psage

Good pizza is available at Pazzia, on 3rd street between Folsom and Harrision. I also love their porcini mushroom pasta with cream sauce. So yummy.

I just had lunch there recently and liked it too!

The French Laundry is well known for its whimsical names, so people expect to be surprised. But even so, the waiters carefully explain exactly what each dish consists of. My point was not that I wanted a traditional napoleon, but that if you name something on a dessert menu a "napoleon" it should share at least SOME characteristics with its namesake. If you don't buy that, you don't.

In this day an age, a napoleon can be presented in many fashions. ... Your mocha " naploeon" was a naploeon, which by many is defined as a dessert that is layered. I don't suppose you'd take dictionary definitions as at all definitive? http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=napoleon&r=67 : na·po·le·on ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-pl-n, -plyn) n. 1. A rectangular piece of pastry made with crisp, flaky layers filled with custard cream. ===== http://eat.epicurious.com/dictionary/food/...f?TERM=napoleon : Napoleon [nuh-POH-lee-uhn] A delectable dessert made with crisp layers of PUFF PASTRY spread with CRÈME PÂTISSIÈRE and either glazed with a thin icing or dusted with confectioners' sugar. Napoleons are usually made in small rectangular shapes just large enough for an individual serving. ====== OK, I'm not a stickler. Sure, let's call things a "napoleon" which aren't strictly made of puff pastry and don't have custard. But if we're going to call something a "napoleon" perhaps it would be good to preserve at least some characteristics of the prototype. A dessert based on a thick, hard cookie and with a dense buttercream is basically the opposite of a light, fluffy napoleon. If we're going to re-use names, let's pick a name that's at least somewhat similar to what we're creating. In this case, the layered dessert would have been better described as a "sweet lasagna", or a "stack". As I said before, it was nothing like a napoleon.

When the bartender has already opened the bottle and is in the process of pouring it, telling him to take it away and throw it out is a bit of a 'scene'. My objection to this whole thing was what I originally stated: when you sit down at a bar, the question ought to be "what are you drinking?" not "sparkling or still water?"

I've gone to the SF show a few times, most recently last year. I find that the amount of free edibles seems to decrease every year, and companies are gettting pickier and pickier about who they give things out to. It used to be that I'd get SO many samples forced my way that I'd have to refuse most of them. Now, getting a sample from many of the booths seems to require giving them a business card and chatting with them for at least a minute. There are still many booths that are easy to deal with, but it is seeming less fun lately, somehow. I may still go... so far undecided.

I was about to speak up before he opened the bottle, but then my friend and I looked at each other and shrugged. Sometimes you just aren't in the mood to make a scene (but are in the mood to subtract 'points' from an establishment's 'score'... )

I just went to Gary Danko for dessert last week. Is it just me (and my friend who was with me), or does the place look like a cheap New Jersey diner? My friend (who is an architect) noted that the wood is cheap commercial plywood. The mirrors at the top of the walls are 70s tacky and the glass panels that top the dividers are straight out of an 'elegant' diner. The huge 8' tall vases of flowers don't do anything to elevate the impression of cheap luxury. This interior is in stark contrast with the exterior, which is black and vaguely ominous, a-la the Death Star. Two different designers, perhaps? OK, so how was our dessert? Well, we sat at the bar and were immediately asked if we wanted 'still or sparkling water'. This might be a reasonable question when seated at a table for dinner, but when one steps up to a bar, the appropriate question is "what would you like to drink?". My friend said “I’d like gin and tonic and a glass of water please,” and we were presented with a bottle of water which ended up costing $7.50. After ordering desserts (from a card with no prices listed), we waited for them for 50 minutes. The bartender did apologize after about 40 minutes, but didn't offer to comp us anything at all. He said “I’m sorry it’s taking so long. Your desserts will be out soon. There was a mix-up in the kitchen. If it were my fault I’d be more apologetic, but it wasn’t my fault.” Then, the desserts came and were just adequate. I had a mocha 'napoleon' and my friend had the trio of crème brulees, which was the reason we'd decided to come (she was craving it and I thought they'd be sure to make a good one). The 'napoleon' was nothing at all like a napoleon, in that it had only three layers, none of the layers were made of light, flaky dough, and it had no custard. Instead, there was a hard cookie base upon which was a very thick, very dark and yet somehow not particularly chocolately paste. This was served with a small scoop of ice cream. My friend's trio of crème brulees were quite large, each accompanied by a cookie. They were all quite cold (I am of the belief that crème brulee should be warm), and we agreed they were overly sweet. The chocolate chocolate chip cookie was quite good, but the other two were just ordinary. We read the menu as we waited (and waited), and I have to admit that many of the dishes looked interesting. But after experiencing Gary Danko’s desserts, I’m not sure I care to subject myself to the attempt of trying the rest of his menu. This is a disappointment, because I enjoyed his food immensely when he used to cook at Viognier in San Mateo.