The Good Food Guide 2020

I have bought the GFG religiously every year since 1983. It has been through quite a few incarnations over the years, with this the sixth carrying the Waitrose branding. It is always a great read.It is an opinionated book and there are things that it likes and those it doesn't, so getting listed is, in part, a matter of fitting the criteria, which are pretty "fine dining" focused. I felt a few years back it became just too foodie introverted, but this edition seems more relaxed and it is my favourite for quite a while. There is an unscored category of "local gem" which is for the more relaxed local joints.It is ruthless in its scoring. Marks are 1-10 for cooking only. The Fat Duck has now dropped to an 8, having been a 10 three years ago. If you serve really tasty but not "fancy" food expect a 1 or maybe 2.  The write ups on each restaurant are highly evocative and give a good feel for the style of a place.In my opinion it is perhaps biased towards wealthier and/or trendier parts of the UK, although I would accept that is probably where the bulk of public reviews come from. Nonetheless I can think of places in remoter areas that aren't listed, but seem comparable to some in the Home Counties that get 3 or 4. That aside it still shows how some parts of the country (and where I live in the rural South of Scotland is a prime example) are comparative eating out deserts.In conclusion, despite its idiosyncrasies, I would place a lot more store on the GFG than the obsession with Michelin stars. Can we have a few more really good rural pubs and local bistros that aren't in the obvious foodie counties though please.

The restaurant industry love The Michelin Guide, because they know that once they are listed in there they can charge three times as much for the same food. So they make a lot more fuss about being in Michelin than they do about being in The Good Food Guide. Michelin brings the international big-spending customers rolling in with wallets open.However I’m a consumer, not a restaurateur, and I’m well aware that The Good Food Guide gives better advice when it comes to UK restaurants. It only rates restaurants, and it does that job properly and thoroughly.This guide is so much better than The Michelin Guide, and in so many different ways. Always has been, and probably always will be. Firstly, and most importantly, the Good Food Guide ratings are (in my opinion) more accurate than those in the Michelin Guide. The Michelin Guide seems to be unfairly skewed towards UK establishments with a French bias.Take as an example: L'Enclume in Cartmel. Good Food Guide rating: 10/10. Michelin Rating: two stars out of a possible three. Please don't try to tell me that the absolutely amazing food that Simon Rogan serves up in Cartmel is the equivalent of the slightly-above-average food that Daniel Clifford serves up at astronomical prices in Midsummer House, Cambridge. L'Enclume is significantly better than Midsummer House, that fact is reflected in The Good Food Guide but it isn't reflected in The Michelin Guide.Then there is the fact that the Michelin Guide type is smaller, because they have tried to cram more into it. This means that The Good Food Guide is easier to read, because the type is larger. If you find an establishment in The Good Food Guide then you know that the food there will be extremely good. All they care about is the food. You can't be sure of that with Michelin, because they include establishments for a whole host of reasons. So I use The Michelin Guide when we visit France, but in this country I always prefer to use The Good Food Guide.It's simply the best; better than all the rest. Forget Michelin, we’re ‘tyred’ of them, so if you’re only going to buy one guide this year then please make sure that it’s The Good Food Guide. You won’t be sorry. Highly recommended.

With an over-emphasis on London, some glaring omissions in their regional sections, and some markings that defy the experiences we have had and that at times suggest a lack of familiarity with what's currently on offer, the Good Food Guide is beginning to look dated. Maybe it's the Trip Advisor effect -despite all the obvious TA flaws, being able to read a variety of different opinions/experiences of a restaurant undoubtedly provides a better picture than the summary view in the GFG, where I am unclear whose views I am reading/how many contributions the markings are based upon. My collection of editions has probably reached its final version.

Buy it every year now as a habit. If it had a decent website then doubt whether I would buy it!Very limited coverage. Maybe the places featured are the best. Local to me they do miss some reasonable places and feature some that do not deserve the rating they are given in my opinion! Which is probably as good if not better than some of the guides amateur reviewers!The reviews are made anonymously. Cannot be sure whether it has been by an inspector or an enthusiastic amateur. To me because of this veil of secrecy it leads to a question on credibility. If restaurants are not to be reviewed professionally then stick to the very questionable TripAdvisor!Because of this I do look on it with a huge pinch of salt.Suspect that this is the last year I will buy it.There are some positives. The descriptions are good. Easier to use than some of the other guides from a location perspective.As with all these guides they is s timing ‘lags so some of the menus/food mentioned may well have changed. Always worth checking with the restaurant.If you do decide to buy it use it in conjunction with other information sources.