Steve Klc

"This is a big deal and customers are unknowingly suffering because of the indifference, ineptitude or willful misconduct being displayed by the management in charge of the cheese sections at Whole Foods." Don--isn't the real issue that customers are unknowing and cannot taste or detect the difference? That awareness has to be raised somehow and we can't rely on a vendor like Whole Foods to care enough to do it--so who will? Who else is complicit around town and/or in national media? Is wine abuse--improper shipping and storage--as big a or bigger problem? Ever been dissatisfied with wine purchased from Whole Foods? My own brush with Whole Foods willful ignorance toward their own ingredients was over bulk retail chocolate--and by that I mean the chocolate that wasn't packaged by the manufacturer. I mean the broken chocolate pieces: how they'd break up the same big blocks of Valrhona, El Rey or Callebaut a pastry chef might use, wrap them in cling film and re-sell them. In theory, a good thing for consumers, who wouldn't normally want to buy 11 pounds of a chocolate at a time like a pastry chef. However, chocolate is very sensitive to temperature, air and light--and buy removing it from the foil wrapper or foil-lined plastic pouch of the manufacturer--and by re-wrapping it in flimsy cling film, which is very permeable, and by exposing it to the storelights all day and night--after time what the customer bought was usually dull, murky, dry, stale or even somewhat rancid--especially the white and milk chocolates which have a much shorter shelf-life anyway than dark chocolate. All preventable sensory defects, all due to mishandling. If that wasn't enough, chocolate was handled by the cheese department--and guess where the bulk retail chocolate in most Whole Foods was located? That's right--piled above the cheese displays. Nothing like a little roquefort aroma in your 100% Venezuelan cacao. (That's actually a combination which can work in the right hands--but buying the two already fused--and then trying to make your recipe with it, no thanks.)

Todd gets 5 coveted sporks but this new venture gets an "indiffernet" rating from me. Welcome to eG nonetheless, Dave.

Miguel--how much of the increased demand and price do you suspect is due to 1) use in traditional dishes--in either restaurants or homes 2) use by more creative and modern chefs and 3) due to export demand?

One of several previous threads: http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showto...=0entry444063

Tom--how confident are you in your tempering--since that is a big enough challenge--rather than moving on to applications and problem solving working with tempered chocolate?

I know a lot of pastry chefs who use trimoline in sorbet making--I use it in certain ice creams--why shouldn't it be used, Chocolate Guy? Sometimes the commercial formulations, labelling and names are different: "inverted sugar syrup" is used more often, I think but I've seen "liquid inverted sugar" as well--it's usually a whitish or yellowish sticky paste (I like the white paste) and works very well in sorbets and ice creams, lowers the freezing point, virtually eliminates crystallization, just don't use too high a percentage in your recipe or it will affect the final texture too much. It's used in chocolate and bon bon work as well to extend shelf life--and it helps bon bon's "freeze" better.

No. I constantly beg, borrow and steal the time of friends and neighbors who do. I described Philippe's book that way for you guys because with a book like Adria or Balaguer, even in Spanish and even if you don't read Spanish, it still was a very worthwhile purchase--those books are much more extensive, with lots of recipes, have numerous inspirational photographs (even the photographs make you think differently) and they're designed for professionals in a kind of professional shorthand that you can work from. Adria and Balaguer are not sensitive and poetic in their technical books--whereas the little Philippe books is more personal, and it has a lot of meaning in a little package, which isn't surprising since Philippe is very sensitive. I, personally, find it inspirational, I knew what he was saying even if I couldn't read it (if you know what I mean) but others might not find it so valuable without help.

The Conticini book is a smaller format, in French, lots of text: very philosophical, poetic, sources of his inspiration, nutrition, wine advice. Some nice pictures--not all dessert recipes are photographed--and it isn't as current as, say, the Thuries. You may not find it as helpful and instructive if you do not read French or have a friend who can help with terms like festoner.

Here's a previous thread as well, ComeUndone: http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showto...=0entry447746

Just fyi--powdered glucose (atomized glucose) has been in use for some time, it was in Albert Adria's sorbet base in his "Postres de el bulli" book from 1998 and it's in many of the frozen recipes from Balaguer. It was nice a few years ago when ParisGourmet and Albert Uster finally made big bags of the the stuff available to pastry chefs here--so we could work with it. That's when Jacquy and Sebastien started teaching with it here, it had been in France long before that and they learned how to use it there. How often you use powdered glucose, if at all, will depend on how you set up your program and your needs, whether you use a Pacojet or batch freezer, etc. When I was in his Peltier lab in 2002, Ted, and talked about recipes with him, they were all different--meaning he didn't use one approach, he used many--and each ice cream or sorbet recipe had its own formulation after much trial and experimentation. I think the "cuiller" thing with Conticini is part of his poetic approach to things--like how he's fond of sprinkling on his desserts? He used "c. a soupe" and "c. a cafe" in his book "Desserts en liberte" as well.

Melissa--thanks for beginning the first-ever pastry chef blog on eGullet P&B and for taking the time to share. We will all look forward to further installments. Perhaps you could touch on how you selected your location and how you arranged financing? What was your Mom's advice as you were developing this bakery plan?

Further discussion of where to find the "best" sushi and which coast does it "better," here, in General: http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=40701&st=0 Let's keep this thread focused on the article and its ramifications.

The eGullet community is magical, thanks for playing your part therese. You're a part of the "we."

Self-promotion isn't the problem, at least as far as I'm concerned, Jason. Welcome to eG. You're free to link to your blog all you want. However, you risk marginalizing yourself somewhat due to a failure to really engage here. Get involved in the discussions here, let all of us get to know you a little better, and you'll be fine. My problem with leading us to your blog for this review of this restaurant (from February, so it isn't even timely) is you really didn't advance what we already knew and what we already covered in greater depth here--MONTHS before you finally decided to go to this place. We were on top of this place in November--and as it turned out, not even Tom Sietsema disagreed with our sentiments when he finally came out with his formal review in January, which also preceeded yours. My question for you is--portions sizes were small compared to what? How often do you eat in this genre and at this price point? Most of your blog entries are in the cheap eats/ethnic/Chowhound level of things--it doesn't "seem" you have a lot of experience at the fine dining and New-American dining level, not at places like, say a Firefly, which also offers somewhat similar food and wine with style and is trying to lure the same audience--though Firefly is much better than Komi at this point and John is a much more developed chef at this point. Not that this perception is necessarily correct on my part--and that's not to say you can't be correct about Komi without having that background--but I just don't know what to take away from your statement because you haven't revealed enough of yourself here yet and what I did read on your blog didn't help me. What you don't say is whether portions sizes were small compared to the price--meaning what kind of food to value proposition they presented. "Portion sizes were small" doesn't really mean anything unless you answer "compared to what?" Compared to the quail at Cafe Atlantico? I like small quail--I like to eat small quail a lot more than big fat quail. I like small portions so I can have more of them and have a more interesting sensory experience. But that's just personal taste. Why do you think people are going gaga over the "bar" menu at Palena? Why do you think (practically) everyone under the sun in this city is emulating Jose and instituting some kind of tapas or small dish menu? I think it's because food people like choice, they like variety, they like to control what they eat and that includes portion size and they don't like to be locked into the 1 app, 1 huge entree, too stuffed for dessert routine that still defines too much of the dining in this area. What do you think? What I usually want to know from a review or report is 1) is the dish really good 2) why is the dish really good and 3) how fairly-priced it is given the portion size and 4) how does this restaurant compare to others at its price point or in its class. Give me more of that depth and I'll link to your blog again and give another review of yours a chance, but I'd suggest you're better off linking to something more timely and something we haven't already covered, better, here. Just a thought.

After reading the piece by Cynthia Cotts, I came here looking for more anonymous snark and all I found was this: "as the pomposity of a certain strand of food elitism (represented heavily in certain parts of egullet) wears on me more" Where was the "ad feminem attack"--cute turn of phrase, that--where was the "anonymous snark from critics who didn't want to hear any exculpatory evidence?" Mostly I find an examination of the "evidence" which is becoming more detailed and cutting comments on the record from decidely not anonymous sources. You can't get much less anonymous than Shaw and Bourdain--who both make sense here and make even stronger cases for there being plenty of blame to go around. Amanda deserves to get nailed somewhat, but she's getting nailed for the wrong reasons in too many other media circles. I suspect the Times management decisions and editorial mis-direction will become the lasting story. Cotts did a quick search and compiled a Hesser/J-G timeline of worship--but Hesser would hardly be unique in this even if it were true. There's temptation all around and a fine line between worship and attentiveness. The Chefs of the Times column assured familiarity. Bittman has written how many books with Vongerichten and pocketed how many very large outside paychecks? And I seem to recall reading Hesser criticism of previous Vongerichten restaurants, Mercer Kitchen maybe, if not of the eponymous J-G itself? Cotts writes "No one disputes the four-star review his flagship restaurant, Jean-Georges, received from the Times in 1998"--well, maybe more people should have wondered why Jean-Georges was last reviewed in the Times by Ruth Reichl in 1998? You don't have to be an elitist to realize restaurants changed just a little bit over the course of the past 6 years. 6 months in restaurant terms is an eternity--but 6 years? How is it that Grimes was hired, pursued the stated goal of re-establishing more strict standards in the Times star system and resigned without filing an update--yet managed to apply such scrutiny--and screws--to Boulud and Ducasse? The "get off to a slow start, chef makes key changes after the first review" angle didn't apply? Once you go down this road--you may also wonder why the most recent Times review of Le Bernardin dates to 1998 as well. I wonder if Amanda as interim reviewer has to be let off the hook, somewhat, for even the three-star rating--it's not like there was a clear cut distinction between two and three stars over time that we could have expected her to adhere to.

In case anyone missed this the first time around: http://egullet.com/?pg=ARTICLE-dayonelbulli This new piece, eGullet's first tome poem, was fantastic guys. I wish there was a way to scroll through it on a blank white screen and without the distracting sidebars. I can see why some aren't going to appreciate the lack of extended narrative, but since Adria himself is still misunderstood or consciously maligned in certain circles, you're ahead of the game by presenting him this way. I respect your artistic choice, as I respect his.

Max--I'm not sure what you mean by the KA's "tilt design?" Are you trying to do bread in the model where the bowl attaches at the base--and not in a model where the bowl snaps in place and is raised and lowered by a lever?

I wonder if the Breadline issue isn't more involved, perhaps even a "paradox" which unfortunately defines our area. I think BL and I return to question after question. I've had no better bread than BL and I was one of those waiting in line outside Marvelous Market for hours when Mark first opened just to get my two loaves. We all agree the product is absolutely superior, it's the best bread and a fantastic lunch spot. He's friends with Phyllis and Tom and mentioned often in media. I love it when a restaurant buys his bread instead of someone else's and rather than making some middling, underbaked, over-risen attempt in-house--and I make a point to go back to those restaurants. It's been mentioned elsewhere that our area doesn't "appreciate," and isn't willing to pay for, truly superior "artisinal" products--see Rocks excellent post about Amernick's traditional pastry shop for backup evidence. I agree with this to a certain extent--and I'm complicit. I settle too readily for inferior bread from Wegmans or Firehook or MM and sometimes used to settle for significantly inferior bread from Whole Foods, that was pre-Wegmans back when I still set foot in Whole Foods. I'm guilty of not making the special trip just to BL just for the bread as often as I should. And I know I should--it is centrally located, right? But is that enough? How important is it for artisans (leaving aside debate over the criteria for "artisinal" inclusion for another time) to be available locally--as in my local neighborhood? When I lived in SoHo I walked out the door and around the corner everyday to Sullivan Street Bakery--and there was good bread all over the city. It would be a 30 minute round trip, at least, for me to go to BL and I live nearby, just across Roosevelt Bridge. Do we live in such an age of convenience which trumps our better judgement? Then there's the perception of Furstenburg's poor approach to customer service and customer relations, perhaps rivalled only by Carole Greenwood. It seemed, for a while, that whenever I made a detour to the BL after work, at night or on weekends it was closed. If it were open at night I'd go often but would enough other folks? I've never had a poor first-hand experience in line but if I ever did, I'd probably never go back--I'm very unforgiving of poor customer service in foodservice. And the thing is--artisinal is still foodservice. And yet his place is always packed when I go, so not too many locals have been put off with poor service, have they? What prevents Mark from just doing what he does best--make breads, sell them retail and wholesale--and see our area support him in that effort so he makes a decent living? Why does he have to do lunch--do you think he wants to or has to? Why can't I ever seem to find his bread available for sale in Arlington or in any of the gourmet supermarkets? If Whole Foods slams the door in his face--why aren't more of us upset with Whole Foods? As I've mentioned on other threads, the WF in San Fran sold 4 or 5 locally-crafted artisinal breads. Maybe his future is as a consultant outside DC--you don't get a better resume-booster than a chef like Keller asking you to consult--but where does that leave us? Will he go the way of Dieter Schorner? (Cafe Didier failed and closed, after that Bruno Feldeisen failed and closed) Is this at all an indictment of how our area pales (or fails) in comparison to other cities? And how much of this is our fault and how much of that stems from decisions Mark himself has made? I'm troubled by this and don't have the answers. In case anyone hasn't read this chat yet: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveo...y/bob051402.htm

I think part of the confusion, Tom, is that the inside edible part of the bean is called the nib, whether the bean has been roasted or not. I don't think there is such a product as "whole unroasted cocoa nibs" available for sale--just internally within certain chocolate manufacturers who discard the shell first and then roast the nib. Whole unroasted beans are just that--beans; nibs are what's left after the shell, skin and debris have been removed. I have only tasted or seen roasted nibs for sale--Valrhona, El Rey, Cluizel, Guittard, Sharffen Berger--the best tasting of which were Cluizel (to me) but that's anecdotal over time and not compared side by side; the Cluizel probably came from the most skillful combination of beans and batch processing at that time. I do have some experience with raw cocoa beans, though. This summer I led a few master classes at the American Museum of Natural History and asked Guittard to sign on as a sponsor. I proposed an idea to them, which they supported, and was able to get the same bean at various stages of processing and lead my groups through a progressive tasting: from unroasted raw bean (technically not edible) to roasted bean still in the shell (technically edible) to shelled nib to finished bar. We worked our way through 3 distinctive varieties in their line of 65% chocolates--and the beans which went into them: Columbia, Ecuador Nacional and the VZ Sur del Lago. But what stood out was the utter lack of flavor and nuance in the raw bean--yes, most of us risked eating the raw nib--somewhat bitter, somewhat astringent tasting but with basically no smell. I mean, you can learn this from reading books--but until you actually break open a raw partially dried and processed cocoa bean and taste it for yourself--taste this inertness and undeveloped character--you can't appreciate the truly transformative nature of the roasting process and its effect on the bean until you taste past the unroasted state to the roasted state of the same bean, which is where the chemical transformation becomes most noticeable. There's a real nice section on this in Beckett's paperback "The Science of Chocolate," by the way--a must have book if you plan to experiment further. This Stoneandgiacomotto is new to me as well--and interesting--but it raises some initial questions. I had assumed, previously, that you couldn't buy at retail or re-sell raw cacao beans in the US because raw beans were, essentially, not yet an edible, inert or safe food product but an agricultural product which had yet to be treated--yet to be roasted--to remove possible bacteria. So how is it that S&G can sell "raw" cacao beans and in the same breath recommend snacking on them at home? I wonder if they're irradiating them--like spices or ground beef can be irradiated--and if so it's problematic because that process isn't disclosed anywhere on the site. Perhaps lots of these special beans aren't dried and raked on the ground and as a result are less susceptible to things like salmonella? But in principle, Tom, it seems you can get what you want from S&G--roast the beans yourself in some makeshift apparatus, break each bean open individually to remove the nib from the shell by hand, and end up with fresh home-roasted nibs. Then you can grind them into something which resembles the icky, bitter, gritty pastes and home-made chocolates of Latin America--full of character and texture but not refinement or smoothness or the additional flavor enhancements which come from conching. And I think that's worth doing as an experiment. As we've mentioned on eG going way back it will be interesting to see if any professional chocolatiers actually start processing their own chocolate which in turn yields improved taste and a superior end product--something superior and/or more distinctive than how most chocolatiers use commercially manufactured chocolate. No doubt some blind tastings will be in order to determine if it amounts to much more than hype or a nice story. We'll also have to keep in mind...unless these guys are skilled and knowledgeable in sourcing and handling raw beans through the fermentation and partial processing stages--there's no guarantee you've gotten a premium bean, which you've paid a pretty penny for, ready to be roasted. Next assume these guys either are skilled or they've merely struck a deal with a manufacturer like Guittard or Sharffen Berger to provide their raw flavor-grade beans which S&G turn around and re-sell--a middleman in other words so that you are actually buying the same beans going into the E. Guittard Sur del Lago--and in that case it is Guittard's experience and professionalism you're buying--well, even then, you still have to roast them with tools and technology vastly inferior to the task at hand and you still have to form that resulting mixture into an end product with tools and technology vastly inferior to the task at hand. Still very worth undertaking methinks as long as you're not measuring your end result against a fine commercial couverture--and if you're not intending to use your end product like one might a fine commercial couverture. Even with their beans you absolutely cannot make the E. Guittard 65% Sur del Lago chocolate "at home," as S&G says on their website. That's disingenuous: there's a whole lot more skill and experience which goes into making chocolate of this caliber--you also can't (to date) grind, smooth or conch it comparably because you need expensive equipment. You can roast superior coffee at home, you can brew superior beer at home rather inexpensively--and get results which compare favorably if not surpass commercial products-- but you cannot make superior chocolate at home--as we know it commercially. So, what they should be saying is you can muck around with the same expensive beans at home, you can end up with something you can reasonably call chocolate, but they shouldn't imply more than that. Going back to coffee--you can roast a superior espresso blend at home but you cannot make a superior "espresso" beverage unless you have the ballpark $600 in equipment necessary to process those superior, impeccably fresh espresso beans into "espresso." The most you can do without the equipment is make a Moka or French press pot--very good coffee but not espresso. This is from their website: "our cacao beans bring the rich, complex flavor of chocolate to your cooking with out the added milkfat and sugar that the major manufacturers add to their chocolate." This is only superficially truthful--since you can buy fine flavorful high percentage chocolates (85-100%) now and of course roasted nibs themselves to achieve the same thing. Also, to a large degree it is the roasting process itself which unlocks and develops the cocoa flavor--before roasting, flavor and nuance are just inherent in the bean. And even chocolate manufacturers, who supposedly have experience can roast and process poorly, which can muck up a good bean. Still, it wouldn't be the challenge it is if it were easy, if anyone could do it well. The site continues "the cocoa flavor that is so divine is concentrated in our different beans giving each kind a unique flavor that can accent many dishes or desserts. using cacao beans in your cooking will bring you closer to the source and place foods on your table that are more intriguing, full-flavored and that use ingredients you understand you can get the chocolate flavor without lechitin, polysorbate or other ridiculous, processed ingredients that manufacturers use to strengthen their bottom line at the expense of the flavor of your chocolate" Cutting through the babble and misdirection, perhaps S&G is unaware lecithin is already "in" cocoa beans inherently which means small amounts of it will be "in" all chocolate anyway--even chocolate you make at home from their beans. Yes, most manufacturers add a small additional percentage of lecithin but usually not enough to affect taste--just flow, performance and stability. You know, so you can temper your chocolate when you need to and it stays shiny after if has been in your cabinet for a month. Let's also remember Cluizel went "au natural" and stopped adding any additional lecithin years ago anyway to grab the politically correct "no-GMO" crowd. Commercial manufacturers will always be able to winnow, roast, grind and conch better than we ever can at home. Lots of people draw analogies to coffee, beer or wine, some work, some don't. Making chocolate is not like making beer at home--beer doesn't require expensive equipment to grind or conch as chocolate does. Nor is it like home-roasting coffee--where freshness is a supreme issue and the number of days matter and translate into a superior end product. The added complication with chocolate is two tranformations--which makes it unique--you still have to turn the raw nib into chocolate--and then once you have chocolate you could eat it out of hand but most likely you have to transform it again, use it as an ingredient in the service of something greater--be it beverage, bon bon or bavarois. It would be like praising the artisinal hand-crafted small batch nature of a special wine--made from old vine grapes hand-picked on several passes on the side of a mountain which got just the right amount of a perfect microclimate--then careful, masterful processing and bottling to bring out the terroir, the fabulous potential vested in the grapes--then cracking open that bottle and COOKING with it, hoping to retain all that character as you heat it and mix in other ingredients and other flavors. Yeah, right. All this leads in a roundabout way to this: I think this development, this new door opening before our eyes, is great. It just might force more people--in the media, in the biz and the general public--to get in touch with the real skills, expertise and COST behind chocolate making--and to better appreciate the different sets of skills behind what chocolatiers do to transform chocolate as an ingredient on their palate into a finished product like a bon bon or how pastry chefs transform chocolate on their palate into the larger whole of a finished dessert. Blind tasting of bar chocolate by supposed experts is only a mid-reach--in and of itself it doesn't really get you anywhere. It's discerning what to do with a particular kind of chocolate, sensing what translates into the final product and then being able to carry it out technically which are the real skills, where the real magic is found. And that appreciation can't be gleaned from reading any number of books. And this just might open some doors of creativity because we'll now have recourse to a few new products--freshly roasted and painstakingly produced nibs--fresh homemade gritty versions of paste, mass and liquor--resembling those dried-out gritty shitty Central American home-grown chocolate balls you find in US markets but instead made fresh from flavor grade beans so they actually taste good. Now all we pastry chefs have to do is start figuring out how to take better advantage of this more flexible definition of chocolate, these new products--these less-refined, less commercial "chocolates"--and determine if this stuff actually allows us to create more interesting, more distinctive work. Then we can factor in the cost of our time and effort. Makes even $6 a pound for Valrhona or E. Guittard seem a bargain, doesn't it? I'm really looking forward to it. Tom--maybe you'd like to buy some S&G beans and start your own blog here within eG pastry detailing your exploits?

That's fantastic news Owen--please please keep us in the loop. I've enjoyed reading you on this thread and on many other threads here. Years ago, before we formed the eG coffee forum there were a few of us around here touting the merits of the Sylvia/Rocky combo--and even before eG was founded it was elsewhere on the internet that many of us first found out about espresso machines and the possibility of actually making good espresso at home. And to think our first threads here tried to explain the difference between "coffee" and "espresso." How far we've come in a very short time amazes me. I'm glad more users are driving the discussions forward about fresh beans and home roasting, exploring differences between stovetop mokas and real espresso machines, etc. We're each on a quest--our own very personal quest being conducted at our own rate. This thread has morphed, expanded into some other areas--but if I could go back to answer to the original question--"what is the least expensive machine for decent espresso"--I think it remains the Silvia/Rocky combo. (I don't have enough experience with cheaper initial setups to say whether there are less expensive espresso machines which do give you the control, consistency and overall build quality of the Silvia--just that the Silvia does.) So on this one issue, Owen, I am still not convinced an entry level convert should jump right to the $1,000+ range. That's too big a hit from the cheapo faux-espresso machine/cheapo grinder/moka-press pot level of awareness. It just might be learning to run before learning to walk--and I worry that this price hurdle might keep too many people from even considering the option. I agree with all your points about the "flaws" of the Silvia but perhaps not your conclusion--I see the limitations, the "tweaking," as advantages long term--it forces you to understand the process behind the final product and it clarifies the process behind creating the foam, the suspension, the crema. You NEED a grinder as good as the Silvia or you might as well not buy the Silvia. What I like about the Silvia is it forces you to get a handle on ALL of the variables within your control--and how they affect each other--so as you go forward on your quest you better understand how all those variables affect what you do. You choose to go from 14g to 16-17g on your own because you taste the difference that makes. You learn that the second ingredient in coffee is water--and that no matter how good the "ingredients"--making espresso requires the "application of technique" that cannot be achieved without a machine. As Shaw has said, there's no Slow Food/artisinal way to make "espresso" without an expensive machine. Sans expensive hardware what you're making with impeccable beans is very very good coffee but not espresso. There's no espresso equivalent of Alice Water's "good shopping"--you need the hardware and you need to know how to use it, clean it and determine when it needs to be fixed or adjusted. Some people are up for that challenge, that responsibility, some aren't--and it is up to each person to decide that for themselves. And you learn that if you want to keep your machine on all day or pull shots for a house full of people you need a better machine. I also do not recommend the FF/long-term Illy commitment package--even if you like Illy. I think the Silvia is a better machine anyway--more proven over time, more extensively analyzed and dissected on the web with a more substantial user base. This deal locks you in to too much of the same coffee--it hinders experimentation with other brands, blends, grinds and home-roasting. The one sure thing--after making a Silvia/Rocky level commitment--is that your journey is just beginning--you don't know what you think you know--and the last thing a newbie/convert would benefit from are inherent hinderances that are within your power to avoid at a given price point. Resale values of Silvia/Rocky combos seem to be holding up as well as resale values of iBooks and Powerbooks. That speaks well of this option.

I can recommend the eggs benedict at Boulevard Wood Grill and Harry's Tap Room, in Arlington and in that order. Both offer very fairly priced brunches.

There isn't much to add after Steve's helpful post. I have one refractometer--an extended range (0-80) model I've used for years, Ted, for jam, pate de fruit and to adjust some sorbets: http://www.jbprince.com/product.asp?0=0&1=0&3=2180 It is a helpful addition to the toolkit and will last a career. You can get around not using it--you just have to work a different way, work more on feel and sense and experience instead. Say you're making a batch of strawberry sorbet from some fresh berries--well, w/o a refractometer you add sugar and syrup until you taste the right level of sweetness--you guess, basically, based on how finely honed your experience is. All a refractometer does is quantify things--in this case sugar expressed in degrees brix--for you very precisely. Either way you still have to know what you're doing and why. With other things you rely on other visual clues and tests and experience instead. Like if you didn't have a thermometer you'd still know when you reached soft-ball--right? A refractometer is just a tool which makes it easier for you to achieve success more often and more consistently--especially if your ingredients and supplies change seasonally.

Now we're getting somewhere: Beans said "Interesting reading views that learning from his cooking was shooting too low" and I'm wondering what this says about our awareness then and where we might be now? What was the value and achievement of his actual cooking, his screen presence and his books--and is there lasting value today--legal issues aside? Here's one inescapable fact--he sold a ton of books. I'm speculating here, and just going on anecdotal evidence of my friends at the time, but during his popular run--one of his books was likely the first cookbook a novice purchased or the first cookbook received as a gift. My non-cooking and non-food-aware friends LOVED him and his show. They watched him like they watched Bob Vila--though would never remodel their old house or cook themselves. I personally viewed him as more of an uncritical charlatan--more quick schtick than substance. I suspect there was a lot of resentment from the elite food establishment at the time--anyone remember the destructive Barbara Grizzuti Harrison essay on the Frug in Harpers (I believe from 1993 or so?) But I wonder if he wasn't actually ahead of his time--wouldn't his lightweight, infectious, entertaining, enthusiastic personality fit right in today's typical programming lineup? Like other entertaining food personalities he would have morphed into more of a babbling host, do less actual cooking and instruction (not his strengths anyway) and guide and cheerlead instead? Was he more of a culinary harbinger than we might realize? Was he the first of a long line of outsized, chirpy, cartoonish or buffoonish but entertaining and ingratiating on-air culinary personalities? Had he already figured out that lightweight schtick sells--be it the schtick of an Emeril, Alton Brown, Flay or Ray?

French definitions and terminology shackles aside, here's what I think--a parfait is a layered, creamy dessert in a glass. That's it--and that's all it should be--it's morphed into a very flexible "definition" and encompasses all sorts of layered creams and sauces--foam, mousse, creams set with gelatin, creme anglaise and custards, frozen elements like ice cream or sorbet, fruit, crunch, etc. Philippe Conticini told me once that one of his regrets, after introducing his line of "teaser" parfaits in glasses in the NY Petrossian shop was that he didn't just label his desserts as "sundaes"--that Americans might have embraced them more easily if, mentally, they could put them in that familiar context. Parfaits, sundaes, desserts composed in a cup, coupe or glass. It comes down to whether you want to "label" your desserts--or your components--and what you want your customers to perceive when they read a menu. I favor thinking globally here and actually moving away from all these terms which may have once worked in the context of a different age, which may have once had some universal (read rigidly codified) meaning, but which no longer do.

"Not only is this well-written public service jounalism, but he's blunt and funny too" and "The three articles I've read by Todd Kliman are terrific, basically investigative journalism relating to the Washington DC food scene. Todd, are you out there? You're doing a great job." He is, isn't he? Doing a great job that is. Anyone else know what Todd did before this gig? He taught at Howard University and they let him get away. Shame on his Department chair and the University President for not realizing the talent they had in their midst. Lucky for us, and the City Paper, though.