• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    4
    edit-2
    1 year ago
    1. This is a subjective, but would be pretty universally laughed at in the culinary world especially when compared to France, Italy, Tokyo, or any American city.

    2. restaurants weren’t even prevalent until the early 1900s, way past the introduction of spices.

    Outside of London the UK has a very low presence of Michelin rated restaurants compared to Europe, the US, and Japan. Not the best metric, but there’s no reason why Britain’s restaurants, who would stand to benefit from such rating, is being unfairly treated.

    Btw I actually like British food, and have spent a lot of time in the UK. Just think your comment is funny, and the upvotes are funnier.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      101 year ago

      I get your point number one, but any American city better restaurants than London? You cannot seriously believe that. Sure, NY, Chicago, etc but common.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          They are still wrong. London is up with the best you will find anywhere in the world. Even a lot of large US cities are a poorer substitute.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            I can’t make an argument for or against that, because I’ve never been to London. I was just saying what I thought they meant 😊

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      81 year ago

      It’s very, very subjective mate,

      or any American city

      is incredibly wrong from the culinary world’s point of view, I can assure you

      I think DC and LA are about the only two cities in the top 20 worldwide if we’re talking culinary excellence