Ptipois

Why is that? Grands magasins have the best choices. For kitchen stuff my favorite is the BHV, which has one of the largest and best-stocked kitchen items department in Europe. And there are new kitchen sections at Bon Marché and Galeries Lafayette (which I haven't seen yet, a whole building in the latter case) that are supposedly very nice. For unusual gifts, I've noticed today that Mariage Frères have a particularly nice new collection of tea canisters, teapots and other tea-related items.

For those who understand French, there's a thread on this subject on Miam. From an article in Le Canard enchaîné. Briefly: the techniques of "prêt à manger" are entering cooking/hotel management schools in France: from now on the right use of a microwave oven, how to reheat bought sauces, how to use sous-vide, etc., will be learned by future restaurant cooks, as a result of pressure from large groups like Disney and Accor. That, in itself, is not particularly dramatic. The worst part is that, while these teachings are entering professional training in France, some basic skills such as opening oysters, preparing a leg of lamb, steaming food and truss poultry will no longer be taught.

There is of course the possibility offered by a few wine bistrots in Paris: choose your wine from the well-stocked shelves, accept a corkage fee of 10 to 20 euros depending on the place, then take the bottle to your table and enjoy it with your meal. Les Papilles does that, so does La Muse Vin, Le Casier à Vins, etc. — but this is very different from bringing in a bottle that was bought elsewhere.

Bringing your own bottle is not much done in France. Some places may allow it but they are very rare IMO. Given the fact that restaurants make their profit margin mostly on wines, I should think the practice would be far from welcome. Why would you insist on drinking your own bottle at a bistrot? There are so many cheap and wonderful wines to discover there. You can do as everyone does here: drink your bought wine at home (or in your hotel room) and, in a bistrot, drink the wine they have.

Er, sewn directly to the chest? Those Transylvanians, indeed. Nobody mentioned the garlic in kimchi. Kimchi contains a lot of garlic, doesn't it? Apart from the fact that garlic chases vampires away, its antiseptic properties are amazing and probably catalyzed by other factors: chili (a panacea), cabbage (another one), fermentation. I'm not amazed this is power food.

So can she! ← Exactly.

Sounds like they can afford it.

Oh dear, you didn't pay for this, I hope. Thanks for all the info. I have never heard of that bistrot in my whole life.

I've had a very bad meal at Aux Lyonnais, other meals okay but not above average, one very nice meal at the beginning, and I wouldn't think it deserves a star. I think you are right. The Michelin is already absurd enough the way it is, it doesn't need to make its case worse.

It was Bocuse, to a journalist.

Colombo is not an Indian dish, it is a family of Guadeloupean dishes based on colombo powder (reminiscent of, but not identical to, curry powder) and marinated meat, poultry or fish. The basic colombo is made with cabri (kid) or pork. Other versions are chicken, fish, etc. Coconut milk is never used; nor is paneer. Traditional additions are unpeeled vegetables and a green mango, and sometimes a raw chopped apple in the early stage of cooking. The composition of colombo powder varies according to families, but as a rule it is milder and greener than curry powders. A colombo is a simple affair and I suppose your spinach colombo was made like any other colombo: first fry chopped onions, garlic and cives (scallions) in oil, add washed and tailed spinach, stir for a minute and as soon as spinach begins to wilt add colombo powder and a bit of salt. Depending on the state of the spinach, add or don't add water, cover and let the spinach stew until melted and tender, stirring often.

Click the "liens" link. It will take you to their Epicerie équitable and online sale of their products.

Yes, I think you may be right. Chefs don't usually use in their kitchens what they sell in their fancy boutiques, the sources are distinct. Besides to what extent Charial was aware of the fakeness of the oil in his boutique is not yet clear. In big houses, the stocking of the fancy shop is often the job of a different person. The Maussane oil is indeed great. In France, I hold Le Moulin de l'Olivette in Manosque highest of all.

I suggest sauternes with oysters. (Or loupiac, barsac, monbazillac, whatever liquoreux you can find.) Try it!

Oh yes, most definitely. And this transcends nationality for I have often seen French guys exhibit their tolerance to very stinky cheeses as a proof that they were no sissies. Andouillette. Terrific. Nicely, slowly browned in a little fat, served quite crispy and golden, with a crunchy salad, real frites and mustard sauce. Yum!

Well, in Paris there is at least one good crémier within walking distance of every métro stop, not to mention the local open markets, where cheese stalls offer premium quality. I never go to fancy fromagers for I have never found them to be much better than what's available around the corner. As for the cheese course at restaurants, as I wrote earlier, it is not so common as it used to be. I never order it except at starred restaurants where the plateau is attractive and I need the cheese to help push down the excessive quantities I've just eaten (cheese does have that power). I never order cheese at bistrots unless I want to replace one course with a cheese plate (and that's very rare). And I never go to cheese restaurants, for lack of interest in them. I like cheese as a snack, not as a course, though I do enjoy a good fondue, raclette or berthoud in the right conditions. Of course the cheese course at Gagnaire is always amazing. That is the only precise example I can provide.

As is often the case with food, this might be more a matter of who produces what, where you are located and what is at hand. I have never heard of that theory. Mechanically, it figures somehow, but the taste for ripened cheeses, in France, seems to reconciliate all classes if there ever was a means to do so. However, it is obvious that producers (i.e. the "country" people) had better access to cheeses in their fresh state, but they were well aware of the virtues of ripe cheese. It is also obvious that the urban nobility were more likely to get them in their aged state. But they had fresh cheeses too. I do not know how people developed their taste for aged cheeses but I'd suspect it dates back to much earlier than French aristocratic society.

I think it depends more on the producer and aging than on the origin. Basically, mont-d'or is the same cheese either side of the border.

As a Norman, the granddaughter of camembert-loving Vikings, I can testify that what you say is true. Good camembert should "hold itself in place", with a wee bit of chalk left in the middle. A crust tinged with yellow or red lines is a good sign. Runny camembert is for Parisians, which is not derogatory, and only means that cheeses seem to be appreciated in a runnier state in Paris than in their regions of origin. With the exception of saint-marcellin the Lyonnais way, running to the edge of the plate. However, you will notice that runny saint-marcellin has a mild taste. It is pretty much the same with vacherin mont-d'or when it's properly aged: even when very runny, it is very mild in taste. Whatever individual tastes may dictate, a runny vacherin that has more than a creamy and sourish taste, with a nice hint of mushroomy flavor from the bark that surrounds it, is considered overripe by French standards. I have noticed that. I also think it is part of the general Americain over-romanticizing about French stuff, on the principle that the stronger and runnier it is, the Frenchier it is. It actually is not so, as far as Frenchness is concerned. Liking it that way or another is a different matter. I have seen some Corsican people enjoy their ewe's milk cheeses with a definite taste of ammonia. So far, they are the only people I have seen with that characteristic. I also have been served a clearly offensive époisses, which nearly made everybody pass out, but the one man who enjoyed its ammonia taste was also known for drinking himself half-dead at every opportunity, so I assumed this was another example of his craving for excess. Well, I think there is such a thing as individual tastes and also that there is such a thing as ideal conditions and a standard for most types of cheeses. Both are equally valid and deserve to be discussed. Individuality is interesting; so is culture. Chesterton wrote about Bleak House that it was Dickens' best book, while probably not being his best novel. He described it as a "mature" work, but then added that "some people like mature potatoes and some people like new potatoes, so "mature" doesn't necessarily means "superior". As for the taste of Frenchmen and Frenchwomen, there are no definite lines there either. Many French people, including me, don't like strong cheeses. Some like very mature cheeses but do not like roquefort; I like roquefort, etc. Vacherin is a special matter because it tends to become runny very fast. This is why the mild taste prevails generally: the cheese runs before the "strong" taste can develop. The reason it is often sold in small boxes is to keep it from running, the problem being that it is trickier to age a mont-d'or properly when the box is too small. I think the perfect conditioning for vacherin is the traditional large wheel, cut into wedges. A lot of plastic wrap is necessary to sell the wedges safely. You'll notice that the wedges will have a strong bulge on each side even if the cheese is still young. Also, "unctuous" seems to be the right word to describe good vacherin. It is a very elastic cheese and doesn't run "liquid" like other cheeses. The term "cliff hanging", which I forged for it, speaks to me. I like to compare the sides of a nice wedge of vacherin to an Egyptian cornice.

Vacherin is not supposed to be strong. It is supposed to be creamy and mild, very soft and "cliff-hanging" but not runny. Runny is for époisses and saint-marcellin, runny and strong is for époisses, but the "quintessential" state of vacherin is a very mild state with a hint of sourness. When bought in wedges and kept in the fridge, it does collapse in the wrapping paper, and you scrape it off the paper to eat it. But it shouldn't be bought in that state. The over-aged vacherin you're accustomed to is an indiosyncrasy, and some people may like it that way, but in France that's not the way it's eaten. You're unlikely to find a vacherin to your liking in Paris unless you age it yourself.

The gun was, to my knowledge, given to B. Loiseau by a gentleman friend of his. Besides, many people in the countryside are hunters and own guns. Some of them may be chronically depressed and hunters at the same time.

That is a tarte amandine, i.e. a tart lined with almond cream between crust and fruit instead of crème pâtissière. It is not a cake.

Really? Maybe they can enlighten me, then. Because my understanding of what you meant is close to zero. I have been trying to pin it down but the essence of it keeps slipping away like an eel. You mean one thing, then another, then you turn around 180°, then put your words in my mouth, then what. We go from growers to bottlers then to bottlers-not-producers then to growers-not-producers then back to supermarket brands which are no proof of anything special, etc. All I have given is facts and information, all you have given is hearsay and supputation, plus a good dose of playing on words. Now if anyone "reading carefully" can made heads or tails of this, their help will be welcome. Would you be interested in sharing these for the good of those not involved? I look forward to further discussing this and presenting some thought provoking issues. No, I wouldn't be interested at all, because I think you have a pretty confusing way of debating to say the least, and your "no smoke without fire" means of investigation is not to my liking. There's no way I'll let unbacked rumors and personal suspicion limited to an isolated case (involving a premium cooperative bottling company, by the way, and not a producer) get into your hands for any exploitation. If it's thought-provoking issues that you want, I have nothing of the sort for you. An interesting issue, but first I would need to be aware of any "counterfeit products" in the French market and be able to identify them. And I'm afraid I'd disappoint you there. On the chapter of olive oils, I have spent some time trying to explain why counterfeit products are so unlikely because of the DGCCRF regulations, plus the AOC-AOP system, so I don't understand why you're still expecting from me any information that would bring water to your mill. I suggest you do your own research with your own methods since you obviously have that at hand. Your idea, if I can grasp it a little, is that you're basing yourself on the Charial/SVB story — to me an isolated case with much less meaning that you seem to want to find in it — to assume this is only the visible part of the iceberg ("no smoke without fire") and that French olive oil producers (I mean producers, i.e. growers/millers, the guys who grow and press the olives and who are not supposed to blend their oil with purchased foreign produce), in fact do blend with purchased foreign produce. I have told you why that was not likely because that would be fraud. Since when has the existence of one case of fraud implied that there are many more in the same context? This isolated case of fraud has resulted in a trial, that has been going on since 2000 and has made it to the news. The DGCCRF, AOC regulations and regular organoleptic controls and tests being what they are, the fact that no other case of fraud has been publicized since then could probably be some sort of answer to your interrogations? No? I am the author of an award-winning book on premium, cold-pressed vegetable oils (including olive oil) for which I have done some serious researching, but I am not expecting that to be of any importance for you because it seems that you're more interested in confirming a reality that you have imagined according to your "no smoke without fire" principle. But let me tell you, this principle is not enough to let you uncover a "thought-provoking" set of facts. First the facts have to be there, and they have to be possible. Especially when the distinction between olive oil growers/producers bound by purity of origin regulations and olive oil bottling companies legally selling blends of decent quality, but bound by a different set of regulations, doesn't seem very clear to you. No offence intended, no offence held, but I am still wondering whether you're really confusing growers and bottlers and gone all mish-mash from there, or whether you'd be actually be disappointed if you had to face the facts that French olive growers as a rule blend nothing but the produce of their own land because they'd be fined or go to jail if they didn't.

I, to the contrary, believe this thread has been constantly on topic right from the beginning, and it's not that frequent. The topic has begun with a vague, undocumented insinuation that French olive oil growers blend their oils with cheaper foreign product, brought by the Charial/Baumanière anecdote used as a dubious basis. We are perfectly discussing the topic, but not geting anywhere, I grant you. But why precisely? I'm sorry to disagree with a moderator, but I don't think the reputation of French olive oil growers/producers as making a produce according to the regulations that were legally set for it is a minor point. It is quite a different matter to report about bottling companies selling cheaper blends, however uninteresting that may be in the context, but that has not been done, and to this very moment it is still not clear what the initial statement really was. I have been trying to find that out and have failed, but through no fault of mine. In the absence of any honest clarification, right now the insult on French olive oil growers is still standing unexcused, and I wish the thread wouldn't stop here.

This is getting better. What is the difference between "growers" and "producers"? Besides, you did write "growers". I think you've been pretty dishonest in this discussion all along and I see that you have decided to remain so until the end. So be it, then.