World's Top 50 Restaurants 2007

[smokinjoe]

I'm not arguing with any of you because as I said about two pages back that way madness lies.

I'd just like to reiterate that the list was fairly and transparently compiled in response to one of your fellow members who earlier - talking out their ignorant and no doubt well-fed arse - basically said there was something dishonest about the way the whole thing was put together.

A full list of voters for all of the region panels and details of the process is on the website www.theworlds50best.com.

Let's face if we were making the whole thing up we would have had some real Japanese restaurants in there and a different top 5 for a start...

A lot of people work very hard trying to make this thing better and more representative every year so please forgive me for getting defensive.

We are working to improve the process and hopefully hence the diversity of the list every year and if any of you have any sensible suggestions for how we can do that that we're not already looking into - I'm all ears.

That some of you don't like the River Cafe or Nobu or Hakkasan is completely irrelevant in terms of the list because a sizeable majority of the 651 chefs, restaurateurs and critics that were part of the process this year do.

Restaurants get on the list by being voted there pure and simple. There is no mystery. There is no conspiracy.

Until next year,

Joe Warwick, Editor, Restaurant magazine.

Edited April 26, 2007 by smokinjoe (log)

[Scott]

I'm not arguing with any of you because as I said about two pages back that way madness lies.

I'd just like to reiterate that the list was fairly and transparently compiled in response to one of your fellow members who earlier - talking out their ignorant and no doubt well-fed arse - basically said there was something dishonest about the way the whole thing was put together.

A full list of voters for all of the region panels and details of the process is on the website www.theworlds50best.com.

Let's face if we were making the whole thing up we would have had some real Japanese restaurants in there and a different top 5 for a start...

A lot of people work very hard trying to make this thing better and more representative every year so please forgive me for getting defensive.

We are working to improve the process and hopefully hence the diversity of the list every year and if any of you have any sensible suggestions for how we can do that that we're not already looking into - I'm all ears.

That some of you don't like the River Cafe or Nobu or Hakkasan is completely irrelevant in terms of the list because a sizeable majority of the 651 chefs, restaurateurs and critics that were part of the process this year do.

Restaurants get on the list by being voted there pure and simple. There is no mystery. There is no conspiracy.

Until next year,

Joe Warwick, Editor, Restaurant magazine.

←

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!

[algy]

Subjectivity is inevitable - how can evaluation of restaurants be anything else?

If panel members have first hand, recent (ie since the last list was published) experience of all of the restaurants for which they wish to vote - fine. (That's rather different from "all the restaurants in the world")

However, if people can vote for something that they haven't recently experienced, what basis do they use?

[ravelda]

I have so far remained out of this as this is the same thing that we see every year, but now I am going to add (very briefly) my penny's worth:

1) If the awards were such rubbish as some here are suggesting, then why does it have such a large following from some of the most respected people in the industry? (They certainly wouldn't have had people like Keller and Adria there if they did not feel it had some merit, they have plenty of opportunity to big their ego's and drink free booze on other occasions!)

2) Have you ever known any list to be perfect - we have all taken issue with Michelin on numerous occasions for some of the restaurants they choose to award stars and indeed some who have not - this is not a perfect science

3) If you don't like it, don't buy it, personally, whilst I don't think the list is by any means perfect - far from it in fact, the list has been compiled by a large international pannel and clearly reflects a general trend of their views.

At the end of the day, a lot of bloody hard work goes into the list each year and personally I find it interesting and thought provoking, especially in areaas where I am suprised or where I disagree with the rankings. I would certainly much rather we had this than not. I certainly feel that Restaurant Mag is one of the better publications in this country for people who are actually interested in the trade.

I am sure to face some form of retribution for saying this, but some people on here seem more than ready to attack publications like this or the Observer FM when they disagree with their views or articles written, criticising their integrity or their worthiness to be published, but I rarely see them praising them when they have particularly enjoyed a piece. It would be nice to see a bit more balance.

IMHO of course!

[Scott]

That some of you don't like the River Cafe or Nobu or Hakkasan is completely irrelevant in terms of the list because a sizeable majority of the 651 chefs, restaurateurs and critics that were part of the process this year do.

Restaurants get on the list by being voted there pure and simple. There is no mystery. There is no conspiracy.

←

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.

[smokinjoe]

I have so far remained out of this as this is the same thing that we see every year, but now I am going to add (very briefly) my penny's worth:

1) If the awards were such rubbish as some here are suggesting, then why does it have such a large following from some of the most respected people in the industry? (They certainly wouldn't have had people like Keller and Adria there if they did not feel it had some merit, they have plenty of opportunity to big their ego's and drink free booze on other occasions!)

2) Have you ever known any list to be perfect - we have all taken issue with Michelin on numerous occasions for some of the restaurants they choose to award stars and indeed some who have not - this is not a perfect science

3) If you don't like it, don't buy it, personally, whilst I don't think the list is by any means perfect - far from it in fact, the list has been compiled by a large international pannel and clearly reflects a general trend of their views. 

At the end of the day, a lot of bloody hard work goes into the list each year and personally I find it interesting and thought provoking, especially in areaas where I am suprised or where I disagree with the rankings.  I would certainly much rather we had this than not.  I certainly feel that Restaurant Mag is one of the better publications in this country for people who are actually interested in the trade.

I am sure to face some form of retribution for saying this, but some people on here seem more than ready to attack publications like this or the Observer FM when they disagree with their views or articles written, criticising their integrity or their worthiness to be published, but I rarely see them praising them when they have particularly enjoyed a piece.  It would be nice to see a bit more balance.

IMHO of course!

←

[smokinjoe]

I'm not arguing with any of you because as I said about two pages back that way madness lies.

I'd just like to reiterate that the list was fairly and transparently compiled in response to one of your fellow members who earlier - talking out their ignorant and no doubt well-fed arse - basically said there was something dishonest about the way the whole thing was put together.

A full list of voters for all of the region panels and details of the process is on the website www.theworlds50best.com.

Let's face if we were making the whole thing up we would have had some real Japanese restaurants in there and a different top 5 for a start...

A lot of people work very hard trying to make this thing better and more representative every year so please forgive me for getting defensive.

We are working to improve the process and hopefully hence the diversity of the list every year and if any of you have any sensible suggestions for how we can do that that we're not already looking into - I'm all ears.

That some of you don't like the River Cafe or Nobu or Hakkasan is completely irrelevant in terms of the list because a sizeable majority of the 651 chefs, restaurateurs and critics that were part of the process this year do.

Restaurants get on the list by being voted there pure and simple. There is no mystery. There is no conspiracy.

Until next year,

Joe Warwick, Editor, Restaurant magazine.

←

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!

←

As laid out on the website and in the magazine....

1.Voters are only allowed to vote for two restaurants in their own voting panel region

2. Voters must have visited the restaurant in the last 18 months

No other conditions.

[Scott]

Subjectivity is inevitable - how can evaluation of restaurants be anything else?

If panel members have first hand, recent (ie since the last list was published) experience of all of the restaurants for which they wish to vote - fine. (That's rather different from "all the restaurants in the world")

However, if people can vote for something that they haven't recently experienced, what basis do they use?

←

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.

[Corinna Dunne]

2. Voters must have visited the restaurant in the last 18 months

←

No wonder it's so hard to get a table at elBulli!

[smokinjoe]

I'm not arguing with any of you because as I said about two pages back that way madness lies.

I'd just like to reiterate that the list was fairly and transparently compiled in response to one of your fellow members who earlier - talking out their ignorant and no doubt well-fed arse - basically said there was something dishonest about the way the whole thing was put together.

A full list of voters for all of the region panels and details of the process is on the website www.theworlds50best.com.

Let's face if we were making the whole thing up we would have had some real Japanese restaurants in there and a different top 5 for a start...

A lot of people work very hard trying to make this thing better and more representative every year so please forgive me for getting defensive.

We are working to improve the process and hopefully hence the diversity of the list every year and if any of you have any sensible suggestions for how we can do that that we're not already looking into - I'm all ears.

That some of you don't like the River Cafe or Nobu or Hakkasan is completely irrelevant in terms of the list because a sizeable majority of the 651 chefs, restaurateurs and critics that were part of the process this year do.

Restaurants get on the list by being voted there pure and simple. There is no mystery. There is no conspiracy.

Until next year,

Joe Warwick, Editor, Restaurant magazine.

←

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!

←

As laid out on the website and in the magazine....

1.Voters are only allowed to vote for a maximum of two restaurants in their own voting panel region - they may of course decide to vote for none.

2. Voters must have visited the restaurant in the last 18 months

No other conditions.

←

[Scott]

I have so far remained out of this as this is the same thing that we see every year, but now I am going to add (very briefly) my penny's worth:

1) If the awards were such rubbish as some here are suggesting, then why does it have such a large following from some of the most respected people in the industry? (They certainly wouldn't have had people like Keller and Adria there if they did not feel it had some merit, they have plenty of opportunity to big their ego's and drink free booze on other occasions!)

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.

2) Have you ever known any list to be perfect - we have all taken issue with Michelin on numerous occasions for some of the restaurants they choose to award stars and indeed some who have not - this is not a perfect science

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.

3) If you don't like it, don't buy it, personally, whilst I don't think the list is by any means perfect - far from it in fact, the list has been compiled by a large international pannel and clearly reflects a general trend of their views. 

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

At the end of the day, a lot of bloody hard work goes into the list each year and personally I find it interesting and thought provoking, especially in areaas where I am suprised or where I disagree with the rankings.  I would certainly much rather we had this than not.  I certainly feel that Restaurant Mag is one of the better publications in this country for people who are actually interested in the trade. 

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.

I am sure to face some form of retribution for saying this, but some people on here seem more than ready to attack publications like this or the Observer FM when they disagree with their views or articles written, criticising their integrity or their worthiness to be published, but I rarely see them praising them when they have particularly enjoyed a piece.  It would be nice to see a bit more balance.

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.

[ravelda]

Scott - I did start to respond to your comments, but to be honest, I have better things to do in my life. You clearly seem to opine that you are correct on this matter, so no one is going to convince you that you are not. To be honest, I am suprised that Joe has continued for so long.

I don's disagree that there are some bad restaurants on the list, or at least very mediocre ones, but the fact is the list is there, it was compiled on the basis of an extensive panels views, and there are clearly defined criteria. The list will go on, people will continue reading it, a clearly people will continue to debate it (at this rate we could be debating the point until the next list is published!). As I have said before, I personally find the list interesting and feel that it fulfils a role more than simply to heighten the awareness of Restaurant Magazine (which it does very well).

[smokinjoe]

Scott - I did start to respond to your comments, but to be honest, I have better things to do in my life.  You clearly seem to opine that you are correct on this matter, so no one is going to convince you that you are not.  To be honest, I am suprised that Joe has continued for so long. 

I don's disagree that there are some bad restaurants on the list, or at least very mediocre ones, but the fact is the list is there, it was compiled on the basis of an extensive panels views, and there are clearly defined criteria.  The list will go on, people will continue reading it, a clearly people will continue to debate it (at this rate we could be debating the point until the next list is published!).  As I have said before, I personally find the list interesting and feel that it fulfils a role more than simply to heighten the awareness of Restaurant Magazine (which it does very well).

←

Like I said before

[Zoticus]

2. Voters must have visited the restaurant in the last 18 months

←

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.

Edited April 26, 2007 by Zoticus (log)

[Zoticus]

1) If the awards were such rubbish as some here are suggesting, then why does it have such a large following from some of the most respected people in the industry? (They certainly wouldn't have had people like Keller and Adria there if they did not feel it had some merit, they have plenty of opportunity to big their ego's and drink free booze on other occasions!)

←

What you're saying is that if the awards were not respectable then the recipients of the awards would reject them. From which it follows that the truth test of an award is whether or not it is accepted by the individual to whom it is awarded.

Does a bad review only stand if the establishment reviewed accepts its criticism, or does this formula only work for praise?

[smokinjoe]

2. Voters must have visited the restaurant in the last 18 months

←

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.

←

Yawn.

[sunbeam]

I'd say Joe wasn't so much smokin' as incandescent!

I bet everyone in the office is wearing tin-hats this week and desperately avoiding his eye.

S

[Corinna Dunne]

2. Voters must have visited the restaurant in the last 18 months

←

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.

←

Yawn.

←

So, if elBulli isn't No 1 next year, will it be because the panelists didn't get a booking or because they've found somewhere better?

[smokinjoe]

2. Voters must have visited the restaurant in the last 18 months

←

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.

←

Yawn.

←

So, if elBulli isn't No 1 next year, will it be because the panelists didn't get a booking or because they've found somewhere better?

←

If el Bulli isn't no.1 next year it will because the panellists will have voted more often for somewhere else. Believe it or not there are a hell of a lot of people on the panel that eat at el Bulli every year either because they are well-connected restaurants journalists, restaurateurs, chefs or customers.

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...

Edited April 27, 2007 by smokinjoe (log)

[Scott]

Scott - I did start to respond to your comments, but to be honest, I have better things to do in my life.  You clearly seem to opine that you are correct on this matter, so no one is going to convince you that you are not.  To be honest, I am suprised that Joe has continued for so long. 

that's fine.

I do find it strange that you're obviously above responding, but not above responding to say so.

I don's disagree that there are some bad restaurants on the list, or at least very mediocre ones, but the fact is the list is there, it was compiled on the basis of an extensive panels views, and there are clearly defined criteria.  The list will go on, people will continue reading it, a clearly people will continue to debate it (at this rate we could be debating the point until the next list is published!).  As I have said before, I personally find the list interesting and feel that it fulfils a role more than simply to heighten the awareness of Restaurant Magazine (which it does very well).

←

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.

[Scott]

2. Voters must have visited the restaurant in the last 18 months

←

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.

[naebody]

My mother always told me it's easier to criticise than create. Therefore, rather than picking at the inevitable subjectivity of the Restaurant's list, I've decided to create my own.

I can guarantee that everywhere has been visited within the last 18 months by the entire judging panel (ie. myself) and has been ranked on an entirely objective basis (ie. how contented I was feeling after the bill came).

The winners are:

1- El Poblet, Denia

2- Swiss Re's private dining rooms at the top of the Gherkin, London

3- 1728, Paris

4- Little Bay (Farringdon branch), London

5- Hung Shing Yeh beach (third cafe along heading north) on Lamma Island, Hong Kong

The award ceremony will be held tonight, upstairs at the Defectors' Weld, Shepherd's Bush Green from 10pm onwards (invite only). And to all those restaurants that didn't place this time, better luck next year.

Can we give it a rest now?

Edited April 27, 2007 by naebody (log)

[smokinjoe]

2. Voters must have visited the restaurant in the last 18 months

←

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..."

[smokinjoe]

My mother always told me it's easier to criticise than create. Therefore, rather than picking at the inevitable subjectivity of the Restaurant's list, I've decided to create my own.

I can guarantee that everywhere has been visited within the last 18 months by the entire judging panel (ie. myself) and has been ranked on an entirely objective basis (ie. how contented I was feeling after the bill came).

The winners are:

1- El Poblet, Denia

2- Swiss Re's private dining rooms at the top of the Gherkin, London

3- 1728, Paris

4- Little Bay (Farringdon branch), London

5- Hung Shing Yeh beach (third cafe along heading north) on Lamma Island, Hong Kong

The award ceremony will be held tonight, upstairs at the Defectors' Weld, Shepherd's Bush Green from 10pm onwards (invite only). And to all those restaurants that didn't place this time, better luck next year.

Can we give it a rest now?

←

Please Jaysus, yes. I mean I've got to get on with starting the work on the 2008 list this afternoon.

[Gary Marshall]

The winners are:

1- El Poblet, Denia

←

oh no, you've done it now.

i went there last week, unfortunately i came down with food poisoning and only managed a few courses before i had to bow out and leave it to my fellow gourmands to scoff, it looked great btw.

However we were in the company of a local, who goes to el bulli every season (at the end so it's at it's best btw) and he reckons El Poblet is the best restaurant in the world