Four layers of security, a dining room packed with business lunches, and a perch 59 stories above London establish immediately that this is not an ordinary restaurant visit. The setting gives the meal a sense of occasion before any food arrives, but the review wisely does not let the skyline carry the experience. Once the roughly £180-per-person feasting menu is joined by the à la carte beef Wellington and “idiot sandwich,” the real question becomes whether food approaching £800 in total can justify such an extravagant bill.
The tasting itself is unusually broad, moving through steak tartare, oysters, aged rib-eye, burrata, lobster toast, Wellington, mash, chips, a vegan dish, bread, the sandwich, and desserts. That quantity could easily turn the presentation into little more than spectacle, yet the host repeatedly tries to identify specific strengths and weaknesses. The tartare has good meat texture but not enough punch from its accompaniments, while the burrata is praised for its creaminess but judged to need more sweetness. Those reservations are useful because they establish that the restaurant's reputation is not automatically translating into praise.
Several dishes produce much stronger reactions. The oysters are called the best the host has eaten, with an unexpected fruity sweetness, while the rib-eye earns praise for its rich marbling and distinctive sweet-smoky character even though one portion appears slightly more cooked than preferred. The lobster is described as generously portioned and perfectly cooked. These observations remain subjective rather than pretending to establish an objective hierarchy, which suits a restaurant review built around one person's palate.
The beef Wellington provides the most obvious test of Gordon Ramsay's signature cooking, and it largely delivers. The host considers the doneness of the beef and the pastry particularly successful and ultimately calls it the best Wellington he has personally eaten, while remaining more restrained about the steak itself. The truffle mash also benefits greatly from the accompanying bone-marrow sauce, reinforcing a recurring theme throughout the meal: several dishes become significantly better once their sauces or dips are introduced.
Some of the unexpected choices are among the most entertaining successes. A vegan dish initially inspires little confidence but becomes one of the meal's biggest surprises, with seasoning and flavors the host struggles to categorize but clearly enjoys. The “idiot sandwich” similarly exceeds expectations despite having cooled while filming, combining brisket, cheese, mushrooms, and other components into something he finds exceptionally satisfying. His playful experiments with unrelated dessert sauces are amusing, though they also underline the limitations of a casual review in which intended pairings are occasionally forgotten or misunderstood.
Dessert produces the clearest contrast between disappointment and excellence. An initial small sweet is criticized as excessively dry even after additional caramel sauce, making it one of the few outright failures of the meal. The Pavlova then swings the experience in the opposite direction, earning repeated praise for its meringue, light cream, and fresh fruit and ultimately being described as the best Pavlova the host has had. That progression gives the tasting a more credible shape than uninterrupted enthusiasm would have done.
The presentation succeeds because the host's humor, interactions with his crew, and obvious excitement keep an extremely long succession of dishes lively without completely overwhelming the food commentary. At the same time, his own admission that he is not a professional critic is relevant: descriptions can be imprecise, dishes and sauces are occasionally confused, and the scoring system remains highly personal. His final two-and-a-half “beard stars” nevertheless matches the substance of the review. The food is portrayed as exceptional overall, with several personal bests, but the enormous cost prevents the experience from receiving an unqualified recommendation.
Pros
- Specific reactions to the tartare, oysters, rib-eye, Wellington, vegan dish, sandwich, and desserts provide more substance than simple praise.
- The host is willing to criticize weaker elements, including the dry dessert, underpowered tartare accompaniments, and burrata he believes needs more sweetness.
- Standout dishes such as the oysters, Wellington, and Pavlova clearly explain why the restaurant leaves such a strong impression.
- The spectacular rooftop setting adds genuine atmosphere without being treated as sufficient justification for the restaurant's prices.
- Humor and crew interactions keep a very large tasting menu entertaining while preserving enough attention on the food to support a verdict.
Cons
- The enormous quantity of dishes creates some repetition and makes the middle of the meal feel less focused.
- Intended pairings are occasionally forgotten or misunderstood, limiting how confidently some dishes can be evaluated.
- Flavor descriptions sometimes remain vague, particularly when the host likes something but cannot identify what makes it distinctive.
- The final judgment is necessarily difficult to generalize because the meal approaches £800 and includes more food than a typical diner would order.
Exceptional oysters, an impressive Wellington, a surprisingly strong vegan dish, and a near-perfect Pavlova make the cooking appear genuinely memorable, while several smaller disappointments keep the praise credible. The bigger obstacle is value: even outstanding food has a difficult time making an almost £800 spread feel proportionate to its cost. As an entertaining look at an extravagant dining experience, it succeeds far more convincingly than it does as an argument that most viewers should reproduce the meal.
