The Palmerston (Lounged)

[louisiana]

I agree with you too FoodStories. The Palmerston is over-priced and Franklins is better value. Last year I found The Palmerston food quite ordinary and the portions insufficient, and decided not to return.

The Herne is fine for traditional Sunday lunch (at reasonable cost) if you can tolerate the constant high level of child/parent hubbub. We only tend to visit once in a blue moon, for example if we get caught out in the rain. The noise makes it a non-destination.

[EDOldie]

They can charge what they like. We don't have to go there but it never seems that empty when I go past. I've not eaten there for a while but can we blame a business for building up a reputation and profiting from it?

[FoodStories]

If they had built up a good reputation then they should try and maintain it, no? Obviously I agree we can choose not to go there - I certainly won't be going again and it seems like a lot of others won't either, jusging by the fact it was more than half empty on a Sunday lunchtime..

[Sue]

I like the Palmerston as a pub, but I've also queried my change a few times because of the prices.

I've eaten there three times, and each time there was a vague disappointment about the food given the prices charged. It was OK but somehow could have been better.

But their weekday lunches are good value I think.

[EDOldie]

I'll have to go again, if it is rubbish I shall moan loudly and refuse to pay.

[cate]

Had a set lunch in there last week but it didn't include vegetables! ?3.50 for a portion of Jersey Royals. ?11 for the 2 course set meal there, ?10 at The Herne and they includes veggies/sides. The portion of fish I had at the Palmerston was rather small, but good. I am in no rush to go back esp. not for anything a la carte.

[Jeremy]

I think the food is very nice, and not particularly expensive. The wine is also good value by restaurant standards.

I think last time I went there, we had two courses each and a bottle of house wine, bill came to something like ?55-?60. Yes it's more expensive than the Harvester, but you get what you pay for.

[Asset]

I've eaten in the Palmerston several times and always been very impressed with the quality of the food, the style of cooking and the size of the portions. Yes it is pricey but it certainly is not the most expensive place I've been - the prices are not far off Le Chardon and the quality is far better.

I haven't been for a while though.

I think we are very fortunate to have food of this standard on our doorstep.

Did you take up your disappointment with the staff Helen, or just use it as inspiration for your food blog? I haven't bothered to read your critique, sorry.

[FoodStories]

Asset - I complained about the time we had to wait for the main courses yes and the waitress went to find out how long they would be but did not apologise. I didn't complain about the size of the portions at the time though, although this is because I wanted to spend some time with my dining partner without causing any more negativity, not because I 'wanted inspiration for my food blog'.

I agree that the quality of the ingredients isn't bad, it's just a shame they don't know how to treat them. Dousing beautiful white crab meat in a really strong Thai dressing for example (a shamefully small amount of crabmeat at that), is almost criminal. You could not taste the crab at all. It was just a texture, which is such a shame. The monkfish was just four, mean slices which were overcooked on some crushed peas - this is an incredible rip-off at ?17!

[Gerrard]

Sorry to hear you didnt enjoy your meal, I have been going to the Palmerston for quite some time now and rate their food highly, I certainly have never experienced bad food or service. The prices are relatively high, but in my mind the quality of ingredients and care taken over their preperation justifys the cost. I think we are fortunate to have a restaurant of this quality on the Lane. I have had far better meals in the Palmerston than many so called top-end restaurants in the West End etc.

[*Bob*]

When we've been to the P'ston the bill was around ?80 - ?100 for two.

In terms of price, that puts it right up there with just about anywhere in London you'd care to try out. And the food (quality, quantity) simply didn't justify the price last time I was there, so yes, I'm put-off returning. At least for the present.

I'll make a few concessions for it being five minutes walk, but not ?100-worth.

[Miss Tipsy Topple]

I've been to the Palmerston 3 times over the last 12 months, twice on a Saturday evening and once for Sunday lunch and I've got no complaints about the food. As a big meat eater I've always gone for lamb or beef and both were delicious. I do agree it is expensive compared to other restaurants in ED hence the reason we don't go too often.

Foodstories - I did read a bit of your blog, review on Palmerston, Your Chilli Day (congratulations!) and the Taste of London, I found it really interesting, however I do spend a scary amount of time on TopTable looking at restaurants and reviews, I think I should go out in the sunshine and get a life ;-)

[Keef]

Only eaten there once, and it was a small wedding party, with a prearranged menu selection, so a bit different. The food was bloody nice though, although very French, and not ideal for veggies like my wife. We were impressed though. No idea what the bill was.

[Jeremy]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> When we've been to the P'ston the bill was around

> ?80 - ?100 for two.

>

> In terms of price, that puts it right up there

> with just about anywhere in London you'd care to

> try out. And the food (quality, quantity) simply

> didn't justify the price last time I was there, so

> yes, I'm put-off returning. At least for the

> present.

>

> I'll make a few concessions for it being five

> minutes walk, but not ?100-worth.

"Around ?80-?100" is a pretty big margin! But I can see you mind spend around ?80 if you have desserts and coffee. Maybe ?100 if you'd had dessert wine, port or whatever.

I also disagree that the price is up there with just about "anywhere in London you'd care to try out", ?80 is really not expensive for a decent meal these days.

[*Bob*]

Not really, Jeremy.

Once you've had a couple of starters for 6 each, two mains at 16, a couple of sides at 3 apiece (you need them), desserts at 5, a mid-priced bottle of wine at ?25 you've already racked-up, what, ?85 - without service charge - and you've only shared one bottle.

[FoodStories]

Miss Tipsy Topple - Thanks very much! A fellow foodie :)

Bob and Jeremy - I don't have any problem paying ?80-?100 for a meal and I frequently do - that is how I know that The Palmerston is a rip off. You can get a much better meal at many places in London for that price.

[Gerrard]

And a lot worse at that price too...

[*Bob*]

'You could do worse' is not a good enough reason to spend a hundred quid on food.

[Jeremy]

I am obviously missing a trick! What are the recommendations for a really good 3-course meal for two - for ?80, including house wine and service charge.

And don't say Le Moulin, please.

[Bartoche]

Welcome FoodStories to the forum!

Totally agree with most of you, even if the Palmerston dishes out nice food it?s well overpriced for what it is! But they win awards every year, well supported by Timeout & are busy every wkend!!! Not for me (I quite like it as a pub for a pint though & my in-law loves their bitter?), but give me Franklin any day!

And if you haven?t been already, in the same pub/gastro ?category? I would also highly recommend the Rosendale pub in SE21?

A la prochaine B)

[TJ]

I want to start by mentioning I know the chef and a few of the staff there but that does not change my standpoint.

I eat at the r fairly regularly and recently eschewed the normal west end haunts (Ivy, Gavroche, Wolseley etc) to bring some important overseas clients to ED to treat them to dinner.

I would also like to point out that while I am no food critic, I take my food and wine seriously and believe that i have eaten in a wide variety of places around the world at every level.

The Palmerston is a place you can rely on to have a superb meal without fail. The provenance of the ingredients is great - the chef was recently telling me the mushrooms along were ?32 per kilo in one dish. You cannot complain at any level about the quality and freshness of these ingredients.

Next point is portions. The food at the Palmerston is quite rich and as such the portions need to be a little smaller. As a bit of a fatty myself, I am only too aware what rich foods do to the waist line. I agree that leaving a restaurant hungry is not expected, but a 2 courser there plus shared cheese left me stuffed to the gills. Fish does tend to be a lighter option on their menu.

If you want a gut buster special - go for a curry. Lets keep the focus on quality not quantity.

Wines - ok, these are expensive, but they are good.

Beers - did you know that ?2 of each pint in most pubs goes back to the brewery? Who is ripping off who then??

Gripes. The bogs need sorting out and the windows really would be so much better if they opened as it gets too hot in the summer, and the PVC seats also need an overhall, however, as a local place to go - eat, get a bit wobbly and stagger home, it beats the westend hands down.

Finally, it attracts a huge number of people to ED from neighboring areas and in no small way has helped the area increase in value and popularity.

[FoodStories]

TJ - Do you think that four slices of barely cm thick monkfish on crushed peas with sauce is worth ?17? If you do then I really can't take you seriously. Again, I was not complaining about the quality or freshness of the ingredients - I agree they were good. What I am saying is that the portions are ridiculous and to swamp white crabmeat in a pool of Thai dressing like that shows a serious misunderstanding of the ingredient by the chef in my opinion. I've got no problem with the drinks prices either.

It seems opinions are very mixed here anyway, which is interesting.

[*Bob*]

Basically when you leave a restaurant, you can't help the feeling you come out with. It doesn't matter how much the mushrooms cost, or how close to home it is. It's just how you feel.

I left feeling like it wasn't at all as good as I wanted it to be.. in direct contrast to my first visit, when it was far better than I expected it to be. I'm not saying the place is rubbish. It wasn't a 'complaining' matter at all. It was ok. Fine. Not bad. However, when the next ?100 sit-down opportunity arises, I probably won't be thinking of the Palmerston. That must mean something in terms of customer feedback.

[njc97]

Jeremy - the pre theatre menu at arbutus is ?17.50 for 3 courses, so with wine less than ?80. A la carte, 3 courses with 2 carafes of wine would be around ?100 for two, and excellent.

Foodstories, personally if the monkfish was very good, then I do think that ?17 is reasonable for that size portion, and not out of line with other good restaurants. Modern cuisine is based on quality and strength of flavours not size of portions. Unfortunately I can't comment on the quality at the Palmerston, but others seem happy.

[*Bob*]

Yeah, we had a cracking 3-course at Arbutus for around ?100.

This is the level of restaurant the P'ston is priced to compete with, and that's my issue, I think.