We have had The Fat Duck on our list of must-visit destinations since April of last year when a reader of our blog pointed out that, if we like good food, we need to make the short trip outside London to Bray. A few days after posting this advice, the Fat Duck was voted the best restaurant in the world. Today we finally ate there.
The Fat Duck has been awarded three Michelin stars. To put this in perspective, consider this explanation, borrowed from the Wikipedia entry for the Michelin guide:
Stars are awarded sparingly; for instance, in the UK and Ireland 2004 guide, out of 5,500 entries, there are 98 with one star ("a very good restaurant in its category"), 11 with two stars ("excellent cooking, worth a detour"), and only 3 with three stars ("exceptional cuisine, worth a special journey").
Here is our review: (5 is the highest, most perfect score)
| Food: | 5 – Wonderful, interesting, weird-in-a-good-way. A long leisurely lunch, with plenty of amuse-bouche (little bites before the meal begins) and interesting taste combinations. We started with mustard ice-cream in red cabbage sauce. Yep, you read that correctly. This was followed by an oyster in lemon curd and lavender served on the shell. Next came a cauliflower risotto with chocolate and beets that seemed a bit too salty. And then our main dish – a pork loin with a side of macaroni gratin with truffles. It all sounds weird, but Heston Blumenthal didn’t get three Michelin stars by being a food wimp! The macaroni gratin was some of the best food we have tasted — ever! |
| Service: | 5 – Stellar. At about 1:2 ratio for staff to guests, there are plenty of people to wait on you here. Friendly but not intrusive or overly-familiar, they were as good as we have experienced anywhere. |
| Ambiance: | 4 – Plain but comfortable, although the service came with a price. This misses a 5 rating because all of the staff movement through the small dining area was distracting from the experience. Plus, it was a bit noisy and difficult to hear the waiters as they described each dish. Good bathrooms. |
| Value: | 5 (but only to foodies) – Hard to describe. The price tag was huge, but hey … it’s the best restaurant in the world! |
| Verdict: | Must do once. I’m not sure we will run right back, but it was fun to take a whole afternoon and indulge in our love of eating. For Cynthia, who I know will ask, yes, the French Laundry was better but only because it scores higher in Ambiance. |
With plans to make a big pot of Bulgarian Beef Stew this weekend, I set off to my local grocery store with a shopping list a mile long. Normally I would simply pick up a hand basket but this trip called for a trolley (aka shopping cart).
Although the American and UK versions of trolleys serve similar purposes, they are actually designed quite different. On the positive side, I was thrilled to find that all of the trolleys at Waitrose were equipped with a clipboard dashboard. Downright ingenious — even if I am too tall to read my list without bending over.
I wish I could say that the same ingenuity had been applied to the design of the wheel systems. For reasons that escape me, ALL of the wheels on UK trolleys are free to rotate (see picture—note sideways wheels). This is simply daft! When all of the wheels pivot, it makes the cart eminently harder to steer. It requires constant force to keep the cart heading in a forward direction and turning the corner at the end of the aisle feels like you are being flung at the end of a tether. Pulling the cart is out of the question, unless you are keen to bump the displays on both sides of the aisle.
On shopping carts in the US, only the front wheels pivot for steering while the back wheels are locked in the forward position. Pushing (or pulling) the cart requires a little energy in the forward direction and turning corners is a simple matter of twisting the cart to point in the new direction. How could such a good idea not make it across the pond?
Of course, the US carts are the size of a small SUV but that is a subject for another post . . .
This is our boiler. It provides our hot water as well as pumping warmth through the radiators to heat this drafty flat. The entire contraption is only 32 inches high and 25 inches wide, which is downright minature compared to the 50 gallon behemoth that we had in Oakland. The size difference is due to the fact our unit here is “tankless” versus the tanked variety we enjoyed in the US. (The New York Times has an insightful article on the raging debate between the tanks and the tankless.)
Regardless of the technical differences, we actually have no idea how the boiler really works. We have managed to figure out how to set the timers for both the hot water and the heat. We know its 5:00 am when the radiators begin gurgling as the hot water moves around. We also know that the whole thing just quits now and then. We learned this the first time through a very cold shower. The remedy is to reach behind the boiler for the hidden valve to replenish the water that occasionally boils off, leaving internal levels too low for the boiler to function properly.
The best thing about this system is that the “radiators” for all the bathrooms are simply heated towel racks. Nothing beats a toasty warm towel as you step out of a lukewarm shower.
The worst thing is that the boiler is temperamental, unpredictable, and the landlord opted out of installing a central thermostat when he built this palace. The heat is either on or off, with a valve at each radiator to control individual room heat. When the weather changes we make the rounds to adjust the valves again.
We dream of our digital and centrally-controlled heating system in the U.S. I guess we should be grateful we are not shoveling coal for heat!
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| << < | > >> | |||||
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | |||||

Original photos and text on this site are licensed under a Creative Commons License.