Steve Klc

ok, the goods restaurant-wise. I'll talk about the demo and our haute couture chocolate dress elsewhere and when I have more time, but I did run into Bux at the Salon du Chocolat. He was energized about his upcoming dinner at Ducasse, and did not have as positive an experience at Petrossian as I did. There we had the same 700 FF degustation menu--essentially 13 small "teasers" or individual presentations, each in their own glass--one night apart and on neither night was chef Philippe Conticini in the kitchen--but I'll let him fill you all in in his inimitable, graceful style and add my comments. Last I talked to Bux he was scouring Paris for an internet cafe to check his e-mail and perhaps post some preliminary thoughts. My two biggest "discoveries" were two small budget gems, where a couple could dine quite well on somewhat stylish, sophisticated, imaginative food for under 400 FF including a bottle of wine: Le Hangar (12 impasse Berthaud 01.42.74.55.44) near the Pompidou Center and my hotel in the Marais. Our "discovery" was that this once hidden little place hadn't changed a bit in the 4 or 5 years I've been going to it--still packed with a knowing French clientele--and our fav's like the beef stroganoff with the lightest little puffs of potato, seared scallops with risotto, and anything with foie gras, especially the cream of lentil and mushroom soup with seared foie gras floating in it--all remained intact. One sign of new times--they had menus to offer in English this time. Le 20 (20 rue de Bellechasse 75007 01.47.05.11.11) near the Musee d'Orsay, we luckily stumbled into only after discovering the museum was closed once we arrived. We were the only non-natives in this packed place, surrounded by very animated discussion and in the air hung this unmistakable sense that we were somewhere that had not been discovered yet, where the chef might be young and still ambitious. Sure enough, it was and he was. Indeed, after we had some great versions of Andulusian gazpacho, beef carpaccio with mache salad, capers and sea salt, and de Puy lentil salad with crisp caramelized lardons on top--plats that were every bit as good as the entree, especially the grilled shrimp risotto--we learned from the staff that the place had only been open for 3 months. We had perfect, rich deep liquid center chocolate cakes at both places--not eggy, underdone chocolate souffles, mind you--and I couldn't help wondering why it seemed so hard to find the same at even more higher end places in the US. The wild strawberry soup I ended the meal at Le 20 with was so good I refused an espresso, not wanting to dislodge that perfect taste.

Hey Peter--isn't the Paris Metro especially great when you retrieve your ticket and take just a little too long to get through the gate--and the doors close on you AND ABSOLUTELY refuse to open again, leaving you sandwiched until someone else rescues you by putting their ticket in? (You are read and appreciated, by the way, at least by me.) and I love the way the route maps in the station are uncovered paper just plastered on the wall--so people who point to the map scrape away the nearest names and numbers.

Jake--just got back from Paris and will only share personal observations with you. We stayed in the Marais, in the 4th arr., in a small, charming, very affordable hotel called the Hotel Beaubourg--11 rue Simon Lefranc-75004 and 01.42.74.34.24. It's right behind the Pompidou Center and was only 610 FF a night--which is a real bargain--and had alot of nice touches you'd hope for in a 3 star rating by the French Tourism board. Very quiet, elevators, impeccably clean, 24 hour security, in-room showers and tub, windows opening onto a cute garden courtyard--and very centrally located to Metro--a few short blocks to Chatelet, Les Halles or Rambuteau stops, depending on where you want to go. (It's also very convenient to take the RER B train--from CDG airport--to Les Halles--and walk to the hotel. We do that now, for 50 FF, rather than take the 400 FF taxi from the airport. I might not recommend this if you have not been to Paris before, don't speak or understand any French and haven't felt your way around Paris at all before. It's best to explore and navigate the amazing Paris Metro without luggage the first time.) Most of the other comparable hotels we investigated seemed to be around 800-900 FF a night at minimum--and on your list, we walked by the "other" Beaubourg hotels--which seemed more stylish and contemporary on the surface--and more expensive. The very reasonable 610 FF per night rate at the Hotel Beaubourg allowed us to spend so much more on food and for us, at least, was a good trade-off. Too late for you, jparrot, but perhaps for others reading this in the future. And there are so many police around the Pompidou and les Halles--with people out and about all the time--that it seemed quite safe, even very late at night.

Liza--how was it served or prepared at Aquagrill?

It's definitely worth the bother. Daisuke Utagawa of Sushi-Ko in Washington, DC does an amuse of monkfish liver (ankimo) with a ponzu gelee that was odd at first, yet clean and complex. It's seems kind of trendy now. I wouldn't know how to extract it from that really ugly fish, though.

Jon and Jay--to deal with just one specific dish, you've both mentioned: Heston's white chocolate disc with caviar. I suspect, but cannot say definitively, that his inspiration for this amuse was the "white chocolate with black olive paste" amuse--also a thin disk--that Ferran was serving at El Bulli for a time. Having had neither, my suspicion is that both work well, for the same reasoning--a surprising balance of fat, mouthfeel, sweet and salt. Does any of this matter? I suggest no, not one wit. Both of these creations are inspired and challenging, regardless of the inspiration behind them. If my suspicion is true, and Adria did the white chocolate savory thing first--so what? It is hopelessly naive to suggest plagiarism and disingenuous to infer that "borrowing" another chef's concepts or techniques is in the slightest bit negative. The most talented (and many not-so-talented) chefs and pastry chefs openly share, steal, collaborate, co-opt, compete and challenge each other--all the time. This should not come as a surprise to anyone. In my experience, the talented chefs have very few secrets and are quite willing to share. The larger issue here, possibly, is the role of the media in hyping and creating a chef's image and talent--and possibly creating a false impression. There is just so much of the media and financial pie, in any given era, to go around. The smart chefs admit this, pay homage and respect to their influences, and go about their business--which is making a living and providing for their family. Is it possible for chefs, especially young and ambitious chefs, to say something stupid and narcissitic occasionally? Yes. So what? Anyone think the media characterization of a chef is the inviolate true one? Do we have so much respect for food writers to assume that they never overstate, mis-quote or mis-characterize in print? As a chef, I have given so many in-depth interviews to writers, took pains to be clear and pay homage to those that came before, explained techniques and processes of others that I have borrowed or re-imagined--only to have my comments summarized and mischaracterized. I trust Heston has sufferred the same fate. This begins to go to Yvonne's point about a chef "getting media attention on the basis that he is a genius." Does anyone think it is possible for chefs to control what is written about them? Again, I think not. I don't ask chefs to approve what I've written about them--and neither do I expect a writer to approve what they plan to write about me. If anyone has some specific references or printed comments, from legitimate print media sources or television interview transcripts involving this presumed Heston/Adria imbroglio, let's post the links or quotes here and dissemble them. (Not petty, unverifiable third hand reports or conversations overheard at table, please.) Should Jay Rayner be faulted for not knowing or not mentioning in his wonderful article that Ferran or some other chef, somewhere, may have already combined white chocolate with a savory element in disc form? Of course not. Last I looked there was a difference between a one-star Michelin chef and a three-star Michelin chef in terms of recognition, prestige and respect. Let's keep media things in perspective, too--since when has any media outlet or writer ever only written about the truly talented, worthy and significant?

About a year ago, I read in Thuries Magazine that Pierre Gagnaire collaborated with the French scientist Herve This for a few special menu items. For one, they pressed carrot juice out in a centrifuge, reduced it a bit, then emulsified it with argan oil. To this mixture, Gagnaire and This added liquid nitrogen (whose temp is minus 200 degrees Celcius) which almost instantly turned the emulsion into a grainy granite, like snow. Kind of incredible if you think about--even if you never think you'll try it at home.

We just finalized what we're going to do during our demo at the Salon du Chocolat, on November 2nd from 2PM-6PM. Our theme is "La Science, le Goût et la Gourmandise" Philippe will demonstrate various emulsions and mousseuses, and show how he uses them to construct flavor in a few original desserts; Alberto will show 5 new chocolate techniques, including several mousses, a ganache bon bon enrobed in a paper-thin layer of caramel (instead of tempered chocolate) and a frozen chocolate "powder" that is lighter than air; and I will do two things: a chocolate dessert--using a new technique, a caramel meringue foam and a savory "truffle"-- a ganache of foie gras, with a liquid center of Inniskillin icewine, enrobed in chocolate and rolled in brioche crumbs and caramel powder. All throughout the demo, Professor This will provide a running commentary on the science behind the techniques that we are employing--and translate, hopefully, for Alberto and me. There are only 80-100 seats in the demo kitchen area, so plan to get there early in order to get tastes and samples of the dishes.

Jay--your article was a hoot, well written and delicious--regardless of what one may think of Heston Blumenthal as a chef or whether one has made the pilgrimage to El Bulli. I couldn't help but envision a few restaurant critics, editors and food writer "acquaintances" of mine filling in all too easily for Eddie, Harry and Izzy as I read through your piece--especially Izzy as a rail-thin prissy Martha Stewart Living editor I once cooked for, who didn't touch a thing except for the chocolate dessert, which she proceeded to devour and then claim wasn't up to snuff. It's the only article of the section I've read so far, but I enjoyed it immensely.

I found the link in case anyone wants to wade in: http://www.observer.co.uk/foodmonthly/0,9957,475349,00.html

Hey guys--is this section available online? If so, how about a link?

Thanks Steven--that is actually the kind of feedback I was looking for--it seems that as long as there are a variety of pre-programmed cycles, given a little experimentation, one should be able to get the desired effect. A specific example--for one dessert I created last year, I had to cook a coconut risotto--arborio, laboriously stirred and cooked down on the stovetop with coconut water, coconut puree and water. I used it as a component in a coconut panna cotta--so I just hid a ball of the risotto in a container--poured the panna cotta around it, let it set up, and then poured a thin layer of Inniskillin icewine gelee on the surface, with a brunoise of Asian pear embedded in the gelee. Anyway, I never figured out a less-labor intensive way to do the rice--and it's not like I needed an amazing risotto. I suspect I could have used one of these automated rice cookers--and gotten a very acceptable result. And freed up 40 minutes of prep. does the larger volume bowl work with a smaller amount of rice--or do you have to use a large amount all the time?

Steven--last night chefette and I detoured into an international market, which mostly represented Asian populations--chinese, korean and japanese--and came across a vast array of those automatic rice cookers. They seemed cute and compact--and roughly on par with those automatic bread makers. (As pastry chefs, we are automatically attracted to gadgets and tools.) I was intrigued and came home to log on to eGullet to see if anyone else had ever used one and to what effect. I'm so glad everyone posted--one question, though--were the instructions in English? or is it so automatic that you can get by without a translation? When I was playing with the machines, a woman came over and popped in an instructional video that looked kind of like a Jetson's cartoon--except that it was in Korean or Chinese or, well you get the picture. The model that caught our eye was the smallest--a very cute Sanyo that was selling for ๳. Have you experimented enough to figure out if your model is too automatic--that how it is pre-programmed may actually be a detriment? do you wish it had more flexibility? Have you tried arborio rice in it yet? We did leave the store with a ื "Anytop" (Model WM-500 by Woonam) a blender/mixer/grinder/pulverizer--very stylishly designed in lime green and ivory. Anyone else seen this thing? It has 2 different grinding blades--it's more powerful than a Braun-style coffee grinder--and it is designed to be waterproof--the containers are sealed and then "inverted" onto the base. So you can puree fruit, grind wet spice mixtures, etc.--and not burn out your motor. It is the neatest thing--however, nothing is in English.

Chefette and I are going to make pizza at home and donate the difference between that cost--and what we might spend at a restaurant, figuring that amount might be more than the 10% many restaurants are donating. If I could find a restaurant donating 50% or more, in my area, I'd do that instead. (Edited by Steve Klc at 2:13 pm on Oct. 11, 2001)

well, you've raised an interesting point and there may be some disagreement with what I am about to say. Direct warming does not work well with the bain marie--and I do not recommend that you even try. Microwave it--as I described--or temper it with one of the half dozen or so traditional methods. It has to do with the fact that the bain marie does not melt the chocolate well enough, evenly enough, initially--and that the heat source and heat transfer over a bain marie cannot be controlled or quantified as well as it can be in a microwave. Even direct warming in the microwave requires starting with chocolate "pistoles" or chocolate blocks chopped to roughly the same size, so you are more likely to melt it evenly. The only thing a bain marie is valuable for is to raise the temperature of the chocolate up to 115-120 degrees--which guarantees that all of the cocoa butter crystals have melted out. Reaching this temperature is the starting point of all the actual tempering methods--at which point the chocolate mixture is cooled down to 80-82 degrees--and then raised to a working temperature of 88-92 degrees. It is that heating to 116-120, cooling down to 80-82 and then raising to 88-92 that is the real tempering process--which completely melts and then gradually aligns those cocoa butter crystals so that the resulting end product will solidify to something shiny and firm. How do you know you are at the right temperatures? I don't recommend you use a thermometer--unless you are prepared to buy an infared laser thermometer, like the one I use. (JB Prince 800.473.0577) Otherwise, to experiment and play, just rely on your own sense and awareness: when dark chocolate is at 115-120, lift up some chocolate on your spatula and allow it to drop back into your bowl--it should penetrate the surface easily, in fact, it should burrow and plunge beneath the surface. When chocolate is 80-82, it begins to resemble fudge. When chocolate is re-warmed to 88-92, and you do that very same raised spatula test, as it drops off the spatula and falls to the surface--instead of penetrating the surface, the drops of chocolate bead up on the surface and form little mounds of chocolate above the surface. If you touched a little of this chocolate to your lip--it should feel cool, not warm or cold. This sense is tough for some to perceive, at first, but once you get it, you get it, and can usually work from visual clues and not need to rely on a thermometer. As you start to do this with different couvertures--and you should really temper with "couverture" (a chocolate that has a minimum cocoa butter percentage of 31% which guarantees a certain fluidity) you'll see that they each have their own unique characteristics--some are thicker or thinner and some temper at more or less forgiving temperature points. You have to figure out what these unique and subtle characteristics are--all of which begins to give you the sense why a chocolatier is such a specialty, such a narrow focus. This begins to reveal the complexity of chocolate--and expands our discussion of chocolate--because now we're starting to talk about the performance and workability of a chocolate--rather than evaluating differences in the taste of a given chocolate.

Melting and tempering are indeed two separate things, but the vast majority of people will simply need to melt chocolate for use in recipes and baking. There is no need to temper chocolate for use in ganache, cakes, batters, brownies, creme brulee, etc. But knowing how to properly melt chocolate is important, especially given the fact that many people are starting to buy and experiment with more expensive and flavorful chocolate varieties. If you've paid $12 per pound of chocolate, potential miscues can become quite costly. That's why I responded to your question just by talking about melting--to drive that home first--and not to complicate and or overwhelm by also discussing tempering. I also didn't mention temperatures--because that also potentially complicates things. You can overheat chocolate by melting carelessly--but if you use a turntable, and only zap your chocolate with 30-45 second bursts, stirring after each burst, you will not overheat the chocolate. Just stop when you still have a few lumps--and finish stirring gently until smooth. Oh, I didn't say this in the first post, but you have to chop up your chocolate first--do not attempt to "melt" a big block or piece of chocolate. It won't melt evenly and will burn. And if you are like me--you may want to know what happens when you overheat chocolate? What happens when you "burn" some chocolate in the microwave? Well, do it and see. Put a small amount in a bowl, remove the turntable from your microwave, and zap for 60-75 seconds in place on high power. The heat will be focused on one area and burn some chocolate to black--while leaving other areas completely unmelted. When it cools slightly, rub some of that blackish grit in between your fingers--you'll feel sand-like crystals, which results from sugar being fused together, like being burned by a laser focusing intensely in one area. (Normally the sugar has been ground so finely that it exists imperceptibly in "suspension" with all the other ingredients of chocolate.) Knowing this up front will help you avoid doing this by accident. (If it burns, you have to throw it out.) Tempering is a whole other story--a vast sea of disagreement and mis-information--and if it turns out that our members want to explore this, we can get into it. You only need to temper if you plan to melt chocolate, use it in pure form while liquid, and then have that melted chocolate reform as a solid--like dipping a ganache truffle ball into melted chocolate. That chocolate needs to be in temper--because you want it to reform--i.e. solidify--and return to its shiny, hard state at room temperature. Tempering is the process behind all quality confectionery work--all those dipped and molded chocolates have to be enrobed or dipped or molded in tempered chocolate. All the solid pieces of plate decoration and showpiece stuff are made with tempered chocolate. Another way to think of it is this: when you unwrap a chocolate bar, it is shiny and snaps if you break it. This is what "temper" means--at room temperature, the cocoa butter crystals are aligned in such a way that when the chocolate cools and solidifies--it returns to this shiny, solid state. What happens when chocolate is "out of temper?" Well, it cools eventually, and solidifies, but it never gets completely solid, firm and shiny--instead it is grainy, dull and chalky. You don't get the snap--because those cocoa butter crystals are out of alignment--this all interacts molecularly, you can't see the particles, those crystals of cocoa butter that have not been melted and aligned properly. So first lesson--the chocolate you're holding in your hand or shake out of a box or unwrap--is probably in temper to begin with. One easy way to deal with this chocolate, if you need to convert it to melted, still-in-temper chocolate--is to "directly warm" this chocolate in the microwave by melting it to about 90-92 degrees. This actually isn't tempering--but rather maintaining temper. Just melt it gradually, stirring often, and as you get closer--start zapping it less than 30 seconds, going down to say 10 seconds at a time. All on high power. Stop way before all your chocolate is melted--still having lumps in your bowl when you are trying to direct warm is a good thing. Stir gently with a rubber spatula and try to remove these lumps. If you have done this gradually and carefully--and you have kept the mass of chocolate under 90-92 degrees the whole time, guess what? Your chocolate is still in temper. How do you know? Drag the tip of a paring knife into the chocolate and set it aside--or do what I do, drag a small piece of parchment paper into the chocolate, coating one side thinly and set it aside. Does that very thin, small amount of chocolate get hard and shiny, without streaks, in a few minutes? If so, you've successfully maintained temper. As this bowl of chocolate cools--as anything at room temperature will do--is the chocolate still "in temper?" Yes--it's just started to drop from 90 to 88 to 85. If it starts to thicken up, just return it to the microwave and zap for a few seconds, bringing it back up to BUT NOT OVER 90-92 degrees. What happens if you exceed 92 degrees? You've blown it--you've broken that invisible proper alignment of melted cocoa butter crystals--and you have to move on to the next step--actual "tempering" rather than "maintaining" the original state of temper in the chocolate. You only get one shot at "direct warming," but it is the method I use most when I only need a small amount of tempered chocolate--say a few pounds or less.

For anyone interested in a more in-depth exploration of Belgian beers, I'd recommed Issue #57 of Ed Behr's The Art of Eating newsletter (Spring 2001). The 21 page cover story is titled "Real Beer in Belgium, the Greatest Brewing County" and Ed just has way of getting right to the issue, with headers like "Some of this beer you may not like at all" and "The complicated good works of the Trappists." Chimay abbey, actually, comes under some criticism as many Belgian producers ramp up production of their beer and some, perhaps, change their beers to better appeal to a wider market. In this instance, Behr quotes Michael Jackson, in 'The Running Press Pocket Guide', writing that "Chimay was grievously diminished in complexity and spiciness." As always, Ed approaches the subject with an eye slanted toward "authenticity," artisanship and tradition--but his assessments are calm and reasoned. Roger--I've written in the Cooking forum on my general dislike for Belgian chocolate, at all levels of production. Ironic you should mention that here--for in the very same issue of Art of Eating--Ed pens an addendum on chocolate, and discusses Pierre Marcolini, perhaps the best chocolatier in Belgium. Some excerpts: "The superior reputation of Belgian chocolate is completely undeserved--mystifying" and "unlike nearly all high-end French chocolate, Belgian chocolate doesn't taste especially of chocolate: it's fatty, as if Belgians especially valued cocoa butter." Jason--may I recommend you try Singha instead of Tsingtao the next time you're tempted in a Thai or Vietnamese restaurant? I'd be interested what you think of the comparison. I think there is much to be made of the comparison between distinctive microbrews, and artisinal styles of beer and ale--and distinctive, high-end chocolate. Both can perhaps be described as acquired tastes, to be explored and judged accordingly.

Steven--I melt chocolate in the microwave because it confers two advantages: First, it removes the possibility of water droplets or water vapor being introduced to the chocolate as it melts, which is a distinct possibility if you use a bain marie. Very small amounts of water interfere with the structure of chocolate--and can cause it to seize. (Note I said very small--this explains why a few ounces of another liquid or butter can be melted with chocolate with no adverse effects.) Second, a microwave provides a constant and quantifiable source of heat. 10 seconds--or any time increment--on high power is always the same--for a given microwave and power rating. It doesn't change. Unlike a double boiler or bain marie, which is alot more variable, as you try to guess how much heat is being applied by steam through a stainless steel bowl. The "heat" being applied to the chocolate mass--in a microwave--goes right through the container--and affects the chocolate directly. Pastry chefs disagree about the best container to use in the microwave--Jacques Torres, for instance, likes glass or Pyrex, because to him it seems that the glass stays "warmer" longer. I like using Rubbermaid or plastic because that seems to hold no residual heat at all. That way, I know a given amount of chocolate is as warm as it's going to be the second I remove it from the microwave and stir. There's no best way--as long as you understand the differences and adjust the way you work. Both bain marie and microwave work--and melting large amounts of chocolate in a commercial kitchen is more practical using a big bain marie setup. And, it's possible to over heat chocolate both ways if you are careless--especially if you try to microwave the chocolate without a turntable and don't stop every 30-45 seconds or so to stir the chocolate with a rubber spatula. By the way, when I say 30-45 seconds--that's for at least a pound of dark chocolate. Be much more careful with white and milk chocolate--they are more temperature sensitive. Also, many pastry chefs who work with chocolate don't use either method--instead, they put big blocks of chocolate in warming cabinets or in their ovens overnight, with just the pilot light on. (Edited by Steve Klc at 1:19 pm on Oct. 11, 2001)

hi quinn--"Softasilk" is the one you'll find most often--in a 2 pound red and white box. Underneath the title it says "enriched cake flour bleached." It's usually near the other flours--I guess because it is in a box, managers segregate it. My supermarket puts it near the boxes of 10X sugar.

There is a book I should recommend at this point, for anyone that has slogged their way through this thread and said to themselves--hey, I wonder how I could learn more about chocolatiers and the craft of chocolate making? (Rather than how to make a ganache.) It's called "Crafting the Culture and History of French Chocolate" by Susan Terrio, a professor of French and Anthropology at Georgetown University. It is not a light read, but nonetheless a revealing and accessible look at the politics, passion and culture of chocolatiers. I wrote about it in the April 2001 issue of Food Arts. (Paper, 313 pp., UC Press, Berkeley)

I'm not sure Lesley--I don't have the most recent guide. But I think that group holds out Linxe and La Maison du Chocolat as their ideal, overall--with 5. Hevin, Dufoux and Ferber get 4 and then a bunch of my favorites get 3--Mulot, Belin, Mulhaupt, Chaudun. I "thought" LeNotre was a 3, also, but I shouldn't speculate too far afield. Perhaps someone has the guide? And I am not always against a pastry chef or chocolatier taking on cumbersome tasks--tasks I think are better left to those manufacturers with serious equipment and a track record of superior end product. I have argued elsewhere that this confuses the issue too often--why make your own puff in house when you can buy excellent frozen puff? Perhaps the Bernachon story has been recycled too often and is affecting my judgement; you are correct that it's impressive--I'd add charming, as well. I was just trying to say that it's just not as significant or even important in the larger scheme of things. To mention Jacques Torres, again, I believe he's grinding his own almond pastes and pralines--because commercially available products have chemicals in them that he'd rather not inherit. That's admirable--or for me, more admirable-- than doing it just for the sake of preserving the past. I have not seen how he's doing it--but if it is anything like the way the Cluizels still do it in their factory in Damville--it's literally out of the "stone" age, with large rolling stone wheels grinding and squeezing and grinding and squeezing down to progressively smaller particles, measured in microns. I don't mean to rant on this--but I think it is important to make these distinctions--and even our disagreeing by degree on the relative merits of certain things is not bad, as Bux has pointed out. The average consumer gains by hearing this stuff and filtering it through their own sensory system. Is a true, artisinal hand-dipped chocolate--a cube of ganache on the end of a fork, dipped and removed from a big vat of chocolate one at a time--inherently better than the same cube of ganache passed, like thousands of other cubes, along a giant conveyor belt and through an enrobing machine? Of course not--and frequently, it is inferior. But that's what I mean about potentially confusing the issue for some--the couverture used and the palate behind the filling is what's paramount. And I always thought chocolatiers molded and sold their own blocks and bars of chocolate simply as a way to project the "myth" a bit and make money.

Lesley--LeNotre and Michel Richard, his pastry chef at the time, failed in New York City. He hasn't been that relevant or influential in quite a while here, though I do think the series of books his school has put out recently are quite good. The newest, actually, is a two volume work on Chocolates and Confectionery, which covers ganache and other chocolate work well and is accessible to home cooks, too. (JB Prince has them for ็ each, 800.473.0577) And if I could disagree, most respectfully, with Lesley on the issue of sourcing, roasting, grinding cacaco beans and making one's own chocolate "couverture" from scratch as the "ultimate example of the chocolatier's metier." Personally, I think that's overblown and a media distraction. There are wonderfully made chocolate couvertures available from any number of high-end manufacturers--which allow the most finicky and particular chocolatier to mix, match and blend his own flavor and performance profile. (At some of the chocolate conglomerates, like Barry-Callebaut, they have hundreds of bean varietals, couverture blends and profiles on file that can be combined for just the right effect--if you are a significant enough customer.) Making chocolate, the ingredient, is not the metier of the chocolatier--though there is nothing wrong, nor inherently more valuable, with a chocolatier expressing his preference for certain beans or processing--and arranging for a company to manufacture it or produce it himself. Making chocolate "products"--the bon bons and truffles and enrobed and dipped chocolate candies--is much more the "ultimate" metier of the chocolatier.

Bux--the cream angle is mostly a moot point--it's either been heated during processing to homogenize and pasteurize it or is boiled then poured over the chopped chocolate during the preparation of a ganache. Some chocolatiers make a ganache by adding room temp cream to already melted chocolate to save time; most, however, add cream just off the boil to solid, but chopped chocolate or pistoles. This is not as easy as it sounds--but hey, this is a cooking forum--there are subtle skills and temperature keys at play all throughout the preparation of ganaches that would take too long to go into here. But, just to give you an idea--to get a smooth ganache that does not break or go grainy--after you pour the boiling cream onto the chopped chocolate--you let it sit for awhile and don't touch it. Stirring it right away, too vigorously, stirring it haphazardly or heaven forbid, whipping it! results in a grainy or separated mess. To do it properly, stirred gently and gradually from the center out with a whisk, like creating any culinary emulsion, is a delicate balancing act but the rewards of a ganache are so great to warrant it. What causes problems, potentially, is the balance of fat (cocoa butter and cream) in the mixture--and this is why we add things like liquid invert sugars and butter to ganache recipes--to get the right balance of fat and water and to create a stable emulsion. Every chocolate brand and every recipe will behave differently because their composition is different. Only chocolate amateurs or food writers dumbing things down for you at home--think an excellent ganache is just cream and chocolate. What extends the shelf-life of chocolates with ganache are most commonly 1) deep freezing, 2) potassium sorbate or 3) specialized and expensive equipment--for instance, Jacques Torres is perhaps the only chocolatier in this country to use an imported vacuum mixer that draws all the air out of the "mix" and prevents oxidation. He doesn't need to deep freeze and his stuff truly keeps for months. There are lots of methods and techniques, what I've described is by no means inviolate. But a true French "ganache" as Lesley and I are describing it--is not anything resembling that grainy American bastardization called "whipped ganache," promulgated mostly by several chocolate charlatans in this country. (Edited by Steve Klc at 11:32 am on Oct. 7, 2001) (Edited by Steve Klc at 11:34 am on Oct. 7, 2001)

Lesley--anything of note going on in Montreal with regard to handmade chocolates?

Steven--there is no harm in stating things directly and simply. We'd all be better off. Yvonne--we're at a disadvantage here, since we've been to Citarella and commented on that experience elsewhere, but I too, was severely disappointed to read the extended review "narrative" and conclude with but 2 stars. You rightly point out the discrepancy--I thought Citarella warranted 3 stars on Grimes' own, newly established scale. And it is not that 2 stars is a disappointment--Grimes' pledge to restore meaning to the star system does have merit. It's the grey area between 2 stars and 4 stars that is the real problem in interpretation. In two cases, at least, restaurants (and diners) have been hurt by being lumped into the 2 star catch-all when they've deserved 3: Citarella and Bayard's. Are there others?