Do people of tenderer years than me know about the curate's egg? A polite young clergyman, entertained at breakfast by his bishop, was asked about his stale egg. It was 'good in parts', said the curate, remembering the shell.Around the World in 80 Treasures is 'good in parts'. How could it be otherwise? A crew spends months travelling the world to present wonderful things made by man, ancient and modern. Of course there has to be a mix. Some treasures are new, others are old. Some are enormous, others are tiny. Think of a contrast and you'll find it.The bad parts are when presenter/writer Dan Cruickshank appears, speaks and gesticulates. He is an embarrassment of the highest order. Can't he voice words except in a breathless whisper? Why does every sentence have to be punctuated by unnecessary pauses? Is he incapable of speaking without making irritating hand gestures every few seconds? Why choose a presenter who can't even pronounce 'treasure' properly?The choice of treasures hardly matters. The series includes things and places that everyone has heard of (Angkor Wat, Petra, Granada...) and a smattering of oddities (VW beetle, modern chair...). Many of them are astounding, but as soon as the the viewer begins to marvel the idiotic presenter intrudes.When Cruickshank is absent his series provides wonderful images. As soon as he appears, any magic vanishes. My rating is an average of at least 9/10 for the choice of treasures, and at most 1/10 for the execrable way in which they're presented.

I sat riveted throughout most of the programmes. Granted I did find Mr. Cruickshanks whispering a bit tiresome at times, but then I'm a bit deaf. I have a hearing aid, but I can't stand wearing it. One thing, either Mr. Cruickshanks or his researchers didn't to their homework was his visit to the Summer Palace in Beijing. The Yiheyuan, the Summer Palace he visited, wasn't destroyed by Anglo-French forces. It was the Mingheyuan - the one that contained remarkable buildings done in the European style. However, I relished Mr. Cruikshanks' comment about how frustrating it is to deal with Chinese officials. I bet when the powers-that-be in Beijing watched this series, the veins on their foreheads must have practically exploded with rage. Here is a top-notch series showing the treasures of the world. Most officials and governments allowed the BBC easy access, but no, some asinine official in Beijing, did his utmost to deprive the BBC of this courtesy. In the end, he cut off his nose to spite his face; this in a world where face is everything.

I have visited many of the places in 'Around the world in 80 treasures' and really loved my travels. However, Dan Cruikshank has trivialized the history, culture social systems and architecture of these places to present an imperialist, pompous 'search for treasure' -(whatever that is supposed to mean). The idea of a treasure (in mysterious places, like the East) is a totally Victorian imperialist British concept and completely inappropriate for discussing the cultures of the places that this idiot visits.He is an ill-informed waffler and a complete opportunist who hasn't even bothered to do adequate research into the places he visits - I doubt if he has much interest in knowing about these places. Rather the program is just about him and with his dramatics and animations he steals from these extremely interesting places to direct attention to himself. For example there is no need to emphasize the drama of the markets area of Calcutta through dramatic gestures, there is enough going on there already. So why doesn't he just let us enjoy seeing the place and tell us a few well researched facts, instead of forcing us to look at him? I think Dan Cruikshank is shameful and should be an embarrassment to the BBC - and to the ABC who present his antics. The only way I can bear to view this program is to turn the sound off - even then I'm forced to see his ridiculous gestures as he dominates the screen. Watching this program is an exercise of frustration and I won't be punishing myself again.

Is this some kind of surreal joke? A clueless, maladroit windbag tours "his" selection of world "treasures" and is locked out, finds the treasure invisible in mist or bestows such comments as "absolutely stunning" (on the Easter Island statues!) while endlessly complaining about scheduling problems. World civilisation is here made stupendously dull presented by someone who achieves the difficult feat of being extremely superficial and tediously rambling at the same time while being apparently unable to get off-screen long enough for viewers actually to see or appreciate the "treasures" he is so earnestly and witlessly wheezing about. So shallow and brief is the treatment of each treasure here that if you blink, you will miss one or two -- but, sadly, you will not escape the whittering of the truly appalling Dan Cruikshank whose confidence in his own narrow and banal "Little England" aesthetic judgements is such that he needs no actual expertise in casting his pearls before us. This seems to be the same absurd Cruikshank who had a tiny flash of fame with his extravagant, apparently unsubstantiated claims downplaying the scale of the looting of the Baghdad Museum, asserting that the Museum was a legitimate military target and charging that the looting was "an inside job". (Not very surprisingly, Iraq does not figure as a location for any of these treasures.) In short, this bloke seems to be a rather irritating idiot and, putting it kindly, not exactly authentic in his excessively self-conscious eccentricity. Watch this at your own risk -- good earplugs or "MUTE" would certainly help. Highly recommended for gullible people with absolutely no prior knowledge of history or culture or anyone who is interested in seeing how very low the BBC documentary has now fallen.