Scott

the sous chef at Etxebarri is a friend of the head chef here, and he spoke very highly of their plans for texture and the quality of people involved.

funny, because for me, I couldn't agree less. MPW - blessed with his own brand of rat cunning, saw through lee's unsophisticated attempts at same. it was a clumsy, dolt-ish attempt at alpha bravado. Lee is neither stupid nor especially clever, and used a pitiful excuse at being PC to demonstrate his stones. believe me, there was NO point being made.

To get a sense of his current level of achievement, why not experience his latest business venture http://www.london-eating.co.uk/6658.htm ← I suggest a better place to start might be companies house.

um... you are aware of the point of the show? given that this is hardly the first series, I wonder why you're so offended? ← I watched it because I thought MPW would bring something to the show, some class, some food interest...something. Unfortunately I just don't revere him enough to get past his attitude and ego and enjoy it as entertainment. At least GR was amusing (this was, admittedly, before GR become so overexposed). I know he's a food god in this country - although this all happened before I became interested in good food. It is simply my opinion that this fact does not excuse his behaviour - or that of his sous chefs - on last nights show. For gods sake, at least try to prepare them for the task of serving 80 people instead of cussing and laughing at them. Yes, MPW is in the kitchen. And if he does something on the program that shows his skill as a cook and a leader then it might be worth watching. I hope it improves because on last nights evidence it has fallen into the worst category of celeb obsessed tv. ← I can't quite reconcile this post. you claim to have seen the show before, and been amused by gordon (WTF??), and yet you seem to object to the format at it's most base? that's what it does. maybe it would be better viewing if Marco gave them all foot massages?

did anyone not laugh at: "I didn't make Gordon cry, he chose to cry"

um... you are aware of the point of the show? given that this is hardly the first series, I wonder why you're so offended?

very briefly. went for lunch today, was very good. sure, there are a few service crinkles, but nothing to get worked up about. I neither agree about the prices being bargain, or that the portions were too small. but particularly on the latter, maybe things have changed. as for the prices, they were fair, but hardly discounted. £30 - £35 for 3 courses is a fair and reasonable price for a good brasserie, and this was a good brasserie experience. a confit tuna with goats cheese was a rich, well balances starter in the wannabe mediterranean sun. carrot, cumin and orange soup was enhanced by a faint aromatic note from the cumin. lovely john dory and a satifying rabbit pie were the mains, and deserts of choc mousse/hazelnut crumbs and cherry clafoutis were correct. a good addition to the Racine/Galvin stable, and in a week or two when things settle, it might become special.

lets be honest though, £19.75 for the spy valley is not a terrible price. it's when something decent, but widely available like that is charged at £25 - 30.00 that accusations of taking the piss gather.

So I'm overcharged to pay for his afternoon tasting sessions and to fund his cellar speculation? I'm bearing a premium in order to benefit from his irreproachable taste? Wow. Now, I can understand why most people haven't taken the time to read about the economics behind such matters. But for a guy who owns a chain of restaurants to still be trotting out all this the delusional bumwash about food subsidies and glassware costs is terrifying. It only takes a moment's thought to figure out that cost and prices have little relaton -- I can pay wildly different prices to eat an identical meal if I choose to have it on a weekday lunchtime, a saturday night or a Valentines Day. This is not because the costs involved alter significantly, but because the perceived value of the product changes. The wine list is basically a refinement of this, as it allows restaurants to operate a multitude of price points simultaneously (economists call this targeted pricing). It means you can attract the skinflint, glass-of-house-and-a-jug-of-tap-water people while giving customers who are not price-sensitive the rope with which to hang themselves. You make more money from the latter group than the former, but there's no "subsidising" involved, just as the Valentine's day crowd does not subsidise the lunchtime diners. They just provide differing margins versus empty seats. The second thing to note about wine is that the restarateur is in posession of all the information, while the average customer has barely any. I'm quite often confronted with a wine list where I don't recognise a single name within my price range, and I doubt that happens unintentionally. Now, keeping your customers in the dark (or information asymmetry, as it's known in economese) may appear to benefit the restarateur. It's doesn't -- what you get is a dysfunctional market where nobody benefits. Why do most people buy the house or the secnd-cheapest bottle? It's because most diners assume they'll be buying a lemon, so minimise their expenditure (those on a date have the same instinct but don't want to look cheap, so buy the No.2). Sorry to sound like a lecture, but this is relatively important stuff in the scheme of things. Everyone seems to agree that the current restaurant pricing model doesn't actually work very well. As many posters have pointed out, it's a hard business in which to make money, yet the perception among customers remains that you're profiteering. Shouldn't someone in the hospitality industry be looking at ways to fix this? ← lol. have to respect anyone who introduces George Akerlof's lemon theory you are quite right on one important thing, and this is not arguable - the anonymity of wine recognition is a deliberate conceit. always has been, at one time generically labelled St Joseph or Chablis did the trick, but the explosion on the high street torpedeo'd the idea of quality of such generic bottlings. now in order to get past that, obscure lines are often sourced. and the problem isn't the house wines, and reasonably prices the commoditisation is mitigated by a low absolute cost. however, one thing from Mr Platts Martin (a very knowledgable, and dare I say shrewd operator) interested me: "Platts-Martin believes, arises from the fact that this narrow focus on how expensive wine is misses the point of why and where restaurant-goers choose to eat. “People book a restaurant because it is a package, as a combination of the food, wine, service and ambience it offers. When they get the bill, although they may look for any errors, they tend not to dissect it line by line. They look at the total, decide whether they had a good time and whether it was sufficiently good value to induce them to return. And that is the rational approach because if the margins were to be reduced on the wine, they would have to increase on the food. The bottom line would simply not change.” if this were truly believed and shared by the industry at large, then there would be no need for the obfuscation of wine origins and identity.

no it's not true. it's the reasoning and the fear of the industry, it is not something proven in practice. you're right in that this is the reason trotted out, but where is the evidence? cheaper food is in reality a bit of honey trap.

Can't dispute any of that, but even people who "absolutely know what they're doing" can fail and even of those that do succeed very few of them reach millionaire status without TV and book tie-ins, so the customer is not being ripped off (at least not deliberately) even if it feels like that. ← I don't know if I agree with that, the corbin's, page's, plats-martin's etc. are not tv or celebrity types. I think you're referring to the chef types, and you're probably right when it comes to them. but lets not forget someone like Gary Rhodes, who aside from his tv/book deals, works for Restaurant Associates and collects a mighty fat fee for no risk. but I also think you've hit the nail on the head, between the functional, members of the industry (corbin et al) and others who participate with less knowledge than might be required - in an unforgiving industry. look at someone like Martin Lam - spot on restauranteur who gets everything right. whether it's on the floor during service, or in the pricing and value proposition to the customer. I always used to think the food over priced, until someone pointed out that wine is charged fairly, the food is charged fairly, staff are paid and treated appropriately - everything is open and as it should be. for me, it comes to down to how few people really know what it takes. look at all of us, and our criticisms of the conran restaurants... who's right?

Britcook, what you're really talking about is a fragmented industry, with few barriers to entry. there are people who absolutely know what they're doing: David Page, Nigel Plats Martin, Sir Terrence, Jeremy Corbin etc. and there are people who do not. But the fact remains, the failure of the industry is as much down to the participants as it is to the inherent risks of small business. When you add some of the odd customs and idiosyncracies of the restaurant business, then it becomes even easier to see the traps and pitfalls for inexperienced or deluded entrepreneurs.

Malcom Gluck got there before you at The Frontline - click. ← the frontline markups are a bit of a myth. they're a bit higher than he claims, but it is a friendly place nonetheless.

Mr Blanc of course realises that many of his costs, tied up capital, warehouse storage etc, are the same as that of the retailer offering the wine for 1/4 of what he does. Mr Blanc might also explain how he maintains his expensive art works, his garden, his fine chairs (????) when someone only drinks water, or house wine

i find most places will BYO if you ask nicely and are prepared to pay appropriately. what works best for me is this: I'll buy bottles of your house wine - you don't open them. that way they make above average profit on that bottle (i.e. no cost basis) AND they get to sell it again. meanwhile, I can drink some of the good stuff from my cellar.

that is a particularly diabolical markup (78% GP!), but unfortunately it's not that uncommon. the reason for it, is no more complicated than beverage profits subsidising the food costs. that and the sometimes manaical egotist who believes that you should be grateful to sit in his/her establishment and should pay whatever they say. so, bottomline. the wine is a real "touch your toes" affair, on the basis that you might not be prepared to pay the true cost of the food (with appropriate margins). there are some very decent places with more honourable practices though.

I'm led to believe so. it's not that they don't "have" anymore chickens, he's just not prepared to cook anymore! I think it must just be farting around that he could do without. front of house does need sorting.

I enjoyed a recent visit the other night, is a carbon copy of arbutus, but that's ok. was not as busy as expected?

Matt, a couple of things. you went for dinner on saturday night? that's the busiest night they've ever had. 150 covers, previous high was 110. they were nervous all day about that. speaking with Raphael revealed that he hates the chicken, too hard, too much work, ties up the oven for too long... so not too surprised that this wasnt quite as smooth an experience as you might have hoped for. he only does a max of 10 per service.

I thought David Thompson had moved on long ago??

Not a protocol, just the way it's normally done. ← and that's the myth that's the problem. it isn't "normally" done. which was the question, and the only truthful answer is that it isn't "normally done". It is "sometimes done", as a gesture, when deemed appropriate by the customer.

If they want a seriously good lunch, they should consider The greenhouse or The Square.

I wish people would stop pretending this imaginary protocol exists. tip if you want. tip if you feel moved to do so. that's all there is.

is it? £60 is a pretty sharpish tab for the food alone.

you're kidding right? you've got a well chosen bottle of burgundy, perhaps a gift or such, cost: £35 say. same bottle will be £100+ on the wine list... I've often brought wine there, and they have been as gracious and professional as can be. as long as you're not taking the piss, or bringing some australian muck