Would you say you're a fussy eater...?AMP wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 1:07 pmI was mainly thinking about the accomodation, but thank you for correcting me. And of course, there was the Arts Centre, the Octagon and the Modern Languages lab, to name but some.eucsgmrc wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 1:02 amNot true.
The school was brand new, very modern and equipped to a high standard when it came into use in 1902. It was by no means a typical Victorian institution.
That said, the 1902 kitchens were still in use in 1954, and the food they turned out was far from appetising. Nobody could call it ample either, but it was well above starvation level and nobody was malnourished.
In 1955 (I think) the kitchens were comprehensively refitted, and the food began to improve. By the time I left in 1962, it was tolerably good, for institutional food. There were several items on the menu that we positively looked forward to (but the army food we got at CCF camps was better).
From what I'm reading here, it seems that food was one of several things that got worse in the 70s. I had no idea. How would I? But I now feel uncomfortable (to say the least) that I assumed everything about CH would be as good as, or better than, what I experienced.
I should have said the food was mostly dreadful, not inedible, otherwise I wouldn't be here to criticise it 40 years later. And touch wood, I still have a few miles left on the clock.
Some meals like beef stew were inedible.
Fry Ups were dreadful.
Overcooked sausages, fried bread which had obviously been deep fat fried. Bacon, mostly rind. Soggy white bread was disgusting.
Waffles/Hash Browns and beans was good. But not difficult.
Occasional pastry pie was bordering on the excellent.
But my overall rating has to be dreadful.
As my grandfather used to say, 'when you're hungry everything tastes good'