This review hasn't been rated yet.
My fiancee and I have just returned from dinner at Amerigos where her main course of grilled salmon was very dry and my scallops very much overcooked and rubbery, including, surprisingly, the roe. (Ruining the roe, in my view, requires a particular degree of culinary talent!)
With 3 fruit juices, no starters, and no desserts or coffees (largely due to our disappointment at the mains and our consequent desire to escape other offerings a.s.a.p.!), and with sides and a bottle of quite good Sauvignon Blanc (called Wit's End, costing around £28 and, perhaps ironically, recommended by the waiter who also appears to have misheard when I ordered just a glass of it!) the bill came in at around £86. Service (the charge for which was approx. £8) was at best extremely average. We are not sure that we will return any time soon which, given that we once rated this restaurant fairly highly, is sad.
Nor were we asked at any time during or after our meal whether we enjoyed it so we took this as a further sign that noone really cared; that, on reflection, seems a fair summary of our treatment during our visit to Amerigo.
(Incidentally, when we returned home and set about writing a review for the website ‘www.restaurant-guide.com’ we were surprised to discover that it
“no longer publish[es] ‘reviews’ that are negative. Unfortunately this is due to the consistent misuse by too many correspondents. If you have had a poor experience, then we always recommend airing your complaint at the time or, failing that, writing to the restaurant directly afterwards.”
We beg to differ, particularly in the case of a restaurant which shows no interest whatsoever in what we thought of our meal. In such cases, our preferred course of action is not to return (and, occasionally, to contribute a review like this!
We also question the value of any review website which refuses to publish anything but positive feedback: unless the site owners/editors clearly state to their readers that they adopt such an approach, they lay themselves open to a charge of providing a one-sided and, therefore, misleading picture to those who may rely on the reviews that they publish.)
