I dont think simon ever had a chance of getting put through. His dishes were more to the brief than nathan and should have had that reflected in the scoring. On this program it seems like certain chefs are guaranteed good scores and others are not.
I agree with all of that and felt that this week the judging was leaning a certain way and disposed to undermark Simon. All of his dishes followed the brief and all looked spectacular. Of course we didn't taste them but still I got the strong impression of leanings in the judging.
There is no way he should have gone through, good cooking, but nothing ground breaking or different. All been done before.
I have never been so disappointed with those three judges since this series began. They contradict themselves every time they open their mouths. I am ........verklempt. This has to be last series of GBM, it has definitely run it's length, there's nothing left.
I expected Paul to win, but I can understand why Nathan just pipped him.
We all know the brief is a load of hogwash, and "pushing the boundaries" is open to interpretation. As I think was pointed out to one of the chef's during the heats (it might have been Johnny "Molehill"), there's no point in doing something that then has to be explained to the guests! If you eat a custard, you judge it on taste and texture. The fact that it might contain twenty seven chemicals rather than egg-yolk matters not one jot!
By the sound of the closing comments, Paul went a touch too far with the various elements of each dish, so the overall flavour was a bit messy. Nathan was "cleverer" with the flavours.
The way I saw it, the starter was pretty much even. Paul's fish dish was more impressive, but the bottom layer killed the flavour, and if you took the bottom element away, you lost the advantage of the quirky presentation. I think Nathan walked the main as the flavour combination was, by all accounts, a revelation. Paul's was nicely cooked with a couple of gimmicks, but was essentially a chicken Kiev. Paul then walked the dessert, but I can't help but wonder if he was marked down for not making his own chocolate disc ... the one Fort described as "orgasmic" (perish the thought!!)
Regardless of the brief, it comes down to taste, and it's often the case (as Paul himself mentioned) that "less is more".
We all know the brief is a load of hogwash, and "pushing the boundaries" is open to interpretation. As I think was pointed out to one of the chef's during the heats (it might have been Johnny "Molehill"), there's no point in doing something that then has to be explained to the guests! If you eat a custard, you judge it on taste and texture. The fact that it might contain twenty seven chemicals rather than egg-yolk matters not one jot!
I'm sure it's not the first time things would have to be explained to a guest.
Not much different than telling the guest to pour the consomme around the dish to combine the two instead of having them seperate.
This goes a step further when you have more innovative presentation such as Heston with his headphones etc.
I saw a tasting menu on No Reservations where the waiter described and performed actions/tutorials to the customers (who were all top chefs) so they knew how to eat each dish.
but I can't help but wonder if he was marked down for not making his own chocolate disc ... the one Fort described as "orgasmic" (perish the thought!!)
Would that info be on the card?
Was the fact that Bird's custard powder was used on the card?
I'm sure it's not the first time things would have to be explained to a guest.
Not much different than telling the guest to pour the consomme around the dish to combine the two instead of having them seperate.
This goes a step further when you have more innovative presentation such as Heston with his headphones etc.
I saw a tasting menu on No Reservations where the waiter described and performed actions/tutorials to the customers (who were all top chefs) so they knew how to eat each dish.
Would that info be on the card?
Was the fact that Bird's custard powder was used on the card?
I've always wondered what was written on those cards, because when Simon Rogan (NW winner) left the chilli oil out on his starter, the voiceover said that it wasn't on the menu, but at other times they seem to have been given information on the specific elements of the dish.
I'm sure it's not the first time things would have to be explained to a guest.
Not much different than telling the guest to pour the consomme around the dish to combine the two instead of having them seperate. I saw a tasting menu on No Reservations where the waiter described and performed actions/tutorials to the customers (who were all top chefs) so they knew how to eat each dish.
I take your points, but when it comes to "innovative ingredients", how many guests at an Olympic banquet would (a) understand, or (b) care what (e.g) guar gum was? It's quite a different matter if you're explaining "chefy" things to chefs.
Would that info be on the card?
Was the fact that Bird's custard powder was used on the card?
That's what I was wondering! I think it would only be fair to let the judges know if any components of the dishes which could have been made by the chefs hadn't been made by the chefs. Other chefs have taken a risk, or demonstrated their skills, by tempering their own chocolate, so it's a bit unfair to simply buy something in, especially as it was such a feature of the dessert.
I take your points, but when it comes to "innovative ingredients", how many guests at an Olympic banquet would (a) understand, or (b) care what (e.g) guar gum was? It's quite a different matter if you're explaining "chefy" things to chefs.
In this program they were chefs but the same experience is there for all customers. IIRC it was Thomas Keller's 3* restaurant where I guess you are expecting something different and also expect the best service and I think that the people who can afford to eat there find it either a novelty or that they are worth being slaved over and having their own personal waiter to do everything for them.
That's what I was wondering! I think it would only be fair to let the judges know if any components of the dishes which could have been made by the chefs hadn't been made by the chefs. Other chefs have taken a risk, or demonstrated their skills, by tempering their own chocolate, so it's a bit unfair to simply buy something in, especially as it was such a feature of the dessert.
I suspect that the card hold the full description of the dish that the chef has designed.
The positives would be in there such as artisan products, locally sourced products, techniques.
e.g. they may mention that they cured their own ham
but I doubt they would promote the fact that they used tinned lobster jus or bird's custard
Comments
I know, it's getting seriously on my nerves, tiresome beyond belief.
Shame Simon's dessert didn't get a chance for a judge's critique, that would have looked spectacular at the banquet and sounded delicious!).
I agree with all of that and felt that this week the judging was leaning a certain way and disposed to undermark Simon. All of his dishes followed the brief and all looked spectacular. Of course we didn't taste them but still I got the strong impression of leanings in the judging.
As an aside, which courses was it that Jason Atherton was 'helping out with the tasteing' again?
Edit to add: wow they liked it!
edit to add (again!) how wrong was I...
My comment as well.
Effin FIX !!!!!
There is no way he should have gone through, good cooking, but nothing ground breaking or different. All been done before.
I have never been so disappointed with those three judges since this series began. They contradict themselves every time they open their mouths. I am ........verklempt. This has to be last series of GBM, it has definitely run it's length, there's nothing left.
We all know the brief is a load of hogwash, and "pushing the boundaries" is open to interpretation. As I think was pointed out to one of the chef's during the heats (it might have been Johnny "Molehill"), there's no point in doing something that then has to be explained to the guests! If you eat a custard, you judge it on taste and texture. The fact that it might contain twenty seven chemicals rather than egg-yolk matters not one jot!
By the sound of the closing comments, Paul went a touch too far with the various elements of each dish, so the overall flavour was a bit messy. Nathan was "cleverer" with the flavours.
The way I saw it, the starter was pretty much even. Paul's fish dish was more impressive, but the bottom layer killed the flavour, and if you took the bottom element away, you lost the advantage of the quirky presentation. I think Nathan walked the main as the flavour combination was, by all accounts, a revelation. Paul's was nicely cooked with a couple of gimmicks, but was essentially a chicken Kiev. Paul then walked the dessert, but I can't help but wonder if he was marked down for not making his own chocolate disc ... the one Fort described as "orgasmic" (perish the thought!!)
Regardless of the brief, it comes down to taste, and it's often the case (as Paul himself mentioned) that "less is more".
Oh, thank you. I have thought Fort was a total ******** for years. He should be ejected.
Not much different than telling the guest to pour the consomme around the dish to combine the two instead of having them seperate.
This goes a step further when you have more innovative presentation such as Heston with his headphones etc.
I saw a tasting menu on No Reservations where the waiter described and performed actions/tutorials to the customers (who were all top chefs) so they knew how to eat each dish. Would that info be on the card?
Was the fact that Bird's custard powder was used on the card?
I've always wondered what was written on those cards, because when Simon Rogan (NW winner) left the chilli oil out on his starter, the voiceover said that it wasn't on the menu, but at other times they seem to have been given information on the specific elements of the dish.
I take your points, but when it comes to "innovative ingredients", how many guests at an Olympic banquet would (a) understand, or (b) care what (e.g) guar gum was? It's quite a different matter if you're explaining "chefy" things to chefs.
That's what I was wondering! I think it would only be fair to let the judges know if any components of the dishes which could have been made by the chefs hadn't been made by the chefs. Other chefs have taken a risk, or demonstrated their skills, by tempering their own chocolate, so it's a bit unfair to simply buy something in, especially as it was such a feature of the dessert.
The positives would be in there such as artisan products, locally sourced products, techniques.
e.g. they may mention that they cured their own ham
but I doubt they would promote the fact that they used tinned lobster jus or bird's custard