Sketch

[AdamLawrence]

EXCLUSIVE: Telegraph sides with proles in dining shocker!

Not what they're generally known for. 

True, but it's not just the proles, is it? Retired Lt-Col Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells probably wouldn't think too much of Sketch either. Harumph.

Adam

[Jon Tseng]

On the whole whats-the-point-of-a-restaurant-review idea, this old thread may be interesting:

Restaurant Reviews Thread

Here's what Jay Rayner said at the time:

As I've said before my job is to sell newspaper and the way to do that is by writing an interesting column. I think it should always be about restaurants (unlike, say, AA Gill who can sometimes whitter on about something else entirely for 1450 words.) When deciding where to go I don't generally look for the most interesting or new restaurant. I look for the subject which will make the best column; that will sometimes (even often) be the most interesting or new restaurant.

[lizziee]

Below is what Fat Guy wrote on the thread Restaurant Reviewers, Complete Anonymity.

"Basically it comes down to what you see as the role of a restaurant review. If it's consumer protection, fine, undercover reviewing probably makes the most sense. I've heard plenty of reviewers and editors say consumer protection/advocacy is the only purpose of a restaurant review. That strikes me as a shallow view, and one that leads to reviews nobody wants to read. With an attitude like that, how are you going to beat Zagat, where you have lots of real consumers filling out lots of little numerical survey forms? No, a restaurant reviewer is emphatically not an ordinary consumer (Why should he be? He's an expert.) and to me a restaurant review is about a host of different things and one small part of that is an attempt to be an advocate for the consumer. It's a balance. Of course totally revealing yourself is going to make you a somewhat less effective consumer advocate in the narrow sense, but in the broad sense the best consumer advocate is the one who educates the consumer with great food writing, all the inside information, the real scoop on the chef and the food and the thinking behind the whole shebang. You just don't get that in a follow-up fact-checking phone call after three anonymous meals. And I also think a reviewer has a duty to the craft; that is to say a good reviewer is trying to elevate dining by being an advocate of excellence, just as art and film critics are in part trying to push the art and film worlds to improve rather than cater to average tastes (which is always the path of least resistance). So sure, anonymity is a useful tool in a reviewer's toolkit, and in certain outrageous instances it's a really nice thing to be able to go in undercover and blow the lid off a restaurant where the owners really are cynical assholes who want to rip off every customer. But you know what? So few restaurants are actually like that, it's a shame to throw out the baby with the bathwater and limit the way you review every other restaurant in the world.

The craft of restaurant reviewing is right now at an all-time low. The reviews on the whole aren't interesting to read, and Zagat and other shorthand rating systems are crushing the reviewers. The only power the reviewers have right now is their stars, not their reviews, and that shouldn't be the point. We need to change the way we think about restaurant reviews. We need to bring them up to the standards of other serious criticism or they will slowly disappear into obscurity. We need reviews that the folks here on eGullet will rush to read every week because they are forward-thinking, sophisticated, well-written, and contain the best available information. And those that aren't as enthusiastic as eGullet's users need to be infected with our enthusiasm. They need to be shown an unadulterated love of food and dining and restaurants and all the trappings. They need to be educated, cajoled, whatever it takes to get them interested in something more than stars and Zagat ratings. I don't know if anybody's up to the job but it seems obvious to me it's what we need to be doing."

What is lacking in the Gagnaire review is educating the consumer about the food. It lacks what makes a restaurant review excellent: "the best consumer advocate is the one who educates the consumer with great food writing, all the inside information, the real scoop on the chef and the food and the thinking behind the whole shebang." There was little or no education in this review.

--------------------

[Steve Plotnicki]

There was little or no education in this review.

What makes this point even more material is that I am certain that there isn't another place in London, let alone the rest of the U.K., where you could eat like this. I mean couldn't everyone see the review written the following way;

Pierre Gagnaire brings his eclectic cuisine to London

London has never seen anything like it before

The owners are taking a big chance with this size investment

Some of the aspects of the place seem pretentious including the pricing

Once you get past the pretensions the food is;

a) Every bit as good as his food in France

b) Good but not up to par with his food in France

c) Nothing like the food at his place in France

d) Sheer dreck

And the describe it in detail?

[Wilfrid]

I'm glad this thread directed me to Jan Moir's review, which I would otherwise have missed. My reaction was that the restaurant sounds seriously exciting from an eating point-of-view. And I agree that the prissy twittering about the prices was designed to pander to a certain readership.

At the same time, there's nothing to stop us making sensible comparisons and asking a few questions. I have been translating into dollars (very roughly), and I am seeing entrees on the carte at over $90, and a tasting menu (how many courses?) at $240. Now, you can spend $280 on a seafood tasting menu at Alain Ducasse in New York, and you can probably spend the equivalent on white truffle menus at more than one Manhattan restaurant. But it's worth saying that standard tasting menus, even at the costliest Manhattan restaurants, are significantly les expensive. As for the carte prices, they do raise an eyebrow.

Others here are more up-to-date on French three star prices than me, although I don't recall Taillevent being anywhere near that expensive. While it's right to say that Sketch's target audience - if it exists - are people who don't care about the price, I think we're entitled to wonder why a London restaurant is so significantly more expensive than any restaurant in New York - which is hardly a cheap city.

[ajay]

$240 sounds like it's on the higher side for a tasting menu even in a michelin three star in France. The menu Pierre Gagnaire was 165 euros, the non-truffled menu at Troisgros was 180 (less if you choose to pass on langoustines), but the menu at Arpege is indeed 300 euros and the prices on the carte are also similarly high with the avacado and caviar appetizer breaking 100 euros as does the main course of brittany lobster.

In any case, the new Gagnaire seems like it is more expensive than the mother ship in Paris was (at least as of last spring). I wonder why that is.

ps have any egulleteers yet sampled the cuisine so that we can get some real insight? If not, might I suggest we take up a collection and send Steve P--since he's obviously well versed in what a good restaurant review should look like.

[Gavin Jones]

Where is this tasting menu? The review in the telegraph -and the carte posted - suggest £150 for 3 courses.

[Wilfrid]

If so, Gavin, that makes Pierre Gagnaire (Sketch) about 40% more expensive than Alain Ducasse at the Essex House, which charges $145 for three courses. Worth a quizzical look, I would say.

Edited December 9, 2002 by Wilfrid (log)

[cabrales]

I thought to myself when ADNY started that its pricing relative to other restaurants in NY was not among the crucial qualities of the restaurant. It was a restaurant that *promised* (note not delivered, in my book) the type of three-star cuisine, wine and service that one might find in France. It was different from the other restaurants.

As Steve P has noted, Sketch promises to be fundamentally different from other restaurants (including on the dimension of price level). The key for me (and I won't be in London any time soon, or I would be sampling it) is whether Sketch delivers on its promise (of being what it purports to be, not necessarily a promise of my satisfaction with its cuisine). If it does, I don't mind paying for that experience. In my mind, however, Gordon Ramsay RHR is a very strong restaurant, and will best Sketch in diners' assessments after diners have satisfied their curiosity with respect to Sketch. I'd prefer to eat at RHR than at Gagnaire, Paris, any day.

Edited December 9, 2002 by cabrales (log)

[macrosan]

have any egulleteers yet sampled the cuisine so that we can get some real insight?  If not, might I suggest we take up a collection and send Steve P--since he's obviously well versed in what a good restaurant review should look like.

This is a quite disgraceful suggestion, Ajay.

I am much nearer than Plotters, therefore I will not burden the EGulletDonors with travelling expenses, and I am quite capable of making my review sound just as if Plotters had written it.

Please advise me when you have received sufficient funds, and I will go straight ahead with my reservation.

[Wilfrid]

I recall the shit storm when Ducasse entered the pre-recession, pre-9/11 New York market with a $162 prix fixe. I boggle at Sketch entering the London market, apparently a scale above that - especially as it doesn't seem to be in line with Paris prices either.

I just wonder what the thinking is?

[Kikujiro]

Where is this tasting menu? The review in the telegraph -and the carte posted - suggest £150 for 3 courses.

That's what I said but everyone ignored me

[g.johnson]

Edit: Deleted pointless badinage.

Edited December 10, 2002 by g.johnson (log)

[Gavin Jones]

edit: Absolutely pointless sarcasm

Edited December 9, 2002 by Gavin Jones (log)

[Steve Plotnicki]

Oh I see where I went wrong. Matthew just posted the menu with a estimated price at the top. Since it had no prices I mistook it for a tasting menu. Hmm, so I wonder how much a tasting menu is going to cost.

[Jon Tseng]

I just wonder what the thinking is?

Bear in mind three stars never make much dosh at the best of times; viz Nico Ladenis' comments that he always made most of his profit from the Simply Nicos, not the mothership.

The logic is probably that the brasserie joint makes the money and the Library breaks even - or even acts as a loss-leader - for the rest. Think of any losses as sales & marketing expense...

J

PS would add that the comparisons with ADNY v1.0 are striking - selection of eyeglasses vs selection of pens anyone? and we know what sort of reception that received. i can guarantee there will be at least one review over the next couple of months claiming the food is not only expensive but tastes like crap and its the worst restaurant in the history of the world &tc

after all, shit sells

Edited December 10, 2002 by Jon Tseng (log)

[Matthew Grant]

When I spoke to them I got the impression that there was no tasting menu. You chose your standard 3 courses (most of which are split into multiple dishes) and in addition you are served 6 Amuse bouches not listed on the menu. The guideline price was £150 per head (sorry if I didn't make this clear earlier)

Much as we are all moaning about the review and the emphasis it places on the price, this must matter to us as this is the first time that I have seen a major new opening in London that hasn't been attended by an E-Gulleteer in the first few days of opening!

[Gary Marshall]

 In my mind, however, Gordon Ramsay RHR is a very strong restaurant, and will best Sketch in diners' assessments after diners have satisfied their curiosity with respect to Sketch.   I'd prefer to eat at RHR than at Gagnaire, Paris, any day.  

As cabrales has the benefit of the full parisian 3*, chef in attendance experience in Paris and reckons london's own Ramsay RHR to be preferable why does this make Sketch (to paraphrase Mr Plotnicki as i can't work out how to do two quotes)

'in food terms the most important restaurant to ever open in london????'

interesting yes, but the most important?? I'm sure Roux bros, Nico, MPW would disagree.

i'm think i'm actually going to miss it when it closes it's livened up an otherwise unexciting board!

[Lord Michael Lewis]

i'm think i'm actually going to miss it when it closes  it's livened up an otherwise unexciting board!

It's only just opened, there's been one review and you haven't been there, so how can you say it's going to close?

[Andy Lynes]

A big investment has been made in the place so I doubt that the whole thing will close, although it's not totally unthinkable that this time next year the whole place will be a night club with a casual restaruant attached and Gagnaire nowhere to be seen.

[Steve Plotnicki]

It's the most important restaurant ever to open (on paper at least) because it's the first three star chef from France to open in London. None of the chefs you mentioned are of the same stature as Gagnaire. Roux and Nico were/are not three star chefs, MPW had the distinction for a while but was never that respected. But Gagnaire is considered by many to be "the best chef in the world." A point not to be taken lightly.

[Andy Lynes]

Chez Nico was a three star restaurant, as was Le Gaveroche and the Waterside still is. As far as I am aware, MPW's abilities as a chef were held in the highest regard by his peers, one of the reasons he was awarded "chef of the decade" by the AA guide as voted by a large panel of professional chefs.

I can't really see that another Gagnaire outlet can be seen as genuinely significant, certainly not in the way that his own restaurant obviously is.

[Jon Tseng]

It's the most important restaurant ever to open (on paper at least) because it's the first three star chef from France to open in London.

The significance appears to be that Sketch is the first of a particular genre (the French three-star) to open in London - and given what I have heared of french three stars, there is an argument that the food is on a different level from chez nico/mpw in terms of complexity of service/novelty of combinations &tc.

However this does not make Sketch the most significant restaurant. Steve is making three assumptions here:

1) Being the first of a certain type is a major factor which affects the importance of a restaurant. If so we should consider River Cafe, Gavroche... and Moshi Moshi Sushi Liverpool St. in this category.

2) Having the most complex/three star level of cooking is a major factor which affects the importance of a restaurant. Note I do not say "best" here. Complex three-star cooking is a certain type of food, that is not the same as saying it is the "best"/most important kind of food. Or to put it in a nutshell, if French three-star cooking is no longer particularly relevant in London, it is a tautology to suggest a restaurant is the most important restaurant ever to open "because it's the first three star chef from France ever to open in London"!!!

3) Other factors eg longevity, lasting influence have no impact on the importance of a restaurant opening. Obvious examples would be longevity, influence on cooking scene, training of chefs &tc &tc (Gavroche, River Cafe again, anyone?)

Note also that under Steve's criteria ADNY would be the most important restaurant ever to open in New York

Regards

Jon

[Gary Marshall]

LML

It is my personal opinion that sketch will close by the end of next year.

having witnessed the devastation of the share prices of virtually every pub/restaurant stock on the market, huge city redundancies and advertising recession and the subsequent decline in expense account dining and bonuses i find it brave/foolhardy to open such a restaurant at this time. I wish it no ill but just can't see it working beyond the initial rush of interest.

Mr Plotnicki

although i wasn't born when the roux bros opened le gavroche, from reading around i think it fairly clear that until they set up french food was virtually unknown in the UK.

Without them we may still think lyons coffee houses and baked potatoes are the height of gastronomy . Therefore i think they do deserve to be regarded as certainly one of the most important restaurants to ever open in the UK.

i didn't say they had worldwide reputations (though i believe they do) so this debate is purely uk centric.

Nico Ladenis built upon the foundations of the roux's and with the roux's helped to form the nascent careers of MPW, Ramsay & Wareing.

After working for the Roux's, koffman & ladenis, MPW set up harveys which again built on the work of the former and gave us Ramsay 'fully trained', Gueller, Stephen Terry and no doubt several other now michelin starred chefs in their own rights which are far more important in shaping the gastronomic scene in Britain than an outpost of a parisian 3* restaurant in London.

By the way doesn't Alain Ducasse's spoon restaurant count as the first 3* french chef to open in london

[Steve Plotnicki]

Gary - I'm sorry I don't agree. It has nothing to do with the importance of dining in the U.K. It has to do with a chef in a different league then anyone else. As much as you can say about the Roux's or anyone else, they are not Troisgros, Passard, Robuchon, Gagnaire etc. This is the first time a chef of that stature has opened in London. The concequences if they are successful will probably be material. If it spurs other top chefs to open in London, it will change that city's dining scene forever. It could also provoke a shift from London to Paris as to which city is the capital of haute cuisine. Spoon doesn't have the same impact because it isn't an haute cuisine restaurant.