GBM 2009

[PhilD]

I found the camaraderie and generally fun attitude they all had this week to be far better TV than the staged rivalry we had in the heats. It is so much better to see people work together and help each other out, IMO you get more insight and genuine comment than you get in the false confrontational approach they try to foster.

Have all TV producers had a creativity bypass; they must have given the formulaic approach. In contrast I caught David Pritchard on Radio 4 this week talking about his book "Shooting the Cook", he was behind Keith Floyd and Rick Stein TV shows. We don't need a reprise of them but we could do with another producer that is as creative.

I would go for James - Glynn - Nigel - Tristan: although Tom's beef wellington wouldn't disappoint.

[Toufas]

i am really torn with the main course to be honest. i think beef wellington is an amazing dish, but if i wanted to have something that would remind me of home, it would be either dannys or nigels dish. i think both of them represent home british cooking more than beef wellington.

[PhilD]

I see Andy Hayler has reviewed a couple of Tristans's dishes in his review of Launceston Place; interesting reading.

We liked the look of the ice-cream cornet but thought it would be best as a pre-desssert; a bit like Heston's serves his version (Mrs Marshall's Margaret Cone). That followed by the treacle tart would be great.

I planned to cook Glynn's fish dish today, but I now realise I should have started the pickled carrots a couple of weeks ago, and the monkfish needs to rest overnight in the fridge...! Looks like improvisation is required.

Edited May 30, 2009 by PhilD (log)

[david goodfellow]

I see Andy Hayler has reviewed a couple of Tristans's dishes in his review of Launceston Place; interesting reading.

We liked the look of the ice-cream cornet but thought it would be best as a pre-desssert; a bit like Heston's serves his version (Mrs Marshall's Margaret Cone). That followed by the treacle tart would be great.

I planned to cook Glynn's fish dish today, but I now realise I should have started the pickled carrots a couple of weeks ago, and the monkfish needs to rest overnight in the fridge...! Looks like improvisation is required.

←

He's been twice in recent weeks, we were not that impressed on our visit I have to say.

There must be a cheap way for preparing sous vide recipes.

I know there is a very lengthy thread on the subject on here, but not read it fully.

Glyn's dish is now on the back burner, so to speak, Nigel's hotpot is getting the treatment today, minus of course the Lonk lamb, I'm using local, but its perhaps just as good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/database...eho_91265.shtml

Cooked Marcus Waring,s version a couple weeks back it was delish

http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/database...ith_81803.shtml

Hope I still fancy it later on the sun is beating down, looks like a scorcher

[Harters]

I caught up with the last three days on iPlayer last night.

Much as I want to see more food on TV, I really, really hope that we've seen the last of this turgid programme. From the manufactured "event", through the fake rivalry, to the inconsistent judging, it just pisses me off.

For example, I do not understand how a treacle tart, condemned as not summery enough and unsuitable in the heats, can win (much as it looked a cracking treacle tart).

And (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) wasnt there something inherently "iffy" about the voting. If I've understood the rules, as explained upthread, this is what should have happened - after the judges voted, the chefs were then ranked 1 - 8 (top chef being 1). A similar ranking process was going to take place after the public vote (top chef being 1). The ranking scores would then be added together - so a chef heading both the judges and punters lists would score 1 + 1 = 2. Etc.

So, if the end result was not "iffy", explain how the position of chefs ranked 1 and 2 after the judges vote have their position reversed after the public vote. Surely both have then had rankings of 1 + 2 = 3. A tie.

And, talking of possibly "iffy", don't even get me started on the concept of a proper menu that would be served being created by the declared process. Let ask you, having sorted out the starter as being beef, was it conceivable that beef would miraculously find its way onto the main course selection. A virtual fiver says that there was no chance, which means that a fiddle might have had to be done, even if a fiddle wasnt actually done.

But, just on a positive note, I understand that Nigel Haworth's dishes will be on Northcote's menu soon (next week?). I do hope they're still there in August when we are booked for an overnight stay.

[genuineness]

I see Andy Hayler has reviewed a couple of Tristans's dishes in his review of Launceston Place; interesting reading.

We liked the look of the ice-cream cornet but thought it would be best as a pre-desssert; a bit like Heston's serves his version (Mrs Marshall's Margaret Cone). That followed by the treacle tart would be great.

I planned to cook Glynn's fish dish today, but I now realise I should have started the pickled carrots a couple of weeks ago, and the monkfish needs to rest overnight in the fridge...! Looks like improvisation is required.

←

Funny you should say that because the ice cream cone is indeed a pre-dessert at Tristan's restaurant. If it had won it would have been an utter travesty.

[ElisG]

And (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) wasnt there something inherently "iffy" about the voting. If I've understood the rules, as explained upthread, this is what should have happened - after the judges voted, the chefs were then ranked  1 - 8 (top chef being 1). A similar ranking process was going to take place after the public vote (top chef being 1). The ranking scores would then be added together - so a chef heading both the judges and punters lists would score 1 + 1 = 2. Etc.

So, if the end result was not "iffy", explain how the position of chefs ranked 1 and 2 after the judges vote have their position reversed after the public vote. Surely both have then had rankings of 1 + 2 = 3. A tie.

←

I never thought of it like that. Maybe we've misunderstood the voting process.

[PhilD]

And (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) wasnt there something inherently "iffy" about the voting. If I've understood the rules, as explained upthread, this is what should have happened - after the judges voted, the chefs were then ranked  1 - 8 (top chef being 1). A similar ranking process was going to take place after the public vote (top chef being 1). The ranking scores would then be added together - so a chef heading both the judges and punters lists would score 1 + 1 = 2. Etc.

So, if the end result was not "iffy", explain how the position of chefs ranked 1 and 2 after the judges vote have their position reversed after the public vote. Surely both have then had rankings of 1 + 2 = 3. A tie.

←

I never thought of it like that. Maybe we've misunderstood the voting process.

←

I believe it says on the "rules" that in the case of a tie the public vote takes precedence. I also think top chef gets 8 points, down to last chef with 1. Obviously if chef with 8 points only gets 6 in the public vote then one with 7 who then gets 8 wins.

After finding out that Glynn's dish took so long I thought we could try another, but given the weather I really couldn't face a hotpot or a beef wellington, both far too wintery for the summer. My fishmonger was out of monkfish at 10:00am this morning; the GBM effect? We are improvising with cheeks.

[Harters]

I believe it says on the "rules" that in the case of a tie the public vote takes precedence.

It does. I'd missed that bit.

J

[ElisG]

I believe it says on the "rules" that in the case of a tie the public vote takes precedence.

It does. I'd missed that bit.

J

←

Yup, I've also just realised this only works if you assume the person who came 2nd overall came 2nd in the public vote. If he came 3rd he could still have finished second overall without drawing with with the person who came 1st.

[Polarbear]

I believe it says on the "rules" that in the case of a tie the public vote takes precedence.

It does. I'd missed that bit.

J

←

Yup, I've also just realised this only works if you assume the person who came 2nd overall came 2nd in the public vote. If he came 3rd he could still have finished second overall without drawing with with the person who came 1st.

←

When is the actual Dinner being shown on the box?

[JudyB]

When is the actual Dinner being shown on the box?

According to the Radio Times website the banquet will be shown on Tuesday 16th June from 8:00pm - 9:00pm (on BBC2).

Reports elsewhere (including Caterer Search) say that the banquet itself was last night (6th June).