V&A'a - Dining Room VS. Chef's Table

[scanne]

I have convinced DH to dine at V&A's for our 5 year anniversary/my 31st birthday on our next WDW trip. We will probably just book the dining room, but I'd like to hear about the Chef's Table and why it would be worth the extra $$$. I love to cook and bake....would I get a lot out of being at the chef's table? Thanks!

 

[lark]

Others are going to disagree with me. But here's my view. The chef's table is great for a few reasons -- you get a ton of food; you get to try a little of everything; it's a very interactive experience and you get to see how something works from the inside; if you're curious, you can ask questions and get them answered about just about anything; you get nifty treatment from the staff.

That said, I think it's not a particularly great culinary experience. All of the dishes are, individually, great. But the strength of a restaurant of that caliber, IMHO, is the overall dining experience. You don't get that at the chef's table. The chef is not quite wofgang puck-like with sauces and stuff, but each dish is very complicated and none of the sauces are simple. After the third or fourth dish, it becomes very cacaphonous, and in fact it's a little bit of overkill. It's just basically this big orgy of food and wine with nothing to unify it other than a fancy individually designed menu.

Bottom line for me is that the chef's table is a great overall experience, while the dining room is a better dining experience.

 

[lyncruiser]

Okay, I'll disagree! We've dined in the dining room several times and will do the Chef's Table for the fifth time in a few days. We much prefer the Chef's Table. Why?

Well, I wouldn't consider it a "ton of food", but we do like to try a variety of foods. With the Chef's Table, you get to try a little bit of almost everything on the menu that evening -- including a bit of caviar, etc. That makes it particularly fun for us.

We like the interaction with the chefs. They are without fail extremely skilled and delightful. We especially enjoy Aimee who has hosted our dinner several times.

Although I enjoy cooking immensely, I don't find being in the kitchen to be particularly enlightening. Needless to say, the chefs are very busy and doing their work, so I've never felt comfortable asking for a tour of the kitchen, a look at the ranges, etc. I'm sure they'd be willing, I just haven't wanted to be that much of a bother.

If you want a romantic dinner, I'd go for the dining room. It is quiet, luxurious, romantic and a harpist plays. The Chef's Table is not romantic in our opinion.

Nonetheless, given a choice between the dining room and the Chef's Table, we would take the Chef's Table every time. We do the wine pairings, DH and I get something different for each course, so we end up tasting lots of foods and lots of wines. For us, rather than cacophanous, it's the ultimate tasting/pairing meal. But the focus is on the food and wine, not the romance.

Hope this is helpful.

 

[maddy]

I think larks post covers it all for me. Very well thought out and defined. I would choose the dinning room for a intimate and focused on my partner type of meal and the chef's table for a unique culinary experience.

Maddy