russ parsons

this thread brings up something that really bugs me and that i think is at the heart of a lot of what is wrong with american food today. in almost every great cuisine in the world, home cooking is the foundation, followed by a certain kind of restaurant cooking and then at the tip of the pyramid, the great three-star (or four if you're in manhattan) experience, but only for the very occasional great meal. it does seem to me that too many food lovers in this country mistake the apex for the base. i think you have to be able to be happy eating well and simply before you can fully appreciate what a thomas keller or michel richard can do. too many diners (and, certainly, chefs too!) never learn simplicity before they begin playing with complexity.

exactly the way i feel sam and jinmyo. four-star does not mean "delicious". it means delicious plus perfection plus some level of astonishment. 90% of the time, i'm more than happy to settle for delicious (funnily enough, i did an event with thomas keller for the bouchon book and we talked about the difference between that and the laundry, and he pointed out that he eats at bouchon almost every night--and that even if he didn't own the place, he still would). in fact, for dinner parties, i almost never plate individual servings anymore. i love platters, where people have to share and pass along.

like michael, i'm late to this thread. but it is something i've thought about a lot, so i hope i'm not TOO late. i do believe a very talented, very practiced, very dedicated home cook can create food that is at the level of a 4-star restaurant (by 4-star, i'm talking about the level of a french laundry/charlie trotter/citronelle). it would take a lot of time and a lot of expense, but it could be done. for me, the bigger question is: SHOULD it be done? believe me, i've sat through some of these meals ... the ones where the host greets you at the door in a chef's jacket. with rare exception, they are just no fun. the cook has put so much into preparing the meal that no amount of praise could possibly justify it. so when they are not in the kitchen sweating, they are at the table sulking. and the pressure on the guests is tremendous. first, they have to perform the social functions of the host (the host being indisposed) and then they have to somehow try to generate enough enthusiasm to bring the host out of their mope--almost always an impossible task. I usually leave these dinners feeling like i've worked hard for my food--not the way I want guests to feel when they are in my home. these dinners seem to me to be primarily for the cook, not the guest, which is more than a little perverse. it's a matter of showing off, not sharing, which is what home cooking is about. it also seems to be rooted in an inferiority complex that i don't think is warranted. there are so many things that home cooks can do that great restaurants can't--supply a real luxury of ingredients (we have no accountants to report to), pour great wines (same), provide a genuinely warm environment, spark great conversations, and many others. the thing is, we can do those things as easily over a great leg of lamb and some farmers market vegetables as we can with some precious little creation that we labored over for 2 days. and by doing that, we can make sure that our guests are having a good time. this is not something that is lost on the pros. almost without exception, when i've eaten at a great chef's house, that's the kind of food they serve. they respect the place of great home cooking, and so should we.

but his corkscrew collection will live forever (at cia-greystone). must be hundreds of them.

oh, i've got a whole rackful of old sabatiers. did you buy yours from lee valley? i bought a couple hundred dollars worth years ago (and at $15 to $20 a knife, that's saying something). still, my favorite paring knife is an old sabatier made between the wars. i ordered it on the owner's recommendations, who said he couldn't explain why but it was the knife he reached for most often. i feel the same way.

i've looked, believe me. and i've shopped and i've chopped. for about 3 months now. what i've found is, for the regular user who is buying a high-end knife, all of the steels offered are very good. very hard knives hold an edge better, but they are harder to touch up. softer steels (like the wusthoff i've used for the last 25 years) lose their edges more quickly, but clean up with a quick steeling. i'm not saying there is no difference, it's just that it doesn't seem to be a practical difference. to me, it's like wine lovers arguing about clonal selection and rootstock.

no, gyutous are not radically different in profile, as santokus are. they are more similar to the old french chef's knives rather than the german ones (not as much belly). to me, they do feel radically different in terms of the thin blade, which seems to cut much more exactly. personally, i find steel recipes to be highly overrated. of the knives i tried, all of them seemed to have very good blades. i wouldn't pay much attention to the various mixtures and rockwell hardness numbers (but then, i'm not a knife geek; i'm a food geek; wine geek; music geek; mystery geek). and sam, if you can find really well-made custom chef knives for in the $100-$150 range, that's really great. who do you get them from?

while fruits are technically only one part of the plant (the part that contains the seeds), vegetables are basically any part that does not contain seeds--roots, tubers, stems, leaves, etc. and what about tarte du blette (sp?), the provencal dessert made from swiss chard stems, raisins and (if i recall correctly), pine nuts or almonds?

i've liked lots of them. but my favorite would have to be either the misono ux10 or the hattori (NOT the $1,200 one, though i'm sure i'd love it if i could ever get it through my expense account).

i like the shun gyotou, but do visit korin and check out the missono and the hattori. the shun has a traditional japanese handle (not molded to the hand). if you're used to european knives, you might like these better.

without spoiling too much, i'm working on a story on just this topic. i've ordered and tried 8 different knives. i agree about the santokus--neither chef's knife nor parer. and especially the ceramic ones. but those gyutous ... oh my.

i've got no guesses and nothing to contribute. except this thread is why i still am addicted to this site. wonderful learned people from at least three countries contributing.

boy, you're not talking about my brine, tana. but i do know what you mean. i tested a recipe fairly recently from a Famous Chef, who used a ratio of 1 cup salt, 1 cup sugar per gallon of water. i really didn't like the result and if i'd only used that one, i might never brine again. but do try the 2/3 cup salt, no sugar approach. it does have full turkey flavor and is only seasoned, not salted.

once again we tried a couple of different brines in the test kitchen. i really wish that those of you who add sugar to your turkey brine would just once try it without. it makes such a difference.

just a couple of thoughts: 1) ikea, ikea, ikea. all my cabinets are from them and they were installed by a friend who does high-end construction for studio presidents, etc. he was amazed by the quality. that was 10 years ago and they're still completely trouble free. 2) anyone who buys a subzero deserves it. we had two in the test kitchen and they were totally unreliable. we ended up replacing them with kenmore elite, which have been terrific. the guy i had out to repair my wine cabinet also repairs high-end refrigerators and he said he'd be out of business if people quit buying sub-zeros. 3) don't overlook the importance of a good exhaust system, particularly if space is rather limited. roast chicken smells great the first night. two days later, it gets a little dreary. 4) this probably goes without saying, but: equipment does not make a good cook.

technically, i think the california season starts in a week (i haven't checked the regs, but it's usually just in time for thanksgiving). oregon and washington are shortly thereafter. i have been seeing LOTS of crabs, at very good prices, in live tanks in asian markets; i think they're alaskan.

but hal, wouldn't you say that a well-seared steak (provided it is finished carefully) seems more juicy? this seems to me to be the case of answering a specific question entirely accurately, while there is another larger question that, for cooks, still needs to be answered. searing creates the browned flavors and aromas that are so delicious and get the digestive juices going ... and since studies have shown than a a great portion of what we preceive as "juiciness" in meat is in fact saliva-based rather than intrinsic to the meat itself, it would seem to make sense to say "searing makes meat taste juicier" even while we all now know (thanks to you) that searing does not literally seal in the meat's juices. (edited to say this is not an attempt to be contentious)

hiya hal, thanks for the great explanation (all of them). but i've been puzzled by high-heat braising. this is one of those things that seems like it shouldn't work, but does: essentially, braising at about 450 degrees for an extended period. i have done this repeatedly and i know it works (provided you pay attention to the level of the liquid so it doesn't scorch). the texture comes out different than a normal stew, i usually use whole cuts (leg of lamb or beef chuck) and the meat practically spoons away from the bone. the meat folks i've talked to are puzzled. got any ideas? one possible explanation offered was the heat is so high the meat goes very quickly through the enzyme-active range and so the protein denatures in a different way.

i have to say i'm amazed that anyone reads any kind of criticism as objective fact. of course it's opinion. just because the writer doesn't say "it seemed to me," that should be understood. further, i dashed off the last post in a rush. i hope i didn't come across as not appreciating the pursuit of intellectual conversation in criticism. nothing gives me greater pleasure. but intellectual conversation unleavened by sensual joy is a pretty dull thing. and unfortunately i find that all too many critics are more interested in me appreciating their intellect to the exclusion of the thing they are reviewing. it exists as a text for them to dance upon.

here's what bugs me: criticism--no matter the topic--that is aimed more at the academic than the sensual. this happens with art and music, not just food. the critic seems to be more concerned with relaying the theory of the piece (plate) and forgets that most people still listen, see, eat for pleasure. if you can let me know why this piece is important within the context of the subject and still relate the pleasure that comes from looking at it, listening to it, tasting it, then i'll read you no matter what you're writing about. otherwise, you're just talking to the same five guys in your masters discussion group.

of course, but it is always in terms of addressing your audience (the subscribers, not the restaurateurs). and it should always be in terms of educating them. not lecturing them. if you can't teach by bringing people along with you, you're just ... well, onanistic comes to mind. i see both of these as serious and common failings of restaurant critics.

i use baking potatoes. the italian books i use seem to agree on "patate piu vecchie e farinose" (sp? gr? tr?). so to get the flouriest potatoes possible, I use russets. i have never seen them in italy, though, just the smooth-skinned. but i have to confess, potato shopping is not a big item on my trip to italy list.

If I am not mistaken, there is a certain amount of interlinkage that happens automatically when water and gluten are mixed. And, needless to say, there is a certain amount of gluten development that happens as the ingredients are incorporated and as the dough is rolled out, etc. I've never found that it wanted any more working than that. Certainly not ultra-minimal as one might do with a pastry dough, but not really anything I would call "kneading." i did a story on making potato gnocchi several years ago and spent a week trying to perfect them. indeed it was the kneading that made the difference (granted, i was determined to make them without eggs ... exigente all the way!). it's a very tricky thing, recognizing when the dough has been kneaded just enough that it will hold together, but not so much that it toughens and becomes leaden. but "knead" it was--forming a dough and pushing/rolling it against the work surface. only a minute or so, and with just the right touch. Just for the record, here's the procedure: boil baking potatoes in their skins just until tender. Drain them and as soon as it is physically possible, peel them. Press them through a ricer onto a wooden board and let them steam. Sprinkle with flour and gather into a rough, very shaggy mass. knead until they come together smooth. break off a chunk and roll it in a rope. cut in sections and shape them against a fork. does that fit with your notion albert?

damn this not having an editor present! of course that's right. it's even in my damned book. actually, i think there is still some disagreement about what is happening ... could be pectin chains, could be something else. nonetheless, the presence of fat would interfere with the linkages. and boy, do i love pommes duchesse.

it's a matter of degree. if you overwork the dough, the gnocchi will be tough and heavy, certainly. but if you don't develop any gluten at all, what is to hold the gnoccho together? (oh sure, you could cheat and add egg ...) and i don't have an oed in front of me, but i believe knead and knuckle both come from the same root.