Steve Klc

Todd Kliman has a very compellingly-written piece about Buck's, Greenwood and James Alefantis in the March 5th City Paper, which delves into two ongoing themes: the chef as artist, literally and figuratively, and the chef as business owner/manager. I'm glad to see a new willingness on the part of the CP to stretch beyond the predictable, politically-correct, free weekly view of food--you know, the "where's the best Peruvian chicken carryout?" piece. (Not that there isn't a place for that kind of piece--there is.) Todd also seems to be the right writer for the job so far--his stuff defies expectation and isn't fitting into neat little boxes. Unfortunately, this piece is not available online yet, but then none of Todd's stuff is. Too bad more internal CP resources seem devoted to developing and promoting their Restaurant Raters--as if the Zagat review model isn't already irrelevant. But that said, it seems to me you can't hope to foster a "plugged-in community of epicures" if your food columnist is nowhere to be found on the website.

Liam--have you heard that the entire wine list is half-price on Monday evenings when you order a meal?

Tydel--I think your paper could argue the case that your professor has a poor grasp on the modern restaurant scene: that his latter two categories create artificial, superficial or just plain false distinctions between "casual" dining (as defined by Olive Garden et al) and "fine" dining (Le Bec Fin) and that there is a huge middle ground that doesn't "fit" into either category at all. Not to recognize it does a disservice to you and your future customers. This middle category--smaller chef-owned or chef-driven restaurants that are independent, that aren't a chain or franchise or Dinner House as it has been defined for you--don't compete on the high end in terms of price, service, creativity and media attention yet are expected to compete (somewhat) on the lower end price and value-wise against chains and franchises that have collective buying power, economies of scale, and the lowest common denominator going for them. Keep it local--Philly has a wealth of small independent chef-driven mid-range restaurants that you can research and interview, assess and evaluate market pressures and trends, and I suspect you could prove your thesis--that there is a large "fifth" category that should be on your professor's list which face unique pressures yet yield unique rewards and it is this category that is at the most risk. That the "trend" might be for this middle to disappear--if perception and awareness is not altered. As clotheir advises, you should be cautious in how you approach this because if you explored and then argued this case you'd essentially be telling your professor he's pretty clueless. And, 5 pages is not much--it might be better for you to approach this example as a case study--pick one small chef-driven independent restaurant, a good neighborhood place near you maybe--something along the lines of a Django, Salt, Pif, Chloe--and make the case why it is special--why it doesn't fit into either of the perceived casual or fine dining classifications--what it's market pressures are--and then what it has to do to survive. But really, you could stay within any one of those four categories and find a wealth of trends and interesting issues which affect us.

Speaking of which, does anyone down here have a good selection of NYS wines? That said, I'd rather see more Ontario wines than upstate NY wines, but that's just personal preference. Wegmans did have a very nice selection of VQA icewines--from Niagara-on-the-Lake--four varieties of the Inniskillin for $62.99, including the cabernet franc oddity which I really like but Corby Kummer does not--and even another VQA cabernet franc icewine by Pelee Island Winery, which is excellent and more affordable at $42.99. Look for the black bottle with the pretty red cardinal on the label. These are all hidden away in the Vineyard room with the expensive stuff.

We arrived at 8AM--and by then the parking lot was completely full. The lot can probably accomodate about as many cars as the West Ox Rd. Costco. We were lucky to find a space on an access road. Pity the poor people arriving at 9 or 10AM. Though perhaps they received more samples than we did--we got zilch, zip, nada save for a little bag of (albeit good) potato chips. A big disappointment, seeing as when we were at the opening of the Woodbridge Wegmans they were handing out copious samples of the wonderful Herme chocolates and the wonderful Herme pastries and other stuff all over the store. I suspect they might not have kicked the sample thing into high gear yet--we only ran into some sauteed banana oatmeal thing at one demo station and some buckwheat pancake berry thing at another. We also bought a French toast bagel that was...not...something I'd recommend. We overheard a customer ask a very nice Herme counter clerk who Pierre Herme was and she replied "he's a French chef who's pretty famous in France." Fortunately for us, his simple and clean line delivers just as it did when the Princeton store opened years ago: we finally have worthwhile pastry shop pastry and chocolates that taste as good, as refined, as they look. No more need to suffer through the Pastries by Whole Foods, Heidelbergs and Randolphs in our area. Jake--agreed about your comparison to the NJ stores. I'm glad we at least got a real Wegmans and not a pretend Wegmans. The major differences are cosmetic. I too was struck how they integrated wine more invitingly into the middle of the store, as you pointed out. I bet that will help sales. I also liked the (new to this Wegmans shopper anyway) higher end wine "store within a store" area they set up--which can be roped off for tastings and where access can be controlled better. (Though I found it easier to actually shop for wine in the Princeton wine store--which for those of you who haven't ever been is in a separate, self-contained area with their own checkout lines.) Beer is oddly cast off to a far corner almost as the forgotten stepchild. Another improvement layout-wise over the Princeton and Woodbridge stores is that the houseware/kitchenware collection is in the middle of this store--so it's more integrated. It won't make anyone forget Sur La Table but it's not supposed to. The frozen aisles are in the middle of the store and more integrated. (In NJ, the freezer cases are stuck in a back corner and you have to make a special effort to go into the houseware section for those Spiegelau or Riedel glasses or the Francis Francis! espresso machines--in Sterling you have no choice but to walk by them and through them. No, the exclamation point was not my idea.) They also have a "Whole Foods Market/Fresh Fields"-style mini store within a store right smack in the middle as well--as if to say "there's no reason to go back to Whole Foods again"--where all the organic/ certified/ feel-good crunchy stuff is corraled, if that is important to you, so be it organic milk, butter, flour, coffee, ice cream, whatever, it can be easily found in one place. (Pity Whole Foods and Sutton, they're the big losers in this with the arrival of Wegmans, not Giant or Safeway.) All the Wegmans characteristically excellent, deep and fairly priced meat, game, fish, sushi, Herme-consulted pastry & chocolate, cheese, deli, produce, charcuterie, prepared and ready-to-cook foods, and are exactly the same here as in Woodbridge or Princeton NJ. Similar as well is the "just pretty good" bread, the just fairly average coffee and bulk/bar chocolate selection and the fairly crappy line of American-style bakery goods with garish icing and airy fluff. Other negative perceptions: The produce section is definitely smaller than in Princeton/Woodbridge--it feels much more constrained because it is (wine encroaches, no doubt) and there's slightly less produce variety overall. Our initial impression also was that less shelf space was devoted to what in other stores are long, deep aisles of "International or gourmet" products--the dry, bottled and bagged goods, usually grouped by ethnicity or country. But we didn't spend enough time in these ethnic sections to really get an accurate sense. It just seemed smaller--as if Wegmans already knew this store's target market wouldn't necessarily be looking for all those products here. That that wouldn't be where this store was going to make its money. No tandoor here as in Woodbridge--but no surprise, either. A final thought--I read somewhere that the square footage of this store is right up there with the largest stores; however, I can't help feeling this store is smaller--I wonder if more square footage has been allocated to behind the scenes prep, storage and receiving acitivity? I looked for irradiated ground beef and didn't see any--so I asked. I always liked the fact that Wegmans didn't preach to its customers like Whole Foods took every opportunity to--you had organic ground beef, regular ground beef and irradiated ground beef side by side. The reply I got was that no Wegmans has irradiated ground beef anymore because their supplier--Surebeam--went out of business recently. I missed that in the news. The meat guy said that Wegmans corporate was looking into buying that equipment and doing it themselves. I found that interesting. It is tighter near the checkout lines as Margaret Webb Pressler first observed--in other NJ Wegmans there is at least the appearance of more space between the aisles and the checkouts--to avoid that, avoid the front of the store, work your way all the way back to the prepared foods section entrance--there are two cash registers set up for buying a quick takeaway meal--that you can also bring full shopping carts through. You'll get out of the store much faster.

"Am I too negative?" No. Feeling like mutton just about describes it. I gave one of those culinary demonstrations at this event a few years ago--before the Post, Fine Living magazine and Food TV signed on as sponsors--and it seemed well-meaning but amateur hour the year I attended. And this was run by the same people who supposedly had done an amazing job with the Boston version of this show. My audience was very appreciative--but nothing else about the event held much interest for me and I've never been back. I think I side with Mark and everyone else in agreeing there are better ways and better events to spend your discretionary wine money on.

Anytime you want to borrow my instant-read infared thermometer, Rocks, just let me know. Much more discreet and quick taking a reading than sitting there with a metal rod sticking out of the glass.

All good questions Miguelito. I suspect the bulk of the questions he receives fit your definition of lame and that he tries his best. But, given the inherent format as Steve Shaw just pointed out--even if there were some hot issues to come up--the format mitigates against pursuing it in any real depth. So he's stuck. Comments like yours, though, probably give him a boost knowing that there some of his faithful would prefer him "pick the most interesting questions, answer them thoughtfully, and forget the rest."

8track--it's two reviews minimum--don't forget Eve Zibart--plus Tom's Dish does sometime function as a half view and Foraging often functions as an informal review as well when its subject is a restaurant. That's a lot. How many weekly reviews do you think are in the NY Times? One full, one cheap eats, and one Diner's Journal (preview.) That's it. I don't often read our local insert sections but it seems there are occasional reviews of restaurants in the Arlington and Fairfax inserts, of neighborhood kind of places that would always fly under the radar of the lead critic anyway. Wolke is a treasure, isn't he? His book is the best in its class as well. To your other comment, I wish wine and "wine with food"--a different subject--was less compartmentalized and allowed to flow into more of the section as a whole. I'd like to see the sommeliers around town given more play--and the chefs who "get" wine given more play. I wish this weren't kept at such arm's length from the rest of the section as it is currently with Franz. (Judith Weinraub won a Beard for her wine writing a few years ago.) Let me ask you this--which restaurants do you think Sietsema/Zibart have dropped the ball on--anything out there that hasn't been reviewed in a timely fashion, any new opening grievously overlooked, any signifcant upgrade or downgrade which warranted a full re-review that his chats didn't adequately cover? It's not like there is a Firefly or Komi or Matchbox out there in each neighborhood falling through the cracks. If this city is so vital--whose work am I missing? foodie2501--welcome. You're not the first local resident to disagree with me and not the first one to make the comparison to the NY Times section. I once felt the way you do, but now wonder if that comparison is valid. I view the Times as unique--it has a much larger staff, more money, higher circulation, a much more sophisticated local readership which dines out more often, a true national print readership as well and as a result more resources than anyone else. You'll wait in vain for the Post to catch up to the Times because they're not playing with the same tools or by the same rules. The Times sends Johnny Apple or Amanda Hesser to one foreign destination after another, the Times sends its writers to other US cities to file reports because they are the national paper of record--they cover Philly, Chicago, SF, it was Marian Burros who "outed" the Penn Quarter in the Times as the hot new food scene. (Anyone remember how Tom handled that Burros piece in his chat?) I doubt the Post food writers even have an expense account covering their lunch locally! I like what the Times, and especially Burros, does, as well as you do. But Judith Weinraub handles the difficult, issue or regulation-driven food stories with as much delicacy and clarity as Burros usually does for the Times, Candy Sagon and Walter Nicholls, the only two other Post food writers, can be very funny, entertaining, devilish writers when the piece calls for it--serious otherwise--but not ever in a way that's too personal or vindictive. You rarely, if ever, discern the personal politics or agenda of the Post food staff, very rarely can you accuse them of not doing their due diligence, as can be apparent with other newspaper food writers. Fact is you (and I, I might add) are probably not in the largest demographic of the Post's readership--we're not recipe-driven home cooks with kids who want a recipe culled and vetted ahead of time or feature stories with recipes--and as a result we're not gonna get all the style, sophistication and edge, perhaps, that we both want. The question is--are we getting enough of this--and is what we're getting "right?" We got Walter Nicholls on the Pacojet before anyone else, we got Weinraub on Jose (written before he won the Beard Best chef Mid-Atlantic) in a way no one has appreciated Jose since Food Arts, we got Nicholls on agar-agar (remember that compelling Fabio photo?) before anyone else, we got Candy Sagon on the Rick Bayless imbroglio in more depth than anyone else. And that's just off the top of my head. Jeanne McManus, the food editor, addressed some of this when she sat in for an eGullet Q&A, you might like poking around in her archive to see if you accept any of her rationale. He's one topic: http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showtopic=6845 As a chef, I also would like to see more coverage of chefs, more coverage of behind the scenes as you say tweaked but I suspect if you compared the percentage of Post stories involving chefs or restaurants it might be just as high as the Times--if you account for "percentage of total stories in the section" and if you also add in Tom's review or Eve Zibart's review which appear elsewhere. There is also less of the "I'm a sophisticated food writer, look at me" preening going on in the Post--to wit the Post would rather feature good stories, and the spare writing of freelancers like local cook-turned-writer Emily Kaiser (6 or 7 pieces in the Post last year--landed a NY Times piece on salt just recently--so someone had an eye for talent.) That's more Jeanne's style. That she gets eGullet in ways no other US newspaper food editor does is, well, just another distinction for her and another bonus for us. Remember the recent in-depth Post piece on eGCI which ran "above the fold?" DonRocks--fair point about the chat being part of the job description--but someone maintained the chat Richman started as part of the job description, which speaks to overall level of commitment of the paper.

"I think some of the chatters have unreasonable expectations." Some? I see that as a rationale for him doing the chats in the first place--his genuine sense that it's his role to help raise awareness of food, to mention the good guys and gals he comes across, and to help establish what "reasonable" expectations are out there in the first place--as a diner and as a chef. Also, there just might be someone out there who hasn't heard of a Zaytinya or another of his oft-mentioned favorites yet--I get as tired as anyone else but frankly, DC has a few gems, a few special restaurants and chefs when viewed nationally (let alone locally) at different price points and I wouldn't want Tom to hold back. Praise is deserved until such time as it isn't. Praise is what critics trade in. It wouldn't be fair to those still doing it right after all these years otherwise. Of course, other rationales for the chat are to extend his brand, to extend his sphere of influence, which in turn helps sell papers. Let's also not forget he does type things at the spur of the moment--surely an unenviable task--some of which he later must regret. He must cringe reading some off-the-cuff comments he's made in the archives--but we're more entertained because of it. Plus, it's the "chatters" own fault for not stretching Tom and not asking better questions--but then that shows you what everyone is up against here in DC: the common denominator and that denominator is likely to be just a little less adventurous, a little more conservative, and a little less experienced than what we eGulleteers might consider ideal. And we shouldn't fault Tom for playing to his entire audience: that's his job and I'm not aware of another prominent restaurant critic who has the courage to go online week after week for something like this. (Most critics don't even pretend to care what their readers think--what they think is all that matters.) It's the same with the Post Food section--it may not be the section of your dreams, the section you personally want, written and edited at your level of awareness--but it comes darn close to being the best newspaper food section in the country, week in and week out, for interesting content that works at all levels. Does it still have minor faults? Sure, but against its competition (I also really like what Russ Parsons, Emily Green and Charles Perry have done at the LA Times) the Post (arguably) gets it right more often, in more interesting yet accessible fashion, than anyone else. Plus, the Post has the incomparable renee comet (remember the August tomato? the $100 Cocktail Party?) and a stylish layout which really appeals as well. Same with Tom--I barely can remember the last review I thought he totally missed the mark on--totally and completely got it wrong--and that was his very first review of Majestic Cafe years ago. He's since rectified that and rightly jumped back on the Lindeborg bandwagon. Otherwise, I just read and nod, and if I have a few quibbles, usually at the high end, they are far fewer than with our legacy of other critics. He's making the right choices, more often, than any other critic we've ever had. The "chatters" should realize how lucky they are. And babka, right you are--that chat is a two-way street. I like that some sass spills out. Morela--I've never submitted a question but would, I just never read the chat in real time. I'm always a week or two behind. Tom's been very kind and very receptive toward the stuff I've created around town for Jose. I agree with your analysis 100%--Jose's desserts were very good before he brought me aboard, I think Tom, other writers at the Post, and some national media have (fortunately) noticed the effect I've had--but trendsetter? No, for most it's not ever about trend. I take it that Tom meant, then, and I'm paraphrasing: "Desserts in DC stink and I hope they get a whole lot better. And soon." And I agree with him, though there is talent here. I was lucky Jose gave me the encouragement to stretch a bit but our area--its media and its chefs--has more dessert ground to cover before DC is known for much more than a creme brulee, a slice of some dense Southern-seeming pie or panna cotta (if you've happened across Todd Kliman's very fresh piece in the current CP.) The pastry chef/dessert scene in Chicago, for instance, kicks our butt, but I think pastry chefs are supported better in Chicago than they are here. At least there's some movement dessert-wise here--and Tom has helped create that movement, that awareness, by mentioning the names of pastry chefs in his reviews and his chats more often, by mentioning that pistachio/date/olive oil ice cream dessert at Zaytinya and that oatmeal dessert at Nectar and Valerie's layer cake at Majestic, etc. That raises the bar of awareness. It helps put something in the mind of our diners which I don't think is ordinarily there as they silently accept yet another disappointing dessert. There's more to dessert than a brownie with vanilla ice cream. As a result, I hope more chefs realize dessert isn't the forgotten stepchild and that more diners complain when it seems dessert isn't being integrated into the meal by the chef as well as it should. Also, remember Tom harped on DC's all-too-perfunctory desserts in print before he even landed the critic's job--back when he was getting nominated for Beard journalism awards (his DC steak piece.) He was right, then, to do so because pastry chefs are devalued here and the desserts around town all too often underwhelm--more so than they do in other first or second tier food cities. I expect you'll see Tom continue to focus on dessert as an integral component of the restaurant experience, and perhaps even realize he has to call more chefs to account for their lackluster dessert performance because the fault ultimately lies with the chef--chefs hold the pursestrings with their staffing, ingredient and equipment purchases, chefs delegate the resources, chefs decide whether to hire a pastry consultant or what to pay a pastry chef, chefs relegate the pastry person to the back corner of the kitchen, on a cutting board, balanced next to the dishwasher, etc. Quick--who's the pastry chef of Maestro? Citronelle? Cafe 15? Galileo? Colvin Run? the Inn? Marcel's? Vidalia? Don't you think the names of more pastry chefs at destination restaurants should be common currency if we were a top tier food town--as many knowledgeable foodies, including Sietsema himself, argues we are? (And slarochelle, I appreciate your mentioning Zaytinya and I want you to realize I'm not trying to be reflexively defensive with this--you DO have a good point--and yes, I'm hopelessly subjective about that place--but Zaytinya IS all those things. It's a unique achievement unrivalled on our food scene if not nationally (except also perhaps by Jaleo) and many national voices agree with Tom. It's the kind of place a tour bus could pull up to--as our inimitable DonRocks once joked--and still get serious food at a serious value. And you know what--Rocks is right--Zaytinya can handle 55 people sitting down at once. I hope a critic would feel he's doing a reader a disservice if he allowed his recommendations to be swayed by anything other than merit. Jose has overseen something special at that scale and price point, he's created a system with Jorge Chicas (an incredibly detailed unsung chef) and staff in place to be all those things you mentioned--to most people--most of the time. I hope it doesn't drop off but if and when it does--Tom will be there to notice and how will we most likely find out about the dropoff? That's right, in real time from his chat. And it's not like he doesn't mention his displeasures--like over the lack of reservations at Zaytinya--very often as well.)

A very well-written article about Wegmans in the Post business section today, by Margaret Webb Pressler, which just about gets it all right--the fair pricing, the high quality, the depth, the impact it will likely have in our marketplace--impressive seeing how it comes from a writer who had never actually been to a Wegmans before. Ms. Pressler took a drive to another Wegmans--the one in Downington, PA--and reported on her experience. Downington isn't an example of one of the chain's best stores (as she found out sitting in the "dreary" cafe) and it isn't even the best store in its area, playing second fiddle to the likes of the Princeton, NJ Wegmans. Once again, when it comes to food, the Post got it right. For those of you thinking of going to Sterling on opening day, go early. The recently-opened Woodbridge, NJ store was a mob scene by noon on opening day.

Well, I'm not sure you and I are talking about the same genre or even one genre, but on a few levels you are right Rocks--I should have written more clearly and offer a few caveats: This thread started way out the Dulles corridor, Reston Town Center, Rt. 28 etc. And that's what was in my head when I started generalizing about "the burbs" not supporting restaurants outside the norm. I do think Clarendon, Courthouse and Arlington are technically burbs--but they are now less burb-like and slightly more vital, they're closer to downtown and have a different neighborhood profile than the way out burbs like Dulles and Reston. I should have been more specific and was really talking outer burbs. I also don't have a lot of Maryland burb firsthand experience. Rays would probably be successful wherever it is--but it is close in, Rosslyn. It is also steak. Steak kinda sells anywhere. Even bad steak sells when you're in the mood for a hunk a meat. Rays does draw strong neighborhood support, however and even if I lived in DC I'd go to Rays as often as I do. This is a good example to cite but a qualified example perhaps? Mostly all of the other restaurants you cited do support my overall sense--they're all relatively conservative--they're also expensive, special event, big ticket type of places. A few benefit from their scenic locale--meaning part of what makes them special, gives them staying power, is where they are--a la L'Auberge Chez Francois. Their very nice old food is sustained in large part due to where it is--along with some impeccable service. The Inn has always been special as well, no? You think it is the burbs supporting the Inn or the urban/national/media-hyped tourist & foodie clientele driving out there? Methinks the latter. So might these two also fall under special exemptions--as restaurants which happen to be in the burbs but transcend local burb support? 2941 is a new restaurant--we'll see how it does, if it can sustain itself where it is, and if its neighborhood supports it. I think the jury is still out. Colvin Run is a power place, had name recognition going in but it's somewhat conservative, no? It's giving the Tyson's Corner power lunch and dinner crowd what it wants--a nice safe alternative to other nice, safe, conservative power places and yet Tom loves it and it has managed to attract some foodie attention. Again, we'll see if it maintains or begins to mail it in--surrounded by fast food, a Bertucci's, a Circuit City, a huge Mall which has a few food chains and franchises and will have more soon, including a Lebanese taverna. It's located in an area with very few residents and many other more predictable power places where you order big things by the pound. They're giving their clientele what they want. So in one sense I see you aiding my larger point that those in the burbs haven't demonstrated they want more than what falls within this narrow range and price point. And bigger picture--Tysons is its own edge city--is it unrealistic to expect MORE here than a quick lunch, Colvin Run and power dining spots a la Da Domenicos, McCormick & Schmick, Legal Seafoods? More? Well going to the Clarendon Harrys Tap Room is like going to a chain--a good chain but predictable. No better than Big Bowl or Bertucci's around the corner. Locals like me know Boulevard Wood Grill does better eggs benedict and offers better service but Harrys will do just fine as well because of our overall lower tolerance and lower expectations. It's perfectly adequate but that's it. And when Todd Gray opens way out in the burbs yes he'll be bringing Todd Gray cooking out there--high quality, mildly adventurous, very accessible, no surprises, and certainly very very accomplished. We'll see if he tries to make a statement there different from downtown or if it will be Todd lite--mailed in for the undemanding Middleburg crowd. It's not like there is much else there foodwise anyway, but I agree with you--it is an undeniable good sign. And I agree completely with your point that the District is just as capable of feeding down to diminished expectations--of delivering less than other options nearby. It's just that in the burbs--where more people actually live--less still seems more foodwise than it does downtown. What I'd really like to see is our outer reaches support more than just the big ticket, weekend getaway, destination places--because we're all supporting those places no matter where we live. I'd like to see more openness to that middle ground Bill mentioned--and include the smaller, less ambitious, less expensive restaurant, with more personal and less corporate cooking. I'd like to see our large affluent area support little places like SBC Cafe and enable them to stay right where they are and be profitable. Tom Sietsema has demonstrated that he will cover the burbs, that he won't paint with as broad a brush as I appear to be doing--so he's remedied that old canard about the Post critic only caring about downtown so that was why no chef took chances in the burbs. There are always complex reasons why a restaurant group, chef and or investors choose to open where they do. Form any list of interesting small places to open relatively recently--Majestic Cafe, Matchbox, Nectar, Palena, Komi, Firefly, Rays the Steak, the criteria doesn't really matter--all opened where they did. Only one or two are in the burbs--and you could make the case that one--Majestic Cafe--is Susan being much more conservative, homey and less nuanced, less interesting than the Susan who cooked downtown--that even she adapted, and compromised somewhat, to her burb. She's working so hard and I hope she finds a way to thrive where she is. But I'm pretty sure she still works everyday just to make ends meet. I've offered up why I think we're aren't ever going to see restaurant depth like this succeed further out in the Reston/Dulles burbs--even why a place like SBC has to feel compelled to move closer the city--what I haven't seen offered up Rocks is a rationale why I'm wrong. And believe me, in this, I want to be wrong.

A problem here--which we've discussed in various forms on other threads--is that the burbs haven't demonstrated they can support "interesting" or "creative" restaurants much outside the ethnic/cheap/chain/power categories. It doesn't matter that there's affluence, interest and foodie knowledge residing in the burbs--there is--there isn't enough of it to have reached critical mass willing to reward the few restaurants willing to try to do something special let alone support more! A special pizza joint here, a special Thai place there--usually special for a while and then usually dumbed-down to meet the low expectations of the surrounding area. I'm happy to read about some exceptions on this thread. But the question always has to be asked: are those who reside there too tolerant of the mediocrity, too accepting of the lowest common denominator cuisine of their areas? I don't know for sure, but the evidence accumulated over time seems to indicate yes. But SBC is a good case in point--I love SBC--and yes, it is still under the Clocktower, still looks like a strip mall storefront (because it is a strip mall storefront) and still run by the same nice husband and wife team. It got a very positive, very accurate review by Sietsema--misunderstood at the time by some--it still offers interesting food and affordable wines and it is still in business. I live in Courthouse, could get into the city in 5 minutes anytime I want, and yet have driven out to this place maybe 7 times to eat since our first thread about them on eGullet. Pick any adjective you want--nice, sincere, humble, chef-driven, affordable, interesting--it still applies. It's the kind of restaurant--chef in the kitchen, minimal help--that any community, any burb, would be lucky to have--in theory. Unfortunately restaurants are businesses, real not theoretical. It seems most of their regulars, most of the "appreciation" they've been able to cultivate, comes from people like me willing to make the drive out to them rather than from locals who live nearby. Their neighborhood support, in other words, isn't as strong as it should be given its price point, given what is on the plate and given its competition. As a result the chef is pushing his investors to move his cafe closer in--say to Clarendon--where he might be more successful. I wish him well whatever he and his investors decide but I believe his story demonstrates what you're all up against out in the burbs. And what chefs and investors are up against when they consider opening out in the burbs. The sad thing is--there ARE plenty of restaurants in Reston/Dulles that open with diners wants and needs in mind doctoro--they're just not the wants and needs of the small percentage of eGulleteers who are capable of appreciating chefs and restaurants on a more-broadly-drawn scale. The majority of diners out your way have spoken--their wants and needs are some combination of: cheap, consistent, kid-friendly, quick, conservative, safe, predictable, mediocre and/or sanitized. And their needs are being met.

Amy, you're a newbie here and that shouldn't be the way you perceive what has happened--most of those responding to your initial post merely want to engage you over specifics--and replied essentially saying "bring a little more to the table." A few poked fun--yes, that was that Russ Parsons--but it was gentle fun. Even he'd be more than willing to engage you on the merits of something--but those merits have to be a little more forthcoming than "lousy" and "horrid." We're lucky to have professionals on all sides of this issue--those doing the writing, editing, those being written about, in major markets and in minor ones. But we're even luckier our membership consists of people like you, who care about food and who have cared about scrutinizing food media on eG since, what, October 2001 when this board was formed? You're a blogger now--one day you might want to get paid for your food writing or take your blog to the next step, attract more of an audience or further define your audience--well, the best thing you can do is weigh in here, share why is it you feel the way you do, and allow others to react. But it is always a two way street. Now you say on your blog that you regularly read the NYTimes and the LATimes food sections--so start there--how much of their writing passes your test--and why? When some of it falls short--why does it fall short? You did raise one specific--kind of--that Gourmet magazine has shifted gears of late and seems to be pursuing a new direction--well, yes, Gourmet has shifted dramatically but it is old news--it's been happening under Reichl for a few years now and it's been discussed on eG all along. What I'd like from you is a few examples of poor writing from this "new" Gourmet--or writing that could have been better--name names--besides just noting that the focus seems to have shifted, that there's more emphasis on celebrity, on glitz, on lifestyle, on shorter attention spans because, well, that's what editors do--they move their product toward whatever demographic they perceive as their audience to keep selling ads--as Mark pointed out earlier. You shouldn't take that personally--it might be moving away from you--and you have every right to complain--but how specifically is the food writing so bad, so lousy, even given this perceived shift? Gourmet also has very little to do with the writing in newspaper food sections, for instance--the margins, the ads, the subscriber base--the businesses, in other words--are totally different, unless you present your thoughts why you feel newspapers and magazines might be intertwined and equally at fault. You praised Bauer in one of your blog entries--how good a job does his Chronicle do on your scale, why or why not? You see--you have to try to define more of the criteria or this discussion will offer little more than a "Rachael Ray--like her, hate her?" flair--and eGullet usually expects more. Not being in touch with the common Joe is not going to get you very far here on eG--but it is at least a start if you flesh it out. How often do you read the Washington Post food section? Are you painting their staff writers Judith Weinraub, Walter Nicholls, Candy Sagon all with the same broad brush? Do you even know who these writers are or have read anything they've written? Have you read any of Kathleen Purvis's section online? I ask because this subject--American food writing--is just so darn vast. Keeping it just to newspapers is still vast. Did you read through the eGullet Q&A we had with Jeanne McManus--the editor of the Washington Post food section? Did you find her arguments concerning the pressures food section editors face in order to serve ALL of their readers credible? The disadvantage you have is that eG has been at this for a while--this whole paying attention to what is written about food and commenting about it--but we do welcome newcomers to the party anytime. I'm sorry if you're misinterpreting this--but everyone really wants to hear why you feel the way you do. A few James Beard award winners and nominees for "American food writing" have challenged your observation on several levels and are just waiting for you to bring more to the table. The blogger in you should be proud. Here's your chance to deliver.

Plus, glazing well is a skill--there can be a big difference in perception between glaze brushed on and glaze sprayed on, for instance. I still remember the day, a long time ago, when Bellouet was in DC for a week and he demonstrated how he arranged decorative fruit for a tart or cake first on the countertop, glazed it there, and then picked it up with a spatula to slide it gently in place on top of a glazed cake--a light bulb went off reinforcing a growing sense I had that there was pastry and baking, and then there was skillful pastry and baking. Up to that point I had just brushed canned apricot glaze directly onto fruit tarts in school. It was the first of many light bulbs to go off. You know your clients best stscam and how they are set up to plate desserts and it's probably too late at this point anyway, but I think I'd have encouraged them to add the fresh berries a la minute--onto some sort of tartlet with filling concept which you've pre-assembled--and avoid the glazing issue altogether. But that brings you back to the protection/drying out issue--you'd have to protect that creamy filling from drying out as well--which then makes me wonder if they wouldn't be better off spooning some cream or curd into each tartlet shell a la minute as well as the berries. Now you're talking an a la minute plated dessert--and would they be set up to handle that?

Wendy, maintaining temper is always the larger issue, it is worth it to spend the time trying to figure out where it is--exactly--you're getting tangled up. And we're available to help you. That said, you do have a few options that aren't equipment-driven a la heating pad, heat gun, warmers. In order of preference--from least likely to screw up and lose temper to most likely to screw up: 1) the simplest if you have no problem tempering initially, you could start with more chocolate than you usually do when you sit down to enrobe--meaning instead of tempering up 3 pounds, temper 5; instead of tempering 5, temper 7--for a given job. A larger amount of chocolate will hold its temperature longer--allowing you to work longer; 2) place a towel under your bowl so it doesn't come in contact with your cool countertop; 3) work with a microwave-safe bowl so you can always zap it for a few seconds if it cools off too quickly; 4) add a small amount of completely un-tempered chocolate (115F) to your bowl and stir well to combine. This chocolate has to be at least 115--not 95, not 105--because for this to work its cocoa butter crystalline structure has to be unlocked. This unlocked, too-warm chocolate will then be shown the way to reform by the larger amount of still-tempered chocolate it is being added to--and as a result--raise the overall temperature of your bowl up a few degrees in the process--which will allow you to keep working! You don't lose initial temper by your chocolate getting too cool--you lose workability and fluidity but it is still "in temper." So what you're looking to do is raise that temperature up slightly--say from 86 or 87 back up to 88-92. It's usually at 92 that one screws up with most brands of chocolate--when you push to 93 you've lost temper and your chocolate won't re-crystallize properly. (You have to start all over again--raising all of this chocolate to 115+ and re-tempering by various methods.) Let's say you are dipping or enrobing truffles--you might find if you rolled those ganache balls in your hands rather than dipping the heat of your hands will allow you to work longer and be more efficient. But what is more efficient will always vary by your environment and working conditions.

I've never, ever, liked it Trish--at least the standard formulations which are carried all over the country. Jacques Torres told me once that he tasted some excellent formulations at their main plant when he visited, and that they are capable of blending some superior couvertures--but I've never tasted them. The Callebaut stuff that's available to most pastry chefs in the distribution channels--with numbers like 811 or 835--is also the stuff that gets broken up and sold bulk-retail to supermarket shoppers--is lowest common denominator stuff--not quite dreck but close. When I first started in pastry, before Callebaut subsumed Cacao Barry--I always thought Cacao Barry tasted and performed much better for the money. For its fairly cheap price point, Callebaut is too thick for a supposed "couverture," it doesn't melt as well as it should, is pasty, dull and somewhat burnt. I'd compare against the Cacao Noel and E. Guittard lines--which I find comparably-priced, much more fluid, flavorful and interesting. The main thing Callebaut has going for it is inertia--it has become a huge conglomerate, its Callebaut brand has been in wide distribution for a long time and it was most likely the first chocolate a chef or pastry chef or cookbook writer used. Old habits die hard.

Yeah, but even tartaric and citric acids are perfectly edible. Tartaric acid is in wine, it's in tamarind; citric acid is in, well, lemons and other tart fruits but if you read labels you'd probably be surprised how many things it is in. And many of the old-school French sugar artists, the guys who never wore gloves, just squeezed some lemon juice into their sugar and off they went pulling or blowing.

It's all technically edible Pan--with or without isomalt--I believe Ted meant most traditional sugar work for showpieces wasn't usually meant to be eaten--pulled and blown sugar is like glass and can break into sharp edges and the same thing with pastillage--it's technically edible but bone dry, hard, sharp edges if broken and in some recipes you can have small percentages of an acid or vinegar. If you haven't yet reformed a sugar or caramel powder back into a tuile Ted you're missing out on something special.

Tammy--do you buy them pre-packaged/mailorder or do you walk into stores and pick by the piece?

http://www.isomaltusa.com/whatis.htm http://www.caloriecontrol.org/isomalt.html http://www.theingredients.co.uk/Palatinit%...somalt_Main.htm On this page Palatinit talks about different designations of isomalt tailored for specific applications: http://www.theingredients.co.uk/Palatinit%...t_Portfolio.htm It will be interesting to see if any of this DC, LM or GS gets distributed on the wholesale level in the US. I suspect we've only gotten the traditional (ST) granular stuff and those other formulations will only be sold industrially--to huge candy and chocolate makers.

I think it depends who you talk to, Ted. I know what I'd tell you (though it is manufactured by a bunch of different, mostly German, companies, it's all E953) and I have worked with both the Uster isomalt and the ParisGourmet decomalt. It performs identically. When you get a chance, call your sales reps up and ask them--what do they say?--and report back with their responses.

Determining one best is always self-defeating. Of the more established players already mentioned--Torres, Payard, Burdick, La Maison du Chocolat--all are still essential choices, all with established lines. Skillful, clean flavors, professional, respectfully French, somewhat safe, leaning toward an American audience. I've bought them all, enjoyed them for different reasons, and will continue to do so. I also really like buying other professionals work--and to the list of the best I've had recently consider a few smaller startups--in the past year I've really enjoyed work from Wegmans/Pierre Herme, Drew Shotts, Pat Coston and this little outfit called Chuao. I found myself in Encinitas and found them--very good work, nicely enrobed. Here are their links: https://www.wegmans.com/ocs/sweets.asp https://www.chuaochocolatier.com/index2.html http://www.theartofchocolate.com/ http://garrisonconfections.com/ Wegmans might pack the best punch overall with respect to price to value to quality. I haven't had any chocolate mailorder from Robert Bennett of Miel Patisserie yet--but I'd trust the chocolate line and the pastry professionalism of this chef implicitly, if he were set up to ship: http://www.mielpatisserie.com/index.htm Haven't had Donnelly or Rechiutti in a while, and am not current with how commercial their lines may have become, but once upon a time their stuff was also very good--and they used very good chocolates, like Valrhona, El Rey and Sharffen Berger. As far as some others, I'm neutral to indifferent, for various reasons, on Martines, Li-Lac, MarieBelle (even though Jacques makes it), Christopher Norman and buying from off-premise outlets--either due to pre-packaging, mishandling by poorly-trained counter staff, inadequate stock turnover, sitting on the shelves too long, using inferior chocolate (like CN using Schokinag.) Be careful--there can be old, dull chocolate out there. There are better options than these and/or more attractive pricing to be had. I also don't recommend Vosges at all. Better to look at for free, that way you don't have to wildly over-pay for fantastic package design housing inferior workmanship and gimmickry.

To what Nicole already asked you to consider, I'll add: Which chocolate are you using? Are you using a couverture--and dipping into a bowl of thin, loose chocolate at 92F--or are you dipping into a thicker, cooler bowl of chocolate--and as a result getting a too-thick coating of chocolate on your caramels? That can be your problem because that thick wall will not cool properly--chocolates wants to be thin--and cool quickly--what happens in this case, when you dip too cool, is the outside cools first, faster, appears to set up--but the inside chocolate stays warm and interferes with proper setting. But that also speaks to your tempering ability--so rule that out first. If I were problem-solving for you, I'd try to determine whether it is your tempering ability or whether it has something to do with enrobing the caramel centers--meaning, do something with your chocolate to see if it blooms apart from enrobing the caramels. Take a temper test--by dragging a piece of parchment into the chocolate--and setting that aside. If that strip stays fine--sets up at room temperature, shiny, no bloom--then you know it is your process, not your chocolate. If your temper strip stays fine at your room temperature--then your bon bons should stay fine as well. Next--what temperature are your caramel centers? The most common mistake is dipping something too cool, which can shock the chocolate, even if it is tempered. (The second and third most common mistakes causing bloom or improper setting are 2) dipping something with a slight bead of moisture on it and 3) shocking the dipped chocolates by thrusting them into a fridge, also where moisture can collect on the center.) Rule those out first, and then we can consider some other more nuanced possibilities: 1) Lack of humidity. Seeing as it is winter, you may have to adjust a little bit when it is bone dry. Lack of humidity can be as troublesome as too much humidity when it comes to tempering. 2) Over-activated chocolate--meaning your chocolate is in temper but you've stirred it too much and agitated too many bonds into forming too soon. But again, before you go there--let's make sure your tempering is not the problem, that you're using an appropriate courverture and that your caramels are at the right temperature before dipping.

Larry--chai is usually more complex than ginger, cinnamon, nutmeg and cloves...and yes you can easily infuse your own tea and spice concentrate and use it in various ways, including to flavor ganache. Here's an old recipe of mine from when chefette and I started pairing chocolate and chai back in 1997: http://204.57.86.137/new//recipes/recipe_a...reme_brule.html just to give you a rough idea of a possible "chai" blend. You might try this, ground and infused in 2 C cream for your ganache: 5 t black tea, 10 green cardamom pods, 10 cloves, 3" cinnamon stick, 1 t black peppercorns, 1 bay leaf, 1/2 t grated nutmeg, 4 thin slices ginger and then adjust to your taste and to the particular milk or dark chocolate you're using. It's always better to use whole spice and loose tea. A nice touch can be to sprinkle a little of the chai dust on your finished bon bon, but that makes the flavor a little more pronounced.