markk

To answer the questions, I did call a few days in advance. There was one dish in particular that the diner needing alcohol-free was interested in, and the phone call resulted in them asking the kitchen and getting the answer that that particular dish could have the alcohol omitted with no problems simply by asking the server at the time of the meal. The other lengths that they went to (omitting the bit of wine from two sauces) were their own suggestions. Indeed, I agree wholeheartedly with greenfield's comment, "an off night in the kitchen of one of the four 4-star restaurants in New York City should be a rare event" - which is where my dilemma is born. On the other hand, I know well the expression, "no good deed goes un-punished", and while I don't feel that these requests should have caused a poor meal at a such a restaurant, I do think that it was awfully nice of them to offer to make them (would that the food have been stellar, though), considering it could have been well within their right to say that they were unable to accommodate the requests. On strictly culinary terms, at that level, I think they should have been able to make the slight modifications and turned out two spectacular dinners, where instead they served two lackluster ones. On the other hand, and maybe I'm just feeling the joy of the season, the chef tried to do something nice, and just because the restaurant failed that night, I'm tempted to want to take his kindness into account. Had we simply ordered from the menu with no mention of omitting alcohol, and been served this food, I would have been totally outraged, and would have posted about it by name and in great detail. Edited to add a PS to greenfield: while you may have guessed the restaurant, I'd prefer not to name it at this point, if at all; thanks.

I've wanted to post about a most disappointing meal we had at a NY Times 4-Star restaurant recently, but there are mitigating circumstances. The chef was extremely willing to alter a few dishes for one of the diners to accommodate a medical problem; however, all the food was just not up to par. The request was from one diner who needed to avoid alcohol, and simply asked to be steered away from those dishes that had it, unless it could be easily omitted. So they wound up leaving the wine out of the sauce of two of the dishes, and for another dish, volunteered to make him an alternate preparation that didn't require liquor, thinking it would be more enjoyable than the preparation listed on the menu after the alcohol was omitted. The problem is that there were two diners, having 5 savory courses each (one had the alcohol-free version of 3 dishes) and the other had the dishes un-altered. But 3 of the 5 courses were seriously sub-standard. Most of the dishes arrived barely warm, several were nothing better than just "un-starred" ordinary, and both diners had to send back the last savory course because (with or without the wine in the sauce), it just couldn't be eaten - it was overcooked, and quite un-enjoyable. Only one dish, which we've had before, achieved what should be NY Times 4-star heights. I would say that the kitchen was having an extremely "off" night, and I'm not sure that that's supposed to happen at the four-star level. On the other hand, I think it was extremely nice of the kitchen even to offer to make those modifications. I also don't really think that those few changes could have caused 8 of ten plates to come out lukewarm, dull, and ordinary and in one case, needing two plates to be changed for something else. But I'd hate to have the chef learn that I posted a complaint somewhere as visible as eGullet and named the restaurant, and cause him to think, "those effing ungrates - after all the accommodations I made for them !!!" So I don't know whether I should post about the sub-standard meal (I've dined there before and had significantly better meals), or just bite the bullet and be thankful that they were willing to accommodate us, and write-off the highly disappointing meal. All things considered, it really shouldn't have been one. Any thoughts, my fellow Gulletteers?

My experiences with people adding garlic to REALLY hot oil are all burned garlic. So I cook mine low and slow. I have a very narrow thing that I cook it in on the stove, but I don't know the name of it - I think it's either for warming maple syrup or something to do with some exotic kind of coffee - anyway, the pot itself is only about 2.5 inches in diameter and maybe 3.5 or 4 inches tall, so that I can peel the cloves from an entire head of garlic and put them in and then cover them with oil completely. I cover it with tin foil crimped around it and bring it to a slow simmer, checking carefully for when it reaches the simmer, and then covered tightly, I move it partly off the burner (on low) and let it simmer for about 20 minutes - ideally, the garlic cloves barely even get a little brown. But they become soft and take on the flavor of roasted garlic, as does the intensely flavored oil !!

Aha! Finally something I've learned that I can pass on about the timing - - in the grand scope of planning your dinner time, it isn't crucial, because the roast will benefit from a nice, long rest, as long as you have someplace that can approximate 120 degrees (max) - and it will hold at that temp for more than an hour or two and just get better. So not only should you figure on around 18 minutes to the pound for the internal temperature of the roast to reach the 115-118 mark, if you have any kind of a second oven, or an oven you can cool down to not above 120, you can plan on the roast being done 90 minutes (or longer) before you need it and have it sitting in a "holding" oven. At that temperature, the meat won't keep cooking past rare, but the fatty cap that surrounds the eye of the roast will just get more and more meltingly tender. So anything that you can improvise for a holding oven (even an outdoor grill that you can get to 120 to stash the roast in for an hour or two) will buy you leeway with the timing and improve the roast as well.

Actually that's my method for a thick (like 2") rib steak, although when I'm done with the pan charring, they really only need a resting oven (120 degrees) to come to rare for me. So I'd go for this as well. But I'd advise that you be real sure to get the same crisp in the pan that your end cut would get if it roasted all afternoon in the oven - which is to say, don't take it out of the pan too soon, because no crisping is going to happen in the oven.

It's too bad you can't find the thread - you'll find tons of people disagreeing with each other completely on how to do this. I find that a 2 bone roast is almost impossible to do correctly, because I like the outsides crispy and the inside really rare. So for anything smaller than the entire 7 bones, I start by rendering some fat that I cut off the roast (or ask the butcher for extra) in a skillet, and then I plunk one end of the roast in a sizzling pan of melted fat until it crisps really nicely (like it would do if the roast were so large that it would have to sit in the oven for hours and hours), and then I flip it and sear the other side to an equally satisfying crisp. Then I put it in a preheated 550 oven, which I turn down to 325 after a few minutes depending on the size of the roast - for 2 ribs, I'd turn it down after a moment. The key is a temperature probe - get it out of the oven by 118 indeed as suggested above, and if you can (if you have a second oven), put it somewhere warm to rest for at least 20 minutes - this is crucial - I use another oven set to 120. The tricks are getting as fatty and marbled a roast as you can, searing the outsides, and letting it rest somewhere warm once it's done cooking. Here are photos of some of my rib roasts. Several of them are Australian grass-fed beef because it's leaner (a necessity, not a desire), but it overcooks on me, and it's chewy as opposed to tender, though it has a nice flavor. But unless you have health concerns that forbid fatty meat, I'd say that the more beef fat involved, the better.

In that you're not too far from Pennsylvania Dutch country, I'm surprised that you even have to ask that. I think you just showed what most people there eat for breakfast!

I think it's more the strip clubs and the sex clubs that appear there only on New Years Eve, which you can get into only if one of the restaurants gives you a ticket at midnight, and directions to it. It's one of New York's best kept secrets.

That may be the reason, but there are many other sites that "give" away their content even though they have a paid hardcopy version, advertising being the usual reason. Michelin to the best of my knowledge started publishing their guides to encourage motorists to drive, and of course wear out their tires faster. For a company the size of Michelin, I can't imagine that their publishing division contributes a significant portion of their profits. However, it creates name recognition and still encourages people to drive. So to me, taking utility out of their website is counterproductive. WHile it may allow them to sell a few more books, it creates ill will and reduces the traffic to their site. And if they really were concerned about revenue loss, they could always charge a nominal amount for a yearly subscription to their online enhanced content like Zagat does. ← I'd subscribe too, but I really don't know if what's going on with the site is the desire on their part not to give everything away, or just great technical disorganization trying to make changes to a website after it was conceived one way originally. In the old days (3-4 years ago?) you could do such tricks as pick a region, and ask it to show you all of the "Bib Gourmand" restaurants, further sorted with a qualifier like "salon non-fumeur" !! It was a highly sophisticated search, and it saved my life on many a trip. I was completely saddened when the site stopped doing tricks like that. I think they'd need to rebuild it from the top at this point, which may be something they don't want to do.

I've had complaints with the site as well, but of course, in all fairness, I can't really see a reason that they'd want to give away everything free online, because then they'd never sell any guides. I mean, I'd rather get it all free online, AND, I used to find that the ability to do "sorts" would let me print out information organized in ways that you could never get from the books. But sometimes I just break down and buy the guides... or go to a Barnes and Noble and browse through them and make notes...

Me too! I fell in love with the goat Gouda a few visits ago, and have been buying it ever since.

If you want to stay in Jersey, check out the surprisingly good Cafe Matisse It has a thread here on eG with nary a negative comment, as well (or so I think).

Also me - those averages mean nothing. I always call a new (to me) restaurant and ask them to fax me a copy of the menu - not just for the prices, but to see what they're serving. And in many cases, I'll ask for the wine list as well. I've actually never really found a restaurant that minded doing this. (And though this came up on another thread, one of the reasons I do this is because I don't like schlepping an additional pair of reading glasses to the restaurant, so if I've studied the menu and wine list in advance, I can get away with just my regular glasses.)

Is there anybody with any experiences at Cafe d'Alsace on 2nd Avenue who could report in? Thanks.

It's 2007 (slight bump) and in my quest for restaurants open on Christmas Day, I found that JoJo is - so, if anybody has any experiences dining here recently, would you be kind enough to post them? Thanks !!

I frequently use what is labeled as "whole wheat pastry flour" and it's dark like you say, and I think it adds an extra delicious element to baked desserts. Flavor-wise, it tastes like Graham crackers, and of course once you think about it, lots of desserts have a Graham cracker crust. It should have been labeled as such, but I would think it would only add a layer of flavor complexities to sweet desserts. I do use it when I make a caramelized onion tart, but I use it when I make apple tarts as well.

A college aged friend of mine will be doing her Spring semester (she's a college sophomore) in Florence, and the housing arrangements are in apartments scattered throughout the city so that the kids get a feel for the life of the city - but there's no meal plan, and no dining halls. They are encouraged to cook in their apartments, but of course when you're in Italy for the first time, you'd rather be eating out. So... Can anyone recommend some restaurants/trattorie/places to eat that would be affordable on a student budget? Many thanks! (On my first trip to Florence in 1973 out of college, I discovered "Il Latini", way before it was "discovered" for real, and I ate there dozens of nights over several years, and I am told that photos we took of the place and the food are still hanging there. But I'm also told that now that it has become ultra-famous, it's impossible to get into. I found it while in Florence with a singer friend who was getting ready to give a recital - we asked at the music store for a recommendation of a good place to eat, and they told us hands down that all the musicians went to Il Latini for great food at decent prices, and from that point on we always took all our meals there when in Florence.)

FG, I think you know what I meant when I said "boring", but let me back up a moment. The question posed was, do you think this is Italian: raw tuna cubes with citrus peel on a bed of sorrel foam, or kobe beef carpaccio with soy marinated tofu center, or kobe beef tartare with a poached quail egg and round of parmigiano crisp - and I said that no, I don't. But you're comparing raw fish preparations of chefs of varying heritages and nationalities, and I'm still saying what I was saying many pages ago, that in the race to become "pan global", one day when you have a craving for duck confit, or paella, or lasagne bolognese, you're going to find that they stopped knowing how to make those dishes, and that no matter where you go, we're having raw fish with soy or citrus, albeit with a French inspiration here or an Italian inspiration there. So when you trek next to Emilia Romagna, or to the Southwest of France, and the menu is all raw fish and foams, don't come crying to me that you had a craving for comfort food and there wasn't any.

A trick I use when I want "creamed" soups is to strain the broth out (or sometimes leave the vegetables in) and puree the liquid in a food processor with cooked rice. This is a Julia Child trick, but the result is a rich soup that practically anyone would believe is a "cream of something" soup. You can do it with a nice homemade chicken soup and start the meal with a "cream of chicken soup" that's actually fat-free but gives a nice rich feeling to the meal.

Of course, if you're sauteeing them in olive oil, then it's not a question of an unhealthy fat, just a lot of extra calories. For just that reason, here's a technique I came up with. I use cremini ("Baby Bella") mushrooms, sliced. I put them in a heavy, non-stick (Williams Sonoma) roasting pan, and toss them quickly with just the amount of oil I'm willing to use. I also season them with whatever I need, like some salt and pepper and fresh thyme. Then I bake them in the oven, tossing them around every now and then. They brown and develop a lot of flavor from the heat of the oven roasting them, and they do it without the constant need for adding oil. But then again, this is similar to the eggplant technique given above. But for me, it cuts out a tremendous amount of olive oil when I want sauteed mushrooms.

I don't see how anybody in his right mind could call the dishes "Italian" (no matter how exquisite they may have been). They could have been presented by a modern chef born in France, or Japan, or anywhere, equally. Yes, contemporary food is region-less and nation-less. We now have only pan-global contemporary cuisine. You get raw sushi grade tuna, and things marinated with soy, no matter where in the world you dine now. With people, I think it's great that this evolution has happened, that races have intermingled and intermarried and produced "fused" offspring. There's too much hate and racial prejudice in the world, and once we even everybody out into just "humans", a lot of that should be eliminated, because we won't hate people who are different - we'll all look the same. But I don't think that cuisines should go through that same process. Now instead of getting a great regional Chinese cuisine one night, and a great regional French cuisine another night, and a great regional Italian cuisine the next night, you're going to get raw tuna, or soy-marinated kobe beef everywhere you go. And dining is going to get really boring. Just my opinion, anyway.

Does anybody have any experiences with Brasserie 8.5? (It's one of the very few places open on Christmas Day.) Thanks.

I've used them. You don't get burned. It works fine.

I would just add that the Cremini (also sold as Baby Bellas) don't have a lot of water, so you don't have the problem of reabsorbing the liquid they give up. Just experiment with sauteeing them in butter or good olive oil and see which results you like, and be sure to use a little salt and pepper to taste. You can also sautee a minced shallot before you add the mushrooms. And/or you can start by slowly sauteeing a few peeled whole garlic cloves (slowly) to flavor the oil before you add the mushrooms. If this is your first time making mushrooms by themselves, you'll need to experiment to find the flavor you're looking for. You can also try a bit of fresh herbs like thyme and rosemary which can enhance the mushroomy flavor. But as with any new ingredient, it's trial and error till you find that taste that "pops" for you.

In honor of your thread I may have to switch back to what had been my original signature on eG: Overheard at Zabars, where they were selling the delicious Russian Coffee Cake by the Cheese Counter: A lady waiting for Russian Coffee Cake heard one customer order a piece "from the middle", and another customer order a piece "from the end", and when it was her turn, she said to the counterman "I want a piece of the coffee cake, but I hear some people wanting the middle and some wanting the end, and now I'm having a nervous breakdown - which is better?" The elderly counterman replied, dryly, "Lady, if you like crust, take from de end. If you don't like crust, take from de middle."