Steve Klc

Swissmiss--yes, Google that Tasini v. The New York Times and you'll find it is still being discussed and played a big role as to why archives are now incomplete--contracts or releases weren't written to cover it and some publishers just decided it was too hard to go back and contact each freelancer for permission and/or an additional payment before appearing on sites like NYTimes.com or LEXIS-NEXIS. Some argued it wasn't even necessary to secure those rights. Now, most freelancers are just pressured to give up those first web rights as a condition of getting the print gig in the first place. http://www.nwu.org/tvt/blacklst.htm http://www.complete-review.com/quarterly/v...sue3/tasini.htm And do you use your local library for food info or concerns?

Hop--though I feel for you, I still find your perspective unrealistic and unpersuasive. My response would be to appreciate having gotten x issues or x months of service for free and grateful for the chance to really find out how much I valued that content. It's the ultimate in money back guarantees--become completely familiar with our product for free--and then when you realize without a doubt that our product is special--pay for it. And as far as local libraries, I don't think I've been in one in 5 or 6 years at least, maybe more. Do you still have to have "library" cards or have they progressed to just using your credit card to check out books? (Occasionally I have used a local B&N or other bookstore as a "library.")

Hop--I think you're going to see lots of different media models but ultimately it comes down to one thing: shouldn't good content be worth paying something for, especially if it is valuable or interesting or unique? The model Shaw lays out has been adopted by most of the newspapers we discuss here but also magazines to varying degrees--for our purposes look to the different approaches of the Atlantic Monthly, Cook's Illustrated, Saveur, Ed Behr's newsletter (though according to the James Beard award committee his newsletter seems to have graduated into "magazine" status). Are you irked by any of these approaches? Like Tommy I don't begrudge an organization the chance to react to a changing marketplace of ideas and technology.

Guru--I won't try to speak for Lesley--but your point is very interesting. Most pastry chefs are starting to figure out that some chocolate items are better if they are under-cooked or under-heated--especially if you work with good chocolate. More of the inherent flavor and interest of the chocolate is retained because prolonged exposure to very high heat is damaging flavor-wise. And I neither use the Bras method (a coulant with ganache inserted into the cake batter) nor the Jean-Georges method (more like an underdone souffle--still baked for a long time, though--baked in a ramekin or tin and inverted to unmold). The Thomas Keller liquid center chocolate cake technique, which he demonstrated on the LA Times website, was similar to Bras. What I use is the Philippe Conticini technique--which is the simple chocolate/butter/sugar/egg/flour brownie-like batter--but baked at very high heat (500) very quickly in an aluminum timbale mold to crisp the outside yet keep the inside creamy. In this case undercooked chocolate tastes better--more of the chocolate nature is retained--so that's gain #1 and when eaten in direct contrast to the cooked, firm exterior there's nice contrast--gain #2. I also don't invert it. So in this we're not ignoring basic principles of cooking by undercooking--but demonstrating we know what's inherently better for an ingredient--and how to treat that ingredient. I would hope a critic and diner would keep an open mind about any carrot dish or preparation--and only question how it might have been prepared after first assessing how good it was--how well it imparted its flavors and its "carrotness." Guru--if you served an uncooked or undercooked carrot dish--say you found a way to rework carrot into a gelatin or cream or polenta or soft carrot couscous--the way Adria has created a cous cous dish of cauliflower--I wouldn't hold the fact that you undercooked the carrot as long as the flavor and the texture "worked."

Jody and other LA Times watchers--a question: have you noticed that all writer bylines now appear on the front page of the food section website--along with the title and article into? Is this a recent improvement?

Nice piece on chain restaurants by Stephen Hunter, the Washington Post film critic who won a Pulitzer Prize this year: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...8-2003Apr8.html

They definitely give you a "false" reading in that sense--but it is immediately false, off by a degree or less if you stir your chocolate or take a reading in a tempering machine which is stirring the chocolate, and I just adjust how I work to reflect this (when the IR reads a surface temp of 91 it is really 92 etc.) I've found the IR much faster, cleaner and more accurate to work with than an "instant read" digital thermometer--the minute you stick the Taylor (or other digital thermometer) into the chocolate the chocolate which comes into contact with the metal probe starts to cool, so you have to keep swirling it around or you're not going to get an accurate reading anyway. Then you have to remove it, clean it, etc. For Seawakim or a home user trying to do this--there's no need to go out and buy the IR, which is over $!00--a cheap Taylor digital insta-read is fine until you get a few tempering successes under your belt and get used to the way chocolate looks and acts at all the different temperatures. Once you understand what's going on--and learn what your chocolate does at 115 and 80 and that range of 88-92 or so--as has been mentioned on this thread--you'll start to work with chocolate without any thermometer. But Tim--I also use that IR to take temp readings of lots of other things--zapping inside an oven, creme anglaises, inside freezers. Care to share which model temperers you chose to buy and why you like them?

Lots of good advice here so far. My question for you Seawakim is 1) how have you tried to temper chocolate so far? Why not take us through the process you followed or the instructions you tried to follow? and 2) which chocolate (brand) did you try to temper and what form was it in--blocks that you chopped up or pellets/pistoles? This is something I posted a while ago as a first introduction to melting and tempering--it might help you: http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?act=ST...ST&f=72&t=3568& And Tim--have you ever used an IR thermometer in your chocolate work?

Ryne's in high school (I think).

Brig--will a chaperone come along?

I came across this, not sure how: http://www.sjmagazine.com/0211people.asp But it updates Robert and Miel Patisserie nicely.

Do you want to narrow this down a bit--in terms of what food you like, budget, what your favorite restaurants are at the moment, are you only considering DC and/or downtown restaurants? I think much of your choice also depends on how you define "kid friendly." Which nicer places have you been with the kids and how did they handle it? What are the kids like--curious about food? do they have to get up from the table and walk around? do you think they'd like a somewhat noisy distracting background? Personally I think any restaurant that doesn't put on the obvious quiet/stuffy/formal/pretentious airs should be good with kids 11 and 13. 1789 and Tosca are more formal--in different ways--the former in kind of a dark, clubby, old money genteel way and Tosca in a sophisticated Euro urban chic way. Both are quiet restaurants. Of the two I'd think kids might be more comfortable--and you more comfortable with your kids--in 1789. The question then becomes is the food the kind of food you'd like for this special event. Desserts there tend to be homey/rustic. Realize, too, Saturday night prime time LOTS of places will be packed, tables back up and delays might be inevitable regardless of a restaurant's reservation policy. How would your kids handle hanging in the bar? Do you want to get dressed to the nines or casual? Not knowing your tastes or experiences around town but in the general area of your list--and in addition to those restaurants already mentioned--you might want to consider Marcels--it's a big restaurant--they could probably tuck you along a wall, are more likely to have your table ready when you arrive and there's enough noise not to give the sense it is so formal. If it's warm enough, consider their patio--good distractions for the kids. Robert is a fine chef and always has had at least pretty good desserts--very good for our area--though I haven't been back since he hired a new pastry chef.

Then I have more research to do Bill--I was hoping you could save me the time! Keep on the lookout for anything you might find on this issue--I'd love to get a better handle on how panna cotta instructions and practice might vary from region to region, restaurant to home, historical to modern practice within Italy. Irrespective of gelatin--there's the cooking method. What's been transported over here to the US--among pastry chefs of my acquaintance--is cream, sometimes mixed with some other dairy element--buttermilk, some fresh or thickened dairy, yogurt--and most of them only heat a portion of the liquid to dissolve any added sugar, infuse the vanilla and dissolve the softened gelatin. Yes the amount of gelatin is kept to the absolute minimum. But also the pro cooking practice here seems to keep more of the inherent flavor of the cream by not heating it all. Yet we're reading more of chefs, like Grant Achatz for instance using a kind of caramelized dairy in some dishes, I know Michael Laiskonis has used a reduced simmered milk jam and I'm doing something similar--a milk jam similar to manjar blanco in a reworked tres leches dessert. This takes the dairy reduction deeper to more flavorful territory--or, I should say deeper territory. (Notice I did not say better. I'm not falling into that trap with you Italian guys as others have.) I wonder, though, if all of us aren't in some way harkening back to the slowly cooked and reduced dairy of a panna cotta.

Bill--I'm curious about your comment that the use of gelatin is inauthentic. Does that mean that historical sources you have read, written reference points like cookbooks and cooking texts, especially in Italian written for the Italian chef or cook, discuss this very issue and omit the gelatin? Any chance you might be willing to share a little more, cite a few sources, or comment on the documentation (or lack of documentation) on this gelatin/panna cotta issue within Italy? From my own very limited "reading" only--and certainly not from direct first hand experience like yours--there seemed to be historical sourcing which cited gelatin use--in ways that led me to believe it was authentic within Italy--and not something added by the editor to set a more commercial cream. Do you suspect gelatin was used historically and then omitted over time? Do you suspect gelatin was never used in the home or village? And Craig--I linked to that Slow Food-approved recipe: 1 quart cream 1 1/8 cups granulated sugar 3 sheets fish glue (this thickens it; you can substitute some sort of flavorless gelatin if need be) 1 tablespoon all purpose flour 1 cup milk. Warm the milk (don't let it boil), then dissolve the fish glue in it and stir in the flour. Meanwhile, bring the cream to a boil for a couple of minutes, with 1 cup of the sugar. Remove from the fire and gently stir in the milk mixture. Have you made this--is it actually good, the best panna cotta you've ever had? Here's the thing--by boiling all of the cream you are definitely changing the flavor--inducing a kind of cooked flavor to it not unlike ultra-pasteurization and reducing the freshness, the inherent sweetness of the cream. (Not necessarily a bad thing--perhaps even desireable.) And I have my doubts about the flour--anyone else? Another question for you locals--how often, if at all, is vanilla added to panna cotta? Is that perceived as blasphemous?

No offense taken Larry, please no worry. I'll be eager to check out Stardust. But I hear those comments about Susan's food from time to time--some variation of "much of what they have is pedestrian" and "the food at (insert name here) is sort of the same as at the Majestic." The other good one is that Majestic Cafe is too expensive. Except, you know, it's not. I'm guilty of stuff like that once in while, I'll find myself in a seemingly similar type of place like Boulevard Woodgrill and say, this is a competitor of Majestic and food is very similar and...then I'll realize it's not. It's less expensive, less refined but less good and less interesting--and while Susan isn't doing what she did at Morrison-Clark she still injects enough of the little surprises, the little nice touches of an herb or green in just the right way, the little reworked Southern-ness, that is lacking in the safe/homey/rustic cooking at just about all those other restaurants that are "sort of the same as the Majestic." Then I realize the service isn't as attentive elsewhere, the iced tea isn't as well-brewed, and then I linger over a dish and realize it's good, really good--like last week I realized her corned beef hash at brunch is the best hash--actually the best "new" dish--I've tasted in two weeks. Yes, I marvelled at her hash. I realize how ridiculous that sounds. Usually on my way home I say to my wife--who was mentored by Susan while working at Morrison-Clark years ago--you know, that dish I had (insert dish here) is exactly the kind of thing I wish I would cook at home if I had the time or inclination to cook anymore. Granted, Susan is not aiming to be the creative, modern, intriguing cooking that Kats and Jose are doing at Cafe Atlantico--but I'm an omnivore and I doubt Susan could pull that off; however, in the style and ingredient set that Susan chooses to work within, for her customer base and price point, I think your wife might be hard-pressed to come up with too long of a list of chefs creating a better overall experience. She manages to make her food seem interesting--in little ways, Kinkead ways perhaps--that otherwise would seem boring to me elsewhere. I'm more bored by, and have had more underwhelming, disappointing meals at Kinkeads than I have at Susan's. Gained popularity based on some hype and sucking up to the opinion makers? Well, Susan is incredibly respected by the media and by her chef peers. DC is very supportive of female chefs in general. She's nice and a tireless worker and has been very, very supportive of up and coming chefs. I consider her a friend, my wife really considers her a friend. But how that translates into sucking up I'm not sure--ages ago on eGullet I wrote about how Tom Sietsema gave Susan a poor review--as poor a review in that time frame as I recall for the Post because they don't assign stars--and how my concurrent experience there, even sampling the very same dish he singled out most for derision, was diametrically opposed to his experience. I loved that steamed salmon/bok choy dish and told Susan last week I wished she brought it back. It was lean, clean, light and very subtly perfumed. I think it's gained popularity for many reasons: because of Susan, obviously; the fact that Alexandria is underwhelming as a culinary destination; the design (and atmosphere) of the place is stylishly sophisticated, urban and understated; and let's not forget Susan is actually there every night and just about every brunch expediting and walking through the dining room and diners like that; the service is tops for the price point in a city of poor service and I see the same faces over and over; wines are inexpensive and eclectic; and on and on. If something goes wrong, Susan is there to rectify it. The place is always packed and I get the sense there is a high percentage of repeat diners. That's not hype. That's comforting, like so much else at the Majestic, and it means people come back.

Heather--we cross posted. Here's the thing--I'm not a big fan of Lisa Yockelson's work, so that asparagus article had little appeal for me as does most of her work. But the major article on cocktails, bartenders and trends I loved. Furstenberg got a nice plug that no pro in the city would not wish for themselves, and I wonder if his comment about thinking of meat as a flavoring sailed past most readers. Emily Kaiser wrote the Furstenberg piece and also that line cook piece many eGulleteers loved (though I didn't care for it.) Judith Weinraub's "Foraging" at Indique made me want to go there--to the restaurant--and to Kerala--soon. She conveyed alot in a little space, and granted, I learn more from a typical Suvir post, but still, her piece grabbed me. And the section had another accessible, informative yet relevant wine piece--on Chinon and Loire cabernet franc--of which most readers will probably have been previously unaware.

Hi Becca--thank you first off for dusting this off, I had forgotten this and was worried as I was reading through it again about what I said THEN versus how I feel now. The Post section has gotten better and right now, it's on the leading edge of a trend--there is more valuable, more relevant, more interesting things in newspaper food sections--like the Post but also the LA Times, the Chronicle, etc--than there are in the glossies. I think the newspapers are more in touch with their food audiences than before and better overall than the glossies. The thing about food, which you astutely point out Becca, is often it seems about avoiding food and cooking. I can't tell you how often I try to avoid cooking! The last thing I want to read is another recipe, let alone a how to put dinner on the table in 10 minutes piece. When I read the Food section I want to learn something I didn't know, I want to bask in some very good prose which makes me think about something in a different way or reconsider something, and I want some news about the professional scene--who is doing what where. But that's me. You might not want any of these things--and instead want to know how to put something good on the table for 4 people and only spend 11 bucks. The thing is, the Post readership is diverse--a million strong--and for some percentage shortcuts and convenience products are key, for another market segment learning more about wine and restaurant trends and hot chefs is important, for another take-out meals and pre-packaged foods you can pick up on the way home from work is important, and on and on. No newspaper food section can be all things to all people at all times--especially when departments are on a budget. That's why so much of the harping the Post section receives is misguided. To make the case against the Post, to say it could be doing such a better job, you first have to understand how the Post is different from the NY Times (the most frequent and ill-formed crack--why isn't our Food section more like the Times) and second, you'd have to be familiar enough with other Food sections to show that the LA Times or SF Chronicle are clearly doing a better job. That's where the Post bashing usually falls down--and why the media Digests which we've just started on the Media board are so valuable. You can go read an Emily Green at the Times or a Bill Daley at the Chronicle--hell, you can read Bill Daley here on eGullet--and see for yourself if "our" writers are doing as good a job as "their" writers. My sense these days is the Post continues to maintain a delicate but successful balancing act--balancing the often conflicting priorities of its readership as well as any section in the country. There's also alot of writing talent behind the articles regardless of subject--learned, enjoyable, funny, smooth, sharp writing when the article dictates such tones. A question--did you read through the eGullet Q&A we conducted with Jeanne McManus--who is the editor of the Post food section? My apologies if you have--but it is here in case you haven't: http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?act=SF&f=46& A very revealing look into the section and the nature of her job. Plus, I hear the Post's lead restaurant critic, Tom Sietsema, might be dropping by eGullet soon. In case he does, have a question or two ready.

David--one inexpensive, low-tech noise reducer I've seen is to put foam rubber under the table tops. May or may not be able to be concealed with your look.

I don't know for sure james--I got an e-mail from owner Peter Greenberg about the same time Tom Sietsema did re: Gian Piero resigning and to say he was searching for a replacement. But Peter is a very smart guy, I suspect he realizes he had a good marketing concept there--something that made his little elegant out of the way place special and worth the drive across the bridges. I'd bet he maintains the chef-of-your-own concept and I hope he attracts a chef who appreciates what could be possible there. Why don't you ask Tom during this week's online Post chat to see if he's heard anything?

In the restaurants I use Plugra, but at home, like Jaymes, I've been using and freezing that Costco unsalted 3# pack as well for baking--can you believe the price? It doesn't perform as a cultured butter so you might have to adjust your recipes a bit. Quality is comparable to the Whole Foods butters at $4 per pound--and it's like $4.59 for 3#.

Larry--unfortunately not, though I'm waiting to hear some good reports. Maybe yours will be the first? It seems like a fairly conservative steak and seafood place, and for me that niche doesn't hold much appeal. Plus, I like eating at Majestic Cafe too much, so we go there maybe once or twice a month. (For more upscale dining in Alexandria, we went to Elysium when Gian Piero was cooking there.) Majestic Cafe is still wonderful and I haven't heard who the new chef is at Elysium.

Craig--in many cases, wouldn't "best Italian restaurant" and "most innovative Italian restaurant" be different? Did either Vetri in Philadelphia or Maestro in Tysons Corner, VA make the WS list?

Did that delicious ball-o-crab hold together or did it flake apart? Did some of you eat it with a fork and others pick it up and eat it out of hand? Or is that too personal?

It's not actually on Route 1, Rosie, but in between Routes 1 & 9, behind the Woodbridge Center Mall. I used to go bowling on that street and shooting at a shooting range there. My parents just told me it's definitely not opening soon--still a bunch of mud and port-a-potties. Randi--you might have a tough time relying on Trader Joes as anything more than a nice supplement to your regular grocery and supermarket shopping, which should be done elsewhere. It's really limited--great for what it is but ultimately not all that special or complete. You might want to check out 1) the recently revamped Woodbridge Shoprite on Route 1/9 (near the Bertucci's) to tide you over and 2) the Edison Price Club/Costco if you are a member--much better wine selection and pricing than TJ (at least in my area--in NJ the pricing advantages are probably less since the state is pretty rigidly controlled) much more varied selection if not better in certain respects. I just came home with a great chunk of Manchego from my Price Club, cut it into matchsticks, tossed it with some green apple matchsticks and a vinaigrette. Yum. (I'm not that creative--that dish is on the menu of a restaurant I'm involved with.) I haven't been to this "new" Shoprite yet--but shopped often at the old one. It was strong in some areas but weak, hopelessly so, in others--like fresh produce. It was all shrinkwrapped and pre-packaged, unfailingly of poor quality. I expect they've done their homework and upgraded more to a Harris Teeter/Whole Foods/Wegmans look and feel but can't say from firsthand experience yet. The only thing you really need to know about what makes stores special or unique is to tally the number of glowing reports of Wegmans here on the site. Many of us disparate foodies have come together united in one thing--Wegmans rules supreme. Hands down. Exponentially so. We don't glow over Whole Foods at all, in fact, we smolder.

I agree with Nick on the bread. I agree with Kim on the driving to the Princeton Wegmans, at least until the Woodbridge Wegmans opens up. Unlike OGG, I wouldn't drive very far for Whole Foods; it's a convenience or last-resort stop only for me--and I have a "nice" one two blocks from my house.