clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Good News/Bad News: Gordon Ramsay at the London

New, 7 comments

Photo via Kevin Eats

There were some shilltastic first reports from the Tuesday night opening of Gordon Ramsay at the London West Hollywood, but now after a few days in, opinions are all over the map. With such a high profile, multi-Michelin-starred chef---the one you see ranting and "donkey" calling on Hell's Kitchen and Kitchen Nightmares every week---choosing LA for his first West Coast restaurant, there was bound to be some controversy. Here, then, another installment of Good News/Bad News:

Ridiculously Good: "I dig it like a miner. The marriage of New American/ French and Asian (mostly Japanese) inspired fusion never ceases to amaze me. Gordon Ramsay, you absofrikenlutely tickled my tonsils. With each progressively better tasting course, he made me squeal with pleasure." [Yelp]

Bad: "Hand-dived sea scallops, cauliflower purée and sherry vinegar reduction - If you watched the last episode of Top Chef -- I think these were Spike's frozen scallops. I guarantee portions will get bigger, no way this place can stick around with 3 little scallops?Don't even bother with the Sushi at the bar -- a whole other story." [Chowhound]

Good: "Well i was in there tonight and i have to honest that the service was a little shakey, however the food was pretty f___king good. my wife and i decided to take the a la carte having about 5 courses in total including desert, as we are both a little on the greedy side when i comes to food, and every thing was very tasty. one thing of perticular note was the pigs head with english peas, unbeleivable!!! really one to put them on the map." [Chowhound]

So-So: "Overall, though I did have a good time and liked much of the food, I think the Gordon Ramsay at The London needs to improve. The dishes for the most part were not up to Michelin-starred levels, and I think that the restaurant is perhaps catering to the "wrong" crowd, trying to be hip rather than good. Unlike the Gordon Ramsays in London or NY, it just didn't seem like a serious fine dining restaurant." [Chowhound]

Bad: "We attended last night as a group of 4 (first full day open) and have to say it was one of the worst dining experiences I've had at that level. First, if it is "tapas style" and meant to be shared, the lilliputian portions are far too small if you hope to have more than one bite of any given dish. The service was horrible: they only brought us 3 menus, did not bring us bread until we asked, we ordered dishes to be shared by the table as appetizers and told them as much but they brought these after the first course. They forgot the final course for half the table and cleared the table entirely before we inquired about it, and they overcharged us by $100 and offered absolutely no apologies. The food itself was mediocre, but nothing stellar or particularly memorable, and there were bones in one of the fish dishes. Certainly not "good value for the money" - Ramsay's mantra on his TV show. It was really disappointing all around, opening hiccups or not." [Eater Inbox]

Really Bad: "Let me be tart and to the point. The food was unremarkable - though it was hard to even really get a good taste because the portions were so small. The design of the menu was confusing, also. The service, while well-intentioned, was still very rough - missed orders and billing issues. The decor was simply in bad taste and the "pleather" seats guarantee that you're going to get up from your meal with a sweaty butt." [Chowhound]
· RamsayWire: First Night Observations File In [~ELA~]

Sign up for the newsletter Sign up for the Eater Los Angeles newsletter

The freshest news from the local food world