Scott

Oh. I'm not quite sure whether that's a good or bad thing then I bet the sommelier sneers when you hand him your bottle of plonk, unless it's a £100+ job! S ← 1. of course they don't sneer. 2. if it's not a special bottle, what's the point? by special I mean well chosen, with a back story, or if it's just good. it's not much to ask that there be a reason why you're brought along bottle X? if you're reason for bringing a bottle is to save £'s that's probably not going to be well received - but if there is a purpose, most places will let you bring it. PaT is one of the few openly admitting as much.

it's £25 and if you're not an arse, it's £25. if you get my meaning. bring a good bottle, share... etc.

I think you could say that about 99% of restaurants in this country. ← which was my point. IF the FD is in budget, ergo: so are the others.

Stuffy possibly not, but undeniably formal. Both are very expensive as well unless you go for lunch. ← they are formal sure, but they are less expensive than the fat duck. and if you like your booze, Pied a terre allows you to BYO.

I'd agree with this. forget bacchus, nice place, lot of aspirations - might get there in the end. try Foliage/Pied a terre/aikens. all very modern, very accomplished kitchens. you might even want to try Atelier Joel Robuchon which is turning out food as good as any kitchen in the capital. again, a very modern french cuisine. if can go the distance to the FD, you might want to try the vineyard at stockcross - which is quite innovative.

with a £29 bottle of wine & a 250ml of tokjai for £25 it couldn't be £66. one question for me though: the menu looks just like arbutus to me. is this just to carry the spillover of clientele or is wild honey meant to be a different restaurant with its own personality?

Can I ask what are you basing that opinion on? If it's the old "he never writes about the restaurant" thing, it's been covered already. umm... ok. but I fail to see the relevance on any level. I agree the % of food talk is a furphy, though the fact remains when measured he is still bottom of the weekly league table. as I suspect you well know on an absolute level, he does not talk about the food or offer anything constructive on a culinary level. he is however, as you make the point in the other thread, entertaining. fine, but so what? what is pertinent is the slap dash commentary in the name of entertainment. which again is fine, often funny. but it long stopped being about food, it makes him a satirical spot, not a food guy.

isn't this whole "big corporate bad" schtick getting tired yet? it's a business, that does what it does.

AA Gill long stopped caring about food.

am amazed that the entire team is coming with them. that must be one happy brigade.

I was taillevent recently for lunch. where they were quite insistent on a jacket, which was promptly fitted for moi, they quickly and sensibly waived my guest through. At 6 foot 11" they quickly realised that discretion is the better part of valour!

prices seem to be creeping up. LOT of competition for a dining experience at those prices.

If someone is soooo concerned by my attire, I am not sure they're the sort of person I should be inclined to please.

why go to maze, it's the fisher price version of Atelier... why so focused on a Ramsay establishment?

I don't understand the confusion. the UK does not have a tipping culture. no ifs, no buts. where tipping/service is appropriate it is usually levied as a service charge. So no need to worry about whether you should or should not. everything else is discretionary. By all means leave a little if you want, buy a drink, whatever... it's up to you. it however is not as complicated as is being made out, there is no obligation and little expectation. don't think about it too much, and if it seems right go ahead!

No wonder it's so hard to get a table at elBulli! ← This is an interesting point. In 18 months el Bulli is open for a maximum of 12 months, but depending on when the voting takes place, this could be closer to nine. Added to this, there is only one service daily, 5 days a week, and the place seats something like a maximum of 50. 250 covers x 36 weeks = 9000 covers. If only half of the voters placed el Bulli on their lists somewhere then nearly 4% of el Bulli's customers in the past 18 months, or two at every service, were panelists on Restaurant Magazine's juries. Sounds reasonable, not. ← lol. precisely. when you start looking below the superficial exterior, there is plenty that does not make sense. ← You are missing the point again and not for the first time in your life... To save you having to actually scroll and read earlier posts here's the answer I gave Cortina.... "Although they might not post on egullet, these people do exist and a sizeable number of them voted for el Bulli this year and last year. Just because you can't get a table it doesn't mean that through the networking of our international judging panel we don't know a large number of people that voted this year that ate there in the last 18 months. On the subject of which the whole idea that it's completely impossible to get a table at el Bulli is completely exaggerated. There's some common sense tips in the current issue of restaurant magazine (though I'm sure you wouldn't dirty your hands with actually reading it) on how you can get yourself a table if you really, really want one. It involves manners and patience and the price of an easyjet flight..." ← Joe, Seems as if you have taken my point to be literally about the specific situation of the El Bulli reservations, and not about looking below the surface. You'll understand if If I have a slight chuckle about your "You are missing the point again and not for the first time in your life..." comment. oh, and I have read your magazine numerous times, but unfortunately like a great many others I subscribe to your competitor.

No wonder it's so hard to get a table at elBulli! ← This is an interesting point. In 18 months el Bulli is open for a maximum of 12 months, but depending on when the voting takes place, this could be closer to nine. Added to this, there is only one service daily, 5 days a week, and the place seats something like a maximum of 50. 250 covers x 36 weeks = 9000 covers. If only half of the voters placed el Bulli on their lists somewhere then nearly 4% of el Bulli's customers in the past 18 months, or two at every service, were panelists on Restaurant Magazine's juries. Sounds reasonable, not. ← lol. precisely. when you start looking below the superficial exterior, there is plenty that does not make sense.

that's fine. I do find it strange that you're obviously above responding, but not above responding to say so. I absolutely agree with everything you've said, but I disagree that it has any or much meaning. Conceptually I think you're very wide of the argument put forward. the results do not neceassarily prove the process, nor does the process prove the result. you feel it does, ok.

this makes little sense. you are working backwards from the end, to justify the means. The amount of controversy generated by the awards would mean that they should take them seriously even IF (?) they don't personally subscribe to them. Hell, if potential customers take it seriously, what do they care? I would also be surprised if the guests or winners, paid for themselves, and a trip to London would be an essential part of their annual routine. Now I am NOT saying this is the case, who could know. but your premise is flawed that they MUST personally believe in them in the way you subscribe. I am sure many actors consider Cannes or Sundance more worthy awards, but try and keep them away from the Oscars! bad example in some ways, but it shows that personal values need not play a large part. of course, there is a natural breadth to disagreement. but there are some BAD restaurants on that list, much more so than anything in Michelin. Michelin if nothing else, fairly accurately recognises ambition; this list claims some of the best restaurants in the world are places that do not even aspire to such heights. now this is where you're wrong. the list is not about buying the magazine for the list, that is freely given away to all and sundry. it is about raising the profile of the magazine. What you're saying is that I should not subscribe to the "product of year" marketing campaign 1. so what. a lot of bloody hard work goes into a lot of things, regardless of whether they are worthwhile or not. I personally think it would be thought provoking if it brought me anything new - it never does. and perhaps should not be expected to. however if it is not new, it is not thought provoking in a good way. 2. so you like the magazine. ok. Well that all depends on who you think the customer is, and whether the consumer is the customer. and of course what service you think is being provided to the customer and/or consumer.

the question is, do they use any basis at all? for example, someone prepares a top 5 list say: 1. GR@H 2. Nobu London 3. St John 4. French Laundry 5. Maze someone else says 1. Fat Ducky 2. el Bulli 3. Arpege 4. French Laundry 5. Mugaritz that might mean very different views of what makes a good restaurant, it might mean a predisposed bias towards molecular technique, it also might mean a much more limited exposure geographically to the subject matter. What it certainly means, without question, is that these 2 voters have not been to the same restaurants recently, if ever. without taking a bias on who would be correct, each vote is weighted equally, but their experience is not. I have sat on professional wine tasting panels, where a collective rating is assembled, and the knowledgable people are drowned out (statistically) by the less informed, brought along to boost the numbers - and ergo the credibility of the analysis.

Joe, I want to highlight this paragraph because I think there are some fundamental misreadings of the issue here. Intuitively your stance is correct, but I don't think this addresses the what is being queried. yes, unquestionably those polled included these restaurants. However, rather than validating the selections, it could be argued that it does quite the opposite - it invalidates the process and/or the voters. I don't mean that so much as the differences between one personal opinion or another, but in the sense that the selection betrays a lack of care, concern, or experience in the sample. For example, I don't quite see conceptually, how it is possible to be drawn particularly to Nobu London, as opposed to any of the other sites. Particulary the NY original. that suggests a lack of care or concern. "I like this style, or want to represent this type of cuisine, erm, first answer is 'nobu london' ". An economic model of statistic inference would take the data dispassionately, and when the results run counter to what can be logically imputed, then the this is a sign to look for other relationships. When a group of people (UK based I'll bet) says Nobu London over any of the other Nobu choices, in a meaningful sample, that could perhaps say more about the mindset of the voters, than a true response. Do the participants submit a narrative, or is box ticking to limit the impost on their time? Let me give you an example, albeit esoteric. In one particular professional sport, the highest individual award was determined by the voting of the referees after each match - and has been for nearly 100 years. this produced, highly controversial results. The controversy was that it did not tally with the thoughts, and opinions of the mainstream sports media in that space. An alternative award was instituted - the Players association MVP. this would be the a much better system, as rather than the referees (whom everyone agrees cannot be trusted ) the award would truly reflect the actual thoughts of the truely informed professionals i.e. the players themselves. they would know who was best, who was the most difficult opponent etc etc etc. fast forward and the results were much more standardised, there was less controvery and everyone agreed that the new process was a winner! back slapping all round. actually it was a disaster, turns out the players only face each other a couple of times a season, can't be arsed watching all the replays etc, in fact they contributed far less thought than anyone realised. Sure the award was run by the players union, so they felt obliged to fill in the card when it came through the post (postage paid, reply envelopes of course!). so what did they do that was so bad? they just relied on what they were hearing through the media. If the local tabloid hack said Joe Blow then that's what they thought. You could argue that having a media award is not the worst thing, and is some ways it wasn't - but what is also wasn't, was mandated. rather than being an improvement on the old system, far less objectivity and professional judgement was being exercised. This was spotted originally by the trends in how close the players seemed to follow popular opinion; this could have been the players influencing people in the media through personal contacts, interviews etc. when the players were actually asked, they said themselves that they didn't really think about it, and they just went whatever they heard on the radio/tv/newspaper. some of the results of the best restaurant survey, bring into question, what is the true dynamic of the expert contributors, because it is hard to really believe that a conscientious, informed, expert would come to some of these determinations? there is plenty of room for disagreement on the choices, but there might be underlying patterns derived of process, that undermine the outcomes beyond mere disagreement. put another way, some of the choices are stoopid, maybe not everyone is taking it seriously.

OK Joe, that is fair enough explanation. I agree that 'dishonest' is a bridge too far. One question though, and it might be explained earlier, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it: exactly what is format of the voting process. for example, is "just give me your top 5." or is "give me your choices (max 5 say) in these categories". I wonder, because I am sure you're a little confused by some of the outcomes as well. If you weren't changes wouldn't have been necessary for this year! that said, it doesn't do anyone any good when they are some plainly stoopid outcomes. Sure, I agree you should not even think of manipulating the outcomes, but being on the edge of incredulous disbelief is not the name of the game either. My question therefore focus's on this: are people arm twisted a little (format wise) to vote in categories that they do not have a good knowledge on? if not, then there are some credentials that need revoking!

So, after all that, they call it after a porn star ... ← should be more of it!

I can't be arsed going through the list again, but perhaps someone can confirm: are there any other Chinese and Italian restaurants included that are not in China or Italy? I'm not saying that these are not good restaurants (except for Hakkasan, which I'm saying is a pretty mediocre restaurant). I'm asking: when the competition is borderless, what makes these places special or unique? (Please note: this is an attempt to squeeze a rational argument out of The List, and should be viewed entirely apart from the tizzy slapfight that relates to The List's reason for being.) ← Hi Naebody, I am not saying I think either restaurant should necessarily be where they are (or not) but you've made some fairly pejorative characterisations that I disagree with. Consider Hakkasan, there is something unique about it, an attempt at size, scale and proficiency which is a bit unusual. you'd not necessarily think there would be too many direct comparators - and for this reason, it can be hard to place. I neither think it is the 17th best restaurant in the world, but it is a remarkable place in it's own right. Sounds like you've had a bad experience there, and that is never good; but I would suggest that is more testament to perhaps, a perceived inconsistency rather than a direct comment on it's innate qualities. the best of Hakkasan is very good indeed. The river cafe would still be unique in Tuscany or anywhere else in the world. What makes it unique? not sure exactly that there is anything that need necassrily make it unique, but it has something over some other competitors. It has not fallen for rash of, or trend in recent times of italian cuisine being adapted over to a more modern French haute template. Personally, and I am speaking for myself, though I know I am not alone, I don't believe this adaption has either been successful or is even appropriate. italian food for me, is a lovingly prepared, ingredient focused cuisine, one where technique is as much about correct preparation, than avante garde execution; where selection of produce matters as much anything else. where the whole, matters more than the parts. The River Cafe has not fallen foul of this movement, and that itself is a bit of a USP. I'd much rather go to the River Cafe (or Theo Randall ) than Don Alfonso say. But that is in itself, not really relevant to the list itself. I do think, that one could argue that this does speak of the voters themselves, and the limited knowledge in some cases of the entire field. For example, name your favourite japanese restaurant: "erm, only know one of any note, um 'Nobu'?" Perhaps the same could be true of Italian & Chinese cuisine. selection through absence of alternatives? I cannot believe that anything other than inherent bias, of the member constituency (a type we are all guilty of) has resulted in some of these choices. that and a subjectivity on what constitutes 'best restaurant'.

Are you suggesting that some egullet members are patronising elitist restaurant snobs? Are you insane pickle? ← In compiling a list of the world's best restaurants, a little bit of elitism would not have gone astray... ← And actually doing a bit of research into how the awards are judged before posting unfounded bitchy comments as per your earlier post might not go amiss... ← are you arguing that 'process' is more important than 'outcome'? it sure sounds like it. why then, does your magazine bother to even to publicise the results, if it is really about the process?