Sketch

[Jon Tseng]

Maybe its not what they asked but how they asked it

We know that a bit of market research is a given, but given the level of service you usually get at three star restaurants; the ability for the waiter to hover without ever be intrusive, for the maitre d' to deal with any eventuality with ineffable grace &tc you'd expect they could ask something as basic as what they do in a slightly more subtle manner...

J

[lizziee]

What I find so objectionable about this review is that so little emphasis is put on the food. You have no sense of what is presented on the plate. Did anyone eat the Chalosse chicken or the beef and caviar? From the lack of details, you would assume not. The only dishes that were minimally described were the patridge and wild boar as well as the amuse de bouche.

Her comment,"And then we surrender to what turns out to be a once-in-a-lifetime, amazing experience of dark and sinful luxury" is never adequately detailed. You have no sense of what must be culinary excellence, given the above statement.

Maybe, the reviewer should read some of eGullet members' reviews to understand how to give the reader a true sense of what to expect.

[Jon Tseng]

teehee

for a uk restaurant review i actually thought there was quite a lot on the food (viz messrs coran, winner or the evening standards new "restaurant spy")

a rather sad commentary on the state of british restaurant reviews, methinks

Jx

[Andy Lynes]

A review for people with no intention of eating there, just something to read on the train. Or the toilet.

[Steve Plotnicki]

A review for people with no intention of eating there, just something to read on the train. Or the toilet.

This is a much better explanation of sensationalism then I gave. I find this aspect of journalism sad. So many of the good things in life that people should try and experience at least once are derided and made fun of by publications as a way of maintaining their readership. I wish the public understood how they are being constantly misled. It's like they precalculated the tone of the review based on readership income level and demographic.

[Andy Lynes]

The Telegraph is a Conservative broadsheet and it's readers would certainly be amongst those who could afford to go, I just have a feeling that not many of them will. In fact, I can't imagine who will be willing to pay those sort of prices with anything like sufficient regularity to keep the place open. Bet there's a re-think within 6 months. It'll be turned into a function room or a private cinema or something.

[StephenT]

I fear that most reviews of this restaurant will be of the "holy xxx this place is expensive" sort rather than evaluating it and saying "yes it's expensive but it is/isn't worth it". Some of the latter variety might go some way to convincing people in the UK that it's okay to spend a lot of money on a meal if you want to. Whether or not any reviewers who write for widely read publications will admit to having such thoughts, we'll have to wait and see.

[tony h]

I can't imagine who will be willing to pay those sort of prices with anything like sufficient regularity

Last time I met Simon M didn't he have "mug" written all over his face? I await his review with not a little trepidation.

[Gary Marshall]

Tell us about the food please. How about instead of telling us the Chicken dish is on the menu, eating it and telling us how it tastes?

taste is so subjective, for me the menu description is usually enough, Having eaten chicken and drunk meursault i've a fair idea of how the dish would taste (probably very good) and that would be enough to make me think about going to the restaurant, which is the point of a review, to make you aware of something you may like.

A whole article of detailed tasting notes is generally boring and best suited to specialist media such as egullet.

I think being made aware of haughty receptionists, rude staff, bad room etc are just as valid in a review as the food as they will affect the overall experience, which would concern me if i were to spend £500 on a dinner.

[macrosan]

I read the Telegraph review and thought it was excellent. It gave me a general "flavour" of the whole setup, including the decor, ambience, style and food. I disagree that it is voyeuristic in any sense. Sure it's critical, but then a review is meant to be critical

My personal experience is that my capacity to complain is geometrically proportional to my expectations. So as a restaurant presents itself further and further up the price/quality scale, so my expectations will become higher and higher, and so the likelihoood of my picking fault with minor detail will increase. And that is exactly how I believe it should be.

The price level adopted by Sketch is way beyond any normal concept of profit determination. Those prices are not based on cost, they are based on exclusivity. There is a marketplace of people who will not buy what can afforded by most people, they will always be inclined to buy the most expensive of anything that can be obtained. Michael Winner is an example of such a person. Sketch is designed primarily for that market. Now if the product that Sketch delivers is perfect, and the food is genuinely of the quality that one would expect from Gagnaire, then they will also attract a gourmet market, but that market will be secondary to their business plan.

Sure, the review pokes some fun at the sheer expensiveness of Sketch, and sure it deliberately pricks the pomposity of the place where the reviewer found pomposity. I'm all in favour of that. But behind what in fact is a tiny amount of such mickey-taking, there is a serious and valid review of the restaurant as a restaurant. Will I go ? Probably, and when I do I shall not be averse to complaining about the tiniest detail which does not live up to their pretensions.

[Steve Plotnicki]

I am having a hard time imagining that the hard core Michelin 3 star restaurant crowd (who are about the only people who would be willing to pay those prices) cares about anything other then the food. Of course they want to know the price, but not really much more. They just want to know about the food in detail. Everything else in the review, is as Andy said, for people who won't go. You can't eat pomposity and those who like to eat at those places do not care about that detail. As for the prices, they are in line with what the three stars in France charge for a tasting menu these days. It's just that the price point is new for London. That's the interesting part and it's a shame that the reviewer couldn't write of the pricepoint in the context of haute cuisine pricing elsewhere instead of just sensationalizing it. Finally, if anyone believes they know how the Chicken in Meursault is going to taste I suggest they try the "Vin Jaune" sauce at Arpege which has very little to do with the taste of yellow wine but which adds a lushness and color to the sauce. In fact with Gagnaire doing the cooking, it's possible the chicken won't even taste like chicken.

[macrosan]

LOL Steve, why aren't you in bed ?

I've only eaten at one Michelin 3* restaurant this year, and that was in Brussels. The cost of a 3-course a la carte lunch with wine including 16% service charge was just under £100 per person. I believe the carte there is the same at dinner and lunch. The Sketch review suggests "dinner for two, excluding wine and service, costs £300" so I guess including wine and service that would be £230 per person, which is more than double what I paid in Brussels. If France is at the Sketch level, does this mean France is exceptionally expensive compared with other European countries at this level of dining ?

Steve, my point about the Sketch prices is that they surely can't be dependent on Michelin-3*-ies I just don't think there are enough of them to keep what sounds like a very large restaurant going. Their primary market must be celebs, Winners, Sloanies, et al. The Michelin market will support (or not!) their reputation for fine food, which will encourage the main market to go.

On your point about what the Telegraph review should comprise, I would be surprised if the Michelin market made any decision about such a restaurant from any published review. After all, they're not likely to place much credence either in the author (Jan Moir) or in the editorial policy of a national daily newspaper. I would assume that this market will take note of the reputation of Pierre Gagnaire, will talk amongst themselves (maybe even here ) and will then either take a straight risk, or wait for the next Michelin guide to be published. For people like me, this Telegraph review is just fine

[Steve Plotnicki]

Macro - Tha tasting menu at Sketch is 150GBP. The tasting menu at Arpege is 300 Euros. I'm not sure how much it is these days at Gagnaire or Ducasse but they are probably in that zone. ADNY would probably cost the same if they had that type of tasting menu. That's the market that Sketch is after, at least in the Library. As for my review, my point was that it's a shame that the Michelin market can't take the review very seriously. But at the same time, if they can't, who is going to? Whick makes Andy right about the review being written for people who aren't going to go.

[Kikujiro]

Steve, where are you getting the tasting menu figure? The review suggests up to £150/head for three courses from the carte.

An additional quesion: were any of the comparators you cite charging prices like that at opening, before getting their stars and/or with the name/star chef being in a consultant role?

Edited December 9, 2002 by Kikujiro (log)

[Steve Plotnicki]

I thought it was 150GBP for the tasting menu. How much is that priced at if I'm wrong? As for names involved at opening, you can't get a bigger name then Pierre Gagnaire. So I don't see what the issue is there.

Thing is, the food is the food no matter how much it costs. How good the the Chicken in Meursault is has no relation to how much it costs. All I am saying is that I wish the writer divorced those two concepts and gave more weight to the quality of food instead of sensationalizing the price and custom of the restaurant. It's really a matter of style because she could have had a single paragraph that described how snooty it's going to be and how outrageously priced it is. And she could have allocated the additional space to reporting on how the food she sampled actually tasted.

[Jon Tseng]

It's really a matter of style because she could have had a single paragraph that described how snooty it's going to be and how outrageously priced it is. And she could have allocated the additional space to reporting on how the food she sampled actually tasted.

But that's not what the audience of that particular publication pay for, is it?

Of course if Jan Moir had been writing for us lot she (he?) would have written something quite different. But in the meantime it seems a little harsh to criticse a professional writer for not tailoring their style to a their audience.

J

[Steve Plotnicki]

But that's not what the audience of that particular publication pay for, is it?

Correct. They pay to be amused by the eccentricities of life while eating their tinned vegetables. That's my entire point. Instead of publications using their column space to teach people something, they would rather make people feel good about their place in life by making fun of something unusual, even if it is the greatest manifestation of dining in the world. It is tantamount to an art critic going to a show of Picassos and spending most of the review on how much they cost. Anyone who is more interested in the price of a Picasso then an explanation of why it's a great work of doesn't really like art.

[Gary Marshall]

Much as i am enjoying this debate, it seems a bit futile.

At the prices mentioned, rumoured or otherwise, there are simply not the punters around, and it will be shut before next christmas.

This place to me has a strong smell of fashionability about it, and in this territory comes the distinct chance of being ripped off. This to my mind will put off the michelin groupies, (of which i count myself) who will struggle to get tables, and the fashionable 'in-crowd' will eventually move elsewhere.

Tasting menu aside, the a la carte seems to be about double that of ramsay rhr and i'm sure most foodies will just not stomach that price inflation to eat in an un-starred restaurant, regardless of the provenance of the chef.

At least when ramsay 'franchised' himself to claridges he had the decency to charge low prices (at least to start ).

[Kikujiro]

Instead of publications using their column space to teach people something, they would rather make people feel good about their place in life by making fun of something unusual, even if it is the greatest manifestation of dining in the world.

Steve, the day the Telegraph tries to teach its readers anything is the day the Daily Mail's stock price rockets. Although your comparison with an art show is a bit unfair as one doesn't have to buy the dam' Picassos

Edit: anyway, Gary's right.

Edited December 9, 2002 by Kikujiro (log)

[Paul Bell]

Mmm well lots of stuff going on here including conflation of a huge number of issues.

Firstly I imagine Jan Moir has never written a review that has provoked so much interest before, on the whole I have found her to be OK, informative enough but tends to carry rather too much baggage (like a lot of them). As has already been remarked upon what was that rubbish about not being able to afford dessert? I sense it was one of those times when she felt the needed to relate to her readers!

That being said I got a reasonable impression of what the restaurant might be like, although this impression may not of course be a valid one. The review was not helped by trying cover too much ground in considering two of the restaurants in one review with limited space.

However my impressions are that the cheaper restuarant is not that great and the Library is hideously expensive (for London, for me etc) but that the food delivered might be fantastic. That for me delivers about as much as I expect from a restaurant review. I need further information to see whether I can justify say a meal at Sketch instead of two meals at Foliage, Capital et al or of course X number of cheeseburgers at McDs.

On more general albeit related issues, what do you think restaurant reviews are for/about? They are entertainment, most people in this country would never consider going to many of the restaurants reviewed, so why are any of us surprised that the reviews are written in the various styles that they are.

We all (myself included) have a tendency to lose sight of certain realities for many people. Comments such as price has no relevance to quality, for example is in essence a correct statement, and for a number of people on this board the price of a meal is largely an irrelevance, which is fine. However for other people it is a consideration to a greater or lesser degree, I for example would spend £300+ on a meal but I would want to know/have an expectation that it would be the best meal in London, in order to do so I might have to forego two meals at The Square, so I have to make a value judgment that includes consideration of the price, as do I am sure a number of other people on this board.

anyway bored now so I shall stop rambling.

Paul

[Jon Tseng]

It occurs to be that surely all the brouhaha about the prices shows that the reviewer was actually spot on the main point. After all we should be the most price-agnostic of customers (victims?) but see above!

J

[magnolia]

What I find so objectionable about this review is that so little emphasis is put on the food. You have no sense of what is presented on the plate. Did anyone eat the Chalosse chicken or the beef and caviar? From the lack of details, you would assume not. The only dishes that were minimally described were the patridge and wild boar as well as the amuse de bouche.

Her comment,"And then we surrender to what turns out to be a once-in-a-lifetime, amazing experience of dark and sinful luxury" is never adequately detailed. You have no sense of what must be culinary excellence, given the above statement.

Maybe, the reviewer should read some of eGullet members' reviews to understand how to give the reader a true sense of what to expect.

This is endemic to UK restaurant reviews, along with herd mentality that results in nearly all the weekend papers reviewing the same restaurant, the same week.

I haven't figured out whether this is because the editors all demand that their reviewers review the same 'new' place as quickly as possible, to be 'first' or at least not last...and that they believe there's only one obviousreview-worthy restaurant per week. Or perhaps this is actually true, as I get the feeling there just aren't that many new restaurants opening throughout the UK (not just London).

LIkewise if a reviewer knows his/her counterpart at every other paper will be reviewing the same restaurant, maybe they feel the only way to distinguish their review from all the others is to include a load of irrelevant personal details. Whatever the reason, it drives me nuts.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Although your comparison with an art show is a bit unfair as one doesn't have to buy the dam' Picassos

Kikujiro - But the aspect of quality and the aspect of price versus quality are two different issues. And while I acknowledge their connection at a restaurant, the issue really comes down to, do you think it is worth spending that amount of money or don't you. And the only way to tell is with a detailed review of the food which this restaurant falls short of if you ask me.

On more general albeit related issues, what do you think restaurant reviews are for/about? They are entertainment, most people in this country would never consider going to many of the restaurants reviewed, so why are any of us surprised that the reviews are written in the various styles that they are.

Paul - Well that is the crux of my complaint. As long as publications balance their reporting by putting emphasis on the spectacle of eating top quality food, the food industry will continue to shovel crap at the masses. I've never been to Borough Market in London but I've read many of the great reports about the place. Can you imagine a newpaper writing an article about the pretentious and excessive people who pay X GBP per kilo for their food? I can. Those articles have nothing to do with food and have everything to do with class warfare which you have described as "entertainment." I have nothing against entertainment. In fact I'm in the entertainment business. But the Telegraph shouldn't be providing entertainment to the detriment of those who could benefit from the proper information.

[Miss J]

EXCLUSIVE: Telegraph sides with proles in dining shocker!

Not what they're generally known for.

Edited December 9, 2002 by Miss J (log)

[cabrales]

But the aspect of quality and the aspect of price versus quality are two different issues.

Yes. However, there is at least another dimension: the *process* of sampling for oneself a restaurant that is of a certain perceived objective quality.