The Fat Duck 2005

[Dirk Wheelan]

try the blog  www.gastroville.com for an interesting view on the fat duck from someone i believe has better tastebuds than most!

←

Yes, very interesting. Wasn't very happy about the dried morels was he! I'm sure Blumenthal will be very grateful for the tips on his menu and how to be a better chef. Perhaps Mikael could spend some time at the Fat Duck and show Heston a few things.

←

Oddly, the only person you truly insult is Heston himself. I'm sure he wouldn't so arrogantly dismiss such a thoughtful review as you suppose.

[Andy Lynes]

Oddly, the only person you truly insult is Heston himself. I'm sure he wouldn't so arrogantly dismiss such a thoughtful review as you suppose.

←

Its certainly true that Heston is one of the most polite and down to earth people in the UK restaurant industry, which is all the more impressive when you consider his standing and reputation.

The truth is that neither you nor I can actually know what his reaction to the report might be, although I wouldn't imagine he would be particularly thrilled with comments such as the use of unseasonal ingredients being "evidence of lack of creativity or imagination or it can be perceived as insecurity or a narrow repertoire of the chef".

My comments were tounge-in-cheek - I was amused by the sheer arrogance of informing a three star chef how he might improve his signature dishes. It's a bit like a patient who has been through a few procedures instructing a surgeon how he might do his job better. But who knows, maybe Blumenthal is grateful for the advice.

[Andy Lynes]

and you are more than welcome to write your comments in gastroville and please do so .

←

Thank you for the kind invitation, but I don't contribute to other food websites - this one takes up far too much of my time as it is!

[Dirk Wheelan]

I was amused by the sheer arrogance of informing a three star chef how he might improve his signature dishes.

←

Heston's above criticism because he's a three star chef, or he's a three star chef because he's above criticism?

[Andy Lynes]

It's not about being above criticism, and I'm not interested in defending Blumenthal. Reading the report made me raise my eyebrows and smile; I'm reporting that reaction. You think its thoughtful, I think the tone is self important and overblown and I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on that.

[SamanthaF]

It's not about being above criticism, and I'm not interested in defending Blumenthal. Reading the report made me rasie my eyebrows and smile; I'm reporting that reaction. You think its thoughtful, I think the tone is self important and overblown and I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on that.

←

I back Mikael 1000% in his comments regarding the use of seasonal ingredients - Heston does not do it nearly enough.

And I'd also concur that he [Mikael] knows as much - nay more - about food than most 3 star chefs.

[vmilor]

My comments were tounge-in-cheek - I was amused by the sheer arrogance of informing a three star chef how he might improve his signature dishes. It's a bit like a patient who has been through a few procedures instructing a surgeon how he might to  his job better. But who knows, maybe Blumenthal is grateful for the advise.

←

I find your argument overly deferential to the degree of coming across as subservient. Does one have to be equally "expert" to criticize an "expert"? If you take your argument to its logical conclusion then only the 3 star chefs can pass judgments about each other.

[Andy Lynes]

And I'd also concur that he [Mikael] knows as much - nay more - about food than most 3 star chefs.

←

Can I ask how you have arrived at that conclusion? When you say "most 3 star chefs", who of the current crop, in your opinion, knows more than Mikael?

[Andy Lynes]

Does one have to be equally "expert" to criticize an "expert"? 

←

No, that's obviously not the case as every professional critic would be out of a job tomorrow if that were true. Mikael is free to offer advice to Blumethal or any other chef through the medium of his blog, just as I am free to pass comment on the advice and the manner in which it is offered.

[MobyP]

Unquestionably Mikael and Vedat have eaten in more 3 star restaurants more often than all but a very few people, and, it would seem certain, the vast majority of chefs. Thus they know more about the experience of dining in such places than most of the chefs who cook in them - that's the central paradox of working in that part of the industry.

Edited April 23, 2005 by MobyP (log)

[Andy Lynes]

SamanthaF's assertion was that Mikael knows more about food than most 3 star chefs, not about the experience of dining.

A quick look at the top 5's in the current edtion of Restauarnt magazine will tell you that chefs eat out a lot - Philip Howard (2 stars) picked Tetsuya's, Jean George River Cafe, Le Cinq and Per Se for example. Without exception, the head chefs I speak to all eat out on a regular basis. Stephen Jackson of The Weavers Shed has contributed reviews of Michel Bras and Veyrat among others to egullet.org and of course we know from reading Tough Cookies that Heston ate his way around France as a young man.

Mikael and Vedat may well have eaten in more 3 stars more often, but I don't think that necessarily means they know more about food or even the experience of dining than most 3 star chefs.

[Jon Tseng]

Look we don't have enough information to know whether this assertion is true or not. I would also add that splitting hairs about whether Sam was talking about knowing about food and the experience of dining is neither here nor there. These are not mutually independent events.

I would say it is certainly a possibility.

An analogous argument: I believe it is possibility that a leading wine critic or wine lover know more about wine than a leading wine producer.

If this is so, why can't the same thing be a possibility wrt dining?

J

[Jon Tseng]

On the subject of criticising *** chefs I think it is no different from criticising anyone's dishes. The reasoning is simple:

1) Everyone has different tastes.

2) Therefore everyone has different reactions to a dish.

3) Therefore it is reasonable for everyone to criticise any dish.

I pick holes in *** dishes - both in terms of conception and execution all the time. For example I've had some shocking dishes at Pierre Gagnaire (errr, cold congealed mushroom risotto anyone?). And every time I go to Gordon Ramsays I want to point out he's overcooking his fish!

On a secondary note, yes it is probably justified to criticise the tone of a response (e.g. "self important and overblown"). I get the same feeling every time AA Gill...

cheers

J

[SamanthaF]

Andy, my assertion comes from the fact that I have spent time with Mikael, and that I have spent time talking to various 1 -3* chefs. Without doubt, Mikael is the most knowledgable person regarding food that I have ever met.

I know you said that you don't have time, but have a look at Gastroville a bit more and you'll see what I mean. That's real food writing.

Edit - Spelling.

Edited April 23, 2005 by SamanthaF (log)

[Andy Lynes]

Samantha - thanks for the clarification. I will certainly take time to look at more of Gastroville (I have already read a few more of the reports) but in terms of participation, I will keep my powder dry for eGullet.

[degusto]

Thank you Andy for your feedback on my review of the Fat Duck. It would of course have been more interesting with some feedback containing some substance rather than just your sarcastic and arrogant claims of arrogance and self-importance. Please note that I do not question your capabilities to be a judge of my capabilities of providing in-depth analysis of food or the level of my food knowledge.

Gastroville is partly about being a consumer’s advocate on high end dining but also about promoting the importance of excellence of raw materials and ingredients of all sorts, which is one of the most important building blocs of great cooking and a fundamental heritage of Western cultural-gastronomic tradition. In our opinion there is a need for such a consumer’s advocate. Food journalism, with almost the sole exception of Francois Simon of le Figaro, lacks journalists who can or dare criticise top level dining at least in any deeper sense. This is a significant shortfall for consumers who often are in the dark as to how to best appreciate food and also for professional chefs, who are in the dark with respect to how experienced diners really perceive their food. Most restaurant critics also make the mistake of basing their reviews on solely personal preferences of what works to their palate and what does not. It is a much too limited approach. Most food reviewers lack a methodology or logical standards of the way they rate food. I am not requiring that such a methodology is well defined by each and every food writer, but if they cannot explain some sort of standards of what makes a dish great and do not know how to apply those standards, then why would their views be taken with any authority or even seriousness at all? We have tried to put down logical and clear standards on how we would like to judge and categorise food. These standards are by no means ready and should be seen as a living document and will no doubt be improved and refined as time goes by.

There is no self-importance intended with the review on the Fat Duck or any other review and the hard-hitting comments about certain practises or ingredients are there because of their level of disturbance during the meal. The level of detail is intended to be provoking and to serve as constructive criticism.

If you read our Mission Statement you will perhaps better get the picture of what our intentions and our drive are with the blog. We do think we have important contributions to make to the readers, both to diners to better understand food and dining and also to chefs to better understand how diners think. Constructive criticism may serve as a better understanding of what observations in this case one diner makes and what he is disturbed by rather than just using the normal sweeping little saying comments so often used, when a particular dish deserves to be criticised for example for the use of less than pristine ingredients or because a dish leaves room for significant improvements. Exceptionally few, if any, top-chefs believe they have reached perfection and cannot improve their cooking or their dishes. The most professional chefs never cease to strive for a perfection they know they will never reach. The same goes for the most experienced and, perhaps some would say, blasé gourmets; the search for perfection that will never be found is the constant motivation to continue that search. What I hope for is that some of the criticism will serve as a kick in the a** to some of the readers that are chefs. It is clear that no top-chef is likely to take any suggestions by the word, as they are all interpreters.

As to your remark on who is most capable of criticising top-chefs there is much to say.

Understanding food is not easy. It has little in common with wine tasting. Indeed it is so complex that it probably takes a lifetime of concentrated eating, cooking and studying before one can fully grasp the complexity the world of food can offer us. Extensive eating experience means a required large “library of reference” at ones disposal.

The ways a chef (as a chef or as a diner) and a diner judge food are far from similar and they are only partly overlapping. I believe that the more perspective the diner can have with respect to the side of the meal that the chef sees and focuses on or has missed to focus on, with respect to understanding the ingredients and with respect to the cuisine's place in the culinary continuum, the better a judgment of the food and the better a report of the food will the diner be able to make. In theory, such high level knowledge also means better appreciation of food, but only so in theory. In practice, a greater level of consciousness of perspectives, increased knowledge of ingredients and cooking techniques will lead to an even more discriminating diner.

The review of the Fat Duck contains a number of negative remarks, which I stand by. But the score is nevertheless very high for a chef who is self-taught, which is something I have immense admiration for, and has only been cooking on star level for a little more than a handful of years. Those who believe that Heston is right now on the level of the great masters and are touting this in the British press do a disservice not only to the British restaurant diners but also to Heston. If Heston further improves his cooking, which I have no doubt he is capable of doing, and have the will to carry on that process, I would not be surprised that he actually reaches a position among sophisticated and well-dined gourmets that no English chef, including Marco Pierre White ever had. But realistically, Heston is at least 5 years from delivering food on the level that I have in mind.

[Andy Lynes]

Degusto - your considered and measured response is appreciated, thanks for taking the time to compose such a lengthy and thoughtful reply. You raise a number of fundamental issues, most of which fall outside the remit of this thread.

There are a number of threads on eGullet that address the subject of restaurant criticism both here in the UK and abroad, so I would ask that we don't rehearse those arguements here again.

Would you be able to provide a link to the articles you mention that tout Heston Bluementhal as being on the level of the great masters, or if they are not online, which British papers or magazines they appeared in and who wrote them.

[degusto]

Andy,

I was in London a couple of days this week. The newspapers were full of articles on Heston with various food journalists touting that the Fat Duck deservedly was selected the best restaurant in the world and treating this extremely laughable list as the new food bible.

There have previously been writings by several British journalists holding him as high as it gets. I have not time to give you links to those. For me it is a quite well known fact.

[degusto]

Andy,

I may have slightly drifted on the topic, but it was only due to your off topic remarks. I am sorry if the topic drift disturbs any readers of this thread.

[Jonathan Day]

If there's one thing that has become clear to me since first joining eGullet, it is that arguments about "who knows more about food?" almost never get anywhere. Apart from the fact that "food knowledge" is multidimensional (geography, history, science, aesthetics, etc.), it is a topic that is deeply contextual. Another way of framing Moby's point is that the chef's experience of a dish or a meal is invariably different from that of the diner. So I propose that we set aside any question about who knows more, or who is qualified to criticise whom.

I give Mikael and Vedat, the Gastroville bloggers, substantial credit for setting out, clearly and at the very start of their blog, the food rating standards by which they compute their scores. In essence, they are setting out a personal culinary philosophy. My reading of their reviews is: "this is what we look for in a restaurant. If this is what you seek, the scores will be a good predictor of your experience. If you are looking for something different, the scores, the reviews and the blog may be less useful." For example, their ratings and other comments on their blog suggest that they give relatively little rating to ambience or service -- for them, the food is the food, whether served on Limoges or a piece of cardboard. Some of their criteria are necessarily matters of individual judgement -- for example, the notion of the "magic touch of the chef." But others would be easier for multiple raters to agree on.

Seen in that light, their take on the Fat Duck is more a matter of its performance against a very specific and personal aesthetic; against that, they found it promising but still somewhat wanting. Heston's philosophy may be different to that of the Gastroville Bloggers. Fortunately, we can now examine their criteria (see link above) and Heston Blumenthal's, in his books and Guardian columns. To me, that conversation would be more interesting than another sterile debate about whether The Fat Duck (or any other restaurant) is on some absolute scale "the best" in Britain, Europe, or the world.

[Dirk Wheelan]

Are saying individual opinions are relative; that the Fat Duck is good by consensus, and consequently Degusto is wrong?

[Dirk Wheelan]

Heston's philosophy may be different to that of the Gastroville Bloggers.  Fortunately, we can now examine their criteria (see link above) and Heston Blumenthal's, in his books and Guardian columns. To me, that conversation would be more interesting than another sterile debate about whether The Fat Duck (or any other restaurant) is on some absolute scale "the best" in Britain, Europe, or the world.

←

I'm so confused by this post! Isn't this exactly what the Gastroville review is attempting to do?

PS. I notice you are a 'manager', is there an eGullet line on the Fat Duck? There seems to be so much hostility towards anyone who dares to criticize it. The Gastroville review is measured, thoughtful and precisely articulated, I would have thought it was exactly the kind of thing that eGullet would welcome, but instead Degusto is getting a drubbing from the management. Why; am I missing something? I mean, given the fairly mild reproach made in the review, the accusations of hubris seem entirely out of proportion.

[Andy Lynes]

I was in London a couple of days this week. The newspapers were full of articles on Heston with various food journalists touting that the Fat Duck deservedly was selected the best restaurant in the world and treating this extremely laughable list as the new food bible.

There have previously been writings by several British journalists holding him as high as it gets. I have not time to give you links to those. For me it is a quite well known fact.

←

Matthew Fort, writing in the Guardian calls him "the most original and remarkable chef this country has ever produced" which when you think about it is quite a modest claim. It's certainly true that Blumenthal is written about a great deal in this country and that generally speaking a lot of his press is positive (although I have already linked to this negative piece on this thread), but I can't recall him ever having been compared to the "great masters". I'm making the assumption that you are referring to the likes of Escoffier and Careme but perhaps you have more modern figures in mind.

[Andy Lynes]

PS. I notice you are a 'manager', is there an eGullet line on the Fat Duck?

←

There is no official line on the Fat Duck or any other restaurant. In addition, I don't see anything negative about Gastroville in Jonathan's post. My posts on this thread are my personal responses to Mikael's review.

As for criticising the Fat Duck, I think the oyster and passion fruit dish is one of the nastiest things I have ever put in my mouth, I've never liked the pea, pigeon and crab amuse and I'm not too fussed about the pine dessert. The rest of it's pretty good though.

[Jonathan Day]

Dirk, I was praising the Gastroville Bloggers for setting out their criteria and evaluating TFD against it. Very, very few reviewers (online or in print) do that. The Michelin inspectors try to keep their criteria secret. Mikael and Vedat have set theirs out for others to see and debate. Kudos to them for that.

I hold to my view that debates about "the best" restaurant, without criteria, are a waste of time...as are lists purporting to tell us the "best" restaurants around.

As Andy said, there is no eGullet line on The Fat Duck, or on any other restaurant.