this? ← I'm guessing, if it's anything like the places in London that charge no-show fees, that they pre-authorised their credit cards so if they'd all had left whoever's card it was would have been stung for $2000. ← that's nothing like London. the credit card companies refuse to authorise such charges in the UK. a challenge to the relevant card company will do the trick nicely.

as I understand it. this was a statement store, which was always expected to lose money. though perhaps not this much.

How do you know? Is it your fantasy brothel perhaps! I'm not sure anywhere can be 'resplendent in tones' btw S ← well you let me know what you think when you go, and we can discuss.

yeah I've been. food is quite technical, very modern french. the room is like an elegantly designed 1980's fantasy brothel, resplendent in plush purple tones and white leather. wine list stoopidly expensive, and the food itself is very good. the acoustics are poor, if only because the sound reduction from the soft finishes are so effective that it sounds like a morgue. bottom line: super expensive, super ambitious and well crafted. ALA Carte is prob £70 for 3 courses, a set 5 course degustation for £65 and 7 courses for £90

Do not try and confuse me with all this present tense operative!!!! I am niether of the above just offering my opinion on a matter which have some very good sources of information If i m an ex employee you sound like the managing director!!! ← Right. so friend of disgruntled ex employee. meh, much the same thing.

do not pass go, go straight to Gavroche.

I am glad this issue has generated well tought comments, Intressting that they are aproching so many chefs, Does any one know about the future projects they have lined up, they did talk about some outside UK. ← I understand there is a new york restaurant in the offing. but know nothing more than that.

not sure you make much sense. you've only heard horrible things about them to work for, and in the same breath you concede that attract, retain some good chefs while paying them well. confused much? ← i have heard many a bad thing about them as a company, also where in my statement did i say they retain chefs, i dont think so ? 4 chefs in 2 years at the Orrery, the supposed flag ship or was until it lost its michelin star!! If a chef gets offered say £80,000 -£90,000 they will obviously think about taking the job, just because they pay well does not nessercerrily mean its a happy ship! It will be intresting to see where there new band of chefs take the company and how long they last If they are such a good company why was almost every chef in London and every agency in the country approached for one of there last positions, surely if they had a good reputation, there would be a que of chefs at the door for that salary, also i know a lot of people who will not deal with them now to there lack of proffessionalism in the recruitment process! ← obviously the attracting and employing some good chefs indicated retention. employing being the present tense operative. as for the rest of your 'claims' I'm not sure if you're a disgruntled ex-employee or merely trading in as yet unsubstantiated gossip.

not sure you make much sense. you've only heard horrible things about them to work for, and in the same breath you concede that attract, retain some good chefs while paying them well. confused much?

I didn't say that the restaurant was 'casual', so I don't see any contradiction in what I posted. And if you believe that I thought the late arrivals should have been turned away for any reason, then you misunderstood what I wrote. ← I think it's very hard to misinterpret your indignation that people wearing jeans, ordering beers, were seated without reservations. but each to their own.

Untrue. I was at Deane's 3 weeks ago, and it's still as fine dining as ever. Upstairs is a private dining space, but the downstairs restaurant is in tact; not certainly no casual. it's also very good. Classical with a few modern flourishes. ← Casual maybe a pejorative term in this situation. I said 'relaxed'. When I was there last week, the tables on either side had a group of four Japanese business men in suits and an older/younger women pair. Other tables had a mixture of couples (usually youngish) or groups. There didn't appear to be a 'typical' diner. I mentioned Michelin style - for example: when diners went to the bathroom, a server refolded their napkins for them. Wine and water bottles (or decanters) were kept in one place, so diners couldn't top their own glasses up but this didn't seem to be a problem. My recommended glass of wine for my main course arrived about 5 mins after the food though. The casual aspect could have been demonstrated when two men arrived late in the service (without reservations) dressed in jeans and tee shirts and were seated and then served their choices along with their beers. ← that's fine, but everything you have written is an argument against the use of the term 'casual'. it is a modern, clean environment. perhaps even over-stylised - I hate the lights for example. And I don't know why you think they should have turned away the customers in your last paragraph??? many michelin starred establishments in London would've sat them without issue, do you think they shouldn't have? that's not casual, it's not having your head where it's very dark...

My experience of the old upstairs restaurant was very formal with a hushed atmosphere and waiters standing to attention with their hands behind their backs waiting to refill you glass after everysip. Is that how it still is? ← on that score, it has definitely changed. it is less formal in the atmosphere, but is still worlds away from casual. Modern would be a better description. perhaps it's terminology, but it is no more 'casual' than Chez Bruce say, and the kitchen is certainly as accomplished.

NB. I don't follow why a few of you are calling it casual. it is the howard street venue right? nor is it overly cheap, especially in Belfast. mains in the 17 - 25 region for example. perhaps it was more formal before, but it remains far from casual.

Untrue. I was at Deane's 3 weeks ago, and it's still as fine dining as ever. Upstairs is a private dining space, but the downstairs restaurant is in tact; not certainly no casual. it's also very good. Classical with a few modern flourishes.

Or fanfare either, but I don't think PR money is wasted unless you hire a bad PR. There are good and bad PR companies just as there are good and bad everything. Ramsay part owns a PR company doesn't he? A PR cant turn a sow's ear into a silk purse but can at least get the place trialled. Of course if you go to St John's you may well be eating the sow's ear while paying out of a silk purse. ← sorry, but that's silly. you're assuming that if you hire a good PR company then you get a good service. which is completely at odds with the general industry feeling. many people are very dissatisfied with the service they're getting - but there isn't much choice in the matter. it's a necessary evil, hell it's probably not evil, but you seem to be suggesting that everything is rosy and everyone believes they're getting good value. which ain't true virginia. Santa Claus does not work in restaurant PR.