I've decided I hate taking photos of plates of food in restaurants for the following reasons:
It gets in the way of eating the food.
It makes you look like a nob-head.
It makes you feel like a nob-head.
I think, going forward, I shall formulate an absolute back-to-basics, topline review system that doesn't make me feel like a douche. But I think photos are sort of necessary nonetheless. You'll be able to tell I took these in a bit of an anguished hurry, hence the distracting shadows at the bottom of pic.
So, Gilbert Scott - what do you need to know?
1. The room is beautiful. Look up at the ceiling, utterly magnificent.
2. They charge a silly £2 cover charge for bread that's a 7 out of 10. Not cool. The restaurant is expensive as it is, there's really no need for this.
3. The food is very very good. 8 out of 10. Service - a 7. A bit slow, a tiny bit snotty but nothing you could really pin down.
We had a spatchcock chicken with lemon and herbs - tasty but not much to get your teeth into, and I always feel sorry for the chicken's undignified pose.
Also the globe artichoke and tarragon tart. I think I love tarragon more than any other herb (apart from dill, basil, coriander and lemon verbena.)
The sides were exemplary. Perfectly crispy crunchy roast potatoes with fluffy insides. No photo, but I guess you're familiar with the visual appearance of a roast potato.
Perfect Yorkshire puds - super light inside, crisp outside, really excellent.
And finally 'Warm Chocolate in a Pot, Chocolate Cornflakes.' I must congratulate the Tarzan / Jane-like description on the menu. It was some molten chocolate, covered in a chocolate soil / crumb, with some cornflakes on top.
Verdict - definitely worth a visit, good for a special occasion, stunning room, delicious but expensive.