Steve Klc

Marc--are you aware if any other chefs have begun using MICRI and if so, how? I know that Sole Graells S.A. sells the fine powdered agar agar that the Adria's use at El Bulli--and as yet that product is unavailable in the US. But I'm sure other Spanish and Italian chefs order and use it. (It's much easier and efficient to use it in this powdered form rather than as it is typically found, in the large flakes.) Seem's there is some parallel to be drawn to Adria here as well--as both have demonstrated enough inventiveness to search for the right vehicles to deliver flavor at a given texture--and eliminate other "traditional" elements like whites, yolks, dairy, etc. Fascinating, well-written story/advertorial by the way!

Bux, stop that, comment away. I'd suggest to cabrales, though, that we all need to help her stretch her appreciation to include dark chocolate somehow. Not liking dark chocolate puts one at a severe disadvantage here, I'm afraid, in discussing differences between patissiers and chocolatiers. Observing sloppy technique visually--like irregular sizing, dull rather than shiny surfaces--only gets you so far. Observing texture (thinness vs. thickness of walls, consistency of fillings) is but one part of a much larger whole--and yes, these can be observed independent of taste. But so much of chocolate appreciation and assessment (the French model anyway) is tasting the dark chocolate elements first--the couverture used for the shell or coating and possibly a different one in the filling--savoring as chocolate first--and only then allowing the other flavors to mingle, subtly revealing themselves. If there's a French model it seems to be--appreciate the dark chocolate first and foremost and search for infused flavors somehow second. The French model is admired for this lengthening of the process on the palate and is why many American chocolates, even those produced in the French style, are found wanting--lacking in subtlety--for being too fruit, flavor or filling foward. I have no recent experience with Constant--though can enthusiastically recommend Lesley and Patrice and other's selection of Jean-Paul Hevin--who gets my overall best for chocolate bon bons--typically French, ultimately refined and elegant. I'd also recommend--in a group just behind Hevin: Conticini at Peltier, since I had a chance to taste his line there in November before it was officially released along with the new lines--the classic line, the evolution line and the sensual line--of pastries in the recently remodelled Peltier salon de the; Belin as Patrice mentioned, Chaudun as Lesley mentioned and a pleasant surprise from my last visit--Pierre Marcolini. I have only had Herme's chocolate line produced in Rochester, NY which uses Valrhona chocolate and found this line lacking slightly in interest, elegance and execution compared to the best chocolates I found in Paris--though clean, straightforward and a very good value at $33 per pound. I found the Herme line less adventurous and less successful when compared to the line of Pierre Marcolini--the Belgian chocolatier who works in the French style. In France Pierre Marcolini told me he uses alot of Pralus chocolate--and I heard from several people that in France Herme uses Pralus also. Alas, I did not get to taste any of Herme's French chocolates to assess. In November I was also impressed with the chocolates of Henri Le Roux--he of the salted butter caramel fame in Quiberon.

Lesley--I find most of the responses to this thread spot on with regard to your prospects for a Whole Foods store. There is no guarantee whether you should eagerly anticipate it or not. At the moment I loathe Whole Foods Markets in my area--the same area Malawry is from and that she commented on. However, I've been to other Whole Foods stores around the country--and therein lies some of the rationale behind why I currently dislike my local stores. I have also been to a Wegman's--which is a superior supermarket on every level to the Whole Foods in my area. I can't wait for the first Wegman's to open in our Northern Virginia area in 2003 to teach the now complacent Whole Foods a lesson. The San Francisco Whole Foods store is amazing--there is a greater standard of awareness and expectation in that market--and that store delivers on its promise at all levels in produce, prepared foods, cheese, whatever. Even in areas that don't depend on the bounty of locally supplied, locally grown produce. As an example, in addition to making their own breads in house--they also stock and sell numerous varieties of local artisinal breads--so the customer has an excellent choice. They have a stone hearth and bake off pizzas to order. Like others have mentioned, I don't mind paying high prices for superior product--as long as the product is superior. Unfortunately, I live in the Mid-Atlantic region where Whole Foods has over 20 stores, after buying out Fresh Fields, that fall under a regional administrative umbrella yet each store is given the freedom to explore different directions with some autonomy. That's why "team leaders" at different stores can create a different shopping experience just based on how much they care and how experienced they are. One store could stock 5 different brands of high end coffee; across the county, with a less knowing clientele, the other Whole Foods store might just carry their house organ--Allegro coffee--which Whole Foods bought out and wholly owns. WF initially pushed their organic, socially-concious un-processed agenda down everyone's throats--to mixed success--and gradually expanded their product line to carry more standard, processed products to meet customer demand alongside the crunchy, progressive, consumer guilt and fear-inducing product lines. Their baked goods, desserts and pastries always sucked and prepared foods were underwhelming even initially. It seems SOP to hire a local chef as consultant. But, when Whole Foods moved into our market, they brought with them some very knowledgeable, dedicated teams from corporate, staffed the stores with knowledgeable and motivated people and made a big splash--immediately improving our market options exponentially and forcing our local supermarkets to adapt and to improve themselves. That was good. For years, I shopped often, and often exclusively, at two of our local stores--one in Georgetown (really Glover Park) and one in the Clarendon section of Arlington. Many product lines were (and remain) excellent--milks and dairy, eggs, butters, waters, canned and bottled goods, healthier meats and free range chickens, in-store sushi bars, a menu of fresh squeezed juices in bulk, fairly priced flowers, etc. You can even buy agar-agar there! The DC store went downhill first--all the original people transitioned to other stores or left disillusioned, a disinterested new crop of sales and service people were hired and now they go through the motions yet have kept the high prices--much like many of the known chefs in our city. The Clarendon store was next--long held out to be one of the best stores in the chain--now it is just an expensive, a cash cow in an affluent yuppie neighborhood. The standards of awareness have evolved and have been raised such that what they do is not very special anymore--as Malawry rightly notes we now have farmer's markets vying for attention--and you can't rely on WF anymore for the best of anything--certainly not prepared foods, not fish, not produce, not bread and not beer and wine. But we all should be grateful of what Fresh Fields and Whole Foods did for our market years ago. The main difference at the Mid-Atlantic stores seems to be a decision not to offer locally produced artisinal products from other small vendors--so we're stuck with mediocre bread for instance, baked in their commissary kitchen rather than a selection of breads from local bakers--like Firehook, the Bread Line, etc--which are superior, national class products. hell, even Nancy Silverton's bake-off bread that she's shipping nationally is head-and-shoulders better than anything at out local WF. Instead we get Whole Foods pale imitations at the same price! Too much mediocre stuff processed through commissaries with little thought and talent behind them. In my experience, the sales staffs are clueless now. Our local stores have now morphed into a kind of a high-priced convenience store that retains enough of that socially-aware feel good preachy veneer to make certain consumers feel good about shoppiing there and dupe others who don't care. To give you just a little example that I happen to have some personal involvement with: years ago when I consulted for Chocolates El Rey I gave a presentation to team leaders of the Mid-Atlantic stores at their corporate headquarters on proper chocolate storage--basically how to handle bulk chocolate to extend shelf-life so that it doesn't deteriorate. My biggest take-home message was not to put the chocolate near the cheese cases--that chocolate was capable of absorbing odors and to prove my point, I took a block of Valrhona that I bought at my local Whole Foods store and passed it around to taste--it reeked of blue cheese, needless to say. To this day in most of my local stores bulk chocolate, rewrapped in flimsy cling film, rests on top of the cheese or right next to the cheese case. If form holds true--in Toronto and Montreal you can expect a big push initially to impress followed by cruise control. The store chain you really want to expand into your markets is Wegmans.

Robert--I'm with Bux and lizziee on this one and suspect it has been the chefs driving the size, style and creation of plates, not the reverse, and chefs themselves altering the more traditional presentation--a big plate full of food--in order to give customers more of an experience, more of their talents and more of what they came there for. You write "Chefs will increase the number of "amuse bouches", "entremets", and palate cleansers, over which the diner has no choice and which can be prepared ahead of time, and then use these "portion-control" dishes to present "full plates" of lesser amounts of food for the rest of the meal." Yes amuse will increase--so will petit fours and pre-desserts--but solely because diners are coming to expect them--they are becoming more knowledgeable and chefs realize they have to do the extra work for these or they will not be taken as seriously. I don't think dish size is driving this phenomenon--only spurring greater options and creativity. Some of these efforts can be done ahead but many cannot--many of these little amuse tastings have to be done a la minute and require as much plating effort as an entree. You are certainly correct chefs are taking advantage of smaller dishes now available to serve these and it would only be natural to expect the dishes to have a wide variety of uses--so now a little 4" by 7" flat white rectangular plate can hold 2 spoons of diver scallop amuse, be used for a course of the degustation--say one little lamb chop, then used for the first of three desserts or for a presentation of chocolates after the meal. My sense is that any trend can be mis-used and mis-applied--so you are prescient in saying to all diners--watch out. But all of these plates are expensive--and when a meal requires so many little plates in sequence per diner I wonder just how much cost control is involved and if it might not be more expensive to serve food like this even if portions are somehow reduced in the process. Other factors: it is labor cost that goes up in service like this--you have to have more runners to serve this stuff and as a chef I can tell you it is much harder to do small elegant things well--and these small plates scream "pay attention to me--I am elegant." If these small dishes help change the way diners assess food--so instead of being concerned primarily with size and volume we become more concerned with how something tastes and stimulates and provokes--I see that as a good thing.

I'm guessing social get-togethers or social meetings?

he's posted on this thread above.

Pirate--thanks for dropping in out of the blue with welcome comments (I suppose every new member drops in out of the blue) but please, read a few other threads before jumping down the gullets of the posters here who stayed true to the original topic--and answered the original question about where to eat in Paris--which restaurant in Paris shouldn't they miss? The question wasn't should I go to Tokyo instead or would I get better bang for my buck in the provinces rather than Paris. If you'd like to posit that Tokyo is the dining capital of the world, great, we'd all love to hear why you feel that way. In fact, it would be the most thought-provoking new thread topic in quite a while! Debating the merits of cooking in and out of Paris is an old saw and certainly worthy of a revisit. We've discussed it plenty around here. If you surf more you'll find alot of Paris restaurants and chefs "measured" against non-Paris restaurants and chefs--I regret that you leaped to conclusions that aren't supportable after even a cursory reading of the site, since you're obviously experienced with strong opinions. Unless you have read around the site and found the perspectives here wanting? In that case, do tell, as cabrales and robert brown suggested previously. and thnkart--now you know why I had a hard time making a recommendation for you initially--now I'm really at a loss after your comment about doubting Parisian restaurants could be that much better than the Tampa scene and now your "I've also never eaten in the finest restaurants in the food capitals of even the US." I wish it weren't so--but both of these complicate your situation and ours in trying to guide you to the best restaurant experience for you and your husband. Both comments speak to your awareness, your openness and your experience--and none of this is negative but it is personal--most of us here feel the same restaurant experience can be viewed vastly differently by two different people given their respective dining experiences. If you have not eaten much in New York--let alone secondary US food cities (of which Tampa would not be included alongside the likes of SF, Chicago, LA et al)--I fear L'Astrance might not be for you, on this trip anyway--even though it is terrific and certainly the best price to value recommendation. Specific questions for you--have you and your husband eaten recently at The California Grill in Disneyworld--and if so, how did you enjoy your experience there? Have you eaten in any "French" restaurants in NYC and how were those experiences? This isn't a flame and it isn't a putdown--it just reflects my opinion that there are food realities out there--and one of them is that it helps to have a basis for comparison. I think that is all anyone here is trying to gauge for you--and even pirate in his own way was providing a basis for comparison, however misplaced in this thread. It is ok not to know--none of us knows all the answers and has eaten enough anywhere not to still constantly learn from others. But your two comments give me pause that our suggestions--even of L'Astrance--would be helpful. I still wish you'd go, though, with an open mind and not trying to make comparisons based on experiences you don't have under your belt, and remember you'll have a big advantage over most other Americans in the same boat of dining in Paris for the first time: your husband speaks French. Enjoy that advantage and please report back wherever you end up eating.

Not blasted, but thnkart you--seriously--don't think the food in Paris could be that much better than the high end restaurants in Tampa?

True, cabrales, but I can also make the case that you don't need that background, that awareness, to enjoy and appreciate food at any level--high or low. My fear is that pursuit potentially diverts you from your greatest skill--your greatest tool--your palate and your ability to taste.

Indiagirl--just realize the door you're opening--to try to understand Western cooking techniques, history and equipment--is very wide and the hallway deep. It takes working chefs a long time to feel competent in their understanding of all this--and sometimes it is easier to read and assimilate this--and sometimes the only way to understand this is to do it, to question (as you have) to cook and to experiment yourself. It can be like learning a foreign language--yes you can listen to tapes and do the exercises and "read" the written words but then there is total immersion, being dropped into an environment where you are asked to speak the language as well--to think in the language solely. Right now you're aware of what you focus on when you eat--isolated easily identifiable elements like texture of a larger whole and that you're "curious to begin the part of the trip where I am used to that part and can start tasting how things work as a whole." I'd suggest you don't need to know the techniques, the equipment or the process behind dishes--and that that might just distract or divert you from what is a sensory experience. You are already equipped with everything you need to move forward to observe and appreciate flavor, balance, mouthfeel, depth, density, whatever--all are matters of palate awareness and perception. The whole can be observed both clinically and emotionally and the causes and patterns and techniques can be filled in later after you give yourself over to do alot more eating and experimentation.

So true, cookbook lady. I thought the milk skin was the coolest parallel to a centuries old Indian cooking technique--and the strength and charm of these books lies in the fact that Bras usually gives his reasons--thoughtfully reflecting on the how and why these seemingly strange techniques came about. Lots of writers try to get into the minds of chefs and figure out how they create--Bras has done the work for you and Ici La Press the absolute best job with these books by not screwing them up (unlike most US publishers who buy the rights to foreign titles) leaving measurements by weight intact. I'm guessing you're referring to the Essential Cuisine, but there is even more personal expression in the Notebooks. (The desserts selected for inclusion in Essentials are not uniformly great--there is much more to be gained baking and pastry-wise from the Notebook.) Make the fromage blanc cream or either of the yogurt creams on p. 171 or p. 187--they're delish by themselves and certainly with the caramelized gingerbread crusts. It could change how you view "cream" or "milk" if you are open to it. A slight sourness as long as it is balanced is as incredible as bitterness or acidity in desserts. Often what's in quotes is not literal--like there's no actual licorice in licorice powder, right? It's more of an association--a sensation. Ties to his family, his upbringing, his sense of place, his sense of fun and playfulness-- all contribute to a rationale behind the mediums that admittedly seem weird at first blush. But then you think about it, make some of them yourself, and you see what he's getting at by talking about the different characteristics of simple ingredients--ingredients we take for granted and for years have been codified into something homogeneous--like sugars, especially less refined sugars, the different milky creams, etc. We are coming out of an age when this uniformity in taste and performance was viewed as advantageous by the best chefs and pastry chefs as well as food scientists and happy homemakers. If you realize where we were, it's easier to see why Bras has been so incredibly influential on other chefs. As has been mentioned elsewhere, before foodies made the pilgrimmage to Adria and El Bulli, they were beating the door down of Bras. They still should be as far as I'm concerned and these books, now in English and widely available, will undoubtedly prompt a renaissance of thought and appreciation. I have no problem blowing the trumpet here at eGullet first. Both books are most certainly for readers, too, and offer a way into the soul of Bras--and the promise of what modern cooking holds--that is indispensable, even if you never plan to cook from them. I hope that doesn't seem like I'm coming down too hard, just that there may be more there for you than meets the eye at first blush.

How often do you dine in Paris? are you a first time visitor or experienced? What are some examples of very nice dinners that you have had elsewhere and why were they nice? Otherwise, I find it hard to give you a meaningful recommendation.

Simon--thank you for sharing in such great detail--I hung on every word--I was with you at Puck's table, imagined lifting a spoon of your amuse and your 3 bowls of mis en appetit. Keep sharing and contributing. I wonder if it is rare for such a stagiare to assume a real position--were you just in the right place at the right time? how much of that is a testament to your preparation in Puck's restaurants? Regarding Bocuse--at least in terms of dessert and pastrymaking, he holds little relevance anymore. That aspect of his books was never too special given the achievement of pastry chefs from his era, let alone today. But you do have to understand the classics, why they were "classic" in the first place and it never hurts to be aware of how and why the scene evolved.

Great answer and only moderately a dodge. I hear what you're saying. I, too, have mentioned Ebert as a wonderful critic--capable of tossing off weekly thumbs-up or down sound bytes as well as deep, reflective intellectual long form pieces. Stephen Hunter as well in the Washington Post--though no one straddles the high and low brow divide as well as Ebert. I don't believe he accepts junkets and perks however and in any event, he is but one critic, one voice--albeit a significant voice--but in one city. His negative review of a film would in a much smaller way--and possibly no way at all--hinder that film's possible success nationally. The negative review of a new restaurant by the lead restaurant critic of a newspaper can have chilling negative financial repercussions on alot of lives--hardworking waiters and line cooks and dishwashers as well as the ownership group. There is no Siskel or Roeper or whomever to the Ebert in this case. Shaw argues for anarchy--rethinking how we approach restaurants--a virtual overhaul of the entire system and I find I am ultimately in agreement with him. As long as such an overhaul completely reorders and de-emphasizes the current value of the restaurant review--the star ranking--in the eyes of the public--and places value instead in more serious, less-restrained forms. Until Steve Plotnicki stops caring how many stars a new restaurant gets in the Times. Until that anarchy, though, this is why I'm a minority voice here arguing for stricter ethics and avoiding the appearance of impropriety and avoiding a Bauer-like situation in SF. (Presumed Bauer-like--I haven't read a reply from Russ regarding the questions Steve Shaw and I asked.) Cooking--especially in a new restaurant--is just too local and too subject to petty personal politics, much more so than a film released nationally.

Matthew--the better, tougher question is ethically and professionally should Shaw be able to write the Gramercy Tavern piece (or personal profile pieces like it) IF he was also the lead restaurant critic of the leading newspaper in town? Is this a proper definition and restriction of the form--that Russ Parsons was talking about previously as to why a columnist's gig was better than the more restrictive restaurant reviewer's beat?

I recommend Mrs. Bux. There's some real karma here, glenn, I got my black Rocky from WholeLatteLove as well. Be sure to report back here, too, about your progress and your discoveries. We need to keep this thread alive so we don't have to go through this all over again from scratch.

glenn--I said espresso is not a cup of joe. Huge difference. I find joe as endearing as any passionate geek on the coffee newsgroup, which on previous threads I linked to, along with the coffeekid site as a great way for any coffee or espresso fans to find out more from very, very knowledgeable people and also from coffee newbies. But a quaint cuppa joe is not espresso, sorry. If you'd stop hyperventilating just for a second--perhaps due to massive recent testing on your part and overextracted lukewarm caffeine from the press--you'll see that actually you have been helped and guided a great deal here and you've followed our advice and my advice specifically: I did recommend the cool black Rocky grinder on your counter even if it "seems" to be overkill precisely because it will retain value for you in the future--in whatever road to coffee enlightenment you find yourself following. Your response has proven that you "get" my advice--you know the situation you are in right now "might" be transitional and that you "might" move in another direction--as I predict. You just don't get the sincerity in how it was offerred. You see it as some sort of judgement or challenge. It isn't--I've been where you are and I'm probably no different than John Whiting's friend on this issue telling him he really has to move on to espresso. (His friend knows what I think I know and I was just trying to be your "friend" on this.) John seems perfectly happy where he is in an uncomplicated "mortar and pestle" kind of routine and he's the only one he has to answer to--you, too. Both Bux and I have communicated to you in several ways that the Sylvia is not for everyone--and the more of yourself you chose to reveal--including your frustrations--showed me the Sylvia isn't the right choice for you right now. (It may not ever be as Bux astutely writes about.) Only you can decide whether the time and effort it takes to pull your own consistent shots of espresso is worth it--no value judgement is implied in us pointing this out to you. You have to get there yourself. I'm also not implying anything about your taste buds--just that like with any culinary and sensory experience, as I view coffee and espresso, I feel you gain by spending more of your time, focus and money trying to figure out the differences of flavor, texture and mouthfeel--with great fresh beans and roast styles--and much of those distinctions can only come with an understanding, gained over time, of the equipment and the process. Unfortunately, you do have to do this for yourself--you can't read about and get it--and there's no shortcut. As Bux has also agreed with me on--that after you pull your own really good shots you realize how poor much of the espresso is that you get out--even at specialty coffee bars and fine restaurants--which mitigates your ability to enjoy an espresso out. It is an awareness thing and your ability to enjoy a shot is affected--one way or the other--by your ability to produce one yourself. Buy the cool black Rocky and be done with all this self-imposed frustration. Figure the espresso thing later. But the fact that this has consumed your recent waking moments indicates to me a seriousness on your part to dig deep into a subject--to try to understand it--and I do feel some higher level of appreciation awaits you down the road. Yes you are frustrated but yes there is hope.

hey glenn--based on your last post, I am now changing my recommendation that you buy a Sylvia. Don't. If you're frustrated by this, I'd be Jack saying "you can't handle the truth" to your Tom and espresso enlightenment along the Sylvia/Rocky road will almost certainly elude you. Sylvia is potentially frustrating and does require patience. You might be happier with John Whiting's perfectly described "quasi-mystic" zen of hand-grinding or jaybee's solid recommendation of the entry level burr grinder and staying with a press pot. You're so not ready. Espresso is not a cup of joe. (If I knew how to put a smiley in here, I would.) I'm not insinuating anything about using a cheapo blade grinder--it is simply a question of degree and personal experience. Jaybee's wise if you want to spend the extra money to bump up to the Braun burr grinder it would be more consistent and it would not "heat" the grounds as a whizzer supposedly does. I'm stating plainly that you probably won't be able to tell the difference and you would be much better off buying great, fresh beans more often with the cost savings. I've been where you are--you may or may not have the sense that I am very scientific when I approach all this stuff and I feel your pain. I've known my share of coffee pioneers and experts, too, and have not been able to verify some claims with my palate in independent side by side comparisons and experimentation. I've played with all the tools. Pastry chefs are gadget freaks and me with coffee was no different. The whizzer supposedly damaging the flavor of beans ground coarsely for the press turned out to be canard for me. Though the all-black Rocky would look cool on your countertop and is foolproof.

Hmm...good question cabrales, as if you would be capable of any other. From NY and the north, I drive right down Route 1 and it is on the right at Nassau Park Blvd. Coming from the Philly/Trenton end of things--probably driving 295 to Route 1, approaching from the south it is on the left after Quakerbridge Mall. Someone with more intimate local knowledge will have to tell if it is feasible getting to the store from the Princeton Junction train station via taxi, bus or shuttle (that's an Amtrak stop so you could Metroliner it possibly.) Perhaps someone should suggest an eGullet bus trip from NYC. As the crow flies, I also can't tell you which is closest--Princeton, Bridgewater or Manalapan--I can only vouch for the excellence of the Princeton store. Apart from Herme, it is also superb on every level and the finest supermarket I've ever seen in the states.

Leaving my personal work aside for the moment, we'll have to explore this elsewhere cabrales, it's such a large issue, with many societal and cultural implications that I don't want it to get buried in New Jersey. (No offense, I grew up in NJ.) Actually, average pastries--the stuff "on average" that I call typical American bakery crap--they aren't perceived as too expensive--they have vague innocuous taste and interest--and they are probably precisely "sufficiently appreciated." They are, however, in the grand scheme of things, merely minimally acceptable at best--if not outright dreck--and completely, utterly lacking to anyone who has had occasion to bite into an Herme ganache tartlet or just about every other dessert he created for the Wegmans boutique. It is immediately apparent. Gaining greater appreciation, though, requires spending a little money--it's more expensive to produce something good on one side and correspondingly more expensive to be aware and to enjoy what is possible with dessert as a consumer. But not that much more expensive--.50 cents for a nicolette, $4.50 for the individual chocolate/banana tartlet made with Valrhona chocolate. Can you imagine someone hesitating paying this for a crappy Starbucks latte? I can't--yet the same person would likely balk at paying such for an Herme dessert. To bring this back to Wegmans and NJ--as I've mentioned, they offer many less expensive non-Herme pastry and baking alternatives. But many, many people shop solely by price. I have faith that most customers--from soccer moms who also shop at the Price Club to senior citizens on restricted incomes who have never ventured outside NJ let alone France--when they taste and explore the Herme repertoire at Wegmans--the chocolates, the macaroons, the desserts--that they'll get it. They will "get" that they are tasting something exponentially better and more interesting than what they've had before--and they don't need to know anything about pastry chefs, chocolate, desserts or cooking in order to do so. And once they do--their outlook and their priorities might be affected and changed forever. (This is naive, I know.) Of course I see this reaction in my clientele but the real issue is getting millions of people around the country just to be in a position to avail themselves of this opportunity, like the one the Princeton Wegmans provides. You New Jersey eGulleteers near Princeton need to know how lucky you are and that I envy you, TheBoatMan, and everyone else a stone's throw from the store.

Boatman--thank you for the followup--in this era of declining customer service the example of your experience shines brightly. What wonderful training and commitment--Wegmans is doing it right and I am glad that you have validated that my wife and I weren't treated differently--that we received what is usual, customary and reasonable. This would apply, of course, even if you did not enjoy the pastries as much as I do. More people need to climb aboard the Wegmans bandwagon, for this and for many other reasons. I will remember your post when in weaker moments I feel it is a hopeless cause arguing for higher expectation and awareness in pastry and desserts. My neighbors have been complaining about the noise from me banging my head on the wall.

Cabrales--here's a link to the beautiful Fat Duck site with a picture of a version of the Delice: http://www.fatduck.co.uk/food_science.html This isn't anything close to what you had, is it? Interesting that there is no mention of salted butter, peanut or pistachio on any of the menus? It's possible Heston altered the public face of the site, reworked the Roellinger presentation and has yet to fully integrate the plating change onto the menu.

next time I have a soft shell crab I'll take in some air and have my napkin at the ready, too.

I take it the cumin caramel was a sauce? was this rectangular dessert form, the "slab," presented on a rectangular plate with the sauce running alongside or in some other fashion? was a line of ground nuts spread along as well? I am very impressed with and respect the menu deference shown toward the Bras coulant. Fewer mainstream diners are aware of the Bras coulant and the more widely imitated, though different, Jean-Georges version than you realize. I am now--interested--in what this dessert potentially reveals cabrales. You have piqued my curiousity. It appears neither modern nor interesting in an international (i.e. non-UK) dessert context--certainly not on the level of mostly everything else described in this thread. It doesn't appear that the version you had brings anything new or creative to the presentation vs. Roellinger--in fact, it could even be perceived as technically or scientifically flawed: a sophisticated caramel--with the right mix of sugars and additives cooked to the proper temperature--should be firm yet remain soft and unctuous enough to be cut through with a spoon. Otherwise, what's the point? A caramel meant to be picked up with your hand as a petits four might be cooked to yet a different temperature or with a different recipe than one meant to be wrapped in plastic, etc. but neither would have a quenelle of sorbet on top. Perhaps it's a seasonal aberration--cooking sugar is very dependent on humidity--and I screw things up as the ambient temperature and climate shifts, usually before it's obvious the season has changed! All this aside--Heston wouldn't be the first chef to have an openly derivative dessert on his menu, nor an underwhelming one when compared to the interest and vitality of the preceeding savory courses. Anyone know whether Fat Duck has a pastry chef?

Cabrales--might I request a more involved description of how Heston's "Salted Butter Caramel, roasted pistachios and peanuts, chocolate sorbet and cumin caramel" was presented on the plate? Especially compare to Roellinger's presentation of "Caramel mou de cacahuetes salees" if possible. There's a nice picture of the Roellinger on p. 284 of his 1994 book--"le livre d'Olivier Roellinger"--a 4" round disc of mou (the soft caramel containing both peanut and pistachio), yet firm enough to stand up, molded inside a ring about 3/4" high, with a quenelle of chocolate sorbet on top and a few decorative chocolate fans stuck into the sorbet. Once on the plate, this pile was then ringed by a caramel sauce, deglazed with butter, cream and powdered cinnamon. Were you able to slice right down through the sorbet into the caramel and scoop up both together? A minor aside--regarding salt as a trend--salt has been used in dessertmaking forever, generations of pastry chefs, before Conticini, Herme and Claudia Fleming, realized the vital role salt played scientifically and on the palate. The only "trend" is that certain food writers noticed, and annointed those putting a sea salt crystal on top of a dessert element as surely the work of a genius. Note that long before a few US writers paid attention the gracious, charming and humble Brittany chocolatier Henri Le Roux had already become infamous for selling salted butter caramels in Quiberon.