Comments on: No Happy Monday in Manchester for Jay Rayner

By: Eva

Eva — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 10:42:57 +0000

I've been to Obsidian recently and had a good time, it wasn't at all mind blowing but it is definately one of the better Manchester restaurants I've visited. That said I do agree that if a restaurant is open then it's open to criticism regardless of excuses, it was thiee bad luck that Jay Rayner happened to walk in that day. You should always be at your best in the service industry.

By: Lucy

Lucy — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 14:35:12 +0000

@Joe – I was wondering the same thing – shareholder perhaps?

By: Lucy

Lucy — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 14:34:41 +0000

Dan – I read the review, thanks. He said the food was food and he ate it. He didn’t say that it was outstanding and worth the money.

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 12:38:15 +0000

What’s the problem?

Restaurant reviewers have the best job in the world.

My visits to restaurants are limited to occasional treats and special one-offs. It would be little comfort to me to know that I had wasted £18 on a fish dish, because they were between chefs!!! boo hoo. Dry your eyes. If it’s no good, they should have known it was no good and not opened. A restaurant review is a review of the food eaten in that restaurant on that day.
Do you have a vested interest in this place or something?

By: Dan

Dan — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:46:27 +0000

In reply to claire.

Claire – If excuses are for idiots then you might want to include Jay “they-asked-for-it” Rayner, who used Obsidian’s ineptitude to justify his own pomposity and laziness.

By: claire

claire — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:51:23 +0000

1/If a restaurant is open, it can be reviewed.
2/Excuses are for idiots- “sorry the food was subpar, the dog ate my spatula”

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 14:26:00 +0000

In reply to Lucy. Lucy and Stefan - If you read Rayner's review carefully you'll see that his response to the food was rather mixed and much less negative than the overall tone.

By: Lucy

Lucy — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 14:04:41 +0000

What stefan said. If you know you’re not serving quality food and are in the process of getting a new chef in to rectify it, don’t bloody open. Rather than lazy journalism, I’d call it lazy restauranteurism. If that’s not a word it is now.

By: stefan

stefan — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 11:02:57 +0000

totally disagree with you danny boy. if they know the chef and/or the food isn’t up the scratch then they shouldn’t be open to the public. it’s pretty simple. arguing to the contrary is doing a diservice to your readers. it’s like a fairly typical – charge too much serve them rubbish type of establishment. why make excuses for them?

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 16:44:54 +0000

In reply to Rachel.

Rachel, Sig and Chef Hermes – If Rayner’s visit came in response to pitches from Obsidian extending into its period of transition without a chef at the helm then it would be impossible to feel sympathy for a restaurant of such stupidity. If, however, Rayner just happened to be in the hood, recalled entreaties from weeks or possibly months back, dropped in for a quick review lunch and got stuck with a mess of zero compelling interest or use to readers then I might lament the restaurant’s rotten luck. Either way, Rayner did not inform his Observer readers about the circumstances of his visit. Even his bit about the restaurant repeatedly courting him came in a twitter response to this post and not in the review.