Steve Klc

Stone--sorry--we pros are glad to multi-task here when requested. Thanks for the question. You know how a custard or creme brulee is usually baked--in individual ramekins--slowly, at lower heat in an oven, with the ramekins sitting in a water bath? Well, that's all fine and dandy if you plan to serve the custard in the ramekin. Usually you chill it after it's baked, sprinkle it with some dried brown sugar, and torch it or place it under a salamander (that funky broiler-thingy line cooks usually heat things up under) so the sugar crisps. Then when you crack that caramel surface you get, well, in the very poetic words of scot, that losing virginity moment. OK--this thread is about NOT cooking the cream for the brulee in ramekins but all at once--and not in the stove but in a saucepan on top of the stove--like you'd cook a creme anglaise. Extra yolks and little gelatin help the cream set and thicken. Then you have the option to pour it into bowls, glasses, little molds--like the flexipan (those black flexible non-stick sheets) where it will set up "like a creme brulee" but at that point you don't really have the brulee part--the burnt sugar. It is possible to sugar and burn this mixture just as you would a regularly baked creme brulee in a ramekin but it usually doesn't work precisely as well as a properly baked custard would. The "brulee" part could be a thin tuile or disk of caramel powder (sugar cooked to caramel, poured out, cooled, ground to a powder, sifted out onto a Silpat, then baked a bit to melt the powder together into a thin hard disk.) That's the principle behind alot of what Adria calls "croquant." He makes little lollipops of all sorts of caramelized things ground into powders. Then if something like this were placed on top of a creamy custard--you'd get that same burnt brulee effect just in a different, perhaps more interesting way. OK? Take this to another level--say you wanted to do a "Creme Brulee of Corn" as a dessert. You could make a stovetop creme anglaise infused with corn--then strain out the corn--and pour this cream into glass bowl to set. Or you could pour this into a larger container and let it set. (Planning later to scoop out quenelles of this on a plate.) You then make a caramel corn tuile or croquant by mixing some dried pulverized corn ("Just Corn" or corn nut) with caramel powder--sprinkling this onto a silpat and after baking for a bit, letting it cool down. Break this sheet of caramel corn powder tuile into pieces--stick them into the glasses of corn custard or onto the quenelles--and serve. "Creme Brulee of Corn." It could be an amuse or app if your custard had less sugar.

Herme did something like this years ago in an old book of his--pistachio creme brulee in a ramekin with a nib tuile slid over it like a lid.

Of course, very thin flat disks of a croquant--with a lot caramel powder in the mix--cut perfectly to drop into the wide mouth of that coupe glass--resting right above the cream--which the diner could just break with his spoon--could be a very cool "brulee" alternative.

Josie--regulars know this but you might not, I'm the pastry chef behind a few of the restaurants you and others have mentioned so far. There's an extensive thread about Zaytinya, nominated for the 2003 James Beard Award for Best New Restaurant, here: http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?act=ST...34&t=14497&st=0 Though in light of your last post--especially with your experiences in LA and NY--I might steer you toward Cafe Atlantico. It's very creative, intriguing cooking for the price. An in-depth, ongoing thread about Cafe and especially the "dim sum" brunch, is here: http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?act=ST...=34&t=5209&st=0

Well, praise for Laboratorio is not praise for Galileo, is it? I think Tom's track record on Kinkeads has also been very clear to Post readers who follow his chat regularly: he's been underwhelmed for some time and left it out of his Dining Guide. Not that Tom's ethos for the Guide necessarily recognizes "the best," it doesn't; the Guides represent "his favorites." Apples and oranges. Also, it is important to remember Tom absolutely loved Colvin Run Tavern. For me, this just re-affirms how the Post leads the way in terms of embracing new opportunities which online media affords. You tune in week after week because Tom sharply reveals some of his personality, is unafraid to dish some newsy, insiderish, even catty comments--and these chats help keep everybody honest and everybody up-to-date--in and outside the industry. They are archived and accessible alongside past reviews. Contrast this with the critic of the New York Times, who allows dulled five year old reviews of that town's four star restaurants to stand on its website as its most up-to-date info or the predictably mailed-in and behind-the-times feel of reviews by a Shoffner in the Washingtonian. Steve Shaw commented on Sietsema here: http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?act=ST...T&f=34&t=17886&

Then the stovetop way will work great. If you're pouring it in glasses to set, and serving it right out of the fridge, you can omit the gelatin and just go with the extra yolk percentage; if you don't want the extra egginess or if these glasses might sit on a buffet takeaway table or be passed--I'd keep the gelatin in. If you were going to pour the cream out into a flexipan, then freeze and pop out, say to put in a tartlet or composed dessert--then you'd need the touch of gelatin. You mean the chef and the prep guys haven't figured out where you hide your few flat sheetpans from them?

Some further discussion of Oriol, his shop and his fantastic pastry book (which is English) here: http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?act=ST...8&t=19523&st=0&

Tan--when you called their toll-free number, they couldn't tell you immediately whether it was in stock? I usually receive impeccable customer service from them. For the past few years, reading that Balaguer book has been the best way for English-speakers to learn Adria techniques and begin to understand the Adria message. Robert--internationally, it's been the most influential pastry book published in that time period as well.

When you're ready, we're ready.

I sense an undercurrent building here and I don't want to personalize or read too much into this thread--but Trish, I'll use your comment "Disneyworld is a hoot but not an epicurean's delight" and use it to perhaps move this discussion forward and be a little more specific. Disneyworld most definitely can be an epicurean delight, full of special food and wine pairings and special dining experiences. Maybe I should have stated how I view the Disney food and beverage program in a national context. For the price--and especially when you consider the entire customer service experience from food to wine to service--the restaurants I mentioned previously would delight most epicureans or foodies in the way a Gramercy Tavern in NYC pleases foodies. You accept the fact that the restaurant is aiming for a certain experience--accessible yet still interesting--aiming for a level capable of being executed in volume. Add to that interesting, eclectic wines appropriate to the cuisine and really genuine, caring service. That's what Disney does well when it comes to dining at the properties I mentioned. In my opinion, these restaurants would stand on their own in any city in the US--you and I would eat at them and we would return--unless you're the kind of diner that only worships at the altar of the latest Food & Wine magazine Best new chefs or restaurants with very deep reserve lists of French wine. Disneyworld has not yet opened a restaurant trying to be the Trio, Tru, Clio, Blue Hill or Cafe Atlantico of its area. They're trying to be the Gramercy Tavern of your city. And they've learned their lessons well. They also care and promote from within which builds brand loyalty. Ask yourself-- how many cities across the US have a Gramercy Tavern-like restaurant achieving at the level of the NYC original? Close isn't so bad. That said, there is alot of crappy, quick, throwaway, dumbed-down foodservice food at Disneyworld. It's virtually impossible to find a halfway decent breakfast or brunch anywhere on property. I've been told there is a decent one somewhere, maybe after my fourth annual visit I'll find it. The vast majority of guests gobble this food up or seek alternatives off-property or cook for themselves. But, and this is a big but, I close with this view: I feel you can visit Disneyworld and have rewarding, special "epicurean" experiences and that the commitment Disney has shown with some of their food and wine programs isn't as appreciated as it should be.

Try extra yolks, cook like a creme anglaise--slowly so the bonds form gently and evenly--perhaps even pull it off the heat early to "poach" up to the final temperature--with a sheet of plastic wrap pressed down onto the surface--then add just a touch of gelatin as it is cooling down. You can also experiment with cooking this in the microwave with a turntable and then give it a whiz with the immersion blender. Depends on what you plan to do with it. Why do you "need" to cook it on the stove top?

Darren--the Seattle Coffee Company? Here's the take of a blogger on the scene in the UK: http://michaeljennings.blogspot.com/2002_0...e.html#78696337 http://michaeljennings.blogspot.com/2002_1...e.html#83371448 Thanks also to Virginia Postrel on this issue: http://www.dynamist.com/weblog/

Oh, I forgot--my parents ate at that all-you-can-eat clambake or whatever, which Trish mentioned, they liked it. It's probably not the best option for a foodie. It's in the "other" restaurant in the Yacht Club--not the power steak place. I can recommend the Norway pavillion which coolranch suggested--for me it was probably the best mid-priced meal on property after Canada. But I'd definitely recommend Canada and probably recommend Spoodles or Boma for mid-priced or lunch alternatives over Norway.

I've been fortunate to go to Disneyworld for an event each Fall for the past 3 years. I've been able to eat anywhere on property and have eaten at all of the places, even the theme-y ones, mentioned on this thread. My recommendations anyway, but especially if you will have discount coupons covering all or most of the cost of your meals: California Grill, California Grill, California Grill. That's right, I'd do all of your dinners at the Grill, sit at the chef's table right in front of the sushi bar, look into the open kitchen all night, order off the menu, ask the manager to pair wines for you and by the second night just ask the chefs to cook for you and sit back. That's it. Easy, the culinary part of your trip is all set. OK, say you don't trust me that much and/or my recommendation for you to eat at the same restaurant over and over again is just too strange for you. Then, in order, after the California Grill, I would recommend either the Coral Reef in the Living Seas pavillion in Epcot (if Roland Muller is still the chef there) or The Flying Fish. The Fish has the newest chef--the old chef of the Flying Fish--John State--moved over to the California Grill. I've had multiple excellent meals at all three of these restaurants over the 3 year period. The wild card in this, for me, is Artist Point. In the three years I've only had one meal there--in November 2002--but it was impressive. New chef, new manager, interesting wines from the Northwest. Time your dinner right--so it's light enough to look outside the windows--and it can be an amazing space to dine. Of the less-expensive, just below top tier "not trying to be a showcase fine dining restaurant but overachieving anyway"--I'd recommend Le Cellier in the Canada pavillion as long as Brian Piasecki is still chef there. We stayed at the Yacht Club last Fall, very nice, very easy access to Epcot. Be sure to call the front desk when you arrive and ask them if they can provide you with a small in-room refrigerator--for medicinal reasons. Makes it easier to keep things cold.

tsquare--is this some eGullet scoop? Has it been "more than rumored" in print somewhere else we could/should know about? or is this the equivalent of awbrig breaking the Charlie Trotter/foie gras story here--except without the Trotter part? And Chefette--sounds like you want to place a call to Robert Steinberg.

But, as I tried to suggest to Hop earlier--wouldn't a more realistic, more fair, way to view it be that first he gave you all the opportunity you would need to freely access the content and decide just how valuable and useful it is--in effect, to establish its ongoing value for you--and then he gives you the choice of how to pay for it. If you or I were in his position--you don't think we'd like our "fans" to think our expertise, our content is worth paying something for? You don't think we'd like people to get hooked on what we provide? Expand this to include something like the Rosengarten Report--a subscription newsletter with a tease of a website meant mostly to look good and pitch the subscription. He once "gave" all this stuff away--all his tips and comments about products--when he was on the Today Show and on the Food Network. He created a persona, his expertise was beamed for free into our homes and now that he's not on TV he's trying to extend (cash in on) that persona--and keep doing the same type of crap--"10 best mail order barbecue ribs," "My favorite olive oils"--just now it's in his newsletter. Does anyone begrudge him for trying? I think that's a different model than what we're discussing here about magazines figuring out how to use the web--but this discussion should include newsletters and personal food letters like this. What's the future for this model as well? Are you more or less likely to embrace a pay for content scheme with something very personal with less overt advertising?

I went to the sanjeev site and at quick glance it seems he's positioning himself as a celebrity chef and authority in India? He's also published a CD-ROM and like 5 books with two more on the way. Part of the registration and access fee seems to include 3 of his "bestselling books" for the equivalent of $13. Did I read that correctly? Seems like a fair return and a fair revenue grab to me--especially if all the recipes archived are his. Are they? And in the time you perused his site and tried some of his recipes Monica--did you then buy any of his books or the CD-ROM as a result?

Hop--I think you'll see a lot of flexible models and payment options, tailored to how individual subscribers or users value their time and value the content. I do think, however, that will always be an appreciation for the immediacy of something you can hold in your hands. Why don't you point those websites out Monica--might be instructive in terms of this conversation.

OK Hop, you're going somewhere with "if the access codes are only available to subscribers or newstand purchasers, why would they want to access the content online if they're already holding a copy of the publication? And if your response is that the publications may offer different content in each medium, then I ask you how is that progress? when once you were able to buy a magazine and it alone represented a self-contained compilation of all that publication's content for that month, now you have to go to two places? that seems absurd." Here's how I might make the case--again, I haven't seen an example of this yet so I'm just speculating: They want to protect their core paying customer base yet embrace changing technology, technology which threatens the old print media model. They can explore things online in leveraged ways that there isn't room to do in print because print is expensive, static and space is always at such a premium anyway. More pictures, more Q&A's, more interactivity, more timeliness given the immediacy of the medium rather than deadlines. Technology could be employed on the web to search and find and link to content which has been referenced quicker than looking in the back of a magazine for a source. Say you're reading Corby Kummer's latest piece on icewine and you remember he wrote a piece on dessert wine a year or two ago. What if you wanted to read that right after or even alongside the current piece? Well, on the magazine's website you could do that and you could do it effortlessly. For some, that's worth paying the print price for. Speed, efficiency, connectiveness. In print you'd have a recipe--what if you wanted it doubled immediately to cook for more guests? what if you wanted to use metric instead of that shitty American volume system all recipes seem to be force fed down our throats? I'm just using the beginnings of the eGRA as a example and perhaps not a persuasive one--but we already have that here. I don't think it's hard to imagine that there could be online value added to a print version in ways that make the print version even more valuable for certain subscribers.

Interesting. Someone would first have to convince me there is such a thing as reasonably priced conching equipment but the answer theoretically is yes. I think scale and volume augur against this, but we need to uncover someone trying to do this. More likely I think the closest anyone gets is what estufarian mentioned previously. That, or they're making an equally crude version of the gritty Mexican and Latin American chocolate. We might not be ready for it yet, and it might be too finicky Lesley, but I really do think we're going to see "private label" chocolate arrangements in the US--where a chocolate authority approaches a multinational manufacturer, supplies the product, and has a run produced for his use or resale. It's a variation of what OCP does--they entered into an agreement with a local multinational chocolate producer--and instead of running its regular chocolate crap through--they run organic beans procured by OCP--which OCP then sells through sympathetic channels like Whole Foods. The OCP chocolate isn't very good but it could be. Besides stepping strategically into a distribution channel gap and marketing their couverture retail, Sharffen Berger also markets that they're small, artisinal and American. They spin to their advantage that they are using "vintage" equipment--I read that as old or antiquated--as if antiquated equipment had some impact on quality of the end product. But they are very smart, very shrewd and increasing production.

Here's the thing though--for some, there are vital and dynamic aspects to chocolate that aren't as often discussed as even the trading/futures aspect Darren/estufarian and Rail Paul brought up--and that has to do with the marketing and cultivation of a brand and an image. I wish this was discussed more--along with where chocolate actually comes from, who grows it, how they grow it, what deals are made, who gains, who loses, etc. I'm not against talking about technique and how to taste and evaluate the end result of fine chocolate work. I wish more channels were open to more creative chocolate work and more variety. Hopefully we'll be able to get our hands on more interesting Spanish chocolate work more reliably, which is already outside the self-imposed boundaries of French chocolate. But there are also reasons why so much of the chocolate around underwhelms that has nothing to do with technique. In addition to the two books above--I'd also recommend "Crafting the Culture and History of French Chocolate" (2000) by Susan J. Terrio. There's a lot in there about how the French marketed the cultural cachet of French chocolate. Even without reading that book it's pretty easy to speculate about who receives media coverage and how that coverage is shaped. I do think chocolatiers themselves manipulate consumers' knowledge of chocolate and they introduce this artisinal buzzword whenever they can because the smarter European chocolatiers have created a mystique around appearing "artisinal" and have built very nice careers around it--despite the presence of large automatic temperers, conveyor belts and enrobing machines. If you can only read one chapter of Terrio in the bookstore--read Chapter 3 "Reeducating French Palates." And Lesley--do you realize Manjari has been around since 1986? That surprised me.

Good point--I meant chocolatier in the sense of producing a line bon bons and assorted chocolate candies, a la Jacques Torres, LA Burdick, Fran's Chocolates, Payard, etc. You'd be amazed at the number of people who think chocolatiers "make" their own chocolate from bean to bar to bon bon. SharffenBerger is a chocolate manufacturer--of packaged blocks and bars but not individual chocolates--and yes, they're way way smaller than the big boys of the CMA. But "artisinal" is one of those descriptions that can mean different things to different people, depending on how you try to define it. Michel Cluizel for instance is dwarfed by the CMA member manufacturers like Barry Callebaut--and on that scale could be considered "artisinal," yet their factory complex is quite large, impeccably clean and modern, with a blend of old world, labor-intensive, new and cutting edge technologies. Their wonderful praline pastes are still ground by these huge stone rollers that seem centuries old. A lot of the labor still done by hand. Yet Cluizel most assuredly dwarfs the production of Sharffen Berger. Years ago when I first started consulting for chocolate companies, and evaluating different chocolates, I said much the same thing as Darren earlier on this thread--wouldn't it be smart to be the first artisinal manufacturer to "work with pastry chefs to custom formulate a product with exactly the desired characteristics for a particular use." That's because chocolatiers can't do it themselves--they can just take a variety--say Valrhona Manjari--and blend it with another variety to get a different performance or taste or price point. I also said the same thing to Jacques years ago, while he was still at Le Cirque--and he replied that that is exactly what Callebaut would do for him--that he visited one of their factories and they had a hundred blends and formulations which could be combined according to any flavor and performance profile a pastry chef or chocolatier wanted. I think, though, that your production or your reputation has to be sufficiently high to get that kind of treatment and to make it cost effective. I still think this might become a more popular marketing point on the high end, but to date chocolatiers haven't been all that willing to discuss specifically which chocolate varieties they are using because more often than not it is less expensive run-of-the-mill stuff, and disclosure of that might diminish the prestige nature they are trying to project for their product.

JSD and Swissmiss--I am inspired by your responses so far to my question about how eGulleteers still use local libraries. Thank you. JSD--how many of these books are cookbooks or about food? I guess what I'm getting at is how good a job do local libraries do with the subject of food and cooking? Can you go back and look at Gourmet magazine issues from 1965? Is it just Junior League cookbooks or can you find a copy of Tsuji's "Japanese cooking :a simple art?" Are any libraries out in the hinterlands buying reprints or folio versions of historic American cookbooks from the 18th, 19th or 20th C?

It would also depend on where they lived--what they had experienced and liked in their city, but then if they were visiting me I'd probably know that! If you were less vague, it would help me help you josie. I sense the same from Darren. The most recent "brunch" I had was at Majestic Cafe in Old Town--it was traditional, excellent, and I'd recommend it highly. There aren't too many Susan Lindeborgs outside of DC. They don't normally take reservations for a normal Sunday brunch but perhaps this Sunday is different. If you are visiting parents this would definitely be a good choice for you and your boyfriend. Try the hash.

There's some good info on cocoa trading and agreements in these two books, both of which I recommend highly: Chocolate Unwrapped: The Politics of Pleasure (1993) by Cat Cox and The Emporers of Chocolate: Inside the Secret World of Hershey and Mars (1999) by Joel Glenn Brenner Darren--the members of the CMA--the Chocolate Manufacturers Association, the big players on the world scene--intervene to ensure price stability and guarantee a supply of cacao--and one of the ways they do that is through multi-commodity traders, brokers and the exchange. The vast majority of the beans are bottom of the barrel bulk stuff--meaning not sold at a premium--not considered flavor grade. Manufacturers usually try to develop their own sources for flavor grade stuff but if you dig into the reports and analysis you'll find flavor grade lots coming through the exchange system. As an aside, I'd like to know the name of a single chocolatier, artisinal or otherwise, in the United States who makes their own chocolate from beans.