Dorchester

I was rather to very disappointed in the food in the main dining room. . . . . Some meals were great others not so much.. . . . our table captain was always attentive and wanted to make sure we were having a good experience. . . . . the food was not going to win any awards . . . . Is mush the right term?

Hi Deckchair,

Thanks for the review to date - looking forward to the remainder.

Regarding your dining experience: It is usual for the Head Waiter or Assistant Maitre d' to regularly visit the tables for which they are responsible and to enquire if 'everything is all right', or 'are you enjoying your meal'? If everything is not 'all right' or you are not 'enjoying your meal', I feel sure that they would appreciate your constructive comments regarding your disappointment.

This is very different to complaining; you are giving them the feed-back that they asked for, as opposed asking them in a loud voice what they personally are going to do about it! These people cannot read your mind, and only when they have your constructive comments or criticism can they try to get something done about it. If things exceed the required standards then complements and praise are required, but equally if they should fall below those required standards then critical comments should not be withheld.

I am sorry that the dining experience did not live up to your expectations and that it did not detract too much from your overall enjoyment of the voyage. Looking forward to the next part - those plastic decks!!

Regards,

David

David, I seem to remember the QG being Midships, not at the Bow?

 

Stewart

You are absolutely correct Stewart! (Senior Moment!) It's just that it feels like it is right at the bow - particularly after a few cocktails in the cabin before you set off on the route march!

Regards,

David

Hello Richard,

You are correct; the re-classification of some of the "Q"-Grade cabins from April next year is done for reasons only known to Cunard! I do however suspect that the stern cabins are being lowered in grade due to there being slightly increased noise levels from the propellers, and, in rough seas, any pitching motion of the vessel will be accentuated at its extremities. Reading posts on this (and other) forums, it appears that some passengers expect the vessel to be as motion free as a land-based hotel, and have complained to Cunard that they can feel the vessel moving! Personally, this does not affect myself or my Wife, so we welcome the downward re-classification of the stern cabins.

The only disadvantage of having a cabin right at the stern of the vessel is that it is rather a stroll to and from the QG dining room, which is at the bow of the ship. Still, a little gentle exercise helps to counteract those extra calories!

I feel sure that you will have a fantastic voyage, enhanced by your super cabin.

Regards,

David

Hi All

 

Has anyone stayed in or have any information on room 4192, looking at the deck plan it's at the rear of the ship, the middle room of five. Any photos or video would be much appriciated. We have been moved from a Q6 on deck 7 to this suite.

 

Thanks

 

Richard

Hi Richard,

We have stayed in both of the two 'corner' cabins (4188 & 4189) that are adjacent to your cabin, and, although we have not stayed in 4192, we have seen inside it. The cabin is quite spacious, and although it does not have the huge "wrap-around" balcony that the corner cabins enjoy, it gives a fantastic view over the stern of the vessel.

In rough seas when the vessel is pitching, the motion is felt more at the stern of the vessel, and also there is sometimes (but only under certain conditions) a little more noise from the propellers. This does not bother my Wife and I, as we like to feel that we are aboard a ship - not in a land-based hotel!

It is nevertheless interesting to note that as from next April, Cunard are re-classifying certain cabins; The 'Q6' cabins on Deck 7 will become 'Q4', and the 'Q4' (4192) will become a 'Q7'. How crazy is that! I have 4192 booked for next June, after it has been re-classified down to a 'Q7'.

Whatever grade is assigned to your cabin, I trust that you will have a thoroughly enjoyable voyage.

Regards,

David

Thanks for the insight all! We're not really bottled water drinkers (don't see much of the point), so no fuss for us there, though I appreciate it seems to be really important to many.

 

Any comments on the quality of the coffee that comes included? If DH wanted say a double espresso at dinner, I would presume that comes with an additional charge? Can that be served in the dining room or would he need to discretely pop out to Sir Samuels to get it? Do they have a "coffee card" that he could purchase at the beginning of the cruise for this or should we just factor those individually into our budget?

Hi Justfoxie,

The coffee that comes from (free) Room Service is cafetière coffee and really is not too bad at all. It does sometimes tend to be a little on the strong side, so when ordering simply ask for a jug of hot water to be delivered with it, so that you can dilute it if too strong for your taste.

Any coffee served in the restaurant after dinner is included (free), so your DH ordering a large (double) or a very large (Treble) espresso is not going to cost!. There is no 'Coffee Card' available, as all coffee is included - apart from the speciality coffees in Sir Samuels.

Hope that this helps,

Regards,

David

More important than how you find the staff treat you, is how do you treat the staff?

My view is, treat the staff well and the service level goes up a gear.

 

Stewart

I totally agree with you Stewart. If you speak politely and courteously to anyone, the chances are that you will receive a courteous and polite reply. It is a fact of human nature that no one likes to be 'spoken down' to or have orders barked at them - even though it is their job to comply with them. The old adage of "You only get as good as you give" springs to mind.

We have always tried to be reasonable and courteous to our waiter/steward/butler, and to build up some small rapport with them. We also inform them of our particular likes and dislikes or of any special requirements; after all they are not mind readers! This has always paid dividends, as the resultant service that we have received has usually been quite exceptional.

Regards,

David

David - I thought that as well. But when I examine my 3 year old bottle it says it undergoes "A slow secondary fermentation". This I take to mean that yeast is the source of the fizz - although I'm fairly sure it's not done in the bottle.

Malcolm,

Well it just goes to prove that you are never too old to learn. I was simply going on how our sommelier on a previous voyage described the PA, which was "A very ordinary blanc de blanc with Co2 added to give it a fizz". He also added that it cannot be called a champagne, as it is not made by the 'Méthode Champenoise'.

Now then, this is probably where I went wrong in assuming that if it was not made thus, then those little bubbles must simply be made by injecting Co2 (as manufacturers do with fizzy lemonade drinks). If it states on the bottle that a secondary fermentation gives it the fizz, then I guess that this must be correct. Still tastes lousy though!

By the way Malcolm, what on earth are you doing keeping the stuff for three years? Surely you can afford a proper drain cleaner!

Regards,

David

What's the matter? Have you run out of Pol Acker? (The real drink behind his writing madness/genius depending on how you look at it)

Now then Ladies and Gentlemen, may I present you with a prime example of the effects of drinking (too much) Pol Acker!

David.

I have seen it mentioned many times on this board as something like a sparkling grape juice mixed with mouth wash. Is it alcoholic? A champagne knock off? Thanks, just want to know what to expect!

Hello Nina,

In order to answer your original question "What exactly is Pol Acker?", the answer is that it is merely a 'blanc de blanc' still wine with carbon dioxide added in order to give it effervescence. Whatever Cunard may call it, it is certainly NOT a Champagne - not by any stretch of ones imagination!

"Blanc de Blanc" is a French phrase meaning "white wine from white grapes." The term originated in France's Champagne region (where most champagnes are made from a combination of the white Chardonnay grape and the red Pinot Noir grape), to describe champagne made entirely from Chardonnay. Blanc de blancs are usually light and delicate. The term also refers to still wines.

True champagne is expensive not only because it's made with premium grapes, but also because it's made by the 'Méthode Champenoise'. This traditional technique requires a second fermentation in the bottle, as well as some 100 hand operations (some of which are now mechanised using modern production techniques). Today, some champagne makers mix as many as thirty to forty or more different base wines to create the blend, or cuvée. Most major champagne houses strive for a cuvée that's consistent from year to year.

As for the taste; well, when referring to champagne, the opposite of "dry" is "sweet", but in the case of Pol Acker, the opposite of "sweet" is certainly "sour". My personal description of its non-distinctive taste is that it is not too far removed from a blend of paint stripper and rocket fuel!

Regards,

David