Wednesday, 4 June 2025

Norbert's, East Dulwich


They're like the buses, these rotisserie places. You wait years for a decent, affordable spit-roast chicken in the capital, and then two come along at once.

I'm being slightly disingenuous and short-memoried, of course. Soho House's Chicken Shop was a reliably enjoyable place to get the good stuff, and was remarkable value as well. But for whatever reason - who know how these things work, certainly not me - the one in Holborn closed (where I would go at least once every couple of weeks back in the day), then Kentish Town, then Tooting, and then after hanging on for a year or two the final spot in St John's Wood shuttered.

And believe me, I've tried my best at the other end of the budget too. About a decade ago I tried Hélène Darroze's Sunday roast (sorry - Dimanche poulet) at the Connaught, and while some of the starter elements were very nice (particularly a genius-level chicken consommé and Armagnac shot - hook it into my veins) the main event was overcooked, dry and disappointing. And, of course, stupidly expensive.

So until recently - with certain notable exceptions - rotisserie chicken was just not something that London did well. But hot on the heels of the Knave of Clubs (in fact I believe they opened within a couple of months of each other) is Norbert's in East Dulwich, a much more modest operation than that grand old Victorian pub in Shoreditch (I'm sure Norbert's won't mind me saying) but still aiming to apply intelligence and skill to the business of roast poultry.


The menu is short - very short, just the aforementioned chicken with sides and a couple of starters - but then that's the whole point of a specialist place like this. This is not a restaurant that does chicken, it is a chicken restaurant, and if you're vegetarian, well, you can find somewhere else to eat. We started with taramasalata which in itself was lovely but the salt and vinegar crisps it came with was, I think, a flavour too far for the same dish, the astringency fighting with the seafood. Much better would have been plain, I think. But still, an excellent tarama.

Before the main event, though, I need to talk about service - particularly wine service. My female friend had picked out a bottle she wanted to try. It duly arrived, but was poured into my own glass to taste, and without thinking (I'm afraid I've still got some way to go in situations like this) I tasted it and said it was fine. Anyone who knows me will tell you a vote of confidence in a wine from me is about as useful and prestigious as a degree from Trump University, so inevitably, when the same wine was poured into my friend's own glass she in fact didn't like it, and was offered something else. In a hapless attempt to salvage both mine and the restaurant's mistake I offered to pay for the first wine anyway, so we ended up in the end spending a small fortune on wine, not all of which we ended up drinking.

Now clearly, the first mistake was theirs (offering the first taste to the person who hadn't ordered it - let's for their sake assume that was an honest mistake and nothing too worryingly gender-based), and the second was mine (tasting it instead of offering it to my friend - there's a small chance I may have been distracted by taramasalata but that's no excuse), but I think the final mistake was the restaurant's really, for not offering to just take back the unwanted wine. But maybe there's some other nuance I've not thought of - what do you think?


The chicken, though, was just about worth the stress. A healthily thick, dark skin packed with spice and seasoning, a brined but not in the least bit 'hammy' flesh, some excellent crisp fries that held their structure and flavour until the last bite, and a supremely crunchy, fresh salad. Perhaps it wasn't quite the same level as the Turner & George chicken from the Knave, for an almost identical price (salad and fries are extra here, but included at the Knave) but was still worth the journey.


We also found space for some nice cheese from Mons cheesemongers up the road, a gruyere style from Ireland which was a perfect temperature. Which didn't help our £72pp final bill but as I say, most of that was wine, whether we wanted it or not.


I'm in two minds about Norbert's. On the one hand it is perfectly acceptable chicken for not a huge amount of money and it's an unpretentious little addition to this corner of East Dulwich. On the other hand the whole business with the wine left us wishing the whole experience had gone differently, and yes it doesn't compare well with a certain other rival rotisserie spot in Shoreditch doing things a little bit better for pretty much the same price. I think I know where's more likely to get my repeat custom.

6/10

We paid in full but didn't get a photo of the receipt. If you want to keep subscribing for free via email please sign up to my Substack where there may also even be occasional treats for paid subscribers coming soon.

8 comments:

Kavey said...

Take this with a pinch of salt since I'm not a wine drinker but I had always understood that the point of that first tasting (and yes by whoever ordered the wine) is not to judge whether you like it but whether or not it's spoiled / off in any way. If the wine is as it should be but you simply don't like the taste, I would absolutely not expect the restaurant to cover its cost. I may have got the wrong end of the stick though, as I said, I'm not a wine person. x

Chris Pople said...

Yes good point - I think you could be right. If we'd just chosen a wine we didn't like it seems fair we should pay for it, if it's not off.

Peckhamryeeats said...

Yes, agree with Kavey - the tasting is to make sure it's not corked/tainted, nothing to do with flavour.

Anonymous said...

Re: wine service.. it’s difficult. A bottle of wine is usually not available to try unless they offer it btg already. If you choose a bottle, or take a recommendation, the tasting/sniffing/touch is really only to check for a fault in the bottle, or incorrect temperature. Unfortunately if it is not to your taste and displays no clear faults it is poor form to expect the restaurant to suck up the cost of that wastage.

However, as the female know-it-all that is always pushed to order the wine, it is very poor service on the part of the restaurant to not note whom has ordered/discussed options and just to offer the taste to the gentleman of the table when the wine is presented.

Dawson said...

Tricky area with the wine but in this case I would not expect the restaurant to cover the disliked wine even if the correct person had been offered first taste, because there was nothing technically wrong with the wine. If, on the other hand - as happened to me at Jospehine Bouchon in Chelsea - you express interest in a wine and they offer you a taste, then absolutely you're not obliged to pay anything if you don't like it. Offers like that usually depend on them being confident in selling the remainder of the bottle or having one of those magic wine preservation things.

Anonymous said...

Why did you taste it, if you were not the one who ordered it? Seems like your fault rather than the restaurants. You could have pointed out simply that your companion needed to try it instead.

Matt said...

Just drink the bottle you were brought and said was fine. It's wine not a blood transfusion.

Pleb said...

For the wine tasting, if it's a wine that they only sell by the bottle, then at the point of opening it, the customer is obliged to pay for it unless it's corked / spoiled, which is ascertained when it is tasted.

Did your female companion detect it being corked and you didn't? If so, the restaurant is still obliged to provide a new, unspoiled bottle (of the same wine, if another bottle is in stock). I wouldn't say that you saying it's OK is an irreversible seal of approval - corked wine is still corked wine, even if not detected immediately.

But simply not liking the wine isn't a valid reason for rejecting it and expecting the restaurant to cover the cost.

If, on the other hand, it's a wine that they offer by the glass and they're offering a taste prior to ordering a glass (which is not something I can recall ever being offered actually - although it's not unusual to be offered a taste of a beer before ordering a pint) then I'd say it's fair game to not order the glass if you don't like it.

This doesn't seem to be what happened in this case though, it sounds like a whole bottle was ordered?