º£½ÇÊÓƵ

It's time for the MADs - the McComb Awards for Dining. Richard McComb reports on the culinary heroes and villains of 2012.

When they were launched in 2009, no one believed they would become one of the most respected and influential restaurant award schemes in the country.

It turns out they were right. The McComb Awards for Dining, popularly known as the MADs, have remained unashamedly niche. They are judged by one person (me) and are moderated by a non-independent ombudsman (me, again).

Chefs and restaurateurs famously cower in anxious anticipation as the clock ticks down to publication of the annual Michelin Guide. There is fevered speculation about the lucky winners and who might suffer the ignomy of being stripped of a star. Similarly, the AA and the Good Food Guide spark intrigue and excitement as they apportion rosettes and marks out of 10 for inspiring cuisine.

No such expectation or speculation is attached to the MADs – although in their favour, the awards are never leaked in advance, unlike the Michelin Guide, which has made a habit of shooting itself in the foot by breaking its own embargo.

Dining at restaurants continues to represents a luxury purchase; no one needs to eat out; it is far cheaper to eat at home. If survival was the name of the game – rather than the motivations of convenience, pleasure and a desire to try new cooking styles – restaurants simply wouldn’t exist. Against this backdrop, it is worth remembering that we have been in recession, or facing stagnant economic growth, since 2007, which incidentally was the year two of Birmingham’s finest restaurants – Purnell’s and Turners – opened.

The failure rate in the restaurant trade is notoriously high. The US National Restaurant Association puts the figure at 30 per cent within a year.

All of which means it is an achievement in itself to remain trading. To continue to trade while providing first-class food and sparkling service is truly something to be celebrated.