Steve Klc

Darren, yes, the bar strategy is a good one. When my wife calls me to help get her a table at the last minute I tell her, just go to the bar. We've heard from bar aficionados on this site that Zaytinya does good bar. I concur but then I'd never try to eat at Z. on a weekend night anyway. I'm asleep by the time the action starts, I'm afraid. "Perhaps Steve can explain this dish in more detail, but it really is amazing combination of flavors and textures." I think you did a great job 'splaining this dish Monkey--hearing your gf liked it, that the flavors weren't jarring for her but familiar makes my night--did you get it in the new clear glass bowl? I preferred the old white bowls, the same white china line El Bulli used, but too many of them broke since October with the volume the restaurant does. That's by far the most popular dessert there--and that's saying something. It is not too sweet. Granted it is chocolate but with anise and Raki and cardamom its popularity just might begin to belie DC's reputation for not having an adventurous palate. I think DC just might be becoming less conservative after 20 years or so! Some keys to the dessert which aren't listed on the menu are 1) the chocolate--exclusively E. Guittard 72%, 2) that little pinch of "spice" sprinkled at the end--and yes it contains toasted sesame seeds and fleur de sel but also little bits of candied orange rind. If I'm actually sprinkling these bits on you can rest assured I'd put exactly precisely 3 salt grains, 12 sesame seeds and 5 orange rind bits each and every time. (Yeah right.) When I'm not there, well, good help is hard to find. Only kidding. But in some restaurants I do have them pre-portion this sprinkle mixture in little plastic cups with lids--here we do so many of them it's reach in, grab a pinch, sprinkle it on. But getting some salt is key--I don't like to talk about that, since everyone and their brother are putting salt on desserts, but with this dark chocolate (and with caramel, too) it really works; 3) not over-whipping, not over-aerating the cardamom espuma is key, which is just a creme anglaise infused with cardamom; 4) using good espresso, La Nizza blend from La Colombe for the espresso/Raki sauce--which is just espresso, Raki and thickened with a little pectin. The cake we've talked a lot about on the site, it is "a la Conticini" (not Jean-Georges and not Bras) baked for only a few minutes at very high heat (500) in an exclusive aluminum timbale mold by JB Prince in NY which heats up very very quickly. That's what gives you the texture contrast between outside wall and inside. Al D--that little understated Santorini fava is one of my favs--and yes, it does seem to be made like hummos whizzing it up in the RoboCoupe--and last time I had it it was sprinkled with red onion, capers, diced egg, some parsley and olive oil. But that might vary. (The chef sprinkle box is right next to the Pacojet on the line and the dessert sprinkle boxes are just to the right of that. Hopefully you won't get pistachio/sea salt/orange rind mix on your fava. If you did, that might test your limits of calling Jose a genius. And he is every bit deserving of that tag.) You both could easily do versions of these at home. And I think the thing about some of those grilled meat dishes that gets me--like the shish taouk--is the spice on those onions. Sumac powder. One of these days I'll be doing a dessert with sumac, it's very very intriguing.

I spent some time with Eliseo (and his daughter, who is also a skilled pastry artist) in Italy four years or so back, I was there invited to give a chocolate demonstration in Rimini at a big professional pastry show--and Eliseo and his family hosted me, made sure I ate at all the right restaurants and had all the equipment I needed. We really had to scramble, though--all my chocolate work, molds, equipment, tools, colors, etc. were flagged and held up in London when I connected on to Bologna. And this was pre-9/11. So there I was in Italy, I don't speak Italian, under pressure to do something artistic and interesting for all these European pastry chefs with nothing. Eliseo helped me round stuff up, introduced me to a few Italian pastry chefs who helped me out, like Frederic Bourse, and also the wonderful editor of Pasticceria Internazionale, Livia Chiriotti, who also helped me beg and borrow what I needed. There I was this one dumb American amidst all these great Spanish, German, French, Italian and Swiss pastry chefs trying to find someone with a common language--whatever it might be--in order to communicate with another pastry chef or chocolatier through a common language. Fortunately for me Bernd Siefert of Germany, Livia and Frederic spoke English and could pass my comments to someone else who just spoke French, etc. And I came back home regretting I let most of my Spanish from college lapse. But it's situations like that--and by the way what you are going through now-- that reinforce your confidence because you never know what equipment or environment you'll have to temper chocolate in--and as a pro you just have to be able to adapt. If you spent time with Eliseo you were very lucky--he is so knowledgeable and giving, I absorbed a lot from him and I don't speak any Italian and he doesn't speak any English. Taking a class on chocolate in Europe, especially at their professional schools, say a CAST Alimenti or Yssingeaux, can be challenging, since they operate at a whole other level, and in several languages to boot. Maybe you didn't get all you needed from Eliseo, but one day you might be in a better position to appreciate what you did get.

Hannah--what dark chocolate are you using? Is it a couverture? (meaning a high percentage of cocoa butter, >31%?) Not all dark chocolate is "couverture." If you're not using a couverture, which is designed specifically for tempering that could account for some of your difficulty. Some that amateur and pro alike temper are Valrhona Grand Crus like Guanaja, Valrhona Caraque, Cocoa Noel, Cacao Barry "Favorites mi amere"which is a 58% but has alot of cocoa butter, Cacao Barry 64%, the E. Guittard 61% or 72%--these are all "couvertures" and all easily temperable, meaning they'll get fluid right away. You might be working with a chocolate designed to be thick and fudgy--usually a cheaper, inferior chocolate, without a lot of cocoa butter or perhaps called "ganache chocolate" in the trade, and yes, you'll have difficulty tempering "ganache chocolate." Ganache chocolate is created to be thick. And for your other questions, yes, couverture chocolate melts before 90--that's how you are able to direct warm it to 90 and start working with it; yes, humidity can really screw up your ability to temper and work with chocolate no matter which method you employ, especially anything about say 35/40% ambient humidity in your workspace will affect the fluidity and viscosity negatively. In my lab I run an air conditioner and a de-humifier set to 40% constantly and this week I have been doing a lot of chocolate work, some artistic pieces for the American Museum of Natural History, and both of these have been running constantly since it has been rainy and 100% humidity; and yes, chocolate that has been heated too high (for dark, say over 120/125 degrees) is ruined for tempering at least because you will probably overheat and fuse some sugar crystals and there are other things that you can do to it as well--so instead use it for brownies! In addition to high humidity, as we've discussed on this thread, chocolate thickens from overuse as well--lots and lots of stirring--in addition to over-heating. All of these could be coming into play in your various attempts and explorations so far. As you've learned by doing--there are pitfalls, but you are identifying them one by one. You're learning that the kind of chocolate you use is important, that chocolate is sensitive to temperature and that 90 degrees is really not that warm--it's ten degrees below body temp right? Wean yourself from a thermometer once you know what your chocolate looks like and acts like at 90 and 120. Get familiar with one brand of dark and learn its unique personality and performance. You'll get there, you just have to try again, probably with a different chocolate, a microwave with a turntable, with pistoles--or all three. (BTW--who taught you in Italy, was it Eliseo Tonti?)

That's an OK milk chocolate hannah, it's thick but temperable, but here's the thing--milk is tougher for a beginner to temper and work with. Milk is always softer, less snappy, even when it's in temper. Usually, it is best to get comfortable working with dark chocolate--which is more fluid and crystallizes better and goes through all the stages better--than milk--because it has much more cocoa butter in it. Then once you're comfortable working with dark try milk or white, which doesn't have the same comfort zone as dark does. Learn with a dark chocolate couverture first. Then you write this: "I have NOT managed to successfully temper it manually. In today's attempt I used the bain marie approach, melted it to 41ish just fine, then attempted to cool simply by removing from heat and seeding the chocolate (using a mixture of new chocolate chunks and the previously melted lumps from other attempts)." And bingo--we have a winner: you can't "seed" this way. You'll never get back into temper by seeding with "a mixture of new chocolate chunks and previously melted lumps from other attempts." You can only seed with brand spankin new chocolate, preferably pistoles but yes chopped new chunks will work. By adding the older, out of temper, leftover lumps you are introducing chocolate that will not re-crystallize properly. That stuff will stay in your mixture, as you cool it down, and stay out of temper, and screw up all your work with it. So, we've accomplished something--that was an error you can correct, try again and you now know what not to do and why not to do it. That's why there is that upper temperature of 116+ so at that temp you unlock all the various cocoa butter crystalline bonds. In this case, you're adding improperly bonded chocolate--and those bonds stay misshapen if not re-broken by heating to 116/120. I agree with Elaine that tempering chocolate is easy--until something goes wrong with the "method" you've decided to use and then you're left with not really knowing how to fix it and not really knowing why you went wrong. Elaine's right--working alongside someone who can show you what you should be doing and what the chocolate should look like at each stage--seeing and doing is always easier than reading--and also that this shouldn't be taking you so long Hannah. And once you get more confident it won't. I still think what might be holding you back is you're 1) "learning" on milk and that might be self-defeating and 2) trying to deal with two problems simultaneous--you and your new machine. Get comfortable doing it manually then get the machine to do what you do manually. Machines aren't a substitute for your understanding what's going on. Many pros now direct warm in the microwave, as Elaine advocates, it's a method that was first taught in Europe 15-20 years ago when manufacturers, like Cacao Barry, converted from 11# block production to boxes of pistole production and that pastry chefs have been using ever since--where each and every pistole was perfectly in temper and could be shaken out into a bowl and microwaved evenly. As we've mentioned here often, direct warming isn't tempering--it's microwaving your chocolate with short zaps of power and gradually heating it up to a workable temperature--so say from room temp of 72 up to 90 for dark chocolate. In essence you're keeping it in temper, it was in temper all along and you're just retaining its temper. So by all means try this a few times. Zap for 20-30 seconds, take out your bowl and stir, put it back in and zap some more, etc. Here are a few caveats to keep in mind though lest you thought this was so simple: 1) you might have difficulty doing this with chopped up block chocolate. See, the blocks are molded very thickly and don't always cool evenly when they set up. Cut open a block and you'll see it is not perfectly shiny and smooth all the way through. Chop this up, direct warm it to 90 and take a temper test and bingo, you have streaks no matter how often you stir it. You'll have streaking and dullness likely in your final product. Some pastry chefs just put whole blocks in a warming cabinet (or in their oven with a pilot light on) and then direct warm their chocolate overnight that way up to 90. Sometimes this works--but sometimes it doesn't and when it doesn't it's usually because there's that small percentage of chocolate in that block that hasn't cooled and set properly--then you have to take all this up to 120 and temper using any method you understand--like seeding, tableiring, cooling down in an ice bath; 2) this direct warming method doesn't work as well in a bain marie or work as well in a microwave without a turntable. Try it, but if it doesn't work, it's because the heat isn't as evenly and consistently applied as it is in the microwave with a turntable even if you stir well; which leads you to 3) what happens if you mistakenly direct warm your chocolate pistoles in your bowl over 92, instead going to 93 or 94? Then you are out of temper. What you do at this point is up to you--most pros would then heat that bowl up to 120--unlocking all the cocoa butter crystals again--and then seed back down. But only "seed" with brand spankin new pistoles. And you need to know how to temper all this leftover chocolate you're going to accumulate because you will have leftover chocolate. And none of this leftover chocolate can be direct-warmed again--only pristine new out of the box chocolate can be direct warmed. So even when you succeed with the easy, simple straightforward method of direct warming--you still need to be able to go beyond that. It's these "potential" problems, these little tempermental aspects that often get glossed over and leave you hanging when the simple method doesn't work out. But there is no substitute for doing over and over again and eventually you will identify where you are getting hung up. The take home: direct warming in the microwave works with new pistoles and you get one shot at keeping it under 92. (This is for dark chocolate, milk chocolate temperature ranges are lower and will be more difficult for you to hit accurately.) Try direct warming and re-try your previous "seeding" attempt but this time only seed with new stuff. I'm hoping for two successes! Oh, and yes, if you're "seeding" a bowl of 120F chocolate down, you don't have to go all the way down to 80 and then back up--just seed it down to working range--88 to 90--and then take a temper test. If it's in temper, just start working. I agree with Mike when he answers: "The reason that you rewarm it, is because it can become to thick to work with after the cooling. If its in a state that works for you, then you don't have to rewarm it." This applies to any bowl of tempered chocolate you are working with--say it cools to 86 and you need it at 91 to dip--just zap it for a few seconds in the microwave, stir, and you're good to go, as long as you don't take it over 92. But--that low point on that oft-repeated temper curve of heat way up, cool way down, heat up slightly, which might be confusing you, is a key step for other methods--like tabliering or cooling down in an ice bath--and the reason you don't have to go down to that low point with seeding is because you are adding "tempered" chocolate back in as the seed mix. With tabliering and the ice water bath you are not introducing seed chocolate--so you do have to generally go up, down and up with those methods--if you don't go all the way down to full crystallization and setting--if you don't get something thickened--these methods will not work. And while direct warming is great--eventually you get to a point where you have all this used chocolate lying around and you want to use it. And these are the methods you will have to employ when you have no brand new chocolate to seed with or to direct warm. So long term, there's no escaping acquiring a full knowledge of the ins and outs of all these methods--direct warming, seeding, tabling, ice bath--so you understand what is going on with each method. That way you can adapt to your situation and environment and temper with any chocolate you have on hand. And this take a while to embrace, too much, too soon can be overwhelming. Relax as Elaine suggests, try direct warming in the microwave; then try seeding again later-- warm that chocolate up, seed again but just seed down to working temp with "new" chocolate and report back!

OK, first off, a machine is not a substitute for knowing how to temper, knowing the ins and outs of tempering and being able to do it consistently by hand. And "knowing" how to do it versus being able to do it are different things sometimes, especially when it is warm and humid in your kitchen. Let's rule that out in your case, it will make things easier. There are some potentially misleading things on this thread, at some point as people weigh back in, try the methods and tips, we might uncover them and solve some problems, as stuff works (yeah seawakim!) and doesn't work for people trying what has been recommended here. In your case, let's not get too far ahead: 1. What exact milk chocolate are you using? How old is it? 2. Have you successfully tempered this particular milk chocolate manually and can you do it repetitively? If so, how have you done it? Seeding, direct warming? 3. Do you have a thermometer to check your temperatures and to see how the machine lines up with a second opinion? By the way, tempering milk is difficult, more difficult than tempering dark. And yes, all the guideline temperatures for milk chocolate (and white chocolate) should be lower than dark chocolate and you really risk damagae by overheating milks and whites. So if your rough dark numbers are heat to 45C--cool down to 27--raise and work at 32 (116F--80--90), your milk numbers should be roughly 40C--26--30. Depends on the chocolate variety--some are higher, some darks you can work with at 92F. Most good tempering machines allow you to program other temperature cycles in--one for dark, usually pre-set, which I suspect is the one you are using and others for white, milk, etc. Not all dark chocolate tempers at the same points, so some allow you to set a few degrees up or down in the range if you want your chocolate for dipping versus molding, etc. But that's advanced stuff. We'll deal with the machine, the programming quirks, after the basics. But quickies: "what do I do when I have lots of leftover melted choc that may or may not have been tempered correctly? Can I just let it harden then pop it back into the machine and start all over?" Yes, just chop it up first before you add it back to the machine. If your not going to be using your machine for a while, it's more efficient to start off with melted chocolate--don't use the machine to melt it from solid, it will take forever. Microwave or bain marie it and then add it alreaady melted. "how do I temper already melted chocolate that has been sitting around for awhile? Do I need to add seed choc and bring it up to melting temp again, or what?" Always return your out-of-temper melted chocolate to 45C to begin the process all over again--which could then involve "seeding"--but "seeding" is one way you cool the 45C chocolate down. You don't "seed" chocolate that you are planning to warm. With me? A CAVEAT: there is a difference between chocolate that has been sitting around for awhile--but is in temper--and chocolate of unknown origin that is melted but not necessarily in temper. In the first case, you have a bowl of tempered chocolate, you're working with it, and it gets cooler--BUT IT IS STILL IN TEMPER. It is just too cool to work with--in this case, just warm it a few degrees but do not go over the upper limit of your working range--say 92F--and the chocolate will still be in temper, still work, still be fine. With just a bowl of melted chocolate--that you didn't temper and that you have no idea about--always raise the whole bowl to 116F or 120 or so and then begin the tempering process. Still with me? "how many times can I put the same chocolate through the tempering process?" After once or twice, after stirring and stirring, your chocolate will thicken slightly, if you whiz it with an immersion blender it will be thicker--so your best bet is to blend in some pure, tempered, new chocolate so it is more fluid, more workable. It's usually not a good idea to dip in "old" chocolate--use old chocolate for molding, showpieces, ganache, liquid center cakes, etc.

Heather--I've had surprisingly wonderful Bertucci's pizza and wonderful customer service at Virginia and New Jersey locations--for what they are aiming for and their price point--and then an awful experience at one DC location--so I think it depends on the particular owners, employees and local clientele. Give them another chance--Bertucci's can be very good, very consistent, flavorful, adequately cooked crust and much better than any of the other pizza chains and franchises. Very accomodating for children, some good apps and salads and pastas, too. (I enjoy the pizzas more than the pastas, so on that I haven't had as much luck as Dave.) The NJ (on Rte. 1 & 9 in Woodbridge) and VA locations (on Rte. 7 near Tysons--now gone) were freestanding and run like extant restaurants, owner/managers on site and meaning they knew locals and families and repeat customers were coming there to eat not to kill time; my bad DC experience was in a Mall, near Kinkeads and Tower records--was the White Flint Bertucci's actually in the Mall? I don't do the Maryland thing too much but would suspect you're at a big disadvantage at any given price point, any cuisine, simply by its location within a Mall. Nothing is as good as it should be in and around Tysons, for instance, even given what they are aiming for.

Zeb--do you mean Laboratorio or Galileo when you're making your comparison?

Katie--I'm not laughing, I applaud your creativity, inventiveness and problem-solving. You're a smart cookie and might have the makings of a good pastry chef if you ever decide to switch from the front to the back. Once there, though, you would have to make this from scratch.

Spencer, here you go again. This is somewhat troublesome: "This cooking is peripherally satisfying but when taken head on, dissected for what it is, it isn't soul satisfying, or built to last...at least to me." You see, "this cooking" is a slur, a slight, the tame culinary equivalent of some stereotype. Whose cooking are you talking about, who are you attempting to lump together with this--as if we're supposed to understand who and what you're talking about? Who is being painted by this Flat Earth Society brush of yours? (And this is just the first hurdle before one tries to deal with what your definition of "soul satisfying" might be and the potential value you might see in something "built to last.") On this thread, ostensibly about Grant, and on other threads you try to poke fun broadly at all of these seemingly strange sounding permutations, these apparent culinary revulsions and fancy-schmancy new techniques to defend your point of view--but you don't actually cross over from this oblique make-believe world of yours to comment or critique real dishes and real chefs--and share your reaction to those real dishes good or bad. Why? Don't you see how your voice, and statements about "this cooking" would carry so much more weight if, just like Bourdain, you spoke of actual dishes and meals you had at the hands of these chefs or any chef, but unlike Tony, you didn't praise said dishes but instead ripped them a new one for not being soul-satisfying or whatever--if in actuality they weren't? What misguided concoctions, post-modern, avant-garde or otherwise, have you had and at whose hands have you suffered to feel so certain about these "gimmicks" and by inference gimmicky chefs? School us, historically, on some of the distaste you've endured at the hands of bad crippin' chefs here or abroad and please name names. Because when you write something like this: "I can't abide when a blood wants to turn into a crip because they think it's cool to make foie gras tacos with pommegranite-foam, shaved abalone, and sous-vided caramelized dairy because some guy in Spain is doing it" you sound like you know what you're talking about, but I'd like to know WHO you are talking about since you're speaking disparagingly of other chef's motivations behind the particular dishes they create. I may be guilty of holding you to a higher standard--if that is unfair or unrealistic I apologize--but if so that's precisely because you are a professional chef and you should know better. You can cook from Adria's CD-ROM, you can begin to explore his techniques in the privacy of your kitchen, you can experience Grant's cooking first-hand with a more nuanced, more appreciative perspective because you are a chef, you can eat at Tru and assess how Adria has already heavily influenced and re-energized Rick, etc., presumably because you'd have a better handle on how things have been done or are usually done--because you've done them! Bourdain mentioned Wylie Dufresne, describing some of his most challenging dishes as delicious, but actually Tony seems to reinforce, perhaps unintentionally, the accepted media mantra that only a few very special geniuses, the chosen few, can pull any meaningful "fusion" or "avant-garde" or evolution off. The inference being that the rest can't. And that's just another subtle way to retain a hold on the status quo, to "categorize" as MatthewB wrote so successfully about. Me? I see a lot of creative modern cooking going on, informed by "terroirist, cook-from-the-region reference tradition sense memory crowd"--it's just that I view that as very inclusive. And stuff either is delicious or it isn't, right? Which brings me back to why you feel the way you do about "this cooking," Spencer. And I find I don't know enough of the "why" in your case because you haven't talked about specific chefs and specific dishes that so utterly displeased you to cause you to lash out, to swing so wildly about and slur the very good work of an increasing number of chefs around the country who really are just doing their own thing.

Too bad all those people PM'ing you with their comments aren't posting publicly, we'd have a nice thread going. I'm not prepared to say Citronelle or Maestro is "closer" to Trotter cuisine (I'd hate to compare Michel or Fabio that way) but I never assumed you were looking for Trotter East. I think more people in the position to know would probably consider Michel to be the better chef and Michel's food the better food of the three--but I don't want to divert this, and a "restaurant experience" is much more than who is the better chef anyway. The Gourmet list--you mean the old one of two years or so ago? That ranking was, well, problematic for many of us eGulleteers at the time. (It wasn't as specious as the UK-based Restaurant Magazine list, though.) Do you remember if Kinkeads was on that list as well from DC? Remember which restaurant was voted #1? Chez Panisse, if it's the one I'm thinking of, and that should tell you all you need to know. Maestro was too new to be included, but really, unless you go to both while you are here you will be missing out in some respect--Citronelle has reigned longer, but Maestro has made a strong impression with modern, interesting food in a very short time and has made a substantial commitment to wine and wine service. I don't know that you could make a decision either way that you aren't going to regret or second-guess somehow. I'd probably steer you toward Citronelle, even though I have never had the consummate, professional level of service at Citronelle, except when I sat at the chef's table, that I think a restaurant in that class and at that price point should provide day in and day out. Genius that Michel is in the kitchen, I've had inconsistent, aloof or indifferent service too often there--I've also had one of the handful of best meals in my life there when seated at the chef's table, which is in the kitchen. Not that any of this is any guarantee for you.

The thing is, you can't not eat at Citronelle at least once. I last ate there in November, they have a newish pastry chef (Suzanne Imaz) and I'll be looking forward to your assessment of her work. I have "heard" she may be leaving and moving to Chicago. Obelisk is a very strong recommendation, and a bargain for the price, $58 I believe these days, and not directly comparable to Citronelle or Maestro. Now that you've settled on Citronelle--though I'd still recommend Maestro--Obelisk would be a good choice in that small restaurant category for some very personal and not pretentious cooking--consider Obelisk or Palena, and both would be easy from your downtown hotel. Sietsema just praised the new little plates of Palena, all under 9 bucks. Seems the mezze and tapas idea continues to catch on all over the place. Obelisk and Palena are probably the closest DC comes to a Blue Hill or Django (Philly).

Call them to see if they have a deuce when you'll be here: 202.293.7191

Zagat? It's easy if you want the tourist foodie high-end dining rundown. Brig, knowing you're coming from Chicago and have Trotter and Trio under your belt, put Citronelle and Maestro #1 and #2 as your top two glam prestige foodie spots, followed by Laboratorio (NOT Galileo) in third and skip the Inn, which isn't quite on the same radar food-wise. You almost certainly would find it pleasant but boring. Here's a link to a recent nice article on Michel Richard by Judith Weinraub: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2003May13.html

Did you sit downstairs or was it crowded enough that they sat people upstairs? Noisy at all? Street outside still dug up? Let's hope d'OC sustains things once the reviews come out.

Katie--am I to infer you and your foodie self have never been to a Wegmans before, never made the drive to the by now "old" Princeton store to check them out? I'm shocked, shocked I say, but welcome you to the higher plane of supermarket reality. From the reports so far, I sense some criticism/comparisons of Wegmans with respect to price. That's not primarily what Wegmans is about--if you shop price primarily--don't go to Wegmans. You won't get it. Wegmans is about depth of selection, variety, quality--sustained across all categories--that is fairly priced based on that sustained depth, variety and quality--all offered under one roof--and as Katie elaborated on--with wonderful, attentive, encouraging customer service. (I haven't ever been to CM, but since logistically it's not anywhere near the East coast, that's a comparison for the future.) Against its competition in this marketplace, most notably Whole Foods, Wegmans is an unparalleled combination of depth, variety, quality and price. Mark, I'm saddened by your local Wegmans experience, perhaps that store is not supported by the community to the extent the Princeton store is? We've had other threads where variability within a chain has been noted--especially within Whole Foods. That said Katie, you did not mention whether this particular store has an in-house Herme pastry program, like Princeton? If not, that's a terrible loss for patrons of this store. Indeed, any Wegmans without the Herme pastry kitchen and boutique would be too depressing for me to shop at and earn my eternal enmity.

Heather--have you stayed current with Sietsema's opinion of du Coin? Has he mentioned them, and any deterioration, in any of his chats?

Spence--what you've revealed to me on this thread is that 1) you have a somewhat closed mind when it comes to food and 2) you're too willing to criticize something without experiencing it. That's too bad. "I hope someone like me would slap me back to reality with a meat mallet. You can make anything edible, just dunk the shit in some butter. It's stupid, and an immature world view of cooking. It may be a valid art form to some, and it probably is, but that ain't food. Food is not art. Food is flavor, comfort, memory, experience. It's not just experience. Some people on here have a hard time assimilating that." Here's what you might not be assimilating--when you--or any chef or diner--defines "what food is" for another chef you are closing yourself off inherently (and un-necessarily) to the experience and to learning or appreciating something in a different way. Taste it first and then decide for yourself whether it constitutes your definition of food. Like Tony Bourdain you've embraced Keller, which is of course an easy, predictable hug, now open yourself up to the rest of the Tony experience of the past few years, as he got out and discovered high end cooking and the talent and differences at the high end that had managed to elude him during his career. You say on this thread you love Adria, but you haven't revealed to me you have any actual appreciation for what Adria is about--just what you perceive him to be from media reports--because based on my exposure to Albert and Ferran and cooking from their books and recipes and embracing their techniques and thought process--Grant with this pine dish is doing exactly what they might do or what a Michel Bras might do with pine. End of story. It's self-defeating and self-contradictory to work yourself up into an extended public lather about Grant and this pine dish--especially since you've never tried it nor Grant's cooking. And conceptually, it's something at least one of your other pillars--Adria--would try in a heartbeat. So hero worship is all well and good, but if that worship is as blind as you seem pre-emptively judgemental and dismissive, I'm sad for you because you'll be denying yourself all sorts of new pleasures and experiences at the hands of others. Try the dish, say whether it was good or not, and then say it's not food.

You touched on something important Tommy--a good chef can make anyone, sitting at any table in the restaurant, feel like they are sitting at a "chef's table" with a few well-chosen words or actions. It isn't necessarily about where the chef's table is located. It's about graciousness and hospitality. Sometimes there is a premium attached, sometimes not. And it's up to indivdual diners to decide for themselves if that premium is worth it.

Yeah Michael, you can hook your airbrush up to an aerosol can with an adapter. Good for short-term spot airbrushing, it freezes up if you use it too long. Might guess is this is what night was talking about.

Night--spraying chocolate works best with "high volume-low pressure" so the one I have is 4 PSI and 54 CFM. And generally, it's more a function of thinning the chocolate mixture--with cocoa butter--just as one might have to thin paint before being able to spray successfully.

The Campbell-Hausfeld sprayer you linked to on the Prince site is fantastic for the price. A HUGE step up, a HUGE improvement from the Wagner, which is a piece of shit. A lot of the top people--and especially those who have to do chocolate showpieces--have used this Campbell hausfeld for years and I still use it. And I've even bought a second gun for it so I can keep two colors or spray blends ready to spray without cleaning the gun. You usually can buy this model cheaper at Home Depot--but then it is easier just to add it on to a purchase order with the other stuff you're buying from Prince like molds and tools, etc. You also wouldn't get the "how to spray chocolate" instruction sheet from Prince if you bought it at Home Depot. (I wrote that instruction sheet btw.) Spraying still has value for applications in volume kitchens like a shop or hotel, if you have to do cakes or banquet desserts or patisserie de main--little takeaways that you don't want to glaze. It also has value if you have to do centerpieces or showpieces. If you are a restaurant pastry chef and don't intend to do showpieces--you don't need it; you're money would be better spent elsewhere and on other equipment. It also has value if you do confectionery work--you can spray color or chocolate into molds very cleanly and nicely--blend them easily and much more efficiently than flicking color in off the end of a toothbrush. What's the "model" that you've supposedly heard poor reports about? The model I use--the Campbell-Hausfeld EasySpray HVLP system rocks and is very lightweight. The separate compressor systems are more expensive and much more of a commitment, usually heavier and less transportable. So it's a trade off. Ewald had this huge torpedo like compressor that he wheeled around his school. It's micro-fine spray was more fine than the CH. Great for him, unworkable for anyone else. The challenge for you will be to find a small unit for under 250 bucks that works like an airbrush but sprays chocolate.

Macrosan--on the rhubarb front, Pierre Reboul at Blue Hill is doing a nice clean rhubarb soup right now--did you pay a visit to them while you were in town? Pierre was doing some of the best desserts in the city when he was at Vong and now he's cooking with Dan and Mike. Which just makes Blue Hill an even stronger recommendation.

Re-send your question Darren or hold it for the eGullet Q&A. Here's the link to Tom's Poste: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?n...file&id=1075800 A question, do they promote the cheese element somehow? What led you to expect a cheese effort?

Given your "Italian" criteria Hal, which can mean many things to many different people and price ranges, and given that I'm not much of a fan of the higher-end cooking currently in that Dupont Circle/Adams Morgan/U Street--meaning I think you can get better cooking, better value, more interesting food and better dining experiences elsewhere, in other neighborhoods--there's one "Italian" restaurant you should consider that isn't the obvious high-end recommendations of Laboratorio (in your requested area) or Maestro (not in your area): and that's Obelisk, simple, small, unpretentious, and a relative dining bargain on P Street. Especially convenient if you plan to cruise in on the Metro Red line. If they have room for you, and if you aren't looking for the swank and glamour, Obelisk appeals in a unique way in this city especially to diners not prone to overpraise the next new thing. You'd spend at least twice the Obelisk check amount at Laboratorio or Maestro, if that is at all a consideration. Obelisk has been mentioned here and we've linked to an article on it by a local writer, Emily Kaiser, on other threads. There's pretty current info about all these restaurants online, in the Washington Post site and on the Washingtonian magazine site. (Unlike the info about Cafe Atlantico linked to above--that specific review capsule is very dated.) Also, something to consider: I have heard Maestro has begun a somewhat restrictive, some might say onerous, credit card/cancellation policy of late--you have to cancel 72 hours in advance or you will be charged. I'd make sure you are comfortable with that policy, that you understand it completely before faxing them back with your info.) An occasional user here is a Chowhound regular, Joe H., who has compared Maestro to El Bulli, so perhaps this policy is worth it to some. El Bulli, however, has a more customer friendly cancellation policy. Joe's also extensively documented all his wonderful meals at Laboratorio and Maestro and is a big fan of them--he has linked to his threads at Chowhound as well. You should read them and investigate the cancellation policy if you're considering either venue. Not Italian but in your requested dining area--if you're visiting this weekend you will be out of luck, since this new Dupont Circle restaurant doesn't open until next Tuesday--but I'm waiting to try David Greggory, which is on 2030 M Street, NW (202-872-8700) If you're not adverse to trying something brand new, this might be interesting. It's the new joint effort of two well-regarded local chefs. New, not Italian but French, but in that hot Penn Quarter where Jaleo, Cafe Atlantico and Zaytinya are--and well, I can't really add to what's already been said about those three restaurants here on eGullet--is a casual French bistro doing fairly-priced simple but serious food called Bistro D'oc, which just opened across from Ford's Theater, 518 Tenth Street, NW (202-393-5444) The chef (nee of La Miche in Bethesda but nowhere near as stilted and formal) the food and the setting are all charming in a straightforward, grizzled old French bistro way. And since the chef is this French grizzled old vet doing what he loves and is good at, this is a big, big plus. This isn't weak, pretend or sanitized French bistro cooking--our wagyu hangar steak (not as thin and sinewy as the onlget of others) charred yet undercooked perfectly and frites, and pork with chorizo, crawfish tails and du Puy lentils were fantastic--so was the warm brie with apple compote and crispy toasts which we followed them with. (It's on the menu as an app, but it's better after.) Everything we had was blissfully assertive, strong, salty, and redolent of roasted garlic. A lot of very fairly-priced, well-matched food wines, especially deep were the lesser-known, lesser-appreciated Languedoc reds around 30 bucks a bottle--though I was disappointed more wines weren't offered by the glass. In this repsect, Bistro d'Oc could learn from Mon Ami Gabi. These would be good with all the chef's hearty grilled meat dishes and are quite a bargain price-wise now. Entrees mid to high teens. We only tried one dessert, the creme caramel with orange and cherries and it was very poor, even given the generally poor nature of creme caramel around town, though it was served very cutely in little clear glass tubs. Until I try a few more desserts, I'd suspect the glass of Banyuls for $8 would be the best dessert option. There are two beautiful spaces upstairs--a blue room and yellow room both with fireplaces--which seem ideal to me for private parties, rehearsal dinners, etc. We went on a Monday, a very slow night when the Theater is dark, so the place was virtually empty. The street outside it is ripped to shreds as well, not exactly a nice strip to stroll along. The chef, his grizzle and the rest of his service staff brought all our dishes out together. Very nice, young and eager, though unpolished. (I'll take nice, young and eager anyday in this era of shitty restaurant service.) I heard it is packed on weekends, with Friday night the only night they open the upstairs. It hasn't been reviewed yet but I hear Tom's review comes out on June 1st. On the basis of my one meal I'd expect it to be a very good review and I, for one, am really glad there's a reasonably-priced French bistro worth going to. It will be interesting to see if Tom compares this place to Bistrot du Coin--what did Dupont do before du Coin, anyway? Another gain for Penn Quarter. It's only based on one meal, so we'll see.

What a pleasure to find local talk of herbs. I drive out to Debaggio Herbs and buy grown plants there; I don't have the patience for seed. Anyone else recommend a trusted source? http://www.debaggioherbs.com/