CSI; HARRODS

Price; £4.25

FESTIVITY OF PACKAGING;

Woah. This is bloody rubbish. They've written "Harrods" twice, both in Harrods font. Which you might consider festive if it wasn't the same font they used on all their other products, year round. The only thing not in Harrods font is the word "MEAT", which is written in harsh capitals, like the signage of a stubborn butcher's shop in a village full of vegans. If you think the motif around the lower label might look like Ebeneezer Scrooge's wallpaper, and therefore could be slightly festive- think again. There's pheasant and goose there, yes- but also fishes and pineapples and a crab. This is as festive as a skip filled with dead birds. Never before have I given a zero. Here is a zero.

0

DEPTH OF FILLING;

This solid. It looks like something the legs in the old Tom and Jerry cartoons would sweep with a big broom. A big old doorstep of a sandwich. Full to both edges, contents all visible and good looking. Thin sliced turkey, but that's fine. The green is not deceitful- there's a thin layer only. Not ideal, but ok for thickness purposes. This is solid. It's a gamekeeper's lunchbox. Michael Winner's elevenses. After this, I'll manage nothing more than a hobnob and a mug of milk.

9

RATIO OF FILLING;

Hard to see what's what here. There's a lot of good looking gobblefowl here, which is positive. There's too much spinach, of course, but what's confusing me is the odd meat-like substance that looks a bit sausagey, but isn't, according to the ingredients. Hmm. Is it stuffing with a heavy pork content? I think so. I'm concerned by the apparent lack of cranberry and mayo on show, suggesting this could be a fairly dry sandwich. Indeed, when I lift the sanger out of the box, it does seem fairly dry on the outside. Harrods haven't bothered to give any contents information on the box- just what's in there, no proportional analysis. What are they trying to hide?

6

OVERALL FLAVOUR;

Bite. First flavour I get is really odd. It tastes a bit like paté. I think it might be what they are referring to as stuffing, but it definitely has a liver-like quality to it. It's not nice. The gobblefowl is sliced thinly, which is good as there's a greater surface area of it to bathe on your tonguepiece, and it is tasty. There's none of the regular sagey flavour of Christmas sandwiches, and there's not enough cranberry sweetness. It's a pretty dry experience altogether, and although they've used nice bread, the seeds on it sort of compound the dryness. It's like a satirical comment made by Wurzel Gummidge in July. Dry. It needs seasoning this sandwich. Not only salt and pepper, but most importantly, the season of goodwill. It doesn't taste Christmassy at all this, it tastes like a pensioner's picnic. The turkey and cranberry alone would be good, but the stuffing makes it all a bit livery, leaving a mucky texture around my mouth. Maybe Harrods use these sandwiches to smuggle out illegal foie-gras to their dedicated shoppers. Not for me thanks.

9

CONCLUSION;

I'm surprised at this. I was expecting overpriced and unfestive, but I was also expecting a nice taste. I did not get a nice taste. It tasted like I'd been fed it by an overbearing matron at a school for delinquent rich children in 1952. Is Christmas different in Knightsbridge?


12 SANDWICHES SCORING

FESTIVITY; 0
FILLING; 7.5
FLAVOUR; 4.5

OVERALL; 4