adt

I hope you'll not miss Virgin Trains' in-locomotion magazine. Not a review, but it does contain an in-depth, penetrating interview with Angela Hartnett. As you would expect from the publication's pedigree, the interviewer takes no prisoners, and has her talking with unprecedented candor about the hell of working with gordon - who is apparently not that bad you know. She also opines that london needs fewer michelin-starred chefs and more places like st john bread and wine. And talks a bit about her mum.

This oil and balsamic thing - what are we objecting to here? 1) Pouring of oil and balsamic at the table 2) Adding balsamic into the same dish as the olive oil 3) Providing balsamic at all, rather than just olive oil, with bread (1) is pointless, (2) means you can't easily avoid the balsamic (or if it's a deep bowl, can't get at it). Having good, grassy olive oil alone (3, no salt) is lovely. But after a certain amount of oil, especially if the oil is unexceptional, I must admit I'm not averse to a bit of piquancy, from some good balsamic vinegar or some capers or whatever. And yes, if I had a bath I'd keep coal in it.

That's one hell of an edict, and wipes out a few classics ancient and modern. Don't know how keenly "duck a l'orange' will be missed, but I'd be unhappy to lose apple with black pudding, and I bet a few signatures dishes would go out of the window if this came to pass. (And Gary - no more mango with salmon cheeks, rhubarb with suckling pig, sweetbreads and mangoustines...?) Of course I'm not defending combining rabbit meat and fruit in a tarte tatin. I concur that I might try it, or better still talk someone else into ordering it and try theirs.

Thanks v much for the advice, it's appreciated. I must admit I'm a bit wary of gastropubs at the best of times, but especially on a Saturday night, and I was thinking of something a bit more adventurous and/or special-occasion. (I've also read that the duke of cambridge staff are up themselves, and that the drapers has perhaps gone downhill?, but this is all dubious hearsay...) Sounds like considering an ethnic option for the former, or onion soup and confit duck at almeida for the latter. All in all, a bit of a desert for culinary inventiveness. Perhaps I should venture further afield in NE london...?

I'm looking for recent recommendations not too far from Highbury and Islington station, preferably somewhere with pretty serious food, or at least seriously interesting. It may not be the throbbing gastronomic heart of london, but any recent good experiences?? I ask both for future reference and with the optimistic hope of getting a booking for Saturday. (I've tried Morgan M but no surprises, they're fully booked).

It's true, and it's not the FD's fault that obsessive media attention feeds an expectation of new daily miracles. Never-the-less, Heston is not shy when it comes to talking about research and new techniques in his columns and interviews, and his restaurant is operating much more in the arena of EB than Le Gavroche is - indeed, he openly exploits surprise in his diners (beetroot jelly etc. etc.) in a decidedly un-classical way that is highly dependent on new inventions. Even before that highly-definitive recent poll that set them above EB, I think the expectation that they add new dishes at a somewhat faster rate is very understandable. Speaking personally I'd rather they didn't, so that occasional visitors such as myself can experience as broad a range of dishes as anyone else.

But couldn't exactly the same be said of the dishes at El Bulli? A restaurant which, in contrast, shows a very determined and focussed year-on-year evolution of the menu. Some reinvention/refinement, yes, but a massive number of exciting new dishes too. Regarding seasonality, that is also something they pay attention to, determining the months at which each dish may be served (although admittedly a fair number of them are 'all'), and eschewing certain ingredients because the restaurant is closed at the relevant time of the year. (This is based on their published philosophy - I've not actually eaten there )

How easily can one tell sauces that have been given a little body with a subtle, judicious addition of arrowroot to ones based on a stock made gelatinous from bone/marrow, or even from more artificially added gelatin? I'm talking about texture here, and assuming the flavours are the same and that the sauce is sufficiently reduced that only a very small amont of arrowroot is used. I had assumed that the undesirable, 'stringy' texture that arrowroot-thickened sauces acquired as they cool ruled it out as an option. However, I had a sauce at a good restaurant the other day - think it was a Bordelaise - which, as it cooled, exhibited what seemed to me a very similar texture to the result of using a very small amount of arrowroot. Can the use of arrowroot always be detected by a judicious gastronome? Is arrowroot a blasphemy in a good restaurant kitchen? How about other alternatives, agar agar, micri etc.?

Although Peugot's pepper mills are well thought of, I thought I'd just post a warning about their motorised Tours mills - mine gave up the ghost after only six months or so. The grinding mechanism was excellent but the electrical build quality was not what you'd expect given the pretty horrific price. Anyone else had experience with Peugot mills? I'm in the market for a replacement, and choosing between an expensive manual Peugot mill, the (not cheap) Unicorn Magnum - or perhaps a set of six IKEA ones each set ready to a different coarseness...?

Not to imply that he is cut from exactly the same cloth, of course. (I seem to recall he prefers the term "culinary constructivism", but the media spin he receives is broadly similar in any case).

But what is the relevance of the existence of all this 'spin' to one's judgement of the restaurant? Heston could hardly deny that he has both been party to and benefited massively from media attention towards the inventiveness of his approach, but spin remains a product of journalists rather than chefs. I'm not really sure what you mean by "deferred gastronomic heritage", but the work of Heston, Adria F. et al is bound to have a substantial and long-lasting influence on the everyday, friendly meaning of "gastronomy" - that is, what unexceptional people who love and take an interest in food eat and enjoy when the treat themselves to a meal at a good restaurant. I don't know how rarefied your definition of gastronomy is, but you only have to look at the recent additions to Ramsay's menu to see the echoes of Heston et al's non-heritage. (Its influence is also bound to lead, in fact probably already has led, to a whole host of disastrous provincial imitations, but I daresay that sort of price is paid with any culinary trend).

was some time ago I went but the food was wonderful - confident and impressive without seeming at all attention seeking. I especially recall some wonderfully fine, film-like pasta that you (I mean, I) can't make at home. There was a very high suits-to-jeans ratio (I think I was the only person in 'The Grill' not wearing a suit), and one of those wine list tomes where the £50 and £500 bottles are next to each other, to make ordering suitably nerve-racking. There were some nice touches, such as intensely flavoured little sorbets served before the desserts on a glass mock cake stand.

Ferran Adria talks about the 'mental palate', the faculty of judging how flavour combinations will taste without tasting them. Perhaps Heston's is particularly active, and he can get through an exponential set of combinations of an evening, and seize on the ones that will be striking and (to him) successful... He is, after all, actively seeking novelty and surprise in his food, an artifice that is of course a factor in the 'old school' resistance to his cooking. However, as with the snail porridge story in the contentious evening standard article, the real explanation probably has more to do with chance than exponential judgement.

The gastroville review is very interesting, and goes into a delightful level of detail about the food for once. The comment about the excessive flavour of the passion fruit jelly is pertinent. I found that this, and in particular the strength of the horseradish, completely overwhelmed the oyster. I enjoyed it none-the-less, but one was certainly enough. Thinking about the BBC article and Heston's scientific bent, perhaps he could administer the taste bud test to his guests when they arrive, and then calibrate their meals accordingly.

If a year ago they were saying it was the worst restaurant in the world, certainly. Although I wouldn't take Ms Cavendish's "ambivalence" too seriously, I'm very interested by the polarised views on this forum. I genuinely thought that even some more outlandish and oft-criticised combinations, such as cauliflower and chocolate, really did taste terribly nice. Of course, the clever construction and general novelty was appealing, but that only lasts for the first couple of mouthfuls - I could happily have eaten another bowl for the sheer pleasure of the flavours. The myriad courses - tiny servings approach does of course make this claim easier; even doubling the quantity for most courses wouldn't lead to an overwhelming portion of novelty to chew through. I wonder whether reaction to excessive flavour intensity has a part to play. There is arguably a lack of subtlety in the dish cited - the risotto is pretty heavily salted, and the cocoa and the chocolate jelly inevitably very intense. I don't know if it's an old chestunt on these forums, but the reaction of someone nearer the 'super-taster' end of the scale could be quite different from someone at the other end (plenty about this on the web, e.g. this pop-science BBC news article).

Well, she only says that "once I have scoffed the lot, I tell him it is the most delicious thing I have ever tasted". Maybe she is just a compulsive liar...

The repeated application of salt sound like a good bet. Must try the weight thing too (reminds me of those bacon weights they sell at cookshops for people who already have everything). I'd keep the scoring of the skin though, both aesthetically and to distribute the skin shrinkage more evenly. There may be a danger of going too far in the crispy skin quest - that is, too hard and thick and crunchy. I've had this in restaurants sometimes, and it can detract from the refinement of the dish. The skin needs to be crisp but delicate. Just to up the ante... I don't know to what extent skin thickness and toughness is a facet of the type of fish, mind you. I can do sea bass fillets pretty well, but I've never had much luck with the skin of john dory.

Yes, and she never would have gone all the way to Bray for a beefeater - had she really been served prawn cocktail, steak and mint choc ice cream (as separate courses, that is ) she would of course have written a "what is all the fuss about" article. She was only there because the food is sufficiently distinctive, and matched in this artistry by skill of execution, to merit the elevation. I can't help feeling she is cynically taking a particular journalistic angle (hence the maitre d' cliches, etc.), because if she really felt it was such "food torture" that "nothing will ever again" make her feel better then her experience is so diametrically opposed to mine to be that I find it hard to comprehend.

Sorry - I've improved my signature. slightly. (I did look at pithy quotes, but all the ones I could find made me feel queasy. one day...) I stopped giving my full name on public posts since google got hold of an embarassing post from my youth and left it at the mercy of future employers and anyone else I might wish to decieve.

So how do they get that really crispy skin on to a fillet of fish?? You could let us know here if you don't want to be accused of drifting off topic... although you'll have to endure my overlong musings on the matter.

How does the flesh get cooked? Or must it be thin enough to cook in the 3 minutes? Regarding getting the skin crisp, I've tended to use a similar method with skin-on fillets (e.g. sea bass - dry and slash skin, rub with olive oil and salt, fry in hot pan without disturbing for a fair time), but have sometimes found that by the time the plate reaches the table, the skin has lost some crispness. Most recipes call for turning the fillet over, so that the skin side is uppermost, either to briefly cook the other side or at least to serve. My theory is that the steam from the flesh of the fish will tend to pass vertically upwards (the pan or plate inhibiting escape downwards), reducing the crispness of the skin. However, this could be nonsense... In any case, I've had a good level of success frying the fish in a pan then transferring it to the oven to cook the flesh, and only inverting the fillet the instant before serving. I've still had occasional failures with the skin getting under-cooked or over-cooked, though, particularly as cooking times vary with species and fillet size. Can anyone suggest a different method, or confirm/dispute my suspicion about the steam??

Yes, I was rather confused when I discovered it (via the Internet) as a sweet oloroso. I've tried it since, but despite the gap of a few years since the dry oloroso I remember ceased to be available in Cambridge, I'm pretty sure it was different. I've always preferred dry sherries, and it was rather sweet for my taste. Don't know if my memory is playing tricks, but I'm pretty certain it was a Valdespino dry oloroso I used to get, and I do remember it having the C19 date in the name. Very odd.

This post: http://fora.erobertparker.com/cgi-bin/ulti...ic/1/54155.html has some fascinating sherry tasting and food pairing notes, and cites some very interesting sounding sherries. I guess it’s the congress Jesus mentioned, as his name crops up…? I used to be fond of Valdespino Solera 1842 some years ago, when it was available in the form of a dry oloroso, but it now only seems to be available in a sweeter, pedro-ximinez’d form – you may prefer it this way. The sherry I drink most often is Hidalgo’s La Gitana manzanilla. I’m afraid it doesn’t fit your bill, as it's very widely available (my nearest supermarket sells it) and pretty cheap, but it’s an excellent everyday food manzanilla, and a real bargain I think. It is extremely pale and clean tasting, more elegant than some manzanillas, but with a touch of the requisite sea-saltiness.

Thanks. We went to Iris in the end, and had a very enjoyable meal. The style of food was surprising similar to many places in the UK (perhaps a reflection also of my menu choices), but there were some distinctly Spanish influences, for instance in a watermelon amuse in a gazpacho vein, and in their olive oil ice-cream. The latter was rather unusual, transplanting a vividly strong olive oil flavour into a dessert, rather than the ‘dessert concept’ of ice-cream into a savoury dish, and I enjoyed it enormously. Other courses were less unusual – a good monkfish carpaccio, lukewarm, sliced extremely thinly and edged with black olive, and an interesting but not entirely successful main of cod with 'caldo de lumbre' and pistacio. This was a bit of an authenticity-of-flavour concept dish, served on uncooked grapes in a subtle ‘its own sauce’ broth. The dish was lifted by an excellent mint oil, which was redolent of eucalyptus, but which was unfortunately inadequate in quantity. I also sneaked a bit of a companion’s tuna with ginger, pineapple and sesame rice balls, this was a prettily presented little distillation of pure Chinese takeaway – and the worse for it, to my mind. The dish I really liked the sound of, turbot with an artichoke and scallop foam, was unfortunately only on the old English menu they managed to dig out for us (I should remark that the staff were very friendly and patient regarding our wholly inadequate Spanish – although ‘fire broth’ proved a bit beyond our powers of comprehension). Have you tried the turbot, is it as promising as it sounds?

Rather than a particular unique flavouring, might it be a function of the massive amount of ghee that british indian restaurants seem happy to use? This wouldn't apply to more upmarket indian restaurants, but I think your average take-away contains a unauthentically large dose, which will tend to act as a flavour enhancer. I was told that at one time a local authority wanted to put health warnings on the 'great british curry' like those on cigarettes...